the way sabathia is pitching these days, mariokart fans will be calling him 150 cc - a level reserved for only the very best.
since joining the brewers, sabathia is 9-0 in 11 games started and has allowed more than 2 earned runs in just one of his past 10 starts, giving up 3 to the seemingly unstoppable cubs. his ERA has dropped to 1.43, which would be the lowest in the national league by over a run if he had enough innings to qualify. still not convinced? how's this for a clincher: sabathia leads the NL in complete games (5) despite having spent just two months in the league. (CORRECTION: sabathia actually has six complete games; the espn stats page i was referring to had not yet been updated.)
sabathia was not a deadline deal - he came over to wisconsin from cleveland in early july - but he is the kind of impact player that conniving general managers hope to pick up as the summer wraps up to make a difference in a pennant race. after sabathia threw what may still turn out to be a no-hitter tonight, the brewers are 10-1 in games started by their new ace and have a 5.5-game lead in the wild card. the rays may be the underdog darlings of 2008, but the brewers have to be the feel-good story in the national league.
at this rate, sabathia will be moving on to mirror mode pretty soon.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
sometimes, lightning does strike twice
no, i am not talking about usain bolt.
who is gilles muller? you probably have no idea. (but then again, you also probably don't know who kim kirchen and frank schleck are, either.)
unless, of course, you were watching the u.s. open on that fateful day in 2005. as andy roddick took the court against a 22-year-old from schifflange, luxembourg, little did he know what he was in for. three tiebreaker-determined sets later, roddick had lost his mojo and a small nation in europe had found a bit of non-GDP-related glory.
muller went on to lose to then-doubles partner robby ginepri - who is also half-luxembourgish - in 2005, and he faded pretty quickly from the international tennis spotlight. had he used up his 15 minutes of fame?
apparently not. today, after having won three matches in the qualifying tournament and held off laurent recouderc of france in the first round, muller overcame a 2-6, 2-6 start to come from behind and shock grizzled veteran tommy haas in five sets, using his strong serve and a willingness to try and paint the lines - he had 75 unforced errors in the match - to propel himself into the third round for the the first time in his brief flushing meadows history.
in the next round, he will face either californian sam warburg or 18th-seeded nicolas almagro of spain, neither of whom have been into the fourth round at the open. might the fireballer from luxembourg continue to surprise his opponents?
we here at poop on boozer will certainly be watching.
who is gilles muller? you probably have no idea. (but then again, you also probably don't know who kim kirchen and frank schleck are, either.)
unless, of course, you were watching the u.s. open on that fateful day in 2005. as andy roddick took the court against a 22-year-old from schifflange, luxembourg, little did he know what he was in for. three tiebreaker-determined sets later, roddick had lost his mojo and a small nation in europe had found a bit of non-GDP-related glory.
muller went on to lose to then-doubles partner robby ginepri - who is also half-luxembourgish - in 2005, and he faded pretty quickly from the international tennis spotlight. had he used up his 15 minutes of fame?
apparently not. today, after having won three matches in the qualifying tournament and held off laurent recouderc of france in the first round, muller overcame a 2-6, 2-6 start to come from behind and shock grizzled veteran tommy haas in five sets, using his strong serve and a willingness to try and paint the lines - he had 75 unforced errors in the match - to propel himself into the third round for the the first time in his brief flushing meadows history.
in the next round, he will face either californian sam warburg or 18th-seeded nicolas almagro of spain, neither of whom have been into the fourth round at the open. might the fireballer from luxembourg continue to surprise his opponents?
we here at poop on boozer will certainly be watching.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Kickoff to Election Season
You may know us, the editors of Poop on Boozer, merely as expert and witty sports enthusiasts, but in reality, we are so much more. Sure, we appreciate a perfectly executed suicide squeeze, but we also appreciate the bold emotionality of expressionist painting, the fragile pathos of La Traviata, or the subtle tones in a glass of finely aged brandy.
What am I talking about? I don't know. I've never had brandy. But I am dimly aware that there is some sort of political convention going on this week, and potentially next week as well. And in light of that, we at Poop on Boozer have decided to go with the flow and present you with:
POLITICAL FIGURES AS NFL ATHLETES
Barack Obama: Adrian Peterson. Like Obama, Peterson blew onto his sport's biggest stage as if from nowhere (Oklahoma is close enough to nowhere for our purposes), instantly garnering more attention than some of his more established counterparts. And while his flashy moves lead many to believe he has what it takes to be one of the all-time greats, and has already begun to establish his place in history, others claim that his fame is mainly due to one 296-yard performance that, like a 2004 convention speech, may not translate to present or future success.
Hillary Clinton: Brett Favre (off-field). One of the most recognized faces in her field, Hillary has been in the national spotlight for over a decade but has perhaps never dominated the headlines more than she has this summer (although she was pretty famous for being part of a title-winning team in 1996). However, she has also had some issues stepping aside gracefully when her time has come, refusing to relinquish her claim to the presidency even when it was clear that America had committed to going in a new direction. She currently works in New York.
John McCain: Brett Favre (on-field). Experienced, poised, and with the appearance of a true leader, Favre sacrificed his body for the sport that he loves, developing a Vicodin addiction after being subjected to the torture of NFL linebackers. Favre is often praised as a "maverick" and a "gunslinger" for his unconventional methods, but the question remains: do his many interceptions demonstrate that, as a decision-maker, he is no better than President Bush?
Next week: is Minnesota governor and Republican vice-presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty the T.J. Houshmanzadeh of politics?
What am I talking about? I don't know. I've never had brandy. But I am dimly aware that there is some sort of political convention going on this week, and potentially next week as well. And in light of that, we at Poop on Boozer have decided to go with the flow and present you with:
POLITICAL FIGURES AS NFL ATHLETES
Barack Obama: Adrian Peterson. Like Obama, Peterson blew onto his sport's biggest stage as if from nowhere (Oklahoma is close enough to nowhere for our purposes), instantly garnering more attention than some of his more established counterparts. And while his flashy moves lead many to believe he has what it takes to be one of the all-time greats, and has already begun to establish his place in history, others claim that his fame is mainly due to one 296-yard performance that, like a 2004 convention speech, may not translate to present or future success.
Hillary Clinton: Brett Favre (off-field). One of the most recognized faces in her field, Hillary has been in the national spotlight for over a decade but has perhaps never dominated the headlines more than she has this summer (although she was pretty famous for being part of a title-winning team in 1996). However, she has also had some issues stepping aside gracefully when her time has come, refusing to relinquish her claim to the presidency even when it was clear that America had committed to going in a new direction. She currently works in New York.
John McCain: Brett Favre (on-field). Experienced, poised, and with the appearance of a true leader, Favre sacrificed his body for the sport that he loves, developing a Vicodin addiction after being subjected to the torture of NFL linebackers. Favre is often praised as a "maverick" and a "gunslinger" for his unconventional methods, but the question remains: do his many interceptions demonstrate that, as a decision-maker, he is no better than President Bush?
Next week: is Minnesota governor and Republican vice-presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty the T.J. Houshmanzadeh of politics?
couching not-so-subtle racism in not-so-convincing rhetoric
this week, the LPGA announced that it will require its members to learn and speak english. and if they don't, they could face a suspension.
oh, of course, the LPGA had an explanation. as espn.com's bob harig details, LPGA tournaments are often dependent on local nonprofit organizations for their infrastructures, and much of the funding comes from the pre-tournament pro-am, which exposes young, emerging players to the professionals already on the tour. when the pros can't speak english, this makes this relationship awkward.
bullllllllllllllllllllshit.
i don't deny that the LPGA needs to cater to its business interests and to the sponsors that support it. but when's the last time you heard seattle mariners investors complaining because ichiro doesn't speak great english? can you imagine bud selig suspending all the players in the majors that can't sit for postgame interviews without an interpreter?
amateurs and fans learn to deal with the language barriers they encounter in the world of sports; that's part of the difficulty (and the beauty) of an international game. there is no doubt that the LPGA is an american organization and can certainly show a preference for english. and, in fact, they probably even have the right to require that english be spoken (although some lawyers may have something to say about that). but that doesn't mean that it should do this. rather than play up its international flavor (cf. nba and yao ming or mlb's bilingual "i live for this" campaign), the LPGA is taking the prejudiced route and squashing it.
when it comes down to it, the LPGA has been around for 50 years, and despite featuring over a hundred international players - many of whom struggle with english - it hasn't lost all its sponsors and accompanying dough. so why go out of its way now to make the 45 south koreans and their foreign peers feel unwelcome and unwanted?
melting pot? more like a solid (golf) stick up the ass.
oh, of course, the LPGA had an explanation. as espn.com's bob harig details, LPGA tournaments are often dependent on local nonprofit organizations for their infrastructures, and much of the funding comes from the pre-tournament pro-am, which exposes young, emerging players to the professionals already on the tour. when the pros can't speak english, this makes this relationship awkward.
bullllllllllllllllllllshit.
i don't deny that the LPGA needs to cater to its business interests and to the sponsors that support it. but when's the last time you heard seattle mariners investors complaining because ichiro doesn't speak great english? can you imagine bud selig suspending all the players in the majors that can't sit for postgame interviews without an interpreter?
amateurs and fans learn to deal with the language barriers they encounter in the world of sports; that's part of the difficulty (and the beauty) of an international game. there is no doubt that the LPGA is an american organization and can certainly show a preference for english. and, in fact, they probably even have the right to require that english be spoken (although some lawyers may have something to say about that). but that doesn't mean that it should do this. rather than play up its international flavor (cf. nba and yao ming or mlb's bilingual "i live for this" campaign), the LPGA is taking the prejudiced route and squashing it.
when it comes down to it, the LPGA has been around for 50 years, and despite featuring over a hundred international players - many of whom struggle with english - it hasn't lost all its sponsors and accompanying dough. so why go out of its way now to make the 45 south koreans and their foreign peers feel unwelcome and unwanted?
melting pot? more like a solid (golf) stick up the ass.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
the sentiment is spreading
it seems that more and more people want to poop on boozer. well, at least, they seem to be interested in boozer and poop.
check out RockyBalboa's post on cougarboard.com. i'm not quite sure what this website is, either, but this user seems to want to see boozer "give a poop."
any thoughts, coach k?
check out RockyBalboa's post on cougarboard.com. i'm not quite sure what this website is, either, but this user seems to want to see boozer "give a poop."
any thoughts, coach k?
Monday, August 25, 2008
INTERVIEW: sports illustrated's pablo torre
for every 1,000 kids that want to be superstar athletes when they grow up, there's one child who says, "mommy! daddy! i want to be a sportswriter!"
okay, okay, maybe that's an exaggeration - even if rick reilly and bill simmons might want it to be true. but for those of us who fail to translate high school minutes into college and professional-level goals and buckets, there's always sportswriting to fall back on.
well, pablo s. torre is like the michael phelps of harvard sportswriters. just a year out of college, he has covered everything from the coney island hot dog eating contest to the NBA playoffs. and as the summer ramped up, and with the olympics right around the bend, pablo made the jump to TV as well, appearing on everything from CNN Money to EXTRA.
even though he will always be modest, this 22-year-old sets the bar for (former) sportswriters like us here at poop on boozer. read on to find out what the half-journalist, half-entertainer had to say.
POB: Just so we can get this up front, what are your feelings on Carlos Boozer?
