Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« July 2010 | Main | September 2010 »

August 31, 2010

The College Football Rollercoaster

Less than a decade ago, Alabama was an SEC afterthought, as sanctions had slowly worn down the proud program. Now they are defending national champions, remain loaded, and will be ranked No. 1 until someone takes down the champs.

Meanwhile, my alma mater finds itself in another stage in the cycle of life. USC sits at AP No. 14, and it is telling that upon learning that, I wondered why we were ranked so high.

Relax — this isn't a homer article about how USC got screwed with the NCAA punishment leaving them out 10 scholarships a year for three years and bowl-less for two.

But it is an article about the realities of college football from a fan perspective. During my four-year college tenure, I attended 24 home games without seeing a loss. USC lost four games total. I don't get to complain about how all of this went down considering how fun the last seven years have been. And again, look at Alabama. Teams come back from these things, especially programs that have the kind of cache of USC or Alabama.

The truly universal realities of college football are that: 1) college football is still, more or less, an amateur affair that generates a ton of money, and 2) to fans, they are about winning, and winning in the present. Teams are playing for high stakes.

TCU has turned a few great seasons into a forthcoming major stadium upgrade and increased stature. In the same metropolitan area, SMU is still trying to recover from being a joke of a program after its death penalty ... one issued over two decades ago. Once-average SEC team LSU has been one of the 10 or so biggest monster programs in the country over the last decade. One-time powerhouse Michigan is a punchline. Boise State is a national brand. Colorado and Kansas State had become Big Eight/12 giants as we started the century, and now both languish. And those swings are generally accompanied by a shifting of massive stacks of money among athletic programs.

But that's nothing compared to the money flying around the NFL. And after USC was hammered largely for a wannabe agent (looking for a cut of said money) handing Reggie Bush and his family improper benefits, North Carolina came under fire, as well. Dez Bryant's suspension is also still fresh in our minds. Stories of agents flying players down to parties in Miami surfaced. And the idea that this started with USC and Bush is pretty laughable, considering Yahoo!, not the NCAA, broke the Bush story, and that it possibly never would have been broken if Bush and said wannabe agent didn't have a falling out over the money. This is not a difficult thing to keep under wraps.

I've said in the past that dealing with agents is a large part of the problem. And the NCAA can't really touch those. But the NCAA is actually starting to deal with the problem a bit more aggressively, and more importantly, often dealing with the players directly rather than merely putting it on the tab of their babysitter — I mean institutions. Will they ever clean the sport completely? No. But they can make progress by being smarter, more aggressive, and heavy-handed with punishments.

But again, this is a fan site and an article from a fan perspective. So while everyone tries to sort this out, what is the USC, the early-decade Alabama fan supposed to do? USC fans care more about the future (scholarships lost/bowl bans, for example) than any vanquished wins. Fill your team's name in the blank, and except for the fact that USC has been caught/punished; the rest of the fan mentality generally rings true. I was at the 2005 Orange Bowl. I know what happened, and the NCAA can't try to explain that it didn't happen, or that Bush's family's rent being paid by an agent after he was already at USC helped the Trojans dismantle Oklahoma. Your fan base wouldn't react much differently to the same circumstances.

Personally, I'm going to kind of enjoy going in as a relative underdog. I even wish the Trojans had been ranked lower; with injuries, scholarship depletions, transfers, last year's four-loss season, and Pete Carroll's departure, you could make quite an argument. Not many fans of favorites admit this, but there is something to be said for the euphoria of winning a game you aren't just supposed to. When you are supposed to win 10 or so games decisively each year and are still favored in the other two, you kind of lose something from the thrill of victory.

In other words, enjoy, Alabama fans. You're first loss will be a heart-wrenching disappointment. Heaven help you if you lose twice; we'll have suicide watch on speed-dial. And enjoy being universally hated through the entire process. So there.

Oh, who am I kidding? Not a fan in the country wouldn't prefer the chance to play for a national title. Like most USC fans, I'm going to keep rooting hard for my team, hope for the best this season, and yes, even try to enjoy the fact that we might actually win a game or two we aren't supposed to, and even finish higher than expected.

You might have noticed how my article on NCAA governance and sanctions turned into an article about winning and losing, glory and despair, jealousy and schadenfreude. Believe it or not, I didn't accidentally forget about basic principles of article cohesion; it was on purpose. In the end, winning is what the fans really care about, and we tend to live in the present (except Notre Dame fans, and in fairness, we understand why they live in the past). At our core, most of us believe in doing the right thing and winning the right way. And we should care how our teams win as much as whether they win. And this isn't an article about USC.

But in reality, USC fans, while we'll take our medicine from an imperfect punishment within an imperfect system, aren't going to forget that we had one of the best runs in recent history. We know what happened, and we gleefully went along for the ride. As it is for any other program that has ever been punished. USC fans didn't willfully ignore Bush's finances or associates. We just rooted for the team wearing our colors. Why should we turn in our enjoyment of those seasons, how much those moments meant to us at the time in the same way the athletic department chose to return the copy of Bush's Heisman that had been sitting in Heritage Hall?

Hopefully, the NCAA can figure out how to run this mess better, so that shady dealings aren't synonymous with college football. Of course, with the stakes where they are, surely there will be other ways blood-suckers will try to get a share of the pie. Whatever happens, though, fans will just do what they always do, really all they can do: live and die by how many games their team can win. Because there isn't much else a fan can do.

In other words, thank goodness games start next week and we can start talking about actual football.

Posted by Kyle Jahner at 7:44 PM | Comments (0)

Washington No Lock in Rebuilt Pac-10

Unless you're the most diehard of fans, college hoops probably isn't too high on your radar right now. You've got the NFL and college football days from kick-off, the baseball pennant race, the ongoing train wreck that is Tiger Woods, and whatever racing fans watch.

But for those who go looking, the slow rise to March Madness has begun. It's found in the preview-before-the-preview stories, like Joe Lunardi's "Bracket scenarios for Summer Buzz teams," published a few weeks back on ESPN.com.

In the piece, based off the ESPN Summer Buzz series, Lunardi took a look at 20 teams from around the country and gave a brief upside and downside for each team.

The scenarios for one team in particular, the Washington Huskies, caught my eye:

Lunardi's upside: the Huskies emerge as the class of the Pac-10.

Lunardi's downside: the Huskies emerge as the class of the Pac-10.

Well then.

The Huskies, you might remember, were last seen in the Sweet 16 as an 11-seed being bounced by West Virginia. The fact they made the Sweet 16 was nice. The fact they had to do it as an 11-seed should tell you they were fairly far from juggernaut status.

The Huskies' leading scorer from last season was Quincy Pondexter, who parlayed one year of consistent production into a first-round slot in the NBA draft. Pondexter was also their leading rebounder.

I mention this because it's important to realize that what Lunardi is actually saying is that the downside for a team that lost its leading scorer and leading rebounder (not to mention their best three-point shooter in Elston Turner, who left for Texas A&M) is being the best team in the Pac-10.

So either Lunardi has a huge amount of faith in Huskies coach Lorenzo Romar and the returning cast, or he just really thinks the Pac-10 is going to suck next season.

Or, in the words of the great Abe Simpson, perhaps it's "a little from column A, a little from column B."

With four returning starters, the Huskies' cupboard is far from bare. Back is junior guard Isiah Thomas, a first-team All-Pac-10 selection last year and their second-leading scorer at 16.9 points per game, as are senior forward Matthew Bryan-Amaning (8.8 ppg, 5.9 rpg), senior guard Venoy Overton (Pac-10 All-Defensive Team), and sophomore guard Abdul Gaddy, a highly-touted recruit who disappointed slightly as a freshman, but spent the summer working on his game with the Team USA U18 National Team.

They also added in transfer center Aziz N'Diaye, who stands 7-foot and 255 pounds, and incoming recruit Terrence Ross, the Oregonian Class 5A Player of the Year in 2008 and No. 30 ESPNU Top 100 recruit.

On the flip side, Thomas is a shoot-first guard who doesn't shoot very well (41 percent overall, 33 percent from three), Bryan-Amaning will always be undersized and doesn't have much range, Overton is a total non-threat offensively, and Gaddy was just an end-of-bench scrub on that USA U18 team.

Oh, and N'Diaye is coming off an ACL tear and Ross lost his senior season of high school eligibility after transferring from his original high school to another and then transferring back. Neither played in the 2009-2010 season, so expecting a major contribution from them this year would be asking a lot.

So yeah, Washington has some pieces. But they're not the only Pac-10 team with some conference championship and NCAA tournament viability.

In Ken Bone's second season at Washington State, the Cougars return all five starters from last year's 16-15 squad, including the top returning scorer in the conference in Klay Thompson (19.6 ppg).

Also in his second season, Arizona's Sean Miller lost senior point guard Nic Wise to German pro ball, but brings back a group of talented sophomores who got valuable experience as freshmen. Among that group is Pac-10 Freshman of the Year Derrick Williams, plus Solomon Hill, Kevin Parrom, Kyryl Natyazhko and Momo Jones, who will likely step into Wise's role at point guard.

Speaking of experience, Herb Sendek at Arizona State brings back three senior starters with Ty Abbot, Rihards Kuksiks, and Jamelle McMillan, plus the suffocating style of defense that held 14 opponents to 55 points or fewer last year.

You don't know exactly what Oregon will look like in Dana Altman's first season, but they do bring back a solid inside-outside duo in juniors Malcolm Armstead at the point and Michael Dunigan in the paint.

And though the shine has certainly come off Ben Howland and the UCLA Bruins, they do bring in center Josh Smith (No. 20 ESPNU Top 100) and guard Tyler Lamb (No. 28) to go along with junior guards Malcolm Lee and Jerime Anderson.

So are the Huskies the favorites? Yeah, sure. But the conference isn't so weak that their worst case is still finishing first. Lunardi should know better.

Or maybe it was just a typo.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 6:43 PM | Comments (2)

August 30, 2010

2010 AFC Divisional Analysis

AFC East

Best Team

New York Jets

Forget for a second that they're having trouble renegotiating a contract with Darrelle Revis, and that Mark Sanchez doesn't look like the QB they need in the future. Have you seen that defense? Even without Revis, it's one of the best in the league. And it doesn't take a Pro Bowl-caliber QB to be able to find success behind an offensive line as good as the one anchored by Nick Mangold.

The player to put this team over-the-top this year will be Shonn Greene. If he can enjoy sustained success behind that offensive line, it won't matter what Sanchez does. Because even without Revis, the defense won't give up much more than a couple scores a game most of the time, and that's certainly not more than this running game can manage over the same four quarters.

Team to Watch

New England Patriots

Is Tom Brady going to put up 2007-type numbers? No, but don't be surprised if he leads the league in yards, TDs, or both. He and Randy Moss appear to be in-sync with each other again, and Wes Welker doesn't seem to have lost a step after his surgery. If Laurence Maroney can continue to make opposing defenses respect the running game, this will be an offense to fear.

The question is whether the defense can consistently stop anyone, and the answer doesn't look to good Bill Belichick and company. Where they've had strength in previous successful campaigns, they are severely lacking this year. Jerod Mayo will make plays, but with their best pass-rusher already gone for the year, they have too many holes on defense to be favorites in the AFC East.

AFC North

Best Team

Baltimore Ravens

They went 9-7 last year, and had a top-five running game and a top-five defense. Now they've added Anquan Boldin to their already top-10 passing game, and with Joe Flacco slinging passes around the field, that spells trouble for the rest of the league. This isn't a team that will top the league in any one aspect of the game, but they also don't really have a weakness to speak of.

Team to Watch

Pittsburgh Steelers

They're not too far removed from their playoff winning ways, and they don't play any road games against teams that finished last year over .500 until Week 8. By then, they'll have Ben Roethlisberger back under center, and he'll be playing with a point to prove. I'd be surprised of this team doesn't find a way to win a wild card entry into the playoffs.

AFC South

Best Team

Indianapolis Colts

This shouldn't really need any explanation, considering this team has won at least 12 games for seven consecutive years. Peyton Manning may be mediocre at best in the playoffs, but in the regular season, he's probably the best ever. Considering that there might not be another playoff-caliber team in this division, their playoff struggles don't make them any less than the class of the AFC South.

Team to Watch

Tennessee Titans

The Titans know what they have on offense, and it includes the best RB in the league and a QB in Vince Young that simply finds ways to win ballgames. What they don't know is what to expect is defensively.

Two years ago, they had one of the best defenses in the league, but last year, their passing defense ranked 31st in the league. Their success this year hinges upon what type of defense they get from their secondary. If they're at least mediocre, this team can compete for a playoff berth. If not, they'll struggle to win even six or seven games.

AFC West

Best Team

San Diego Chargers

With or without Vincent Jackson, the Chargers will win the West with ease. Philip Rivers looks poised to have another great year, and with the addition of power-runner Ryan Matthews, that spells trouble for opposing defenses.

The defense is still potent and young, which means that as good as they are, they could be even better by the end of the year. Despite falling short of expectations for a few years in a row now, I think Norv Turner finally has an AFC champion-caliber team.

Team to Watch

Kansas City Chiefs

What's the perfect formula to turn around an ailing franchise? Start with a new, accomplished offensive coordinator and do the same on defense. Then add a league-leading RB from last year to compliment another 1,000-yard runner. Continue by adding an explosive slot receiver, and an NFL-ready defensive back. Finally, for good measure, bolster a young offensive line with two veteran linemen, and all of the sudden, you're looking pretty good.

Looking at the Chiefs' record, I see no reason they couldn't double their win total from last year, and at the very least, they'll be exciting to watch. If Matt Cassel is good at all (and he hasn't been through three preseason games), this team can be a contender in a weak division.

Stay tuned for the NFC divisional analysis, coming later this week!

Posted by Paul Foeller at 6:17 PM | Comments (0)

UFC 118 and Why MMA Needs to Change

UFC 118 was a huge event for mixed martial arts fans. It featured a title fight in the UFC's lightweight division, a number one contender fight in the same division, and perhaps most significantly, UFC Hall of Famer Randy Couture vs. boxing champion James "Lights Out" Toney.

The boxing vs. MMA angle, of course, has been overblown since before the fight was announced. In a boxing contest, any high-level boxer would win nine times out of 10 against a high-level mixed martial artist, probably more than nine out of 10. Similarly, a high-level MMA fighter will take nine of 10 from a high-level boxer under MMA rules. Both Couture (who is 47) and Toney (who is 42 and overweight) are past their primes, and one fight doesn't prove anything.

Nonetheless, Couture's easy victory this weekend does provide validation for MMA fans. The notion that a boxer would defeat an equally skilled mixed martial artist in a fight where takedowns are permitted is laughable. A boxer would win a boxing match, and probably a kickboxing contest; the MMA fighter would win anything else, including a no-holds-barred fight or a street brawl. Think Rocky vs. Tommy at the end of Rocky V.

That said, I would be remiss not to compliment Couture on an absolutely perfect gameplan, executed to further perfection. The Couture/Toney matchup was a bit of a freakshow, though, and the real action Saturday night was in the UFC's lightweight division. In the main event, reigning champ Frankie Edgar outclassed B.J. Penn in a surprisingly one-sided five-round decision. Edgar was the quicker, more aggressive fighter, and Penn never sustained any effective offense.

Earlier on the card, Gray Maynard won an easy decision over perennial gatekeeper Kenny Florian. Why anyone ever picks against Maynard is a bit of a mystery to me. His next fight will be with Edgar for the 155-pound title, and Maynard — the only fighter to defeat Edgar — should be a slight favorite. Kicking off the evening, local product Joe Lauzon put on the most impressive performance of his career, positively tearing through Gabe Ruediger. Lauzon was visibly fired up by fighting in front of his hometown fans, and it was the most enjoyable fight of the night from where I was sitting.

John McCarthy is Wrong

a.k.a. What MMA Needs to Change

MMA Fighting's Ben Fowlkes recently wrote about officiating and accountability in MMA; it's undeniably a problem. The sport routinely sees inept referees and uninformed judges unduly influence fight results, and it is no exaggeration to say that most MMA fans could do a better job of reffing and judging fights than the people who are paid to do so. Notably, state athletic commissions are usually stacked with people who come from a boxing background and misunderstand or underestimate the importance of grappling and ground-fighting.

Nobody wants to see fighters stood up in the middle of a submission attempt, but Fowlkes quoted legendary MMA ref "Big" John McCarthy insisting that fighters who gain a dominant position should never be stood up. With all due respect to McCarthy, he couldn't be more wrong.

Mixed martial arts is fundamentally an entertainment business. All sports are. If the product is not entertaining, people won't watch; they certainly won't pay $45 for the privilege. If MMA wants to grow as a sport, if the people running organizations like the UFC want to grow their businesses, they need to recognize that they are selling entertainment, and lay-and-pray — the derogatory term for the tactic of laying atop your opponent and praying for a decision victory — is not entertaining. In fact, it's frustrating and dull.

Even apart from the necessity of providing entertainment — and it is a necessity if we want anything beyond an amateur circuit — sports require action. Virtually every sport has rules against stalling. Basketball has a shot clock, American football has delay of game penalties, tennis has time violations, and so on. MMA does have standards for continuous action, but they are unevenly enforced, with inexperienced refs frequently standing things up too soon, and well-meaning guys like Big John approvingly allowing lay-and-pray to go on ad infinitum. No other sport rewards the intentional prevention of progress; no other referees sanction deliberate stalling.

In particular, whoever is winning is not permitted to stall. Letting a guy run out the clock once he gets side control would be like getting rid of the shot clock in basketball, or eliminating delay of game calls in football. Once someone got on top, they could just hold the ball until time expired. Some MMA refs actually allow this to occur, and right now there's no official recourse to prevent or punish it. That needs to change.

Don't get me wrong: I like grappling. Submission specialist Demian Maia is one of my favorite fighters. So are Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, Georges St-Pierre, Miguel Torres, and any number of other fighters whose greatest strength is their ground-fighting. I even think guys like Jon Fitch and Rashad Evans get a bad rap; those guys stay active on the ground, and while they're not effective finishers, they're not just getting the takedown and waiting for 15 minutes to be up. They're not one-dimensional wrestlers, they're mixed martial artists who utilize a strong wrestling background. They throw strikes from the top, try to improve position, take a submission if it's there. There's nothing wrong with that. I like grappling.

But I don't like lay-and-pray. It's boring, it's not sportsmanlike, and it's not MMA. It's stalling, plain and simple. Most importantly, it turns people away from the sport. The incessant clinching between Nik Lentz and Andre Winner was frustratingly, agonizingly dull. The televised portion of Bellator 25 was a groan-inducing bore, with lots of wrestling and clinching, but very few attempts to finish fights, via strikes or submissions. The Bellator announcers openly derided the incredibly dull contest between Cole Konrad and Rogent Lloret. One day earlier, at WEC 50, Chad "The Snuggie" Mendes put on the most appalling display of lay-and-pray I have ever seen, and it is because of tactics like his that McCarthy is wrong.

In the first round, Mendes gained a dominant position over Cub Swanson, then smothered him, making no attempt to finish the fight. He threw literally no strikes, he attempted absolutely no submissions, and he made no effort whatsoever to further improve his position. He just held Swanson down and waited for the round to pass. That's the definition of lay-and-pray. It was so dull I wanted to gouge my eyes out simply so I wouldn't watch any more. I thought I was going to die of ennui. I never, ever want to see Chad Mendes "fight" again. He's not a mixed martial artist; he's not a fighter.

Gaining top control, even a dominant position like mount, and then lying on your opponent and waiting for the round to end is disrespectful to the fans who paid to see you fight, disrespectful to the promoters paying you to perform, disrespectful to the sport. The people who sell tickets and pay-per-view buys and advertising need to recognize that this hurts their profitability. Fighters, trainers, and refs need to recognize that it hurts the sport. Judges need to recognize that a fighter throwing damaging strikes from the bottom, or attempting submissions from below, is beating a fighter who lies on top of him and does nothing but try to hold him down.

Almost every sport, usually early in its history, has faced situations like this. Teams or individuals with limited talent realize that they can maximize their chances of winning by limiting the action. So they stall, and often they start winning. But the interests of the individual are at odds with the interests of the sport. These tactics turn off fans, and they aren't particularly sporting (which is a polite way of saying they aren't even fair). After a while, usually not very long, the leagues enact rules to prevent those tactics.

Organizations like the UFC have a fair degree of control over their rules; some points are subject to the athletic commissions, but if MMA organizations want to keep the action going, it's within their power to mandate that. For the good of the sport, the pleasure of the fans, and the profitability of the fight organizations themselves, referees should receive explicit instructions about keeping action moving, even when fighters gain a dominant position. I'm not saying we stand things up right after a guy gets to mount; I'm just saying that if nothing is happening — if the guy on top is content to lie there, or if the fighter on the bottom has neutralized his opponent's offense for the present and for the immediate future — that the ref should step in following a warning. And let's make that a single warning — I'm tired of refs covering for themselves by repeatedly threatening to stand a fight up when they have no intention of actually doing so.

The same thing applies to prolonged clinching, which may be tactical, but is not entertaining. Stalling is a tactic, too, in baseball and football and tennis and MMA, but it's not a legitimate one, and it's not good for anyone except the person doing the stalling. It should be illegal, and MMA organizations risk a permanent ceiling on their viewership if they don't act to prohibit it.

September 2010 UFC Rankings

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

Heavyweight (206-265 lbs)

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

Make it happen: Carwin vs. Nelson

Two huge (literally) fighters coming off losses. The winner should move back into immediate title contention.

Thank you, UFC, for: Mir vs. Filipovic

This is a much more interesting fight than Mir vs. Nogueira 2.

Light Heavyweight (186-205)

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

Make it happen: Jones vs. a quality opponent

Fans don't want to see Jones fight Franklin or Griffin or Couture; they are legitimately worried about what would happen to these fighters they admire and respect. Jones is a wrecking machine, and putting him against anyone but top-caliber competition is sadistic at this point. I'd like to see him face Thiago Silva or the winner of Nogueira/Bader.

Thank you, UFC, for: Nogueira vs. Bader

A stiff test for the Ultimate Fighter Season Eight winner comes at just the right time. The victor should get either Jon Jones or the winner of the expected Machida/Rampage matchup, with a title shot on the line.

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. Michael Bisping
9. Chris Leben
10. Yoshihiro Akiyama

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." I know Silva's out of action for a while, but Leben has earned a break, and this is worth waiting for.

Thank you, UFC, for: Belfort vs. Okami

This fight is not official yet, but there are rumors afoot, and it's absolutely the only fight that makes sense for either man at this point. This sets up an undisputed title contender.

Welterweight (156-170)

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

Make it happen: Matt Hughes vs. winner of Shields/Kampmann

Hughes hasn't shown much interest recently in fighting top-flight competition, but coming off a great performance against a legit opponent, and with a title shot on the line, maybe he can be persuaded. If the winner of the Shields fight gets a title shot, Hughes should face Jon Fitch.

Thank you, UFC, for: Everything

This is by far the UFC's deepest division right now, and there are a bunch of great fights coming up: Shields vs. Kampmann, Hardy vs. Carlos Condit, Thiago vs. Diego Sanchez, and so on. It's hard for matchmaker Joe Silva to go wrong at this point.

Lightweight (146-155)

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

Make it happen: Sotiropoulos vs. Gomi

Sotiropoulos hasn't lost in almost four years, and that was a DQ loss (which only sort of counts) against legendary Japanese lightweight Shinya Aoki. Already this year he's beaten Stevenson and ended Kurt Pellegrino's four-fight UFC winning streak. Gomi was widely dismissed as a contender following his loss to Florian, then celebrated following his knockout of Griffin. The UFC should be positioning both Sotiropoulos and Dunham for title shots, and the Gomi fight is a logical next move for the Aussie submission specialist.

Thank you, UFC, for: Dunham vs. Sean Sherk

Sherk isn't ranked above because he hasn't fought in over a year, but he's obviously a top-ten talent, and Dunham is quickly climbing the ranks of the 155-pound weight class. The winner of this bout should be one more fight away from a title shot.

Upcoming Action

With Strikeforce unable to make fights happen, DREAM struggling to survive, and Bellator mostly featuring second-tier fighters, the most significant action is happening under the Zuffa banner. UFC 119, scheduled for September 25, boasts two significant fights. If we're being honest, the headliner, Mir vs. Cro Cop, is a "for the fans" fight. It's an interesting matchup, and I'm excited to see it, but neither man appears to be a realistic heavyweight contender at this point. More intriguing are Little Nog vs. Bader and Sherk vs. Dunham, both of which could position young up-and-comers for title shots in the near future. I could change my mind in the next month, but right now, put me down for Bader, Dunham, and — in an upset — Filipovic. I don't know if Mir can take him down, and Cro Cop is still the superior striker.

An even better card goes down less than a week later, when Broomfield, Colorado, hosts WEC 51. The card features featherweight champ Jose Aldo's title defense against Manny Gamburyan, the long-awaited rematch of Jamie Varner and Donald Cerrone, Miguel Torres vs. Charlie Valencia, and the returns of Leonard Garcia and Chan Sung Jung. Aldo and Torres are always worth watching, and Varner vs. Cerrone is intriguing on several levels. First of all, it matches up two of the best lightweights in the WEC. Second, it's a rematch of a controversial bout from 2009, with Varner winning a split decision following an illegal strike from Cerrone. Third, the two men hate each other. What more could you ask for?

Garcia and Jung aren't fighting each other, but both have proved that they bring plenty of excitement, and a rematch of their three-round classic in April is expected if both men win. That fight, while not technical, was dramatic and entertaining, a strong Fight of the Year candidate. It has even earned comparisons to Don Frye vs. Yoshihiro Takayama. I would actually argue that Garcia vs. "The Korean Zombie" featured more prolonged action than that classic bout, and fans have been looking forward to seeing both fighters again.

I'll take Garcia and Jung to win their respective contests (against Mark Hominick and George Roop), and nothing will induce me to bet against Aldo. I'll go with Torres to rebound, and I'm rolling the dice on Varner to make it 2-0 against Cowboy. Not the boldest picks, I know, but if you put a few of those together in a parlay, you could do alright for yourself.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:40 PM | Comments (10)

August 28, 2010

2010 NFL Games of the Week (Pt. 1)

Week 1: Minnesota at New Orleans — Whatever your opinion of Brett Favre, don't discount his generosity. The last time he was in New Orleans, he gave away a trip to the Super Bowl to the entire Saints organization. Now, it's time for revenge, or redemption, or possibly retirement.

With their receiving corps depleted by hips and headaches, the Vikes will have to rely heavily on Adrian Peterson, living proof that a knuckle-cracking handshake doesn't necessarily translate into ball security. If Peterson can limit his fumbles to one (1), then the Vikes can play ball control. However, it's more likely that Drew Brees and the Saints offense will strike quickly, thereby limiting Peterson's effectiveness.

Saints win.

Week 2: Baltimore at Cincinnati — Forget Sunday night's Giants at Colts game — everyone knows Eli Manning's quarterbacking compares to Peyton's about as well as his acting. The real game is at Paul Brown Stadium, where the Ravens and Bengals vie for early control of the AFC North, while the Steelers wait for Ben Roethlisberger slay his demons (does this mean he'll be "exorcising" on a stationary bike?).

The Bengals surely can't sweep all six North games this year? Or can they? They can if negative publicity wins games. If Chad Ochocinco and Terrell Owens can create more problems for opposing defenses than they can for their own offense, then the Bengals could be in business. And with the Ravens secondary in a state of disrepair, this could very well be a chance for Ochocinco and Owens to wreak havoc on the field, as opposed to the airwaves and internet.

Bengals win.

Week 3: New York Jets at Miami — Hopefully, the Jets can satisfy Darrelle Revis' greedy demands, thus setting up a showdown between Revis and new Dolphin Brandon Marshall. It will be a sight to see, as Marshall pays a visit to Revis Island. As was the case with Gilligan's Island, there's only room for one star on Revis Island.

And speaking of "landlocked," will the Fins be able to run on the Jets, with Revis one-on-one with Marshall, allowing safety help at the point of attack? Say that five times fast, Shannon Sharpe.

Jets win.

Week 4: Baltimore at Pittsburgh — Should the Ravens beat the Bengals in Cincy in Week 2, and the Browns at home in Week 3, then a win over the Steelers at Heinz Field would give them the inside track to the AFC North crown (assuming an "inside track" can be secured with twelve games remaining in the season). The Steelers will still be without Ben Roethlisberger, who will likely be serving the last game of his disciplinary suspension, and later announcing an engagement to a young lady he met in a bathroom.

Ravens/Steelers games are always testy affairs, so a pre-game fight is not out of the question. It will be a hard-hitting affair, with plenty of offense between the 20s, and solid defense in the red zone.

Terrell Suggs makes a crucial sack on the slow-footed Byron Leftwich, and the Ravens squeak out a victory, leaving the Steelers 2-2 in games without Ben Roethlisberger.

Week 5: Green Bay at Washington — By now, the Albert Haynesworth situation will be so bad that there will be no guarantee that he'll make the trip to home games. Haynesworth is to the Redskins like he is to his knees — a burden. Of course, anyone's knees would be shot were they making so many trips to the bank over the last two years. But to quote Mike Shanahan, "Enough about Haynesworth!"

If the ‘Skins are to keep pace with Aaron Rodgers and the Packers high-scoring offense, Donovan McNabb will have to have a huge game. And even that may not be enough.

Packers win.

Week 6: (tie) Baltimore at New England; Dallas at Minnesota — The Patriots and Cowboys will both be looking to avenge humiliating 2009 playoff losses. Can Bill Belichick will his troops to victory, or is the notion of his supreme motivational skills as outdated as his wardrobe?

Can Dallas' shaky offensive line protect Tony Romo from Minnesota's dangerous defensive line?

By Week 6, Tom Brady's hair should be nearing Fabio-length, and that look may prove sympathetic to officials eager to flag the Ravens for roughing the passer penalties. But the Pats' running game will likely be equally as girlish, and Baltimore's defensive line will harass Brady with the running game rendered ineffective.

Ravens win.

Romo won't panic at the sight of the Viking front in his face, and with loads of offensive weapons, the Cowboys will outscore the Vikings.

Week 7: Minnesota at Green Bay — In what may very well be his last visit to Lambeau Field, Brett Favre soaks up the well-wishes of the Packer faithful, most of whom wish eternal damnation upon the former Packer great.

Aaron Rodgers at the Packer offense open up an early lead, which they maintain until the fourth quarter. Not surprisingly, Favre engineers a "comeback," and the Vikes tie the score, only to see a Rodgers-to-Greg Jennings bomb win it in overtime.

As Favre leaves the field, the Cheeseheads serenade him with the familiar chant, "Na na na na, hey hey hey, see you next year."

Week 8: Houston at Indianapolis — I'm guessing the Texans will have the 6-0 Colts on the ropes early in this one, thanks to a couple of Matt Schaub touchdown passes to Andre Johnson and running back Arian Foster. But the Colts will roar back, led by Peyton Manning, with a miraculous interception by Bob Sanders proving to be the defining moment (miraculous in that Sanders is uninjured up to this point).

Peyton Manning throws for 350 yards and 4 touchdowns, and Indy takes a three-game lead in the AFC South, and the Texans again set their sights on a wild card playoff spot.

Week 9: (tie) Dallas at Green Bay; Pittsburgh at Cincinnati — The Cowboys/Packers tilt could have playoff seeding implications. At least, that's what NBC will tell you in their promos for the game. Two of the NFL's young guns, Romo and Rodgers, battle as a mid-autumn chill descends upon Lambeau Field. The Packers, still feeling the effects of Week 8's loss to the Jets in the New Meadowlands, come out flat, and Romo finds rookie Dez Bryant for a 65-yard touchdown pass and an early Dallas lead. Ironically, Bryant is carried off the field in a celebratory frenzy by Roy Williams.

But Rodgers leads the Pack back, capping the comeback with a one-yard sneak that gives the Packers a four-point victory.

The Steelers and Bengals face each other for the first time, with both chasing Baltimore in the AFC North. Ben Roethlisberger is behind center, and with a Monday Night Football audience watching, he torches the Bengals for 312 yards and 3 touchdowns.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 5:25 PM | Comments (0)

August 26, 2010

MLB Logos, Past and Present (Pt. 1)

One of my three regular readers — okay, my editor is one — have requested that I cover more ground on sports logos. Whom am I to let down my legion of literary supporters?

This will be the first of a series of three parts. Parts two and three will come at a later date.

NEW YORK YANKEES

Although I am primarily an Indians fan, I am definitely on Boston's side of the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry. That said, I have to give the Yankees props for knowing that they have a timeless set of logos (both the interlocking NY and the baseball bat adorned with an Uncle Sam hat) and uniforms and don't try to fudge with it. This logo history page is a lot shorter than other teams' pages.

BOSTON RED SOX

Lots of teams that existed in the early 1900s had bizarre names like the Chicago Orphans or the Brooklyn Bridegrooms. Most of those teams moved on to more fearsome names, but not the Red Sox or White Sox. At least the White Sox don't play up the actual fabric in their logos (for the most part), 'cause hoo boy, do the Red Sox ever. I mean, white patches on the toe and heel (which they did not always have)? Elastic for the ankle? If you insist that there is some sort of visual allure to having old-timey socks as your primary logo, and at least throw some knitting needles in there, in order to stab people — much more intimidating.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

In 2004, I spent a week in Amsterdam, and one thing that struck me was how rarely I saw flags and other symbols of national pride. It made the U.S. look real gung-ho in comparison. But even the U.S.'s patriotic displays are nothing, nothing compared to how pervasive the maple leaf is in Canada. Ye Gods, it's incorporated into everything. Take the Blue Jays. Granted, they have gotten away from the maple leaf since 2004. But before that, every logo they used incorporated it. They even held down a poor, helpless bird and gave him a tat. Between their baby seal clubbing and forced avian tattoos, I'm starting to understand why my girlfriend hates Canada. Fortunately, in this case, she seems cool with it.

BALTIMORE ORIOLES

1954: I'm a happy oriole!
1964: I'm a happy oriole!
1965: I'm a happy oriole and I really like this ecstacy!
1966: I'm a happy oriole! I hear you use some sort of wooden stick in this game!
1967: I'VE DISCOVERED STEROIDS!!!

TAMPA BAY RAYS

First, I find it amusing that after just nine years of existence, they felt the need to do something as drastic as change their nickname. The jerk in me hopes there was at least one fan who bought like $100 worth of Devil Rays merchandise the day before they made the announcement.

That said, changing the focus from the sea animal to a sun ray is interesting, and unique, and I think they would do well to make heavier use of their more sun ray-emphatic alternate logo.

