I had a great idea for a post, so I logged onto the blog and decided to rant my guts out . Then... I forgot what my great idea was and am left floundering in the world of indecisive no man's land.
But there are always dynasties. There has been much talk lately that the Spurs are either at or approaching Dynasty status. Their main boast? They have won four titles in nine years. What? Nine YEARS?! That isn't even one every two years! That is crap! In the middle of their "reign", another team won three times in a row, and is probably closer to dynasty status than they are. Four titles in nine years for the NBA is nothing. Are the Lakers a dynasty right now because they have won three titles in eight years? This entire idea is absurd. Never mind the fact that their first victory was in a strike year where no one really has a clue who the champion should have been, or that the only remaining player from that team on the current team is Tim Duncan. Even if that championship was legitimate, they have never even won twice in a row.
Several times they have been bounced in the second round. And who have they won these "championships" against? In 2003 they only won because the Lakers, a vastly superior team, couldn't get by their own egos to go ahead and win the dang thing. In 2007 they got the title handed to them by David Stern, who screwed the Suns like no team has been screwed since the Raiders and the tuck rule. Heck it was even worse than that. At least that was a call on the field, not a dirty team playing so cheap and so below the belt and then getting rewarded for it. The only championship they didn't simply win by default was 2005. Some dynasty.
But this underlies a problem of more impressive proportions within the sports obsessed community. Dynasties are not this common! Winning a couple titles in a couple of years doesn't make you a dynasty. The argument could be made that only two professional sports teams are really dynasties: The Celtics of the Russell era, and the Yankees, period. The first won nine championships in a row or some other outrageous number. The second wins championships all the time, and has for EIGHTY-FIVE YEARS. Yeah that is a long time. If we are going to include slightly lesser teams in this discussion, the Jordan Bulls get in (6 in 8 years, and they would have had 8 in 8 years if Jordan had never wasted time striking out), the Steelers' 4 out of 6 get in (for football, that is mildly amazing), and maybe, maybe the Lakers of the eighties get in. But this nonsense about teams that sort of, kind of win four titles in nine years? Outlandish. Outrageous. And in the words of Jim Rome: Riiiiiiiiiii-DIC-u-lous.
The Yankees are awful. They are really, really awful.
Oh yeah! Well I was originally planning to write about my revulsion at the overused and loony phrase: "They're a blue collar, bring your lunch pale to work team"
Alright, first of all, the bring your lunch pale to work thing is nonsense. Never mind the fact that most of the morons who spout these phrases (I'm looking at you, Mark Schlereth) shorten the phrase to simply a "lunch pale" team. As absurd as that is (a lunch pale team? What are the other teams? Lunch BOX teams?), the ridiculous thing is that none of these guys bring any type of lunch-carrying device to work.
Blue collar? Well football, basketball and baseball players don't even have collars, so I find this inane, but since they are all making more money than Harvard Lawyers, blue collar simply seems to come up short as far as describing exactly how we should look at these teams.
Another problem is that "blue collar" teams like the Steelers usually lose to... uh, I guess we'll call them "white collar" teams like the Colts, so this moniker is hardly a compliment, even though the analysts usually intend it as such.
But finally, these supposed "blue collar teams" who play hard and rough and "smashmouth" (i abhor that phrase) football/basketball/baseball scarcely work any harder than those precision machines like the Colts. Peyton Manning works harder than anyone. But he is not "blue collar" because his team scores too often. It really boils down to this: blue collar teams don't score much, and "white collar" teams do. So I guess that even in sports, we should to ditch the blue collars?
It just doesn't make any sense.
Anyway, the NBA draft came and went without any interesting events. A few trades and such, the necessary Pheonix middle finger to their fans, and basically enough dull crap to suck the life out of any sports writer anywhere.
I suppose I could have warned you before you suffered through this post.
~The Sports Maunderer~
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Art of the Anecdote
Kurt Vonnegut's eight rules of short story writing.
1)Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
2)Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
3)Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
4)Every sentence must do one of two things — reveal character or advance the action.
5)Start as close to the end as possible.
6)Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them — in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
7)Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
8)Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.
Sean Salisbury's eight rules of short story writing:
1) It must be short.
2) It must be a story.
3) It must be readable. And by that I mean able to be read.
4) It must. be. really. short.
