Booger

We suck at keeping up with posts on current events when we all have jobs and kids. But it's baseball's Hall of Fame season, so I have one short post before I get back to my Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale.

I feel like I'm seeing more and more of the "You can't tell the story of baseball history without ___" arguments from baseball writers this year--usually pertaining to the McGwire/Sosa combination, sometimes Bonds and Clemens as well (though I think we distinguish the latter pair as outright great and enhanced later in their careers, whereas the former are arguably more borderline HoF candidates and part of the debate is whether they'd have reached that level without PEDs). Anyway, the point is that some writers seem to be embracing the mission of the Hall of Fame as a museum celebrating the history of the sport and recognizing that all four of those guys play a major role in that history, warts and all.

Which brings me to Larry Walker. I don't think his case is a slam dunk at all--he was well-rounded but injury-prone, and he has some very good numbers (.313/.400/.565, 72.5 WAR) but didn't retire with huge totals in some categories that matter to voters (2160 hits, 383 HR, but 1300+ RBI and runs). He has the hardware (an MVP, 3 batting titles). But of course, he earned most of this playing in Coors Field, and the splits are dramatic.

But it's again his borderline status, combined with his role in baseball history, that makes him fascinating. How can we talk about baseball in the 1990s without Coors, those Rockies teams, the humidor, expansion, etc.? Even if he was a product of his environment (baseball-wide, but Coors even more so), so were other guys in different eras, and he represents some huge parts of the story of baseball. I get the skepticism about his numbers, but does that disqualify anybody who played the majority of their career in Coors, like Todd Helton (another borderline guy, probably)?

I dunno, just raising the question. Plus, there's the All-Star Game showdown with Randy Johnson, and the nickname "Booger." If nothing else we should keep having this discussion so we can show that clip and use "booger" in headlines.

Postseason Experience

I don't want to get way ahead of myself, because the series is only 2 games in, but isn't it readily visible how much better Kansas City is during this world series than the Metropolitan's? The Mets are comparable to the Giants in 2010 where they snuck in and on timely hitting and great pitching were able to rally through a few series and ultimately were so hot when they reached the series against Texas that they dominated. Kansas City with nearly 3 decades of finishing in the cellar of the division and routinely striking out with top picks and the inability to hold onto stars in their prime, instead having rosters of up and comers and aging veterans, to now with the stream of expendable cash brought to you by revenue sharing (i'm sure they had it before, but now they are forced to spend it instead of owners pocketing said cash).  To the eyeball test this team is hands down more experienced and ready than the mets have played so far. I'm hoping for a 6 or 7 game series but the way it's going now, looking more like a 4 or 5 game series.

pitching

Has their ever been a year where more pitchers dominated than this year?
NL: Scherzer, Cole, Greinke, Arrieta, Bumgarner, Zito, Kershaw, Harvey and  Degrom

AL: Price, Gray, Hernandez, Keuchel and Sale

1/4, .25, 25% analysis

Unlike college football, I wait till at least a quarter of the season is through so I don't have too many knee jerk reactions after 1 week of football. Here are a few

1. Colin- my god. How the mighty have fallen. He looked decent week 1 against the vikings. No mistakes, limited playbook, like Joe Ayoob, he did nothing great and nothing terrible. But since then, his numbers are terrible. 2 TDs (1, rushing  1 passing), 5 interceptions, 50% completion percentage, missed open receivers (yes there have been some drops but ultimately he has missed so many open receivers).  His supporters always point to his bad o-line, yes it's not good, but he had like 8 dropbacks that he had protections longer than 3.5 seconds and finished something like 1-6 for 4 yards, a sack and a first down run(can't remember the stat exactly). 3.5 seconds to an nfl qb should be plenty of time to find an open receiver. During the packers vs chiefs game they kept showing rodgers get rid of the ball in .35 seconds after the snap.....The calls for Gabbert are getting lounder and I'm one of them. Well we won't win with Gabbert or make the playoffs....umm dipshit fans...we aren't going to do it with Kap so lets try something else. Hopefully he can turn it around but it looks like his confidence is shot and he looks like a deer in headlights out there.

2. Analysts- How do these guys keep their jobs?!?!?! Cool you played football so that makes you an expert. Like 90% picked Miami to be a sleeper pick to be better than New England this year, 90% picked the Colts to go to the super bowl, etc. Wrong all the time, and are they ever brought out in front of everyone and said goddamnit you are an idiot- why would anyone pay attention to anything you have to say without laughing at you.

