Interesting little tidbit about the NHL's conference finals: the four remaining teams are the last four Stanley Cup Champions. The Penguins won in 2009, the Blackhawks in 2010, the Bruins in 2011 and the Kings last year. That hasn't happened since 1945. So, it should come as minimal surprise that these are the last four teams standing. Especially since Pittsburgh and Chicago were far-and-away the two best teams in the league this season, Boston's the only team in the East capable of beating Pittsburgh, and LA won the Cup last year.
The matchup in the East is really not surprising. Before the playoffs started, I figured this would be a Boston-Pittsburgh matchup. And it's an intriguing one at that. Both of these teams proved their dominance in the conference semis. The Rangers and Senators were completely overmatched. This series should be a different story, though. I think the Penguins-Bruins matchup is a very even one. It could easily come down to the little things that make the difference.
Boston's fourth line absolutely dominated the Rangers. That's the main reason why the Bruins won. And that defense, which included three rookies. It's crazy to think that as important as those three were in the conference semis, they might not even play as Boston's regular defensemen are all set to return against Pittsburgh. I wonder how much that'll effect the unit's chemistry, though. Even so, are they up to the challenge against the best offense in the NHL? It's safe to say that the Penguins are much better offensively than the Rangers are.
If defense is Boston's strength, it was Pittsburgh's Achilles heel against the Islanders. But ever since they straightened out their goalie situation by going from the struggling Marc-Andre Fleury to Thomas Vokoun, the Penguins have gone back to being the same dominant team they were during the regular season. It's a great battle of strength against strength. If the Bruins are able to slow down Pittsburgh's high-powered attack, I really like their chances. This series also promises to be physical. Seeing as Zdeno Chara is about nine feet tall on ice skates, I give the advantage there to Boston as well. The Penguins like to beat you with finesse.
I can't move on to the West before looking at some of the more intriguing individual players. The Bruins thought they were getting Jarome Iginla at the trade deadline, but he decided to go to Pittsburgh instead. And he's been incredible for the Penguins in the postseason. Boston's big deadline deal acquisition was Jaromir Jagr. They beat Toronto and the Rangers without getting much of a contribution from the future Hall of Famer. They need him to be Jaromir Jagr and make that offense deeper if they have any hope of advancing. Of course, Jagr started his career in Pittsburgh, playing on those two Penguin Stanley Cup teams in the early 90s, when they beat the Bruins in the conference finals twice. Yeah, I think he'll be booed in Pittsburgh.
Out west, we got a thrilling final chapter in the Blackhawks-Red Wings rivalry. Nothing like Game 7 playoff overtime. Ultimately, the better team prevailed. The same can be said about the all-California series, where the Kings had home ice in the postseason for the first time since 1992 and took full advantage. The home team won every game in that series. That road magic the Kings rode to the Cup last season has suddenly vanished. Winning a game in Chicago's going to be difficult, but LA has to in order to become the first team to go to back-to-back Finals since the Penguins and Red Wings played each other in 2007 and 2008, as well as to become the first post-lockout (1.0) repeat champion.
I've been very impressed with the Los Angeles Kings throughout the playoffs. Maybe even more than last year. This year, everybody knows how good they are. They aren't surprising anyone. Yet they keep winning. Six straight series (five of them as the lower seed) and counting. Jonathan Quick is a freak of nature. Ryan Miller's hold on Olympic starter might not be that firm after all. The Kings are a better team than their Cup winner from a year ago. But the problem is they're not as good as Chicago.
Against the Red Wings, the Blackhawks had their backs against the wall for the first time all season. And they responded by winning three straight after going down 3-1 in the series. Game 5 was a blowout, but they scored three in the third to overcome a one-goal deficit and win Game 6, 4-3, before clinching it in overtime. Somewhat overlooked about that series was how well both teams played defensively. The losing team only scored one goal in five of the seven games, and the Red Wings had a 2-0 shutout in Game 4.
Overcoming the Red Wings was an incredible show of resilience by Chicago. The Kings are making a run that's very similar to the one they last year. They don't score a lot, though. Only 26 goals in 13 playoff games. Goals will probably be hard to come by in this series, too. So far, Quick has played like he wants another Conn Smythe Trophy. He may need to continue that in order for LA to get back to the Final.
Heading into the playoffs, I said that while I thought they were clearly the two best teams, the Pittsburgh-Chicago Final was far from guaranteed. But we're just four wins by each away from that, in fact, being the matchup. While I think the Blackhawks will have an easier time than the Penguins (the Eastern Conference Final should be a battle), I do expect them to both get it done. I'm saying Pittsburgh in seven and Chicago in six.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Wrestling's Competition
After the IOC's surprising and stupid decision back in February to keep not-so-modern pentathlon on the Olympic program instead of wrestling, tomorrow's vote became a whole lot more intriguing. Tomorrow the IOC will narrow down a list of eight sports to a short list (probably of three, but they haven't said), from which one sport will be given the vacant spot on the program (wrestling's spot) when they vote on the 2020 host in September. Suddenly the new sports looking to join the Olympic program saw their competition for that one spot increase dramatically. Because most people agree wrestling shouldn't be in this position.
But since it is, we have to look at wrestling against the other seven sports under consideration. Some seem overdue for Olympic inclusion, but should they get it at the expense of an original Olympic sport? It seems like a no-brainer that wrestling will be included on the short list. But it also seemed like a no-brainer modern pentathlon would be the sport they recommended for elimination in February, so anything's possible. This is the IOC we're talking about here. It's entirely possible that they'll stubbornly stand by a decision that even they probably know is wrong and not even give wrestling the chance to be reinstated. Knowing the negative backlash they've received over the last three months and how much it would intensify if they were to do that, I highly doubt wrestling's not on the short list. But, again, this is the IOC, so you never know.
Anyway, if not for the presence of wrestling, I would've said squash was the odds-on favorite to not only make the short list, but to be added to the Olympic program as well. That still might be the case, but wrestling's presence in the vote hurt squash more than any of the other sports. Because I think squash--which was almost added in 2005, then again in 2009--has the most compelling argument. Squash is still a favorite to land on the short list, and their campaign video pulls at all the right cords. If they were picking based on the promotional video alone, squash would win in a landslide.
The second-best video of the group is the one for roller sports. (I'd put them all up, but these are the only two worth watching.) In my opinion, roller sports belongs in the Olympics nearly as much as squash. The format they're proposing is essentially the Winter Olympic sport of speed skating on roller blades. I've long been an advocate of this. There are so many different varieties of roller sports, but straightforward races is definitely the way to go. Especially since it appeals to the young and speed skating is one of the most popular Winter Olympic sports.
Like squash, karate was almost voted into the 2012 Olympics in 2005. I personally don't see the need to add another martial art, especially one that's extremely similar to taekwondo, to the program, but that's just me. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment, but karate's history as now a three-time bidder probably gives it the nod over roller sports as the third sport on the short list (again, I'm assuming the short list will be three). I don't think it gets in, though. Wrestling's much more popular, and, after what happened in February, has more supporters.
Sport climbing's video isn't bad, so I'm including that one, too. The presentation is being made on the 60th anniversary of Edmund Hillary's team reaching the summit of Mount Everest, which might be a good omen for a sport that would be unique to the Olympic program. Think about it. There is no sport in the world similar to rock climbing. I don't think it has any chance of making the cut, but just the idea of sport climbing in the Olympics is compelling.
Baseball and softball, which were each dropped from the Olympics in 2005, have formed a combined bid for reinstatement. It's a long shot. Softball never should've been dropped in the first place, but, unfortunately, now has its fate tied to baseball. But baseball's not getting back in anytime soon. They won't even consider it unless they get a commitment for Major Leaguers to play, and Bud Selig's right. It's not practical to shut the season down for two weeks so they can go to the Olympics
The other two sports that have little to no chance are wakeboarding and wushu. Wakeboarding's cool (essentially snowboarding on water), but it's too new. I'm also not sure how much fun it would be to watch live. And they'd have to build a special venue. I'm still not entirely sure what wushu is. From what I was able to gather from the demonstration video, wushu is basically rhythmic gymnastics with a sword instead of the different stuff rhythmic gymnasts use. Is there really a need for more of that in the Olympics?
My best guess is that the short list will consist of three sports: wrestling, squash and karate, with roller sports having an outside chance to crack that Top 3. Regardless, if common sense prevails, this will be a wrestling vs. squash vote come September. And, nothing against the other six candidates, that's the way it should be. Because those are the two sports most deserving of places on the Olympic program. (In a perfect world, wrestling is reinstated, then squash replaces modern pentathlon in 2024.)
But since it is, we have to look at wrestling against the other seven sports under consideration. Some seem overdue for Olympic inclusion, but should they get it at the expense of an original Olympic sport? It seems like a no-brainer that wrestling will be included on the short list. But it also seemed like a no-brainer modern pentathlon would be the sport they recommended for elimination in February, so anything's possible. This is the IOC we're talking about here. It's entirely possible that they'll stubbornly stand by a decision that even they probably know is wrong and not even give wrestling the chance to be reinstated. Knowing the negative backlash they've received over the last three months and how much it would intensify if they were to do that, I highly doubt wrestling's not on the short list. But, again, this is the IOC, so you never know.
Anyway, if not for the presence of wrestling, I would've said squash was the odds-on favorite to not only make the short list, but to be added to the Olympic program as well. That still might be the case, but wrestling's presence in the vote hurt squash more than any of the other sports. Because I think squash--which was almost added in 2005, then again in 2009--has the most compelling argument. Squash is still a favorite to land on the short list, and their campaign video pulls at all the right cords. If they were picking based on the promotional video alone, squash would win in a landslide.
The second-best video of the group is the one for roller sports. (I'd put them all up, but these are the only two worth watching.) In my opinion, roller sports belongs in the Olympics nearly as much as squash. The format they're proposing is essentially the Winter Olympic sport of speed skating on roller blades. I've long been an advocate of this. There are so many different varieties of roller sports, but straightforward races is definitely the way to go. Especially since it appeals to the young and speed skating is one of the most popular Winter Olympic sports.
Like squash, karate was almost voted into the 2012 Olympics in 2005. I personally don't see the need to add another martial art, especially one that's extremely similar to taekwondo, to the program, but that's just me. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment, but karate's history as now a three-time bidder probably gives it the nod over roller sports as the third sport on the short list (again, I'm assuming the short list will be three). I don't think it gets in, though. Wrestling's much more popular, and, after what happened in February, has more supporters.
Sport climbing's video isn't bad, so I'm including that one, too. The presentation is being made on the 60th anniversary of Edmund Hillary's team reaching the summit of Mount Everest, which might be a good omen for a sport that would be unique to the Olympic program. Think about it. There is no sport in the world similar to rock climbing. I don't think it has any chance of making the cut, but just the idea of sport climbing in the Olympics is compelling.
Baseball and softball, which were each dropped from the Olympics in 2005, have formed a combined bid for reinstatement. It's a long shot. Softball never should've been dropped in the first place, but, unfortunately, now has its fate tied to baseball. But baseball's not getting back in anytime soon. They won't even consider it unless they get a commitment for Major Leaguers to play, and Bud Selig's right. It's not practical to shut the season down for two weeks so they can go to the Olympics
The other two sports that have little to no chance are wakeboarding and wushu. Wakeboarding's cool (essentially snowboarding on water), but it's too new. I'm also not sure how much fun it would be to watch live. And they'd have to build a special venue. I'm still not entirely sure what wushu is. From what I was able to gather from the demonstration video, wushu is basically rhythmic gymnastics with a sword instead of the different stuff rhythmic gymnasts use. Is there really a need for more of that in the Olympics?
My best guess is that the short list will consist of three sports: wrestling, squash and karate, with roller sports having an outside chance to crack that Top 3. Regardless, if common sense prevails, this will be a wrestling vs. squash vote come September. And, nothing against the other six candidates, that's the way it should be. Because those are the two sports most deserving of places on the Olympic program. (In a perfect world, wrestling is reinstated, then squash replaces modern pentathlon in 2024.)
Sunday, May 26, 2013
The Greatest Spectacle In Racing
Memorial Day Weekend is upon us. Our traditional Indy 500/Coca-Cola 600 doubleheader has an added twist this year. Now it's a tripleheader. The Monaco Grand Prix will be nationally televised on NBC for the first time. That's a lot of racing. With all due respect to Formula One and NASCAR, though, only one of the three races is called the "Greatest Spectacle In Racing." Only one has been going on for a century. The other two races are great in their own right, but Memorial Day Weekend is about the Indy 500.
I give IndyCar a lot of credit. Danica left and they haven't missed a beat. In fact, now that it's not all about her, the series might be stronger than ever. And with all of open-wheel racing once again unified under the IndyCar banner, it's only going to get better.
There are so many good drivers on the circuit these days. Helio Castroneves is finally more than just the "Dancing With the Stars" guy. Likewise, Dario Franchitti isn't "Ashley Judd's husband" anymore. As a matter of fact, they both have a chance to becoming Indy legends and join the Holy Trinity (Foyt, Mears and Unser) as four-time Indy 500 winners.
Normally there's one guy or one team that's so dominant during the month at the Brickyard that you'd say the number of drivers capable of winning is limited to a small handful. Not the case this year. I think roughly a third of the field can get it done, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it come down to some sort of crazy finish like it did two years ago, when J.R. Hildebrand crashed on the final turn of the final lap, giving the win to the late Dan Wheldon.
As usual, the storylines at Indy are aplenty. As I already mentioned, Helio and Dario both have the chance to become four-time winners, and Franchitti can become the first to win three times in four years. And how about 1996 champ Buddy Lazier, who came out of retirement at age 45 and qualified after just a handful of times in the car? Or Katherine Legge? She didn't have a ride 10 days ago. But she put together a one-race deal herself and got into the field as the 33rd and last car. Legge is one of four women in the field, joining Simona de Silvestro, Pippa Mann and Ana Beatriz. And that doesn't even count Sarah Fisher, who's made herself quite a second career as an owner.
The best story of all might be reserved for owner/driver Ed Carpenter. The Indianapolis native is the only driver who also owns his car on the series. He'll be starting from the pole. The other teams (Ganassi, Andretti, Penske) have more resources, and their drivers will be able to work together, so I don't think Carpenter will be able to win. But he did have the fastest car in qualifying, so who knows? And imagine how much more storybook this story becomes if he does win.
Starting right next to him is rookie Carlos Munoz. No rookie has won since Helio in 2001 (he also won in '02, and Dario would be the first back-to-back winner since if he wins). That could definitely change this year, though. Both Munoz and A.J. Allmendinger are starting in the front of the field, and both have looked great all month. And if Allmendinger manages to win, what a story that would be! This is the same A.J. Allmendinger that was in NASCAR until last year. He pulled the Reverse Danica.
