Friday, July 27, 2007
Overboard?
Roger Goodell needs to use his "Personal Conduct" powers wisely. Thus far, I don't have a major problem with the way he's handling the players he views as deviants who are tarnishing the image of his league. But, his ruling on Bengals LB Odell Thurman is making me wonder if he's not getting caught up in trying to be a tough guy. Does Thurman really deserve to sit a whole year because of an alleged fight outside a bar? It seems like four games would be more reasonable. I understand that punishments are more significant for repeat offenders, but Joey Porter was just fined for his run-in with Levi Jones at a Vegas club. If Goodell is going to continue on this path, it might just open the door for a fledgling challenger to the NFL. Michael Vick would be a big name (and talent) for a new league, assuming he's not locked away for too long. A more relaxed leadership of another league would certainly appeal to me if I had been suspended by Goodell.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
A-Rod v. Peyton
It's the current match-up on ESPN's "Who's Now?" competition: Alex Rodriguez against Peyton Manning. Before I get into this too much, I'll say that I think it's just another of ESPN's style over substance gimmicks ... which is why I haven't brought it up before. But, I happened to be watching SportsCenter and saw the debate just now (I forgot the Braves v. Giants game had started on TBS). Michael Smith voted for Manning. Mike Greenberg voted for A-Rod, citing his nickname as one reason why (I don't find it all that exciting because there are so many similar nicknames: A-Rod - Andy Roddick, K-Rod - Francisco Rodriguez, K-Mart - Kenyon Martin, etc.). In between, Erin Andrews voted for Rodriguez citing the fact that it is baseball season, so Rodriguez is more "now" than Manning because right now it is not football season. I'm not sure exactly what they are looking for in this segment, but I don't think that "Now" refers to this exact moment in time. For the regular professional sports, I think it has to take into account at least the last calendar year ... but, here I am looking for some substance where there really isn't much to find.
P.S. Rodriguez is great, but Manning is the MVP QB of the defending Super Bowl Champions. Last time I check, the NFL was king, and Manning is king of the NFL right now. Plus, he has some of the best commercials on TV and was hilarious on SNL. Manning's the pick if someone asks me.
P.S. Rodriguez is great, but Manning is the MVP QB of the defending Super Bowl Champions. Last time I check, the NFL was king, and Manning is king of the NFL right now. Plus, he has some of the best commercials on TV and was hilarious on SNL. Manning's the pick if someone asks me.
Town Hall
ESPN had a special SportsCenter yesterday. They had a panel of "experts" who talked about Barry Bonds and the HR record. I can't tell you everything they talked about because I didn't watch most of it. But, there was one point when members of the panel were saying that Bonds didn't belong in the Hall of Fame because he didn't meet the character standard of what a Hall of Famer should be. The name Pete Rose came up during the discussion as a great player who isn't in because of things he did off the field.
I've never been to Cooperstown, so I have not been brainwashed like the panelists who think it's an unbelievably sacred place. Maybe they need to get their priorities straight. Barry Bonds belongs in fraternity as soon as he's eligible, even if he used performance enhancing drugs. You can keep him out if no one else in there cheated to enhance performance. What's the purpose of corking bats? Enhancing performance. Theoretically, making a bat lighter will increase bat speed. Why did pitchers scuff balls and apply illegal substances? I don't think Gaylord Perry was trying to make things more difficult for himself. He was trying to enhance his performance by cheating, by doctoring the ball to get more action on pitches, in order to gain an advantage over his opponents.
Likewise, you don't put people into the Hall of Fame because they are good guys and keep them out because they aren't. Ty Cobb, from what I heard, was a mean, nasty guy who was also a racist. He's in. Bonds may be surly and arrogant (I don't really know, personally), but that's no reason to keep him out of the collection of the best baseball players ever.