3. Ryan Tannenhill- apparently during scrimmages against the practice squad he's been getting torn apart and the now ex coach philbin told his practice squad players to take it easy on him so that he doesn't lose his confidence. Tannenhilll has been heard yelling at his practice squad players "Enjoy your practice squad paycheck!" Miami Dolphins i'm goign to say are the biggest embarrassment to the nfl. they have suh who is turning into albert Haynesworth 2.0, a caravan of qbs since marino left and a front office and management team that is in turmoil. Best thing that ever happened to this franchise recently is playing in the super bowl in Ace Ventura

4. I don't see ANY reason to say theres a single qb that's going to be the "next great qb." Rodgers is still young enough to dominate for several more years, brady, manning, brees and rothlisburger are all getting up there in age. The next echelon are a bunch of medicore to ok qbs- palmer, wilson, flacco, dalton, newton, etc. I think Dalton has potential to get there but he always seems to fade in the postseason. Luck has taken a step back and I just think those other qbs are ok but none that will literally be able to carry a team like the above have. We are looking at you Goff!!!

5. Nfl officials- I would hate to have the game slow down more, but I think there should be a rules official at each game- so that incidents like the bullshit non call in the mnf game are able to be corrected.How does an nfl official not know a rule or too scared to call it when obviously the player committed the infraction? Seattle should be 1-3 and again got the help of horrible officials.

6. Injuries- the one thing goodell implemented,whether he wanted to or not he still did, was the concussion protocal procedure. I wrote a lot about concussions in college and the ncaa had a huge study before the nfl was doing much about the impact of second impact syndrome, basically how much more susceptitble our brains are to prolonged injuries and adverse effects if injured again before it had a change to fully heal from an initial injury. The way the nfl has a 7 day waiting period, a protocal by a non team doctor etc is one thing i'm actually pretty stoked about. We wont know until a few more years if it has any long term effects but yay NFL

7. What do you think of the new extra point kick? I for one like it, isn't automatic. Makes team really debate on whether to go for 1 or 2 and puts that extra spin on things later in the game when you score the td to get within 1 but your kicker sucks or just the fact that a tie game isn't inevitable.

Sssslithery sssssnake

That is all.

Seahawks

If the Seahawks beat the Packers will it be because of Russell Wilson's special concussion water?

All right boys and girls, a HOF question to discuss. It's about David Ortiz, and it's a two-parter:

1. Should Ortiz be elected to the HOF?
2. Will he be?

We've been treated to a bunch of articles debating just this all week in the wake of Big Papi's 500th home run, and I want to hear you guys weigh in. A few pieces to consider:

-The numbers. 500 HR, 1600+ RBI, 1300+ runs, 578 doubles, 2289 hits, .284/.378/.547 slash line, 50.0 WAR*
-The postseason. 3 Boston Red Sox world championships, an ALCS MVP and a World Series MVP, a .295/.409/.553 slash line.
-The position. Primarily a DH, and for good reason (including -20.4 dWAR.
-The test. Showed up on the anonymous survey testing from 2004, but without being definitively linked to steroids (we don't know what substance landed him on the list), without it being confirmed (apparently there were false positives), and without experiencing a dramatic decline after the steroid era.

I think he should get in, but I think Edgar Martinez should get there first. I think the Red Sox connection will get him in, and I think it will be after a brief wait but before Martinez.

*All stats from Baseball-Reference.

preseason rankings

I thing that's really gotten to me the last few years is the preseason rankings that the ap puts out and the ncaa uses to rank their teams. I CAN'T stand it. basically they are ranking them, by the names on the front of their uniforms. Auburn needs overtime to beat JACKSONVILLE ST and struggled last week to beat a Louisville team (which lost to Houston this week!!!) I would really like the rankings to come out week 4 or 5. once teams are done playing their bullshit games against far superior opponents. Every year that SEC has 10 teams in the top 25 because of their reputation and than because "they are so good" everyone just beats up on eachother. Maybe it's because they are highly overrated and top heavy!!!! Pac 12 1-12 is far more balanced than the sec. Even look at Ohio St, they could finish number 1 this year, yes they are a good team, but they might finish the year playing no other team in the top 25....does that sound like a team that deserves to be #1. Nope, its so infuriating.

fall guy

So Chris Carter at the rookie symposium says that nfl players need to find a "fall guy"to have in their entourage to take the blame in case THEY get in trouble...ummm. AND the nfl knew about it and tried to cover it up by keeping it on their website for a year!!!! everyone in the nfl makes money, but holy shit they are the biggest group of clown baby morons out there.

Eli Manning wants what?

