http://jezebel.com/5593689/cheerleading-is-not-a-sport-because-some-judge-says-so
First Jezebel link on this blog. Cause for celebration!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Signs of Progress!
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5338733/ce/us/sepp-blatter-says-fifa-reopen-file-replay&cc=5901?ver=us
I will never get tired of posting about this. I'm shooting for the POB all-time monthly record.
I will never get tired of posting about this. I'm shooting for the POB all-time monthly record.
Monday, June 28, 2010
This Just In
You don't need to cut down on your mistakes if you can try to prevent people from knowing about them!
FIFA 2010: Embrace mediocrity!
FIFA 2010: Embrace mediocrity!
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Too Much Of A Good Thing
You know me. I'm all for accepting change into our beloved sports traditions. Technology can help us. We don't need to accept things the way they have always been when we have an opportunity to improve them. That whole deal.
And then, of course, we have this. Change gone amok. New technology interfering with the greatest tradition in all of sports. FIFA is doing its best to undermine my point--but just watch while I twist this into supporting my point of view.
What FIFA is helping us see is simply the fact that we have to be reasonable. I've argued that the idea that we can't change our sports is unfounded, but the other extreme is just as insane: the idea of changing our sports for nothing other than the sake of changing them. Case in point: what on Earth was wrong with whatever soccer balls we used last time? Why can't we just pick a ball and stick with it, instead of changing it for absolutely no reason? This is, in fact, the same frustration I've shown before--just as we shouldn't change our sports equipment for no reason, we also shouldn't change our team logos and colors just because we feel like it.
When we promote change for nothing more than the sake of change, we're suggesting that change is inherently good. When we argue that we can't add replay to baseball because human error has always been a part of the game, we're suggesting that change is inherently bad. And I can't understand either point of view. Whether or not change is good depends entirely on what we want to change and why. If we have a good reason for updating our beloved sports, then we're damaging them by not following up on that opportunity. If we have no good reason at all, then we're throwing our dearly held sports traditions away just because we're bored. Thankfully, things are ultimately very simple: if we can just act for the right reasons, then everything won't just be okay, it will be better.
And then, of course, we have this. Change gone amok. New technology interfering with the greatest tradition in all of sports. FIFA is doing its best to undermine my point--but just watch while I twist this into supporting my point of view.
What FIFA is helping us see is simply the fact that we have to be reasonable. I've argued that the idea that we can't change our sports is unfounded, but the other extreme is just as insane: the idea of changing our sports for nothing other than the sake of changing them. Case in point: what on Earth was wrong with whatever soccer balls we used last time? Why can't we just pick a ball and stick with it, instead of changing it for absolutely no reason? This is, in fact, the same frustration I've shown before--just as we shouldn't change our sports equipment for no reason, we also shouldn't change our team logos and colors just because we feel like it.
When we promote change for nothing more than the sake of change, we're suggesting that change is inherently good. When we argue that we can't add replay to baseball because human error has always been a part of the game, we're suggesting that change is inherently bad. And I can't understand either point of view. Whether or not change is good depends entirely on what we want to change and why. If we have a good reason for updating our beloved sports, then we're damaging them by not following up on that opportunity. If we have no good reason at all, then we're throwing our dearly held sports traditions away just because we're bored. Thankfully, things are ultimately very simple: if we can just act for the right reasons, then everything won't just be okay, it will be better.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Play It Again
In a recent piece from Slate, Josh Levin, presenting an argument for the eradication of umpires, asks the following question:
"If it's objective truth we're after, why should the one guy who isn't watching in slo-mo have any say at all, much less the last word?"
I'm not prepared to argue for the end of the umpire in Major League Baseball, although that sentence makes so much sense it makes me want to cry. However, I am prepared to argue for what Levin is really advocating (even he recognizes we can never fully eliminate the umpire): the use of video and video replay as an officiating aid in pretty much every situation possible.
I've argued this before, including in my most recent, exasperated post. My work clearly isn't done, as long as people are still writing things like this, but I'd at least like to make an effort to avoid repeating myself. Thus, instead of arguing FOR the use of replay, I'm going to discuss/eviscerate a couple of common counterarguments.
HOLISTIC FALLACY: This one can be classified as some variant of the phrase, "The human error inherent in umpiring is part of the game." As an example, read the second paragraph in that link above. It makes me nauseous, because it's dependent on the idea that baseball is one whole and all of its elements are inseparable, and that's just not true; it is one hundred percent within our power to change one part of the game while leaving the rest alone. Don't like the fact that we can only play baseball during the day? Boom, we just installed lights. The rest of the game remains the same. Don't like the fact that bad calls are being made all over the place? Here, here's a video replay monitor. We'll use it to get things right, and at all other times--I promise--you'll forget it's there.
So, the question really becomes, both for that particular NYT columnist as well as those who agree with him: do you like it when an epicly huge call is blown? Is that a specific part of baseball you want to keep? Note that my question is not: do you like baseball, a part of which is the fact that epicly huge calls are sometimes blown. My question is: do you like when the calls are blown? Because we can keep all that good, old-timey, peanuts-and-cracker-jack baseball essence and just get rid of the bad calls, or at least a good amount of them. This is entirely possible and has been for quite some time. And if we really do want to hang on to everything that's been a part of the game, then a lot of ballplayers aren't going to be thrilled to hear that they've been resegregated back to the Negro Leagues. You can tell them. I don't wanna.
