Oh that's easy. The Jets collapse makes me giggle much more. Watching those blowhards crumble under their enormous coach and his big mouth is pure bliss to a Patriots fan.
The funny thing to me is that everyone, including the Jets themselves seems surprised. Why? This is how good they are. They were this good two years ago and made a miracle run to the AFC Championship game. They were MAYBE slightly better last year and made another miracle run to the AFC Championship game. It's like nobody actually watched them play, they just saw the results and said, "Wowee the Jets made it that far? They must be really good!"
Well they're not, 8-8 is good for this team...and that makes me giggle.
Kobe on the other hand...
To use the technical term this might be the most 'butt-rapey' divorce settlement in history. Even Tiger Woods is going to say, "Wow that guy got hosed." This doesn't make me giggle so much as it baffles me.
Who is Kobe's lawyer? How (how, how, howwwwwwww) do you let him not have a pre-nup especially when there's enough evidence to assume that he's screwing around? He should fire everyone that ever gave him advice on his legal and financial affairs.
The wife's lawyer is going to quote THIS (starting at around :55) throughout the entire proceeding...
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
The December Question
Speaking of the abbreviated basketball season, what effect do you think a December start could have on the regular season play and the playoff picture? Will top players play harder before the post-season? Will coaches treat aching players more gingerly since they won't have as much time to recover from potential injury?
I guess I kind of answered this in the previous post regarding the Celtics but will talk more generally here.
I think the shortened season will have a generally negative effect on the regular season in terms of level of play with some exceptions. Teams like the Celtics that are in all likelihood going to make the playoffs comfortably, have played with each other for a long time, and are somewhat older are almost certainly going to play a less intense brand of basketball during the regular season than they would during a normal season. (See what I said about the condensed scheduling in the previous post.) There will definitely be a lot of guys sitting out with 'sore backs' and other vague ailments that cannot be proven or disproved at the end of long road trips and back-to-backs.
The marquee games will still be entertaining but in general I think we're going to see an even greater reduction in effort at the top than normal. However, there are some teams that have a lot to prove and need to develop chemistry on the fly after a non-existent training camp and the addition of new personnel. The Clippers are an obvious example. For the first time in the history of that franchise they have the opportunity to be the biggest draw in L.A.. They cannot afford to mortgage that chance for rested legs, especially since they are such a young team. They need to play hard every night and their many bandwagon-jumping fans will demand to see Paul and Griffin for big minutes in every game. It's not often that the little brother has the chance to usurp big brother's status but this is one.
Through these first few weeks you're also going to find out who actually worked out during the extended off season and who sat around eating Ho-Ho's. When guys start dropping like flies due to overuse/impact injuries you'll know who slept in and skipped those couple of extra days at the gym. This attrition might have a larger than expected impact on the season going forward. I'd be willing to bet that at least one contending team will be ravaged by injuries brought on by their players being out of shape or wearing down faster than usual.
As for the playoffs I think you'll see a shuffling of the usual order in terms of seeding to some degree. Teams like the Celtics will not be able to go all out every night to try to get one of the top seeds in the East, nor do they need to. I think this will lead to a lot of early round 'upsets' (in seed only, not who's actually better) as good teams try to ease into the season and enter the playoffs healthy while mediocre teams go for it from the start and end up with a seed that does not reflect their actual quality. With some exceptions I see this balancing out once the post-season starts. As is normally the case, effort will go up and the better teams will emerge, even if they had unimpressive regular seasons.
In my opinion this season, for all its uniqueness and differences will look much like other seasons in retrospect. Teams will give half-hearted efforts during the first three quarters of games and then turn it on in the fourth. Older teams will get banged up and have to rest guys to make playoff runs. Young teams will run some teams into the ground during the regular season but crash and burn when the grind-it-out playoffs start and people start trying on defense.
It's still the NBA after all...
I guess I kind of answered this in the previous post regarding the Celtics but will talk more generally here.
I think the shortened season will have a generally negative effect on the regular season in terms of level of play with some exceptions. Teams like the Celtics that are in all likelihood going to make the playoffs comfortably, have played with each other for a long time, and are somewhat older are almost certainly going to play a less intense brand of basketball during the regular season than they would during a normal season. (See what I said about the condensed scheduling in the previous post.) There will definitely be a lot of guys sitting out with 'sore backs' and other vague ailments that cannot be proven or disproved at the end of long road trips and back-to-backs.
The marquee games will still be entertaining but in general I think we're going to see an even greater reduction in effort at the top than normal. However, there are some teams that have a lot to prove and need to develop chemistry on the fly after a non-existent training camp and the addition of new personnel. The Clippers are an obvious example. For the first time in the history of that franchise they have the opportunity to be the biggest draw in L.A.. They cannot afford to mortgage that chance for rested legs, especially since they are such a young team. They need to play hard every night and their many bandwagon-jumping fans will demand to see Paul and Griffin for big minutes in every game. It's not often that the little brother has the chance to usurp big brother's status but this is one.
Through these first few weeks you're also going to find out who actually worked out during the extended off season and who sat around eating Ho-Ho's. When guys start dropping like flies due to overuse/impact injuries you'll know who slept in and skipped those couple of extra days at the gym. This attrition might have a larger than expected impact on the season going forward. I'd be willing to bet that at least one contending team will be ravaged by injuries brought on by their players being out of shape or wearing down faster than usual.
As for the playoffs I think you'll see a shuffling of the usual order in terms of seeding to some degree. Teams like the Celtics will not be able to go all out every night to try to get one of the top seeds in the East, nor do they need to. I think this will lead to a lot of early round 'upsets' (in seed only, not who's actually better) as good teams try to ease into the season and enter the playoffs healthy while mediocre teams go for it from the start and end up with a seed that does not reflect their actual quality. With some exceptions I see this balancing out once the post-season starts. As is normally the case, effort will go up and the better teams will emerge, even if they had unimpressive regular seasons.
In my opinion this season, for all its uniqueness and differences will look much like other seasons in retrospect. Teams will give half-hearted efforts during the first three quarters of games and then turn it on in the fourth. Older teams will get banged up and have to rest guys to make playoff runs. Young teams will run some teams into the ground during the regular season but crash and burn when the grind-it-out playoffs start and people start trying on defense.
It's still the NBA after all...
The Big-3's Question
I'm seeing "Big 3"s popping up all over the place....and I can't help but notice that those 3's are a lot younger/faster than Pierce/Allen/Garnett. What do the Celtics need to do to be competitive this (short) season?
The Celtics are in big trouble.
Unfortunately I think the positive impact of the shortened season on an older team like Boston has been somewhat exaggerated and it does not mask a multitude of other problems they will need to overcome.
First, 66 games is still a lot of games for old legs. It's not as though the entire Celtics roster was healthy last season with the exception of the final 16 games. If the season were 35 games I would see a huge impact for this team but 66 games is still plenty of time to wear down battered knees.
Perhaps more damaging than an 82 game regular season will be the unique scheduling requirements of this season. In order to squeeze in 66 games teams will have to play far more back-to-backs and other challenging game sequences that will force coaches of older teams to make roster decisions that may result in tanking games to save legs.
Take the Celtics schedule starting next week:
That's 10 games in 16 days including three back-to-backs. They start February with seven games in 12 days and March with seven games in 11 days. I just don't believe that the wear-down on their older players is going to be much less than a full season given the condensed scheduling.
Still, if they were the same team from '09-'10 and '10-'11 I would still feel fairly confident about a deep playoff run... But they're not. Not even close.
Last year at this time their starting center was Kendrick Perkins, not my favorite Celtic by any means but a serviceable NBA player. Last night their starting center was Greg Stiemsma. (Don't even ask me how to pronounce it...) They were rejected by Chris Paul and David West this off season (players that ended up with the Clippers and Pacers respectively, ouch). Brandon Bass is probably their best reserve player, but really he's their 5th starter because they don't have a center. Jermaine O'Neal and Marquis Daniels are now playing roles that are both a step or two forward on the depth chart than they were last year and neither is measurably better and O'Neal is probably worse.
It's not all doom and gloom, their first four (Big 3 + Rondo) are still as good as any in the league, but their second unit is going to get demolished and unfortunately regardless of that demolition they're going to have to play big minutes as a result of the scheduling.
So here's how I see this playing out in the best case scenario. After the schedule was released Rivers sat down with the Big 3 and the coaching staff and they picked games to cross off from the start as acceptable L's. For example this month they play on the 4th, 6th, 11th, 13th, and then on the 14th (after a home game the night before) they travel to Indiana to play a young athletic Pacers team on the road. This is probably going to be a loss anyway so they'll put KG (and/or any other banged up veteran) in street clothes and play a deeper rotation. Obviously the players they put out there will try to win but if they lose it's alright, it's part of the plan.
In the East, with a 66 game season, they need to probably go a few games over .500 to stay in the top half of the playoff standings and be able have home court in the first round. I think the idea will be to do just enough to land that seed and to be as fresh as possible even if it means losing a few road games at the end of a game-off-game-game stretch 'by accident'.
I would love to see them make roster moves to improve their depth and their size but unless it comes via trade it's going to be very difficult. They don't have any cap space to sign one of the guys stuck in China and as I said they already got shot down by two of the premier players that were 'available' (ish) during the off season.
But if we're being realistic it's not going to matter this time. They had their chance to beat the Heat last year and unfortunately I don't think that chance is coming around again...
The Celtics are in big trouble.
Unfortunately I think the positive impact of the shortened season on an older team like Boston has been somewhat exaggerated and it does not mask a multitude of other problems they will need to overcome.
First, 66 games is still a lot of games for old legs. It's not as though the entire Celtics roster was healthy last season with the exception of the final 16 games. If the season were 35 games I would see a huge impact for this team but 66 games is still plenty of time to wear down battered knees.
Perhaps more damaging than an 82 game regular season will be the unique scheduling requirements of this season. In order to squeeze in 66 games teams will have to play far more back-to-backs and other challenging game sequences that will force coaches of older teams to make roster decisions that may result in tanking games to save legs.
Take the Celtics schedule starting next week:
| Wed 11 | vs Dallas  |
| Fri 13 | vs Chicago |
| Sat 14 | @ Indiana |
| Mon 16 | vs Oklahoma City |
| Wed 18 | vs Toronto |
| Fri 20 | vs Phoenix |
| Sun 22 | @ Washington |
| Mon 23 | vs Orlando |
| Thu 26 | @ Orlando |
| Fri 27 | vs Indiana |
That's 10 games in 16 days including three back-to-backs. They start February with seven games in 12 days and March with seven games in 11 days. I just don't believe that the wear-down on their older players is going to be much less than a full season given the condensed scheduling.
Still, if they were the same team from '09-'10 and '10-'11 I would still feel fairly confident about a deep playoff run... But they're not. Not even close.
Last year at this time their starting center was Kendrick Perkins, not my favorite Celtic by any means but a serviceable NBA player. Last night their starting center was Greg Stiemsma. (Don't even ask me how to pronounce it...) They were rejected by Chris Paul and David West this off season (players that ended up with the Clippers and Pacers respectively, ouch). Brandon Bass is probably their best reserve player, but really he's their 5th starter because they don't have a center. Jermaine O'Neal and Marquis Daniels are now playing roles that are both a step or two forward on the depth chart than they were last year and neither is measurably better and O'Neal is probably worse.
It's not all doom and gloom, their first four (Big 3 + Rondo) are still as good as any in the league, but their second unit is going to get demolished and unfortunately regardless of that demolition they're going to have to play big minutes as a result of the scheduling.
So here's how I see this playing out in the best case scenario. After the schedule was released Rivers sat down with the Big 3 and the coaching staff and they picked games to cross off from the start as acceptable L's. For example this month they play on the 4th, 6th, 11th, 13th, and then on the 14th (after a home game the night before) they travel to Indiana to play a young athletic Pacers team on the road. This is probably going to be a loss anyway so they'll put KG (and/or any other banged up veteran) in street clothes and play a deeper rotation. Obviously the players they put out there will try to win but if they lose it's alright, it's part of the plan.
In the East, with a 66 game season, they need to probably go a few games over .500 to stay in the top half of the playoff standings and be able have home court in the first round. I think the idea will be to do just enough to land that seed and to be as fresh as possible even if it means losing a few road games at the end of a game-off-game-game stretch 'by accident'.
I would love to see them make roster moves to improve their depth and their size but unless it comes via trade it's going to be very difficult. They don't have any cap space to sign one of the guys stuck in China and as I said they already got shot down by two of the premier players that were 'available' (ish) during the off season.
But if we're being realistic it's not going to matter this time. They had their chance to beat the Heat last year and unfortunately I don't think that chance is coming around again...
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Question Below
Do you think Indy's win over Tennessee (and any subsequent win) will be enough to save Caldwell's job? Was that job in jeopardy to begin with? Why or why not?
I don't think that Caldwell's job was ever in jeopardy, although it should be. In a strange twist the injury to Peyton Manning may have actually saved him for a year or even two. Logically, most fans and observers are assuming that the Colts are the worst team in football only because they lost Manning, I say that's just impossible.
(Now, to be fair I should disclaim that I am quite possibly the biggest Manning hater in the world. I can't stand anything that guy does and I think he's such a phony, pompous, media darling that actually chokes puppies and abuses his teammates when the cameras aren't rolling...)