Eli Manning wants to be the highest paid player in the NFL.  Enough said.

Go 'Chokes!

That purple flower

Gives us our power

We're the Fighting Artichokes!

We're so mean

In the yellow and green

We're the Fighting Artichokes!

You think we're a dip

We don't give a rip

We're the Fighting Artichokes!

You come in our garden

We'll finish what you started

We're the Fighting Artichokes!

Okay, so I'm mocking this a bit (I did actually make that up myself--that English degree was good for something!), but this is a real thing at Scottsdale Community College, and there's actually a pretty good story behind it. Apparently in the 1970s, administration was investing money into athletics rather than academics (so say Wikipedia and Campus Explorer), and so the student body voted to adopt the artichoke as mascot and pink and white as colors to embarrass the sports teams. That's pretty hilarious, and a great middle finger to the administrative powers that be. It would be interesting to see some effort like this today, when supporting athletic programs sometimes comes at the expense of what you would usually think is the core purpose of higher education, but I've a feeling people are too apathetic/uncreative/un-cynical about these kinds of directions in higher ed to make it really happen. 

Other schools are pretty ridiculous, too, usually with less justification though sometimes with far more hilarity (I'm looking at you, RISD). But of course Stanfurd's Tree continues to be just stupid.

For good measure, here's two more pictures of Artie the Artichoke:

Level playing field

This topic is a little old, but I've been super busy so im just getting around to it now

      Arizona cardinals just hired the first female coach in the NFL, following the Spurs hire and now Sacramento Kings hire of two female assistant coaches. I do believe this is good and I do believe it's about time but my mindset is: if someone is qualified they are qualified. I don't care if it's a female, male, african american, white, 1 legged, an animal, no legged or an alien. If someone is qualified for a job they should get it. It's cool that these females have finally broken through but I really could care less about it. That might be a little jaded or apathetic but when are we going to stop saying "this was the first time _____"?  Am i wrong to think that way? I paid absolutely zero seconds of my life caring that these coaches were hired, just like i gave zero seconds to male coaches that were hired at similar positions.

Percy Harvin is a Bit Delusional

Percy Harvin feels that his situation in Seattle was bad because the other wide receivers felt threatened by him per this little article: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000506758/article/percy-harvin-seahawks-wideouts-viewed-me-as-threat.

Percy Harvin is also the proud owner of a career number of 11.5 yards per catch per Pro Football Reference: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HarvPe00.htm

Having the pleasure of living in the Twin Cities, I am very familiar with the Percy Harvin playing style.  Here goes.  He is really fast, and even more quick.  If you are familiar with Randall Cobb of the Packers, think faster and quicker.  He breaks huge plays on special teams and does great things with the ball in his hands.  So, if Harvin is such a game breaker, why doesn't he have a better YPC average?  The simple answer is that he doesn't get open down the field.  He catches a lot of short balls and relies on play design to get open.  He runs poor routes, which allows defensive backs to keep up with him.  Perhaps his teammates in Seattle were upset that he didn't work harder at route running, and thus took playing time based on talent alone and not actual in-game WR ability. 

Hero Worship

I will be the first to admit having gigantic man-crushes on Albert Pujols and Gordon Ramsay.   Even so, I don't for a second want my child to emulate either one.  I also don't care what happens to them in day to day life.  Their highs, lows, and middles mean no more to me than those of a random human being.  This take is not sports related at all, so please forgive that.  Why the hell do we care so much more about Kristina Brown than anybody else?  Because she was the daughter of a wife-beater and a coke addict, both of whom happened to be famous singers.  That's it.  Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston were pretty shitty people in a lot of ways, but they could sing.  Naturally, we should worship their child, right?  This is no different than all of those people who are heart broken that Tom Brady destroyed his phone.  Make role models out of people you know, not people you have heard of.  Sorry again for non sports, but this pisses me off.

Baseball

Is this the most talent rich across the board baseball has ever been? There is talent on every team. Raw talent that's already developed and will be stars, barring injuries, for many many years. these  position players :
Harper, Trout, Rizzo, Wil Myers, Joc Pederson, G Stanton, Machado, PANIK!!!!!, Kris Bryant, Freeman, Arenado, A Russel, Gallo and many more

Pitchers: Gerrit Cole, Bumgarner, Kershaw, Gray, Wacha, Rosethanl, etc

I mean has the game ever seen so many young superstars at one time? I haven't even named everyone, those are just the ones that right now are legit stars.

