Sports Crank

"El Hombre" heads West

2011-12-08T14:19:00.007-05:00

Albert Pujols is now a member of the Angels. Wow. A 10-year, $250-million Angel, at that. Wow, wow, wow. This is bad on so many levels.

For starters, Albert Pujols had the opportunity to be a great hero, not only to the loyal fans of St. Louis, but to all fans, by showing us that there were some things bigger than money. But by shunning the Cards' offer for what amounts to an extra $3 million a year, Pujols is telling us it's all about the money. I really thought Pujols was different. Color me surprised.

Second, the contract: 10 years? Aside from the fact that the Angels will be paying a 41-year-old player $25 million, just how well have 10-year deals worked out in the past? A-Rod and the Rangers? Kevin Brown? Not a good track record.

Now let's fast forward to years 7, 8, 9 and 10: although Pujols is still one of the best players in baseball, his stats have declined steadily over the past three years. Guess what? That decline will continue. In St. Louis, fans would rabidly defend him because of what he's meant to the franchise, even as his production tails off. (Derek Jeter, anyone?) But as a money-grabbing free agent, Pujols' MVP awards from his St. Louis days won't carry any weight with Angels' fans looking for results from their $250-million man. (The Yankees, after all, were paying Jeter for what he'd already done for their team.)

Then there are the Angels. Sure, signing Pujols makes a splash. Last season, the Angers were 10th in the AL in runs scored and 9th in slugging.No one can deny that Pujols will make a difference in the lineup, but does he make them $25 million better? Would that money be better spent on upgrading two different positions? And what of Mark Trumbo, the young, incumbent first-baseman and last year's offensive MVP for the club? How will he perform at another position or as a DH?

Throughout this whole period, I never believed the Marlins could pull the trigger and doubted the Cubs could pull off an intra-division move. In the end, I thought the lure of St. Louis would draw Pujols back into the Cardinals fold. Never did I see Pujols pulling off a run-for-the-money like this. I'm going to wait and see until I'm proven wrong, but I don't like this one at all...

NBA Breakdown -- but not the good kind

2011-11-14T15:01:00.006-05:00

So the NBA players and owners have taken one step closer to doomsday. Or, at least that's what the players seem to be implying. Now I understand that the players are only trying to protect their livelihoods. And that an offer accepted now will impact the salaries that players can receive for the indefinite future. It's fair not to accept an offer that wouldn't be good in the long term just to solve a short-term problem.

That said, as we fans sit in our under-valued homes, cashing our meager paychecks, and simply trying to make ends meet, it rings rather hollow to hear NBA players talk about getting their "fair share". Being paid $10 million a year instead of $15 million is a problem we'd all like to have. The battle between the greedy owners and slightly less greedy players -- who, by the way, are all vying for a chance to divvy up our money -- isn't making either side any friends.

The bright side, though, might be seen in the revitalized NHL. They cancelled a season when the owners determined that old model of business just wasn't working. The league -- both for owners and players -- has emerged healthier than ever. Sure, it didn't hurt that the under-employed players were willing to back off on a few demands in order to work again. But being paid millions to play a kid's game seems like a good deal, regardless of the conditions.

If a forfeit of the 2011-12 NBA season is what it will take to put the NBA on solid footing, then I don't see anyone in the cheap seats that are going to stand in their way. See you in 2012, guys!

Ride, Captain, Ride

2011-07-09T12:34:00.003-04:00

Most fans are cheering loudly as Derek Jeter approaches 3,000 hits. There is that subculture, though -- Mets fans, Red Sox fans, Yankee-haters, etc. -- that are eager to tell you how over-rated Jeter is, how he can't hit anymore, can't field, yadda, yadda, yadda. Is Jeter the same player he was in 2001? Um, no. Can you point out to me another player who is as good as he was 10 years ago? Didn't think so. To say that Jeter is over-rated today is missing the point entirely. (But then, the Yankee-hater crowd is never big on logic.)

There are still those who say that the only reason Jeter is so exalted is because he played in New York and that he played on great teams. "Oh, anyone could have won on those teams!" Well, that is a hypothetical argument that can never be proven. But there are plenty of players on good teams that have nothing to show for it, so Jeter can't be knocked for winning. (Again, there's that anti-logic at work.)

Yet there are still those who would point to other players, stats, and whatever else they can grasp to diminish Jeter's career. Well, guess what? He's going to have 3,000 hits. I don't care where you played or when you played, because if you've got 3,000 hits -- something only 27 players in the history of the sport have achieved -- that's pretty exclusive company. And as for the company Jeter will soon keep, he'll walk in head held high.

Of the right-handed batters who collected their 3,000th hit in the last 20 years, Jeter will have the highest career average to go with them:

Paul Molitor -- 3,319 hits, .306 career average
Cal Ripken, Jr. -- 3,184, .276
Robin Yount -- 3,142, .285
Dave Winfield -- 3,110, .283
Craig Biggio -- 3,060, .281
Rickey Henderson -- 3,050, .279
Derek Jeter -- 2,998, .312

Not too shabby. Congratulations, Derek! You deserve it.

Backing Down

2011-04-23T19:48:00.007-04:00

As if the Knicks' collective performance against the Celtics Friday night wasn't bad enough: now Amar'e Stoudemire doesn't know if he'll suit up for Game 4. Tell you what, Amar'e... don't bother.

The Knicks are paying Stoudemire nearly $100 million on a five-year contract. At this point, no one knows the severity of the injury to his back, or whether playing on it tomorrow afternoon will cause any long-term damage. But you know what? I'd rather not find out.

This series was lost last night. After two hard-fought, nail-biting, back-and-forth affairs with the Celtics that made Knicks fans believe that they were one good shot or one big stop away from victory, the Knicks turned in the kind of turkey that brought back memories of the teams that hadn't been to the playoffs in seven years. A 17-point first quarter hole. A 19-6 Celtics run in the 3rd. Extensive gar-bage time for most of the 2nd half.

No NBA team has ever overcome a 3-0 deficit in a playoff series. Even with a win tomorrow, the Knicks would be forced to hobble back to Boston to face an unruly TD Garden crowd for Game 5. Better to get it over with now, and save the possible wear-and-tear on Stoudemire.

Better luck next year.

Whither Rachel Phelps?

2011-04-17T09:40:00.004-04:00

I know it's not nice to make fun of others less fortunate. And if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing. But has anyone seen the Mets lately? Seriously.

It's not just that they're a bad baseball team. They are. It's the way they're losing. In bunches. Under awful circumstances. The near-comic events surrounding not only their play on the field but the off-field circus is reminiscent of another sad-sack team: those Cleveland Indians.

It's gotten so bad, in fact, that Mets' manager Terry Collins is starting to sound an awful lot like Lou Brown:

"I can tell you, we’re going to break out, and when we do we’re going to win a lot of baseball games."

Whatever you say, Terry. Maybe he even believes it. But maybe the Mets just need a naked cardboard cut-out of Bernie Madoff in the locker room.

Fantasy Baseball

2011-02-26T10:26:00.004-05:00

This is an end-around hosting solution. Let's see how it works.

Here is the logo for Nobody Beats The Azz, my fantasy baseball team.

Patience...

2011-01-04T20:47:00.004-05:00

So Rich Rodriguez has been fired. Finally! Wait, not yet, apparently.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't put much stock in rumors. However, this time it looks like only the timing is the issue. No one seems to be disputing whether or not Rodriguez will be gone; it's only a matter of when the university can make it official. If that's the case, then it's the news Michigan fans have been waiting to hear since not long after RichRod's first disastrous season.

Unfortunately, part two of the dream scenario doesn't appear likely: a Michigan man may not be coaching Michigan next season, either. According to John Harbaugh, Jim's brother and an NFL coach himself, don't look for Jim in Ann Arbor any time soon:

"I don't know what he's going to do. I think the Michigan thing is done now. I think that's over. I don't think he's going to have anything to do with that."

Simply based on how much effort Harbaugh put into ducking any questions about next season following last night's Orange Bowl, he would appear finished with Stanford. So if he's leaving Stanford, and not going to Michigan, then the NFL will be his next destination. That's too bad for Michigan, but I'll be all smiles anyway if the search for Michigan's next coach begins this week.

Legends and Leaders and Buckeyes, oh my!

2010-12-18T12:04:00.004-05:00

The Big Ten came up with names for the newly-minted, 12-team, two-division football league that will begin play next season. No big deal you say? Ordinarily I'd agree. Except for the choice of names: "Legends" and "Leaders". Really.

So some team next season will be the "Big 10 Leaders leader"? We already know that there aren't any highly-ranked officials in the Big 10 that can count, so why should their grasp of language be any better? Predictably, it didn't take long for public outcry to begin building against these ill-advised names. Suprisingly, though, is how quickly the Big 10 brass, specifically Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany, has reacted to the bad reviews:

"I think we have enough experience with names, and expansion and development of divisions, to know that you never, rarely, get 90 percent approval rating. But to get a 90 percent non-approval rating was, you know, really surprising."

If Michigan had a guy who could backpedal that fast, they wouldn't have the nation's 111th-ranked pass defense. The most remarkable result of the backlash is that Delany is already talking about changing the names. That's just short of convening a committee.

I agree that by randomly shuffling the teams to create the divisions it makes it difficult to use geographical designations. I also don't think Delany is wrong in thinking that Wisconsin wouldn't want to compete in the "Hayes" or "Paterno" division.

That said, the men who run the Big 10 are all highly-paid executives at major institutions. Someone go grab some English Lit majors, put them in a room and check back in a few hours. You'll have some new division names in no time.

Captain Cash

2010-12-05T00:48:00.004-05:00

Well, the Yankees finally got their man. After much public negotiation, Derek Jeter and the Yankees have agreed on a 3-year, $51 million contract. While it may have been much ado about nothing, it's a relief all across the board to have the deal done.

Sure, the Yanks are grossly overpaying Jeter. And I'm not sure what he'll be doing in three years, let alone the fourth year of the contract which has an option he'll almost certainly pick up. But as it's been said, the Yankees are probably the one team in baseball that can afford to overpay a player like Jeter.

In the end, this was a deal that had to be done -- neither side would have come out looking good had the two not come to an agreement. At the same time, Jeter was able to hold his ground and make the statement, at least from a salary standpoint, that he's still one of the top players in the game. For the Yankees, they win the PR contest, as they were willing to pay whatever it took to keep the face of the franchise in the Bronx.

Throughout this "free agency" period, much attention has been focused on where Jeter will end up playing as his defensive skills continue to erode. Oddly enough, that doesn't concern me at all. With A-Rod to his right and Robby Cano to his left, Jeter is sandwiched between some good defenders. And with Mark Teixeira cleaning up anything thrown his way, the Yanks can afford to have an again Jeter manning the middle, at least for another couple of years.

Even on offense, perhaps last season was just an aberration, considering how well Jeter played in 2009. Besides, the Yankees have such a talented cast -- and the ability to replenish it -- that even with declining skills, Jeter won't slow the Yanks down.

All told, it's great to have the Captain back in the fold. Considering how it could have gone down -- Ken Griffey, Jr. in a Reds uniform or Joe Montana playing for KC? -- it's nothing but good new for the Yankees and their legion of fans.

What happens if the hostage dies?

2010-10-20T13:46:00.005-04:00

It seems all but inevitable that the Rangers are going to win the 2010 ALCS. The Yankees aren't dead yet, but beating the Rangers twice, in Arlington, with one of those games being pitched by Cliff Lee, is a very tall order. So I'm not holding out hope. But it's not as though the Yankees would be the only losers here.