Anyway, I say again, that's impossible. There is no way Manning makes up 10 wins himself. Everyone forgets, they weren't very good last year. They struggled to get to 10-6 and didn't do much to improve in the off-season. Everyone has reacted to this Colts season based on two faulty lines of thought. First, that this was still the Colts team of '05-'09 when they had one of the best offenses in football, it's not. Marvin Harrison isn't walking through that door and if he does he'll probably have a gun in his hand.
Second, people have such a selective memory about Manning that they forget that he wasn't particularly dominant last year. For some reason the media and some fans put the blinders on about this guy. He had 17 interceptions in 2010 against 33 touchdowns. Tom Brady had 36 touchdowns against only four interceptions. Aaron Rodgers had 28 and 11. Brady, Rodgers, Vick, and Roethlisberger all had QB ratings over 100, Manning's rating was just north of 90. Hall-of-Fame names like Schaub, Rivers, Flacco, and Freeman all had markedly better seasons than Manning in '10 in terms of QB rating, touchdown to interception ratio, and efficiency. Taking the 11th best quarterback (no joke check it out) in the NFL off of the Colts did not make them a one win team. I'm not suggesting that they wouldn't have been better with him, but there is very little chance that team makes the playoffs even with a healthy Manning.
Luckily for Caldwell hardly anyone agrees with me. He's going to get a completely free pass for this season from the fans and the media. Then when the Colts trade Manning to the Cowboys or 49ers next year so they can start Luck right away he will get another free pass because of his rookie QB.
So, with a healthy Manning and an 8-8 record Caldwell would probably be on a very hot seat right now, but because of the injury and the resultant zero-expectations his team is going to win one or two games and he'll be completely safe. And it's all because of selective memory and a gross distortion of Manning's value and the quality of the Colts team as a whole.
I don't think that Caldwell's job was ever in jeopardy, although it should be. In a strange twist the injury to Peyton Manning may have actually saved him for a year or even two. Logically, most fans and observers are assuming that the Colts are the worst team in football only because they lost Manning, I say that's just impossible.
(Now, to be fair I should disclaim that I am quite possibly the biggest Manning hater in the world. I can't stand anything that guy does and I think he's such a phony, pompous, media darling that actually chokes puppies and abuses his teammates when the cameras aren't rolling...)
Anyway, I say again, that's impossible. There is no way Manning makes up 10 wins himself. Everyone forgets, they weren't very good last year. They struggled to get to 10-6 and didn't do much to improve in the off-season. Everyone has reacted to this Colts season based on two faulty lines of thought. First, that this was still the Colts team of '05-'09 when they had one of the best offenses in football, it's not. Marvin Harrison isn't walking through that door and if he does he'll probably have a gun in his hand.
Second, people have such a selective memory about Manning that they forget that he wasn't particularly dominant last year. For some reason the media and some fans put the blinders on about this guy. He had 17 interceptions in 2010 against 33 touchdowns. Tom Brady had 36 touchdowns against only four interceptions. Aaron Rodgers had 28 and 11. Brady, Rodgers, Vick, and Roethlisberger all had QB ratings over 100, Manning's rating was just north of 90. Hall-of-Fame names like Schaub, Rivers, Flacco, and Freeman all had markedly better seasons than Manning in '10 in terms of QB rating, touchdown to interception ratio, and efficiency. Taking the 11th best quarterback (no joke check it out) in the NFL off of the Colts did not make them a one win team. I'm not suggesting that they wouldn't have been better with him, but there is very little chance that team makes the playoffs even with a healthy Manning.
Luckily for Caldwell hardly anyone agrees with me. He's going to get a completely free pass for this season from the fans and the media. Then when the Colts trade Manning to the Cowboys or 49ers next year so they can start Luck right away he will get another free pass because of his rookie QB.
So, with a healthy Manning and an 8-8 record Caldwell would probably be on a very hot seat right now, but because of the injury and the resultant zero-expectations his team is going to win one or two games and he'll be completely safe. And it's all because of selective memory and a gross distortion of Manning's value and the quality of the Colts team as a whole.
Friday, December 16, 2011
If you were to put together a Jeter-style "thanks for riding" gift bag for your one-night-only lady friends, what would be in it?
Three cards. It could all fit in an envelope.
1. A comment/feedback card (because everyone could use improvement).
2. A Starbucks gift card that may or may not have any money on it.
3. The D-Man's business card.
1. A comment/feedback card (because everyone could use improvement).
2. A Starbucks gift card that may or may not have any money on it.
3. The D-Man's business card.
Do you think the Pats will be able to freeze Tebow Time?
I had this conversation last night...
The short answer is yes, I think the Patriots will win on Sunday and put the Tebow mania on hold for a week.
However, I'm scared. I feel about this game the way I feel when they play the Jets. I know the Patriots are better and I know that they should win. But I'm not convinced that they will. And it's compounded by how badly I want them to stomp the Broncos and shut-up Tebow's Bible thumping minions for a few days.
The problem is that right now New England's defense is really good at making opposing quarterbacks looks good. Rex Grossman went up and down the field on them last week and made it look easy. Without a lucky bounce on the last possession that game is probably headed to overtime. Tebow isn't as good as Grossman but he doesn't need to be because Denver's defense is much better than Washington's.
I know everyone thinks the Patriots are going to come out and put their foot down right from kickoff, and I hope they're right. I'm just not convinced that they can get enough stops to build the huge lead that it would take for me to be comfortable in the fourth quarter. If it comes down to Tebow-time it's going to be one stressful scene in Bar 96... I'll take Brady-time over Tebow-time every day of the week and twice on Sunday, but still it's hard to game plan for magic and fairy dust which is what the Broncos have seemingly been winning on.
On a slight aside I think this game will actually be a good test for Tebow. If he can't move the ball for three quarters against the putrid Patriots defense then he just isn't any good. EVERYONE has been gashing this defense, particularly through the air. You have to figure the Pats are going to do everything they can to make him throw it (surprisingly their rush defense is not nearly as bad as their pass defense) and if he struggles it will go a long way towards proving his ultimate ineptitude. If he has some success, like I think he will, it will fuel his blind devotees even more but I really don't care as long as the Patriots come home from Denver at 11-3.
The short answer is yes, I think the Patriots will win on Sunday and put the Tebow mania on hold for a week.
However, I'm scared. I feel about this game the way I feel when they play the Jets. I know the Patriots are better and I know that they should win. But I'm not convinced that they will. And it's compounded by how badly I want them to stomp the Broncos and shut-up Tebow's Bible thumping minions for a few days.
The problem is that right now New England's defense is really good at making opposing quarterbacks looks good. Rex Grossman went up and down the field on them last week and made it look easy. Without a lucky bounce on the last possession that game is probably headed to overtime. Tebow isn't as good as Grossman but he doesn't need to be because Denver's defense is much better than Washington's.
I know everyone thinks the Patriots are going to come out and put their foot down right from kickoff, and I hope they're right. I'm just not convinced that they can get enough stops to build the huge lead that it would take for me to be comfortable in the fourth quarter. If it comes down to Tebow-time it's going to be one stressful scene in Bar 96... I'll take Brady-time over Tebow-time every day of the week and twice on Sunday, but still it's hard to game plan for magic and fairy dust which is what the Broncos have seemingly been winning on.
On a slight aside I think this game will actually be a good test for Tebow. If he can't move the ball for three quarters against the putrid Patriots defense then he just isn't any good. EVERYONE has been gashing this defense, particularly through the air. You have to figure the Pats are going to do everything they can to make him throw it (surprisingly their rush defense is not nearly as bad as their pass defense) and if he struggles it will go a long way towards proving his ultimate ineptitude. If he has some success, like I think he will, it will fuel his blind devotees even more but I really don't care as long as the Patriots come home from Denver at 11-3.
If you're Chris Paul, what is your reaction to being the NBA ownership's PDA (public display of authority)?
Chris Paul comes out of this with an interesting legacy. In practical terms he was barely involved. He may have requested to be traded from New Orleans but that was totally superfluous, he was on his way out of there regardless and everyone knew it. This has really been a story about Stern, the owners, and why it's a terrible idea for a league to collectively own a team. On the other hand, Paul's name was the headline on all the coverage and he's inextricable from what happened, whether he did anything to deserve it or not.
He's also now unavoidably connected to the lockout, in fact he is probably now the third face of it with Stern and Billy Hunter. One side will see his case as proof that the lockout worked and that the owners reasserted some power. The other side will see it as proof of the opposite and that the commissioner's time in the captain's chair is running out. Both sides are at least half right. When the book about the last six months in the NBA's history is written the final chapter will likely be about the CP3 saga and how the league went completely off the tracks for two weeks trying to prove...something.
To answer your question about how he feels about it I can only assume that he's thrilled with the result but not the process. While I'm sure that he felt like a very well-paid piece of rope being used for the tug-of-war between the teams and the league this has actually ended up being a lot of free publicity for Paul and the Clippers.
Unless CP3 is a total idiot he had to know that trade talks starting the same day the new CBA was signed were bound to draw some negative attention. I'm sure he didn't expect the rain of nonsense that ultimately resulted, but he had to expect some backlash. When it all started spiraling he probably thought that he was going to be stuck in New Orleans or end up in a similarly small market under league mandate for this season. That, along with the label (fair or not) of discontented superstar could not have made him very happy. But now let's look at the results.
First, he's out of New Orleans, which is exactly what he wanted. Win.
Second, he's in L.A., which is a huge market and an awesome city in which to be young and rich. Win.
Third, he's not on the Lakers, which means he doesn't have to play with Kobe, hear all the talk about whether they can coexist, and try to win on a team with no big-men. Oh and as an added bonus the rest of the basketball world doesn't automatically hate him for appearing to force his way to such a loath-able team. He and Kobe together would have had a Miami Heat-sized target on their back. Win.
Lastly, he got paid. Who doesn't want that?
I'm sure if you gave him the choice he would rather have not been the test subject for the new CBA and for Stern's declining influence and authority. However, you can't say that he's a loser in this deal and I'm sure he's pretty happy with it now that it's done.
He's also now unavoidably connected to the lockout, in fact he is probably now the third face of it with Stern and Billy Hunter. One side will see his case as proof that the lockout worked and that the owners reasserted some power. The other side will see it as proof of the opposite and that the commissioner's time in the captain's chair is running out. Both sides are at least half right. When the book about the last six months in the NBA's history is written the final chapter will likely be about the CP3 saga and how the league went completely off the tracks for two weeks trying to prove...something.
To answer your question about how he feels about it I can only assume that he's thrilled with the result but not the process. While I'm sure that he felt like a very well-paid piece of rope being used for the tug-of-war between the teams and the league this has actually ended up being a lot of free publicity for Paul and the Clippers.
Unless CP3 is a total idiot he had to know that trade talks starting the same day the new CBA was signed were bound to draw some negative attention. I'm sure he didn't expect the rain of nonsense that ultimately resulted, but he had to expect some backlash. When it all started spiraling he probably thought that he was going to be stuck in New Orleans or end up in a similarly small market under league mandate for this season. That, along with the label (fair or not) of discontented superstar could not have made him very happy. But now let's look at the results.
First, he's out of New Orleans, which is exactly what he wanted. Win.
Second, he's in L.A., which is a huge market and an awesome city in which to be young and rich. Win.
Third, he's not on the Lakers, which means he doesn't have to play with Kobe, hear all the talk about whether they can coexist, and try to win on a team with no big-men. Oh and as an added bonus the rest of the basketball world doesn't automatically hate him for appearing to force his way to such a loath-able team. He and Kobe together would have had a Miami Heat-sized target on their back. Win.
Lastly, he got paid. Who doesn't want that?
I'm sure if you gave him the choice he would rather have not been the test subject for the new CBA and for Stern's declining influence and authority. However, you can't say that he's a loser in this deal and I'm sure he's pretty happy with it now that it's done.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
What the hell is going on with the CP3 trade attempts?
There are so many possibilities and opinions on this circus that it may become the subject of a book someday. "The Trading of Chris Paul and the Pointless Lockout" or "When David Stern's Dementia Became Obvious: A Laker Executive's Memoir". But here's my take.
The biggest wrenches in this situation are perception and timing. In some minds, the NBA was locked out for five months was as a direct result of what Lebron and more importantly Carmelo Anthony did last year. You can talk all you want about splitting revenues, sign and trade restrictions, and contract length. All of those terms and considerations gloss over one primary concern: power.
Without getting into too much boring detail here, David Stern and the NBA made the decision years ago to market the league based on its stars, rather than its franchises. It's a game where success and failure can literally be determined by one player, (ask Cleveland) and so using the stars as the vehicle to sell the league made (and still makes) sense. You don't hear promotions for the Knicks against the Hornets on ESPN, you hear about CP3 against Melo etc. etc.
By doing this in the 90's (Jordan, Barkley, Malone, the tail end of Bird etc.) and now (Lebron, Kobe, Melo, Howard, CP3, etc.) the NBA has achieved its highest levels of success ever (granted there was a huge post-Jordan talent vacuum in between). But it's a level of success that comes at a cost. A player that can win games single handed, sell tickets by showing up, and command millions in endorsements is no longer a pawn, no longer an employee in the traditional sense. It would be more accurate to refer to him as a limited partner, but one whose income is tied only to his own performance in the long-term, not on a nightly basis.