5) It must be interesting.
6) The Reader should come away thinking he read something.
7) Because he did, right?
8) It has to be short.
George W. Bush's eight rules for short story writing:
1) We must stay the course.
2) I declare war on terror.
3) Nucular.
4) Write it dead or alive.
5) Bring those blank pages ON!
6) We must stay the course.
7) We are winning the war against short stories.
8) Short stories? Are those terrorists?
No, this blog has not gone haywire, there is a point to all of this. (Those of you familiar with Sean Salisbury probably already divined that I will get this around to sports somehow). I just gave three examples of the same thing: people attempting to categorically provide relatively general rules for a broad topic. A lot of these become known as cliches (though not all do), and these anecdotes and adages pervade our society like McDonald's and morons. I am about to detail a list of sports cliches, and rate them according to one of three designations. The astute among you might have noticed by now that I provided you with three examples already, as guidelines for my designations. The three possible categories a cliche or overused sports adage can fall into are: "Useful, unuseful, and completely inane".
To illustrate my point, Kurt Vonnegut's rules for short stories are useful. Some of them are a tad obvious but none to the point that simply remaining silent would have been more appropriate than enlightening the world. Sean Salisbury's cliches are completely obsolete. Even mentioning them is a waste of breath because if someone doesn't comprehend that point already, they have no business bothering with their current goal and should instead take up kayaking. George W. Bush's rules are either completely lacking in pertinence, simply wrong, or so insanely ludicrous that they have no function. So our three ratings for cliches will be:
V
S
B
I'm sure you guys can wrap your head around those. So now, without further Tom Delay, my list of sports cliches.
Let's start it off with some you already have experienced my wrath regarding:
"Defense wins championships.": S. This cliche is true--good teams have good defense and good teams win championships therefore good defenses win championships. But it is utterly useless to state it all of the time--or any of the time. Also, if the speaker implies that defense wins championships but offense doesn't, I direct you to the 2007 Super Bowl.
"If you can run the ball, and stop the run, you will win in the NATIONAL. FOOTBALL. LEAGUE.": B. This simply is not true. The Vikings circa 2007 could do both of these things and yet could not win. They didn't even make the playoffs. Plenty of teams follow that trend, also; it isn't just a once in a lifetime thing. The reason this ridiculous statement has so much credence is due to the fact that theoretically, if you can run the ball well, the opposing defense will need to adjust in order to stop it, therefore opening up the pass. But the reverse is also true. You think the Colts would be able to run it worth a Larry Hughes jumpshot if they didn't have Peyton Manning throwing the ball all the time? Uh... no?
"Experience wins championships.": B. In the words of Billy Donovan: "I don't know how valuable experience is, because we won last year and didn't have any of it." Exactly. Why does this cliche pervade society? Because players who happen to be "inexperienced" are usually simply "not as good." For instance, in the NBA, Lebron only got to the finals in his fourth year. Does this have much to do with "experience", or is just a matter of him being better than he was four years ago? And if by "experience" you simply mean "more time to learn how to play better", than this cliche becomes an S, because DUH, better players win championships.
"If you believe in yourself, good things happen.": V. Yes, surprisingly, this one has some merit. A lot of people think the confidence thing is overblown, and let me tell you, in most walks of life that is absolutely true. But in sports, where you don't so much think as you react, the ability to mentally *allow* yourself to react is hugely integral to succeeding. If you are thinking, you are probably moving slowly and hurting your chances at success. If you believe so intently that you are good enough to do something without thinking, the odds dramatically rise.
"Good receivers catch the ball with their hands.": S. Is it a bit alarming that NFL commentators *actually* use this phrase? (Or was it just Theisman? It might be only him. If so, that's good.)
"Good pitchers pitch inside.": S. Good pitchers also pitch outside, up, down and everywhere else. The real line should be "Bad pitchers don't pitch inside." although that is pretty obvious as well.
"Great teams start with great big men.": V/S/B. This one is all three because it is true, false and useless and useful all at the same time. I lean toward a "B" overall, though, because cliches are failures if they don't almost always work. And this one does not always work. Then again, it works often enough that it is not completely and totally and entirely useless. But really, Luc Longley? Yeah, the Bulls built their team with a great big man. On the other hand, MJ was the greatest player ever, and big men have dominated the league for the past ten years (Shaq and Duncan have won eight of nine). Once again, though, as great as Shaq was, he had Kobe and Dwayne (granted, Shaq was a larger part of the reason they were good, but without them he still couldn't have pulled it off), and the Pistons managed to win without a dominant big man (Ben Wallace simply doesn't count).