DEFEATISM: This one goes something like this: we can never eliminate human error entirely, since there will always be borderline balk calls, tag plays at the bases/home plate, etc., so why even try? There's no other way to describe this than the way I've labeled it: defeatism. We'll never be perfect, so there's no sense in striving to be better than we are. Hear that, Joe Mauer? You'll never get on base 100% of the time, so you might as well blow off the batting cages. There's no point in doing the best we can--even though we can do a hell of a lot better than we already are--because there will always be flaws. Human production and improvement grinds to a halt under this system of thinking, so I'd rather avoid it as the basis for how we should run baseball.
"If it's objective truth we're after, why should the one guy who isn't watching in slo-mo have any say at all, much less the last word?"
I'm not prepared to argue for the end of the umpire in Major League Baseball, although that sentence makes so much sense it makes me want to cry. However, I am prepared to argue for what Levin is really advocating (even he recognizes we can never fully eliminate the umpire): the use of video and video replay as an officiating aid in pretty much every situation possible.
I've argued this before, including in my most recent, exasperated post. My work clearly isn't done, as long as people are still writing things like this, but I'd at least like to make an effort to avoid repeating myself. Thus, instead of arguing FOR the use of replay, I'm going to discuss/eviscerate a couple of common counterarguments.
HOLISTIC FALLACY: This one can be classified as some variant of the phrase, "The human error inherent in umpiring is part of the game." As an example, read the second paragraph in that link above. It makes me nauseous, because it's dependent on the idea that baseball is one whole and all of its elements are inseparable, and that's just not true; it is one hundred percent within our power to change one part of the game while leaving the rest alone. Don't like the fact that we can only play baseball during the day? Boom, we just installed lights. The rest of the game remains the same. Don't like the fact that bad calls are being made all over the place? Here, here's a video replay monitor. We'll use it to get things right, and at all other times--I promise--you'll forget it's there.
So, the question really becomes, both for that particular NYT columnist as well as those who agree with him: do you like it when an epicly huge call is blown? Is that a specific part of baseball you want to keep? Note that my question is not: do you like baseball, a part of which is the fact that epicly huge calls are sometimes blown. My question is: do you like when the calls are blown? Because we can keep all that good, old-timey, peanuts-and-cracker-jack baseball essence and just get rid of the bad calls, or at least a good amount of them. This is entirely possible and has been for quite some time. And if we really do want to hang on to everything that's been a part of the game, then a lot of ballplayers aren't going to be thrilled to hear that they've been resegregated back to the Negro Leagues. You can tell them. I don't wanna.
DEFEATISM: This one goes something like this: we can never eliminate human error entirely, since there will always be borderline balk calls, tag plays at the bases/home plate, etc., so why even try? There's no other way to describe this than the way I've labeled it: defeatism. We'll never be perfect, so there's no sense in striving to be better than we are. Hear that, Joe Mauer? You'll never get on base 100% of the time, so you might as well blow off the batting cages. There's no point in doing the best we can--even though we can do a hell of a lot better than we already are--because there will always be flaws. Human production and improvement grinds to a halt under this system of thinking, so I'd rather avoid it as the basis for how we should run baseball.
THE ADDITION-WITHOUT-SUBTRACTION FALLACY: The games are already too darn long! This one ends up being a variation of defeatism; replay would make games take longer (debatable, but fine, I'll grant it for the purposes of the conversation), so, I guess we're sunk, because we'll never find a way to make it shorter again.
Let's have a little optimism, people! There are plenty of things we can do to make games shorter, if that's your concern. Personally, I'm fine with how the games are now, as well as how long they would be if you added in a little time for replay. But if you're worried, know this: in the Red Sox-A's game I watched yesterday, the announcers mentioned that because the A's reliever in the bullpen hadn't started warming up early enough, the current pitcher might just throw over to first base a bunch of times until he was ready. And your problem is that we might take a little time to get the calls right? Let's start with things like banning Jorge Posada from visiting the mound eight times in an inning, and I promise you, we'll have time for all the replays we want to watch.
SLIPPERY SLOPE: The argument I kept hearing in the hours after Jim Joyce's Portrait Of The Umpire As A Flawed Officiator (that's right, guys, this post is getting this blog's first 'Irish literature' label. I'm back with a vengeance. Deal with it.) was that it would be criminal for Bud Selig to step in to overturn the call, because: what would happen the next time there was a blown game-ending call? Things would go crazy! The system will collapse! We'll have an army of laser-equipped QuesTec 3000 robot umpires running amok by the year 2017!
A few things on this one. First, I agree that it's not ideal for Bud Selig to step in and change things (and how awesome would it be if we used in-game replay review so he never had to?). But, God, is it so awful if he changes things so they're right? If a play that millions of fans know is an out is changed to an out, that is to the detriment of humanity how, exactly? And if it happens again (even--or especially--in the World Series, as the NYT column suggests), and we still don't have a better system in place to deal with it because of stubborn anti-replay advocates, then please, Bud, step in and change it. Save us from ourselves.
Secondly: I don't like slippery slope arguments, because they entirely undersell human self-control. If Bud wants to change this one call because it was a perfect game and we all know it, but next time something comes up, he wants to say, "Screw you all, that was different, I'm not doing it again," it is entirely within his power to do that. Similarly, if we want to say that replay is for boundary calls only and we never want to expand it, then we get to decide not to expand it. It's as simple as that. And if we find that we do want Bud to correct a call the next time around, or we do want to use replay in more situations, then that means we've decided willingly to take the next step down the slope. We haven't fallen off a precipice, we've just taken the next step.