Which leads to a shifting in power. Players still can't pay their own salaries, build their own arenas, or fill their own rosters (yet). But in a media hungry world where fans crave unprecedented access and coverage of their favorite athletes, players can shape their own messages and wield considerable leverage. All it takes is star tweeting that he wants to play in New York and the rumors start. Every time he misses a clutch shot he's tanking to get traded. If he's on the bench more than usual the coach is tired of his whining about wanting to get out of town. When they lose he answers questions about his trade demands and when they win...he answers questions about his trade demands. It's a cycle that impacts everyone, including the owners.
People tend to see what they want to see or what they fear they will see. So imagine you are an owner of an NBA franchise and your star player who is up for free agency at the end of the year (or two) comes out and demands a trade. You know from past experience (watching other gazillionaire white guys deal with it) that once this happens performance often starts to decline along with attitude. Now the owner is hyper-sensitive to anything that even looks like petulance or pouting so he sees it in every missed free-throw, every blown defensive assignment, and every disagreement with a coach. It doesn't take long before the owner (or the GM) says, "Enough!" and trades the player for $0.75 on the dollar to, "get something for him."
With the new CBA (and even prior to it) players are perhaps even more motivated to make these trades happen during the final season of their current contracts through a sign and trade. The reason is simply financial, they are allowed to sign longer extensions with their current teams prior to being moved than they would be allowed to sign with their new teams after the trade. Some look at it as win-win. The player gets a longer deal and and the owner and his franchise get something for a player that was going to leave for nothing anyway. Nobody wants to be the next Cleveland.
This idea that a player (an "employee") could determine his own trade destination, was such a sticking point for the owners that they were willing to lock the players out and miss nearly 20 games each to stop it. Not all the owners of course, but most (and the ones who benefit from this type of movement sat very quietly hoping nobody would notice them when this came up). It's not the money, it's not even that players want to leave for greener pastures, it's the power that the media and enlarged player personalities can generate and its ability to erode the power of ownership. It's not a surprise that many stars eventually end up playing in big markets, the problem is that there is a developing perception around the league that they can decide to force their way there whenever they feel like it or whenever one of their friends signs there.
So rewind to three weeks ago with that long-winded back story. The lockout, that was supposed to regulate player movement and restore power to ownership, has been over for 3.5 seconds. What are the first stories that come out? "Where are Chis Paul and Dwight Howard going to end up?" You can't blame the owners for saying, "...wait...we just lost millions in an ugly and public CBA battle to change...nothing? Superstars can still force their way out of small markets whenever they feel like it? Oh heeeelllll no! ... Oh and by the way we own the damn team so why are we going to screw ourselves over by making the Lakers better?"
When the first trade proposal sending Paul to the Lakers came through it seemed like most observers' reactions were, "Already?" But many owners reactions more closely resembled, "GVOISNDBEO#$*&@@!!!!! LKVNEOIVNEO#$*!&@!!!!!!" Which roughly translates to, "You have to be fucking kidding me, I'm going to kill one of my lawn guys for sport this afternoon."
Which probably would have happened, but luckily for at least 29 lawn guys there was yet another wrinkle here which almost never happens...
All the owners were together in the same place... Because they had JUST signed the new CBA, that was going to prevent this type of player leverage, at the NBA offices in New York. It had been approved and announced a few days earlier but not actually signed. Had the trade been approved by the teams even three hours later CP3 probably ends up a Laker... But it didn't. So these arrogant rich guys got to sit in a room together and stew, and vent, and rage, and ultimately concoct an argument for Stern that probably went something like this...
Owners: We're going to kill you.
Stern: Agghhhh!
Owners: WE own the Hornets!? WHY did WE trade one of the best players in the league to the Lakers... Sorry Mr. Buss.
Stern: Mmm?
Owners: We're going to kill you.
Stern: Agghhh!! No, kill another lawn guy for chrissakes, I'll cancel the deal.
So he did, and now the league finds itself embroiled in quite possibly the most awkward conflict of interest in the history of sports.
They collectively own a franchise that has an unbelievably valuable commodity in Chris Paul that is going to be playing somewhere else at the end of the season, one way or another. They just locked out their own businesses in part to stop small market teams, like New Orleans, from being pressured into trading unhappy superstars to larger markets, like LA. If they trade him on the same day that the agreement is signed they're essentially saying that the lockout was for nothing and they get the added benefit of looking completely impotent or incompetent (take your pick). If they don't trade him the franchise that they own collectively might go under before someone can buy it from them AND Paul is leaving anyway. And not to mention that one of these owners has to sign off on trading for Paul while collectively agreeing to trade him to himself. Conflict. Of. Interest.
So to sum up this extremely long winded argument the problem with the attempts to trade Paul are:
1. The timing was horrible. The first act the league completes after a five month lockout in part due to unrestrained player movement cannot be an apparently unrestrained move by a player.
2. The league cannot have the perception, true or false, that they sold a marquee player from a small market to a large one. Again, why did we have a lockout?
Perception and timing.
What's the solution?
Umm... there isn't one.
Unless of course they want to trade him to the Celtics...
The biggest wrenches in this situation are perception and timing. In some minds, the NBA was locked out for five months was as a direct result of what Lebron and more importantly Carmelo Anthony did last year. You can talk all you want about splitting revenues, sign and trade restrictions, and contract length. All of those terms and considerations gloss over one primary concern: power.
Without getting into too much boring detail here, David Stern and the NBA made the decision years ago to market the league based on its stars, rather than its franchises. It's a game where success and failure can literally be determined by one player, (ask Cleveland) and so using the stars as the vehicle to sell the league made (and still makes) sense. You don't hear promotions for the Knicks against the Hornets on ESPN, you hear about CP3 against Melo etc. etc.
By doing this in the 90's (Jordan, Barkley, Malone, the tail end of Bird etc.) and now (Lebron, Kobe, Melo, Howard, CP3, etc.) the NBA has achieved its highest levels of success ever (granted there was a huge post-Jordan talent vacuum in between). But it's a level of success that comes at a cost. A player that can win games single handed, sell tickets by showing up, and command millions in endorsements is no longer a pawn, no longer an employee in the traditional sense. It would be more accurate to refer to him as a limited partner, but one whose income is tied only to his own performance in the long-term, not on a nightly basis.
Which leads to a shifting in power. Players still can't pay their own salaries, build their own arenas, or fill their own rosters (yet). But in a media hungry world where fans crave unprecedented access and coverage of their favorite athletes, players can shape their own messages and wield considerable leverage. All it takes is star tweeting that he wants to play in New York and the rumors start. Every time he misses a clutch shot he's tanking to get traded. If he's on the bench more than usual the coach is tired of his whining about wanting to get out of town. When they lose he answers questions about his trade demands and when they win...he answers questions about his trade demands. It's a cycle that impacts everyone, including the owners.
People tend to see what they want to see or what they fear they will see. So imagine you are an owner of an NBA franchise and your star player who is up for free agency at the end of the year (or two) comes out and demands a trade. You know from past experience (watching other gazillionaire white guys deal with it) that once this happens performance often starts to decline along with attitude. Now the owner is hyper-sensitive to anything that even looks like petulance or pouting so he sees it in every missed free-throw, every blown defensive assignment, and every disagreement with a coach. It doesn't take long before the owner (or the GM) says, "Enough!" and trades the player for $0.75 on the dollar to, "get something for him."
With the new CBA (and even prior to it) players are perhaps even more motivated to make these trades happen during the final season of their current contracts through a sign and trade. The reason is simply financial, they are allowed to sign longer extensions with their current teams prior to being moved than they would be allowed to sign with their new teams after the trade. Some look at it as win-win. The player gets a longer deal and and the owner and his franchise get something for a player that was going to leave for nothing anyway. Nobody wants to be the next Cleveland.
This idea that a player (an "employee") could determine his own trade destination, was such a sticking point for the owners that they were willing to lock the players out and miss nearly 20 games each to stop it. Not all the owners of course, but most (and the ones who benefit from this type of movement sat very quietly hoping nobody would notice them when this came up). It's not the money, it's not even that players want to leave for greener pastures, it's the power that the media and enlarged player personalities can generate and its ability to erode the power of ownership. It's not a surprise that many stars eventually end up playing in big markets, the problem is that there is a developing perception around the league that they can decide to force their way there whenever they feel like it or whenever one of their friends signs there.
So rewind to three weeks ago with that long-winded back story. The lockout, that was supposed to regulate player movement and restore power to ownership, has been over for 3.5 seconds. What are the first stories that come out? "Where are Chis Paul and Dwight Howard going to end up?" You can't blame the owners for saying, "...wait...we just lost millions in an ugly and public CBA battle to change...nothing? Superstars can still force their way out of small markets whenever they feel like it? Oh heeeelllll no! ... Oh and by the way we own the damn team so why are we going to screw ourselves over by making the Lakers better?"
When the first trade proposal sending Paul to the Lakers came through it seemed like most observers' reactions were, "Already?" But many owners reactions more closely resembled, "GVOISNDBEO#$*&@@!!!!! LKVNEOIVNEO#$*!&@!!!!!!" Which roughly translates to, "You have to be fucking kidding me, I'm going to kill one of my lawn guys for sport this afternoon."
Which probably would have happened, but luckily for at least 29 lawn guys there was yet another wrinkle here which almost never happens...
All the owners were together in the same place... Because they had JUST signed the new CBA, that was going to prevent this type of player leverage, at the NBA offices in New York. It had been approved and announced a few days earlier but not actually signed. Had the trade been approved by the teams even three hours later CP3 probably ends up a Laker... But it didn't. So these arrogant rich guys got to sit in a room together and stew, and vent, and rage, and ultimately concoct an argument for Stern that probably went something like this...
Owners: We're going to kill you.
Stern: Agghhhh!
Owners: WE own the Hornets!? WHY did WE trade one of the best players in the league to the Lakers... Sorry Mr. Buss.
Stern: Mmm?
Owners: We're going to kill you.
Stern: Agghhh!! No, kill another lawn guy for chrissakes, I'll cancel the deal.
So he did, and now the league finds itself embroiled in quite possibly the most awkward conflict of interest in the history of sports.
They collectively own a franchise that has an unbelievably valuable commodity in Chris Paul that is going to be playing somewhere else at the end of the season, one way or another. They just locked out their own businesses in part to stop small market teams, like New Orleans, from being pressured into trading unhappy superstars to larger markets, like LA. If they trade him on the same day that the agreement is signed they're essentially saying that the lockout was for nothing and they get the added benefit of looking completely impotent or incompetent (take your pick). If they don't trade him the franchise that they own collectively might go under before someone can buy it from them AND Paul is leaving anyway. And not to mention that one of these owners has to sign off on trading for Paul while collectively agreeing to trade him to himself. Conflict. Of. Interest.
So to sum up this extremely long winded argument the problem with the attempts to trade Paul are:
1. The timing was horrible. The first act the league completes after a five month lockout in part due to unrestrained player movement cannot be an apparently unrestrained move by a player.
2. The league cannot have the perception, true or false, that they sold a marquee player from a small market to a large one. Again, why did we have a lockout?
Perception and timing.
What's the solution?
Umm... there isn't one.
Unless of course they want to trade him to the Celtics...
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Question Below
Everyone is talking about Eli Manning proving himself as an "elite" quarterback this year; I say he's still tier 2 (and an ass clown). Why am I right?
(Huge sigh) You're not.
Excuse me while I go puke in my shoes.
He's really good, and even better late in games. It nauseates me to say but he's extremely clutch and he's doing it on a team that isn't overly talented. His wide receivers don't scare you much more than the average, if at all. The defense has taken huge steps back from their previous dominance. Their coach's face is grotesquely deformed due to exposure to frigid temperatures. He's the Giants' best player and they're going to win their division...
Excuse me once again while I puke into my shoes.
Now, to your point that he's second tier I would agree with that in the strictest sense depending on how you define your tiers. There are three QB's that, this season, have set themselves apart from the rest statistically: Rodgers, Brady, and Brees (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH no Peyton....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA). All three have a chance to break Marino's single season record for passing yards and combined they have six total losses. They are the top tier using those measures.
Unfortunately I think looking at it that way is flawed because what by so doing you're saying is that the top tier consists of the best quarterbacks on the best offensive teams which isn't exactly fair. It's almost like the Heisman conversation from yesterday, to judge a player based solely on the success of his team is not a true measure of his value. Manning is having a tremendous season because his team isn't very good and he might be one of a small handful of reasons that they're winning. Roethlisberger is another example. His team is doing well and he is having probably the best season of his career but he wouldn't be ranked among the league's best by the previous measures.
All that being said if I'm starting a team I'm not taking Manning with my first pick or even my first five picks. But if I need to win a game in the fourth quarter right now I'd probably take him over everyone but Brady (maybe Tebow-time...hehehehe) and even that might be because I'm a homer. Rodgers is better but less proven in the clutch and Brees just is not as good in those crunch time situations.
So like I said... (huge sigh) ... You're not right.
(Huge sigh) You're not.