"To win, their *insert best player here* has to have a huge game.": S. Yeah. Theisman loves it but so do other commentators.
"To win, they need to control the clock and win the turnover battle.": S. Another Theisman favorite, but it is proclaimed before every NFL game, by whoever is calling the action. Period.
Heck, let's make this rule:
"*Insert Joe Theisman or Tim McCarver quote here*": B/S. Hey look at those initials! I didn't even plan it that way!
"With their *insert player here* injured, other players need to step up.": S. I mean, come on. Who doesn't understand that when you lose a player, another player needs to attempt to take his place?
"They need to do a better job of taking care of the football/basketball.": S. Usually following a turnover or two, this phrase is tantamount to proclaiming "they need to score more" after three consecutive failures to do so.
Well there are more cliches that need destruction but those will have to wait for another time. At least now you understand the basic premise of how I dismantle and organize these preferred repetative sayings of America's fast-food populace.
Until next time,
~The Sports Maunderer~
1)Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
2)Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
3)Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
4)Every sentence must do one of two things — reveal character or advance the action.
5)Start as close to the end as possible.
6)Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them — in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
7)Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
8)Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.
Sean Salisbury's eight rules of short story writing:
1) It must be short.
2) It must be a story.
3) It must be readable. And by that I mean able to be read.
4) It must. be. really. short.
5) It must be interesting.
6) The Reader should come away thinking he read something.
7) Because he did, right?
8) It has to be short.
George W. Bush's eight rules for short story writing:
1) We must stay the course.
2) I declare war on terror.
3) Nucular.
4) Write it dead or alive.
5) Bring those blank pages ON!
6) We must stay the course.
7) We are winning the war against short stories.
8) Short stories? Are those terrorists?
No, this blog has not gone haywire, there is a point to all of this. (Those of you familiar with Sean Salisbury probably already divined that I will get this around to sports somehow). I just gave three examples of the same thing: people attempting to categorically provide relatively general rules for a broad topic. A lot of these become known as cliches (though not all do), and these anecdotes and adages pervade our society like McDonald's and morons. I am about to detail a list of sports cliches, and rate them according to one of three designations. The astute among you might have noticed by now that I provided you with three examples already, as guidelines for my designations. The three possible categories a cliche or overused sports adage can fall into are: "Useful, unuseful, and completely inane".
To illustrate my point, Kurt Vonnegut's rules for short stories are useful. Some of them are a tad obvious but none to the point that simply remaining silent would have been more appropriate than enlightening the world. Sean Salisbury's cliches are completely obsolete. Even mentioning them is a waste of breath because if someone doesn't comprehend that point already, they have no business bothering with their current goal and should instead take up kayaking. George W. Bush's rules are either completely lacking in pertinence, simply wrong, or so insanely ludicrous that they have no function. So our three ratings for cliches will be:
V
S
B
I'm sure you guys can wrap your head around those. So now, without further Tom Delay, my list of sports cliches.
Let's start it off with some you already have experienced my wrath regarding:
"Defense wins championships.": S. This cliche is true--good teams have good defense and good teams win championships therefore good defenses win championships. But it is utterly useless to state it all of the time--or any of the time. Also, if the speaker implies that defense wins championships but offense doesn't, I direct you to the 2007 Super Bowl.
"If you can run the ball, and stop the run, you will win in the NATIONAL. FOOTBALL. LEAGUE.": B. This simply is not true. The Vikings circa 2007 could do both of these things and yet could not win. They didn't even make the playoffs. Plenty of teams follow that trend, also; it isn't just a once in a lifetime thing. The reason this ridiculous statement has so much credence is due to the fact that theoretically, if you can run the ball well, the opposing defense will need to adjust in order to stop it, therefore opening up the pass. But the reverse is also true. You think the Colts would be able to run it worth a Larry Hughes jumpshot if they didn't have Peyton Manning throwing the ball all the time? Uh... no?