CHICAGO WHITE SOX

As I said, I appreciate the fact that they minimize their use of an actual sock in their logos. Also, calligraphy is awesome and underutilized in sports. But I have two major bones to pick with the White Sox. Number one, they have the least intimidating nickname in all of sports. At least Red Sox can turn your white clothes pink in the washer. How annoying. Second, the White Sox wore shorts briefly in 1976 and the players actually went along with it rather than quitting sports.

DETROIT TIGERS

Another timeless calligraphy logo. But the Tigers, to be sure, didn't want to waste the logo opportunities of such a ferocious animal. But wasted them they have. First, in 1901, they decided that "tiger" meant "lion with half his tail cut off." Then, in 1927, they went with a tiger logo that is so stupefying that I can't even come up with a joke for it. From 1934-1960, the tiger suffered a prolonged case of the mumps. But perhaps the most tragic period for the tiger came in the 1960s and 70s, when twice (once as a child and once as an adult) the tiger got into the Baltimore Oriole's ecstacy.

KANSAS CITY ROYALS

Not much to say here. They have made very few changes in their 41 years, and their logos and uniforms are neither good nor bad by my lights. I will pose one question. Look at all their historical uniforms, logos, scripts, etc. and tell me, between 2002-2005, who slowly died?

CLEVELAND INDIANS

It's hard for me to be objective about the Indians. Not because they're my favorite team, but because the Chief Wahoo logo is so inured in me that I don't even know what I think of it. I was surprised to find a couple of old logos I didn't know about, like their 1928 number, which looks like the side of an old coin, and an alternate logo they used from 1953-1972, where Chief Wahoo fixes his gaze on a crown that symbolizes the nothing the Indians won during that era.

MINNESOTA TWINS

The time: 1961. The scene: a boardroom in the graphic design firm hired to create a logo for the new Minnesota Twins.

Designer 1: I'm still thinking, Siamese Twins joined at the head ... and their heads are baseballs!

Designer 2: No, too edgy.

Designer 3: What if people don't understand that Twins refers to Twin Cities? Is there some way to convey that with the logo?

Designer 1: Maybe. What if there was a set of twins, one on each side of the Mississippi River?

Designer 3: But how will people know it's the Mississippi River?

Designer 2: We'll write "MISSISSIPPI" running down the middle of the river!

Designer 1: No, that will take up too much space.

Designer 3: And people will think it's the Mississippi Twins.

Designer 2: Wait! I got it! The guy on the Minneapolis side of the river will have a jersey that says "M" and the guy on the St. Paul side will have one that says, "St. P!"

Designer 1: And they'll be SHAKING HANDS OVER THE RIVER!

Designer 3: And there will be a little bridge, too!

Designer 2: God, we are such geniuses.

Ten years later, same guys, same graphic design firm. Designers No. 1 and No. 2 are sitting at the conference table when Designer No. 3 bursts into the room

Designer 3: Guys! Guys! You know what I just realized?

Designer 2: OMG! What? (Historical note: this was the first recorded usage of "OMG.")

Designer 3: Well ... you know what word is inside "Twins?"

Designer 2: "Ins?"

Designer 1: "Twi?"

Designer 3: No. ... prepare to have your mind blown.

(Five minutes later.)

Designer 3: And that's how we work it into the logo!

Designer 2: Outta sight! Hey, do you have any more of the ecstasy you got from that bird and tiger?

Posted by Kevin Beane at 6:52 PM | Comments (4)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 24

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kevin Harvick — Harvick struggled with handling issues at Bristol, finishing 14th, the last car on the lead lap in the Irwin Tools Night Race. He still leads the Sprint Cup points standings handily, with a 279-point lead over Jeff Gordon.

"It's a letdown after last week's win at Michigan," Harvick said. "It seems that too much Budweiser can lead to a hangover. And, compared to our performance on a crisp Sunday afternoon at Michigan two weeks ago, our work at Bristol was like the difference in night and day."

"But a win at Bristol sure would have looked good on the resume. Short tracks are a key component in the Chase, and a win on one would have been a huge confidence boost. Plus, my attention-starved wife DeLana could have proudly referred to herself as the 'Thunder Valet.'"

2. Kyle Busch — On Bristol's .53-mile oval, Busch made "short" work of the field in the Irwin Tools Night Race, leading 283 of 500 laps to win for the first time since Dover in May. Busch also won the Craftsman Truck and Nationwide series races, becoming the first driver to complete the three-race sweep. Busch vaulted five places in the Sprint Cup standing to third, and his three wins would seed him behind only Jimmie Johnson and Denny Hamlin when the Chase field is set in two weeks.

"Three wins at one tracks calls for three nicknames," Busch said. "They call me 'Rowdy' and they call me 'Shrub.' Now, they can call me 'The Janitor,' as well. Not only do I sweep the races, but I mop up with the competition."

"Now, as for Brad Keselowski, I readily admit I wrecked him. But calling me an 'ass' during driver introductions on Saturday was unnecessary, and simply a blatant attempt by Brad to seek support. But one can only expect a chicken to use 'fowl' language."

3. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson started from the pole on Saturday night at Bristol and set the tone early, leading 175 of the first 200 laps. But on a restart on lap 261, Johnson's No. 48 Lowes Chevy was clipped by Juan Montoya's No. 42 Target car, and Johnson slammed the wall, creating heavy right-front damage. After considerable time in the garage, Johnson returned on lap 327 and eventually finished 35th, 85 laps down.

"At first I wasn't sure if Montoya wrecked me," Johnson said. "But a quick view of the replay won me over, and I realized, that, in fact, I was indeed 'Juan-ed' over, which is akin to being screwed over."

"I think my struggles this year have caused my air of superiority to be replaced by an air of vulnerability. I don't mind being seen in a vulnerable light. Heck, I'm no different than any other driver — I put my racing suit on one leg at a time, and I count my Cup championships on one hand."

4. Denny Hamlin — After a promising start at Bristol, Hamlin's prospects soured when he felt his engine give midway through the race. The problem was diagnosed as a faulty drive shaft, and after lengthy repairs, Hamlin returned to the track and eventually finished 34th, 25 laps down.

"Now, I can totally understand Brad Keselowski's anger towards Kyle Busch. Like Kyle, he entered three races. Unlike Kyle, he came up short on all three counts. Kyle pulled off the 'trifecta;' Keselowski merely succeeded with the 'try-fecta.'"

"I've had my run-ins with Busch and with Keselowski. Neither will give an inch. So, when those two clash on the track, you know controversy will follow. You know, I think some of that intensity used in fighting for track position could be better utilized fighting for something more useful to those two, like a tan."

5. Jeff Gordon — Gordon finished 11th in the Irwin Tools Night Race, as handling issues denied him any chance of ending his 52-race winless streak. However, Gordon did clinch a spot in the Chase For the Cup, only the second driver to do so.

"It's amazing that I'm the second driver to clinch a Chase spot," Gordon said. "Amazing, in that I did it without a single victory. What else is amazing? That I clinched last place."

6. Tony Stewart — After a strong start, Stewart's hopes at Bristol suffered when he was nailed from behind by Tony Raines after Stewart checked up to avoid a spinning David Ragan. Later, on lap 212, Stewart his the wall further damaging the No. 14 Office Depot/Old Spice Chevy and causing a tire rub issue. Stewart eventually finished 27th, three laps down.

"After the incident with Raines," Stewart said, "everything went wrong for us. Which just goes to show that 'when it Raines, it pours.'"

7. Carl Edwards — Edwards qualified second at Bristol, and a solid start to the race had a top-5 finish well within reach. However, a balky pit stop under caution midway through the race cost Edwards 22 places, and he spent the remainder of the race fighting to recover. He finished 12th and improved two places in the points to fourth, and inched closer to clinching a Chase berth.

"It's satisfying," Edwards says, "and somewhat vindicating to know that I'm not the only driver that has a problem with Brad Keselowski. Brad's been 'turned' more times than Hulk Hogan."

"And I feel special knowing that I'm the one rival that gets not only under Brad's skin, but that of his father, as well. I love it when Brad talks trash about me. I get an even bigger kick when his dad criticizes me. Of course, I haven't really heard from Bob since he threatened to come after me back in July. I guess it's true what they say — one 'pop smear' a year is enough."

8. Kurt Busch — Busch scored his 14th top-10 finish of the year with a ninth in the Irwin Tools Night Race at Bristol. Busch maintained the tenth spot in the point standings, and increased his lead over the 13th spot from 215 to 253.

"If we learned one thing at Bristol," Busch said, "it's that Kyle Busch's and Brad Keselowski's battles should remain on the track as opposed to 'on the mic.' Both those guys have a 'bad rap.'"

"This is not the time of year that you want to be making enemies. That's something Kyle and Carl Edwards should be well aware of. If Keselowski decides to attempt vengeance in the Chase, Kyle and Carl could have their Cup aspirations shattered. Of all people, they should know better. They can't well afford enemies when even their teammates can barely be considered friends."

9. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer overcame a pit road speeding penalty to post a crucial top-five finish at Bristol, coming home fourth in the No. 33 Hamburger Helper Chevrolet. Bowyer remained 12th in the point standings, with a 100-point cushion over Jamie McMurray in 13th with two races remaining before the Chase.

"Hey, what do call the Clint Bowyer/Hamburger Helper fan fest in which admission is only a pound of ground beef?" Bowyer asked. "It's called a 'meat and greet.'"

"I'm not the biggest Kyle Busch fan, but I have to praise him for his honesty, and commitment to his sponsor. He readily admitted that he wrecked Brad Keselowski on purpose, and even worked in a plug for his sponsor when he said not only did he mean to, but he 'Double-meant' it.'"

10. Jeff Burton — Burton finished 16th at Bristol, handicapped by tight handling conditions that numerous adjustments never remedied. He remained seventh in the Sprint Cup point standings, and will likely clinch a spot in the Chase in Atlanta in two weeks.

"As NASCAR's voice of reason," Burton said, "I feel it's my duty to speak of the nasty feud brewing between Kyle Busch and Brad Keselowski. Those two are bent on destruction, when what they should be seeking is construction, of a truce. One would think construction would be their strong-suit, since they're both adept at 'making asses out of themselves.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:05 PM | Comments (0)

August 25, 2010

Yes, Sandberg Deserves the Job

Ryne Sandberg's name has been spoken an awful lot since Lou Piniella made his retirement a little sooner than first planned or announced. Including by Sandberg himself. The Hall of Fame second baseman isn't necessarily shy about wanting to manage the team for which he was once their biggest star. Even if he isn't anywhere near Gary Carter's shamelessness in job hunting.

But Sandberg isn't just looking to trade on his name. He's spent the past four years managing in the Cubs' system, including this season with the Iowa Cubs (AAA). He's made it impossible to think of the parent club hiring him permanently (third base coach Mike Quade was handed the job on an interim basis to finish this season) as nothing more than a marquee name from Cub glory past who will put the proverbial fannies in the proverbial seats.

Sandberg wasn't exactly an idiot savant as the best second baseman of the 1980s, and probably one of the five best of all-time. There were few players in the game smarter than him, few players who knew and executed the complete game with his aplomb. And there are few minor league managers now who have the reputation Sandberg has been building, sometimes well beneath the radar, as a thinking manager who can get his players to think before they act. (Wouldn't that be something to behold if and when Sandberg gets hold of Carlos Zambrano?)

Could it possibly hurt the Cubs to have a competent manager who just so happens to have a storied name of his own? They could do much worse and too often have. Nobody wants to shove Quade out the door at least until the season concludes, necessarily. But it would require a unique brand of naivete to believe it wouldn't be just too rich for words if Sandberg should be the one to bring the Cubs even once in a century plus what the Boston Red Sox finally landed twice in the past six years.

Sandberg isn't exactly interested in his marquee value. He never really was in his playing days, and he couldn't care less about it now. "He is so serious about getting to the big leagues and managing in the big leagues," his former Cub teammate Rick Sutcliffe told Tyler Kempner of the New York Times, "and you've got to admire him for the way he's going about it. He didn't just walk into the Cubs and say, 'Hey, I'm your guy, the fans want me to manage, give me the job.'”

We didn't need Sutcliffe to remind us. Sandberg made it plain enough when he was inducted into Cooperstown, where he delivered a sober speech in which he may have broken the record for using the word "respect." It showed up in practically every paragraph. He wasn't merely taking a thinly-veiled shot at Sammy Sosa (a teammate for Sandberg's final six seasons) when he intoned:

The fourth major league game I ever saw in person, I was in uniform. Yes, I was in awe. I was in awe every time I walked on to the field. That's respect. I was taught you never, ever disrespect your opponent or your team mates or your organization or your manager and never, ever your uniform. Make a great play, act like you've done it before, get a big hit, look for the third base coach and get ready to run the bases, hit a home run, put your head down, drop the bat, run around the bases, because the name on the front is a lot more important than the name on the back. That's respect.

... People like Harry Caray and Don Zimmer used to compare me, they used to compare me to Jackie Robinson. Can you think of a better tribute than that? But Harry, who was a huge supporter of mine, used to say how nice it is that a guy who can hit 40 homers or steal 50 bases drive in a hundred runs is the best bunter on the team. Nice? That was my job. When did it become okay for someone to hit home runs and forget how to play the rest of the game?

Sandberg manages that way, from all accounts. He has a well-deserved reputation for teaching; his players at all levels learned to respect him as their manager and not just a Hall of Fame showpiece. "At first," outfielder Jim Adducci told Kempner, "it was a little surreal to have a Hall of Famer and a Cubs legend as your manager. But after about a week of that, you just realize that he's your manager and he's going to help you out. He's just like one of us, trying to get to the big leagues, and that's big with us down here."

A man who stuns a Cooperstown audience by speaking of respect for the complete game ("If [my election to the Hall of Fame] validates anything, it's that learning how to bunt and hit and run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light at the dugout camera") can do no less.

That is Sandberg's virtue. It may or may not prove to be his burden as well. Jim Hendry, the Cubs' general manager, once told Sandberg that if he wanted to manage in the Show, he'd have to slog his way through the system all over again. Hendry has been making sounds indicating that Sandberg just isn't experienced enough to take over the Cubs. Maybe he just couldn't believe Sandberg would take his advice and, if you'll pardon the expression, hit and run with it.

Now Hendry says it's going to be an "exhaustive" search for the next Cubs manager. It could cost the Cubs both sound baseball thinking and a fan magnet if they exhaust themselves on behalf of Joe Girardi or a couple of rumored others.

ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski has cited "an MLB executive," unnamed, as saying "at least one big league organization seriously considered" hiring Sandberg as its manager this season. "With as many as ten likely openings this offseason," Wojciechowski says, "Sandberg will be in demand. If the Cubs try to romance Girardi first, they'll risk losing Sandberg to another team. And if Girardi stays put in New York and Sandberg goes elsewhere and wins, (owner Tom Ricketts) might want to consider full-time residence in Bolivia."

Mr. Hendry, the next Cubs' manager now has the best record in the Pacific Coast League, and will finish his season playing for a championship. If he wins, there will be a lot of people demanding to know why that performance didn't write his ticket to Wrigley Field. That's how many championships the Cubs have won since the Roosevelt Administration? (Theodore's, that is...)

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 1:37 PM | Comments (1)

August 24, 2010

The Best First Basemen in History

All stats in this column are through Monday, August 23, 2010.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about Jim Thome's pursuit of 600 home runs (he's at 581) and his place in history. Comparing him to contemporaries like Jeff Bagwell, Todd Helton, and Mark McGwire, I think I showed that Thome is an all-time great. But what does that mean? Where do he and the other great first basemen of the last 20 years stack up historically?

There are people who understand more about the history of baseball than I do, who have really seen guys play that I've only caught in highlights, who have studied statistics consistently over a period of decades, who have even invented some of the statistics I'll cite in this piece. I'm not Bill James or Pete Palmer or Tom Tango; I'm not Peter Gammons or Tom Verducci. What kind of world is it where Joe Posnanski (who knows a ton about baseball history and far less about football) writes about the greatest running backs in history and I (who know a great deal about football history and far less about baseball) rank the best first basemen the game has seen?

I don't think I'm unqualified to undertake this kind of project. If I did, I wouldn't try. But people like James and Tango have advanced statistical analysis of the game so far that people like me really can try to assess the greatness of players past and present. The numbers don't tell the whole story, of course, but they certainly tell a lot of it, and if I interpret the statistics differently than someone else, that doesn't necessarily mean either of us is wrong. This sort of thing would be a lot less fun if there was only one right answer.

So below, you'll find my list of the finest first basemen in the history of organized baseball, with two exceptions: I didn't include Negro Leaguers or 19th-century players. I'm confident that Buck Leonard would rate as one of the top 10 first basemen, and a couple other Negro Leaguers might slip into the top 15, but I just don't have the appropriate background to rank those players with confidence. The same applies to Japan's Sadaharu Oh. Were Leonard and Oh great players? Obviously. Were they better than Hank Greenberg, Willie McCovey, Eddie Murray? I simply don't know.

The same applies to players like Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, and Roger Connor. The game they were playing was much different than today's, and rather than give you rankings based more on guesswork than analysis, let's just say I don't believe any of them was Lou Gehrig, but I do think they're all in the top 20.

Before we get to the list, though, what makes a first baseman? As the least challenging defensive position, it's sort of an old folks home, where good hitters go when their defense fades. Stan Musial played more than 1,000 games at first, and would rival Gehrig for the top position if we ranked him as a first baseman. Pete Rose played first base in Philadelphia. Ernie Banks played more innings at first than at shortstop. Rod Carew spent more time at first than at second. We even have to contend with first basemen who were really designated hitters.

How do we handle this? I wanted to set a minimum number of innings, or a percentage of games played at first. Eventually, I threw up my hands. If you're used to seeing someone listed as a first baseman, that's how I ranked him. If you're used to seeing him somewhere else, he won't appear on this list. That means Musial, Rose, Banks, and Carew are not part of this project, along with many others who spent part of their careers at first base. Longtime DHs like Thome and Frank Thomas are usually listed as first basemen, so they are eligible.

1. Lou Gehrig
.340 / .442 / .632
2721 H, 493 HR, 1995 RBI, 1888 R

No surprise here. At various times in his career, he led the majors in batting average, on-base percentage, slugging, OPS, OPS+, runs, RBI, doubles, home runs, bases on balls, and total bases. He never led the majors in hits, though he collected over 200 eight times and did lead the American League in 1931. He also once led the AL in triples. A partial list of Gehrig's other records and accomplishments:

* MLB career record for grand slams (23).
* AL single-season record for RBI (184 in 1931).
* Scored over 100 runs for 13 seasons in a row, averaging 139 from 1926-38.
* Drove in over 100 runs for 13 seasons in a row, averaging 147 from 1926-38.
* Top-five all-time in RBI, OBP, slugging, OPS (1.080), OPS+ (179).
* Top-10 all-time in runs, extra-base hits (1,190).
* Almost twice as many walks (1508) as strikeouts (790).

Gehrig also had a good defensive reputation. He ranks top-10 all-time in put-outs as a first baseman, and advanced modern fielding statistics show him as a good defensive player.

2. Albert Pujols
.332 / .426 / .625
1863 H, 399 HR, 1204 RBI, 1157 R

Apart from Barry Bonds, the game hasn't seen such a consistently dominant player since ... who? Willie Mays? Pujols leads all active players in career batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. Take that in for a second. He has a better batting average than Ichiro Suzuki, but Pujols walks twice as often and has led the majors in extra-base hits three times in nine seasons. He hits for average like a singles specialist, but he walks and takes extra bases like a power hitter. There's nothing he doesn't do well as an offensive player. Here's his average line per 162 games:

597 AB, 123 R, 198 H, 44 2B, 2 3B, 43 HR, 128 RBI, 94 BB, 67 SO, 373 TB

That's an average. Since Pujols' rookie season, only 12 other players have recorded 373 total bases in a season once, and only Pujols and Alex Rodriguez have done it more than once. Here's a challenge: what was Albert's worst season? Was it 2002, when he set career-lows in batting average (.314), OBP (.394), and slugging (.561), but scored 118 runs, drove in 127, and walked more than he struck out? Maybe it was 2007, when he had career lows for runs (99), RBI (103), and home runs (32), but hit .327, walked 99 times, and was rated by WAR as the best player in the National League. Maybe it's even this season, with Pujols not a clear NL MVP, but leading the league in RBI, HR, total bases, slugging, and intentional walks. Those are down years for Albert Pujols.

Pujols is also an exceptional defensive first baseman, with a Gold Glove and four Fielding Bible Awards.

3. Jimmie Foxx
.325 / .428 / .609
2646 H, 534 HR, 1922 RBI, 1751 R

The choice for second place was razor-close. I have no doubt that Pujols will eventually lay definitive claim on the second spot, and he might one day challenge Gehrig at the top, but at this point in his career, after only 9½ seasons, Pujols and Foxx rate, I believe, very close to equal. The averages are almost identical, and Foxx played for much longer, without being a defensive liability, so a traditional statistical analysis would rate Foxx clearly ahead. I did not do so for several reasons:

1) Foxx was in his prime in the 1930s, when offensive stats were even more inflated than they are today. In 1932, when Foxx hit 58 home runs, the average AL team scored 5.23 runs per game. Last year, when Pujols set a career high for home runs, the average NL team scored 4.43 runs/game, less than 85% of Foxx's context. A run created in 2009 was more valuable than a run created in 1932, but Pujols creates just as many runs per 27 outs (9.8) as Foxx did (10.0).

2) Pujols has been just as good as Foxx was at his peak. Pujols is a three-time NL MVP, and has never finished outside the top 10 in MVP voting. Barring injury, he is a lock to be top-five again in 2010. Foxx was a three-time AL MVP, and finished in the top 10 of MVP voting two other times, though he deserved it more than that. By virtually any measure, though, Pujols already has more great seasons than Foxx did. In the subjective eyes of MVP voters, Pujols has 9-10 MVP-caliber seasons, compared to 5 for Foxx (though I'll repeat that he was unfairly passed over several times). In the pure mathematics of sabermetrics, Bill James identifies 30 Win Shares as an MVP-caliber season. Pujols has at least 31 Win Shares every year of his career, nine times and counting. Foxx recorded eight seasons of 30 Win Shares, including his 1935 season rounded up from 29.5.

3) Maybe the above point seems more like I'm pointing out that Pujols had more great seasons rather than comparing peak performance per se. Well, Pujols has been just as good as Foxx was at his peak. Each player was three times voted the most valuable player in his league. Let's look at highlights from those six seasons.

Foxx, 1932: .364 / .469 / .749, led majors in HR, RBI, TB, SLG, OPS
Foxx, 1933: .356 / .449 / .703, led majors in HR, RBI, TB, SLG, OPS
Foxx, 1938: .349 / .462 / .704, led majors in BB, RBI, TB, OBP, SLG

Pujols, 2005: .330 / .430 / .609, 360 TB, 89% SB, led majors in R, IBB
Pujols, 2008: .357 / .462 / .653, led majors in TB, SLG, OPS, IBB
Pujols, 2009: .327 / .443 / .658, led majors in R, HR, TB, SLG, OPS, IBB

In 2005, when Pujols led MLB in "only" two categories, he was also top-five in batting average (.330), extra-base hits (81), total bases (360), OBP (.430), SLG (.609), and OPS (1.039). He was top-10 in hits (195), HR (41), RBI (117), and BB (97). That's in the majors, not just the NL. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not an MVP-caliber performance.

4) Foxx played in a less competitive era, when it was easier for superstars to separate themselves from the pack. In the 1930s, the AL had eight teams. Today, the NL has 15. In the '30s, blacks were forbidden to play in the majors, and there were very few Latin or Japanese players. Today, MLB draws from a much wider talent pool. This isn't a mark to be held against great players of Foxx's era, or to disqualify them from ranking among the best ever. I've heard this argument stretched to contend that Babe Ruth wasn't a great player, which is ridiculous. But whereas Pujols has competed against the best baseball has to offer, Foxx never had to stand out from Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston or Buck Leonard. I believe increased competition in today's game makes Pujols' dominance even more impressive.

I would never want to give the impression that I don't believe Jimmie Foxx was a great, great ballplayer. I think it's obvious that he was. Like Pujols, he really could do everything. They're similar players in a lot of ways. For the reasons outlined above, I believe Pujols ranks slightly ahead.

4. Jeff Bagwell
.297 / .408 / .540
2314 H, 449 HR, 1529 RBI, 1517 R

The top three first basemen of all time, I believe, are fairly easy to identify, and I suspect we could get widespread agreement among knowledgeable baseball fans that Gehrig, Pujols, and Foxx occupy those positions. The fourth spot is trickier. I'm sure there are some fans who wouldn't put Bagwell in the top 10. I know someone who has repeatedly questioned whether Bags should even be a Hall of Famer. To me, that says more about this person than it does about Bagwell, but I recognize that this may be a contentious selection.

What was the hole in Bagwell's game? What didn't he do well enough to be considered one of the very best first basemen of all time? The answer, of course, is nothing. He hit for average, he walked, he hit with power, he ran well, he was a good fielder, and he was a full-time player for 14 seasons.

What was Jeff Bagwell's best season? 1994, of course, when he won NL MVP. I know Tony Gwynn was hitting .394, and Matt Williams was chasing Roger Maris, but there's little doubt that Bagwell was the best player in baseball that year. He led the NL in runs and OPS, led the majors in RBI, TB, SLG, and OPS+. Remember, this was a strike-shortened season, and Bagwell put up respectable full-season totals in only 110 games.

Bagwell: .368 / .451 / .750, 104 R, 116 RBI, 39 HR, 300 TB
Gwynn: .394 / .454 / .568, 79 R, 64 RBI, 12 HR, 238 TB
Williams: .267 / .319 / .607, 74 R, 96 RBI, 43 HR, 270 TB
F.Thomas: .353 / .487 / .729, 106 R, 101 RBI, 38 HR, 291 TB

Bagwell was a unanimous choice for NL MVP that season. Williams finished second, though that honor probably should have gone to Greg Maddux (1.56 ERA), Barry Bonds (1.073 OPS), or Craig Biggio (.894 OPS).

Hold on, Craig Biggio? Fine, he played a good second base and he had some great skills and intangibles that don't show up in OPS, but how did he leapfrog guys like Moises Alou and Fred McGriff? For the same reason Bagwell's numbers are so impressive: the Astrodome was a pitcher's park, one of the best pitcher's parks in baseball. Only the A's, Dodgers, and Giants had parks that depressed scoring as much as Houston's. Projections estimate that if you put Bagwell on the Rockies in 1994, he would have gotten more hits than Gwynn and more homers than Williams. Even in a neutral park, he improves to .376 / .460 / .766, a 25-point boost in OPS. In a neutral AL park, that's .385 / .470 / .787.

The projections above are just estimates, and I don't mean to play a "what if" game with Bagwell. His accomplishments are plenty impressive as is. But the man played his whole career in Houston, and there's just no question it makes his stats look less impressive than they are in context. The calculations for park effects may not be easy to understand, but all fans recognize that some parks favor hitters — Coors Field is the obvious example, of course — and some favor pitchers. In the 1990s, the Astrodome was probably as good an example as any of the latter.

Forget park effects, though. Straight-up, Bagwell has very impressive numbers: 1500 runs and RBI, 400 HR, over 200 SB. His career OPS of .948 ranks 22nd all-time, ahead of Ty Cobb and Willie Mays. Only two members of the .400/400 Club (.400 OBP and 400 HR) also have at least 200 stolen bases: Bagwell and Barry Bonds. Bagwell was a great hitter, a Gold Glove first baseman, and an incredibly consistent player for a decade and a half.

5. Frank Thomas
.301 / .419 / .555
2468 H, 521 HR, 1704 RBI, 1494 R

Am I biased in favor of current players, with three of my top five active in the 2000s? Maybe I'm just biased in favor of players born on May 27, 1968, which is when both Bagwell and Thomas were born. What are the odds that two of the greatest first basemen in history would be born on exactly the same day of the same year? That's got to be astronomical, right? But weird things like that happen. Sometimes people survive falls from 10-story buildings, or walk away from 100-mph car crashes. These things don't happen very often, but they are improbable, not impossible.

What are the odds that three of the top five first basemen would all be current or recent players? Not terribly likely, but surely no less likely than that the two best first basemen of the '90s were born on the same day, or that the two best first basemen of all time (Gehrig and Foxx) were contemporaries. Pujols, Bagwell, and Thomas are all ranked where I think they deserve to be, and I have no motive for over-rating modern players. If I did this same exercise for third basemen or center fielders, I might be accused of bias against contemporary players.

Let's acknowledge something right off: Thomas is barely a first baseman. He played about half of his career as a full-time DH. He was a poor defensive player, and often he was not a defensive player at all. Purely as an offensive player, however, he may be the best on this list, rivaling even Gehrig, Pujols, and Foxx. Thomas led the American League in OPS four times, ranked in the top five another four times.

In 1991, Thomas led all major leaguers in walks, OBP, and OPS. In 1992, he led the AL in doubles, walks, OBP, and OPS. The next two seasons, he won AL MVP. In the strike-shortened '95 season, he still managed over 100 runs and RBI, with 40 homers, leading the majors in walks for the third time in five seasons. The next season, Thomas hit .349, drove in 134 runs, and had a 1.085 OPS. In '97 ... well, you get the idea. This guy had half a dozen MVP-caliber seasons, finished in the top three of MVP voting five times.

Thomas hit a wall when he turned 30. Through the 1997 season, he was .330 / .452 / .600 in 1,076 games. Per 162 games, over that time he averaged: 191 H, 38 doubles, 39 HR, 129 RBI, 119 runs, 133 BB, 347 TB. He led the majors at various times in games, runs, doubles, walks, intentional walks, sacrifice flies, OBP, and OPS. After '97, he never again led his league in a major offensive category.

Players with more than 100-RBI seasons than Thomas: Barry Bonds, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Babe Ruth, Al Simmons.

Players with more .300 / .400 / .600 seasons than Thomas: Barry Bonds, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Albert Pujols, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams.

Players with more career walks than Thomas: Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, Mickey Mantle, Joe Morgan, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski.

6. Johnny Mize
.312 / .397 / .562
2011 H, 359 HR, 1337 RBI, 1118 R

Johnny Mize, in his 20s, rivaled Joe DiMaggio. They came up the same year, 1936, and both immediately became regulars, Mize in the NL, Joltin' Joe in the AL. DiMaggio was a little better, but the difference is not large. DiMaggio, during these years, led the AL in a major offensive category nine times. Mize, during the same period, led the NL in a major offensive category 17 times. He led the league in batting average (1939), doubles (1941), triples (1938), home runs ('39 and '40), RBI ('40 and '42), slugging (1938-40 and '42), OPS (1938-40), and total bases (1938-40). In his final season before going to war, Mize hit .305, led the NL in RBI and slugging, and played first base at a Gold Glove level.

After the war, Mize was still a great player. In '46, he hit .337 in 101 games. The next year he led the majors in home runs, runs, and RBI. In '48, he again led the majors in home runs, but he was 35 and slowing down. He was traded to the Yankees the next season, and closed out his career as an effective part-time player for the 1953 World Series champions. It is impossible to evaluate Mize's career fairly, though, without considering that he lost 3½ seasons of his prime to World War II, 3½ seasons when he was probably one of the five best players in baseball.

What is a conservative estimate for Mize's lost production during these years? Looking at Mize's 1940-42 seasons, I took his worst average per game in every category, and projected them for a 140-game season. This gives Mize a .302 / .373 / .473 line every year, the worst of his career to that point in every category. He gets 163 hits, 25 doubles, 7 triples, and 18 home runs. He drives in 108 runs, but scores just 74, with 59 walks and 50 strikeouts. It is inconceivable, I think — just totally out of the question — that Mize would not have bettered these totals, but even if we plug that line in for every season from 1943-45, Mize's career totals rise to 2499 H, 441 2B, 115 3B, 412 HR, 1341 R, 1662 RBI, 1033 BB. A more realistic projection moves those totals above 2500 H, 450 2B, 425 HR, and 1400 R.

I'm sure there are some people who believe it is unfair to give Johnny Mize credit for things he didn't do. I understand that point of view, but it seems obvious to me that it would be far more unfair to punish Mize for when he was born, for serving his country when he was called on to do so. Mize was the best first baseman in the National League in the early 1940s, and he was the best first baseman in the National League in the late 1940s. Almost certainly, he would have been the best first baseman in the National League in the mid-1940s, as well. This is not a "what might have been" scenario; clearly, Johnny Mize was a great baseball player from 1943-46, a great player who was unable to play for reasons unrelated to injuries or salaries disputes, a great player who was unable to play for reasons totally outside his control, subject only to the tides of history.

Mize's career totals are low because of this missed time, but his averages are exceptional, and he was a very good defensive first baseman.

7. Willie McCovey
.270 / .374 / .515
2211 H, 521 HR, 1555 RBI, 1229 R

Willie McCovey finished higher than 10th in MVP voting three times: 1968-70, when he was already 30 years old. He played 22 seasons in the majors, but in many seasons, he was injured or ineffective. McCovey was consistently a top player from 1965-70, and he had very good seasons in '63 and '74, but the other 14 years were a rollercoaster.

Stretch was a little one-dimensional as a ballplayer. He was great at one thing, hitting home runs. He was also patient at the plate, walked a lot and hit for an okay average. But he wasn't a good fielder, he couldn't run, and he only hit .300 once. A lot of those walks were intentional, 260, the third-highest total in history (behind Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron). McCovey scared the daylights out of opposing pitchers and managers. He was great at hitting home runs, so great you didn't care that he couldn't field or run.

McCovey led the National League in home runs three times, finished second to Willie Mays when Willie hit 52. McCovey also topped the NL in RBI twice, walks once, intentional walks four times, and slugging three times. In his MVP year (1969), he led in pretty much everything: homers, RBI, IBB, OBP, SLG, OPS. It was by far the best season of his career:

.320 / .453 / .656, 157 H, 45 HR, 322 TB, 101 R, 126 RBI, 121 BB, 66 SO

8. Dick Allen
.292 / .378 / .534
1848 H, 351 HR, 1119 RBI, 1099 R

This selection will not sit well with some people. Bill James once described Allen as "the second-most controversial player in baseball history." In fact, let me give you the full quote, from the 2003 New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract:

"The second-most controversial player in baseball history, behind Rogers Hornsby. Allen had baseball talent equal to that of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, or Joe DiMaggio, and did have three or four seasons when he was as good a player as anyone in baseball, but lost half of his career or more to immaturity and emotional instability."

