You know, Philadelphia hasn't been that deprived of sporting excellence. The Phillies might have broke a 25-year championship drought amongst Philly's Big Four teams (Flyers, Phillies, Eagles, Sixers), but 25 years isn't that long of a time. In fact, it's as old as me. And any "drought" which is as old or younger than me just isn't enough to justify the absurd amount of national attention Philly's championship-less streak drew during the recent World Series.
Think of it this way: In the past 25 years, Philadelphians got to watch five more MVP-like years from one of MLB's greatest all-time third baseman (Mike Schmidt), the greatest power hitter in post-steroids MLB (Ryan Howard), two of the greatest NBA scorers of all-time (Dr. J and Allen Iverson), two of the more exciting and productive NFL QBs ever (Randall Cunningham and Donovan McNabb), one of the Top 10 NFL defenses of all-time (the Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Eric Allen Eagles), three new sports stadiums (Eagles, Phillies, Sixers) and I guess that Eric Lindross guy from the NHL (a league which used to be a big deal.) What I'm saying is Philly has had a few things to cherish over the years. Let's take a look at two other cities which haven't.
We'll start in Cleveland, a city which last celebrated a major sports championship (we're talking major basketball, football, baseball and hockey here). Cleveland is an ugly, industrialized city which brags about hosting the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame as its main non-sports attraction. The Indians haven't won a World Series since 1948 and although they have appeared in three World Series since then ('54, '95 and '97), there were times when they were the flat-out embarrassment of baseball. How else do you explain a major motion picture (Major League) dedicated to profiling their miserable existence? Talk about a punch in the face followed by a punch in the stomach. How depressed would you get if a movie was made essentially making light of the inept state of your team?
As if this wasn't bad enough, Cleveland's beloved Browns -- who were dominant in the '40s and '50s and won an NFL Championship in 1964 -- were moved to Baltimore after the 1994 season. After a rich history in the NFL, including the great Dogg Pound days of the '80s, Art Modell decided that he felt like ripping the guts out of a city by heartlessly moving the entire team, history be damned. And even when the Browns returned to the NFL, in 1999, it's not like they've done much to build on their rich tradition.
The Cavaliers haven't won an NBA title since expanding into the NBA in 1970, although they did make an appearance two seasons ago during the ongoing LeBron James Era. And Bron Bron is the main reason why Cleveland can't be considered the most tortured city in American professional sports. He's a joy to watch, a potentially transcendent player who can bring the Cavs -- and Cleveland -- NBA titles. Too bad he'll likely leave for the riches and spoils of a New York franchise in two seasons. His departure would pit Cleveland at the bottom of the sports city totem pole. No city would have less fan confidence.
Unless, of course, you include Buffalo. As if being tucked away in a snowy town along Lake Erie in western New York weren't bad enough, Buffalo is one of the poorest major towns in the U.S. The fans there have two pro sports teams -- the NHL's Sabres and the NFL's Bills -- although they are originally the home of the Los Angeles Clippers, one of sport's most laughable franchises.
Anyway, the Sabres are 0-3 in the Stanley Cup in their 38 years of existence, so Buffalo hasn't truly connected with them. Does anyone really count the NHL anymore, though? Can't we just say that there are the Big Three (NFL, NBA, MLB) and a lot of other influential sports leagues (PGA Tour, NASCAR, NHL and WTA, MLS, WNBA to lesser degrees)? I think so.
But the crux of Buffalo's discontent has been the Bills. The squad which won back-to-back AFL Championships from 1964-65 has been wildly frustrating since. How about the O.J. Simpson-led squads of the '70s which battled between respectability and downright hopelessness? And how can one forget the early '90s squads, which lost four consecutive Super Bowls.
We take for advantage now that the Bills had to be one hell of a team to make four straight Super Bowls (this, the NFL era immediately preceding free agency), but those Bills teams ran into bad luck (Scott Norwood's Wide Right in SB XXV against the Giants), a dynasty on its last legs (SB XXVI against the Redskins) and a terrorizing mini-dynasty (SBs XXVII and XXVIII against the Cowboys).
And that's not to mention the Music City Miracle, one of the most controversial NFL moments ever. But, hey, when O.J. Simpson is probably your city's greatest professional athlete, even four straight Super Bowl losses and a freakish game-ending play don't seem so bad.
No matter how much Philadelphians would like to sulk in their sorrows, they have nothing on the downtrodden fans of Cleveland and Buffalo. If Philly wants to throw 25 years at America, Cleveland and Buffalo can retort with 44 and 43 years of championship-less pro sports, respectively. For that, Philadelphians can shove a cheesesteak up their asses. Enjoy your World Series you bunch of whiners!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Deja vu for the Cowboys
I just finished reading the book Boys Will Be Boys by Jeff Pearlman, a fantastic read about the early-mid '90s Dallas Cowboys. One of the more interesting angles in the book is how hard-ass extraordinaire Jimmy Johnson shaped a team that would win three Super Bowls, two of which were at his helm. The third was won by Barry Switzer, a laid-back, "player's" coach who replaced Johnson after the team's second Super Bowl win.