Also one more regarding hall of fame- since the game has changed so much the last few decades that teams with strong bullpens and a coach who knows how to handle it can be dominant (ie Giants), will the hall voters embrace these players whose roles are almost as important as starters and are extremely valuable to a teams success. Will the hall ever vote in a relief pitcher that's not a closer is what i'm asking?

That game you play with your feet

I'm not really much of a soccer fan, though I can appreciate it when it's played at the highest levels--which, living in the U.S., basically means I watch the World Cup and the Olympics. I might be more of a fan if MLS was as good as some of the top-level leagues world-wide, or if those other leagues were easier to watch (they probably aren't really that hard, but they'd still require me to make an effort to figure that out). But I do really enjoy the game when I watch great teams. I also have to confess that I don't go out of my way to watch many women's sports; women's basketball, and softball, just seem like such different sports, though I suspect if I liked watching tennis, Serena Williams and a few others would be a draw.

All of which is why I thought it was worth a brief post on watching the U.S. Women's National Team win the World Cup last weekend. I hadn't really realized the tournament was coming until it started, because I was a lil bit busy, but I happened to be out of town when it started, and given that I'm old and I hate the night life except when it involves a book, my girl, and/or bed, I seized the opportunity to watch all of the games. I watched with Americans and Germans, soccer fans and non, with colleagues and with family, and I enjoyed it all. One of my favorite features of soccer, compared with sports we see more often in the U.S., is its unfriendliness to commercial interruptions--how amazing to watch a sporting event with continuous action without being constantly bombarded with bullshit advertising. That wouldn't matter if I wasn't watching compelling action, of course, and the women provided it. The closer games were gripping, obviously, but the final--and Carli Lloyd's hat trick--was just thrilling. I hadn't seen Alex Morgan play before, and she didn't have a spectacular tournament, but wow that woman is fast and creative on the field. Abby Wambach just seems to be in the middle of everything when she plays. I couldn't help but compare what I was watching with the U.S. men, and that comparison does the men no favors--watching a team that isn't especially competitive and is clearly outclassed isn't tons of fun, which I think tends to describe the men. But the women clearly belong, and are clearly contenders on the world stage (while not dominant).

I love the athleticism, the ball control, the aggressive strategy, and the toughness they display (so many fewer players falling, flopping, writhing on the ground, nursing injuries, etc--who was the woman who went down briefly, the popped up with the bloody head and jogged to the sideline for a quick treatment and then returned to the field? I saw this at least once). And I got to watch the final with my daughters, who now this year have seen the USWNT win the World Cup, and American Pharoah win the Triple Crown (they were asleep when the Giants won the World Series). Not a bad year in sports, even for Minnesota (Vikings and Twins) fans.

Dumb Athletes

At least Jason Pierre-Paul and CJ Wilson aren't the dumbest fireworks users in the US.  Each lost at least 1 finger to stupidity with fireworks.  Before our non-audience corrects me and says that we don't know for sure that they were stupid with the fireworks, let me intervene.  YOU LIGHT THE FUSE AND FUCKING RUN AWAY!!!!  Sadly, they are the third and fourth dumbest people in America because one idiot thought shooting a mortar off from his head was a good idea.  The other thought lighting fireworks from his chest was a good idea.  What do those two have in common?  They are now poster-children for natural selection, AKA dead. 

I'm not sure why I cared enough to comment about this, but for some reason the sheer stupidity bothered me.

living in the past

I had this all done about a week or so ago right after the warriors won but forgot to send it to myself so it's a little old but still relevant:

          Sports media and fans alike always want to compare current players or teams to the past ones. Though it makes for good banter and discussion there is no way in holy hell that many of these arguments would hold if the teams or players actually played. The one thing I will say will actually hold is if these teams or players participated during that time period but since they can't we will never know. Here is my analysis on why this is the dumbest conversation in sports today.

        Babe Ruth- though an incredible talent and outlier during his time, he would be garbage now. Facing dudes that throw 90 mph splitters, relief pitchers, specialists, advanced scouting and statistics, coaching strategies, the players themselves (Dominican, Cuban, Japanese, African American) etc. Baseball players in general, outside of the steroid era, haven't gotten so proportionately larger that it's so hard to compare, just the way it is played. Yes freaks like Trout and Harper are out there but there were also huge talents in past decades as well. We should just appreciate the players baseball has given us and stop trying to compare, the way the game is played is completely different outside of the basic fundamentals

      Jordan/Lebron- I actually think Lebron all in all is a better basketball player than Jordan was. He's bigger, stronger, quicker and plays in an era where the game is less physical and superstars are given much more preferential treatment than they did in the past. It's the intangibles, the arguing to the refs, etc that separates them. Jordan and Lebron played close enough that a comparison of the two is relevant and valid. However when you are comparing teams that played in the 50s, 60's, 70's and early 80's to teams now that's when it falls off. Basketball teams didn't have foreign players, 7' players that can shoot threes. Offenses that run the triangle and other offenses that are complex. I heard some commentator make a statement that this golden state team was the worst team to ever win the championship because they have no hall of famers as of right now on the team. Please. I just don't understand how anyone could keep their job after making a statement like that.

