In a post that would make Mr. H.R. Williams proud (for those unaware, Mr. H.R. Williams is the diabolical genius behind "Posthill", the always obnoxious, offensive, over-the-top extremist nonsense Blog to which I offer thee a link on my sidebar), the original major rant of this post was apparentl too offensive to remain posted. What a shame. It must have been quite possibly the most outlandish thing ever written, because The Sports Maunderer is home to sheer insanity which makes it past the editor while this post did not. We here at The Sports Maunderer apologize for the shortened column, and hope you will take solace in the fact that my musings regarding what it would be like to be Greg Oden, the baseball season, and the band named Muse will all be published sometime in the next week. Or... well probably not. Next month. Well. They will get published sometime. Eventually. Without further adu, let us proceed with this shortened column.
Phenom backlash: I think we are finally seeing the result of way too much hype following way too many players. The sports commentators and fans are sick of it, and they are lashing out at O.J. Mayo, more because they are sick of over-hyped high-schoolers than because they have any actual problem with him. Sure, the ref incident was bungled, and he shouldn’t have walked over to him, but that ref had it out for Huntington High since the year before, when he managed to get Patrick Patterson ejected from a game. Patrick Patterson. No one complains about his attitude problems.
And yeah, the backboard reflecting dunk and concomitant throw into the stands were boneheaded, but how many kids wouldn’t be fired up in that situation? I’m not saying that justifies it, but the only reason his head has been taken off in the media is because people are sick pf phenoms.
He has obviously made mistakes, but we all do that. The thing that is telling is that instead of railing against those talking about him—such as Michael Wilbon—and declaring he “doesn’t care what others think” or some equivocal nonsense like that, he really seems to want to change people’s opinions. That is far more important to a guy not even out of high school yet than whether or not he made—gasp—some mistakes.
The Commentator duo from Hell: Not that this would—in the name of everything good, it had better not—happen, but I just came up with the commentator duo from Hell. Can you imagine anything worse than listening to a game where the play-by-play guy is Lou Holtz, and the color commentator is Shannon Sharpe? I could switch on the “espanol” feature and have a better shot at understand what they are saying. The only thing I could likely make out would be the moments when Shannon begins laughing like hyena who just heard the funniest joke ever told. And then I would know that something absolutely not funny had just happened. Not that you needed anymore food for nightmares, but there you go.
Until next time (and we apologize again for the inconvenient shortening of my column... what? You don't mind? You're joking. Right?
...right?)
The Sports Maunderer
Friday, March 30, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Team Science 101
In between musings upon various subjects recently (the musings included thoughts of what it would be like if I was Greg Oden, the hypocrisy of sports pretending to break racial barriers, and the band named "Muse") I realized that I had sort of thrown in what was potentially a very good article in my last column without expanding enough on it at all.
So let the pullulation now begin, as I turn Team Chemistry into Team Science. Basically it functions like this: if team "chemistry" is so important, certainly team "Physics", team "Biology", team "Anthropology", team "Organic Chemistry", team "Quantam mechanics" and various other sciences must be equally important. So I will now give a short definition of each, and then list some teams that have particularly good showings in these sciences and some teams that are particularly poor. (Note: For the most part, I am excluding current baseball teams from these ratings because I am about to give my completely *unscientific* and nearly useless baseball preview in a few days. In fact it will probably come out a few days after baseball season starts, just to add to the utter dysfunctionality of aformentioned preview).
Let us begin then, with Team Physics:
Physics: the science that deals with everything.
If you don't believe me, go look it up. Physics is the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force. Those four things go by another name: everything. So basically, team physics is team everything. If your team is good, it has good team physics. If your team isn't good, it has bad team physics. This is a very simple equation, and a good one to begin our Class with. No, put your hand down, we don't take questions until after my lecture. And if you have a question already you are clearly a moron who should be kept out of any classroom of any kind, and you should drop this course immediately.
Teams that have good team physics: Dallas Mavericks, Florida Gators (Basketball AND football AND Ultimate Frisbee... did you know that Florida almost literally owns the Championship of every college sport in America right now?), Indianapolic Colts, etc. etc.
Teams that have poor team physics: Memphis Grizzlies, Kansas City Royals, Oakland Raiders (The Raiders stink at just about everything, so expect them to show up in the "poor" performance area quite often)
Team Biology: The science of living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially origin, growth, structure and behavior
Origin and growth? Sounds like General Managers to me! They build a team, add to the team, structure the team, etc. As for behavior of the team... well that is all on the players (unless you are Tony La Russa; then it's on you). So Team Biology has to do with how a team is built and structured, as well as how it behaves. Good structure and good behavior leads to a good workplace, but a nasty streak can get you to your Championship fast. A balance of edginess and self control gets you right where you want to be.