That captures the problem rather concisely, I think. I put more time and energy into deciding where to rank Allen than any other player on this list. In a pure statistical analysis focusing on peak performance, he could rate as high as second, trailing only Gehrig. Even taking into account his relatively short career and abbreviated prime, solely on the numbers I would rank him ahead of McCovey.

Evaluating peak performance is critical in judging players. It is useful and important to look at the bottom line, the career totals, but it's equally important to understand how those totals are organized. Say two players, Alex and Babe, both have 2000 hits and 300 home runs, but Alex played for 20 years and Babe played for 10. Alex averaged 100 hits and 15 homers per season, while Babe averaged 200 hits and 30 homers. Clearly, Babe was the more valuable player. Alex was just holding down a position, and he must be one amazing defensive player to last 20 years with that kind of offense, but he's replaceable, easily. There are hundreds of guys who can do what he does. Babe was an all-star, probably a year-in, year-out MVP candidate. When Alex finally hangs it up, you bring a guy in from Triple A to fill his position, no big deal. When Babe retires, your team is going to feel it. Dick Allen had that kind of prime.

Allen's 1964 and 1972 seasons were as good as any season by Foxx, Thomas, McCovey, or anyone else on this list not named Lou Gehrig. In his Rookie of the Year campaign in '64, Allen led MLB in triples (13) and runs (125) and led the NL in total bases (352). He hit .313 with a .557 slugging percentage, and had an okay year at third base (he led the league in errors, but had good range and made a lot of plays other third basemen couldn't). The Win Shares system ranks Allen as the best player in baseball that year; WAR has him behind Willie Mays. In '72, when Allen did win AL MVP, he led the league in HR, RBI, BB, OBP, and slugging.

Allen also had huge seasons at the plate from 1965-68 and in 1971. This article gives a good year-by-year breakdown of Allen's career. At the beginning of his career, this guy was clearly, inarguably on the path to becoming an all-time great. During his first six seasons as a regular, his OPS+ was 164, which ranks him between Joe DiMaggio (165) and Eddie Collins (163), also comparable to Willie Mays (167), Shoeless Joe Jackson (167), Mel Ott (162), and Henry Aaron (161) when those players were 22-27 years old.

Allen and McCovey were similar in some ways. They both played in the '60s and '70s, both were first basemen, both won Rookie of the Year, both had an MVP season. Both were good sluggers and mediocre defensive players. In their respective primes, Allen was a far better player. Here are their career Win Shares by age:

Allen played in only 10 games when he was 21, whereas that was McCovey's ROY season, but after that Allen pulls ahead, far ahead, with totals twice as high as McCovey's up through age 26, and still well ahead through age 30. After that point, Allen's advantage disappears quickly.

McCovey had one great season, and several good ones, after Allen had lost his effectiveness or retired. But Allen's best seasons were better than McCovey's best seasons. I realize Win Shares is a little too esoteric for some people. Here are some basic stats for both players through ages 26, 30, and 35:

26, Allen: 840 H, 145 HR, 1533 TB, 512 R, 455 RBI, .302 / .380 / .551
26, McCovey: 524 H, 126 HR, 1013 TB, 327 R, 349 RBI, .271/ .357 / .523

These numbers confirm what the Win Shares already told us: Allen was a far more valuable player. What's noteworthy is how far ahead Allen is in total bases, despite that their home run totals are fairly close. Allen's batting average was 30 points higher, and unlike McCovey, he hit doubles and triples. Allen averaged 11 triples a season during these years.

30, Allen: 1412 H, 271 HR, 2603 TB, 851 R, 848 RBI, .298 / .386 / .550
30, McCovey: 1100 H, 268 HR, 2127 TB, 659 R, 733 RBI, .278 / .370 / .537

By age 30, McCovey has closed the gap for home runs, but remains far behind in everything else.

35, Allen: 1848 H, 351 HR, 3379 TB, 1099 R, 1119 RBI, .292 / .378 / .534
35, McCovey: 1649 H, 413 HR, 3225 TB, 985 R, 1165 RBI, .279 / .387 / .545

McCovey has edged ahead in the power categories, but they're close to equal at this point. Allen rates a little higher in Win Shares because his home park was a little tougher for offense and he was a more valuable defensive player (mostly from his time at third).

But Allen had all the qualities sports fans love to hate. He struck out a ton. He wasn't a good defensive player. He missed a lot of time with injuries, sometimes seemed to give indifferent effort. He was abrasive. He was black. Even Allen's detractors admit that he was subject to appalling racism, and I think it's reasonable to suggest that his career might have looked substantially different if he had been born earlier — playing in the Negro Leagues — or later, when race became less of an issue for most fans, especially in an environment like today's, when athletes — abetted by media-savvy agents — are more careful about protecting their images.

In today's game, Allen could have left Philadelphia as a free agent and played somewhere his relationship with the fans might have been less problematic. Again, I'm not here to play "what if" and I'm not rating Allen on an imaginary career in the 2000s, but I also don't want to rate players up or down based on luck, and I think Allen had a lot of bad luck. Philadelphia in the early '60s was one of the worst possible environments in which for him to begin his career.

Many fans and writers have alleged that Allen was a divisive and distracting presence in the locker room. As to the latter, that he was distracting, I don't doubt that was sometimes true. That he was divisive is less clear. Managers and teammates have given glowing testimonials in Allen's favor, and almost all of Allen's teammates in Philadelphia took his side in the infamous conflict with Frank Thomas. Allen was especially well-liked in Chicago; Goose Gossage and Jim Kaat in particular have spoken favorably about him. Craig R. Wright wrote a partisan but illuminating article for SABR Magazine focusing on interviews with Allen's managers.

Even Bill James, who in The Politics of Glory wrote that Allen "did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball", has softened his stance:

"The time has come, I think, to put the past away, and to elect Dick Allen to the Hall of Fame. ... Maybe I was right before; maybe I was wrong. I don’t know. On the field, Dick Allen was a major talent, easily surpassing all of the Hall of Fame tests that I have laid out. In my view the time has come to put the other stuff away, and recognize the quality of his contribution on the field."

Allen hit well for average (six times top-10 in BA), was a great base-runner (though not an exceptional base stealer), hit for power (three times led league in slugging), and walked (60+ BB every year from 1964-72). He is one of about a dozen players with double-digit walk-off home runs. Everyone agrees that Allen was a great hitter, even a historic hitter. From 1964-74, the years during which Allen received MVP votes, here are the top 10 in OPS:

1) Hank Aaron, .941
2) Dick Allen, .940
3) Willie McCovey, .937
4) Frank Robinson, .914
5) Willie Stargell, .905
6) Roberto Clemente, .892
7) Willie Mays, .890
8) Harmon Killebrew, .887
9) Carl Yastrzemski, .883
10) Billy Williams, .877

Did Allen do anything particularly worthwhile outside of those 11 seasons? I admit that he did not, but that's nine Hall of Famers he's sandwiched in with, and basically at the top of the list. I don't believe the record on Allen's behavior — and it's speculation more than evidence — is enough to downgrade this guy so much that he would fall out of the top 10. I think he's much closer to fifth than 15th.

9. Hank Greenberg
.313 / .412 / .605
1628 H, 331 HR, 1276 RBI, 1051 R

Conventionally, he is rated higher than this. Until the last decade, he was frequently ranked behind only Gehrig and Foxx. The 1930s were a huge-hitting era, and the big numbers look impressive compared to those of players like McCovey and Allen, who played in the pitching-dominated '60s and '70s. There are two marks against Greenberg: he had a short career, with only 6,096 plate appearances. That's far fewer than Mize or Allen, fewer even than Albert Pujols. And while Greenberg had great seasons, legitimate MVP seasons, he didn't reach the same heights as some of the other players on this list, and he really only had six great seasons.

Let's start with the positive: those six seasons (1934-35, 37-38, 40, and 46). During those six years, Greenberg won two MVP Awards and led the AL at various times in runs, RBI, doubles, home runs, walks, total bases, slugging, and OPS. His average season was .324 / .417 / .643, with 93 extra-base hits, 370 total bases, and more walks than strikeouts: 123 R, 187 H, 43 2B, 9 3B, 41 HR, 153 RBI, 91 BB.

Look, that's a fantastic résumé. Is it better than that of Mize, who also missed time because of the war? I can't see that it is. Greenberg won the MVP in '35 and '40, but Mize finished second twice, and I can't see that Greenberg's years are appreciably better than Mize's. Greenberg in 1940 led the AL in homers, RBI, and slugging. Mize in 1940 led the NL in all the same categories. Greenberg led the AL in total bases and OPS. Mize led the NL in total bases and OPS. Greenberg hit 50 doubles. Mize hit more singles and more triples. Greenberg walked more, Mize struck out less and grounded into fewer double plays. Mize stole more bases.

1940 isn't even Mize's best season. He was just as good in '37, batting a career-high .364. He was just as good in '39, leading the NL in batting average, home runs, OPS, and total bases. Greenberg's prime is no better or worse than Mize's prime; both were superb players. But Greenberg's prime is shorter, and he didn't stick around as a productive part-time player like the Big Cat did. For their careers, Mize has 400 more hits, has more home runs, more runs, more RBI, more walks, fewer strikeouts, almost 500 more total bases. And Mize was in the heart of his prime when he left for war. Greenberg, two years older, was already 30 and probably wasn't going to get any better.

Okay, that's one player. How do I get Greenberg, a two-time MVP, a .300 hitter with power, behind guys like McCovey and Allen? Greenberg was 30 when he went to war, about the same age Allen was when he stopped being worth the bother. Let's do the same thing we did with Allen and McCovey, career Win Shares by age:

Give Greenberg another three seasons, even another three big seasons, and he's really just pulling even. Through age 30, Allen was the more effective player. And Greenberg, even in his MVP years, didn't have the kind of impact Allen did at his best. Greenberg's best year was probably his first MVP season, 1935. He tied for the league lead in homers, and led the AL in RBI, XBH, and TB by huge margins. He was top-five in hits, doubles, triples, runs, and OPS. He ranked among the AL's top 10 in BA, OBP, and BB. That's phenomenal, obviously.

Allen's best year was probably his MVP season, 1972. He led the league in OBP by 15 points, in slugging by 65. He led in home runs and RBI, in walks and extra-base hits and times on base and OPS. He led in AB/HR and was the best power/speed player in the majors. He was top-five in BA, runs, and total bases. He placed among the AL's top 10 in hits, doubles, triples, and IBB.

Allen's OPS that year was 1.023, 12.5% better than Carlton Fisk's second-place .909. Greenberg in '35 ranked third in OPS (1.039), behind Foxx (1.096) and Gehrig (1.049). Allen did this in 1972, when the average AL team scored 3.47 runs per game. Greenberg posted basically the same OPS, a little higher, in 1935, when the average AL team scored 5.09 runs per game.

Look, I'm not trying to beat up Hank Greenberg. He was a great player, and I rank him in the top 10 without hesitation. Most people rank him in the top five, though, and I'd hate for anyone to think I was lazy or biased in assembling this list. I believe Greenberg has historically been overrated, and I hope I've done a good job of explaining why. Greenberg was a sensational all-around talent: a top-notch power hitter with a .313 lifetime average, a good fielder, patient at the plate, underrated base-runner ... he struggled with injuries, played 150 games only four times, 140 games only six times.

Everyone on this list has six great seasons. In Jeff Bagwell's eighth-best season, he drove in 130 runs and scored 126. In Johnny Mize's eighth-best season, he hit .317 and led his league in doubles. In McCovey's eighth-best season, he ranked third in the NL in HR and fifth in OPS. In Greenberg's eighth-best season, he played 78 games. With this kind of company, he simply doesn't stand out. Eddie Murray had twice as many career hits as Greenberg.

10. Harmon Killebrew
.256 / .376 / .509
2086 H, 573 HR, 1584 RBI, 1283 R

Killebrew hit 573 home runs in the heart of the second deadball era. Babe Ruth hit 40 home runs 11 times; four other players are in a second-place tie, with eight 40-homer seasons: Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, and Killebrew. That's two guys from the steroid era, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Killebrew. He led the AL in homers six times, in RBI three times, slugging once, walks four times, and OBP once. He didn't hit for average and he couldn't run, but he may be the best pure home run hitter on this list. Put him in an offensive era like Hank Greenberg or Frank Thomas and he'd have 600 home runs, 1750 RBI, maybe a .400 OBP.

11. Jim Thome
.277 / .404 / .557
2198 H, 581 HR, 1609 RBI, 1519 R

I wrote about Thome at some length two weeks ago, and I won't rehash that material here. He is one of 10 players with 1500 runs, 1500 RBI, and 1500 bases on balls. The others are Barry Bonds, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, Mike Schmidt, Ted Williams, and Carl Yastrzemski. That's select company. A year from now, he'll probably have 600 home runs.

12. Eddie Murray
.287 / .359 / .476
3255 H, 504 HR, 1917 RBI, 1627 R

One of four players with 3,000 hits and 500 home runs; the others are Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Rafael Palmeiro. They didn't call him Steady Eddie for nothing. Going purely by career totals, he's the greatest player on this list, except for Gehrig. Eddie Murray was a good player for a long time. He was only a great player for a few seasons, and never a truly elite player in a historic sense. In 21 years in the majors, Murray led his league in a major offensive category four times: home runs and RBI in the strike-shortened '81 campaign, walks and OBP in '84. He also led the AL in intentional walks three times.

Without exaggeration, most of the other players on this list led their league in more categories than that just in a single season. In 1969, Killebrew led the AL in HR, RBI, BB, IBB, and OBP, while McCovey led the NL in HR, RBI, IBB, OBP, and SLG. In 1940, Greenberg and Mize led their respective leagues in HR, RBI, TB, SLG, and OPS. Murray didn't stand out from the crowd the way most historic players do; he's distinguished more by his career length and sustained productivity than anything else. His on-base and slugging averages are the lowest of any player on this list, the slugging by a wide margin (39 points). He never had a single-season OPS of 1.000, never even .950.

If you could draft Murray or Jim Thome, who would you take? It's a tough call, I think. Murray had 1,000 more hits. That's huge, 1,000 hits. Thome will probably get down to triple digits before he retires, but he'll still be way behind. On the other hand, Thome had five 1.000 OPS seasons, 11 with an OPS of at least .950; that's 11 more than Murray. Some of that we can chalk up to timeline; if Murray's prime had come in the late '90s or early 2000s, he surely would have broken .950 several times. He wouldn't have met the mark 11 times, though, and he never would have posted a 1.122 like Thome did in 2002.

I want to say I'd take Murray. In fact, I probably would take Murray. It wouldn't be the right choice. Thome is so much more dangerous as a slugger, so much better at getting on base, so much more efficient than Murray that I think it makes up for Eddie's steadiness.

Murray's projected career stats if he'd played his whole career in a late-90s context: 3594 H, 560 HR, 2247 RBI, 1900 R, 1474 BB, .300 BA, .374 OBP, .498 SLG.

Outside the Top 12

Mark McGwire
.263 / .394 / .588
1626 H, 583 HR, 1414 RBI, 1167 R

Thirteenth on my list, absent any consideration of performance-enhancing drugs. Sensational power hitter, but he hit .263, couldn't run, didn't field well, couldn't stay healthy, and got to be a distraction.

Will Clark
.303 / .384 / .497
2176 H, 284 HR, 1205 RBI, 1186 R

One of the most underrated first basemen in history, probably the most underrated top-tier major league first baseman in history. In 1988, he had 100 walks, 100 runs, 100 RBI, hit 29 homers and led the majors in IBB. The next season, he batted .333 with 196 hits and 38 doubles, led the NL in runs, and had a .953 OPS. In '91, he led the National League in slugging and total bases, drove in 116 runs, and won a Gold Glove. Those three seasons, in the context of late-'80s Candlestick Park, are the equal of McGwire's three best seasons.

Rafael Palmeiro
.288 / .371 / .515
3020 H, 569 HR, 1835 RBI, 1663 R

Eddie Murray with steroids.

George Sisler
.340 / .379 / .468
2812 H, 102 HR, 1175 RBI, 1284 R

Held the single-season hit record for 80 years, hit .400 twice, led the majors in total bases one year. A great player, certainly. But he never walked (472 BB), got caught stealing too often, didn't hit for power, didn't play well defensively, and didn't have a long career.

Frank Chance
.296 / .394 / .394
1274 H, 20 HR, 596 RBI, 798 R

Mentioned in a famous poem, but he had 5,103 plate appearances and no power.

There are many fine first basemen not mentioned here: Orlando Cepeda, Carlos Delgado, Jason Giambi, Todd Helton, Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff, Tony Perez, Bill Terry — it doesn't diminish their greatness. Top 12 is a high standard, and I'm not saying those guys shouldn't be Hall of Famers. Probably some of them shouldn't, but if Eddie Murray were the cutoff for the Hall of Fame, Cooperstown would be a lot less crowded, and I don't think that's necessary. The Hall feels more complete for honoring people like Sisler and Cepeda. Were they better than Bagwell, Allen, Killebrew, Thome? I hope I've made a persuasive case why they're not, and why the 12 players I chose are the greatest first basemen in MLB history.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 6:44 PM | Comments (0)

2010 U.S. Open Prequel

Ever been stung by a bee? How about many? Well, I am writing this for you after having had an encounter with a nest of bees. It was a close one, but after being rushed to the ER and getting acute allergy treatment, I would have to put the score at 7-6 bees, first set. I'm doing better now, but not sure I'll be making every day of the upcoming U.S. Open tournament. I'm hopeful that I will.

Speaking of the U.S. Open, with the qualifiers going on starting today, the U.S. Open has officially started. For tennis fans, the qualifiers are free and open to the public. You won't necessarily see many huge stars, but you will see well-known players, such as Nicolas Mahut, Karol Beck, former women's top-10er Jelena Dokic, Lilia Osterloh, and Marta Domachowska.

You will also get a chance to see a new "USTA U.S. Open fan enhancement." This year, the USTA held a series of pre-qualifying tournaments for the regular tennis public known as the U.S. Open National Playoffs. The winners of the playoffs got automatic entry into the U.S. Open qualifying tournament. Blake Strode of St. Louis, MO and Alexandra Mueller of Abingdon, PA were the champs and will be in action at Flushing Meadows this week.

Probably the two best new "fan enhancements" are the flying cameras in Arthur Ashe and Louis Armstrong Stadium and the addition of microphones to the players' boxes. I've always wanted to hear what Richard Williams was saying during a match. This year, I will get to hear it, assuming they let him in the box. I am not sure what the flying cams will do, but I look forward to some different camera angles.

I've said it before, the U.S. Open Championships offer a lot for the dollar. A one-day grounds pass during the tournament gives you access to all but the most popular matches, and those are carried on screens throughout the grounds of the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center and also on the major broadcasting channels. You have your choice of over 14 regular courts and two sets of practice courts where you can see just about every pro in the game. Usually, the best matches of the tournament are found on the grandstand court or court number 11, all accessible with only the grounds pass.

If you go to see the stars, maybe the best place to hang is near the practice courts, where you can watch the best practice and often get a few minutes to talk with them through the fence. One of my fondest memories is watching Martina Hingis signing two dozen balls, then lofting them over the fence to watching fans.

This year, the practice courts will be a little lighter of the big stars. Juan del Potro, the reigning U.S. Open men's champ, will be out due to his wrist injury. It is safe to say that this year there won't be any controversies like last year, as women's number one Serena Williams will also be missing. She she is still recovering from a foot injury suffered earlier this summer at a restaurant in Germany.

There are several player's nursing injuries, as well, so hopefully the practice courts will still be hosting Mardy Fish, John Isner, Kim Clijsters, Andy Roddick, and Ana Ivanovic, all nursing either fatigue or injury. Mardy Fish has been the most consistent U.S. Men's player this summer, winning at Newport and Atlanta, as well as runner-up to Federer last week in Cincinnati. He withdrew from New Haven this week due to fatigue, so hopefully he will be there for us to cheer on next week. Look for him to finally go deep in the tournament and give the American populous something to cheer about.

This Thursday, the official draws will be entered at a grand event in NYC. The favorites are easy to pick even without the official draw, as it seems that Roger Federer has the edge for the men, followed closely by Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray. I'm giving last year's women's finalist and current world No. 2 Caroline Wozniacki the edge for the women. She is riding the momentum of her victory in the Rogers Cup last week and a very consistent hard court season overall. Maria Sharapova has had a great summer, as well, along with the currently injured Clijsters. Sharapova seems to shine at Flushing Meadows, so she is my outside favorite. Clijsters is "50-50" at the current time.

With any luck, and a lack of bees, I'll be adding commentary frequently during the tournament, so stay tuned.

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 12:38 PM | Comments (1)

August 23, 2010

An Independent Streak of Lunacy?

After Nebraska went to the Big Ten, Utah and Colorado went to the Pac-10, Boise State went to the Mountain West, and the Big 12 stabilized with 10, the Summer of Realignment in college sports was thought to be done and dusted.

However, this past week provided one of the strangest rumors of the entire process, and that includes whatever murmurs there were of a possible 22 team Pac-whatever enveloping the Big 12.

The "BYU to become independent and rejoin the WAC in everything else" chatter that dropped last Tuesday seemed like an implausibility at best. After all, the only schools that move to become independents nowadays are teams transitioning from another division or Army after realizing a mistake in joining Conference USA.

Yet, that rumor involving BYU seemed to accelerate by the hour in validity, with various outlets and papers reporting it to be done. As of writing time, BYU has not finalized any deal to become an independent in football and rejoin the WAC for everything else.

In response to the possibility of BYU leaving the MWC, the conference has invited Nevada and Fresno State from the WAC, who have each already accepted. Whether or not this is an 11th-hour coup aimed at getting BYU to stay remains to be seen. The move is also likely to shore up any possibility that Boise State could run away from a MWC sans BYU and Utah without having to pay a buyout to the conference, which it could do if it really wanted to.

At first glance, it doesn't make that much sense for BYU to want to leave the Mountain West to become unaffiliated. Even without Utah in the MWC in a year's time, BYU would still have two other football powers in Boise State and TCU to help move the conference even further towards automatic qualification to the BCS. Now, assuming BYU completes the move to football independence, the MWC has a lesser chance of becoming the seventh automatic qualifier.

This past spring, the BCS released a formula that will determine if a conference outside the top six is to become an automatic qualifier. The results of the formula will be determined using the 2008-2011 seasons, and a conference would then automatically qualify for the BCS after the 2012 and 2013 seasons. The Team Speed Kills blog ran the numbers and found that the MWC, due to the bottom part of the conference weighing the league's average team computer ranking down, would still be outside of automatic qualification territory. And then there this, "The computations will be made according to the conference's membership on Dec. 4, 2011."

In layman's terms, this means that whatever Utah did or does from 2008-10 will not count towards the Mountain West receiving or not receiving an automatic bid into the BCS. Yet, whatever Boise State did or does from 2008-10 (so far a lot, and possibly a whole lot depending on this season) in the WAC will count. Nevada and Fresno State also have the potential to strengthen the MWC for that metric, and from that standpoint, BYU might be tossing away a chance at a BCS bid down the road should it leave.

The BCS rules are as clear as can be when it comes to one certain independent team (I'll give you a hint: it's not Navy).

But what about any other potential independent teams besides Notre Dame? The BCS is fairly ambiguous when it comes to those teams. The rule about a team automatically qualifying if it is in the top 12, as per BCS guidelines, clearly refers to teams that are outside the Big Six conferences. As it stands now, should BYU go independent, the Cougars would have to rely on getting selected to the BCS as an at-large team. BYU, even without the MWC having an automatic bid, knows it can automatically qualify, but that it has to be in the top 12, and ahead of any other non-major conference schools in the BCS. One would think that a program as successful as BYU would have made some sort of agreement with the BCS before rashly deciding to throw away any opportunity to qualify automatically for the BCS.

From a business standpoint, however, it makes more sense for BYU to become independent. On multiple occasions on this site, I've been very critical about how the Mountain West has gone about its TV contract. All of what was said in those articles still applies, so there's no use in repeating it. The one good thing I can say about the Mountain West when it comes to the TV deal is that they've seemed to put more games on more widely-available Versus. Yet, it still seems like more people could be watching a late Thursday or Friday night game on ESPN or ESPN2 than watch on CBS College Sports or Versus opposite a big SEC game on ESPN.

Some news stories estimated that BYU gets $2 million from the MWC TV deals a year, a number that could be greater if they were independent and able to get some sort of ESPN or other network's deal.

The other area BYU stands to gain is in bowl money, wherein it could make all of a bowl's payout as revenue, instead of having to split it with other conference members. If BYU somehow hatches out an agreement with the BCS where finishing in say, the top six would automatically qualify the Cougars for a BCS game, the result would be $18 million directly into the school's coffers. For other bowl games, BYU would undoubtedly create tie-ins for itself much like Notre Dame has. The program is too well-known and has too big of a fan base to be an outcast as an independent, as some are predicting.

BYU will also have a great amount of scheduling freedom should it become independent. Will the Cougars opt to schedule some of their regional rivals? Of course they will, as well as the "Holy War" game against Utah. But the ability to possibly schedule marquee games will come as a benefit to the program as well.

During the previous round of conference realignment, our Corrie Trouw argued for Texas, the gorilla in the room in those negotiations, to become an independent in football. Any number of big-time programs could do the same today, as certain schools' brands transcend any conference affiliation. Is BYU in that club? In some ways, I think they certainly are. It's a program with a national championship and a Heisman Trophy to its name in the last 30 years. It has a degree of a widespread fan base thanks being so intertwined with a national church.

It wasn't so long ago that there were many independents in college football. As recently as 1988, there were 24 schools not belonging to any conference. Back then, Miami, Florida State, Penn State were all without a conference, and seemed to do all right. Eventually, all of those powerhouses chose the stability that a conference provided.

BYU's program is stable enough that it doesn't need a conference. After all, Notre Dame has gone 26-24 in the past four years and had to fire its coach, while BYU has gone 43-9 in the same time period with a coach who will probably be at the school as long as he likes. Neither decision BYU makes is completely the wrong one, as each could lead the school to the promised land of the BCS.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 7:41 PM | Comments (0)

When Rulehawks Attack and Why Golf Benefits

After "Double Dare" and before an inexplicably long run at Food Network, Marc Summers used to host a show on Nickelodeon called "What Would You Do?" that put people in random situations, seeking to see how they would respond to constraints and rewards. Sure, it had a lot to do with slime and pies, but the idea holds: given certain parameters, how would you play something out?

It seems that's the right question to ask when thinking about the rules violations of the last two weeks — Dustin Johnson's bunker boo-boo and Juli Inkster getting Dairy Queened for swinging with a weight to stave of stiffness during a nap-inducing half-hour wait at the LPGA's Safeway Classic.

In each situation, ultimately, the player broke one of the rules. For Johnson, it was a local rule brought about by the absurdity that is Pete Dye's Whistling Straits. Inkster infracted against a USGA rule of golf, but did so out of boredom/other rules violations in front of her. Even armed with a good excuse, a player has no right to break the rules. It's not unfair for them to be penalized for it.

Here's where the tricky part comes in, though. In both cases, it was not the player themselves that initiated the penalty. For Johnson, it was some PGA of America official watching the telecast because David Price was too busy playing Traffic Cop instead of doing his job. A fan watching Golf Channel's LPGA coverage caught Inkster's mistake and alerted the LPGA Tour directly, which set off the disqualification process.

The anonymous fan who ratted out Inkster when a thousand fans who saw it in person said nothing is being lambasted in golf and sporting circles this morning. Golf is getting a 4-iron to the crotch because it actually allows spectators — in person or remotely — to levy penalties against players. We did a photoshop yesterday mocking these individuals just itching to point out rules violations via telephone with a fake hotline/textline for viewers with their rule book handy. (Me? I have the Federalist Papers in my back pocket.) While that post made certain individuals unhappy, most laughed out loud — they want butt-in-skis to keep the offices of the major tours clear for more important business.

Even though I'm happy to poke fun at this kind of mercurial memory of the Rules of Golf, I find myself siding with them or any spectator that calls out a rules violation in the sport.

Let's get back to D.J. for a second. It's not abundantly clear that David Price realized what Johnson had done, though the plume of dust probably gave it away. No, the damning evidence was the television (as well as 10 still) cameras perched directly behind Johnson when he grounded his club in the bunker behind a curtain of people. As Johnson grounds his club in the dirt, CBS' Jim Nantz can barely be heard muttering, "Oh boy." Nantz knew what transpired, and despite David Feherty's lamentations to the contrary, someone on the CBS golf team — assemble! — caught it and knew the local rule, however ridiculous it is.

At that point, there was no way the PGA of America couldn't call a penalty, right? It's been broadcast on global TV. If they let him slide, then players would come out for years about the rules they broke which were caught. Bring on Craid Stadler, DQ'd for kneeling on a towel while he hit out of a squirrely lie in '81. There are others DQ'd by the videotape who would have Maury interviews lined up to share their sob stories.

And if the PGA of America didn't notice, wouldn't Nantz had to have said something on air? I'm not going to make the allusion and comparison to bloody murder, but maybe stealing a Fabrege egg is an appropriate parallel. If Johnson made bogey (or par) and went on to win and Nantz didn't say anything then and there, players would have come out against D.J. and the PGA of America for not noticing. Johnson would be a stained champion. Nantz would be a fraud. The public would be upset that a rule-breaker won a major championship. What's worse for the integrity of the game?

In 2005, Michael Bamberger of Golf Magazine faced a similar situation. Watching Michelle Wie in her pro debut in the hyper-limited field Samsung World Championship (who, richly, make very nice TVs for viewing rules breaches in crystal clear HD), Bamberger noticed Wie took an improper drop. Her drop landed a foot closer to the hole. Bamberger sat on the infraction all day, talking to Michelle afterward, sleeping on it, and — unable to get out the damn spot — contacted the LPGA Tour. Eventually, Wie was disqualified.

Bamberger, for his part, was crucified by the public. He was labeled as having an agenda. Smarmy (and rather ignorant) commentators said Bamberger must be pleased with himself for creating a story. Well, that's not the case. Bamberger has been a long-time golfer — caddy, even — and a fan of the game. He toiled with the idea of getting a player disqualified for breaking the spirit of a rule, even if there was no malice.

In fact, it was Bamberger's retelling of the situation to his employer in 2008 that drew my conclusion for me on this issue. If Bamberger saw this same rules violation at home and he had called in, it wouldn't have been any different for me than his eying it live and in person.

Call it spying, voyeurism, or sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, but when there is a rotten stench in golfdom, it is the obligation of a spectator to call out what they smell.

Yes, the people who take the time to spot a rules violation, play it back to confirm it, consult the USGA Rules of Golf, have the Tour office on speed dial, and phone in Rule 14-3/10 like they were ordering beef fried rice for takeout do need a life. Clearly, they are shut-ins. Still, I would much rather them be there, watching over the integrity of the game, than playing Pinochle on their laptops.

From the sporting world at large, the complaint is that no other sport even fields calls from fans to document and persecute rules violators. Really? How about the Mitchell Report? A lot of the names released were done so on the good word of Brian McNamee, or other players who squealed. Armando Galarraga would have a perfect game under his belt if fans could phone in umpire mistakes of that magnitude. Vlade Divac's career would have been 10 years shorter if fans could complain about flopping to the league office. Mike Periera's life would have been more hectic with an obscene number of complaints about PI from abject failures of NFL fans-turned home officials, but they might have caught something. Maybe Brett Hull wouldn't have scored a goal while in the crease in the NHL Finals.

Plainly: a lot of controversy could have been avoided if other sports did allow for what golf does.

The legitimate gripe from the opposite argument is that both Johnson and Inkster fell victim to the rules observations because they were playing well enough to get filmed in the first place. It's for the players that don't get on TV that I hope there are more Bambergers, to counter balance the small sliver of the field that does get on TV. The videotape doesn't lie, but people can.

After the Johnson debacle, I — and others — wondered just how many times that same local rule was broken over the course of a week. We only know of one other: Stuart Appleby in '04, but how many others happened that were never caught on tape? Players that are golfing like crap or are so unrecognizable to the public that a network would rather broadcast Barney the Dinosaur episodes than show them don't get that kind of attention. Fans, then, should be attuned to the possibility that they might ignorantly break the rules. For the protection of the players who have crowds three deep or more following them, the one or two faithful Webb Simpson (random name, he's a nice guy) fans that watch him through thick and thin better be equipped to tattle on him if he commits a rules crime.

Yes, the circumstances around both Dustin Johnson and Juli Inkster getting golf flogged for their sins are unfortunate. Each clearly had no intent to break the rules or use them to their advantage. Then again, Arjun Atwal clearly used the rules to his advantage to win his first PGA Tour event — and there's no backlash about that. As golfers, though, we all play within the same sandbox (at least when it is appropriately recognized as such). If it happened to me while I was in contention for my club championship, I'd be upset but I would understand.

Unlike the likes of the directionless losers in their 20s propped up in a recent 10-page New York Times article, golf can benefit from helicopter guardians. The reputation of the sport, defined by a man from the 20s — Bobby Jones, said of being praised for calling a penalty on himself in 1925, "You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank." These violations may have cost Inkster and Johnson a hefty add-on to their bank accounts, but the sport would have been held up of its honor had the rules not been properly applied.

Posted by Ryan Ballengee at 9:22 AM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2010

NFL Preview 2010: NFC & AFC East

Also see: NFC & AFC North | NFC & AFC South | NFC & AFC West

NFC East

The NFC East is one of the two conferences (the other miraculously being the NFC South) that has seen all four of its members make the playoffs in the last three seasons. If you predicted any four of these teams would win the conference and any of the remaining would take a wild card slot, I wouldn't argue with you. They are all very talented. They all have a combination of youth and experience, but they can't all go 10-6 and make the playoffs. Well, I guess they technically could, but they won't.

Dallas Cowboys

The Cowboys continue to add to their arsenal of weapons for Tony Romo with the addition of rookie WR Dez Bryant. This makes them extremely deep in the passing game. A four wide receiver set with Miles Austin, Bryant, Roy Williams, and Jason Witten seems like an absolute nightmare, does it not?

Add to that two solid running backs in Marion Barber and Felix Jones and there is little question of the potency of this offense. My only concern is the offensive line. Two starting members of the offensive line, Kyle Kosier and Marc Colombo, are out at the moment with injuries and may or may not be available for the Week 1. Both are knee injuries, not a great place to be hurting as an offensive lineman. Having those two healthy would mean a lot less time on the ground for Romo and a few more yards for Barber and Jones.

