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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Greatest Hits

It's been a tough week. And, since I'm in need of a pick-me-up, and because my posts seem to tilt inevitably towards Boston homerism so I may as well stop resisting and embrace it, I've decided to list, in descending order, the top five sports memories of my life. I invite my colleagues, if they're interested, to do the same, since I'd be interested to hear their stories, and because it will delay the inevitable "worst five memories of my life" follow-up post that will depress me for weeks.

Without further ado:

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

5. 2008 ALCS, GAME 5

This one can't go any higher than number 5--when you don't go on to win the championship, and when you in fact don't even wind up winning the series, it's tough to remember this game without thinking about what could have been. Still, it has a legacy--from now on, I can never give up on an important game, no matter how painful a bludgeoning it's become, because the 2008 Red Sox forced me to admit that there's always a chance. Yes, it's going to be a painful existence, thanks to this game--but it will all be worth it if I can ever even come close to replicating the moment when I collapsed on the floor after J.D. Drew's walkoff liner and had absolutely no way to process what I'd just seen. God, I love sports--and we're only on Number 5. The list is working its magic already.

4. 2008 NBA FINALS, GAME 6

So tempting to pick a different game--maybe the night that Pierce and LeBron channelled Bird and Wilkins as my friends and I watched, incredulously, in our college dorm, or the 24-point comeback that we took in at a bar off of Boylston Street. But those experiences were all about us, and what set the 2008 Celtics apart was that it was all about them. Just when I worried that I might grow desensitized after so many Boston championships, along came a team that wanted to win more than anyone else I'd ever seen. Sure, Kevin Garnett's post-victory interview is undeniably funny--but it's also one of the greatest expressions of pure emotion you'll find anywhere in sports. I'm happy when my teams win, but when the 2008 Celtics won, I was happy for them. And, you know, for myself too.

3. SUPER BOWL XXXVI

Without a doubt, the worst actual championship you'll find anywhere on this list. Sure, the Pats were huge underdogs, and that made it a hugely exciting game--but it can't compare to the raw emotionality of the Celtics win, or the sheer magnitude of any championships that may or may not be coming farther down in this list. But still, it was a great game, it was the rise of Tom Brady, and, most importantly, it was the first championship any of my teams had ever won on my watch.* To put that moment any lower than third would be criminal.

2. 2004 WORLD SERIES

I can't pick a specific game, because--let's face it--the actual games were, objectively, terribly boring. The 2004 World Series wasn't about great comebacks or heroic moments, or even individual games at all--it was about optimism. Even after the Sox-Yankees ALCS, Boston fans couldn't shake the feeling that there was always a way not to win. How awful would it be if the Red Sox completed the most incredible comeback in baseball history--and then lost? It would, in fact, have been so terrible that I honestly believed it would happen. That was the mindset in Boston--until it didn't happen, and things were never the same again. Optimism. It's a beautiful thing.

1. 2004 ALCS

Which game do you want me to pick? Should I choose the one where, facing elimination the night after losing 19-8, the Red Sox countered with the most famous stolen base in team history and a clutch RBI single off of the greatest closer that ever was, followed by a David Ortiz walkoff home run in extra innings? Or maybe the one that went 14 innings and six hours, featuring a miraculously bizarre hop that prevented Tony Clark's liner to right from winning the series for the Yankees, as well as the most exruciatingly tense inning in baseball history, when, in the 13th, Varitek ended up catching Wakefield (to which he was not accustomed), and surrendered three (!) passed balls and was just one away from losing the entire series? Followed by yet another Ortiz walk-off hit? Or maybe I should pick the one where Curt Schilling shut down Yankee Stadium while actively bleeding from the ankle, because his tendon was scraping against the bone due to surgery that the team doctor had only ever performed on a cadaver, and A-Rod was called out at first after the glove-slapping incident, causing fans to throw baseballs and debris onto the field to the point that the game was stopped and riot police were stationed along the warning track as A-Rod looked on the verge of tears for the remainder of the game?

There's no way. If I made myself pick one game for each item on this list, those would be 1, 2, and 3 in some order or another, and Game 7 would be Number 4 for good measure. It was that good. It was the greatest professional sports victory of all time, anywhere, and you'll never convince me otherwise. It transformed a town, a team, and a rivalry forever. I will never have a better sports memory for the rest of my life, and I am entirely OK with that. I have every game on DVD.