Teams that exhibit strong team biology: The Bulls dynasty. Jordan, Pippen, and a slew of role players perfectly willing to let Jordan dominate the game. They managed to stay out of prison but at the same time had a competitive (and somewhat insane, thanks to Dennis Rodman) personality that simply crushed everyone in their path. A team like the current Mavericks has decent Physics in that they are structured beautifully, with all the pieces you could want, but their behavior is almost *too* good at times. No one is "afraid" of the Mavericks. In the words of Billy Donovan, most teams "respect the Hell out of them" (yeah, I only used Donovan's words there because that sentence makes no sense) but no one is afraid of them. Still, I'd say they have top notch biology. The Patriots always have top notch biology because their general manager is a "genius". Last year's Saint Louis Cardinals had terrific team biology, which shows that team biology must be all-important, because the Cardinals had absolutely nothing else going for them. But then, maybe it was just the Tigers utter lack of team biology that won the Series for the Cards.
Teams that exhibit weak biology: Apparently team biology isn't that important, because the Miami Heat of yesteryear show terribly team biology. But then, that makes sense because they only won due to a leaguewide conspiracy anyway. The Raiders have terrible team biology, of course. The Yankees have had very bad team biology for the last five years, though they are getting better with the inculcation of younger talent into their team.
Team Chaos Theory: The study of unpredictable and complex dynamic systems which are highly sensitive to even tiny changes.
In other words, who can endure the crazy swings of sports no matter what? Who can win despite the ball bouncing the other way, and the refs being paid off?
Teams with good chaos defense: The Patriots Dynasty. Most of you could see this one coming. Despite the NFL being a game won and lost on the all-too-weird vivacity of the strangely shaped ball, the Patriots won 21 games in a row and 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. That is near impregnability as far as Chaos Theory is concerned. Most "dynasties" are particularly efficient in this area, given their lengthy success, but the ultimate might have been the Yankees of the late 90s. Baseball is a sport where the Best team only wins about 60% of the time, and yet the Yankees won 4 World Series in 5 years. Not easy.
Teams with bad chaos defense: UConn basketball of a year ago. They were the best college basketball team by leaps and bounds, yet lost to a puny George Mason squad in one of the most pathetic games of all time. Besides proving that basketball is better when good teams play good teams (as in this year's tourney) that game was incredibly difficult to watch. UConn had the six best players on the court, yet they all Rudy Gay'd there way through emotionless, fundamentally unsound basketball. They couldn't handle the bounces going the other way. Yankee teams of recent history are also designed such that on a good day the Yankees blow the best teams out of the water, but when the Umpire is a bit off his mark or the wind is going the wrong way, the Yankees can lose to anyone (i.e. last year's pathetic Tigers team). The Raiders, of course.
Team Exobiology: The study of aliens.
Basically, if your team can handle an absolutely foreign presence, they are good with exobiology. If they can't, they are the Raiders. What do I mean by alien presence? I mean Terrel Owens, Ron Artest, Pacman Jones and their ilk.
Teams with good exobiology: The Bulls Dynasty, again. They won Championships with Dennis Rodman. I'm not sure if anyone has that kind of exobiology. The Patriots are pretty good here, though, surviving and thriving with Corey Dillon.
Teams with bad exobiology: The 49ers, the Eagles, the Cowboys, the Pacers. Yeah, that pretty much says who the aliens are. The Titans are doing what few other teams like doing but usually ends up being for the best: getting rid of their alien.
There we have it, people. Is your team good with the sciences?
Minor Rants
Usually I have a couple rants in my minor rants section, but today I have only one. Now, I have never thought much of a certain writer over at ESPN's "Page 2" (which is the exception, since most of Page 2 is hilarious, brilliant stuff). She seems to over-simplify things, has very little knowledge of just about anything sports related, and has nothing funny to say about anything. But I never knew she was this putrid. She recently claimed that Kobe is Better than Michael.
I could simply stop right there and most people would agree that Jemele Hill now has no credibility in anything, even how to make a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwhich. But let's just mention a few things.