I mean, he actually robbed a benevolent blind man. Let's just say that I no longer feel bad about Jason Richardson bouncing the ball off his dome and then draining a three in his face, one of the great in-game punkings of all time. Also one of the great follow-up quotes, from Richardson: "It's not a no-class act. It was streetball, and he should know that. But maybe he doesn't since he's from Alaska." It's funny because it might be true.
POB: You're just one year out of college, but you are writing for Sports Illustrated and are talking sports with some of the biggest names in television. Is this what ESPN was trying to sell when it aired Dream Job?
Cross-branding aside...yes? Believe me, I fully appreciate that I'm doing any of this as my first job right out of college. Then again, this question just prompted me to look up Mike Hall in Wikipedia, which doesn't bode well for my side of this allusion.
But make no mistake: I'm still the youngest staff member at SI and surely the lowest, uh, totem (Native American spirit animal?) on the totem pole. And I love an occupation that pays me to do the things I genuinely enjoy (e.g. write) while forcing me to travel the country, watch television at work/be on television and play mini-ping pong in my office. For what it's worth, my friends also enjoy having reason to call me pretending to be William "The Refrigerator" Perry.
POB: What has been the most fulfilling and/or entertaining story you have covered in the past 12 months?
Hmm. So many great and absurd experiences, from spring training to the NCAA Tournament, but I'd say four things really quickly, if I may.
First: the essay I wrote for the magazine about Division I-AA/FCS football off of the I-AA title game last December in Chattanooga, Tenn., two months after starting at SI. Not even so much the writing, but the reporting, which somehow involved me meeting a girl from Appalachian State on the plane from Atlanta who then invited me to their tailgate, which then led to me drinking moonshine from a generic glass jar in a parking lot.
Second: the week I spent in Las Vegas leading up to the Manny Pacquiao-David Diaz title fight in June. Besides the fact that this was apparently "work," boxers afford you a level of access otherwise unseen in pro sports. When I say that I was in the bathroom with Pacquiao when he took his drug test, that's actually not an exaggeration. (Plus, the Boston Celtics were hanging out in his locker room.)
Third: an SI.com "bonus" I wrote about a high school wrestler and his father. So very much the opposite of any story about fantastically successful and wealthy athletes. It took forever to get it out, and it's certainly not one of those national stories that'll drive web traffic, but it is one of those things where you feel an authentic connection with the subject.
Fourth: working on Gary Smith's forthcoming anthology for SI Books. I was commissioned to write the epilogues for half of the stories in it, which meant tracking down a lot of obscure people that were only known to any of us through those SI articles. Just trading e-mails with Gary and retracing his footsteps was an unbelievable seminar in reporting. Talking to Richie Parker on the phone and dialing number after number to find people who might know Jonathan Takes Enemy, for example, was basically like stepping into a movie. As good as Gary is as a writer--and he's the best, I would say--the due diligence he does is almost unfathomable.
POB: Talk to us about your first time on television. What was that like?
I didn't think about TV at all when I started at SI. It just didn't know it was on the radar of possibility. In July, though, I was asked to be on the Fox Business Network for about a five-minute segment for a "Money in Sports" package we ran that I contributed to. It was live TV--so there's always that fear of totally humiliating yourself in front of, I guess, America/the world--and I had never done TV before (even my little brother was on a public service channel commercial once). So I wound up "studying" in earnest for the first time since graduating from college and calling upon, as humiliating as this is in and of itself, four years of high school debate, which did sort of help.
Since then, our PR department and these news programs have apparently liked me enough to keep sending me out there on an at-times unsettlingly regular basis, especially for the Olympics. It helps that our offices are across the street, literally, from NBC and Fox's studios, and only blocks away from CNN. I like all of it, and the TV and radio producers I've worked with so far haven't yet been totally repelled by my tendency to make awful puns. (Thanks, NPR!)
POB: Who is the coolest celebrity you have met thus far?
For whatever reason, I don't think I really get starstruck. Though I did send in a Gawker Stalker tip about Josh Hartnett once after we watched "There Will Be Blood" in the same movie theater. But I digress.
Does Brian Scalabrine count as a celebrity? I interviewed him after a game during this year's Eastern Conference Finals as he ate pasta from the post-game spread and he was as gracious an athlete as they come. In my adventures on TV--and purely on the This-Is-a-Good-Story scale--I'd say it's a tie between Bill O'Reilly and Russell Simmons, who wound up in the green room with me at one point. Also, Anderson Cooper basically ignored me in an elevator at the CNN building, but I probably would have ignored myself.
Wait, scratch all of that. I randomly met Dikembe Mutombo walking through the cafeteria of our building when I was an intern. "Star-struck" (star-roundhouse-kicked?) does not do that experience justice.
POB: What tips do you have for young journalists trying to follow in your footsteps?
First, it's completely disingenuous for me to give advice to anyone. I am 22 years old and started working at SI 11 months ago, to the point where answering "I'm a journalist" while meeting people at bars only stopped being kind of hilarious a few weeks ago. Last month I was in the kitchen of our office, toasting a bagel, and a person on our copy desk graciously asked if I was still an intern. And for this TV stuff, it's the stuff that's written that really garners attention at our office.
But if I can say one thing, it's that I got into this by way of writing and luck. I'd sent clips from The Crimson to SI when I applied to be an intern in the summer of '06, and after it was done they invited me back, with a sobering warning that is sure to unsettle parents of dutiful Harvard sportswriters everywhere: "I don't care what your grades are, or where you went to school, just whether you can write." (To paraphrase Conan O'Brien's incredible Class Day address: While interviewing Carlos Zambrano, let's just say that my senior thesis on statistical and theoretical approaches to child homicide doesn't come up much.)
I just consume the genre I work in and--by the natural order of things--the folks I work for, which I've read for sheer literary value for years and years. It's just that the job now can also be increasingly multimedia-based, with right-place/right-time opportunities in stuff like TV and radio. Needless to say, upon arrival here I did not foresee fill-in host Laura Ingraham insinuating that I was un-American on The O'Reilly Factor.
POB: Finally, if you had to poop on someone or some team today, who would that be?
As we're still in Olympics mode, I was going to say the Chinese women's gymnastics team. But that's just a terrible idea in every conceivable way.
okay, okay, maybe that's an exaggeration - even if rick reilly and bill simmons might want it to be true. but for those of us who fail to translate high school minutes into college and professional-level goals and buckets, there's always sportswriting to fall back on.
well, pablo s. torre is like the michael phelps of harvard sportswriters. just a year out of college, he has covered everything from the coney island hot dog eating contest to the NBA playoffs. and as the summer ramped up, and with the olympics right around the bend, pablo made the jump to TV as well, appearing on everything from CNN Money to EXTRA.
even though he will always be modest, this 22-year-old sets the bar for (former) sportswriters like us here at poop on boozer. read on to find out what the half-journalist, half-entertainer had to say.
POB: Just so we can get this up front, what are your feelings on Carlos Boozer?
I mean, he actually robbed a benevolent blind man. Let's just say that I no longer feel bad about Jason Richardson bouncing the ball off his dome and then draining a three in his face, one of the great in-game punkings of all time. Also one of the great follow-up quotes, from Richardson: "It's not a no-class act. It was streetball, and he should know that. But maybe he doesn't since he's from Alaska." It's funny because it might be true.
POB: You're just one year out of college, but you are writing for Sports Illustrated and are talking sports with some of the biggest names in television. Is this what ESPN was trying to sell when it aired Dream Job?
Cross-branding aside...yes? Believe me, I fully appreciate that I'm doing any of this as my first job right out of college. Then again, this question just prompted me to look up Mike Hall in Wikipedia, which doesn't bode well for my side of this allusion.
But make no mistake: I'm still the youngest staff member at SI and surely the lowest, uh, totem (Native American spirit animal?) on the totem pole. And I love an occupation that pays me to do the things I genuinely enjoy (e.g. write) while forcing me to travel the country, watch television at work/be on television and play mini-ping pong in my office. For what it's worth, my friends also enjoy having reason to call me pretending to be William "The Refrigerator" Perry.
POB: What has been the most fulfilling and/or entertaining story you have covered in the past 12 months?
Hmm. So many great and absurd experiences, from spring training to the NCAA Tournament, but I'd say four things really quickly, if I may.
First: the essay I wrote for the magazine about Division I-AA/FCS football off of the I-AA title game last December in Chattanooga, Tenn., two months after starting at SI. Not even so much the writing, but the reporting, which somehow involved me meeting a girl from Appalachian State on the plane from Atlanta who then invited me to their tailgate, which then led to me drinking moonshine from a generic glass jar in a parking lot.
Second: the week I spent in Las Vegas leading up to the Manny Pacquiao-David Diaz title fight in June. Besides the fact that this was apparently "work," boxers afford you a level of access otherwise unseen in pro sports. When I say that I was in the bathroom with Pacquiao when he took his drug test, that's actually not an exaggeration. (Plus, the Boston Celtics were hanging out in his locker room.)
Third: an SI.com "bonus" I wrote about a high school wrestler and his father. So very much the opposite of any story about fantastically successful and wealthy athletes. It took forever to get it out, and it's certainly not one of those national stories that'll drive web traffic, but it is one of those things where you feel an authentic connection with the subject.
Fourth: working on Gary Smith's forthcoming anthology for SI Books. I was commissioned to write the epilogues for half of the stories in it, which meant tracking down a lot of obscure people that were only known to any of us through those SI articles. Just trading e-mails with Gary and retracing his footsteps was an unbelievable seminar in reporting. Talking to Richie Parker on the phone and dialing number after number to find people who might know Jonathan Takes Enemy, for example, was basically like stepping into a movie. As good as Gary is as a writer--and he's the best, I would say--the due diligence he does is almost unfathomable.
POB: Talk to us about your first time on television. What was that like?
I didn't think about TV at all when I started at SI. It just didn't know it was on the radar of possibility. In July, though, I was asked to be on the Fox Business Network for about a five-minute segment for a "Money in Sports" package we ran that I contributed to. It was live TV--so there's always that fear of totally humiliating yourself in front of, I guess, America/the world--and I had never done TV before (even my little brother was on a public service channel commercial once). So I wound up "studying" in earnest for the first time since graduating from college and calling upon, as humiliating as this is in and of itself, four years of high school debate, which did sort of help.
Since then, our PR department and these news programs have apparently liked me enough to keep sending me out there on an at-times unsettlingly regular basis, especially for the Olympics. It helps that our offices are across the street, literally, from NBC and Fox's studios, and only blocks away from CNN. I like all of it, and the TV and radio producers I've worked with so far haven't yet been totally repelled by my tendency to make awful puns. (Thanks, NPR!)
POB: Who is the coolest celebrity you have met thus far?
For whatever reason, I don't think I really get starstruck. Though I did send in a Gawker Stalker tip about Josh Hartnett once after we watched "There Will Be Blood" in the same movie theater. But I digress.
Does Brian Scalabrine count as a celebrity? I interviewed him after a game during this year's Eastern Conference Finals as he ate pasta from the post-game spread and he was as gracious an athlete as they come. In my adventures on TV--and purely on the This-Is-a-Good-Story scale--I'd say it's a tie between Bill O'Reilly and Russell Simmons, who wound up in the green room with me at one point. Also, Anderson Cooper basically ignored me in an elevator at the CNN building, but I probably would have ignored myself.