       Football- haven't heard this scenario too much in football. Wide receivers are the size that linemen used to be and that's just one aspect. So i wont dwell into this other than to say 99% of sports fans know that a current nfl team would absolutely destroy any team from 2 or more decades ago.

     The point i'm trying to make, lets just live in the "now." Stop trying to compare everyone to past players or to teams in the past. For some things, statistically speaking makes sense but even that is going away slightly. Just appreciate greatness now and stop trying to say this player is the next other player. Stop it!

How many chances does Stephen A Smith get?

Stephen A Smith made yet another terrible comment.  I've had the displeasure of listening to his sports radio shows over the years, and he frequently would make sexist comments. He hints (and sometimes goes further than hinting) that women shouldn't invite abuse.  His latest flap involved stating that women's soccer players didn't want to get their hair messed up, so didn't attempt to do something (not sure what exactly, don't care).  How long does this have to go on?  How long will this asshole continue to be employed.  He must have compromising pictures of important people, because he is a world-class POS, yet still keeps his job.  If I made comments like him, I'd be fired on the spot.  And I'm actually talented, unlike that blowhard.  Yet he still has a job.  This makes no sense.

Jim-Tom Sulu

Jim-Tom Sulu is not on Twitter. My guess is that he is probably not on "The Google" either.  I'm pretty concerned he is going to have a problem relating to his players... Just a guess.  And yes, I changed his name to make him sound like a redneck Star-Trek character.  I'm an idiot.

Nitpicking terminology again...

I'm sick of people throwing around the term "Triplets" to describe a QB-RB-WR trio.  This is the popular way to describe Aikman-Smith-Irvin.  Funny thing is, I'm scuffling (lolz!) to remember a time that I actually heard them called that during their playing days.  Triplets implies three of the same thing.  I suppose they could be fraternal triplets, but even then, the term suggests that they should at least play the same position.  I think triplets would be better applied to Randy Moss, Cris Carter, and Jake Reed of the late 90's Vikings.  At least they played the same position.

Adrian Beltre

Okay, you all knew it was coming.  Adrian Beltre hit his 400th home run.  He is a future hall of famer.  Period.  Here is my reasoning:

1)  He hit 400 home runs*
2)  He was probably the best defensive 3B of his generation (arguable of course, but still way up      
      there)
3)  He will likely end up with 3000 hits (he currently has 2650)*
4)  He has 1399 RBI, currently good for 77th all time.  127 more RBI put him in the top 50.*
5)  He is 66th career in WAR, and the list of players below him is littered with hall of famers.*
6)  He is ranked 6th all time in JAWS, which is calculated using overall WAR and WAR during peak
      years, among third baseman, which all of the top 10 in the HOF except for Chipper Jones, who
      has not reached eligibility.#
*All stats courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com* and Sports-Reference.com#

Beltre is a hall of famer.  Hopefully the baseball writers agree.

Scherzer

Ugh. Scherzer. Shut up. The American League instituted the DH in 1973. Since then the count by league has the American League slightly ahead (22) in World Series Championships than the NL (20) since. So lets call it a coin flip. So to say the DH is a huge advantage for American league teams is bs. Yes they get to hold onto aging sluggers but they also have to handicap themselves to huge contracts to bring said sluggers to their team (howd that work out for the angels and josh hamilton?). So yes, the giants would have no shot to bring a player of his caliber to their team, but here in lays my point on why the DH in effect is detrimental to a team, and basically the count being so close is semi- proof to my point.

A team in the NL essentially is built around 2 elite starting pitchers, and 1 slugger in the middle of the lineup and those players are surrounded by key role players and elite relief/speciality pitchers. So lets take the Giants model. Slugger:Posey. Pitchers: Cain/Lincecum, Bumgarner/???. So instead of having a second elite pitcher they have another slugger (Pence) and a very good bullpen (Affeldt, Lopez, Petite, Romo, Casilla, Etc). So the money that would've gone to overpay for a DH can now go to higher than average role players (Pagan) and a very good bullpen when managed well (Bochey, Righetti) can beat any AL team blasted with big name sluggers but can't lay down a bunt when there's a runner on 2nd and no outs to get him to third (small ball).