Although Switzer won the dynasty's third Super Bowl, the team culture he introduced was quite a respite from that of Johnson's.
Johnson came in more as a dictator than anything else. He was an extremely good talent evaluator who had a knack for understanding what parts of his team's roster needed help. Despite alienating many players by yelling at them like a drill sergeant and making examples out of some of the team's lower-profile players, Johnson was a great motivator who knew how to take the temperature of his team, so-to-speak. Although many of his players hated his ego and arrogance, there is no denying his success with the team. They won two Super Bowls under Johnson and essentially won the third (Deion Sanders notwithstanding) largely with players traded for, signed and drafted by Johnson.
Switzer came into the fold in '94, an old buddy of owner Jerry Jones. Although his open demeanor and buddy-buddy philosophy with his players proved a welcome change-of-pace after Johnson's regime, Switzer didn't install the one characteristic critical to the 'Boys' downfall in the mid-90s: accountability. He ran light training camps and in-season practices, but his most glaring downfall was his inability to instill discipline and accountability to the team.
Although the '94 and '95 Cowboys seemed relieved to be removed from high level of pressure and anxiety that permeated through the locker room during the Jimmy Johnson Era, a level of remorse and subtle reflection settled amongst some of the players. They realized that even though Johnson was a mean, stubborn and unrelenting S.O.B. at times, he helped produce a winning attitude. He kept the players motivated and hungry to win. Switzer's laisezz-faire attitude promoted a lazy, content attitude that took down the 'Boys.
Now, sound familiar? Just replace Jimmy Johnson with Bill Parcells and Barry Switzer with Wade Phillips. The similarities aren't entirely accurate. Neither the Parcells- nor Phillips-led Cowboys have even competed in an NFC Championship game, much less a Super Bowl. And Phillips hasn't created quite as undisciplined an environment as Switzer.
But there's no doubt Parcells assembled the core of this team, although he wasn't around to forsee Romo's development into an elite NFL quarterback. But Phillips isn't near the disciplinarian that Parcells was, and perhaps it's more evident than ever that with the 'Boys embroiled in a difficult stretch, they might need a Parcells-style coach who demands only the best out of his players. The players don't fear Phillips, as was smartly noted today by ProFootballTalk.com. And the teams that win championships are those that fear letting down each other and their coaches.
Although Switzer won the dynasty's third Super Bowl, the team culture he introduced was quite a respite from that of Johnson's.
Johnson came in more as a dictator than anything else. He was an extremely good talent evaluator who had a knack for understanding what parts of his team's roster needed help. Despite alienating many players by yelling at them like a drill sergeant and making examples out of some of the team's lower-profile players, Johnson was a great motivator who knew how to take the temperature of his team, so-to-speak. Although many of his players hated his ego and arrogance, there is no denying his success with the team. They won two Super Bowls under Johnson and essentially won the third (Deion Sanders notwithstanding) largely with players traded for, signed and drafted by Johnson.
Switzer came into the fold in '94, an old buddy of owner Jerry Jones. Although his open demeanor and buddy-buddy philosophy with his players proved a welcome change-of-pace after Johnson's regime, Switzer didn't install the one characteristic critical to the 'Boys' downfall in the mid-90s: accountability. He ran light training camps and in-season practices, but his most glaring downfall was his inability to instill discipline and accountability to the team.
Although the '94 and '95 Cowboys seemed relieved to be removed from high level of pressure and anxiety that permeated through the locker room during the Jimmy Johnson Era, a level of remorse and subtle reflection settled amongst some of the players. They realized that even though Johnson was a mean, stubborn and unrelenting S.O.B. at times, he helped produce a winning attitude. He kept the players motivated and hungry to win. Switzer's laisezz-faire attitude promoted a lazy, content attitude that took down the 'Boys.
Now, sound familiar? Just replace Jimmy Johnson with Bill Parcells and Barry Switzer with Wade Phillips. The similarities aren't entirely accurate. Neither the Parcells- nor Phillips-led Cowboys have even competed in an NFC Championship game, much less a Super Bowl. And Phillips hasn't created quite as undisciplined an environment as Switzer.
But there's no doubt Parcells assembled the core of this team, although he wasn't around to forsee Romo's development into an elite NFL quarterback. But Phillips isn't near the disciplinarian that Parcells was, and perhaps it's more evident than ever that with the 'Boys embroiled in a difficult stretch, they might need a Parcells-style coach who demands only the best out of his players. The players don't fear Phillips, as was smartly noted today by ProFootballTalk.com. And the teams that win championships are those that fear letting down each other and their coaches.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Mannywood needs to end
As a lifelong Dodgers fan, part of me will always feel indebted (unwillingly) to Manny Ramirez. It's tough to say that any one player can ever put a baseball team on his back, but Ramirez's presence with the Dodgers was the most important reason why they broke free of a season-long .500 record and climbed the National League mountain to the NLCS.