DeMarcus Ware had a decidedly worse season in 2009 than is typical for him with only 11 sacks and 57 tackles. Compare that to 2008, when he had 20 sacks and 84 tackles or even 2007, when he posted 14 sacks and 84 tackles. I can understand the sack numbers decreasing because people began to key on him more, but nearly 30 less tackles is not so easy to dismiss.

Without Ware's pass rush, the secondary struggled against the pass and unless the Cowboys find a way to apply more pressure, I can't see the secondary improving from 2009.

The schedule for the Cowboys is not easy. They have three very difficult road games in Indianapolis, Minnesota, and Green Bay. Throw into that mix a strong division, a home game against New Orleans on Thanksgiving, and the Cowboys are not going to have many easy wins on their schedule. They're going to have to bring it week in and week out.

I think they are the most talented team in the division and will show it going 11-5, but losing in the first round of the playoffs.

Washington Redskins

The Redskins had a bad 2009; however, they had a great offseason. Acquiring Donovan McNabb took them from 4-12 under Jason Campbell to 7-9 or 8-8 under McNabb. Add to that a better coach in Mike Shanahan and the Redskins could truly be formidable if McNabb were five years younger or if his health holds up, especially considering the mediocre offensive line present in Washington.

The real question for this team is can three washed-up running backs gain enough yards for any sort of balance on this team. If you had told three years ago that the Redskins would have a backfield of Clinton Portis, Larry Johnson, and Willie Parker, I would have concluded the Redskins were going to win the Super Bowl in wishbone formation. As it stands, the three of them combined probably won't reach 1,500 yards.

The previous regime spending all that money on Albert Haynesworth has to have Shanahan about ready to cry. That being said, the front seven of the defense are still solid and shouldn't give away any games. A healthy Haynesworth stuffing the run like the old days in Tennessee would surely help, though.

This team truly has the potential to be very good. It also has the potential of crumbling very quickly. It is filled with veterans who have had good careers, but are still hanging on to the threads of talent they have left. I think overall the team is just too old and won't produce immediately. This will be the best year of the next three for the Redskins, but it will only end at 9-7, missing the playoffs. Shanahan needs to get some fresh legs in the backfield (which he is obviously good at), but more than anything, he needs to get the offensive line functioning so those fresh legs aren't ripped off every down.

New York Giants

The Giants won the Super Bowl three seasons ago and they have completely fallen off of the list of elite teams. The Giants define middle of the road. They went 8-8 in 2009 and were ranked 11 in passing yards, 17 in rushing yards, 15 in pass defense, and 14 in run defense. Could they be any more middle of the road?

At one time, Brandon Jacobs looked like the running back of the future: fast, huge, unstoppable. But he rushed for 3.7 yards a carry last season. That sounds pretty stoppable to me.

Steve Smith had a breakout year, making fantasy players around the world confused and bewildered due to his name.

Overall, Eli Manning had a good season in 2009, but he is so inconsistent. In Week 5 against Oakland, he had a perfect quarterback rating (though he only threw 10 passes in the 44-7 slaughter). In Weeks 6, 7, and 8, Manning posted ratings of 61.0, 47.5, and 55.7. Throwing for 4,000 yards has never been so meaningless.

Cornerback Terrell Thomas led the team in interceptions with 5 and tackles with 85. Cornerbacks aren't supposed to lead the team in tackles. While obvious credit is due to Thomas, the linebackers need to step up.

Expect another season of the good old-fashioned, unimpressive, middle of the road ending in a 7-9 record.

Philadelphia Eagles

All Philadelphia fans have every right to be angered by this prediction. Their team is extremely talented on both sides of the ball with perhaps the best defense in the NFC, but Kevin Kolb at the helm with Michael Vick next in line worries me. Add to that no Brian Westbrook and we could have a serious meltdown in Philadelphia.

The Eagles will have to rely on their defense and special teams to win games and while that can work, their defense just isn't stingy enough to win them ball games. In points allowed, they were ranked nine out of 16 in the NFC. Their defense causes pressure and makes big plays, but it still allows points and that will be the downfall of the 2010 Eagles.

I think they'll manage 6-10, but Kevin Kolb needs to show he is the franchise quarterback or they need to find a new one.

AFC East

The top three teams in the AFC East could all easily win 11 or more games. Question marks remain, but don't expect the guard to change so quickly. The Patriots still have life in them and they're the only team in the division with a solid quarterback.

New England Patriots

Tom Brady, Randy Moss, and Wes Welker are a unique group to have together in a pass attack. I don't know that they are the best combination in the NFL, but they likely make the top three.

A lot of people believe that the Patriots are not as formidable as they have been in recent years. Last year, they went 10-6, but they also went 8-0 at home. The only game they lost at home last season was in the playoffs to Baltimore. Their schedule last year was no piece of cake. They lost at Indy, at New Orleans, at Miami, at Denver, at Houston, and at the New York Jets.

This season, it's not any easier, but their most difficult games (outside of the division) are all at home. They get Cincinnati at home, Baltimore at home, Minnesota at home, Indianapolis at home, and Green Bay at home. They also have at San Diego and at Pittsburgh, but I truly think they'll be able to handle it better being at home.

The Patriots certainly could go 7-9, but I think they'll keep on top of their game and end up 12-4 winning the division and showing they're not to be cast aside yet.

New York Jets

The Jets are the popular pick this season. People seem to forget that Mark Sanchez is still the quarterback and he didn't throw for 2,500 yards last season. The Jets ran for more yards than they passed in 2009 and that is just crazy. Expect more of the same. Thomas Jones is off to Kansas City and Shonn Greene is expected to take the bulk of the carries being spelled by none other than LaDainian Tomlinson.

What will keep the running game going is the NFL's best fullback, Tony Richardson. Richardson has led the way for some great running backs or at the very least, he helped a lot of running backs look great, from Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson in Kansas City to Adrian Peterson in Minnesota and last season Thomas Jones in New York. Shonn Greene hopes to continue following Richardson to a 1,500-yard season.

The defense is fantastic. They are not only playmakers, but they don't allow anything. They allowed 10 or fewer points seven times in 2009.
If the running game holds and Sanchez doesn't lose games for the Jets, they'll be making another playoff run at 12-4.

Miami Dolphins

If the Dolphins would have acquired Donovan McNabb, there truly might be three 11-win teams in this division, but as it stands, the Dolphins quarterback is currently Chad Henne. I'm going to go ahead and say he will be incapable of making newly-acquired bad boy Brandon Marshall happy for more than a game or two.

The running game remains solid and the wildcat formation looms dangerous, but as teams get more used to the formation, it will begin to lose its effectiveness.

The defense is not all that great nor greatly improved. The lack of a solid quarterback and a stingy defense will keep the Dolphins playing the role of spoiler rather than that of contender. Weeks 11-16 are against possible playoff teams. Look for the Dolphins to crush some hopes, especially the Bears in Week 16.

Buffalo Bills

I have absolutely no faith in the Buffalo Bills. Trent Edwards has lost his touch. Lee Evans is no longer a solid number one receiver. C.J. Spiller is good, but running behind an offensive line that allowed 46 sacks in 2009. Spiller may have a decent season, but chances are the Bills will be behind so often that he'll barely get the carries he deserves.

The pass defense is solid, but they cannot stop the run, allowing 156.3 rushing yards per game in 2009.

I just don't think Buffalo is heading in the right direction at all. Edwards needs to go and they need a replacement fast to take the pressure off of Spiller, who could be a good NFL back if there was any balance on the team.

I'm sad to announce that the Bills will have the NFL's worst season, achieving a 1-15 record as C.J. Spiller wins Rookie of the Year honors despite the awful team he's on.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 7:27 PM | Comments (0)

Carmelo and the Knicks? Why?

The hot topic this week in the NBA was that Carmelo Anthony has no interest in signing the extension the Nuggets have offered and will leave Denver one way or the other. This, of course, sparks speculation that he wants to and will end up going to New York to play with the Knicks.

The thing I do not really get is why is Carmelo Anthony that fired up to go to the Knicks? I mean, sure, they have Amar'e Stoudemire and sure, they play the up-tempo type of game 'Melo likes, but let us face facts here. Stoudemire is one of the most overrated players in the league and Mike D'Antoni is one of the most overrated coaches going.

Sure, the Knicks would be a force to be reckoned with in the East if they were to add Anthony to their current roster, but the thing is they have no winners on that roster. D'Antoni excelled at getting the Suns to the playoffs, but he did little else with them. His career postseason record is only 26-25. His record when getting out of the first round is only 13-17. The series in which his teams were eliminated never went seven games and typically only went five.

Simply put, D'Antoni's system is good enough to get teams into the postseason, but is not good enough for postseason success simply because he refuses to acknowledge the notion that teams need to play a little bit of defense to win a championship. D'Antoni is his generation's Don Nelson. His teams are entertaining and he wins a ton of regular season games, but they always come up short in the postseason because they are finesse teams that play little defense and lack an overall toughness teams need to win when it matters in the NBA.

Then there is the question of who is going to lead this team. Amar'e? 'Melo? Neither of those guys are really leaders. Amar'e has never been one to rally the troops or a guy his teammates rally around. He has a rap for being a bit of a soft player who tends to disappear in big games at times.

Do not get me wrong, Carmelo is a great ball player, but he is not a leader. Is it merely co-incidental that the Nuggets never got out of the first round in the playoffs until they got Chauncey Billups? Guys like Billups and Kenyon Martin are the leaders in Denver and Anthony is merely along for the ride. Anthony is arguably the best scorer in the game, but he does little to elevate his teammates around him the way championship players do.

The thing the Knicks need to realize is it takes more than rolling a bunch of guys who can score the basketball to win championships. They need guys who can defend the basketball. They need guys with some heart and toughness who teammates can rally around. They need guys who can rebound the basketball and are not afraid to mix it up under the basket. With or without Anthony, who is going to do that for the Knicks?

Which leads me to ask why is Anthony eager to go to New York for in the first place? It is not like D'Antoni is a better coach than George Karl is. It is not like the Knicks have a better supporting cast than the Nuggets currently do. What in the world is so attractive about being Amar'e Stoudemire's running mate? It is not like Stoudemire has a track record of winning big games himself. For that matter, it is not as though anyone on the Knicks current roster has a track record of winning in the postseason.

The Knicks and Carmelo Anthony are both focused on the shiny object in the room and not taking into consideration whether Anthony is really a great fit for the Knicks' goal of winning a title, and Anthony is not taking into consideration whether the Knicks really have the right framework in place to seriously contend for a championship.

If Anthony goes to New York, he will not meet with significantly more success than what he has had in Denver. The Knicks would be a definite playoff team, but I am not sure adding Anthony makes them any better than the Hawks or the Bucks right now. They definitely are not as good as the Magic, Celtics, or the Heat.

Maybe the Knicks, or rather the city of New York, is the right match for Carmelo Anthony. He has always struck me as a guy who is more interested in style over substance since coming in to the league anyway.

Republished with permission from PopPickle.

Posted by Eric Engberg at 3:51 PM | Comments (22)

August 20, 2010

If the Granderson Trade Never Happened...

As CC Sabathia and the Yankees beat up on Justin Verlander and the Tigers Tuesday night, a very interesting battle occurred within the war. Austin Jackson, an outfielder who was developed in the Yankee system, hit a home run on the first pitch thrown by the Yankees ace CC Sabathia.

The inning later, Curtis Granderson, who was traded for Jackson, made two sparkling catches. He later followed with a home run.

This series between the Yankees and Tigers presents us with one of the most compelling matchups possible in all of Major League Baseball. Regardless of the beautiful pitching matchup presented on Tuesday between both teams aces, former teammates battled on all four corners of the diamond.

I already mentioned Granderson and Jackson, but many others are nearby. Former Yankees reliever Phil Coke also went to the Tigers in the Granderson trade, and Johnny Damon failed to re-sign with the Yankees, landing him in Detroit.

Austin Jackson has been the leader of that pack. In his rookie season, he has 133 hits, leading all major league rookies. And as Yankee fans are quick to compare that to Granderson's .248 batting average, they fail to look at the other side. What if, for any reason, this trade never happened?

The obvious answer would be that the Yankees would have another quality reliever in Phil Coke, and Jackson's production would be far superior to that of Granderson. Seems simple if you look at it that way, but a trade of this caliber is never that simple.

As it would have been without Granderson, the Yankees would have had Brett Gardner and Nick Swisher as their outfielders. Would Jackson have filled the role of center fielder?

Probably not. If you recall, the Yankees were on the brink of signing Johnny Damon many times, and the talks only ended when Granderson became a Yankee. If you remove Granderson from the picture, the Yankees would have been much more aggressive in signing Johnny Damon.

The Yankees were never ready to bring Austin Jackson into the majors. They expected to get an outfielder in the offseason, and Granderson turned out to be the answer. If Granderson turned out not to be the answer, there were many other options over Jackson, the top option being Johnny Damon.

So the first consequence of the trade not happening is that Austin Jackson has still not seen the major leagues. Right now, he would probably be ripping it up in Triple-A, and Johnny Damon would be staring in center field.

The deal for Johnny Damon would have likely been a one-year deal, so what would have happened when that ran out? With Granderson, the Yankees have him through 2012, so an outfielder will not be at the top of their shopping list this winter.

But if Johnny Damon was coming off the books, it would be a different story come Christmas. With Carl Crawford hitting the open market, he would have become the Yankees' top priority.

Speaking of top priorities, what would have happened with the Yankees current top priority in Cliff Lee?

Cliff Lee would not have been on the radar for the Yankees if the Granderson deal never happened. Phil Coke would have been in the Yankees bullpen, and his ERA of 2.52 would have made the bullpen beyond solid.

Having said that, recall when the Yankees were about to trade for Dan Haren. Joba Chamberlain was in the deal, and the Yankees were very close to giving him up. If Phil Coke had been around to further solidify the bullpen, it would have been very easy for the Yankees to give up Joba for another top starting pitcher.

So Dan Haren is now on the Yankees, Cliff Lee is no longer needed, and Joba Chamberlain is on the Diamondbacks.

If Cliff Lee is no longer needed, what would the Yankees have focused on during the trade deadline? Well, Austin Kearns and Lance Berkman would certainly not be Yankees. But with Johnny Damon as a possible trade piece, the Yankees could have made some very high profile trades. What exactly would those trades have been? That we can't answer.

So as Yankee fans criticize the trade for Granderson, and wonder what the Yankees would look like with Austin Jackson in the lineup, consider all the consequences. Damon would be back, Dan Haren would be a Yankee, and Joba Chamberlain would not. Next season, Cliff Lee would not be a Yankee, and Carl Crawford would. Austin Kearns and Lance Berkman would not be Yankees, and neither would Austin Jackson. That's a lot to worry about right there, so let's just stick with Granderson.

Posted by Jess Coleman at 7:31 PM | Comments (0)

August 19, 2010

Lance Stephenson Needs to Step His Game Up

Indiana Pacers draft pick Lance Stephenson was arrested in his native New York City for reportedly pushing his girlfriend down a flight of steps. If this is true, and I really hope it's not, there's only one way for the former University of Cincinnati product to do his college program right. To make amends, he needs to confront his girlfriend ... and punch her in the face.

Stephenson was a Bearcat, damn it, and when Bearcats break the law, they do it in style. They do it with pizzazz and flair (that means with plenty of chest chops and shouts of "wooooo"). What they don't do is something as cowardly as pushing a girl down a flight of steps.

If the criminal complaint is true, and again I hope it's not, Stephenson's girlfriend returned home to her apartment at 5 AM on a Sunday morning (probably to get ready to make 6 AM mass is my guess) when Stephenson yelled, "Are you kidding me?" before pushing her down the stairs.

First, what kind of an exclamation is "Are you kidding me?" He definitely should have gone with something more dramatic, like, "this town ain't big enough for the both of us" or "you're about to go for a ride on the pain train!" He could have even incorporated his nickname, Born Ready, into his final remarks. "I was Born Ready ... to kick your ass!" He clearly had some time to think about it and it doesn't even sound like he gave her time to answer.

Maybe this whole thing should've gone like this:

"Are you kidding me?"

"Oh my god, yes, you should see the look on your face right now when you thought I'd been out all night. Ha, ha, I've really been hiding just down the street. Wow, I got you good."

Even more disappointing than his pointless exclamation is the way he decided to inflict harm upon his girlfriend. He's a Bearcat, damn it, and he should be man enough to take things into his own hands. What sort of coward just lets gravity do his dirty work?

Now, before you start defending Stephenson, apparently he also picked his girlfriend's head up after the tumble and slammed it on the bottom step, according to the police report. If this is true, I think it rules out what most people assumed was going on: a cheap, in-home abortion. Either the head slam rules it out completely or it proves that Stephenson has little idea how the reproduction system works.

Stephenson is a physical specimen and should have been able to handle his girlfriend without the prop of the steps. He should've been a man and just used his fists, like any real domestic abuser would.

Right now, there's a guy in Indiana upset with the newest Pacer for all the wrong reasons. He's the type of guy who wears a wife beater because it actually helps him beat his wife more efficiently.

Maybe Stephenson was just scared. After all, some of the world's greatest fighters have been felled by ladies. In February, Ric Flair's wife was arrested for smacking him around. According to a not-even-remotely true story, the incident has scarred Flair to the point that he now sleeps with a steel folding chair under his pillow, just in case this ever happens again. If even a 42-time world champion fighter can get his ass kicked, maybe that's enough to make guys like Stephenson take the bumpy road out.

The problem is, that's not the UC way. When their guys go afoul of the law, it's usually more entertaining than this. Like a decade ago when a player was arrested for punching a police horse in the face four times. That wasn't just a "I'm so mad, take this one punch" incident. This player clearly thought he was in a fight with the horse and was possibly trying to pound him into glue.

Another UC player was arrested one time for reportedly tying up his roommate and torturing him with a heated coat hanger and with a weight bar. See, Lance? That's how a man handles his problems.

The University of Cincinnati has overhauled the image of its basketball program to become a crappy team instead of an occasionally-troubled, but regular season strong team. In the mid-2000s, the Bengals tried to pick up the mantle of the law-troubled sports team, but that's no excuse for Stephenson.

There is a legacy there that he's a part of — when you break the law, you have to do like a man. He needs to treat his wife's face like a piñata, not one that's full of candy, but one that is full of the respect of degenerates and domestic abusers everywhere.

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 7:41 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 23

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kevin Harvick — Harvick won for the third time this year, conquering the Carfax 400 in Michigan while becoming the first driver to clinch a spot in the Chase For the Cup. Harvick stayed on the track during the final caution while most cars pitted for tires, and passed Denny Hamlin with 10 to go. Harvick's closest pursuer in the points in Jeff Gordon, who is 293 out of first.

"That points lead is impressive," Harvick said, "if I must say so myself. Now everyone wants to call me the Cup favorite. After all these points, I've finally made a point."

"I can think of no better way to announce Budweiser as my 2011 sponsor than with a win. Regardless of what happens from now until Homestead in November, I'll be wearing a 'crown' next year."

2. Denny Hamlin — Despite qualifying 33rd, Hamlin finished second at Michigan, site of his June 13th win, the last of his five victories this year. Hamlin battled Kevin Harvick after both opted not to pit during a late caution, but Harvick pulled away for this win after clearing Hamlin with 10 laps to go.

"I really wanted this win," Hamlin said. "Not only for the 10 bonus points, but also for the chance to see the cheesy headline 'Mich-Again.'"

"Harvick was just too much for us. It was a mismatch on par with the Ryan Newman-Joey Logano argument after Sunday's race. That was a Gillette Young Gun versus a Gillette Youngin.' Newman looked downright peeved, while Logano was calm and collected, albeit with a tinge of fear that Newman was going to punch him. I imagine that's exactly how Newman-Rusty Wallace conversations went when they were teammates.."

3. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson qualified second at Michigan, and, after a quick start on Sunday, was plagued afterwards by a loose No. 48 Lowe's Chevy, as well as uncharacteristic mishaps in the pits, on his way to a 12th-place finish. He is fifth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 386 behind Kevin Harvick.

"It seems I've been relegated to an 'also-ran' in the Chase For the Cup," Johnson said. "Believe that if you like, but I think the more appropriate term would be an 'also-run,' because I won the Sprint Cup in 2006, also in 2007, also in 2008, and also in 2009."

"Right now, Kevin Harvick's got everything going his way. He just won a race, his wife satiates his kinky role-playing desires by wearing his clothes, and he's got a huge new sponsor for next year. Budweiser sponsorship is quite a coup. You know, Bud is brewed from the finest hops and barley in the world, and its alcohol content by volume is 5%, which is exactly the chance I give Harvick of winning the Cup."

4. Jeff Gordon — After a poor qualifying effort, Gordon started 36th at Michigan, but quickly marched to the front and had a top-10 in sight before a cut tire ruined his day. The flat tire caused right-side damage, and after repairs, Gordon restarted well back. He finished 27th, and although second in the points, he has yet to win this year.

"Winning isn't everything," Gordon said. "In fact, for me, winning isn't anything. We're just suffering through a spell where nothing is going right. It's like the old saying: 'if it wasn't for bad luck, I'd never have been married to a woman named Brooke.'"

"Despite my slump, I have no intentions of hanging up the driving gloves anytime soon. It may remedy a flat, but 're-tiring' has no appeal to me."

5. Tony Stewart — Stewart was leading with just over 30 laps to go in the Carfax 400 when a debris caution left him with a critical decision: pit for tires or stay out and maintain track position. Stewart chose the latter, as did Kevin Harvick and Denny Hamlin, and Harvick made the most of it, taking the win after out-dueling Stewart and Hamlin.

"I think heeding debris cautions should be optional for drivers," Stewart said. "I'm fairly certain not all debris cautions are necessary, particular those in which the clean-up crew uses a broom and a dust pan."

"I was impressed with Ryan Newman's handling of the Joey Logano situation. He handled it in exactly the opposite manner that I would have— he listened intently, then shoved Logano. With me, it's shove first, listen later, in the NASCAR hauler. But seriously, how can you keep your hands off Logano? He's adorable."

6. Kurt Busch — Busch blew an engine 30 laps into Sunday's Carfax 400 at Michigan, with a cloud of smoke and spray of oil heralding an early exit from the race. He finished 40th, only his second DNF of the year, and tumbled six places in the Sprint Cup point standings, from fourth to tenth.

"Yes, that was quite a free-fall in the standings," Busch said. "So much so that I was tempted to yell 'Geronimo!' Take it from someone who's been unceremoniously 'dropped' on a number of occasions, it was quite a fall. You could say I went down faster than beer out of a Miller Lite Vortex bottle."

7. Carl Edwards — Edwards led a parade of Roush Fenway Racing cars in the top five at Michigan, finishing third, followed by teammates Greg Biffle and Matt Kenseth in fourth and fifth, respectively. Edwards vaulted three places in the point standings to seventh, and is a comfortable 266 ahead of Mark Martin in 13th.

"Jack's back," Edwards said. "And so is Roush Fenway. Just a few weeks ago, this team was all but written off. But things have changed. Usually, when I speak of 'amazing turnarounds,' it involves me sending Brad Keselowski spinning, or sailing, backwards down the track."

"And you've probably heard that I've said this team could still win the Cup championship. I refuse to acknowledge Kevin Harvick as the favorite to win the Sprint Cup, not because I don't like him, but because I don't think that team can sustain their consistency through the Chase. Take it from someone who knows — there will be another 'choke' in Harvick's garage."

8. Greg Biffle — Biffle led 66 of the first 83 laps at Michigan, dominating early in the Carfax 400 before intermittent handling issues kept him from the front thereafter. After taking four tires during the race's final caution, the 3M Ford picked off 10 cars on the way to a fourth-place finish. He maintained the 11th spot in the standings, and leads Mark Martin in 13th by 193.

"I think I speak for everyone," Biffle said, "when I say that Saving Abel's rendition of the national anthem was downright awful. It was so bad, it made ears bleed, which I'm sure brought back painful memories for boxing legend and race grand marshal Evander Holyfield."

9. Kyle Busch — Busch saw a promising day at Michigan quickly disintegrate when he nailed the wall on lap 159, damaging the right side of the No. 18 Interstate Batteries Camry. Busch settled for a disappointing 18th and dropped one place in the Sprint Cup point standings to eighth, 425 out of first. With only two top-10 finishes in his last nine races, Busch knows he must find some momentum before the Chase starts.

"I think that accident would be called a 'Battery' ram," Busch said. "It's a mishap that is certainly symbolic — it seems that each year, as we near the Chase, we 'hit a wall.'

10. Jeff Burton — Burton plowed into Jeff Gordon when the No. 24 cut a tire on lap 154, damaging the front of Burton's No. 31 Caterpillar Chevrolet. Burton restarted well back in the field and finished 24th, which set him back four places in the point standings to sixth, where he trails Kevin Harvick by 414.

"I think Budweiser and Kevin Harvick will form a great partnership," Burton said. "That was evident in Tuesday's press conference when Kevin made the first of what will surely be many 'Bud pole' jokes."

"The Budweiser brand and colors will now be associated with Kevin's smartly aggressive driving and take-no-prisoners attitude. Next year, if Kevin pisses someone off on the track, they'll have no choice but to see 'red.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:00 AM | Comments (0)

August 17, 2010

The 32 Greatest NFL Running Backs

Joe Posnanski is quickly becoming one of the most popular writers at SI.com, and developing a substantial following for his own site. There are obvious reasons for this, and he's maybe my favorite sportswriter at the moment. His writing is engaging, he chooses interesting topics, and he knows a ton about baseball. He does not, however, know a great deal about football, which made it surprising that he recently chose to create a list of 32 great running backs through history. He followed it up with a list of 32 great receivers.

Posnanski is, very simply, not qualified to create a list of the 32 best running backs in history. He recognizes this, and includes an explicit disclaimer: "this list is not saying the thirty-two GREATEST running backs but thirty-two GREAT running backs". That said, when you create a limited list like that and put numbers next to the names, you're obviously attempting to do exactly that. The disclaimer is basically his admission that there might be some questionable choices. Below, I'll present my own choices for the 32 greatest running backs in the history of professional football, plus a few names it was hard to leave off and comments on the players who made Posnanski's list but not mine.

1. Jim Brown

Jason Lisk at PFR has done some really interesting research
suggesting that Brown's accomplishments may have been inflated by the soft schedule he played in the Eastern Conference, and that Jim Taylor might have been just as good. Taylor is criminally underrated because he was always overshadowed by Brown, and the data is well worth reading. But Brown's combination of power and speed, backed up by other-worldly numbers, makes him an easy choice for the top position here. His 1958 and 1963 seasons are arguably the two best by any RB in history.

(Posnanski's rank: 1)

2. Walter Payton

He could do everything. He held the career rushing record for nearly two decades, might still have it if he'd played 16-game schedules his whole career. He was a fine receiver and a dedicated blocker. Payton had speed, but he wasn't the fastest player. He bulldozed into tacklers, but he was too small to be a true power back. He could cut, but he wasn't going to make anyone forget Gale Sayers or The Juice. No one, no RB in history, played with more heart. You just never saw this guy give up on a play, and he was an elite runner for over a decade.

(Posnanski's rank: 2)

3. Barry Sanders

He's remembered as a finesse runner who was useless in short yardage. Sanders scored double-digit rushing TDs six times, including a career-high 16 in 1991. The Emmitt-Barry debate is eternal, and at different times I've fallen on different sides of it. It's close.

(Posnanski's rank: 4)

4. Emmitt Smith

Like Payton, he had a ton of heart and was remarkably consistent and well-rounded. Unlike Payton, he was surrounded by great offensive talent. Posnanski, in making the case for Smith, cites his reception totals, as if this were more a function of his receiving talent than his offensive system. It seems silly to me to suggest that there was any substantial difference between Sanders and Smith as receivers.

(Posnanski's rank: 3)

5. O.J. Simpson

I know I already said this about Jim Brown, but Simpson's 1973 and 1975 seasons may be the best by any running back in history. His 1973 single-season record for rushing yards per game still stands and has never been seriously challenged.

(Posnanski's rank: 7)

6. Marshall Faulk

I know my list mostly agrees with Posnanski's so far; that will cease after this entry. Faulk is the greatest dual threat runner-receiver in NFL history. Better than Lenny Moore, Bobby Mitchell, Roger Craig, and everyone else. He could have been a Pro Bowl wide receiver, and he probably should have won three NFL MVP Awards.

(Posnanski's rank: 6)

7. LaDainian Tomlinson

It amazes me that anyone still ranks him outside the top 10. He's clearly the top RB of his era, he's 2nd all-time in rushing TDs, he won an MVP Award, and he excelled for a really awful Charger team in 2003.

(Posnanski's rank: 13)

8. Steve Van Buren

The most underrated HOF RB in history. His 1945 season is the equal of anything turned in by Smith, Faulk, Eric Dickerson... he led the NFL in rushing and set a touchdown record, in a 10-game season, that stood for over a decade and was finally broken in a 14-game season. Van Buren's 1947-49 three-year run ranks among the best in history, including the 2nd and 3rd official 1,000-yard rushing seasons in NFL history. Van Buren is also among the greatest postseason RBs in history. He was the hero of the 1948 NFL Championship Game, with 98 yards and the game's only touchdown on a field completely blanketed by snow. The next year, this time in ankle-deep mud, he set a postseason record with 196 rushing yards.

(Posnanski's rank: 28)

9. Eric Dickerson

Posnanski wrote that Dickerson "didn’t look fast … but nobody ever caught him from behind." I guess that makes Darrell Green a nobody. (Green catches Dickerson from behind at :30 of the link)

(Posnanski's rank: 11)

10. Joe Perry

This will not sit well with some people. Everybody ranks Joe Perry among the top 30, but almost no one puts him in the top 10, and most rankers set him behind his teammate Hugh McElhenny. Perry wasn't as flashy, but he was more consistent, he played forever — mostly at a high level — and for a couple years there, he was clearly the best RB in the league. In 1953-54, Perry became the first player ever to post consecutive 1,000-yard rushing seasons.

(Posnanski's rank: 25)

11. Jim Taylor

The argument against Taylor, if you really want to make one, is that he only had four great seasons. That's four more than most people, but he wasn't effective long enough to make my top 10. He also played behind an exceptionally talented offensive line, for an exceptionally gifted offensive coach.

(Posnanski's rank: 22)

12. Gale Sayers

There are three players I rank lower than almost anyone else. Not by a lot, but by a little: Sayers, Earl Campbell, and McElhenny. Most educated fans and analysts put them all in the top 10. I don't have anything bad to say about Sayers, and I wish he'd had access to modern medical techniques that could have lengthened his career. He rushed for just 4,956 yards and only had one season in which he was clearly the best RB in football.

(Posnanski's rank: 8)

13. Earl Campbell

You had to see him to believe him. I remember watching Campbell continuing to run forward while his jersey was being torn off, ripped away, from behind. I remember seeing him take a shot from Jack Tatum at the goalline and fall forward into the endzone flirting with unconsciousness. Sayers lit up the game with his speed and agility, but it was too much for his body and he burned out. Campbell amazed us with his power, but ran too hard for his body and fell apart. People forget his speed; this guy could run.

(Posnanski's rank: 5)

14. Hugh McElhenny

Many years of research have gone into this article, and I have a great deal of confidence in the rankings you're reading, but the definitive list of this type was written almost a decade ago by Paul Zimmerman. He ranked McElhenny 6th.

(Posnanski's rank: 27)

15. Marcus Allen

Lost years of his prime to Al Davis' eccentricity. He was NFL MVP in 1985: 1,785 rushing yards, 4.63 average, 67 receptions, 555 receiving yards, 14 touchdowns. He never again topped 223 carries, although he was healthy. His rookie season was cut short by the 1982 strike, but Allen won Rookie of the Year and was the most productive RB in the NFL that season.

(Posnanski's rank: 19)

16. Thurman Thomas

Had the misfortune to be a contemporary of Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith, but for several years, it was not apparent that they stood out from him; Thomas won NFL MVP in 1991. He is remembered as a better receiver than he really was, but he doesn't get enough credit as a runner.

(Posnanski's rank: 16)

17. Lenny Moore

This is probably too low a ranking for such a dynamic player, but Moore (whom Posnanski correctly notes was "more receiver than running back" and who made the NFL 50th Anniversary Team as a flanker) is difficult to categorize. In 1958, he averaged 7.3 yards per carry, gained 938 receiving yards, scored 7 rushing TDs and 7 receiving TDs, and won an NFL Championship.

(Posnanski's rank: 20)

18. Marion Motley

A sensational run-blocker, a fantastic pass-blocker, and a standout runner. He averaged 8.2 yards per carry as a rookie and led the NFL in rushing in 1950. Like most great power runners, he also possessed underrated speed. Of course, it's the power that first and foremost captures our imaginations. Purely as a player, Motley would rank much higher than this, because of his blocking, but as a running back, with the assumption that being a ball-carrier comes first, this seems about right to me.

(Posnanski's rank: 12)

19. Herschel Walker

This is a totally unorthodox ranking, and I know nobody agrees with me. One day I'll write a full-length article to spell this out more fully, but here's the short version: Walker was a top-10 running back every year from 1983-1994. He was a great runner, great receiver, great returner, and because he was a man of many talents rather than one, the full scope of his contributions has never been properly appreciated. Walker was also a terrific back in the USFL, and he typically receives no credit for that because the league fell apart.

(Posnanski's rank: NR)

20. Tony Dorsett

I love Tony Dorsett. My issue is basically the same as Joe's: Dorsett was very good for a long time, but it's not obvious that he was ever really the best, and he didn't have nearly as high a peak as most of the other runners listed here. He's like the Eddie Murray of running backs.

(Posnanski's rank: 18)

21. Curtis Martin

See Tony Dorsett.

(Posnanski's rank: 30)

22. Franco Harris

The heart of the offense in the early years of the Steel Curtain Dynasty, a consistent performer and terrific postseason runner.

(Posnanski's rank: 17)

23. John Riggins

Nobody ranks Riggins ahead of Larry Csonka. No one except Washington fans. I don't understand why. Riggins had many more yards, many more TDs, offered some value as a receiver, played longer, had more good seasons, and was a better postseason player.

(Posnanski's rank: NR)

24. Leroy Kelly

In a pure statistical ranking, he would rate much higher than this. He suffers by comparisons with Jim Brown and Gale Sayers.

(Posnanski's rank: 31)

25. Terrell Davis

A modern-day Sayers, he didn't have the same pure athletic ability, and he played behind a terrific offensive line rather than a miserable one, but from 1996-98, there was a visible separation between Davis and the rest of the league. He didn't stick around to pile up numbers, but at his prime, he was among the best the game has seen.

