Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« June 2010 | Main | August 2010 »

July 30, 2010

Sports Q&A: Jimmy Johnson's Market Penetration

FOX Sports NFL analyst Jimmy Johnson is currently a contestant on the CBS series Survivor: Nicaragua, which will air in September. Johnson, who coached the Miami Hurricanes to a national championship and the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowls, is also a spokesman for ExtenZe male enhancement pills. What should we make of Johnson's status as a celebrity endorser and reality star?

More power to Johnson. And more power to ExtenZe and CBS for procuring such an iconic figure to further their respective brand recognitions. Johnson is a well-known former NFL coach and led the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowls in the early 1990s. Those are no small feats, but obviously, there was some glory missing from his life. He may be "ringed" like a Cowboy, but apparently that didn't preclude his desire to be hung like a horse.

Obviously, Johnson's master plan is to spread the gospel of ExtenZe to the far reaches of Central America and beyond, should his time in Nicaragua go well. Isn't ExtenZe's slogan "Go worldwide." It's not? Well, it should be.

Johnson's appearance on Survivor is good for ExtenZe, and his endorsement of ExtenZe is good for Survivor. Both entities will benefit from Johnson's association. It's what they call in the business a "package" deal.

For Survivor and CBS, it means better ratings. For ExtenZe, it means more exposure, and therefore more sales. In a capitalist economy, it's "market penetration" at its finest.

The reasons for becoming a spokesman, and, I'm assuming, a user, of ExtenZe are obvious — the payoff, monetary and otherwise. Johnson was concerned that his nude scenes on Survivor would leave him exposed like a Dallas safety on a corner blitz. With ExtenZe under his belt, Johnson will have the confidence necessary to take charge in Nicaragua, confidence that comes with a larger Johnson.

And, Lord knows, you want to be confident when traipsing around the Nicaraguan coastline wearing nothing more than a loincloth.

Johnson should be a natural when it comes to the Survivor game. His take-charge personality and up-front attitude should serve him well. The rules are simple: impose your will upon 16-20 money-hungry numbskulls and media whores and outwit them, shaping and bending their will to fit your agenda. It sounds a lot like coaching the Cowboys, just with closer proximity to the South American cocaine supply.

And what better way to extOl and exaLt the miraculous glories of ExtenZe than around a campfire, graciously accepting compliments as you display the fruits of this terrific herbal supplement? If this were televised on Comedy Central, they'd call it "Roasting a Weenie."

Sounds very un-manly, does it not? But if anyone can pull it off and make it appear manly, Johnson is the one to do it. He's a man's man. It takes one heck of a man to admit he need's "enhancement," it takes an even bigger man to go on national television and admit the same. It takes even more of a man to profess to use this glorified placebo and claim that it works, then appear on one of television's most popular shows, where perverted, voyeuristic viewers will be looking for evidence that it does, or doesn't, work.

Clearly, Johnson will use his connections to ExtenZe to build a powerful alliance on Survivor, and you can bet many nights will be spent passing the ExtenZe bottle around the campfire as if it were a "piece" pipe. In Survivor strategy, size matters, at least where the number of members in your alliance are concerned.

Of course, this will probably only work on the male contestants; Johnson will need to employ a different strategy on his female counterparts. They are, naturally, "harder to reach," which I believe was a rejected slogan for ExtenZe's initial advertising campaign.

But Johnson's a lot like Michael Irvin — he's always had a way with the ladies who are paid to be there. Suffice it to say Johnson will exteNd an irresistible invitation to the female contestants, and lure them with sweet talk, like saying "I can see great things in you," or "Member-ship has its privileges."

Johnson has a great chance to win Survivor: Nicaragua and walk away bowlegged with the $1,000,000 prize. And, if he's not the last person standing at the end, you can best believe he'll go down swinging, and he certainly won't leave with his tail between his legs.

Whatever the outcome of Survivor, the real fun starts when Johnson returns to the FOX NFL Sunday set, where he'll be ribbed for the viewers pleasure. Of course, there will be 10 or so minutes of mindless chatter and giggling on the subject in a segment that will undoubtedly be called "The Prattle of the Bulge," or "Crotch Racket."

And Frank Caliendo's skits are writing themselves themselves as we speak. How's this? "I'm Frank Caliendo for male enhancement supplement 'Hardalot.'"

And Howie Long's name just got funnier.

And Curt Menefee will boast that physiological stereotyping insists he doesn't need any type of supplement.

The FOX crew will be entertained, and, by extenZion, so will we.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 7:45 PM | Comments (0)

July 29, 2010

Les Carpenter, Superhero of Justice

In case you didn't hear, Dez Bryant made a mildly unfortunate decision about something quite inconsequential but by gum, it gave us something to debate and I am going to debate it with the new breed of breathless writer. Slant Pattern readers, I give you Les Carpenter.

It took one practice for Dez Bryant, supposedly too immature to play in the NFL, to reveal the childishness of a tradition that long lost its relevance.

So it used to be okay, but now it's not. I can't wait to hear why. (Okay, full disclosure: I already know why, it's further down in his column, and it's a humdinger).

Somehow, through the fog of old football players warbling their embellished yarns about days long forgotten and contrived vignettes on "Hard Knocks"...

I can't read that sentence fragment without wincing in literary pain.

"...a notion has formed that rookie football players need to be treated like laboratory test animals to gain respect."

Thank you, Les Carpenter! I too am outraged they put makeup on Dez Bryant, dropped him in a maze, and injected him with whooping cough.

It was in this spirit of camaraderie that Dallas Cowboys receiver Roy Williams — he of just 57 catches so far in his time with the team — ordered Bryant to carry his shoulder pads off the field after Sunday's training camp workout. Thank goodness Bryant refused because this needs to stop.

That's 57 more catches than Dez Bryant has. It's also 57 more than his self-appointed defense attorney here. (Bryant also has 36 fewer receptions than Tashard Choice and 523 fewer than Jason Witten, but who's counting?)

"I'm trying to win a championship, not carry players' pads," Bryant later told reporters on the side of the field.

This makes me want to follow Bryant around training camp and make sure everything he does promotes winning a championship. Why are you brushing your teeth when you could be spending five more minutes on the exercise bike, getting in better shape to help bring the Cowboys a championship?

When pressed on the issue Bryant added: "it's not about playing games, it's about doing the right thing and try to achieve our goal."

You're the one playing games, Dez. By refusing to do what most if not all rookies have had to endure in their time, you run the risk of creating resentment among not just your fellow rookies, but the veterans who had to do it before you decided you were too good to. And that's why you didn't do it, not this imaginary reason cooked up by Carpenter, where you are striking a blow for justice for the rookie proletariat against the veteran bourgeoisie.

This, of course, has brought Bryant considerable scorn by those who have decided that his refusal to humiliate himself is irresponsible and will tear apart the Cowboys locker room.

"Picking up some bills, having a few pranks pulled on u n doing some odd jobs for the vets is a small price to pay to gain respect," Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rogers wrote on Twitter. As if there's dignity in being tied to a goalpost.

Carrying the shoulder pads of a veteran, picking up the check on an extravagant night out, and being tied to goalposts. One of these things is not like the others.

Maybe in the days long ago when players went by names like "Bronco" and played together on the same team for years, worked second jobs in the winter and spring, and then drank as one in the local watering holes, hazing had its place. But back then the idea of team was an eternal one. The same group lasted for several seasons — banging heads in the afternoon, then clinking mugs in the evening. There was no free agency. Like it or not, they were together for years and it was essential to build that unity.

But today's players are independent contractors...

This goes on for nearly two more paragraphs, but you get the idea. It's such a ridiculous argument against hazing, when there are so many valid ones to make, that it reveals to me that Carpenter's outrage is manufactured.

I am doing him a favor by not buying that he really believes this. It's a point that can be equally applied against any team-bonding exercise of any kind. Even in these days of free agency and "independent contractors," team unity and chemistry can and should be achieved, largely through bonding outside the chalk lines. Likewise, teams could have bonded and created that chemistry in the 1940s without making the noobs swallow live goldfish.

Last summer, not long after head of the NFL Players Association DeMaurice Smith begged his constituents to start saving 25 percent of their money in preparation for a potential looming lockout, the San Diego Chargers treated themselves to a $14,508.67 dinner at the expense of first-round pick Larry English.

Larry English's salary last year was $2,570,000.

$14,500 is 0.56% of his salary. Paying this tab means he would have to get by on $2,556,000.

But wait! DeMaurice Smith warned players to save a quarter of their salary! Now he will have to make it work on just $1,913,500! And that's before taxes!

The Chargers, properly bonded as a team by English's generosity, lost three of their first five games.

Of course, after that they went 11-0 on the rest of the regular season, so you can't blame Carpenter for cherry-picking. But again I ask, should all teams overhaul everything they do if they hit a slump? Carpenter is making the case that a specific preseason event plays a role in the outcome of the season. But he can't just apply that to this rookie initiation hubbub — he has to apply it also to every little tradition and ritual that teams employ in order to bond as a team.

Twelve years ago, in a hazing ritual that still defies explanation, several New Orleans Saints players forced rookies to put pillowcases over their heads and run a gantlet of trusted older teammates who smacked them with bags of coins. One player wound up with blurred vision; another had a broken nose.

This is the statement that bothers me the most of all, because this is a very troublesome, serious issue. It does not belong on the same planet as an article about carrying a teammate]s shoulder pads or footing a bill for a party. By lumping serious hazing charges with completely harmless, easy, and at least mildly purposeful tasks, he undermines the more serious issue. Actually, he completely destroys it.

Tying players to goalposts, actually injuring them, truly humiliating them with emotionally scarring pranks or disrupting their personal lives (I've heard of players calling rookie's wives about non-existent affairs), that truly does need to stop.

Rookies carrying the water and buying the team dinners does not need to stop. These two categories of rookie travails could not be any more different, and Carpenter should be ashamed of putting them together. It's how I know his outrage, once again, is manufactured.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 7:06 PM | Comments (2)

An Atlanta Tennis Classic: Mardy Fish

This is really interesting, at least for me. It was two years ago at the U.S. Open that after a great match where Mardy Fish had lost I asked him about it. To me, it looked like overall he didn't really care if he won or lost that particular match. He basically answered me that he was "content" and that maybe that was all there was. So I noted that. I figured Mardy would remain mired in the rankings for the rest of his career, and that maybe he would be retired by now. I clearly didn't expect much out of him at this point.

Well, darn it if I was wrong. Ever since heading to Queens Club this spring and nearly winning that, the 28-year-old Fish has been on a hot streak for sure. First he took the Hall of Fame Championships at Newport, Rhode Island immediately following Wimbledon. Now he has just won in Atlanta, and it included a victory over Andy Roddick in the semis and a gargantuan, come-from-behind 4-6, 6-4, 7-6(4) win over countryman and Georgian favorite John Isner in the final. In the past two weeks, his ranking has climbed 14 spots and he now sits at 35 on the ATP Tour. It looks like he's really getting hot heading into the summer season and leading to the U.S. Open.

Mardy Fish, along with his buddy James Blake, are the senior Americans on the tour. Mardy has been road tested and by now, he should be at his peak in experience and skill. He shows that in smaller tournaments like the recent Atlanta Tennis Classic. He has the game to be a top-20 player and has the game to get deep into big tournament draws. The one thing he definitely has that few of the American players have is the ability to play on any surface at a high level. Fish has played equally well on clay, grass, and hard courts. Fish can play equally well against all those style of players, especially clay court style players on hard courts.

I'm encouraged by Mardy's current performance. I'm also encouraged by the play of Americans Sam Querrey, John Isner, and Andy Roddick. So far, they seem on track to be big factors at the 2010 U.S. Open.

But not so fast. Fish rocked in Queens Club on the grass, then fell out in the second round at Wimbledon to Florian Mayer. Then he rocked on grass in Newport. Now he showed muddle in Atlanta. I think historically that this is Mardy's modus operandi. Consistently high levels of play in much smaller tournaments, then a great run of tournaments leading to the big ones. Then a total dump. I see a pattern. Call it a "big Fish in a small pond" syndrome.

I'll hold my extreme enthusiasm until later in the U.S. Open Series. Right now, Mardy Fish stands at the top of the Series leaders. Of course, that is just through week one.

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 2:34 PM | Comments (0)

July 28, 2010

Don't Forget About the Team

Over the weekend, the Texas Rangers won three out of four games against the Angels to increase their division lead to an equal-season high of seven games. After the All-Star Break, Texas has won each of its three series, all against quality competition (Boston, Detroit, L.A.) to rack-up a second-half record thus far of 8-3.

Amazingly, if the season were to end today, the Rangers would have home-field advantage in a Division Series against Tampa Bay. The Rangers have never had home-field in each of their previous three playoff appearances.

Yet the focus with the team seems to be more on the ongoing ownership battle that has been played out in Texas courtrooms over the last several months. Googling "Texas Rangers sale" returns 916,000 results. Doing the same for "Texas Rangers division leaders" comes back with 311,000. The sports broadcasts on local news stations also seem more concerned with the sale than what the team is doing on the field, and some of them have also gone into Cowboys training camp mode.

On this site, there have been two articles written about the sale. I fully recommend reading both to get informed on the gory details about the sale.

On the front page of the Dallas Morning News' Sunday sports section, there was a big feature on the Cowboys starting training camp, a smaller feature on a preview of Big 12 Media Days, and then an even smaller story about the previous night's Rangers game (the solitary loss of the Angels series). Yes, football is king in Texas, but it is still July with the local baseball team possibly having their greatest season ever.

Living in North Texas, I have been to eight Rangers games already this season and I can say without a doubt that this is the best team that the Rangers have had in the 10 years since I've lived here. In most years that the Rangers are in contention or even near contention, such as last year or 2004, their bats carry them to whatever position they end up.

This season, the bats are doing their fair share. The Rangers rank second in the AL in batting average, fourth in OPS, and fourth in total bases. The Rangers stalwart hitters from last year in Michael Young, Ian Kinsler, Nelson Cruz, and Josh Hamilton are all having very solid, if not spectacular seasons (in Hamilton's case). The great difference in the lineup has been a piece that the Angels would love to have back right now, Vladimir Guerrero.

During his six years with the Angels, Guerrero was regarded as, more than any other player, the ultimate Rangers Killer. Even after Vlad looked to be on the downside of his career after a poor 2009, it cynically made some sense for the Rangers to pick up Guerrero on a one-year deal just to keep him away from beating the Rangers in a year in which Texas would have its sights set on a division title from day one. Now the $5.5 million the Rangers used to get Guerrero might be the bargain of the season.

As of Sunday, Guerrero is leading the team in RBI, an astonishing feat considering the potential Triple Crown and MVP-winning season Hamilton is putting together.

However, the real catalyst of the Rangers' success this season has been the pitching. Signs of improving pitching could be seen last year after the team hired Mike Maddux as pitching coach and Nolan Ryan as team president. Yet the results didn't look eye-popping. Only one regular starter (the departed Kevin Millwood) had an ERA under 4, and the bullpen was one that gave up too many hits.

This year, the progression of the teachings of Maddux and Ryan have come into brighter view with four regular starters possessing ERAs under 4, and a young closer in Neftali Feliz who has been mostly brilliant. Starters Colby Lewis and C.J. Wilson are each having career-best years, Wilson's coming in his first year as a starter. The great surprise has been Tommy Hunter, who since being called up from Triple-A Oklahoma City in early June, has started 10 games and gone 8-0 with a 2.31 ERA. The Rangers have won nine of his 10 starts.

The pitching coup came on July 10 when the Rangers traded Justin Smoak and three minor leaguers to Seattle for Cliff Lee. In Lee, the Rangers have the best pitcher to have thrown for the club since Ryan. The day after the trade, I was able to see Lee's debut with the Rangers— a contest Lee would surely like to forget, giving up 6 earned runs against the hopeless Orioles. His first earned run came after just two pitches following a double on the first pitch and a single on the second.

In that game, there were positive takeaways, the foremost of which was the fact that Lee pitched a complete game on 95 pitches. Even in giving up 6 earned, Lee was extraordinarily efficient and had tremendous control. In fact, most of his pitching style reminded me of something I had seen only one other time in person, only I couldn't place it at the time. Eventually, it hit me that it was a lot like a Tom Glavine outing I saw in the late-'90s. Mind you, Lee is more of a fly ball guy and Glavine gave up more walks, but each was in control and not necessarily overpowering.

My perceptions have been confirmed in Lee's more successful last two outings: a complete game with 2 ER against Boston and then eight and a third innings with 2 earned against the Angels last Thursday.

The historical futility of the Rangers is hard to understate. In 48 full seasons since starting as the second incarnation of the Washington Senators, Texas has won one solitary playoff game. That total is dead last out of every single team in the major leagues. The Rangers are one of only three teams to have never made a World Series.

Only six teams exceed the Rangers' playoff drought of 10 seasons. It's no wonder that the marketing campaign before the season for the team was "It's Time." It wasn't made clear what exactly it's time for, but most Rangers fans would love for it to just be time to get back into the playoffs. With the way that the team is playing, "It's Time" has every chance of happening soon.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 3:31 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 20

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kevin Harvick — Harvick posted his Sprint Cup-series best 14th top-10 finish of the year by claiming the runner-up spot in the Brickyard 400. It was Harvick's third second-place result this year, and it boosted his lead in the Sprint Cup point standings to 184 over Jeff Gordon.

"A lot of people think I can win the Sprint Cup championship," Harvick said. "I 'second' that. Snapping Jimmie Johnson's title reign is certainly a challenge, and I've never met a challenge I didn't accept, or at least one that my pit crew didn't accept, and/or take care of, on my behalf."

"Now, I still don't have a sponsor for 2011. As you know, Shell is moving to Penske in 2011. I never been called shy, but next year, I will certainly be considered an 'extrovert' because I'll be out of my 'Shell.'"

2. Jimmie Johnson — After a promising start, loose-handling conditions struck the No. 48 Lowe's Chevy, hindering Johnson's quest for his third-straight Brickyard 400 win. Despite crew chief Chad Knaus' best efforts, the handling never improved, and Johnson finished 22nd. He dropped to fourth in the point standings, and trails Kevin Harvick by 261.

"We're not quite in championship form," Johnson said. "But, as four consecutive Sprint Cup titles can attest, ultimate victory is merely a championship 'formality.' With three straight finishes outside the top 21, we may be in the midst of a cold spell, but as a new parent, I can tell you that a 'hot flash' can happen in an instant."

"Keep in mind, I am not the Jimmy Johnson who endorses ExtenZe male enhancement product, nor am I the Jimmy Johnson who will be a contestant on CBS' Survivor: Nicaragua show. I understand that appearing on Survivor can be a life-changing phenomenon for some. Many, win or lose, have found enlightenment through the show's challenges. With a month's supply of ExtenZe down there in Central America, Johnson can achieve growth, both figuratively and literally."

3. Kyle Busch — Busch's No. 18 M&Ms Toyota found trouble early at Indianapolis, spinning on lap one after getting loose in Turn 2. Ten cars were collected in the accident, but Busch avoided major damage, although his car required constant adjustments to maintain suitable handling. Busch eventually finished eighth, his 10th top-10 result of the year, and is sixth in the point standings, 290 out of first.

"I must commend my team for their diligence," Busch said. "No one ever said I wasn't 'high maintenance.' And speaking of 'high maintenance,' I sincerely apologize to the cars I caused to wreck."

"As for Rusty Wallace's comment that I am a 'dumbass,' well, nothing could be further from the truth. I certainly am not dumb."

4. Jeff Gordon — Like Jimmie Johnson, Gordon struggled with persistent handling issues that had him toiling mid-pack. The situation worsened late in the race when he ran over some debris, breaking his splitter and cutting both right-side tires. Gordon managed to remain on the lead lap and finished 23rd, maintaining the second position in the point standings. Gordon, still winless this year, trails Kevin Harvick by 184 points.

"We thought going into the Brickyard," Gordon said, "that we could 'do some damage.' I guess we took that saying a bit too literally. But it sure did make the decision to take right-side tires an easy one. That's something I'm sure the No. 42 Target team wishes they could say. And they can — in hindsight, which just happens to be your vantage point when you take four tires and nearly everyone else takes two."

5. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin overcame an early overheating problem to finish 15th at Indianapolis. On a lap one accident that started when Kyle Busch got loose, Hamlin's No. 11 FedEx Express Toyota picked up debris, which lodged in the car's air flow and caused the overheating. Hamlin fell a lap down making repairs, but regained the lead lap with 20 to go and salvaged a respectable finish.

"As you know," Hamlin said, "Kyle's been very critical of me on occasion, but never to my face. So I guess that would be the first time that he's got 'all up in my grill.'"

"Usually, the cursing on this team is left to Kyle Busch, as well as those loose-lipped announcers describing him. But with my air flow compromised, I think I deserve to say, with no apologies, 'air damn!' That would be called a 'FedEx-pletive.'"

"But, with Indy behind us, it's time to move on to Pocono, where I won handily in June. Everyone knows the No. 11 FedEx car is the car to beat there. I trust that FedEx will make another successful delivery at Pocono. Kyle's usually the one flipping his lid over something, but come Sunday, I plan to be the one 'going postal.'"

6. Kurt Busch — Busch saw a possible top-five finish at Indianapolis go awry on a late restart, when his No. 2 Dodge suffered damage to its nose and lost several positions. The team regrouped, and crew chief Steve Addington called for a two-tire stop during the final caution, gaining some of the lost track position. Busch finished 10th, capturing his 12th top-10 of the year, and remained fifth in the point standings, 262 out of first.

"It's unfortunately fitting," Busch said, "that the No. 2 Miller Lite Vortex car fell victim to a 'bottleneck.' And it's oddly ironic that NASCAR's only driver with cosmetic surgery experience was in a car that needed a 'nose job.'"

"Sure, I would have loved to have 'made some noise' here and given Roger Penske a win, and thus deny Chip Ganassi the so-called 'Triple Crown.' It didn't happen, but Roger's Indy Car driver Helio Castroneves more than made up for it, because you could hear him all the way from Edmonton."

7. Tony Stewart — After depressing practice sessions on Saturday left little hope for a solid finish, Stewart's fifth in Sunday's running of the Brickyard 400 must have felt like a godsend. It was Stewart's fifth top-five finish of the year, and kept him ninth in the Sprint Cup point standings, where he is 98 ahead of Clint Bowyer in 12th.

"We still have a ways to go before we can honestly say we can compete for the Cup," Stewart said. "Luckily, though, we've got a top-notch facility, spacious beyond belief. However, the biggest room in the place is the 'Room For Improvement.'"

"And we've set quite a lofty goal for ourselves, one that may be difficult to reach. We call it our 'potential.'"

8. Carl Edwards — Edwards posted his third consecutive top-10 finish, crossing the line seventh at Indianapolis, joining Roush Fenway teammate Greg Biffle, who finished third, in the top 10. Edwards and the No. 99 Aflac Ford overcame some early overheating problems, and finished strong in the closing laps. He is 10th in the Sprint Cup point standings, 424 out of first.