After getting traded to the Dodgers on Aug. 1, Ramirez ended the regular season with a bang, hitting .396 with 17 home runs, 53 RBIs and an astounding 1.232 OPS (including a ridiculous .489 on-base percentage) in 53 games. And his numbers might not have been his most valuable contribution to the team. His light-hearted personality and willingness to take media attention and pressure away from his teammates enabled the entire team to loosen up, have fun and play confidently. And the hot hitting didn't stop once the Dodgers reached the postseason. Manny went 13-for-25 in the playoffs with four home runs and 10 RBIs.
But even in a game of numbers such as baseball, there are other factors -- aside from statistics -- that one should consider before signing a player to a long-term contract. The crux of the Dodgers' decision to meet Ramirez's contract demands is affordability -- and not just in economic terms.
Sure, Ramirez's agent, Scott Boras, has set the market price at a minimum of 5 years/$20 million per. Boras has even stated that 6 years/close to $25 million per is a more realistic plan for Ramirez, something that might be out of the ballpark for nearly every team. Ex-Dodgers general manager Fred Claire stated in the Los Angeles Times recently that the Dodgers should consider a deal for 3 years at $20 million per year, despite Andruw Jones earning $18 million next season in the back-end of his two-year deal and Juan Pierre heading into Year 3 of his 5 year/$45 million contract. And that obviously excludes Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier, two young and ultra-productive players who should (actually, who need) to play every day.
So even if the Dodgers can fiscally afford to sign Ramirez (no given, considering their willingness to take on Ramirez and third baseman Casey Blake only if their former teams picked up their contracts), then they will be creating a situation where someone else needs to be moved. Of course, Jones does just have that one year left and it's unknown whether he will ever return to his All-Star form after an extremely disappointing 2008. In fact, Ramirez never would have been on the Dodgers' radar had Andruw Jones produced as was expected.
Anyway, there are no sure signs that the Dodgers can afford Ramirez monetarily. Can they even afford him in the sense of having his presence on the team? The Red Sox may have won two World Series with Ramirez in the lineup, but they ultimately ridded themselves of him because his teammates demanded it. Do the Dodgers want to reward a player who has such a controversial -- and quite unnerving -- past with his old ball club?
The beautiful thing about acquiring Ramirez this season was that the Dodgers basically didn't owe Ramirez a thing. They used him for his hitting ability and drawing power, with the Dodgers reaping tens of millions in extra merchandise and attendance (they were already the top drawing team in the NL without Ramirez) because of Ramirez's "charm."
Now, the Dodgers have to decide if that "charm" will have an extended shelf life. The fear is Ramirez was on his best behavior because he wants a new contract, and no matter how much Ramirez and Boras might refute his inspired play had something to do with his quest for a new deal, how many athletes have we seen over the years play better and shut up when they want to improve their bank account? And while there may be no doubt that Ramirez, even at 36, can continue to rake the ball with the best in the game, what about his porous fielding? How many runs, and games, might the lazy left fielder cost the Dodgers? He won't exactly become more spry as he nears 40.
While Angelinos might love Ramirez because he's the first true Dodger superstar since Mike Piazza, and they might love Ramirez for helping lead the Dodgers to the NLCS, the truth is the Dodgers are a team filled with exciting, young players who need to grow on their own. They don't need to play under the cloud that Ramirez might cast if he were to sign a long-term deal with the squad. With Manny, there is always risk for controversy, so why would a team with youngsters like Russell Martin and Matt Kemp and Clayton Kershaw take an unnecessary risk on a player who can fracture a clubhouse? Why not just let the younger players learn from the playoff experience they received this year, and let them take control of the squad beginning next season? The Dodgers don't need Manny to move on and improve as a team, so there's no reason to sacrifice their long-term balance sheet and their overall team pysche with a player like Manny Ramirez.
After getting traded to the Dodgers on Aug. 1, Ramirez ended the regular season with a bang, hitting .396 with 17 home runs, 53 RBIs and an astounding 1.232 OPS (including a ridiculous .489 on-base percentage) in 53 games. And his numbers might not have been his most valuable contribution to the team. His light-hearted personality and willingness to take media attention and pressure away from his teammates enabled the entire team to loosen up, have fun and play confidently. And the hot hitting didn't stop once the Dodgers reached the postseason. Manny went 13-for-25 in the playoffs with four home runs and 10 RBIs.
But even in a game of numbers such as baseball, there are other factors -- aside from statistics -- that one should consider before signing a player to a long-term contract. The crux of the Dodgers' decision to meet Ramirez's contract demands is affordability -- and not just in economic terms.
