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.