Excuse me while I go puke in my shoes.
He's really good, and even better late in games. It nauseates me to say but he's extremely clutch and he's doing it on a team that isn't overly talented. His wide receivers don't scare you much more than the average, if at all. The defense has taken huge steps back from their previous dominance. Their coach's face is grotesquely deformed due to exposure to frigid temperatures. He's the Giants' best player and they're going to win their division...
Excuse me once again while I puke into my shoes.
Now, to your point that he's second tier I would agree with that in the strictest sense depending on how you define your tiers. There are three QB's that, this season, have set themselves apart from the rest statistically: Rodgers, Brady, and Brees (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH no Peyton....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA). All three have a chance to break Marino's single season record for passing yards and combined they have six total losses. They are the top tier using those measures.
Unfortunately I think looking at it that way is flawed because what by so doing you're saying is that the top tier consists of the best quarterbacks on the best offensive teams which isn't exactly fair. It's almost like the Heisman conversation from yesterday, to judge a player based solely on the success of his team is not a true measure of his value. Manning is having a tremendous season because his team isn't very good and he might be one of a small handful of reasons that they're winning. Roethlisberger is another example. His team is doing well and he is having probably the best season of his career but he wouldn't be ranked among the league's best by the previous measures.
All that being said if I'm starting a team I'm not taking Manning with my first pick or even my first five picks. But if I need to win a game in the fourth quarter right now I'd probably take him over everyone but Brady (maybe Tebow-time...hehehehe) and even that might be because I'm a homer. Rodgers is better but less proven in the clutch and Brees just is not as good in those crunch time situations.
So like I said... (huge sigh) ... You're not right.
Under what scenario could TJ Yeats lead the Texans beyond the divisional playoffs?
The only way that T.J. Yates leads the Texans beyond the divisional playoffs is if T.J. Yates does not have to "lead" the Texans, AND Andre Johnson comes back, AND they have home field advantage. I'm not going to go on and on about how Yates isn't any good, I actually think he is serviceable, especially compared to some of the truly lousy quarterbacks out there. (I'm looking at you Matt Moore and Caleb Hanie.)
Rather than ability the larger issue for Yates is that he's a rookie and his team is very light on talent and depth at the running back position. It's not like they can just line up and smash it 50 times and only throw on 3rd 8+. He's going to have to win them games, which is already difficult enough in the playoffs but if you take away Johnson and put Houston on the road in the cold in Pittsburgh, New England, or Baltimore I don't think it will be pretty.
But, if they can hold onto home field, get Denver-esque defense (turnovers), and not fall behind to where they would need to throw to come back then I wouldn't rule them out. That defense is vicious even without Mario Williams and they can run it enough with Tate when they're playing from the front. In order to hang onto home field however, they won't be able to lose, not even one out of three because either Pittsburgh or New England are running the table.
Rather than ability the larger issue for Yates is that he's a rookie and his team is very light on talent and depth at the running back position. It's not like they can just line up and smash it 50 times and only throw on 3rd 8+. He's going to have to win them games, which is already difficult enough in the playoffs but if you take away Johnson and put Houston on the road in the cold in Pittsburgh, New England, or Baltimore I don't think it will be pretty.
But, if they can hold onto home field, get Denver-esque defense (turnovers), and not fall behind to where they would need to throw to come back then I wouldn't rule them out. That defense is vicious even without Mario Williams and they can run it enough with Tate when they're playing from the front. In order to hang onto home field however, they won't be able to lose, not even one out of three because either Pittsburgh or New England are running the table.
Monday, December 12, 2011
I feel like I'm seeing 15-yard penalties everywhere....is the the NFL getting soft?
The NFL isn't getting soft, it's getting scared. With all the attention paid to concussions and the life-altering effects they have had on previous generations of players the NFL really has no choice but to try to keep their players safer. The only way to do that is to flag anything and everything that looks like a dangerous hit.
Rule changes come along in every sport, players are going to have to adapt. I'll grant you there are a lot of plays where a defender gets flagged for a hit and I don't know what his alternative was. Football is a fast moving game and you can't plan every collision to avoid the head and land perfectly on the shoulder, meaning some of these flags are not necessarily the fault of the offending player. That being said possibly being considered soft is better than having to open your own hospital to care for all your retirees in vegetative states.
I think the real question is whether the flags are working. The intent is good but are players actually safer? Are concussions down? Will the life-span and quality of life for retired players improve? I don't have an answer to any of those, but those are the things the NFL should be worrying about, not a perception of softness.
Rule changes come along in every sport, players are going to have to adapt. I'll grant you there are a lot of plays where a defender gets flagged for a hit and I don't know what his alternative was. Football is a fast moving game and you can't plan every collision to avoid the head and land perfectly on the shoulder, meaning some of these flags are not necessarily the fault of the offending player. That being said possibly being considered soft is better than having to open your own hospital to care for all your retirees in vegetative states.
I think the real question is whether the flags are working. The intent is good but are players actually safer? Are concussions down? Will the life-span and quality of life for retired players improve? I don't have an answer to any of those, but those are the things the NFL should be worrying about, not a perception of softness.
Does RGIII deserve the Heisman? Did he deserve it 1 month ago? What changed? What does it mean for Andrew Luck and is Indianapolis now sucking for
I think the Heisman is such a flawed award. I don't even know what qualifies someone as deserving anymore. Is it an MVP award or does it go to the best player (if you think about it those really are two totally different things)? Does your team need to be really good / nationally relevant in order for you to be the best player? Is it really just an award for the best offensive player on the best team? What role to do politics and campaigning play?
The Griffin case was such an anomaly in my opinion and, at the risk of being overly dramatic, such a reflection on our current media culture. To answer your second question, I don't know if Griffin deserved the Heisman a month ago, but he certainly would not have won it. In this, "what have you done for me lately," 24 hour news cycle, immediate gratification culture that we live in it is apparently more important to be scheduled to play on the last weekend of the season than it is to actually be the best player. It's also apparently very helpful, if you going to lose, to do it early in the season when people aren't paying close attention and won't remember.
Luck was punished by a couple of things. First, he didn't play on the last Saturday of the season so he wasn't "fresh" in voters minds. (This is totally mind boggling to me, the kid has been an unstoppable machine for three years but by virtue of not playing one more game before the votes were due he's all of a sudden not as good as a QB from fucking Baylor? I digress...) Stanford lost to Oregon on national TV and he threw a costly interception. (Never mind the 50+ points his defense allowed.) Other than that game Stanford's games weren't broadcast nationally very often and by virtue of playing in California many of their games started late on the east coast. That relative lack of exposure and one notable failure seemingly created this perception that he wasn't quite as good as he was last year. Whether that's true or not is debatable but if Stanford beat Oregon and played in the Pac-12 championship game Luck is your Heisman winner, guaranteed.
If you look at Griffin's, and maybe more importantly Baylor's season you'll see what I mean. As I said above Luck was punished for losing on national TV to Oregon on November 5th. That was Stanford's only loss. Baylor has three losses, K-State, Oklahoma State, and ... wait for it ... A&M (yup you read that right). And in case you forgot (I did) they didn't just lose to A&M, they got demolished 55-28. They also got thumped by Oklahoma State 59-24. So what's the difference? Baylor's last loss was October 29th at OK-State, a week before Stanford's loss. It was on TV but it was regional coverage on ABC at 2:30 PM, meaning viewers on the east and west coasts could have been watching something else. The entire college football world watched Luck lose to Oregon but very few watched (and even fewer remember) Griffin get crushed in Stillwater, nobody remembers anything about the A&M or K-State losses ... and that makes him more deserving of the Heisman? Baylor lost three times in one month, Stanford lost once all year... 'Splain to me how the "Luck lost the Heisman against Oregon" argument makes any sense?
As you can probably deduce I think Luck got screwed and is the better player. Griffin was sort of the Newt Gingrich of the Heisman race, showed up late, caught fire, didn't screw up publicly, and was on TV when it mattered. Perhaps a better analogy is Spaz's hiring at BC. What were his distinguishing characteristics? He was there, he was loyal, he wasn't going to leave, he had a ton of experience, Gene D. loved him. All of those are helpful but should they be the only reason you hire someone? No. What were Griffin's distinguishing characteristics? He played well in a game on December 2nd, he didn't lose on national TV, he didn't lose after Halloween, and his team beat Oklahoma and Texas on TV.
Do those things really make someone the best football player in the country? Absolutely not, but they do answer the question, what have you done for me lately?
As for the NFL part of your question, I think there is almost no chance to Colts even consider Griffin. Think about their successes of late. They have all been due to the ability of a very traditional pocket passer, I don't see them trying to change their entire system to fit Griffin's style, especially not when a better player is available that makes more sense. Griffin is going to go high in the draft (he should send Cam Newton a thank-you note) but where the voters failed to have any perspective on the Heisman the NFL has the luxury of time to actually look at them and determine who the better player is based on....you know... PLAYING. Not arbitrary scheduling and flukes of TV coverage.
The Griffin case was such an anomaly in my opinion and, at the risk of being overly dramatic, such a reflection on our current media culture. To answer your second question, I don't know if Griffin deserved the Heisman a month ago, but he certainly would not have won it. In this, "what have you done for me lately," 24 hour news cycle, immediate gratification culture that we live in it is apparently more important to be scheduled to play on the last weekend of the season than it is to actually be the best player. It's also apparently very helpful, if you going to lose, to do it early in the season when people aren't paying close attention and won't remember.
Luck was punished by a couple of things. First, he didn't play on the last Saturday of the season so he wasn't "fresh" in voters minds. (This is totally mind boggling to me, the kid has been an unstoppable machine for three years but by virtue of not playing one more game before the votes were due he's all of a sudden not as good as a QB from fucking Baylor? I digress...) Stanford lost to Oregon on national TV and he threw a costly interception. (Never mind the 50+ points his defense allowed.) Other than that game Stanford's games weren't broadcast nationally very often and by virtue of playing in California many of their games started late on the east coast. That relative lack of exposure and one notable failure seemingly created this perception that he wasn't quite as good as he was last year. Whether that's true or not is debatable but if Stanford beat Oregon and played in the Pac-12 championship game Luck is your Heisman winner, guaranteed.
If you look at Griffin's, and maybe more importantly Baylor's season you'll see what I mean. As I said above Luck was punished for losing on national TV to Oregon on November 5th. That was Stanford's only loss. Baylor has three losses, K-State, Oklahoma State, and ... wait for it ... A&M (yup you read that right). And in case you forgot (I did) they didn't just lose to A&M, they got demolished 55-28. They also got thumped by Oklahoma State 59-24. So what's the difference? Baylor's last loss was October 29th at OK-State, a week before Stanford's loss. It was on TV but it was regional coverage on ABC at 2:30 PM, meaning viewers on the east and west coasts could have been watching something else. The entire college football world watched Luck lose to Oregon but very few watched (and even fewer remember) Griffin get crushed in Stillwater, nobody remembers anything about the A&M or K-State losses ... and that makes him more deserving of the Heisman? Baylor lost three times in one month, Stanford lost once all year... 'Splain to me how the "Luck lost the Heisman against Oregon" argument makes any sense?
As you can probably deduce I think Luck got screwed and is the better player. Griffin was sort of the Newt Gingrich of the Heisman race, showed up late, caught fire, didn't screw up publicly, and was on TV when it mattered. Perhaps a better analogy is Spaz's hiring at BC. What were his distinguishing characteristics? He was there, he was loyal, he wasn't going to leave, he had a ton of experience, Gene D. loved him. All of those are helpful but should they be the only reason you hire someone? No. What were Griffin's distinguishing characteristics? He played well in a game on December 2nd, he didn't lose on national TV, he didn't lose after Halloween, and his team beat Oklahoma and Texas on TV.
Do those things really make someone the best football player in the country? Absolutely not, but they do answer the question, what have you done for me lately?
As for the NFL part of your question, I think there is almost no chance to Colts even consider Griffin. Think about their successes of late. They have all been due to the ability of a very traditional pocket passer, I don't see them trying to change their entire system to fit Griffin's style, especially not when a better player is available that makes more sense. Griffin is going to go high in the draft (he should send Cam Newton a thank-you note) but where the voters failed to have any perspective on the Heisman the NFL has the luxury of time to actually look at them and determine who the better player is based on....you know... PLAYING. Not arbitrary scheduling and flukes of TV coverage.
Do you think Tom Coughlin took his kicker-icing cues from Jason Garrett's moves last week? (i.e. did he see that Bailey was successfully iced last wee
I don't think what happened last week had anything to do with Coughlin's decision to call timeout. That's such a common move in the NFL these days, even though I think it rarely works and has backfired as much as it has paid off. There have been plenty of cases where the kicker missed the first kick only to get a second chance because of the timeout (which makes a coach look very very bad as the second kick is sailing through the uprights).
Another thing to remember in this case is that Bailey wasn't really iced, the kick was blocked. It's not like he went out there and shanked it 30 yards to the right, the Giants line just made a great push. The timeout didn't do anything to Bailey, it just have the D a second chance to get to him. Coughlin's going to get credit for pushing the right button at the right time but it's such an overrated move, especially when it works, and it's too fickle in my opinion. If you do it and it works you're a genius, if it fails you're a clueless buffoon... The only thing that anyone knows for sure? Don't ice your own kicker.