SLIPPERY SLOPE: The argument I kept hearing in the hours after Jim Joyce's Portrait Of The Umpire As A Flawed Officiator (that's right, guys, this post is getting this blog's first 'Irish literature' label. I'm back with a vengeance. Deal with it.) was that it would be criminal for Bud Selig to step in to overturn the call, because: what would happen the next time there was a blown game-ending call? Things would go crazy! The system will collapse! We'll have an army of laser-equipped QuesTec 3000 robot umpires running amok by the year 2017!
A few things on this one. First, I agree that it's not ideal for Bud Selig to step in and change things (and how awesome would it be if we used in-game replay review so he never had to?). But, God, is it so awful if he changes things so they're right? If a play that millions of fans know is an out is changed to an out, that is to the detriment of humanity how, exactly? And if it happens again (even--or especially--in the World Series, as the NYT column suggests), and we still don't have a better system in place to deal with it because of stubborn anti-replay advocates, then please, Bud, step in and change it. Save us from ourselves.
Secondly: I don't like slippery slope arguments, because they entirely undersell human self-control. If Bud wants to change this one call because it was a perfect game and we all know it, but next time something comes up, he wants to say, "Screw you all, that was different, I'm not doing it again," it is entirely within his power to do that. Similarly, if we want to say that replay is for boundary calls only and we never want to expand it, then we get to decide not to expand it. It's as simple as that. And if we find that we do want Bud to correct a call the next time around, or we do want to use replay in more situations, then that means we've decided willingly to take the next step down the slope. We haven't fallen off a precipice, we've just taken the next step.
See how that works? For the most part, you only slide down a slippery slope because you want to. We're not suddenly going to find ourselves reviewing more and more plays, or introducing more and more technology into baseball, against our will. Either we won't do it, or (hopefully) we'll slide down that slope and embrace the future because we realized that the top of the hill was ridiculously behind the times. Guys, I've slid down, and it's wonderful down here. Please, please join me.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
They're All All-Stars In My Book
Congratulations are in order. Scott Podsednik, Ricky Romero, and Mike Pelfrey, I'm looking at you.
That's because, as mlb.com proudly declares, the 2010 Major League Baseball All-Star Game voting is officially open. Now that we've seen about nine percent of what the players are going to do this year, it seems that we're ready to call it.
As you've no doubt realized, what I'm doing is making an argument for how ridiculous it is to vote for the All-Star Game this early in the year (or to have fans vote for it at all, but that's another post for another time). However, I could just as easily have made my point by coming at it from an opposite direction. If we're voting now, then Podsednik, Romero, and Pelfrey DO deserve to be in the running, but at this point in the year, they're not going to be. When you vote after 15 games, people are going to go with the names they know, which means the superstars will make the cut no matter how they've started the year.
Of course, that's a problem no matter what (again, I'm resisting the temptation--for now--to go after fan voting in general). However, having fans vote without any information on what kind of season players are actually having only makes things worse.
But hey, this is the way we're going, so let's run with it. With his 1.000 batting average and 2.500 slugging percentage, Darnell McDonald is a lock as your starting All-Star CF.
That's because, as mlb.com proudly declares, the 2010 Major League Baseball All-Star Game voting is officially open. Now that we've seen about nine percent of what the players are going to do this year, it seems that we're ready to call it.
As you've no doubt realized, what I'm doing is making an argument for how ridiculous it is to vote for the All-Star Game this early in the year (or to have fans vote for it at all, but that's another post for another time). However, I could just as easily have made my point by coming at it from an opposite direction. If we're voting now, then Podsednik, Romero, and Pelfrey DO deserve to be in the running, but at this point in the year, they're not going to be. When you vote after 15 games, people are going to go with the names they know, which means the superstars will make the cut no matter how they've started the year.
Of course, that's a problem no matter what (again, I'm resisting the temptation--for now--to go after fan voting in general). However, having fans vote without any information on what kind of season players are actually having only makes things worse.
But hey, this is the way we're going, so let's run with it. With his 1.000 batting average and 2.500 slugging percentage, Darnell McDonald is a lock as your starting All-Star CF.
Friday, April 16, 2010
NBA Playoff Predictions
My blogging has been relegated to being once a year -- NBA Playoff Predictions. This year, I'm again going head-to-head with Celtics fan/blogger and USC Law Student Hayden. We'll both make our picks, then compare in June: 1 point for picking the winning team in the first round, 2 points for picking the winning team in the second round, 3 for the third, and 4 in the finals, then a bonus point for picking the number of games the series goes (only if you pick the winning team of the series). Check Hayden's picks, and we'll see who's the winner in June.
Western Conference
First Round
#1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. #8 Oklahoma City Thunder
Both teams have limped into the playoffs, though fortunately, the Lakers had a big enough lead at the beginning to wrap up the #1 seed early. The Thunder threatened as high as #6, but losing 4 of 5 down the stretch forced them into the 8th seed and a match with the Lakers. Durant's first playoff experience will be entertaining, but I see this as a good chance for the Lakers to get energized and prepared for later rounds. Kobe doesn't back down in the playoffs. Durant will win game 3, but that's all.
Lakers in 5
#4 Denver Nuggets vs. #5 Utah Jazz
I feel like all the experts are picking Utah, but I'm going the other way. Boozer's missed time, Kirilenko has missed time, and a lack of homecourt advantage by way of losing to Phoenix on the season's last night will all work against the Jazz. On the other hand, Kenyon Martin seems to have gotten over having his car filled with buttered popcorn on April Fool's, and played in the team's final few games, albeit not fantastically. Billups and Carmelo will lead this team to an early lead, and Utah won't be able to recover.