"I think it's safe to say," Edwards said, "that Ford is back. The new FR9 engine is really paying dividends. Ford is no longer the laughing stock of car makers, and I think that rumor that the Ford theme was to be performed by Bad Company can be put to rest."

"As for the Brad Keselowski situation that went down at Gateway International Raceway, well, that's just a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. Apparently I'm the 'irresistible' one because now it seems Brad's father 'wants a piece of me.'"

9. Jeff Burton — Burton finished sixth in the Brickyard 400, joining teammates Kevin Harvick, in second, and Clint Bowyer, in fourth, for a solid Richard Childress Racing effort at Indianapolis. Burton qualified 10th, and kept the No. 31 Prilosec OTC Chevrolet in the top 10 for most of the race. He is seventh in the point standings, 305 out of first.

"I understand NASCAR has fined two drivers $50,000 for criticizing NASCAR," Burton said. "If that's the case, then how much will Helio Castroneves be fined for his outburst after being stripped of the win in the Honda Indy Edmonton race? It wouldn't be an understatement at all to say he 'lost it.' Normally, Helio is a soft-spoken fellow, but in this case, the 'H' was anything but silent."

10. Greg Biffle — Biffle led 38 laps at Indianapolis, and given just a few more laps at the Brickyard, quite possibly could have won. As it were, he finished third, equaling his finish in the Daytona 500. Biffle remained 11th in the point standings, 78 clear of Mark Martin in 13th.

"Juan Montoya may have a reputation as a hothead," Biffle said, "but you can't say he doesn't have manners. Did you see how he politely 'opened the door' for his teammate Jamie McMurray? It was touching, and something you'd likely never see here at Roush Fenway."

"The race was Montoya's to lose, but his mistake made victory possible for others, including me. I hate to further the stereotype of Colombia as the cocaine capital of the world, but Montoya certainly did 'blow' it."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:08 AM | Comments (0)

July 27, 2010

Why Serena Williams is Not the Best Ever

Less than six months ago, on the heels of her Australian Open win, I wrote that Serena Williams "now must be regarded among the very best women ever to play." That didn't seem particularly controversial to me at the time, but any shock value it may have boasted has certainly been deflated by the recent assertion, from Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim, that Williams is now the single greatest female player in history.

With all due respect to Wertheim, who several years ago was probably the best tennis writer on the planet, that's crazy. Not questionable, not silly, but laughable, totally untenable, and bat guano cray-cray.

Let me prove this. Serena is certainly an all-time great, but she's clearly still behind, say, Steffi Graf. It's not like these two played in radically different eras; they were contemporaries. Serena has won 13 Grand Slam singles titles. That's great, but Steffi won 22. Williams won the French Open only once, in 2002 and has never been as effective on clay as she was on other surfaces. Graf won every Slam at least four times and for years was the world's best player on every surface. Serena has held the top WTA ranking for 120 weeks. Graf held it for 377. Williams has won 37 singles titles, compared to 107 for Graf.

Look, if these numbers were close, maybe I could be persuaded that flukes, changes in the game, or even different priorities could account for the difference between them. But it's not close. Serena, as wonderfully as she has played, has not been as dominant as Graf was at her peak, has not been great as consistently, and has not been great for as long.

1) Serena has not been as dominant as Graf was at her peak.

Williams had her best year in 2002, when she put together 3/4 of her "Serena Slam," winning all four Grand Slam events in succession. Since then, she has won consecutive slams only once, and her dominance has never extended to clay. Serena is so good that she is a threat on any surface, but she has never been the best in the world on clay.

Graf's best year was obviously 1988, when she won a Grand Slam, actually stringing together five straight slams and eight out of nine (she was runner-up at the 1989 French Open). In the late-'80s and again following Monica Seles' stabbing, Graf was easily and indisputably the most dangerous female player in the world, on all surfaces.

2) Serena has not been great as consistently as Graf.

Williams won her first slam in 1999. Her next win came in 2002, when she absolutely dominated the women's game, taking five slams in 2002-03. Over the next three years, she won a single Slam, the 2005 Australian Open. In 2000, 2001, 2004, and 2006, she failed to win even one slam as a singles player. She did win slams in '07 and '08, a year and a half apart.

Graf won at least one slam for 10 years in a row, from 1987-96. She won at least three slams in a row five times (1988-89, 1989-90, 1993, 1995, 1996).

3) Serena has not been great for as long as Graf.

Steffi won singles titles at Roland Garros in 1987 and 1999, 12 years apart. Serena won her first slam, at the '99 US Open, less than 11 years ago, and didn't become a consistent winner until 2002, less than a decade past.

It is true that Williams has at least one advantage over Graf: she is a more accomplished doubles player. It's also true, though, that we haven't mentioned Graf's gold and silver Olympic medals as a singles player, compared to Serena's zero. On top of all this, I don't even believe Graf is the greatest women's player in history. I think Martina Navratilova is.

The argument for Williams rests on the assumption that the quality of tennis play has improved over time, and since Williams is the best now, she must be the best ever. That's true as far as it goes. I don't doubt that players are better now than ever before. That makes "best ever" arguments absurd, though. By that reasoning, Caroline Wozniacki is better than Margaret Court.

Graf was clearly the greatest player of her era, as reflected in her number of singles titles, slams, and weeks at number one. Williams does lead her contemporaries in slams, but she's sixth in singles titles (behind Lindsay Davenport, Monica Seles, Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, and Justine Henin, and tied with Kim Clijsters). Serena also has fewer weeks with the top ranking than Hingis, and she's basically equal with Henin, despite the latter's retirement at a time she held the top ranking.

It would be ludicrous to pretend that Serena Williams is not a great player, among the greatest ever. It is equally absurd, though, to pretend that she has surpassed the likes of Graf and Navratilova to lay claim to the title of best ever.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 7:22 PM | Comments (17)

July 26, 2010

In Defense of LeBron James and ESPN

The media coverage and reaction that has surfaced regarding LeBron James' move to Miami, "The Decision" television special, and ESPN's handling of the situation has as ESPN might explain "been the greatest single media, sports, and entertainment story" in the history of mankind.

Criticism has been that LeBron has damaged his brand, ESPN has tarnished its image, and that the show was bad idea from the outset.

But do ESPN and LeBron James deserve all of the criticism or was ESPN delivering on expectations and did LeBron simply take control of the situation?

Should critics be upset with LeBron or did LeBron simply turn the tables?

LeBron's every move for two years became headlines and people endlessly talked about his next team. Any word or reaction he had to a question received exhaustive coverage. His words, expressions, or laughter became the day's top story and the media reported all of it with bated breath.

Speculation was rampant about his next team. If LeBron wore a Yankees hat, it was proclaimed he would be a Knick. LeBron likes Jay-Z and his music, so surely he will be a Net. LeBron built a house in Ohio, so Cleveland is the place. LeBron grew up liking Michael Jordan, so Chicago will be his destination. LeBron wants to shine in the bright lights of Los Angeles like Kobe Bryant, so he must play for the Clippers. LeBron may or may not have had lunch with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, so Miami will be his choice.

If LeBron wanted to win, he must go to Chicago, if he wanted to be a global icon, he needed to move to New York, if LeBron wanted to be loyal, then he must choose Ohio.

LeBron's off-the-court activities often received more attention than his basketball skills as rumors swirled about where free agency would take him. He kept many of his current media critics in business as they had something to talk and write about. Suddenly, when LeBron took control of the situation and dictated terms of his announcement, the media struck a sour note because they had lost control. They had lost the ability to present LeBron and his actions in a way that benefited them.

How dare LeBron not call a press conference or present his information in front of an "objective" journalist who could ask whatever questions he or she wanted.

No longer were media outlets in the business of speculating about LeBron with countless minutes devoted to his every move. Each member of the media was denied the chance to grill him about his decision because a press conference wasn't used. Their opportunity at the spotlight had been denied. The media had been using LeBron's every action to cast a light on themselves with rampant speculation and commentary.

The media is now calling him selfish, egotistical, and only caring about self-promotion. But how many media outlets used his every move to bolster their reputation as investigative reporters or journalists as they commented on how he reacted to his reception at Madison Square Garden or where he spent his time in the offseason?

There is no longer purity in sports journalism.

Some of the outcry has been that LeBron and ESPN have suddenly damaged the purity of sports journalism. Newsflash: the purity of sports journalism has been long gone. It is hard to believe that the same journalists who were giving in-depth reports about LeBron's Yankee hat and therefore his imminent choice of being a Knickerbocker believe there was some kind of purity in sports journalism in 2010. Sports reporting jumped the shark a long time ago.

For years, ESPN has been explaining to its viewership and the rest of the sports media that sports and entertainment have merged. Vince McMahon and the WWE may have started the model with Hulkamania, but ESPN has perfected it with "The Decision."

The build-up of the merger of sports and entertainment has included, but is not limited to: "Playmakers," "The ESPYs," "Pros vs. Joes," the NFL's opening weekend concerts, and all of the top 40 music played under highlights.

ESPN brought the world the biggest sports and entertainment story in a format that combined the best and worst of sports and entertainment. Essentially, they delivered on their promise and outrage about it is years too late.

If viewers and the media didn't like the result, then they have been insanely blind to the past several years of sports television programming. ESPN has been telling the viewing public for years that sports and entertainment have merged and they were leading the way.

People who are purists and who want sports without the entertainment are called "old-fashioned" and out of touch with reality. But suddenly, after "The Decision," being a purist it seems is back in fashion.

For those who were disappointed, they should revaluate the phrase "combining sports and entertainment." Of course the real question is, "where have you been for the last 10 years?" Giving leagues and stars controlled environments and presenting them as entertainment is nothing new to ESPN and sports journalism in general.

Did LeBron go too far in creating "The Decision?" A different perspective might be that he is the first professional athlete to take control of the situation. LeBron negotiated the terms of his announcement and ESPN acquiesced. ESPN wanted the story. When an entertainer, newsmaker, or politician breaks news, it is often in a controlled environment with their choice of interviewer.

Yes, LeBron had control of the ad inventory and where the proceeds went. The proceeds went to charity. LeBron is not only guilty of wanting to control where and how he made an announcement, he is guilty of forcing a company to give money to a charity. Two crimes that when compared to the acts of other athletes don't seem to be too bad.

As for making an entire television show about his decision, there are countless media outlets dedicated to the decisions of high school prep stars choosing college schools. ESPN currently dedicates days of coverage to high school athletes picking up hats and making decisions on national signing days.

The NBA, the fans, and the media created LeBron and it is time to reap what you sow.

The NBA has embarked on a strategy since Larry Bird and Magic Johnson to emphasize stars. The league eras have been marked by names and not teams. LeBron didn't hijack the league, the league created a system, nurtured LeBron, and he is the first star to take full advantage of it.

Nike and the Cleveland Cavaliers told us to "Witness" LeBron and told us to endorse him as King James. Just about everyone did and now that LeBron has had made us witness his decision on his terms, people want to dethrone their chosen king.

He fulfilled his contract in Cleveland and he has now decided to go elsewhere.

Since high school, LeBron has been told he is the next era of basketball by the NBA, by sponsors, and by fans. He was given the keys to the NBA and global sports kingdom a long time ago.

As one of the premier sports icons of the world, yes, he may have taken a few liberties on July 8, but for over seven years, the media, city of Cleveland, NBA, and fans put him in this position. In the end, he took control of the situation and with all he has been told and given over the years he ultimately did it his way.

ESPN made the decision to air "The Decision" because LeBron and his team negotiated terms that were agreeable to both sides. The structure of the show adhered to the promises and expectations ESPN gave its viewing public and the direction of sports and journalism have been headed.

Entertainment and sports have officially merged and soon "The Decision" will look like serious investigative journalism compared to what will be done by ESPN, other athletes, and other media outlets.

Posted by Vito Curcuru at 7:57 PM | Comments (3)

Can Haren Turn Around the Angels?

After a roller coaster of rumors flying around, the Angels swooped in to bring in starting pitcher Dan Haren. The deal was likely an answer to the division rival Rangers deal for Cliff Lee, but the Angels also brought in one of the most accomplished young pitchers in Major League Baseball.

Haren, 29, is coming off one of the best seasons in his career, in which he had a WAR of 6.0 (almost MVP-worthy) and was fifth in Cy Young voting. He led the league in WHIP and SO/BB.

Overall, a team that gets Haren is looking at the following: he strikes out a lot of batters, walks virtually none, is extremely durable, and gives up a lot of hits. How do those things mesh together? It's hard to tell. Because, like with any pitcher pitching on a bad team, you can never really uncover how he influences the outcome of the game.

Haren is a very good pitcher, but he has had limited time in a competitive city like Anaheim. Besides 2004 and 2006, Dan Haren has not only not pitched in the playoffs, but has been on a team that was out of the race for the majority of the season. Anaheim is looking to take over the West and win a World Series. Can Dan Haren take that?

One of the most popular excuses for Dan Haren — if he needs one — is that he is surrounded by a lot of bad luck. Not only is that false, but he has actually had a lot of good luck. He has won three games in which he pitched less than 6 innings and gave up more than 3 runs, tying him for third most in the majors. Conversely, he has only lost two games in which he pitched a quality start, the same as Freddy Garcia of the first-place White Sox.

Pitching on a bad team has not affected Haren's results at all. In fact, he has seen a lot of good luck. Although he has great numbers, it is questionable how he has affected his team, and likewise, and how his team has affected him. This year, his team has a .381 winning percentage in games he started, only .003 points higher than the teams overall percentage. If Haren is such a good pitcher and luck hasn't hurt his results, why isn't the team better in games he starts?

It can all be attributed to the fact that Haren is not a game-changer. Even when he was fifth in Cy Young voting last year, his WPA (win probability added) was only 2.8 (28th in the majors), and this year, it is only 0.2.

I mentioned earlier that Haren is not used to pitching on contending teams, and thus does not usually pitch under pressure. After all, his average leverage index this year is the 61st lowest in the majors. However, when he does pitch under pressure, he usually doesn't shine. His clutch stat (a stat that measures how well you perform in high leverage situations) is 35th in the majors. Not too bad, but also not remotely representative of some of the raw strikeout and walk numbers he puts up.

Dan Haren has been one of the best pitchers in the game for the last couple of years. But it is difficult to pinpoint how much pitching on a low-stress, non-contending team has affected his results. The Angels need Haren to be a game-changer if they want to make the playoffs. And at this point, his ability to do that is unknown.

Posted by Jess Coleman at 6:13 PM | Comments (0)

July 22, 2010

The Third-Best Third Baseman in History

I'm a perfectionist. Sometimes that's a good thing; sometimes it would be better if I wasn't. Part of what perfectionism means for me, though, is frequent re-evaluation of the past, even of settled matters which cannot be changed.

Last year around this time, I participated in an all-time MLB draft with three of my colleagues, and I drafted a team that, with all due modesty, still knocks my socks off. There's only one pick I have mixed feelings about: Chipper Jones at third base. Chipper was a fantastic player, but I've always felt a little uneasy in that pick and wondered if I couldn't have made a better choice. Jones was my fourth-choice third baseman, behind Mike Schmidt, George Brett, and Alex Rodriguez (who was chosen as a shortstop one round earlier).

Schmidt and Brett are widely regarded as the two greatest third basemen in MLB history, and I am inclined to support that idea. Rodriguez, although he has now played nearly 900 games and 7,500 innings at third, is ranked as a shortstop. So who is number three? In my mind, there are seven players with an argument to be ranked as the third-best third baseman in major league history: Frank Baker, Wade Boggs, Jimmy Collins, Chipper Jones, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson, and Pie Traynor.

Chipper Jones

I've already made the case for Chipper once, so let's start there and we'll work backwards chronologically. I'd hate for anyone to think I've reversed my position that Jones is an all-time great. There is a very reasonable case to be made that he is the greatest offensive player in the history of the position. Jones is the only .300/.400/.500 third baseman in history. Moreover, he is one of only two (Boggs is the other) with an on-base percentage of at least .400, and he is the position's all-time leader in slugging percentage (.536). Lest anyone chalk those numbers up to the era in which he played, Chipper's 150 OPS+ is the best in history, edging out those of Mathews (143) and even Schmidt (147).

So why isn't Chipper a slam dunk? Well, he has the shortest career among the post-WWII players, and he is the weakest defensive player on the list. Let's start with career length and move on to fielding afterwards. Jones was such a phenomenal offensive player that he posted top-notch career numbers despite making under 10,000 plate appearances; he has more Runs Created (about 1,800, depending on your preferred formula) than any third baseman besides George Brett. Among his highlights:

* Third-most extra-base hits, trailing only Brett and Schmidt
* More walks than strikeouts
* 147 SB, 44 CS (77.0%)
* 2,971 combined runs and RBI, ranking among the top 75 (at any position) in both categories

As far as fielding goes, the argument for Chipper is the same reason he played 14,500 innings at third: getting his offensive production out of the third base position compensated for his defensive weaknesses. Fine, he's not the fielder Robinson and Traynor were. Those guys weren't even in his league at the plate, and while he was never a regular on Web Gems, neither was he a defensive liability; he was a legitimate third baseman.

All of Chipper's stats in this piece are through July 19, 2010.

Wade Boggs

Let's just throw out some numbers: 3,000 hits, 1,500 runs, 578 doubles, .328 BA, .415 OBP, twice as many walks (1412) as strikeouts (745). Fine, he didn't have Chipper's power. Chipper doesn't have 3,000 hits, and he wasn't a Gold Glover. And while Boggs didn't exactly play in the deadball era, his best seasons came in the '80s, when runs were more meaningful than during Chipper's prime in the late '90s and early '00s. Boggs showed up on league leaderboards more often than Jones did, leading the majors in OBP six times, and at various times in plate appearances, hits, doubles, bases on balls, runs, and OPS. Boggs is fairly fresh in most memories, and it is widely accepted that he's a top-five 3B, so I won't bore you with further details, but I'd hate to give anyone the impression that Boggs was a slouch at the plate.

Brooks Robinson

The comparisons get complicated here, because Robinson's skill set and value are substantially different than those of Jones and Boggs. Brooks Robinson is generally considered to be the greatest defensive third baseman in history, but even his supporters admit that he was not a great offensive player. He didn't hit for average (.267), he didn't hit for power (.401 slugging), and he couldn't run (28 SB, 22 CS). He has by far the lowest OBP (.322) of the players being considered, and he hit into the most double plays (297). It is true that he played in an era when great offensive stats were hard to come by, but you could put Robinson on the 2000 Rockies, and he's still not going to be Schmidt or Jones or Mathews. He had a career OPS+ of 104, making him barely better than average, so his candidacy effectively rests solely on defense.

Eddie Mathews

Is Mathews the best power hitter in the history of the position? Well, he's clearly on the short list. Really, the only names you consider are Mathews (512 HR, .509 SLG), Schmidt (548, .527), and Chipper Jones (433, .536). I suppose I'd pick Schmidt, but Mathews, who twice led the majors in home runs and eight times placed among the NL's top 10 in slugging, is not far behind. In the context of his era, he's probably a better slugger than Jones, though he didn't share Chipper's base-running ability and didn't quite have his gift for getting on base. They're nearly equal at the plate, but Mathews played longer and was a better fielder.

Pie Traynor

Until about 25 years ago, Traynor was widely regarded as the best third baseman in history. I don't doubt that he was a great player, but earlier claims about his greatness don't hold up under close inspection. At the plate, Traynor was Brooks Robinson with a shorter career. He hit .320, but that was in an era when hitting .300 was almost expected. He never led the NL in batting average, and he never came close, with a career-high of fifth in 1927. Traynor seldom walked (472 BB), and although he was a good base-runner, he didn't have any power (58 HR). He wasn't an offensive liability by any means, but his primary claim to fame (apart from the batting average, and it's an empty .320) was defense.

Ultimately, I don't see how you can rank Traynor ahead of Robinson. Was he a better offensive player? Probably. But he didn't play nearly as long — Robinson had 3,500 more plate appearances — and he probably wasn't as outstanding defensively. I mentioned Traynor because I'd hate for anyone to think I forgot about him, but in 2010, he's just not a realistic contender for the title of third-best third baseman.

Home Run Baker

I have a sympathetic interest in this one, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's my fondness for history, for contemporaries of Cobb and Ruth and Speaker. Maybe it's the cool nickname. Maybe it's the career arc, or something else entirely. I like Home Run Baker, and I'm rooting for him in this exercise. Well, him and Chipper. I'll be pretty bummed if I decide I drafted the wrong guy last year.

Baker has the shortest career of anyone listed here (1575 G, 6660 PA), so his case basically rests on a fantastic prime, and he certainly had one. He led the AL in homers four years in a row (1911-14), batting .334 during those years and leading the majors in RBI by a wide margin (451, 10 per year ahead of Sam Crawford's 411). But Baker sat out the next year in a salary dispute and was never the same.

We might reasonably compare Baker to Mike Schmidt. Both were exceptional fielders, Schmidt probably a little more so, and both were great sluggers. Schmidt's career was also substantially longer, but that's okay. I believe Schmidt is the best third baseman ever, so falling short of him doesn't mean Baker can't qualify for the third position on the list.

Jimmy Collins

Who? Jimmy Collins played from 1895-1908, mostly for Boston. Babe Ruth called him the greatest third baseman in history, and for nearly half a century, he was often cited as exactly that. Collins had a reputation as a tremendous defensive player, a gifted athlete with an instinct for the game. As an offensive player, he was good but not great, with under 2,000 hits and little power. I'm the last one to denigrate older players, but I think it has become clear with the passage of time that Collins is merely a great player, rather than an all-time great whose name belongs on the short list of elite third basemen.

Five Names, One Spot

Home Run Baker, Wade Boggs, Chipper Jones, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson ... who's the best among that group? Who can we eliminate? The obvious answer to the latter question, I think, is Robinson. He's the best fielder ever at the position, but he was a very average hitter, and I just don't believe he contributed as much to his teams as the players who put runs on the board. I would also drop Baker, simply because his career was so short. His prime very probably was better than those of Boggs, Jones, and Mathews, but they had great seasons, too, and they all played substantially longer.

There are five third basemen with at least 1,500 Runs Created, and all have at least 1,700, putting them well ahead of the pack. Those are Schmidt and Brett, plus Boggs, Jones, and Mathews. Each has advantages and disadvantages.

Boggs leads the three in G, PA, AB, R, H, 2B, BA, OBP, and fewest strikeouts. However, he's way, way behind in XBH, HR, and RBI, so he has 275 fewer total bases than Jones and Mathews despite having many more at-bats.

Jones leads in RBI, XBH, SB, and slugging. He's last in all of the service categories and in triples, and he wasn't much of a defensive player.

Mathews leads in 3B, HR, BB, TB, and fewest GIDP. He's last in everything related to getting on base, except bases on balls, where he has a very small advantage over both Boggs and Jones.