"Experience wins championships.": B. In the words of Billy Donovan: "I don't know how valuable experience is, because we won last year and didn't have any of it." Exactly. Why does this cliche pervade society? Because players who happen to be "inexperienced" are usually simply "not as good." For instance, in the NBA, Lebron only got to the finals in his fourth year. Does this have much to do with "experience", or is just a matter of him being better than he was four years ago? And if by "experience" you simply mean "more time to learn how to play better", than this cliche becomes an S, because DUH, better players win championships.
"If you believe in yourself, good things happen.": V. Yes, surprisingly, this one has some merit. A lot of people think the confidence thing is overblown, and let me tell you, in most walks of life that is absolutely true. But in sports, where you don't so much think as you react, the ability to mentally *allow* yourself to react is hugely integral to succeeding. If you are thinking, you are probably moving slowly and hurting your chances at success. If you believe so intently that you are good enough to do something without thinking, the odds dramatically rise.
"Good receivers catch the ball with their hands.": S. Is it a bit alarming that NFL commentators *actually* use this phrase? (Or was it just Theisman? It might be only him. If so, that's good.)
"Good pitchers pitch inside.": S. Good pitchers also pitch outside, up, down and everywhere else. The real line should be "Bad pitchers don't pitch inside." although that is pretty obvious as well.
"Great teams start with great big men.": V/S/B. This one is all three because it is true, false and useless and useful all at the same time. I lean toward a "B" overall, though, because cliches are failures if they don't almost always work. And this one does not always work. Then again, it works often enough that it is not completely and totally and entirely useless. But really, Luc Longley? Yeah, the Bulls built their team with a great big man. On the other hand, MJ was the greatest player ever, and big men have dominated the league for the past ten years (Shaq and Duncan have won eight of nine). Once again, though, as great as Shaq was, he had Kobe and Dwayne (granted, Shaq was a larger part of the reason they were good, but without them he still couldn't have pulled it off), and the Pistons managed to win without a dominant big man (Ben Wallace simply doesn't count).
"To win, their *insert best player here* has to have a huge game.": S. Yeah. Theisman loves it but so do other commentators.
"To win, they need to control the clock and win the turnover battle.": S. Another Theisman favorite, but it is proclaimed before every NFL game, by whoever is calling the action. Period.
Heck, let's make this rule:
"*Insert Joe Theisman or Tim McCarver quote here*": B/S. Hey look at those initials! I didn't even plan it that way!
"With their *insert player here* injured, other players need to step up.": S. I mean, come on. Who doesn't understand that when you lose a player, another player needs to attempt to take his place?
"They need to do a better job of taking care of the football/basketball.": S. Usually following a turnover or two, this phrase is tantamount to proclaiming "they need to score more" after three consecutive failures to do so.
Well there are more cliches that need destruction but those will have to wait for another time. At least now you understand the basic premise of how I dismantle and organize these preferred repetative sayings of America's fast-food populace.
Until next time,
~The Sports Maunderer~
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Whilst being watched by aircraft
The anachronism of choice when referring to pictures versus words seems to be "a picture is worth a thousand words."
This age-old adage is nonsense, as has been proven by computers. The true exchange rate for pictures versus words: 100,000. You heard me. A picture is worth 100,000 words. A standard digital photograph utilizes approximately 1 megabyte of space on your hard drive. To match that with your standard single spaced Times New Roman 12-size font text on Word, one needs to fill up approximately 200 pages, or roughly 100,000 words. So if anyone ever spouts their favorite overused anecdote again, let em know they need to re-examine where they put the decimal.
Speaking of words, I have no clue how many I have wasted on this blog, but did you know that War and Peace is %75 as long as the Bible? Someone, somewhere, needs to tell this Leo Tolstoy guy to shut the heck up. (The perfect length is of course Charles Dickens. What word length is that, you say? Depends on what mood he was in)
I was musing on such matters when driving down a highway the other day; my ponderings were interrupted by a sign which alerted me that the speed limit was "enforced by aircraft". I'm sorry but has no one ever found this funny before? "Oh no, there are PLANES watching me! Now I'll slow down! Maybe they will shoot hellfire rockets at me if I don't obey the speed limit!"