Sure, Ramirez's agent, Scott Boras, has set the market price at a minimum of 5 years/$20 million per. Boras has even stated that 6 years/close to $25 million per is a more realistic plan for Ramirez, something that might be out of the ballpark for nearly every team. Ex-Dodgers general manager Fred Claire stated in the Los Angeles Times recently that the Dodgers should consider a deal for 3 years at $20 million per year, despite Andruw Jones earning $18 million next season in the back-end of his two-year deal and Juan Pierre heading into Year 3 of his 5 year/$45 million contract. And that obviously excludes Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier, two young and ultra-productive players who should (actually, who need) to play every day.
So even if the Dodgers can fiscally afford to sign Ramirez (no given, considering their willingness to take on Ramirez and third baseman Casey Blake only if their former teams picked up their contracts), then they will be creating a situation where someone else needs to be moved. Of course, Jones does just have that one year left and it's unknown whether he will ever return to his All-Star form after an extremely disappointing 2008. In fact, Ramirez never would have been on the Dodgers' radar had Andruw Jones produced as was expected.
Anyway, there are no sure signs that the Dodgers can afford Ramirez monetarily. Can they even afford him in the sense of having his presence on the team? The Red Sox may have won two World Series with Ramirez in the lineup, but they ultimately ridded themselves of him because his teammates demanded it. Do the Dodgers want to reward a player who has such a controversial -- and quite unnerving -- past with his old ball club?
The beautiful thing about acquiring Ramirez this season was that the Dodgers basically didn't owe Ramirez a thing. They used him for his hitting ability and drawing power, with the Dodgers reaping tens of millions in extra merchandise and attendance (they were already the top drawing team in the NL without Ramirez) because of Ramirez's "charm."
Now, the Dodgers have to decide if that "charm" will have an extended shelf life. The fear is Ramirez was on his best behavior because he wants a new contract, and no matter how much Ramirez and Boras might refute his inspired play had something to do with his quest for a new deal, how many athletes have we seen over the years play better and shut up when they want to improve their bank account? And while there may be no doubt that Ramirez, even at 36, can continue to rake the ball with the best in the game, what about his porous fielding? How many runs, and games, might the lazy left fielder cost the Dodgers? He won't exactly become more spry as he nears 40.
While Angelinos might love Ramirez because he's the first true Dodger superstar since Mike Piazza, and they might love Ramirez for helping lead the Dodgers to the NLCS, the truth is the Dodgers are a team filled with exciting, young players who need to grow on their own. They don't need to play under the cloud that Ramirez might cast if he were to sign a long-term deal with the squad. With Manny, there is always risk for controversy, so why would a team with youngsters like Russell Martin and Matt Kemp and Clayton Kershaw take an unnecessary risk on a player who can fracture a clubhouse? Why not just let the younger players learn from the playoff experience they received this year, and let them take control of the squad beginning next season? The Dodgers don't need Manny to move on and improve as a team, so there's no reason to sacrifice their long-term balance sheet and their overall team pysche with a player like Manny Ramirez.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Random thoughts...While craving a Silo burger and fries
What would an impending NBA season be without the Shaq Man threatening a player, coach or entire franchise? Shaq says the Spurs were "cowardly" in fouling him in last year's playoffs while maintaining a lead. I say the Spurs played smart basketball by exposing a glaring weakness of their opponent. As depressing as it is to see Shaq hobble up and down the floor, it's even more gut-wrenching to read him talk trash. The big fella's bark is much louder than his bite these days, so I'm not expecting any of his vintage 30/15 efforts against the Spurs this year...
Fantasy owners, prepare for frustration in owning a Dallas Cowboy receiver. With Tony Romo out for at least a few weeks, Brad Johnson and his linguine arm will have a tough time throwing downfield to T.O. and Roy Williams. Add Jason Witten (probably the most likely to be consistent) and Pat Crayton, and you have yourself a full-fledged cluster-you-know-what. And when Romo gets back, will he feel more indebted to making T.O. happy, welcoming Roy to the team by targeting him, targeting Crayton to let him know he won't get lost in the shuffle or going to Witten, his best bud? Some might say Romo holds the key to unlocking the treasure chest that is the Cowboys' receiving core, but no NFL quarterback will be under more pressure to diversify his passes...
Actual Article That One Would Suspect to Find on The Onion: Dan Quayle gave Sarah Palin some vice presidential-advice. That's like Pacman Jones advising an NFL rookie on how to conduct one's self in public...
In the end, Rays-Phillies is probably for the better. The teams have been more consistently superior all season than the Red Sox and Dodgers, and they really have the more complete teams. There's enough star power among Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, B.J. Upton, Evan Longoria and Carl Crawford for MLB to promote. The obvious storylines would be Tampa Bay emerging as an elite team, ala the Cleveland Indians in Major League. And then there's Philadelphia's quest to end the 26-year professional sports team championship drought. And, no, Philly's Arena Football League's title this year doesn't count...