Pete Rose is unlike Bonds in that the reason he is not in the HOF (betting on baseball) doesn't fall in the realm of "cheating". In the eyes of the commish, betting seems unforgivable because it brings into question the integrity of the game ... just look at what David Stern is going through right now. Also, Bonds is suspected of using performance enhancers at a time when it's widely believed that many (maybe most) players in the league were cheating in similar ways. There weren't, to the best of my knowledge, large numbers of baseball players and managers betting on games they were involved in during the time Rose was doing it.
Sticking with the HOF theme, does Craig Biggio belong in the Hall of Fame? He has solid numbers, made quite a few all-star teams and won some gold gloves. But, he was never an MVP caliber player. In fact, during the 90's, he was second fiddle on the Astros to Jeff Bagwell, who was the superior offensive weapon. By the numbers, you'd have to say he's a lock. But, when I think about the player Craig Biggio was, I'm not so convinced. He was a good player over 20 seasons. But, if you have 150 hits, 13 HR's and 23 SB's per year for 20 years, you end up with 3000 hits, 260 HR's and 460 SB's. Biggio was one of the best NL second baseman over a fair portion of his career, but 2B isn't exactly a stacked position. I'm not sure what exactly the voters use as their criteria, but my guess is Biggio slides into the HOF by a slim margin.
I've never been to Cooperstown, so I have not been brainwashed like the panelists who think it's an unbelievably sacred place. Maybe they need to get their priorities straight. Barry Bonds belongs in fraternity as soon as he's eligible, even if he used performance enhancing drugs. You can keep him out if no one else in there cheated to enhance performance. What's the purpose of corking bats? Enhancing performance. Theoretically, making a bat lighter will increase bat speed. Why did pitchers scuff balls and apply illegal substances? I don't think Gaylord Perry was trying to make things more difficult for himself. He was trying to enhance his performance by cheating, by doctoring the ball to get more action on pitches, in order to gain an advantage over his opponents.
Likewise, you don't put people into the Hall of Fame because they are good guys and keep them out because they aren't. Ty Cobb, from what I heard, was a mean, nasty guy who was also a racist. He's in. Bonds may be surly and arrogant (I don't really know, personally), but that's no reason to keep him out of the collection of the best baseball players ever.
Pete Rose is unlike Bonds in that the reason he is not in the HOF (betting on baseball) doesn't fall in the realm of "cheating". In the eyes of the commish, betting seems unforgivable because it brings into question the integrity of the game ... just look at what David Stern is going through right now. Also, Bonds is suspected of using performance enhancers at a time when it's widely believed that many (maybe most) players in the league were cheating in similar ways. There weren't, to the best of my knowledge, large numbers of baseball players and managers betting on games they were involved in during the time Rose was doing it.
Sticking with the HOF theme, does Craig Biggio belong in the Hall of Fame? He has solid numbers, made quite a few all-star teams and won some gold gloves. But, he was never an MVP caliber player. In fact, during the 90's, he was second fiddle on the Astros to Jeff Bagwell, who was the superior offensive weapon. By the numbers, you'd have to say he's a lock. But, when I think about the player Craig Biggio was, I'm not so convinced. He was a good player over 20 seasons. But, if you have 150 hits, 13 HR's and 23 SB's per year for 20 years, you end up with 3000 hits, 260 HR's and 460 SB's. Biggio was one of the best NL second baseman over a fair portion of his career, but 2B isn't exactly a stacked position. I'm not sure what exactly the voters use as their criteria, but my guess is Biggio slides into the HOF by a slim margin.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Bonds Update
Is it really a big deal that the chemist who created the "clear" is saying Barry Bonds used steroids? I don't think it is. I don't think many people don't think Bonds used steroids at some point. The real question, which is not answered by this chemist, is whether or not Bonds knew he was doing steroids when he was on the routine that, apparently, included the "cream" and the "clear."