This is very close, but it's my list, and I'm cutting Boggs. He gained 4,064 total bases in 9,180 AB. Jones posted 4,329 TB in 8,074 AB. That's 300 more TB in 1,000 fewer AB. Okay, Boggs was great at getting on base and he was a better defensive player. Chipper's power and versatility make him a better player, in my view. At what point in the batting order would you rather have Boggs than Jones? I don't think there is one, not even as a leadoff man. Boggs was a little better at getting on base, but Chipper was better at getting into scoring position, because he was far better at power-hitting and base-running. He had more extra-base hits, more total bases, and more combined runs and RBI. Boggs hit for a higher average and was better with the glove. Give me Jones.

How do you choose between Jones and Mathews? Statistically, they're very similar. Mathews had about 500 more AB, basically just a season. He hit more triples and homers, while Jones had more singles and doubles. Mathews retired with 938 extra-base hits; Jones has 958 XBH. Jones tallied a combined 2,971 runs and RBI, Mathews 2,962. Down the line, in nearly every category, they balance each other out. To me, that means Mathews is ahead. He had a longer career, played in a less favorable offensive context than Chipper, and was a better defensive player.

I'm not going to beat myself up over choosing Jones instead of Mathews last year. I still love Chipper's versatility as a switch-hitter, and his offensive accomplishments speak for themselves, even in an era with inflated offensive numbers. He received MVP votes in 12 different seasons and finished among the top 10 in NL MVP voting six times, including a win in 1999. He may even be a better fit for my team; I really wanted a switch-hitter, and Chipper's superior OBP and base-running might complement the squad better than Mathews' power. I just think Mathews was a little better overall, and he deserves to rank as the third-best third baseman ever.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 7:26 PM | Comments (0)

July 21, 2010

Why We Shouldn't Write Off Tiger Woods

Joe Posnanski — one of my favorite storytellers, much less sports writers — reacted to Tiger Woods' T23 at the Open Championship by openly questioning if the Tiger Woods Era is done. Sure, reasonable question.

When they aired The Hills finale, I openly wondered if Lauren Conrad might finally exit pop culture despite having a whole other show. (Or so I'm told.) Seems more apt, though, to compare Woods' career to that of Betty White rather than the fleeting fame of Justin Bieber, or the vuvuzela.

Woods has dominated the sport for nearly as long as any golfer in the history of the sport. Nicklaus won his first major in 1962 and took his last some 24 years later. Realistically, though, Nicklaus' dominion over the major championships had three chapters.

From '62 to '75, Nicklaus nabbed all but four of his majors. Only one lengthy drought plagued his tally in the period — the Golden Bear couldn't win a major from the '67 U.S. Open until the 1970 Open Championship, which was conveniently at St. Andrews. Were it not for Doug Sanders' rather unfortunate range with the putter, Nicklaus (in a total time vacuum, which Stephen Hawking would tell you does not exist) wouldn't have ended the 0-fer until the '71 PGA Championship at PGA National. Those 30" would have tacked on another four majors to Nicklaus' longest dry spell.

Instead, Nicklaus got back on track and only failed to win a major in one year of the first half of the 70s. It was his second major win of 1975 at the PGA Championship that Nicklaus stalled again. It was won at Firestone, where Tiger Woods absolutely murders the field on an annual basis in the World Golf Championships.

Ten majors later, Nicklaus again won at St. Andrews in 1978 to start a final tour through the Grand Slam that miraculously was capped in the '86 Masters. Leaving aside the outlier of that magical Sunday charge at Augusta, Jack stopped really winning majors in 1980. He was 40 then.

Woods turns 35 in December. Daring to make the comparison that Woods is like Nicklaus — and he is in more personal ways than you know — Woods has five full seasons of majors left after this season. He has 20 cracks to tie or surpass Nicklaus. Five more shots at Augusta. (Win two and he catches Jack.) Five more shots at the two Opens. And, yes, five more PGAs.

The National Open is at Congressional next year — site of his own tournament. Three of the next four are utter unknowns for Woods, though. He was terrible at Olympic Club in '98, where the Open will be contested in 2012. Then again, from USGA chatter, it may be completely different than what the field saw then. A trip to Merion — the first in over three decades — could be a bomber's paradise. Chambers Bay in 2015 is an absolute guess. The only "sure bet" there may be on Woods and a course is Pinehurst No. 2 in '14, where Michael Campbell became the ultimate fluke major winner in 2005.

The British Open has two favorable Woods venues. The Home of Golf gets its five-year appetite fed in '15. The year prior, Royal Liverpool — where Woods played executive course golf to win four years ago. Next year, a return to where Ben Curtis shocked the world at Royal St. George's, but Tiger did finish fourth there in '03. Lytham in 2012 is where David Duval got his major in 2002, but frankly Woods was still hungover from his personal slam. Muirfield in 2013 is anyone's guess.

Let's just disregard the final major of 2010. Woods does not seem to buy into Pete Dye's Whistling Straits. In fact, Woods may only be good for one of the next five PGA Championships. We can shoot down Kohler again in 2015. Then there's a Woods Divorcee's Row of Atlanta Athletic Club, Kiawah Island — wind? pass — and Oak Hill. Only Valhalla looks good in '14, primarily because Bob May could not get lucky enough for three holes.

That leaves Woods on the cusp of Jack's record. Four combined favorable Opens, Augusta is always a threat (especially with the roars back), and a PGA or two. He has 11 realistic chances — barring some kind of massive swing, game, or life overhaul — to beat Jack. Five times in 13 tries. Certainly aggressive, but not impossible.

The prism of today is that Woods' game is in such disarray — particularly his putting — that it would be inconceivable for Woods to win like he does. As Posnanski says, Woods got to 14 by embracing the image of invincibility. Woods will have to change. Unlike Nicklaus, who became more of a course manager over time, Woods will have to become more aggressive. He can no longer sit back and wait for the field to fold. Frankly, he must act less like his sage golfing self and more like his reckless married self (on course only) if he wants to have the technical capacity to catch Jack in these next five years.

Now the age argument. Woods is getting older, not younger. He could get hurt more often. Then again, if you believe his medical assessment, he has been hurting for a decade.

Players start to win less after 32 or so. We could always cite the first time winner's list on Tour this season as evidence that the game could be passing Woods by and quickly. The same thing happened in '02 — Woods won two majors that year — and then the old guys struck back in '03. The British Open alone has produced old guy heroes in the last three years. Two came truly close to winning.

There are legendary examples of players winning and contending in majors long after their suspected shelf life. Ben Hogan, for one. Woods has used that comparison himself, though Woods was involved in a completely different car wreck. Sam Snead won two Masters from 40 and beyond. Hell, Julius Boros won two majors after 40, including a U.S. Open. A U.S. Open for crying out loud!

2010 is officially a throwaway for Tiger Woods. The year that could have been the greatest in major championship history turned into one of the great letdowns in the sport's memory. Instead of Woods, Woods, Woods, and Woods — like George Foreman's family — there has been Mickelson, McDowell, and Oosthuizen - like a law firm. Still, it is hard to write off Woods completely.

The magnitude of the letdown has critics and former worshipers of Woods wondering if Moses (Jack Nicklaus) is ready to come off of the mountain and demand that the world stop bowing to the Golden Calf. Perhaps the old man's record is safe. Maybe the rain out at the Champions Challenge was some sign that without Nicklaus, such a contest would be incomplete.

It's hard to say, though. Like a smart accountant will tell you, though, never write off anything for which you do not have a receipt. And it is not time to donate Woods' career to Goodwill.

Posted by Ryan Ballengee at 11:07 AM | Comments (1)

July 20, 2010

Secrets of the 2010 NFL Season (Pt. 2)

Also see: Secrets of the 2010 NFL Season (Pt. 1)

* After Darrelle Revis writes a scathing review of Chad Ochocinco's reality dating show, The Ultimate Catch, for People magazine, Ochocinco takes to Twitter, proving that off the field, or on it, he has nothing but weak rebuttals to Revis' "press coverage."

* JaMarcus Russell's legal troubles take a dramatic downturn when an investigation into a drive-by shooting in Muscle Shoals, Alabama turns up a handgun registered to Michael Vick in Russell's 1983 Rolls-Royce. Russell experiences a disturbing case of déjà vu when he is charged with possession of "Vick's .44."

In a related development, Nipsy Russell III signs on to play the lead role in National Lampoon's unofficial Michael Vick comeback story, a movie very loosely based on South Africa's role in the 1995 Rugby World Cup, called Convictus.

* After a Week 17 27-13 win over the Bills, the Jets roar into the playoffs as convincing AFC East champions. On the eve of a divisional round contest with the Ravens, a rookie cop in East Rutherford mistakes LaDainian Tomlinson for the real "L.T.," Lawrence Taylor, and arrests Tomlinson. Tomlinson is held overnight, and before the mess gets straightened out, he misses the game, furthering the notion that Tomlinson "disappears for the playoffs."

* Just minutes after announcing his return to the Vikings in an ESPN special entitled "The Indecision," hosted by Sasha Grey, Brett Favre reveals the details of his new venture into the world of the fashion industry. Sales of Favre's new line of clothing, geared to graying, indecisive 40-somethings and crafted with a rugged, Norse-themed style, skyrocket, and not soon after, an "Old Scandi-Navy' outlet opens in the Mall of America.

Favre is later pranked on a Johnny Knoxville/Ashton Kutcher collaboration called "Punkass", in which Knoxville sidekick Bam Margera "antiques" Favre.

* The Seattle Seahawks win the NFC West with a 10-6 record, a vast improvement over last year's 5-11 campaign. Head coach Pete Carroll wins the NFL's Coach of the Year award, and credits his success to youthful exuberance, honed by years in the college game, as well as a payroll equal to that which he enjoyed at USC, in his acceptance speech.

* Perennial playboy Tony Romo, tired of his dating exploits overshadowing those on the field, makes a vow of abstinence, promising that his duties as Dallas quarterback won't be affected by the constraints and responsibilities of a relationship. A Dallas newspaper scribe dubs Romo the 'Space Cowboy,' and although his bond with tight end Jason Witten suffers, Romo's play doesn't, and he peaks in a December 12th showdown against the Eagles. Romo throws for 401 yards and 4 touchdowns in a 38-37 win over Philadelphia.

* Jimmy Clausen wins the Panthers' starting quarterback job, outpacing Matt Moore in a close training camp battle. After an initial clash of personalities with wide receiver Steve Smith, which results in a black eye for Clausen, the two form a feared connection, combining for 3 touchdowns in the season's first two games.

Clausen ends the year as the highest-rated rookie quarterback, while Smith registers 8 touchdown receptions.

* Terrell Owens shamelessly pleads his case for a job with the Patriots and Bill Belichick, taking out a full-page advertisement in the Boston Herald, claiming he "Fits the 'Bill.'"

Belichick offers a quick reply, taking out a two-page in the Herald where a succinct "N-O" appears in the paper's centerfold.

Then, just days before the regular season begins, a desperate Owens signs a one-year contract with the Buccaneers for the bargain price of $325,000. After Owens is released after Tampa's Week 3 26-17 loss to the Steelers, funny man Frank Caliendo spoofs the situation by appearing on FOX's pre-game show as a chubby Fred Durst, singing Limp Bizkit's "I Did it All For the Rookie (Minimum)."

* Tennessee's Chris Johnson discusses the details of his new contract in an interview with the NFL Network's Adam Schefter. Johnson praises the Titans commitment, and claims he is perfectly happy with the terms of the deal, which include a $2 million salary in 2010, as well as a comprehensive dental plan.

Johnson injures a hamstring in the Titans' final preseason game and misses the regular season's first four games. He returns to the field on October 10th in Dallas, where he blisters the Cowboys for 206 yards. Despite missing four games in his holdout, Johnson proves his worth by rushing for 2,002 yards in only 12 games, then threatens another holdout unless the Titans renegotiate his contract.

Johnson wins the NFL Offensive Player of the Year award, but again fails to garner a single vote for the MVP, which is awarded to Peyton Manning, an issue Johnson vehemently protests, with the help of rapper and friend Kanye West.

* Jeremy Shockey makes an appearance in the season three finale of HBO's True Blood, playing a mysterious character who refuses to bow to vampires, werewolves, shape-shifters, telepaths, gay-albeit-macho prostitute/drug dealer/short-order cooks, or other supernatural beings.

Shockey's character is short-lived, and is written out of the script when he incites a fight with Stephen Moyer, after refusing to participate in rookie actor hazing.

Shockey and the Saints capture the NFC South crown, but fall to the Packers 27-13 in frigid Green Bay in the divisional round.

* Pittsburgh kicker Jeff Reed is arrested on Thanksgiving night at a Penn Hills, Pennsylvania Best Buy after store clerks observe him playing Wii golf wearing only a pair of cleats. After posting bail, Reed, still nude, is interviewed by a local television station, and defiantly declares himself a "free spirit" and a "fantasy stud." Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin suspends Reed for one game, and ridicules him for several more.

Reed returns to action on December 5th at Baltimore, where he misses a 27-yard field goal to send the game into overtime. The Steelers lose 23-20 and eventually finish the season 9-7.

* The Jets Antonio Cromartie records only 27 tackles on the year, but leads the AFC with 9 interceptions, proving that for what he lacks in run support, he makes up for in child support and ball-hawking skills. The former Chargers defensive back, who has seven children with six different women in five different states, but only one country, is lauded for his play during a 2-interception effort at New England on December 6th, in which John Gruden describes his coverage skills as "impregnable."

* Adrian Peterson, whose handshake has attained legendary status, sets a Guinness world record by cracking 31 walnuts with a single bare hand. Despite his record-breaking show of hand strength, Peterson is still plagued by fumbling issues. He tries a number of new age remedies, including hypnosis, acupuncture, and finger puppets, to no avail, but eventually finds a satisfactory solution with a pair of his girlfriend's exfoliating bath gloves.

Peterson ends the year with only 5 fumbles, and leads the NFC in rushing with 1,485 yards.

* Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert purchases 1,741 tickets to the Browns December 5th game at Miami and charters a caravan of buses filled with Browns fans making the trip from Cleveland to Miami. When asked about his motives, Gilbert says he "wants to make sure the game, like Lebron James, is a 'sellout.'"

* After a 30-23 win over the Dolphins in Miami on September 26th, Jets teammates Santonio Holmes and Braylon Edwards celebrate in downtown Miami Beach hot spot Mansion. After sharing a joint with Holmes, Edwards inexplicably sucker-punches a patron, who turns out to be the only remaining friend of Lebron James.

* Former Panthers captain Julius Peppers finds contentment in Chicago, obviously more comfortable with a "C" on his helmet than on his jersey, revitalizing the Bears' defense with 14 sacks and 2 interceptions on the year.

* Jason Campbell, despite finding himself in a similar situation, with a struggling team, a rabid fan base, and an owner who knows little to nothing about football, flourishes in Oakland. Campbell throws for 3 touchdowns in the Raiders' 26-21 opening week loss in Tennessee, thereby matching JaMarcus Russell's 2009 output.

Oakland finishes a respectable 7-9, good for third place in the AFC West.

* Under the terms of Shaun Rogers' gun arrest diversion program, the Browns defensive tackle is to, under no circumstances, refer to his preparations for a road trip as "packing."

Rogers acts on his best behavior, and enjoys a solid season, recording 6 sacks, and a photograph of his devastating knockout hit on Laurence Maroney against New England on November 7th graces the Sports Illustrated cover, with the appropriate caption "Pat Down."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 7:41 PM | Comments (0)

MLB's Gaming the Sale of Texas Rangers Continues

"If an alternative process is established, we're going to be guided by the court's procedures, subject to, of course, our ultimate right to approve any owner submitted to us." — MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, July 12, 2010

As I documented here in May 2010, the still impending sale of Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers has suffered no shortage of legal and financial machinations and maneuvers, including political manipulation, for many, many months. Yet it has been nearly a year and a half since Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks defaulted on a $525 million loan in March 2009, eventually ending up in bankruptcy.

Unfortunately to date, the sale of the Rangers still awaits finalization and most importantly, the investment group to be awarded the final sale of the club has yet to be determined by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and ultimately to be approved by MLB and its respective owners.

But Mr. Selig's above referenced recent quote indicates that despite the length of time and resources expended by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake for the Rangers' numerous creditors, Bud Selig will fight all obstacles in securing the group he sees fit to own and run the Texas Rangers; namely the Greenberg-Ryan Group. It is comprised of Pittsburgh sports attorney Chuck Greenberg and present Texas Rangers president and minor league team owner Nolan Ryan and their entity, Rangers Baseball Express, LLC.

It unfortunately takes far more than a good scorekeeper to not only understand, but to keep track of all of the twists and turns in this case, Texas Rangers Baseball Partners, 1043400, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, (Fort Worth), even since May 2010.

The upshot is that there will be an auction in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on August 4, 2010. However, prior to that date on July 22, 2010, the Rangers shall emerge from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection, initiated on May 24, 2010. At that hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge D. Michael Lynn will hold the Rangers' reorganization confirmation hearing.

Additionally, Judge Lynn will hear complaints on July 20, 2010, regarding new auction rules for the August 4th date. It concerns creditors' issues primarily due to MLB's acceptance of the lowest of the three bids previously offered for the Rangers, and its clear preference to award the club to Greenberg-Ryan.

The two previous higher bids were from former sports agent Dennis Gilbert in collaboration with Dallas businessman Jeff Beck and the other came from Houston businessman Jim Crane.

Crane, whose bid was the highest, backed through lender J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., previously filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court stating that MLB deliberately blocked his negotiations with the Texas Rangers. In fact, Selig wrote an April 30, 2010 letter to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. in response to that motion, reiterating his "best interests of baseball" motives in his attempt to diffuse the matter, albeit unsuccessfully.

And since creditors are owed approximately $576 million on first and second-lien debt, that includes interest, by Tom Hicks' HSG Sports Group, LLC, they want every opportunity to be given the best chance to recoup their losses.

However, an 11th-hour wrinkle has also emerged, which perhaps may be the best resolution of all, according to various financial experts, legal representatives, sports industry analysts, and many involved with some business facet of MLB.

And that magic bullet would be none other than Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. Cuban made a bid for the Chicago Cubs three years ago when it was up for sale by the Tribune Co. At that time, speculation surfaced that Cuban's brash outspokenness and aggressive management style would clash with that of MLB's.

It seems pretty ironic now, given that a former MLB owner, one George M. Steinbrenner, who was eulogized this past week, was but praised for having some of those very same qualities that Cuban seems to also behold.

Mark Cuban's recent interest in the past couple of weeks in the Texas Rangers is especially intriguing in that he may have interest in placing his own bid before the August 3, 2010 deadline for acceptance of bids for the August 4th auction.

Or Cuban may ask to become just one of the investors of a group by supplementing the capital of one of the other investment group's bid, since the new auction guidelines require that to qualify a bid, it must now clear the Greenberg-Ryan bid by $20 million.

Cuban recently stated, "With some of the court rulings, it's changed the economics of everything ... I wanted to make sure that I was at the table, just in case ... I'm hoping I'm more of a backstop than anything else."

It would be hard to believe that Mark Cuban would want to be anyone's backstop, no more so than would George Steinbrenner.

But one thing is more certain in this whole messy scenario as concerns the sale of the Texas Rangers and that is that there will be no lack of drama and last-minute antics by all parties involved; especially given Cuban's entry into the fray and just under the wire.

And if U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Lynn still has anything to say about it, he said plenty when asked on July 12, 2010 about Bud Selig's public remarks about his preference for the Greenberg-Ryan bid, "I don't believe MLB can frustrate this process any longer." Hopefully Judge Lynn is right, this time.

Once again, stay tuned...

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 1:19 PM | Comments (0)

July 19, 2010

Roll of the Distant Thunder

Behind all of the glittering free agent splashes on the beaches of South Florida this month, there was a quiet ripple in once water-barren Oklahoma. Unlike the others, it had not been foreshadowed for years by media, did not attract fawning celebrities or politicians, nor did it crest during a televised special. Drowned out by the echoes of his peers' look-at-me screams, Kevin Durant signed a five-year extension with the Oklahoma City Thunder with an elegant dearth of bombast. He announced it through his Twitter account:

"Extension for 5 more years with the Thunder ... God is great, me and my family came a long way ... I love y'all man for real, this is a blessing!"
— @KDthunderup

In 139 earnest characters, Durant did what LeBron James and others could not in weeks of backroom-scheming and minutes of soulless posing. He did not preen for the media or manufacture suspense. He did not act like his signing was a gift for the city and franchise of his choosing. Durant's subtle announcement pledged his loyalty to his organization and teammates at the expense of his own stardom, a perfect contrast to the over-saturated media blitz of his me-first peers.

Now in fairness, no man is ultimately responsible to anyone more than himself. Just as James and Chris Bosh did not owe more years to their previous teams, neither did Durant. Truthfully, if any of the free agents thought his goals would be best served by heaping helpings of hype onto his free agent signing, nobody has any reasonable ground from which to castigate him for that decision. We can, however, question how those individual goals align with his team's.

If the contrast in contract announcements can be boiled down to one core reality, it is Durant's old-fashioned practice of buying into his team. What the Thunder star gave up by not trading in currencies of media, fame, and dollars he yielded in the respect of his teammates.

I am not going to join the bloodthirsty and foolhardy queue of doom-predictors for Miami's after-market upgrade squad. Despite all the faults of the base model and its assembly, the Heat still have three significantly above average pieces whose value cannot be ignored. There will be moments of struggle, but Miami can expect to be as good as any team. And yet, consider the bright future of the Thunder.

Remember it was Durant — not James — who led the league in scoring this past season, though James pettily chose to remind us during the season, "If I really wanted to be the scoring [champion] every single year — every single year — I could really do it." The Thunder have surrounded Durant with complimentary pieces such as Russell Westbrook and Jeff Green, and no player on the roster has a 2010-2011 salary greater than $7 million. If Oklahoma City can find one more young solution in the front court, this would appear to be the team poised to ascend to the post-Kobe/Phil Western Conference throne. But all of this would be impossible without Durant's buy-in.

Consider the hand-to-mouth transactions of the Cleveland Cavaliers during James' tenure there. Yes, the Cavs had seven years to build a champion around its star. But unlike Durant, James never showed a clear commitment to the organization, which makes that timeline misleading. With losing James to free agency always at the forefront, the Cavs repeatedly mortgaged the organization's long-term health for what they hoped was an immediate fix. In the end, James' own non-commitment was the root of why he chose to leave.

On the other hand, Durant has put the Thunder in a position to build a team, but more importantly, one he has bought into. He is not a mercenary who announced his decision where he would be "taking his talents." He is not asking to be courted while supposedly grinding for a title. Instead, Durant treated his announcement with the proper lack of reverence for events that happen in the offseason.