I haven't forgotten about Scott Dixon, the 2008 winner, or Marco Andretti, who's still trying to break his family's curse at the Brickyard. As hard to believe as it is, Mario's win in 1969 remains the only time an Andretti has kissed the bricks. Then there's James Hinchcliffe, the talented Canadian driver who took over for Danica last year. And points leader Takuma Sato. And let's not forget defending series champion Ryan Hunter-Reay. Or Will Power, who's starting sixth, which is actually his lowest starting position in four years! Or last year's pole sitter Ryan Briscoe.
My sentimental favorite, though, is still Tony Kanaan. This guy led the race in seven consecutive years and has five career Top Five finishes. Yet he still hasn't won! The last two years, he's been fourth and third, so if the trend continues he'll finish second this year. But I wonder when the Indy gods are finally going to let him lead the last lap of the Indy 500. If there's any driver who deserves it, it's Tony Kanaan. And it would also be a very popular win. For fans and drivers alike.
See what I mean about this being one of the deepest Indy fields ever? Since it's so hard to pick among all these talented drivers, I'm going with the sentimental choice. Tony Kanaan finally gets his likeness on the Borg-Warner Trophy, right next to his buddies Dario Franchitti and Dan Wheldon. And that's something that you know would've made Dan Wheldon smile.
I give IndyCar a lot of credit. Danica left and they haven't missed a beat. In fact, now that it's not all about her, the series might be stronger than ever. And with all of open-wheel racing once again unified under the IndyCar banner, it's only going to get better.
There are so many good drivers on the circuit these days. Helio Castroneves is finally more than just the "Dancing With the Stars" guy. Likewise, Dario Franchitti isn't "Ashley Judd's husband" anymore. As a matter of fact, they both have a chance to becoming Indy legends and join the Holy Trinity (Foyt, Mears and Unser) as four-time Indy 500 winners.
Normally there's one guy or one team that's so dominant during the month at the Brickyard that you'd say the number of drivers capable of winning is limited to a small handful. Not the case this year. I think roughly a third of the field can get it done, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it come down to some sort of crazy finish like it did two years ago, when J.R. Hildebrand crashed on the final turn of the final lap, giving the win to the late Dan Wheldon.
As usual, the storylines at Indy are aplenty. As I already mentioned, Helio and Dario both have the chance to become four-time winners, and Franchitti can become the first to win three times in four years. And how about 1996 champ Buddy Lazier, who came out of retirement at age 45 and qualified after just a handful of times in the car? Or Katherine Legge? She didn't have a ride 10 days ago. But she put together a one-race deal herself and got into the field as the 33rd and last car. Legge is one of four women in the field, joining Simona de Silvestro, Pippa Mann and Ana Beatriz. And that doesn't even count Sarah Fisher, who's made herself quite a second career as an owner.
The best story of all might be reserved for owner/driver Ed Carpenter. The Indianapolis native is the only driver who also owns his car on the series. He'll be starting from the pole. The other teams (Ganassi, Andretti, Penske) have more resources, and their drivers will be able to work together, so I don't think Carpenter will be able to win. But he did have the fastest car in qualifying, so who knows? And imagine how much more storybook this story becomes if he does win.
Starting right next to him is rookie Carlos Munoz. No rookie has won since Helio in 2001 (he also won in '02, and Dario would be the first back-to-back winner since if he wins). That could definitely change this year, though. Both Munoz and A.J. Allmendinger are starting in the front of the field, and both have looked great all month. And if Allmendinger manages to win, what a story that would be! This is the same A.J. Allmendinger that was in NASCAR until last year. He pulled the Reverse Danica.
I haven't forgotten about Scott Dixon, the 2008 winner, or Marco Andretti, who's still trying to break his family's curse at the Brickyard. As hard to believe as it is, Mario's win in 1969 remains the only time an Andretti has kissed the bricks. Then there's James Hinchcliffe, the talented Canadian driver who took over for Danica last year. And points leader Takuma Sato. And let's not forget defending series champion Ryan Hunter-Reay. Or Will Power, who's starting sixth, which is actually his lowest starting position in four years! Or last year's pole sitter Ryan Briscoe.
My sentimental favorite, though, is still Tony Kanaan. This guy led the race in seven consecutive years and has five career Top Five finishes. Yet he still hasn't won! The last two years, he's been fourth and third, so if the trend continues he'll finish second this year. But I wonder when the Indy gods are finally going to let him lead the last lap of the Indy 500. If there's any driver who deserves it, it's Tony Kanaan. And it would also be a very popular win. For fans and drivers alike.
See what I mean about this being one of the deepest Indy fields ever? Since it's so hard to pick among all these talented drivers, I'm going with the sentimental choice. Tony Kanaan finally gets his likeness on the Borg-Warner Trophy, right next to his buddies Dario Franchitti and Dan Wheldon. And that's something that you know would've made Dan Wheldon smile.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Parlez-Vous Tennis
With ESPN reaching a deal to take over the US Open last week, that leaves the French Open as the only tennis major that won't be seen exclusively on ESPN in two years. The only reason I'm bringing that up now is because we've reached that time of year. The time when "An American In Paris" refers to a movie, not a tennis player. The time when Rafael Nadal channels his inner Taylor Swift and pretends to be surprised he won the French Open again (as if anyone could actually be surprised by that).
Nadal, who miraculously recovered from the "injury" that caused him to miss the US and Australian Opens, conveniently returned in time for the clay court season. But because he was out for so long, his ranking is down to No. 4 (he's seeded third, though, because Andy Murray isn't playing). And because of that, he lost the Djokovic/Federer coin flip and ended up on the same side of the draw as Djokovic, his victim in last year's final. Djokovic might be the only guy standing in the way of Nadal winning yet another French Open, though. This is the only Grand Slam tournament he hasn't won, and last year was the first time he made the final. That semi could be the match of the tournament.
The lack of Murray (who I didn't even realize moved past Roger as No. 2) also means that David Ferrer got the No. 4 seed. Ferrer has taken full advantage of Nadal's absence at the last two Grand Slams. He took that fourth semifinal spot in each tournament. Ferrer's actually been to three of the last four Grand Slam semis, starting at Roland Garros last year. Ferrer is clearly the fifth-best player in the world, but does he have what it takes to break through and reach his first Grand Slam final? I'm not sure.
The top player who caught the luckiest break of all when it comes to the draw is the only guy not named Nadal who's won this tournament in recent memory. That would be one Roger Federer. Of course, the other guy who's been a thorn is Roger's side is Thomas Berdych, who did happen to fall on his side of the draw. Fortunately for Roger, the semi would be Berdych-Ferrer. Instead he got Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. Tsonga's French, extremely talented, and has beaten Roger in a Slam before (coming back from 0-2 down to win in five), all of which makes him an incredibly dangerous potential quarterfinal opponent. I think Federer gets through it, though.
Until somebody proves that they can beat one of the Big Three or Ferrer, it's stupid not to go with the chalk when it comes to projecting semifinalists. The Djokovic-Nadal rematch would add another chapter to that incredible rivalry. In any other tournament I'd pick Djokovic, but in Paris, it's tough to go against the guy who annoyingly doesn't lose. And that would then add another chapter to Roger vs. Rafa in the final. Again, as much as it pains me, it's stupid to say anybody other than Rafael Nadal is going to win the French Open.
Fortunately, the women's tournament will be a little less predictable. Last year, Serena Williams lost in the first round. She then turned into the Serena of old, winning Wimbledon, Olympic gold and the US Open, and becoming the oldest No. 1 in history. The women have done a pretty good job of establishing their own Big Three, though, as Serena, Vika Azarenka and Maria Sharapova have distanced themselves from the rest of the field. The three of them have won the last five Grand Slam finals.
If anybody has a chance to break that stranglehold, though, it might be fourth-seeded Agnieszka Radwanska. She's never been past the fourth round at Roland Garros, but I really like the way she's playing right now and I think she could make some noise. Same thing with eighth-seeded Angelique Kerber and No. 12 Maria Kirilenko. I wouldn't be surprised to see any of them make a run.
Sharapova's the defending champion, but there are former winners and finalists scattered throughout the draw. Of that group, Ana Ivanovic and Sara Errani, last year's finalist, are the ones I think are most capable of going on a deep run. Errani was the big surprise last year, and she's carried that over into the No. 5 ranking. Li Na won the tournament two years ago and is seeded sixth, but I don't like her draw. Li did reach the final in Australia, though, losing to Azarenka. The last time she went to the final in Melbourne, she won in Paris. I don't think it'll happen again, but I've underestimated Li Na before.
As for who's going to come through the draw, I think Kerber beats Serena in a very competitive quarterfinal. Radwanska and Errani are seeded to meet each other in the quarters. They've both got some tough opponents along the way (Radwanska might have to face Venus in the third round), but I see them both getting through. Another good quarterfinal, but Radwanska wins. On the bottom half, for some reason, I just have a feeling Kirilenko beats Azarenka in the quarters, ending Vika's semifinal streak. Maria has the most straightforward path to the semifinals, and, with the way she's played since the start of this tournament last year, I don't see anybody getting her way. That is, until the final. Again, this is nothing but a gut feeling, but I see Aggie Radwanska knocking off Sharapova to win her first Grand Slam title.
Nadal, who miraculously recovered from the "injury" that caused him to miss the US and Australian Opens, conveniently returned in time for the clay court season. But because he was out for so long, his ranking is down to No. 4 (he's seeded third, though, because Andy Murray isn't playing). And because of that, he lost the Djokovic/Federer coin flip and ended up on the same side of the draw as Djokovic, his victim in last year's final. Djokovic might be the only guy standing in the way of Nadal winning yet another French Open, though. This is the only Grand Slam tournament he hasn't won, and last year was the first time he made the final. That semi could be the match of the tournament.
The lack of Murray (who I didn't even realize moved past Roger as No. 2) also means that David Ferrer got the No. 4 seed. Ferrer has taken full advantage of Nadal's absence at the last two Grand Slams. He took that fourth semifinal spot in each tournament. Ferrer's actually been to three of the last four Grand Slam semis, starting at Roland Garros last year. Ferrer is clearly the fifth-best player in the world, but does he have what it takes to break through and reach his first Grand Slam final? I'm not sure.
The top player who caught the luckiest break of all when it comes to the draw is the only guy not named Nadal who's won this tournament in recent memory. That would be one Roger Federer. Of course, the other guy who's been a thorn is Roger's side is Thomas Berdych, who did happen to fall on his side of the draw. Fortunately for Roger, the semi would be Berdych-Ferrer. Instead he got Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. Tsonga's French, extremely talented, and has beaten Roger in a Slam before (coming back from 0-2 down to win in five), all of which makes him an incredibly dangerous potential quarterfinal opponent. I think Federer gets through it, though.
Until somebody proves that they can beat one of the Big Three or Ferrer, it's stupid not to go with the chalk when it comes to projecting semifinalists. The Djokovic-Nadal rematch would add another chapter to that incredible rivalry. In any other tournament I'd pick Djokovic, but in Paris, it's tough to go against the guy who annoyingly doesn't lose. And that would then add another chapter to Roger vs. Rafa in the final. Again, as much as it pains me, it's stupid to say anybody other than Rafael Nadal is going to win the French Open.
Fortunately, the women's tournament will be a little less predictable. Last year, Serena Williams lost in the first round. She then turned into the Serena of old, winning Wimbledon, Olympic gold and the US Open, and becoming the oldest No. 1 in history. The women have done a pretty good job of establishing their own Big Three, though, as Serena, Vika Azarenka and Maria Sharapova have distanced themselves from the rest of the field. The three of them have won the last five Grand Slam finals.
If anybody has a chance to break that stranglehold, though, it might be fourth-seeded Agnieszka Radwanska. She's never been past the fourth round at Roland Garros, but I really like the way she's playing right now and I think she could make some noise. Same thing with eighth-seeded Angelique Kerber and No. 12 Maria Kirilenko. I wouldn't be surprised to see any of them make a run.
Sharapova's the defending champion, but there are former winners and finalists scattered throughout the draw. Of that group, Ana Ivanovic and Sara Errani, last year's finalist, are the ones I think are most capable of going on a deep run. Errani was the big surprise last year, and she's carried that over into the No. 5 ranking. Li Na won the tournament two years ago and is seeded sixth, but I don't like her draw. Li did reach the final in Australia, though, losing to Azarenka. The last time she went to the final in Melbourne, she won in Paris. I don't think it'll happen again, but I've underestimated Li Na before.
As for who's going to come through the draw, I think Kerber beats Serena in a very competitive quarterfinal. Radwanska and Errani are seeded to meet each other in the quarters. They've both got some tough opponents along the way (Radwanska might have to face Venus in the third round), but I see them both getting through. Another good quarterfinal, but Radwanska wins. On the bottom half, for some reason, I just have a feeling Kirilenko beats Azarenka in the quarters, ending Vika's semifinal streak. Maria has the most straightforward path to the semifinals, and, with the way she's played since the start of this tournament last year, I don't see anybody getting her way. That is, until the final. Again, this is nothing but a gut feeling, but I see Aggie Radwanska knocking off Sharapova to win her first Grand Slam title.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Greatest College Basketball Coaches
Last night, I had the privilege of attending the Winged Foot Awards Dinner at the New York Athletic Club. the Winged Foot Award goes to the winning coaches of both the NCAA Men's and Women's Tournaments. That means this year's recipents were, obviously, Rick Pitino and Geno Aruiemma. Two pretty good coaches. Throughout the dinner, they praised each other and there were plenty of references to the greatness of the legendary John Wooden.
That, along with ESPN.com's new countdown of the 20 Greatest Football Coaches of All-Time (my list will come out at some point soon), got me thinking about where Pitino and Geno rank among the best of the best when it comes to college basketball coaches. This wasn't the easiest list to narrow down, so I decided to take ESPN's lead and go with a Top 20:
20. John Calipari: Just edges out Lute Olson for this spot because of what he's been able to do at Kentucky. A new team every year, yet always in the National Championship discussion, including a title in 2012. That to go along with Final Four trips with UMass and Memphis.
19. C. Vivian Stringer: A National Championship is the only thing missing from C. Vivian Stringer's long and illustrious career. She's the only coach ever to lead three women's programs to the Final Four (Cheyney, Iowa, Rutgers) and is one of just four women's coaches with 900 career wins.
18. Denny Crum: Louisville has three National Championships. Denny Crum won two of them. He turned an irrelevant program into a national power, taking the Cardinals to six Final Fours (including one in his first season). He won 20 or more games 21 times (and 19 four others) and ended up with a career record of 675-295.
17. Don Haskins: Yes, I went old school with this one. And yes, most people today only know Don Haskins from "Glory Road." That 1966 national title was the highlight of a very successful career at UTEP that featured 14 WAC championships and 34 winning seasons in 39 years. Haskins had a career record of 719-353.
16. Tara VanDerveer: It's almost hard to believe that the Stanford women have only won two National Championships, and none since 1992. Because it seems like they're in the Final Four every year! They won 18 Pac-10 titles in 20 years from 1989-2009 and have been to 10 Final Fours. Tara VanDerveer has been at the helm for all of it. Except 1996, when she took the year off to lead the U.S. Olympic team (which might've been the greatest women's basketball team ever assembled) to gold in Atlanta. Stanford went to the Final Four that year anyway.