Nuggets in 6
#3 Phoenix Suns vs. #6 Portland Trail Blazers
No Brandon Roy, no Greg Oden, and Portland isn't too much of a threat. Andre Miller, Martell Webster, and Marcus Camby just aren't that intimidating as a trio. Nash has had a re-energized season, Amare looks like he actually likes being in Phoenix, and guys like Jason Richardson, Channing Frye, and Robin Lopez are all fitting their roles nicely. If Barbosa can regain his form from a few years ago, this team could be scary in the playoffs.
Suns in 4
#2 Dallas Mavericks vs. #7 San Antonio Spurs
This is probably going to be the most interesting series of the first round. Seed numbers don't really matter, in my book. San Antonio is finally healthy, and overcame a tough first half of the season to finish 20-11 after the All Star Break. Dallas wasn't so bad itself, after acquiring Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood, finishing 23-7 (though, as John Hollinger notes, they did have the second easiest schedule over that stretch). This may be the Spurs' final run with this core, with Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, etc. all over/approaching the top of the hill, and I don't think they'll fall easily. I'm going to pick the upset here.
Spurs in 7.
Second Round
#1 Lakers vs. #4Nuggets
In a rematch of last year's Western Conference finals, the Nuggets will certainly have something to play for. The Nuggets scared Laker nation and almost knocked off the eventual champs. Despite the Lakers struggles of late, I like the first round to energize them, and I see a repeat appearance in the WCF.
Lakers in 6
#3 Suns vs. #7 Spurs
These teams have a fun history (even have their own Wikipedia page about the "rivalry"), so I'd enjoy the battle. Both teams would have a legitimate shot, but seeing the Suns win would be more fun for me.
Suns in 7
Western Conference Finals
#1 Lakers vs. #3 Suns
A throwback to the 2006 & 2007 battles between these teams, I'd really enjoy seeing this series, but what kind of Laker fan would I be if I picked Phoenix?
Lakers in 6
Eastern Conference
#1 Cleveland Cavaliers vs. #8 Chicago Bulls
LeBron.
Cavs in 4
#4 Boston Celtics vs. #5 Miami Heat
The Big Three won't let the Celtics lose this series and relish a match-up with LeBron in Round 2. The Celtics won the season series 3-0, and, though D-Wade will battle, I don't see this series being nearly as dramatic as last year's Celtics-Bulls.
Celtics in 6
#3 Atlanta Hawks vs. #6 Milwaukee Bucks
Tough break for the Bucks losing Andrew Bogut, after a heck of a run since acquiring John Salmons. Also too bad for them that the Hawks are coming into the playoffs healthy and happy, and shot some of the Bucks confidence with a win last weekend in a matchup between the two squads.
Hawks in 5
#2 Orlando Magic vs. #7 Charlotte Bobcats
Congratulations to the Bobcats on a heck of a season, but like the Thunder, the team's got no playoff experience, and gets the privilege of playing last year's conference champion in round 1. That typically doesn't bode well for a squad like Charlotte. I don't expect too shocking of a result here.
Magic in 5
Second Round
#1 Cavs vs. #4 Celtics
After walking through round 1, the Cavs will be healthy and rested, while the Celtics will have likely had a little more trouble moving on to see the LeBrons. Celtics fans know the eventual champion has to go through LeBron, but, I just don't see it happening.
Cavs in 6
#2 Magic vs. #3 Hawks
Atlanta's good, but Orlando's just got so many weapons, that I don't think the Hawks can stand it. For every weapon the Hawks have, Orlando is either just as good or better. Dwight Howard should beat up on Al Horford down low, Vince should go toe-to-toe with Joe Johnson, Jameer against Bibby, Lewis over Smith, etc.
Magic in 5
Eastern Conference Finals
#1 Cavs vs. #2 Magic
The rematch of last year's ECF, I don't know if LeBron will stand losing this time. That said, Orlando's in Cleveland's head, knows it can win, and will make this a fantastic series.
Cavs in 7
NBA Finals
#1 Cavs vs. #1 Lakers
Too many story lines here: Shaq vs. Kobe, Kobe vs. LeBron, Pau vs. Shaq, Will LeBron leave Cleveland if he wins? if he loses? Can Phil pass Red for his 11th ring? Will Phil stick around if he wins? if he loses? This is the matchup everyone wanted last season, when the LeBron-Kobe puppet commercials came out, and you've got to think the networks were all pretty disappointed when it didn't happen. The Cavs got the best of the Lakers during the regular season, but Kobe's experience and energy will win here.
Lakers in 7 (Yes, on Cleveland's home court)
I'm 1-1 in the last two years when picking the Lakers to win the championship, so we'll call this the "rubber match." In any event, this ought to be a great playoffs.
Western Conference
First Round
#1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. #8 Oklahoma City Thunder
Both teams have limped into the playoffs, though fortunately, the Lakers had a big enough lead at the beginning to wrap up the #1 seed early. The Thunder threatened as high as #6, but losing 4 of 5 down the stretch forced them into the 8th seed and a match with the Lakers. Durant's first playoff experience will be entertaining, but I see this as a good chance for the Lakers to get energized and prepared for later rounds. Kobe doesn't back down in the playoffs. Durant will win game 3, but that's all.