Certainly Durant passed an opportunity to get his name and face in front of larger audiences. But if sports teams are still ever more than the sum of their parts, we should expect his personal sacrifice this summer to have that effect on his Thunder.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 6:23 PM | Comments (1)

July 18, 2010

Player Survey: Most Overrated MLB Players

One hundred and eighty-seven major league players were surveyed to answer the question: who is the most overrated player in baseball? Keep in mind that when determining whether a player is overrated or not, evaluation is not the sole factor; public opinion also needs to be weighed in.

As determined by the players, here are the top five with some analysis:

5) J.D. Drew, 3%

I must say I was surprised to see Drew in the top five. From a production stand-point, Drew has been a very productive player for some time now, putting up an all-star-quality 5.6 WAR last season.

Furthermore, it is not as though J.D. Drew gets loads of attention from the fans. He has had just one all-star selection in his career, despite the fact that he has been deserving of the award many times in the past.

So, in the end, I can't pinpoint exactly why players would vote Drew onto this list among all other possibilities. Could it be the fact that he misses a lot of time due to injury? Could it be that he makes $14 million a year? Could it be that he is on the Red Sox?

4) Nick Swisher, 4%

I'll make this simple: I couldn't agree more. Just take his recent selection to the all-star game. Is he more deserving than Paul Konerko or Kevin Youkilis? No, but the popularity of playing in New York won him a trip to Anaheim, a prime example of an overrated player.

And then, of all places, he went to the Home Run Derby. Sure, his 15 home runs are deserving, but so are the 15 home runs of Rickie Weeks and Jose Guillen. But no one wants to watch them, right?

Nick Swisher may be a good player, but his numbers don't nearly merit an all-star selection or a Home Run Derby spot.

3) Gary Matthews, Jr., 5%

Interesting selection if you ask me. At first glance, it would seem that this was the right choice — was hitting .190 and making $11 million this year. But he was somewhat deserving of his big contract back when he signed it. He hit .313 with a WAR over three back in 2006, throwing in an all-star selection.

I imagine this is more a matter of a player not living up to his contract. He does not get much attention anymore, and the $11 million is not something that represents public opinion. No, he isn't a good player, but no one is making a case otherwise.

2) Alex Rodriguez, 5%

It just seems like you can never finish bashing A-Rod. Whether it's 500 home runs, 600 home runs, or three MVPs, it just seems as though nothing can stop the hatred for Alex Rodriguez.

If I had to guess why he is on this list, I would attribute it to the massive contract, the steroid use, and of course the whole part about playing in New York. But none of those things deny that Alex Rodriguez is one of the best players in the game. Yes, it is possible to overrate someone as good as A-Rod, but everything he has received, he has deserved. Except for all the hatred.

1) Joba Chamberlain, 12%

Interesting, interesting, interesting. In a land-slide, Joba wins. If you ask me, the players are apparently reading too many New York newspapers.

It's not hard to decipher what is going on with Joba — and with what has gone on for the past two years. New York was ready to smash in some windows a few nights ago when Chamberlain gave up a grand slam against the Mariners in the eighth inning, giving up the lead. Fans were screaming, asking why this guy is still allowed to pitch.

But what went right through their thoughts was the fact that he had a 2.25 ERA in the eight appearances before that.

This has been going on forever. Yes, he is inconsistent. But the way management has handled him has been extremely detrimental in that regard. Fans, the media, and apparently players love to beat this guy up, but it is completely unnecessary and inaccurately provoked.

Overall Thoughts

Look back at all of these players and try to find one thing they all have in common. Not too surprisingly, they all play — or have recently played — for a New York team or a Boston team. It's a shame that so many questions will surround you if the spot light is simply shined on you.

Regardless, the most important thing to take away from this survey is that these are not the only players that receive — or don't receive — the improper amount of attention. Simply playing for a big market team will change how people look at you, but it doesn't change your value or your ability to win.

Posted by Jess Coleman at 11:33 AM | Comments (2)

July 16, 2010

American League Midseason Awards

With the National League Midseason Awards already handed out on Monday, it's time to do the same for the AL. Let's get right to it.

Current American League MVP

Miguel Cabrera

This one could go to any number of players, and most of them are fairly deserving, but no player has been better than Cabrera through the first half of this season. He leads the league with a .346 batting average and is also the league leader with 77 RBI. In the only triple crown category he isn't leading at the break, home runs, he's only two back of league leader Jose Bautista, who has already hit 8 more this year than he has in any full season previously.

Projected American League MVP

Miguel Cabrera

For mostly the same reasons that he's the first-half MVP, I think he'll be on top at the end of the season, too. When a player's biggest hurdle to winning the triple crown is a guy who's hitting .237 and has a lifetime slugging percentage of .421, it's hard to argue against him for MVP front-runner. With that being said, Josh Hamilton, who has the same batting average and home run total as Cabrera, could offer some resistance in Cabrera's quest for his first MVP award. But for right now, Cabrera's significant lead in RBI total gives him the edge.

Current American League Cy Young

Cliff Lee

There are some really good pitchers in baseball this year, but nobody besides Lee is boasting as many complete games as walks. Despite missing the first month of the season, he's on pace to pitch over 200 innings and win 15 or more games. His 2.64 ERA ranks third in the AL, and his 0.95 WHIP ranks first. It's hard to find a reason not to give him this award, at least so far.

Projected American League Cy Young

Felix Hernandez

I'm not going with Hernandez here because I think he's the most deserving, even though he has been great and will probably continue to be. I'm picking him because we learned with last year's NL Cy Young voting that common sense needn't prevail when naming the best pitcher in the league.

Tim Lincecum, who won the NL hardware last year, led the league in only strikeouts, while Chris Carpenter had two more wins and a better ERA and WHIP, and yet was left the ballot completely by two "experts."

I think the voting here comes down to Hernandez (who will probably end the year as the leader in strikeouts), and probably Cliff Lee and David Price, either one of whom could end the year with both the league lead in ERA and WHIP, and both of whom will probably win at least 15 games. I think the voters will make a mistake again this year, at the expense of some well deserving pitchers, instead giving an award for the best pitcher, to one who was simply good.

Current American League Rookie of the Year

Brennan Boesch

Boesch isn't just putting up Rookie of the Year numbers, he's putting up near-MVP numbers. The Tigers' LF is on pace to finish the year with a .342 average, 26 HR, and 106 RBI. That's a higher average, and more HR and RBI, than Dustin Pedroia had when he won MVP in 2008. Even though Pedroia's 2008 season bettered what Boech will reach in other areas, that's still really impressive. Through the first half of the season, Boesch has been as surprising as any other player in baseball.

Projected American League Rookie of the Year

Brennan Boesch

Again, Boesch makes the most sense here. His slugging percentage is comparable to Albert Pujols' in his rookie season, and his average is higher than Pujols' in the same year. Boesch isn't just having the best rookie season this year, he's on pace to have one of the best rookie seasons in recent memory. There's a case to be made that his numbers compare favorably to another LF, Ryan Braun, at the same point in his rookie season. So if Braun won Rookie of the Year, why wouldn't Boesch?

Posted by Paul Foeller at 4:02 PM | Comments (0)

July 15, 2010

An Open Letter to Dan Gilbert

Dear Mr. Gilbert,

I wonder if you were surprised, like I was, at the backlash over your letter to Cavs fans where you eviscerated LeBron James and guaranteed the Cavs would win a championship before he did.

As I say, I was surprised, and it seemed to erode the level of well-wishing that the country gave to us Cleveland fans in light of James' decision. They said this would hurt the Cavs standing with other free agents (I seriously doubt that) and make James less willing to leave for Miami via a helpful sign-and-trade maneuver (already shown to be untrue).

I'm a transplanted Akron native and when I hear the people around me talking about LeBron, and you, and the fans, they seemed to fundamentally misapprehend the whole situation almost regardless of the opinions they proffer. They don't understand why you "stooped to that level." They don't understand why Cavs fans are committing "classless" acts, like burning jerseys.

I'm going to use this space to try to make people understand.

First, everyone, if you are a fan of any given city's sports teams, they probably win you some championships every now and again. I'm in the shadows of Philadelphia, who since 1964 have won a major pro sports title in 1967, 1974, 1975, 1980, 1983, and 2008. Wipe all of those out. Pretend, as hard as you can, that they never happened.

Next, imagine your city, your region, is one almost universally made fun of and insulted. Joakim Noah takes his shots. People refer to you as "the mistake by the lake." Nothing flattering or even neutral is named after you. There's no Cleveland Cream Cheese or Cleveland Cheesesteaks. There's no Vegas casino called "Cleveland, Cleveland."

Did you just laugh? Because that's so preposterous? That's my point. People have learned I'm from Akron and then straightforwardly insulted the area and expressed lack of surprise that I moved away. Again, imagine all this about your city. Close your eyes tight if you have to.

Then, pretend your team drafted the most hyped athlete in the history of drafts, and that he lived up to the hype. In a city known for terrible sports teams, you now have the best of the best.

Then, on top of having the best player in the sport, imagine that guy is from there, too. He's from your region. And he represents it hard. He tells reporters, "I love Akron to death" and that if he had gone to college he would have gone to local, mid-level University of Akron and spurned the big programs.

And finally, on top of all this, imagine he's a nice, likable, intelligent man. He's never been in trouble. He's the kind of person you're not just proud of on the court, but off it. Considering how much hype and how many shady characters have surrounded him since he was 15, you're amazed at how grounded he seems to be.

Then he dumps your ass on a national television special of his own creation

The use of the word dump is very apt here, because the emotions that Cleveland fans are going through are very much like that of a non-mutual breakup. Here, more people can relate. If you've been dumped by someone you love and hoped to spend the rest of your life with, don't you get pretty emotional? Don't you say some nasty things and maybe even do nasty deeds, not just in spite of still seeing your ex's great qualities, but because of it?

Then you might understand why Cleveland fans are lashing out. And how disappointing are Jesse Jackson's comments about Clevelanders wanting LeBron to be a "slave?" As much as we hate to lose him, would a single Cavs fan want him here against his will? Of course not, that's the whole point of our anger and grief; he doesn't want us. I would expect better understanding from a man who has brokered the release of hostages in Syria and Serbia, but I suppose he, like every other non-local, just doesn't get it.

Well, one non-local gets it, and a Michigander, no less. That's where you come in, Dan. Your letter was an incredible antidote to the pain Northeast Ohioans are suffering. I think most of us had no idea what kind of person you were before this letter. Here now, we know we have an owner who cares as much as we do, is as angry as we are, and is driven to win championships for us without him. We lost LeBron James, but in doing, so we discovered we have the best damn owner in the NBA.

I understand that there were a lot of fans offering to send in money in a symbolic gesture to help pay the $100,000 fine David Stern levied against you. Your response, in part:

"I will pay this fine myself, but would be grateful and highly appreciative for any fan who redirects the dollars they kindly offered to contribute towards this fine to the Cavaliers Youth Fund, which will positively impact our region's kids through the numerous local charitable groups the Cavaliers Youth Fund supports."

Thank you, Dan, I will pass it along.

Kevin Beane

***

So, readers, if what I wrote here makes any sense to you, if you can empathize with our plight or understand the bitterness, if you want to strike back with us, then please, do just as Dan Gilbert asks and make a statement that will make an actual difference in a child's life.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 5:22 PM | Comments (12)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 19

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kevin Harvick — Harvick finished 34th at Chicagoland, as engine problems relegated him to the garage for early repairs, and he eventually finished 16 laps down. It was his second-worst finish of the year, but only his second result outside the top 20 all year. While his lead in the point standings dwindled, he still holds a comfortable 103-point edge over Jeff Gordon.

"My disappointment is tempered by last week's win at Daytona," Harvick said. "But do I look concerned? My easy-going demeanor, as well as my nickname, dictate that I live by the credo 'Don't worry, be Happy.'"

"Now, as for the talk that Brian France is considering tweaking the Chase For the Cup format to a 'winner-take-all' format, that's just ludicrous. And typical of the wacky ideas you'd expect from someone who has no clue what it's like to be a driver. I think France needs to go. My wife DeLana wears the fire suit in this family, but in France's case, I think we need to fire that 'suit.'"

2. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson, who welcomed a baby daughter on Wednesday, led the first 92 laps in the LifeLock.com 400 and looked poised to win for the sixth time this year. But a spin on lap 137 sent him through the infield grass, then, on lap 174, he slammed the wall after cutting the right-front tire of the No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet. Johnson finished a lap down in 25th, and dropped one place in the point standings to third.

"I said the same thing after Baby Genevieve's birth that I did after my first Sprint Cup championship," Johnson said. "'This is the first of many.'"

"I would have loved to welcome my first child into the world with a win. Sadly, that didn't happen, but still, despite the disappointment of a 25th-place finish, it was nothing to 'brood' about."

3. Jeff Gordon — Gordon posted his fifth-straight top-five finish with a strong third in the LifeLock.com 400. He led for 47 laps, but was no match for race winner David Reutimann, who passed Gordon on lap 213. Although Gordon's winless drought continues, the result was a promising one, as the No. 24 DuPont team introduced a new car at Chicagoland, one likely to be used at Kansas during the Chase.

"Congratulations to the Johnson's on the birth of their baby," Gordon said. "But they're not the only ones expanding their family. My wife and I have a baby boy coming in a matter of weeks. There's nothing like the joy of childbirth to offset the pain of a 48-race winless streak. Boy, I wish that would end. Like my wife Ingrid, I wish I was 'due in August.'"

"And speaking of 'babies,' I hear Juan Montoya had some words for my Hendrick teammate Mark Martin after Saturday's race. Criticizing Mark is akin to using the Lord's name in vain — it's blasphemous."

"Like me, Juan is expecting another child. His is due in July, which is too bad. If Juan would have planned better, that baby could be due midway through September, or later. And that's the only way Montoya could experience a 'birth' in the Chase."

4. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin posted his eighth top-10 finish of the year, and first since winning at Michigan on June 13th, with an eighth at Chicagoland. Hamlin improved one spot in the point standings to fourth, and trails Kevin Harvick by 203.

"Since my fifth victory back in early June," Hamlin said, "we really haven't been the same team that looked ready to challenge Jimmie Johnson for the Sprint Cup. Honestly, I think my left knee injury forced the No. 11 FedEx team to reach a new level of maturity. It may take something similar to get us back on track. Like an injury to my right knee. In this case, a knee to the 'growin'' works just as well as a kick in the balls."

5. Kyle Busch — Busch started 33rd at Chicagoland, and wrestled a loose-handling No. 18 Snickers Toyota for much of the race before battling to finish 17th. Busch hasn't posted a top-10 finish since Pocono, and is now sixth in the point standings, 257 out of first.

"We're still seeking the momentum and the groove that brought us two wins earlier this season," Busch said. "A 17th won't get us out of our slump, so you could say, at Chicagoland, Snickers didn't satisfy."

"Heck, I've seen better use of a candy bar in Caddyshack."

6. Tony Stewart — Stewart finished ninth in the LifeLock.com 400, overcoming a jack issue on an early pit stop to post his ninth top 10 of the year. Still seeking his first win, Stewart is ninth in the points, 356 out of first.

"The jack issue in the pits was an unfortunate and costly mistake," Stewart said. "However, with Old Spice leaving at year's end as sponsor of the No. 14, it gives me a great idea for another sponsor to pursue — Jack iIn the Box."

7. Kurt Busch — Busch, who many considered a favorite to win at Chicagoland, finished a disappointing 26th, felled by handling conditions that cursed the No. 2 Miller Lite Dodge until a shock absorber change late in the race brought a modicum of relief. However, with improved handling, Busch never got the caution needed to receive the "Lucky Dog" free pass, and eventually finished two laps down.

"All this baby talk had a mysterious effect of the No. 2 Dodge," Busch said, "particularly the shock absorbers. It's oddly fitting that a bad set of shocks would arise amongst all this talk of 'off spring.'"

8. Jeff Burton — Burton posted his second consecutive top-10 finish, coming home seventh in the LifeLock.com 400 at Chicagoland Speedway. Burton improved one spot in the Sprint Cup point standings, and trails Kevin Harvick by 280 points.

"Early in the race," Burton said, "it looked like Jimmie Johnson was going to ring in fatherhood with a victory. But I think all the travel back and forth to see his new daughter caught up with him. Then David Reutimann grabbed a surprise win. Maybe, just maybe, fatherhood is Johnson's lone weakness. Which is great for the rest of the field, because without a distracted Johnson, it's hard to 'conceive' of anyone else winning the Cup."

9. Carl Edwards — Edwards led late in the LifeLock.com 400, and briefly challenged David Reutimann down the stretch before settling for the runner-up position. It was Edwards' best finish of the year, and a welcome boost of confidence for Roush Fenway Racing, which has struggled this year.

"It's no surprise," Edwards said, "that in the No. 99 Aflac Silver Ford, we took second. Jack Roush has been waiting all year for a car to prove it's 'mettle.' Well, we finally did it."

"I stalked Reutimann for a good while, and he didn't even flinch, which is something I can't say for everyone. Of course, it's hard not to flinch when you're dealing with an unstable personality such as myself. You know, two of my nemeses, Kevin Harvick and Kurt Busch, have captured two poles apiece this year, but they're not the only ones who are 'bi-pole-r.'"

10. Kasey Kahne — Kahne scored his second straight top-10 finish, and fourth in the last five races, bringing the No. 9 Budweiser Ford home in sixth at Chicagoland. Although he dropped a spot in the point standings, Kahne is now only 120 out of the 12th spot.

"I think you can safely say this team has interjected itself into the Chase discussion," Kahne said. "I think we're really on to something; unfortunately, I'll soon be off to another team in 2011. For now, call us 'Kahne and Able,' which is a tad different than the reasons Rick Hendrick came calling earlier this year. In that respect, it's a case of 'Kahne and Bank-able.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:04 PM | Comments (0)

July 14, 2010

Re-Evaluting Your Assignments

Usually in this world of instant access and reaction, there would be a complete deconstruction of which professional sports teams won, lost, or crumbled with their draft picks. Nothing's different with regards to the NBA. The second after Phoenix selected power forward Dwayne Collins on June 24th, pundits were lauding and laughing at who took whom with what pick or why such and such team traded to that position on the draft board.

But this time around, things were a bit off. I mean, it's the summer of 2010. It's the year that franchises seemed less intrigued by the upside of a one-and-done and more fascinated by their opportunities to land, or hold on to, any of the free agent conglomerate. And Madison Square Garden seemed extremely apropos for this draft, with slots being switched on the same pace as commodities on Wall Street. In my mind, there was no real way to evaluate the draft lottery until the "All-Star" lottery got underway.

Now with the big pieces set up on the chessboard, we can peek a little more closely into how the Association's newbies will slip into their new role as millionaire ballers. Everyone will be searching for their faces of the organization, rough diamonds, and total busts. But out of the 30 guaranteed roster spots established in the first round, there were eight selections that got my brain working.

John Wall (No. 1 Pick)

Out of this class, you could probably say that 5-7 of these players will be starting from night one. Barring injury, Wall will be one of them. And it would be utter insanity to think he won't have an immediate impact with Washington. The point guard proved in his one year at Kentucky that his speed and fast break prowess is pro-ready. He comes from the John Calipari "guard" tree that has produced Derrick Rose and Tyreke Evans.

Now, he goes from being the man at a legendary university to a hopeful savior for a snakebitten franchise. With the uncertain reliability of Gilbert, Wall will take up that "franchise player" mantle the minute he steps on the floor. It'll be interesting to find out how he fares against personnel that's constantly at, or above, his level.

Ekpe Udoh (No. 6 Pick)

Udoh started to really shine during the 2010 NCAA tournament, leading Baylor to its first Elite Eight appearance in sixty years. The athletic 6-10 forward will get to play in a more open style than he was used to in college. However, I don't think he'll have a lot of problems keeping up with the pace.

Golden State could really use his shot-blocking abilities, and you'd have to think that Don Nelson will use him to control the paint, especially when Andris Biedrins isn't canvassing the middle. With the acquisition of David Lee, the Warriors seem to be developing quite the front court presence. I'd expect Nelson to find a way to blend Udoh into that presence quite a bit.

Greg Monroe (No. 7 Pick)

I like the way Monroe plays. He's a big man who can handle the basketball, kick the rock outside or high-low, use some nimble footwork, run the break, and score pretty well from ten feet in. The problem is I don't think that's what the Pistons necessarily need.

For a team that is looking to rebuild quickly, they have quite a few perimeter and mid-range players. In my opinion, Detroit needs an anchor, and the roster as of this moment, doesn't really seem to have one. When I watched Georgetown play the last couple of years, it appeared that Monroe worked better in the flow of a break than in the slog of a set. It will be intriguing to see how coach John Kuester uses him.

Gordon Hayward (No. 9 Pick)

The darling of the NCAA tournament couldn't hit the shot to give Butler its first basketball title, but he may have hit the jackpot when landing in Salt Lake City. I thought the pick was a solid one for Utah on draft night. Now, it might be even better for the Indiana kid. Carlos Boozer and Kyle Korver bolted. Wesley Matthews could be on his way west. And this might mean an increased role for Hayward.

It's nothing new for Jerry Sloan to lean on rookies to improve on the run. He basically did it last year with Matthews. And Hayward might be the 2010 incarnation. It's widely known that he has a sharp knowledge of the game and where to be on the floor. With the recent departures, and the health issues of Andrei Kirilenko and Mehmet Okur, I expect Hayward to make a fairly instant contribution.

Cole Aldrich (No. 11 Pick)

Have the Thunder found their "center" piece? The former Kansas big man was traded to Oklahoma City right after being picked up by New Orleans. He was a consistent presence on a Jayhawks squad that was at the top of the college ranks for most of last season, and could be dominant in stages. It would make you believe that he can be more effective than five of the other centers on the roster (seven guys at 6-10 or taller, including a KU predecessor in Nick Collison).

The wrench in this whole equation might be another tall selection. The Thunder traded again during the draft, this time for seven-foot German Tibor Pleiss. At that stage of the proceedings, the organization may very well keep the 20-year-old across the Atlantic. But if Pleiss develops quickly, he may give Aldrich a run for his money.

Ed Davis (No. 13 Pick)

Chris Bosh has re-entered the confines of the United States. Now, the only league franchise north of the Canadian border is looking for the power forward's replacement. They're hoping that will come in the form of Davis, who took on more court time last season at North Carolina. While a physical specimen, Davis did have some trouble with his wrist late in the season.

The Raptors locked up Amir Johnson to a five-year deal a couple of days after Davis signed on the dotted line. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the rookie got his share of playing time. Bosh's shoes are extremely large ones to fill.

Avery Bradley (No. 18 Pick)

Maybe Boston knew that they would maintain the core of their NBA Finals team. They might have also known that Tony Allen would leave in free agency. Instead of looking for youth in the front court with their first chance of the Draft, the Celtics got Ray Allen and Rajon Rondo some backcourt help by taking the Texas freshman.