(Posnanski's rank: 15)

26. Bronko Nagurski

The only pre-Modern Era player to make my list, unless you count Van Buren. Purely as a runner, Nagurski probably wasn't as devastating as his present-day reputation represents him, and he simply didn't do all that much running. As a blocker, he may actually be underrated. Nagurski was considered as fine a blocker as there was in the league, including linemen. Comparable to Marion Motley.

(Posnanski's rank: 14)

27. Tiki Barber

Criminally underappreciated, he posted 10,000 rushing yards, 5,000 receiving yards, and six 1,000-yard seasons. He was effective running inside and outside, a fine receiver, and a good returner. Rushed for 1,500 yards three times, one of only 11 players to do so. Only O.J. Simpson had more 200-yard rushing games.

(Posnanski's rank: NR)

28. Ollie Matson

Never rushed for 1,000 yards in a season, though he certainly would have if they played 14- and 16-game schedules in the '50s. Matson was a dynamic runner and receiver, and ranks as one of the greatest return men in history.

(Posnanski's rank: 26)

29. Ricky Watters

Another player in the Dorsett/Martin mold, he was never the best, but he was consistently great, a top-5 RB every year from 1992-2000.

(Posnanski's rank: NR)

30. Fred Taylor

I'll always wonder what Fred Taylor could have done if he hadn't gotten injured. I realize Taylor returned from his injuries to have a long, productive career, but in 1998 and 2000, he was really outstanding. I mean, this guy looked like he was in the same class as Terrell Davis and Marshall Faulk.

(Posnanski's rank: NR)

31. Larry Csonka

Put up good numbers in the running back equivalent of the deadball era. A good postseason player who usually came through when the team needed him.

(Posnanski's rank: 23)

32. Edgerrin James

Never really set the world on fire, at least for me, but he was a versatile, consistent performer who rushed for 1,500 yards four times.

(Posnanski's rank: 29)

On Posnanski's List, not on mine

9. Bo Jackson — Bo was great, a shooting star who wowed spectators. He played four seasons, carried the ball just 515 times. Terrell Davis had a short career, and he carried 1,655 times, 1,859 including the playoffs. As sensational as Jackson was, I just don't see how you can rank him ahead of players with full careers. Take the best 515 carries of anyone in my Top 32, and they're comparable to Jackson's, but all those guys, even Sayers, had far longer careers. Posnanski wrote that Jackson was the greatest running back ever in "Super Tecmo Bowl". The game was Tecmo Super Bowl, and Jackson was great in that, but the game Joe really means is probably the original Tecmo Bowl.

(My rank: Very difficult to judge, but probably Top 100.)

10. Red Grange — An absurd choice. Grange is not one of the top 100 running backs in NFL history. He might not be one of the top 200, though he probably is among the top 300. Grange was a phenomenal college running back, and a good pro defensive back. His value was much more at the ticket counter than on the field, though. I'm not just saying that Grange was not a great pro running back; he was barely a good pro running back.

(My rank: around 200)

21. Priest Holmes — Tough to leave off my list, he had 3½ remarkable seasons. This may not be fair, but I was influenced by how easily Larry Johnson stepped in for him and put up nearly the same numbers when Holmes got hurt. The Chiefs had a terrific offense in the early 2000s, and to some extent I think Holmes was just along for the ride. Like Posnanski, I swooned over Holmes' 2002 season, but he claims that if Holmes had not gotten hurt against Denver in the 14th game, it would have been the best season a running back has ever had in NFL history, which is silly. It just shows an astounding lack of historical knowledge for someone with as much interest in sports history as Posnanski.

(My rank: Top 50)

24. Chris Johnson — I'm not ready to include him after only two seasons, but no player has ever had a season as good as Johnson's '09 and not gone on to an exceptional career.

(My rank: Top 100)

32. Frank Gifford — A fine player who could do it all, but his reputation benefitted from playing in New York, and I don't see him standing out from the other great RBs of his era.

(My rank: Top 50)

Rounding Out the Top 50

In alphabetical order:

Shaun Alexander
Ottis Anderson
William Andrews
Larry Brown
Rick Casares
Roger Craig
Corey Dillon — would be a Hall of Famer if he hadn't been trapped in Cincinnati during his prime
Chuck Foreman
Frank Gifford
Cookie Gilchrist — had some of his best years in the CFL
Priest Holmes
Floyd Little
Bobby Mitchell — a Hall of Fame receiver who would have been a Hall of Fame running back in the Lenny Moore mold if he hadn't switched positions
Lydell Mitchell
Ernie Nevers
Clinton Portis
Spec Sanders — a tailback in the AAFC, he lit the field on fire for three seasons
Dan Towler — best RB in the NFL, 1951-53, averaged 5.2 yds/att, member of the greatest offense in history

Posted by Brad Oremland at 7:31 PM | Comments (5)

Maria Sharapova's Return to Form

When Maria Sharapova won Wimbledon in 2004, she was being hailed as the next big thing. She was only 17-years-old and had just defeated Serena Williams in the final, merely two days after coming back from a 6-2, 3-1 deficit against Lindsay Davenport. It was clear that the young Russian was something special, but perhaps that still didn't warrant the hysteria of fans and pundits alike who seem to always expect too much.

Over the years, she has gone onto to win two further Slams, the U.S. Open in 2006 and the Australian Open in 2008. In the four years between winning her first and her last major title, she was a steady performer who spent a brief period as World No. 1. In early 2007, however, she developed a shoulder injury that forced her to miss some of the season. The injury also had an adverse affect on her serve. Sharapova went from possessing one of the best serves in the women's game to someone who regularly made double faults. A change was needed, so she began serving with a more abbreviated motion.

Despite winning the Australian Open in 2008, her form was a little erratic. Later on in the same year, she had to have a long lay-off in order to have surgery on her shoulder. She didn't return to action until just before the 2009 French Open, where she reached the quarterfinals. It was impressive display considering her substantial time away from the game, but, once again, it sent the media into a frenzy as they expected great things from her almost immediately.

In the rest of 2009, Sharapova was doing well, despite not performing at the majors. In the smaller tournaments, she was reaching the quarterfinals and semifinals on a regular basis, yet her early exits at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open seemed to be cause for concern for many people. In particular, her third-round defeat at the U.S. Open to Melanie Oudin comes to mind. It was a match that saw her make 60 unforced errors and a career-high 21 double-faults.

After that loss, she changed her service action back to one similar to her pre-surgery action. As a result, her serving has improved considerably. In fact, she produced her fastest serve ever in Birmingham earlier this year, at 121 mph. The start of 2010 didn't see a change in fortune as she was ousted from the Australian Open in the first round. Some were wondering whether she would ever get back to the level she was at a few years prior.

At this juncture, it's important to note that Sharapova was never the best player around. She is prone to making unforced errors and her movement, though improving, has never been what it could be. That lack of movement is sometimes her downfall because she isn't in position to rip a forehand winner down the line, but she goes for it anyway. All that does is adds another error to the unforced error count.

The decision to go for a winner from a poor position also demonstrates, possibly, her biggest weakness. Her decision-making can be strange at times and it often shows a player that is frustrated and impatient. Having listed some of her flaws, it's important to note that her biggest asset is her fighting spirit. It's because of her ability to fight until the end that means she should never be counted out.

Recent form suggests that Sharapova is once again a force to be reckoned with. She reached the finals in both Stanford and Cincinnati, meaning that she has made four finals this year. However, she has yet to lift a trophy this year. Over the course of the 11 matches she played at the two recent tournaments, she beat three higher-ranked players (Elena Dementieva, Agnieszka Radwanska (twice), and Svetlana Kuznetsova).

Perhaps a slight concern is that she has yet to convert her fine form into a tournament victory, but it's all part of a process. It's unrealistic to expect people to comeback from injury and be the same player that they were all along. Often, it can be a very long process. Sharapova's aforementioned fighting spirit means that she is always a contender and the fact that she is one of the most in-shape players on the tour suggests that she may silence all her critics at Flushing Meadows.

Posted by Luke Broadbent at 5:16 PM | Comments (1)

August 16, 2010

Three Reasons Why the Lions Will Make the Playoffs

Each year, a few teams have surprise seasons and make the playoffs. In 2007, the Arizona Cardinals were 8-8 and then NFC champions in 2008. In 2009, the Cincinnati Bengals made the playoffs after a 4-11-1 season. The 2008 Green Bay Packers were 6-10 and a playoff team in 2009.

The 2006 and 2009 New Orleans Saints were first after last-places finishes in 2005 and 2008. No one will forget the 2008 Miami Dolphins making the playoffs after their 2007 1-15 season.

This could be the year the Detroit Lions shock the NFL world and sneak into the playoffs. There are three reason the Lions could surprise the National Football League.

1) The offense has the potential to be explosive.

Matt Stafford enters his second NFL season with more offensive weapons than the Lions have had in recent memory, and more than many NFL teams. There is a home run threat at running back, one of the game's best receivers, two super-sized tight ends, and a quarterback with a rocket arm and increasing confidence.

The Lions' offense will feature players that should provide big plays and plenty of points. Running back Jahvid Best's speed, wide receiver Calvin Johnson's height, and the size of tight ends Brandon Pettigrew and Tony Scheffler should create matchup problems for opponent's defenses.

Scheffler's precise route-running and Pettigrew's blocking and receiving skills will give defenses more to consider when Stafford is behind center than in 2009. In two seasons with Mike Shanahan as his coach, Scheffler averaged 44 catches and 597 yards with 8 touchdowns and last season, he caught 31 passes for 416 yards and 2 touchdowns.

Although Pettigrew did not play in 2009's final five games, he led all NFL rookie tight ends in receptions (30) and receiving yards (346).

Although Stafford only started 10 games in 2009, he had a season for Detroit's record books. He ended the season second in completions (201), yards (2,267), completion percentage (54.1), and first in touchdown passes (13) for a rookie.

With Jahvid Best, there is a good chance that defenses will need to put eight men in the box, and that will leave a receiver one-on-one in the secondary. Best has speed to burn as his running back combine-best 4.35 in the 40 indicates. Defenses will now have to respect the Lions' running game and that should help the passing game.

Best comes to the Lions with not only speed, but also an ability to slash through defenses, good vision, and keen balance. Best can also catch balls out of the backfield, but Calvin Johnson, Pettigrew, and Nate Burleson will most likely get the bulk of receptions in 2010.

Wide receiver Nate Burleson comes to the Lions with decent speed combined with better-than-average hands. He will be a downfield threat for the Lions because he knows how to use his hands to separate from defensive backs.

The offensive line will be better with the addition of Rob Sims, who was acquired in a trade from Seattle. He will plug a hole on the offensive line. Stephen Peterman, who didn't play in the final seven games of 2009, will make the unit stronger. Veteran Jon Jansen has surprised many as he battles Gosder Cherilus for a starting position on the line.

Defenses can no longer just go after Stafford and bracket Calvin Johnson. With the addition of Best, Nate Burleson, Tony Scheffler, and a healthy Brandon Pettigrew, the offense has the potential to put points on the board from anywhere on the field.

2) The 2010 Lions defense is much different and improved from the 2009 squad.

Ndamukong Suh, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Dre Bly, and Louis Delmas will lead the defense and make big plays, but they may also give up big plays.

The defensive line for 2010 is bigger, faster, stronger and has a different look than the 2009 team. New players include defensive end Kyle Vanden Bosch and defensive tackles Corey Williams and Ndamukong Suh.

Dre Bly and Louis Delmas are both capable of interceptions and big plays, where in the past, the secondary was a major weakness for the Lions.

In 2009, Delmas became the second player and first rookie in NFL history to record a fumble return for a touchdown, safety, and an interception return for a touchdown. His 101-yard touchdown was the longest by a rookie since 1926. He also led all rookie defensive backs with 7.5 tackles for a loss.

Suh, though, is the player who will make the most impact for the Lions. He has been described as disruptive, productive, multidimensional, good against the pass and run, strong, fast, and quick.

Training camp has shown that his quickness and strength have translated to the professional level. He also hasn't been pushed around by Detroit's offensive linemen and is able to clog the running lanes. Suh has impressed everyone with his ability to glide along the line, make plays, and rush the quarterback.

The defense might not dominate opponents this year, but there are playmakers on the line and in the secondary that should keep the Lions in games.

3) Many NFL games come down to special teams and coaching.

The Lions' coaching staff is led by second-year head coach Jim Schwartz. He was long tabbed as one of the bright young NFL assistants. Schwartz is simultaneously building an explosive offense and a stout defense that will be able to compete.

The offensive and defensive coordinators are entering their second year in Detroit and both are former head coaches with long and successful resumes.

Gunther Cunningham leads the defense. He has coached in the NFL for 28 years and has experience turning around bad defenses. After two seasons in Kansas City, Cunningham improved the Chiefs' rushing defense that ranked 30th in the league in 2003 (146.5 yards allowed per game) to seventh in the NFL in 2005 (98.1 yards allowed per game.)

Scott Linehan enters his ninth season as an NFL coach. He is no stranger to turnarounds, either. In 2005, he was the offensive coordinator in Miami. He improved the team's total offense from 4,960 yards (29th, NFL) in 2004 to 5,198 yards (14th, NFL) in 2005.

Linehan was the offensive coordinator/quarterbacks coach in Minnesota (2002-2004). Linehan helped the franchise to some of its best offensive seasons to date. The Vikings compiled a franchise-best 36 consecutive games of 300-yards-or-more of total offense (2002-04).

In Vikings history, his offenses also rank first and second in total yards (6,339 yards, 2004; 6,294 yards, 2003), second and third in touchdowns (51, 2003; 50, 2004), and second in points (416, 2003).

Meanwhile, in 2010, the Lions' special teams unit won't be the liability it was in 2009. There is a new coach for the group and the Lions are looking for a new punt and kick returner. If Nate Burleson returns punts, the Lions will finally have a special teams unit that will strike fear in opponents. Jahvid Best and his electrifying speed is also being given reps on the punt return team and he could see action on the kick return unit.

Kicker Jason Hanson and punter Nick Harris are consistent veterans and if they can't win the special teams battle against teams will hold their own. Hanson is only the sixth player in NFL history to connect on 400 career field goals. He also has the all-time NFL record for 50+ yard field goals. In 2009, Harris averaged 42.9 yards on 74 punts and had 20 punts inside the 20-yard line, with just 5 touchbacks.

Then there's the schedule...

The Lions' schedule is not particularly strong in 2010. Wins should be expected against St. Louis, Tampa Bay, and Buffalo. Losses against the New York Jets, Dallas Cowboys, and Miami Dolphins are likely. Detroit then has 10 games where they should have more than a chance to win.

The Lions will play divisional foes Green Bay, Minnesota, and Chicago twice and it isn't unreasonable to expect them to be 3-3 in the division.

The four games on the Lions schedule that could seal their playoff fate are: Philadelphia, Washington, New England, and the New York Giants.

Philadelphia has a new quarterback and Detroit plays the Eagles in Week 2. Kevin Kolb and Philadelphia's new offense might be off-balance when facing a defense of playmakers so early in the season.

Washington has a new coach, quarterback, and an aging backfield. All of this combined with Detroit beating them last year could mean a victory for the Lions.

New England is the Thanksgiving game, which is Detroit's only national television appearance. The Patriots aren't as formidable as in past years and Detroit's offense could spell matchup problems for New England's defense.

The Giants will be good in 2010, but Detroit may have a chance against New York. Detroit's receivers will give New York's secondary matchup problems.

An offense that can move the ball, a defense that attacks and makes big plays, combined with solid coaching, decent special teams play, and a weak schedule could mean a 10-6 record and a wild card spot for the Lions.

Posted by Vito Curcuru at 6:02 PM | Comments (1)

The Value of NHL Goaltending

When word came out that Ilya Kovalchuk's contract was rejected, eyebrows were raised when arbitrator Richard Bloch called out other mega-contracts. Soon, Vancouver Canucks GM Mike Gillis acknowledged that Roberto Luongo's contract was still under investigation. The funny thing about this situation was the reaction from Canucks fans — a significant portion of them joked that maybe the Canucks could get out of the deal, and the mainstream media even picked up on the meme, suggesting that Vancouver could ditch Luongo and sign Antti Niemi for a cheaper price.

With Evgeni Nabokov in Russia and Marty Turco playing for bare bones in Chicago, times have certainly changed in today's NHL. It used to be that you built from the net out. Think of the past 20 years and you'll see successful teams adhering to this formula: the Buffalo Sabres and Dominik Hasek, the Washington Capitals and Olaf Kolzig, the New Jersey Devils and Martin Brodeur.

Of course, when you look at this list, you come to realize that of the teams that made the Stanley Cup Final, the ones that relied on magical goaltending almost always failed to capture the big prize. In fact, the New Jersey Devils are the only team really to fall under this definition, and you could chalk up the 1995 Cup to a combination of Brodeur and the still-new neutral zone trap, while the 2004 version was a quietly high-scoring team with the likes of Patrik Elias, Scott Gomez, and Jason Arnott. The rest of the finalists? Behold, the corpses of the 1996 Florida Panthers (John Vanbiebrouck), the 1998 Washington Capitals (Olaf Kolzig), the 1999 Buffalo Sabres (Dominik Hasek), the 2003 Anaheim Ducks (Jean-Sebastian Giguere), and the 2004 Calgary Flames (Miikka Kiprusoff).

In each of those cases, you could argue that the losing goaltender should have won the Conn Smythe (and in Giguere's case, he did). But they didn't capture the big prize. Overwhelming offensive talent won out in the end.

Consider the flip side of the equation — teams that could roll lines and score on the power play could win the Cup with above-average goaltenders that most likely wouldn't make the Hall of Fame. The 2004 Tampa Bay Lightning featured a high-flying attack of Vincent Lecavalier, Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis, and a strong supporting cast including Fredrick Modin, Dave Andreychuk, and Ruslan Fedotenko. Was goalie Nikolai Khabibulin the best netminder in the playoffs that year? No, not really; in fact, Khabibulin had essentially lost his starting job to John Grahame that year. But he got hot at the right time and his high-powered offense showed up when necessary.

Last year's Cup winner featured a goalie with less than 50 games of NHL experience in Antti Niemi. The 1999 Dallas Stars may have had an all-star in Ed Belfour, but they wouldn't have won the Cup without Brett Hull, Joe Nieuwendyk, Mike Modano, Sergei Zubov, Darryl Sydor, and a host of others. Would Chris Osgood have won all those Stanley Cups if he played on teams that weren't loaded with the Detroit Red Wings' talent? Most people would argue no.

So what is the value of goaltending? There's no doubt that it can help a thin team get to the playoffs and wreak havoc. If you took Ilya Bryzgalov or Ryan Miller off of their respective rosters last year, things would be significantly different. In the case of a one-line team playing a defensive style, an all-world goalie can tip the balance towards a team's favor just enough to boost their playoff contention — and if they get hot, he can steal a series or two.

In other words, it's the recipe for success, but not a championship. Championship teams have distributed scoring and a dynamic defense, along with above-average goaltending. In most cases, the team that wins the Cup only sees goaltending as part of the equation.

Thus, when Roberto Luongo is on the books for another dozen years with a high cap hit, suddenly Canucks fans are thinking that maybe the NHL should go ahead with that investigation. In a perfect world, you'd want a Hall of Fame goalie in the pipes behind an all-star cast (like Patrick Roy and the 2001 Colorado Avalanche), but that was never entirely realistic from a budget perspective — and it's nearly impossible now in a salary cap world.

The goal, then, is to find a goaltender that's steady with the potential to steal a series. Antti Niemi was decidedly average in the first two rounds of the Stanley Cup playoffs, but he became unbeatable against the high-powered San Jose Sharks. He fell back down to earth against the Philadelphia Flyers, but the Flyers had equally erratic goaltending, and eventually it came down to a battle of talent and depth. There's the difference: the Flyers relied on a career journeyman who was claimed off waivers in Michael Leighton while the Blackhawks had a goalie who was untested, yet pushing for the starting job. Neither would be consideration for the Vezina, but Niemi came with plenty more upside and it showed.

Build from the net out? Perhaps not to win a Stanley Cup; no, in order to win a Cup, the formula appears to be a balanced and very deep mix of emerging youth and savvy veterans, along with a goalie who's just good enough to possibly steal a critical series. That last bit means that there's a lot of luck involved, and it also shows why the NHL is more unpredictable than ever before.

Posted by Mike Chen at 11:47 AM | Comments (3)

August 15, 2010

Yankees' Future is Grid-Locked

Remember a couple of months ago when Stephen Strasburg was ready to advance to the majors? The anticipation was as high as ever before: Nationals Stadium was sold out within hours of the announced date of his debut. It seemed as though the world of the Washington Nationals was waiting for the future to thrust upon them.

That is how it works for bad teams: the fans wait and wait and wait for the moment when a prospect is ready to pull the team out of a ditch. Young players spend minimal time in the minors, just brushing up for the moment when they can finally help their team. It is a game of waiting.

But for good teams, it is a different story. The team that goes onto the field everyday is there to stay and there to win. The team in the minors, however, is the one that does the waiting. The players wait for a player above them to get hurt, get traded or retire. Otherwise, they stay in the minors.

And that is the problem that the New York Yankees face today. The team that they throw out on the field is one of the best — if not the best — combinations of players in the big leagues. There is no need for any help, so players in the minor league system have nothing to do but wait.

Infielders in the Yankee minor league system face the biggest problem. The major league combination of Mark Teixeira, Robinson Cano, Derek Jeter, and Alex Rodriguez is one of the best infields in history. Essentially, if you are an infielder in the Yankees minor league system, you're not going to put on pinstripes for a very long time.

That is the problem that players like Eduardo Nuñez and Brandon Laird face right now.

Nuñez, a 23-year-old switch-hitting shortstop, had a .322 batting average in AA last season. He has a .289 batting average this year, and the Yankees are extremely excited about his talent. But with the Yankees' all-time hit leader at shortstop in Derek Jeter, Nuñez better get used to playing in AAA.

Laird, a 22-year-old third baseman, is stuck in the minor league system. He was recently promoted to AAA Scranton/Wilkes Barre, where he is hitting .346 with 2 home runs in six games. In AA and AAA this year, he has hit a combined 25 home runs. As good as that sounds, it doesn't beat the 600 career home runs that Alex Rodriguez has at third base for the Yankees. Laird won't see the majors for a while.

What fate do these players stare in the face? With A-Rod, Cano, and Teixeira locked up for at least another five years, and Jeter likely looking at another four- or five-year deal, these players will not get to see a starting role until their 30s. But don't expect them, or the Yankees, to wait that long.

Unless these two players can learn to play another position, the Yankees will likely trade them away. Another option would be to have them come into the majors as bench players, but don't expect the Yankees to do that, either.

If the Yankees can't find a full-time role for Nuñez and Laird, making them bench players can only hurt their trade value — a road the Yankees rather not stare at. Bench players only see minimal time, and typically do not put up eye-opening numbers. Nuñez and Laird will have higher trade value if they continue to tear it up in the minors, rather than having sup-par numbers as a replacement player.

So it seems as though being a Yankee prospect is all about timing. Just think about what would have happened to Derek Jeter if Tony Fernandez didn't get hurt back in 1995. Jeter wouldn't have played until 1996, and Joe Torre may not have been so confident making him the starting shortstop. That one injury was the difference between Jeter in a Yankees uniform, and Jeter in a Reds uniform (for example).

Presently, the Yankees' future is gridlocked. With all the great players on the Yankees every year, young players have to wait for an injury, trade, or retirement to see time in the majors. Barring an injury, Eduardo Nuñez and Brandon Laird, along with many Yankee prospects to come, are going to be traded. As much as it will hurt to see talent fly out the door in an instant, Yankee fans will have to get used to it. I guess winning, too, has a cost.

Posted by Jess Coleman at 6:37 PM | Comments (0)

NFL Preview: 2010 NFC & AFC West

Also see: NFC & AFC North | NFC & AFC South

NFC West

This is the worst conference in the NFL. It contains three mediocre teams and one awful team. The division title is completely up for grabs. Only one quarterback (Matt Hasselbeck) is proven and he's aging and injury-prone. Oddly enough, there are some top quality running backs in the mix, even though all of these teams (except St. Louis) are rather pass-happy. All in all, defense will be how the NFC West is won.

San Francisco 49ers

The 49ers have a pretty talented offense. Frank Gore is still a beast and if he can avoid injury and be put to slightly better use, he's good for 1,300 rushing yards and 12 rushing touchdowns. In 2009, he essentially missed three games and only had 229 attempts and still managed to wrangle 1,120 yards and 10 touchdowns. Gore is also a threat in the passing game. His 52 receptions for 406 yards and 3 scores is nothing to sneeze at.

Along with Gore, the receiving core is quite good. Michael Crabtree should play a full season. He did not have a 100-yard game, nor all that many touchdowns (2), but I think he'll be a solid asset in 2010. The star of the 49ers' passing attack in 2009 was TE Vernon Davis with nearly 1,000 yards and 13 scores.

Despite such weapons, the 49ers ranked 22nd in passing yards and 25th in rushing yards. Doesn't it seem crazy that with Frank Gore they'd be that low in rushing? The offense will rest on Alex Smith, who has shown glimmers of greatness and glimmers of Ryan Leaf. Smith doesn't need a stellar season, he simply needs to get the ball to his weapons and not turn the ball over.

The defense, led by the beast Patrick Willis, is solid and I think the main reason the 49ers will win their division is because they seem to be the only team with consistency on the coaching staff and on the field. I think that will prove helpful, especially for Smith. I think they'll go 9-7 and lose to a strong wild card opponent.

Seattle Seahawks

New head coach and established quarterback is seldom the recipe for a winning team. Especially in today's era of win or be fired, new coaches rarely take over good teams. They take over dysfunctional teams and Seattle is certainly dysfunctional at the moment.

Matt Hasselbeck has been fighting injuries the past two seasons and the Seahawks' record of 9-23 is pretty good evidence that they need him and need him healthy. In 2007, the Seahawks won the division at 10-6 with Hasselbeck throwing for nearly 4,000 yards. I don't think he has that left in him.

Pete Carroll was phenomenally successful at USC, but he left the place in shambles and has never been successful in the NFL. I don't think he will be this time around either.

There are just too many questions for this team. They are still operating on running back by committee, which seems to only work in New England. Justin Forsett had a pretty good second half of the season averaging 5.4 yards per carry, but expect him to split time pretty evenly with Julius Jones and Leon Washington. The one-two punch of Forsett/Washington sounds good. Jones simply does not excite me. His 3.7 yards per carry in 2009 is not impressive.

Then there is the defense. Where to even start? The pass rush is weak. Turnovers are not created frequently enough. It simply looks like it may fall apart at any second. There's nothing holding it together.

I think Seattle will begin to realize it's holding on to things that need to be replaced and upgraded, but 2010 will not be a good year. They'll finish 6-10.

Arizona Cardinals

Even if Kurt Warner pulled a Brett Favre (which he won't), the Cardinals are not the team that lost to the Steelers in the Super Bowl two seasons ago. Without Warner and Anquan Boldin (now a Baltimore Raven), this team is left with the perpetual underachiever Matt Leinart at the helm. Even though Leinart has one of the best weapons in the game in Larry Fitzgerald, I think Leinart's performance will be poor and the Cardinals will suffer because of it.

The only way this team will find its way back into the playoffs is if Beanie Wells is given 300 carries and rushes for 1,500 yards, which would be the antithesis of what this team has been for the past five years. Leinart will be blitzed and pressured relentlessly and the Cardinals will unfortunately fail to utilize their best player in Fitzgerald.

The defense isn't terrible, but they're certainly not good enough to carry the team. Warner and the pass attack carried the team and that isn't going to work anymore. I think a hurtful season of 6-10 will motivate the Cardinals toward a real franchise quarterback.

St. Louis Rams

The contract Sam Bradford received is completely insane (six years, $78 million, $50 million guaranteed). If I were to offer that kind of money to a player, I'd expect to be in the playoffs every year except perhaps the first and win the Super Bowl at least once in his tenure as quarterback. If Sam Bradford leads the Rams to the playoffs within his current contract, I'll be surprised. I won't be shocked simply because this conference is so weak and let's face it, a team could probably get in at 7-9.

I think Bradford will win the starting job and honestly, would you want to pay a player 1/6 of his ridiculous salary to sit on the bench? No, he'll be in there right away.

The saddest part about the Rams is that they have perhaps the most talented running back in the NFL in Stephen Jackson. He has rushed for over 1,000 yards each of the past five seasons for a team that is completely dreadful. He has also fought injury and missed multiple games and still hit 1,000 yards.

If Bradford can take any pressure off of Jackson at all and Jackson stays healthy, he could very well rush for over 1,800 yards.

Sadly, that still won't save the Rams. Defensively, this team has nothing. They can't stop the run. They can't stop the pass. In 2009, they had 8 interceptions. Eight. James Laurinaitis had 120 tackles and is somebody to build a defense around, but given Bradford's contract, building anything isn't going to be easy.

I think Bradford and the Rams will manage 3-13, but only because their schedule is so soft, including @Oakland, @Detroit, @Tampa Bay, Kansas City at home, and a pathetic division.

AFC West

This division is filled with underachievers. San Diego always falls short in the playoffs. The Broncos are too streaky. The Chiefs have talent, but no offensive line and the Raiders, well, they have a lot of problems from top to bottom, but the top, the front office, is the real problem.

San Diego Chargers

The San Diego Chargers are a talented team. Philip Rivers is near elite status as a quarterback. Antonio Gates is one of the best tight ends the NFL has ever seen. Vincent Jackson is a solid number one receiver and the defense has some decent playmakers, including Shawne Merriman (though his 2009 performance was oddly lacking).

What's amazing about the Chargers is that they were able to win their last 11 games of the regular season with the second worst running game in the NFL. LaDainian Tomlinson is gone. Darren Sproles remains, but I think the Chargers expected more out of him in splitting carries with Tomlinson in 2009.

The Chargers expect rookie running back Ryan Mathews to take the bulk of the load and I can't imagine him doing worse than Tomlinson's 3.3 yards per carry in 2009. That should help Rivers, Gates and Jackson out in the pass game making for a continually potent Chargers offense.

Despite an early exit to the Jets in the playoffs, the Chargers still remain an elite team and should win the division without a ton of competition. I'll say 11-5. Their playoff value is yet to be determined. They can't seem to finish the season well. It seems they tend to peak too early.

Denver Broncos

The Broncos have baffled me ever since John Elway retired. How they were able to start 6-0 last season is a mystery and how Kyle Orton threw for nearly 4,000 yards is a conundrum, but their two streaks of four losses a piece is a telling sign that this team is inconsistent.

We're not sure who the quarterback will be. I'm going to guess that they'll have three different starters throughout the year — Orton for 10 games, Tim Tebow for four games, and Brady Quinn for two games.

While I think getting rid of Brandon Marshall was necessary for the sanity and chemistry of the team, the offensive weapons are lacking a bit now.

The defense is what will keep this team from falling apart, but unless Orton has another crazy year or Tebow proves to be something I can't see quite yet, I think Broncos fans are in for another disappointing season at 6-10.

Kansas City Chiefs

I annually over-predict on the Chiefs. Or perhaps they annually underachieve. I think the weapons Matt Cassel has been given are sufficient to lead a productive offense. I think Matt Cassel, given solid protection, can be a good quarterback, though he'll never have another season like he did in 2008 for New England upon replacing the injured Tom Brady. Cassel's accuracy was off in 2009. He went from 63.4% in 2008 to 55.0% in 2009. That's not going to get the job done.

Dwayne Bowe was a huge disappointment. He dropped passes. He was lazy and overweight. He got suspended for four games. So much for that weapon. Chris Chambers was solid after the trade to Kansas City and hopefully he will continue to be effective.

The running game for the Chiefs wasn't bad in 2009, Jamaal Charles had the best last four weeks of the season in the NFL, over 600 yards rushing and 4 touchdowns. If he is anywhere near those numbers with Thomas Jones sharing the load, this could be the best one-two running back punch in the NFL. The offensive line will have to hold, but things are in place for the offense to be pretty good.

The defense is still atrocious. Nobody has filled Jared Allen's shoes to be the sack king and they just cannot stop the run, allowing over 150 rushing yards per game, good for second-worst in the NFL.

I think the Chiefs will begin to get better in 2010, but it will take a few seasons of going in the right direction before they are a playoff team. They'll improve to 6-10.

Oakland Raiders

Did you know the Raiders went 5-11 last season? It shocks me that a team that bad won five games. JaMarcus Russell, one of the original recipients of the ridiculous rookie contract, was sent packing and the chances he will ever start another game in the NFL are about zero, making him perhaps the worst overall number one pick ever.

Darren McFadden has underachieved in his first two seasons, fighting through injuries, yet he remains a talented back with potential for a breakout season.

Jason Campbell finds himself at the helm of a worse team than he previously was charged with leading and yet people are expecting the Raiders to turn around under his tenure at quarterback. No doubt he's better than Russell, but Campbell has never been a good quarterback.

Darrius Heyward-Bey was an immediate bust and is simply not ready to be a number one or number two receiver. He's fast and has great size, but he hasn't been trained to be a good receiver. He needs a mentor and there is no such person in Oakland.

This is an inconsistent team that needs a better front office. The drafts of the recent past have been dreadful, especially early picks. Don't expect Campbell to turn things around in a hurry, or at all. 5-11.

Stay tuned as Andrew Jones brings you his NFL previews each week leading up the season!

Check out the BetFirms NFL season predictions and get fully prepared to beat the NFL odds this fall.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 3:49 PM | Comments (0)

August 14, 2010

U.S. Ban on Online Gambling on Way Out?

When it comes to gambling, there has never been a shortage of opinion amongst the masses. Either people favor it or they feel strongly that it accompanies some of society's more depraved behaviors, along with attracting crime, and is a negative temptation for our youth.

Regardless of what side of the table you are on, most folks can agree that they would like less government regulation when it comes to indulging in their leisure activities of choice. But such becomes far less clear when the government jumps in.

As hard as we might try to understand the present United States federal laws on the books when it comes to gambling, and especially with the advent of constantly evolving computer technology, legislation has not kept pace.

Additionally, lawmakers are too often wont to ignore a problem, lest it detract from their popularity, and more importantly, when it might interfere with receiving campaign cash from certain lobbying industries.

So they drag their proverbial feet until an issue reaches a fever pitch and it simply must be addressed; even if it is not in a cohesive manner or in the best interests of their constituents.

Also, with respect to gambling, I have previously documented in several previously published articles that many state governments in the U.S. have already started to craft legislation in hopes of feeding their depleted coffers by further relaxing their laws to allow more access to gambling.

