And While We're At It..

Quick memo to Jim Caldwell: Super Bowls don't have any inherent meaning other than what we assign to them. We consider them to be the ultimate goal because, under normal circumstances, there's no better way to demonstrate your team is the best, and no better way to become a part of NFL history. But this season, there was--your team had the chance to do something no other team had done. The benefits would have been far greater than those that come from winning a Super Bowl, but you chose not to pursue them. You're clearly an excellent coach, but you just made the most important decision of your career and you made the wrong one.

Why No One Will Ever Go 19-0

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CITIZENS OF NEW ORLEANS AND INDIANAPOLIS:

Hey guys,

I know this is a difficult time for you, and this may only make it worse, so I'm just going to get it out there: your teams never actually had a chance of going undefeated. It was never going to happen, and it never will. In fact, no team actually enters the season with that possibility, even though we think they all do.

Indy fans, I don't want to hear about how you could have pulled this one out had Peyton played the whole thing. Sure, your coach made a decision that I will never understand, and robbed you of a chance at immortality and us of a chance to watch a fascinating season-long story reach its natural conclusion. But that's a subject for another post and ultimately, it doesn't really matter, since either way, your team was destined to lose.

Allow me to explain. You see, I've been there. My Bostonian brethren and I have Ph.D's in this kind of stuff--we wish we didn't, but we do. Our 2007 Patriots team was among the best there ever was, with one of the best coaches there ever was, and they still couldn't get it done.

In fact, that 2007 season was among the most interesting sports phenomena I've ever seen. Sure, the Patriots had some holes on defense--and you could argue that their failure to go 19-0 was the result of those holes--but their offense was just about invincible on paper. However, as the season progressed, even their offense began to struggle more and more to eke out wins. And that is because of one fact: the pressure of an undefeated season drove Bill Belichick and the Patriots crazy.

It's true. Normally, I think mental factors in sports tend to be overrated, but in this case they're the only explanation for an inexplicable breakdown. For no apparent reason, during the middle of the season, Belichick completely abandoned the run (one of the best offenses in history wasn't doing well enough, apparently), and the margin of victory got thinner and thinner from week to week. With other teams already starting to gun for the undefeated Pats with some smart coaching choices (The Eagles almost ended New England's run prematurely via surprise onside kick), and the Pats' D beginning to show its weaknesses, the addition of a coaching meltdown was enough to trigger that one fateful loss. Remember Belichick's decision to go for it on 4th and long in the Super Bowl against the Giants? That's the only way to explain it.

It makes a certain kind of sense--a team can only survive so long a stretch in which every game has the intensity of a playoff game. Then, once you get near the playoffs, every game has the intensity of a Super Bowl. It is simply nonsurvivable. A team that goes 18-1 can beat any of the teams that it plays that season, but it simply cannot beat all those teams.

That brings us back to you, Colts and Saints. Sorry it didn't work out, but it turns out that you can only survive so many Super Bowls in one season. With any luck, your regular-season losses may actually prove beneficial when it comes time for the real one.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

All right, fine. K.L. wants it, and here it is--a response to the following:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnflpicks/091120

First up:

"I am not disputing the numbers or the methods for achieving them. But by Monday night, based on various columns and message boards (as well as e-mails to my reader mailbox), you would have thought Belichick was a genius for blowing the game. He played the percentages! It wasn't as crazy as it looked! By this logic, Belichick also should have held a loaded pistol to his head on the sideline, spun the chamber and tried to shoot himself like Chris Walken in "The Deer Hunter." If those 1-in-6 odds came through and he succeeded, we could have said, 'Hey, he played the percentages: 83.6666 percent of the time, you don't die in that situation! You can't blame him for what happened!'"

Phew. I'm already out of energy. This analogy doesn't work. To his credit, Bill doesn't even really think it works. Or, alternatively: if allowed to coach an NFL team, Bill would scoff at moves that gave his team an 84% chance to win. Either way is fine with me, I guess.

"The "Belichick made the right move" argument was nearly as dense. In the biggest game of the regular season, when a football coach tries something that -- and this is coming from someone who watches 12 hours of football every Sunday dating back to elementary school -- I cannot remember another team doing on the road in the last three minutes of a close game, that's not "gutsy." It's not a "gamble." It's not "believing we can get that two yards." It's not "revolutionary." It's not "statistically smart." It's reckless."

Really, Bill? You can't remember it? Because, you know, there are some stats that actually compile all of the times these things have actually happened, and--Bill? Are you still listening? Bill?

(I get that he's saying that no one ever made that specific call before, which I don't doubt. But, kind of wrongheaded to say stats don't tell the whole story and use "I can't remember this ever happening" as your logic).

"So we're saying 55.7 percent, huh? That's the success rate for a road team playing its biggest rival, in a deafeningly loud dome, coming out of a timeout -- a timeout that allowed the defense to get a breather and determine exactly how to stop the obvious five-receiver spread that was coming because the offense's running game sucked -- along with that same defense getting extra fired up because it was being disrespected so egregiously/willfully/blatantly/incomprehensibly. I say lower. By a lot.

Statistics can't capture the uniqueness of a particular moment, and in this case -- with the Pats self-combusting, with a sure victory suddenly slipping away, with the crowd going bonkers, with a fired-up defense gearing up to stop them, with an obvious play looming (a short pass), and with everything happening during a drive that was already so disjointed that they had called two timeouts -- I find it really, really, REALLY hard to believe they would have completed that play 56 times out of 100 times with how they lined up."

Bill is saying, basically, that the context overrides the statistics. A very reasonable argument--but I disagree with his context. Here are his argument:

-The Pats were playing their biggest rival: So were the Colts.

-The Pats were on the road: That's true. That also matters about 1%.

-Deafeningly loud dome: Not so sure about that one.

-Coming out of a timeout: Ehhh. Both teams got a breather. It's a wash.

-Obvious/bad formation: True. But we're talking about going for it or not (at least I am), not how best to get those two yards.

Not mentioned: how depleted the Pats' D was, how Tom Brady is more likely to get two yards than the average QB.

So, no: stats don't tell the whole story. But how convinced are you by the reasons to ignore the stats and punt? I'm not very.

"One other note: The "disrespecting the defense" card doesn't show up in stats. There's no way to measure the collective ability of a defense to raise its game for one play, as the fans shout the team on with every ounce of air in their lungs, while being fueled by a legitimately mind-blowing slight. In postgame interviews, four Colts defensive starters mentioned the words "disrespect" or "disrespected." And they were. We cannot account for this variable."

I'll factor it into my recap of how horribly the Pats' D played following this shocking slight.

"The Colts brought pressure -- happily -- ensuring a quick pass and a short field (so Indy's D-backs could hug the line of scrimmage). Given these realities, if you're feeding me "Here's what happened in this situation historically" numbers, shouldn't we be looking at the data for two-point conversions?

After all, this was essentially a two-point pass play."

I kind of see the point, but I really don't think so. Defenses always bring pressure on 4th-and-2. The Pats had the option, theoretically, to go for more than two yards, and the Colts had to defend against that, which makes this different from a 2-point conversion. What it is, exactly, is a 4th-and-2. So, why don't we just use those numbers?

"Insane Angle No. 2: "If they punted, Manning would have rolled down the field and scored, anyway." Really? That's what would have happened? He would have needed something between 65 and 72 yards, with one timeout and no help from a two-minute warning, against a relatively rested New England defense that was thin in the front four. The Colts had run only 22 plays in the second half; the Patriots had run 37. It's true. And it's not as though Indy's passing game had been lighting it up. The young guys flubbed a few relatively easy catches during the game; on their drive to cut the lead from 34-21 to 34-28, the biggest play was a dubious 31-yard pass interference penalty. Of their previous seven drives, two ended in interceptions and three in punts, and two were six-play, 79-yard drives for touchdowns."

I've said it before and I've said it again: to disagree with what's happened in games in the past, you'd need a reason why, SPECIFICALLY, the difference between Manning and an average QB would be exaggerated by a short field and downplayed by a long one. This doesn't address that point--if Bill thinks the Colts offense was so "dubious," they would have been equally so after taking over on downs in Pats territory. Bill was wrong, as it turns out--they scored easily, and so it seems likely they would have either way.

"But Indy had already started and completed two long touchdown drives in the fourth quarter against a good defense. Had the Patriots punted, Indy would have had to pull off a third long touchdown drive to win the game. I asked Peter Newmann to research the number of times a team started and completed three touchdown drives in the fourth quarter to erase a double-digit deficit and win an NFL game since 2005. Here's how the list looked before that fourth-and-2 call.