Another thing to remember in this case is that Bailey wasn't really iced, the kick was blocked. It's not like he went out there and shanked it 30 yards to the right, the Giants line just made a great push. The timeout didn't do anything to Bailey, it just have the D a second chance to get to him. Coughlin's going to get credit for pushing the right button at the right time but it's such an overrated move, especially when it works, and it's too fickle in my opinion. If you do it and it works you're a genius, if it fails you're a clueless buffoon... The only thing that anyone knows for sure? Don't ice your own kicker.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Lebron Thoughts - 2.0 The Real Winner Is...
So I've been thinking about this Lebron "decision" situation some more and it has occurred to me that there are some really interesting questions that we may never know the answers to. First and foremost who was pulling the puppet strings the ultimately led to Lebron choosing Miami? Does D-Wade have that much juice in the league right now? Have we underestimated him as the second-fiddle in this free agent class? Or was it Riley? Does the "Coolest White Man Alive" still wield the force it took to manage quite possibly the most ego-laden teams in NBA history in Los Angeles? Where does Worldwide Wes fit in? Call me naive but this move doesn't have his stamp on it to me. If LBJ had ended up in Chicago or New York I would buy it, but there are too many alphas in Dade county already for me to believe that Wes was able to throw whatever weight he has around.
Regardless of the answers to those questions (which, like I said, we'll probably never know) it seems clear to me that there is one winner here and that's Dwayne Wade if...
HE WOULD JUST SHUT THE F#!*% UP!
Seriously D-Wade, a World Trade Center reference? What's next calling the rest of the league a bunch of chrome-dome kids with leukemia? Is there a hotter button to push than 9/11? Oil spill jokes maybe? I don't care what he meant by it (and that fact that he's at least partially right doesn't matter). Just SHUT UP!
You won, you pulled off something that I and everyone else with an opinion thought was impossible. You took the biggest free agent in the history of sports and made him at worst your equal and at best your sidekick. Ride the wave, bask in the glory of your victory, buy another mansion or Lotus, but for the love of God stop talking about it.
It hasn't been discussed much but how could this have worked out any better for Wade? He gets to stay in South Beach where he is a king. He gets to play alongside what would have been the greatest player of all time and another one of his best friends who's no slouch. And the icing on the cake is that he will take none of the James-ian fallout from his former team or fans and comes out smelling like roses (especially in Miami) because he took a discount to stay home and try to win. AMAZING! Who hates Wade right now (assuming he SHUTS UP!)? Chicago maybe for not coming back to his roots? That's it, otherwise all he did was make himself a legend in Miami and probably to some degree change a lot of perceptions about him. Which brings me to...
If Miami rattles off three championships in a row is D-Wade the Jordan of this generation instead of Lebron? The conversation is over in Miami. After pulling this off James could reinvent the wheel and South Beach would still be Wade territory. But the credit and the legacy for any rings depends dramatically on how the championships are won. Say they split the workload 30,30,20,20 (Wade, Lebron, Bosh, supporting cast). Can we say those championships "belong" to Lebron when he joined Wade's team where he had already accomplished several things James couldn't? (Won a championship, attracted Bosh, leaned on the organization hard enough to get him help...) Unless LBJ goes for 40,17, and 11 through a playoff run the answer is no.
Let's go over it again. Wade, the alleged second prize in this free agent class managed to: 1. Attract a premier big man to his team; 2. Lead (not follow) the biggest free agent in sports history to his home team (where he will never be more than a 1A to Wade's 1); 3. Convince the organization to find a way to pay all three; 4. And keep his reputation relatively in tact or enhance it from some perspectives while the prince of basketball's image was going all "Mickelson at Wingfoot" for joining him. Unbelievable.
So maybe we underestimated you Mr. Wade... Maybe you are the big dog in the draft class of '03... Now please... PLEASE SHUT UP and make me believe it.
Regardless of the answers to those questions (which, like I said, we'll probably never know) it seems clear to me that there is one winner here and that's Dwayne Wade if...
HE WOULD JUST SHUT THE F#!*% UP!
Seriously D-Wade, a World Trade Center reference? What's next calling the rest of the league a bunch of chrome-dome kids with leukemia? Is there a hotter button to push than 9/11? Oil spill jokes maybe? I don't care what he meant by it (and that fact that he's at least partially right doesn't matter). Just SHUT UP!
You won, you pulled off something that I and everyone else with an opinion thought was impossible. You took the biggest free agent in the history of sports and made him at worst your equal and at best your sidekick. Ride the wave, bask in the glory of your victory, buy another mansion or Lotus, but for the love of God stop talking about it.
It hasn't been discussed much but how could this have worked out any better for Wade? He gets to stay in South Beach where he is a king. He gets to play alongside what would have been the greatest player of all time and another one of his best friends who's no slouch. And the icing on the cake is that he will take none of the James-ian fallout from his former team or fans and comes out smelling like roses (especially in Miami) because he took a discount to stay home and try to win. AMAZING! Who hates Wade right now (assuming he SHUTS UP!)? Chicago maybe for not coming back to his roots? That's it, otherwise all he did was make himself a legend in Miami and probably to some degree change a lot of perceptions about him. Which brings me to...
If Miami rattles off three championships in a row is D-Wade the Jordan of this generation instead of Lebron? The conversation is over in Miami. After pulling this off James could reinvent the wheel and South Beach would still be Wade territory. But the credit and the legacy for any rings depends dramatically on how the championships are won. Say they split the workload 30,30,20,20 (Wade, Lebron, Bosh, supporting cast). Can we say those championships "belong" to Lebron when he joined Wade's team where he had already accomplished several things James couldn't? (Won a championship, attracted Bosh, leaned on the organization hard enough to get him help...) Unless LBJ goes for 40,17, and 11 through a playoff run the answer is no.
Let's go over it again. Wade, the alleged second prize in this free agent class managed to: 1. Attract a premier big man to his team; 2. Lead (not follow) the biggest free agent in sports history to his home team (where he will never be more than a 1A to Wade's 1); 3. Convince the organization to find a way to pay all three; 4. And keep his reputation relatively in tact or enhance it from some perspectives while the prince of basketball's image was going all "Mickelson at Wingfoot" for joining him. Unbelievable.
So maybe we underestimated you Mr. Wade... Maybe you are the big dog in the draft class of '03... Now please... PLEASE SHUT UP and make me believe it.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Lebron Conundrum
A little more than a week ago Lebron James announced, in horrifically dramatic fashion, his "DECISION" to join Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, and Pat Riley in Miami. Sports fans around the country were horrified, Cleveland broke off from the rest of the United States and floated out to rest somewhere near the lost city of Atlantis (no small feat for a landlocked Midwestern city), and a cloud of righteous indignation hung over the sports world like a pending thunderstorm. Pundits from all sides crucified Lebron and his image went into a quasi-Tiger nosedive.
As a fan of an Eastern Conference team I hate that LBJ ended up in Miami forming a seemingly unbeatable triumvirate. The East is essentially theirs until someone takes it from them and my level of faith that the Celtics can do that is hovering around the mendoza line just a month after Boston was one game from banner 18.
That being said we as sports fans need to check our hypocrisy just a little bit when it comes to James' decision. In the past week I've heard numerous people lambasting Lebron as the archetype of all that is wrong with sports today. A typical athlete that has no loyalty to anything other than himself or his numerous bank accounts. A demon wresting the nobility and joy from sports and replacing it with a cold black heart to be found sitting in a corner booth at an ultra-exclusive South Beach club we as fans could never find nevermind enter. Truly the anti-Christ of basketball.
Some of those criticisms may very well be true, but unfortunately for those facing a precarious fall from the soap-box, they don't apply in this case. Was the self-promotion fest known as "The Decision" a truly skin crawling self aggrandizing nightmare to watch? Of course. (Sidenote: ESPN is far from blameless in this...) Has his callous departure from his hometown made the burning of his jersey and the removal of his likeness from anywhere in the city seem like an under-reaction? Sure.
But if you take the emotion out of it and look at what he actually decided to do it becomes clear that Lebron (along with Wade and Bosh) has taken the road less traveled. In reality he did something that we wish athletes would do more of, he chose winning over money. Cleveland could have paid him 30 million dollars more than any other team over the life of a maximum contract AND in Miami James will receive less than the max. Let me make sure that's clear. Lebron will get less money with the Heat than he would have with ANY OTHER TEAM. The Knicks could have paid him more, the Nets could have paid him more, the dreadful Clippers could have paid him more, everyone with the cap space for a max player could have paid him more. He turned that extra money down for a chance to play on what could be a historically good team. From what I've seen in sports that's pretty atypical. Do you think ARod would be a Yankee right now if they hadn't offered the biggest number? No chance.
Also, how many guys of Lebron's stature would be willing to go to another star's town and team? Miami belongs to Wade. He won them a championship in '06 and is still at the very least their co-top dog. Lebron didn't assemble this dynasty, he was added to it. That's a strange idea for perhaps the greatest basketball player (athlete?) in the world right now, but it's true. If he wins in Miami it won't be because he's the greatest of all time. It will be because they are a great team with three great (two great, one good?) players. He likely gave up his chance to be discussed in the same category as Russell and Jordan to chase championships and avoid being discussed in the Malone / Barkley category. Now whether he is aware of that probability is up for debate, but if he is (and I think he is) that's not a "typical athlete" decision.
Look, the way that Lebron delivered his decision was unacceptable. There is no question about that, especially given that he never told Cleveland that he was definitely leaving until just before the announcement. So he deserves to take heat from that and if I were him I'd avoid setting foot in Ohio for a while. But while we reserve the right to get on him for many aspects of his decision we can't call him the typical athlete and say he represents everything that's stereotypically wrong with sports. We can say he's taking the easy way out and leaving the chance to be Clevaland's Jordan on the table. We can say he's selfish and thoughtless for crushing his hometown in such a cold and deliberate way. We can even say he's making a bad decision, if it doesn't work his legacy won't be tarnished, it will be torched like his last number 23 jersey. But we can't say he represents all the things we hate about sports. We're still allowed to hate him, just not for that...
As a fan of an Eastern Conference team I hate that LBJ ended up in Miami forming a seemingly unbeatable triumvirate. The East is essentially theirs until someone takes it from them and my level of faith that the Celtics can do that is hovering around the mendoza line just a month after Boston was one game from banner 18.
That being said we as sports fans need to check our hypocrisy just a little bit when it comes to James' decision. In the past week I've heard numerous people lambasting Lebron as the archetype of all that is wrong with sports today. A typical athlete that has no loyalty to anything other than himself or his numerous bank accounts. A demon wresting the nobility and joy from sports and replacing it with a cold black heart to be found sitting in a corner booth at an ultra-exclusive South Beach club we as fans could never find nevermind enter. Truly the anti-Christ of basketball.
Some of those criticisms may very well be true, but unfortunately for those facing a precarious fall from the soap-box, they don't apply in this case. Was the self-promotion fest known as "The Decision" a truly skin crawling self aggrandizing nightmare to watch? Of course. (Sidenote: ESPN is far from blameless in this...) Has his callous departure from his hometown made the burning of his jersey and the removal of his likeness from anywhere in the city seem like an under-reaction? Sure.
But if you take the emotion out of it and look at what he actually decided to do it becomes clear that Lebron (along with Wade and Bosh) has taken the road less traveled. In reality he did something that we wish athletes would do more of, he chose winning over money. Cleveland could have paid him 30 million dollars more than any other team over the life of a maximum contract AND in Miami James will receive less than the max. Let me make sure that's clear. Lebron will get less money with the Heat than he would have with ANY OTHER TEAM. The Knicks could have paid him more, the Nets could have paid him more, the dreadful Clippers could have paid him more, everyone with the cap space for a max player could have paid him more. He turned that extra money down for a chance to play on what could be a historically good team. From what I've seen in sports that's pretty atypical. Do you think ARod would be a Yankee right now if they hadn't offered the biggest number? No chance.
Also, how many guys of Lebron's stature would be willing to go to another star's town and team? Miami belongs to Wade. He won them a championship in '06 and is still at the very least their co-top dog. Lebron didn't assemble this dynasty, he was added to it. That's a strange idea for perhaps the greatest basketball player (athlete?) in the world right now, but it's true. If he wins in Miami it won't be because he's the greatest of all time. It will be because they are a great team with three great (two great, one good?) players. He likely gave up his chance to be discussed in the same category as Russell and Jordan to chase championships and avoid being discussed in the Malone / Barkley category. Now whether he is aware of that probability is up for debate, but if he is (and I think he is) that's not a "typical athlete" decision.
Look, the way that Lebron delivered his decision was unacceptable. There is no question about that, especially given that he never told Cleveland that he was definitely leaving until just before the announcement. So he deserves to take heat from that and if I were him I'd avoid setting foot in Ohio for a while. But while we reserve the right to get on him for many aspects of his decision we can't call him the typical athlete and say he represents everything that's stereotypically wrong with sports. We can say he's taking the easy way out and leaving the chance to be Clevaland's Jordan on the table. We can say he's selfish and thoughtless for crushing his hometown in such a cold and deliberate way. We can even say he's making a bad decision, if it doesn't work his legacy won't be tarnished, it will be torched like his last number 23 jersey. But we can't say he represents all the things we hate about sports. We're still allowed to hate him, just not for that...