Wait, scratch all of that. I randomly met Dikembe Mutombo walking through the cafeteria of our building when I was an intern. "Star-struck" (star-roundhouse-kicked?) does not do that experience justice.
POB: What tips do you have for young journalists trying to follow in your footsteps?
First, it's completely disingenuous for me to give advice to anyone. I am 22 years old and started working at SI 11 months ago, to the point where answering "I'm a journalist" while meeting people at bars only stopped being kind of hilarious a few weeks ago. Last month I was in the kitchen of our office, toasting a bagel, and a person on our copy desk graciously asked if I was still an intern. And for this TV stuff, it's the stuff that's written that really garners attention at our office.
But if I can say one thing, it's that I got into this by way of writing and luck. I'd sent clips from The Crimson to SI when I applied to be an intern in the summer of '06, and after it was done they invited me back, with a sobering warning that is sure to unsettle parents of dutiful Harvard sportswriters everywhere: "I don't care what your grades are, or where you went to school, just whether you can write." (To paraphrase Conan O'Brien's incredible Class Day address: While interviewing Carlos Zambrano, let's just say that my senior thesis on statistical and theoretical approaches to child homicide doesn't come up much.)
I just consume the genre I work in and--by the natural order of things--the folks I work for, which I've read for sheer literary value for years and years. It's just that the job now can also be increasingly multimedia-based, with right-place/right-time opportunities in stuff like TV and radio. Needless to say, upon arrival here I did not foresee fill-in host Laura Ingraham insinuating that I was un-American on The O'Reilly Factor.
POB: Finally, if you had to poop on someone or some team today, who would that be?
As we're still in Olympics mode, I was going to say the Chinese women's gymnastics team. But that's just a terrible idea in every conceivable way.
Be Like Mike
It happened so subtly, accompanied by so little fanfare, that you may not have even noticed it. In fact, it took a torn lateral meniscus in the left knee of Osi Umenyiora, suffered as he rushed the quarterback in a meaningless preseason contest, to bring the issue into the spotlight:
Michael Strahan has retired from the NFL.
Not that he necessarily wanted them, but Strahan would have had a hard time jockeying for headlines as he left his NFL career behind him following the 2007 season. Newspapers, blogs, and the first half hour of every episode of Sportscenter this past summer were dominated by another prominent "retirement:" that of Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre.
Just as Favre deserves all the criticism he receives for the way he played coy with the media, orchestrating his presence as a perpetual top story while pretending not to want media attention, Strahan is to be commended for the grace and sincerity with which he entered a life of retirement. While Favre dragged us all along with him as he proved incapable of making a decision with any conviction whatsoever, texting his BFF Rachel Nichols whenever he wanted to return to the headlines, Strahan made his decision and stuck with it, accepting that retiring from the NFL meant that his life was now a nonstory. And while Strahan is now "open to returning," just as Favre was, the two players' motivations could not be more opposite. While Favre torpedoed and eventually abandoned the team he claimed to love for all those years, Strahan appears to be considering a return only because it may save a team he truly does care for.
Even the circumstances under which the two players retired highlights the differences between their style of play. Strahan had the guts and the knowhow to go out on top, following a Super Bowl victory that his defense won almost singlehandedly. Favre, on the other hand, tried to leave on the heels of yet another ill-advised interception, a significant element of his playing style that the media always seemed to forget to mention.
Now, in what has been one of the most exciting offseasons in recent memory, the two players have reaped what they sowed. Favre found himself in a no-win situation: accept a buyout from the Packers and prove that his love of football could be bought from him, play turncoat against the franchise that turned him into an icon, or play spoiler to the career of Aaron Rodgers and the future of the Packers. Strahan, on the other hand, cannot lose: either he stays retired and proves that, unlike some, he meant it when he said he was done, or he comes back and stands as the guy the Giants could always count on when they needed him. Favre, who always masqueraded as a classy guy, has revealed his selfishness to the world, while Strahan, who truly is one, has nowhere to go but up.
Oh, and by the way: the QB that Umenyiora was chasing when his ligaments gave out on him? None other than New York Jets quarterback Brett Favre.
Michael Strahan has retired from the NFL.
Not that he necessarily wanted them, but Strahan would have had a hard time jockeying for headlines as he left his NFL career behind him following the 2007 season. Newspapers, blogs, and the first half hour of every episode of Sportscenter this past summer were dominated by another prominent "retirement:" that of Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre.
Just as Favre deserves all the criticism he receives for the way he played coy with the media, orchestrating his presence as a perpetual top story while pretending not to want media attention, Strahan is to be commended for the grace and sincerity with which he entered a life of retirement. While Favre dragged us all along with him as he proved incapable of making a decision with any conviction whatsoever, texting his BFF Rachel Nichols whenever he wanted to return to the headlines, Strahan made his decision and stuck with it, accepting that retiring from the NFL meant that his life was now a nonstory. And while Strahan is now "open to returning," just as Favre was, the two players' motivations could not be more opposite. While Favre torpedoed and eventually abandoned the team he claimed to love for all those years, Strahan appears to be considering a return only because it may save a team he truly does care for.
Even the circumstances under which the two players retired highlights the differences between their style of play. Strahan had the guts and the knowhow to go out on top, following a Super Bowl victory that his defense won almost singlehandedly. Favre, on the other hand, tried to leave on the heels of yet another ill-advised interception, a significant element of his playing style that the media always seemed to forget to mention.
Now, in what has been one of the most exciting offseasons in recent memory, the two players have reaped what they sowed. Favre found himself in a no-win situation: accept a buyout from the Packers and prove that his love of football could be bought from him, play turncoat against the franchise that turned him into an icon, or play spoiler to the career of Aaron Rodgers and the future of the Packers. Strahan, on the other hand, cannot lose: either he stays retired and proves that, unlike some, he meant it when he said he was done, or he comes back and stands as the guy the Giants could always count on when they needed him. Favre, who always masqueraded as a classy guy, has revealed his selfishness to the world, while Strahan, who truly is one, has nowhere to go but up.
Oh, and by the way: the QB that Umenyiora was chasing when his ligaments gave out on him? None other than New York Jets quarterback Brett Favre.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Re: Damn You, March Madness (Baseball Picks)
great minds think alike, right? well, one thing's for sure - d.r.w. posted baseball divisional picks the same day i was planning on doing it. however, at least one of us will prove to be less than great, as i may have to poop on some of his predictions.
as my great friend kel used to say, "AWWW, HERE GOES!"
AL WEST: i hate the rally monkey with all my guts (see series, world, 2002). but not only do the angels have a 15-game lead - they are actually a really good team. they have their bad moments, as was manifested in their 9-0 loss to the twins last night, but this team has the kind of pitching that can carry a squad to a championship even if the sluggers all stumble. angels.
AL CENTRAL: this is probably the toughest pick of the bunch. while my preseason pick detroit has been more than disappointing, the twins and chisox have turned this into a race to watch. minnesota has excellent pitching - all kinds of magnificent WHIPs and WPCTs, 4th in the AL in quality starts, and a great closer in joe nathan (although they really miss setup man pat neshek). and while they don't slug like the white sox (.458), this team can score runs, too (3rd in AL in batting average, 5th in runs scored). moreover, jim thome and joe crede's health is quite questionable, which means that the white sox may struggle down the stretch. ultimately, though, it may come down to the schedule: from monday through sept. 17th, the twins play seattle, oakland, toronto, detroit, KC, baltimore, and cleveland, with the blue jays being the only team with a winning record. meanwhile, the white sox get boston, the angels, and the bronx bombers over the same stretch. yikes. late-september series against the royals and the indians may come too late. twins (poop on d.r.w.).
AL EAST: when it comes to september, one thing becomes very important: can you beat playoff-bound teams? the rays answered this question with a resounding yes in taking 2 of 3 from the angels this past week - a squad that has recently made the red sox and the yankees look like triple-A teams. and speaking of the minors, ESPN.com's buster olney points to lefthander david price as a september call-up that could make a big difference for the rays, a la k-rod in that dreaded year of 2002. meanwhile, buchholz is back in the minors, beckett's arm is numb, and 8-11 paul byrd is now sitting right in the middle of the boston rotation. umm... rays.
AL WILD CARD: other than beckett, matsuzaka, papelbon, and (usually) okajima, the red sox pitching is a shambles. especially if this injury to beckett proves to have lingering effects, boston is going to have to slug its way into the postseason. on the other hand, the chisox are 3rd in the AL in WHIP and 4th in ERA to go along with 3rd in OPS. the DL will be an issue for both teams to monitor down the stretch (j.d. drew isn't looking so good), but here's guessing that the red sox will be reminiscing about the days of manny when they have to play tampa bay and new york in 3 of their last 6 series. can we really have a postseason without both the yankees and the red sox? white sox (poop on d.r.w., and on any bloody sox references).
NL WEST: while it is tempting to dream of cy young candidate tim lincecum leading the giants to a 35-game win streak and the division title, the reality is that cy young rival brandon webb is much more likely to make it to october. after a torrid start to the season, arizona stumbled, but the diamondbacks have righted the ship with the dodgers "breathing" down their necks. the dodger bullpen, especially when saito is healthy, is one of the best in the league, but as greg maddux's lousy outing last night showed, long gone are the days of dodgers pitchers piling up quality starts (8th in the NL). compare: a potential four-man rotation of webb, dan haren, randy johnson, and doug davis? while things seem crystal clear for the diamondbacks, things couldn't be more confusing for joe torre, who somehow has to juggle pierre, kemp, ethier, garciaparra, kent, ramirez, loney, and blake. did anyone ever tell ned colletti that there can be too much of an average thing? diamondbacks (poop on d.r.w.).
NL CENTRAL: a run differential of +170, starting pitchers named dempster, harden, and zambrano, and kerry wood closing the door? sounds too good to be true, right? well, you have to remember that this is chicago we're talking about, billy goat, steve bartman, and all. they finish the season with milwaukee and st. louis at home followed by seven road games at the mets and the brewers. meanwhile, milwaukee gets cincinnati and the pirates during that stretch. and oh, they also get san diego and the reds at home in early september. there are definitely two teams coming out of this division, but this may finally be the year of the sausage. brewers (poop on d.r.w.).
NL EAST: people may whine about the NL worst, but it's really this division that makes me yawn. gone are the days of john smoltz and greg maddux staring down well-rounded mets teams. now it's just one expensive team (new york) against another (philadelphia), with a cheap team (florida) in there for kicks. when it comes down to it, the phillies are just too streaky and inconsistent to take this division (see last week's four-game sweep against the dodgers), and they're playing clubs in contention for most of september (except for a six-game homestand against the braves and the nationals to end the season). meanwhile, the mets have won 11 of their last 12 (albeit against crappy teams) and can rely on pitchers like pedro martinez, oliver perez, john maine, and stud johan santana. you worry a little bit without billy wagner there at the end, but the mets have an offense (3rd in NL in runs scored) that can take some heat off the bullpen. it may not be a galloping finish, but new york should have still have a representative in this postseason. mets.
NL WILD CARD: i'm probably crazy for giving the division to the brewers, so there's no way that the league leaders in runs scored, OBP, SLG, and BAA don't make the playoffs. the cubs look as good as ever, and they are as likely as any team to add to the list of recent wild card teams to make the world series. cubs (poop on d.r.w. - sort of).
as my great friend kel used to say, "AWWW, HERE GOES!"