2005: 1

2006: 2

2007: 0

2008: 1

2009: 0

In 78 weeks of football dating back to 2005, it happened a whopping four times. Four!"

Hey, Bill? Remember when you said, like, four paragraphs ago that you can't remember another coach making a similar decision on 4th-and-2? The point is, things you can't remember ever happening before happen quite a bit. Maybe, instead of Bill Simmons's trusty ol' noggin, we could actually look at everything that's ever happened in every game, to see how things typically shake out. With some kind of stat, or something. Just saying.

Insane Angle No. 3: "I thought we could get the 2 yards."

Bill refutes this "insane angle" with a story about how he once tried to weasel out of a speeding ticket by talking about basketball. So, not going to delve too far into that one. Read it, though--it's good fun.

Insane Angle No. 4: "The Pats acted like men! They went for the kill! Had they converted that, they would have made a strong statement to everyone that they were back on top and everything was right with the world!"

Stupid. Last time I checked, winning makes the strongest statement. As the great Herm Edwards once said, "You play to win the game. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" That's really it. The Patriots dominated that entire game, played better football and deserved to win. And they lost.

1. Insane Angle No. 4 is a stupid argument, is anyone really saying that? 2. Aren't playing to win the game and doing whatever makes you most likely to win the same thing? 3. Don't get me STARTED on the list of reasons they lost that are more to blame than 4th down. For example: 3rd down.

"Insane Angle No. 5: "The decision might not have worked out, but it came from a well-thought-out place."

No, it didn't."

We're going to end on this note, and it's not a nice note to end on. I don't get this at all. I don't think everyone has to agree with me; I'd settle for people at least admitting there are two sides to the issue. There's no rationale for going for it? Really? None at all? Bill? Bill?

paul millsap watch goes on hiatus

boozer had a monster game against philly, dropping 24 and 12, including going 10-for-10 from the charity stripe. millsap only poured in 4 points in 34 minutes.

it appears that boozer is re-energized, averaging 22. 2 points and 12.0 rebounds per game in the last 5 games - up 21% and 9% from his season averages, respectively. as such, it is time for the paul millsap watch to go on hiatus while we wait for boozer to return to his sluggish form.

but we will be watching.

POB Exclusive Update

It seems that, following Bill Belichick's ruinous 4th-and-2 decision, his defense was so utterly demoralized (as many suspected) that it forced just five turnovers and surrendered a whopping one touchdown in a follow-up win over the Jets.

Can We Just Talk About This One Thing

It's time. Enough time has passed, enough wounds have healed (sort of), that it's time to address the infamous 4th-and-2 call. We've all seen the play, and by now, most of us have seen this: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html. If you haven't, read it now, along with their subsequent posts about the game.

Now, I think Belichick's call was the right one, for pretty much the same reasons those stats outline. And yes, I did think so before I saw the stats, but I do think we need to view those stats as reliable. A couple of things to consider:

1. Before you say it, because I know you want to, absolutely no one thinks you should make decisions based on stats alone. Here's the thing: at the very least, I want my coach to know those numbers. I want him to take into account other factors as well, but I want him knowing how the situation plays out on average. Basically, stats are a terrific anchor from which you can then adjust for context--but you need the anchor. If some too-smart-for-his-own-good NL manager is about to have his hitter lay down a sac bunt, I want someone in the dugout to say, "Hey Tony,* just so you know, this typically causes teams to score fewer runs, so, you'd better have a good reason for doing it." That's all I want. That's how stats should be used. Not relied upon exclusively, not ignored because they're "just numbers" or "don't take the specifics of the situation into account."

2. No, they DON'T take the situation into account (well, they kind of do--down, distance, time remaining, timeouts, etc.). But, sure--Tom Brady and Peyton Manning aren't factored into these numbers. But, going by point 1, you need a CONVINCING reason to say that the context of this game outweighs what happens, more often than not, in all other games. The argument I hear most often is, "you just don't give Peyton Manning the ball at the 28 with plenty of time and a chance to win." But, think about that for a second. How much better are Peyton and the Colts' offense than the average team, for just one drive? Better, yes, but 9%-greater-chance-to-win greater? Also, bearing in mind that if Peyton is so great from the 28, he'd be just that great after receiving a punt, the only argument that works would look this:

"Peyton's offense is better than the average team's, but to varying degrees. The degree to which Peyton/the Colts are better than the average team is greater on short drives of 28 yards than it is on long drives, such as those after receiving punts, to such a significant degree as to cause a 9% swing in the Patriots' likelihood of winning the game."

If that's your argument, fine. I disagree, but at least we're both looking at what typically happens and then adjusting for context. At the VERY least, you can't say that going the other way is a ridiculously dumb call, since at the absolute worst, both sides are defensible.

3. On top of all that, I say that the context adjusts things TOWARDS going for it. The Patriots defense was stretched thin by injuries, to the point where I honestly believe the Colts were going to score if they got the ball back, no matter where that happened to be. On top of that, if you're going to argue that Peyton is better than the average QB (true) and we need to factor that into the percentages, then you have to admit that Tom Brady also is more likely than most quarterbacks to get the two yards for the first down (which, by the way, I think he probably did on that throw). Essentially, it boils down to this: you can pit the Patriots offense against the Colts defense (huge advantage Patriots), or the Colts defense against the Patriots offense (huge advantage Colts). The best defense against Peyton Manning, and I believe the only defense against him at that point in the game, is to keep him on the sidelines.

4. There can be shades of gray to this--Belichick isn't 100% genius or 100% moron. Just because going for it was the right call doesn't mean the pass to Faulk was the right call, or attempting to throw on third down was the right call, or mismanaging timeouts was the right call. The only thing I'm trying to show here is that castigating him for going for it really is unfounded, and you can't just criticize people for flying in the face of football convention without a convincing argument why convention works better.

Phew. Good. Demons exorcised. Jets on Sunday.

*Or whoever.

day 8 of the paul millsap watch

the power forward duel reached a frenzy last night against the spurs. boozer scored 10 of his 18 points in the fourth quarter, leading the utah charge to victory. but millsap went 8-of-12 for 20 points and added 7 rebounds, showing that he's no chump either. all this competition for the starting lineup is creating nothing but good results for the jazz.

this is day 8 in the countdown to paul millsap's arrival in the starting lineup.

day 7 of the paul millsap watch

apparently, boozer has been reading our updates and knows he's in the hot seat. trying to prove himself - and with chris bosh's 32 points and 17 rebounds to compete with - boozer dropped 22 and 18 against the raptors.

still, boozer was only 9-of-19. meanwhile, millsap was 5-of-8 for 10 points to go along with 6 rebounds in 11 fewer minutes.

if we're talking field goals per minute, boozer had 0.23, while millsap had 0.18. sure, that's a difference - but let's not forget that boozer missed on 0.26 field goal attempts per minute, while millsap was much better at 0.11. what could millsap have done if he had been in the starting lineup?

this is day 7 in the countdown to paul millsap's arrival in the starting lineup.

day 4 of the paul millsap watch

jazz stay at #20 in this week's espn power rankings. utah is 4-6 and faces toronto, san antonio, and detroit in its next three games. if they lose 2 of 3 (a very real possibility) or more, how much longer will boozer be heralded?

this is day 4 in the countdown to paul millsap's arrival in the starting lineup.

day 2 of the paul millsap watch

boozer delayed the inevitable yesterday with a 24-point, 12-rebound effort vs. the sixers. but it was the sixers, so let's not get too excited for carlos.

this is day 2 in the countdown to paul millsap's arrival in the starting lineup.

this definitely WON'T last

coach jerry sloan is sick of boozer's antics:

"Well I wouldn't mind them [boozer and mehmet okur] rebounding. There aren't any rules against them rebounding," Sloan said. "I mean, if you're just going to stay out there and shoot shots ... and not defend and not rebound, it's pretty tough." (source: http://espn.go.com/nba/preview?gameId=291113020)

ouch. really, can we start a countdown to paul millsap's arrival in the starting lineup?

this is day 1.

this can't last

boozer played 27 minutes in a 105-86 loss to the celtics, dropping in just 10 points and finishing with a plus/minus of -20. meanwhile, millsap pulled down 13 boards in 23 minutes to go along with 9 points and a -5 rating (i.e., he played better defense). how much longer before millsap replaces boozer in the starting lineup for good?

whine whine whine

boozer gets owned on a monster night by dirk (29 points in the fourth quarter!?!?). and then he whines a lot. typical.

http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_13708670

boozer update

what a way to kick off 2009-10: carlos boozer goes 3 of 14 from the field against denver in a 114-105 loss. this season promises to produce many opportunities to poop on boozer.