This isn't even close. MJ took a cast of role players and won six titles without breaking much of a sweat. Kobe only won titles because Shaq handed them to him. So what if Kobe can score? Anyone can score in this day and age. You can't guard people anymore (no hand checking). And the ability to drop into zones to protect against big men at times opens up the perimeter even more. And Kobe doesn't score as much as MJ anyway. And let's not forget that Kobe is still barely over .500 with this team.
But the most outrageous claim she makes is that the NBA is better now than it was in MJ's day. I have no clue what she is smoking, but only because I have never smoked anything, and so I'm not sure whether pot, niccotine, or some other drug happens to affect your sanity the most. the NBA of the early nineties blows this NBA out of the water. At best, the current NBA has three teams with a title shot. THREE! Back then... oh boy. If you scroll down his latest article, Bill Simmons wrapped it up most succinctly:
"MJ played in the most competitive era in the history of the league (1987-93) and emerged with three titles from 1991-93. Jemele argued that Kobe's current competition is tougher than the teams from 1991-93, which is just plain wrong. There's no comparison. The league sucks right now. Back in the early '90s, you had Magic's Lakers, Drexler's Blazers, Riley's Knicks, Isiah's Pistons, Price's Cavs, Hakeem's Rockets, Robinson's Spurs, Malone's Jazz, the TMC trio in Golden State, some underrated Celtics teams (they averaged 52 wins a year during Reggie Lewis' prime), some great Suns teams (including a 62-win team in 1992-93 with Barkley) and a Sonics team that was just taking off with GP and Kemp. It was a top-heavy league back then, unlike now, when 80 percent of the teams are mediocre and there are only four good teams (Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio and Detroit)."
The Sports Maunderer was created so that I had an outlet for my frustrations, and this is exactly the kind of thing my blog was created for, so it is blissful and ecstatic that it is fulfilling its purpose. Instead of ranting to whoever would listen, I now ramble for everyone to read.
I don't blame Hill for making an assertion and then arguing for it. Except that I do, because this assertion is just that dumb.
So I rephrase: I wouldn't normally blame anyone for making an assertion I disagree with and attempting to support it. Unless it is one of the hundred dumbest things ever asserted. This is one of those.
One last tidbit: Has anyone actually ever used the word "antidisestablishmentarianism" without putting it in quotes? Ever?
Well have fun, peoples, and maybe next time I'll let you in on what it is like to be Greg Oden.
The Sports Maunderer, signing off.
So let the pullulation now begin, as I turn Team Chemistry into Team Science. Basically it functions like this: if team "chemistry" is so important, certainly team "Physics", team "Biology", team "Anthropology", team "Organic Chemistry", team "Quantam mechanics" and various other sciences must be equally important. So I will now give a short definition of each, and then list some teams that have particularly good showings in these sciences and some teams that are particularly poor. (Note: For the most part, I am excluding current baseball teams from these ratings because I am about to give my completely *unscientific* and nearly useless baseball preview in a few days. In fact it will probably come out a few days after baseball season starts, just to add to the utter dysfunctionality of aformentioned preview).
Let us begin then, with Team Physics:
Physics: the science that deals with everything.
If you don't believe me, go look it up. Physics is the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force. Those four things go by another name: everything. So basically, team physics is team everything. If your team is good, it has good team physics. If your team isn't good, it has bad team physics. This is a very simple equation, and a good one to begin our Class with. No, put your hand down, we don't take questions until after my lecture. And if you have a question already you are clearly a moron who should be kept out of any classroom of any kind, and you should drop this course immediately.
Teams that have good team physics: Dallas Mavericks, Florida Gators (Basketball AND football AND Ultimate Frisbee... did you know that Florida almost literally owns the Championship of every college sport in America right now?), Indianapolic Colts, etc. etc.
Teams that have poor team physics: Memphis Grizzlies, Kansas City Royals, Oakland Raiders (The Raiders stink at just about everything, so expect them to show up in the "poor" performance area quite often)
Team Biology: The science of living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially origin, growth, structure and behavior
Origin and growth? Sounds like General Managers to me! They build a team, add to the team, structure the team, etc. As for behavior of the team... well that is all on the players (unless you are Tony La Russa; then it's on you). So Team Biology has to do with how a team is built and structured, as well as how it behaves. Good structure and good behavior leads to a good workplace, but a nasty streak can get you to your Championship fast. A balance of edginess and self control gets you right where you want to be.