I mean seriously, what do these fabled, invisible planes do? They circle around for hours just looking to find someone driving eighty, then they call the local authorities who by the time everything is said and done are probably no longer local, and then go back to searching for those impatient vehicular drivers among us? I suppose so. Fear the aircraft enforced speed limit!
This age-old adage is nonsense, as has been proven by computers. The true exchange rate for pictures versus words: 100,000. You heard me. A picture is worth 100,000 words. A standard digital photograph utilizes approximately 1 megabyte of space on your hard drive. To match that with your standard single spaced Times New Roman 12-size font text on Word, one needs to fill up approximately 200 pages, or roughly 100,000 words. So if anyone ever spouts their favorite overused anecdote again, let em know they need to re-examine where they put the decimal.
Speaking of words, I have no clue how many I have wasted on this blog, but did you know that War and Peace is %75 as long as the Bible? Someone, somewhere, needs to tell this Leo Tolstoy guy to shut the heck up. (The perfect length is of course Charles Dickens. What word length is that, you say? Depends on what mood he was in)
I was musing on such matters when driving down a highway the other day; my ponderings were interrupted by a sign which alerted me that the speed limit was "enforced by aircraft". I'm sorry but has no one ever found this funny before? "Oh no, there are PLANES watching me! Now I'll slow down! Maybe they will shoot hellfire rockets at me if I don't obey the speed limit!"
I mean seriously, what do these fabled, invisible planes do? They circle around for hours just looking to find someone driving eighty, then they call the local authorities who by the time everything is said and done are probably no longer local, and then go back to searching for those impatient vehicular drivers among us? I suppose so. Fear the aircraft enforced speed limit!
Anyway, while I hardly need any reason to degenerate into completely non-sports-related topics such as phantom airplanes and long-winded authors, you will notice as this post continues that I am finding myself particularly off-topic; far more so than usual. The reason for this is simple. There are no sports stories to discuss right now. Well, to be more specific, there is *one* story and I'll break that down for you later, but--
OH CRAP! ESPN is sueing me for use of the phrase "break it down." I'm dead. Or not, but the reality is, ESPN should either patent that phrase, marry that phrase, or stop using that phrase. I am so, so sick of the ESPN analysts and talking heads using that inane phrase to the point where their "overuse" is somewhat akin to a guy who just died of cocaine overdose saying he "might have overused it". The phrase isn't even that useful to begin with, yet everytime you turn around, someone on ESPN is breaking down this that and the other thing. They break down the game before it starts, then at half time they break down the first half and what you can expect from the second half, and then when the game is over they break down the whole game, and then they break down what everyone said about the game, and then they break down all this breaking down. Geez, people. By now we are far beyond the atomic level. There is no plausible method of breaking anything down any further.
And even if there were, WHY ARE WE BREAKING THINGS FOR GOODNESS' SAKE?! There is no need to violently dissassemble every game prior during and after completion. How about showing us the big picture, instead of ripping it apart into McDonalds simplicity, completely lacking in insight? Oh, wait. That would require them to actually be capable of delivering insight. Well dang, what was I thinking.
Anyway, to move onto the one and only sports story worth talking about (no, I'm not reffering to Amanda Beard, you perverts), the Yankees have won eight in a row and are only--"only"--8.5 games out of first in the AL East race.
We all knew the Yankees would get hot at some point. They do it every year, this year is no exception, it was an inexorable, inevitable, indomitable force of nature waiting to happen. We didn't know the Red Sox would oblige by having a minor collapse at the same time. I gotta say, I did not expect the Yankees to make up 6 games in a matter of three weeks. I was thinking that even if the Yankees won twenty in a row (not gonna happen) the Red Sox would probably win fifteen out of twenty and the race would still not even be close. But the Red Sox have had some trouble lately, and it is about freaking time.
Regardless, this whole situation brings up the question of how long do you let your favorite team control your heartbeat before pronouncing them dead and thus detaching your heartbeat since obviously you don't want your own organs pulled down with your craptastic sports team. Some people say you never stop rooting for your team and I agree, but that is besides the point. "Rooting" and "living and dying" are entirely different things. If I want to make it to the age of thirty, I have to shut down my overdeveloped sports enthusiasm at some time, or I will have a palpitating heart until the end of September when a cruddy team finally puts itself--and me--out of my misery. So I think that when your team is fourteen and a half back, it is okay to put the "I'm in a euphoric mood when they win, I'm in a suicidal mood when they lose" thing on life support. And then if they miraculously pick up six games in a flash, you can re-connect your heartbeat to their's, only to likely see them blow it all again.