If I Were An Angels, Red Sox, Twins, or Tigers Fan Right Now I'd Be So Pissed

I was going to write about all of the horrible calls we've seen in the past week, and about how Major League Baseball needs a real instant replay system and probably computerized home-plate umpiring as well, but hey--it looks like Jeff Passan has done it already. Makes my job easier. I'll just throw in a few notes as well:

-Passan doesn't even mention the bizarre catcher's interference call that went against the Angels in Game 1 of the ALDS. That one, in its own way, is the most perplexing. I can understand misjudging something like a play at first base or a foul ball, but on a completely clean swing that is no different from the thousands of other completely clean swings an umpire sees over the course of a season, what would cause him, apropos of nothing, as it turns out, to declare one such play catcher's interference?

-Passan quotes Joe Nathan: “I wasn’t the only one who blew one tonight."I'm of the opinion that people who live in glass houses that were just shattered by epic, save-blowing, game-tying home runs by Alex Rodriguez shouldn't really throw meatball-style, grooved-right-down-the-middle-of-the-plate stones. You're a postseason goat, Joe Nathan, and you should stop throwing other people under the bus.

-Passan also quotes Nick Punto on whether we need to use technology to help us out: “That’s a sticky situation. I really like the human element part of the game. Where does it end? Maybe one day there’s robots back there umpiring, and that’s no fun.”

Not many people know this, but Nick Punto actually hates playing baseball--he just loves loves LOVES the umpiring. It's so much FUN for him. When he's at the plate, and takes a called strike at the knees that was probably a little bit low, he calls time just so he can turn around and shake the umpire's hand, thanking him for making this great game so much fun. If that questionable call happens to cost his team a game, he takes the umpire out for a beer afterward.

Seriously, though, this is an argument I never got--the argument that umpires are a traditional part of the game, so we should keep them. That's true, they are part of the game--but does anybody really LIKE that they're part of the game? 99.99% of the times that we actually notice umpires, it's because we think they made a bad call. Why is that a tradition we want to preserve? It's confusing.

Jerry Jones Is A Mad Genius

I'm watching the Giants-Cowboys game, and like 98% of the other viewers watching right now, I'm having just one thought:

Punt the ball.

That's all I want. Good matchup, but the NFC's not my conference, and I've already watched at least parts of three other games today. My team lost, and the Emmys are currently doing an entire 30-45-minute section on reality TV. All I want to do is see a punt hit that scoreboard.

This has, needless to say, never happened before. Punts are just about the most boring plays in football after extra points, and unless it's a Patriots opponent doing it, I've really never wanted to see one. But the Cowboys have me hooked. Dallas is facing a 3rd and 10 as I type this, and I'm ecstatic.* I know what's going to happen if a punt hits the Jumbotron (I get to see it bounce off, and they re-kick--not all that exciting), but it's given the game a purpose for me. I will watch any game being played in Dallas until I see this happen.

And, considering that's the case, I want to pause for just a moment and give Jerry Jones his due credit. His stadium may have a ridiculous, easily avoidable design flaw, but at least he got me excited about punts. This is probably the greatest revolution in my football-watching routine since I first saw an NFL game, and I'm pumped. Now, if he can just do something about extra points...

*Romo was intercepted. I can't catch a break.

poll of the day

which wimbledon runner-up will go further at the us open, venus williams or andy roddick?

there is no question that venus williams has a strong record at the open. she won there in 2000 and 2001 and also picked up a doubles title in 1999. sure, that was a decade ago, but she has made at least the quarterfinals every year in flushing meadows since 2005 (except when she missed the tournament in 2006).

andy roddick has been no schmuck either. other than a blip in 2005 when he dropped a stunner to poop on boozer favorite gilles muller, he has not failed to reach the quarterfinals since 2001, including a win in 2003 for his only major title.

that's history; what about the present?

both are coming off of wimbledon finals losses to their respective nemeses (serena and federer). venus is on shaky knees, whereas roddick looks healthy.

and look at the draws. venus faces an unknown (but top-50 player) in slovak rybarikova in the third round before a potential showdown with unretired-and-looking-really-good kim clijsters in the fourth. roddick, meanwhile, roddick would not face a seeded player until the fourth round, when he might face verdasco or haas. djokovic would likely be next, whereas azarenka might be a quarterfinal matchup for venus.

so what does this all wash out to? if clijsters can survive her third-round match, i think she can give creaky venus a lot of trouble. roddick is going to take 4 sets in the fourth round, but he'll get to the quarters. i'm going to have to go with roddick losing to djokovic (QF), and venus losing to clijsters (4th), meaning roddick goes further.

if they both get to the quarterfinals, though, venus is more likely to be playing serena in the semis than roddick is to be playing federer. wouldn't those be fun rematches, though?

Delicious

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4424660

Enjoy your season, Viking fans.

Drop Everything

It's the most important breaking news story of the year--Billy Wagner's agent is named: Bean Stringfellow.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4417456

Why Yes, I Am Bitter About Last Night

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/08/22/problem_with_penny_is_hammered_home/

How on earth do you become one of like three columnists for one of the premier sports sections in the entire country if you begin your article that way? "Brad Penny is terrible. Here is a series of puns involving his name."

Next time somebody complains about the death of print journalism, I'm sending them this article.

Where's Your Head?

I'm 20 minutes into an episode of "Sportscenter," and already, I've seen two baseball players get hit in the head by pitches. One of them, David Wright, was taken to the hospital for overnight observation, although both seem as though they're going to be fine.

So, we can all agree that getting hit in the head by a 96-mph fastball is dangerous, right? Then I will never understand the defense for what Johan Santana did. After his teammate was hit in the head, no doubt unintentionally, by Matt Cain, he threw behind one Giant and, when he missed that target, hit another.

"I feel like I have to protect my teammates," Santana said. "You call it whatever you want. There's no question. We do this thing together. I'm going to protect them the same way they protect me."

That's Johan Santana, admitting that he just committed what would be assault, if it had taken place anyplace other than a baseball field. After he just saw his teammate lying on the field for several chilling minutes before being taken to an ambulance, he thought the situation dictated that he do the same.

I'm unclear on how exactly this protects his teammates. The implication, I suppose, is that wanton Giants pitchers will be firing fastballs at Mets hitters all day unless Santana steps up and restores order by plunking someone. I had no idea the Giants were such a menace to society, but if they are, it's not Santana's problem, and all he's done is put more players at risk to injury.

Obviously, this happens so often that it's completely unfair to single out Santana. In a recent Red Sox game, the color commentator (I believe it was Eckersley at the time, although they rotate in Remy's absence so it may not have been) argued that, if you give up a home run and then decide to hit the next batter intentionally, "that's how it goes." So, for those keeping track at home, in addition to threatening the safety of your opponents if they accidentally hit your player, you can also do it if you're just having a bad day. It's open season, really.

As I mentioned before, I've never heard a convincing argument for why hurting your opponents is okay. If it were, I feel like they might have taught it to us in Little League at some point, but all I remember is being told to shake my opponents' hands after every game. In fact, the only argument I've ever heard ballplayers make in favor of such behavior amounts to little more than macho chauvinism--baseball is war, protect your brothers, etc. etc. I've never heard any concrete reasons why hitting your opponents would help, but I've got a couple of concrete reasons why it might hurt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Chapman (who, coincidentally, died 89 years ago tomorrow)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Conigliaro

Of course, neither of those were on intentional HBP's. But if pitchers keep going like this, someone will be seriously hurt someday. I'd love to see who still stands up and defends the behavior then.

Dogfighting Is Still Wrong

It takes a relatively momentous occurrence in the sports world to draw me from my Salinger-like seclusion and offer my sought-after opinions once again. Well, yesterday, such an occurrence happened, as Michael Vick signed with the Philadelphia Eagles. My colleague K.L. has already commented on it, and while he (K.L., not Michael Vick) is a Red Sox-hater who tries to bait me into posting in order to disagree with him, in this case, we are actually in agreement.

But there's one more element to this I want to single out. If I could summarize the argument I hear from those who feel the media and fans have treated Vick unfairly, it would be this:

"People need to lay off Michael Vick. Do you know how many professional athletes are beating their wives, on drugs, neglecting child support, involved in the deaths of actual people, etc.? Why, of all people, did we choose this guy to crucify?"

That's a valid point, but I don't think it means Michael Vick doesn't deserve what he gets from indignant fans. Coincidentally, we have a timely counterpoint to Vick to consider: Donte Stallworth, who, after getting a light sentence for killing a man while driving drunk, has been suspended by th NFL for a year. Vick killed dogs, Stallworth killed an actual human being. Aren't those entirely different levels of immorality?