15. Roy Williams: The Dean Smith disciple has kept up the winning tradition at North Carolina, leading the Tar Heels to national titles in 2005 and 2009. He also took Kansas to the Championship Game in 2003 before leaving to take his dream job. Not counting his first year at Kansas, when the Jayhawks were ineligible, he's been to the NCAA Tournament in 23 of 24 seasons. In the one he didn't go, North Carolina lost in the final of the NIT.
14. Eddie Sutton: The first coach in history to take four different teams to the NCAA Tournament. He took that great Arkansas team to the Final Four in 1978 before going twice with Oklahoma State (1995, 2004). Of course, he was the coach at Kentucky during the scandal, but his legacy is far beyond that. Like his 800 career wins, one of only eight coaches to reach that mark.
13. Leon Barmore: So, who is Leon Barmore? Before it was Tennessee and UConn, it was Tennessee and Louisiana Tech. The head coach of Louisiana Tech's dynasty in the 1980s was Leon Barmore. He only won one national title (in 1988), but the Lady Techsters lost in the Championship Game four other times. In total, they went to nine Final Fours and never missed the Tournament in his 20 years as head coach. Barmore's career winning percentage of .869 is the best all-time.
12. Jim Boeheim: He finally got his national title in 2003, which almost seemed like a Lifetime Achievement Award for all he's contributed to the game. Jim Boeheim and Syracuse basketball are synonymous, just like Jim Boeheim and the 2-3 zone are synonymous. Five Big East championships (Syracuse WAS the Old Big East), four Final Fours, three title game appearances, and that 2003 National Championship. Boeheim's 920 wins are the most ever by a coach at a single school, and he ranks second on the active coaching wins list behind only new conference rival Mike Krzyzewski.
11. Jim Calhoun: C'mon, the Syracuse-UConn rivalry had to put the Jims back-to-back. Calhoun gets the higher spot because UConn got the upper hand a little more often in the waning days of the Big East's best rivalry. UConn had the edge in Big East Tournament titles (7-5) and National Championships (3-1), including that incredible run in 2011. Like the women pre-Geno, the UConn men were irrelevant before Jim Calhoun.
10. Phog Allen: Kansas is one of college basketball's marquee programs, and they play in a building named after this guy. He played for Dr. James Naismith at Kansas, then did a pretty good job succeeding the game's inventor. His 1952 National Championship is his only official NCAA one, but Kansas also won two national titles before the NCAA Tournament started. (Kansas also lost the final twice.) A member of the inaugural class of inductees to the Hall of Fame, Allen's 590 wins are the most in Kansas history.
9. Rick Pitino: I know it seems a little low, but he's still got time to move up the list. Pitino's one of two coaches to lead three different teams to the Final Four, and the only one to win National Championships at two different schools. He took Providence from nowhere to the Final Four, resurrected the Kentucky program (and probably should've won three straight national titles in Lexington), then moved across the state after a stint in the NBA and carried on the legacy at Louisville. And let's not forget his time at Boston University. I have a feeling he's got more National Championships in him. (Interesting fact about Louisville, they went to the Final Four the year before joining the Big East, then won the national title in their last year in the Big East.)
8. Adolph Rupp: He's fifth all-time in wins, posting 876 victories in a remarkable 41-year career. And his .822 winning percentage is second all-time. Adolph Rupp was probably the "Greatest Coach of All-Time" before John Wooden came along. Kentucky's one of the sport's glamour programs because of Adolph Rupp. That's why they named the arena after him. All of his records are staggering, and he was at the helm for four of their eight National Championships.
7. Hank Iba: The first great NCAA Tournament dynasty belonged to Hank Iba's Oklahoma State teams. He was the first coach to win consecutive National Championships (1945-46), and Oklahoma State was the runner-up in 1949. The National Coach of the Year Award is named for him, and so is Oklahoma State's arena. He also boasts an incredible Olympic legacy, leading the U.S. to gold in 1964 and 1968, as well as the disputed silver in 1972.
6. Dean Smith: As hard to believe as it is, I don't have Dean Smith in the Top Five. Obviously, North Carolina basketball is what it is because of Dean Smith. He won 879 games in 36 years, which was the record at the time of his retirement. Of course, he needed Michael Jordan to finally win his first National Championship, then added another in 1993, but his legacy would've been sealed without either one. That's why the building's named after him.
5. Geno Auriemma: One of the things Rick Pitino made sure to point out yesterday was that Geno's 1991 UConn team was very similar to his 1987 Providence team. They weren't talented enough to be in the Final Four, but got there anyway. Before he arrived, UConn had never been to the NCAA Tournament. Now, of course, they're the marquee program in the entire sport. Countless All-Americans, four undefeated seasons (including a record 90-game winning streak), a record eight national titles, 14 Final Fours (including a record six straight). This year's title team was the start of a new UConn dynasty. He might only need two years to tie John Wooden's record of 10 National Championships. And let's not forget an Olympic gold medal in London, where the U.S. team (made up mostly of UConn players) completely obliterated the competition.
4. Bobby Knight: Where do you begin about Bobby Knight? He was firey, and incredibly entertaining, to say the least. And the man sure knows how to coach basketball! Six great years at Army, then he became a legend at Indiana. Three national titles later, he was fired because of his behavior, only to show up at Texas Tech and make that program relevant during the six-plus seasons he was there. Three men's coaches in history have 900 career wins: Mike Krzyzewski, Jim Boeheim and Bobby Knight.
3. Pat Summitt: What John Wooden and UCLA did for men's college basketball, Pat Summitt and Tennessee did for the women's game. She's the only coach in history with 1,000 wins, and that total easily would've reached 1,100 if she hadn't retired for health reasons (she ended up with 1,098). Still, eight National Championships (tied for the most all-time), 18 Final Fours, 27 consecutive Sweet Sixteen appearances, a 100 percent graduation rate. There was a time when every player that had ever played at Tennessee under Summitt had been to at least one Final Four in her career.
2. Mike Krzyzewski: Love Duke or hate Duke, there's no denying Mike Krzyzewski's greatness. He's got more wins than any other Division I men's coach to go along with 13 ACC Tournament Championships, 11 Final Fours and three national titles. For good measure, he led the NBA stars of the U.S. Olympic team to gold medals in Beijing and London, and just announced that he'll go for No. 3 in Rio.
1. John Wooden: Could there be any other? Ten national titles in 12 years, an 88-game winning streak, an all-time record of 664-162. John Wooden and UCLA are the first names you think of when you think college basketball. A true legend in so many ways.
That, along with ESPN.com's new countdown of the 20 Greatest Football Coaches of All-Time (my list will come out at some point soon), got me thinking about where Pitino and Geno rank among the best of the best when it comes to college basketball coaches. This wasn't the easiest list to narrow down, so I decided to take ESPN's lead and go with a Top 20:
20. John Calipari: Just edges out Lute Olson for this spot because of what he's been able to do at Kentucky. A new team every year, yet always in the National Championship discussion, including a title in 2012. That to go along with Final Four trips with UMass and Memphis.
19. C. Vivian Stringer: A National Championship is the only thing missing from C. Vivian Stringer's long and illustrious career. She's the only coach ever to lead three women's programs to the Final Four (Cheyney, Iowa, Rutgers) and is one of just four women's coaches with 900 career wins.
18. Denny Crum: Louisville has three National Championships. Denny Crum won two of them. He turned an irrelevant program into a national power, taking the Cardinals to six Final Fours (including one in his first season). He won 20 or more games 21 times (and 19 four others) and ended up with a career record of 675-295.
17. Don Haskins: Yes, I went old school with this one. And yes, most people today only know Don Haskins from "Glory Road." That 1966 national title was the highlight of a very successful career at UTEP that featured 14 WAC championships and 34 winning seasons in 39 years. Haskins had a career record of 719-353.
16. Tara VanDerveer: It's almost hard to believe that the Stanford women have only won two National Championships, and none since 1992. Because it seems like they're in the Final Four every year! They won 18 Pac-10 titles in 20 years from 1989-2009 and have been to 10 Final Fours. Tara VanDerveer has been at the helm for all of it. Except 1996, when she took the year off to lead the U.S. Olympic team (which might've been the greatest women's basketball team ever assembled) to gold in Atlanta. Stanford went to the Final Four that year anyway.
15. Roy Williams: The Dean Smith disciple has kept up the winning tradition at North Carolina, leading the Tar Heels to national titles in 2005 and 2009. He also took Kansas to the Championship Game in 2003 before leaving to take his dream job. Not counting his first year at Kansas, when the Jayhawks were ineligible, he's been to the NCAA Tournament in 23 of 24 seasons. In the one he didn't go, North Carolina lost in the final of the NIT.
14. Eddie Sutton: The first coach in history to take four different teams to the NCAA Tournament. He took that great Arkansas team to the Final Four in 1978 before going twice with Oklahoma State (1995, 2004). Of course, he was the coach at Kentucky during the scandal, but his legacy is far beyond that. Like his 800 career wins, one of only eight coaches to reach that mark.
13. Leon Barmore: So, who is Leon Barmore? Before it was Tennessee and UConn, it was Tennessee and Louisiana Tech. The head coach of Louisiana Tech's dynasty in the 1980s was Leon Barmore. He only won one national title (in 1988), but the Lady Techsters lost in the Championship Game four other times. In total, they went to nine Final Fours and never missed the Tournament in his 20 years as head coach. Barmore's career winning percentage of .869 is the best all-time.
12. Jim Boeheim: He finally got his national title in 2003, which almost seemed like a Lifetime Achievement Award for all he's contributed to the game. Jim Boeheim and Syracuse basketball are synonymous, just like Jim Boeheim and the 2-3 zone are synonymous. Five Big East championships (Syracuse WAS the Old Big East), four Final Fours, three title game appearances, and that 2003 National Championship. Boeheim's 920 wins are the most ever by a coach at a single school, and he ranks second on the active coaching wins list behind only new conference rival Mike Krzyzewski.
11. Jim Calhoun: C'mon, the Syracuse-UConn rivalry had to put the Jims back-to-back. Calhoun gets the higher spot because UConn got the upper hand a little more often in the waning days of the Big East's best rivalry. UConn had the edge in Big East Tournament titles (7-5) and National Championships (3-1), including that incredible run in 2011. Like the women pre-Geno, the UConn men were irrelevant before Jim Calhoun.
10. Phog Allen: Kansas is one of college basketball's marquee programs, and they play in a building named after this guy. He played for Dr. James Naismith at Kansas, then did a pretty good job succeeding the game's inventor. His 1952 National Championship is his only official NCAA one, but Kansas also won two national titles before the NCAA Tournament started. (Kansas also lost the final twice.) A member of the inaugural class of inductees to the Hall of Fame, Allen's 590 wins are the most in Kansas history.
9. Rick Pitino: I know it seems a little low, but he's still got time to move up the list. Pitino's one of two coaches to lead three different teams to the Final Four, and the only one to win National Championships at two different schools. He took Providence from nowhere to the Final Four, resurrected the Kentucky program (and probably should've won three straight national titles in Lexington), then moved across the state after a stint in the NBA and carried on the legacy at Louisville. And let's not forget his time at Boston University. I have a feeling he's got more National Championships in him. (Interesting fact about Louisville, they went to the Final Four the year before joining the Big East, then won the national title in their last year in the Big East.)
8. Adolph Rupp: He's fifth all-time in wins, posting 876 victories in a remarkable 41-year career. And his .822 winning percentage is second all-time. Adolph Rupp was probably the "Greatest Coach of All-Time" before John Wooden came along. Kentucky's one of the sport's glamour programs because of Adolph Rupp. That's why they named the arena after him. All of his records are staggering, and he was at the helm for four of their eight National Championships.
7. Hank Iba: The first great NCAA Tournament dynasty belonged to Hank Iba's Oklahoma State teams. He was the first coach to win consecutive National Championships (1945-46), and Oklahoma State was the runner-up in 1949. The National Coach of the Year Award is named for him, and so is Oklahoma State's arena. He also boasts an incredible Olympic legacy, leading the U.S. to gold in 1964 and 1968, as well as the disputed silver in 1972.
6. Dean Smith: As hard to believe as it is, I don't have Dean Smith in the Top Five. Obviously, North Carolina basketball is what it is because of Dean Smith. He won 879 games in 36 years, which was the record at the time of his retirement. Of course, he needed Michael Jordan to finally win his first National Championship, then added another in 1993, but his legacy would've been sealed without either one. That's why the building's named after him.
5. Geno Auriemma: One of the things Rick Pitino made sure to point out yesterday was that Geno's 1991 UConn team was very similar to his 1987 Providence team. They weren't talented enough to be in the Final Four, but got there anyway. Before he arrived, UConn had never been to the NCAA Tournament. Now, of course, they're the marquee program in the entire sport. Countless All-Americans, four undefeated seasons (including a record 90-game winning streak), a record eight national titles, 14 Final Fours (including a record six straight). This year's title team was the start of a new UConn dynasty. He might only need two years to tie John Wooden's record of 10 National Championships. And let's not forget an Olympic gold medal in London, where the U.S. team (made up mostly of UConn players) completely obliterated the competition.
4. Bobby Knight: Where do you begin about Bobby Knight? He was firey, and incredibly entertaining, to say the least. And the man sure knows how to coach basketball! Six great years at Army, then he became a legend at Indiana. Three national titles later, he was fired because of his behavior, only to show up at Texas Tech and make that program relevant during the six-plus seasons he was there. Three men's coaches in history have 900 career wins: Mike Krzyzewski, Jim Boeheim and Bobby Knight.
3. Pat Summitt: What John Wooden and UCLA did for men's college basketball, Pat Summitt and Tennessee did for the women's game. She's the only coach in history with 1,000 wins, and that total easily would've reached 1,100 if she hadn't retired for health reasons (she ended up with 1,098). Still, eight National Championships (tied for the most all-time), 18 Final Fours, 27 consecutive Sweet Sixteen appearances, a 100 percent graduation rate. There was a time when every player that had ever played at Tennessee under Summitt had been to at least one Final Four in her career.
2. Mike Krzyzewski: Love Duke or hate Duke, there's no denying Mike Krzyzewski's greatness. He's got more wins than any other Division I men's coach to go along with 13 ACC Tournament Championships, 11 Final Fours and three national titles. For good measure, he led the NBA stars of the U.S. Olympic team to gold medals in Beijing and London, and just announced that he'll go for No. 3 in Rio.
1. John Wooden: Could there be any other? Ten national titles in 12 years, an 88-game winning streak, an all-time record of 664-162. John Wooden and UCLA are the first names you think of when you think college basketball. A true legend in so many ways.
Monday, May 20, 2013
In Kim Mulkey's Defense
I can't get that interview Brittany Griner did with ESPN The Magazine the other day out of my head. Mainly, I think Kim Mulkey is getting a bum deal. She's getting completely thrown under the bus for the whole situation, and it's not really fair. In a lot of ways, Mulkey's hands were tied, so to lay 100 percent of the blame on her is completely ridiculous.