Teams that exhibit strong team biology: The Bulls dynasty. Jordan, Pippen, and a slew of role players perfectly willing to let Jordan dominate the game. They managed to stay out of prison but at the same time had a competitive (and somewhat insane, thanks to Dennis Rodman) personality that simply crushed everyone in their path. A team like the current Mavericks has decent Physics in that they are structured beautifully, with all the pieces you could want, but their behavior is almost *too* good at times. No one is "afraid" of the Mavericks. In the words of Billy Donovan, most teams "respect the Hell out of them" (yeah, I only used Donovan's words there because that sentence makes no sense) but no one is afraid of them. Still, I'd say they have top notch biology. The Patriots always have top notch biology because their general manager is a "genius". Last year's Saint Louis Cardinals had terrific team biology, which shows that team biology must be all-important, because the Cardinals had absolutely nothing else going for them. But then, maybe it was just the Tigers utter lack of team biology that won the Series for the Cards.
Teams that exhibit weak biology: Apparently team biology isn't that important, because the Miami Heat of yesteryear show terribly team biology. But then, that makes sense because they only won due to a leaguewide conspiracy anyway. The Raiders have terrible team biology, of course. The Yankees have had very bad team biology for the last five years, though they are getting better with the inculcation of younger talent into their team.
Team Chaos Theory: The study of unpredictable and complex dynamic systems which are highly sensitive to even tiny changes.
In other words, who can endure the crazy swings of sports no matter what? Who can win despite the ball bouncing the other way, and the refs being paid off?
Teams with good chaos defense: The Patriots Dynasty. Most of you could see this one coming. Despite the NFL being a game won and lost on the all-too-weird vivacity of the strangely shaped ball, the Patriots won 21 games in a row and 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. That is near impregnability as far as Chaos Theory is concerned. Most "dynasties" are particularly efficient in this area, given their lengthy success, but the ultimate might have been the Yankees of the late 90s. Baseball is a sport where the Best team only wins about 60% of the time, and yet the Yankees won 4 World Series in 5 years. Not easy.
Teams with bad chaos defense: UConn basketball of a year ago. They were the best college basketball team by leaps and bounds, yet lost to a puny George Mason squad in one of the most pathetic games of all time. Besides proving that basketball is better when good teams play good teams (as in this year's tourney) that game was incredibly difficult to watch. UConn had the six best players on the court, yet they all Rudy Gay'd there way through emotionless, fundamentally unsound basketball. They couldn't handle the bounces going the other way. Yankee teams of recent history are also designed such that on a good day the Yankees blow the best teams out of the water, but when the Umpire is a bit off his mark or the wind is going the wrong way, the Yankees can lose to anyone (i.e. last year's pathetic Tigers team). The Raiders, of course.
Team Exobiology: The study of aliens.
Basically, if your team can handle an absolutely foreign presence, they are good with exobiology. If they can't, they are the Raiders. What do I mean by alien presence? I mean Terrel Owens, Ron Artest, Pacman Jones and their ilk.
Teams with good exobiology: The Bulls Dynasty, again. They won Championships with Dennis Rodman. I'm not sure if anyone has that kind of exobiology. The Patriots are pretty good here, though, surviving and thriving with Corey Dillon.
Teams with bad exobiology: The 49ers, the Eagles, the Cowboys, the Pacers. Yeah, that pretty much says who the aliens are. The Titans are doing what few other teams like doing but usually ends up being for the best: getting rid of their alien.
There we have it, people. Is your team good with the sciences?
Minor Rants
Usually I have a couple rants in my minor rants section, but today I have only one. Now, I have never thought much of a certain writer over at ESPN's "Page 2" (which is the exception, since most of Page 2 is hilarious, brilliant stuff). She seems to over-simplify things, has very little knowledge of just about anything sports related, and has nothing funny to say about anything. But I never knew she was this putrid. She recently claimed that Kobe is Better than Michael.
I could simply stop right there and most people would agree that Jemele Hill now has no credibility in anything, even how to make a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwhich. But let's just mention a few things.
This isn't even close. MJ took a cast of role players and won six titles without breaking much of a sweat. Kobe only won titles because Shaq handed them to him. So what if Kobe can score? Anyone can score in this day and age. You can't guard people anymore (no hand checking). And the ability to drop into zones to protect against big men at times opens up the perimeter even more. And Kobe doesn't score as much as MJ anyway. And let's not forget that Kobe is still barely over .500 with this team.