Fantasy owners, prepare for frustration in owning a Dallas Cowboy receiver. With Tony Romo out for at least a few weeks, Brad Johnson and his linguine arm will have a tough time throwing downfield to T.O. and Roy Williams. Add Jason Witten (probably the most likely to be consistent) and Pat Crayton, and you have yourself a full-fledged cluster-you-know-what. And when Romo gets back, will he feel more indebted to making T.O. happy, welcoming Roy to the team by targeting him, targeting Crayton to let him know he won't get lost in the shuffle or going to Witten, his best bud? Some might say Romo holds the key to unlocking the treasure chest that is the Cowboys' receiving core, but no NFL quarterback will be under more pressure to diversify his passes...
Actual Article That One Would Suspect to Find on The Onion: Dan Quayle gave Sarah Palin some vice presidential-advice. That's like Pacman Jones advising an NFL rookie on how to conduct one's self in public...
In the end, Rays-Phillies is probably for the better. The teams have been more consistently superior all season than the Red Sox and Dodgers, and they really have the more complete teams. There's enough star power among Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, B.J. Upton, Evan Longoria and Carl Crawford for MLB to promote. The obvious storylines would be Tampa Bay emerging as an elite team, ala the Cleveland Indians in Major League. And then there's Philadelphia's quest to end the 26-year professional sports team championship drought. And, no, Philly's Arena Football League's title this year doesn't count...
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Replay eliminates great plays
Instant replay has helped correct numerous poor calls over the years, but there are times when even great plays are nullified due to their illegality.
During the Cowboys-Cardinals game today, Cardinals quarterback targeted wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald on a fade route in the right corner of the end zone. Warner threw a beautiful, arching pass towards the corner, where only Fitzgerald could grab it. And Fitzgerald did, contorting his body with his back to the crowd, placing his left foot down as his momentum was taking him out the side of the end zone. However, he tried landing his right foot just inside the side white line, the line that is the right boundary of the end zone.
At first glimpse, it appeared that Fitzgerald got his right foot down, but replay showed that the right edge of his right foot touched the white line, indicating that he was out-of-bounds and nullifying his touchdown.
The call was correct, since Fitzgerald was out-of-bounds. But it was still a spectacular combination of balance and grace for the wide receiver to attempt to place both his feet in the end zone. And considering that his right foot, barely, just barely, was out-of-bounds, it was disappointing to see a wonderful effort stripped away and essentially lost forever in the ever-expanding list of NFL touchdown plays.
I understand that black and white issue that replay attempts to solve (either a foot is in or out, a ball is dropped or caught), but it seems that some plays are so close to being technically legal. As a fan, I just wish some plays could be left alone as a means of rewarding an outstanding effort from a player.
Of course, the Cardinals received another chance at scoring a touchdown. And guess what the scoring play was? A fade route by Fitzgerald for a touchdown.
During the Cowboys-Cardinals game today, Cardinals quarterback targeted wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald on a fade route in the right corner of the end zone. Warner threw a beautiful, arching pass towards the corner, where only Fitzgerald could grab it. And Fitzgerald did, contorting his body with his back to the crowd, placing his left foot down as his momentum was taking him out the side of the end zone. However, he tried landing his right foot just inside the side white line, the line that is the right boundary of the end zone.
At first glimpse, it appeared that Fitzgerald got his right foot down, but replay showed that the right edge of his right foot touched the white line, indicating that he was out-of-bounds and nullifying his touchdown.
The call was correct, since Fitzgerald was out-of-bounds. But it was still a spectacular combination of balance and grace for the wide receiver to attempt to place both his feet in the end zone. And considering that his right foot, barely, just barely, was out-of-bounds, it was disappointing to see a wonderful effort stripped away and essentially lost forever in the ever-expanding list of NFL touchdown plays.
I understand that black and white issue that replay attempts to solve (either a foot is in or out, a ball is dropped or caught), but it seems that some plays are so close to being technically legal. As a fan, I just wish some plays could be left alone as a means of rewarding an outstanding effort from a player.
Of course, the Cardinals received another chance at scoring a touchdown. And guess what the scoring play was? A fade route by Fitzgerald for a touchdown.
Red River officiating
It seems that we're in a sports world littered with writers proclaiming every player, play, game and team to be the "greatest" or "worst" ever. Part of this is probably meant as a way to generate interest in one's column and perhaps even provoke thought in the reader. Another reason for this may be that, as human beings, we probably act with a greater level of emotion to an event we have just witnessed, since we are able to recall a greater number of details from a game or play we've just watched than from a game or play 1, 5 or 10 years ago.
So, I will join in the "best" or "worst" foray -- that I typically despise. But yesterday's Texas-Oklahoma game was seemingly a contest among the referees in "worst calls of all-time." The two roughing the passer calls against Oklahoma linebacker Travis Lewis on Texas quarterback Colt McCoy were unforgivably horrendous. There is something to be said for protecting the health of quarterbacks, but throwing a flag (or two) on a defender who is visibly letting up on running down a quarterback headed for the sidelines is asinine. If the calls were made because McCoy was running along the Texas sidelines, the calls were still atrocious. What difference should it make what sideline a player is running along? The refs should've taken in account that Lewis slowed down and even tried to help prop up McCoy as he ran into him.