First, let's tell Griner's side of the story. She claims that Mulkey told her to keep her sexuality a secret because it would hurt recruiting and make the program look bad. Griner apparently told Mulkey she was gay while she was being recruitied and Mulkey didn't care, but once she got to Baylor, Mulkey told her to be quiet about it because she was concerned about the program's image. It's Griner's contention that Mulkey thought parents wouldn't send their kids to Baylor if they knew there was a lesbian on the team.
Whether or not this was Mulkey's intent is, obviously, something the rest of us will never know. And you know what? It doesn't matter! Griner's characertization of her former coach paints Mulkey in a very bad light, but I, for one, am going to give the coach the benefit of the doubt. Especially since the situation's not as black-and-white as Griner would like it to be.
Baylor is the nation's preeminent Baptist university. As such, they have a section in the student handbook entitled "Statement of Human Sexuality." Part of that code of conduct reads: "Christian churches across the ages and around the world have affirmed purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman as the biblical norm. Temptations to deviate from this norm include both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior. It is thus expected that Baylor students will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching." Loosely translated, both premarital sex and homosexuality are expressly forbidden at Baylor.
Kim Mulkey knows this. So, even if Griner's sexuality was an open secret, it's not like Mulkey was able to go around advertising it. Doing so would be contrary to the beliefs/policies of her employer. Most employers, especially faith-based institutions, would consider an employee advocating something that's the complete opposite of church teachings grounds for dismissal. I'm sure Baylor is no different. And if that truly was the case, what other choice would Mulkey have? Have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy with Brittany Griner or risk potentially losing your job? I don't think that's a very hard decision.
Who's to say whether Kim Mulkey condones or condemns Brittany Griner's lifestyle? The fact of the matter is, wheteher or not she does is completely irrelevant. All that really matters is that Baylor University condemns it. Right or wrong, Mulkey was put in a position where she essentially had to tell Griner to keep her sexuality under wraps. Griner also said that Mulkey's general approach was to basically leave the topic alone altogether. That's because on the basketball court, it ultimately doesn't matter. But did Griner ever think that Mulkey might've done that for her own good? Once again, Baylor completely forbids it. The fewer people who officially knew, the better.
Also, let's not forget this: Brittany Griner chose to attend Baylor. She could've gone to any school in the country. But she wanted to play for Baylor and Kim Mulkey. Griner had to have been aware of these policies before enrolling, yet she went to Baylor anyway. If Mulkey didn't bring it up while Griner was being recruited, that's one thing. But she went to the school for four years. You have to figure that Griner became aware of that code of conduct at some point, probably pretty early. She knew the school's stance on lesbianism yet she never thought Mulkey's policy might've been for her own protection? Especially with the amount of time Griner was going to spend in the public eye?
I don't know the truth here, and neither does anyone else. Not even Brittany Griner. But like we saw with Brandon Davies at BYU, even though they seem ridiculous, these codes of conduct exist on some college campuses. Right or wrong, Baylor University feels a certain way about homosexuality. In my opinion, Kim Mulkey's actions were reflecting university policy, nothing more. So let's stop making her the bad guy. Especially since Brittany Griner's side of the story is the only one we've heard.
First, let's tell Griner's side of the story. She claims that Mulkey told her to keep her sexuality a secret because it would hurt recruiting and make the program look bad. Griner apparently told Mulkey she was gay while she was being recruitied and Mulkey didn't care, but once she got to Baylor, Mulkey told her to be quiet about it because she was concerned about the program's image. It's Griner's contention that Mulkey thought parents wouldn't send their kids to Baylor if they knew there was a lesbian on the team.
Whether or not this was Mulkey's intent is, obviously, something the rest of us will never know. And you know what? It doesn't matter! Griner's characertization of her former coach paints Mulkey in a very bad light, but I, for one, am going to give the coach the benefit of the doubt. Especially since the situation's not as black-and-white as Griner would like it to be.
Baylor is the nation's preeminent Baptist university. As such, they have a section in the student handbook entitled "Statement of Human Sexuality." Part of that code of conduct reads: "Christian churches across the ages and around the world have affirmed purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman as the biblical norm. Temptations to deviate from this norm include both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior. It is thus expected that Baylor students will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching." Loosely translated, both premarital sex and homosexuality are expressly forbidden at Baylor.
Kim Mulkey knows this. So, even if Griner's sexuality was an open secret, it's not like Mulkey was able to go around advertising it. Doing so would be contrary to the beliefs/policies of her employer. Most employers, especially faith-based institutions, would consider an employee advocating something that's the complete opposite of church teachings grounds for dismissal. I'm sure Baylor is no different. And if that truly was the case, what other choice would Mulkey have? Have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy with Brittany Griner or risk potentially losing your job? I don't think that's a very hard decision.
Who's to say whether Kim Mulkey condones or condemns Brittany Griner's lifestyle? The fact of the matter is, wheteher or not she does is completely irrelevant. All that really matters is that Baylor University condemns it. Right or wrong, Mulkey was put in a position where she essentially had to tell Griner to keep her sexuality under wraps. Griner also said that Mulkey's general approach was to basically leave the topic alone altogether. That's because on the basketball court, it ultimately doesn't matter. But did Griner ever think that Mulkey might've done that for her own good? Once again, Baylor completely forbids it. The fewer people who officially knew, the better.
Also, let's not forget this: Brittany Griner chose to attend Baylor. She could've gone to any school in the country. But she wanted to play for Baylor and Kim Mulkey. Griner had to have been aware of these policies before enrolling, yet she went to Baylor anyway. If Mulkey didn't bring it up while Griner was being recruited, that's one thing. But she went to the school for four years. You have to figure that Griner became aware of that code of conduct at some point, probably pretty early. She knew the school's stance on lesbianism yet she never thought Mulkey's policy might've been for her own protection? Especially with the amount of time Griner was going to spend in the public eye?
I don't know the truth here, and neither does anyone else. Not even Brittany Griner. But like we saw with Brandon Davies at BYU, even though they seem ridiculous, these codes of conduct exist on some college campuses. Right or wrong, Baylor University feels a certain way about homosexuality. In my opinion, Kim Mulkey's actions were reflecting university policy, nothing more. So let's stop making her the bad guy. Especially since Brittany Griner's side of the story is the only one we've heard.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Rating the All-Star Events
As I sit here, the Winston (I know it hasn't been called that in years, but I still choose to call it by its original name) is in the midst of a rain delay. At first I didn't understand the concept of an all-star event in NASCAR (it is an individual sport, after all), but it's since become one of the few events on the NASCAR calendar I make it a point to watch. Instead of 43 drivers like every other race, it's the best of the best. Twenty guys going all-out for $1 million. It's winner-take-all. Second place gets nothing. As a result, the race is pretty freakin' awesome.
Each major sports league has it's All-Star Game, and NASCAR's is actually pretty good in comparison. While it's not the best, it's certainly not the worst. That honor clearly belongs to...
6. Pro Bowl: Do I need to elaborate at all here? The only thing the Pro Bowl has going for it is that the game is played in Hawaii. Even the players don't care. That's why Roger Goddell makes his annual threat to discontinue the game entirely. Of course, his decision to move the date of the Pro Bowl to the week before the Super Bowl, thus disqualifying players from the two best teams in the league, is one of the major problems the Pro Bowl currently faces. Too many guys drop out for other reasons, too. As a result, we're left with way too many no-name guys from mediocre/bad teams playing in the "All-Star" game. The events surrounding the Pro Bowl aren't that spectacular, either.
5. MLS: Raise your hand if you knew there was such a thing as an MLS All-Star Game. They've actually had one every year since the league was formed. It seems somewhat out-of-place for a soccer league to have an all-star game, but that's something that can be blamed on the North American professional sports system. Anyway, they did East vs. West for a while before settling into the new format where the MLS All-Stars take on a team from England that's on an American tour. It's great that they're able to pull in these international teams, which clearly helps attendance, but I think it's time for them to go back to the old East vs. West format. When they first did it, there were only 10 teams in MLS, so a league-wide all-star team made a lot more sense. MLS has doubled in size since then, though. The league is clearly strong enough to stand on its own and put on an All-Star Game where every player is from MLS.
4. NHL: The NHL All-Star Game is great when it actually happens, but lockouts and Olympic breaks make is so that it isn't played about as frequently as it is. (Although, not playing it in Olympic years makes total sense, and, if given the choice, everyone is picking NHL guys in the Olympics over an All-Star Game.) I'm also not the biggest fan of this whole "choose your own team" format that they currently use. I give them credit for trying something new, and the "All-Star Fantasy Draft" is cool, but it's way too gimmicky. Not only that, it's confusing to have teammates on different teams. (When it's international competition, that's totally different.) The game itself is usually pretty good, though. Hockey needs more offense most of the time. That's not a problem in the All-Star Game. The NHL also has the best corresponding All-Star Weekend event in the Skills Competition, and the All-Star Game jerseys are usually pretty awesome.
3. NASCAR: I rank the Winston as the third-best All-Star Game in all of sports, bascially because I love the simple premise of it. You win, you get $1 million. You finish second, you get nothing. It's old-fashioned racing, made better by the fact that it's under the lights. And with no points on the line and $1 million at stake, it's some of the best racing you're gonna see. Everybody's going all-out for the win, which makes the finish ridiculously exciting. Sure, the idea of an individual sport having "All-Stars" is still somewhat confusing, but all that means is it's the 20 guys you know with all those random schmos who aren't going to win and just get in the way taken out of the equation. Those drivers still get a chance. There's a qualifying race beforehand, and the top two advance. There's also a fan vote for one additional driver. It would be nice if they didn't change the rules every year. Other than that, no complaints here about the Winston.
2. NBA: The NBA is a superstar's league, which is why their All-Star Game works so well. Nobody plays defense, but that's not a problem. Because that's not what the fans are paying to see. They want to see dunks and ridiculous plays. With all the superlative talents in the NBA, providing that stuff is easy. It makes for good entertainment, too. Except, only five guys can be on the floor at one time, and there's only one ball. Regardless, there isn't really much to compain about with the actual NBA All-Star Game. I don't watch it, but that has more to do with my disdain for the NBA as a whole than anything else. The NBA also boasts an entertainment event that no other league can compete with. The Slam Dunk Contest is a spectacle in its own right. I still prefer the NHL Skills Competition because that involves everyone on both All-Star teams, but the NBA's got a pretty nice setup with the slam dunk and three-point contests.
1. MLB: The original All-Star Game is still the best. Say what you want about the whole All-Star Game deciding home field advantage in the World Series thing, but if that's the biggest people have with the MLB All-Star Game, you know they're doing something right. Sure, the tie in Milwaukee was bad, but I think they've recovered from that (and with the roster adjustments they've made since, that'll never happen again). Sure, baseball is the sport that most lends itself to an All-Star Game. The batters come to the plate one at a time, and every at-bat is a one-on-one battle between batter and pitcher. It's been that way since the game was invented. The system worked long before they attached "meaning" to the game, and I don't think things have really changed that much since. And the biggest rule change they've made to the All-Star game is making it so that both teams use a DH every year, which I think we can all agree is for the best. Nobody wants to see a pitcher hit in an All-Star Game, and you'd be pinch-hitting for them every time anyway. Let's not forget the incredible awesomeness of the Home Run Derby, either. It's the only All-Star Game broadcast on national TV, as well as the only major league sporting event on that Monday and Tuesday in mid-July. I'm not saying that helps make the MLB All-Star Game the best, but it certainly doesn't hurt either.
Each major sports league has it's All-Star Game, and NASCAR's is actually pretty good in comparison. While it's not the best, it's certainly not the worst. That honor clearly belongs to...
6. Pro Bowl: Do I need to elaborate at all here? The only thing the Pro Bowl has going for it is that the game is played in Hawaii. Even the players don't care. That's why Roger Goddell makes his annual threat to discontinue the game entirely. Of course, his decision to move the date of the Pro Bowl to the week before the Super Bowl, thus disqualifying players from the two best teams in the league, is one of the major problems the Pro Bowl currently faces. Too many guys drop out for other reasons, too. As a result, we're left with way too many no-name guys from mediocre/bad teams playing in the "All-Star" game. The events surrounding the Pro Bowl aren't that spectacular, either.
5. MLS: Raise your hand if you knew there was such a thing as an MLS All-Star Game. They've actually had one every year since the league was formed. It seems somewhat out-of-place for a soccer league to have an all-star game, but that's something that can be blamed on the North American professional sports system. Anyway, they did East vs. West for a while before settling into the new format where the MLS All-Stars take on a team from England that's on an American tour. It's great that they're able to pull in these international teams, which clearly helps attendance, but I think it's time for them to go back to the old East vs. West format. When they first did it, there were only 10 teams in MLS, so a league-wide all-star team made a lot more sense. MLS has doubled in size since then, though. The league is clearly strong enough to stand on its own and put on an All-Star Game where every player is from MLS.
4. NHL: The NHL All-Star Game is great when it actually happens, but lockouts and Olympic breaks make is so that it isn't played about as frequently as it is. (Although, not playing it in Olympic years makes total sense, and, if given the choice, everyone is picking NHL guys in the Olympics over an All-Star Game.) I'm also not the biggest fan of this whole "choose your own team" format that they currently use. I give them credit for trying something new, and the "All-Star Fantasy Draft" is cool, but it's way too gimmicky. Not only that, it's confusing to have teammates on different teams. (When it's international competition, that's totally different.) The game itself is usually pretty good, though. Hockey needs more offense most of the time. That's not a problem in the All-Star Game. The NHL also has the best corresponding All-Star Weekend event in the Skills Competition, and the All-Star Game jerseys are usually pretty awesome.
3. NASCAR: I rank the Winston as the third-best All-Star Game in all of sports, bascially because I love the simple premise of it. You win, you get $1 million. You finish second, you get nothing. It's old-fashioned racing, made better by the fact that it's under the lights. And with no points on the line and $1 million at stake, it's some of the best racing you're gonna see. Everybody's going all-out for the win, which makes the finish ridiculously exciting. Sure, the idea of an individual sport having "All-Stars" is still somewhat confusing, but all that means is it's the 20 guys you know with all those random schmos who aren't going to win and just get in the way taken out of the equation. Those drivers still get a chance. There's a qualifying race beforehand, and the top two advance. There's also a fan vote for one additional driver. It would be nice if they didn't change the rules every year. Other than that, no complaints here about the Winston.
2. NBA: The NBA is a superstar's league, which is why their All-Star Game works so well. Nobody plays defense, but that's not a problem. Because that's not what the fans are paying to see. They want to see dunks and ridiculous plays. With all the superlative talents in the NBA, providing that stuff is easy. It makes for good entertainment, too. Except, only five guys can be on the floor at one time, and there's only one ball. Regardless, there isn't really much to compain about with the actual NBA All-Star Game. I don't watch it, but that has more to do with my disdain for the NBA as a whole than anything else. The NBA also boasts an entertainment event that no other league can compete with. The Slam Dunk Contest is a spectacle in its own right. I still prefer the NHL Skills Competition because that involves everyone on both All-Star teams, but the NBA's got a pretty nice setup with the slam dunk and three-point contests.