Everything from expanding brick and mortar gambling casinos to advancing racinos and adding slot machines at horse race tracks to allowing intrastate and interstate online gambling are seen collectively as a potential bonanza that will cure all ills for the empty tills lining their budgets. And it is estimated by the federal government that there could be as much as a $42 billion windfall over a 10-year stretch in taxable revenue.

It is quite interesting, but not by virtue of coincidence, that most of this seeming rush to pass such legislation by U.S. states comes at the same time that the U.S. Congress is plotting ways to overturn the only recently implemented Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), through a proposed law by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) that he originated in 2009.

It just won its initial approval in the U.S. House of Representatives through its Committee on Financial Services on July 27, 2010, on which Rep. Frank is the Chairman. Known as House Resolution 2267 (H.R. 2267) or the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act, the House Financial Services Committee's approval is it but the first phase of its passage, required by both houses of the U.S. Congress.

In short, the UIGEA was a nice way for the U.S. government to keep offshore online betting casinos at bay from the American consumer. It was initially enacted in October 2006, but was never implemented until June 1, 2010, after many long delays by the federal government's U.S. Department of the Treasury in compelling U.S. banking institutions to honor its rules.

However, the main problem, which will continue to haunt H.R. 2267, is the actual legal definition of "illegal online gambling," thus creating all kinds of loopholes and wiggle room, from the living room gambler to organized crime, to skirt the law.

And also of concern in the presently active UIGEA is that banks remain the only legally accountable parties subject to penalty and prosecution for furnishing offshore online gambling to U.S. residents, while the U.S. gambler placing the bet remains safe. And to date, banks and payment processors are still unclear as to which transactions are actually required to be blocked.

Due to the difficulty in deciphering a non-finite system for the processing of legal U.S. based online gaming transactions, consumers' credit cards and debit cards cannot only be blocked or frozen, but accounts are often cancelled.

Furthermore, a consumer, ignorant of the UIGEA, could innocently go to a gambling site, not even knowing from where it emanates and later find that their credit line or checking account is in peril, simply by clicking on an illicit site.

So for now, that is the best that the U.S. government has served up, as concerns online gaming. But not shy to out-do itself, even if it compounds a dysfunctional process even more so, the federal government has plans to muck it up again through a poorly framed H.R. 2267; almost immediately setting it up to fail.

H.R. 2267 is overly broad and murky, yet will intrinsically involve the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), amongst other U.S. federal agencies, for starters.

It is merely a wish list without the necessary mechanisms in place to not only generate the hoped for tax revenue, but for enforcing the law itself. And it stands to open the floodgates for illicit online gaming, incongruous with what it should be designed to do.

It would leave online gambling sites left to police themselves, merely under the purview of the U.S. federal government.

And like most other large pieces of U.S. legislation that has been conveniently rushed through to final Congressional passage, H.R. 2267 is another boiler plate document of mandates to be fulfilled at a date certain after it is already signed into law.

But due to its ambiguity, which seemingly appears by design, H.R. 2267 calls for provisions and assorted amendments that cover a wide array of issues. And it is worth noting several of them here, in order to show how arduous it will be for its desired compliance.

Firstly, it authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to create a licensing program for regulations and enforcement of the law, issuing licenses to online gambling entities, effective for a period of five years.

Thus, it prescribes the licensing requirements for such internet gambling entities and prohibits operation of an Internet gambling entity that knowingly accepts bets or wagers from persons within the U.S. without the necessary license issued from the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The law would prohibit a person, deemed prohibited from gambling with an online gambling entity, from collecting any winnings. Such a system to screen a gambler's veracity must be created by each gambling entity, and to be overseen by the federal government. And such is pure folly at this juncture.

H.R. 2267 would require that an online gambling entity pay required taxes to the IRS. And most curiously of all, each gambling entity, itself, would need to implement safeguards against fraud, money laundering, and terrorist financing.

In addition, each online license would require that gambling sites have strong protections in place to prevent minors from gambling online, and to prevent inappropriate online advertising targeted to underage gamblers or specifically aimed at compulsive gamblers.

Not only must the gambling site maintain a list of compulsive gamblers, but must block them from site access. And it cannot allow access to its site for those individuals who are delinquent on child support payments. These are just some amongst many other illusory imperatives.

Enforcement of U.S. law for the prevention of and tracking of electronic transactions of funds sent to terrorist organizations abroad has been weak at best through the U.S. Department of the Treasury, nine years since September 11, 2001. And to essentially require online websites to take on such a task is laughable.

Other proposed mandates include that debit cards only be used for transactions, to the exclusion of credit cards. Offshore online gambling operations such as PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com and UltimateBet.com, which allowed U.S. players to access their sites after the UIGEA went into effect, will be banned from acquiring a U.S. license, as well as other entities that intentionally violated this U.S. law.

Each state and Indian tribe may opt-out of the federal legislation during the first year after its enactment, requiring that their residents abide by respective local laws.

And sports betting, with the exception of U.S. based horse racing and para-mutuel betting, would be disallowed, much to the delight of the professional and college sports industries. U.S. state lotteries, should they eventually become accessible online, would also be exempt. (For more information on horse racing betting, join now.)

But perhaps falsely anticipated with this new law is the notion that gamblers will be allowed much freedom to do as they wish in the privacy of their own homes. However, given the bevy of requirements for oversight, nothing could be further from the truth. Deadbeat dads need not log on, as previously noted.

But more realistically, beginning with Internet Service Providers or ISPs, one would expect that they would have to be the gatekeeper for gathering initial information as to whether the gambler is even eligible to gamble, based upon their state of residence, if that state has opted out. And the banks would be the second line of defense, cutting off the gambler's funds if need be, should the online gambling site find that it is a documented compulsive gambler placing the bet.

And should a player gain access to a legitimate site, then the process begins as to whether they are of majority age, has been flagged as a delinquent parent, or has a criminal background. Without such due diligence, the individual gambling site is subject to losing its license.

Certainly none of these entities are law enforcement agencies, so for the federal government to expect legitimate oversight to be realized at these levels seems more than silly.

The purpose of this report was to give a glimpse into what lurks ahead for U.S. online gaming and is not intended to disparage the gambling consumer nor the gambling industry. Rather, the intent is to highlight some of the future changes in law which may not best serve the public or the industry.

And contrary to the online gaming industry's millions of lobbying dollars spent in Washington, D.C. in order to help initiate this latest planned legislation, it might be best for it to restrain its glee, at this time.

For one only needs to look at the present economic condition of Las Vegas, NV. It has now been proven, going back to the onset of the current recession in 2008, that the gambling industry is indeed no longer recession proof. Yes, in time Vegas and its hurting East Coast counterpart, Atlantic City, NJ, will both rise again.

However, with a 14.5% unemployment rate that Las Vegas presently owns, it is evidence for when entire economies are dependent upon the gambling industry for the creation of jobs and funding municipal programs, disaster can ensue. Therefore, for entire U.S. state and federal programs' very survival to be based upon discretionary income from gambling has lawmakers living in a fool's paradise.

Hopefully, in the coming weeks and months, prior to the entirety of the U.S. House of Representatives approving H.R. 2267 and before it is sent on to the U.S. Senate, that not only will cooler heads prevail, but that a better proposed outcome will exceed before everyone's chips are cashed in. Cheers!

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 12:04 PM | Comments (1)

August 13, 2010

Sports Q&A: Favre's "No-Hurry" Defense

Brett Favre is at it again, contemplating, or threatening, retirement, while stringing fans along on his annual magical, "mystery" tour. Are these the machinations of an attention-starved media hog, or is Favre a crusader against a society that has come to expect things instantly?

Can't the answer be "both?" Favre may cherish the attention, but that doesn't mean the decision to retire or return is made any easier. I think everyone can agree that Favre enjoys the game so much, he finds it hard to leave the game. The situation could be further simplified if someone could define what the "game" is — football, or the merry-go-round that is Favre's yearly obsession with leaving everyone hanging.

To be honest, Favre should be worshipped. Not only for being one of the greatest football players of all-time, but also for his toughness, namely his toughness in refusing to adhere to the demands of a society in which snap decisions are often expected, and rushing to work is a way of life. Favre should be commended for his heroic stance against deciding.

To those astute enough to recognize the lessons in his ways, Favre has taught us to slow down, and enjoy the media frenzy and backlash created by such a relatively frivolous decision. Haven't we all been told to enjoy the "little" things?

Never mind the fact that several of Favre's teammates say he texted them with plans to retire, communications Favre denies making. Credit Favre here with the NFL season's first audible. Sure, Favre communicates almost universally via text messages, and he's likely on the unlimited plan, but that doesn't make these texts legitimate.

What's more likely? Favre retiring, or several of his teammates are liars? Well, Favre is not retiring, yet, according to his latest text message, so that makes his teammates liars. And in that clearly lies the appeal that Favre sees in playing for the Vikings — he sees in his teammates an equitable level of honesty and values to that of his own. That, my friend, is loyalty. And Favre is loyal, despite naysayers in Green Bay who claim they were "loyally" screwed.

Obviously, these bogus texts were the work of a disgruntled fan called the "Green Bay Hacker," who is still apparently stinging from Favre's betrayal of the Lambeau faithful. Can you imagine the time and effort it took this person to undermine the always solid words of Favre? It could be measured in seconds.

Yes, Favre loves his text messages, and often lets his fingers do the walking in lieu of his gimpy left ankle. But Favre told ESPN's Ed Werder, in a mysterious form of communication called "in person," that he'll return "if healthy." If this isn't a clear indication that Favre will be returning, I don't know what is. I'm not sure his ankle is healthy, but the ambiguity of his words are at a Pro Bowl level. That's vintage Favre. What else is vintage Favre? The fact that we don't know whether he's playing or not.

That's what makes this time of year so special for NFL fans, the uncertainty. Can you doubt Favre's greatness? Has the influence of one player ever singlehandedly delayed so many fantasy drafts? Never.

And the longer Favre delays his decision, the tougher it is for Vikings opponents to prepare for the Minnesota offense. This isn't lost on Favre. Don't underestimate Favre's ability to be cold and calculating, analyzing all scenarios before choosing the most desirable option. He's quite cunning in this respect, except on plays with the NFC championship hanging in the balance.

Luckily, Favre has learned that quick decisions often lead to regret. So he should be praised for taking his own sweet time to make a decision. It's impossible to be critical of Favre's decision-making process. Why? Because when he finally does come to a decision, either way, it will be the right one.

As part of his preparations for his upcoming decision, Favre is practicing with the Oak Grove High School football team in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Ever the role model, Favre is donating his time and influence to young men who are, like him, facing huge decisions. When faced with some of life's most important choices, like choosing a college, or a career path, these young men can find comfort in knowing that, like Favre, these decisions are not once in a lifetime, but once a year. That has to take loads of pressure off of these lads. It's the courage of Favre that makes that possible.

In the meantime, while we wait for that monumental announcement, or text, or second-hand communication, there's a "Brett Favre Tribute Album" in the works, and true to form, artists are scrambling to participate, although none have officially committed. Assuming full participation, the tentative track list is as follows:

"Oops! I Did it Again" by Britney Spears
"I'll Wait" by Van Halen
"Time After Time" by Cyndi Lauper
"Suspicious Minds" by Elvis Presley
"Would I Lie to You" by The Eurythmics
"Double Talkin' Jive" by Guns 'N Roses
"Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me" by Elton John
"The Waiting is the Hardest Part" by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
"Hello, Goodbye" by the Beatles
"Déjà Vu" by Dionne Warwick
"I Don't Know" by Ozzy Osborne
"Take Your Time (Do it Right)" by S.O.S. Band
"Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:25 AM | Comments (0)

August 12, 2010

Week 1 College Basketball Preview

The college basketball season tips off November 8th this year, once again, with the Coaches vs. Cancer classic (which again has a misleading title as the schedule includes no games where coaches take on cancer; when I was a kid, I was a water boy for the cancer team).

As I wrote last year, the tournament has scrapped the traditional 16-team knockout method in favor of a complicated round-robin mess that ensures that the four "host" schools (this year, it's Pitt, Maryland, Illinois, and Texas) make it to the finals in Madison Square Garden. I call it the "Gardner-Webb rule" because this format was enacted after Gardner-Webb upset Kentucky in this same tournament, depriving the poor tournament organizers the chance to profit from the strong contingent of traveling UK fans.

To give them a microscopic grain of credit, however, this year they seem to have realized that guaranteeing the four host schools a trip to the finals in New York means they do not have to schedule ridiculous laughers like Duke vs. Presbyterian in the first round. So this year we are treated to a slate that should be slightly more competitive. Slightly.

Nowhere is this more true than in the first game of the year, when Pitt takes on Rhode Island. It would've been even better last year, when Rhode Island knocked off Providence and Oklahoma State en route to an NIT season where they made the semifinals. This year, however, Pitt returns seven of their top eight scorers, and it will be tough for the Rams to keep up.

The nightcap on September 8th is more like what we are used to seeing in this tournament, although at least the underdog has name recognition: Navy at Texas. Sadly, though, David Robinson (ankle, old age) will not be suiting up for Navy.

The more intriguing game for the Longhorns, and the one where they have to be especially on guard against an upset, is their game two nights later against Louisiana Tech. Sadly, Karl Malone (ankle, old age) will not be suiting up for Tech, but this is a strong team that finished fourth in the tough WAC last year and made the postseason themselves, losing to eventual champion Missouri State in the CollegeInsider.com tournament.

Texas slipped badly last season, finishing sixth in the Big 12 behind rivals Texas A&M and historical doormat Baylor, clocking in at 9-7 for the second year in a row. While they are rebuilding, this game has a great deal of upset potential.

Also being played on Wednesday, before Texas/Louisiana Tech, is another game with at least a chance of an upset. Maryland gets to find out what life is like without Greivis Vasquez against a team that won 22 games last year and returns three key starters: the Bobby Cremins-coached College of Charleston.

Finally, ESPNU (so farm — more games are likely to be added) will be showing a pair of non-Coaches vs. Cancer games the first week: James Madison vs. Kansas State on Friday November 12th, a game that has no chance of an upset, and on Sunday, Duke, fresh off a National Championship Game where they held off a bunch of scrappy, plucky white guys at Butler, will host the scrappy, plucky white guys from Princeton, who should be in the mix for an Ivy League title this year.

The non-televised (at least not by ESPNU) games at the host schools of the Coaches vs Cancer Classic will be Pitt vs. Illinois-Chicago, Maryland vs. Seattle U, and both Illinois games, against UC-Irvine November 8th and Toledo November 10th.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 6:53 PM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 22

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kevin Harvick — Harvick was running sixth before suffering a flat tire on the final lap at Watkins Glen, spoiling a certain top-10 finish. He surrendered five positions on the final lap, and was nipped at the line for 10h by Jeff Gordon, his closest pursuer in the point standings.

"The flat tire cost us several places," Harvick said. "Had it happened at any other point in the race, I'm sure the No. 29 Shell/Pennzoil crew could have quickly remedied it, I'm guessing in well under the four months it took BP to stop their leak."

"When the Chase starts, I plan to be right in the middle of the mix. I am definitely a legitimate contender for the title. Even my wife DeLana thinks so, and, as you know, what she thinks carries weight in this family. But her support can only do so much for me; the actual winning is up to me. Yes, I'll concede that she wears the fire-suit in this family, but heaven help me if she's the one fitted for a Cup come November."

2. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson was collected in a lap 70 incident involving Kyle Busch and Jeff Burton, who made contact racing into Turn 11. Johnson lit up his tires, and the smoke obscured the view of Denny Hamlin, whose No. 11 Toyota rammed Johnson's No. 48 Chevy. Johnson eventually finished 29th, and dropped to fifth in the point standings, 328 out of first.

"We may only be fifth in the points," Johnson said, "but we've got everyone right where we want them. When you say 'Jimmie Johnson' and 'fifth,' people get nervous."

"That's now four finishes outside of the top 20 in the last five races. Many have wondered if this team has lost its edge. Maybe, but there's no need to panic. In the Chase For the Cup format, there's no urgency to 'make a stand' when we're 'sitting' on five wins. Trust me, the cushion is comforting."

3. Kurt Busch — Busch posted his best-ever finish on a road course, taking second behind Juan Montoya in the Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips at the Glen. Busch picked off Marcos Ambrose on the race's final restart, but the No. 2 Miller Lite Vortex Dodge was no match for Montoya, who won by five seconds. Busch vaulted three spots in the points to fourth, and is 318 out of first.

"You know race sponsorship has reached its saturation point when punctuation appears in the race title," Busch said. "Not to be confused with 'punk-tuation,' which happens when I get slapped by another driver."

"Now, you may have heard that I called the Hendrick drivers 'pretty boys,' and implied that had I wrecked Jimmie Johnson, and not the other way around, I would have faced an inordinate amount of criticism. It's clear evidence that 'looks can be deceiving,' which, as the wives of many a NASCAR driver can tell you, can be a good reason for marriage."

"But Johnson knows I owe him for wrecking me at Pocono, and I will have my revenge someday. As Miller Lite pouring through the Vortex bottle is my witness, my vengeance will be 'liquidated.'"

4. Jeff Gordon — Gordon charged from 15th to 10th on the final green flag run at Watkins Glen, salvaging his seventh top-10 finish in his last eight races on a day marked by handling issues. Gordon maintained the second position in the Sprint Cup point standings, 185 behind Kevin Harvick.

"That's 51 races without a win," Gordon said. "That's a long time, but everyone goes through their own slow times. You have to look at it in perspective — my wife went nearly three years without 'delivering.'"

5. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin finished 37th after suffering damage in a lap 65 incident when Hamlin's No. 11 Toyota slammed Jimmie Johnson's No. 48. Johnson lost control after being nudged by Jeff Burton, as Johnson, Burton, and Kyle Busch went three wide into turn 11. It was Hamlin's worst finish of the year and dropped him three spots in the Sprint Cup point standings to sixth, 338 out of first.

"I equate some of the racing at that fateful corner to 'dive-bombing,'" Hamlin explained. "With that in mind, I guess that means if you put Kyle Busch in a Toyota, he becomes a 'kamikaze.'"

"If it's not a dent in my car, it's a dent in my wallet. Now, I've had my ups and downs this year. Five wins earlier this year were followed by a $50,000 fine for some derogatory things about NASCAR I said on my Twitter account. So, thus far this year, I've experienced the thrill of victory, and the agony of the Tweet."

"But this won't deter me from using my Twitter account. In fact, I'll be paying the fine via Twitter. I'll simply text 'K' to NASCAR fifty times, and my $50,000 fine should be covered."

6. Tony Stewart — Stewart finished seventh at Watkins Glen, surviving an on-the-track run-in with Boris Said on lap 66 that sent Said into the wall. As the two raced for position in the top 10 off of turn one, Said drifted wide. Stewart didn't budge, held his line, and punted Said into the wall. Said finished a distant 38th, while Stewart's 12th top-10 of the year kept him eighth in the point standings, 345 out of first.

"Slowly but surely," Stewart said, "we are making progress. And that's not surprising given the time of the year. It's summertime, so one would expect us to improve 'by degrees.'"

"Now, I may have called Boris and 'idiot' after our incident," Stewart said, "but I have the utmost respect for him, as I do for any white man with an afro. I hear the 'Said-head' wigs were popular at Watkins Glen, and when fans don the fake hair, they often look just like Boris. So, I can't feel too bad about knocking this road course specialist out of the race, thus creating another 'dead ringer.'"

7. Jeff Burton — Burton posted his 12th top-10 result of the year, finishing ninth at Watkins Glen by employing a conservative approach that kept him free of trouble for the most part. Burton advanced two places in the Sprint Cup point standings to third, and trails Kevin Harvick by 315.

"That was quite a dominating drive by Juan Montoya, the pride of South America," Burton said. "In the only race in the state of New York, those Yankees had to be taken aback by the audacity of a true 'Southerner.'

"Of course, Montoya's win, and standing of 19th in the point standings, begs the question, 'Should any driver with a win automatically qualify for the Chase, despite his points standing?' I say 'yes.' If there's one thing Montoya can bring to the Chase, it's international flavor."

8. Kyle Busch — Busch faced an early obstacle at Watkins Glen, forced to bring the No. 18 M&Ms Toyota to the pits even before the drop of the green flag. After a spacer was inserted in the right rear, Busch charged through the field, and was in 10th place on lap 75. He finished in eighth, capturing only his second top-10 in the last eight races.

"We dug ourselves a hole early," Busch said, "which is in stark contrast to our usual strategy in season's past, digging ourselves a hole late."

"I hear that I was partly responsible for the incident that wrecked my teammate Denny Hamlin. I heard that through the grapevine, and not through Twitter. Joe Gibbs says teammates should bring out the best in each other. Obviously, that philosophy doesn't apply to Denny and I. We don't complement each other, nor will we ever compliment each other."

9. Carl Edwards — Edwards won the pole at Watkins Glen, and raced to his fifth consecutive top-10 finish with a fifth in the Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips at the Glen. He improved one place in the point standings to ninth, 190 ahead of Clint Bowyer in 13th.

"I'm incredibly proud of winning the pole," said Edwards. "You know what's so great about starting in the front of the grid? It guarantees that Brad Keselowski won't be in front of me."

10. Greg Biffle — After topping both practice sessions and qualifying seventh, Biffle had high hopes at Watkins Glen. Those hopes soured on lap 62, when contact with Boris Said's No. 83 cost Biffle about 20 positions. With his track position defeated, Biffle could only make up one position the rest of the way, and finished 24th. He now sits 11th in the point standings, 112 ahead of Clint Bowyer in 13th.

"Any momentum we garnered in the last two races has been lost," Biffle said. "But we can quickly recover it in Michigan, where the 3M Ford will proudly display the '3 Eminem' paint scheme, featuring Michigan's adopted son and rap hero Marshall Mathers."

"That's actually not true, but, coincidentally, here at Roush Fenway, we do refer to Carl Edwards, our svelte teammate of questionable character, as 'Slim Shady.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:26 AM | Comments (0)

August 11, 2010

Jim Thome and the 600 Home Run Club

All stats in this column are through Monday, August 9, 2010.

Alex Rodriguez finally hit his 600th home run on Wednesday. Next in the line for the no-longer-prestigious 600-home run club is Jim Thome, who will likely cross the mark with far less fanfare than A-Rod. Thome has always flown a bit under the radar. Sure, casual fans know his name and serious ones recognize him as one of the most consistent players of the last 15 years, but he's only played in five all-star games, never finished higher than fourth in MVP voting, and never been a true superstar from a PR standpoint.

But Thome has now established himself as one of the greatest players in history, flirting with the all-time top 10 among first basemen and the top 100 at any position. He has over 1,500 runs and over 1,500 RBI, one of only 33 players in history to meet that standard. He's 10th all-time in HR and has over 1,000 extra-base hits. He leads all active players in bases on balls. Thome has scored 100 runs in a season eight times and driven in over 100 nine times. He has six 40-HR seasons, nine 100-BB seasons, five with an OPS over 1.000 and six more over .950.

I believe that Thome is, historically speaking, a borderline top-10 first baseman, but before we compare him to Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx, let's see how Thome, who was born in 1970, compares to the best first basemen of his own generation (born between 1964-76): Jeff Bagwell, Carlos Delgado, Jason Giambi, Todd Helton, Rafael Palmeiro, and Frank Thomas.

The table above is organized by OPS+ (Delgado actually has the same score [138] as Helton, because Helton's numbers are so skewed by Coors Field). Among those seven players, Thome ranks third in runs, third in RBI, fifth in hits, third in total bases, fifth in OBP, and tied for first in slugging. He may be second in runs by the time you read this. He's also third in runs created, behind only Palmeiro and Thomas. I think Thome is still behind Thomas and Bagwell, but easily ahead of Delgado, Giambi, and Helton. Palmeiro is tough to evaluate, both because of the steroid thing and because he played so much longer. I believe, however, that another comparison sheds some light on Thome's place in history: Mark McGwire, who was born in 1963 and just missed the cutoff above.

Absent any consideration of performance-enhancing drugs, McGwire would have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer, probably a nearly unanimous choice. It's not clear, though, that McGwire had a better career than Thome has to this point. Here are a few basic numbers to illustrate this:

Thome, with a much longer career (2359 G to Big Mac's 1874), is well ahead in the counting stats, while McGwire leads in OPS+. Mac was a better slugger, but Thome was better at everything else, and he's a great slugger, as well. Below, find their walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and total bases per 162 games:

Those home runs are no joke, but with Thome's substantially longer career, it's hard to rank McGwire ahead. Thome will probably pass McGwire's home run total before the end of the year, and he's already well ahead in all the other categories. McGwire's argument to rank ahead, then, must rest either on a superior prime or on defense. Let's start with fielding. Neither Thome nor McGwire was a particularly good defensive player. Thome began his career as a third baseman who probably should have been playing first. By the time he switched to first, it was tempting to use him as a DH, and he has been an exclusively offensive player for much of his career. McGwire was no better. He won a Gold Glove in 1990, but Thome had a couple seasons just as good (not including his years at third, when he was a much more valuable defensive player than McGwire).

This runs counter to popular opinion, which basically goes along the lines of, "McGwire won a Gold Glove and Thome was always a borderline DH, so McGwire was better defensively." This is not apparent, though, from the available statistics. For their respective careers, Thome has more fielding wins above replacement (2.8) than McGwire (1.2) and more fielding win shares (28.9) than Big Mac (20.7). He's also ahead in traditional defensive stats:

Remember, this doesn't even include Thome's 4,000 innings at third base, which is a more challenging defensive position than first. Thome's defensive advantage over McGwire is minimal, and I'm not interested in arguing that Thome should be rated ahead because of his defense, but I think it's abundantly clear that fielding is not an advantage for McGwire in this comparison. It's generous to call him even.

That means the only real argument for ranking McGwire ahead of Thome rests on the contention that McGwire was better at his peak, that he had more big years than Thome. I don't think anyone would deny that McGwire had the better prime, but how far ahead is he? Below are some key stats from each player's best offensive season:

It's not news to anybody that Thome never had a season as great as McGwire's 1998. But Thome's 2002 campaign has got to be one of the most under-appreciated seasons in recent memory. Look at those numbers: .304 batting average from a guy who hits 50 homers and leads the league in walks, with a 1.122 OPS. Those are MVP numbers. Thome placed seventh in the AL MVP vote that year. He probably should have won. Well, him or Alex Rodriguez. But they both played for sub-.500 teams, so Miguel Tejada won instead. Tejada made 485 outs that season, compared to 336 for Thome. That's a difference of 149 outs, basically 50 innings. I realize Tejada was a superior defensive player, but did he put out 150 more opponents on defense than Thome did? Of course not.

Anyway, 1998 was a historic year for McGwire, and Thome never had a year like that. Really, only a handful of players in the last 50 years have ever had a season like that — slugging .750, leading the majors in four major offensive categories, and breaking a hallowed 37-year-old record is pretty hard to match. But Thome has had MVP-caliber seasons, and despite McGwire's substantial lead in all-star selections (12-5), Thome is the one who had more great seasons. Consider how many times each player reached some traditional single-season milestones:

McGwire: 100 R (3 times), 100 RBI (7 times), 150 H (2 times), 100 BB (5 times), 40 HR (6 times), 50 HR (4 times), 300 TB (5 times), .300 BA (1 time), .400 OBP (4 times), .500 SLG (6 times), .600 SLG (5 times)

Thome: 100 R (8 times), 100 RBI (9 times), 150 H (4 times), 100 BB (9 times), 40 HR (6 times), 50 HR (1 time), 300 TB (4 times), .300 BA (3 times), .400 OBP (9 times), .500 SLG (13 times), .600 SLG (3 times)

That's not even close, is it? Hitting home runs was literally the only thing McGwire did better than Thome. Big Mac has fewer seasons with 100 runs, fewer with 100 RBI, with 150 hits, with 100 walks, with 30 doubles. Part of that is due to injuries, but Thome was the more consistent and more well-rounded player — and that's not necessarily a knock on McGwire. Since 1960, only 17 players have at least eight seasons with 100 runs, and only 14 have at least nine seasons with 100 RBI. Only seven (including Thome) have at least eight seasons doing both: Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Chipper Jones, Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, Frank Thomas, and Thome. That's quite a group.

Thome is one of only eight players in the last half-century with at least six seasons with 40 home runs. Only 12 have as many seasons as Thome with a .400 OBP; only nine have as many slugging .500. Only three (Thome, Frank Thomas, and Barry Bonds) have at least nine seasons with 100 bases on balls. In half a dozen categories, Thome ranks among the most accomplished offensive players of the last 50 years. It's not like this is a guy who was above-average for 20 years; Thome has been a great player with a dozen high-impact seasons.

I don't see how we could rank McGwire ahead. Thome played longer and has better career numbers, he was at least as valuable defensively, and his slightly lower peak is offset by having far more great seasons, and a more diverse skill set. This doesn't even cover McGwire's admission that he used PEDs, whereas Thome has never been seriously implicated. If you've got one player with clear Hall of Fame credentials, and another who is clearly better than him, it follows logically that the latter player should be a slam-dunk Hall of Famer. Thome has flown under the radar to an extent, but he's put together a résumé that compares favorably with those of many HOFers.

Thome will probably need another season as a regular, or two as a part-time player, to make it to 600 home runs. Whether he gets there or not, his legacy is secure.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:57 PM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2010

If Benedict Arnold Was an Athlete...

"Hulk Hogan is here! Hulk Hogan is in the building!"
"Yeah, but whose side is he on?"
"What?"
"Whose side is he on?"
"Hulk Hogan has betrayed WCW! He is the third man in this picture!"

Since the ESPN fiasco known as "The Decision" hooked viewers for one hour that they can at least erase from their DVRs, if not their retinas, many have come across comparisons and YouTube clips of Hulk Hogan turning heel (the wrestling act of becoming a villain) with the symbolism being made painfully clear. LeBron broke Cleveland's hearts in just as vicious a way as Hogan broke the hearts of wrestling fans (albeit naïve, impressionable ones, as wrestling fans have to be to truly buy into that the same way, but I digress) nationwide.

I would be remiss if I did not mention ESPN.com cult favorite writer Bill Simmons' role in this phenomenon. One video even went as far as poorly editing the audio and cheaply superimposing LeBron's face on Hogan's along with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh's faces on Kevin Nash and Scott Hall. The symbolism of the 2010 Miami Heat being the equivalent of wrestling's New World Order being formed was downright eerie.

Yet this very incident had crossed my mind way before that, even if it didn't work out quite as neatly. Last summer, Brett Favre felt like becoming a free agent, so he 'retired' from football once again without missing a start, as only he can do. This conveniently got him out of his contract with the Jets and freed him up to go to the team he really wanted all along: the purple and gold of the hated Vikings. To me, Favre in purple was the same thing as seeing Hollywood Hogan in black.

Now obviously the Jets don't hate the Vikings, but the team and the fan base he was so deeply attached to before them had a very pointed hatred of the horned purple helmets. Favre was keenly aware of this and had initially been asked to be traded to the Vikings from the Packers in 2008 once he felt they did him wrong. The request of course was denied, so Favre decided to hide away with the New York Jets for a year instead.

The plan worked, and strangely the city of New York would become the intermediary in both the Favre and James situations. But the true losers were the equally devastated and devoted fan bases of Green Bay, Wisconsin and Cleveland, Ohio, although they were for somewhat different reasons. Here is where we figure out who is the bigger sports traitor.

Service Time

LeBron began with the Cavaliers in 2003-04 and played seven seasons for them.

Favre had more than doubled that tenure in Green Bay with 16 seasons from 1992-2007.

Disadvantage: Favre

Roots

LeBron was Cleveland's birth son. Born and raised in Akron, Ohio, the Cleveland fans were well aware of LeBron's presence from his high school days. Many got to watch his high school games at St. Vincent-St. Mary's firsthand. By way of luck or conspiracy if you think like that, Cleveland won the first pick of the 2003 draft lottery so they could make LeBron a hometown hero for his pro career.

Favre grew up in Mississippi and played for Southern Miss in college. He adapted very quick to Green Bay's small-town folksy ways anyway and became an adopted son.

Disadvantage: James

Likability

This is, of course, before the respective turns for the worst. Aside from being a local product, LeBron James appeared by all accounts to be a standup guy, even if he needed to feed his ego by claiming he wanted to become a global icon after seeing what Jordan had accomplished through the media, could you blame him?

Favre was not homegrown, but he rubbed everyone the right way from day one. He identified with people and was known for "speaking from the heart" when talking to the media. Most athletes don't do that, they learn to guard themselves. Favre talked like a movie protagonist, and his free-spirited style of play was right out of the movie screens, as well. This, of course, only ended up hurting the Packers more when he left.

Disadvantage: Favre

Team Success

LeBron got the Cavaliers to the playoffs in each of his last five seasons with them, after missing them the first two seasons. In 2007, he almost singlehandedly got them to the first NBA Finals in Cavaliers history with an epic 48-point performance against the rival Detroit Pistons in Game 5. By scoring all their points through two overtime sessions and late in the fourth quarter, LeBron got them a crucial 2-point road win. Unfortunately, they were swept effortlessly by the machine-like Spurs. In '09 and '10, they were the top seed in the playoffs, but disappointed and failed to reach the finals.

Favre made the Packers a playoff team by his second season and won them a Super Bowl in his sixth. It was Green Bay's first since 1967. He then led them back to the promised land the next season, only to be upset by the Denver Broncos. This would be his last appearance in the big game, but they always were among the elite teams in the NFC.

Disadvantage: Favre

Individual Success/Dominance

In seven seasons, James won the league MVP in each of the last two seasons. He was an all-star six times in seven seasons, winning two All-Star Game MVPs, a scoring title, and a Rookie of the Year award.

Favre won the league MVP three years in a row from 1995-97, while making the Pro Bowl 11 times in 16 seasons. He won NFC Player of the year five times and was selected to the 1990s' all-decade team. Not to mention he stayed long enough to break numerous career records as a Packer, including one for touchdowns, as well as interceptions. In this case, we need to cut Favre's accomplishments in half to be fair.

Disadvantage: Close, but James

Departure

LeBron and his people love to create publicity out of LeBron's greatness, which has gone from a business tactic to a personality defect as time went on. This led to LeBron deciding to contact ESPN and create his own bizarro press conference to announce which team he would play for in 2010-11. This gave time for all extra speculation while highlights of James dunks played on and on before it was time to talk. Prior to that mess, James had been accused of dogging it in a Game 5 home loss to the Celtics that Cleveland lost by 32 points. It would be his last home game in Cleveland, as they would lose in six games (with another uninspired performance by James in Game 6).