*Unless you count the 1986 Celtics title, which they won when I was two months old. I like to think I contributed.

tuesday night sports digest

time to stop saying "the U," guys. okay, i realize that the university of miami was a great football team back in the day. hell, i loved watching ken dorsey lead comeback after comeback, and i enjoyed the complete demolition the hurricanes defense inflicted on all their opponents. but in case santana moss and co. haven't noticed, miami now sucks. i mean, 4-4 in the acc? while the 'canes still have some great individual talent, miami is no longer the university to beat.

overreaction of the decade. remember when todd bertuzzi almost killed steve moore? remember how he cried a little, and then he continued playing for top NHL teams? well, apparently, almost paralyzing a person is much less offensive than making a casual (although admittedly very offensive) comment about your ex-girlfriends and the players now dating them. i may be missing something, but did sean avery cross some special line? T.O. says worse stuff every day, and he keeps getting jobs in the big D. so why did the stars decide to eat several million dollars and cut avery? could it just be because he isn't all that good? either way, this only adds to what continues to be an embarrassing season for co-GM brett hull. (but the sharks are lookin' good, eh?)

more on the mitchell report. what report, you say? yeah, i know the mitchell report was forever ago, but tom verducci had a good SI piece on the lasting effects of bud selig's decision to crack down on drugs in baseball. check it out if you haven't read it yet.

how good is the big east? the verdict is still out. while this week's rankings certainly favor big east squads, the orange showed that those teams are far from invincible. the real question remains: can anyone beat the tar heels? well, i think someone might have to smack hansbrough in the face again before that becomes a real possibility.

turkey day sports digest

thanksgiving football: pretty boring. okay, i didn't expect any better when i saw that the lions and the hawks would be taking the field. but 25+ point spreads... really? does anyone else have more fun watching tony romo grimace? personally, i'd rather just see him sing journey with mr. belding.

your college basketball player to watch is greg monroe. the georgetown freshman is one of the most impressive big men i've seen in a while, and it's not just because he is a human highlight reel. for one thing, he plays great defense. not only is he a beast around the glass; his hands are also active at the top of the key, and he's a danger to strip the ball from any opponent. then, he's always ready to spark a fast break - or to fill the lane and finish himself. and it's a pleasure to watch a big man who can actually make free throws. the big east is as tough as any division in college basketball, and monroe is going to have to be a key piece of the puzzle if the hoyas are going to make a run at the title - or even just the top four spots.

iverson misses practice... again. but i don't see what the big deal is. i mean, we're talking about practice!?

happy thanksgiving, all.

sunday night sports digest

that dirk is such a maverick! this one reaches back a few weeks, but it's worth pointing out for those of you who missed it back then. ever imagine what it would be like to have sarah palin as president? let's just say that nowitzki has a prominent role in the oval office. click on the picture frame behind palin's desk...

dangerous waters. we're just a few weeks into the NHL season, and san jose is running away with the pacific division. i should be excited, no? well, given the sharks' recent run as regular-season dominators and postseason underwhelmers, even an 80-win season wouldn't be enough assurance come springtime. one thing's for sure: todd mclellan is not coaching like a rookie.

unbeaten, but still boring. after sneaking past the bears on the road, the titans are 9-0, more than halfway to a perfect regular season. but there isn't a hint of the drama that surrounded the pats as they made their run last year. why? because tennessee just isn't that good. kerry collins at QB and a running game that produced just 20 net yards against chicago? let's just say the titans' destiny isn't exactly etched into stone quite yet.

psu really smells like poo, poo, poo. as if penn state didn't already have things hard enough playing in the unimpressive big ten, they went and crapped the bed against iowa to thoroughly eliminate any chance of making the bcs championship game. (note to self: i should probably avoid making absolute statements this year when it comes to college football. oh well.) so can we expect bama-red raiders come january? eh... not so fast. each will have a pretty significant hurdle in its championship game, and alabama didn't exactly look stellar against LSU. teams that have faded from the national spotlight (USC, anyone?) may still have a shot at getting back into the big game.

JJ is within reach. after grabbing the pole in phoenix, jimmie johnson is poised to take his third straight sprint cup title. what are you doing reading this?! flip over to ABC to check out the action! and no, you don't have to live south of the mason-dixon line to appreciate JJ's talent.

why do people keep hiring ty willingham?

apparently, ty willingham's job is not so secure.

no shit, sherlock.

the real question is, why do teams keep hiring him in the first place? okay, he won one pac-10 title with stanford, taking them to to rose bowl in 1999, and he had 10 wins in his first season with the fighting irish. but he hasn't had a winning season since 2002 and has been to one bowl game since then, a loss with notre dame in the insight bowl.

maybe he's just a nice guy. or maybe the fact that he could take a piss-poor team like stanford and turn the cardinal into a contender speaks to his strength as a coach. but if we go by the record, this guy is a capital-L loser. Loser.