Take FOX. The Yankees are the marquee jewel of the post-season. The Rangers are a nice story, but they're not the Yankees. If the Giants should hold on in the National League, FOX will be left with the two teams they didn't want to be playing.

But it gets worse: FOX is currently embroiled in a skirmish with Cablevision. In an effort to hike their subscriber fees, FOX pulled the plug on their affiliates seen in 3.1 million Cablevision homes. Why now? Because thousands of Yankee fans would be faced with the prospect of missing the World Series unless Cablevision forked over the dough. Now that the Yankees may miss the Series, the pool of FOX hostages drains away. Are you really that upset over missing "House" this week?

Pettitte vs. Lee

2010-10-18T12:28:00.007-04:00

Were it not for the 8th-inning miracle in Game 1 of the ALCS, the Yankees would find themselves in a sizable hole. Even though the Yankees left Arlington tied at one game each, they played like a team that should be down 2-0. Of course, now the series shifts to Yankee Stadium and tonight's pivotal Game 3, featuring the classic matchup of Andy Pettitte and Cliff Lee.

Lee has been dominant this post-season, as he was last year. The only losses the Yankees suffered in the 2009 World Series were games started by Lee. This season, Lee is 2-1 against the Yanks: a complete-game win in June and an 8-inning gem in September. One positive for the Yanks was a win in August where they managed to knock Lee out in the 7th. (He did notch 11 K's in only 6-1/3 innings, though.)

As for individual matchups, Joe Girardi will likely tweak the Yankees lineup. For his career Marcus Thames is a .194 batter against Lee, striking out 15 times in 36 at-bats. Conversely, Lance Berkman has three hits, two of them doubles, in eight career AB's against Lee. The simple call would be to start Berkman at DH. Oddly enough, the only other Yankee who has truly struggled against Lee is Robinson Cano. For his career, Robby is only hitting .214 (6-for-28) against the All-Star lefty.

On the other side, Pettitte pitched a great game against the Rangers in April, going 8 innings for the win. But April seems like a very long time ago, to the Yankees and Pettitte, who sat out two months this summer with a groin injury. For his career, Pettitte has given up a lot of hits to the Rangers' lineup, though he's had success against Ian Kinsler and Nelson Cruz.

With the series tied, home field advantage now swings to the Yankees. For 2010, that has yielded the Yankees a substantial advantage. The Yanks won all three game played in New York back in April, and knocked around the Rangers for a 6.14 ERA at the Stadium. (Granted, Cliff Lee was still wearing a Mariners uniform at the time.) The Rangers struggled on offense though, too, managing only six runs in those three games, batting just .181 (15-83) with one home run.

Joe Torre used to call Game 3 the most important game in a series. There's no question that the fortunes of both teams will turn on the outcome tonight.

2010-08-13T12:12:00.004-04:00

Normally I don't pay much attention to the Mets. Okay, pretty much none, except to get a laugh here and there. But I happened to stumble across a little tidbit regarding the... ahem... "Amazin's" that struck me as remarkable. Tucked away in a "Mets Insider" column was the following revelation. Apparently, Jose Reyes doesn't always pay attention on defense:

It's hard to get ready for every pitch because how many pitches does the pitcher throw to home plate? A hundred and something? It's hard to get ready on every pitch.

Now maybe I'm naive. But can you imagine -- ever imagine -- those words coming out of the mouth of Derek Jeter? Check that -- can you imagine those words coming out of the mouth of one of Jeter's teammates? It would be the last day they were teammates. Perhaps I am spoiled, but I cannot picture a member of the Yankees saying something like that. Ever.

Oh, but Reyes wasn't finished, either:

Maybe you are going to get lazy with two or three because it's tough to get ready all the time.

Wow. Because when you're nine games out of first, perhaps every pitch isn't that important. Maybe that's just why Reyes is on the Mets. Or maybe, just maybe, that's why the Mets are the Mets. Either way, it's just Reason #184 why it's great to be a Yankees fan.

The Beat Goes On

2010-07-11T19:37:00.003-04:00

The reality of the situation is this: I rarely, if ever, watch an NBA game that doesn't have the Knicks playing. And the Knicks have been so bad for so long, I could barely stomach watching them play. So now that LeBron is in Miami, it's not like my viewing habits are going to change. I can't not watch the Heat any less than I already didn't watch the Heat.

As for the Knicks, I might -- might -- watch them play to see how Amare and the rest of the lesser assembled pieces are getting along. But chances are, my lack of interest will ultimately prevail. Until next summer, that is, when the Knicks will have the opportunity to be stood up by Carmelo Anthony.

Let's Go Rangers!

Miami? Really?

2010-07-08T21:34:00.002-04:00

Here's hoping that the sheer mass of egos now concentrated in South Beach causes the American Airlines Arena to implode.

Fuck off, LeBron.

Yeah, that about does it.

Bull Feathers

2010-06-28T22:06:00.003-04:00

According to a report in the New York Times, LeBron James will be headed to the Chicago Bulls. An unidentified NBA executive

who did not want to be identified discussing a player who is not yet a free agent, said he had gathered from discussions with his fellow N.B.A. executives that James was strongly leaning toward joining the Bulls in tandem with another free agent, Chris Bosh

Aside from the obvious disappointment and unbridled hatred of the Bulls, I still don't like this idea. I just don't get it.

If you told me LeBron had decided to stay with the Cavs, OK. Disappointed, sure. But James decides to be the hometown hero and re-up with the only NBA team he's ever known. Plus, the Cavs are in a position to give him the most money, not that I really think James is in it for the money. Wherever he goes, he will be a rich man.

Then there's the Heat -- sure, you can make a case for that. A running buddy in Dwayne Wade, South Beach, and possibly Pat Riley as coach. Yep, I could see that, too. Even the Nets, if you buy that Jay-Z can get LeBron to put up with Newark for a few years before going to Brooklyn. And you're almost in New York.

But the Bulls? Really? Not to put too much pressure on a guy who seemed to be buckling under in Cleveland, but Chicago? They don't have much of a winning history there. Perhaps he misunderstood about being the next Jordan -- you don't actually have to follow in his footsteps. Why not ask for your #23 jersey while you're at it?

Like the song goes, "If you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere". There's nothing like winning it all in New York. While no contemporary Knick can explain this phenomenon, the Knicks may want to bring Mark Messier along with them to Ohio. As with the push for James, Messier was brought to New York for one reason only -- to win a championship. "The Messiah" delivered and will be forever remembered as a conquering hero. Hey, LeBron -- that could be you, too.

Thanks for coming -- See you in four years

2010-06-27T10:27:00.007-04:00

In the nightmare scenario that ESPN laid out coming into the World Cup, the United States fails to get out of the Group round. This morning, ESPN faces its slightly lesser nightmare -- the U.S. team is eliminated on the first day of the second round. Ninety-eight percent of Americans forget that soccer exists until 2014.

Instead being inundated with stories of how the U.S. is finally ready to compete on the world stage, we are now faced with hearing about how the World Cup will finally make soccer relevant in America. At least, that's what Mike Freeman thinks:

Really, this time, the soccer flame might not be extinguished.

Really, Mike? For me, the World Cup is a lesser version of March Madness. Every year, millions of people with absolutely no interest in college basketball get all pumped up for the NCCA Tournament. Brackets are filled out. Bars are packed. Businesses suffer productivity loss as early round games are streamed live into cubicles across the country. And as soon as the Final Four comes to a close, most of those millions, who wouldn't know a Blue Devil from a Bulldog, go back to ignoring college hoops until St. Patty's rolls around again next year.

Cue "Soccer Madness". Brackets were filled out. Bars were packed. And now, millions of Americans who wouldn't know a volley from a vuvuzela can go back to ignoring "the beautiful game". Bet that seat in the bar won't be hard to find now.

Alton Brown Boils Eggs

2010-06-13T11:14:00.003-04:00

Please note that this post has nothing to do with sports. It's just that every time I want to boil eggs properly, I try to remember Alton Brown's preferred method. Unfortunately, I always come up blank. Internet searches sometimes pay off, but I figured this time I'd make my own permanent record.

Here, culled from an internet chat session, is Alton's method for making the perfect hard-boiled eggs:

I put however many eggs I want to cook into a pot of cold water. I bring it to a boil, I cover the pan, I remove the pan from the heat, and I wait eight minutes. Peel immediately under cold running water. That will give you a slightly soft yolk. If you want a really hard yolk, go with twelve minutes.

Feel free to make yourself some eggs. I've got the pot on the stove, now...

The Right Call

2010-06-09T23:53:00.003-04:00

The headline blared, "Top Michigan recruit Dorsey denied admission to school". One of Rich Rodriguez's big signings, one of the guys who was going to help turn the tide for Michigan, had been suddenly barred at the door:

Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon says Florida prep football star Demar Dorsey has been informed he will not be admitted to the school.

And I say, good for you, Michigan. Good. For. You.

Demar Dorsey can't be the only talented defensive back in the country. And despite its recent woes, Dorsey can't be the only talented player willing to commit to Michigan. At a certain point, a university must hold itself to certain standards. Clearly the leadership at Michigan is willing to uphold those standards.

While I am disappointed that Michigan will now be without a potential star, Dorsey would only have been one of many missing pieces in the puzzle. Do Michigan's more stringent academic standards make it harder to compete against Ohio State, where you only need to be a resident to get in? Or Penn State, whose bar for admittance isn't much higher? Maybe. But when the program does turn around -- with Rodriguez, or perhaps, Jim Harbaugh, at the helm -- it will make it that much more impressive.

Electoral College Football

2009-12-23T14:44:00.002-05:00

Yes, I know, it's not actually sports. But still...

There was an interesting article in today's New York Times about how states that experienced rapid population growth during the real estate boom are suddenly not as popular destinations. Sun Belt states like Florida, Arizona and Nevada, which had each spent time ranked first in domestic migration over the last decade, find their rankings plummeting. But that's not really what caught my attention.

Since this was a Census survey, and the Census is used to determine representation in the House, it was the following paragraphs that struck me:

Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington would gain one seat each, according to an analysis of the figures by Andrew A. Beveridge, a Queens College demographer.

States that would lose a seat include Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Ohio would lose two, leaving it with 16.

A quick check of my trusty Electoral Map shows that of the seven "gainers", four are solid "red" states. On the flip side, and far more distressing, of the nine states that will lose a seat (or two), eight of them are (mostly) solid "blue". That could easily change the makeup of the House without so much as losing an election. More math, but that equates to a net gain of roughly three new Red-state seats, while the Blue-staters are down six!

On the bright side, anyone from New York looking to move to Arizona, I hear they have some really great deals...

And that accident was just a minor blip on his driving record

2009-12-15T21:49:00.003-05:00

There is no shortage of people weighing in on the Tiger Woods' saga. The latest to add his two cents is Nike co-founder Phil Knight. Speaking with the Sports Business Journal, Knight didn't think this whole Tiger mess was a big deal for one of his leading pitchmen. In fact, Knight thinks,

When his career is over, you’ll look back on these indiscretions as a minor blip, but the media is making a big deal out of it right now.

Right, Phil. Like that whole Monica Lewinsky thing is just a blip when you look back at Bill Clinton's presidency. In as much as the American media loves a good scandal to toss around for a week or two, this is no blip. This story, ultimately, becomes part of the Tiger Woods permanent narrative. Fairly or unfairly, the second paragraph of his biography has now been written.

Woods, golf great, blah, blah, blah, paragraph one.