The Oklahoma interception in Texas' endzone which was ruled a dropped pass was equally frustrating. The player clearly caught the ball in the endzone, held onto it as he fell to the ground and let it fall from his grasp only after he hit the ground. Television viewers were able to see this as it happened in realtime, so why couldn't the refs, even with the benefit of replay?
I'm not implying that there was a conspiracy against Oklahoma (there were some very bad calls made against Texas), but one would hope the quality of officiating in such a big game would be much better.
So, I will join in the "best" or "worst" foray -- that I typically despise. But yesterday's Texas-Oklahoma game was seemingly a contest among the referees in "worst calls of all-time." The two roughing the passer calls against Oklahoma linebacker Travis Lewis on Texas quarterback Colt McCoy were unforgivably horrendous. There is something to be said for protecting the health of quarterbacks, but throwing a flag (or two) on a defender who is visibly letting up on running down a quarterback headed for the sidelines is asinine. If the calls were made because McCoy was running along the Texas sidelines, the calls were still atrocious. What difference should it make what sideline a player is running along? The refs should've taken in account that Lewis slowed down and even tried to help prop up McCoy as he ran into him.
The Oklahoma interception in Texas' endzone which was ruled a dropped pass was equally frustrating. The player clearly caught the ball in the endzone, held onto it as he fell to the ground and let it fall from his grasp only after he hit the ground. Television viewers were able to see this as it happened in realtime, so why couldn't the refs, even with the benefit of replay?
I'm not implying that there was a conspiracy against Oklahoma (there were some very bad calls made against Texas), but one would hope the quality of officiating in such a big game would be much better.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Cubs wise to keep Harden
The Cubs exercised a $7 million option on Rich Harden today, acting before a deadline which would have allowed the pitcher to become a free agent. Even though the injury-prone righty is expected to have his right elbow checked out soon, the Cubs made the correct decision in ensuring his presence in their pitching rotation next year.
Harden managed to get through 148 innings over 25 starts this season, his highest totals in each category since 2004. This past season was actually the first time he remained healthy for most of the season since 2005, a victory in-and-of itself. Many baseball fans had wondered what types of numbers Harden could put up if he simply stayed healthy. Well, how do 181 strikeouts (for a 11.0 K/9 rate), a 2.07 ERA and a 1.06 WHIP sound?
After a midseason trade to the Cubs, Harden would have garnered Cy Young-talk for his spectacular numbers with the Cubbies (5-1, 89 Ks in 71 innings, 1.77 ERA, 0.97 WHIP) if not for CC Sabathia, another American League pitcher traded to a National League Central Division team.
When you look at Harden's production, you would suspect that a pitcher that effective at his age (he'll turn 27 later this year) could garner a truly daunting per year salary, something in the range of $15 million-plus. That's his upside. The downside is teams will always be risking whatever salary they pay for the reward of him staying healthy long enough to have a sizeable positive impact on his team.
For a big-market club such as the Cubs, who have had annual World Series ambitions for a few years now, $7 million is a small price to pay for a pitcher who can be a true difference-maker when he stays healthy. And considering the Cubs should bring back most of the squad that was supposed to win the Series this year, making sure Harden sticks around for another year at a very reasonable salary (by ace pitcher standards) is well worth the gamble, injury risk be damned.
Harden managed to get through 148 innings over 25 starts this season, his highest totals in each category since 2004. This past season was actually the first time he remained healthy for most of the season since 2005, a victory in-and-of itself. Many baseball fans had wondered what types of numbers Harden could put up if he simply stayed healthy. Well, how do 181 strikeouts (for a 11.0 K/9 rate), a 2.07 ERA and a 1.06 WHIP sound?
After a midseason trade to the Cubs, Harden would have garnered Cy Young-talk for his spectacular numbers with the Cubbies (5-1, 89 Ks in 71 innings, 1.77 ERA, 0.97 WHIP) if not for CC Sabathia, another American League pitcher traded to a National League Central Division team.
When you look at Harden's production, you would suspect that a pitcher that effective at his age (he'll turn 27 later this year) could garner a truly daunting per year salary, something in the range of $15 million-plus. That's his upside. The downside is teams will always be risking whatever salary they pay for the reward of him staying healthy long enough to have a sizeable positive impact on his team.
For a big-market club such as the Cubs, who have had annual World Series ambitions for a few years now, $7 million is a small price to pay for a pitcher who can be a true difference-maker when he stays healthy. And considering the Cubs should bring back most of the squad that was supposed to win the Series this year, making sure Harden sticks around for another year at a very reasonable salary (by ace pitcher standards) is well worth the gamble, injury risk be damned.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Follow the yellow brick road...created by TNT
One of the most frustrating aspects of sports coverage today is the bloated set of most pre- and post-game football shows. This doesn't seem to occur often in baseball or basketball, just football. Perhaps it's because most games are played on one day, so TV networks feel that a higher number of analysts will somehow give the viewer a greater depth of knowledge about all the players and teams that encompass the NFL.