Lakers in 5
#4 Denver Nuggets vs. #5 Utah Jazz
I feel like all the experts are picking Utah, but I'm going the other way. Boozer's missed time, Kirilenko has missed time, and a lack of homecourt advantage by way of losing to Phoenix on the season's last night will all work against the Jazz. On the other hand, Kenyon Martin seems to have gotten over having his car filled with buttered popcorn on April Fool's, and played in the team's final few games, albeit not fantastically. Billups and Carmelo will lead this team to an early lead, and Utah won't be able to recover.
Nuggets in 6
#3 Phoenix Suns vs. #6 Portland Trail Blazers
No Brandon Roy, no Greg Oden, and Portland isn't too much of a threat. Andre Miller, Martell Webster, and Marcus Camby just aren't that intimidating as a trio. Nash has had a re-energized season, Amare looks like he actually likes being in Phoenix, and guys like Jason Richardson, Channing Frye, and Robin Lopez are all fitting their roles nicely. If Barbosa can regain his form from a few years ago, this team could be scary in the playoffs.
Suns in 4
#2 Dallas Mavericks vs. #7 San Antonio Spurs
This is probably going to be the most interesting series of the first round. Seed numbers don't really matter, in my book. San Antonio is finally healthy, and overcame a tough first half of the season to finish 20-11 after the All Star Break. Dallas wasn't so bad itself, after acquiring Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood, finishing 23-7 (though, as John Hollinger notes, they did have the second easiest schedule over that stretch). This may be the Spurs' final run with this core, with Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, etc. all over/approaching the top of the hill, and I don't think they'll fall easily. I'm going to pick the upset here.
Spurs in 7.
Second Round
#1 Lakers vs. #4Nuggets
In a rematch of last year's Western Conference finals, the Nuggets will certainly have something to play for. The Nuggets scared Laker nation and almost knocked off the eventual champs. Despite the Lakers struggles of late, I like the first round to energize them, and I see a repeat appearance in the WCF.
Lakers in 6
#3 Suns vs. #7 Spurs
These teams have a fun history (even have their own Wikipedia page about the "rivalry"), so I'd enjoy the battle. Both teams would have a legitimate shot, but seeing the Suns win would be more fun for me.
Suns in 7
Western Conference Finals
#1 Lakers vs. #3 Suns
A throwback to the 2006 & 2007 battles between these teams, I'd really enjoy seeing this series, but what kind of Laker fan would I be if I picked Phoenix?
Lakers in 6
Eastern Conference
#1 Cleveland Cavaliers vs. #8 Chicago Bulls
LeBron.
Cavs in 4
#4 Boston Celtics vs. #5 Miami Heat
The Big Three won't let the Celtics lose this series and relish a match-up with LeBron in Round 2. The Celtics won the season series 3-0, and, though D-Wade will battle, I don't see this series being nearly as dramatic as last year's Celtics-Bulls.
Celtics in 6
#3 Atlanta Hawks vs. #6 Milwaukee Bucks
Tough break for the Bucks losing Andrew Bogut, after a heck of a run since acquiring John Salmons. Also too bad for them that the Hawks are coming into the playoffs healthy and happy, and shot some of the Bucks confidence with a win last weekend in a matchup between the two squads.
Hawks in 5
#2 Orlando Magic vs. #7 Charlotte Bobcats
Congratulations to the Bobcats on a heck of a season, but like the Thunder, the team's got no playoff experience, and gets the privilege of playing last year's conference champion in round 1. That typically doesn't bode well for a squad like Charlotte. I don't expect too shocking of a result here.
Magic in 5
Second Round
#1 Cavs vs. #4 Celtics
After walking through round 1, the Cavs will be healthy and rested, while the Celtics will have likely had a little more trouble moving on to see the LeBrons. Celtics fans know the eventual champion has to go through LeBron, but, I just don't see it happening.
Cavs in 6
#2 Magic vs. #3 Hawks
Atlanta's good, but Orlando's just got so many weapons, that I don't think the Hawks can stand it. For every weapon the Hawks have, Orlando is either just as good or better. Dwight Howard should beat up on Al Horford down low, Vince should go toe-to-toe with Joe Johnson, Jameer against Bibby, Lewis over Smith, etc.
Magic in 5
Eastern Conference Finals
#1 Cavs vs. #2 Magic
The rematch of last year's ECF, I don't know if LeBron will stand losing this time. That said, Orlando's in Cleveland's head, knows it can win, and will make this a fantastic series.
Cavs in 7
NBA Finals
#1 Cavs vs. #1 Lakers
Too many story lines here: Shaq vs. Kobe, Kobe vs. LeBron, Pau vs. Shaq, Will LeBron leave Cleveland if he wins? if he loses? Can Phil pass Red for his 11th ring? Will Phil stick around if he wins? if he loses? This is the matchup everyone wanted last season, when the LeBron-Kobe puppet commercials came out, and you've got to think the networks were all pretty disappointed when it didn't happen. The Cavs got the best of the Lakers during the regular season, but Kobe's experience and energy will win here.
Lakers in 7 (Yes, on Cleveland's home court)
I'm 1-1 in the last two years when picking the Lakers to win the championship, so we'll call this the "rubber match." In any event, this ought to be a great playoffs.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
From The Pedantry Department
Dustin Pedroia needs to work on drawing more walks--his on-base percentage isn't even as high as his batting average!