But the most outrageous claim she makes is that the NBA is better now than it was in MJ's day. I have no clue what she is smoking, but only because I have never smoked anything, and so I'm not sure whether pot, niccotine, or some other drug happens to affect your sanity the most. the NBA of the early nineties blows this NBA out of the water. At best, the current NBA has three teams with a title shot. THREE! Back then... oh boy. If you scroll down his latest article, Bill Simmons wrapped it up most succinctly:
"MJ played in the most competitive era in the history of the league (1987-93) and emerged with three titles from 1991-93. Jemele argued that Kobe's current competition is tougher than the teams from 1991-93, which is just plain wrong. There's no comparison. The league sucks right now. Back in the early '90s, you had Magic's Lakers, Drexler's Blazers, Riley's Knicks, Isiah's Pistons, Price's Cavs, Hakeem's Rockets, Robinson's Spurs, Malone's Jazz, the TMC trio in Golden State, some underrated Celtics teams (they averaged 52 wins a year during Reggie Lewis' prime), some great Suns teams (including a 62-win team in 1992-93 with Barkley) and a Sonics team that was just taking off with GP and Kemp. It was a top-heavy league back then, unlike now, when 80 percent of the teams are mediocre and there are only four good teams (Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio and Detroit)."
The Sports Maunderer was created so that I had an outlet for my frustrations, and this is exactly the kind of thing my blog was created for, so it is blissful and ecstatic that it is fulfilling its purpose. Instead of ranting to whoever would listen, I now ramble for everyone to read.
I don't blame Hill for making an assertion and then arguing for it. Except that I do, because this assertion is just that dumb.
So I rephrase: I wouldn't normally blame anyone for making an assertion I disagree with and attempting to support it. Unless it is one of the hundred dumbest things ever asserted. This is one of those.
One last tidbit: Has anyone actually ever used the word "antidisestablishmentarianism" without putting it in quotes? Ever?
Well have fun, peoples, and maybe next time I'll let you in on what it is like to be Greg Oden.
The Sports Maunderer, signing off.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Back baby
It's back. It's ALL BACK! In honor of everything coming out of the woodworks recently, I have decided to bust out the blog. Andy Petitte went back to the Yankees, Bill Parcells went back into retirement, ESPN went back to discussing homosexuality as if sports somehow has anything to do with this, March went back to being not so mad, and I will now get back to insulting people, things and philosophies. You know, sort of like Democrats. Of course, in much the same way that Democrats have plenty to criticize (they are criticizing Republicans after all), I Also have plenty to criticize. So let's get to it.
First of all, though, let us hail someone who has now become one of the greatest QBs of our generation, Peyton Manning.That's right ladies and gentlemen, he is now the best QB of his time. This was completely unthinkable a few months ago but now he has validated his legacy by throwing twice as many interceptions as TDs in his most recent playoff run. We now know he is the best because he is better than Rex Grossman. We know he is the best because his defense suddenly learned how to tackle. We know he is the best because Adam Vinatieri was near golden throughout the playoffs. All of this clearly points to Peyton's perfection and brilliance.In 2003, when he threw a hundred TDs (actually, it was closer to 10, but that's a lot) in three games in the postseason, the Colts emerged defeated and Tom Brady was hailed as the greatest QB of his generation. Of course, Tom Brady also had a defense which shut down every other offense in the postseason that year, including my beloved Titans. But we ignore that.
The Truth is: we don't know how to judge whether a football player is any good. If we did, no one would still be praising Michael Vick. In baseball, where 99% of the game is a one on one battle between hitter and pitcher, it is rather easy to determine who is good and who isn't. In basketball, where players are judged on their ability to work within a team but also take over the game when necessary (i.e. Michael Jordan), it is rather easy to determine who succeeds and who fails. In football... oh football.
In football, eleven guys have to do everything right to make one good play. If you think about it, that makes it somewhat amazing that games like Super Bowl XLI don't occur more often (and by that, I mean games where both teams play pretty much terribly), but I digress. The point is that Peyton Manning rode a resurgent defense to the Hall of Fame, and yet no one on that defense, minus maybe Dwight Freeney, is sticking around in Canton after their chauffeuring duties are accomplished. The Steelers of an era ago won Super Bowls galore with a veritable roster of Hall of Fame inductees; the New England Patriots won their three Super Bowls with one or two at most. The moral of that story? A) Free agency didnt assassinate dynasties, and B) teams don't require anyone to be spectacular, they require everyone to be good and to and work together.
The overused phrase "team chemistry" only really applies in football. It does somewhat apply in Basketball, but as Shaq and Kobe proved, it means little more than toasters on an island. What do toasters on an island mean? Who the heck knows. The point is that football requires an amazing amount of coordination, and if the corner breaks at the right time and the safety drops off at the right time, it doesn't really matter if either of them have 4.33 speed. Everyone in the NFL is big, fast and strong. The ability to work collectively is far more important.