AL WEST: i hate the rally monkey with all my guts (see series, world, 2002). but not only do the angels have a 15-game lead - they are actually a really good team. they have their bad moments, as was manifested in their 9-0 loss to the twins last night, but this team has the kind of pitching that can carry a squad to a championship even if the sluggers all stumble. angels.
AL CENTRAL: this is probably the toughest pick of the bunch. while my preseason pick detroit has been more than disappointing, the twins and chisox have turned this into a race to watch. minnesota has excellent pitching - all kinds of magnificent WHIPs and WPCTs, 4th in the AL in quality starts, and a great closer in joe nathan (although they really miss setup man pat neshek). and while they don't slug like the white sox (.458), this team can score runs, too (3rd in AL in batting average, 5th in runs scored). moreover, jim thome and joe crede's health is quite questionable, which means that the white sox may struggle down the stretch. ultimately, though, it may come down to the schedule: from monday through sept. 17th, the twins play seattle, oakland, toronto, detroit, KC, baltimore, and cleveland, with the blue jays being the only team with a winning record. meanwhile, the white sox get boston, the angels, and the bronx bombers over the same stretch. yikes. late-september series against the royals and the indians may come too late. twins (poop on d.r.w.).
AL EAST: when it comes to september, one thing becomes very important: can you beat playoff-bound teams? the rays answered this question with a resounding yes in taking 2 of 3 from the angels this past week - a squad that has recently made the red sox and the yankees look like triple-A teams. and speaking of the minors, ESPN.com's buster olney points to lefthander david price as a september call-up that could make a big difference for the rays, a la k-rod in that dreaded year of 2002. meanwhile, buchholz is back in the minors, beckett's arm is numb, and 8-11 paul byrd is now sitting right in the middle of the boston rotation. umm... rays.
AL WILD CARD: other than beckett, matsuzaka, papelbon, and (usually) okajima, the red sox pitching is a shambles. especially if this injury to beckett proves to have lingering effects, boston is going to have to slug its way into the postseason. on the other hand, the chisox are 3rd in the AL in WHIP and 4th in ERA to go along with 3rd in OPS. the DL will be an issue for both teams to monitor down the stretch (j.d. drew isn't looking so good), but here's guessing that the red sox will be reminiscing about the days of manny when they have to play tampa bay and new york in 3 of their last 6 series. can we really have a postseason without both the yankees and the red sox? white sox (poop on d.r.w., and on any bloody sox references).
NL WEST: while it is tempting to dream of cy young candidate tim lincecum leading the giants to a 35-game win streak and the division title, the reality is that cy young rival brandon webb is much more likely to make it to october. after a torrid start to the season, arizona stumbled, but the diamondbacks have righted the ship with the dodgers "breathing" down their necks. the dodger bullpen, especially when saito is healthy, is one of the best in the league, but as greg maddux's lousy outing last night showed, long gone are the days of dodgers pitchers piling up quality starts (8th in the NL). compare: a potential four-man rotation of webb, dan haren, randy johnson, and doug davis? while things seem crystal clear for the diamondbacks, things couldn't be more confusing for joe torre, who somehow has to juggle pierre, kemp, ethier, garciaparra, kent, ramirez, loney, and blake. did anyone ever tell ned colletti that there can be too much of an average thing? diamondbacks (poop on d.r.w.).
NL CENTRAL: a run differential of +170, starting pitchers named dempster, harden, and zambrano, and kerry wood closing the door? sounds too good to be true, right? well, you have to remember that this is chicago we're talking about, billy goat, steve bartman, and all. they finish the season with milwaukee and st. louis at home followed by seven road games at the mets and the brewers. meanwhile, milwaukee gets cincinnati and the pirates during that stretch. and oh, they also get san diego and the reds at home in early september. there are definitely two teams coming out of this division, but this may finally be the year of the sausage. brewers (poop on d.r.w.).
NL EAST: people may whine about the NL worst, but it's really this division that makes me yawn. gone are the days of john smoltz and greg maddux staring down well-rounded mets teams. now it's just one expensive team (new york) against another (philadelphia), with a cheap team (florida) in there for kicks. when it comes down to it, the phillies are just too streaky and inconsistent to take this division (see last week's four-game sweep against the dodgers), and they're playing clubs in contention for most of september (except for a six-game homestand against the braves and the nationals to end the season). meanwhile, the mets have won 11 of their last 12 (albeit against crappy teams) and can rely on pitchers like pedro martinez, oliver perez, john maine, and stud johan santana. you worry a little bit without billy wagner there at the end, but the mets have an offense (3rd in NL in runs scored) that can take some heat off the bullpen. it may not be a galloping finish, but new york should have still have a representative in this postseason. mets.
NL WILD CARD: i'm probably crazy for giving the division to the brewers, so there's no way that the league leaders in runs scored, OBP, SLG, and BAA don't make the playoffs. the cubs look as good as ever, and they are as likely as any team to add to the list of recent wild card teams to make the world series. cubs (poop on d.r.w. - sort of).
Damn You, March Madness (Baseball Picks)
It's the dog days of August, and there's a certain smell in the air. It's not pollen, or the faint scent of Beijing smog wafting its way across the Pacific. No, my friends, it is the smell of uncertainty. It has been, according to many, an unusually exciting baseball season, and while some playoff spots are relatively secure (we'll be seeing you in October, K-Rod), there are quite a number of exciting races out there, with outcomes still very much up in the air.
So, who will make it, and who will not? Many are asking the questions, but we here at Poop on Boozer are the only ones with the answers:
AL EAST: Sorry, Yankees. Baseball Prospectus has your playoff odds hovering at around 2%, which means it's a sprint to the finish between the Red Sox and Rays. The smart money is on the Rays, who are almost definitely making the playoffs and most likely as the AL East champ. One factor worth noting, however, is the fact that the Red Sox have a much better run differential than the Rays, and have far outperformed the Rays in terms of total offense produced and total offense allowed. The advantage only grows when you factor in the pitching and lineups the two teams have faced thus far. It's up for debate--are the Rays just a little luckier and overdue for a regression, or are they simply better than the Red Sox at scoring just as much as they need to win? The former seems more likely, but I'm betting they'd be able to survive such a regression even if it did occur. Pick: Rays
AL CENTRAL: The Twins, like the Rays, are overperformers; they have more wins than you would expect them to have based on the numbers they've put up. They may be good, or just lucky, but one fact is indisputable: they now have Francisco Liriano, who should be much more helpful than Junior Griffey will be for the White Sox. Still, I see the Southsiders slugging their way to the division title, as even the return of Liriano doesn't change the fact that the Twins are due for a few losses. Pick: White Sox
AL WEST: Umm, Angels. Pick: Angels
AL WILD CARD: Since I consider the Twins to be one of the least convincing playoff contenders in either league, the tie will eventually go to the Red Sox. Which means: get ready for yet another Red Sox-Angels ALDS. Pick: Red Sox
NL EAST: The Marlins, who were a great story, seem to be fading, but the Phillies remain relatively close to the first-place Mets. Sometimes, however, things are blissfully simple: the Mets have Johan Santana down the stretch, and the Phillies don't. It's hard to envision a 2007-style collapse with Santana able to serve as a potential stopper if need be. Pick: Mets
NL CENTRAL: Chicago vs. Milwaukee. Deep-dish pizza vs. beer. C.C. Sabathia vs. Rich Harden. To me, these are two very evenly-matched teams, which means the way things are now (Cubs 4.5 games up) is just about the way they're going to stay. But don't despair, Brewers fans--there's good news coming for you in two paragraphs. Pick: Cubs
NL WEST: Ahh, the NL West. If the Rays are the Robert Downey Jr. of teams, (see my earlier comment on K.L.'s post) the NL West is the Godfather III of divisions--much crappier than its counterparts, and we'd all kind of prefer to pretend it didn't exist. But hey, SOMEONE has to win this thing. The Dodgers are currently two games behind the Diamondbacks, but Manny Ramirez is playing well enough to carry a team into the postseason singlehandedly. Pick: Dodgers
NL WILD CARD: The Cardinals and Phillies are hanging with the Brewers, but Milwaukee just has too good a team. The Cardinals should drop out of it first, but eventually the Phillies will fold and the Brew Crew will stand alone. Pick: Brewers
So there you have it: eight playoff spots out there and I picked exactly two (minor) upsets. But hey, this is the year I was tempted to put all No. 1 seeds in my bracket's Final Four, only to change my mind at the last minute. And I am NOT making that mistake again.
So, who will make it, and who will not? Many are asking the questions, but we here at Poop on Boozer are the only ones with the answers:
AL EAST: Sorry, Yankees. Baseball Prospectus has your playoff odds hovering at around 2%, which means it's a sprint to the finish between the Red Sox and Rays. The smart money is on the Rays, who are almost definitely making the playoffs and most likely as the AL East champ. One factor worth noting, however, is the fact that the Red Sox have a much better run differential than the Rays, and have far outperformed the Rays in terms of total offense produced and total offense allowed. The advantage only grows when you factor in the pitching and lineups the two teams have faced thus far. It's up for debate--are the Rays just a little luckier and overdue for a regression, or are they simply better than the Red Sox at scoring just as much as they need to win? The former seems more likely, but I'm betting they'd be able to survive such a regression even if it did occur. Pick: Rays
AL CENTRAL: The Twins, like the Rays, are overperformers; they have more wins than you would expect them to have based on the numbers they've put up. They may be good, or just lucky, but one fact is indisputable: they now have Francisco Liriano, who should be much more helpful than Junior Griffey will be for the White Sox. Still, I see the Southsiders slugging their way to the division title, as even the return of Liriano doesn't change the fact that the Twins are due for a few losses. Pick: White Sox
AL WEST: Umm, Angels. Pick: Angels
AL WILD CARD: Since I consider the Twins to be one of the least convincing playoff contenders in either league, the tie will eventually go to the Red Sox. Which means: get ready for yet another Red Sox-Angels ALDS. Pick: Red Sox
NL EAST: The Marlins, who were a great story, seem to be fading, but the Phillies remain relatively close to the first-place Mets. Sometimes, however, things are blissfully simple: the Mets have Johan Santana down the stretch, and the Phillies don't. It's hard to envision a 2007-style collapse with Santana able to serve as a potential stopper if need be. Pick: Mets
NL CENTRAL: Chicago vs. Milwaukee. Deep-dish pizza vs. beer. C.C. Sabathia vs. Rich Harden. To me, these are two very evenly-matched teams, which means the way things are now (Cubs 4.5 games up) is just about the way they're going to stay. But don't despair, Brewers fans--there's good news coming for you in two paragraphs. Pick: Cubs
NL WEST: Ahh, the NL West. If the Rays are the Robert Downey Jr. of teams, (see my earlier comment on K.L.'s post) the NL West is the Godfather III of divisions--much crappier than its counterparts, and we'd all kind of prefer to pretend it didn't exist. But hey, SOMEONE has to win this thing. The Dodgers are currently two games behind the Diamondbacks, but Manny Ramirez is playing well enough to carry a team into the postseason singlehandedly. Pick: Dodgers
NL WILD CARD: The Cardinals and Phillies are hanging with the Brewers, but Milwaukee just has too good a team. The Cardinals should drop out of it first, but eventually the Phillies will fold and the Brew Crew will stand alone. Pick: Brewers
So there you have it: eight playoff spots out there and I picked exactly two (minor) upsets. But hey, this is the year I was tempted to put all No. 1 seeds in my bracket's Final Four, only to change my mind at the last minute. And I am NOT making that mistake again.