Getting back to my original thesis. The thing that makes baseball so much different than many other professional leagues is that the different leagues involved are themselves different. So as the AFC/NFC and East/West are different leagues there is no difference in terms of actual play (talent and geography non withstanding) that makes playing in one different. So yes, a big bulky overpaid aging veteran that a team will eventually be handicapped with during the last few years of their contract i'd rather watch a team play small ball and not just wait for the lineup to turnover. Did you choose to come to the NL? Yep.

one and done

I’ve always had an issue about the NBA instituting a rule that a player must wait at least one year before declaring themselves for the NBA  draft is ridiculous. First off, it’s not a safety issue.   Players like Kobe, Lebron, KG among plenty of others have shown that their bodies are NBA ready out of high school. Unlike football which is a minimum of 3 years, which is entirely righteous because there is not a single graduating high school football star that would be able to last more than a drive in the NFL, kickers don’t count.  So is a monetary situation for the players?  Again, there are plenty of players that went from high school to the nba and have done very well and have been very responsible with their fortunes.  Also, there are those who haven’t both that attended college, even graduated, and those that have jumped from high school to the nba. So that’s not it.  The only…only plausible thing that makes sense is that the majority of owners, especially in smaller markets, got burned so badly because the hype around those players were so great but the level of competition was slim, so the teams drafted them, got burned and the franchises were set back. Ok, that makes sense somewhat but drafting isn’t a determined science. There’s no formula.   If it were, every team would be good, every team would have a short rebuilding process. So to the point that kind of makes sense I have several counters to that argument. One, the players that were hyped coming out of high school, are the same ones that are hyped once they play one year of college. Nothing really changes. For every Dejuan Wagner, there’s a Demarcus Cousins. What did they gain by attending the one year in college? Both top 10 players coming out of high school, both top 10 draft picks, 1 is an nba star the other was out of the league in 3 years. Also the hardest part to fathom about this whole thing is why CAN’T the players try to improve their financial status? If they have a unique skill that they can benefit from, shoot do it.  What if I was given the opportunity to have a great job right out of high school, should I be forced to attend at least one year of college before taking it…no. so why should they….

Baseball's End Times

The sharp *snap* of bubble gum punctuates the Iron Maiden song blasting over Yankee Stadium's PA system. The player jaws it back into his mouth, head bowed as he hefts a bat onto his shoulder and makes his way to the plate, morphing from bystander to batter, from ignored to booed. This is the life of Alex Rodriguez in 2015, playing for a team, a fanbase, and a league that seem largely just to want him to go away.

One issue of contention, of course, is the set of milestones (and bonus payouts, let's not forget) he could reach this year despite his declining performance, the pall of steroid suspicions, and overall disdain lofted in his general direction. He's fast approaching 3000 hits, and 660 home runs, among other marks.

I've crunched the numbers using his age-36 season's 18 homers in 122 games as a baseline, trying to factor in his age and the year off, the usual gradual decline in power we see for players his age, playing time limited by a few minor injuries and the Yankees messing with him, and his association with the Devil. My projection system expects a season total of 12 home runs, not because he doesn't retain decent power or because it sees him missing major time for injury, but because with 12 dingers hell [sic] reach 666 for his career, a total that will initiate the Apocalypse.

There were signs. A-Rod was good at 19, a Revelation at age 20, and quickly became one of the best--if not the beast--players in the game. He set records, won awards, made Scott Boras richer, dated Madonna. But here's the secret: his true performance enhancer was not a drug, not stanozolol or HGH or nandrolone. You see, Alex Rodriguez is really a centaur, half man and half horse, half amazing and half ass. His decline has been precipitous in part because, yes, he's unhealthy and his hips are arthritic, but moreover, he's got four of them. What once created hip rotation that gave his swing unparalleled power now haunts him. Japanese World War II propaganda knew it, and the Puritans at Salem knew it, even if we've since forgotten: humans consorting with or indistinguishable from beasts are really demons, Satan's minions in our world. They're preparing the way.

Also, I know I'm on to something because my Starbucks receipt this morning shows a total of $6.66, for a grande latte and a mediocre cheese danish. So it's coming; put on the damn helmet. Don't say you haven't been warned.