Man, I will be surprised if I make it to trigenarian status. Why couldn't I love the Patriots or something?
~The Sports Maunderer~
Monday, June 04, 2007
Oh the little things of life
Whilst browsing the channels of my television device recently, I happened across an event so rare, so uncommon, so incredibely difficult to find, so thought to be extinct, so thought to be dead, so thought to be gone completely from the face of the Earth for the remainder of human history that I stopped my surfing and gawked.
I had seen a ghostly visage of a sport once glorious: hockey.
Yes, amazingly, they still play it, and the finals are even televised!
I happened to watch during a power play, and even though no goals were scored, dang was it fun to watch. I began to question my hockey torpor, and wondered if perhaps my antipathy sprung from an inability to find hockey, rather than an inability to watch it and enjoy it. Then, reality struck back, and the power play was over. Hockey returned to its relatively dim, moridbund existance as a second class TV sport.
If it was all power plays, all game long, people would enjoy it much more. Much, much more. And this led me to thinking... It would be much more interesting to watch certain sports with one team perennially down a man. Or, in the case of soccer, where each teams plays about 13,456 people on the field at the same time, a team should be down *two* men. Now of course this would have to be alternated, with one team getting five minutes or something and then the other team getting the equivalent. I think this would be fantastic. This is up there with making all the girls throw underhanded in the field in college softball. That would make things far more interesting on the throw to first. (Though softball would pretty much be boring no matter what. When nearly every at-bat is a K, you get bored quickly. In real baseball, Ks are exhilarating because they aren't so simple to obtain and copious in plentitude)
Of course I doubt it would be much fun to play these sports then (at least for the players used to a certain way), but it would increase their marketability a gazillion-fold.
Steve Kerr is taking over as the Suns GM, which I find terribly disheartening, but indicative of a general trend. This is a rotten day for NBA fans because now they will have one less commentator who can actually commentate reasonably well. They were few and far in between. Now they are fewer and there is no in between. As we all know, the NFL has only one good commentating crew, and that bunch hasn't even commented on a single game yet (Tirico, Jaws and Kornheiser). The MLB has... Rick Sutcliffe. And he pretty much nullifies any good commentating crew even if there were such a thing in baseball. (If it weren't for Joe Morgan's Pujols man-crush and Yankee-hatred, he would actually be a decent commentator. Well. Maybe). Regardless, the sports realm has very few good commentators. Why?
BECAUSE THE GOOD ONES LEAVE TO BE GENERAL MANAGERS! And this is true. The guys who are smart enough to commentate well get better jobs, period. I mean there is also the inevitable and rampant "stupidifying factor" (networks purposefully use commentators who deliver no insight because the average viewer can handle absolutely zero insight), but for the most part, the good commentators simply go elswhere. Rare examples like Jay Bilas and Steve Kerr become all the more uncommon as their evolving breed continue to leave the nonsensical, unsatisfying world of analysing for a network behind, to take the nonsensical, unsatisfying--but better paying--world of analysing for a team who then signs the player you analysed and deemed worthwhile.
Come back Steve Kerr. We miss you.
Not that this has to do with sports, (its only racing, which requires zero athletic ability) but Danica Patrick is a whining baby crossed with a spoiled brat. She can't race with the best of them, so she blows off into hissy-fits and temper tantrums and expects people to still respect her. Uh, why should we give a crap about her anymore? There have been women before in the Indy racing series; she isn't the first and won't be the last. She was supposed to be different because she was supposed to win, and now that she has proven entirely unable to do that, she has degenerated into an eight-year old and taken advantage of the fact that she is a female. If she had been a dude, she wouldnt have gotten away with pushing (even if it was a pathetic semi-push) Dan Wheldon after their race a few days ago, and for that matter, if she were a dude she wouldn't have because she probably wouldn't have this sense of entitlement that comes from nothing other than the massive media attention she has recieved. Dan Wheldon was very professional in reacting to her babyish shove in an interview on PTI, (I recommend getting the podcast for June 5th, the interview was worth it), yet didn't back down from the fact that not only was she throwing a tantrum simply because she lost, but that she was unproffesional and appeared spoiled. The video of her stomping her foot last year after losing a race was hilarious, but it also underscored the fact that she appears to think she deserves to win and that it is always someone else's fault when she doesn't. (Though I guess from a certain perspective that's true. Why aren't those dozens of drivers getting out of her way?)