In some ways, but not in all ways. Ultimately, Stallworth's crime was carelessness, not cruelty. It's possible he thought about the possibility of running somebody over and truly didn't care, but it seems more likely that he was just drunk, and high, and not thinking. That still makes him a terrible person who deserves whatever he gets, and it's absolutely true that killing a person is countless degrees of magnitude worse than killing a dog. However, when Vick killed dogs, it was premediated, deliberate, and even systematic--he oversaw an entire organization whose product was animal torture. Killing humans is worse than dogs, but killing intentionally is worse than killing accidentally. Can we really say that it's time to let Michael Vick move on, when I'm sure we'll never do so for Stallworth?

This also factors into the issue of rehabilitation and ultimate reinstatement to the NFL. When Stallworth says he feels remorse, I have an easier time believing it--he acted without considering the consequences, and maybe, hopefully, he'll never do it again. Vick? He tortured and killed dogs over the course of six years. During that time, he had to think about what he was doing, and decide that it wasn't a problem for him. If he didn't feel remorse over those six years, it's hard not to believe that the only reason he tells us he feels it now is because we made him go to prison, and he'd like to play football again.

In the end, we don't really have to choose--we can direct righteous anger at both, if we'd like, and have enough left over for all of the other reprobates who can sometimes sour our sports leagues. You can say that Michael Vick isn't the worst among them, and I don't think I could argue with you. However, we can't forger that Vick showed an inhuman level of cruelty for an extended period of time--and the fact that it wasn't directed at humans doesn't mean it's time to let him off the hook.

why t.o. needs to stop crying about vick getting a fair shake

the nfl is abuzz with rumor-esque questions these days.

will brett favre return? will michael vick join a team this season? will chad ochocinco change his name again?

okay, perhaps the third isn't so much of a mystery... and that's because 85% of the population doesn't give a crap about chad. the second of those, however, was addressed by the one and only T.O. at the bills' training camp on sunday. owens told reporters that vick should be able to sign with a team and play this season without any further suspension.

"why shouldn't he?" owens said, per espn.com. "there's a number of guys around the league that have done far more worse things than that and gotten a second chance. so i don't see why he shouldn't."

unintentionally, T.O. made the right point - nfl players are rarely punished for criminal activity. i mean, let's face it, ray lewis is scary on and off the field. anyone who's read any sort of expose on the nfl knows the amount of recreational drugs that players use. and plaxico burress shooting himself in a nightclub was as disappointing as it was ridiculous.

so much is made of performance-enhancing drugs and how they set a bad example for kids. but what about criminal activity? shouldn't nfl players and other athletes be held to a higher standard in general? and if so, what's wrong with roger goodell suspending michael vick for four games - or even for a full season - if it's going to prove a point and set the bar?

vick has done his time, the argument goes. bullshit. sure, vick spent two years in prison, but that's nothing in the grand scheme of things. given that he is still on probation and is expected to prove that he belongs in society again, it seems justified to delay his return to the nfl at least a little bit longer.

enough of the red carpet for multimillionaire criminals.

re: re: because i have to...

last post on this in 2009, i promise.

after saturday's mountain stage wrapped up, the tour de france podium was essentially set, with sunday's ride into paris being little more than ceremonial. standing in at #2 (although several minutes behind tour champion-to-be contador) is andy schleck, representing his red, white, and light blue with pride. his brother frank clocks in at #5, making luxembourg the only country to have two nationals in the top 5.

oh, and for those keeping score, lance didn't race too shabbily either, finishing third and giving astana two top-three finishers. but you know what they say in luxembourg: #3 is not as good as #2.

re: because i have to...

update: it's not just me who thinks that andy schleck's stage 15 ride was noteworthy. the maillot jaune wearer is concerned as well. as contador told reuters:

"The strongest is Andy Schleck but I don't fear someone in particular. The dangerous situation is if they all attack together," he said. "I must make sure I do everything correctly so that my rivals cannot have a chance."

fear the luxembourger.

because i have to...

big news at the tour de france.

everyone knew it would eventually happen, and on sunday, astana teammates alberto contador and lance armstrong moved into first and second place in the overall standings, leaving pretenders like rinaldo nocentini in the dust. what was perhaps more surprising, however, was the magnitude of the gap between contador and armstrong, with the spaniard racking up a 1 minute, 37 second-lead on the american.

but the reason you should be even more interested in the results: the second-place finisher in stage 15 was andy schleck of luxembourg, finishing just 43 seconds back.

that's right... luxembourg.

the small european country has found a niche in cycling with the schleck brothers. andy's brother, frank, raced very well at last's year tour, even holding the maillot jaune before finishing 6th overall. the two are solid climbers and are giving the tour favorites some decent competition.

come from a small country but carry a big bike, i always say. er... right?

Re: watching the lakers erode away their hopes for repeating

When I saw the title of this post, of course I thought the sole focus of this post would be on the Lakers' likely loss of Odom. While you mention that, your premise is that the Artest acquisition and Ariza loss is what will have the most influence.

Respectfully (always!), I disagree.

You're right - Ariza's solid. I also think it's true that Ariza can play the "backup" or "No. 3" (perhaps even No. 4 or No. 5) scoring role quite well. But, it's your characterization of Artest that I mostly disagree with.

1. Artest played well with Yao and T-Mac, then knew how to be the "leader" when T-Mac (and later Yao) went down. Despite his past reputation, Artest knows that he's lost to Kobe before and he won't be taking the "lead" of this team anytime that No. 24 is on the floor.

2. As you mentioned, Artest is a defensive stalwart. Of course, Ariza had his shining moments on the defensive end as well, but the point is this: Artest on the floor means that Kobe won't have to guard the other team's best player/scorer (be it LeBron, Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, etc.) Ariza may get to that point in his career, but he's not there yet.

3. While I'll admit to having worries about his character/attitude, I've pretty much stopped thinking about that. As I said in #1, his ego should be kept in check by Kobe, and Phil knows how to deal with people like him (i.e. Dennis Rodman). Moreover, if Odom comes back, Artest and Odom grew up together supposedly, and I'm sure that will help.

My biggest concern is the return of Odom, but frankly, I still (perhaps wrongly) believe that Odom will be back. The latest I've heard is that Odom called Jerry Buss this week to reignite talks, in the midst of Miami offering him a deal.

The Lakers can still pay Odom the most, and frankly, his little spat probably earned him a better deal than he would have got had he signed on July 1.

With Odom back, the team is virtually the same as it was last year. Artest and Ariza are a near wash in my book, though if you hold a gun to me I probably give the edge to Artest.

Without Odom is obviously a different story, but despite Bynum's disappearance in the 2009 Playoffs, you can't forget about the player he can/could/may be come the 2009-2010 season.

Always the eternal optimist, I still bet on a 2010 repeat.

watching the lakers erode away their hopes for repeating

if you asked me two months ago whether the lakers would have a chance to repeat as nba champions, my answer would have doubtless been yes. los angeles had the kind of depth at every position - and clutch scorers like fisher and bryant - that they would have had as good a chance as any to take home two in a row.

but now, i'm not so sure. many think that letting ariza go and picking up artest was an upgrade, but that isn't the case. ariza might not be the kind of lockdown defender artest is, but he has great instincts and comes up with timely steals, as was made very evident during the playoffs. moreover, his offensive play was a perfect match for the lakers - ariza knows how to be a no. 3 scorer and to contribute in appropriate ways. artest, on the other hand, likes to jack it up without much regard for the rest of his team, the time of the game, or whether he's actually having a good shooting night. and with odom almost certainly on the way out as well, the lakers just got much weaker at the forward position.

the lakers might have had the pacific division locked up from the moment the season began with if they had returned most of their 2008-09 roster. that might still be the case - but it's going to be a much tougher run once they get to the playoffs.

ridiculous contracts

news broke today that the chicago blackhawks had snagged winger marian hossa to a $68.2 million deal. not too shabby, you might say - but still just a fraction of the money that sluggers like mark teixeira are getting.

but wait... there's more.

this deal keeps hossa with the hawks for - count 'em - 12 years. 12 years. one dozen. double-digits. eleven more than one. no matter how you put, that's a long ass time.

okay, this guy is clearly a great player. he's been successful in every city he's played in, and he helped detroit to another stanley cup finals run in 2008-09. but he's 30 years old. how can a team bank on someone being effective until the age of 42? we're not talking about a low-contact sport like golf where average career spans extend well into middle age. this is a heavy-hitting league, and as a star scorer, hossa takes his fair share of hits every season. he's going to get banged up, and even if he avoids major injuries, it's pretty tough to predict whether he'll be able to maintain his performance levels several years from now.

i get it. chicago is getting close to being a perennial cup contender once again, and it wants star who can get the team over the hump. hossa is likely to do that. the only question is: even if the blackhawks bring home the trophy in the next five years, what's hossa going to do in the seven after that?