(A word on team "chemistry": where did this phrase originate? What exactly does "chemistry" have to do with coordination, teamwork, and collective action? The only thing I can think of is that by "chemistry" they mean "mixing things together", but not only is that a ridiculous misrepresentation of what chemistry actually is, but when you *do* mix things together in chemistry, you have no idea what you are going to get half the time. I really don't see how this cliche ever became a cliche. But we all know I could deconstruct cliches for years, so I'll move on now.)
The Chargers fired Marty Schottenheimer in an odd fashion, but now that he is gone, they can win a Super Bowl without further adu. They were by far the most talented team in the league last year, and lost in the playoffs due to a succession of egregious coaching errors longer than "Hey Jude". I don't need to list them again (it is hard to forget them), but they were beaten because the coaching stunk, not because the players messed up., and--Well crap. They hired Norv Turner, put the Super Bowl parade on hold.
I suppose that we should mention "March Madness". I place this in quotes because this March has been about as "mad" as... an entirely sober Vulcan. The hallowed opening rounds stunk, the Sweet Sixteen delivered many close games but ZERO (I'd say "count 'em" but you can't!) upsets, and the Elite Eight was fine but certainly no overwhelming amount of "madness" occured.
Maybe that is what they were counting on though. We have become so used to dozens of upsets a year that this year, with the tournament lacking in upsets entirely, it is completely mad, by virtue of the fact that it is completely sane! This is like Hannibal Lecter suddenly finding human flesh disgusting, the birds in "The Birds" suddenly sitting placidly around like birds usually do, or Dennis Rodman acting like a normal human being. It is more insane than insanity could have ever acheived!
...or not. In reality, it has simply been boring. But I do believe that it underscores a basic truth: The end result of the tourney is never particularly insane (okay, besides Villanova back in 85, but the fact that college basketball didn't have a shot clock was insane enough that I'm surprised it took so long for a Villanova to beat a Georgetown by milking the clock). The first few rounds are usually "insane" because a small number of crappy teams beat a small number of good ones. But even George Mason, king of all Cinderellas, never had a serious title shot. Sure it was cool they got to the Final Four, but who got to the Final Four in 1991? You know? Of course you don't. But you know Duke won the title. That is all that anyone remembers, and in the end, the upsets in the first round are meaningless beyond those silly brackets we all fill out. Now that we have a year with next to nothing in terms of early upsets, and yet our Final Four looks like most of the other Final Fours always have, we realize that upsets are highly overrated.
(If you haven't figured out by now that this is merely the depressing maundering of someone whose own bracket completely sucked this year due to the fact that he picked a lot of upsets... you are very very dumb)
In other news, Kobe Bryant is scoring many a point, and the Lakers are winning many a game. This makes a certain amount of sense because to win games one need score more points than the opponent (which it seems ESPN analysts forget sometimes), yet it also seems that for so long I have been told that Kobe is a ball-hog in such a negative light that his scoring must be bad. He should attempt to score as little as possible. Then the Lakers would somehow counter intuitively win more. Or something. Come on Kobe, how LOW can you GO! You must score less for the Lakers to win more! All the talking heads agreed on this years ago! Stop screwing with their brilliance by simultaneously scoring and winning! You are proving them all wrong and this is not allowed. At all. We frown upon ye, Kobe Bryant.
Steroids in baseball?! Folks are outraged that Gary Mathews Jr. Might possibly have used performance enhancing drugs. They are outraged because he is the first baseball player ever accused of cheating in any way shape or form. I mean, what do you think this is, NASCAR?
Alright, now the moment you have all been waiting for. Brilliant analysis and up to the minute news from our:
MORT REPORT RETORT!
The Yankees hope Chein-Ming Wang comes back from injury as quickly as possible, because he is a pitcher on their team.
Kerry Wood and Mark Prior are injured.
Greg Oden is a very good freshman for Ohio State University.
This just in: The Colts won the Superbowl.
This just in: Joakim Noah has a lot of hair.
USC is relatively excited about O.J. Mayo.