Friday, August 22, 2008
coach k poops on boozer
so, i generally don't like anything about coach k because he's a dookie and i love the terps. but on friday night in beijing, he did something awesome.
he pooped on boozer.
as chris sheridan points out, coach k chose to go with carmelo anthony and tayshaun prince at center instead of boozer when dwight howard and chris bosh got into foul trouble. who knows why coach k did it; for now, though, it's just a day to celebrate a successful pooping on boozer.
he pooped on boozer.
as chris sheridan points out, coach k chose to go with carmelo anthony and tayshaun prince at center instead of boozer when dwight howard and chris bosh got into foul trouble. who knows why coach k did it; for now, though, it's just a day to celebrate a successful pooping on boozer.
uhhh.... good luck, bears
word from the cal camp: kevin riley will start at quarterback, beating out fifth-year senior nate longshore for the job.
now, i'm sure jeff tedford knows what he's doing. but are berkeley fans really ready to embrace a signal-caller who was responsible for cal's Biggest Shenanigan of 2007?
oh yeah. only one man stood between cal and a no. 1 national ranking, and that man was kevin riley.
don't remember? see for yourself:
now, i'm sure jeff tedford knows what he's doing. but are berkeley fans really ready to embrace a signal-caller who was responsible for cal's Biggest Shenanigan of 2007?
oh yeah. only one man stood between cal and a no. 1 national ranking, and that man was kevin riley.
don't remember? see for yourself:
Thursday, August 21, 2008
pooping on your own team, temporarily
it's august 21st. jorge posada has been shut down, joba chamberlain isn't looking too hot, and sidney ponson and carl pavano might make up 2/5ths of your rotation.
yes, you are a yankees fan.
but today, as the bronx bombers spiral slowly towards .500, don't you think it might be time for a change? isn't it time you stopped wasting your time on rooting for the yankees - and started focusing all your energy on rooting against the red sox?
i know, i know - you already root against the red sox with every bone in your body. but there's another way to go over the top. it's time to root for the tampa bay rays.
we all do it to a certain extent. lakers fans root for the kings when they're playing 1st-place phoenix. red wings faithful root for the blackhawks when they're up against nashville. you don't like either team - but you certainly hate one team more.
now, the yankees are certainly a team that you can never count out of the race. but a 10-game lead in mid-august doesn't look too promising. hell, even the tigers are "just" 11.5 games out.
so is there any shame in rooting for the rays? we're talking about a team that set a club record by winning 71 games this season. yankees fans shouldn't hate the rays as much as pity them. and since the chance of seeing pinstripes in the postseason is severely declining, why not cheer on the team that is making the red sox look silly - not to mention the only team that seems to be able to beat the we-almost-always-sweep-the-yankees-now angels?
i dropped my inter-divisional hatred to root for the rockies last season. it's time yankees fans woke up and smelled the tropicana, too.
yes, you are a yankees fan.
but today, as the bronx bombers spiral slowly towards .500, don't you think it might be time for a change? isn't it time you stopped wasting your time on rooting for the yankees - and started focusing all your energy on rooting against the red sox?
i know, i know - you already root against the red sox with every bone in your body. but there's another way to go over the top. it's time to root for the tampa bay rays.
we all do it to a certain extent. lakers fans root for the kings when they're playing 1st-place phoenix. red wings faithful root for the blackhawks when they're up against nashville. you don't like either team - but you certainly hate one team more.
now, the yankees are certainly a team that you can never count out of the race. but a 10-game lead in mid-august doesn't look too promising. hell, even the tigers are "just" 11.5 games out.
so is there any shame in rooting for the rays? we're talking about a team that set a club record by winning 71 games this season. yankees fans shouldn't hate the rays as much as pity them. and since the chance of seeing pinstripes in the postseason is severely declining, why not cheer on the team that is making the red sox look silly - not to mention the only team that seems to be able to beat the we-almost-always-sweep-the-yankees-now angels?
i dropped my inter-divisional hatred to root for the rockies last season. it's time yankees fans woke up and smelled the tropicana, too.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Going for Gold...No surprise
So, the United States Men's Basketball Team is 2 wins from the gold medal after winning their 6th straight in Beijing over the Aussies, 116-85.
Surprise? I don't think so.
The closest any game has been was a 21-point win over Angola, which ought to be described as simply a let down against an overmatched opponent.
The two teams that were supposed to give the U.S. the most trouble, Greece and Spain, succumbed by 23 and 37, respectively.
Sounds about right.
Any team composed of the best players in the NBA (sans Dirk, Yao, Nash, etc.) should beat any group that comes at it. I'd even guess that this team would beat the "International All-Stars," if it existed, a team composed of every other country's best. And would that really be all that surprising? I don't think so.
It's a good story, because 4 years ago, the U.S. team choked badly after getting too complacent in the wake of Dream Teams I-III. Now, the Redeem Team put its best foot forward again, and the U.S. Basketball Team is back on top of the world.
I'm not surprised.
Surprise? I don't think so.
The closest any game has been was a 21-point win over Angola, which ought to be described as simply a let down against an overmatched opponent.
The two teams that were supposed to give the U.S. the most trouble, Greece and Spain, succumbed by 23 and 37, respectively.
Sounds about right.
Any team composed of the best players in the NBA (sans Dirk, Yao, Nash, etc.) should beat any group that comes at it. I'd even guess that this team would beat the "International All-Stars," if it existed, a team composed of every other country's best. And would that really be all that surprising? I don't think so.
It's a good story, because 4 years ago, the U.S. team choked badly after getting too complacent in the wake of Dream Teams I-III. Now, the Redeem Team put its best foot forward again, and the U.S. Basketball Team is back on top of the world.
I'm not surprised.
Monday, August 18, 2008
cross-continental craziness
first, josh childress bolted for olympiacos. then, commentators began buzzing about lebron heading overseas to the tune of $50 millones per year.
now, premiata montegranaro has announced that shawn kemp will be joining the team in november. 38-year-old shawn kemp, that is.
okay, so dikembe mutombo is 42 and still ballin' in the nba. and i understand that the olympics are showcasing how strong talent is around the world. but still, this is getting a little ridiculous. shawn kemp hasn't played professionally since 2003. what's next: charles barkley getting paid to sit his ass in the key for some german club?
actually, it seems that the TNT analyst is going to get paid to suck at golf - on television. can even hank haney help this man?
now, premiata montegranaro has announced that shawn kemp will be joining the team in november. 38-year-old shawn kemp, that is.
okay, so dikembe mutombo is 42 and still ballin' in the nba. and i understand that the olympics are showcasing how strong talent is around the world. but still, this is getting a little ridiculous. shawn kemp hasn't played professionally since 2003. what's next: charles barkley getting paid to sit his ass in the key for some german club?
actually, it seems that the TNT analyst is going to get paid to suck at golf - on television. can even hank haney help this man?
Saturday, August 16, 2008
INTERVIEW: olympic silver medalist emily cross
she's been a cadet world champion, a junior world champion (twice), and an ncaa champion (both individually and as a member of the 2005-06 harvard squad). and now, foilist emily cross is an olympic silver medalist. poop on boozer caught up with the blinged-out fencer as she celebrated a successful saturday in beijing.
POB: You've won at all levels, from Cadet to Junior to NCAA. What does it mean to win silver at the Olympics?
I think I can honestly say that there is no feeling like winning silver at the Olympics (except probably for winning gold), and being able to do it with my team was an incredible feeling.
POB: USA was seeded seventh but shocked the field and become the first American women's foil team to medal. What was the secret to your success?
I think the reason we were able to upset Poland and then Hungary was mostly how close we are as a team. A lot of what goes into a team event is trusting your teammates. Hanna, Erinn, and Doris are some of my closest friends, and I think that because we know and like each other so well we can work together very effectively.
POB: You personally had a great run against Hungary in the semifinal. Could you walk us through your rotations?
Against Hungary, we got a small lead in the first rotation, and were able to turn that into a big lead in the second two rotations because the Hungarians were forced to attack us, which gave us a tactical advantage. I personally had a good bout with Edina Knapek in the last rotation; we usually have pretty intense matches but this time I was able to have the right distance and timing and managed to score a bunch of touches on her, leaving a 14 touch lead for Erinn going into the final bout with Aida Mohamed.
POB: And what was it like watching the Hungarians come back?
It was incredibly nerve wracking watching Erinn's last bout. They instituted a rule where we couldn't tell advice as we usually do in team events, so we all felt so helpless. We ended up telling Erinn's brother Keeth things to shout from the stands since spectators can't get in trouble. Through it all, I had confidence that Erinn would pull it out in the end. Aida is a great closer in team, but there is a limit to how many unanswered touches someone can score. In addition Erinn has a lot of experience fencing Hungarians so I knew she would eventually find the right timing and score a few touches to end the bout.
POB: When you fenced Russia in the final, was there any impact stemming from the current political tensions?
I think fencing is pretty removed from political issues; it's such a small sport that you don't really think of a team as just a country because you know all the individuals on the team very well. Mostly what influenced that bout was the Russians being tall and strong and experienced - they have won countless world cups and world championships as a team, whereas this was our first ever team medal.
POB: Who is the coolest celebrity you have met in Beijing?
I met James Blake at opening ceremonies, which I think was pretty cool, especially since he was a fellow Harvard attendee.
POB: After this experience, is it going to be surreal to go back to Harvard?
I can't imagine what it'll be like going back to Harvard after this. For sure it'll be hard to get back into the swing of things - I'm just hoping I'll still be able to write a halfway decent paper.
POB: You've won at all levels, from Cadet to Junior to NCAA. What does it mean to win silver at the Olympics?
I think I can honestly say that there is no feeling like winning silver at the Olympics (except probably for winning gold), and being able to do it with my team was an incredible feeling.
POB: USA was seeded seventh but shocked the field and become the first American women's foil team to medal. What was the secret to your success?
I think the reason we were able to upset Poland and then Hungary was mostly how close we are as a team. A lot of what goes into a team event is trusting your teammates. Hanna, Erinn, and Doris are some of my closest friends, and I think that because we know and like each other so well we can work together very effectively.
POB: You personally had a great run against Hungary in the semifinal. Could you walk us through your rotations?
Against Hungary, we got a small lead in the first rotation, and were able to turn that into a big lead in the second two rotations because the Hungarians were forced to attack us, which gave us a tactical advantage. I personally had a good bout with Edina Knapek in the last rotation; we usually have pretty intense matches but this time I was able to have the right distance and timing and managed to score a bunch of touches on her, leaving a 14 touch lead for Erinn going into the final bout with Aida Mohamed.
POB: And what was it like watching the Hungarians come back?
It was incredibly nerve wracking watching Erinn's last bout. They instituted a rule where we couldn't tell advice as we usually do in team events, so we all felt so helpless. We ended up telling Erinn's brother Keeth things to shout from the stands since spectators can't get in trouble. Through it all, I had confidence that Erinn would pull it out in the end. Aida is a great closer in team, but there is a limit to how many unanswered touches someone can score. In addition Erinn has a lot of experience fencing Hungarians so I knew she would eventually find the right timing and score a few touches to end the bout.
POB: When you fenced Russia in the final, was there any impact stemming from the current political tensions?