12 years. wow.

is sidney crosby the true king?

okay, puppet ads - we get it. lebron is amazing. he's the king. blah, blah, blah.

but as lebron spends yet another ringless offseason, let's pause to compare him to the next great one: sid the kid.

last night, 21-year-old sidney crosby led - nay, captained - the pittsburgh penguins to a victory in the stanley cup finals over the perennially dominant detroit red wings, with the pens coming back from deficits of 2-0 and 3-2. sure, malkin took home the conn smythe, but any true hockey fan knows that crosby is the heart and soul of that team.

meanwhile, lebron's nba-best cavs flopped in the playoffs, not even making it to the nba finals. and while lebron may be dominant on the court, i'm sure at least a teammate or two is sick of all the talk about him going to new york.

so who is the true king? in his fourth season, crosby celebrates with a stanley cup after making the finals for two consecutive years. meanwhile, in his sixth season, lebron is a superstar who has but an mvp title to his name - a trophy that surely looks bare in the case without an nba finals shiner standing next to it.

lebron gets paid $14 million a year, has innumerable endorsements, and is already prompting talk of unseating jordan (and his six championships). meanwhile, the humble crosby is actually one national title closer to filling the gigantic shoes left behind by wayne gretzky.

lebron, SHMEBRON. it's time to give credit where credit is due.

NBA Playoff Predictions

I did this last year, and this year, I challenged a law school friend of mine and impressive Celtics Blogger, Hayden, to make his playoff predictions on his blog. We both decided to get 'em done before the Playoffs started, and we'll bicker back and forth about it as a way to distract ourselves from finals for the next few weeks. So, check his, check mine, and we'll see who did better in June.

I'll go series by series, from the first round through the Finals, picking the winner and series length.

Eastern Conference

First Round

1. Cavs vs. 8. Pistons
Call me crazy, but I think the Pistons will get a game from the LeBrons...err, the Cavs. The Pistons made a "make-or-break deal" at the beginning of the season for Iverson, and now the Nuggets with Billups are sitting at #2 in the West, while Iverson is...just sitting. That said, the Pistons will give the heavy favorites a good first-round test, but, I don't see the series going beyond Cleveland in Game 5.
Cavs in 5

2. Celtics vs. 7. Bulls
Hayden may not particularly like my analysis here, but sorry, the Celtics are a MUCH different team without Kevin Garnett. And frankly, the young, feisty Bulls may be able to run and battle for a few games. However, I'll still give the Champs the benefit of the doubt here.
Celtics in 6

3. Magic vs. 6. Sixers
In my opinion, this is the least exciting first-round series in the East. Orlando's got some injuries with Hedo and Rashard Lewis, but I think they're back. And with Howard down low having a field day against the soft Samuel Dalambert, I don't see the Sixers doing too much in this one. The only thing giving the Magic some trouble may be Andre Miller, if Rafer Alston has a series where we simply can't get anything from him.
Magic in 4

4. Hawks vs. 5. Heat
Ever since last year's Celtics-Hawks first-round series, I've enjoyed watching this Atlanta team. I wish Childress would have stuck around, because the young talent there is impressive. Miami has D-Wade, who will fight and fight, but if you ask LeBron last year, you need more than just one man to get anywhere in the playoffs. Still, Wade alone takes the series a few games further than it ought to go.
Hawks in 7

Second Round

1. Cavs vs. 4. Hawks
As I said before, I like the Hawks squad. But, this is LeBron's time, and he's got the teammates to back him up. Mo Williams can match Bibby, while the Varejao/Ilgauskas/Wallace trio down low should thwart the softer and smaller Al Horford/Josh Smith combo here. And then there's The King.
Cavs in 5

2. Celtics vs. 3. Magic
Now, here's where things get interesting. The Laker fan in me wants to call this for Orlando. I mean, is Kendrick Perkins really going to be the guy who halts Dwight Howard? The question here will be how Hedo, Rashard, and Rafer match up against Pierce, Allen, and Rondo. Healthy, the Magic could give that trio some trouble. Now you can really call me crazy: I'm thinking that with the length of time it takes the NBA to get through a playoff series, KG returns in the middle of this series, if it happens.
Celtics in 7

Eastern Conference Finals

1. Cavs vs. 2. Celtics
What we've all been waiting for all season long in the East--only, unless my insane prediction comes true, the Celtics are missing KG, and the series just got much less interesting. Two things: 1) Cleveland will have homecourt in this one, where they were 39-2 (and should have been 40-1...), 2) Cleveland killed this Boston team less than a week ago in Cleveland, 107-76, sending a nice statement to the Champs. This is where the road ends...
Cavs in 6

Western Conference

First Round

1. Lakers vs. Jazz
Jerry Sloan even thinks his team's chances are "bleak." As a cautious fan, I don't want to count my chickens before their hatched. Utah's always a tough place to play, and I see the Jazz grabbing a game there.
Lakers in 5

2. Nuggets vs. 7. Hornets
Was anyone else surprised to see the Nuggets squeak all the way up to #2? I guess I hadn't looked at the standings for a few weeks after the Lakers clinched and I was somewhat shocked that they were still up this high. That said, I feel like the West is so compact that nothing really matters between 2-7. The Hornets were last year's #2 seed, and led by CP3, they're a force. But, injuries gave them some trouble this year--Chandler and Stojakovic have never been consistently in the lineup, so they've been unable to get in a rhythm. Denver, on the other hand, has skated through, and even without Marcus Camby, Nene has stepped up down low to provide them a force there. Plus, if anyone can hang with CP3, its Billups.
Nuggets in 6

3. Spurs vs. 6. Mavericks
Like the Celtics without KG, the Spurs are a MUCH different team without Manu Ginobili. But, that guy named Tim Duncan and his 4 NBA Championships knows how to lead, and guys like Tony Parker and Roger Mason have really stepped up when Manu was out earlier in the year. On the other side, Dallas had a pretty mediocre and inconsistent year. As much as I'd like to see San Antonio upset in the first round, Dirk can't do it by himself, and Jason Kidd just hasn't been the leader that Dallas hoped for when they acquired him last year. Plus, it's an odd numbered year, and the Spurs tend to do well in those. But, it'll be a fun series, especially if sixth-man Jason Terry heats up.
Spurs in 7

4. Blazers vs. 5. Rockets
This is definitely my favorite first-round series. The Blazers soared at the end of the season and got into the #4 spot, while the Rockets had the chance to get as high as 2, but just couldn't seal the deal. Without T-Mac, I'm kind of excited that Tracy can't make another asinine comment about "if the Rockets lose, blame me." I like the Houston lineup, even without T-Mac, but the young Blazers will run and gun their way past them in a battle, I think.
Blazers in 7

Second Round

1. Lakers vs. 4. Blazers
The prospect of this series kinda scares me, because it's still early in the playoffs, and the Lakers have had some horrible struggles in the Rose Garden lately. But, Kobe's Kobe, and the experienced Lakers should get over those regular season jitters over a youthful Blazers squad.
Lakers in 5 (on the Staples Center floor, after stealing Game 4 in Portland)

2. Nuggets vs. 3. Spurs
The Western Conference has some great matchups this year that are so tough to call, and this would definitely be one of them. Even without Manu, the Spurs are one of the league's best, and I really just have a tough time seeing the Nuggets beat San Antonio in a seven-game series. Chauncey and Melo had a great run, but if its San Antonio in the second round, I see that being as far as it goes. Just my hunch.
Spurs in 6

Western Conference Finals

1. Lakers vs. 3. Spurs
Funny how I'm calling both the Celtics and Spurs in their respective conference finals, even with their major injuries. Maybe I'm giving their supporting cast too much credit, but San Antonio's grittiness just always seems to come through come playoff time (see Tim Duncan bank shot 3-pointer against Phoenix last year). But, like my Eastern Conference Final prediction above, the buck stops here for the Spurs. Lakers-Spurs playoff series this decade(save 2003) don't tend to go so well for the Texans. Without Ginobili, with the revitalized/healthy/happy Kobe-Pau-Lamar-Bynum quartet in purple and gold, and having Games 1 and 2 at Staples to cut through them early, I like the Lakers chances here.
Lakers in 5