However, his carefully-crafted image took a hit in 2009 when details of his extra-marital affairs, blah, blah, blah, paragraph two.

Will Tiger play great golf again? Beyond his recent physical failings, there's no reason to believe otherwise. But the days of Tiger Woods being America's #1 pitchman are probably over. (Ask Michael Jordan how all that cheatin' and gamblin' cut into his endorsements.) Although Accenture has been the only one of Tiger's sponsors to actually announce they were dropping him, many of the others will bide their time and simply "not renew" their sponsorship agreements. It's just not worth the risk, at least not now.

No, it's not perfect, but don't blame Texas

2009-12-06T22:11:00.004-05:00

In a column on CBSSports.com, Dennis Dodd is irked that Texas was invited to play Alabama for the National Title. Perhaps that's the safe pick -- not the "BCS chaos" as Brent Musberger so desired -- but hardly an outrage. Yet Dodd goes on to imply that somehow the outcome of the Big12 Championship wasn't on the up-and-up.

It just doesn't feel right, not when the two happiest men in college football Sunday were Dan Beebe and Walt Anderson.

It doesn't feel right because the Big 12 commissioner (Beebe) and his supervisor of officials (Anderson) were just as much a part of Saturday's furious finish to the season as was the football.

It doesn't feel right because half of the BCS title-game matchup was decided from the video replay booth. The commish and his supervisor had to put the final stamp of approval on Texas' 13-12 non-loss over Nebraska. Yeah, they got it right even after Texas almost got it unforgivably wrong.

Slow down, Dennis. The Big 12 commissioner did not decide that game. Nor did the officials. Unless you want to say that the officials made the correct call and allowed the game to finish as it should have. No one outside of Lincoln, Boise, or Fort Worth wanted to see that game end on an incomplete pass that sailed out of bounds. (Okay, so maybe it would have been a little funny.) Either way, Texas had one second left, and a chance to win. If you want to point the finger, what about Nebraska? Thanks to two stupid plays at the end of the game -- kick out of bounds and horse-collar tackle -- the Longhorns ended up in field goal range without much trying. Welcome to the title game.

While I don't see Texas putting up much of a fight against Alabama, again I can't fault Texas. Dodd goes on to argue that the Longhorns' season was uninspired -- maybe -- and that they're only in the title game because Texas began the season with a higher ranking. Again, that's not entirely ridiculous, but does anyone really think that either TCU or Boise State is a better team than Texas? Or would put up a better fight against 'Bama?

If nothing else, this situation calls for -- no screams for -- a playoff. Imagine if Texas played TCU while Boise State faced off against Alabama? Four unbeatens! That next game could truly be called the National Championship. But as the next best option, an Alabama - Texas showdown in Pasadena will have to suffice. (But that TCU - Boise State matchup might end up being the better game.)

A Michigan man will coach Michigan

2009-11-29T11:40:00.003-05:00

Now I will freely admit that I can't be the first person to think of this. Truth be told, though, I haven't yet seen it in print. Either way, let me state that Jim Harbaugh should be the next coach of the Michigan Wolverines.

Following last night's come-from-behind victory over Notre Dame, not long on the heels of Stanford's upset of mighty USC, Harbaugh's status as the next up-and-coming "Big Time Coach" is cemented. The cat, as they say, is out of the bag.

Now imagine, if you will, what Harbaugh might be able to accomplish in Ann Arbor. I'll wait. No longer having to pick through the leftovers in the PAC-10, once the USC's and Oregon's have signed their share of blue-chippers, Harbaugh would be recruiting for one of the nation's most storied programs. Well, at least historically. (More on that in a bit.)

Besides, while the West Coast offense is the NCAA's prevailing flavor, who wouldn't mind a Toby Gerhart smashing through the line for the Maize and Blue? And lest anyone worry whether this might be Bo II, a halfback pass, anyone? Or that nifty Flea Flicker? The mind wanders.

So what about the current Michigan head man? It's no secret that the Rich Rodriguez Era has not gotten off to a great start. Year One we all let slide. Given Rodriguez's history, the first year is the throwaway; the second year, though, is supposed to be the turnaround. And it sure looked like things were turning around in Year Two as Michigan jumped out to a 4-0 start. Then the Big Ten schedule kicked in.

Not everything about Michigan under Rodriguez is bad, mind you. They did score a lot of points. Tate Forcier, at times, looks like a big time QB. But unfortunately, the bad has far outweighed the good of late. The 3-13 Big Ten record. The practice scandal. The no-shows at the Big House. Some questionable hiring decisions. Somehow, it just doesn't add up.

That said, I fully believe Rodriguez will return to coach the Wolverines in 2010. It's too soon to pull the plug on a coach who had been very successful elsewhere. However, provided Harbaugh, in turn, returns to Stanford to coach another season, the Rodriguez Watch is officially ON. What will it take for Rodriguez to stay? I'll know it when I see it. But if Jim Harbaugh's Stanford Cardinal enjoys another year of success and Michigan can't turn it around, then the phone lines between Ann Arbor and Stanford had better be burning.

Danger, Greg Robinson!

2009-11-29T11:11:00.004-05:00

Not everything went wrong for Michigan in 2009 -- they did score a lot of points. Of course, they also gave up a lot of points. A lot of points. Ergo, Greg Robinson needs to be fired today. Okay, so this post is a bit late in coming but it doesn't make it any less relevant.

Does anyone know how Robinson even got hired? Was it his exceptional success elsewhere? He was run out on a rail from Syracuse, where he went 10-37 in his four years as head coach. No, that's not a typo. His teams managed to win 1, 4, 2 and 3 games over the four miserable seasons Robinson coached the team. Certainly teams were lining up to hire this guy after Syracuse cut him loose.

Apparently, Robinson's only claim-to-fame was his stint as the Denver Bronco's Defensive Coordinator during their Super Bowl run in the late 90's. Raise your hand if you can name a single player on that Bronco's defense. Didn't think so.

Anyway, I'm sure there will be plenty of debate this off-season about the fate of Rich Rodriguez. Whether or not you feel RichRod should return, there's at least one person who should no longer be seen within the Ann Arbor city limits. Pull that trigger, Rich. Now.

History is History

2009-04-29T17:19:00.004-04:00

Well, so much for the Rangers. Never blown a 3-1 series lead? Until last night, anyway. The Caps hadn't overcome a 3-1 deficit since 1988? Twenty-one years is just too long.

Anyway, not that I had much faith going into last night's game, but I came away even more disheartened. The Rangers played their hearts out for two periods and had exactly one goal and a tie score to show for it. It was only a matter of time until the Caps finally scored again and the Rangers -- all one shot's worth -- were utterly powerless to fight back.

Which brings me to this point: why does Glen Sather still have a job? I'm beginning to think that having Gretzky and Messier and Lowe and Coffey all on one team made Sather look good. Really good. Like Phil Jackson coaching Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen good. (Or Shaq and Kobe good -- take your pick.)

My point is that if you overlook the Edmonton portion of Sather's résumé for a moment, the results aren't all that pretty. After all, the Rangers missed the playoffs in his first four seasons as GM. Even now, with four straight playoff appearances, they've never finished the regular season better than 3rd in the division and haven't made it out of the playoffs' 2nd round. (The Rangers have a 14-17 playoff record during Sather's reign.)

The bottom line now is that the Rangers simply can't score. As great as Lundquist played in this series, without a margin for error, the team was doomed. Sather has left the team without a guy who can put the puck in the net. And I'm not talking an Ovechkin, here. There are four Capitals with more points than the Rangers' leading scorer, Nik Antropov. (Full disclosure: not only is Antropov only the 65th-best scorer in the NHL, but he tallied 43 of his 59 points for Toronto.)

And the big-money guys like Gomez and Drury can take their place alongside such high-priced, underperforming talents as Lindros, Bure and Holik who were never able to put the Rangers over the top. How long can a man live off his past success and not be held accountable for the present? If Sather can't produce that scoring threat for next season, the Rangers should begin their own search for a new leader.

O Ye of Little Faith

2009-04-28T15:00:00.003-04:00

Okay, I admit it: that's me. After watching the Rangers get blown out of the Garden on Sunday (well, for as long as I could stand watching it, anyway) my hopes are not particularly high for tonight's Game 7. It should be noted that even in the Rangers' wins it was by the slimmest of margins, whereas the Capitals have had their way with the Rangers during their three wins. (In fact, if you'd only watched the Caps' wins, you'd wonder -- and rightfully so -- how it was the Rangers were even still in this series.)

However, I'm always a sucker for historical stats, especially the ones that favor the Rangers. To wit:

Of the 233 teams that have built 3-1 series leads in the Stanley Cup playoffs, 213 have ultimately won the series. That's good for 91%.
No NHL team has overcome a 3-1 deficit since 2004, when Montreal beat Boston in the first round.
It has been 21 years since the Capitals overcame a 3-1 series deficit -- 1988 against Philadelphia in the first round.
The Rangers have never blown a 3-1 series lead, though they needed a Game 7 in the 1994 Stanley Cup finals against Vancouver.

Okay, so there you have it. History favors the Rangers. (Let's just not talk about the on-ice matchups...)

Sometimes Nice Guys Finish First

2009-02-05T14:38:00.005-05:00

Congratulations, Adam. That's a fine group of men standing there. You deserve your place among them.

Throwing good money after bad

2009-01-26T16:59:00.005-05:00

So it turns out that the most appalling off-season largess ever doled out has just a little bit more to go. As if throwing $49 million at the top of the rotation wasn't enough, the Yankees announced today that their courtship of Andy Pettitte has been consummated. For the privilege of tacking the now barely serviceable Pettitte to the end of the rotation, the Yanks are on the hook for another $5.5 million, with incentive clauses that could mean another $6.5 million.

Are they kidding? Did anyone else notice Pettitte’s record after the All-Star break last season? In 13 starts, he went 4-7 with 5.35 ERA and a .302 opponents’ batting average. Pettitte is a mere shell of the pitcher he was before, and he's only getting older. (I guess the HGH is harder to come by these days.) Pettitte isn't worth $6,000 at this point, let alone $6 million. (Here's hoping that those incentives are based on more than just games started or innings pitched... not that he'll be hard-pressed to meet those, too.)

Let’s make sure that Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy get plenty of starts under their belts at AAA. That way, when they are inevitably pressed into service to take over Pettitte’s rotation spot, they’ll be ready. I only hope that Joe Girardi and the Yankees' brass keep a short leash on their latest Pettitte experiment. Like Yogi used to say, it gets late early around the A.L. East these days. Watching Pettitte self-immolate on the mound isn't going to be much fun with very little margin for error in arguably baseball's best division.

Some Hall of Fame Voters are Dicks

2009-01-12T15:39:00.005-05:00

Rickey Henderson was voted into baseball's Hall of Fame today. That shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, it would be exactly five years after Rickey finally decided he was finished playing baseball (it took a while, but still) that he would become a first ballot Hall-of-Famer. But there's always gotta be a few cranks out there (present company excluded).

From the 539 eligible Hall of Fame voters, Henderson received 94.8% of the vote. That amounts to 511 ballots. That also means that 28 voters out there determined that Rickey Henderson, the greatest lead-off hitter of all time, wasn't good enough this go-round to be inducted. Well, there must have been some reason. Perhaps his career numbers were lacking?

25 seasons, 3,081 games played (4th all-time)
1,406 stolen bases (1st all-time)
2,295 runs (1st all-time)
2,190 walks (2nd all-time)
3,055 hits
1990 AL MVP
2 World Series titles

Didn't think so. No, it comes down to the long-held, old school (very old school) notion that no one should be a unanimous selection. It's never happened, though Tom Seaver came the closest.