guess investment banks aren't the only ones having a hard time getting rid of the deadweight.

when sports news just doesn't make sense

one of the top stories on espn.com earlier today: tom brady underwent a second procedure on his left knee to clear out an infection.

go ahead. ooooooh and aaaaaaah.

i mean, is this really news? it must be, given that espn ran a similar story about peyton manning just a week or so ago. perhaps that is more relevant, given that peyton is still playing this season. but does it really matter whether tom brady underwent one or two knee surgeries to take a break from eating chocolate strawberries with gisele? unless that surgery magically cured him and he is ready to put matt cassel back on the bench where he belongs, this really isn't news.

guess espn.com is trying to become more like cnn.com - a provider of irrelevant news, that is. ah well, there's always real newspapers.

monday night sports digest

three-day weekend = bonus sports.

to the devil with it. so tampa bay drops the evil part of its name and suddenly can't be stopped? my predictions are still within reason, but the rays are making baseball fans scratch the back of their heads in confusion. you have to feel for lester, though - not only does he have the pressure of red sox nation upon him, but he's also fighting for all those cancer survivors that consider him their hero.

phillies keep thumpin'. for all the talk about the weakness of the NL, LA and philadelphia are certainly putting on an offensive show. while kuroda silenced the phillies' bats in game 3, victorino and stairs put some juice behind the ball in the come-from-behind victory tonight. a victor-in-y, perhaps? nah, guess not.

no mo' romo. go figure: of all the things he could have hurt, tony romo goes and breaks his pinkie - and now he's out for a month. now dallas isn't even in position to take advantage of the suddenly beatable new york football giants. if the nfc east looked invincible two weeks ago, it's just another division again come tuesday morning. but hey, new york, at least the market's back on track!

year of the serbian. djokovic and ivanovic are pretty sweet, but jelena is proving that she is the serbian you don't want to mess with. ousting zvonareva in the final of the kremlin cup, jankovic won her third title in three weeks and solidified her spot as the no. 1 player in the world. she may not be a (singles) grand slam champion, but she is by far one of the most competitive women on the circuit.

a hockey tragedy. unfortunately, this digest ends on a sad note. new york rangers prospect alexei cherepanov, 19, died of an apparent heart attack towards the end of a game in the continental hockey league. authorities are currently investigating whether adequate medical care was available at the rink, and one can only hope that this terrible occurrence leads pro sports franchises around the country to reexamine their emergency preparations to ensure that such health-related occurrences can be avoided in the future.

sunday night sports digest

what a weekend in sports.

nick saban apparently is the man. when Forbes asked whether saban was worth his salary, i scoffed and thought to myself, he's good, but he's not that good. clearly, i had no idea what i was talking about. although some of the credit for alabama's dominating win over georgia has to go to mark richt's inept squad, saban has turned the crimson tide around in his very short tenure. it's hard to call anything in the talent-rich SEC, but alabama's got as good a chance as any to launch itself into a BCS bowl.

lance in france - again. he's baaaaaaaack. is there anything this man can't do? and this time, he's riding for more than just victory and pride, as he's hoping to use the tour de france as a spotlight to further his fight against cancer. who says you need two testicles to be great?

NL ballers. were you the smartest kid in your high school class before that transfer student came and displaced you as valedictorian? well, now you know how national league hitters and pitchers probably will feel in a few weeks. if justice is done, cc "half-man, half-'mazing" sabathia and manny "masher" ramirez will pick up cy young and MVP honors, respectively. sabathia pitched a complete game on three days' rest to propel the brewers into the playoffs, while ramirez has the dodgers' offense looking like his former team. forget tradition - these guys are the best in the league.

when it comes to the east, NFC stands for "national football champions." with the 'skins dropping the 'boys in a rivalry showdown, the NFC east officially declared itself up for grabs, with only the idle giants remaining undefeated. pending the outcome of sunday night football, the division could stand at 12-3 after the first four weeks of the season. can you pick the winner in this race?

monday night TV. in my house, monday nights are Heroes nights. but with the ravens and the steelers facing off on MNF and the white sox trying to keep their season alive against the disappointing tigers, is there any reason sports shouldn't take precedence?

thank god for TiVo.

is the pac-10 severely overrated?

yes.

okay, USC is far and away the best team in the country, as it proved by thoroughly demolishing no. 5 ohio state last night in a highly anticipated matchup that turned out to be a snooze. and QB mark sanchez is proving that it doesn't really matter who you are; if you're calling the plays for the trojans, you will probably be a heisman candidate.

but things get uglier from there.