NBA FINALS
Lakers vs. Cavs

Kobe and crew battled all year so that they'd have home-court advantage, and they fell just short to the Cavs. However, if it comes to this, as everyone hopes it will, the Lakers did themselves a favor as being one of the "2" in that 39-2 Cleveland home record. The key: which Lamar Odom comes to play? If he can come off the bench and be the leader of that second unit, I like the Lakers chances. Also, we need Pau not to disappear down low. Fortunately, I feel like the Lakers matchup well against Cleveland, and so long as LeBron is held in check simply to the point that he can't completely take over an entire game or (worse) 2, LA can win its first championship in 7 years.
Lakers in 6 (and Cleveland loses its second championship on its own floor in 3 years)

Let the games begin.

how not to fight for a playoff spot

the suns came into today's matchup with the mavericks three games behind dallas for the no. 8 seed in the west with six games remaining in the regular season.

at halftime, phoenix has pretty much destroyed its chances at making the playoffs by allowing 81 points in 20 minutes.

how bad is it for the suns? jason kidd has 16 points and 16 assists - the last of which came on a baseline inbounds pass for an 70-foot buzzer-beater by josh howard.

as avery johnson put it on the abc halftime show: "phoenix came into this game with a do-or-die situation. well, they're dead now."

maybe phoenix really does need to think about learning how to play defense.

day 5 bracket update

after the first half of the sweet 16, here's where the poop on boozer staff stands:

1st: d.r.w. (38 of 52)
2nd: k.c.r. (37 of 52)
3rd: k.l. (36 of 52)

i'm hanging tough, though - especially because d.r.w has memphis in his finals. let's go no. 3 seeds!

day 1 bracket update

after day 1, here's where the poop on boozer staff stands:

1st: k.l. (15 of 16)
2nd: k.c.r. (13 of 16)
3rd: d.r.w. (12 of 16)

i think k.c.r. and d.r.w. are just celebrating that memphis didn't choke and ruin their final four!

poop on ranked mid-major teams

poop on butler.

the 16th/17th-ranked bulldogs lost to cleveland state in the horizon league championship tuesday night, losing 57-54 as the vikings rained threes in indianapolis. awesome, right? everyone loves an underdog!

nope.

by losing, butler handed cleveland state its first berth in the ncaa tournament since 1986. again, awesome, right? this is what makes march MAD!

nope.

see, here's the thing. butler was going to make the dance regardless of last night's result. but now, we have to deal with TWO horizon league teams in the tournament.

yes, the last time they were there, the vikings upset the 3rd-seeded hoosiers and generated some serious excitement. but would you really rather watch cleveland state instead of teams like maryland or arizona? these squads are in danger of not making the tournament if random upsets like this continue to happen in mid-major conference tournaments.

so poop on you, butler bulldogs, for ruining the dreams of fans of ACTUALLY exciting teams in the REAL basketball conferences. while all 16,000 cleveland state students are undoubtedly quite excited about their berth, i'm sure that the crowd of 29,000 (and 240,000 alumni!) at college park is raving mad.

question of the day

as posed by d.r.w.: why is tim lincecum's contract figure so low?

the associated press reported that the cy young winner signed a one-year, $650,000 contract with the giants thursday. that's not even double the league minimum.

huh, you might wonder.

it seems that lincecum is probably more concerned about what happens post-2009. as the AP further reports, he is likely to be eligible for arbitration after this season.

read: BIG BUCKS.

if lincecum can post the sort of numbers he did this year, he stands to get a contract that might come close (but surely not all the way) to rivaling that of rotation-mate barry zito. so why not take the easy contract now with a team and pitching coach that he's comfortable with and go for the bigtime in a year?

still, it seems like he could have squeezed a little more out of the giants. is the kid just that nice? or is he pumped about a rotation that now features three cy young winners (lincecum, zito, and randy johnson)?

you may not be excited about lincecum or the giants, but you should sure as hell be excited that it's spring training. baseball is BACK.

_______________________

What is the sound of silence?

Pointless philosophical drivel? Sure. But also an important question when posed in reference to the A-Rod scandal. One of the biggest sports stories of the past few months at least, and three POB writers (and one guest writer!), one of them an avowed Yankees-hater, have remained conspicuously silent on the subject. What does this mean? That we all have lives--jobs, wives, kids, what have you--and are too busy to post? Sure, it means all of that. But it also means this: the A-Rod scandal is boring.

Go ahead, say it. It's okay to admit it. It doesn't take anything away from it; a story can be important and boring at the same time.  But even for A-Rod haters, what's interesting about this story? He took an illegal substance, but at this point, it's starting to seem like everyone did, at least among the great hitters of this era. We don't get an infuriating/entertaining denial a la Bonds/Clemens, or fun, evasive squirming a la Sosa/McGwire. We get a perfunctory apology and that's it. Baseball's cheaters have wised up, and in doing so, become less fun to hate. A-Rod seems as lifeless when reacting to a steroids scandal as he does playing in front of 40,000 home fans that hate him.

The big news--that 103 other people also failed drug tests--isn't even news, since we don't know who they are. And there don't seem to be any signs of Major League Baseball changing its policies. So, to sum up: we've confirmed the sneaking suspicion that everybody's been cheating, we're still not going to do anything about it, and A-Rod is sorry, but he promises that he only took substances that one time they were testing for them, and he's not even sure what they were, and he's totally sorry. Seriously, the most interesting part of this whole story was when A-Rod was bright orange for his entire confession and used the term "loosey-goosey" for some reason. When do actual baseball games start?

GUEST POST: poop on the top line!

since we here at poop on boozer have been slow with the posts recently - hey, come on, we have to earn our rent, too! - here's a guest post from the one and only r.e. to keep you entertained.

yeah, i know he writes a lot. give him a break - it's tough being a tar heels fan in 2009.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an avid follower of both emerging technologies and most major American sports, usually my life only gets better when the two worlds collide. Just think – hasn’t TiVo changed the way you watch sports (read: instant replay)? How much better is watching football on a 42-inch HD set compared to your old 32-inch CRT? How much more intense is March when you can see individual beads of sweat fling off Stephen Curry’s hand as he buries a three to down Georgetown? Sports, in part, is about the drama created through amazing athleticism, and as technology improves, so does our ability to both appreciate the art of the game, and to become immersed in the event as if we were truly taking part.

It therefore came as such a surprise to my roommate, Poop on Boozer beat writer K.L. (I’d say the one-and-only, but I don’t want Facebook to make a liar out of me), to hear me verbally abusing the television set because of a technological advance, not due to the lack of one of my many likely ill-fated technological pipe dreams (don’t you also want to smell Stephen Curry’s sweat?). For those of you who tuned in to the predictably… well, predictable BC / Maryland game on ESPN2 tonight, you probably already know what my beef is, because you’ve been thinking the same thing for the last two hours: for what possible reason do I need to read comments from viewers who likely know less about basketball than I do?

My apologies – let’s take a step back. As part of its ongoing effort to widen its appeal across audiences and across platforms, ESPN is piloting an updated version of “Interactive Tuesdays.” Yes, I can already hear you groaning, and rightfully so. To put it short, “Interactive Tuesdays” is a broad expansion of tools like the SportsNation poll (which, let’s face it, is completely and shamelessly biased based on users’ geographic location) from the web straight to your TV. Individuals (who require no more certification than a free ESPN.com account) can submit comments via ESPN.com (search “Interactive,” as if embedded searches ever work) or text message (to 43776) to discuss the featured game of the day. This is nothing new; ESPN.com has held similar chats with experts as well as allowed users to comment on news articles in the past in an effort to build an online community. What is new, however, is that now a selection of these comments (obviously filtered by someone in the Bristol mailroom) are displayed in a new scrolling “Top Line” (all rights reserved, R.E., 2009) above the actual action you tuned in to watch.

Now, you tell me: why, exactly, should I care what users like “Sheydel” ("Maryland has to take better shots…") or “asimpso1” ("MARYLAND is SOOOOO bad!!!! Hahahahahaa") have to say, even if they’re right (Maryland did need to take better shots, and, let’s be honest – how many more times can Maryland jump out to a commanding lead only to buckle under the – wait, what pressure?)? Find yourself speechless? I hope so. As it is, half of the ‘insights’ and ‘analysis’ provided by the broadcasters literally came out of my mouth 30 seconds earlier (and likely several other times throughout the game), and I doubt that these other guys have anything else of any value to add. At least when Dicky V talks about some Duke kid in a diaper, he doesn’t get in the way of Danny Green sticking it to Greg what’s-his-face-I-don’t-remember-because-he-got-benched-his-senior-year.