Although FOX (Howie Long, Terry Bradshaw, Jimmy Johnson) and CBS (Dan Marino, Boomer Esiason, Shannon Sharpe) have held steady with their studio cores, each has added another member (Michael Strahan on FOX, Bill Cowher on CBS) to their sets in the last two years. Instead of the idea of more great football minds contributing to a higher amount of football intellectualism, all viewers seem to get is a discombobulated and incohesive group of individuals.
NBC has taken this to another level by housing seven (I think) people on their "Football Night America" set on Sundays. The fact that I literally had to count on my fingers the number of guys on the set indicates how overwhelming the show can be. There are three "football" guys (Cris Collinsworth, Jerome Bettis, Tiki Barber) and four "media" guys (Bob Costas, Dan Patrick, Keith Olberman, Peter King), although King plays more of the "insider" role while Collinsworth can cross over into the "media" and "insider" roles himself.
Costas is supposed to be the primary host of the show while DP and KO bring back memories of their fantastic ESPN days by co-hosting game highlights packages. They're all in different rooms, on different sets, with different opinions (and sometimes the same) on different topics. It's mind-numbingly awful television. There is no rhythm, no chemistry, no sense that these guys would actually hang out off of the set. So, I have an idea to break up this seven-man crew. Style it after TNT's "Inside The NBA," which offers a three-man set which sometimes expands to four.
First, pick a host. I would drop Olberman out of contention since he is a blithering, self-indulgant smart-ass. Patrick is a great choice, although I've found him to be immensely funnier and more personable as a radio voice than a studio host. I'm probably one of the few who feel that Costas is less a preppy, New Yorker-type elitist than just a very solid, intelligent and objective studio host. Costas would be my choice to take charge.
Collinsworth is a must, as he would play the Kenny Smith-role: a former player who has connections everywhere and is funny and hip enough to relate to old and young audiences alike.
Some might pick Bettis as the outgoing, charming player who would fill the Charles Barkley role, but I'd go with Barber. He is superior at expressing his thoughts and I feel he has a smaller chance of falling into the Tim Hardaway/Emmitt Smith trap than does Bettis. Barber could take a course in growing some balls and lightening up, but I'd give him a chance with Costas and Collinsworth.
If nothing else, you would at least have a smart triumvirate of broadcasters who won't embarrass themselves. Sometimes, that's better than going for a home run with "funny" guys who aren't funny.
Lastly, King could play the "insider" role incredibly well, and he has a personality to go with his great football insight and Rolodex-like knowledge of the NFL.
Bob Costas, Cris Collinsworth, Tiki Barber and (occasionally) Peter King. That's the group NBC should go to battle with every Sunday. And that's the group I would actually spend my time watching instead of what I do now when "Football Night America" comes on: anything else.
Although FOX (Howie Long, Terry Bradshaw, Jimmy Johnson) and CBS (Dan Marino, Boomer Esiason, Shannon Sharpe) have held steady with their studio cores, each has added another member (Michael Strahan on FOX, Bill Cowher on CBS) to their sets in the last two years. Instead of the idea of more great football minds contributing to a higher amount of football intellectualism, all viewers seem to get is a discombobulated and incohesive group of individuals.
NBC has taken this to another level by housing seven (I think) people on their "Football Night America" set on Sundays. The fact that I literally had to count on my fingers the number of guys on the set indicates how overwhelming the show can be. There are three "football" guys (Cris Collinsworth, Jerome Bettis, Tiki Barber) and four "media" guys (Bob Costas, Dan Patrick, Keith Olberman, Peter King), although King plays more of the "insider" role while Collinsworth can cross over into the "media" and "insider" roles himself.
Costas is supposed to be the primary host of the show while DP and KO bring back memories of their fantastic ESPN days by co-hosting game highlights packages. They're all in different rooms, on different sets, with different opinions (and sometimes the same) on different topics. It's mind-numbingly awful television. There is no rhythm, no chemistry, no sense that these guys would actually hang out off of the set. So, I have an idea to break up this seven-man crew. Style it after TNT's "Inside The NBA," which offers a three-man set which sometimes expands to four.
First, pick a host. I would drop Olberman out of contention since he is a blithering, self-indulgant smart-ass. Patrick is a great choice, although I've found him to be immensely funnier and more personable as a radio voice than a studio host. I'm probably one of the few who feel that Costas is less a preppy, New Yorker-type elitist than just a very solid, intelligent and objective studio host. Costas would be my choice to take charge.
Collinsworth is a must, as he would play the Kenny Smith-role: a former player who has connections everywhere and is funny and hip enough to relate to old and young audiences alike.