10-year olds and basketball

So I've been slacking, and haven't posted lately except to respond to Brennan. Partly that's because as far as I'm concerned, we're in a bit of a lull. Baseball and football are in their off-seasons and I just find their efforts (football more than baseball) to pretend that all the off-season garbage is spectacular off-putting. I may pay attention to the NBA playoffs, but until then, meh. I like the first few rounds of March Madness, when there are tons of games on simultaneously and I can just immerse myself, but I was way too busy to sit and watch this year. And is it hockey season?

Anyway, I also haven't posted lately because I've been a bit busy. Some of the weekends have been devoted to my kids' sports, a first for me. Both girls played basketball, though the younger (age 7) was mostly doing drills and practice. The older one (10), however, practiced with her team and then played a season. She hadn't played basketball before, and I didn't realize she had any interest at all until she asked to get signed up. She accidentally landed on a good team--only two of the girls had played before, but they were both pretty good (both can dribble and shoot); they had a first-time coach; and the rest of the girls learned and got better. Somehow, they ended up in the championship game--I'm not sure my daughter even realized what that actually meant, just that she got to play another game. They played a team that had been playing together for 4 years, and they were GOOD. Our team lost, but it was close, and nobody seemed too distressed by the outcome, which was just about perfect. Anyway, a few observations.

-Parents can be horrible. That's a shock to no one. But trying to coach your kid from the bleachers, and reducing her to tears? Jeez.
-Some coaches can make all the difference. Ours was great, and at the party at the end of the season, somehow didn't mention winning or losing a single time that I heard. And I have to point out, that's not because she was clueless--she talked about picks, and traps, and she coached 'em up.
-It's a big deal when these girls make their first shot in a game. I'm pretty sure every girl knows which game she made her first shot in. And we managed to get some baskets on film--video and photo. Great action shots, which are a blast.
-Also, it's funny to watch reactions during games. A shot goes in, and players celebrate--but oh yeah, there's still a game going on. I love it.
-Referees are...interesting. Some of these refs are clearly just making some money in between more serious work--they hammer on the whistle, call every damn thing, and yell back at coaches. Chill, dude. On the other hand, the most impressive refs call things closely enough, AND explain to the girls just what it is that they're calling.
-I do actually like watching basketball when I don't have to deal with constant commercials. It would be better if parents couldn't talk--just make it a blanket rule that parents can clap but make no other noise.

Now we apparently need to get a basket so we can play at home this summer. Good stuff.

Fantasy Baseball

Jason, ye asked and ye shall receive!  I just wanted to let all three people, including me, who read this blog know that my fantasy baseball team is names "Kingman-esque."  The funny part is that my team lacks power pretty severely.  They also can't hit for average, so I guess the name is half appropriate!  The funniest thing is that "Why Not Kingman" was in the running for the name of this blog!  I love it.  Nobody else but Jason will get it.  Oh well.

Athletes I Dislike

Here's my list.  And hopefully my return to actually writing here!

1)  Rick Fox - I hate his face.  Literally.  It's almost visceral.  Ask Jason.  I'm a huge Lakers fan, and I hated Rick Fox.  I can't pinpoint why, so I probably shouldn't hate him, but I do.

2)  DeSean Jackson - The only former Cal athlete Michael Silver won't say nice things about.... Enough said.

3)  Marshawn Lynch - Has everybody forgotten the gun charges a few years back in LA?  Of course they have.  He's the lovable idiot who refuses to talk to the media.  Well, he is an idiot for sure.  Geez.  That's two Cal guys.  I'm turning on my own!

4)  Donovan McNabb - Overrated.  And an attention whore to boot.  All he does is bitch an moan.  This is coming from a guy who loved Syracuse before going to Cal for school.  I loved McNabb... Until he opened his mouth.  Does anybody else remember when he claimed he "bulked up" for the season, but he was really just fat?  The guy was out of shape like Shaquille O'Neal for half his career.  Maybe that was the reason for the injury problems.  Wasted talent...

5)  Mike Bibby - He's not albino, but he's albino, right?  Guy just creeps me out.  He was like a ghost (yeah, I went there) who haunted me every time the Kings played the Lakers.  Okay, I'm going to be honest.  I hated the guy because he was legit and killed the Lakers.

6)  Devean George - Jason can attest to me screaming "Don't let George touch the f-ing ball!"  He was terrible.  Hated that guy.

7)  Eli Manning - Daddy got you out of San Diego.  Congratulations.  Need your pacifier?

Okay, that's all I've got.  I don't really actually hate any of these guys, but this was a fun exercise in irrational visceral responses to nonsense.  Okay, maybe I kinda still hate 1 and 2, but that's it.

athletes i dislike the most

The reasons I dislike the following players range from my own personal feelings on them, the way the media has portrayed them and overall hatred towards them...so here it is:

10. Peyton Manning- I can't stand him. I can't stand this prototypical high school lettermen wearing jock a-hole. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. get so angry just thinking of him.