To give ESPN some credit, at least they’re trying something different and attempting to enhance the fan experience. It even makes sense from a business perspective – this program increases awareness of additional features on the website, which drives traffic (and thus ad revenue), increases attachment to the brand, and so on. However, let me suggest that they make some other more basic improvements instead. Like, for instance, the indiscernible lack of HD coverage on nationally-broadcast weeknight games. I understand that Maryland doesn’t hold the same national prowess as it did in the early 2000s, and that they are fresh off a seemingly 98-point loss to the Blue Babies, but why on Earth was this game left in standard definition while the other ACC game (Miami vs. NC State) did get the special treatment, even though it was broadcast on ESPNU, which only .0034% of the country actually gets? Think, ESPN, please; if you’re going to cut off the top of my screen with useless comments, at least give me some 1080p coverage instead of those grey ESPN logos on the left and right.

On a day that clearly could have gone better for Terps everywhere, hopefully Gary Williams can take solace in knowing that user “neal990” ("I think Gary Williams got fired at halftime, that explains this collapse") has a short memory (as much as it pains me to throw in a Duke highlight, hopefully it only gives credence and a level of balance in this otherwise biased post), and won’t be among the masses calling for his head at season’s end.

So, ESPN, there you have it – Poop on the Top Line (all rights still reserved).

Whoops... looks like I owe myself a benjamin.

Odom's Gesture

The Clippers filed a complaint to the NBA this weekend complaining about a certain "gesture" that Lamar Odom made after a 4th quarter dunk.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen the video, but apparently after the dunk, Odom grabbed his crotch. What that means? I don't know. Perhaps he got hit? Maybe it was like, "get off my jock"? I don't know, but it offended the Clips.

Just last week, after hitting a clutch 3, Kobe did the Pedro Cerrano "You have no marbles" dance (sorry, couldn't find a video from Major League II, but here's the Kobe ).

That's certainly more "offensive" than anything Lamar probably did, but you don't see the Spurs complaining. Maybe because they won? Or maybe because they aren't the Clippers and sitting at 10-32 halfway through the year. Either way, this is the NBA, and players are obscene. Get over it.

Jedi Mind Tricks

There's a fine line between cheating and using your head. When A-Rod shouted "Mine!" on that pop-up, people were angry presumably because he was using mind games rather than baseball strategy to influence a baseball game; had he performed a normal takeout slide into second to break up a double play, no one would have noticed. Of course, no one objects when you call a time-out to ice the kicker, either. 

While I don't necessarily disagree, and tend to get outraged/not care right along with everybody else, it is nevertheless true that I can't find any consistent standard that I/we are applying. Which means that I can't decide whether this is a questionable idea, or simply an impressive one. It also leads to even more questions, such as: has it ever occurred to anyone that the Cleveland Browns may have an advantage when running play-action fakes?

K.R.'s Back - But is Phil Jackson gone?

I haven't even seen this online yet, but reports on LA's ESPN radio suggest that during this Sunday's Lakers vs. Spurs game, ABC will air a taped interview that took place today between Magic Johnson and Phil Jackson.

In that interview, Johnson supposedly asks Jackson how much longer he plans on coaching. Reportedly, Jackson answers that he will coach through the end next season -- that is, he'll finish this year and next, completing his current contract with the Lakers, then he'll hang it up.

Obviously, being that he's Phil Jackson, you've got to take it all with a grain of salt. He "retired" in 1998 after guiding the Bulls to 6 NBA championships only to return to take the Lakers job in 2000. He "retired" in 2004 after the Lakers failed to beat the Pistons in the NBA Finals, only to return after a one-year hiatus.

So, this leaves a few questions. Will he really retire? What if the Lakers win the championship this year? Will he leave on top?

What if they win both this year and next year? Will he want to leave while on a championship streak?

If he does leave at the end of next year, may Kobe Bryant opt out of his contract if the new coach isn't who he wants to play for? On that note, how much say will Bryant have?

Lastly, who are the candidates for what is arguably the most attractive coaching job in not just in the NBA, but in all of professional sports? Inside candidates are certainly Kurt Rambis and Brian Shaw (if not Jim Cleamons or Frank Hamblen). Outside candidates have got to be current New Orleans Hornets coach and former Lakers star Byron Scott, who recently said that the Lakers job would be his "dream job." Scott's current contract conveniently expires at the conclusion of the 2009-2010 season.

In 2004, at Bryant's urging, the Lakers reportedly offered the job to Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski, though he ultimately rejected. Perhaps after bonding with Kobe on the 2008 "Redeem Team," Coach K may be more interested in the Lakers job if offered it again in 2010?

Anyway, it's all preliminary at this point, but it's definitely an interesting story that hasn't really broken yet. It'll be fun to actually see what Phil says in the interview that is causing so much hype in the LA sports radio world.

wednesday night sports digest

muller is at it again. the luxembourgish tennis star is ripping it up down under, into the third round at the australian open and on pace for another matchup with federer, the man who downed muller in the 2008 u.s. open quarterfinals en route to his 13th grand slam title. but if muller is going to have a shot at a rematch, he's going to have to take care of the powerful young juan martin del potro, the no. 8 seed who is sure to match muller's strong serve with some groundstroke blasts of his own.

in sports, retirement is always temporary. just ask 43-year-old claude lemieux, who is back on the ice in an NHL uniform in an attempt for yet another run at lord stanley's cup. and what better team to come back with than the sharks, who are guaranteed to have at least a share of the overall league lead heading into the all-star break? and this has to be good news from san jose's perspective. signing an old dude for the stretch run? this has all the makings of a p.j. brown / boston celtics kind of fairytale.

apparently, it's really hard to be no. 1. as i write, wake forest is trailing virginia tech by 10 in the second half. okay, the hokies are a good team, and they have done very well against top-ranked teams in recent history. but come on! this is a wake team that just beat clemson this past weekend! the only undefeated team in division I currently looks as helpless as can be. if jeff teague and co. can't turn this around, the blue devils stand to move into the top spot when the new rankings are released. will duke be able to avoid becoming the third acc team this season to fall from the mighty perch? or will they be denied that chance by getting owned by the terps on saturday? one can only hope for the latter.

great minds think alike?

last weekend was not exactly my moment of glory.

going into round 2 of the NFL playoffs, i figured i would play it safe with the poop picks. after all, it is less than a year removed from the NCAA tournament in which all four no. 1 seeds made it to the final four!

so, of course, i made my predictions: carolina, tennessee, new york, and san diego. three home teams and one wild california upset, just for fun. how wrong could i go?

apparently, real wrong. 0-4 wrong. even babies picking based on their favorite colors did better than me.

but, it was some solace to read today that i was not alone. the great sports guy, bill simmons himself, was right there with me. he, too, did not get a single prediction correct. and so, even if my poop picks were misguided, at least a supposed sports genius was clueless as well.

so, this week, i'm not even going to bother thinking about it. i'm just going with the sports guy: cardinals over eagles, and steelers over ravens. sorry, pennsylvania: wait another year (or 20) for your intra-state deathmatch.

see, this way, i'm safe: i either get the picks right, or at least i'm as dumb as bill simmons. life could be worse.

best and worst sports memories

good and bad are really two sides of the same coin, and i think you will find that some of my sweetest memories are strongly related to some of my worst. that's what keeps us coming back to sports, though, right?


BEST MEMORIES:

-2002 ncaa tournament. jay williams choked, maryland rocked everyone - including kansas and indiana in the final two games - to take home its first-ever men's basketball national title. amazing. (and let's not forget the women's title in 2006.)

-2002 nlcs. after edging past the braves, the giants embarrass the cardinals in five games to clinch a spot in the world series. bonds is homer-ific, benito santiago is rocking the house, and robb nen is a closer extraordinaire. life is good.

-2005 u.s. open. gilles muller, a native of luxembourg, rocks the tennis world by upsetting andy roddick in the first round. yes, he loses in the second round, but at least it's to a half-luxembourger in robbie ginepri.

-2008 u.s. open. muller is back again, and this time he's even better, making a run all the way to the quarters before falling to eventual champion roger federer. what a beast.

-san jose sharks, any recent regular season. 2008-09 is a prime example, but the sharks have been the team to reckon with over the past few seasons. sure, they're not the red wings, but the sharks have been able to pair solid goaltending with serious offensive firepower for years now.

-dallas mavericks, most recent regular seasons. the jason-kidd-for-devin-harris-and-the-kitchen-sink-trade aside, the mavericks have been one of the better teams in the nba in the 2000s, including a run to the finals in 2006 and the best record in the league in 2006-07. no matter what your allegiances, you can't tell me you don't enjoy watching terry, nowitzki, and howard light up defenses - and, for howard, the occasional joint - night after night.