Some might pick Bettis as the outgoing, charming player who would fill the Charles Barkley role, but I'd go with Barber. He is superior at expressing his thoughts and I feel he has a smaller chance of falling into the Tim Hardaway/Emmitt Smith trap than does Bettis. Barber could take a course in growing some balls and lightening up, but I'd give him a chance with Costas and Collinsworth.
If nothing else, you would at least have a smart triumvirate of broadcasters who won't embarrass themselves. Sometimes, that's better than going for a home run with "funny" guys who aren't funny.
Lastly, King could play the "insider" role incredibly well, and he has a personality to go with his great football insight and Rolodex-like knowledge of the NFL.
Bob Costas, Cris Collinsworth, Tiki Barber and (occasionally) Peter King. That's the group NBC should go to battle with every Sunday. And that's the group I would actually spend my time watching instead of what I do now when "Football Night America" comes on: anything else.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Catching up with Random Thoughts
I'm beginning to find out how time-consuming Life can be, even moreso than College. I thought I had no time to do everything I wanted in College, but Life moves just as quickly. Maybe I should call it ACL (After-College Life). Or PCL (Post-College Life). Anything acronym that sounds like a knee ligament should work. Anyway, random thoughts, some of which I will try to detail in greater depth sometime this week...
The Dodgers are in the NLCS!!! For the first time since that magical year of 1988!! It's been an up-and-down year for me as a sports fan, with UCLA reaching the Final Four for the third straight year (yet going home without a ring), the Lakers reaching the Finals again (yet losing to the Celtics, an agonizing defeat that finally linked my generation of Lakers fans to previous generations) and now the Dodgers are four wins away from the World Series. Of course, in a year filled with the Pats-Giants Super Bowl, Tiger winning the U.S. Open in five days on a torn knee, Chalmers sending a great college basketball final into overtime, a Lakers/Celtics NBA Finals match, the Federer/Nadal Wimbledon final, the Rays making a postseason run, Sabathia in Milwaukee/Manny in Los Angeles, AND a Summer Olympics highlighted by Phelps winning eight Golds and the U.S. regaining its basketball superiority culminating in a C-L-A-S-S-I-C Gold Medal match that started at 2:30 in the morning on the East Coast, there is only so much we as sports fans can bitch and moan about...
Lamar Odom at point guard. Wrong offensive system, but nice thought...
Reason No. 5,423 why fantasy football sucks. DeAngelo Williams finally pulls a three-touchdown game out of his ass, just when fantasy owners least expect it. Jonathan Steward had all but wrapped up the sole starting role, but now Williams has reached back and re-gained fantasy relevance. How can fantasy owners ever predict what will happen in football?...
Carson Palmer is throwing like his sister...
Why do so many USC offensive players from the Pete Carroll Era flame out in the NFL? Palmer, Leinart, Reggie Bush, LenDale White, Mike Williams, Dwayne Jarrett. Those are six powerhouse collegiate players from the last few years, but they have been disappointing to terrible in their NFL careers...
The Dodgers are in the NLCS!!! For the first time since that magical year of 1988!! It's been an up-and-down year for me as a sports fan, with UCLA reaching the Final Four for the third straight year (yet going home without a ring), the Lakers reaching the Finals again (yet losing to the Celtics, an agonizing defeat that finally linked my generation of Lakers fans to previous generations) and now the Dodgers are four wins away from the World Series. Of course, in a year filled with the Pats-Giants Super Bowl, Tiger winning the U.S. Open in five days on a torn knee, Chalmers sending a great college basketball final into overtime, a Lakers/Celtics NBA Finals match, the Federer/Nadal Wimbledon final, the Rays making a postseason run, Sabathia in Milwaukee/Manny in Los Angeles, AND a Summer Olympics highlighted by Phelps winning eight Golds and the U.S. regaining its basketball superiority culminating in a C-L-A-S-S-I-C Gold Medal match that started at 2:30 in the morning on the East Coast, there is only so much we as sports fans can bitch and moan about...
Lamar Odom at point guard. Wrong offensive system, but nice thought...
Reason No. 5,423 why fantasy football sucks. DeAngelo Williams finally pulls a three-touchdown game out of his ass, just when fantasy owners least expect it. Jonathan Steward had all but wrapped up the sole starting role, but now Williams has reached back and re-gained fantasy relevance. How can fantasy owners ever predict what will happen in football?...
Carson Palmer is throwing like his sister...
Why do so many USC offensive players from the Pete Carroll Era flame out in the NFL? Palmer, Leinart, Reggie Bush, LenDale White, Mike Williams, Dwayne Jarrett. Those are six powerhouse collegiate players from the last few years, but they have been disappointing to terrible in their NFL careers...
Friday, October 3, 2008
Plans for the weekend
Writing, writing, writing on this. What a hectic week, but I have a plethora of topics in my head which need to be squeezed out through my fingers and onto this blog. That didn't make sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)