no. 23 cal kicked the day off by getting dominated by the unranked terrapins, representing a resurgent acc conference. don't let the final 35-27 score and QB kevin riley's 423 yards fool you. the golden bears managed just six points through three quarters, looking even worse than they did last year against oregon state.

the day didn't get too much brighter for the west coast's dime. UCLA suffered its worst loss in almost 80 years, getting routed 59-0 by the non-bcs BYU cougars. stanford was as vanilla as usual against texas christian, losing 31-14. washington state and washington made the evergreen state proud by dropping to 0-3 against baylor and oklahoma, respectively. the beavers got destroyed by hawaii, and arizona lost to new mexico.

and it's not like the ranked teams did much better. other than cal's slumbering stumble, no. 15 arizona state was bounced by UNLV in double-overtime. only oregon managed to salvage some of the day for the pac-10 by coming from two touchdowns down against purdue to win in the extra period.

so, if you take pete carroll out of the equation, we're looking at a conference that has four ranked teams and claims to be able to go toe-to-toe with conferences like the SEC and the big 12 but flounders against unimpressive competition. why does anyone respect the pac-10, again?

more importantly, is there any way USC won't go undefeated en route to yet another bcs title game? with all nine of their remaining contests featuring pac-10 opponents, the trojans certainly aren't a team to bet against.

New England Revolution

There is despair in New England, and understandably so. The franchise quarterback, the man who brought winning back to New England sports, has fallen, and he won’t be coming back. From the despairing fans calling in to local sports radio to the pessimistic analysis in both local and national media, the conclusion seems to be that the 2008 New England Patriots cannot win it all without Tom Brady. There is, however, perhaps a more important question to be asked: could the Patriots have won it all with him?

The Patriots opened the Battle of Wounded Knee with Brady at the helm and an empty backfield behind him, abandoning any pretense of running the ball on their first two possessions. Their second drive was cut short by a fumble, so it's tough to judge its effectiveness, but the first saw the Patriots forced to do the unspeakable: punt. (A Chiefs penalty actually extended that first drive, which also ended in a fumble.)

It would, of course, be ridiculous to dismiss the Brady offense for all of 2008 based on the results of one stunted possession, but this "throw the ball or die trying" approach to football is nothing new for the Patriots. Sometime around November of last year, Bill Belichick officially went insane. (Many will argue that this actually happened much, much earlier). Blessed with perhaps the best offense in the history of football, Belichick’s best move would have been to play things conservatively—after all, common sense dictates that a war of attrition would allow his superior on-field talent to shine through, while a game of risks and razzle-dazzle would leave open the possibility for anything, including an upset, to happen. Conventional wisdom also states that when you have the best passing attack ever assembled at your disposal, you open it up further by establishing the run, rather than undercutting it by allowing your opponent to know what’s coming.

Nevertheless, the Patriots began to rely exclusively on their passing game, as their victories transitioned from laughers to nail-biters (especially over the Ravens, Eagles, and Chargers), and eventually to that one unforgettable loss. I will always believe that it was the possibility of an undefeated season that broke Bill Belichick’s brain, that the need to dominate every down of every game affected his play-calling as the season wore on, culminating in the bizarre failed fourth-and-13 conversion in the Super Bowl. As a Patriots fan, I spent the off-season hoping that the Super Bowl loss had humbled Belichick and restored his sanity. I almost hoped that the Pats would lose their season opener against the Chiefs, so the 19-0 albatross could disappear and I could look forward to a nice, relaxing 13-3 season of good old-fashioned balanced play-calling.

The Patriots did not lose to the Chiefs, but when Bernard Pollard lunged into the left knee of Tom Brady, the outcome was essentially the same: it suddenly became certain that the 2008 New England Patriots would not go undefeated. Even as an admittedly biased fan, I am not naïve enough to think that the team will be better off without Brady than it would have been with him. I do believe, however, that the pressures and expectations that helped to derail the 2007 Patriots have vanished along with their treasured QB. Having seen their worst fears realized, the 2008 Pats now have nowhere to go but up, which, as any Patriots fan can tell you, is a whole lot better than having nowhere to go but down.

duh moment of the day

in the wake of all this tom brady hubbub, another major star was lost for the season on tuesday, as shawne merriman announced he would undergo surgery to repair the two torn ligaments in his left knee.

shocked? i didn't think so.

why was he going to try and play this season anyway? to put shawne merriman's injury in perspective, let's draw some comparison. his decision to play was like sacha baron cohen trying to play borat without the accent or the moustache. or like pamela anderson trying to became famous without breast implants. or like hillary clinton campaigning for obama without vomiting in her mouth a little.

okay, maybe analogies are best left to d.r.w. but you get the point. a linebacker isn't going to be able to do his job when his knee is unable to do what it does best - turn.

so as merriman unsurprisingly sits out the 2008 season, we will do well to remember the fundamental truth: some athletes are just plain stupid.

poop picks: ivy league/FCS football

we here at poop on boozer pride ourselves on staying abreast of sports and on voicing our totally non-expert opinions on everything. but, we're also not afraid to step aside and let more knowledgeable people contribute when their expertise greatly exceeds ours.

know anything about FCS football? do you even know what FCS stands for? well, for the answers to all your questions about the ivy league and what used to be division I-AA football, check out the "poop picks" from our experts below.