I think fencing is pretty removed from political issues; it's such a small sport that you don't really think of a team as just a country because you know all the individuals on the team very well. Mostly what influenced that bout was the Russians being tall and strong and experienced - they have won countless world cups and world championships as a team, whereas this was our first ever team medal.
POB: Who is the coolest celebrity you have met in Beijing?
I met James Blake at opening ceremonies, which I think was pretty cool, especially since he was a fellow Harvard attendee.
POB: After this experience, is it going to be surreal to go back to Harvard?
I can't imagine what it'll be like going back to Harvard after this. For sure it'll be hard to get back into the swing of things - I'm just hoping I'll still be able to write a halfway decent paper.
Re: Re: The Greatest Athlete of All Time
I find it necessary to similarly weigh in on this topic, in the wake of Phelps winning his 7th gold medal in 7 tries.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with both of you. Phelps? Greatest swimmer of all time, that's certainly possible. Greatest athlete? Hold the phone. We don't even know what the term means.
D.R.W. contends that in order to be considered the greatest athlete of all time, you must be competing against something other than simply the game itself. That is, you need to beat "someone" as opposed to "something" to hold that title. I consider that a valid argument, but I again respectfully disagree.
Phelps and Tiger Woods would both be eliminated from discussion here simply because their games don't involve direct competition, when clearly, these names deserve to be included in the debate simply because, as K.L. said of Phelps "everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time." This can, of course, also be applied to Woods with respect to winning golf tournaments. Very rarely does he fail to deliver. Their presence makes the rest of the field nervous--and perform differently.
However, does that make these athletes the "greatest of all time"? Maybe, but it's not that simple.
As D.R.W. argued, Michael Jordan must stare down the defense before he drives the lane, Barry Bonds must hit that 90 mph fastball, and Wayne Gretzky must get the puck past the aggressive goalie, but then again, their successes also tend to rely on not only their teammates' performance but also the ability of their defenders. When the defense plays miserably, does that mean the Jordans and Gretzkys of the world are truly the best?
While this may not hold true for the baseball players in the group (Ruth and Bonds, for example) baseball's comparatively low standards put it in a different tier, in my opinion (that is, more than 65% of the time, Bonds made an out, yet he's regarded as perhaps the greatest hitter ever).
So, what does it all mean?
All I'm saying is that it's a difficult, slippery slope of an argument to get into. The fact that these people all compete in different events, with different factors contributing to their success and failure makes this debate nearly impossible to have.
Phelps and Woods are in a category of their own: most intimidating, perhaps most successful individual athletes of all time.
Jordan, Gretzky, Bonds, Ruth, Brady, etc. join them in the category in contention for the title of "greatest athlete of all time" due to their successes and outstanding abilities.
But, do we have an answer? Of course not. As D.R.W. said, "greatest athlete of all time" can mean many things. Each of these athletes are indeed incredibly successful and all ought to be regarded for the things they've done. One can't quite stand above the other, because the comparisons across sports are impossible.
Not quite the satisfying answer everyone was hoping for, but it had to be said.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with both of you. Phelps? Greatest swimmer of all time, that's certainly possible. Greatest athlete? Hold the phone. We don't even know what the term means.
D.R.W. contends that in order to be considered the greatest athlete of all time, you must be competing against something other than simply the game itself. That is, you need to beat "someone" as opposed to "something" to hold that title. I consider that a valid argument, but I again respectfully disagree.
Phelps and Tiger Woods would both be eliminated from discussion here simply because their games don't involve direct competition, when clearly, these names deserve to be included in the debate simply because, as K.L. said of Phelps "everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time." This can, of course, also be applied to Woods with respect to winning golf tournaments. Very rarely does he fail to deliver. Their presence makes the rest of the field nervous--and perform differently.
However, does that make these athletes the "greatest of all time"? Maybe, but it's not that simple.
As D.R.W. argued, Michael Jordan must stare down the defense before he drives the lane, Barry Bonds must hit that 90 mph fastball, and Wayne Gretzky must get the puck past the aggressive goalie, but then again, their successes also tend to rely on not only their teammates' performance but also the ability of their defenders. When the defense plays miserably, does that mean the Jordans and Gretzkys of the world are truly the best?
While this may not hold true for the baseball players in the group (Ruth and Bonds, for example) baseball's comparatively low standards put it in a different tier, in my opinion (that is, more than 65% of the time, Bonds made an out, yet he's regarded as perhaps the greatest hitter ever).
So, what does it all mean?
All I'm saying is that it's a difficult, slippery slope of an argument to get into. The fact that these people all compete in different events, with different factors contributing to their success and failure makes this debate nearly impossible to have.
Phelps and Woods are in a category of their own: most intimidating, perhaps most successful individual athletes of all time.
Jordan, Gretzky, Bonds, Ruth, Brady, etc. join them in the category in contention for the title of "greatest athlete of all time" due to their successes and outstanding abilities.
But, do we have an answer? Of course not. As D.R.W. said, "greatest athlete of all time" can mean many things. Each of these athletes are indeed incredibly successful and all ought to be regarded for the things they've done. One can't quite stand above the other, because the comparisons across sports are impossible.
Not quite the satisfying answer everyone was hoping for, but it had to be said.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Re: The Greatest Athlete of All Time
In an earlier post, esteemed sportsblogger K.L. raised the possibility that Michael Phelps may be the greatest athlete of all time. This is an extremely legitimate position, and there's no way that I could ever poke too many holes in its logic. The best that I can do is humbly disagree.
No one would even think of denying that Michael Phelps is great. Few would argue he is anything less than the greatest swimmer ever, and once these Olympics are over, it may be pretty mucha foregone conclusion that, based on total medal count, that he is, in fact, the greatest Olympian in the history of time.
No, the problem is not with Michael Phelps, but with his sport, which focuses on indirect rather than direct competition with his peers. When Michael Phelps stands on the platform and stares at the other end of the pool as he prepares to shatter another world record, his greatest foes at that moment are 1) time, and 2) the swimming pool he's about to dive into. He does, of course, face off against other swimmers, but it seems more accurate to say that the athletes are all competing against time, rather than competing against each other. After all, you could just as easily race them individually and compare the times to determine the world's best swimmer.
Put simply, no one tries to stop Michael Phelps from doing what he does, they just try to keep up. My opinion is that to be the best athlete in the world, you have to compete more directly with other athletes, and overcome their best effort to slow you down. When Michael Phelps stands on that platform and stares down that pool, he sees a pristine, wide-open swimming lane. But when Michael Jordan stands at the top of the key and prepares to drive, he sees a lane clogged with elite defenders, just as Barry Bonds sees Randy Johnson staring him down, or Peyton Manning sees Shawne Merriman gunning for him. We are, of course, free to define the greatest athlete ever however we wish. For me, however, all-time greatness comes from staring the best of your era directly in the eyes and then making it look as though you don't even belong in the same league. And unless he sneaks a glance into the next lane over during one of his record-breaking races, that's something Michael Phelps can never do.
No one would even think of denying that Michael Phelps is great. Few would argue he is anything less than the greatest swimmer ever, and once these Olympics are over, it may be pretty mucha foregone conclusion that, based on total medal count, that he is, in fact, the greatest Olympian in the history of time.
No, the problem is not with Michael Phelps, but with his sport, which focuses on indirect rather than direct competition with his peers. When Michael Phelps stands on the platform and stares at the other end of the pool as he prepares to shatter another world record, his greatest foes at that moment are 1) time, and 2) the swimming pool he's about to dive into. He does, of course, face off against other swimmers, but it seems more accurate to say that the athletes are all competing against time, rather than competing against each other. After all, you could just as easily race them individually and compare the times to determine the world's best swimmer.
Put simply, no one tries to stop Michael Phelps from doing what he does, they just try to keep up. My opinion is that to be the best athlete in the world, you have to compete more directly with other athletes, and overcome their best effort to slow you down. When Michael Phelps stands on that platform and stares down that pool, he sees a pristine, wide-open swimming lane. But when Michael Jordan stands at the top of the key and prepares to drive, he sees a lane clogged with elite defenders, just as Barry Bonds sees Randy Johnson staring him down, or Peyton Manning sees Shawne Merriman gunning for him. We are, of course, free to define the greatest athlete ever however we wish. For me, however, all-time greatness comes from staring the best of your era directly in the eyes and then making it look as though you don't even belong in the same league. And unless he sneaks a glance into the next lane over during one of his record-breaking races, that's something Michael Phelps can never do.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
consolation for sabean?
pitcher francisco liriano has had a turbulent two years to say the least. after missing the 2007 season because of tommy john surgery, he spent much more time than expected in the minors in 2008, a result of poorer than average performance and relative stability in the rotation for ron gardenhire's squad.
though the young "phenom" is back in the majors and is 2-0 with just 3 earned runs in 11.2 innings over two starts - which is especially notable given his 0-3, 11.32 ERA run in April before being demoted - he just isn't as mean as he used to be. as a scout told espn.com's jayson stark:
"He's still good, but he's not the Liriano we saw before the surgery. His stuff is probably 3 to 4 miles per hour less than what it used to be. The changeup is pretty much the same speed, but the slider and the fastball are not the same. Don't get me wrong. He's still good. But he's not that 'wow' he was before. He's not as electric. He's not as intimidating. But he's still a good, useful, No. 3-4 starter type. And that's not a bad thing."
while the twins are probably crying about their misfortune, there is one person who may be celebrating: giants general manager brian sabean. in what may justifiably be called The Worst Trade Of The Decade, sabean sent current twins closer joe nathan, former twins starter boof bonser, and liriano to minnesota for catcher a.j. pierzynski. and what came of it? the pierzynski was a clubhouse cancer who hit .272 in 2004, pissed off his pitchers, and left the team after just one year. meanwhile, joe nathan has a 2.83 career ERA, 193 saves to only 21 blown ones, and a 2008 WHIP of 0.89; bonser has been a decent role player; and liriano turned out even better than expected (at least pre-surgery).
so, the fact that liriano's production has fallen off can maybe be some consolation to sabean, who has seen his reputation tarnished forever after that trade. right? nope. that trade still sucks. and sabean only has to look at nathan's and liriano's 100% fantasy ownership to see what he gave away.
speaking of pathetic giants, bonds was back in town for san francisco's 50-years-in-california celebration, and he is more desperate than ever. do you hate this guy or pity him? or can you just not see past his size 12 head?
though the young "phenom" is back in the majors and is 2-0 with just 3 earned runs in 11.2 innings over two starts - which is especially notable given his 0-3, 11.32 ERA run in April before being demoted - he just isn't as mean as he used to be. as a scout told espn.com's jayson stark:
"He's still good, but he's not the Liriano we saw before the surgery. His stuff is probably 3 to 4 miles per hour less than what it used to be. The changeup is pretty much the same speed, but the slider and the fastball are not the same. Don't get me wrong. He's still good. But he's not that 'wow' he was before. He's not as electric. He's not as intimidating. But he's still a good, useful, No. 3-4 starter type. And that's not a bad thing."
while the twins are probably crying about their misfortune, there is one person who may be celebrating: giants general manager brian sabean. in what may justifiably be called The Worst Trade Of The Decade, sabean sent current twins closer joe nathan, former twins starter boof bonser, and liriano to minnesota for catcher a.j. pierzynski. and what came of it? the pierzynski was a clubhouse cancer who hit .272 in 2004, pissed off his pitchers, and left the team after just one year. meanwhile, joe nathan has a 2.83 career ERA, 193 saves to only 21 blown ones, and a 2008 WHIP of 0.89; bonser has been a decent role player; and liriano turned out even better than expected (at least pre-surgery).