Favre went out with an NFC championship loss at home to the eventual champion Giants in overtime. The Giants were not expected to compete, but Favre was picked off by Corey Webster on the sideline with his last pass attempt. This became a 47-yard Lawrence Tynes field goal and the end of the line for Brett. He tearfully announced his retirement shortly thereafter, prompting the Packers to let backup Aaron Rodgers know he was their guy for 2008. Then Favre (surprise!) changed his mind and expected the starting spot to be opened back up for him by Packers management. Green Bay had had enough of his hemming and hawing and told him it was too late. Favre took this personally and an ugly war of words through the media ensued for weeks, culminating in his trade to the Jets after they refused to make a deal with the Vikings.

Disadvantage: Even

Fan Base Dependence

Cleveland is known for other things, but they have gone through economic recession recently. One other thing they are known for is sports heartbreak spread across three different teams. They have no championships in 46 years. LeBron was guaranteed to be the eventual answer to that problem. Now there is once again no end in sight. During this drought, no athlete in Cleveland sports has been as captivating and dominant as LeBron since Jim Brown. Brown left the Browns early, too, but he left them with some championships before going off to do Hollywood films. Bottom line: with their only Finals appearance, the LeBron era is basically all the Cavs franchise has ever had, and that ended prematurely without a ring.

Green Bay is known for absolutely nothing but football. There are no tourist attractions, little-to-no nightlife, just a lot of cold and snow year-round. They represent a romantic throwback to what a sports town used to be like before modern technological and societal distractions. They also have only one sports team to put all their heart behind. It goes without saying that Brett Favre became a God there for the better part of two decades. He also won a title with them.

Disadvantage: Close, but James

New Team

LeBron famously said he would be "taking his talents to South Beach" in order to play with his friends Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, party it up in the summer, and win gift-wrapped NBA titles for a few years as the hot new power trio. There has been a recent friendly rivalry with Wade's Heat since 2005, but little more than that.

Favre left for the Jets after having problems with Packers management about his starting job security. What he really wanted was to go to the Vikings, a team the Packers and their fans have hated for many, many years, but this wasn't allowed. Favre would end up a Viking, but the pain of this sight for Packers fans was slightly deferred by the extra year it took for this to happen. Even so, Favre got the sweet revenge he always wanted by defeating the Packers twice in close games last season and whooping it up with every TD the way a pro wrestler would. Of course, Favre had always done that, but in the moment, it was easy to forget.

Disadvantage: Favre

Potential

James left the Cavaliers in the prime of his career. Not only had he not led them to a title yet, but it is conceivable there was not one ring, but a whole dynasty to be had there if other pieces were added. The jump to Miami was one that has left Cavs fans suffering from a knife wound and serious blood loss.

Favre has proven he still has some good football left after his 2009 season with the Vikings. But how much could he possibly have left to give? The Packers cannot feel cheated with the amount of years he had given to them. Another title or two was possible, but unlikely with the closing window of Favre's career.

Disadvantage: James

Overall

Both fan bases have burned the jerseys of their prodigal sons when seeing them leave, and both seem equally hurt. After breaking it down by the tale of the tape, the tally is at four all, so I will have to cast the deciding vote. While Favre's situation may have ended up uglier and more drawn out, they also had Aaron Rodgers to fall back on. I will say LeBron James is the bigger traitor. And perhaps it's as simple as the fact the wound is more fresh, but Cavaliers fans, the entire deprived city that had so many hopes and dreams and economic needs, just had the plug pulled on it.

Aside from Hulk Hogan and wrestling, I will leave you with another analogy since fans develop such romantic attachments to their hometown athletes. This was the equivalent of a hopeless school nerd getting to date the hot cheerleader through high school, but never actually losing his virginity. Hopes are still high, though, because prom night is coming up. Then the cheerleader ditches him for a jock at the prom. They haven't made it to the hotel yet, but we can pretty much see where this is going.

No wait, this isn't the equivalent. This is way, way worse. The nerd still has college.

Overall Disadvantage: Close, but James

Posted by Bill Hazell at 7:23 PM | Comments (0)

What They Should Have Said

College football isn't the same without a little preseason drama.

This year is no exception, as two stories made for some eye-catching headlines. The first was the surprising remarks from Robert Kustra, President of Boise State, about the University of Idaho, followed shortly by Kustra's apology. Second, former Oregon quarterback Jeremiah Masoli left Eugene for Oxford, agreeing to walk-on at Ole Miss.

While both provided drama, both were further sparked by some of the comments of the key players in the dramatic stories. If we're able to take a few steps back and rewind, we'd find what should've been said, but wasn't, during the middle of each frenzy.

Let's start with Boise State. The Broncos have never been so close to reaching their ultimate goal. They start this season in the top five; they return a seasoned, veteran squad with one major hurdle game standing in the way of a wide-open shot for another undefeated regular season and a chance to make the BCS title game. You'd think that, with all the success, that the brass in Boise would seize the most of this opportunity.

Instead, Boise chose to turn and thumb their nose on cross-state rival Idaho. While voicing their wishes to continue the series without playing at Idaho's Kibbie Dome, President Kustra took it one step further by trashing the Vandal fan base, going as far as to cite an article from the UI student paper.

Having read the article in the Idaho Argonaut, I really think Kustra's rant is puzzling. Never mind the apology, even though it was deserved. Pointing out commentary from a student paper that was, without question, pretty tame stuff, and using it in a fairly nasty rant against the rival school was just ridiculous. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Boise State wants to be in the national scene. Should they choose to stay there, they need to play their rivalry cards a little better. If Boise wanted to change the rivalry by either a) playing all the games in Boise, or b) calling a hiatus to the series, they could've stated some more valid reasons. Say that, by splitting the tickets and keeping it in Boise, the bigger crowds would be good for both schools. Say that Boise needs to replace Idaho with a BCS level school in order to have a better shot at the title game. And, if you have a beef, be a professional about it and deal with it between presidents, athletic directors, and coaches.

What was learned was simple: Boise State's football team is ready for the big stage. Boise State's administration is not.

Now we turn to Jeremiah Masoli's move to Ole Miss.

Some time ago, I wrote a commentary that called out Ole Miss Coach Houston Nutt. I said back then that, of all the coaches in the SEC, he was the dirtiest. Now, with this move, other national writers are echoing the statements, much to the uproar of Rebel fans.

We all know the story. Apparently, Ole Miss wasn't interested in bringing the troubled Oregon quarterback to their team. Then, in the blink of an eye, Raymond Cotton transfers to South Alabama and all of the sudden, Masoli is Mississippi-bound.

One has to wonder two things. First, did Cotton see the writing on the wall? Was Ole Miss interested from the get-go and used Cotton as a sacrificial lamb, while Cotton knew that, in order to play, he needed to leave? Secondly, what does Patrick Patterson, who was kicked off the team for a rules violation, think of a guy who's been arrested twice in short time being brought in with open arms?

One thing most everyone agrees on is this: Nutt brought Masoli in simply because Masoli is good enough to add a win or two to the Ole Miss column this season. But, here's Nutt at his usual soapbox again, saying that Masoli "needs Ole Miss more than they need him."

Does anyone, save the people with Ole Miss goggles on, believe that to be true?

Nutt should've just gone out and told the truth. He should've said that he gets paid millions to win, and he brought in Masoli because he wants an extension to that contract to ensure him a couple million dollars more. He wants to coach, he's scared of the hot seat, and history shows that he's not the best at taking criticism, so he does whatever it takes to win.

Had he said it, there would've been critics. But at least the national media would've respected the blunt honesty. Instead, it's another story spun by the ultimate politician of college football. Unfortunately for Nutt, the media are starting to open their eyes, and bulletin board material has now been established in the words of Stewart Mandel. It'll be an interesting situation down in Oxford, no doubt.

Two men in power positions, saying the wrong things and stirring up the sports world.

Welcome to another year of college football.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 7:08 PM | Comments (0)

August 9, 2010

The Leaning Tower of Baseball

It seems like the baseball season is hitting its annual "wall." With around 50 games left in the 2010 campaign, it might be time to reinvigorate the summer pastime with an influx of drama. To be totally frank, though, there's good news and there's bad news.

The good news: as we head out of Sunday (August 8th), all but one division have a gap of 2½ games or less from first to second place. The bad news: no other team is less than 6½ games behind their respective division leaders. To be honest, I don't remember when there has been such a divide between first and third in all the divisions so soon in the proceedings. So what happened to all the other contenders?

Detroit Tigers

They were leading the AL Central by ½-game over Chicago back on July 10th. Then the bottom fell out. One injury bug after another finally led to Magglio Ordonez hitting the disabled list. But the pitching hasn't been fairing well. The team's given up 5 or more runs in 13 of 25 games since the All-Star Break. Detroit had been swept at Tampa and at Cleveland. The Tigers have not won a series since returning from their mini-vacation last month and are 6-20 since holding that division lead.

New York Mets

Within ½-game of Atlanta on June 27th, the Mets seemed to have their pitching staff on-track. Unfortunately, they were hurting for some offense. It started showing up in July. Mike Pelfrey and Jon Niese couldn't keep up their torrid pitching, and the Metropolitans lost ground steadily. Now they sit under .500 and nine out in the NL East after a 12-24 stretch.

Los Angeles Angels

New life was supplied to the Halos after winning a three-game series in Texas, keeping them 3½ back of the slipping Rangers after the first night in July. Two weeks later, the Angels were on the verge of sweeping Seattle, clawing back to a 3.5-game deficit. However, they couldn't finish the sweep, and that nick has led to quite a bit of bleeding.

Trips to New York and Texas didn't help, and a sweep at home to Boston started pushing the distance even further. By the time L.A. won their next home series with the Rangers on the first of August, they were just trying to stay above .500. A week later, they're 56-57, nine out of first.

Los Angeles Dodgers

The Dodgers rode a 10-4 record into the All-Star Break, holding steady with Colorado and hovering two games behind San Diego. That streak included a sweep of the then-struggling Giants at Chavez Ravine. What a difference four days made. San Francisco, who won their last two heading into the Break, came out on fire (winning 15 of 19). Meanwhile, the Dodgers tumbled.

I realize not having Manny Ramirez is a plausible excuse, but that can't explain away two six-game losing streaks once play resumed on July 15th. Now L.A.'s in fourth-place in the NL West, seven back of the Padres (the Rockies have fallen 6.5 games off the pace).

Others

When considering all of these stories, there's only one fading team that I think will still have playoff aspirations: Boston. The Red Sox' infirmary has been filled up almost all season. They were dealt a big blow last week after Kevin Youkilis went down for the rest of the campaign. But if their pitching talent shines through, the Sox can make some noise before the end of September. Heck, even with all of that, they're seven back of the two best records in the league.

Other than Boston, however, there's no real reason to believe that any of these division races will come down to anything but a two-horse race (with Texas looking more like Secretariat every day). Even the wild card races are spreading out more. The Red Sox and Colorado are the only division middle-runners within four-and-a-half of the leaders (Tampa Bay and San Francisco).

So what does that mean? Basically, there are 11 teams for eight spots. Sounds really intriguing ... when it's September 15th, not August 9th. If you enjoy Alydar against Affirmed, then this run for home should treat you well. If you go three-wide down the backstretch, it appears to be "better luck next year."

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 1:23 PM | Comments (0)

Eyes on Doubles This Week in Toronto

A month ago, on July 10th, the yearly induction ceremony into the International Tennis Hall of Fame took place in Newport, Rhode Island. The Australians Mark Woodforde and Todd Woodbridge, otherwise known as the "Woodies," were two of the inductees in 2010 in consideration of their accomplishments in doubles.

So dominant were the Woodies in doubles that they held the record for the most doubles title on the ATP Tour with 61 titles for a decade, until last week when the Bryan brothers won the Farmers Classic in Los Angeles for their 62nd title. Bryan brothers plan on playing for several more years; therefore chances are the final number of titles won by them will be a very hard one to break.

Yet the real question remains: how many people are really aware of these incredible accomplishments? How many casual tennis fans watch a full match of doubles? And the classic and evasive "well, it's never on TV" answer is simply no longer valid; you can watch plenty of doubles on the Tennis Channel, and even major channels are beginning to show portions of doubles matches, if not the full matches, time-permitting. Despite all this, can any casual tennis fan name one other doubles team other than the Bryan brothers?

Over the last couple of decades, it took all the marketing efforts of a few spectacular and "easy-to-nickname" doubles teams (examples: the Jensen brothers, the Woodies, the Bryan brothers) and a recent lawsuit to keep doubles competition surviving as a major event.

There is no denying that a few fans who rigorously read all tennis news and make it a point to watch some big tournaments on TV may perhaps know Daniel Nestor and Nenad Zimonjic, the current number one doubles team in the world. On the other hand, names such as Mark Knowles, Lukas Dlouhy, Laender Paes, and Lukasz Kubot — just to name a few doubles specialists — and even Nestor and Zimonjic themselves, remain obscure to the casual tennis fan, either because they are virtually unknown in singles or because the casual tennis fan simply does not care about doubles unless it's himself/herself playing on the courts of the local tennis club. I always believed that out of the two listed above the reason for the lack of interest is the former and not the latter.

Interestingly enough, this week may provide some partial answers. It will be the first time since the summer of 1976 when Jimmy Connors and Arthur Ashe played as a doubles team twice, once in Washington and once in New Hampshire, that the number one and two singles players in the world, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, will team together to play doubles in Rogers Cup in Toronto, taking place this week.

I wanted secretly for many years to see Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal play doubles in one major event, believing that it would do wonders for the popularity of doubles, just like the Williams sisters playing together does more for women's doubles than any other ladies team has done for decades since Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver. I trusted that if fierce enemies (and not only on the court) such as Arthur Ashe and Jimmy Connors could get together for one tournament, good friends such as Federer and Nadal could surely do it one time. It never happened.

However, Djokovic and Nadal is the next best thing, and they are indeed the two top-ranked players in the world after Federer dropped to No. 3 the week following Wimbledon. I hope TV takes the opportunity to show every match of this doubles team. I will come out and say openly that I am rooting for this "unseeded" doubles team of Novak and Rafa, and I seriously hope that they can go all the way, taking out both of the top two doubles seeds Zimonjic and Nestor and the Bryan brothers. I am rooting for them because this type of partnership is exactly what doubles competition needs in order to gain exposure.

If Nadal and Djokovic would win the Rogers Cup, more attention would focus on doubles following this week than any moment following the big news of the past few weeks mentioned in the beginning of the article. And now imagine if Nadal and Djokovic were to decide to play doubles in the U.S. Open following a victory in Rogers Cup. It's true that this last one is unlikely, and that is why I used "imagine," but I don't consider the chances of Djokovic and Nadal winning the doubles this week at Rogers Cup as unlikely. And if they win the title, I guarantee at least one thing: the number of casual tennis fans who know the names of a doubles team other than Bob and Mike Bryan will increase dramatically.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 11:16 AM | Comments (4)

August 8, 2010

NFL Preview 2010: NFC & AFC South

Also see: NFC & AFC North

NFC South

New Orleans Saints

The Saints are the defending Super Bowl champions and I fully expect them to play very well this season. Drew Brees is still at the top of his game, his weapons are fully functional at the moment. The real question remains the defense.

The Saints have relied on their 500+ point per season offense and will continue to do so. The problem with this is that is what many of the other contenders in the NFC will be doing and they will have better defenses, namely the Packers, Cowboys, and Vikings.

I think New Orleans will once again dominate the regular season, going 13-3, but after getting the bye and home field throughout, will lose its first playoff game setting up a nice January game in Lambeau for the NFC Championship Game.

Atlanta Falcons

The Falcons took a step backwards in 2009 mainly due to injuries. The loss of Michael Turner perhaps kept them out of the playoffs in 2009 and with him, they could have been a factor in the playoffs. This season, with a healthy Turner and truly an easy schedule, the Falcons should return to the playoffs and could make some noise depending on who their paired with in the wild card round.

If they get the NFC East champion Cowboys, it could be an early exit, but if they face off against the NFC West champion 49ers, that could put them in a very good position to make a run. Pass defense is the biggest concern and considering the teams the Falcons will have to face in the playoffs, they'd better figure that out rather quickly.

I think they'll go 11-5 on a soft schedule and will go 0-1 or 1-1 in the playoffs.

Carolina Panthers

The Panthers are an extremely unbalanced team. They have two running backs who rushed for over 1,100 yards in 2009 and unproven quarterbacks to hand them the ball. This seriously might be the only team in the league in danger of having more rushing yards than passing yards. In 2009, they only averaged 18.8 more yards per game passing than rushing.

This season will depend on the quarterback and I think the Panthers will go with Matt Moore at quarterback, who didn't look bad toward the end of last season, handing Minnesota and the New York Giants defeats in the last three weeks of the season. The difficulty will be facing off against teams that know how to blitz. Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Chicago are all on the schedule and I think they could cause some problems for young Mr. Moore.

I don't think Moore is quite ready to lead a team into the playoffs and the Panthers will fall behind early, going 1-5 before their bye, but ending strong at 7-9.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

I don't know what is going on in Tampa Bay. The front office has made so many changes that I can't envision a turnaround in 2010. I think Josh Freeman is the quarterback of the present and the future in Tampa Bay. He'll perhaps lead this team to great things in another four or five years, but he's not capable of winning with the weapons he has around him currently.

Cadillac Williams, Derrick Ward, and Earnest Graham would have sounded like a good idea two or three years ago, but all three have underachieved. Between Williams and Ward, they averaged about 3.8 yards per carry in 2009 and that isn't going to get the job done. Though Graham nearly rushed for 1,000 yards in 2007, he's been relegated to fullback duty, which he certainly is good at, but I think letting him touch the ball 5 or 10 times a game would be a great advantage to the Bucs.

Despite offensive woes, the defense was dead-last in defending the run last season. Sticking their first round draft pick Gerald McCoy in the middle of the defensive line should help that problem a bit, at least getting them out of last in the NFL.

The Bucs have a soft schedule that includes Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis all at home, but I don't expect them to escape the season better than 4-12.

AFC South

Indianapolis Colts

Can you remember the last time you didn't think the Colts would win the AFC South? Jacksonville had a good run, so did Tennessee, but the Colts will remain favorites until Peyton Manning retires. They lost to the Saints in the Super Bowl last season, but they have lost very little and have Bob Sanders back on defense, I believe making them an even better team than in 2009. I think this is the team to beat, period. They will be your Super Bowl champions. They are nothing but absolutely consistent year in and year out, always finding talent and always doing the best they can with what they have.

I'm predicting 13-3, ending in a Super Bowl victory.

Houston Texans

The Houston Texans are a very good team. In 2009, they finally broke their .500 or below streak going 9-7 and I think we will continue to see steady improvement from them. Had Steve Slaton not forgotten how to be a running back in 2009, they may well have made a playoff run.

Matt Schaub is really good and could feasibly pass for 5,000 yards in 2010. With Andre Johnson out there, they make perhaps the best quarterback to wide receiver combination in the NFL. (I'd hear arguments for Manning to Reggie Wayne or Tom Brady to Randy Moss, but nobody else.)

The Texans went 1-5 in the AFC South, that can't happen again. They need to go 4-2 or at least 3-3 in the division to give themselves a chance, mainly because they play the NFC East in non-conference play and going 2-2 against the NFC East isn't going to be easy.

Despite schedule problems, the Texans could easily bust through the mold and reach 10-6, but I think they'll miss out on the playoffs in a tiebreaker to the Bengals.

Tennessee Titans

Remember when the Titans started the season 10-0? What happened to that team? Better question, what happened to that defense? In 2008, the Titans were 13-3 and allowed 234 points all season. In 2009, they were 8-8, allowing 402 points. The defense is too woeful for a return back to 2008 form. This team is headed in the wrong direction.

Chris Johnson may very well have another 2,000-yard season and Vince Young may be back, but they'll need to score more than 30 points a game to win with their abysmal defense.

I think they'll end up 6-10 and make actual moves next offseason.

Jacksonville Jaguars

Here's another team who looked pretty good a few years ago. They were a trendy pick for winning the Super Bowl two and three seasons ago, but when David Garrard started throwing interceptions, that idea was destroyed. He's not a bad quarterback, and he indeed deserves to start in the NFL, but the Jaguars' defense also has been lacking in the last two seasons and being a good quarterback with a bad defense isn't good enough.

Maurice Jones-Drew remains an elite back, but he seems to be the only weapon on offense at the moment.

I think we're seeing the end of Jack Del Rio's tenure as the Jaguars hit bottom, going 5-11.

Stay tuned as Andrew Jones brings you his NFL previews each week leading up the season!

Posted by Andrew Jones at 3:59 PM | Comments (0)

The Express Buys the Railroad

Even Mark Cuban, who never seems to mind when the National Basketball Association fines him six figures for dissing the refereeing, had a far more difficult time withstanding Nolan Ryan's heat.

And the man who nailed his 5,000th strikeout in a Texas Rangers uniform and ultimately became the team's president now stands to own the team, Ryan's group finally outbidding Cuban by $9 million to get the approval of the court-appointed bankruptcy restructuring officer and creditors who thought the Rangers' sale price wasn't high enough.

Apparently, $590 million is just right to keep Cuban and his group from giving baseball government migraines. Cuban's reputation as an outspoken maverick, however, which may or may not have helped smother his bid to buy the Chicago Cubs, really should have proven to take second consideration behind the major one: he's not exactly a baseball man to begin with.

What a long, strange trip it's been. Ryan and his group (sports attorney Chuck Greenberg is his major co-partner) were approved as the new Rangers owners by baseball government a few months ago, but the team's creditors quaked. That was then, this is now. The creditors who were owed $525 million by departing owner Tom Hicks and his ownership group are likely to settle for $75 million apiece from the Rangers while taking the rest out of Hicks and company's hides elsewhere.

Quite a flip flop from over a week ago, when it began to look as though the Ryan group had blown it over a side deal they offered Hicks when they agreed to buy the team in January. As the Fort Worth Star-Telegram put it, the deal gave Hicks $70 million for various assets around Rangers Ballpark. Hicks tried to insist those properties would be separate from the Rangers, not used as collateral on the $525 million in defaulted loans that started the whole mess. Not so fast, howled the creditors, compelling Hicks to go to bankruptcy and setting up the auction drama in the first place.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Cuban wasn't in bed with the Hicks lenders, enough to drive up the sale price to a level thought to be beyond the Ryan group's capacities. But Cuban the cobra may also have found his own mongoose — his unexpected partnership with Jim Crane, a Houston freight magnate who had been rejected already as a potential Rangers buyer, despite the Hicks lenders claiming his bid was actually higher than the Ryan group's.

The Rangers did their part on the field to make it all worth Ryan's while. Already having their best season in several years, the Rangers spent the day sinking the Seattle Mariners, 11-6, with David Murphy crowning the drowning with a go-ahead three-run bomb. Fifteen minutes after it ended, the Rangers learned the auction news.

"We have an owner!" went one yell.

Murphy got a lot more specific. "Ever since Nolan's been part of our franchise," he told reporters, "we've gone nowhere but up. He's not just a native Texan, a guy who is obviously very, very respected and admired in the state of Texas, but nationally he is one of the best pitchers ever. He's one of the most respected players ever. Of course we want a guy like that as our owner. In the end, we wanted the best group to represent us. Obviously, how could you not want a group with Nolan Ryan in it?"

That couldn't possibly be just effervescence over your company being taken over by a legend of your profession. Name me one player who doesn't think Ryan — who once became baseball's first million-dollar-a-year free agent (when he signed with the other team in Texas, well before he became a Ranger) — will prove a players' owner.

It would set an amazing precedent. Former pitchers who go to the front office are not historically renowned as profitable or agreeable bosses. Survivors of the 1960s Kansas City Athletics could probably tell you about Eddie Lopat, once a formidable Yankee pitcher ("Slow, Slower, Slowest" was one of his nicknames), who became the A's GM in the 1960s. Once upon a time, Lopat buttonholed one of his players at a team party and told him his incumbent season was good enough to guarantee him a nice fat raise for the following season.

Well, now. Come contract time, said player reminded Lopat of that remark.

"Prove it," Lopat deadpanned.

Clark Griffith was once a formidable major league pitcher. He went from there to become a pitcher-manager for four clubs, including the club he came to own, the Washington Senators. ("First in war, first in peace, and last in the American League," went the not-even-close-to-always-accurate gag.) Given his resources (his only income was the Senators and Griffith Stadium, the latter of which provided most of his profit, such as it was), he was reasonably generous with his players and almost unreasonably generous with his faith in youth. (To this day no man younger than Bucky Harris's and Joe Cronin's 27 — other than Lou Boudreau — has ever managed a major league team.)

Somehow Griffith's crazy Senators managed to win two pennants and a World Series along the way. More typical was the kind of team that once led Griffith to muse to a reporter, "The fans like to see home runs, and we have assembled a pitching staff that is sure to please them." Something like that.

Ryan doesn't have those kind of problems on his hands. Name one incoming owner whose players have said, as did Michael Young, that his arrival gives the team "instant credibility." Or, whose players say, as did Ian Kinsler, that he'd already begun building relationships with his players, granted Ryan's slightly unfair advantage as the team's incumbent president.

They didn't even say that when George Steinbrenner's group bought the Yankees in 1973, and he had to beat out a group led by Joe DiMaggio to do it.

The pot gets sweetened, too. On the same day he learned his group would become the new Ranger owners, Ryan got some even sweeter news from the bankruptcy judge: despite baseball government's budget restrictions until the Ranger ownership and bankruptcy situation was resolved at last, the judge had "options" he could play that would allow Ryan to add or modify the roster as he saw fit.

Baseball government may have had to approve the Rangers' budget, but a court had to approve baseball government's budget orders. Ryan has already show more than a little economic savvy in the face of that balance — he never had to request permission to bypass a league-approved budget to land Cliff Lee, Bengie Molina, and others in recent trades; he merely traded from the Rangers' prospects pool without denting the farm too greatly, but with cash considerations in return to make it work.

The Rangers have been making things work right for them in the American League West. (It hasn't hurt them that the Los Angeles Angels have been struggling with injuries and with inconsistency enough to keep them at least a healthy distance in the Rangers' rear view mirror.)

Ryan once did a few amazing things wearing a Rangers uniform. He pitched his sixth and seventh no-hitters in those silks (and shook off Rickey Henderson breaking Lou Brock's lifetime theft record while pitching number seven); he won his 300th game in them; he wore them while making A. Bartlett Giamatti wish he could forget he was the commissioner and pump his fist in wild approval as Ryan blew one past Henderson for number 5,000.

This time, however, Ryan left his equally legendary wildness in the locker room. (It's difficult for his aficionados to remember that he retired with half as many walks as strikeouts, third all-time in losses, ninth in hit batsmen, number one on the wild-pitch list, and with a .309 on base percentage against. His Hall of Fame case rests almost entirely on his career value, which rests itself almost entirely on his surreal longevity.)

Now Ryan gets his crack at making a lot of Ranger fans forget that the team has had more moments resembling their origins as the second Washington Senators than moments in the sun. To say the entire state of Texas prayed nightly that Ryan would end up as the Rangers' principal owner is to say B.B. King is some guitar player somewhere.

This season's Rangers, with Ryan driving the engine and Ron Washington doing yeoman's work as the conductor, were already on the express toward more of the moments in the sun. But the engine driver buying the railroad doesn't necessarily guarantee just how smooth the tracks will remain.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 11:43 AM | Comments (0)

August 5, 2010

Favre's Sexting Pathetic For All the Wrong Reasons

Wednesday, August 5, 2010 was the day I lost all respect for Brett Favre. I never cared about his repeated indecision about whether or not to return to the NFL, it was sort of entertaining to see him jerk people around like that. I didn't even care that he screwed over his loyal fans by signing with a rival team. What crossed the line for me was the wildly unsubstantiated report that he sexted "model" Jenn Sterger.

That was the rage in the blogosphere on Wednesday. Deadspin claims the aged gunslinger, when he was with the Jets, allegedly sent several pictures of his genitalia to Sterger, who was working for the team at the time.

To be clear, I'm heavily in favor of sexting, but feel that the U.S. should probably pass an amendment to the Constitution limiting reserving the act to females. Favre's problem to me is that this whole thing comes off as a pathetic attempt to be hip. Like, "hey, is this what the youngsters are doing? Well, look at me young lady, I'm doing it now, too!"

Brett Favre isn't a largely forgettable football analyst for ESPN, he doesn't need to text pics of his junk to get laid. Even if he wasn't a famous athlete, he is super-rich, and you don't see any pictures of Bill Gates with his Microsoft hanging out.

This is just like the rich and famous version of your mom creating a Facebook page. That's one poke you just don't need to receive and it's always awkward when your mom "likes" your status update about a drunk one-nighter after 30-cent wing night.

Everyone knows an adult like this. They try to be cool way after they should care. They brag about how much they like the new "Fiddy" CD (might as well call it a record) and how "sick" the beats are. They wear cargo pants. They say things like "how cool is that new Tweeter thing?"

I get where Favre is coming from in his attempt to look cool. But he allegedly went about it all wrong. He's no Greg Oden. This photo isn't helping raise his stock. It's him, sans clothing, in a pair of Crocs. Either he's clueless or he's so arrogant, he's saying with this text message "I'm Brett Favre, and you will have sexual relations with me in spite of me wearing Crocs, because I'm Brett Favre and you can't resist, no matter how unforgivable my footwear."

I understand the pressure he's facing as he's getting old, but there is something to aging with grace. It's okay to not be on top of every fad that comes along. But there are some people that just can't go off into the sunset gracefully.

One of those people is Joe Paterno. The big story from Big 10 media day is just how old he sounds. Slurring his words, rarely makes recruiting trips anymore, always spending his vacations in the crowd at the "Price is Right," he's just old. He's done great for himself, but he needs to just go be old somewhere else. He shouldn't be in the fire anymore. Such a high-profile job is just too much for most people, let alone people in their 80s.

Another person who falls into the Paterno category is Hugh Hefner. I was at the Playboy Mansion in 2008 for a party and one thing that stuck out (among the many from a great night) was just how old he looked. It was in the way he moved more than anything. And sure, that place won't be the same once he's not there anymore but ... he's old. He can't stick around forever.

Thankfully, Hef wasn't out there the entire night, because nothing would be sadder than seeing him dragging along, looking tortured at the party palace he created. Whatever three girls replaced the reality-TV whores are just humoring him at this point, probably treating him with the same disinterest they reserve for a checkers game with grandma at the retirement home. Hugh Hefner is a legend, but he just can't play the game anymore and it's sort of sad to see.

Brett Favre isn't there yet, but signs like this are pointing to that conclusion. Just look at his other attempts to be hip and cool to the youngsters. He was all over the Vicodin fad in the late-'90s, I heard he even started singing, "I'm so excited, I'm so ... scared" before his friends sent him to rehab. Then he endorsed Wranglers jeans, because his message for America was, "hey, look kids, there's this new fad called blue jeans!"

I have no doubt that Brett Favre is every bit the scumbag that Jenn Sterger allegedly alleges he is. The problem I have with Favre is that he's trying to hard to act like a 21-century scumbag, and it just makes him look sad.

If someone had called you Wednesday and said a high-profile NFL quarterback was in a sexting controversy after sending pictures of his penis to a team employee, you would've guessed it was Ben Roethlisberger 10 out of 10 times. Who knows, you'd probably be right but it just hasn't come out yet. The point is, this is Roethlisberger territory. Those actions are for people of this generation.

If he wants to enjoy the fruits of technology, go for it. But do it in the privacy of your own home. There are thousands of elderly men who served our country proudly in WWII and lived through some of the toughest times are country has seen. If they want to jack it to Internet pornography, dammit, they deserve it. But they shouldn't be doing it at street corners and bus stops.

Similarly, Favre can act like a scumbag and hit on younger chicks working in the periphery of his game, but he has to do it like the older generation. He needs to just get hammered at a game and keep yelling "I want to kiss you" during a TV interview. That is far more respectable than sending naked photos of himself. That's not offensive, it's just sad.

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 7:28 PM | Comments (3)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 21

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kevin Harvick — Harvick finished fourth at Pocono, his Sprint Cup series-best 15th top-10 result of the year and fifth top-five finish in the last six races. He extended his lead in the Sprint Cup point standings to 189 over Jeff Gordon, and with only five races left before the Chase For the Cup begins, Harvick can focus on winning. If the Chase were to start today, Harvick would be third in the standings, behind five-time winners Jimmie Johnson and Denny Hamlin.

"To relinquish my points lead," Harvick said, "they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands. And when they reset the point standings, that's exactly what they'll do, those damn, dirty Chase For the Cup formatters."

2. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson led 96 of the first 120 laps in the Sunoco Red Cross 500, but that dominance gave way to changing track conditions that rendered the No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet loose. Johnson fell back, and, on lap 164 in a battle to remain in the top 10, made contact with Kurt Busch's No. 2 Dodge, sending Busch spinning into the wall and through the infield grass.

"For the first half of the race," Johnson said, "everyone saw a display of dominance comparable to that of my trophy case. Unfortunately, taking four tires near the end of the race was the wrong option. That was our mistake. Experience should have told us to see what Jeff Gordon does, and do the opposite."

"I can take comfort in knowing that I led the most laps, but I can take more comfort in knowing I've led the most victory laps. Plus, for wrecking the Miller Lite car, I cashed in those bootleg bonus points put up by Keith Stone, smooth spokesman for Miller Lite rival Keystone Light, right here in the Keystone State."

3. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin, winner of the last two Pocono races, failed in his quest for the three-peat, finishing fifth in the Sunoco Red Cross 500. Hamlin and crew chief Mike Ford decided on four tires during a lap 170 caution, and Hamlin restarted 15th. When green flag racing resumed, track position appeared to outweigh grip, and although he gained 10 positions in the final laps, Hamlin was never a threat to win, as Greg Biffle, with only two fresh tires, sailed away for the win.

"Thankfully," Hamlin said, "we didn't have the overheating issues we had at Indianapolis. My gauges went haywire there. Now, after a $50,000 fine levied by NASCAR, censors, not sensors, are my biggest worry."

"But I suppose NASCAR's fine will teach me a lesson, that lesson being that if you're biting your tongue, you can't bite the hand that feeds you. Thank goodness Kyle Busch takes criticisms much better than NASCAR, otherwise I'd be a poor man."

4. Jeff Gordon — Gordon led with 30 laps to go at Pocono before a crucial pit stop left him in tenth place after several drivers opted for only two tires and fuel. Gordon restarted 10th, and although his eventual finish of sixth was solid, it left his winless streak at 60 races. He is still second in the point standings, 189 behind Kevin Harvick.