The real problem I have is that for the Baseball Hall of Fame, voting is anonymous. Votes are tabulated but the ballots are not released. Not one of the 28 holdouts has to explain himself, why a stupid "tradition" trumps simple logic, or why he thought Rickey Henderson didn't qualify for the Hall of Fame.

Maybe I'll Get Over It; Maybe Not

2008-12-23T20:53:00.005-05:00

For years, we Yankee fans were subjected to the ridiculous taunts of, "You bought yourselves a championship". The irony, of course, was that the true Yankee championship teams from 1996-2000 were actually a solid mix of home-grown stars (Andy Pettitte, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada) and savvy trades (Paul O'Neill, Tino Martinez, Scott Brosius, Chuck Knoblauch). The teams from that era didn't have many big-ticket free agents -- guys like Cone, Wells or even Jimmy Key were mid-tier guys, and none of them was around very long.

It was only with the signing of Jason Giambi after the 2001 season -- the official "Beginning of the End" -- that the Yanks started looking to "buy" their way to World Series wins. Of course, we all know how that has played out over the last eight years. Millions after millions, lavished on such "stars" as A-Rod, Carl Pavano, Kei Igawa, Johnny Damon, Mike Mussina, Gary Sheffield... well, you get the picture.

After this "big money" philosophy crashed and burned the Yankees made a push -- albeit, Yankee-style -- of semi-fiscal responsibility, emphasizing youth, their farm system and weaning themselves off multi-million, multi-year deals. That is, until this month. Until they overpaid for Sabathia for too many years. And then made a mockery of it all by signing Burnett days later. Or at least what I thought was a mockery, until today.

With the signing of Teixeira, the Yankees have now broken all records for conspicuous consumption. It's not enough that we're all in the midst of the worst financial crisis in decades; we're now treated to a spectacle of overpaid athletes chasing the very last dollar -- or million dollars, more exactly -- that their lusty suitors have to offer. "It's the Yankees' money to spend," you say. Meanwhile, the Yankees have the gall to ask the city for more help to pay for their new stadium. Whose money is that they're spending?

But it's not all bad, I'm reading. Jane Heller wrote an excellent piece about this Yankee fan guilt.

The fact that the Yankees do have money and aren’t afraid to lavish it on the people they care about isn’t so wrong, is it? It’s not as if they’ve roped us all into some giant Ponzi scheme and bled our retirement plans dry.

True, but for right now, I am embarrassed. I just hope I'll come around to her side by the time the Lear jets start lining up outside Legends Field for Spring Training.

They don't call me "Crank" for nothin'

2008-12-10T17:05:00.004-05:00

I’m not sure why, but I always seem to seek out the negative aspects of a trade or signing. Case in point: the Mets’ three-year, $37 million deal for Francisco Rodriguez. Yes, you could argue K-Rod was the best closer in baseball. His major league record 62 saves certainly lends credence to that assertion. (Though we all know save totals are largely a function of team performance. And he still managed to blow seven saves on top of that.)

A further look into the numbers also raises a few eyebrows, if not quite red flags. Generally speaking, the lifespan of a closer is limited (Mariano, the decided exception, notwithstanding). Rodriguez is coming off a career-high 76 appearances – that's more like a middle reliever than a closer – though his innings pitched were about his career average. That said, his strikeout rate dipped alarmingly: from three-straight years of 90+ to only 77; a K/9 IP rate of 10.1, down from 12 over those previous three seasons. Probably not coincidentally, his WHIP was a career-high 1.29.

Of course, only a fool would say that a pitcher with a 10 K/9 IP ratio, a 1.29 WHIP, and the league record in saves isn’t a great pitcher. But those are some downward trends. And while I’m reluctant to even broach the “Gagne” word, you can’t pretend it didn’t happen. Gagne saved 55 games in 2003 and converted 84 consecutive save chances. Then he blew out his elbow and hasn't been the same since.

Even with all that, though, the Mets probably made a good deal. After all, even if K-Rod continues to slip he only has a 3-year deal. Barring a major injury, he’ll still be a productive closer by the time the deal is up. And even if he’s not super-human, he sure improves the Mets’ bullpen and will be more consistent than Wagner or his predecessors ever were.

Just don’t get me started on the Sabathia deal…

Fixin' a Hole

2008-11-14T00:08:00.004-05:00

The Yankees took a surprising step to fortify their lineup by acquiring Nick Swisher in a five-player deal.

Choosing to address first base before concentrating on pitching when the free-agent market opens Friday, the Yankees obtained Swisher and right-hander Kaneoka Texeira for pitching prospect Jeff Marquez, infielder Wilson Betemit and minor league pitcher Jhonny Nunez.

I like it. For starters, it means that the Yankees will not be major players in the Mark Teixeira sweepstakes. Sure, sure, the article says Swisher could also play right field if the Yanks get another first-baseman. But I'd like to think the Yanks are just keeping the possibility out there to drive up the price for whoever eventually does overpay for Big Tex. (And believe me, they will overpay and for far too many years.)

Swisher is no Mattingly around the bag, but he's a major step up from Jason Giambi and will also keep Jorge Posada from having to learn his way around first. As for his bat, I think he's closer to the player he was in 2006-07 (.865 / .836 OPS) than in 2008 (.219 BA / .742 OPS). And Swisher's lefty bat should benefit from that friendly porch in right. (I've heard the new stadium will retain the same dimensions as the current.)

But the best part of the deal is that it doesn't seem like the Yanks are giving up much in return. Marquez is the prize for the White Sox, but considering that he wasn't as highly valued as either Hughes or Kennedy, who would be surprised if he didn't amount to much?

All told, it's a nice first step out of the box for the Yanks. Is it too much to ask for that they be smart and not overspend (or spend at all) for C.C. Sabathia?

What time is it?

2008-10-19T23:21:00.002-04:00

I know, it's hardly an original lament. We hear the same thing every year. But it doesn't make it any less true: Why are playoff baseball games played so late???

Now, I'll freely admit that I don't generally care about playoff baseball that doesn't involve the Yankees. And no, it's not because I'm bitter. It's just that if the Yanks aren't playing, I don't care. But for some reason, I've found myself tuning into the Rays-Red Sox series every now and then. (It's probably the Red Sox fan in my office -- I'm not rooting for Boston, here.) While I wasn't looking, the Red Sox tied up the series and forced a Game 7. And just a few minutes ago, I flipped on the game: Rays up 3-1, top of the 8th.

So what's the problem? It's nearly 11PM on the east coast and nobody is watching this game. Or, more to the point, as that familiar lament goes, "A whole generation of fans are sleeping through the playoffs." Why, on a Sunday, does a playoff baseball game not start until after 8:00? Last I checked, Tampa Bay and Boston were both on the east coast. So are the Phillies, whose fans (living in Philadelphia) have a vested interest in the outcome of this series.

Is it the NFL? This is a Game 7; Boston, America's sweethearts; Tampa Bay, the lovable underdogs from outta nowhere. If they can't generate more interest than a Colts-Packers game in October, then the problem is bigger than what time the game is played. But even if you want to avoid the NFL, why not start at 7PM? Or even earlier, figuring that all the NFL games will be over long before the baseball game got interesting?

I'm now sitting here, Tampa Bay one out from going to the World Series. It's 11:38 PM. Who's watching with me?

Why Athletes Should Not Be Role Models

2008-08-21T17:13:00.000-04:00

I can’t take credit for compiling this list, nor can I verify whether any of the following was said by any of the following individuals. But it’s still funny…

· New Orleans Saints RB George Rogers when asked about the upcoming season: "I want to rush for 1,000 or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first."

· Upon hearing Joe Jacoby of the Redskins say, "I'd run over my own mother to win the Super Bowl,” Matt Millen of the Raiders said: "To win, I'd run over Joe's Mom, too."

· Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann in 1996: "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."

· Senior basketball player at the University of Pittsburgh: "I'm going to graduate on time, no matter how long it takes."

· Bill Peterson, a Florida State football coach: "You guys line up alphabetically by height." And "You guys pair up in groups of three, then line up in a circle."

· Boxing promoter Dan Duva on Mike Tyson again hooking up with promoter Don King: "Why would anyone expect him to come out smarter? He went to prison for three years, not Princeton."

· Stu Grimson, Chicago Blackhawks left wing, explaining why he keeps a color photo of himself above his locker: "That's so when I forget how to spell my name, I can still find my clothes."

· Shaquille O'Neal on whether he had visited the Parthenon during his visit to Greece: "I can't really remember the names of the clubs that we went to."

· Shaquille O'Neal, in 1994, on his lack of championships: "I've won at every level, except college and pro."

· Lou Duva, veteran boxing trainer, on the Spartan training regimen of heavyweight Andrew Golota: "He's a guy who gets up at six o'clock in the morning regardless of what time it is."

· Pat Williams, Orlando Magic general manager, on his team's 7-27 record in 1992: "We can't win at home. We can't win on the road. As general manager, I just can't figure out where else to play."

· Chuck Nevitt, North Carolina State basketball player, explaining to Coach Jim Valvano why he appeared nervous at practice: "My sister's expecting a baby, and I don't know if I'm going to be an uncle or an aunt."

· Steve Spurrier, Florida football coach, telling Gator fans that a fire at Auburn's football dorm had destroyed 20 books: "But the real tragedy was that 15 hadn't been colored in yet."

· Jim Finks, New Orleans Saints General Manager, when asked after a loss what he thought of the refs: "I'm not allowed to comment on lousy, no-good officiating."

· Alan Kulwicki, stock car racer, on racing Saturday nights as opposed to Sunday afternoons: "It's basically the same, only darker."

· Frank Layden, Utah Jazz president, on a former player: "I told him, 'Son, what is it with you? Is it ignorance or apathy?' He said, 'Coach, I don't know and I don't care."

· Torri Polk, University of Houston receiver, on his coach, John Jenkins: "He treats us like men. He lets us wear earrings."

· Shelby Metcalf, basketball coach at Texas A&M, recounting what he told a player who received four F's and one D: "Son, it looks to me like you're spending too much time on one subject."

· And the gem: then Houston Oiler coach Bum Phillips when asked by Bob Costas why he takes his wife on all road trips, Phillips responded: "Because she is too damn ugly to kiss good-bye."

Change is Good

2008-08-21T10:43:00.004-04:00

What's going on in New York? The Knicks are making decisions that may positively impact the franchise!

John Gabriel, a former N.B.A. executive of the year with the Orlando Magic, has joined the Knicks’ revamped front office and will assume a major role in rebuilding the roster after seven straight losing seasons...
Gabriel’s primary duty will be evaluating current N.B.A. players, with an eye toward future trades and free-agent signings.

That fits nicely with the widely-held but merely speculated notion that the Knicks plan to wait out the next two seasons and become major players in the 2010 free agent market. And a guy like Gabriel knows all about turning over a roster:

Gabriel was named executive of the year in 1999-2000 after orchestrating 37 transactions that netted nine first-round draft picks and created the salary-cap space to sign Hill and McGrady.

Now I've seen some criticism of Gabriel's tenure in Orlando (mostly from disgruntled Magic fans). However, his eye for talent doesn't seem to be in question. That would be a refreshing change around MSG, considering the legacy that Isi... whoa, almost typed his name there... that the previous Knicks' administration left.

Better on paper?