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

MALCOM GLENN, president and former football beat writer, The Harvard Crimson


IVY LEAGUE ORDER OF FINISH: Harvard, Brown, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth, Columbia. Save for a relatively green secondary (which also happens to include a preseason All-American from last season), who have the defending champs lost? The graduation of Brad Bagdis on the defensive line is met with the return of the Bryant brothers, Brenton and Desmond. The quest for the title begins and ends in Cambridge.

IVY LEAGUE PLAYER OF THE YEAR: Chris Pizzotti, QB, Harvard. The guy has never lost a game he’s been able to start and finish. Barring injury, he only gets better the longer he plays, and in his fifth year in a Crimson uniform, he’ll finally get the accolades already warranted by the numbers.

IVY LEAGUE ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Matthew Hanson, DB, Harvard. Head coach Tim Murphy will be looking for a guy to push some of the action in the direction of veteran cornerback Andrew Berry, and Hanson may be the most physically equipped to do that. Plus, he’s from Colorado.

IVY LEAGUE COACH OF THE YEAR: Phil Estes, Brown. A team many believed over-performed last year will do the same this year, as the other shoe finally drops on Yale coach Jack Siedlecki, paving the way for a surprising second-place showing from Estes’ Bears.

WALTER PAYTON AWARD: Mike McLeod, RB, Yale. Like Tom Brady a year ago, a foot injury in his final game and a swarming performance from an underdog defense ruined what could have been an undefeated season for the favored team’s best player. And like Brady this year, McLeod will return more motivated than ever to erase memories of last year’s conclusion. (EDITOR'S NOTE: malcom was totally unaware of brady's upcoming major knee injury when he made this analogy.)

FCS TITLE GAME: Massachusetts over Appalachian State. Losing to LSU is nothing to feel bad about, but when the Tigers’ starting quarterback is a former Ivy Leaguer, it stands to plant seeds of doubt in last year’s champion. Appalachian State will make a run at a fourth straight crown, but Massachusetts will avenge its championship loss from two years ago.

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

PABLO TORRE, reporter and talking head, Sports Illustrated


IVY LEAGUE ORDER OF FINISH: Harvard, Yale, Brown, Penn, Dartmouth, Princeton, Cornell, Columbia. It's Harvard because ever since I've been following Ivy League football (e.g. since 2002), it's been Harvard. (Hooray, homerism!) I was also going to write some sentence about how I'm going to Harvard-Yale this year and want to celebrate an Ivy League title, but any causality between record and alcoholism at The Game is patently farcical.

IVY LEAGUE PLAYER OF THE YEAR: Cheng Ho, RB, Harvard. Mike McLeod is the easy choice. Cheng Ho is the Asian choice. I'm allowed to say that because of my ethnicity. (I also value Chris Pizzotti's 11-1 record as a starter.)

IVY LEAGUE ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Zach Wodka, OL, Dartmouth. To be completely honest, I don't know anything substantive about any impact freshmen in the Ivy League this year. I am 100% positive that Malcom does, though. (EDITOR'S NOTE: we're not sure how zach's last name is pronounced, but we are now more convinced than ever that pablo does not only write about alcoholism; he lives it.)

IVY LEAGUE COACH OF THE YEAR: Tim Murphy, Harvard. Does he still have braces? That doesn't affect my choice, I'm just wondering.

WALTER PAYTON AWARD: Armanti Edwards, QB, Appalachian State. A loss to LSU takes the wind out of his sails of invincibility (dear god, that's a terrible metaphor), but we'll be hearing about him come NFL draft season. Also, I recently interviewed him and he was very nice, but also said that he "never" drank moonshine. Hopefully the Wonderlic doesn't have a lie-detector component, Armanti.

FCS TITLE GAME: Appalachian State over North Dakota. App State picks up its fourth straight FCS title, easy. I went to the title game last year where the Mountaineers beat Delaware and Ravens starter Joe Flacco. We might look back at that game five years from now and marvel at the two QBs who played in that game. And by "we," I mean "I."