Bradley had a reputation coming into college as a fantastic scorer, but he appeared to struggle throughout parts of his only season with the Longhorns. While he wasn't the focal point of the squad, his 11.6 ppg don't flash scoring brilliance to me. It's very possible that sliding into T. Allen's role might give the C's a welcome punch off the bench, but I ultimately believe he could have used another year in the collegiate ranks.

Damion James (No. 24 Pick)

If there was a standout for that same Longhorn team Bradley was a part of, it's this guy. James was the budding star a couple of years ago, and blossomed slowly over his four-year career. He averaged a double-double in his last year of eligibility, and his dynamic athleticism could help the Nets right away (because let's face it, New Jersey needs any piece of help they can find).

With Chris Douglas-Roberts now settled in Milwaukee, James could be an instant contributor, and may even get a little edge in playing time over new teammate Derrick Favors (the third overall pick).

If the NBA draft only produced players in its first round, then I'd stop right there. However, there are some questions that can be raised with a few selections in the second stanza. Here are a couple of players taken between draftees 31-60 that might serve some purpose throughout the 2010-2011 campaign.

Dexter Pittman (No. 32)

Can this former Texas Longhorn (how many Longhorns are there in this draft?) provide needed minutes in the middle for the newly-formed Miami "Threet?"

Andy Rautins (No. 38)

Can this Syracuse sharpshooter flourish under Mike D'Antoni's run-and-gun style in the Garden?

Luke Harangody (No. 52)

Will he provide more size under the basket for the Celtics or is he another incarnation of Glen Davis?

There's still a ways to go before the NBA landscape quiets down. But now that the "kings" and "bishops" of the offseason are in their respective squares, we can assess where the current collection of "knights" will fit into the picture.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 4:21 PM | Comments (0)

The New Western Balance of Power

It's commonly accepted that the defending Stanley Cup champion is the team to beat going into the upcoming season. In the case of the Chicago Blackhawks, their championship was the perfect storm of cap-friendly contracts and maturing talent. Had they failed against the Philadelphia Flyers — or worse, against the Nashville Predators — we'd all be talking about what a disaster the Hawks are. Instead, they're the systematic dismantling of a champion.

It's a harsh reality, but it doesn't take away the 2010 Stanley Cup from Hawks fans. The fact that everyone saw these cap headaches coming certainly doesn't make the trading of key Cup-run players such as Dustin Byfuglien any easier.

Consider this: by matching the San Jose Sharks' RFA contract of four years, $14 million to Niklas Hjalmarsson, the Blackhawks are about $100,000 under the cap with players left to sign, including goaltender Antti Niemi (as of press time). Even if the Hawks bury Cristobal Huet's contract in the minors, there's still little room to work. In other words, another trade will have to happen.

As it stands, the Blackhawks have essentially lost much of their secondary scoring (Byfuglien, Kris Versteeg, Andrew Ladd) and one of their primary penalty killers (Brent Sopel). Something else has to give, which rips apart much of the vaunted depth of the 'Hawks.

Suddenly, the Western Conference is now a lot more wide open, as the Blackhawks get weaker, while other teams address their needs. Last year, the Blackhawks and Sharks were a tier above the competition. Right now, it's not so much.

A look over the border shows that the Vancouver Canucks made a splash to beef up their defense by acquiring Dan Hamhuis and Keith Ballard following a hit-and-miss performance by goalie Roberto Luongo. In fact, their blueline is so stacked that someone like Kevin Bieksa will probably be dealt to bring in additional scoring depth.

Vancouver's first-round opponent, the Los Angeles Kings, are actively pursuing scoring depth. As of press time, the Kings are currently meeting star winger Ilya Kovalchuk for face-to-face talks. There's no doubt that the Kings are in the market for a scoring winger, but the true growth of the Kings comes from within. Drew Doughty, Jack Johnson, Jonathan Quick, and Anze Kopitar will all be a year older and better. Should the Kings get Kovalchuk or another scoring winger, they'll be in a neck-and-neck battle with the San Jose Sharks for the Pacific Division.

Even the second-tier teams are showing progress. The Predators are in a similar stage as the Kings, where young blueline studs Ryan Suter and Shea Weber are just hitting their stride. Up front, the Predators suffered from an awful power play, and they adjusted by essentially swapping aging Jason Arnott for speedster Matthew Lombardi. This also opens up a spot for talented prospect Colin Wilson to step up. The Phoenix Coyotes brought in scoring veteran Ray Whitney and have a bunch of young talent led by Kyle Turris and Viktor Tikhonov just waiting for another crack at the NHL.

As for the old standbys? The San Jose Sharks have lost some talent, but not to the same extent as the Blackhawks. Goaltender Evgeni Nabokov is now playing in the Russian KHL, and his job will go to the platoon of young Thomas Greiss and Finnish goaltender Antero Niittymaki. Some might call that a lateral move, as Nabokov offered up inconsistent play from time to time. However, the most important part of San Jose's offseason was retaining Patrick Marleau. At the same time, young veterans like Joe Pavelski, Devin Setoguchi, and Marc-Edouard Vlasic continue their maturation process.

And let's not forget Chicago's old rivals, the Detroit Red Wings. While the Wings haven't made any significant moves during the offseason, it's difficult to count out any offense led by Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk. Also, rookie goaltender Jimmy Howard now comes with a year of NHL experience. Barring a sophomore jinx, the Wings should be able to compete at the same high level as before.

What does this mean for the Western Conference? While the Hawks have young stars up and down their lineup, players like Patrick Kane and Duncan Keith are essentially playing at their peak output right now. Chicago's shedding much of its depth while their key players aren't on a pace to mature towards stardom because they're already there. Can Antti Niemi repeat his performance in net? Remember, Niemi doesn't even have a full NHL season under his belt, as Cristobal Huet was tagged as the starter when the season opened.

In short, the Hawks have lost a lot. Some teams added a lot while other teams have young players hitting their stride. The result is a Western Conference where there will likely be very little separating the very top and the eighth seed — perhaps even the 10th seed.

And remember, it's only mid-July. There's still plenty of time for the other teams to further tweak their rosters. The only real certainty is that the Chicago Blackhawks won't be adding more talent into the fold.

Posted by Mike Chen at 4:18 PM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2010

George Steinbrenner, RIP: The Best Mistranslated, The Worst Exaggerated

Perhaps his health wasn't quite the best since he relinquished control, though it kind of figured that he might deny it — as indeed he did, challenging "anyone" to come down his way and try even a portion of the workouts through which he claimed to put himself. But it almost figured it might take a "massive" heart attack to send George Steinbrenner to his reward over a week after he celebrated his eightieth birthday.

Short of a SWAT team, Steinbrenner seemed indestructible, even when acknowledging his mortality in perhaps the only way he knew: surrendering minute-to-minute control of the Yankees (does anyone even pretend to have seen him otherwise?) over the past couple years.

And there will be those who can let themselves believe Steinbrenner could have relished nothing better than to punch his ticket out on the day of the All-Star Game in the home park of the one club who beat his Yankees under Joe Torre's field command more often than any club in the game. Steinbrenner was many things, but not even close to a man who had any intention of going gently into that good grey night.

Men of achievement and station are often the most paradoxical of men and George Steinbrenner was probably the most paradoxical of paradoxes. He made a near religion out of what Vince Lombardi was merely alleged to have said, and yet he was just as prone to reaching out to those whose losing he might himself have abetted.

Let it be for others to run down the small details and the legendary, if not always funny, antics, shenanigans, wheelings, dealings, firings, fumbles, and fustian. I have a story to tell you from your ancient history, when Steinbrenner was barely minted as the Yankees' principal owner, but already in a controversial hot seat, under suspension from baseball over illegal campaign contributions to Richard Nixon.

Technically, he couldn't so much as place an order for Charmin for the Yankee Stadium bathrooms. Realistically, there should be no question as to who was running the show even if he had personnel actually taking the action on his behalf. And with the Yankees looking as though they were finally on the way back from their lost decade (1965-74), sneaking into a second-place finish in 1974 and making a deal for outfield power-speed package Bobby Bonds, they were prime to make a big move if one presented itself to them.

One did. Oakland Athletics owner Charlie Finley reneged on a contracted salary deferral payment for his future Hall of Fame pitcher, Catfish Hunter, and Hunter took it to an arbitrator. In December 1974 — with Hunter fresh from his best major league season (a 25-12 won-lost record, a league-leading 2.49 earned run average, a league-leading 1.01 WHIP, a .229 batting average against him, and a Cy Young Award) and from shining in the postseason — Hunter won his case and his free agency: Finley was in breach of contract.

Hertford, North Carolina (Hunter's home town) and nearby Ahoskie (where his attorney had offices) became baseball's number one port-of-call in December 1975.

If you think baseball was about to send player salaries to places they hadn't gone before, here's a memory bank news flash — they'd already gone there, elsewhere. One of the upshots of the war between the National Basketball Association and the upstart, rip-roaring American Basketball Association, was to land Kareem Abdul-Jabbar a five year, $2 million deal. When the National Hockey League and the World Hockey Association skirmished, Bobby Hull looked at $2.7 million going into his bank account over 10 years to come. And one of the results of the National Football League's battle and then merger with the American Football League was that the average NFL player salary was $365,000 higher than the average major league baseball player's salary.

Yet Catfish Hunter, presented with a bidding war the like of which he probably didn't dare imagine, had only one contract demand having nothing to do with hard dollars: he wanted five years guaranteed. Exactly how much money he might have wanted he never really said.

The bidding only began at $2 million for five years, from the New York Mets, and on the same day the Mets made their offer the Boston Red Sox offered $3 million. The bidding mostly fluctuated within that range or a little higher, with the San Diego Padres — whose then-owner, Ray Kroc, wanted a baseball team his hamburger chain could be proud of — threatening to go as high as $4 million plus.

Nobody saw the Yankees in the picture except the Yankees. But they had a card to play that nobody else pondered — loyalty. The Yankees' scouting director at the time was Clyde Kluttz, a former journeyman catcher, who'd signed Hunter to the A's in the first place, maintained a friendship with the pitcher, and walked out on the A's when Finley refused to sign him to a coaching deal just long enough to let him collect a baseball pension.

On New Year's Eve morning, 1975, Kluttz and Hunter met for breakfast. Hunter by now was anxious to sign — he wanted to get a little deer hunting in before the season ended officially. Over breakfast, Kluttz asked Hunter, simply just what would it take to make him a Yankee.

Hunter's answer has been recorded: he wanted five years salary guaranteed, 15 years' deferred money, and real annuities for his children's education. And he didn't demand certain dollars, but asked, rather, whether the Yankees could do all that and at what kind of dollars? If anyone can find the napkin on which Clyde Kluttz sketched out the terms, they should send it to the Hall of Fame: $1 million as a bonus, $1 million in life insurance, $750,000 salary over five years, $500,000 for deferred money, $200,000 for legal fees just in case, and $50,000 each for the education of his children.

The total was the third-highest of the offers Hunter had received, but Hunter didn't care. If the Yankees were willing to parcel it out on the precise terms he wanted, Catfish Hunter was about to become a Yankee. (And, until his elbow and shoulder began betraying him, a very valuable one, winning 23 games in his first season in The 'Stripes.)

Think about that, ladies and gentlemen. George Steinbrenner (anyone who thinks he wasn't involved even indirectly probably thinks the St. Louis Browns won a World Series) beat Ronald McDonald for baseball's first marquee free agent and it cost him a million dollars less to do it.

Once upon a time, he was the man who threw out the first manager of the season, just about, but he would keep those men on his payroll, paying out their contracts, or rehiring them as pricey enough scouts, perhaps cynically enough to keep them around just in case he needed a new manager in, oh, a few weeks, but perhaps out of an unusual and to some bizarre notion of compassion.

He probably knew about as much about the game on the field as the average Congressman knows about organic chemistry and imposed unconscionable pressure on the men who played the game in his uniform. There were reasons why it was possible to experience misery while earning millions during some of the Steinbrenner Yankees' more extraterrestrial periods.

And Steinbrenner himself had a little Charlie Finley in him when he discovered Dave Winfield's then-record deal included a cost-of-living escalator that inflated the contract value and drove Steinbrenner to beat Winfield by any means possible, including paying for dirt from a small-time gambler once tied to Winfield's charitable foundation and getting himself a lifetime ban (of course, he was reinstated in due course) for his trouble.

(I have never forgotten the scene at Yankee Stadium on the day the news of a Steinbrenner ban was likely to break. The Yankees were hosting the Detroit Tigers. By then the Yankees were in ruins enough that Newsweek's cover showed a portrait of Steinbrenner and the headline: THE MOST HATED MAN IN BASEBALL. The news broke as the Tigers were coming up to hit early in the game, and Yankee fans littered the park with portable radios waiting for the news. Then, a small ovation began down the right field line, in the upper deck, and swelled slowly around the entire park as the first Tiger hitter stepped into the box. The Tigers had no clue. Even the Yankee players were taken aback.)

Yet those who are willing to do their homework and see the thing for what it was, as opposed to what the imagists made of it, will discover that any successes the Steinbrenner Yankees experienced, especially their mid-1990s renaissance, had less to do with big free agency signings than with talent either produced in the Yankee system or acquired by way of smart, old-fashioned horse trading.

(Which, unfortunately, reminds me of the Steinbrenner tirade that helped wreck a once-shining Yankee prospect, Ken Clay, who spent most of 1979 not knowing what his role would be, and pitching with according inconsistency, until he got strafed in a late-season start after getting an early five-run lead to work with, which sent Steinbrenner right to the ceiling, from which he delivered a classic grotesquery: He's a morning glory. That's a term we use for a horse who is great in the morning workouts, who looks beautiful but can't do it in the race. The horse spits the bit, and Ken Clay has spit the bit.)

Years later, after a little uproar when the Yankees swapped a barely-tried pitcher (Ted Lilly) for a then-coveted one (Jeff Weaver), it took a Red Sox shortstop, of all people, to put the thing in perspective. "What's the fuss about?" asked Nomar Garciaparra. "There isn't a team in baseball that couldn't have made those deals if they wanted to."

There still isn't.

Oh. By the way. Ever since Seitz torpedoed the reserve clause once and for all, in the Messersmith-McNally case one year after Catfish Hunter was awarded his free agency, baseball — the sport without the salary cap that it simply must have to restore true competitive balance, don't you know — has had better competitive balance than it ever experienced during the reserve area. Prior to 1976, 16 teams won the first 73 World Series. From 1976 to the present, 20 teams have won the past 33 World Series.

Omnipotent though you believed he thought himself to be, those were points Steinbrenner never could hammer into the game's thick skulls. Even while those thick skulls helped themselves gladly to all that Yankee luxury tax money, without half the Yankees' intention of investing it, God help them, in their team.

Steinbrenner's best was often miscomprehended or mistranslated, and his worst was often exaggerated enough. It must have been one of his most genuinely humbling experiences, in a life during which any humbling seemed quiet and away from the hurricane's eye, to know that the truth was neither bad enough nor good enough for most people.

There were exceptions. My favorite: when my Red Sox upended the Yankees so stupefyingly in 2004 (down to the last out and on the threshold of being swept out of the ALCS in four straight, then the Theft Heard 'Round the World and the four-straight pennant overthrow), there were those Yankee personnel hectoring Steinbrenner to get those unbearable Red Sox and their Nation's representatives the hell out of the sacred ballpark with their celebrating and partying.

"No," Steinbrenner is said to have replied tersely. "They earned it. Let them have their fun."

Say what you will about the man and his mythology, but that was class.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 6:04 PM | Comments (0)

World Cup Final: The Beautiful Ugly Game

As our country slowly begins to embrace a sport that continually confounds us, this 2010 World Cup did not make things any easier for us. Awful officiating calls throughout the tourney infuriated us almost as much as the refusal of FIFA to look into the same replay technology that most of our sports have already embraced.

The United States gave us a deliriously dramatic escape into the round of 16, only to succumb again to their bewildering Achilles' heel of giving up the early goal against underdog Ghana; not once, but twice when you count the early minutes of extra time. Missed offsides calls were a plenty and the most memorable moments of the knockout stages involved a hand ball and a botched penalty kick. And then there was the final.

Perhaps because it is called the beautiful game it is expected to play out as such on the grandest stage. The final between the expected Spaniards and the surprise Netherlands hardly played out as such. This caused some anger and disappointment from soccer fans at all the physical play and yellow cards accumulated by both teams, but particularly the Dutch. The chances were limited, the play was ugly, and players on both sides took turns writhing around on the pitch.

For the Netherlands, their record 9 yellow cards were all part of the game plan. They had decided their best chance to shut down Spain's explosive and artistic passing attack was to play brutish Jordan Rules-style soccer and slow the game down. Can't say that I blame them. This was a calculated risk that gave Holland the best chance to win, one that many teams in many sports in our country's history had managed with mixed success. We understand this; winning justifies all with few exceptions.

While the game's artistry suffered, what ensued was a brutally epic battle of wills fit for NFL Films, complete with sliding tackles set to dramatic violin. The coup-de-grace of such a montage would be Nigel De Jong's leaping kick directly to the chest of Spain's Xabi Alonso that somehow only warranted a yellow card from the official.

Scoring chances were few, far between, and increasingly tension wrought as the game wore on. While the Netherlands may have been the weaker team, they had the best scoring chance in regulation time; a beautiful ball from Wesley Sneijder in the 62nd minute to a streaking Arjen Robben with only the keeper Casillas to beat. Coming out to challenge the attacker, the goalkeeper dove left as the shot came to his right, scarcely deflecting off his feet and out of play. Robben would be denied again by Casillas in the 83rd minute, with help from two stingy Spanish defenders draped behind him like a cape.

Those of us who remember the World Cup Final of 1994 remember there was an emptiness to it. Sure, the goal-less drought was exciting, but when this extended all the way to the penalty-kick shootout, it sparked debate as to whether this was the right way, the fair way to determine the winner of such a grandiose competition. Not only that, but the main image worth remembering from that was Italian star Roberto Baggio's ugly miss over the crossbar that ended the match and gave Brazil the win. If something did not change in extra time, Sunday's final was heading towards that direction again.

Holland's choice to play the Bad Boys of soccer for one night finally caught up to them in the 109th minute when John Heitinga committed his second yellow-card foul of the match on Andres Iniesta. The ensuing 11 vs. 10 advantage changed the dynamic of the game's final 10 minutes of extra time in favor of Spain, with the Netherlands desperately clinging to a tie and those dreaded penalty kicks to decide things.

Yet the Spanish midfielder who drew the foul was far from done dealing damage to Holland's hopes of their first title. Seven minutes later, a fortuitous Dutch deflection of a Spanish crossing pass went to Cesc Fabregas just outside the penalty area. His ball to the right side of the box was popped up and played on a hop by Iniesta before his wicked finishing boot one hopped the ground and found the far side of the net in the 116th minute, setting off a wild Spanish celebration, only the least of which took place on the pitch. The eternal and often spiritual cry of "GOOOOAAALLL!" has never been more appropriate or more poignant.

After 115 minutes of brutal, eyesore soccer, the world finally came across the moment that made it all worthwhile; the very definition of what ESPN likes to call the "Ultimate Highlight." This lone goal was spectacular, dramatic, and truly meaningful. The shot gave Spain their first Cup and denied the Netherlands their first in their third try. It also spared us the penalty kick format and instead gave us the best ending to a World Cup Final one could ever hope for.

After 40 years, and 120-plus agonizing minutes of waiting, the euphoric fans of Spain could care less if the final was ugly. One would have to think any fan of sports that saw that moment would have to feel the same way.

Posted by Bill Hazell at 1:54 PM | Comments (2)

July 12, 2010

National League Midseason Awards

Halfway through the season, the Padres and Reds are major players, and the over-hyped Mariners are already shopping off their best players. Whether or not any of this surprises you, it's made for an interesting season so far.

Let's take a look at the best National League players at midseason:

Current National League MVP

Joey Votto

This basically comes down to two players — Votto and Albert Pujols, and quite frankly, both have plenty of merit. But with a slight edge statistically, and for leading a team with a one-game division lead over Pujols' Cardinals, Votto gets the nod. He leads the league in slugging and OPS, and has stolen seven bases. Just past the halfway point of this season, his numbers project to 41 HR, 111 RBI, and 110 runs scored. On a first-place team, those are MVP numbers.

Projected National League MVP

Albert Pujols

Call it a gut feeling, or attribute it to Pujols coming off nine consecutive seasons of at least 30 HR and 100 RBI, but in this close race, I can't see Votto getting the better of Pujols when it's all said and done. Another thing that will probably swing votes in favor of Pujols is that the Reds probably won't finish the season atop the NL Central, and if, at the end of the season, their numbers are similar and the Cardinals are in first, Pujols would be the only logical choice.

Current National League Cy Young

Josh Johnson

As a Cardinals fan, I want to go with Adam Wainwright here, and his current pace (24 wins, 2.11 ERA, and 236 strikeouts), along with the fact that he probably should have won it last year, would seem to indicate that it's his turn to finally win the award. He may very well do that when October rolls around, but right now, Johnson is better. His ERA and WHIP are both lower than Wainwright's, and with any run support, he would probably be on pace for 25 or more wins.

Projected National League Cy Young

Roy Halladay

Again, I want to go with Wainwright here, but with Halladay's seven complete games and 3 shutouts at the halfway point, he's the most logical choice to finish well. My gut says his fairly pedestrian BAA (.246) will improve in the second half of the season, and the fact that he's walked only 19 batters in 19 starts will help keep pitch counts down and increase his number of innings pitched.

Current National League Rookie of the Year

Jaime Garcia

This one is not even close. The only reasonable choice here is Garcia. He has the second-lowest ERA in baseball, and of his 17 starts, he has allowed 2 or fewer earned runs in 15 of them. If he had better run support in three of those starts, he would be on pace for over 20 wins, too. Second place so far would probably go to Buster Posey, although Jason Heyward has been decent, as well. Both are far behind Garcia at this point, however.

Projected National League Rookie of the Year

Stephen Strasburg

Why Strasburg here? For starters, his BAA (.205) is 40 points lower than Roy Halladay's, and he's on pace for somewhere in the neighborhood of 175 or more strikeouts, despite missing the start of the season in the minor leagues. Garcia is good, but Strasburg has more natural talent than any rookie I've ever seen.

Stayed tuned for the American League awards, coming later this week!

Posted by Paul Foeller at 7:07 PM | Comments (1)

Should Women Play Five Sets?

Last week, in his review of Wimbledon, Mert Ertunga proposed that the women's semifinals and final at Slams should be best-of-five sets. As you can see from the comments, I was a little apprehensive to come round to the author's way of thinking.

So, it got me thinking. Should the women play best-of-five sets?

The usual argument when advocating a switch to five sets is solely based on money. The phrase "equal play, equal pay" is often thrown into any debate about the subject. On the one hand, I would be inclined to agree with such a sentiment; however, the "equal play" part of the phrase refers only to time on the court. It neglects the hours put in off the court, the place where the vast bulk of a tennis player's work takes place.