2008-07-30T21:19:00.006-04:00

The Yankees completed a bit of a head-scratching deal this afternoon, sending Kyle Farnsworth to Detroit in exchange for the Tigers' catcher Ivan Rodriguez.

While it's long been a dream of Yankee fans to get rid of the Goggled One, in this case his reputation precedes him. Farnsworth, for all his inconsistencies, had been pitching very well of late; in fact, since Joba Chamberlain made the transition to starter and Farnsworth inherited the 8th inning job, he's only given up runs in four appearances out of 20. He throws hard coming out of the pen -- nearly a strikeout per inning -- and has actually served as a solid set-up man for Mariano. And who inherits the 8th inning role now?

Rodriguez, on the other hand, is merely a shell of his former self. He hasn't hit for power since he stopped taking steroids. (Oh, right, allegedly. And I suppose it's just a coincidence that his body has been breaking down since.) And even his defense has suffered as years of work behind the plate have worn him down.

Regardless, I can see the rationale behind getting Pudge. Rodriguez is a step up defensively from Jose Molina and even in decline is a better hitter than Molina will ever be. In the end, this will help both teams, though I can't help wondering if the affect on the Yankee bullpen may offset any gains made by having Rodriguez behind home plate.

An Ugly, Horrible, Deflating Loss

2008-07-23T09:14:00.005-04:00

The Mets have done a lot of good work lately in the area of collapses, but much of it was of the long-term variety. But for sheer, quick-hit terror, little compares to the Mets-Phillies game last night. What the hell happened? I’m only surprised Willie wasn’t lurking in the building somewhere.

I flip over to the game late, Mets on top and Johan Santana is grooving. Big spot in the 8th, Santana gets Howard to fly out, pumps the fist and walks off. Bottom of the inning, Santana is lifted for the pinch hitter and his night is over. Granted, hindsight is always 20/20, but here’s the big question: if Jerry Manuel KNEW that Billy Wagner was not available, might this not be a good time to let Santana go all the way?

Sure it sounds great after the fact, but it was a serious option at the time. In fact, the Mets announcers themselves were going on and on about how a nine-inning performance by Santana, against the Phillies no less, would be exactly what the Mets and Santana needed (Santana especially). He’d only thrown 105 pitches and would have been facing the 5-6-7 spots in the 9th. It was right there for the taking.

Some will say that Santana is no Roy Halladay -- true, Halladay has more complete games this season (7) than Santana has in his entire career (6). But Santana is no stranger to high pitch counts, either. He's thrown over 110 pitches six times this season and went at least 100 pitches in 13 of his 20 starts. Workhorses are meant to be ridden.

That said, if Sanchez does his job – or even a pale impersonation of his job – it’s probably not an issue today. But he didn’t, and it is. So instead of a season-defining win by their ace, a statement game against the NL's best, the Mets are suffering flashbacks to disasters past. In baseball, you’re only as good (or as bad) as your last game but the Mets haven’t exactly shown a lot of resiliency in this area recently. Assuming they get the game in tonight (the forecast calls for rain all day) I truly wonder how the Mets react.

Freedom?

2008-07-04T20:27:00.001-04:00

No, THIS is why they hate us...

Things that go "bump" in the night

2008-06-09T13:51:00.005-04:00

The worst-kept secret in baseball is finally out: Willie Randolph has been fired as manager of the New York Mets. And before we all get up-in-arms about the utterly classless fashion in which the news was delivered, can we all just leave the "Willie as a martyr" stuff alone? Bottom line: he's just not that good a manager, even by baseball standards. Actually, by baseball standards -- turn in your lineup cards, let the players play and don't make yourself the story -- Randolph was actually pretty lousy.

But that's not to say Willie didn't deserve better than having the world learn of his termination via a 3 AM news release. (The Wilpons must have studied at the Irsay School of Management.) No one deserves that. (Okay, Willie really does deserve it, but that's a story for another time.) But regardless of the tactics, firing Randolph was the right move. My question is, "What took you so long?" After all, some of us saw it coming quite some time ago, like, say, back in October:

Look, if you think Willie is a good manager who's only getting better, keep him. If, on the other hand, you're among the many who could go either way, who think that 2008 will tell the Willie Randolph story -- redemption or recrimination -- then why not cut bait now? Willie had arguably the National League's most talented roster and managed to grind them into the dirt. That's potential? When we're back here in October '08 reading all the post-mortems on Willie's managerial career, remember where you heard it first.

So that was me, just eight months ago, predicting Randolph's eventual demise. To be fair, even I didn't foresee this rapid a descent. But that underlies my point: Willie Randolph didn't show anything over his brief managerial career that would lead one to believe that he's any better than he'd shown over the past season-plus. If I might quote myself again:

I’ve heard time and again about all the experience Willie gained from his time as a Yankees coach. Let me tell you: sitting next to the guy driving the bus is not the same thing as driving the bus... Can the Mets really afford a manager who's learning on the job?

Question asked, question answered. But the nagging question that should be on the minds of all Mets' fans today is that if Willie could be so easily dismissed by the owners after a slow start, why couldn't this whole mess could have been avoided by letting Willie go last October? In the end, the Wilpons didn't save any money and they certainly didn't buy themselves any good will in the process.

So now that Step 1 of "Resuscitating a Sagging Franchise" is complete, we await Step 2. There are two ways this can go: the first, happy scenario sees Jerry Manuel energizing his team, leading them to the post-season and getting that "interim" tag removed. The second, decidedly less happy but probably more likely scenario goes like this: it becomes clear that Willie was not the cause for the Mets' decline, but rather the collection of "talent" on the field. With that, Omar Minaya becomes the next casualty. Check back in October to see how that one plays out.

Bad Job, Baseball

2008-05-30T14:47:00.002-04:00

If a home run record falls in the forest but nobody sees it, does it count?

I just read an interesting article about Ken Griffey's chase for 600 home runs. What? You hadn't heard?

This has to be the biggest story in baseball right now.

Or at least the biggest story in Cincinnati.

It's not. Jay Bruce is the guy Reds fans are pumped up about.

It's sad that a sport that did everything it could to play down Barry Bonds' pursuit of Hank Aaron's record would miss the opportunity to showcase one of their all-time greats, both on and off the field. I knew very well that Manny is chasing 500 -- ESPN's highlights of the Red Sox include all his at-bats -- but the fact that Ken Griffey was only two homers away from an even greater milestone eluded me until today. Sure, maybe I don't know everything that's going on, but isn't that the point?

Now I realize that Griffey's image took a bit of a tumble when he strong-armed his way to the Reds. Then that ever-present smile lost some luster during those years Griffey lost to near-constant injury. And unlike some "greats" who seemed to defy age *ahem* Griffey's exploits are not what they once were. But there was a time -- 1996 through 1999 to be exact -- when no one in baseball was bigger than "The Kid". (A lot bigger than Jay Bruce will likely ever be.) So shouldn't that be worth a few headlines today?

What better way to push aside the Steroid Era than by recognizing a player who made it to the top the old-fashioned way? To be fair, Griffey doesn't go yard all that often anymore, so who knows how long it will take to break the 600 barrier. But the All-Star game is only a month or so away. Perhaps the baseball mavens can take some time out of their bloated back-slapping festival to salute a true record-breaker. Then maybe the fans who know only the "old" Griffey will get the chance to root for someone worth rooting for, one last time.

Brew Crew tries new tactic for the 9th

2008-05-22T17:13:00.005-04:00

In an effort to shore up their beleaguered bullpen, the Milwaukee Brewers have signed "Knocked Up" star Seth Rogen to be their new closer.

Fitting Tex for Pinstripes?

2008-05-07T17:17:00.003-04:00

Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman wrote an interesting article today about the sweepstakes that's shaping up this off-season for the services of Mark Teixeira. And naturally, along with any talk of a big free agent is the obligatory mention that the Yankees will be an interested party. In fact, Heyman handicaps the Yankees as the early favorite:

Yankees. No shot they bring back Giambi and his .150 batting average for $26 million next year. The $5-million buyout will be the best money they've ever spent. The Yankees are believed to be interested in Teixeira and also interested in keeping him away from the team that plays eight miles to the south, in Queens. Odds: 3-2.

I'll agree with everything he said there -- after all, no one has been more of a symbol of the Yankees decline from the pinnacle than the ever-declining Giambi. With Giambi, Mussina and Pavano all off the books next season, the Yankees will be flush with free agent cash.

Plus, who wouldn’t love to have Teixeira’s big bat and gold glove in the lineup every day, especially considering how much of a black hole 1st base has been for the Yanks of late? Besides his offense, having Teixeira out there makes the Yankees a better defensive team than they've been in years. That will save plenty of runs over the course of a season.

But before we get carried away, signing Teixeria is no slam dunk. Heyman raised the first red flags:

[S]omeone who follows the markets and [Teixeira's agent Scott] Boras predicts that the asking price could begin with "2's'' as in $20 million per year and $200 million total.

No offense to Big Tex, but who wants to pay another $200 million for a player, any player? While position players have been better investments than pitchers, a 10-year contract still makes it a very, very long time to be tethered to the same player. And top of that he's a Boras client -- never a good thing. (Besides, it’s not like the Yankees and Boras are on very good terms.)

Plus, when staring down an investment of that size, the ultimate scrutiny on career numbers comes down. Not that it's necessarily an indication of future performance -- after all, he won't be facing Yankee pitching in Yankee Stadium -- but playing in the Bronx has not been a haven for Teixeira. For his career, Teixeira has batted a respectable .308 in Yankee Stadium, but with an alarming lack of power.

In 91 career at-bats at the Stadium, Teixeira has only four home runs, for a rate of one home run every 22.8 at-bats. Compare that to his current home park, Turner Field, where Tex has homered once almost every 13 times to the plate (13 HR in 177 AB, 13.4). That rate is even better than his old home ballpark in Arlington, where he clubbed 84 homers in 1,316 at-bats, a rate of one homer every 15.6 times up. And that 22.8 mark comes even though he's hit home runs at a better rate left-handed (one every 16 AB) than right-handed (19 AB). Apparently, Yankee Stadium's friendly right-field porch hasn't done much for him.

So what does it all mean? Teixeira would look great in a Yankee uniform, and his presence would certainly help the team. But something tells me that the Boras-driven contract is ultimately going to be too steep. Even the Yankees have to have a limit.

The King is Dead! Long Live the King!

2008-04-21T16:23:00.005-04:00

Maybe it's been a while since we've had a fully-functional Steinbrenner in the Bronx, or maybe I'm just choosing to focus on the benevolent, turtlenecked, weepy Big Stein of the 90's, but I was genuinely taken aback by Hank Steinbrenner's latest outburst: Start Joba now!

"I want him as a starter and so does everyone else, including him, and that is what we are working toward and we need him there now."

Tell us what you really think, Hank.

"There is no question about it, you don’t have a guy with a 100-mile-per-hour fastball and keep him as a setup guy. You just don’t do that. You have to be an idiot to do that."

That was just a figure of speech, but thanks for that, Hank. Of course this begs the question: Just who is the 'idiot' here? Is it Brian Cashman, who assembled the current rotation and opted out of the Johan Santana sweepstakes? Is it Joe Girardi, the new skipper, whose job it is to orchestrate the current crop of Yankee pitchers, ultimately determining who starts and when? Or is Hank going "old school" on us and blaming the mythical "Tampa Brain Trust" (which doesn't actually exist anymore... much like George).