1. MLB: The original All-Star Game is still the best. Say what you want about the whole All-Star Game deciding home field advantage in the World Series thing, but if that's the biggest people have with the MLB All-Star Game, you know they're doing something right. Sure, the tie in Milwaukee was bad, but I think they've recovered from that (and with the roster adjustments they've made since, that'll never happen again). Sure, baseball is the sport that most lends itself to an All-Star Game. The batters come to the plate one at a time, and every at-bat is a one-on-one battle between batter and pitcher. It's been that way since the game was invented. The system worked long before they attached "meaning" to the game, and I don't think things have really changed that much since. And the biggest rule change they've made to the All-Star game is making it so that both teams use a DH every year, which I think we can all agree is for the best. Nobody wants to see a pitcher hit in an All-Star Game, and you'd be pinch-hitting for them every time anyway. Let's not forget the incredible awesomeness of the Home Run Derby, either. It's the only All-Star Game broadcast on national TV, as well as the only major league sporting event on that Monday and Tuesday in mid-July. I'm not saying that helps make the MLB All-Star Game the best, but it certainly doesn't hurt either.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
WAR, What Is It Good For? (Absolutely Nothing)
Baseball has a statistic for everything, and baseball people love their stats. Every time you watch a show like MLB Tonight or Baseball Tonight, there's inevitably going to be a Peter Gammons or a Tim Kurkjian speaking in code, spewing out this vast array of different numbers that are difficult to understand. MLB Network even has a new show called Clubhouse Confidential, where Brian Kenney and Harold Reynolds get into an old-school/new-school debate.
Of course, Old School vs. New School really went head-to-head in last year's AL MVP race. On one hand, you had Mike Trout, the sabermetrician's dream. On the other was Triple Crown winner Miguel Cabrera. Fortunately, the writers got it right and awarded the MVP to Cabrera. Trout's WAR wasn't enough to sway the voters over the more traditional numbers. Nor should it have. Because of all the "stats" that I disdain the most, WAR is right up there with OPS. I hate both of these made up "statistics," and I hate it even more that they're the be-all, end-all point used by some statheads to prove the validity of their argument.
Let's start with OPS. OPS stands for "on-base + slugging," and it has really become en vogue over the past couple of years. I understand the idea behind wanting to combine these two numbers into one thing. It shows a guy's ability to get on base while also hitting for power. But here's the problem (and why I hate OPS so much): the way OPS is determined is entirely wrong.
People come up with it by simply adding the two numbers together. If a guy's on-base percentage is .300 and his slugging percentage is .500, then his OPS is listed as .800. But it's not. On base percentage is hits+walks+hit by pitches divided by total plate appearances. Slugging percentage is total bases divided by plate appearances. So, OPS is then hits+walks+hit by pitches+total bases divided by plate appearances. A single counts as a hit for on-base percentage purposes, but is also one total base for slugging percentage purposes. That's why you can't simply add the numbers together. You're counting a single twice. Once as a hit (in OBP) and once as a total base (in slugging). The formula should be total bases+walks+hit by pitches. Until they realize that and start figuring it out correctly, I'm not going to be jumping aboard the OPS bandwagon.
But OPS is nowhere near as ridiculous as WAR. WAR stands for "Wins Above Replacement." What does that even mean? The "replacement" is a hypothetical Quadruple-A player (the key word here is hypothetical). There isn't even a standard formula to calculate it. In other words, it's completely arbitrary. That's one of my biggest problems with WAR.
The sabermetric community loves this "stat" because it factors things like baserunning and defense in with the standard counting statistics to determine a player's "true value to his team." But there's no real, tangible way to measure a player's defense. The WAR people have developed their various fielding metrics, such as defensive runs saved and ultimate zone rating, but again, these stats are totally arbitrary. Bottom line is there are way too many subjective elements that go into WAR for it to be considered a credible metric.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not entirely opposed to all of these new-school statistics. WHIP, which has become very popular in fantasy baseball, is incredibly useful. Walks+hits per inning pitched. In other words, how many runners a pitcher puts on base per inning.
Likewise, I'm a big fan of BABIP, which stands for "batting average on balls in play." It takes strikeouts out of the equation. Some guys, especially power hitters, strike out a lot. That's why they end up hitting .220 every year, even though everybody knows they're actually a much better hitter than that. The thing I like about BABIP is that it has just as much value for pitchers as it does for hitters. How often does he get outs other than via strikeout?
Sabermetrics has its proponents, and they're not going to go away. I understand and accept that. But if I had to pick a side, I'd have to consider myself "old school." Proponents of sabermetrics have tried to find a way to determine a player's value beyond the traditional numbers. I give them credit for trying. And some of it is definitely worthwhile. Just not enough.
Of course, Old School vs. New School really went head-to-head in last year's AL MVP race. On one hand, you had Mike Trout, the sabermetrician's dream. On the other was Triple Crown winner Miguel Cabrera. Fortunately, the writers got it right and awarded the MVP to Cabrera. Trout's WAR wasn't enough to sway the voters over the more traditional numbers. Nor should it have. Because of all the "stats" that I disdain the most, WAR is right up there with OPS. I hate both of these made up "statistics," and I hate it even more that they're the be-all, end-all point used by some statheads to prove the validity of their argument.
Let's start with OPS. OPS stands for "on-base + slugging," and it has really become en vogue over the past couple of years. I understand the idea behind wanting to combine these two numbers into one thing. It shows a guy's ability to get on base while also hitting for power. But here's the problem (and why I hate OPS so much): the way OPS is determined is entirely wrong.
People come up with it by simply adding the two numbers together. If a guy's on-base percentage is .300 and his slugging percentage is .500, then his OPS is listed as .800. But it's not. On base percentage is hits+walks+hit by pitches divided by total plate appearances. Slugging percentage is total bases divided by plate appearances. So, OPS is then hits+walks+hit by pitches+total bases divided by plate appearances. A single counts as a hit for on-base percentage purposes, but is also one total base for slugging percentage purposes. That's why you can't simply add the numbers together. You're counting a single twice. Once as a hit (in OBP) and once as a total base (in slugging). The formula should be total bases+walks+hit by pitches. Until they realize that and start figuring it out correctly, I'm not going to be jumping aboard the OPS bandwagon.
But OPS is nowhere near as ridiculous as WAR. WAR stands for "Wins Above Replacement." What does that even mean? The "replacement" is a hypothetical Quadruple-A player (the key word here is hypothetical). There isn't even a standard formula to calculate it. In other words, it's completely arbitrary. That's one of my biggest problems with WAR.
The sabermetric community loves this "stat" because it factors things like baserunning and defense in with the standard counting statistics to determine a player's "true value to his team." But there's no real, tangible way to measure a player's defense. The WAR people have developed their various fielding metrics, such as defensive runs saved and ultimate zone rating, but again, these stats are totally arbitrary. Bottom line is there are way too many subjective elements that go into WAR for it to be considered a credible metric.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not entirely opposed to all of these new-school statistics. WHIP, which has become very popular in fantasy baseball, is incredibly useful. Walks+hits per inning pitched. In other words, how many runners a pitcher puts on base per inning.
Likewise, I'm a big fan of BABIP, which stands for "batting average on balls in play." It takes strikeouts out of the equation. Some guys, especially power hitters, strike out a lot. That's why they end up hitting .220 every year, even though everybody knows they're actually a much better hitter than that. The thing I like about BABIP is that it has just as much value for pitchers as it does for hitters. How often does he get outs other than via strikeout?
Sabermetrics has its proponents, and they're not going to go away. I understand and accept that. But if I had to pick a side, I'd have to consider myself "old school." Proponents of sabermetrics have tried to find a way to determine a player's value beyond the traditional numbers. I give them credit for trying. And some of it is definitely worthwhile. Just not enough.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Less Is More, At Least It Should Be
Why do we let the NHL have control of anything? The Winter Classic is perhaps the best thing that league ever did. The NHL finally had a signature event to call its own. So, of course, they had to ruin it by having their quasi-annual lockout. Then you figured the lockout would be settled in time because there was no way they would cancel the Winter Classic. Wrong.
After cancelling this year's Winter Classic, they did the right thing and announced that the same two teams--the Red Wings and Maple Leafs--will play in the 2014 Winter Classic at the same venue--The Big House at the University of Michigan. Well done, NHL. Likewise, the Heritage Classic will return next season with the Senators visiting the Canucks. (Sidebar, why did they wait until after Vancouver hosted the Olympics to make BC Place an open-air stadium?) Then they got carried away, announcing the creation of the NHL Stadium Series.
How do you take the luster off your signature event? By completely eliminating the novelty of it. Along with the occasional Heritage Classic, the Winter Classic was the only outdoor game on the NHL schedule. That's exactly why it worked. It's the NHL's Super Bowl. It became the event that everybody wanted to host, even places where playing a winter sport outdoors makes little to no sense (I'm talking to you, LA). Way to take something great and completely destroy it. One or two outdoor games equals must-see TV. But seven? Seven is overkill.
Instead of being the only outdoor games next season, the Winter Classic and Heritage Classic will bookend the NHL Stadium Series, which also includes games in LA and Chicago, as well as two in Yankee Stadium. I get what they're trying to do with the Stadium Series. I really do. They're trying to capitalize on the Winter Classic's popularity and give other cities the opportunity to host (they've been wanting to have a Winter Classic at Yankee Stadium for a while anyway). But I think we might be looking at too much of a good thing here. When it comes to outdoor NHL games, less is more.
It's not as if I have a problem with any of the games they've chosen. The Penguins and Blackhawks are two of the best (and most popular) teams in the NHL, and that could easily be a Stanley Cup Finals rematch. And like I said, they've been wanting to have the Rangers host the Winter Classic in Yankee Stadium for quite some time. They were supposed to host one at the Old Stadium before it closed, and they haven't been able to at the new one because of the Pinstripe Bowl (don't get me started on how stupid I think that game is).
Now they're taking advantage of Super Bowl fever (again, don't get me started; I might be the only person in New York who's anti-Giants Stadium Super Bowl) by staging not one but TWO hockey games at Yankee Stadium during the lead-up to the Super Bowl. And all three New York hockey teams will get to participate. The Rangers will be the visiting team in each, taking on the Devils first, then the Islanders. This isn't really where my problem lies.
My problem lies with the Ducks-Kings game at Dodger Stadium. Again, the matchup is a good one. Two rivals, both of which happen to be really good, in a historic venue. But sunny Southern California isn't exactly the first place that comes to mind when people think about outdoor hockey. (Until Wayne Gretzky came to town, the idea of even playing hockey period in Los Angeles seemed somewhat ridiculous.) Canadian kids out there with their wool hats in freezing temperatures. That's the grassroots, remembering why you fell in love with the game element that they were going for when they first conceived of the outdoor games. Not random dudes wearing shorts and sunglasses with their hockey jerseys on a 70-degree day.
I'll never forget that first Heritage Classic. It was a Saturday night in Edmonton, and to say it was cold would be an incredible understatement. You could see the players' breaths, and the indelible image of that game will always be Jose Theodore wearing a touque over his goalie mask. Or that first Winter Classic in Buffalo. When it started snowing in the middle of the game. And everybody loved it. Somehow, snow made it better. Well, that ain't gonna happen in LA. And you want to talk playing conditions? Good luck keeping the ice playable.
In my opinion, the NHL is biting off more than it can chew here. They're trying to overcompensate for losing last year's Winter Classic and build some momentum heading into/out of the Olympics (even though they haven't officially committed to playing yet). Maybe the Stadium Series will work and multiple outdoor games will become the new norm. But I hope not. The Winter Classic and Heritage Classic should be special. That's when the NHL brings its game outside. Why can't it stay that way? And if you're going to play outdoors, at least do it somewhere cold. Like Canada. Not California.
After cancelling this year's Winter Classic, they did the right thing and announced that the same two teams--the Red Wings and Maple Leafs--will play in the 2014 Winter Classic at the same venue--The Big House at the University of Michigan. Well done, NHL. Likewise, the Heritage Classic will return next season with the Senators visiting the Canucks. (Sidebar, why did they wait until after Vancouver hosted the Olympics to make BC Place an open-air stadium?) Then they got carried away, announcing the creation of the NHL Stadium Series.
How do you take the luster off your signature event? By completely eliminating the novelty of it. Along with the occasional Heritage Classic, the Winter Classic was the only outdoor game on the NHL schedule. That's exactly why it worked. It's the NHL's Super Bowl. It became the event that everybody wanted to host, even places where playing a winter sport outdoors makes little to no sense (I'm talking to you, LA). Way to take something great and completely destroy it. One or two outdoor games equals must-see TV. But seven? Seven is overkill.
Instead of being the only outdoor games next season, the Winter Classic and Heritage Classic will bookend the NHL Stadium Series, which also includes games in LA and Chicago, as well as two in Yankee Stadium. I get what they're trying to do with the Stadium Series. I really do. They're trying to capitalize on the Winter Classic's popularity and give other cities the opportunity to host (they've been wanting to have a Winter Classic at Yankee Stadium for a while anyway). But I think we might be looking at too much of a good thing here. When it comes to outdoor NHL games, less is more.
It's not as if I have a problem with any of the games they've chosen. The Penguins and Blackhawks are two of the best (and most popular) teams in the NHL, and that could easily be a Stanley Cup Finals rematch. And like I said, they've been wanting to have the Rangers host the Winter Classic in Yankee Stadium for quite some time. They were supposed to host one at the Old Stadium before it closed, and they haven't been able to at the new one because of the Pinstripe Bowl (don't get me started on how stupid I think that game is).
Now they're taking advantage of Super Bowl fever (again, don't get me started; I might be the only person in New York who's anti-Giants Stadium Super Bowl) by staging not one but TWO hockey games at Yankee Stadium during the lead-up to the Super Bowl. And all three New York hockey teams will get to participate. The Rangers will be the visiting team in each, taking on the Devils first, then the Islanders. This isn't really where my problem lies.
My problem lies with the Ducks-Kings game at Dodger Stadium. Again, the matchup is a good one. Two rivals, both of which happen to be really good, in a historic venue. But sunny Southern California isn't exactly the first place that comes to mind when people think about outdoor hockey. (Until Wayne Gretzky came to town, the idea of even playing hockey period in Los Angeles seemed somewhat ridiculous.) Canadian kids out there with their wool hats in freezing temperatures. That's the grassroots, remembering why you fell in love with the game element that they were going for when they first conceived of the outdoor games. Not random dudes wearing shorts and sunglasses with their hockey jerseys on a 70-degree day.