God, I wish there were more things to write about during spring training.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Chem 101
It's a funny thing about chemistry. In the real world, it's a science. In the sports world, it's about as far from being a science as you can possibly get. Its workings are intangible, its effects are unquantifiable. And yet, sportswriters--particularly baseball writers--argue time and time again that it's an essential ingredient for a successful team.
Now, make no mistake--this is incorrect. Almost every action in baseball requires zero-to-minimal chemistry, because it requires zero-to-minimal interaction with your teammates. Hitting is individual. Fielding is individual (sure, you have to toss the ball to your teammate for a putout, but...come on). Pitching involves some sense of a bond between pitcher and catcher, but much of what determines success or failure comes down to whether or not the pitcher, all on his own, throws a good pitch. If the left fielder and first baseman hate each other, things will be fine. Even if the pitcher and catcher hate each other, things will probably be fine.
And yet, even when it does come to something as simple as two players throwing the ball to each other, writers insist that there's some element of chemistry that affects the outcome. Today's example comes from Peter Abraham of Boston.com, and you can just sense the fact that he was handed an assignment he didn't believe in and didn't want to write:
"Scutaro, Pedroia, and the rest of the Red Sox enjoyed their only day off of spring training yesterday. For the two infielders, that meant a break from taking countless ground balls and refining their on-field partnership.
Now, make no mistake--this is incorrect. Almost every action in baseball requires zero-to-minimal chemistry, because it requires zero-to-minimal interaction with your teammates. Hitting is individual. Fielding is individual (sure, you have to toss the ball to your teammate for a putout, but...come on). Pitching involves some sense of a bond between pitcher and catcher, but much of what determines success or failure comes down to whether or not the pitcher, all on his own, throws a good pitch. If the left fielder and first baseman hate each other, things will be fine. Even if the pitcher and catcher hate each other, things will probably be fine.
And yet, even when it does come to something as simple as two players throwing the ball to each other, writers insist that there's some element of chemistry that affects the outcome. Today's example comes from Peter Abraham of Boston.com, and you can just sense the fact that he was handed an assignment he didn't believe in and didn't want to write:
"Scutaro, Pedroia, and the rest of the Red Sox enjoyed their only day off of spring training yesterday. For the two infielders, that meant a break from taking countless ground balls and refining their on-field partnership.
Tentative at first, they now exchange the ball like two basketball players on a fast break. Pedroia spins, Scutaro dips, each knowing what the other will do before it happens."
It must be Pedroia's strong baseball instincts that allows him to know, BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS, that Marco Scutaro will catch the ball when he throws it.
To be fair, double plays do involve positioning, footwork, etc., and I have no doubt that Scutaro and Pedroia can anticipate their partner's moves before he makes them. But isn't that because every team in professional and amateur baseball runs that play basically the same way? This isn't football; there's no tea playbook that Marco Scutaro needs to learn when switching teams, at least not when it comes to turning the DP. As excited as Peter Abraham (or Peter Abraham's editors) seem to be about the budding chemistry between Scutaro and Pedroia, if Scutaro simply closes his eyes and pretends that Pedroia is Aaron Hill, he'll do fine.
It must be Pedroia's strong baseball instincts that allows him to know, BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS, that Marco Scutaro will catch the ball when he throws it.
To be fair, double plays do involve positioning, footwork, etc., and I have no doubt that Scutaro and Pedroia can anticipate their partner's moves before he makes them. But isn't that because every team in professional and amateur baseball runs that play basically the same way? This isn't football; there's no tea playbook that Marco Scutaro needs to learn when switching teams, at least not when it comes to turning the DP. As excited as Peter Abraham (or Peter Abraham's editors) seem to be about the budding chemistry between Scutaro and Pedroia, if Scutaro simply closes his eyes and pretends that Pedroia is Aaron Hill, he'll do fine.
"From afar, the choreography of a double play seems impossibly intricate as the ball arrives at the bag at the precise second needed to complete the turn. But both Pedroia and Scutaro say it’s not as complicated as fans would think or as time-consuming to master.
'You get that question a lot: What is the chemistry going to be like?’' said Pedroia. 'Everybody wants to know that. But when you get two good players, it comes fast.'"
I think it's fair to summarize this quote as, "We get this question a lot, but it's really no big deal." When the people you're quoting are basically telling you not to write your article, I think it's time to find a new topic.
EDIT: It's a good thing that Tinker, Evers and Chance, the most famous double-play combination of all time, had such great chemistry.
I think it's fair to summarize this quote as, "We get this question a lot, but it's really no big deal." When the people you're quoting are basically telling you not to write your article, I think it's time to find a new topic.
EDIT: It's a good thing that Tinker, Evers and Chance, the most famous double-play combination of all time, had such great chemistry.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
If A Stadium Collapses And There's No One Around To Be Angry...
I just wanted to chime in that this:
Seemed like a good occasion to reiterate this:
However, read it while you can--in the spirit of the Yankees, I will soon be destroying all of the older posts in this blog's illustrious history. They just don't make me as much money as I'd like.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Rearranging The Deck Chairs In The Divisions
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/03/09/floating-realignment/index.html?eref=sihp
SCENE: Special committee's office, Major League Baseball Headquarters, Park Avenue, New York. Fourteen men in suits sit around a coffee table littered with coffee mugs. A Major League Baseball logo placard decorates the far wall. The chair of the meeting stands at the head of the table, below the logo.