In other non-sports news (golf), I am now a big fan of Annika Sorenstam. Michelle Wie, who exibits many of the same qualities as Danica Patrick--except it is more her parents fault than her own, most likely--got shot down by Annika the other day, who claimed it was disrespectful and lacking in class to retire from a tournamnet claiming a wrist injury--when she was two bogeys away from being banned from the LPGA tour for the rest of the year--and then begin swinging again two days later. I admit I don't know much about golf, but I know plenty about injuries, and you don't heal a wrist by using it a lot. And besides, if you do heal a wrist in such a counter-intuitive fashion, she should never have withdrawn from the tournament in the first place!
Due to my sesquipedalian nature, I find it imperative to inform the reader that complex and operose tasks generaly necessitate the utilization of cerebral elbow-grease, while mundane and moribund tasks generally require merely elbow-grease.
Did that paragraph have a point? No. But they never do, because this has been the
~The Sports Maunderer~
I had seen a ghostly visage of a sport once glorious: hockey.
Yes, amazingly, they still play it, and the finals are even televised!
I happened to watch during a power play, and even though no goals were scored, dang was it fun to watch. I began to question my hockey torpor, and wondered if perhaps my antipathy sprung from an inability to find hockey, rather than an inability to watch it and enjoy it. Then, reality struck back, and the power play was over. Hockey returned to its relatively dim, moridbund existance as a second class TV sport.
If it was all power plays, all game long, people would enjoy it much more. Much, much more. And this led me to thinking... It would be much more interesting to watch certain sports with one team perennially down a man. Or, in the case of soccer, where each teams plays about 13,456 people on the field at the same time, a team should be down *two* men. Now of course this would have to be alternated, with one team getting five minutes or something and then the other team getting the equivalent. I think this would be fantastic. This is up there with making all the girls throw underhanded in the field in college softball. That would make things far more interesting on the throw to first. (Though softball would pretty much be boring no matter what. When nearly every at-bat is a K, you get bored quickly. In real baseball, Ks are exhilarating because they aren't so simple to obtain and copious in plentitude)
Of course I doubt it would be much fun to play these sports then (at least for the players used to a certain way), but it would increase their marketability a gazillion-fold.
Steve Kerr is taking over as the Suns GM, which I find terribly disheartening, but indicative of a general trend. This is a rotten day for NBA fans because now they will have one less commentator who can actually commentate reasonably well. They were few and far in between. Now they are fewer and there is no in between. As we all know, the NFL has only one good commentating crew, and that bunch hasn't even commented on a single game yet (Tirico, Jaws and Kornheiser). The MLB has... Rick Sutcliffe. And he pretty much nullifies any good commentating crew even if there were such a thing in baseball. (If it weren't for Joe Morgan's Pujols man-crush and Yankee-hatred, he would actually be a decent commentator. Well. Maybe). Regardless, the sports realm has very few good commentators. Why?
BECAUSE THE GOOD ONES LEAVE TO BE GENERAL MANAGERS! And this is true. The guys who are smart enough to commentate well get better jobs, period. I mean there is also the inevitable and rampant "stupidifying factor" (networks purposefully use commentators who deliver no insight because the average viewer can handle absolutely zero insight), but for the most part, the good commentators simply go elswhere. Rare examples like Jay Bilas and Steve Kerr become all the more uncommon as their evolving breed continue to leave the nonsensical, unsatisfying world of analysing for a network behind, to take the nonsensical, unsatisfying--but better paying--world of analysing for a team who then signs the player you analysed and deemed worthwhile.
Come back Steve Kerr. We miss you.