I'll never forget that first Heritage Classic. It was a Saturday night in Edmonton, and to say it was cold would be an incredible understatement. You could see the players' breaths, and the indelible image of that game will always be Jose Theodore wearing a touque over his goalie mask. Or that first Winter Classic in Buffalo. When it started snowing in the middle of the game. And everybody loved it. Somehow, snow made it better. Well, that ain't gonna happen in LA. And you want to talk playing conditions? Good luck keeping the ice playable.
In my opinion, the NHL is biting off more than it can chew here. They're trying to overcompensate for losing last year's Winter Classic and build some momentum heading into/out of the Olympics (even though they haven't officially committed to playing yet). Maybe the Stadium Series will work and multiple outdoor games will become the new norm. But I hope not. The Winter Classic and Heritage Classic should be special. That's when the NHL brings its game outside. Why can't it stay that way? And if you're going to play outdoors, at least do it somewhere cold. Like Canada. Not California.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Ready For Round 2
The first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs proved to just as unpredictable as I expected. Chicago didn't do anything to disprove that they're the best team in the West, while Pittsburgh was lucky to survive the Islanders. The most impressive teams, though, might've been Ottawa and San Jose. The Canucks get a lot of the credit for the Sharks' sweep, but the Senators-Canadiens series was all Ottawa. Carey Price's injury certainly played a part, but even if he's healthy, the Canadiens don't win that series the way Ottawa played.
And true to form, playoff hockey gave us plenty of overtime. Every series had at least one overtime game, and there were a total of 17 overtime periods, which averages out to a little more than two per series. Detroit-Anaheim had four, and the Red Wings' only regulation win was Game 7. That series could've gone either way. But Detroit found a way, like they seemingly always do, setting up one final playoff showdown with their archrival Blackhawks before the Red Wings move East for some reason next year. That series is certainly the highlight of Round 2, but all four of them look pretty good on paper.
(1) Penguins vs. (7) Senators: Pittsburgh certainly got all they could handle from the Islanders. And then some. They were outplayed for a good portion of the series and if they don't make that goalie change prior to Game 5, they might not even advance. Marc-Andre Fleury was flat-out terrible in Games 1-4. Thomas Vokoun saved the series (and the season), which entitles him the right to start this series. It would be a mistake to go back to Fleury now. The Penguins offense needs to click, too. They showed flashes of how explosive they can be against the Islanders, but have to be more consistent. As for the Senators, they didn't do much wrong against Montreal. Offense? Great. Defense? Great. Goaltending? Great. They outplayed the Canadiens from the start and, as a result, wrapped up their series earlier than the other three East teams. Will everything they did right carry over, or will the rest be a bad thing? I reiterate that Pittsburgh is the best team and should win. But that was also true about Montreal. The Penguins know they were lucky to get past the Islanders. They also know that they'll have to up their game significantly against the Senators. I think they will. Pittsburgh in six.
(4) Bruins vs. (6) Rangers: How incredible was that comeback by the Bruins in Game 7? They blew a 3-1 series lead and were down 4-1 in the third period before coming back to win in overtime. Incredible. That's the mark of a championship-caliber team. It was quite a comeback by the Rangers, too, but for that, the credit goes to one man. I said before the Capitals series that Henrik Lundqvist was the best player in that series and might prove to be the difference. Back-to-back shutouts in Games 6 and 7, with his team facing elimination in each, certainly proved me right. After those two seven-game thrillers, we get an Original Six matchup (we've got two of them!) between two evenly-matched teams. I'm expecting this series to be low-scoring with a lot of one-goal games. Special teams could end up being a big key. The Rangers' power play has to be better than it was against Washington. So does the offense. They can't rely on Lundqvist to win every game for them. Boston's defense will make scoring tough, though. That's why taking advantage of power play chances will be so important. Bottom line, though, is that Boston is the better team. I think the Bruins have a shot against the Penguins. They need to beat the Rangers first, and I give the Bruins an edge that's ever so slight. Both of these teams have gotten accustomed to playing seven games in the playoffs. This series will be no different. The Bruins win Game 7 at their Garden.
(1) Blackhawks vs. (7) Red Wings: The only good thing about Detroit beating Anaheim is that this classic rivalry gets a fitting final chapter. And to put it right up there with those Blackhawks-Red Wings matchups of the past, I hope we get a long series. Chicago's the best team in the Western Conference, if not the entire NHL. They proved that against Minnesota. But the Red Wings are kind of like the St. Louis Cardinals. You can never count them out until they're officially eliminated. Did luck come into play in the Anaheim series? Probably a little. But you can't discredit the playoff experience of this battle-tested Red Wings squad, either. If there's any team that knows Chicago well, it's the Red Wings. They're actually very similar squads. The Blackhawks' core is younger and, in my opinion, slightly more talented, though. And Corey Crawford was out of his mind against the Wild. I don't want to discout Detroit entirely. Especially with this team, I know better. But I think Chicago's talent will win the day. It'll be intense, hard-fought, physical hockey. Hockey fans everywhere, and especially those at NBC, are hoping this one goes the distance. If it does, give me the Blackhawks in Game 7.
(5) Kings vs. (6) Sharks: This is perhaps the most even of the four matchups. The Kings spotted St. Louis two games, then reminded everybody why they won the Cup last year. Once LA got going, the Blues didn't have a chance. In the battle of playoff underachievers, the Sharks got the better of Vancouver. The Sharks did everything right, the Canucks did virtually nothing right, and San Jose pulled off the only sweep of round one. For a veteran team, I think the rest will be a benefit in this case. San Jose's got all the talent in the world, and is always one of the best regular season teams in the league. Are we finally seeing a Sharks playoff run? But speaking of playoff runs, this is the first time in their six playoff series over the past two seasons that the Kings have home ice. That obviously hasn't stopped them. I'm curious to see if starting the series at home will actually have the reverse effect. Both teams should also benefit by the fact that the entire series will be played in California. No dramatic time changes or weird start times to mess with their bodies. It should improve the quality of play. This series is a definite toss-up. If the Sharks that played against Vancouver show up, they'll be very tough to beat. Even for the defending champions. Meanwhile, the Kings are just getting revved up. I recommed staying up late to watch these games, 'cause this sereis should be good. Call me crazy, but I'm going to keep playing my hunch about the Sharks. I'm going to say San Jose in six.
And true to form, playoff hockey gave us plenty of overtime. Every series had at least one overtime game, and there were a total of 17 overtime periods, which averages out to a little more than two per series. Detroit-Anaheim had four, and the Red Wings' only regulation win was Game 7. That series could've gone either way. But Detroit found a way, like they seemingly always do, setting up one final playoff showdown with their archrival Blackhawks before the Red Wings move East for some reason next year. That series is certainly the highlight of Round 2, but all four of them look pretty good on paper.
(1) Penguins vs. (7) Senators: Pittsburgh certainly got all they could handle from the Islanders. And then some. They were outplayed for a good portion of the series and if they don't make that goalie change prior to Game 5, they might not even advance. Marc-Andre Fleury was flat-out terrible in Games 1-4. Thomas Vokoun saved the series (and the season), which entitles him the right to start this series. It would be a mistake to go back to Fleury now. The Penguins offense needs to click, too. They showed flashes of how explosive they can be against the Islanders, but have to be more consistent. As for the Senators, they didn't do much wrong against Montreal. Offense? Great. Defense? Great. Goaltending? Great. They outplayed the Canadiens from the start and, as a result, wrapped up their series earlier than the other three East teams. Will everything they did right carry over, or will the rest be a bad thing? I reiterate that Pittsburgh is the best team and should win. But that was also true about Montreal. The Penguins know they were lucky to get past the Islanders. They also know that they'll have to up their game significantly against the Senators. I think they will. Pittsburgh in six.
(4) Bruins vs. (6) Rangers: How incredible was that comeback by the Bruins in Game 7? They blew a 3-1 series lead and were down 4-1 in the third period before coming back to win in overtime. Incredible. That's the mark of a championship-caliber team. It was quite a comeback by the Rangers, too, but for that, the credit goes to one man. I said before the Capitals series that Henrik Lundqvist was the best player in that series and might prove to be the difference. Back-to-back shutouts in Games 6 and 7, with his team facing elimination in each, certainly proved me right. After those two seven-game thrillers, we get an Original Six matchup (we've got two of them!) between two evenly-matched teams. I'm expecting this series to be low-scoring with a lot of one-goal games. Special teams could end up being a big key. The Rangers' power play has to be better than it was against Washington. So does the offense. They can't rely on Lundqvist to win every game for them. Boston's defense will make scoring tough, though. That's why taking advantage of power play chances will be so important. Bottom line, though, is that Boston is the better team. I think the Bruins have a shot against the Penguins. They need to beat the Rangers first, and I give the Bruins an edge that's ever so slight. Both of these teams have gotten accustomed to playing seven games in the playoffs. This series will be no different. The Bruins win Game 7 at their Garden.
(1) Blackhawks vs. (7) Red Wings: The only good thing about Detroit beating Anaheim is that this classic rivalry gets a fitting final chapter. And to put it right up there with those Blackhawks-Red Wings matchups of the past, I hope we get a long series. Chicago's the best team in the Western Conference, if not the entire NHL. They proved that against Minnesota. But the Red Wings are kind of like the St. Louis Cardinals. You can never count them out until they're officially eliminated. Did luck come into play in the Anaheim series? Probably a little. But you can't discredit the playoff experience of this battle-tested Red Wings squad, either. If there's any team that knows Chicago well, it's the Red Wings. They're actually very similar squads. The Blackhawks' core is younger and, in my opinion, slightly more talented, though. And Corey Crawford was out of his mind against the Wild. I don't want to discout Detroit entirely. Especially with this team, I know better. But I think Chicago's talent will win the day. It'll be intense, hard-fought, physical hockey. Hockey fans everywhere, and especially those at NBC, are hoping this one goes the distance. If it does, give me the Blackhawks in Game 7.
(5) Kings vs. (6) Sharks: This is perhaps the most even of the four matchups. The Kings spotted St. Louis two games, then reminded everybody why they won the Cup last year. Once LA got going, the Blues didn't have a chance. In the battle of playoff underachievers, the Sharks got the better of Vancouver. The Sharks did everything right, the Canucks did virtually nothing right, and San Jose pulled off the only sweep of round one. For a veteran team, I think the rest will be a benefit in this case. San Jose's got all the talent in the world, and is always one of the best regular season teams in the league. Are we finally seeing a Sharks playoff run? But speaking of playoff runs, this is the first time in their six playoff series over the past two seasons that the Kings have home ice. That obviously hasn't stopped them. I'm curious to see if starting the series at home will actually have the reverse effect. Both teams should also benefit by the fact that the entire series will be played in California. No dramatic time changes or weird start times to mess with their bodies. It should improve the quality of play. This series is a definite toss-up. If the Sharks that played against Vancouver show up, they'll be very tough to beat. Even for the defending champions. Meanwhile, the Kings are just getting revved up. I recommed staying up late to watch these games, 'cause this sereis should be good. Call me crazy, but I'm going to keep playing my hunch about the Sharks. I'm going to say San Jose in six.
Friday, May 10, 2013
After Review, We're Still Wrong
Remember the baseball game scene in the original Naked Gun movie? The one where Frank Drebin pretended to be an umpire so that he could figure out who was trying to kill the Queen? Remember how ridiculously (and hilariously) bad some of his calls were? Well, hasn't it felt like Frank Drebin has actually been hired as a real Major League umpire over the past couple days?
It's been a rough week for umpires. First, you had the Indians-A's game on Wednesday night. Oakland's game-tying homer in the top of the ninth was called a double on the field, but they went to the replay to make sure. The replay showed (pretty clearly) that the ball was well over the yellow line on the top of the wall that indicates a home run. It hit a freakin' railing that was four or five feet above the line. Clear as day to anybody with two eyes. Except, apparently, the four guys whose job it was to get the call right. They told the runner to stay at second. What?
Fast forward to last night. The Angles were playing the Astros in Houston. Anaheim sent up a pinch hitter in the top of the seventh, and Houston countered by bringing in a lefty. Mike Scioscia didn't want the lefty-lefty matchup, so he sent up another pinch hitter, who was right-handed. To which Houston manager Bo Porter countered by bringing in a right-hander...while the other guy was still warming up. The rules are pretty clear about pitching changes. Once you make a change, the new pitcher has to stay in for at least one hitter or until an out is made (via pickoff, caught stealing, whatever). Scioscia came out and argued this point. Bo Porter obviously didn't know the rule. And apparently the umpires didn't either. Fortunately, it didn't cost the Angels the game. Same can't be said for the A's, though.
Joe Torre came out and said what we all knew in each case. The umps effed up. Wow, that's reassuring. I'm sure it really makes the A's feel better to know that Major League Baseball acknowledged they got screwed out of a home run. At least with the Angels-Astros game, they took the step of suspending Fielden Cublreth two games. But why not the whole crew? They should all know the rules. As such, the entire crew should've been suspended. Not just the crew chief.
But the whole pitching change thing, as bad as it was, doesn't bother me as much as what happened in the Oakland-Cleveland game. Umpires are human. They're going to get calls wrong. That's the reason they have replay. You can look at the video to correct those human errors. They're even talking about expanding it to cover those bang-bang plays that are easy to get wrong. Things like trap or catch and fair or foul. Nobody likes being proven wrong, but I'd rather that than my mistake affecting the outcome of a game.
That's why I still simply cannot understand what happened in the Oakland-Cleveland game. The ball hit the railing above the wall. It was clear as day. The A's knew it. The Indians knew it. Everybody in the stadium knew it. Everybody who saw the replay knew it. So what exactly were the umpires looking at in the replay room? They got the call wrong. It happens. But to compound the problem by coming out after looking at the replay and getting it wrong again? Inexcusable.
As Mark Mulder said on Baseball Tonight following that debacle, "If you're going to use replay and still not get it right, what's the point in having replay at all?" I totally agree. And the excuse the umpires used afterwards was that there wasn't "inconclusive" evidence to overturn the call. Huh? How much more inconclusive can you get? If a ball hitting a railing five feet above the fence isn't inconclusive evidence of a home run, what is? (On Baseball Tonight last night, they spot-shadowed every home run ball in relation to the fence in the Indians-A's game. It was hilarious.)
The other real problem is the lack of accountability. Major League managers and players are required to do postgame media sessions. But when an umpire's bad call has a bearing on the outcome of the game, nothing. Maybe a one-sentence written statement, but that's about it. Why does that have to be? Take the kid gloves off. If managers and players have to talk to the media, umpires should have to as well. Let the reporters ask their questions. Don't hide behind prepared statements. You're not protecting them. And, this just in, they're grown men. They don't need protection. Let them be held accountable.
One of the umpires I respect the most is Jim Joyce. Remember when Joyce blew a call at first base, calling a runner safe who was clearly out, costing the Tigers' Armando Galarraga a perfect game? After seeing the video, Joyce spoke to the media, acknowledged he made a bad call, and admitted how badly he felt that he was the reason Galarraga didn't throw a perfect game. Joyce went so far as apologizing to Galarraga. Both men handled the entire situation with such grace and class. It was truly exceptional.