Peter Gammons is a Hall of Fame writer. This has been the case for a while now, this is nothing new, but it makes me wonder: what do I have to do to become a Hall of Fame writer? Besides first locating where exactly this writers Hall of Fame is located, I figure writing would be rather important. Yet who the heck ever reads anything Peter has to say? We all get our Gammons fix on ESPN when he analyzes, commentates, reports or dissects something in front of a camera (and he does it very well). And even if you wanted to read him online, you can only do it if you are in "ESPN Insider" otherwise known as Magazine Subscriber. And even then, you can't *really* read his insider columns because I *am* a subscriber and I cannot read them because the website refuses to acknowledge my privileged status. (I am very ticked off with ESPN regarding this issue. Very much so. Expect many beatings of a dead horse on this issue in the weeks to come). So since no one can read him, and we all watch him, shouldn't he be in the Sports reporters hall of fame or something? Not sure if there is one of those, but I never knew there was a writers Hall of Fame either, and I doubt you knew that, so stop giving me that condescending smirk and tell me where this Hall of Fame is located.
Well that is all I have for this post. While a little weak on humor, insight, and basically everything else you look for in a sports column, don't worry because A) this is my first one back and things will get better and B) my columns are never particularly funny, insightful or useful, so if you are reading them anyway, you must not care.
Until next time, try not to get flagged for roughing the passer, fouling Dwanye Wade, or discussing Kevin Durant.
First of all, though, let us hail someone who has now become one of the greatest QBs of our generation, Peyton Manning.That's right ladies and gentlemen, he is now the best QB of his time. This was completely unthinkable a few months ago but now he has validated his legacy by throwing twice as many interceptions as TDs in his most recent playoff run. We now know he is the best because he is better than Rex Grossman. We know he is the best because his defense suddenly learned how to tackle. We know he is the best because Adam Vinatieri was near golden throughout the playoffs. All of this clearly points to Peyton's perfection and brilliance.In 2003, when he threw a hundred TDs (actually, it was closer to 10, but that's a lot) in three games in the postseason, the Colts emerged defeated and Tom Brady was hailed as the greatest QB of his generation. Of course, Tom Brady also had a defense which shut down every other offense in the postseason that year, including my beloved Titans. But we ignore that.
The Truth is: we don't know how to judge whether a football player is any good. If we did, no one would still be praising Michael Vick. In baseball, where 99% of the game is a one on one battle between hitter and pitcher, it is rather easy to determine who is good and who isn't. In basketball, where players are judged on their ability to work within a team but also take over the game when necessary (i.e. Michael Jordan), it is rather easy to determine who succeeds and who fails. In football... oh football.
In football, eleven guys have to do everything right to make one good play. If you think about it, that makes it somewhat amazing that games like Super Bowl XLI don't occur more often (and by that, I mean games where both teams play pretty much terribly), but I digress. The point is that Peyton Manning rode a resurgent defense to the Hall of Fame, and yet no one on that defense, minus maybe Dwight Freeney, is sticking around in Canton after their chauffeuring duties are accomplished. The Steelers of an era ago won Super Bowls galore with a veritable roster of Hall of Fame inductees; the New England Patriots won their three Super Bowls with one or two at most. The moral of that story? A) Free agency didnt assassinate dynasties, and B) teams don't require anyone to be spectacular, they require everyone to be good and to and work together.
The overused phrase "team chemistry" only really applies in football. It does somewhat apply in Basketball, but as Shaq and Kobe proved, it means little more than toasters on an island. What do toasters on an island mean? Who the heck knows. The point is that football requires an amazing amount of coordination, and if the corner breaks at the right time and the safety drops off at the right time, it doesn't really matter if either of them have 4.33 speed. Everyone in the NFL is big, fast and strong. The ability to work collectively is far more important.
(A word on team "chemistry": where did this phrase originate? What exactly does "chemistry" have to do with coordination, teamwork, and collective action? The only thing I can think of is that by "chemistry" they mean "mixing things together", but not only is that a ridiculous misrepresentation of what chemistry actually is, but when you *do* mix things together in chemistry, you have no idea what you are going to get half the time. I really don't see how this cliche ever became a cliche. But we all know I could deconstruct cliches for years, so I'll move on now.)
The Chargers fired Marty Schottenheimer in an odd fashion, but now that he is gone, they can win a Super Bowl without further adu. They were by far the most talented team in the league last year, and lost in the playoffs due to a succession of egregious coaching errors longer than "Hey Jude". I don't need to list them again (it is hard to forget them), but they were beaten because the coaching stunk, not because the players messed up., and--Well crap. They hired Norv Turner, put the Super Bowl parade on hold.