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
On The Eve of The Finals
We know the NBA wanted Kobe v. Lebron... Hell I kinda wanted Kobe v. Lebron, but I guess we can settle for two teams that have collectively won almost half of the NBA Championships ever awarded.
When the Celtics face the Lakers for a title it's like all the ghosts of our collective basketball pasts are reincarnated for two weeks. Everybody talks about Russel, Cousy, Bird, Parish, and McHale; West, Magic, and Kareem; DJ and Worthy; and even goggle faced, "Ohhh you got laid out!" Kurt Rambis.
But in this particular case I think talking about the old guys has special significance because both of these rosters are not very far away from being retired suits themselves. Everyone loves to talk about how old the Celtics are but the Lakers aren't an upstart cast of young pups either. Kobe has maybe two years left as the second best player in the world. (Stop sighing and rolling your eyes, just because Lebron couldn't carry a mediocre roster past a better Celtics team doesn't mean that Kobe is better. He just isn't, he used to be, but not anymore.) Gasol is only as "good" as he is because of Kobe and some of the other talent around him (and his game is so fucking ugly and uncoordinated that he's one half goony step away from a blown ACL at any time). Fisher is a dinosaur and Artest might not be human so who knows what his lifespan is.
The one Laker I left out? Lamar Odom. Why? Because I wanted to write this. Someone this week, if it hasn't happened already, is going to write an article or say something about how he is the key player for the Lakers in this series i.e., "You know Rick, I really think that Odom is going to be a key for the Lakers in this series. If he plays his best, with that effort that seems to come and go, the Celtics have no chance. I think he'll do it. Lakers in five." How do people still believe this? The guy has had the chance to be Pippen for a decade now and has been out to lunch for 97% of that time. He hardly ever tries, plays almost no defense, takes possessions off like he's playing for the Longhorns, and still people see one good game and say, "Woweee! That Lamar Odom, if he could play like that every night he'd be a superstar." Yeah? Well he can't. And he won't.
So what is going to be the key?
First for the Lakers... Wait who gives a fuck what the Lakers should do? This is a Boston blog...
Okay, for the Celtics there are a few things.
1. Rondo has to absolutely shred Fisher if they are ever stupid enough to match them up. Fisher got roasted by Russell Westbrook in round one and Westbrook is no Rondo. I'm not saying that Rondo has to score like he has through most of this run, he just has to create inside and cause havoc in the lane.
2. Pierce has to dig deeper into that fountain of youth he discovered before the Orlando series... Even if Kobe covers him. We saw in the Cleveland series that Pierce can't handle bigger, stronger, more athletic defenders. Well, Kobe isn't much bigger and Pierce is probably stronger but Bryant is a much better defender than anyone the Magic ran at him. Plus he has the superstar factor so Pierce won't get many calls on those pump fake and dive into the defender's chest moves that he seems to rely on far too much.
3. Ray Allen has to hit. The problem with having one of the best outside shooters of all time on your roster is that when he goes cold he has to keep shooting to get out of it, essentially throwing possessions away. (See the first few rounds in '08 CLANG!) If Allen can keep it rolling the Celtics have an excellent chance to win this series. If he doesn't he has to keep shooting and we'll have to keep praying because that's the only chance Boston will have. Obviously Rondo's playmaking ability makes his teammates better but I think Allen's shooting has the same effect. If he is making shots is does three things. First it spreads the floor even more for other players. Two, it allows him to get to the basket himself if the defense over pursues to his shot. And finally, it always gives the Celtics a chance late in close games.
4. Old Man River... I mean Kevin Garnett. I don't even know what to say about him. He's been bad in playoffs. I know, I know, they're in the Finals how bad could he have been? I'm telling you, BAD. He has NO elevation anymore and he gets pushed off the spot by every offensive player that weighs more than 180 pounds. He's become all flash and no substance. I love his energy and maybe (hopefully?) he can dig down into that psychotic part of his makeup that made him such a great player and pull out 4-7 great games... But I'm not convinced. He has to pound on Gasol and abuse him like he did two years ago for the Celtics to have a chance. That was the decisive matchup between these two teams in '08; if it flips with the rest of the rosters essentially the same (Wallace and Artest are a diva-wash) how can Boston overcome that?
PREDICTION:
Ummm.... I don't know. Obviously I'm rooting for Boston, I really am but there are a few things working against them.
Did you see Kobe in the last five minutes of game six in Phoenix? Unstoppable, and you just know he wants redemption for being humiliated in Boston two years ago. Bad.
Also, the setup of the finals is different than the first three rounds. It's played 2 in LA, 3 in Boston, and 2 in LA. That doesn't set up very well for the visiting team. Boston basically has to win one in LA and then sweep at home to avoid trying to clinch on the road in game six or seven. A very daunting task to say the least.
I'm going to say Celtics in six, with my heart, not my head. They are the old(er) dogs that know this is their last shot. There is no way this roster looks the same next year and even if it does who knows what the rest of the East or the NBA for that matter will look like? If it doesn't get done now it will be a while before we see banner 18, so I'm saying they dig just deep enough and steal one in LA, then take two out of three at home, and then stun the NBA world by lighting up LA in game six to break Kobe's heart. Here's hoping.
When the Celtics face the Lakers for a title it's like all the ghosts of our collective basketball pasts are reincarnated for two weeks. Everybody talks about Russel, Cousy, Bird, Parish, and McHale; West, Magic, and Kareem; DJ and Worthy; and even goggle faced, "Ohhh you got laid out!" Kurt Rambis.
But in this particular case I think talking about the old guys has special significance because both of these rosters are not very far away from being retired suits themselves. Everyone loves to talk about how old the Celtics are but the Lakers aren't an upstart cast of young pups either. Kobe has maybe two years left as the second best player in the world. (Stop sighing and rolling your eyes, just because Lebron couldn't carry a mediocre roster past a better Celtics team doesn't mean that Kobe is better. He just isn't, he used to be, but not anymore.) Gasol is only as "good" as he is because of Kobe and some of the other talent around him (and his game is so fucking ugly and uncoordinated that he's one half goony step away from a blown ACL at any time). Fisher is a dinosaur and Artest might not be human so who knows what his lifespan is.
The one Laker I left out? Lamar Odom. Why? Because I wanted to write this. Someone this week, if it hasn't happened already, is going to write an article or say something about how he is the key player for the Lakers in this series i.e., "You know Rick, I really think that Odom is going to be a key for the Lakers in this series. If he plays his best, with that effort that seems to come and go, the Celtics have no chance. I think he'll do it. Lakers in five." How do people still believe this? The guy has had the chance to be Pippen for a decade now and has been out to lunch for 97% of that time. He hardly ever tries, plays almost no defense, takes possessions off like he's playing for the Longhorns, and still people see one good game and say, "Woweee! That Lamar Odom, if he could play like that every night he'd be a superstar." Yeah? Well he can't. And he won't.
So what is going to be the key?
First for the Lakers... Wait who gives a fuck what the Lakers should do? This is a Boston blog...
Okay, for the Celtics there are a few things.
1. Rondo has to absolutely shred Fisher if they are ever stupid enough to match them up. Fisher got roasted by Russell Westbrook in round one and Westbrook is no Rondo. I'm not saying that Rondo has to score like he has through most of this run, he just has to create inside and cause havoc in the lane.
2. Pierce has to dig deeper into that fountain of youth he discovered before the Orlando series... Even if Kobe covers him. We saw in the Cleveland series that Pierce can't handle bigger, stronger, more athletic defenders. Well, Kobe isn't much bigger and Pierce is probably stronger but Bryant is a much better defender than anyone the Magic ran at him. Plus he has the superstar factor so Pierce won't get many calls on those pump fake and dive into the defender's chest moves that he seems to rely on far too much.
3. Ray Allen has to hit. The problem with having one of the best outside shooters of all time on your roster is that when he goes cold he has to keep shooting to get out of it, essentially throwing possessions away. (See the first few rounds in '08 CLANG!) If Allen can keep it rolling the Celtics have an excellent chance to win this series. If he doesn't he has to keep shooting and we'll have to keep praying because that's the only chance Boston will have. Obviously Rondo's playmaking ability makes his teammates better but I think Allen's shooting has the same effect. If he is making shots is does three things. First it spreads the floor even more for other players. Two, it allows him to get to the basket himself if the defense over pursues to his shot. And finally, it always gives the Celtics a chance late in close games.
4. Old Man River... I mean Kevin Garnett. I don't even know what to say about him. He's been bad in playoffs. I know, I know, they're in the Finals how bad could he have been? I'm telling you, BAD. He has NO elevation anymore and he gets pushed off the spot by every offensive player that weighs more than 180 pounds. He's become all flash and no substance. I love his energy and maybe (hopefully?) he can dig down into that psychotic part of his makeup that made him such a great player and pull out 4-7 great games... But I'm not convinced. He has to pound on Gasol and abuse him like he did two years ago for the Celtics to have a chance. That was the decisive matchup between these two teams in '08; if it flips with the rest of the rosters essentially the same (Wallace and Artest are a diva-wash) how can Boston overcome that?
PREDICTION:
Ummm.... I don't know. Obviously I'm rooting for Boston, I really am but there are a few things working against them.
Did you see Kobe in the last five minutes of game six in Phoenix? Unstoppable, and you just know he wants redemption for being humiliated in Boston two years ago. Bad.
Also, the setup of the finals is different than the first three rounds. It's played 2 in LA, 3 in Boston, and 2 in LA. That doesn't set up very well for the visiting team. Boston basically has to win one in LA and then sweep at home to avoid trying to clinch on the road in game six or seven. A very daunting task to say the least.
I'm going to say Celtics in six, with my heart, not my head. They are the old(er) dogs that know this is their last shot. There is no way this roster looks the same next year and even if it does who knows what the rest of the East or the NBA for that matter will look like? If it doesn't get done now it will be a while before we see banner 18, so I'm saying they dig just deep enough and steal one in LA, then take two out of three at home, and then stun the NBA world by lighting up LA in game six to break Kobe's heart. Here's hoping.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tiger v. Phil
I'm going to preface this by saying I have always hated Phil Mickelson...
Okay, now that all the women have clicked away let's continue. He's whiny, he chokes, he doesn't look like an athlete, and he seems like an incredibly pompous jerk. In short (excuse the last part) he's not Tiger Woods.
I love Tiger. I love that he swears, slams clubs, and pumps his fist when he wins. I love that nine times out of ten you know that his big putts are going in because the ball and putter collectively are too scared to do otherwise. I love that he spends ridiculous amounts of money on houses, boats, and cars. And to be honest I love that he doesn't sign every autograph or pat every kid on the head as he's walking the course. Nobody comes to your cubicle to ask you to sign something or be nice to their little rug-rat everyday, why should he have to?
Do I love all the tabloid nonsense about his affairs? No, he never should have gotten married. If you're a professional athlete worth one billion dollars DO NOT GET MARRIED. I don't care how hot, how Sweedish, how blonde, or how flexible she is just don't do it. Stay single and bang everything that breathes between Orlando and Vegas and nobody cares. Do it with pretty wife and two kids - instant pariah with a phony trip to "sex addiction" rehab for dessert.
(Two things on the rehab story. 1. How pissed is Tiger going to be when Elin still divorces him after he went though all that shit pretending to actually want to stop banging porn stars and cocktail waitresses? 2. Sex addiction = access and opportunity. It's not a fucking disease, it's called being rich, famous, and young enough to still have functioning plumbing. Find me a guy who says he wouldn't take that affliction and I'll show you a liar.)
All that being said, after everything that's happened in the last six months could there have been anything worse for Tiger than Phil winning the Master's?
Stop thinking. Short of a long list of 11 year old boys coming out Michael Jackson style and saying that Tiger has a "treasure" room, the answer is a resounding NO.
Not only did Tiger's biggest "rival" (I use the term loosely, it's like a dolphin being the rival of a great-white) win another green jacket, he also dumped a whole canister of gasoline on the, "We Hate Tiger Woods Because He Did What Rich Famous Guys Do" Club's inaugural bonfire of Woods related paraphernalia.
With one long hug with his cancer stricken wife on the backside of the 18th green Mickelson turned what was a moderately successful week for Woods (all things considered) into a disaster. Every woman watching thought one of two things:
1. (Sniffle, sniffle...)
2. Tiger Woods is an asshole. Why can't he be like that?
(It's one thing for every woman to think that, but what do the sponsors think? That's a huge question for him going forward).
The reality is Tiger Woods is not like that, and that's what makes him the greatest golfer in the world. It's not a good guy contest, it's not a nice husband / father contest, it's a golf tournament. Not being like Phil is what made Tiger the best, trying to be like Phil will be his undoing. Phil plays with the kids, takes vacations, gets fat, and seems like he genuinely puts his family first. Tiger hits balls until is hands bleed, everything else comes second. (Insert balls joke here...)
Would I let Tiger watch my kids (if I had any)? No chance. Would I want to learn how to win from Phil? Nope.