If Jim Joyce can blow a call, but take the high road and actually talk about it, all the while handling the criticism he received like a man, why can't others? Why is that the exception instead of the rule? Umpires aren't perfect. They're going to make mistakes. There's no reason for this "Holier than Thou" tactic when it comes to controversial calls. Keeping the umpires away from the media doesn't help these situations at all. In fact, it only makes them worse.
It's been a rough week for umpires. First, you had the Indians-A's game on Wednesday night. Oakland's game-tying homer in the top of the ninth was called a double on the field, but they went to the replay to make sure. The replay showed (pretty clearly) that the ball was well over the yellow line on the top of the wall that indicates a home run. It hit a freakin' railing that was four or five feet above the line. Clear as day to anybody with two eyes. Except, apparently, the four guys whose job it was to get the call right. They told the runner to stay at second. What?
Fast forward to last night. The Angles were playing the Astros in Houston. Anaheim sent up a pinch hitter in the top of the seventh, and Houston countered by bringing in a lefty. Mike Scioscia didn't want the lefty-lefty matchup, so he sent up another pinch hitter, who was right-handed. To which Houston manager Bo Porter countered by bringing in a right-hander...while the other guy was still warming up. The rules are pretty clear about pitching changes. Once you make a change, the new pitcher has to stay in for at least one hitter or until an out is made (via pickoff, caught stealing, whatever). Scioscia came out and argued this point. Bo Porter obviously didn't know the rule. And apparently the umpires didn't either. Fortunately, it didn't cost the Angels the game. Same can't be said for the A's, though.
Joe Torre came out and said what we all knew in each case. The umps effed up. Wow, that's reassuring. I'm sure it really makes the A's feel better to know that Major League Baseball acknowledged they got screwed out of a home run. At least with the Angels-Astros game, they took the step of suspending Fielden Cublreth two games. But why not the whole crew? They should all know the rules. As such, the entire crew should've been suspended. Not just the crew chief.
But the whole pitching change thing, as bad as it was, doesn't bother me as much as what happened in the Oakland-Cleveland game. Umpires are human. They're going to get calls wrong. That's the reason they have replay. You can look at the video to correct those human errors. They're even talking about expanding it to cover those bang-bang plays that are easy to get wrong. Things like trap or catch and fair or foul. Nobody likes being proven wrong, but I'd rather that than my mistake affecting the outcome of a game.
That's why I still simply cannot understand what happened in the Oakland-Cleveland game. The ball hit the railing above the wall. It was clear as day. The A's knew it. The Indians knew it. Everybody in the stadium knew it. Everybody who saw the replay knew it. So what exactly were the umpires looking at in the replay room? They got the call wrong. It happens. But to compound the problem by coming out after looking at the replay and getting it wrong again? Inexcusable.
As Mark Mulder said on Baseball Tonight following that debacle, "If you're going to use replay and still not get it right, what's the point in having replay at all?" I totally agree. And the excuse the umpires used afterwards was that there wasn't "inconclusive" evidence to overturn the call. Huh? How much more inconclusive can you get? If a ball hitting a railing five feet above the fence isn't inconclusive evidence of a home run, what is? (On Baseball Tonight last night, they spot-shadowed every home run ball in relation to the fence in the Indians-A's game. It was hilarious.)
The other real problem is the lack of accountability. Major League managers and players are required to do postgame media sessions. But when an umpire's bad call has a bearing on the outcome of the game, nothing. Maybe a one-sentence written statement, but that's about it. Why does that have to be? Take the kid gloves off. If managers and players have to talk to the media, umpires should have to as well. Let the reporters ask their questions. Don't hide behind prepared statements. You're not protecting them. And, this just in, they're grown men. They don't need protection. Let them be held accountable.
One of the umpires I respect the most is Jim Joyce. Remember when Joyce blew a call at first base, calling a runner safe who was clearly out, costing the Tigers' Armando Galarraga a perfect game? After seeing the video, Joyce spoke to the media, acknowledged he made a bad call, and admitted how badly he felt that he was the reason Galarraga didn't throw a perfect game. Joyce went so far as apologizing to Galarraga. Both men handled the entire situation with such grace and class. It was truly exceptional.
If Jim Joyce can blow a call, but take the high road and actually talk about it, all the while handling the criticism he received like a man, why can't others? Why is that the exception instead of the rule? Umpires aren't perfect. They're going to make mistakes. There's no reason for this "Holier than Thou" tactic when it comes to controversial calls. Keeping the umpires away from the media doesn't help these situations at all. In fact, it only makes them worse.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
An Intriguing Interleague Idea
I didn't come up with this idea. I saw it a couple weeks ago on ESPN.com, and I thought it was an interesting idea. Then the Yankees began a three-game series in Colorado tonight with a grand total of FOUR available position players on the bench, one of which was the backup catcher, one of which was Travis Hafner, and two of which were left-handed hitting outfielders. Not much flexibility in the way of double-switches. Anyway, the idea that was proposed was allowing teams to expand their roster to 26 players for interleague games.
With interleague play now taking place throughout the season, you've got American League pitchers hitting in April and National League teams using a DH in September. I don't have a problem with this schedule at all, but it definitely changes the way you have to construct your roster, at least for three games.
In the past, when teams played their interleague games in a designated window, everybody would fenagle their rosters for the road games. If a National League team played all three of its road series in a row, they might call up somebody from the minor leagues for the sole purpose of DHing those nine games, then immediately send them back down. Other NL teams might take it the other way and add another relief pitcher, since the AL game is much more matchup-driven.
Likewise, how many times did the Red Sox face the David Ortiz dilemma when they had an extended interleague road trip? There's no solution to having a DH that can't play anywhere on the field, but maybe an AL team would want an extra position player just to have a little more flexibility. You obviously need to use a pinch hitter a lot more often in the National League, but an extra position player could also be useful as a late-game defensive sub or you might need a utility guy in case of a double switch. If you don't have a long man out of the bullpen for a couple days, so be it.
If teams were allowed to expand their roster to 26 for interleague play only, it would save teams from having to make those sort of decisions. An NL team wants to add a DH? Sure. Go ahead. An AL team wants to add that extra bat off the bench? By all means. And that way, teams would also be able to make these roster changes without dropping a relief pitcher, which is usually what they have to do. It could easily work the other way, too. You're facing a lefty-heavy lineup and want to add a left-handed reliever? Go for it. The only choice left to be made is add a pitcher or add a position player?
Of course, there would have to be certain restrictions to this rule. If you're calling somebody up, they get sent back down immediately. I'd also give teams the option of activating somebody off the DL to fill that 26th roster spot. Should they do that, they need to drop a like player. If you activate a pitcher, a different pitcher has to get sent down once the roster is reduced back to 25. Same thing with position players. If you add one, you drop one. Just like they do when there's an injury in the postseason.
I'm not saying this is a perfect idea or that there's necessarily a problem with leaving it at 25. Just throwing it out there. Although, I think it's something that could definitely have the potential to catch on. They've already done something similar with doubleheaders. It's more a consideration for bullpens and the fact that you'll need two starting pitchers, but teams are allowed to use a 26-man roster for doubleheaders now. Similar thought process here.
Year-round interleague play is going to take some getting used-to. For all involved. (I'm already on board.) But I think the option of using a 26th player for interleague games is an intriguing possibility that could help make that adjustment a little bit easier.
With interleague play now taking place throughout the season, you've got American League pitchers hitting in April and National League teams using a DH in September. I don't have a problem with this schedule at all, but it definitely changes the way you have to construct your roster, at least for three games.
In the past, when teams played their interleague games in a designated window, everybody would fenagle their rosters for the road games. If a National League team played all three of its road series in a row, they might call up somebody from the minor leagues for the sole purpose of DHing those nine games, then immediately send them back down. Other NL teams might take it the other way and add another relief pitcher, since the AL game is much more matchup-driven.
Likewise, how many times did the Red Sox face the David Ortiz dilemma when they had an extended interleague road trip? There's no solution to having a DH that can't play anywhere on the field, but maybe an AL team would want an extra position player just to have a little more flexibility. You obviously need to use a pinch hitter a lot more often in the National League, but an extra position player could also be useful as a late-game defensive sub or you might need a utility guy in case of a double switch. If you don't have a long man out of the bullpen for a couple days, so be it.
If teams were allowed to expand their roster to 26 for interleague play only, it would save teams from having to make those sort of decisions. An NL team wants to add a DH? Sure. Go ahead. An AL team wants to add that extra bat off the bench? By all means. And that way, teams would also be able to make these roster changes without dropping a relief pitcher, which is usually what they have to do. It could easily work the other way, too. You're facing a lefty-heavy lineup and want to add a left-handed reliever? Go for it. The only choice left to be made is add a pitcher or add a position player?
Of course, there would have to be certain restrictions to this rule. If you're calling somebody up, they get sent back down immediately. I'd also give teams the option of activating somebody off the DL to fill that 26th roster spot. Should they do that, they need to drop a like player. If you activate a pitcher, a different pitcher has to get sent down once the roster is reduced back to 25. Same thing with position players. If you add one, you drop one. Just like they do when there's an injury in the postseason.
I'm not saying this is a perfect idea or that there's necessarily a problem with leaving it at 25. Just throwing it out there. Although, I think it's something that could definitely have the potential to catch on. They've already done something similar with doubleheaders. It's more a consideration for bullpens and the fact that you'll need two starting pitchers, but teams are allowed to use a 26-man roster for doubleheaders now. Similar thought process here.
Year-round interleague play is going to take some getting used-to. For all involved. (I'm already on board.) But I think the option of using a 26th player for interleague games is an intriguing possibility that could help make that adjustment a little bit easier.
Monday, May 6, 2013
I Miss These Rivalries
As the Rangers and Capitals play their annual playoff series, the Knicks renew aquiantances with the Pacers. And if they win, they'll take on the Heat or the Bulls. Basically, we've got every classic Knicks rivalry from back when they were last good in the late 90s. While it's about that long since I've actually watched the Knicks or cared about the NBA, this Knicks-Pacers matchup still has me feeling nostalgic.
You've got your great rivalries like Yankees-Red Sox and Bears-Packers and Canadiens-Leafs that are great because of how frequently the teams meet. (That's something these BCS conferences don't get with their endless expansion, but I digress.) Then there are the great rivalries that exist exculsively because of the postseason. Your Celtics-Lakers. Your Yankees-Dodgers. For whatever reason, some of these rivalries have fallen by the wayside in recent years. Some of them were so long ago that you can't even envision the two teams having any animosity towards each other. But others...Well, I miss the others. Like these:
UConn vs. Tennessee: This game was always THE matchup in women's college basketball. It would be the only women's game that anyone would even care about and/or be nationally televised. They usually met for the National Championship, but there was usually at least one regular season matchup a year as well. But they haven't played since 2007, when a disagreement about UConn's recruitment of Maya Moore led to both schools making the decision to discontinue the series. They can still theoretically meet in the NCAA Tournament (UConn's beaten Tennessee in the Championship Game four times), but that hasn't happened either. You've gotta figure they're eventually going to play again. They're both too good not to cross paths in the Final Four one of these years. When they do, I guarantee it'll be like it never stopped. And women's college basketball will be better for it.
Mets vs. Cardinals: These two were in the same division from 1969 until the NL Central was formed in 1994. But the rivalry was at its height in the mid-80s. From 1985-88, the Mets and Cardinals alternated the division title every season, with the Mets finishing second the two times they didn't win (1985 and 1987). The Mets won 98 games and didn't make the playoffs in 1985, when the Cardinals lost the World Series in seven! They've had some memorable run-ins since (the 2006 NLCS, the 19-inning game a couple years ago), and they, of course, still play every year, but Mets-Cardinals hasn't quite been the same since they stopped playing in the same division.
Red Wings vs. Avalanche: Detroit and Colorado absolutely hated each other when they were both good in the late 90s. And that's part of what made it the best rivalry in hockey. Of course, one of the reasons why it was such a bitter rivlary is because they were both really, really good teams. In the seven seasons from 1996-2002 (when the Nordiques moved to Denver), they met in the playoffs five times, including three times in the Western Conference Finals. Colorado won the Cup in 1996 and 2001, while Detroit won back-to-back Cups in 1997-98 and another in 2002. Unfortunately, these regular playoff meetings are a thing of the past. With the Red Wings moving to the Eastern Conference next year, the only way they can face-off in the playoffs would be in the Finals. While that would be great, it wouldn't be the same.
Cowboys vs. 49ers: How good were those games between the Cowboys and 49ers in the early 90s? To call that the NFL at its absolute best seems like an understatement. They met in the NFC Championship Game three years in a row when the NFC was still the dominant conference. The Cowboys won the first two and the 49ers won in 1994 before blowing out the Bills (twice) and Chargers, respectively, in the Super Bowl. The Packers ruined it by beating San Francisco in the Divisonal Playoffs in 1995, and Dallas-San Francisco lost its luster when both teams began to struggle. But the 49ers were in the Super Bowl last season and Dallas is always in the mix. If the Cowboys can return to prominence and the 49ers can stay at the top, this one could be reborn.
Bulls vs. Pistons: Before Jordan's Bulls were the thorn in the side of Ewing's Knicks, the Pistons were the thorn in Jordan's side. (I'm sure the vitriol between the Red Wings and Blackhawks probably came into play, too.) Four years in a row they met in the playoffs. Three years in a row Detroit won, en route to back-to-back championships in 1989 and 1990. The Bulls finally broke through in 1991, and we all know what happened from there. Sure, the Bulls and Pistons are in the same division and, as such, play regularly, but I have no idea if the rivalry is anywhere near as intense now as it was then. They haven't really been good at the same time since. I'd love to see it if they were.
Raiders vs. Steelers: This could really be Raiders vs. Fill-in-the-blank. It's been so long that the Raiders have been relevant that it seems like forever since they've actually had a rivalry with anybody other than the Broncos, Chiefs and Chargers. I picked the Steelers because of how intense those games in the 70s were. (And the Dolphins could easily be included here, too.) Had I been alive in the 1970s and experienced it, I'm sure I would absolutely hate one of these two teams. Mainly, I just want the Raiders to be relevant again. They're one of the NFL's cornerstone franchises, yet they've been a laughingstock for 10 years.
Patriots vs. Colts: Sure, they're going to play this season. But everybody already knows it's not going to be the same. This rivalry died the moment Peyton hurt his neck (remember the Patriots-Colts game getting flexed OUT of Sunday Night two years ago?), and the funeral was his trade to Denver. Patriots-Broncos is the hot rivalry now. This rivalry was never really Patriots vs. Colts. It was Manning vs. Brady. And it was glorious. Since they both always won the division, it was always twice a year that they'd play. The Patriots always won. Then the Colts always won. But the game was great pretty much every single time. The Colts-Patriots rivalry will always be special because it was two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks in the peak of their prime, with great teams around them, in all-out wars in games that were usually significant. As good as Andrew Luck might become, it's never going to be the same.