Anyway, there are just so many problems with Hank's bluster, er, statement, including, but not limited to:

(a) Moving in direct opposition to the Yankees' stated plans to leave Joba in the bullpen until mid-season
(b) Rushing Joba into the rotation without stretching out his innings
(c) Bailing on either Philip Hughes, Ian Kennedy, or both, during a critical time in their developments

Fortunately, as we are slowly learning, a "pronouncement" by Hank Steinbrenner is usually an off-the-cuff misstep, something to be heard, marveled at for its sheer outlandish nature, and then tucked away. Gone is the power that a Steinbrenner directive once had in Yankee Stadium, now that George has ceded the real control to Cashman. And for a change, Cashman was able to quell the Joba uproar, simply and succinctly, stating that the Yankee plans remain the same:

"We discussed this extensively this winter about how things would unravel or unfold. Right now, that can’t change. There’s no reason for that. Hank knows that."

Thanks for the clarification.

That's one for the books!

2008-04-19T16:47:00.003-04:00

Rangers take the Devils, 4 games to 1.
And now on to Round Two...

Why, Donnie, Why?

2008-04-18T19:08:00.006-04:00

When I first heard the news that Donnie Walsh had been hired to revive the Knicks, my initial reaction was, "Okay, it's an improvement, but so what?" But then I looked at his record -- in the draft, in free agency, on the court -- and decided that if anyone could imagine a way to fix the Knicks, perhaps it could be Donnie Walsh. But I couldn't escape the constant chatter that even though Walsh would overhaul the team, he hadn't quite made up his mind what to do with Isiah Thomas:

“He is a great basketball mind, and I’m not going to judge anything from afar,” Walsh said. “I’ve told him that we’re going to sit down and talk in the coming days, and then we’ll go from there.”

Okay, so you want to turn around the Knicks but you're not sure if doing away with the most reviled figure in the history of the franchise is the first step to take. Way to alienate the fan base on Day 1, Donnie. But maybe he's just trying to spare his old buddy Isiah a little more humiliation? (Though it's not like Isiah hasn't earned 100% of any further humiliation.)

But now the Knicks' season has ended (officially, according to the schedule; the actual Knicks' season ended shortly before Thanksgiving), it's time for Walsh to start working his magic. So what's he do? Fire Thomas as head coach but retain him as some sort-of "My Man Friday", super-secret advisor:

“I value Isiah’s knowledge of the game and his opinion,” said Walsh in a conference call Friday afternoon.

Really? Isiah has knowledge of the game? Then why didn't Isiah use any of that knowledge when he was in charge of the Knicks? How can they allow Isiah Thomas to remain anywhere near the Garden? They ought to file a restraining order.

Besides, if Donnie Walsh is so smart, what, exactly, is the mastermind of the disaster that is the current New York Knicks going to tell him? How to hit on staff members? (And even that Isiah couldn't do without screwing it up.) If Walsh values Isiah's opinion so much, give him a call every now and then. Maybe he'll tell you something of value. Or not. But at least he won't be walking around the building that really, really needs a clean break from the Thomas Era.

Maybe the public outcry will convince Walsh to change his mind. (I can't be the only one that finds this ludicrous.) C'mon, Donnie -- show New York some love.

Rumble in the Bronx

2008-04-14T13:44:00.004-04:00

It was inevitable. Phil Hughes makes two sub-par starts and suddenly they're coming out of the woodwork: "Why didn't the Yankees trade Hughes for Santana when they had the chance???" Now I'm not going to tell you that I was dead-set against the deal (though I did think the Yankees were making the right decision to pass). But I also recall that opinion was fairly divided in the two camps. To listen to the chatter now, it's as if everyone had volunteered to pack Phil's bags.

But while I find the current overreaction somewhat laughable (and utterly predictable) it should not take away from the fact that Phil Hughes is genuinely struggling. But, that, too, is less laughable but still fairly predictable. Coming into 2008, Hughes had made 13 starts in the major leagues, sandwiched around a lengthy stay on the DL. Anyone who thought his transition from minor-leaguer to #2 starter was going to take place without a hitch needs to readjust his expectations.

While there's no rule that every starting pitcher takes a year or two before he figures it all out -- C.C. Sabathia went 17-5 in his rookie year, with nearly a strikeout per inning -- it's more often the case. Just look at some the current "aces" around the league and you'll see a group that struggled in their first full seasons on the mound: Jake Peavy, 12-11, 4.11 ERA; Josh Beckett, 6-7, 4.10; John Lackey, 10-16, 4.63; Erik Bedard, 6-10, 4.59. Hughes may very well suffer the ups and downs of a young pitcher this season, but those struggles won't necessarily preempt a stellar career.

Yet in addition to resetting their sites on Phil Hughes, Yankee fans need to readjust their expectations for 2008, as well. Not only has Hughes struggled early on, but so has his young rotation-mate, Ian Kennedy. Add to that the inconsistent Mike Mussina, and the older, fragile Andy Pettitte and the Yankee pitching is riddled with question marks. Past its #1 hurler, Chien-Ming Wang, just how many quality starts can this group be expected to produce?

Fret not, though: the Yanks are on the right track. Mussina will be gone next season, along with a number of other dead-weight contracts. (Carl who?) With another year of experience under their belts, Hughes and Kennedy might be fighting Wang for the #1 slot in the rotation by 2009. Throw in Joba (starter or reliever), Cabrera, and Cano, and the Yankees have a solid, young nucleus with more farm-system talent on the way. So what if the Yankees miss the playoffs this year? The payoff will be that much better in the end.

* * * * * * * *

By the way, since last we spoke, the Tigers won a game! Unfortunately, that win did not herald a turnaround. Not only have they not played at that super-charged .700 level, they aren't even winning more than they lose. At 2-10, now 29th in hitting, dead-last in slugging and ERA, one could make the case that the Tigers are actually playing worse now than during their winless streak. More and more, it looks like it will be a long season in Tiger Town.

Break up the Orioles!

2008-04-09T11:12:00.002-04:00

The 2008 baseball season is not even two weeks old and some teams' starts are raising eyebrows, especially the bad ones. The Mets, after an Opening Day loss at Shea to the Phillies, are now 2-4. At that pace, the Mets stand to lose 108 games this season! What? Six games isn't much of a sample? Forgive my over-eager extrapolation. I suppose they've got a chance to turn things around over the next 156 games.

But there's another contender off to an ever worse start and the next 150 games may not hold so much promise. The Detroit Tigers, picked by many as World Series hopefuls, are shockingly 0-7 to start the season. Sure, it's a long season, but 0-7 is still a legitimate hole.

Let's say the Tigers shake off the slump and start playing .700 ball, a pretty impressive clip. (Over a full season, a team that played .700 would win 113 games.) So at that rate, over the next two weeks, say 14 games, the Tigers would be 10-11. Ugh. But what if they could keep that torrid pace for over a month? The Tigers might make it to 21-16. Okay, that's certainly better, and .568 baseball leaves you with about 92 wins. But winning 21 out of 30 games after you've lost your first seven sounds like a tall order.

Now look, no one is going to confuse this Detroit team with the 1988 Orioles, a team that lost a record-setting 21 straight to open the season. But so far, the Tigers have earned those losses and the numbers aren't pretty:

a .234 team batting average (24th in MLB)
a .332 team slugging percentage (29th)
a staff ERA of 5.20 (27th)

Bad hitting + bad pitching = bad baseball. So far in 2008, that equation fits no team better than the Tigers.

Not So Cranky Today

2008-04-04T10:28:00.004-04:00

It's hard to be cranky all the time, even for the Sports Crank. Baseball season is underway, the NCAA tournament is almost over, and the Rangers clinched a playoff berth last night by sweeping the ice with the Islanders.

And they get to do it again tonight at the Garden.

March Malady

2008-03-25T10:24:00.004-04:00

It's dirty little secret time: I can't stand the NCAA Tournament. Every year at this time, we are inundated with cries of "March Madness" and I couldn't care less. Sure, I'll fill out a bracket or two, but my methods usually consist of one of the following:

Picking the higher seed in every matchup, eventually resulting in four #1 seeds in the Final Four. Sure, that's never happened, but you'd be surprised at how well it works until one of those teams gets knocked out.
Finding some "expert" on one of the numerous sports sites out there and using his bracket as mine. Surprisingly, this method generally seems to fall short of method #1.

And in spite of the fact that every office in America has its own tourney pool, interest in the tournament itself is dwindling. I know -- ratings for anything on television are down these days. But still, the fact that the ratings for this year's NCAA tourney are down across the board means I'm not the only one who's tuning out. And if you use the ratings as your guide, there are fewer people actually watching the games than watched "Survivor" in the same time slot the week before.

Yes, there was a time when I had what could be called a "passing interest" in NCAA basketball. I hated Laettner & Co. at Duke. I got a kick out of the upstarts at UConn (beating Duke, natch). And of course there were the Fab Five at Michigan. But that was a long time ago (and an eternity in sports).

So for the next two weeks, as nearly every conversation with another guy begins with, "So you watchin' the games?" I'll continue to nod my head and mutter something about my Final Four picks still being alive. But when that championship game tips off in a couple of Monday nights, I'll have just one question: "Who's on 'Dancing with the Stars' tonight?"

"I must have misremembered about that whole steroid thing..."

2008-02-13T11:00:00.006-05:00

At this point, I'd say I felt sorry for Roger Clemens... except for the fact that any man as arrogant and off-putting as Clemens has been for the past 20 years deserves every bit of scorn directed his way. It's one thing to be branded a cheat; it's another thing entirely to be known as a cheat and a liar. And Roger Clemens is making a case to be the sports world's #1 representative of both.

While I agree that Brian McNamee is not exactly the poster boy for Truth, Justice and the American Way, he simply presents the more plausible case. With George Mitchell, the Federal Government, Andy Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch, and the Nanny backing all or part of his assertions, McNamee makes the best case. Clemens? Apparently the only one to speak for him is that bastion of honor, Jose Canseco. I don’t know about you, but that’s an endorsement I could live without.

So while Clemens digs himself deeper and deeper into this hole, it's fair to think that he's now sunk lower than the original poster boy for steroid use in baseball, Barry Bonds. I'd make the case that Clemens is even worse than Bonds, since Bonds was still performing at an All-Star level when he supposedly started using. Clemens, though, was in the midst of a downhill slide. Who's to say when his career may have ended had he not started "supplementing" his workouts?

But as much as Clemens shares with Bonds, there's another notorious figure whose story parallels Clemens' even more eerily. It wasn't that long ago that another icon from the baseball world, confronted by a government report and mountains of evidence, chose to wage a never-ending campaign of denial:

Jim Gray: Pete, now let me ask you. It seems as though there is an opening, the American public is very forgiving. Are you willing to show contrition, admit that you bet on baseball and make some sort of apology to that effect?

Pete Rose: Not at all, Jim. I'm not going to admit to something that didn't happen. I know you're getting tired of hearing me say that. But I appreciate the ovation. I appreciate the American fans voting me on the All-Century Team. I'm just a small part of a big deal tonight.

JG: With the overwhelming evidence in that report, why not make that step...

PR: No. This is too much of a festive night to worry about that because I don't know what evidence you're talking about. I mean, show it to me...

JG: Pete, those who will hear this tonight will say you have been your own worst enemy and continue to be. How do you respond to that?

PR: In what way are you talking about?

JG: By not acknowledging what seems to be overwhelming evidence.