Tiger and Phil are completely different people, but on that April Sunday as Phil emerged from the veil that Tiger had cast around the entire week at Augusta to claim his third green jacket and embrace his wife like he never wanted to let go they were drawn into stark comparison both on the course and off. And for once Phil came out on top.
Enjoy it lefty, as a fan I hope that you stay a great dad and husband off the course and that Tiger goes back to crushing you on the back nine.
Okay, now that all the women have clicked away let's continue. He's whiny, he chokes, he doesn't look like an athlete, and he seems like an incredibly pompous jerk. In short (excuse the last part) he's not Tiger Woods.
I love Tiger. I love that he swears, slams clubs, and pumps his fist when he wins. I love that nine times out of ten you know that his big putts are going in because the ball and putter collectively are too scared to do otherwise. I love that he spends ridiculous amounts of money on houses, boats, and cars. And to be honest I love that he doesn't sign every autograph or pat every kid on the head as he's walking the course. Nobody comes to your cubicle to ask you to sign something or be nice to their little rug-rat everyday, why should he have to?
Do I love all the tabloid nonsense about his affairs? No, he never should have gotten married. If you're a professional athlete worth one billion dollars DO NOT GET MARRIED. I don't care how hot, how Sweedish, how blonde, or how flexible she is just don't do it. Stay single and bang everything that breathes between Orlando and Vegas and nobody cares. Do it with pretty wife and two kids - instant pariah with a phony trip to "sex addiction" rehab for dessert.
(Two things on the rehab story. 1. How pissed is Tiger going to be when Elin still divorces him after he went though all that shit pretending to actually want to stop banging porn stars and cocktail waitresses? 2. Sex addiction = access and opportunity. It's not a fucking disease, it's called being rich, famous, and young enough to still have functioning plumbing. Find me a guy who says he wouldn't take that affliction and I'll show you a liar.)
All that being said, after everything that's happened in the last six months could there have been anything worse for Tiger than Phil winning the Master's?
Stop thinking. Short of a long list of 11 year old boys coming out Michael Jackson style and saying that Tiger has a "treasure" room, the answer is a resounding NO.
Not only did Tiger's biggest "rival" (I use the term loosely, it's like a dolphin being the rival of a great-white) win another green jacket, he also dumped a whole canister of gasoline on the, "We Hate Tiger Woods Because He Did What Rich Famous Guys Do" Club's inaugural bonfire of Woods related paraphernalia.
With one long hug with his cancer stricken wife on the backside of the 18th green Mickelson turned what was a moderately successful week for Woods (all things considered) into a disaster. Every woman watching thought one of two things:
1. (Sniffle, sniffle...)
2. Tiger Woods is an asshole. Why can't he be like that?
(It's one thing for every woman to think that, but what do the sponsors think? That's a huge question for him going forward).
The reality is Tiger Woods is not like that, and that's what makes him the greatest golfer in the world. It's not a good guy contest, it's not a nice husband / father contest, it's a golf tournament. Not being like Phil is what made Tiger the best, trying to be like Phil will be his undoing. Phil plays with the kids, takes vacations, gets fat, and seems like he genuinely puts his family first. Tiger hits balls until is hands bleed, everything else comes second. (Insert balls joke here...)
Would I let Tiger watch my kids (if I had any)? No chance. Would I want to learn how to win from Phil? Nope.
Tiger and Phil are completely different people, but on that April Sunday as Phil emerged from the veil that Tiger had cast around the entire week at Augusta to claim his third green jacket and embrace his wife like he never wanted to let go they were drawn into stark comparison both on the course and off. And for once Phil came out on top.
Enjoy it lefty, as a fan I hope that you stay a great dad and husband off the course and that Tiger goes back to crushing you on the back nine.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Camera-Gate!
Let's take a short trip back in time.
It's last Friday in Foxboro. Bill Bellichick has assembled his offensive staff for a meeting. He wants to hear the group's plan of attack for Sunday's game at the Jets.
After an exhaustive report from each position head, outlining every coach's decisions and recommendations Bill takes a deep breath and looks down at impressively marked notebook. After a pause he looks up and glances from face to face around the room. As his gaze moves from coach to coach none can hold his eye. When the last breaks eye-contact under the guise of scribbling a note Bellchick's normally placid face turns to a sneer, then quickly a grimace.
It is as he feared. Despite the contributions of the assembled group, some of the brightest offensive minds in football, they have all, himself included, come to the same conclusion. They cannot beat the Jets.
Silence hangs in the room, replacing the promise of the coming season, one which was heralded by fans, local, and national media as a potentially dominant campaign.
Months of planning, plotting, strategizing, and training have gone by the wayside even before kickoff as the Patriots' staff realizes that it has failed to figure out a way to utilize one of the deepest and fastest wide receiving corps in football, the second best quarterback in the game, and a developing running back to beat a mediocre division rival.
Bellichick says only two words. Words which give every man in the room chills. They are a veritable death sentence for the season and maybe for their careers.
"Call Estrella."
An appeal is voiced from the back of the room, a voice of reason, "Bill... No. We don't need this. Just throw it up to Moss. He's 6'5" with 4.2 speed, he can run by at least 3 defensive backs at a time!"
Bill's response is swift and harsh, "No! I will not leave this game in the hands of one of the greatest quarterback receiver tandems in NFL history! No chance. Your failures have left me with no choice! Why would I want men who have given their lives to football, who work 16 hour days studying film, looking for tendencies to make these types of decisions? My answer is nay I would not! Can't you see our only hope is to rest all of our faith on this young A/V intern's ability to steal and decode signs!"
Another plea, "But Bill, think about it. He's only 26, and has never played a down of football in his life. He's a technician not a coach. He won't even know what he's looking at. Not to mention the fact that once he films the signs he'll only have 15 seconds, maybe 20 to figure out which play they're calling from hundreds of polaroids or a 400 page playbook and relay that information to our staff, who then will maybe have a second or two to figure out the alignments involved and pick a play which suits our advantage and get the call to Tom who will already have had to snap the ball. It can't be done! It's madness!"
A scuffle ensues. Bellichick has called his goons in from the hallways to dispose of this dissenting opinion. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, the speaker will never be seen again, his body replaced by an exact robot replica which will stand on the sidelines as a reminder to all: This is a Dictatorship, not a Democracy!
"Put the plan into motion. Retrieve Estrella from the dungeons and alert him of his duties. Make sure to have plenty of sionide poison at the ready. He will have to be ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for this cause. He is our only hope."
Sounds a bit ridiculous doesn't it?
Well you wouldn't think so if you've turned on a TV or read a newspaper in the last three days. Cameragate has gripped the football world and polarized it into two groups. Patriot fans and everyone else. For the latter, and notably larger group it is almost like a victory parade. Now every fan of a mediocre franchise thinks they can explain why the Patriots have been so wildly successful while their team have not. For the former, well like I said heavy is the head the wears the crown.
The reality, in this case isn't even somewhere in the middle.
Of course what the Patriots did was wrong, in that it violated league rules and a NFL directive sent out by the commission in 2006, but to even suggest that this type of misdemeanor could have 1. Affected the outcome of Sunday's game or 2. Been the principal reason that the Patriots have won three Super Bowls since 2000 is utterly and embarassingly preposterious.
SInce I can't speak about every game in the Bellichick / Brady era where this has been an issue I'll just stick to using this one as an example for now. First and foremost the tapes were confiscated in the first quarter, which by any observers recollections was the most evenly played of the game. After that time the Patriots decimated the Jets, especially in the second half, even without the findings of the illicit tape. Is that sinking in? New England won the game by 24 points, and turned it into a laugher long after their renegade camera James Bond had been kicked out of the stadium. How, those of you who are calling for a forfeit, do you explain the Pats second half success? Luck? Maybe they had another camera?
Let's assume that they did, or that the camera in question was feeding to a recorder somewhere in the Meadowlands that the Jets never found. Why in the blue-fuck would they need Randy Moss to beat triple coverage with his super-human speed if they knew what defense was coming? And why, if they knew what was coming would Brady ever even look in the direction of a receiver flanked by three defensive backs. Do you really think this conversation took place between the booth and Bellichick.
"Hey, ah Bill we just stole some signs for this next play and it seems that they're going to triple cover Randy and leave the middle of the field totally open, you think we oughtta throw another receiver into the slot to fill that void?"
"Nah, you know what, I think, despite our knowledge of their play calling we should just let Randy run by the three defenders for a 50 yard TD. You know, do something nice for the kids, give everyone a reason to go out and buy those number 81 jerseys."
It's just laughable, and every arm-chair Bill Polian is getting his power and royal blue tightie whities up into a bunch because they hated the Patriots before this, and now they feel justified.
Is it a coincidence that the first player to come out vocally against Bellichick and the Pats is the same player who blasted them at the end of last season? Of course not! Tomlinson hates New England, hates their success, and hates most of all that they stole what will probably be his best chance to win a Super Bowl last year. Not exactly an objective opinion, but who cares put it on ESPN 100,000 times a day and print it in every newspaper nationwide. Hell, preach it as though it were gospel while you're at it.
And that's not even the most deplorable display following this incident. The New England fans who are leaping off the bandwagon, including spineless Herald (baseball, stick to that) columnist Tony Massarotti make this an even more aggravating story. Now of course you can't take this too seriously but on an ESPN.com message board today one post said and I quote, "Was a Pats fan 'til today...[insert paragraph of mindless drivel here] Am now a Colts fan."
Are you out of your mind? So on Sunday you liked the Patriots, but after finding out that they tried to steal signs you no longer like them... and oops how convenient for you that you just happened to pick the defending Super Bowl Champs as your new favorite team you bandwagon jumping, DLP buying, Peyton Manning ball-washing pathetic excuse for a fan. Good riddance, New England is better off without you. Just a guess here, you didn't pick that team randomly out of a hat did you?
It's last Friday in Foxboro. Bill Bellichick has assembled his offensive staff for a meeting. He wants to hear the group's plan of attack for Sunday's game at the Jets.
After an exhaustive report from each position head, outlining every coach's decisions and recommendations Bill takes a deep breath and looks down at impressively marked notebook. After a pause he looks up and glances from face to face around the room. As his gaze moves from coach to coach none can hold his eye. When the last breaks eye-contact under the guise of scribbling a note Bellchick's normally placid face turns to a sneer, then quickly a grimace.
It is as he feared. Despite the contributions of the assembled group, some of the brightest offensive minds in football, they have all, himself included, come to the same conclusion. They cannot beat the Jets.
Silence hangs in the room, replacing the promise of the coming season, one which was heralded by fans, local, and national media as a potentially dominant campaign.
Months of planning, plotting, strategizing, and training have gone by the wayside even before kickoff as the Patriots' staff realizes that it has failed to figure out a way to utilize one of the deepest and fastest wide receiving corps in football, the second best quarterback in the game, and a developing running back to beat a mediocre division rival.
Bellichick says only two words. Words which give every man in the room chills. They are a veritable death sentence for the season and maybe for their careers.
"Call Estrella."
An appeal is voiced from the back of the room, a voice of reason, "Bill... No. We don't need this. Just throw it up to Moss. He's 6'5" with 4.2 speed, he can run by at least 3 defensive backs at a time!"
Bill's response is swift and harsh, "No! I will not leave this game in the hands of one of the greatest quarterback receiver tandems in NFL history! No chance. Your failures have left me with no choice! Why would I want men who have given their lives to football, who work 16 hour days studying film, looking for tendencies to make these types of decisions? My answer is nay I would not! Can't you see our only hope is to rest all of our faith on this young A/V intern's ability to steal and decode signs!"
Another plea, "But Bill, think about it. He's only 26, and has never played a down of football in his life. He's a technician not a coach. He won't even know what he's looking at. Not to mention the fact that once he films the signs he'll only have 15 seconds, maybe 20 to figure out which play they're calling from hundreds of polaroids or a 400 page playbook and relay that information to our staff, who then will maybe have a second or two to figure out the alignments involved and pick a play which suits our advantage and get the call to Tom who will already have had to snap the ball. It can't be done! It's madness!"
A scuffle ensues. Bellichick has called his goons in from the hallways to dispose of this dissenting opinion. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, the speaker will never be seen again, his body replaced by an exact robot replica which will stand on the sidelines as a reminder to all: This is a Dictatorship, not a Democracy!
"Put the plan into motion. Retrieve Estrella from the dungeons and alert him of his duties. Make sure to have plenty of sionide poison at the ready. He will have to be ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for this cause. He is our only hope."
Sounds a bit ridiculous doesn't it?
Well you wouldn't think so if you've turned on a TV or read a newspaper in the last three days. Cameragate has gripped the football world and polarized it into two groups. Patriot fans and everyone else. For the latter, and notably larger group it is almost like a victory parade. Now every fan of a mediocre franchise thinks they can explain why the Patriots have been so wildly successful while their team have not. For the former, well like I said heavy is the head the wears the crown.
The reality, in this case isn't even somewhere in the middle.
Of course what the Patriots did was wrong, in that it violated league rules and a NFL directive sent out by the commission in 2006, but to even suggest that this type of misdemeanor could have 1. Affected the outcome of Sunday's game or 2. Been the principal reason that the Patriots have won three Super Bowls since 2000 is utterly and embarassingly preposterious.