Kansas vs. Missouri/Texas vs. Texas A&M/Nebraska vs. Colorado/UConn vs. Syracuse: Chalk these up as casualties of the ever-revolving conference carousel. Nebraska-Colorado was the first to go, and Nebraska-Oklahoma suffered the same fate (who else is waiting for that Nebraska-Colorado Rose Bowl?). Rivalry lost at the cost of the almighty dollar. But that's nothing compared to Texas-Texas A&M. As I've made well known in the past, I'm not a fan of Texas A&M. I blame them for this neverending cycle. 'Cause they're the ones who started it going again. Texas A&M doesn't like it that Texas has the Longhorn Network and decided they didn't want to be in the same conference as Texas. Texas's response? "Bye. Have fun explaining to your alums why we don't play each other anymore--in anything." Ditto for Kansas-Mizzou, and that one went back a century. The final chapter of UConn-Syracuse played out a few months ago, and that's a loss for all of college basketball. Syracuse leaving was the Big East's deathblow, and UConn is the biggest loser in that deal. Of course, they're trying to get into the ACC, themselves, so this rivalry isn't quite dead yet, but the games in Madison Square Garden are no more. Likewise, Syracuse-Clemson doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Forgive me for not getting excited about UConn-SMU, either.
You've got your great rivalries like Yankees-Red Sox and Bears-Packers and Canadiens-Leafs that are great because of how frequently the teams meet. (That's something these BCS conferences don't get with their endless expansion, but I digress.) Then there are the great rivalries that exist exculsively because of the postseason. Your Celtics-Lakers. Your Yankees-Dodgers. For whatever reason, some of these rivalries have fallen by the wayside in recent years. Some of them were so long ago that you can't even envision the two teams having any animosity towards each other. But others...Well, I miss the others. Like these:
UConn vs. Tennessee: This game was always THE matchup in women's college basketball. It would be the only women's game that anyone would even care about and/or be nationally televised. They usually met for the National Championship, but there was usually at least one regular season matchup a year as well. But they haven't played since 2007, when a disagreement about UConn's recruitment of Maya Moore led to both schools making the decision to discontinue the series. They can still theoretically meet in the NCAA Tournament (UConn's beaten Tennessee in the Championship Game four times), but that hasn't happened either. You've gotta figure they're eventually going to play again. They're both too good not to cross paths in the Final Four one of these years. When they do, I guarantee it'll be like it never stopped. And women's college basketball will be better for it.
Mets vs. Cardinals: These two were in the same division from 1969 until the NL Central was formed in 1994. But the rivalry was at its height in the mid-80s. From 1985-88, the Mets and Cardinals alternated the division title every season, with the Mets finishing second the two times they didn't win (1985 and 1987). The Mets won 98 games and didn't make the playoffs in 1985, when the Cardinals lost the World Series in seven! They've had some memorable run-ins since (the 2006 NLCS, the 19-inning game a couple years ago), and they, of course, still play every year, but Mets-Cardinals hasn't quite been the same since they stopped playing in the same division.
Red Wings vs. Avalanche: Detroit and Colorado absolutely hated each other when they were both good in the late 90s. And that's part of what made it the best rivalry in hockey. Of course, one of the reasons why it was such a bitter rivlary is because they were both really, really good teams. In the seven seasons from 1996-2002 (when the Nordiques moved to Denver), they met in the playoffs five times, including three times in the Western Conference Finals. Colorado won the Cup in 1996 and 2001, while Detroit won back-to-back Cups in 1997-98 and another in 2002. Unfortunately, these regular playoff meetings are a thing of the past. With the Red Wings moving to the Eastern Conference next year, the only way they can face-off in the playoffs would be in the Finals. While that would be great, it wouldn't be the same.
Cowboys vs. 49ers: How good were those games between the Cowboys and 49ers in the early 90s? To call that the NFL at its absolute best seems like an understatement. They met in the NFC Championship Game three years in a row when the NFC was still the dominant conference. The Cowboys won the first two and the 49ers won in 1994 before blowing out the Bills (twice) and Chargers, respectively, in the Super Bowl. The Packers ruined it by beating San Francisco in the Divisonal Playoffs in 1995, and Dallas-San Francisco lost its luster when both teams began to struggle. But the 49ers were in the Super Bowl last season and Dallas is always in the mix. If the Cowboys can return to prominence and the 49ers can stay at the top, this one could be reborn.
Bulls vs. Pistons: Before Jordan's Bulls were the thorn in the side of Ewing's Knicks, the Pistons were the thorn in Jordan's side. (I'm sure the vitriol between the Red Wings and Blackhawks probably came into play, too.) Four years in a row they met in the playoffs. Three years in a row Detroit won, en route to back-to-back championships in 1989 and 1990. The Bulls finally broke through in 1991, and we all know what happened from there. Sure, the Bulls and Pistons are in the same division and, as such, play regularly, but I have no idea if the rivalry is anywhere near as intense now as it was then. They haven't really been good at the same time since. I'd love to see it if they were.
Raiders vs. Steelers: This could really be Raiders vs. Fill-in-the-blank. It's been so long that the Raiders have been relevant that it seems like forever since they've actually had a rivalry with anybody other than the Broncos, Chiefs and Chargers. I picked the Steelers because of how intense those games in the 70s were. (And the Dolphins could easily be included here, too.) Had I been alive in the 1970s and experienced it, I'm sure I would absolutely hate one of these two teams. Mainly, I just want the Raiders to be relevant again. They're one of the NFL's cornerstone franchises, yet they've been a laughingstock for 10 years.
Patriots vs. Colts: Sure, they're going to play this season. But everybody already knows it's not going to be the same. This rivalry died the moment Peyton hurt his neck (remember the Patriots-Colts game getting flexed OUT of Sunday Night two years ago?), and the funeral was his trade to Denver. Patriots-Broncos is the hot rivalry now. This rivalry was never really Patriots vs. Colts. It was Manning vs. Brady. And it was glorious. Since they both always won the division, it was always twice a year that they'd play. The Patriots always won. Then the Colts always won. But the game was great pretty much every single time. The Colts-Patriots rivalry will always be special because it was two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks in the peak of their prime, with great teams around them, in all-out wars in games that were usually significant. As good as Andrew Luck might become, it's never going to be the same.
Kansas vs. Missouri/Texas vs. Texas A&M/Nebraska vs. Colorado/UConn vs. Syracuse: Chalk these up as casualties of the ever-revolving conference carousel. Nebraska-Colorado was the first to go, and Nebraska-Oklahoma suffered the same fate (who else is waiting for that Nebraska-Colorado Rose Bowl?). Rivalry lost at the cost of the almighty dollar. But that's nothing compared to Texas-Texas A&M. As I've made well known in the past, I'm not a fan of Texas A&M. I blame them for this neverending cycle. 'Cause they're the ones who started it going again. Texas A&M doesn't like it that Texas has the Longhorn Network and decided they didn't want to be in the same conference as Texas. Texas's response? "Bye. Have fun explaining to your alums why we don't play each other anymore--in anything." Ditto for Kansas-Mizzou, and that one went back a century. The final chapter of UConn-Syracuse played out a few months ago, and that's a loss for all of college basketball. Syracuse leaving was the Big East's deathblow, and UConn is the biggest loser in that deal. Of course, they're trying to get into the ACC, themselves, so this rivalry isn't quite dead yet, but the games in Madison Square Garden are no more. Likewise, Syracuse-Clemson doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Forgive me for not getting excited about UConn-SMU, either.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Most Inspirational Sports Movie Scenes
Today's post is absolutely, 100 percent, the result of what happens when I get bored and off-topic at work. We ended up looking for motivational speeches from sports movies, to which I thought, "I smell a blog coming."
And I actually had trouble narrowing this list down to 10, although I think that's mainly because it's industry standard that when you write the screenplay for a sports movie, there'd better be some sort of inspirational speech or Hollywood ain't biting. Regardless, some of those motivational scenes do achieve their intended purpose. The best sports movies have more than one. So, as it turns out, there were plenty of good choices available. As a result, I made it a rule that I was only going to pick one per movie.
10. Mighty Ducks 2: Don't ask me why, maybe it's the music, but I always get amped up when I see this scene. Again, I have no idea why. The Mighty Ducks 2 isn't a classic sports movie by any means, but this is still one of my favorite sports movie locker room speeches. Now go out and beat those Icelandic goons, Ducks!
9. Any Given Sunday: This one worked. Al Pacino, master motivator. The fact that Al Pacino is a scary dude certainly helps, because he's basically telling them to kick the crap out of the other team. And when Michael Corleone tells you to beat the crap out of somebody, you'd better do it. It helps that Lawrence Taylor was his middle linebacker.
8. We Are Marshall: I feel a little awkward putting this one on the list, mainly because I've never seen this whole movie. But you only have to see this clip once for it to give you chills. How can you not want to go out there and win in these guys' memory after this?
7. Rocky: There are six Rocky movies, and equally as many choices for inspirational speeches from those movies. But I'm going with the classic one by Burgess Meredith in the original and still the best. It got Meredith an Oscar nomination, and the movie, of course, won Best Picture. (Although, it was tough to choose between this one and "That's What Winning Is" from Rocky Balboa.)
6. Knute Rockne All-American: The locker room scene is great, but it's nothing compared to the Gipper scene. That's, of course, Ronald Reagan who plays George Gipp in this memorable scene. Since this movie came out in 1940, I bet a lot of you have probably never seen the whole thing (if any part of it). If you ever get the chance to, make a point of it someday.
5. Remember the Titans: Again, a lot of options from this great movie. Really, any one would be a great call. (You could probably make a whole Top 10 list of most inspirational scenes from "Remember the Titans.") I think it's the Coach Yost, "Remember Forever," line that makes this one my favorite, although the players in the locker room at halftime of the championship game when they're talking about being the perfect team is pretty close.
4. Pride of the Yankees: This is probably the most famous speech in baseball history, and the movie version is just as powerful. I know it's not technically a motivational speech, but how can you not be inspired by it? A man who knew he was dying saying goodbye in such a poignant and moving way. To this day, it gives people chills. And, of course, it boasts one of the most memorable movie lines of all-time
3. Rudy: Another movie where you need both hands to count all the inspirational speeches/moments. The whole movie is incredibly uplifting. But THE scene that stands out above the others is the one where Fortune convinces Rudy to un-quit the team. "In this lifetime, you don't have to prove nothing to nobody except yourself." Words to live by, courtesy of Charles S. Dutton.
2. Hoosiers: This is one of my all-time favorite movies, but that's not why it's in the No. 2 spot. It's because of the message. This scene sums up the entire point of the movie. You don't need to win the game to be a "winner." It also shows that sometimes a little can say a lot.
1. Miracle: There's no inspirational sports movie scene quite like the locker room scene in Miracle. The movie is, obviously, based on a true story, and Herb Brooks' actual speech was very similar to Kurt Russell's in the movie. And if anybody needed to be inspired, it was the actual 1980 Olympic hockey team. Nobody gave them a chance at beating the Soviets. Well, we all know what happened--in the movie and in real life.
That's my list. But it wouldn't be complete without drawing one from real life. One that makes me cry every time I hear it still, 20 years later. A man who knew he was dying telling everyone else to enjoy life, because that's what he was going to do with the time he had left. I'm, of course, talking about Jim Valvano's speech at the 1993 ESPYs. His message will always endure. "Don't give up. Don't ever give up." (The 11 minutes to watch the whole clip are well worth it.)
And I actually had trouble narrowing this list down to 10, although I think that's mainly because it's industry standard that when you write the screenplay for a sports movie, there'd better be some sort of inspirational speech or Hollywood ain't biting. Regardless, some of those motivational scenes do achieve their intended purpose. The best sports movies have more than one. So, as it turns out, there were plenty of good choices available. As a result, I made it a rule that I was only going to pick one per movie.
10. Mighty Ducks 2: Don't ask me why, maybe it's the music, but I always get amped up when I see this scene. Again, I have no idea why. The Mighty Ducks 2 isn't a classic sports movie by any means, but this is still one of my favorite sports movie locker room speeches. Now go out and beat those Icelandic goons, Ducks!
9. Any Given Sunday: This one worked. Al Pacino, master motivator. The fact that Al Pacino is a scary dude certainly helps, because he's basically telling them to kick the crap out of the other team. And when Michael Corleone tells you to beat the crap out of somebody, you'd better do it. It helps that Lawrence Taylor was his middle linebacker.
7. Rocky: There are six Rocky movies, and equally as many choices for inspirational speeches from those movies. But I'm going with the classic one by Burgess Meredith in the original and still the best. It got Meredith an Oscar nomination, and the movie, of course, won Best Picture. (Although, it was tough to choose between this one and "That's What Winning Is" from Rocky Balboa.)
6. Knute Rockne All-American: The locker room scene is great, but it's nothing compared to the Gipper scene. That's, of course, Ronald Reagan who plays George Gipp in this memorable scene. Since this movie came out in 1940, I bet a lot of you have probably never seen the whole thing (if any part of it). If you ever get the chance to, make a point of it someday.
5. Remember the Titans: Again, a lot of options from this great movie. Really, any one would be a great call. (You could probably make a whole Top 10 list of most inspirational scenes from "Remember the Titans.") I think it's the Coach Yost, "Remember Forever," line that makes this one my favorite, although the players in the locker room at halftime of the championship game when they're talking about being the perfect team is pretty close.
4. Pride of the Yankees: This is probably the most famous speech in baseball history, and the movie version is just as powerful. I know it's not technically a motivational speech, but how can you not be inspired by it? A man who knew he was dying saying goodbye in such a poignant and moving way. To this day, it gives people chills. And, of course, it boasts one of the most memorable movie lines of all-time
3. Rudy: Another movie where you need both hands to count all the inspirational speeches/moments. The whole movie is incredibly uplifting. But THE scene that stands out above the others is the one where Fortune convinces Rudy to un-quit the team. "In this lifetime, you don't have to prove nothing to nobody except yourself." Words to live by, courtesy of Charles S. Dutton.
2. Hoosiers: This is one of my all-time favorite movies, but that's not why it's in the No. 2 spot. It's because of the message. This scene sums up the entire point of the movie. You don't need to win the game to be a "winner." It also shows that sometimes a little can say a lot.
1. Miracle: There's no inspirational sports movie scene quite like the locker room scene in Miracle. The movie is, obviously, based on a true story, and Herb Brooks' actual speech was very similar to Kurt Russell's in the movie. And if anybody needed to be inspired, it was the actual 1980 Olympic hockey team. Nobody gave them a chance at beating the Soviets. Well, we all know what happened--in the movie and in real life.
That's my list. But it wouldn't be complete without drawing one from real life. One that makes me cry every time I hear it still, 20 years later. A man who knew he was dying telling everyone else to enjoy life, because that's what he was going to do with the time he had left. I'm, of course, talking about Jim Valvano's speech at the 1993 ESPYs. His message will always endure. "Don't give up. Don't ever give up." (The 11 minutes to watch the whole clip are well worth it.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)