"That's a lot of miles since my last victory," Gordon said. "And I suppose you can log that mileage on the 'lost' highway."

"And speaking of 'roads I've been down,' I had another near-certain win ripped from my grasp. You could say Jimmie Johnson indirectly cost me the win, because he wrecked Kurt Busch, which led to the red flag that halted my momentum. I've been so close so many times this year. But, as everyone knows, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and the old Sprint Cup points format."

5. Tony Stewart — Stewart started from the pole at Pocono and parlayed a quick pit stop late into the runner-up finish, unable to catch Greg Biffle down the stretch. Stewart's No. 14 Office Depot/Old Spice Chevy was the first out of the pits among cars that took four tires during a caution on lap 170. Stewart has top-10 finishes in seven of the last eight races, and moved up a spot to eighth in the points, 361 out of first.

"I find it amusing that Denny Hamlin and Ryan Newman were fined for criticizing NASCAR," Stewart said, "when their outspoken teammates, Kyle Busch and I, respectively, are the ones with the reputations as loose-lipped. Frankly, I'm offended that I haven't uttered a fineable offense. That will have to change. I, as much as anyone, long for the days of 'non-filtered Smoke.'"

"Honestly, I can think of better ways to use 'hush money' than writing a check to NASCAR. Like, for example, to a certain Rolling Stone writer."

6. Kurt Busch — Busch's day ended suddenly at Pocono after Jimmie Johnson's attempt to bump draft Busch's No. 2 Dodge resulted in disaster, as Busch slammed the inside wall before sliding through the infield grass. He finished 33rd, and fell two places in the point standings to seventh, 358 behind Kevin Harvick.

"I know Johnson said there was no intent," Busch said, "and it wasn't on purpose. However, for all intents and purposes, I still got wrecked. Any apology from Johnson is mere doublespeak to me. As far as an apology goes, I'll tell him the same thing I told people during my recovery from ear surgery: 'I'll hear none of it.'"

"The Miller Lite Vortex Dodge was destroyed. As beer goes, Johnson's action should be considered 'domestic' battery."

7. Kyle Busch — Busch finished a disappointing 23rd at Pocono, plagued by a broken radiator pan and late loose-handling conditions that negated a charge to the front. Busch remained sixth in the points, 356 out of first.

"It's been nine long races since my last win," Busch said. "It's evidence of an alarming pattern in which solid starts to the season are followed by late-season swoons. It seems the talk concerning me shouldn't center on 'old' Kyle or 'new' Kyle, but rather on the possibility that we're seeing the 'same old' Kyle.

8. Jeff Burton — Burton finished eighth at Pocono, scoring his 11th top-10 finsih of the year and fourth in a row. Burton moved up two spots in the point standings to fifth, 323 out of first.

"I guess the big stories in NASCAR now," Burton said, "are the fines levied against Hamlin and Newman, and Kurt Busch's anger towards Jimmie Johnson. Both stories 'have legs,' so to speak; one concerns a foot in the mouth, the other a foot in the ass."

9. Carl Edwards — Edwards powered to a third-place finish at Pocono, recording his fourth consecutive top-10 finish, buoyed by a critical two-tire pit stop late in the race. Earlier this year, Edwards strung together three straight top-10s after his incident with Brad Keselowski in Atlanta saddled him with probation. Two of his most recent top-10s have come after another probationary decree by NASCAR, this time for his part in another incident with Keselowski on July 17th at Gateway in the Nationwide series.

"Yes, there seems to be some correlation between my performance and probation," Edwards said. "Apparently, I find more motivation from a slap on the wrist than a kick in the tail."

10. Greg Biffle — After a key two-tire pit stop late in the Sunoco Red Cross 500 bore him all-important track position, Biffle did the rest, clearing Sam Hornish, Jr. for the lead on lap 180. With clean air in front, Biffle sailed away from the rest of the field, many of whom opted for four tires.

"What a stunning finish to the race," Biffle said. "No, not stunning that a Ford won, but stunning that NASCAR didn't throw a phantom debris, also known as 'phe-bris,' caution to bunch the field for an exciting restart. I wonder if backhanded compliments are subject to a fine under NASCAR's 'That Hurts Our Feelings' policy on critical comments, also known as the 'Boo Who?' code?"

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

August 4, 2010

Jets Hype Misplaced in Tough AFC East

With their "Hard Knocks" debut just a week away, the New York Jets are the hype team of choice this pre-season. Led by the uber-confident Rex Ryan, the Jets are so loaded with star-quality names, it's like a Pro Bowl roster (after they replace half of the starters with second and third choices).

Mark Sanchez. Darrelle Revis. Nick Mangold. D'Brickashaw Ferguson. Kris Jenkins. Jason Taylor. Bart Scott. Antonio Cromartie. LaDainian Tomlinson. Braylon Edwards. Santonio Holmes.

Virginia may be for lovers, but New York is for headliners, and this team has them in spades.

The question of course is the danger in putting too many stars (or at least guys who think they're stars) under one roof.

Both Edwards and Holmes are looking for new deals. What happens when one of them feels like Sanchez is targeting the other more, or that offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer is calling plays that favors one guy over the other?

Can LaDainian Tomlinson really be just another backup? He couldn't in San Diego, so why think he can suddenly subjugate his ego now that he's in the biggest media market in the world?

And what happens if some of the high-priced guys get hurt?

The starting offensive line is stout (and well-paid) across the board, with the possible exception of second-round rookie Vladimir Ducasse, who looks like a good bet to take over for Alan Faneca. But behind them is a who's who of "who?"

It's the same situation along the front seven of the defense. In Sione Pouha, the Jets do have a very good backup NT if Kris Jenkins' cookie diet doesn't fix his knee and hamstring issues. But the right defensive end position opposite Shaun Ellis is up to Mike DeVito, a grinder type who, like most grinder types, is great in a situational role, but chances being exposed if pushed into starting role (see Mike Wright in New England last year at the same position).

Backups on the d-line include unheralded Matt Kroul and Ropati Pitoitua, not to mention the defensive answer to JaMarcus Russell in Vernon Gholston, who is being moved from linebacker to defensive end in hopes of getting some value for the tens of millions they've already dumped into his useless pockets.

And then, of course, there are the guys who have already been there and watched the new guys get paid while management gives them the "yeah, whatevers." You've heard all about Revis, but what about Mangold and linebacker David Harris? Is there really enough PCL money in Woody Johnson's coffers to take care of everybody?

No, there isn't.

Roster-wise, the Jets are going for broke. They ditched out on the "avoid having too many big egos on one team, especially with an un-established young quarterback" rule. They told the "you can't pay everybody max dollars and still have a decent back of the roster" rule to go take a flying leap. And then, of course, they invited HBO into camp because the "don't invite too many distractions when you have a team with a bunch of new guys" rule is clearly just a bunch of BS.

And one last thing: don't underestimate the danger of the Jets' schedule. They start off with three of the AFC's best teams in Baltimore, New England, and Miami. They play two of their final three on the road (Pittsburgh and Chicago in Weeks 15 and 16). They have three Monday night games, including Week 1 against the Ravens, a Sunday night game at Miami in Week 3, and the night game on Thanksgiving (against the Bengals, which should be a great way to end the best day of the year).

That kind of schedule puts a lot of strain on a team, and it's going to take a mentally tough locker room to overcome any adversity. Are the Jets that kind of team? What happens if they start off 0-3, with nothing but a vacation in Buffalo before hosting the Vikings in another Monday night game, then heading out to play the Broncos in Denver? Last year, Rex Ryan cried and gave up before his team turned it around. What's he going to do for an encore? Hold his breath until he turns blue?

The history of football is littered with teams who come into a season with hype thanks to a late run the previous year. Remember the 2007 Cleveland Browns? They were 10-6, barely missing the playoffs. They had their quarterback of the future in Derek Anderson, who went to the Pro Bowl, the next great star at receiver in Braylon Edwards (16 TD), and a monster at tight end in Kellen Winslow. They went into 2008 a media darling and pick by many to win the AFC North.

They started 0-3.

They imploded.

They finished 4-12.

Now, I'm not saying the Jets are heading for 4-12. This team has much better overall talent than that 2008 Browns team. But this team has all the warning signs of impending doom should they get off to a rough start. And in a division with Tom Brady and an extremely dangerous (and vastly underrated) Dolphins team, the Jets may very well have sold their souls for nothing more than third place in the AFC East.

Hard knocks, indeed.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 7:37 PM | Comments (7)

August 3, 2010

SC's Interview With Tony Gonzalez

Tony Gonzalez is one of the greatest tight ends in NFL history, maybe the greatest. Among active players, he ranks in the top five for receptions, receiving yards, and receiving TDs. He's made 10 Pro Bowls, and not just on reputation. With NFL training camps getting under way, Tony took time to answer a few questions about the past and the present.

Thanks for taking time out of your schedule for this interview. How has offseason training been going?

Been going great, same old thing, lifting weights and staying conditioned. We're just about to head into camp and I'm feeling great.

Last year, you moved from the Kansas City Chiefs, with whom you had spent your whole career, to the Atlanta Falcons. How do you like Atlanta? Has the transition been pretty smooth?

It's been smooth at times and frustrating at others. Overall, it's worked out well and we had a winning season last year. Atlanta is a great city and I'm looking forward to this year.

I think everyone agrees that Matt Ryan has a lot of potential, and he's already shown that he can be successful in this league. What does he have to do to take the next step?

Experience. The more experience he gets the more confident he'll get. It's not a matter of if, just a matter of when as far as him being one of the best quarterbacks in the league. Hopefully that will come this year.

You began your career playing for Marty Schottenheimer, who is the winningest coach never to reach the Super Bowl. Why do you think Marty's teams tended to underachieve in the postseason? Do you see him as a Hall of Famer?

I only played with him for one year, so I don't know him too well. Football is a tough game, I don't know if I would say he underachieved. I think he's one of the best coaches ever. Without a doubt, he is a Hall of Fame coach. Just because he didn't win a Super Bowl doesn't mean he isn't; football is the ultimate team sport and to win a Super Bowl, everyone needs to come together.

You hold virtually ever major receiving record for tight ends, and many people view you as the finest ever to play the position. Do you ever think about your place in history? How do you feel about those kinds of accolades and comparisons?

I don't think about it too often. My approach has always been to take it one year at a time and then all of that other stuff will add up. It's one of those things that when I'm all done I can look back, but right now, I've got things to accomplish, so I'm looking forward.

In Kansas City , you played the Chargers twice a year. How well do you know Antonio Gates? Are there any young tight ends in the league right now who remind you of yourself?

I know him pretty well actually, he's a good guy. As for tight ends that remind me of myself, I think Kellen Winslow, Jr., does. He's got a lot of talent and it will be interesting to see what he can accomplish.

Who's another opponent you admire?

Ray Lewis from the Ravens. He's been around for ever and kept himself in shape. He's still at the top of his career and you have to respect that.

You've recently endorsed a new product called All-Pro Science. Can you tell us a little about it and what drew you to this product?

Actually, I'm not endorsing it, I am the co-founder. A lot of people know I've changed my diet a lot and have become really conscious of what I put into my body. I felt there was a lack of a healthy natural supplement designed for athletes. I actually went out and partnered with an FDA-certified facility to make APS. Now we've expanded and have our original veggie protein, but also a whey that comes from grass-fed cows and a recovery drink that is great after practice. It's real good quality stuff and tastes great, too.

You've made 10 Pro Bowls. Last season, for the first time in 30 years, the Pro Bowl was not held in Hawaii, instead being played at the Super Bowl site in Miami the week before the game. Do you view that as a good idea, or is there something special about Hawaii? Is it strange to you that the league held an all-star game without anyone from the two best teams in the league?

I love Hawaii, but you have to understand why the NFL made the move. They had the highest ratings in 30 years. When the Pro Bowl is after the Super Bowl, people have already checked out of football mode and they don't tune in. Let's not kid ourselves, this is a business. Of course it's special for us players to go to Hawaii and of course we love it. I think that's just what we have to deal with. You can't have it all.

Last question, and thanks again for your time. Fans and writers love to debate this question, so I've got to ask you: Tom Brady or Peyton Manning?

Hmm ... both of them. Haha, I'll take both. I know no one is going to like that answer. Really, it doesn't matter, just flip a coin and whoever it lands on you're going to be all right.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 7:59 PM | Comments (0)

NFL Preview 2010: NFC & AFC North

These two conferences are remarkably similar. Each have three competitive teams and one deadbeat team. Each are traditionally known for their defense, but are now some of the most offensively potent teams in the NFL. And each has one team who is unsure of their quarterback situation, for very different reasons.

NFC North

Green Bay Packers

The Packers are the team to beat in the NFC. They had a great draft with players that will contribute immediately, including OT Bryan Bulaga.

Aaron Rodgers should be the MVP in 2010. He has looked great the last couple of years, other than getting sacked a ridiculous amount of times. The Packers' offensive line looked better as the season went on and they certainly improved on the line in the offseason.

The only worry is that the Packers play some formidable pass-rushers, including Jared Allen of the Vikings, Julius Peppers, now of the Chicago Bears, and Ndamukong Suh, the prized draft pick of the Lions. The question will be whether or not has Rodgers learned to get rid of the ball a little quicker than previous seasons.

The weak spot for the Packers is their secondary. They have some talented players, but Al Harris is getting old and slow, not to mention accumulating injuries. Charles Woodson is at the top of his game and quarterbacks will begin to avoid throwing towards Woodson if Harris or his replacement can't hold his own.

Despite a tough road schedule, including Washington, Atlanta, New England, and the New York Jets, I think a division win is in order, as well as a 13-3 record and a trip to the Super Bowl. Winning? No, not yet.

Minnesota Vikings

Whether or not Brett Favre comes back, the Vikings will not be as good in 2010 as they were in 2009. Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin have established themselves and will continue to improve. Jared Allen will find 15-plus sacks, but in general, the team is aging. The Williams Wall has been less effective in recent years and Pat Williams (the bigger side of the wall) is likely in his last season.

Adrian Peterson certainly has a few good years left, but his fumbles are a serious concern and the loss of Chester Taylor means the loss of not only a great third down back, but a replacement that could still help the team drive down the field. The loss of Taylor will hurt Peterson come December as his reps will be higher and his body taking more punishment.

If 2009 wasn't Favre's last season, 2010 certainly will be. His body let him know it was getting close to time to hang it up. His body will let him know that in 2010, even if he plays at a top level, his body will know it's time to call it a career.

The Vikings' schedule is a bit tougher than the Packers' schedule with road games against New Orleans, New England, Washington, and the New York Jets. Also, the Vikings have an early bye week, which is not good news for an aging, fickle quarterback named Brett Favre, if he has made up his mind by Week 4.

I expect the Vikings to grab a wild card slot at 11-5 with Brett Favre's final game coming in the NFC Championship Game at Lambeau, where, in the snow, he will fail to move on to the Super Bowl once again.

Chicago Bears

The Bears have improved greatly this offseason, but they are no longer young on defense. Adding Mike Martz seems to be the answer to an offense that has been woeful since the retirement of Walter Payton, and even then it was a team that hinged on the strength of its defense.

Jay Cutler struggled in 2009. I do not hesitate in calling it the worst season of his career thus far. Throwing 26 interceptions is simply unacceptable. What is even less acceptable is that he only had four games of no interceptions thrown. The Bears won all four. Sadly, only one was a quality victory, that being against Pittsburgh in Week 2. The other three games? Two against the Lions and one against the Rams.

I'm not sure if Martz's philosophy will help Cutler cut down on the interceptions or not. On one hand, there are a lot more passes added, so more chances for interceptions. On the other, it is an offense filled with short, relatively safe passes, so interceptions may go down. Ultimately, it's on Cutler. An offensive coordinator, no matter how helpful, can't throw the ball for you.

Cutler and the Bears have some tougher games than the Lions and Rams, however. They have road games at Dallas, Miami, and the New York Giants, along with tough home games against the Patriots and the Jets. Not to mention four games against the Packers and Vikings.
It will be a tough road, but I think the Bears will end this season just a tad short, missing the playoffs at 9-7.

Detroit Lions

The Lions will remain the worst team in the NFC North until the foreseeable future. They are moving in the right direction (how could they not be?) with additions of good skill players such as Nate Burleson and rookie Jahvid Best, but the offensive line remains too unstable for a running game to get going or Matthew Stafford to prove he's not completely pathetic.

I truly hope that Ndamukong Suh helps to turn the defense around, but he is only one guy. He'll be fighting double-teams all year, hopefully freeing up fellow Nebraska alum Kyle Vanden Bosch to add some pressure in the backfield.

The real weakness of the Lions is a tossup between the linebackers and the secondary. There are simply no playmakers on this defense other than Suh. They had a grand total of 9 interceptions in 2009 (that's how many Charles Woodson had by himself), no player with more than 2. They had a grand total of 26 sacks, no player with more than 5.

The Lions have some winnable games, but let's face it, they're the Lions; they're also all very losable games. I think 4-12 isn't being too generous or too pessimistic.

AFC North

Baltimore Ravens

The Ravens' best addition was that of wide receiver Anquan Boldin. Joe Flacco is improving consistently and a target like Boldin will only make him more formidable. Ray Rice also had a very good year last year, rushing for over 1,300 yards, so offensively, the Ravens are set.

The biggest concern facing the Ravens is injury, especially on defense. It was announced a few days ago that Domonique Foxworth, starting cornerback, tore his ACL in practice and will miss the season. Cornerback Lardarius Webb is currently on the PUP list, but hopes to be back by the season opener. Cornerback Fabian Washington is also in the same boat.

Add to that safety Ed Reed, who may miss the first few games of the season, and the Ravens' secondary looks rather shallow. Terrell Suggs has promised a better season. Being that he's only 27, his follow through on that would be helpful.

Much like the Bears, the Ravens find themselves as a team that used to be feared for its spectacular defense, but will now need to win games with its offense.

I like the Ravens in the AFC North, going 12-4, reaching the AFC Championship Game, but not advancing to the Super Bowl.

Cincinnati Bengals

The Bengals are one of the enigma teams of 2010. I wouldn't be surprised to see them go anywhere from 6-10 to 11-5. Which end of that spectrum they end up on depends on two things: Carson Palmer and chemistry.

Palmer is good, there is no doubt, but with the weapons at his disposal, he should be throwing for 4,000 yards and 30 touchdowns, not 3,000 yards and 20 touchdowns as he did in 2009. His elbow injury was perhaps still to blame for his 2009 weakness, but with the addition of Terrell Owens, the Bengals will have the loudest, cockiest, most disruptive set of wide receivers possible in Owens and Chad Ochocinco. Keeping both of them happy is going to be a nightmare for Palmer. When Owens is on a team he expects to win that doesn't, things do not go well.

The Bengals' defense in 2009 was a nice surprise. They weren't overwhelmingly stingy, but they certainly held their own against good offenses, only allowing 30 points or more twice, once at Minnesota and in the game they didn't show up for in Week 17 against the Jets, who promptly eliminated the Bengals from the playoffs the next week.

Things certainly have the potential to blow up. They also have a tough road schedule, traveling to New England, Indianapolis, Atlanta, and the New York Jets, but this is a talented team and I think they'll sneak into the playoffs once again at 10-6.

Pittsburgh Steelers

The Steelers' off-field adventures have removed them from the realm of contender. Without Ben Roethlisberger for the first at least four games and possibly six games, the Steelers may very well start the season 1-5 or 2-4 and have Big Ben return to some lovely games: at New Orleans, at Cincinnati, and New England at home. They seriously could start the season 2-7. There's no recovery from that.

The Steelers looked dead at times with Ben in the lineup (the 13-6 loss in Cleveland comes immediately to mind), but without him, there's little hope.

That being said, I agree with the contract extension given to Mike Tomlin. He is a good coach, not to mention the youngest head coach in history to win a Super Bowl.

While I think the head coach should have some form of influence over players and their actions off the field, people make stupid choices all the time and let's face it, ridiculous amounts of money and being famous don't encourage a person towards being a good role model. I think that Roethlisberger has proven he is pretty stupid with his track record and if he can't get it together off the field, he has no business being on the field.

The Steelers won't get over missing Big Ben to have any chance at the playoffs in 2010. They'll finish 6-10, thinking toward 2011 and keeping their noses out of trouble.

Cleveland Browns

In eight of the 16 games in 2009, the Browns passed for less than 100 yards. Their total passing yards amounted to 2,255. Their opponents: 4,149. The fact that they won 5 games is miraculous.

They ranked last in the NFL in passing yards, 29th in pass defense, 28th in run defense, and 8th in rushing.

They have three different quarterbacks, all of which present major problems. Jake Delhomme was released out of a monster contract he should have never been offered in Carolina. Seneca Wallace failed to take advantage of his numerous opportunities to prove himself in Seattle when Matt Hasselbeck went down with his injury de jour, and Colt McCoy is a rookie who will likely be protected from immediate action on the field in his first season.

With Mike Holmgren running the ship in Cleveland, I'd expect him to help Wallace move in front of Delhomme and start in 2010. I think Wallace has potential, but his weapons are lacking.

The Browns' draft was underwhelming. About the only thing going in the right direction for the Browns is that Mike Holmgren is in the organization. I expect a 2010 season of misery at 3-13.

Stay tuned as Andrew Jones brings you his NFL previews each week leading up the season!

Posted by Andrew Jones at 6:55 PM | Comments (1)

August 2, 2010

Quick and Easy

In the days leading up to "The Decision," one faction dismissed the possibility of LeBron James joining Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade in Miami. Their reasoning was that James' blue-collar ethic flew against his taking part in a cheapened championship of the kind Heat owner Micky Arison and President Pat Riley were looking to buy.

The flaw in that argument was that James is entirely motivated by titles. He said so himself. They help with worldwide branding, so they're the means to a richer end. The faster and more furious they come, the louder cash registers will ring around the globe.

After all, LeBron is a product of the new millennium when American sports are all about the quick and the easy. What's more, this kid from Akron, Ohio has declared himself a card-carrying New York Yankees fan, so he's learned that a pooling of talent is the most direct road to a title. Put a little tilt in that level playing field and collect the trophies that slide into grasp.

More than ever, players, coaches, front offices, and fans alike are getting in the express line to pennants and trophies. And where this may seem a shallow accomplishment to those dyed-in-the-wool homers that still remain among us, it nonetheless serves their purposes, whether it be building legacies, putting fannies in the seats, or satisfying a need to be among the chic.

America has always been about finding the most efficient means to an end. That's what the Industrial Revolution was all about, and what pushes high tech each successive generation closer to the day when Skynet becomes self-aware and conquers the world. Doing things quicker and easier seeps into just about every aspect of our culture, but sports were always supposed to get done the hard way. Individuals achieved skills only through a youth of sweat and pain. Teams built championships by practicing and losing and figuring out what went wrong, then going back and tweaking things until they got it right. And fans were supposed to suffer through this evolution.

But someone found a loophole. Teams have shortcut the process, and rather than measuring them against that great American ethic built on the backs of our forefathers who cleared the land and erected cities out of wilderness, we as fans have embraced their cheapened means.

In 1992, the United States assembled the Dream Team by collecting arguably the 11 best basketball players in the world, throwing in one college kid, and flying off to Barcelona to pick up a gold medal. Sure, these were our guys, the products of our heartland, of our coaches and systems, of our resources. And, in light of the 1986 IOC decision to allow professionals to compete in the Games, we had every right to stock an unbeatable team and hit double-digit leads from the opening minutes of each game. But how did we come to find any sport in it?

Maybe we considered it payback for Munich in 1972 or the boycott in 1988. Or maybe it was a stinging counter-punch thrown at Eastern Bloc countries that had always fielded de facto pro athletes whose welfare was entrusted to the state. We may have even decided we did the world a favor by showing it just how high the bar really was, giving other countries something to aspire to. Regardless, no one I know was thinking about the development of Angolan or Croatian basketball when we were high-fiving each other as Bird, Magic, and M.J. conducted clinics against them on the world's stage.

Something scuffed the spirit of the American sports fan that summer. We lowered our threshold to the point where the gratification of winning could be achieved even in the absence of any jeopardy of loss. We redefined our concept of "sports" to exclude any element of competition without even realizing it, lost as we were in the beauty of the Dream Team's flawless execution. This was theatre, a sure thing. We were bent on utter destruction of the enemy no matter the means, then we fixed our hair, straightened our ties, and resumed our lives. Eventually the world caught up to us through the cross-pollination of international athletes into our own pro sports infrastructure, and our bloodlust was shelved. But it never left.

And now, it has been taken back off the shelf.

The new millennium has witnessed a construction boom in star-laden teams within its pro leagues on a scale as grand as any the Olympics have ever seen. Despite the most rigid salary cap structure of the four major sports, the NFL's Dallas Cowboys and New York Jets have nevertheless maneuvered themselves into Super Bowl contention by picking up a Pro Bowl's worth of other people's problems on the cheap. The NBA's Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics do it by selling themselves as the last chance for aging stars to win a ring — did you ever think you'd see the day when Karl Malone wore purple? — under mid-level exceptions and veteran minimum contracts. But nothing compares to the buying power in the uncapped world of Major League Baseball, where LeBron's Yankees are like Jamie McCourt on alimony day, with everyone else playing along.

Of course, they're not just LeBron's Yankees. They also belong to enclaves of Akron, half of Miami-Dade County, and practically the whole state of Montana. Just about anywhere there are folks, there are front-runners who want to circumvent the pain of 107-year droughts, so they latch on to the surest bet in all of sports, then celebrate the inevitable championships with the gusto that is rightfully reserved only for Cubs fans should they ever see a day when champagne corks pop in their team's locker room.

It's one thing to shoot fish in a barrel; it's another thing altogether to stuff and mount them on the wall over the fireplace.

And can there ever be enough bullets in the gun? After re-signing Scott Boras' biggest client, the game's greatest closer, and an all-star catcher in the same winter, the Yankees missed the playoffs in 2008, and their fan base got that kind of restless a banker gets when you're a few days late with your mortgage even though he's still holding your deed. So Hal and Hank Steinbrenner dropped $341 million on the top pitcher and positional player on the market that winter, not to mention $82 million more on a No. 2 starter. It was enough to procure another World Series trophy, which was the worst thing for the fate of parity in baseball.

Now Yankee Fan wants more championships, so that means grabbing even more talent. It started with Joey Mauer, because you've got to have the best in every position to be guaranteed a title. And when the heartbreak subsided after the Twins extended Mauer's contract, a lust built for Cliff Lee. The best five-man rotation in baseball can always use a little more separation from the rest. Now, with Lee's move to Texas comes the fans' dual realization that their team already has things sewed up without him, and that Brian Cashman will get him this coming winter anyway.

And why not, they ask. It's not illegal; nothing in the rules precludes their front office from stocking an unbeatable team. Sound familiar? It should. We were all saying the same thing back in 1992.

Warning: spoiler alert. The Yankees will win the 2010 World Series. Then again, you already know that. The Major League Baseball season is becoming just another Harlem Globetrotters tour, only with 29 Washington Generals. Everyone likes to watch the Globetrotters, even though beating the Generals is understood. It's what we used to call theatre. Today, we call it sports.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 7:30 PM | Comments (1)

Heisman Contenders and Pretenders

Contenders

Mark Ingram

As much fun as elite QBs are to watch, the Heisman isn't about being flashy, it's about being the best. As the 2009 winner of the award, and given the fact that he's playing on a team with a great offensive line and a passing game talented enough to force defenses to keep more players out of the box, Ingram makes the most sense as the frontrunner, and is inarguably a contender. He had 1,992 total yards on 6.7 yards-per-touch and scored 20 total touchdowns last year. Don't be surprised if he at least matches those number in 2010.

Terrelle Pryor

The odds-makers have picked Pryor as the favorite to win the award this year, and if the guy who won it last year wasn't back for another year, I would agree with them. Pryor's numbers may have not matched expectations thus far, but in his last two big-time games in 2009, he shined, with 3 touchdowns in a 24-7 win at Penn State, and 338 total yards and 2 touchdowns in a 26-17 Rose Bowl win against Oregon. His athleticism and natural leadership skills will take him, and the Buckeyes, far this year — just not far enough.

Jake Locker

How important was Locker to Washington's success? In the Huskies' 7 losses in 2009, he scored 12 touchdowns and threw 9 interceptions. In 5 wins, he scored 16 touchdowns and threw 2 interceptions. It stands to reason, then, that Locker has already proven he's one of the most valuable players in the nation. The only question is if he can put up eye-catching numbers for an entire season. With Steve Sarkisian as his coach, and another year of experience playing elite Pac-10 teams, I think he'll finally put up those numbers and enter into late-season Heisman discussion.

Pretenders

Ryan Mallett

I realize that Mallett's numbers rank at or near the top of the nation, but as was previously mentioned, flashy numbers don't make the case for the Heisman as well as being the best — and Ryan Mallett is far from the best.

Why, you ask? How about the fact that in his team's 5 losses in 2009, he actually scored 9 touchdowns to only 2 interceptions, which is actually a better ratio of TDs-to-turnovers than what he had in the Razorbacks' wins (20-to-5). It stands to reason that if he was the driving force behind the offense, his solid numbers would have translated to wins. Or take the fact that in his team's toughest games (against Alabama, Florida, and LSU), he completed only 41% of his passes and scored only 1 TD in each.

Mallett is not very valuable, not very clutch, and not a contender.

Matt Barkley

In games against top-25 teams, Barkley threw 5 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. As pathetic as those numbers are for a supposed Heisman contender, they may not be the worst, at least given that in the rest of his games, those against teams outside the top 25, his ratio of TDs-to-picks was an utterly mediocre 10-to-7.

There's not really much else to say. He simply hasn't done anything to make me think he can contend for Heisman, no matter how much press he gets.

Posted by Paul Foeller at 1:23 PM | Comments (1)

August 1, 2010

The Story of Joba Chamberlain

Believe it or not, Yankee fans can be frustrated, too. Hard to believe considering they have won 27 championships and are in the playoff race year in and year out. But occasionally, Yankee fans find something to complain about, something to criticize. And once you get Yankee fans going, there is no stopping them.

This year, the source of the frustration has been Joba Chamberlain. When he came up from the minors, he grasped the attention of Yankee fans. In his first year, he pitched 19 games and gave up just 1 run, an earned run average of 0.38.

It was then that Yankee fans started to dream: maybe he could be the next Mariano Rivera; maybe we don't have to worry about the day our beloved closer calls it quits.

But Joe Girardi had a different idea. Someone — we don't know who — decided that Joba Chamberlain was meant to be a starter. From the moment he was drafted in the first round of the 2006 draft, he was destined to be in the Yankees' starting rotation.

And that is just what management decided to do. He started 12 games in 2008 and 31 games on 2009.

But that wasn't before management decided that he should be on an innings limit. For a few years, all Yankee fans heard was "innings limit, innings limit, innings limit." Nobody ever found out what it was, but he pitched 100 1/3 innings in 2008 and 157 1/3 innings in 2009.

Did that innings limit screw him up? Well, for one thing, ever since he became a starter, his seasonal ERAs have gotten progressively worse: from around 1 in 2008 to almost 6 in 2010. The average velocity on his fastball has also gotten progressively worse: from 97 mph in 2007 to 94 mph in 2010.

The most convincing factor, though, is the attention. Along with hearing about the unknown innings limit everyday, Joba was widely criticized and passionately debated over. Believe it or not, apparently baseball players are humans, too.

Here in 2010, the soap opera is anything but over. You can pick up the Daily News and read about how Joba Chamberlain is messing up the Yankees' bullpen, and then you can pick up a New York Times and read about how the Yankees may trade Chamberlain for Dan Haren.

I — unlike most New Yorkers — can understand how all of this criticism and unstableness can shake up your performance. But what I know — also unlike most New Yorkers — is that the criticism was never merited.

This season has seemed to be the boiling point of the frustration. Next to the near deal for Dan Haren that would have sent Joba to Arizona, people want Joba out, even after they dreamed of him being the heir to Mariano.

At initial glance, it would seem as though New Yorkers have a point. His ERA of almost 6 this season is enough to frustrate any passionate and knowledgeable fan. But if you take a closer look at the numbers Chamberlain has put up, he may be very deserving of a second chance. Maybe even a first chance if you ask me.

If you take out all fielding factors (errors, misplays, etc.), you get a stat calls FIP, which stands for fielder independent pitching. Joba's FIP is a very respectable 3.02. So, for some reason, Joba is experiencing some very bad luck. Wherever that bad luck may be coming from, it is all blamed on Chamberlain, the wrong man.

Accompanying this idea of luck, let's go back to the method that illustrates how luck has affected a player. For those who don't know, we can look at two stats to measure luck: batting average on balls in play (BABIP) and line drive percentage (LD%).

So how does this work? Pitchers get unlucky — or lucky — when balls fall in front of fielders or ground balls find the hole. So, if you have a high BABIP, then many balls are finding holes, meaning you are unlucky.

LD% measures how many line drives you give up. If you give up many line drives, you are not a good pitcher. So, if you BABIP is high and your LD% is low, you are giving up many soft hit balls that are finding holes.

In Chamberlain's case, he is very unlucky. Joba's opposing BABIP this season in .393, very high. However, his opposing line drive percentage is 19.4%, the lowest of his career.

If he is pitching well, why is his ERA so high? To answer that, take a look at these two splits:

Runners on second/third: 6 PA, 2 1B, 1 2B, 2 BB, 6 runs scored
Bases loaded: 5 PA, 1 2B, 1 HR, 6 runs scored

So of the 28 earned runs Joba has given up, 12 of them — almost half — come from just 11 plate appearances. The few mistakes he has made came with runners on base and thus brought up his ERA. If you as me, 11 plate appearances should not determine how successful you are.

Furthermore, Joba has had six streaks this year of at least three scoreless outings in a row. The longest streak of the year is eight games. Most of his 44 games he pitched this year have been a part of a scoreless streak. The bad performances are rare and sprinkled in between the good performances.

It seems as though Yankee fans love to dwell on the negative. When it comes to Joba, Yankees fans pick and choose the best reasons to bash Joba Chamberlain. For a guy that has averaged over 9 strikeouts per 9 innings in three of his four seasons, it appears there has been a bit of unfortunate and unworthy finger-pointing.

So that's it. That is the story of Joba Chamberlain. The story of a man who's future seemed bright enough to shine on a plaque in Cooperstown, just to be diminished by the misleading frustration of spoiled Yankee fans. The story of a man buried in criticism, who's talent will be missed when wrongfully thrown away.

Posted by Jess Coleman at 1:16 PM | Comments (0)