As we know, it took nearly 14 years but Rose eventually emerged from his cocoon of denial: first, to admit that he bet on baseball; then to admit that he'd bet on his own team, the Reds. Who doesn't foresee Clemens’ voyage along this same road? After today's hearings, only the most-blinded Clemens loyalists can't see past the angry bluster, empty rhetoric and ridiculous lies. The day will come when Clemens, like Rose, will be forced to admit what we already know.

You could have turned your sets off there...

2008-02-04T00:20:00.000-05:00

We all know what happened, so I don't need to debase myself here by typing it out. Besides, I might just vomit on the keyboard. At this point, though, I'm not really sure what to do. I honestly never expected anything like this to happen so I have no back-up plans.

My first reaction was disbelief, so much so that I'm not even sure if it was real. But my next thought surprised me. Even for me, it came off as a tad melodramatic. Yet as I sit here writing, I don't see another alternative: I'm pretty sure I've watched my last NFL game.

What happened on Sunday night is the NFL equivalent of rain falling upwards, mice eating cats or the Earth orbiting the moon. There's no logic to explain how it played out. Not a single iota of sense to the end result. It's as if the NFL spun a big wheel and picked the winner at random.

So if a sport, on the whole, cannot be governed by logic, cannot ensure that over the course of time the reasonable outcome will occur, than how can I invest myself in it? I can't. I know what I know to be true, so that if the complete opposite comes to pass, then there's nothing left in it for me.

And that's the last time I'm going to comment on that. So give me fall Saturdays. Go Michigan. My TV won't be going on come Sunday.

Figures Lie and Liars Figure

2008-01-30T16:12:00.000-05:00

The conventional wisdom is that you can manipulate statistics to bolster any argument. So the fact that Team Clemens claims their latest testimonial -- an endless accumulation of numbers, graphs and exposition -- explains away Clemens' remarkable longevity is no surprise. SI.com's Tom Verducci does a great job cutting through the clutter and coming to the conclusion that you can use 18,000 words and still have nothing to say.

But I think Verducci lets Clemens off the hook. In fact, using the very statistics that Verducci provides, one can argue the case against Clemens grows even stronger. Let's take a look at the numbers from Clemens' first season in Toronto, both before and after the time that Brian McNamee claims to have first injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone:

1998	GS	W-L	ERA	K/9	OPS
Before	13	6-6	3.27	9.18	.592
After	20	14-0	2.29	11.11	.561

Combine his slow start in Toronto with four sub-par seasons in Boston -- twice under .500, no more than 11 wins, twice with an ERA over 4 -- and this is the portrait of a pitcher approaching the downside of his career. Then, like flipping a switch, Clemens becomes virtually unbeatable. But instead of the obvious, Clemens' camp instead serves up this implausible explanation:

By the mid 1990's, he had mastered the split-finger fastball, and the combination of Clemens' experience, his overpowering fastball, and his improved split-finger fastball led to two consecutive Cy Young Awards in what the record shows to be the best pitching of his career. -- Clemens Report

Really? In the 14th year of his major league career, after four-plus years on the decline, Roger Clemens had the best seasons of his life because he picked up the splitter? Really? Did I mention that was his 14th season?

But let's assume for the moment that we'll consider this ridiculous assertion, and that Clemens resurgence was due to his craftiness on the mound, rather than a slavish devotion to performance-enhancing drugs. What, then, do we make of Brian McNamee and his claims? Are we expected to believe that McNamee was so prescient that he'd broken down Clemens' exploits himself? Otherwise, how is it that he provided dates and doses that corresponded nearly exactly with the ups and downs of Clemens' post-Boston career? And that he was able to provide that information on demand, under oath, with a possible Federal indictment hanging over his head?

Clemens himself noted how hard it is "to prove a negative". It becomes even harder when your angry denials, backed by little more than an indignant attitude, stand in direct opposition to common sense. But hey, you can't blame Pete Rose... er, I mean, Roger Clemens, for trying.

Political Football

2008-01-30T10:49:00.001-05:00

Okay, so this is kind of a stretch, having very little to do with sports, but it still irked me. And anything irksome is ripe for the 'Crank.

Now that Rudy Giuliani is on his way out the presidential campaign, the race between the remaining Republican candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney, is heating up. And as is the case with any political campaign, the meaningless, empty quotations are spilling forth, as well. Check out this gem from Romney in today's New York Times:

Appearing on television Wednesday morning, Mr. Romney expressed confidence that he could close the gap with Mr. McCain in a narrowed field. Speaking on CNN, Mr. Romney said “In a two-person race, with myself and Senator McCain, I like my chances.”

Wow, Mitt, way to go out on a limb. In a competition with one other guy, you think you can win. That's quite a grasp of the obvious you've got there.

Now if Missouri Valley State tells me "We've got a shot in the Tourney" then I'm thinking, "OK. A 64-team draw. That's confidence." But this is like the Giants saying they've got a shot to win the Super Bowl. Well, by virtue of the fact that they're playing in the Super Bowl, I'd give them a shot at winning. Certainly more so than say, the Packers, who aren't actually playing in the game.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Canadian Philosophical Question

2008-01-28T09:18:00.000-05:00

If an NHL All-Star game falls in the forest but nobody watches it, does it make a sound?

Though I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an "NHL fanatic", I've seen my fair share of games. Sure, I more or less stopped watching after Messier left, Gretzky retired, and the Rangers franchise slid into an unwatchable funk. But over the past few years, the NHL has made the occasional blip on my radar screen.

So while I'm not NHL Fan #1, it was with some surprise that I learned last evening that the NHL was, in fact, holding their annual All-Star game. (Don't ask me where -- I never got that far.) It was about 8:00 when I clicked on SI.com and read the headline, "East Leads West 5-3". My first reaction was, "East who?" so I clicked on the link for the story.

Though I'm sure there were those who did know, the fact that a casual fan like me didn't know the game was this weekend speaks volumes about the problems the current NHL faces. Worse yet, was what happened next.

Eager to watch the third period of action in what was a close game, I turned on TV and tuned into NBC. I figured since NBC had partnered with the NHL on the New Year's Day game, they would be the logical outlet for the All-Star game. Nope. Okay, how about ABC? I recall they carried hockey at some point. Wrong again. What about FOX? Not since the glowing puck, apparently. No EPSN or ESPN2, and now I'm at a total loss. Buzz the program guide.

After what seemed like an eternity, I finally located the game: on Versus, channel 146 on my cable system. And to sprinkle in a little more bad luck, it was smack dab in the middle of intermission, so instead of slap shots and glove saves, I was treated to the R&B stylings of Ne-Yo at center ice. (Because when you think hockey, you think Ne-Yo, don't yo'?) This, unfortunately, held zero interest for me so I turned the channel and never returned.

This whole situation perplexed me. How can a league so desperate for publicity, so desperate to recruit new fans to the game, leave the casual fan in the dark that an All-Star game was taking place? And at the same time compound the problem by relegating their most fan-friendly event to a second-tier outpost on the edge of space?

Yes, I know, the NHL has to practically pay to get its product on the air. So why not? NBC got great ratings (relatively speaking) for the Outdoor Classic on New Year's Day so the onus was on the NHL to make their case. The timing was perfect, with the NFL's off-weekend and continuing Writer's Strike rendering the broadcast landscape wide-open. Joe-Fan, looking for something to satiate his sporting appetite and bored with another Tiger runaway or a meaningless January NBA exercise, might stumble upon the most skilled players in the hockey world, plying their craft in an end-to-end, no-restrictions shoot-out, showcasing much of what the NHL has to offer in an easy-to-digest package. Instead, anyone lucky enough to find out about the game is reduced to a remote-controlled scavenger hunt.

Down the stretch, I'm sure I'll catch a few periods of Rangers' hockey as they make their push for the playoffs. And should they qualify, I'll probably tune in to see if they advance. But I just can't help but wonder how many other people like myself might be seeking out an NHL fix had they gotten a taste of what the NHL has to offer.

Defying the Odds... and Logic... and the Natural Order

2008-01-21T09:26:00.000-05:00

There's an old saying that goes, "The cream always rises to the top." The theory being that over time, through agitation and tribulation, the best will set itself apart, be distilled by adversity, and ascend above all others. That although counted out or overlooked, in the end greatness will emerge and prevail. Picture the exact opposite and you have the 2007-08 Giants.

Whether through smoke and mirrors or the evil machinations of some meddlesome deity, the New York Giants have somehow stumbled their way into the Super Bowl. Don't ask me how or why: that a team so rarely tested in the regular season and that failed to beat even the most remotely competitive opponent, that came up short against each and every winning team it faced, and then barely survived battles against the league's weakest sisters, is now playing for a championship.

This blog is named "Sports Crank", and let me tell you, the crank is turned up 100% today. Not only has my otherwise unremarkable Monday morning been ruined, but for the next two weeks I'm going to have to shield myself from the unrelenting, unavoidable, mind-numbing hype machine that is the run up to the Super Bowl for a New York team. (Okay, for a Giants team, since the Jets haven't been to a Super Bowl since before it was the Super Bowl.) It's enough to make you want to move out of state. Or at the very least, curl up into a ball and hibernate until President's Day.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me state that I hate those f***ing bastards in blue. The asshole coach. The soulless rube QB. The miscreant tight end. The defensive line, the running backs, the wide receivers, the linebackers, the trainers, the locker room attendants, the announcers, those ugly uniforms and especially those obnoxious, delusional, fairyland-dwelling fans who kept thinking this team was a contender in spite of all the obvious reasons to believe otherwise.

I'm not going to go into why the Cowboys, a superior team, played like some Juco squad all afternoon (and still should have won the game), or how the Packers managed to squander not only a devastating home field advantage but any good will Brett Favre had earned in his latest farewell tour. (If I may digress: Brett, hang it up. You'll never have a better situation than you had on Sunday yet you played like it was 2006 again when everyone was begging for you to retire. It's that time again.) But seriously, who was calling those plays yesterday? Did anyone see Rich Kotite on the Green Bay sidelines? Is this all some awful conspiracy to cause me misery?

Were it not for the fact that my beloved Patriots are playing, too, I'd simply avoid the Super Bowl altogether. Perhaps if nothing else, the Giants' immortalization at the losing end of NFL history will ultimately ease the pain. Then again, nothing about this post-season has made sense yet. Remind me not to hold my breath.

Vindication!

2007-12-13T13:24:00.000-05:00

You'd have to be pretty naive to be surprised by this, but it still qualifies as a stunner to see the extent of it in print:

[Roger] Clemens was singled out in eight pages [of the Mitchell Report], with much of the information on the seven-time Cy Young Award winner coming from former major league strength coach Brian McNamee.
"According to McNamee, from the time that McNamee injected Clemens with Winstrol through the end of the 1998 season, Clemens' performance showed remarkable improvement," the report said. "During this period of improved performance, Clemens told McNamee that the steroids 'had a pretty good effect' on him." -- SI.com

Um, wow! Sure, there were those of us who suspected all along that Roger’s "Rocket Fuel" was decidedly less benign than spinach. But who would have thought that Clemens was actually matching Bonds vial-for-vial? Oh, right... me! If I may quote myself:

We all know Barry Bonds is the poster boy for steroid abuse in baseball. Yet how is it that Roger Clemens consistently gets a free pass in the steroids debate? Has anyone noticed that he's a 45-year old power pitcher? That doesn’t send up any red flags?