And, staying with the hypocrisy theme from the NBA officiating scandal, why isn't there more focus on the other person named by the chemist? In my opinion, Gary Sheffield is a bigger pain in the ass than Bonds. Maybe the reason Bonds has only played for 2 teams in his career, while Sheffield has bounced around to seven teams (Milwaukee - San Diego - Florida - Los Angeles - Atlanta - New York - Detroit) is that Bonds is the better player, but could it also be that Sheffield is just as surly and spouts crap to the media about the lack of African Americans in MLB and Joe Torre's treatment of African Americans? It's hypocritical to be up in arms over Bonds if you aren't going to hold everyone else to the same standard ... Jason Giambi won comeback player of the year!
And, staying with the hypocrisy theme from the NBA officiating scandal, why isn't there more focus on the other person named by the chemist? In my opinion, Gary Sheffield is a bigger pain in the ass than Bonds. Maybe the reason Bonds has only played for 2 teams in his career, while Sheffield has bounced around to seven teams (Milwaukee - San Diego - Florida - Los Angeles - Atlanta - New York - Detroit) is that Bonds is the better player, but could it also be that Sheffield is just as surly and spouts crap to the media about the lack of African Americans in MLB and Joe Torre's treatment of African Americans? It's hypocritical to be up in arms over Bonds if you aren't going to hold everyone else to the same standard ... Jason Giambi won comeback player of the year!
Monday, July 23, 2007
News Flash: Officials matter in basketball
Amid the frenzy of reports on former NBA Official Tim Donaghy's involvement on fixing NBA games in conjunction with organized crime has been the admission by various sports personalities that the officials can have a big hand in the outcome of basketball games. Dick Vitale cited foul calls on big men as just one possible scenario.
I agree with just about everyone that corrupt officials are not a good thing for the NBA. Heck, corrupt officials aren't good for any professional sports league, college, or high school. But, I think it's hypocritical for the same people who are crying about this potential injustice when many of the same people, for years, have been downplaying the impact of officials on games. Heck, David Stern has been one of the strongest proponents of the idea that the teams in the NBA decide games, not the refs.
So, it would be nice if people would sit firmly on one side of the fence, rather than hop back and forth depending on the scenario. Bad officiating can create inequity in sports. Period! And, said bad officiating is never good. Whether the crappy calls are on purpose or by accident, it doesn't really much matter to the team that is getting the shaft in the deal. That's my take ... the teams are important, but there are times when the officiating is so one-sided that it puts one team at a distinct disadvantage.
My friend (and HS teammate) John usually argues the other side, that you shouldn't blame the officials because no team plays perfectly and loses. If this is your stance, you should not really be up in arms about this issue of whether or not Donaghy was involved in all this. If one team plays perfectly, there is no way that they won't cover the spread, no matter what the official does. One official, or a crew even, would have to be obviously cheating to even make a game close if one team played good "D", made all its shots and didn't turn the ball over.
February 10, 2007, the Hornets were favored by 8 against the Grizzlies. The Hornets played well, shooting 55.8% from the field, outrebounding Memphis by 14 and turning the ball over just 8 times. They covered the spread, winning by 15 points, 114-99. But, they missed 9 of 22 FT's; only caused 10 TO's; and allowed Memphis to shoot 43.9%, make 9 of 19 3's and 18 of 23 FT's. What's my point? The Hornets played well enough to cover the spread, but they obviously didn't play a perfect game. If a corrupt official made crappy calls that resulted in a 10-15 point swing, it could affect the point spread. But, similarly, a team could make up for it by playing better.
If it is found that Tim Donaghy blatantly affected the outcomes of games, that's bad news. It will be even worse if it is found that more officials are involved. But, I think it's equally important that people not lose sight of the real issue ... bad officiating is bad whether it's corrupt or not. It can affect point spreads and wins and loses. Sometimes, it is the officiating's fault!
I agree with just about everyone that corrupt officials are not a good thing for the NBA. Heck, corrupt officials aren't good for any professional sports league, college, or high school. But, I think it's hypocritical for the same people who are crying about this potential injustice when many of the same people, for years, have been downplaying the impact of officials on games. Heck, David Stern has been one of the strongest proponents of the idea that the teams in the NBA decide games, not the refs.