WORST MEMORIES:

-maryland, any season since 2002. gary williams has never been known for his recruiting, but especially since he got his title and waved goodbye to steve blake, juan dixon, chris wilcox, and co., he's thrown in the towel when it comes to getting good players to campus - and keeping them there. sure, maryland's likely to throw up a good upset every season, but without a big man and with serious academic issues, the terps no longer are a threat for the acc title like they were in the early part of the decade.

-2002 world series. in game 6, dusty baker hands russ ortiz the game ball in the 7th inning, and then all hell breaks loose. the rally monkey kicks ass, troy glaus gets the big hit off the injured robb nen, and those almost engraved rings are tossed out and emblazoned with halos instead. i don't eat dinner for two nights in a row.

-2003 nlds. you never want to end your season because you don't pinch-run for j.t. snow. especially when this is the last time you will make the playoffs for the rest of the decade.

-2008 tour de france. after several luxembourgers make runs at the yellow jersey, frank schleck establishes a solid lead heading into the final days of the race. but, of course, carlos sastre steals it away at the very end, denying schleck (and luxembourg) its well-deserved glory. no 'roids reported yet, but just you wait.

-san jose sharks, any recent postseason. i just can't explain it, but the sharks can't finish when it comes to the big-time. year after year, they lose to teams that have been playing worse than them. but after their four-overtime loss to dallas to exit stanley cup contention last season and todd mclellan's arrival in san jose, the sharks look like they may finally have what it takes to translate regular-season success into postseason glory. but that's what i thought last year, too.

-2006 nba finals. with a chance to go up 3-0 in the series, dirk (of all people!) misses a free throw, and the mavericks collapse. dwayne wade becomes a star, shaq gets another ring, and dallas blows its best chance to win a title.

-2007 western conference quarterfinals. you know how you ruin an amazing regular season? by losing to the eighth-seeded warriors in the first round.

Bottom of the Barrel

Every great hero could not exist without their accompanying villain. Batman had the Joker. Dudley Do-Right had Snidely Whiplash. The 1997 Chicago Bulls had the 1998 Chicago Bulls. Yes, no great good can exist without its great evil, no positivity without its accompanying negativity, and no success without failure.

A little while ago, I wrote about the top five sports memories of my life--but that was only half the story. The truth is that those moments would not have been as sweet without the bottom five, and therefore those moments, as painful as they may have been, were instrumental in propelling me to the highest heights of sports enjoymeny. At least, that's what I tell myself when I wake up in a cold sweat with the Red Sox' 1995 ALDS loss to the Indians replaying in my head. Anyway, for better or for worse, here they are, the other piece of the puzzle. As we Bostonians like to do, the list is organized by singling out the pivotal figure in each moment and inserting a swear word into their name.

THE BOTTOM FIVE SPORTS MEMORIES OF D.R.W.'S LIFE:

5. 1999 ALCS, GAME 4 (TIM F@&%ING TSCHIDA)

A little bit of a wild card choice. Sure, it was the playoffs, and it was the Yankees, but even at 13, I was a little too young to fully realize the implications of a Red Sox-Yankees playoff series. Also, the Red Sox probably would have lost the series anyway, and even if they hadn't wound up on the bad end of one of the worst calls in sports history, they probably would have lost the game anyway. All in all, relatively inconsequential, for what I'm declaring to be a bottom-five moment. But, I mean, holy hell, does he look out to you?

4. 2007 AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME (MARLIN F@&%ING JACKSON)

If a theme is going to develop over the course of this list (and if I can help it, it never will), it's how some of the worst sports moments in my life came as the Patriots were repeatedly denied as they attempted to make the leap from the great team of their decade to one of the truly transcendent teams in football history. This was one of those times. The Pats were on the way to their fourth Super Bowl of the decade, and it was going to be oh so sweet. They were going to beat their hated rival to do it, and everything was lining up perfectly for Tom Brady to direct one of his patented humiliating, backbreaking, heroic game-winning drives. Then he was intercepted by Marlin Jackson. Who? Exactly.

Oh yeah, and Manning and the Colts went on to win their first Super Bowl. Peyton was MVP. I need to take a five-minute break.

...

3. 2006 NFL PLAYOFFS: PATRIOTS-BRONCOS (CHAMP F@&%KING BAILEY)

I'm back, but it's not going to get any easier. This game was actually very similar to the last one--big playoff loss, huge interception, doomed season, aborted dynasty. So what makes it worse than the Colts game, if that one involved a rivalry and this one didn't? It's pretty simple--this one came first, and this one derailed a run at three Super Bowls in a row. If any game did the most to prevent the Patriots from taking their place among the greatest NFL teams of all time, it was this one. I'm not going to complain too much, since I've been more than content following a three-Super-Bowls-in-a-decade team. But unlike, say, the 1999 ALCS, I fully understood the significance of this loss as I watched it unfold, and that was tough.

2. SUPER BOWL XLII (ELI F@&%KING MANNING/DAVID F@&%KING TYREE)

I'll never experience a defeat quite like this one, because I've never felt more of a need for my team to win. There was the mounting burden of 19-0, combined with the fact that, for a variety of reasons, the 44 other states were all rooting for New England to go down in flames. As every game passed, the pressure on the Patriots to lose intensified, but they were just one game away from emerging safely from all of it, and forcing the Patriots-hating world to respect them, if not like them.

But when Eli Manning wriggled free from about nine pass rushers, when David Tyree made the most improbable catch I've ever seen, when Asante Samuel mistimed his leap for a potential game-ending pick--it gave the world the opportunity to label the Pats chokers as well as cheaters. In one game, what should have been the greatest achievement in NFL history became the catalyst for an offseason of mockery. As a sports fan, you're prepared to see your team lose big games every now and then, but I've never seen so high and mighty a team brought down so low in the course of one game, and I never will again.

1. 2003 ALCS, GAME 7 (AARON F@&%KING BOONE)

I spent the better part of an hour trying to write this paragraph, and I couldn't do it. Really. Five years later, and I still couldn't. That's how bad it was.

Giant Mistake?

The latest from the "Will my friendship with K.L. survive?" files:

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/hot_stove/posts/37081?eref=fromSI

Texeir-ing The Wealth

You may have detected, if you truly read between the lines of some of my posts on this blog, some faint undertones of animosity towards the New York Yankees. You may remember that as the Empire wrapped up its offseason spending spree, I was there every step of the way, compromising my journalistic integrity in order to take highly partisan swipes at every Bostonian's favorite punching bag.

But it's a new year now, and if I had thought to make any new year's resolutions, it seems possible that one of them could have been a pledge to be more mature and open-minded. So, in the spirit of that hypothetical non-resolution, I thought I'd give the Pinstripes a chance and try to play devil's advocate. Sure, I found their winter free-agent binge disgusting as it unfolded. But now, as I examine it with fresh, fair-minded 2009 eyes, could it be possible that the Yankees' ridiculous spending was actually good for baseball? Can the unjustifiable be justified?

I'm not sure how much I actually believe this, but--maybe. It all goes back to the function that baseball--and sports overall--are supposed to serve in our lives. Some would argue that sports is about poetry, about superhuman feats that reveal some kind of unique deeper meaning. But I think sports is mostly about escapism. That's why baseball games are on at 7, and football games are on weekends--when we come home from work, or when we have a day off, we want something a little bit outside our lives to think about for a while. And, as I've said before, baseball stays the same as our country changes, which means that our teams are always there to reassure us.

And it just so happens that, in 2008, there was a lot to escape from. Mostly, it was the economy, which transitioned rapidly from our national strength into something truly frightening. It was surprisingly jarring for me to read articles about how the economic crisis might end up affecting teams' spending. Baseball teams, I felt, are institutions that are supposed to be immune from that kind of thing. We won't be able to turn on the game to escape from the economic crisis if it follows us into the TV.

And then, a few months later, it was the Yankees who stood up and expanded their payroll to reassert their sport's invulnerability. Sure, they monopolized the available talent and eroded just a little more of baseball's rapidly disappearing competitive fairness. But in its own way, it's almost admirable--who has flown in the face of our country's biggest current threat more than the New York Yankees? In outspending all 29 other teams combined by almost a 2-to-1 margin, at least they reassured us all that, for some teams, our sports could continue to exist apart from reality, as they had before the crisis began. While it may be somewhat obnoxious, the Yankees are just doing what they've always done. And that's exactly what baseball is for.