Thankfully, and to Mert's credit, he didn't mention money in his article when suggesting the idea. He merely stated that a longer match would offer better value for money for spectators, which in some ways is true, but perhaps value for money shouldn't be measured against quantity.

Quality should really be the barometer by which we judge matches. The men's final was between Tomas Berdych and Rafael Nadal lasted over an hour longer than the women's final, yet they were both tame affairs, though I will concede the quality of the men's final did just about beat that of the women's.

My concerns stem from the fitness of the women. I have doubts as to whether the vast majority of women could last five sets. If they can't, then the quality of tennis in a fourth or fifth set could drop considerably. In which case, I'm not sure that's worth doing, especially from a spectator's point of view.

I imagine that the top female players, like Serena and Venus Williams, could probably last for five sets, but with the women's game wide-open at the moment, anybody could make the semifinals — something demonstrated very clearly at Wimbledon. There were three surprise semifinalists and I doubt all of them are fit enough to play five sets of tennis.

All of that has been said from a spectator's point of view, but from a competition point of view, then I have very few problems with a switch in a Slam's latter stages. The four Slams are the pinnacle of the sport and the fact that the format on the women's side in no way differs from that of other tournaments can detract from the prestige of the Slams.

Making the women play five sets in the semifinals and final would go some way to ensuring the very best wins. It will require greater fitness and much greater mental strength. The cream will almost certainly always rise to the top and essentially, as fans that love the game, that's what we want.

My comments on Mert's article were a little abrupt and perhaps I hadn't thought it through then, but I'm slowly coming round to the idea. I still harbor some doubts and as Mert says, it would be nice to see someone in the game seriously put the idea forth. Frankly, I get the feeling I can rest easy with my doubts for the foreseeable future, knowing the game will go on unchanged.

Posted by Luke Broadbent at 6:44 PM | Comments (4)

July 11, 2010

Fitting in the "Final Four"

The NCAA is expected to announce this week their new format for the Division I Men's tournament, as March Madness now welcomes 68 to the party. The options that have been tossed up are putting the bottom eight teams or last eight at-large teams in the tournament into play-in games, or placing a mixture of both at-large teams and automatic qualifiers.

Let's hope the NCAA chooses the second of those options.

Placing the last eight at-large teams is the most fair and logical option in this tournament. I know my friends in the SWAC would vouch for me here. Is it really fair that Arkansas Pine-Bluff wins their conference, but really "didn't" earn a bid into the Big Dance until they went to Dayton, Ohio and knocked off Winthrop (another automatic bid holder)?

Since the NCAA established the "play-in" game, the SWAC champion has been sent to Dayton five times. That sullies the traditions of what March Madness is all about. Every conference gets a team in the show. And, despite most of the smaller conferences not going deep in the tournament (save the Horizon's Butler, of course), each conference champion should be automatically eliminated from play-in game contention.

So what do you think would happen if the lowest eight seeds went into play-in games? Basically, it'd mean eight conference tournament champions would get to enjoy Dayton. No offense to Dayton, but that's not what these teams were looking forward to.

Mixing up the teams wouldn't work either. Make the tournament simple: put the true bubble teams on the hot seat. Does a team with a near .500 record in a major conference really deserve a free ride in? Let's make these teams that are clawing at the last second claw for forty more minutes.

Furthermore, the question arises as to what seed the play-in winners should earn. Since we've ruled out the bottom eight teams, we obviously can't choose the 16 seed. Most would lean towards the 12 seed, but tend to disagree on this. What did the fifth-ranked seeds ever do to get 12 seeds that are so under-ranked?

The answer? Put them in the nine slot. Make the bubble teams earn their keep. They get to play a fairly tough play-in game, take on a decent team in the next game, and then take on the top seed.

We'll see how things turn out next week. If history precedes itself, the NCAA will probably take the most controversial route. However, if they choose the right way, March Madness might have made a great move in adding those four last invites.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 11:34 AM | Comments (0)

July 9, 2010

Time to Tap Out, Cleveland

First, Brady Quinn. Now? LeBron James. It's official: Cleveland has no more stars. And their fans got exactly what they always get: a heart-wrenching defeat.

It didn't take long for the Cavs fans to turn on their savior. They were burning his jersey in the streets before his "Decision" special even finished airing. While that was unquestionably staged before, the backlash on Facebook and Twitter was intense the second he said South Beach. Every Cleveland fan had their sports heart ripped from their chest. And I loved every second of it.

That may seem harsh, but as a Cincinnatian, we've always had our differences with the beleaguered city to the north. But everyone has a choice in who they root for and Cleveland fans need to stop letting fate walk all over them. As ESPN's Bill Simmons said in a tweet after the decision, this was the ultimate "Eff You" to fans to make this decision on a one-hour live special. That is just cruel. But if you had to pick one team for this to happen to, anyone could've guessed it would be Cleveland.

It reminds me of a Sports Gospel I wrote in 2004.

The ancient Greek tragedy, "Oedipus the King," was the greatest of all plays written by the famed playwright Sophocles. In the story, Oedipus is a great king who did great things for his city. Fate, however, is against the great king. To make a long story short, Oedipus discovers that he murdered his father and his wife, who had borne him two daughters and was also his mother. Upon realizing that he was a mother-f'n murderer, he gouged his eyes out and fled the city.

This play was extremely popular back in the day, and it is still a classic book. It was wildly entertaining, and I couldn't help but laugh at the image of an eye-less Oedipus running from the city he made great. It just wasn't in the cards for him. And while the only Greek tragedies we have these days are restricted to book form, I can still enjoy the closest thing we to it have today: the Boston Red Sox.

I wrote that when Boston was down 3-0 to the Yankees in 2004. Obviously, we know how that turned out. However, we have a new Oedipus today and that is Joe Cleveland Sports Fan. Oedipus did everything right, he was a good enough guy, but fate made it so he murdered his father and enjoyed presumably steamy sexual relations with his mother. How damn cruel is that?

That's what this special was for Cleveland. If the sucktitude of the Browns and Indians was the accidental murdering of their own father, this LeBron special was the realization that they accidentally banged their mom.

I don't know how this could be worse for Cleveland fans. His move will cost that city millions of dollars and good people will lose income and some will lose their jobs. The only thing that could've been worse is if there was a TV special where the leaders of the world picked one city to annihilate with nuclear weapons and the choices were Paris, New York, Rome, and Cleveland.

How great would it be if the Browns made the Super Bowl? They could be up six points with one second left and the opposing team would somehow score a touchdown while simultaneously murdering all the puppies in Cleveland.

I don't know how anyone would still support a Cleveland franchise after this? Just tap out. Support a new team. Move to a new city. Haven't you had enough, Cleveland fans?

Get out while you still can and jump on board with a winner. We won't judge you. It's not your fault. It's fate. Just pick a new team.

That's the only way you'll be happy. The only other option is to stay loyal, which will one day result in fleeing the city while gouging your eyes out.

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 7:26 PM | Comments (6)

Sports Q&A: Russell: Elixir of the God-Awful

Former Oakland Raiders quarterback JaMarcus Russell was arrested on Monday in Mobile, Alabama, and charged with possession of codeine syrup. Is Russell's attempt at criminal behavior as weak as his attempt at NFL stardom, and does his arrest signify the next step in the downfall of the No. 1 overall pick in the 2007 NFL draft?

Let's be careful not to judge Russell too quickly, for it is entirely possible, and likely that, given his relatively clean background and millions of dollars at the ready for legal advice, Russell will make a plea and avoid a criminal charge. If that happens, then it will be official: JaMarcus Russell commits crimes like he plays football — without "conviction."

Russell was nabbed on July 5th at his home in Alabama, arrested for possession of a controlled substance. His arrest resulted from a two-month undercover operation in Mobile, as, once again, Russell fell victim to his inability to recognize "coverage."

Russell was booked and released on $2,500 bond, petty cash when you consider that he was paid over $30 million by the Raiders. And, in what had to be an embarrassing development, a bloated and out-of-shape Russell wasn't even able to be released on his own recognizance.

Russell should be ashamed of his actions. Not because possession of codeine syrup is a serious offense, but because possession of codeine syrup is not a serious offense. Yes, his arrest is disappointing, all right. But not disappointing because he did it, but disappointing because that's all he did.

Codeine possession is a serious offense, you say? Then why did Eric Clapton sing about "Cocaine" and not "Codeine?" Heck, why did Clapton do cocaine and not codeine?

If codeine is such a big deal, then why didn't Nate Newton traffic it?

Codeine is nothing more than glorified cough syrup, and can easily be obtained over-the-counter, assuming your dealer works from behind a counter. Reportedly, codeine acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, often causing impaired thinking and slowed reactions, effects eerily similar to what the Oakland draft gurus were experiencing when they made Russell the number one pick in 2007.

Russell may be the biggest bust in NFL history, but his arrest certainly doesn't amount to the biggest bust for the Mobile Police Department. Now, if this was Mayberry, I'd be impressed. But Mobile has to have bigger problems than a codeine ring. What's the Mobile P.D.'s secret name for this sting operation, "Operation Ahem?"

It would seem that Russell's arrest equates, in Mobile's eyes, to the high-profile takedown most departments aim for in such massive operations designed to take evil drugs, like codeine, off the market. But really, Russell is "high profile" not because of what he's done. It's what he hasn't done that makes him famous. And he's done nothing.

There's no doubt Russell signed a few worthless autographs for Mobile's finest at the station, and the cops probably lauded their efforts in clearing a few ounces of codeine from the streets. Sorry to burst your bubble, City of Mobile, but this arrest barely warrants news coverage.

And Russell's crime hardly deserves attention in its own right, because some NFL stars have done worse, much worse. Until Russell can step up his game and achieve true infamy, his plight lacks relevance.

In this age of gun-packing, dog-fighting, police-slugging NFL players, and the Cincinnati Bengals of yore, football fans have come to expect more from players, and that applies to criminal activity. We like our favorite, and sometimes not-so-favorite, players making that shameful perp walk to commissioner Roger Goodell's interrogation bunker, where a multiple-game suspension awaits.

Not only will Russell not get an invite to training camp this year, he won't even get an invite to Goodell's office. Not for possession of codeine syrup. If Russell is lucky, Goodell may request a doctor's note.

It's this lack of effort that cost Russell his job with the Raiders as well. Sure, Al Davis and company weren't happy with his commitment to the game, but they have to be even unhappier with his commitment to immoral behavior.

In addition, Russell's crime, or lack of it, is an affront to the Raider organization's thuggish reputation, honed by years of questionable behaviors, ranging from Ken Stabler's issues with alcohol to Sebastian Janikowski's reputation as the worst date in the NFL.

Would Stabler even have dabbled in codeine? No, not when a shot, or eight, of whiskey drowns sorrows equally as well, if not better, particularly when followed by a nice, leisurely drive. Could Stabler have pulled off his role in the famous "Holy Roller" play if he wasn't liquored up? No way. It's a given that codeine wouldn't have emboldened him with the liquid courage to do such a thing.

And when a kicker's, of all people, legal issues and perverted actions overshadow those of the quarterback, albeit a former one, something is not right in Raider Nation.

Heck, even Lester Hayes possession of Stickum was more of a "crime" than Russell's, and Stickum is street legal.

In some respects, it's hard to fault Russell for abusing codeine. I'm sure Russell enjoyed introducing himself as a former NFL quarterback, but when doing so, he experienced an overwhelming urge to "clear his throat." Codeine is a cough suppressant, so it apparently allowed Russell to refer to himself as a quarterback with a straight face.

And maybe Russell's commission of such a petty crime is not necessarily a function of stupidity, but lack of stupidity. You have to be immensely stupid to be an NFL player and try to sneak a gun into a nightclub, or an airplane, or to fund a dogfighting operation. Russell is clearly not stupid enough to commit similar offenses, nor is he bold enough. His arrest on codeine possession was a swell first effort, but to truly run with the big dogs, he'll have to do more. In essence, Russell will have to "get stoopid." In his defense, maybe that's what he was trying to do with the codeine all along.

So, where does Russell go from here? Well, he's already gone "down," so, from there, he can only go up. Obviously, his "comeback" has been momentarily derailed by codeine. That's assuming a comeback was in the works. Unless he discovered some new age, codeine-based training regimen, it doesn't appear that a comeback was a part of his immediate plans.

To begin his path on the comeback trail, Russell needs to step up his game, physically, mentally, and criminally. This entails an intense workout regimen, scouring of playbooks, and unwavering attention to the police news. As Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, Plaxico Burress, and others have shown, to truly leave an impression on the NFL, it often helps to leave an impression on the law, namely with your fingerprints.

I say to Russell: lose the codeine, find a more habit-forming drug, punch a bouncer, shoot up a strip club. Prove you have what it takes to be an NFL superstar.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 6:27 PM | Comments (1)

July 8, 2010

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 18

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kevin Harvick — Harvick slipped by Richard Childress Racing teammate Clint Bowyer with just under two laps to go, and held on to win the Coke Zero 400 at Daytona. Harvick survived multiple wrecks, including the lap 148 "Big One" that wrecked 19 cars, and, in his late race-winning pass, showed the same type of patience that earned Jimmie Johnson praise in Loudon last week. Harvick's second win of the season extended his Sprint Cup points lead, and now leads Jeff Gordon by 212.

"Calling me the best restrictor plate racer is a foregone conclusion," Harvick said. "That's a well-known fact that doesn't even need repeating. Call it a 'restrictor platitude.'"

"I've said all along that we're capable of winning the Sprint Cup. Taking our second win of the year backs that up. I promise you, the No. 29 Shell/Pennzoil Chevy car will be there in the end. Unlike BP, this petroleum company will make good on its 'claims.'"

2. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson was racing near the front late in the Coke Zero 400, but, as often is the case at Daytona, fortunes change dramatically in the span of mere seconds. The No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet was shuffled back after losing the draft, then was totaled in the lap 148 "Big One," triggered when Jeff Burton and Kurt Busch made contact on the backstretch. Johnson finished 31st, and fell one spot in the point standings to third, 225 behind Kevin Harvick.

"On this track," Johnson said, "you can go from the front to the back faster than you can say 'NASCAR writers anoint a new Sprint Cup favorite on a weekly basis.' What's the fastest-moving vehicle at a NASCAR track? The bandwagon."

"Harvick may have enjoyed a fruitful Fourth of July, but when all is said and done, I'll be enjoying a successful 'Fifth' of Jimmie."

"The 'Big One' lived up to its name this year, collecting 19 cars. Maybe it should be called the 'Big One-Nine.' Contact between Jeff Burton and Kurt Busch really caused problems for everyone. That's two weeks in a row Busch may have cost me the win. Personally, I could do without Busch. It's unfortunate when you lose the draft at Daytona, but as far as the No. 2 Miller Lite car and its beer-pushing sponsor are concerned, I'd be happy to 'lose the draft.'"

3. Jeff Gordon — With three laps to go, Gordon took the lead at Daytona, passing Clint Bowyer. But with RCR teammate Kevin Harvick lined up behind Bowyer, Gordon's lead was short-lived, as Harvick pushed Bowyer to the front a lap later. Harvick ran by Bowyer in the green-white-checkered finish, and Gordon finished third, his fourth consecutive top-five finish, claiming the second slot in the point standings.

"It was a case of simply being outnumbered," Gordon said. "The RCR cars were working extremely good together, and when they lined up, they were fast. At Daytona, the words 'freight train' described RCR's teamwork. Last year, those same words described their speed."

4. Kurt Busch — Busch finished seventh in the Coke Zero 400, surviving major roles in two big wrecks to bring his banged up No. 2 Miller Lite Vortex Dodge home for his 11th top-10 result of the year. Afterwards, Busch faced the ire of a hot-headed Carl Edwards, who accused Busch of hitting Edwards' No. 99 Subway Ford as the two battled for position on the last lap.

"No, I wasn't at all interested in discussing the matter with Edwards after the race," Busch said. "I'm Kurt Busch, for goodness sake. I've learned the hard way that, all too often, 'face-to-face' meetings become 'hand-to-face' meetings."

5. Kyle Busch — Busch was leading on lap 103, two laps from a scheduled pit stop, when the No. 18 Interstate Batteries Toyota suddenly turned right, clipping Juan Montoya's No. 42 Target Chevy and sending Busch hard into the outside wall. Busch finished 40th, and attributed the crash to old tires and an aerodynamic disturbance caused by the side draft from Montoya's car.

"I was involved in my share of wrecks at Daytona," Busch said. "I sent more cars to the garage than a rain postponement."

"You know me. I don't accept blame nearly as well as I accept praise. I really can't explain why my car turned right. Normally, when I say the No. 18 car 'drives itself,' it's a testament to its superb handling. Not in this case."

6. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin's primary car was wrecked in Friday's practice, the victim of a miscalculation by Joe Gibbs Racing teammate Kyle Busch. In a backup car, Hamlin was forced to start at the back of the field, but despite his starting position, darted through the field and took the lead on lap 75. Loose-handling conditions soon arose, and the No. 11 FedEx Toyota drifted backwards, eventually finishing 24th after suffering damage in lap 148's "Big One." He dropped one spot in the standings to fifth, 284 behind Kevin Harvick.

"I never thought Kyle's threats carried much weight," Hamlin said. "I was wrong, because after Friday's practice, I found myself saying to him, 'You're killing me.'"

"The jury is still out on whether the JGR contingent will challenge for the Sprint Cup championship. It's imperative that before we become a threat to others, Kyle and I have to learn not to be a threat to each other. Bless his heart, I think that's what Kyle had in mind at Daytona, because after picking up the pieces of the No. 18 and 11 cars, we all engaged in some 'team building' exercises."

7. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished fourth at Daytona, only his second top-five result of the year, avoiding several crashes in an attrition-filled Coke Zero 400. Earnhardt improved two spots in the Sprint Cup point standings to 11th, and is 46 points ahead of Mark Martin in 13th. Earnhardt also won Friday's Subway Jalopena 250, taking the win in the No. 3 car with the blue and yellow Wrangler paint scheme made famous by his father.

"There was magic in that car," Earnhardt said. "I don't know if it was the 'genes' or the 'jeans,' but it was remarkably fast."

"It was nice to visit Victory Lane again. Now, we've set our sights on getting there in the No. 88 Amp Chevrolet. I don't want to say I'm desperate, but right now, I'd give an arm and a leg for a win. And there are legions of members of Junior Nation willing to make that sacrifice as well. Frighteningly enough, I'm speaking literally. I call those dedicated fans the 'Amp-utators.'"

8. Jeff Burton — Contact between Burton's No. 31 Caterpillar Chevy and Kurt Busch's No. 2 Miller Lite Dodge triggered a huge pileup on lap 148, but Burton escaped major damage and went on to finish fifth at Daytona. Burton remained eighth in the point standings, and trails Kevin Harvick by 365.

"We endured our share of rough patches during the race," Burton said. "And speaking of 'rough patches,' there were no gaping holes in the Daytona surface. Whenever we're racing in Daytona, the subject of pot holes arises. At any other track, 'pot holes' would refer to inconsistencies in NASCAR's drug policy."

"I myself am in favor of expanded drug testing. Heck, I see nothing wrong with all race entrants submitting urine samples before qualifying every week. I call this the 'Field & Stream' drug policy."

9. Tony Stewart — Stewart had led twice for seven laps at Daytona before the No. 14 Burger King Chevy was collected in lap 148's "Big One," a wreck that affected 19 cars, including Stewart-Haas Racing teammate Ryan Newman's No. 39 Chevy. Stewart finished a disappointing 25th, but maintained the ninth position in the point standings, and is now 120 ahead of Mark Martin in 13th place.

"There were fireworks in Saturday night's race," Stewart said, "and we got burned. As the driver of the Burger King car, I'm royally pissed. And just look at Newman — he's not happy at all. Talk about the 'Rocket's red glare.'"

"I'm not really sure who caused the 'Big One,' Jeff Burton or Kurt Busch. Either way, it put an end to my run of four straight top-10 finishes. Still, the wreck shouldn't diminish my reputation as a driver who turns it on in the summer, nor should it harm Busch and Burton's distinction as 'fall' guys."

10. Kasey Kahne — Kahne posted his best-ever Daytona result, surviving a brush with the wall midway through the race to come home second behind Kevin Harvick. It was Kahne's second runner-up of the year, but his finish may have been overshadowed by A.J. Allmendinger's clash with Richard Petty in the Richard petty Motorsports garage area.

"That's two-straight explosions for RPM," Kahne said. "Last week at Loudon, my engine exploded. At Daytona, A.J. exploded. How dare he talk to 'The King' like that. I've heard of a 'nobody' turning into a 'somebody,' but this is a case of a 'nobody' turning on a 'somebody.'"

"I thought A.J. understood RPM protocol. You absolutely don't piss off Richard Petty. Talk about 'wee' 'The King.'"

"As for TNT's coverage of the incident, well, it was lacking. But let's give the network a little credit. They did have a camera pointed at the action. Unfortunately, the camera, like half the Daytona field, wasn't 'rolling.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)

July 7, 2010

American League All-Star Snubs and Schlubs

Also see: National League All-Star Snubs and Schlubs

I've already broken down some solutions to the National League All-Star mishaps. Fortunately the last-man voting is seemingly going to right the horrendous wrong that was the Votto omission. And that was the biggest oversight that the fans, coaches and players made. But it wasn't by that wide a margin. Another first baseman in the American League is having an elite season offensively as well.

The lack of a Kevin Youkilis is one of a handful of glaring flaws on the AL roster. Justin Morneau is deserving of his starting spot at first base, and Miguel Cabrera is a no-brainer. But stopping at one first baseman with a player as good as Youkilis out there is a mistake, especially considering his grit goes beyond batting statistics.

Throw in a closer, a breakthrough superstar, and another position player beyond Youk at his position that might be having just as good a year (and a better one than an All-Star with no position) and we have a plenty to talk about as we patch up the American League Roster while cutting the dead weight. (Same rules apply as in the NL version, with the picks keeping with the one-per-team rule and a rough adherence to the team's balance.)

In: 1B Kevin Youkilis; Out: Alex Rodriguez

Upon first glance, I was ready to dump Youk's teammate, Adrian Beltre. I figured Youk was such a great hitter that having three 1B made more sense than a third 3B. And I was right ... but not about which 3B to drop. Forget A-Rod's Hall of Fame trajectory (and the fact that I severely underrated the season Beltre was having). Look at this line and ask if you think an all-star: .272 BA, .344 OBP, 12 homers. His OPS is fourth in the AL ... among third basemen. (Michael Young has an overall better line.) He has RBIs, but that's thanks to being in a loaded Yankee lineup.