I love how everyone dismisses Clemens as a user by saying "He's a workout warrior." HELLO! Who do they think are using all that stuff? Do they think players just inject steroids and become magically muscular overnight? Without the work, steroids won't do a damn thing. It’s these very “workout warriors” whom steroids benefit the most by aiding the body in rapidly repairing itself. -- Sports Crank, 9/25/07

Can we now put to rest all the “freak of nature” stories that have surrounded Clemens for the past however-many years? There is now a very plausible explanation for his “late career resurgence” and performance above-and-beyond his much younger peers. Certainly the preceding sentences could have easily been written about Bonds, but now baseball’s #1 pariah has some superstar company. And this won’t be the last time those two will be linked. Assuming neither plays baseball again – which after today looks like a pretty safe bet – in five years Clemens and Bonds will both appear for the first time on the same Hall of Fame ballot. Won’t that be a strange day for every baseball fan?

Getting Fat on Turkeys

2007-12-09T20:45:00.000-05:00

The Giants have made a case for being the worst team ever to reach 9-4. They've beaten no one this season -- in fact, every win they have has come against a losing team. In stark contrast, as of today only three teams on the Giants' schedule (they played the Cowboys twice) have winning records. They account for all four Giants losses. Is anyone surprised?

Sure, you can only play the teams on your schedule, and this season the NFC happens to be littered with awful clubs. But the Giants catch a break by not having Tampa or Seattle on their slate -- the only other NFC teams with winning records to whom the Giants haven't lost. And they also lucked out in the NFL's annual round-robin by drawing the AFC Least, er, East, where the hapless Jets and hopeless Dolphins provided little resistance. Of course, dates with the Bills and Patriots -- the last two teams on the Giants' schedule with winning records -- still await.

So if form holds, and there's no reason why it shouldn't, the Giants will beat the Redskins but lose to Buffalo and New England. At that point, the Giants will have the distinction of being the worst NFL team ever to finish 10-6... only to suffer another swift and demeaning first-round playoff exit. The only suspense will be if another playoff appearance -- however brief -- is enough for Tom Coughlin to keep his job.

Touchable!

2007-12-01T10:36:00.000-05:00

"Fearful of the Twins delivering Johan Santana to the Red Sox, the Yankees decided last night to begrudgingly include Phil Hughes in a possible package with Melky Cabrera, and hoped it was enough to bring baseball's best pitcher to The Bronx." -- NY Post

Hughes for Santana? I'm on the fence. Usually I'd have no problem trading a prospect for an established star, but something about this deal seems fishy. For one, how much better do the Yanks get by trading their "potential" #1 for an established one? At the end of the day, all they did was trade pitching to get pitching (and lost their CF to boot). According to my math, 5-1+1 still equals 5. It's not like they were falling over themselves with starters they were pining to deal.

Sure, I was never overwhelmed by Hughes last season, and baseball is littered with "can't miss" guys who, well, missed. But for almost three years, all we've heard from the Yankee organization -- the scouts, the coaches, the players, the management -- is how Phil Hughes is the real deal. And up until last night, apparently, the Yankees had resisted every single trade offer that included his name. Why, suddenly, now? Were the Yankees equally nonplussed by what they saw?

The other part of this deal that makes me leery is Santana himself. If this was 2006, I'd probably be screaming for this deal to get done. But 2007 was a very different year for Johan the Great. In roughly the same number of starts that he'd made through his astounding 2004-06 seasons, Santana pitched about 13 fewer innings and had his fewest wins since his days as a part-time starter. More glaringly, his strikeouts were down (235 vs. an average of 249 for '04-'06), his ERA was a half-run higher and over 3 for the first time, and his remarkable WHIP also crept past 1 for the first time since '03.

To be fair, if you just looked at his 2007 numbers, Santana was one of the best pitchers in the game. But were the numbers just an aberration, a blip, a "down" year on a lousy team in expectation of being traded? Or are we seeing the first inevitable slippage, the fall from the heights that no pitcher can expect to maintain forever?

My faith in the Yankees brain trust is starting to wane, too. After starting out this off-season with a series of great moves -- dumping Torre, hiring Girardi, saying goodbye to A-Rod and bringing back Posada -- things are starting to take an unfortunate turn for the worse. There was the laughable and potentially debilitating turn-around with A-Rod (more money does not equal more hits in October, folks) and now this.

As I said, I'm really undecided on what the Yanks should do. Santana could win a Cy Young for the Yanks next season... or he could continue his downward trend to the point that the Yankees will be paying Barry Zito money but getting Barry Zito numbers, too. On the other hand, Hughes might turn out to be nothing more than a serviceable if unspectacular starter destined for the middle of the rotation... or he might earn a Cy Young of his own in a year or two, if what everyone's been telling us has been true. I guess only time will tell...

Eli's Biggest Fan

2007-11-26T17:06:00.000-05:00

Well, after me, anyway, no one has been harder on Eli Manning than SI’s Peter King. Mr. King didn’t waste any time piling on Eli in this week’s MMQB:

a. This is not the negative New York media speaking. This is the impartial New Jersey media speaking. The more I see Eli Manning, the more I think he'll never be a championship quarterback.

b. I mean, taking a 26-yard sack in the fourth quarter? Ridiculous. And could he please get mad once? Punch the ground, kick the dog, cuss out his linemen, something. You know what the Minnesota game plan for playing Manning was in part? Hit him a couple of times on his first few dropbacks, and the book on him was he'd start throwing off his back foot. Which he did.

Okay, aside from the fact that this is what I’ve been saying for years pretty much verbatim, it’s also absolutely true. Eli is just one of those QB’s who’s good enough to play in the NFL (sorry, Dave Brown) but not good enough to take his team anywhere. Just too many mistakes waiting to be made; too many bad throws waiting to happen. And that Vikings “game plan” ties in exactly to the SI player’s poll that ranked Easy Eli as the 2^nd-most easily intimidated QB in the league. I half expected him to wet his pants at some point.

Unfortunately, there really isn’t anything that the Giants can do. Unlike Dave Brown, who didn’t belong in the NFL, and to a lesser extent, Kerry Collins, whose negatives ultimately outweighed his positives, Eli doesn’t merit an out-and-out ejection. He’s good enough to play in the NFL, but if you look at the current QB landscape in the league, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.

I think the lack of consistency we’ve seen from Eli – good game, average game, awful game – is how it’s going to be with him. After 50 games, it’s time to stop talking about development and improvement. For that matter, there hasn’t been any. They showed a stat during last week’s Giants-Lions game comparing Eli’s first 9 games in 2006 vs. 2007: they were virtually identical. And that was before yesterday’s debacle.

You look at almost any starting QB and three years should give you an accurate picture of what you get. Guys like Roethlisberger, Palmer, Peyton, Brady, etc. have what it takes and showed it early on, if not from the start. On the flip side, guys like Carr, Couch, Akili Smith, etc. made it clear before too long that they weren’t up to NFL standards. From what we’ve seen, Eli falls in between these two groups. However, I don’t see him in the Trent Dilfer / Brad Johnson category of guys who also fall between those groups but ultimately won championships despite their shortcomings. Eli just makes too many mistakes and is too easily intimidated to lead his team where it needs to go, even if he had a great running game and defense as compliments.

The silver lining is that Eli's continued struggles will likely spell the end of General Coughlin's reign of error in the Meadowlands. Not so great, though, is the fact that at least one more coach is going to have to suffer the Eli Experiment before he’s through (or at least through with the Giants)…

Scott Boras is an Idiot

2007-10-29T09:38:00.000-04:00

Okay, so that's not news. But Boras did make some news over the weekend by announcing (to no one's surprise) that A-Rod has opted out of his contract with the Yankees. But that's not why Boras is an idiot. In fact, I've been in favor of getting A-Rod out of town since last year's playoff meltdown. It's just that even when doing the right thing, Boras comes off as an ass.

As we all know, A-Rod had until 10 days past the World Series to make his call. So Boras makes the announcement last night during the World Series. His rationale? (And believe me, it's Boras' rationale; A-Rod is just along for the ride.) With the identity of the Yankee manager and the contract statuses of Rivera, Posada and Pettitte still undetermined, there were simply too many question marks in Yankee-land:

"Alex's decision was one based on not knowing what his closer, his catcher and one of his statured pitchers was going to do. He really didn't want to make any decisions until he knew what they were doing."

Umm, so let me see if I'm following this. A-Rod doesn't want to make any decisions until he knows what the Yankees are doing. So he makes the decision to leave the Yankees. Ten days earlier than needed. Right. Thanks, Scott.

Of course, this whole charade makes it that much easier to part ways with Mr. O-fer-tober. Not that I needed convincing, but there were plenty of folks who thought A-Rod should stay, no matter the cost. Instead, we're left with all his empty pronouncements, including this gem, from not even a month ago:

"I've always said it: I love New York. For me, as a player, to come full circle in New York, it's the most comfortable I've felt. Hopefully, things work out."

Well, Alex, when you're content to let your ego-maniacal agent pull all the strings, you pretty much know how this one is going to "work out". Good night, good luck, and good riddance.

Hanging Chad

2007-10-28T22:41:00.000-04:00

Finally, it looks like the Chad Pennington Era has come to an end. Please don't start about how Kellen Clemens looked even worse, or that he didn't look ready, etc. The bottom line is that the future for the Jets starts now. 2007 is but a memory; it's all about 2008.

Barring injury, Pennington shouldn't take another snap in a Jets' uniform. He's proven, time and again, that his days as an NFL signal-caller are no longer. Regardless of what Clemens does from here on out, he needs to play. Clemens should take the reps with the first team all week. Sure, he'll make his share of mistakes, but there's nothing that gets you prepared to play quarterback in the NFL better than actually playing QB in the NFL. The Jets need to know now if Clemens is the real deal. A half a season at the helm should tell them just that.

And even if Clemens proves to be no better than Pennington, at least the Jets will know. Besides, if Clemens plays poorly, the Jets, more than likely, are going to continue to lose. And with losing, comes a pretty good shot of landing a brand new stud QB in the upcoming draft.

Who's the Bad Guy Now?

2007-10-23T13:03:00.000-04:00

There's been an awful lot of fallout concerning the Yankees' handling of the Joe Torre situation. Much of the media angle has been to slam the Yanks, but I'd say there's widespread support for what the team did, too. The irony, though, is that I don't think what the Yankees did actually affected anyone's opinion. If you thought Joe should stay, then you were offended by the Yankees non-offer and applaud Joe for turning them down. On the other hand, if you thought it was time to turn the page on Ol' Joe, then you thought allowing him to remain the highest-paid manager in baseball while expecting a little success in return was more than fair. It fit each scenario nicely, which I suppose is as well as the Yankees could have played this.

I, for one, was staunchly in the "Joe Must Go" camp and felt the Yanks offer was more than fair. Look, is it so wrong to ask the man in charge of baseball's highest-paid collection of talent to win something every once in a while? All I keep hearing is "12 playoff appearances, 6 World Series, 4 Championships." Very nice. Joe's a Hall-of-Famer, but as the "What have you done for me lately?" crowd will exclaim, Joe's success has been very much front-loaded. Three straight first-round losses, not to mention the historic 2004 collapse that preceded them, is a cause for concern.

As for the offer itself, I understand, on the face, the notion of the pay cut being an insult. If my employer (with whom, by the way, I don't have a contract) told me he was going to cut my salary from $75,000 to $50,000 next year, that would definitely irk me. If, however, he said I could earn $10,000 bonuses based on hitting a few milestones, to the point where I might actually exceed my original salary, then maybe it's not so bad. And really, isn't winning a playoff series or two a reasonable expectation? If it's good enough for Les Moonves, then it should be good enough for Joe.

Why Athletes Should Not Be Role Models

2007-10-16T12:03:00.000-04:00