So, it would be nice if people would sit firmly on one side of the fence, rather than hop back and forth depending on the scenario. Bad officiating can create inequity in sports. Period! And, said bad officiating is never good. Whether the crappy calls are on purpose or by accident, it doesn't really much matter to the team that is getting the shaft in the deal. That's my take ... the teams are important, but there are times when the officiating is so one-sided that it puts one team at a distinct disadvantage.
My friend (and HS teammate) John usually argues the other side, that you shouldn't blame the officials because no team plays perfectly and loses. If this is your stance, you should not really be up in arms about this issue of whether or not Donaghy was involved in all this. If one team plays perfectly, there is no way that they won't cover the spread, no matter what the official does. One official, or a crew even, would have to be obviously cheating to even make a game close if one team played good "D", made all its shots and didn't turn the ball over.
February 10, 2007, the Hornets were favored by 8 against the Grizzlies. The Hornets played well, shooting 55.8% from the field, outrebounding Memphis by 14 and turning the ball over just 8 times. They covered the spread, winning by 15 points, 114-99. But, they missed 9 of 22 FT's; only caused 10 TO's; and allowed Memphis to shoot 43.9%, make 9 of 19 3's and 18 of 23 FT's. What's my point? The Hornets played well enough to cover the spread, but they obviously didn't play a perfect game. If a corrupt official made crappy calls that resulted in a 10-15 point swing, it could affect the point spread. But, similarly, a team could make up for it by playing better.
If it is found that Tim Donaghy blatantly affected the outcomes of games, that's bad news. It will be even worse if it is found that more officials are involved. But, I think it's equally important that people not lose sight of the real issue ... bad officiating is bad whether it's corrupt or not. It can affect point spreads and wins and loses. Sometimes, it is the officiating's fault!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
La Russa's Mistake
Tony La Russa made a moronic move sticking with Aaron Rowand with 2 outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th with a 1-run game. It's undebatable. I'm fine with La Russa holding back Albert Pujols because of his versatility. If someone got hurt, you might need to plug someone into an odd position, and Pujols can play anywhere in the IF or the corner OF positions. But, at that point in the game, you HAVE to insert Pujols. Don't worry, I'll tell you why.
At that point in the game, there are only a few things that can happen. If the batter gets out (like Rowand did), the game is over. If the batter gets a hit, it's likely that 2 runs will score and the NL will win. It's also possible that a wild pitch or walk could result in a tie game, which could lead to extra innings if K-Rod ended the damage at that point. But, it's highly unlikely that a K-Rod v. Pujols match-up would not result in the end of the game. That's why you want Pujols in the batter's box, not Aaron Rowand. I'm not trying to slight Rowand, but Pujols is a better hitter. Plus, there are some hitters who don't handle hard throwers well. It looked like Rowand was a little overmatched in his first AB. Pujols would have had a better shot against K-Rod.
I won't talk about the La Russa - Pujols relationship. I just still have a hard time believing La Russa screwed up the baseball side of it that bad!
At that point in the game, there are only a few things that can happen. If the batter gets out (like Rowand did), the game is over. If the batter gets a hit, it's likely that 2 runs will score and the NL will win. It's also possible that a wild pitch or walk could result in a tie game, which could lead to extra innings if K-Rod ended the damage at that point. But, it's highly unlikely that a K-Rod v. Pujols match-up would not result in the end of the game. That's why you want Pujols in the batter's box, not Aaron Rowand. I'm not trying to slight Rowand, but Pujols is a better hitter. Plus, there are some hitters who don't handle hard throwers well. It looked like Rowand was a little overmatched in his first AB. Pujols would have had a better shot against K-Rod.
I won't talk about the La Russa - Pujols relationship. I just still have a hard time believing La Russa screwed up the baseball side of it that bad!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