Meanwhile, Kevin Youkilis is one of the best hitters in the AL yet again. And as usual, he doesn't get his due. I'd bemoan the under-emphasis of OBP and OPS. But despite Youkilis' usual dominance in those stats (.416 and 1.002, both third in the AL), he also has 17 homers and 55 RBIs, both top-10 in the AL. And as for my use of OPS as a justifier more often than most would use it, this case makes it abundantly clear. Each of the top 11 hitters in OPS made the team — except Youkilis. He's absolutely the best hitter not on the roster, and is better than the vast majority on it. Oh, and he hustles like a mad-man and plays good defense.

In: 1B Paul Konerko; Out: DH David Ortiz

David Ortiz has had a resurgent season. Good for him. But with Youk (better numbers than Ortiz, as well) already making three first basemen, adding another while taking away a defensive player at another position could limit flexibility. Ortiz, however, is a DH, so he had better be a better hitter than anyone left off the team.

In Konerko's case, he has not been that by any measure. Konerko is having one monster walk year, with 20 homers (tied for second in the AL), 58 RBI (seventh), .948 OPS (sixth), and no one above him in any of those stats was left off the AL squad. Oh, and no one above him in any of those categories (or batting average, or runs scored) is named David Ortiz.

In: CL Rafael Soriano; Out: CL Matt Thornton

The best closer in the NL this year (Billy Wagner) didn't make it. You'd think the AL wouldn't also leave out its most dominant finisher as well. And it didn't; it left off its third most dominant. After Mariano Rivera and Jose Valverde (who've been so oppressive to hitters they are being investigated for crimes against humanity) no closer in the AL has come close to Soriano's numbers (22 saves, 1.42 ERA, 0.76 WHIP). He's also the only closer in baseball with over 20 chances that has only one blown save. Hitters haven't been able to touch him (.170 BAA, .210 OBP against). With all due respect to all-star Neftali Feliz: Rivera, Valverde, and Soriano have stood alone as the triumvirate ruling ninth innings in the AL.

Thornton, meanwhile, has been a nice reliever for the White Sox, but by no means dominant. As I've said, there can be arguments for setup men in the All-Star Game. But here's the main problem with middle relievers; if they were that dominant, they'd be closers. If they had more pitches, they'd be a starter. They are what they are precisely because they're not good enough to fill the more pivotal roles. If the White Sox thought he was better than Bobby Jenks (not an all-star), then Bobby Jenks would be in the setup roll.

In: SP Jered Weaver; Out: SP Phil Hughes

Seventh in ERA. Second in WHIP. First in Strikeouts. Second-best opponent OBP, fourth-best opponent batting average. But Weaver, whose team will play hosts to the All-Star Game, can't find a spot despite his iron-clad number (8-3, 2.82, 1.06, 126 Ks in 108.2 innings). Meanwhile, Hughes has an ERA a run higher (3.83) and can't touch a single one of Weaver's other numbers. But he's won 10 games! (Thanks to that potent Yankee offense.)

In: SP Felix Hernandez;Out: SP CC Sabathia

Another Yankee pitcher gets the benefit of a win total, plus cache. But King Felix is no anonymous upstart, either. (Appologies to Jeff Niemann, whose ERA and WHIP are better than both these pitchers, but we'll get to that.) Hernandez surrenders about a third of a run fewer per nine innings than Sabathia, a near-identical WHIP, Neimman, Andy Pettitte, and Colby Lewis have pretty strong beefs to go over Sabathia. All of them would go over Fausto Carmona if the Indians didn't need a representative. (If ShIn-Soo Choo doesn't get hurt, an offensive player would be taking that hit.)

But while you could go in any direction depending on which stats you emphasize, I fall back on King Felix being the King of the Workhorse. He leads the league in innings. And that means his work not only helps a team win that game, but reduces strain on the bullpen. It also doesn't do wonders for your own stats to pitch more of your innings tired.

In: OF Brennan Boesch; Out: Remaining last man vote candidates

The astute reader noticed that while Joey Votto made the last man vote as his basis for entry in my NL article, my best hitter not on the roster award knocked out A-Rod. This left me a slot to play with position-wise; I didn't want to replace an infielder with an outfielder. And it was an incredibly tough choice as to who the additional player would be. Brett Gardner has been a spark-plug atop the Yankee lineup, getting on base (.416 OBP) and wreaking havoc once there (25-for-28 on steal attempts). Maglio Ordonez is hitting .315 with 10 homers and 51 RBIs, which would be impressive if Nick Swisher wasn't a few OPS points and homers ahead.

And I was all ready to give the nod over them to Alex Rios. The OPS is about 20-30 points lower than the last two mentioned. And Gardner has more steals and a higher percentage. But Rios has done it all on a lineup that struggled in the early going. His 22 steals are still in the top 10 in the AL (and only Ichiro, Crawford, and Gardner have more among legitimate all-star candidates). He has hit 13 homers. He is on pace to best 90 runs and 90 RBIs. He's been a complete player.

But the one that truly stands out is Boesch. Yes, yes. He doesn't even qualify to lead in average stats because he doesn't have enough plate appearances. So what? He's a whole 6.1 appearances short; he'll probably qualify within a week or so. And that he didn't start the year in the bigs wasn't his fault. What is his fault is that he's hitting .342 (second in the majors), has as many homers as A-Rod in far fewer at-bats, and his .997 OPS (sixth in the majors) is better than Albert Pujols.

He's already accomplished far more than any players had when the fan voting started in, what was it, early May? Even if he hit .200 for the next few weeks, his first 80 games would still be more productive overall than a lot of the players selected. So while Strasburg is out because he's only faced major league pitching for a month, Boesch is different. He gets called up a few games earlier, he's already qualified to almost lead the majors in batting average.

And more importantly for this article, he's exactly the type of guy that needs this kind of talk and recognition for having one of the best first halves in baseball. Even if you don't see him in Anaheim.

Posted by Kyle Jahner at 6:23 PM | Comments (0)

The Defeat of Fëdor and July 2010 UFC Rankings

The mixed martial arts world has seen a serious shakeup in the heavyweight division recently. Alistair Overeem defended the Strikeforce belt in extraordinarily impressive fashion. The unbeatable Fëdor Emelianenko was beaten. Junior Dos Santos' 2008 victory over Fabricio Werdum looks more impressive than ever. Cain Velasquez looks like he has the tools to do what Shane Carwin couldn't. For the first time in years, the top of the heavyweight division is a matter of widespread, legitimate debate, possibly the most intriguing weight class in MMA.

Unfortunately, part of the reason it's intriguing is that the best fighters are spread over multiple organizations. Despite the UFC's repeated assertions this weekend that Brock Lesnar is now officially "the baddest man on the planet" — and holy hell, Mike Goldberg, if you say that one more time I will fly to Las Vegas and fight you myself — there's still a great deal of debate on that topic. Most official rankings will probably put Lesnar number one, but a plurality is not the same as a consensus, and many fans and analysts prefer Overeem, Velasquez, or even Emelianenko.

The Last Emperor is widely considered the greatest fighter in the history of the sport, a long-undefeated champion who beat the best fighters in the world, including Mirko Cro Cop, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, Tim Sylvia, and Andrei Arlovski. In recent months, though, Emelianenko's management has seemed reluctant to let him fight top competition, and against Werdum last month, he made a rookie mistake, going to the ground with a world-class submissions expert who wouldn't have been able to hang with him standing. Werdum locked up a triangle and armbar that Fëdor couldn't escape, and just like that, the invincible champion was defeated.

For the first four minutes of the UFC's heavyweight unification bout on Saturday night, it looked like Lesnar was in for an even uglier loss. Carwin beat him up standing, and Lesnar simply covered up as Carwin transitioned to heavy-handed ground-and-pound. By the end of the round, however, it was obvious that Carwin — who had never failed to finish an opponent before the end of the first round — was out of gas. The second round was nearly a formality, as Lesnar easily took Carwin to the ground, locked on an arm triangle, and cranked until he elicited a tap.

Next for Lesnar is a matchup with 8-0 Cain Velasquez, whose skill set is similar to Carwin's and should give the champ cause for worry. Velasquez is a talented wrestler who won't let Brock into top position easily, and who easily outclasses him on the feet, though his power is less devastating than Carwin's. Where Velasquez has the advantage over the previous challenger is cardio; Velasquez's is not in question. It's a fight fans are already salivating to see. We're also holding out hope, though, that eventually Overeem and Emelianenko will test their skills against the best the UFC has to offer.

Other Fights and July UFC Rankings

The heavyweights weren't the only ones on Saturday's card. The televised portion of UFC 116 got off to a terrific start with a fast-paced contest between Ricardo Romero and Kimbo-slayer Seth Petruzelli. Brendan Schaub quickly knocked out Lesnar teammate Chris Tuchscherer, and Gerald Harris picked up Knockout of the Night honors for using a powerful slam to KO Dave Branch, while lightweight contender George Sotiropoulos earned a unanimous decision over Kurt Pellegrino and Chris Lytle submitted Matt Brown in a surprisingly slow-paced affair that actually drew some boos from the crowd.

Twin "Fight of the Night" honors went to a pair of TUF Season One veterans, Chris Leben and Stephan Bonnar. Leben, a late replacement for Wanderlei Silva, choked out Yoshihiro Akiyama in the third round to earn his third straight victory. Ten months ago, fans were writing Leben off following a second straight loss, but now he has two strong wins in a row and is on the periphery of the middleweight title picture.

The bout that really warmed my heart, though, was the rematch between Krzysztof Soszynski and Bonnar, whose first fight ended prematurely when an accidental head butt led to a doctor's stoppage. Bonnar is an easy guy to root for, while Krzysztof is overrated and one-dimensional (two if you count Kimuras as a dimension) and wasn't terribly likable on The Ultimate Fighter. Their first round had the crowd on its feet, with both fighters landing damaging strikes, but Bonnar simply wouldn't give up, showing the same fortitude that earned him so many fans in his fights with Forrest Griffin, and he eventually finished off Soszynski with relentless ground and pound. It was a huge victory for a guy who's had more downs than ups to his career in recent years.

The rankings below are exclusively for the UFC, so you won't see names like Overeem or Gilbert Melendez on these lists.

Heavyweight (206-265 lbs)

1. Brock Lesnar
2. Cain Velasquez
3. Junior Dos Santos
4. Roy Nelson
5. Shane Carwin
6. Frank Mir
7. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira
8. Ben Rothwell
9. Mirko Filipovic
10. Cheick Kongo

Make It Happen: Nogueira vs. Filipovic

They fought once before, in 2003, with Nogueira winning by armbar. Cro Cop has openly expressed interest in this fight, and it makes sense for Big Nog, too, as a way to test whether he's still an elite heavyweight. Filipovic has spoken publicly about the possibility of retirement, and this fight could delay that. It's a win for all parties, including the fans. Make it happen, Joe Silva.

Thank You, UFC, for: Dos Santos vs. Nelson

I am very excited for this. The winner should get a title shot.

Light Heavyweight (186-205)

1. Mauricio "Shogun" Rua
2. Lyoto Machida
3. Rashad Evans
4. Quinton "Rampage" Jackson
5. Antonio Rogerio Nogueira
6. Jon Jones
7. Thiago Silva
8. Ryan Bader
9. Forrest Griffin
10. Rich Franklin

Make It Happen: Griffin vs. Franklin

Honestly, this division is the top three, and everyone else. Jackson has become frustratingly one-dimensional, and looked painfully slow in his loss against Evans. Nogueira was not impressive in his controversial win over Jason Brilz. Griffin has lost two of his last three, and won a split decision over washed-up Tito Ortiz in the other. Franklin came back from a broken arm to finish Chuck Liddell at UFC 115, and the company should reward him with a fight that could put him in title contention.

Thank You, UFC, for: Randy Couture vs. James Toney

This contest is likely to be at a catchweight rather than at 205, because Toney can't stop eating. This figures to be a rude introduction to MMA for the former boxing champion.

Middleweight (171-185)

1. Anderson Silva
2. Chael Sonnen
3. Yushin Okami
4. Vitor Belfort
5. Nate Marquardt
6. Demian Maia
7. Wanderlei Silva
8. Alan Belcher
9. Michael Bisping
10. Chris Leben

Make It Happen: Wanderlei Silva vs. Leben

Leben asked for this fight, and Wandy won't turn anyone down. This has Fight of the Night written all over it, or at least "entertaining slugfest." Great idea, Crippler.

Thank You, UFC, for: Maia vs. Belcher

This fight is not official yet, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm looking forward to it.

Welterweight (156-170)

1. Georges St-Pierre
2. Jon Fitch
3. Thiago Alves
4. Josh Koscheck
5. Dan Hardy
6. Martin Kampmann
7. Paulo Thiago
8. Matt Hughes
9. Dong Hyun Kim
10. John Hathaway

Make It Happen: Jake Shields vs. winner of Alves/Fitch

Shields isn't technically with the organization yet, but everyone expects that he'll sign with them sooner rather than later. Once he does, Shields should be considered an immediate title contender in both the middleweight and welterweight divisions. If he opens at welterweight, this is the fight he should get. If Shields starts at 185, Kampmann is probably the obvious choice to take on the winner of Alves/Fitch.

Thank You, UFC, for: Hughes vs. Ricardo Almeida

Hughes has been fighting a pretty light schedule, with only three fights in the last three years. This not only gets him into the Octagon, it pairs him up with a legit opponent for the first time since UFC 85, and gives Almeida a chance to work his way up in the division by defeating a legend.

Lightweight (146-155)

1. B.J. Penn
2. Frankie Edgar
3. Kenny Florian
4. Gray Maynard
5. George Sotiropoulos
6. Evan Dunham
7. Tyson Griffin
8. Jim Miller
9. Joe Stevenson
10. Takanori Gomi

Make It Happen: Sotiropoulos vs. Sean Sherk

Sherk isn't ranked here because he hasn't fought in over a year and isn't scheduled to do so any time soon. If he ever gets back into action, he's presumably top-10, and a natural opponent for Sotiropoulos as the Aussie positions himself for a title shot.

Thank You, UFC, for: Florian vs. Maynard

The top contender fight that had to happen. Match-making in MMA isn't perfect, but it's light years ahead of boxing, and a major reason that MMA is the world's fastest-growing sport, while boxing retains only a shadow of its former popularity. In mixed martial arts, the fights that need to happen usually do, and this fight needs to happen. UFC 118 has a very, very exciting lineup.

Before that card, though, the UFC has two more major events coming up. The cleverly titled UFC on Versus 2 goes down at the beginning of the August, and less than a week later, Anderson Silva will bore fans out of their minds by dancing around Chael Sonnen for 25 minutes. The Versus event features three fights with important ramifications in their respective divisions. The headlining fight pits fast-rising Jon Jones against veteran Vladimir Matyushenko, whose 24-4 record and three-fight win streak belie his less-than-flattering nickname, The Janitor. Jones is a heavy favorite (-600), but the UFC is right to bring him along gradually. A win, however, should earn Jones a shot against the top contenders in the division.

The card also features Okami against standout wrestler Mark Muñoz, who is coming off an impressive TKO victory over Kendall Grove. Okami (-200), who hasn't lost to anyone but Sonnen in the last three years, should be fighting established contenders rather than prospects. Nonetheless, a win should put him into a top contenders' fight, while an upset would vault Muñoz into the top 10 at 185. Rounding out the Versus card's primary attractions, Tyson Griffin (-290) steps in for the injured Joe Stevenson to take on Japanese superstar Takanori Gomi (+230) in a matchup of talented lightweights coming off losses. The smart money is on the favorites, but if you really need to pick an upset, go with Muñoz. Don't bet against Jones unless you're the type whose thrill-seeking involves major risks, like Russian Roulette, or invading Austria.

The next weekend, UFC 117 goes down in Oakland. The title fight matches Anderson Silva (-450), who hasn't tried to win a fight in several years, against shameless self-promoter and moderately unbalanced loudmouth Chael Sonnen (+300). Silva won't engage his opponents, and Sonnen is a one-dimensional wrestler. I don't know which of them to root against harder.

More interesting bouts include the Alves/Fitch rematch, which pretty clearly establishes the best welterweight this side of Georges St-Pierre. Alves is a very slight favorite, but it's basically a pick-em, and Fitch won their first meeting. The other big fights are Hughes/Almeida, which could position Hughes for one last run at glory if he wants to pursue it, and Junior Dos Santos vs. Roy Nelson. JDS (-355) is a substantial favorite, but Nelson (+285) has no obvious holes in his game. He has size, cardio, knockout power, and a truly exceptional grappling game. Dos Santos is a fantastic striker, and he has a brown belt from the Nogueira brothers, so he's no slouch on the ground, but I think Nelson poses him a real threat. This is my favorite fight on the card. I'd take Dos Santos straight up, but at those odds, I'll put a few dollars on Nelson. Uh, recreationally.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:46 PM | Comments (0)

July 6, 2010

And to Dust They Shall Return

NBA free agency opened last Thursday morning to a sold-out show in downtown Cleveland. The attraction, of course, was LeBron James, whose free agency has been the most celebrated in the history of professional sports. James was holding court at the headquarters of LRMR, his very own marketing firm, and suitors looking to woo him to lands well beyond the stench of the rubber plants of Akron came out in force. For perhaps one last time, the King made Cleveland his stage, let her soak some collateral limelight before he releases her into an anonymity as enveloping as the black of Lake Erie.

While Amare Stoudemire flew to New York before signing with the Knicks on Monday, and Dwyane Wade has twice visited Bulls brass in Chicago, James has made the field come to him. Cavs GM Chris Grant says he thinks it "pretty incredible" that LeBron would honor their mutual home by holding meetings there and essentially bringing the competition to his doorstep. Right, and Whoopi Goldberg's character Celie in The Color Purple must have thought it pretty incredible that Albert honored their home by bringing his mistress, Shug, to her doorstep. Throughout the weekend, James paraded one concubine after another under their roof with nary a disparaging tongue. Even his 10-story likeness down the street looked the other way.

In the movies, Celie felt like Albert was going to the toilet on her. In real life, Clevelanders are thankful for the shower. At least Celie got a ring on her finger out of the deal, which is more than Grant will ever see.

James' choice of venue did give his hometown one advantage. Hundreds of fans formed a tunnel along East 9th Street to cheer him on his commute into the office, and to boo the Chicago Bulls contingent that followed him there on Saturday. Hey, if you can't watch a championship parade rolling down your streets, forming a fan tunnel to beg your biggest sports icon not to desert you is the next best thing.

Then, there's the vaudeville act James brought into the city, which yielded entertainment dividends right from the start. Every guy loves a good cat fight, and NBA fans are no exception. The soon-enough-to-be Brooklyn Nets, who aren't moving into town for another two years, are already ruffling Knick feathers and for a brief moment on Thursday, they were the frontrunners to steal off with LeBron. But the Knicks got the upper hand — over the Nets, at least — when they landed more face time with the King, leaving Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov a jilted lover stewing under his ushanka.

For seven years, James and Cleveland were a storybook tale, one not told since the days when NBA teams possessed territorial rights to stars playing in the shadows of their arena. For an Akron kid, jumping right out of the high school ranks and onto the hometown Cavaliers was a long shot. Draft chips just don't fall that way. They didn't for Larry Bird and the Pacers, or Magic Johnson and the Pistons, or Kobe Bryant and the 76ers. Chance and bad timing conspired against those unions, but not against LeBron and the Cavaliers.

This week, that story may end a few chapters too soon.

That's because LeBron is all about championships. The sight of him wearing a Yankees cap at Progressive Field should have put Cleveland on notice of that. And he wants not one, but multiple championships. That's what will give him overseas branding on par with Kobe Bryant and make up for anything now lost at the negotiating table. The problem is, Cleveland hasn't won a title of any variety since 1964. Like Blag Flag to midges, the city repels championships and that rules them out.

Of course, James already reached that conclusion during this year's Eastern Conference semis. Apologists will point to his elbow or the Celtics' defense or his lack of a supporting cast, but the King turtled up in the final three games, going 18-of-53 from the floor and averaging 21.3 points, a marked deterioration from the 32 he averaged over the Cavs' first eight postseason games. At the final horn, he couldn't peel his uniform off faster.

The city that has lost title hopes at the buzzer, at the goal line, and in the bottom of the 11th, is now on the threshold of losing one to free agency. And this is not like Manny Ramirez, who left town for $160 million. NBA salary cap rules give Cleveland a distinct upper hand over the rest of the pack. For such a misfortunate city, the timing couldn't be worse for the first professional superstar to pass up $30 million in the name of winning.

James' decision will come as soon as tomorrow when he concludes his skills camp in Akron. In the meantime, Clevelanders may be living their final week of relevance for a long time. It's one last week of murals and fan tunnels and inbound Gulfstreams, courtesy of the King.

Consider it one last bone tossed at Cleveland's feet, and given the way James has had with them recently, they may be safer kicking it into next week when he's gone before picking it up.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 6:45 PM | Comments (0)

National League All-Star Snubs and Schlubs

Every year, we do this. We all know the MLB all-star selection system is inequitable and unfair. We all know players got snubbed. So why write yet another article griping about it?

Here's why: the debate is important. It shakes fans out of the tunnel vision that can result in them missing emerging players having phenomenal seasons. Even if they don't make the roster, the Joey Votto's of the world get recognition they would have never gotten without the All-Star Game.

I play fantasy baseball. I know who Joey Votto is. I know he's a great up-and-coming hitter. But it somehow escaped me that he was having perhaps the best offensive season in the National League. Top OPS in the Albert Pujols-inclusive National League. Top-three in slugging, OBP, HR, and RBI. Top-five in runs and average. On the negative side, he is tied for 11th among NL first basemen in kittens saved from trees, and hasn't cured a major disease all year. But aside from that, his record is unassailable.

Of course, I don't feel bad about not knowing the extent of Votto's excellence because apparently neither did the fans, players, or even NL manager Charlie Manuel, all of whom had a chance to give Votto his due. Never have I seen a player this dominant offensively left off an all-star team entirely. (Of course, if the last-man vote goes as it should, he won't be left out.)

But at least we are talking about him. And at least we are talking about some of the other snubs having great seasons. So here's a rundown of players that should be in, and equally important, who should be left out. It's easy to list off players having good seasons. But we are looking for 34 all-stars. It's supposed to be difficult to make this team; those calling for more spots would merely dilute it further, and we'd have more John Bucks on the squad, and more players not getting to actually play.

So we stick to the one-for-one basis, for each guy I say should go in, we need to find whose spot he deserved, starting with the National League.

(Assumptions: must keep with one-player-per-team rule, which I like, and that the key is making the team. Who starts is immaterial when compared with making sure the most deserving players are at least rewarded with a trip to the All-Star Game.)

In: 1B Joey Votto; Out: Other last man vote candidates

This one doesn't even merit further conversation. Votto could conceivably win the MVP if he duplicates his first half. If he's left out, the All-Star Game should feel empty to us all. I didn't even look to see who else was on the ballot.