Not that this has to do with sports, (its only racing, which requires zero athletic ability) but Danica Patrick is a whining baby crossed with a spoiled brat. She can't race with the best of them, so she blows off into hissy-fits and temper tantrums and expects people to still respect her. Uh, why should we give a crap about her anymore? There have been women before in the Indy racing series; she isn't the first and won't be the last. She was supposed to be different because she was supposed to win, and now that she has proven entirely unable to do that, she has degenerated into an eight-year old and taken advantage of the fact that she is a female. If she had been a dude, she wouldnt have gotten away with pushing (even if it was a pathetic semi-push) Dan Wheldon after their race a few days ago, and for that matter, if she were a dude she wouldn't have because she probably wouldn't have this sense of entitlement that comes from nothing other than the massive media attention she has recieved. Dan Wheldon was very professional in reacting to her babyish shove in an interview on PTI, (I recommend getting the podcast for June 5th, the interview was worth it), yet didn't back down from the fact that not only was she throwing a tantrum simply because she lost, but that she was unproffesional and appeared spoiled. The video of her stomping her foot last year after losing a race was hilarious, but it also underscored the fact that she appears to think she deserves to win and that it is always someone else's fault when she doesn't. (Though I guess from a certain perspective that's true. Why aren't those dozens of drivers getting out of her way?)
In other non-sports news (golf), I am now a big fan of Annika Sorenstam. Michelle Wie, who exibits many of the same qualities as Danica Patrick--except it is more her parents fault than her own, most likely--got shot down by Annika the other day, who claimed it was disrespectful and lacking in class to retire from a tournamnet claiming a wrist injury--when she was two bogeys away from being banned from the LPGA tour for the rest of the year--and then begin swinging again two days later. I admit I don't know much about golf, but I know plenty about injuries, and you don't heal a wrist by using it a lot. And besides, if you do heal a wrist in such a counter-intuitive fashion, she should never have withdrawn from the tournament in the first place!
Due to my sesquipedalian nature, I find it imperative to inform the reader that complex and operose tasks generaly necessitate the utilization of cerebral elbow-grease, while mundane and moribund tasks generally require merely elbow-grease.
Did that paragraph have a point? No. But they never do, because this has been the
~The Sports Maunderer~
Friday, June 01, 2007
Lebron
Well the title almost says it all. That was an unbelievable performance last night, and when I say unbelievable... I really mean it. I didn't believe it was happening. Not just the fact that Lebron won the game despite having to deal with two opposing coaches (Flip Saunders and Mike Brown's own self-sabotage), or that he has no teammates and managed to beat a good defensive team 1 on 5, or anything like that. To call it transcendant is to state the obvious, to call it Jordanesque is to apoint yourself Legolas, to declare it outrageous is to belittle the outrageousness of it, and yet...
And yet, as cool as it was, it still didn't send my passions to the heavens the way this game did. As astounding and terrific and outlandish a performance as Lebron gave, it still pails in comparison to the all around effort of a hungry team out-hustling, out-playing and out-doing a huge favorite in every way imaginable.
As a final note: Lebron is not going to win the finals. The Spurs are going to sweep or finish in five games against whoever they play. But for a moment let us suppose that maybe they win by some weird happenstance. It won't happen but if it did, Lebron would have pulled off the most dazzling feat any player ever has. Ever. Period. Without question. It isn't going to happen (notice that it took a monumental, historic, inimitable performance from Lebron to beat the Pistons--far from the Spurs level of dirty tricks and flopping--in two overtimes. There is no way the Cavs could beat the Spurs). It simply won't happen, but if it did, it would be unprecedented for sure.
It won't happen, but...
~The Sports Maunderer~
And yet, as cool as it was, it still didn't send my passions to the heavens the way this game did. As astounding and terrific and outlandish a performance as Lebron gave, it still pails in comparison to the all around effort of a hungry team out-hustling, out-playing and out-doing a huge favorite in every way imaginable.
As a final note: Lebron is not going to win the finals. The Spurs are going to sweep or finish in five games against whoever they play. But for a moment let us suppose that maybe they win by some weird happenstance. It won't happen but if it did, Lebron would have pulled off the most dazzling feat any player ever has. Ever. Period. Without question. It isn't going to happen (notice that it took a monumental, historic, inimitable performance from Lebron to beat the Pistons--far from the Spurs level of dirty tricks and flopping--in two overtimes. There is no way the Cavs could beat the Spurs). It simply won't happen, but if it did, it would be unprecedented for sure.
It won't happen, but...
~The Sports Maunderer~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)