SInce I can't speak about every game in the Bellichick / Brady era where this has been an issue I'll just stick to using this one as an example for now. First and foremost the tapes were confiscated in the first quarter, which by any observers recollections was the most evenly played of the game. After that time the Patriots decimated the Jets, especially in the second half, even without the findings of the illicit tape. Is that sinking in? New England won the game by 24 points, and turned it into a laugher long after their renegade camera James Bond had been kicked out of the stadium. How, those of you who are calling for a forfeit, do you explain the Pats second half success? Luck? Maybe they had another camera?
Let's assume that they did, or that the camera in question was feeding to a recorder somewhere in the Meadowlands that the Jets never found. Why in the blue-fuck would they need Randy Moss to beat triple coverage with his super-human speed if they knew what defense was coming? And why, if they knew what was coming would Brady ever even look in the direction of a receiver flanked by three defensive backs. Do you really think this conversation took place between the booth and Bellichick.
"Hey, ah Bill we just stole some signs for this next play and it seems that they're going to triple cover Randy and leave the middle of the field totally open, you think we oughtta throw another receiver into the slot to fill that void?"
"Nah, you know what, I think, despite our knowledge of their play calling we should just let Randy run by the three defenders for a 50 yard TD. You know, do something nice for the kids, give everyone a reason to go out and buy those number 81 jerseys."
It's just laughable, and every arm-chair Bill Polian is getting his power and royal blue tightie whities up into a bunch because they hated the Patriots before this, and now they feel justified.
Is it a coincidence that the first player to come out vocally against Bellichick and the Pats is the same player who blasted them at the end of last season? Of course not! Tomlinson hates New England, hates their success, and hates most of all that they stole what will probably be his best chance to win a Super Bowl last year. Not exactly an objective opinion, but who cares put it on ESPN 100,000 times a day and print it in every newspaper nationwide. Hell, preach it as though it were gospel while you're at it.
And that's not even the most deplorable display following this incident. The New England fans who are leaping off the bandwagon, including spineless Herald (baseball, stick to that) columnist Tony Massarotti make this an even more aggravating story. Now of course you can't take this too seriously but on an ESPN.com message board today one post said and I quote, "Was a Pats fan 'til today...[insert paragraph of mindless drivel here] Am now a Colts fan."
Are you out of your mind? So on Sunday you liked the Patriots, but after finding out that they tried to steal signs you no longer like them... and oops how convenient for you that you just happened to pick the defending Super Bowl Champs as your new favorite team you bandwagon jumping, DLP buying, Peyton Manning ball-washing pathetic excuse for a fan. Good riddance, New England is better off without you. Just a guess here, you didn't pick that team randomly out of a hat did you?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
The Sky is...
Falling! Duck! Take cover! The Red Sox lost to the Royals! It's over! Abandon ship! Maybe next year! Get Papelbon back in the rotation! Put Schilling out to pasture! Trade Lugo now! Are you worried yet?! Why NOT!? The fucking Yankees won today!
[Deep breath...]
Welcome to the 2007 Red Sox season. After one game a few things would seem to be glaringly apparent.
1. Curt Schilling is done, finished, may actually die of old age on the mound during his next start.
2. Julio Lugo is no more than a poor man's Jose Offerman, which is to say he will be lucky to hit .200.
3. Manny Ramirez is good for one thing and one thing only, grounding into sixth inning double plays.
4. That other Asian guy, Okajima, doesn't know the season started yet, he still thinks he's pitching batting practice.
5. Maybe a little less blogging and a little more pitching? Forget the changeup let's get that fastball up over 90 first eh?
But then again it's only been one game. Lest we forget, there are 161 left to play and in my humble opinion two things are for certain. The Red Sox are not going to finish the season 0-162 and the Royals will not end the year 162-0. It's been one day people, let's relax on the apocalyptic meltdowns ok?
So since we've decided we're not going to freak out anymore, let's take a logical look at what happened yesterday. The first and most troubling thing for me was Schilling's lack of velocity. Last year NESN didn't show the radar readings on all of Curt's pitches, now I wish they had stuck to that plan for this season. His fastball was topping out in the very low 90's in the first few innings and bottomed out in the fourth at 88. That's Keith Foulke-esque, and while I know he spent the whole spring working on it, Schilling doesn't have Foulke's changeup to compliment that "blazing" sub-90 heater (I guess Folke doesn't anymore either but at least he did at one point). Without mid-90's velocity on the straight fastball Schilling's effectiveness is minimized to some degree, because his best pitch, his splitter, has no velocity variance from his regular fastball. If hitters don't have to worry about the splitter buckling their knees AND the fastball blowing past them both pitches become remarkably ordinary.
Also, while this has been wildly overplayed in the media I just can't comment on Curt's struggles without mentioning his weight. The guy looks fat. Plain and simple. I'm not one of those people who is going to sit here and say things like, "More Jogging, Less Blogging!" (dirtdogs.com). No one can work out all day. But regardless of your extracurricular activities, there is no excuse for coming into the season looking fat, slow, and old if you want to be the ace of the Red Sox staff. It's not the main point of yesterday's start, but it should be on our minds going forward
Obviously I'm not ready to throw in the towel on a great competitor like Schilling after one game. Yesterday absolutely could have just been a hiccup and not an indicator of things to come. He's a warrior (I hate that sports cleche but it applies here) and even with deteriorating physical skills his ferocity and baseball intelligence should be able to buy him 12-15 wins this season. That being said, his spot at the front end of the rotation looks very shaky, and the door is certainly open for Josh Beckett or Diasuke Matusaka to step through and assume that role.
One thing about yesterday's game that is being overlooked is the performance by Gil Meche. While it certainly can be said that the Red Sox didn't hit, to place all of the blame on their lineup is to grossly underestimate the performance Mech put on. He made the Royals look like geniuses for inking him to a 55 million dollar contract last winter. After the first inning he simply dominated the Sox lineup, throwing under 10 pitches in three of his frames and once he was given the lead he never allowed them back in the game. Sometimes you just run into a buzzsaw on the mound, and wiith no other evidence to suggest otherwise, I am willing to say that is what happened yesterday. The Sox lineup is still potent and will not be shut down like that all the time, in fact they'll probably will bounce back with a far better performance on Wednesday.
An exclamation point on the struggles of the Sox offense was new shortstop Julio Lugo's three consecutive strikeouts in his first three at bats in a Red Sox uniform. If I were him I would avoid listening to WEEI at all today (which I guess won't be hard since they're on the road), they won't be kind. But the good news is all he has to do to get back in our good graces is have a good game tomorrow. To be fair, coming into the game Lugo was 0-7 lifetime against Meche, and it's just a fact that some pitchers just have some hitters' number, and vice versa. I don't think we're looking at a potential all star here, but we should still consider Lugo a key to this lineup so long as Gil Meche doesn't get traded to an AL East team.
This time of year everything is thrown into sharp relief, especially on paper. Looking at a team and trying to evaluate it after one (or even a few) game(s) is like trying to evaluate a hitter's batting average over the same amount of time. One day could be hitting 1.000, the next he could be down to .200. Everything is overly fluid at this point, and just like every season it will take a few weeks to sort out the good from the mediocre and even longer to determine the mediocre from the bad. So while the Yankees looked like they could win every game 9-5 yesterday and the Red Sox appeared to be the next incarnation of the '05 Tigers that could all be flipped on its head by this time tomorrow.
So relax, it's baseball season, a six month excuse to not leave your couch between 7 and 10 PM five nights a week.
While it wasn't a great day to be a Red Sox fan or player yesterday it certainly was a great time to be a former member of the hometown team. Seemingly everyone of consequence that has left the Sox over the past two seasons had a great day, highlighted by much maligned shortstop Edgar Renterria's two homeruns, including a game winner for the Atlanta Braves. Man, why can't we get players like that? Other ex-Sox studs studs on Monday, Trot Nixon went 3-4 for 3 runs scored, Hanley Ramirez went 4-6 with two doubles, an RBI, and four runs scored, and Johnny Damon predictably got on base twice and scored a run for the Yankees. At least Derek Lowe got shelled. That always gives me a warm feeling in my stomach.
[Deep breath...]
Welcome to the 2007 Red Sox season. After one game a few things would seem to be glaringly apparent.
1. Curt Schilling is done, finished, may actually die of old age on the mound during his next start.
2. Julio Lugo is no more than a poor man's Jose Offerman, which is to say he will be lucky to hit .200.
3. Manny Ramirez is good for one thing and one thing only, grounding into sixth inning double plays.
4. That other Asian guy, Okajima, doesn't know the season started yet, he still thinks he's pitching batting practice.
5. Maybe a little less blogging and a little more pitching? Forget the changeup let's get that fastball up over 90 first eh?
But then again it's only been one game. Lest we forget, there are 161 left to play and in my humble opinion two things are for certain. The Red Sox are not going to finish the season 0-162 and the Royals will not end the year 162-0. It's been one day people, let's relax on the apocalyptic meltdowns ok?
So since we've decided we're not going to freak out anymore, let's take a logical look at what happened yesterday. The first and most troubling thing for me was Schilling's lack of velocity. Last year NESN didn't show the radar readings on all of Curt's pitches, now I wish they had stuck to that plan for this season. His fastball was topping out in the very low 90's in the first few innings and bottomed out in the fourth at 88. That's Keith Foulke-esque, and while I know he spent the whole spring working on it, Schilling doesn't have Foulke's changeup to compliment that "blazing" sub-90 heater (I guess Folke doesn't anymore either but at least he did at one point). Without mid-90's velocity on the straight fastball Schilling's effectiveness is minimized to some degree, because his best pitch, his splitter, has no velocity variance from his regular fastball. If hitters don't have to worry about the splitter buckling their knees AND the fastball blowing past them both pitches become remarkably ordinary.
Also, while this has been wildly overplayed in the media I just can't comment on Curt's struggles without mentioning his weight. The guy looks fat. Plain and simple. I'm not one of those people who is going to sit here and say things like, "More Jogging, Less Blogging!" (dirtdogs.com). No one can work out all day. But regardless of your extracurricular activities, there is no excuse for coming into the season looking fat, slow, and old if you want to be the ace of the Red Sox staff. It's not the main point of yesterday's start, but it should be on our minds going forward
Obviously I'm not ready to throw in the towel on a great competitor like Schilling after one game. Yesterday absolutely could have just been a hiccup and not an indicator of things to come. He's a warrior (I hate that sports cleche but it applies here) and even with deteriorating physical skills his ferocity and baseball intelligence should be able to buy him 12-15 wins this season. That being said, his spot at the front end of the rotation looks very shaky, and the door is certainly open for Josh Beckett or Diasuke Matusaka to step through and assume that role.
One thing about yesterday's game that is being overlooked is the performance by Gil Meche. While it certainly can be said that the Red Sox didn't hit, to place all of the blame on their lineup is to grossly underestimate the performance Mech put on. He made the Royals look like geniuses for inking him to a 55 million dollar contract last winter. After the first inning he simply dominated the Sox lineup, throwing under 10 pitches in three of his frames and once he was given the lead he never allowed them back in the game. Sometimes you just run into a buzzsaw on the mound, and wiith no other evidence to suggest otherwise, I am willing to say that is what happened yesterday. The Sox lineup is still potent and will not be shut down like that all the time, in fact they'll probably will bounce back with a far better performance on Wednesday.
An exclamation point on the struggles of the Sox offense was new shortstop Julio Lugo's three consecutive strikeouts in his first three at bats in a Red Sox uniform. If I were him I would avoid listening to WEEI at all today (which I guess won't be hard since they're on the road), they won't be kind. But the good news is all he has to do to get back in our good graces is have a good game tomorrow. To be fair, coming into the game Lugo was 0-7 lifetime against Meche, and it's just a fact that some pitchers just have some hitters' number, and vice versa. I don't think we're looking at a potential all star here, but we should still consider Lugo a key to this lineup so long as Gil Meche doesn't get traded to an AL East team.
This time of year everything is thrown into sharp relief, especially on paper. Looking at a team and trying to evaluate it after one (or even a few) game(s) is like trying to evaluate a hitter's batting average over the same amount of time. One day could be hitting 1.000, the next he could be down to .200. Everything is overly fluid at this point, and just like every season it will take a few weeks to sort out the good from the mediocre and even longer to determine the mediocre from the bad. So while the Yankees looked like they could win every game 9-5 yesterday and the Red Sox appeared to be the next incarnation of the '05 Tigers that could all be flipped on its head by this time tomorrow.
So relax, it's baseball season, a six month excuse to not leave your couch between 7 and 10 PM five nights a week.
While it wasn't a great day to be a Red Sox fan or player yesterday it certainly was a great time to be a former member of the hometown team. Seemingly everyone of consequence that has left the Sox over the past two seasons had a great day, highlighted by much maligned shortstop Edgar Renterria's two homeruns, including a game winner for the Atlanta Braves. Man, why can't we get players like that? Other ex-Sox studs studs on Monday, Trot Nixon went 3-4 for 3 runs scored, Hanley Ramirez went 4-6 with two doubles, an RBI, and four runs scored, and Johnny Damon predictably got on base twice and scored a run for the Yankees. At least Derek Lowe got shelled. That always gives me a warm feeling in my stomach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)