In: OF Josh Willingham; Out: OF Matt Holliday

Matt Holliday is a great hitter. He gets on base, has power, and drives in runs. But Josh Willingham simply cannot be left off this team. Aside from a slight short in batting average, Willingham has Holliday beat in most major statistics. And he's done it without the help of Albert Pujols hitting next to him in the order. Pujols, by the way, is the only NL player to match Willingham's .413 OBP. Oh, and just for kicks, Willingham has also stolen seven bases without being caught.

In: CL Billy Wagner; Out: CL Matt Capps

Now that Willingham is on the roster, we can jettison Washington's token mediocre closer. Capps may be second in the league in saves, but that's a function of opportunity, not skill. Wagner has been scored on in only four appearances. His 1.35 ERA, 0.98 WHIP, .165 opponents average, and 52 strikeouts in just 33.1 innings all scream best closer in the NL, not all-star snub. Meanwhile, Capps has what for a closer is a poor ERA (3.19) and even more shaky WHIP (1.39). Hardly a beacon of dominance.

In: OF Colby Rasmus; Out:OF Jason Heyward

I'm okay with Stephen Strasburg not making it. But the Rookie Hype Machine did strike the fan voting in the case of Heyward. I love the kid, and he's got a great future. But the future of Colby Rasmus is right now, a time where he has Heyward beat in average (.278-.251), homers (16-11), OPS (.916-.821), and steals (9-5). Comparable RBI, runs, and OBP leave little argument; Rasmus has outperformed Heyward. And while Holliday gets help for hitting next to Pujols, Rasmus often hits down the order from the fastball/baserunner generator (depending on if you are hitting in front of or behind him).

In: 3B Ryan Zimmerman; Out: INF Omar Infante

Infante is a nice utility guy that plays multiple positions and is hitting over .300. He's also logged just 165 at bats in 57 games, has no power, and isn't a threat to steal (3-for-5). He's like a more boring Placido Polanco. Meanwhile, it again just doesn't pay to be a National. Zimmerman's 14 homers and .376 OBP have him a clear-cut third behind all-stars David Wright and Scott Rolen. I understand why a utility guy like Infante is useful with just one second baseman and one shortstop on the bench. But this is an AL park. There aren't going to be a bunch of double switches. Another thumper like Zimmerman will be much more useful than Infante. Not to mention more exciting and more deserving.

In: SP Roy Oswalt; Out: RP Evan Meek

I have no problem with getting great setup men on the team. Dominant ones have an underrated value, and they can help an all-star team win by taking their usual role rather than having a closer come into an unfamiliar role. That's why I left Arthur Rhodes, and I chose him because he's the only lefty reliever. Meek's having a great season. But Oswalt is a great pitcher who has deserved better this year. His 5-10 record includes seven losses in which he gave up three runs or less. Nine times in 17 starts, his team has scored two or fewer runs. Meanwhile, Oswalt has struck out 104 hitters in 111 innings, kept a 3.32 ERA and 1.11 WHIP. Give the guy a break. He's been too good for too long to be left off for a setup man having a nice year.

In: OF Andrew McCutchen; Out: OF Michael Bourn

More importantly, Oswalt's inclusion allows us to take out Bourn's token bid and include a Pirate with a lot more cache and talent than Evan Meek. McCutchen is Bourn with actual elite hitting skills. Bourn has five more steals, but has no power and doesn't get on base particularly often (.336), limiting his value. There's a 140-point OPS gap between the two. If a Pirate should make it, it should be its most productive player, especially when he's also the organization's most exciting young talent.

In: CL Carlos Marmol; Out: CL Brian Wilson

I'll be honest. This is a slight downgrade. But Marmol is downright unhittable (.152 average against), and has a better WHIP than Wilson along with a comparable low-twos ERA. If you need the bases-jamed-with-less-than-two-out strikeout, Marmol can get it (69 strikeouts in 38 innings). He just might walk the guy, too (27 free passes). But again, with just three blown saves in the paltry 18 chances he's been given by the Cubs, you don't lose that much in reliability, consistent as Wilson has been (22 saves in 24 chances).

In: 1B Prince Fielder; Out: OF Marlon Byrd

This is why we shoved Marmol through; it's always helpful to get a masher like Fielder the nod (a very slight one over Adam Dunn). The offensive outputs of Byrd and Fielder don't even compare, so I won't even bother listing them. The main argument against this Byrd/Wilson for Fielder/Marmol trade would have to be an OF/1B balance. Yes, there will be five first basemen with Votto voted in at the top, and three on the squad. Except that, as mentioned, this game is at an AL park. In theory (5 at-bats per slot), there are going to be 10 at-bats to distribute to first basemen and DHs. There will be 15 for OF. So what's the big deal with having a total of seven OF and five 1B? Is that really disproportional at all? The ratios are actually the same, right? Why not take the best hitters you can find?

In: Mat Latos; Out: Tim Lincecum

Wait, I'm dropping who from the team? You read right. Look at the numbers. I get why a Lincecum got the nod over a Latos. Reputation. Pedigree. Cy Young awards. Both of these last two picks are ones where you could argue that the established pitcher should get a benefit of the doubt. But Latos' numbers are simply better. ERA? Advantage Latos, 2.62 to 3.28. That's a big gap. WHIP? Bigger gap, with Latos' dominant 0.96 lapping the Cy-winner's pedestrian 1.30.

For whatever reason, Lincecum hasn't been as dominant, despite sporting a higher strikeout rate than Latos. But with more wins and significantly fewer runs and baserunners allowed, Latos has been the better pitcher. Unless admittance to the All-Star Game is a popularity contest rather than a slot that can be earned with a great season. Which some would argue is the case.

In: Jaime Garcia; Out: Chris Carpenter

It's a pretty remarkable statement of what kind of pitching there's been in the NL that guys like Carpenter and Lincecum have had good first halves, and I'm booting both. But again, this is a case of my belief that the better season gets credit over reputation if the difference is clear-cut. Yes, if you gave me even odds on who would be better over the next half, I'd say Carpenter.

But his teammate, Garcia, has the second best ERA in baseball at 2.10, better than Ubaldo Jimenez. His WHIP (1.22), K/9 (7.35), opponents BA (.220), and pretty much all of his other numbers are rock-solid. If he had the hype of Strasburg coming into the season he'd have been on this team before you could say Yovani Gallardo. But instead he remains an obscure afterthought no one could find a slot for.

Carpenter has been fine, although, like Lincecum, not his usual dominant self. He has an ERA over a run higher than Garcia's. He gets workhorse credit for more innings pitched, and posts more dominant strikeout numbers. And it might border on nitpicking in this case. But I consider stature a tie-breaker at best, and with the ERA gap this one wasn't a tie.

Check back later this week for the American League version!

Posted by Kyle Jahner at 6:23 PM | Comments (0)

July 5, 2010

Reflections on Wimbledon 2010

Wimbledon concluded with dominating performances in the finals by Serena Williams and Rafael Nadal, both seemingly a level above everyone else in their respective fields. As impressive as they were at the end of the two weeks, Wimbledon 2010 will be remembered as one of the most remarkable Slam tournaments ever in its entirety. I don't remember the last time I was entertained this much by a Slam tournament for its total duration.

Enough has already been written about the record-shattering match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut, but what was not written so much is the fact that prior to playing the longest match (by a leg and an arm) in the history of the game, Mahut had to qualify just to play against Isner. Mahut accomplished that by winning a second-round qualifying match that went 24-22 in the third and final set, followed by a last round qualifying match in which he had to come back from two sets down to win in five sets.

Considering that he was fresher than Isner despite ending up on the losing end of the first round main draw marathon match that finished 70-68 in the fifth set, can we logically conclude that Mahut is most fit player on the tour? At least we can comfortably say that Isner distinguished himself by being the headline on every news agency in the world, by being on David Letterman, and by becoming an important name in the history of the game — not bad for a second-round loser.

That match overshadowed another "far out there" five-set fact during the first week: there were a total of 27 matches that went to the fifth set; moreover, eight of them were comebacks by players who won in five sets, coming back from two sets down. The top three seeds were all involved in five-set matches. Anyone with plenty of time on their hands should look back and see that many of the matches that went to fifth set just in the first week of the tournament were two-sets-down comebacks. I am willing to bet that those numbers, especially the amount of comebacks, are pushing the limits of records, if not second to none in the Open era.

On the other hand, after having three years in a row of spectacular matches going to the fifth set in the men's finals, we had a straight-set final and two straight-sets semifinals. However, can anyone who has witnessed Nadal's two performances in the semifinal against Andy Murray and in the final against Tomas Berdych think anything other than "spectacular?" Okay, maybe "inhuman" or "machine-like?"

I wonder if Justine Henin regrets her comeback decision. Never mind that she has had results that were surely below her expectations, but an injury that forces her to withdraw from a lucrative exhibition match and from the last Slam tournament of the year must be downright annoying for her camp. She should get ready to face the repetitive question, "Are you where you aimed to be when you began your comeback?" Usually when journalists ask that question it is because the player in question is not yet there.

Interestingly, not too many people asked what happened to the two women's finalists from two weeks ago at Roland Garros. Perhaps it was because the two ladies did what most expected: go out in the first week. They took it a step further and left the tournament after the first round.

For the sake of absurdity, let's throw in the two side notes that Novak Djokovic appeared in warm-up suit to meet the Queen of England and that there were zero rain delays during the whole tournament. In fact, the roof has not seen much use since it was added to the Centre Court, but it's nice to know that the option is there and to speculate tongue-in-cheek that had it not been there, the tournament would have seen plenty of rain delays. Anyone remember Robin Soderling vs. Nadal in 2007?

I wish some of the top figures in tennis would throw out there the idea of extending the women's semifinals and finals matches to best-of-five sets. Men's finals have been overshadowing women's finals for several years now, and this year was no exception. Although Serena would have probably won another set against Vera Zvonareva and still triumph in straight sets, the difference in the value of the ticket between the men's finals match that went three straight sets and the ladies' match that went two straight sets is quite wide. While the crowd that watched Williams beat Zvonareva on Saturday may have left the court after little over an hour feeling hungry for more tennis, Sunday's crowd may feel satisfied despite witnessing a straight-set finals match.

But since Nadal was the one to close the curtain at the end of the two weeks, let us finish with a reflection on the number one men's player in the world. I maintain that Soderling, Murray, and Berdych could not have played better against Nadal in the last three matches. Let's keep in mind that these are three players who have given trouble to Nadal in the past. They serve big, they can hit big flat shots, and have shown in the past that they can keep Nadal off-balance when their games are ticking. Yet they managed to win a total of one set.

Outside of the first set against Soderling, Nadal was extremely dominant, although he served fewer aces than all three of his opponents and hit fewer winners than two of them (only two more than Berdych in the finals). Somehow he managed make it look like he was hitting more winners by a large margin. But one statistic stood above all, and perhaps tells the tale of Nadal's successful career so far: he converted 63 percent of his break-point chances, while his three opponents remained at 28 percent on their break chances. Simply put, Nadal is consistently the better player on the tennis court when the big points arrive.

The last Slam of the year will play a major role in 2010's verdicts. For the first time ever, Rafael Nadal should be the overwhelming favorite going into the U.S. Open, despite never having won the title. Last year's winner, Juan Martin Del Potro, will not be there, but the forms of Nadal, Berdych, Soderling, and Murray, coupled with question marks surrounding Roger Federer, Andy Roddick, and Djokovic are enough to make a tennis fan wish that U.S. Open was not two months away.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 12:22 PM | Comments (7)

Luis Suarez's World Cup Handball

The quarterfinal World Cup match between Ghana and Uruguay was one of the most exciting, yet frustrating soccer matches, nay, sporting event of any kind, I have ever seen.

After 90 minutes, the score was tied 1-1. Toward the end of the 30 minutes of extra time, truly with seconds left before a shootout would begin, with the score still tied at 1-1, Ghana was threatening.

Uruguay's goaltender got out of position and Uruguay forward Luis Suarez found himself as the last line of defense as a ball was flying just out of the reach of his head or feet and so Suarez committed a foul, handball. He reached out and swatted the ball away denying a goal that would have surely gone in had he not intervened illegally.

Suarez was rightly awarded an immediate red card and went to the sidelines in tears. Ghana forward Asamoah Gyan failed to connect on the ensuing penalty kick, hitting the crossbar. Extra time expired and despite Gyan's courage to take the first shootout attempt for Ghana and succeed this time, Ghana lost the shootout 4-2 and Uruguay advanced to the semifinals to meet the Netherlands.

As I watched this unfold, I could not help but think it to be completely unfair. I have no loyalty to either team. I have no grudge against either team. My only bias being I truly would have liked to see an African team in the semifinal and Ghana was the only hope once the round of 16 had begun.

I will admit I did not know the rules at the time. I honestly thought the goal would simply be awarded, seeing as the ball would have gone in without the foul occurring and initially was yelling at my TV whenever Suarez's melodramatic face appeared, cursing him for being a cheater.

As I've looked more thoroughly at the rules and the specific situation Suarez was in, I have come to a few conclusions:

1. Though it greatly pains me to say it, as the rules are written, Suarez did the right thing. However vile, however despicable it may seem to anybody, he did the right thing to give his team a chance to win the game.

2. According to the rules, the refs did the right thing. That is one thing I truly take comfort in. As poor as the refs have been this World Cup, they got this one right.

3. After receiving the red card, Suarez was disqualified from playing in the next match. FIFA met to decide how long his suspension should be and I do believe the one-game suspension he received is the right amount. The only reason I would consider a two-game suspension is honestly for the player's own safety. I don't think Ghana fans will be a problem, but if this had happened to eliminate South Africa, I would be a touch worried about Suarez even being in the country. Not because South Africa's fans are bad people or worse than Ghana's fans, but simply because there would be too many people upset and the more people there are, the more likely somebody will do something stupid and somebody will get hurt.

Most importantly, the issue of a deliberate handball in the goal area preventing a certain goal needs to be reevaluated by FIFA.

Many people have been trying to compare this incident to other sports scenarios and I believe that is beneficial to understanding what exactly happened and what the repercussions should be.

According to the rulebook, handball, no matter where on the field and no matter if it is incidental, accidental, deliberate, intentional, reactionary, or any other adjective you can use, is considered a "foul." When a foul is committed, the team, the individual, or both are punished with a penalty.

In the NFL, the closest foul is defensive pass interference in the end zone. In that situation, the touchdown is not awarded. The ball is placed on the one-yard line with an automatic first down, giving the offense a good chance to score. All in all this is very similar to Suarez's situation. The only difference I can find is that defensive pass interference in the end zone denies a potential touchdown, not a touchdown that was a foregone conclusion. This goal was a foregone conclusion.

In basketball, the closest foul would be an intentional foul on somebody about to score an easy basket. In this case, if an intentional foul is called, or a flagrant foul as it is known in the NBA, the player who was fouled gets two free-throws and his/her team gets the ball back, allowing for the possibility of between zero and six points to be scored in that possession (barring another similar foul). Again, just like defensive pass interference in the end zone, the basket is not a foregone conclusion. It is perhaps more likely than the potential touchdown, but layups are not a guarantee.

So the question becomes: was this illegal act a foul or was it something else? I believe FIFA needs to consider reevaluating this infraction and potentially calling it "goal interference" and interference in other sports can result in points awarded.

Despite the name, defensive pass interference is not interference in the same way as other examples. It is essentially the job of cornerbacks and safeties and everybody on defense to interfere with what the offense is trying to accomplish. It is a foul for interfering with a player.

The closest true example of interference in the NFL is if a player comes from the sidelines to interfere with the play. If the result of the play would have been a touchdown, as subjectively decided by the referees, the offense is awarded a touchdown. The difference between this form of interference and what Suarez did is that Suarez belonged on the field. He did not come from the sidelines to interfere. He was a legal player.

In basketball, goaltending is the obvious comparison. If a defensive player interferes or blocks a shot after it has reached its highest point or when it is in the cylinder, the due points are awarded to the offense. The biggest difference here is that when this happens in basketball, it is simply because the defensive player is trying to make a good, legal play and they are simply a bit late in doing so.

Suarez was not trying to make a good, legal play. The play he made was knowingly illegal and there is no way that what he was trying to make a legal play, therefore a penalty was assessed. Also, goaltending in basketball does not come with nearly the amount of drama. There are no suspensions and usually there is very little complaining, mainly because the points awarded are 2% of the team's total instead of 50-100%.

But I believe that for the closest example of illegal interference we have to look at Major League Baseball. In MLB, if a player throws his glove at a ball and prevents the ball from being a home run when it is (subjectively decided by the umpires) going to be a home run, a home run is automatically rewarded.

To me, the situations are identical. The result is a foregone conclusion. The item in use, a glove or a player's hands, are illegal to use for such a purpose and the item prevents a point from being scored.

The punishment should be the same: a point awarded.

Yes, the act of throwing a glove at a home run ball is absolutely premeditated and would never be accidental, but whether thought went into it or not, what Suarez did was still intentional. It was done for the purpose of blocking that kick.

Imagine if the baseball rule were different. Imagine Denard Span of the Minnesota Twins throwing his glove up to prevent a Miguel Cabrera home run and instead of the home run being awarded, the umpire gives Cabrera a ball and he is allowed to toss it up to himself and swing for the fences. That's what the current FIFA rule is like and it sounds ridiculous when you put it into a different context.

What Suarez did, based on the rules in place, was a smart play. Even if Ghana had converted on the initial penalty kick, it would have been a smart play, giving Uruguay a chance to win.

The problem people should have is not with Suarez. He simply took advantage of the way the rules are written and that is in a way commendable.

The problem people should have is not with the referees or FIFA's disciplinary decision makers. They interpreted the rules correctly. The problem people should have is with the rule itself and a change should be considered.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 11:21 AM | Comments (10)

July 1, 2010

On Soccer, Instant Replay, and Culture

With apologies to Brad Oremland, here are five quick thoughts on the World Cup before I get to the main thrust of my article.

1. If Cristiano Ronaldo was American, he would be a "Jersey Shore" boy. I'm not sure I've ever encountered an athlete as easy to hate.

2. I hate that the U.S. lost, but the more I think about it, the more I am happy it was to Ghana. Besides the fact that it would lift the spirits of an impoverished region, Ghana gives us guys like this and forces us to answer questions like this.

3. I also love that either Ghana or Uruguay is guaranteed to make the semifinals. Only three teams left have won the World Cup since 1954.

4. I don't know how I feel about ESPN's promos and cutaways being voiced by this stereotypical African voice. I don't envisage them doing some sort of "zis is ze World Cup" if it was in France, for example.

5. I seem to be the only one, but I don't mind the vuvuzelas and I think they add atmosphere to the matches.

Although they bowed out in the second round, thank God the United States won Group C. That meant the two controversial no-goal calls against them (as well as a red-card-warranting elbow to Clint Dempsey's nose that the referee missed) mattered not at all. You can't improve on first place in the group, and the knockout rounds are not seeded.

It is also with a sigh of relief that I note England's terrible no-goal call against Germany and Argentina's miles-offside goal against Mexico did not occur in hotly disputed, close matches. It's reasonable to argue that getting those calls right would have changed the course and perhaps the outcome of the game, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

However, a World Cup match where a blown call occurs during an unmistakably deciding moment — say, the last few seconds of injury time — will happen. It's a matter of when, not if. And if FIFA seems embarrassed and scrambling now, just wait until they see the hue and cry when the big one hits.

They can do something about it, of course. They can bring instant replay, or at least goal line technology somewhat like they have in tennis, into the game.

When the spate of bad calls started pouring in, I was only nominally in favor of rectifying it with replay. I am just about the biggest replay proponent you can be, in all sports. I say, damn the time delays, get it right, and use it in all situations where there is a reasonable argument for it (I think the NFL gets this mostly right ... using it for penalties like pass interference is just way too subjective. I'm not a madman).

But I'm also leery of the condescending, U.S.-centric "Hey world, I have an idea to fix your beloved sport" attitude that is almost as common as snobbish decrees of American sports' superiority during World Cup time. If we are going to view the World Cup with an open mind, it has to be on soccer's own terms, not as some sort of American sports missionary.

All that is true, but listening to several British World Cup podcasts revealed a stunning fact to me. You know those other sports we Americans don't give a damn about? Cricket? Rugby League? Rugby Union?

Instant replay is a part of those sports.

So you see, it's not just an American idea that instant replay has a place in sports. It's a universal concept that is embraced by all team sports with a large following. FIFA is truly a dinosaur with its lack of instant replay. The only other holdout seems to be Aussie Rules Football.

So clamoring for instant replay does not make you the Ugly American. Voices from many countries are singing in this choir. That said, I must take issue with the idea that it is hurting the sport's credibility with the American public.

So much hand-wringing is done over how to get Americans interested in soccer, and many ignorant pundits are willing to watch a couple matches and declare they have discovered the Big Reason We Don't Like Soccer.

I have news for those pundits. It doesn't matter whether or not they adopt instant replay in soccer. It doesn't matter what radical rules they implement to make it more like American sports (not that they ever would). Soccer will lag behind football, baseball, basketball, and hockey in the U.S. for at least the next half-century, and the best we soccer fans can realistically hope for is a modestly successful MLS and a continuously competitive national team.

Why? For the same reason it is so popular in so many other countries. It's ingrained in us. Our culture is not a soccer culture. More than fashion, language, or most anything else you can think of, new sports take root and grows into redwoods only after many, many decades. How long have the big four American sports been the big four? Sixty years, at least?

I'm trying to think of new sports that have "caught on" in the U.S. recently and the closest I can think of is the X-Games, which is about as niche as you can get. There is nothing inherent about soccer that makes it better or worse than American sports. There is nothing in soccer's DNA or in Americans' DNA that makes us less able to appreciate it. It's just that, for whatever reason, soccer's worldwide popularity spread gave Northern North America a miss and ... that's that.

But please, FIFA, give us instant replay. The two arguments I heard against it on the round of podcasts are both incredibly weak. The first is that it's a slippery slope. Today we are reviewing goals, tomorrow offsides, and the next thing you know the ref has been replaced by an android.

Oh, how I hate the slippery slope argument. I hate it in sports. I hate it in politics. I hate it everywhere. Each idea deserves to be examined on its own merit, because you can't say for sure that it will lead to anything else.

But in this case, the slippery slope is especially odious because that slope would be a good thing to slide down. Let's look at those offsides calls. Let's see if it should be a corner or a goal kick.

The second argument is FIFA casts a very wide net. They are, more or less, the governing body of the entire world of soccer. Instant replay might work when Manchester United plays Chelsea, but not when Bobo Sport plays Etoile Filante Ouagadougou.

So, since we can't have replay justice all of the time, let's never have it? That doesn't fly with me. FIFA wants to be "consistent" across the globe, but it would be consistent. It's not as though the Burkinabe league would be playing nine-on-nine.

Yes, FIFA, in the last couple days, you have agreed to revisit the issue — for goal line decisions only. Good. It's a start. Now make the right decision.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 6:13 PM | Comments (6)