MEETING CHAIR: Okay, guys, listen up. Bud wanted us to get together because we have a problem. Our sport has a huge economic and competitive imbalance. HUGE. The good teams are about five times richer than the bad teams. Can you believe that? Five times as much money. They're also, as you'd imagine, significantly better. I mean, sure, sometimes the poorer teams make the playoffs, but they usually don't, and they almost never win the World Series, and they NEVER establish any lasting success. So, I mean, we're supposed to restore the competitive balance, but really, we should probably find some way to give the teams an equal or close to equal amount of money, and start with that. Because really, the roots of this thing are economic, and if we fix that, the competitive balance should follow naturally. So--we need to overhaul this entire system and find a way to share this wealth, really get in-depth with our revenue system. Any ideas?
MEETING ATTENDEE #12: What if we just shuffled the divisions? It would cut down on divisional rivalries. People hate divisional rivalries, right? Isn't that a thing?
MEETING CHAIR: YES. I like it. Let's adjourn. Any thoughts on dinner?
MEETING ATTENDEE #4: Tapas?
MEETING CHAIR: Love tapas.
(Exeunt. On the wall, the white-silouhetted man on the MLB logo placard sheds a single white-silouhetted tear for the state of his league.)
Thursday, March 4, 2010
paul millsap serves notice
okay, so boozer somehow dodged the trade deadline and is still a member of the utah jazz. no matter - he can't stay in that starting lineup forever.
today, paul millsap served notice via espn.com's john hollinger, as a member of the writer's "nba in-season all-improved team." every day, more and more people are realizing that millsap gives you way more bang for your buck. so why keep paying for boozer?
not a good day for the blue devil alums. especially not after that excruciating loss to the terps.
today, paul millsap served notice via espn.com's john hollinger, as a member of the writer's "nba in-season all-improved team." every day, more and more people are realizing that millsap gives you way more bang for your buck. so why keep paying for boozer?
not a good day for the blue devil alums. especially not after that excruciating loss to the terps.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Alternate Philosophy
All right, it's time for thought experiment number two. So far, among most people with whom I've shared my rules for sporthood, my second rule has been met with much more contention than the first. Now, to be clear, I do still agree with that rule (these are just my personal rules, so it would be tough for me not to agree with them), but it has yet to win the hearts and minds of the public. So, in the spirit of offering an olive branch to our loyal fans, I present to you:
Alternate Rule 2: To be a sport, an activity must define its success objectively rather than subjectively. This requires some clarification, because there is a lot of subjectivity in all sports. Did the runner touch home plate, or not? Did the sprinter beat his competitor by a few thousandths of a second, or lose by that same margin? You could argue that all attempted judgments of these types of close calls are subjective.
However, the crucial distinction is that, whether or not our judges, umps and referees can always find it, there IS an objective answer to these questions. The athlete DID touch home plate, and if he's called out, that's a regrettable error. The runner DID win the race, even if it's too close for us to tell accurately. The subjectivity is in the judging, not in the actual sport. The only place you find subjectivity in sports is in some of the more loosely defined rules--did he make a "football move," did the batter attempt to get out of the way of the pitch, etc. Overall, these sports are objective, with some subjectivity thrown in.
That leaves out, once again, figure skating and gymnastics--even under this new rule, they still don't make the cut. These are performances, much more similar to ballet than they are to, say, soccer. The key factor that makes them performances and not sports is the fact that their success is defined subjectively--hence, the creation of this new rule.
So, another option for my fellow sports-definers out there. Maybe this one will be a little bit more popular.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Show Your True Colors
Let's say you're a Cavs fan. You're happy. You like your team this year. You have a chance at locking up LeBron and having a guaranteed Most Beloved And Celebrated Athlete Of All Time for your city. You decide you want to wear your team's colors to celebrate.
Let's take a quick look online at what those colors are, shall we?
http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/history/logo_uniform_history.html
Uh oh. Well, it looks like your current colors are red and white, with a little dark green mixed in there, so you could go with that. But, if you want any connection to your team's history (maybe you grew up as a Cavs fan in the 70's or 80's), you'll have to wear black and light blue as well. And orange. And a different shade of blue. And there's some tan in there. Also gold. You might as well just get one of those rainbow afro wigs and cover your bases.
The point is quite simply this: teams change their uniforms around too much. For me, a big part of sports is history. When I watch a sports team, unless it was recently added to the league, I'm witnessing the latest chapter in a long and storied history of the franchise. Sure, some teams (Yankees, Celtics, Packers, etc.) are thought of as being more "historic," but most teams have their history, and they're proud of it. And along with the timeless feel of a team comes the timeless feel of their uniform. Celtic green. Yankee pinstripes. Green Bay green and yellow. They're iconic, just as the teams they represent are iconic.
Even for teams that may have a little less history, it's still important to maintain an ongoing connection to their franchise identity. For the Cavs, for example, the biggest chapter in their history may be going on right now. If they change their uniform again in five years, the Cavs of the future will look nothing like the Cavs of yore, the quintessential Cavs. Sure, uniforms, logos, etc., they're all ultimately superficial. But they're still part of your history, and team colors are still a part of your pride, and you shouldn't throw that away and start from scratch just because some guy from marketing suggests that it's a good idea to "rebrand" and make everyone re-buy their LeBron James jerseys. When even the classic Red Sox logo is getting a facelift, it's time to rethink our obsession with reinventing the wheel. If the Yankee pinstripes turn into polka dots, you'll know things have really gone too far.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Let's Get Philosophical
Dark days are upon us, my friends. The football season is over, the baseball season has yet to begin, and basketball is stuck in the doldrums of the All-Star break. With no sports to watch, it provides us at Poop on Boozer with an opportunity to take a step back and reflect on deeper, more profound sports-related questions. Today's edition: what is a sport?