I suppose that we should mention "March Madness". I place this in quotes because this March has been about as "mad" as... an entirely sober Vulcan. The hallowed opening rounds stunk, the Sweet Sixteen delivered many close games but ZERO (I'd say "count 'em" but you can't!) upsets, and the Elite Eight was fine but certainly no overwhelming amount of "madness" occured.
Maybe that is what they were counting on though. We have become so used to dozens of upsets a year that this year, with the tournament lacking in upsets entirely, it is completely mad, by virtue of the fact that it is completely sane! This is like Hannibal Lecter suddenly finding human flesh disgusting, the birds in "The Birds" suddenly sitting placidly around like birds usually do, or Dennis Rodman acting like a normal human being. It is more insane than insanity could have ever acheived!
...or not. In reality, it has simply been boring. But I do believe that it underscores a basic truth: The end result of the tourney is never particularly insane (okay, besides Villanova back in 85, but the fact that college basketball didn't have a shot clock was insane enough that I'm surprised it took so long for a Villanova to beat a Georgetown by milking the clock). The first few rounds are usually "insane" because a small number of crappy teams beat a small number of good ones. But even George Mason, king of all Cinderellas, never had a serious title shot. Sure it was cool they got to the Final Four, but who got to the Final Four in 1991? You know? Of course you don't. But you know Duke won the title. That is all that anyone remembers, and in the end, the upsets in the first round are meaningless beyond those silly brackets we all fill out. Now that we have a year with next to nothing in terms of early upsets, and yet our Final Four looks like most of the other Final Fours always have, we realize that upsets are highly overrated.
(If you haven't figured out by now that this is merely the depressing maundering of someone whose own bracket completely sucked this year due to the fact that he picked a lot of upsets... you are very very dumb)
In other news, Kobe Bryant is scoring many a point, and the Lakers are winning many a game. This makes a certain amount of sense because to win games one need score more points than the opponent (which it seems ESPN analysts forget sometimes), yet it also seems that for so long I have been told that Kobe is a ball-hog in such a negative light that his scoring must be bad. He should attempt to score as little as possible. Then the Lakers would somehow counter intuitively win more. Or something. Come on Kobe, how LOW can you GO! You must score less for the Lakers to win more! All the talking heads agreed on this years ago! Stop screwing with their brilliance by simultaneously scoring and winning! You are proving them all wrong and this is not allowed. At all. We frown upon ye, Kobe Bryant.
Steroids in baseball?! Folks are outraged that Gary Mathews Jr. Might possibly have used performance enhancing drugs. They are outraged because he is the first baseball player ever accused of cheating in any way shape or form. I mean, what do you think this is, NASCAR?
Alright, now the moment you have all been waiting for. Brilliant analysis and up to the minute news from our:
MORT REPORT RETORT!
The Yankees hope Chein-Ming Wang comes back from injury as quickly as possible, because he is a pitcher on their team.
Kerry Wood and Mark Prior are injured.
Greg Oden is a very good freshman for Ohio State University.
This just in: The Colts won the Superbowl.
This just in: Joakim Noah has a lot of hair.
USC is relatively excited about O.J. Mayo.
Peter Gammons is a Hall of Fame writer. This has been the case for a while now, this is nothing new, but it makes me wonder: what do I have to do to become a Hall of Fame writer? Besides first locating where exactly this writers Hall of Fame is located, I figure writing would be rather important. Yet who the heck ever reads anything Peter has to say? We all get our Gammons fix on ESPN when he analyzes, commentates, reports or dissects something in front of a camera (and he does it very well). And even if you wanted to read him online, you can only do it if you are in "ESPN Insider" otherwise known as Magazine Subscriber. And even then, you can't *really* read his insider columns because I *am* a subscriber and I cannot read them because the website refuses to acknowledge my privileged status. (I am very ticked off with ESPN regarding this issue. Very much so. Expect many beatings of a dead horse on this issue in the weeks to come). So since no one can read him, and we all watch him, shouldn't he be in the Sports reporters hall of fame or something? Not sure if there is one of those, but I never knew there was a writers Hall of Fame either, and I doubt you knew that, so stop giving me that condescending smirk and tell me where this Hall of Fame is located.
Well that is all I have for this post. While a little weak on humor, insight, and basically everything else you look for in a sports column, don't worry because A) this is my first one back and things will get better and B) my columns are never particularly funny, insightful or useful, so if you are reading them anyway, you must not care.
Until next time, try not to get flagged for roughing the passer, fouling Dwanye Wade, or discussing Kevin Durant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)