so, the fact that liriano's production has fallen off can maybe be some consolation to sabean, who has seen his reputation tarnished forever after that trade. right? nope. that trade still sucks. and sabean only has to look at nathan's and liriano's 100% fantasy ownership to see what he gave away.
speaking of pathetic giants, bonds was back in town for san francisco's 50-years-in-california celebration, and he is more desperate than ever. do you hate this guy or pity him? or can you just not see past his size 12 head?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
the greatest athlete of all time
this is how you know michael phelps comes to play.
he is in the pool for multiple races on most days. his goggles slip off his face and fill up with water. he finishes the race anyway. in fact, he wins it. no wait... he sets a world record.
and he's still disappointed.
there are no words to describe the nature of michael phelps' accomplishments. he is already the winningest olympian of all time, and he's only halfway through his second summer games. he has won a race by several seconds - in a sport that usually sees separation between competitors of just hundredths of a second.
everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time.
who else in the history of sports has been that great a performer?
the babe? clutch, yes. multi-talented, yes - a great pitcher and a great hitter in one. but phelps is no less special. he hits a home run every time he hits the pool. and multi-talented? how about swimming the fastest freestyle leg ever in the four-man relay when that's not even his specialty? as gold medalist melvin stewart told espn.com columnist pat forde, "It's good to see Kobe Bryant is there to see the greatest athlete in the world. If Kobe goes out and wins a gold medal in badminton, that's what it's like to see this guy win the 200 fly and swim that leg in the 400 free."
how about air jordan? six rings, and some of the greatest clutch moments in nba history. but jordan lost, too. and he didn't dominate from day one. the closest phelps has come to a "loss" at the olympics is when he finished behind ian thorpe and pieter van den hoogenband in the 200 free in athens. boo-hoo for bronze. and he broke his own record by a full second at beijing to stifle any ghosts lingering from his past.
tiger? if anyone comes close to phelps, it's probably eldrick woods. the man goes out and wins golf tournaments even when everyone expects him to - and even when he's behind after 36 holes. but tiger isn't invincible. he finished 2nd at the masters this year, with south african trevor immelman holding him off. and while tiger is clearly the best golfer in the world - and probably in history - there have been years when vijay singh has robbed him of the title of the pga's best.
yes, phelps is young, and he hasn't proved himself over as long a time period as the above-mentioned athletes. but this guy is practically a lock to win every time he dives into the water. there is nothing more discouraging to another swimmer than to see phelps lining up on the block next to him.
his opponents can't stop him. water in his googles can't either. having to swim 17 races during beijing 2008 doesn't even seem to have an effect. and he breaks records with every stroke.
improved swimsuit or not, this man is the real deal. is he already the greatest athlete of all time?
---------------
UPDATE: to be fair, one person who should be mentioned in this discussion is lance armstrong. he went to the tour de france year after year with all the burden in the world, and he delivered seven years in a row. while he did have some helps from his teammates, so does phelps in relays, so maybe the debate needs to be about which one of those two is the greater athlete.
he is in the pool for multiple races on most days. his goggles slip off his face and fill up with water. he finishes the race anyway. in fact, he wins it. no wait... he sets a world record.
and he's still disappointed.
there are no words to describe the nature of michael phelps' accomplishments. he is already the winningest olympian of all time, and he's only halfway through his second summer games. he has won a race by several seconds - in a sport that usually sees separation between competitors of just hundredths of a second.
everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time.
who else in the history of sports has been that great a performer?
the babe? clutch, yes. multi-talented, yes - a great pitcher and a great hitter in one. but phelps is no less special. he hits a home run every time he hits the pool. and multi-talented? how about swimming the fastest freestyle leg ever in the four-man relay when that's not even his specialty? as gold medalist melvin stewart told espn.com columnist pat forde, "It's good to see Kobe Bryant is there to see the greatest athlete in the world. If Kobe goes out and wins a gold medal in badminton, that's what it's like to see this guy win the 200 fly and swim that leg in the 400 free."
how about air jordan? six rings, and some of the greatest clutch moments in nba history. but jordan lost, too. and he didn't dominate from day one. the closest phelps has come to a "loss" at the olympics is when he finished behind ian thorpe and pieter van den hoogenband in the 200 free in athens. boo-hoo for bronze. and he broke his own record by a full second at beijing to stifle any ghosts lingering from his past.
tiger? if anyone comes close to phelps, it's probably eldrick woods. the man goes out and wins golf tournaments even when everyone expects him to - and even when he's behind after 36 holes. but tiger isn't invincible. he finished 2nd at the masters this year, with south african trevor immelman holding him off. and while tiger is clearly the best golfer in the world - and probably in history - there have been years when vijay singh has robbed him of the title of the pga's best.
yes, phelps is young, and he hasn't proved himself over as long a time period as the above-mentioned athletes. but this guy is practically a lock to win every time he dives into the water. there is nothing more discouraging to another swimmer than to see phelps lining up on the block next to him.
his opponents can't stop him. water in his googles can't either. having to swim 17 races during beijing 2008 doesn't even seem to have an effect. and he breaks records with every stroke.
improved swimsuit or not, this man is the real deal. is he already the greatest athlete of all time?
---------------
UPDATE: to be fair, one person who should be mentioned in this discussion is lance armstrong. he went to the tour de france year after year with all the burden in the world, and he delivered seven years in a row. while he did have some helps from his teammates, so does phelps in relays, so maybe the debate needs to be about which one of those two is the greater athlete.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Le folie
There I was, driving through the outskirts of Québec City, Canada, when, on a whim, I decided to turn on the car radio, and was greeted by two familiar voices:
"Ball one to Coco, down and in..."
Somehow, gloriously, the Red Sox radio guys had wafted all the way from their outpost in Maine or New Hampshire and into my car, here in the heart of French Canada. Not only that, but I soon learned that, in a game in which their starting pitcher was making his major-league debut, the Sox were winning 10-2, with David Ortiz having hammered two three-run homers in the first inning.
"What a night!" I said to myself. "Quelle merveilleux! Baseball sure is grand! Here I am, eating crepes and enjoying the sunset over the St. Lawrence while listening to my team wallop the Texas Rangers from hundreds of miles away. What a world we live in! What a time to be a Bostonian--nay, an American--nay, a human being!"
How young I was, how tragically naive. Two hours later, my team has now blown its 10-run first-inning lead and is actually losing, 16-14. And here I sit, in a hotel room in Lévis, helplessly watching the mlb.com scoreboard light up with "in play, run(s)" for the Rangers, over and over, ad nauseam. "In play, run(s)" never seems to mean just one run when you really want it to, have you ever noticed that?
Anyway, I will sign off for now, as the French-Canadian torture continues. The Red Sox have two on with nobody out in the seventh. Dare I hope? Dare I dream it? Only time will tell...
"Ball one to Coco, down and in..."
Somehow, gloriously, the Red Sox radio guys had wafted all the way from their outpost in Maine or New Hampshire and into my car, here in the heart of French Canada. Not only that, but I soon learned that, in a game in which their starting pitcher was making his major-league debut, the Sox were winning 10-2, with David Ortiz having hammered two three-run homers in the first inning.
"What a night!" I said to myself. "Quelle merveilleux! Baseball sure is grand! Here I am, eating crepes and enjoying the sunset over the St. Lawrence while listening to my team wallop the Texas Rangers from hundreds of miles away. What a world we live in! What a time to be a Bostonian--nay, an American--nay, a human being!"
How young I was, how tragically naive. Two hours later, my team has now blown its 10-run first-inning lead and is actually losing, 16-14. And here I sit, in a hotel room in Lévis, helplessly watching the mlb.com scoreboard light up with "in play, run(s)" for the Rangers, over and over, ad nauseam. "In play, run(s)" never seems to mean just one run when you really want it to, have you ever noticed that?
Anyway, I will sign off for now, as the French-Canadian torture continues. The Red Sox have two on with nobody out in the seventh. Dare I hope? Dare I dream it? Only time will tell...
Paul Brogan Doesn't Disappoint
This guy is awesome. If you've never seen him, you need to check out the original video here. But, in the meantime, for the most current video, see below.
Shaping the Clippers
Who thought that my second post would be about the NBA's perennial cellar dwellars?
Well, quietly, they've put together quite an interesting roster. It has happened quietly because many would argue that their acquisitions are way past their prime.
The problem? They lost their two best players in Elton Brand and Corey Maggette. However, they've replaced the two stars with not two but four veteran leaders.
Baron Davis will clearly be Clipperville's new superstar, and we would have all loved to see the Clippers become a contender behind Davis and Brand. But, Brand bolted to Philly, fed up with the organization, and really, who can blame him?
Then, though, the Clippers acquired Camby in a Denver salary dump which suddenly replaced the gaping hole down low and gave LA a formidable Camby-Kaman front line.
Then, the two most recent pick-ups add to the intrigue. First, the Clips grabbed veteran Ricky Davis from the Miami Heat, bringing a slasher and scoring threat to the lineup. Davis averages over 14 ppg for his career, and there's no reason why he can't get that playing on the wing alongside Baron in LA. Watching his numbers carefully as a fantasy player, Ricky is one of the most underrated players in the league, in my opinion.
Finally, on Thursday, the Clippers nabbed veteran Jason Williams also from the Heat. I've always liked Williams, as he brings energy and enthusiasm to the court, albeit with a bit of a wild streak. Backing up Baron Davis, though, Williams could bring in a nice spark off the bench, or play point guard to Baron's shooting guard in a smaller lineup.
Add this to the young nucleus of Kaman and Al Thornton, as well as veteran Clippers Cuttino Mobley and Tim Thomas, and the team doesn't sound so bad.
The Clippers always manage to screw it up, though, and there's no question that with so many newcomers on board, chemistry will be an issue. Either way, I'm looking forward to the Davis-Davis backcourt combo as well as the Kaman-Camby twin tower duo down low. It'll be fun to watch.
Well, quietly, they've put together quite an interesting roster. It has happened quietly because many would argue that their acquisitions are way past their prime.
The problem? They lost their two best players in Elton Brand and Corey Maggette. However, they've replaced the two stars with not two but four veteran leaders.
Baron Davis will clearly be Clipperville's new superstar, and we would have all loved to see the Clippers become a contender behind Davis and Brand. But, Brand bolted to Philly, fed up with the organization, and really, who can blame him?
Then, though, the Clippers acquired Camby in a Denver salary dump which suddenly replaced the gaping hole down low and gave LA a formidable Camby-Kaman front line.
Then, the two most recent pick-ups add to the intrigue. First, the Clips grabbed veteran Ricky Davis from the Miami Heat, bringing a slasher and scoring threat to the lineup. Davis averages over 14 ppg for his career, and there's no reason why he can't get that playing on the wing alongside Baron in LA. Watching his numbers carefully as a fantasy player, Ricky is one of the most underrated players in the league, in my opinion.
Finally, on Thursday, the Clippers nabbed veteran Jason Williams also from the Heat. I've always liked Williams, as he brings energy and enthusiasm to the court, albeit with a bit of a wild streak. Backing up Baron Davis, though, Williams could bring in a nice spark off the bench, or play point guard to Baron's shooting guard in a smaller lineup.