It's not a coincidence that I find myself asking this question as the Olympics begin. Sure, there are Olympic sports we can pretty much all agree actually are sports (hockey, etc.), but is bobsled a sport? Is ski jumping? In examining these questions, I've come up with two essential rules that distinguish true sports from events, exhibitions, spectacles, etc.
Just one thing to note before we begin: classifying a competition as "not a sport" is not necessarily intended to diminish it. Sure, it might be. After all, one of my unofficial litmus tests for whether or not something is a sport is if someone told me, "I'm a professional athlete, I play ____," whether or not I'd have to laugh in their face. If a croquet player told me this, they would not pass that test, so yes, croquet is less tough, less intense, less worthy of athletic respect than, say, basketball. But many activities that will not pass my rules (e.g. logging) are immensely tough--they just aren't sports.
If it's understood that I don't necessarily mean to insult anyone (although don't rule it out), on to the rules:
Rule 1: To be a sport, an activity requires a certain minimum level of exercise and exertion beyond what is normally experienced in day-to-day life. This is what I'm really getting at with my "I'm a professional athlete, I play ____" example from before. The best example here is NASCAR, which passes my second rule (keep reading) for sporthood, and would be a sport if it required any exercise at all, but it does not. Note that an activity can require a great deal of skill (as NASCAR does), but that doesn't make it a sport. International diplomacy requires a great deal of skill. So does knitting. Neither are sports.
Other activities excluded from sport-hood by this rule: golf, luge, bobsled, skeleton, archery, etc.
Rule 2: To be a sport, the activity must force its participants to interact directly with their opponent or opponents. The main intent of this rule is to get rid of "performance-style" sports such as figure skating, gymnastics, ice dancing, ballroom dancing, etc. These activities do pass Rule 1 and are perfectly athletic and tough, but they're performances--more akin to theater or ballet than to football.
I added this rule because, to me, sports isn't just about exercising, it's about strategizing in order to best somebody else. Gymnasts, by and large, do not strategize against their opponents, they strategize against the rings, or the parallel bars, or the pommel horse. Any activity where you are trying to go out and do exactly what you did in practice, and beat a course as best you can, does not fit my definition of a sport. In gymnastics, nobody tries to stop you, and having someone try to stop you is absolutely essential for sporthood.
Another effect of this rule is that some racing-type sports make the cut, but others don't. Swimming and track and field don't--in those sports, you stay in your lane and try to move as fast as possible regardless of what the people in the other lanes do. In cycling, however, you can jockey for position, cut off your opponents, etc., so it earns its right to be called a sport.
As one final note, "direct interaction" doesn't mean physical contact, necessarily. Tennis is a good example--you and your opponent aren't allowed near each other, but you each try to stop the other from doing what they're trying to do, and you have to adapt to what your opponent is doing if you want to beat them. Thus, sport.
* * *
There may be more rules out there, but I've tried to come up with a system that can define sports in as few rules as possible. I'd be curious to know if my colleagues disagree, and if so, how they'd create their system.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
boozer on the trading block?
espn's TrueHoop blog reports that boozer may be on the trading block, even though sloan wants to keep him:
Having lost 13 straight games, the perimeter-heavy Detroit Pistons would like to get their hands on Carlos Boozer. A Boozer-for-Rip Hamilton trade works, but Utah doesn't want to take back the three years, $38 million remaining on Hamilton's contract, even though he'd made a sweet backcourt mate for Deron Williams.
Boozer for Tayshaun Prince also works financially, but Prince has one more season after this one at $11 million, and the Jazz aren't looking to add salary for next season.
Utah coach Jerry Sloan wants to keep Boozer, who will be a free agent next summer, for the rest of the season, and perhaps beyond. To that end, the Jazz are shopping Andrei Kirilenko with all their might. But good luck with that one. Kirilenko won't have any takers until next season when he's in the last year of his deal.
could it be time to restart the paul millsap countdown? for now, we're watching -- and waiting impatiently.
Having lost 13 straight games, the perimeter-heavy Detroit Pistons would like to get their hands on Carlos Boozer. A Boozer-for-Rip Hamilton trade works, but Utah doesn't want to take back the three years, $38 million remaining on Hamilton's contract, even though he'd made a sweet backcourt mate for Deron Williams.
Boozer for Tayshaun Prince also works financially, but Prince has one more season after this one at $11 million, and the Jazz aren't looking to add salary for next season.
Utah coach Jerry Sloan wants to keep Boozer, who will be a free agent next summer, for the rest of the season, and perhaps beyond. To that end, the Jazz are shopping Andrei Kirilenko with all their might. But good luck with that one. Kirilenko won't have any takers until next season when he's in the last year of his deal.
could it be time to restart the paul millsap countdown? for now, we're watching -- and waiting impatiently.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Right Now...
...my team's MVP, Wes Welker, is being carted off the field with a knee injury and is sitting on the bench crying. My team's other MVP, Tom Brady, has three broken ribs and is playing. This game is utterly, utterly meaningless. Why are they on the field at all? Last week, we saw Jim Caldwell pass up a chance at history and forfeit the most important game of his career just because he was trying to limit the risk of injuries going into the playoffs. Now, Bill Belichick is throwing his A-listers out there for literally no reason?
Someone out there in the POB universe, please--explain this to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