Add this to the young nucleus of Kaman and Al Thornton, as well as veteran Clippers Cuttino Mobley and Tim Thomas, and the team doesn't sound so bad.
The Clippers always manage to screw it up, though, and there's no question that with so many newcomers on board, chemistry will be an issue. Either way, I'm looking forward to the Davis-Davis backcourt combo as well as the Kaman-Camby twin tower duo down low. It'll be fun to watch.
Monday, August 11, 2008
cross-training, harvard style
i always walk by that section of shoes in a sports store and wonder, hmm, what exactly does cross-training mean? all sexual and gender innuendos aside - and oh yes, there are many - i'm not sure how often i hear about reggie bush grabbing a badminton racket or jason giambi hitting the hurdles.
but amidst another nasty cambridge summer, harvard's no. 1 men's racket chris clayton is hitting the field for some football drills with the "summer dogs," donning cleats to condition himself into a frenzy. the workout packed with "dominators" certainly sounds intense... 13-second drills with only 24-second breaks? i'd love to see lindsay davenport put herself through that. if anyone can use the workout, though, it's clayton, who seems to have a penchant for marathon three-setters.
really, though, i want to see crimson basketballer evan harris out there breaking a sweat. if he puts in the work now - and learns how to go right when he's posting up - maybe he'll actually have the ability to score against guys half his size. and if not, well, he better get his exercise for the season in now, because tommy amaker will have him riding more wood than jenna jameson.
either way, the kid's nba prospects aren't looking any better.
but amidst another nasty cambridge summer, harvard's no. 1 men's racket chris clayton is hitting the field for some football drills with the "summer dogs," donning cleats to condition himself into a frenzy. the workout packed with "dominators" certainly sounds intense... 13-second drills with only 24-second breaks? i'd love to see lindsay davenport put herself through that. if anyone can use the workout, though, it's clayton, who seems to have a penchant for marathon three-setters.
really, though, i want to see crimson basketballer evan harris out there breaking a sweat. if he puts in the work now - and learns how to go right when he's posting up - maybe he'll actually have the ability to score against guys half his size. and if not, well, he better get his exercise for the season in now, because tommy amaker will have him riding more wood than jenna jameson.
either way, the kid's nba prospects aren't looking any better.
Great Moments in Hypothetical Journalism
Had John Danks, who was perfect into the sixth tonight against the Red Sox, completed his perfect game, or at least a no-hitter, the newspaper headline the next day clearly should have been:
DANKS FOR NOTHING
I am so proud of this that I thought it had to be shared with the world.
DANKS FOR NOTHING
I am so proud of this that I thought it had to be shared with the world.
Poop on the AL East - The Angels have!
Dating back to July 25, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have only played AL East opponents. That's 2 series against the Orioles, 2 against the Yankees, and one at Fenway against the Sox.
Sweep the Sox? Check.
Sweep the Yanks? Check.
16 games, and 12 victories, including 8 of 10 against the Sox and Yanks--the duo that instills the most fear in the rest of the league, even nowadays.
The most recent was today's 4-3 victory, capped off by a Chone Figgins single past Robinson Cano in the bottom of the 9th to give the Halos--and the Rally Monkey faithful--a sweep of the Bronx Bombers in Anaheim (not Los Angeles, believe it or not, I was there!)
Here's the point: the Angels improved to 74-43 overall, good for the best record in baseball, hold a 14-game division lead over the Rangers, and are now 8-3 in the Teixiera-era.
Even more impressive? Angels fans actually stuck around to see the end of today's nail-biter. The place was packed through the walk-off single by Figgins, which, if you've ever been to a Southern California baseball game, is certainly notable.
The East Coasters may have their history, and that's all well and good, but sorry folks, there's no question who the best team in baseball is right now.
Sweep the Sox? Check.
Sweep the Yanks? Check.
16 games, and 12 victories, including 8 of 10 against the Sox and Yanks--the duo that instills the most fear in the rest of the league, even nowadays.
The most recent was today's 4-3 victory, capped off by a Chone Figgins single past Robinson Cano in the bottom of the 9th to give the Halos--and the Rally Monkey faithful--a sweep of the Bronx Bombers in Anaheim (not Los Angeles, believe it or not, I was there!)
Here's the point: the Angels improved to 74-43 overall, good for the best record in baseball, hold a 14-game division lead over the Rangers, and are now 8-3 in the Teixiera-era.
Even more impressive? Angels fans actually stuck around to see the end of today's nail-biter. The place was packed through the walk-off single by Figgins, which, if you've ever been to a Southern California baseball game, is certainly notable.
The East Coasters may have their history, and that's all well and good, but sorry folks, there's no question who the best team in baseball is right now.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
what the hell, bruce bochy?
if you ever want to learn how to be a bad (yet surprisingly loved) manager, watch bruce bochy.
the guy is ridiculous. he's happy with mediocre performance, he doesn't follow through on his promises, he doesn't understand how to handle his pitchers, and he no game sense.
case in point: the giants-dodgers game today. matt cain is topping 120 pitches, and bochy leaves this 23-year-old - who is one of the young pitchers SF is betting the franchise on - out there to a) blow out his arm and b) blow the game to manny ramirez. then, when the giants have the bases loaded, he leaves in scrub jose castillo and tosses in untested eugenio velez instead of pinch-hitting with emerging left-field stud fred lewis. (i apologize for knowing much more about these no-namers than a normal baseball fan should expect to know.)
lucky for bochy, a few fumbles from the dodgers let the giants come from behind in the ninth. and, smiling away in the california sun, he rests on his nonexistent laurels while the SF media grins, too, satiated and congratulatory.
bruce bochy, you make me sick.
p.s. there's a little bit more pooping on manny ramirez to be done. as i watched him come up to bat today, i checked out at his helmet, and that shit looks worse than vlad guerrero's cap. and he's been with the dodgers for less than two weeks! can this guy keep anything clean? good luck to joe on getting manny to trim those bangs...
the guy is ridiculous. he's happy with mediocre performance, he doesn't follow through on his promises, he doesn't understand how to handle his pitchers, and he no game sense.
case in point: the giants-dodgers game today. matt cain is topping 120 pitches, and bochy leaves this 23-year-old - who is one of the young pitchers SF is betting the franchise on - out there to a) blow out his arm and b) blow the game to manny ramirez. then, when the giants have the bases loaded, he leaves in scrub jose castillo and tosses in untested eugenio velez instead of pinch-hitting with emerging left-field stud fred lewis. (i apologize for knowing much more about these no-namers than a normal baseball fan should expect to know.)
lucky for bochy, a few fumbles from the dodgers let the giants come from behind in the ninth. and, smiling away in the california sun, he rests on his nonexistent laurels while the SF media grins, too, satiated and congratulatory.
bruce bochy, you make me sick.
p.s. there's a little bit more pooping on manny ramirez to be done. as i watched him come up to bat today, i checked out at his helmet, and that shit looks worse than vlad guerrero's cap. and he's been with the dodgers for less than two weeks! can this guy keep anything clean? good luck to joe on getting manny to trim those bangs...
Friday, August 8, 2008
Poop on Manny
Ladies and gentlemen, the first person I would officially like to poop on through this site is one Manuel "Manny" Aristides RamÃrez Onelcida. First of all, I had no idea Manny Ramirez was actually named that until I just looked it up four seconds ago. But that's not why I want to poop on him. The reason is this: since his hotly contested trade to the Dodgers, Mr. Onelcida is hitting .565 with four homers and nine RBI's in six games.
Now, those are unholy, ungodly numbers, but there are several potential nonpoopworthy explanations. The first, obviously, is random coincidence. It's certainly not unheard of for a hitter to get that hot, and the fact that Manny happened to start tearing the cover off the ball the day he first felt the California sunshine could just be a coincidence.
There's also the AL/NL factor to consider. It's no secret the American League has dominated its counterpart over the past decade in everything from World Series titles to All-Star Game wins to interleague play records. Manny could be the latest embodiment of what is known as the Renteria Principle, in which a player's production shifts significantly once he changes leagues, inciting riots and civil unrest in Boston.
My guess is that both of these factors have contributed, in at least a small way, to Manny's hot streak, but there's also the stench of deliberate sabotage. You may not believe the charge that Scott Boras promised the Red Sox that Manny would play nice if they let him become a free agent next season, but at this point it's tough to put anything past Boras, or Manny. And this offer/ultimatum certainly makes it seem as if Manny Ramirez was not only deliberately being a terrible teammate, but also sacrificing his on-field production in order to necessitate a trade. It's not quite the 1919 World Series, but it's also not the way the game was meant to be played. Obviously, as a Red Sox fan, I'm biased, but I think we can all get behind pooping on that.
EDIT: I should add that there would, in fact, be some irony in pooping on Manny.
Now, those are unholy, ungodly numbers, but there are several potential nonpoopworthy explanations. The first, obviously, is random coincidence. It's certainly not unheard of for a hitter to get that hot, and the fact that Manny happened to start tearing the cover off the ball the day he first felt the California sunshine could just be a coincidence.
There's also the AL/NL factor to consider. It's no secret the American League has dominated its counterpart over the past decade in everything from World Series titles to All-Star Game wins to interleague play records. Manny could be the latest embodiment of what is known as the Renteria Principle, in which a player's production shifts significantly once he changes leagues, inciting riots and civil unrest in Boston.
My guess is that both of these factors have contributed, in at least a small way, to Manny's hot streak, but there's also the stench of deliberate sabotage. You may not believe the charge that Scott Boras promised the Red Sox that Manny would play nice if they let him become a free agent next season, but at this point it's tough to put anything past Boras, or Manny. And this offer/ultimatum certainly makes it seem as if Manny Ramirez was not only deliberately being a terrible teammate, but also sacrificing his on-field production in order to necessitate a trade. It's not quite the 1919 World Series, but it's also not the way the game was meant to be played. Obviously, as a Red Sox fan, I'm biased, but I think we can all get behind pooping on that.
EDIT: I should add that there would, in fact, be some irony in pooping on Manny.
welcome to poop on boozer
how many former harvard sportswriters does it take to pen a blog? that's the question we hope to answer here at poop on boozer.
what's in a name, you may ask? well, you may not think you know what poop on boozer means, but you have felt the sentiment. everyone who has booed a numbskull ref, everyone who has been disgusted by the slippery moves of a rival coach or GM, and everyone who has wanted to fire joe morgan knows what it means to poop on boozer. a hatred of all things carlos boozer is not required to read this blog - but it can't hurt.
in the spirit of poop on boozer, never be afraid to poop on us. disagree with what we say? call us out. hell, that's what we'll be doing to each other. and when the sports world throws some shit your way, poop right back.
this is poop on boozer. welcome.
what's in a name, you may ask? well, you may not think you know what poop on boozer means, but you have felt the sentiment. everyone who has booed a numbskull ref, everyone who has been disgusted by the slippery moves of a rival coach or GM, and everyone who has wanted to fire joe morgan knows what it means to poop on boozer. a hatred of all things carlos boozer is not required to read this blog - but it can't hurt.
in the spirit of poop on boozer, never be afraid to poop on us. disagree with what we say? call us out. hell, that's what we'll be doing to each other. and when the sports world throws some shit your way, poop right back.
this is poop on boozer. welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