9. cristiano ronaldo- he's considered the 2nd best player in the world, behind lionel messi, but I don't get it. During last years World Cup, he was terrible. Spent half the match on the pitch because he fell and he plays typical weiner style European Style Soccer. Play in South America and he'd be an average player at best but because he plays "over there" he's a star. I hate you.

8. James Harden- doesn't play defense. Doesn't make his team play better, he's a truly one dimensional player who gets paid millions of dollars despite that fact that his teams never advance in the playoffs. I do like his beard however and i like that he's a pac-12 guy but c'mon when you shoot 30 times a game and get the benefit of the doubt every time you miss a shot in the weak reffed nba but yet you can't defend a guy that makes me dislike you very much.

7. A-Rod- do i even need to explain....?

6. Russell Westbrook- yes he's good. yes hes a box score stuffer but he can not carry a team. he's a good player that when he's a only good player will play like a star but doesn't carry his team. he's like a lot of nba
players...who's one dimensional and that's it.

5. Fans on the "Niners Faithful" Group on Facebook: I am a niners fan. I love them. I don't however like the fans on this facebook page. There probably are fans for every franchise like these dicknoses. Basically if you are critical of a player, coach, signing etc they just call you a bandwagoner or not being "faithful" (whatever the hell that means?) I have gotten into heated arguments with these colossal morons. Hey look my profile pic is of the niners helmet, that makes me more of a fan than you! oh you're right or it means you suck at life and the niners are apparently the only thing you have going for you. get out of here stupids.

4. Notre Dame Fans: Despite not winning shit for almost 3 decades they still brag about how good they used to be!! How every year they have a top 5 recruiting class but despite all those top recruits they still continue to suck at life. Look the landscape of college football has changed. A player can go to Eastern Washington and get just as much exposure as if they donned the stupid gold helmet. I hate rudy. I hate Golden Domes because of Notre Dame. Who's the top player in the NFL that went to notre dame? Their coaches are horrible, the media that covers them are horrible and the only thing that I like about them is their continued run of being completely irrelevant and overrated. When you point these facts out to a fan they shrug it off like you don't know what you're talking about....right.....

3. Every Laker from 2000-2006- yep. every single one of them. coaches, players, assistants, ball boys , videographers, statistians, i hate you all.

2. Tony Stewart: Dude you're like 5 feet tall. Get off your metaphorical high horse and take a step down off the soap box. Your like the reincarnation of Napoleon. Look yes you drive a car in the circle fast pretty well. Congrats. You're also good at being an arrogant snot nosed doucher. Yelling at anyone that's more than an inch taller. He's the asshole at the party that gets drunk and angry and no one likes them being there. He's the guy that shows up at a dinner party with a bottle of wine and when no one opens it takes it with him.

1. Jay Cutler: I hate thinking of Cutler. I hate that he's the highest paid qb. I hate that look he does when he throws his 3rd int of the game. I hate that he yells at his teammates and I hate that his teammates haven't "accidently" missed a block that resulted in a bone breaking sack. I hate when he wins at anything, even if it's winning the "worthless player in the nfl" award. I wish him the worst of luck and the worst luck to any team that decides to pay employ him.

coaches

The last few weeks i've been ranting about athletes that don't deserve to be highly compensated for different reasons...but i've never really given much attention to coaches that are also highly paid and in my opinion don't deserve to be. Yes, coaches are also grossly overpaid especially at the college level, but some get the label of being great coaches and for reasons i don't understand...here are a few examples that i have...

1. Bill Parcells- i don't get it, he's won one super bowl, every team he goes to flames out after a few years after he's there. what innovations did he make to the game? what transcendent schemes did he work up that has put him into the echelon of coaching greats? i don't get it. seems to me like he's a decent coach that has coached some great teams and don't absolutely average. get out of here bill.

2. Roy williams- yep you've won two national championships. again. you've coached at kansas and north carolina. AND when you won at North Carolina it wasn't the players YOU recruited it was Matt Doherty who was actually a pretty decent coach and obvioiusly good recruiter. since....you recruit medicore players who don't really translate into nba players...and you're the coach at north carolina...roy shut up.

3. Jeff Fisher- AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. why!!!!! he has like a .500 winning percentage in the nfl despite having hall of fame talent at half the positions! jesus....and he was supposed to lead st louis back to the elite teams and since he's arrived...they are .500. Jeff...shave off your mustache. please.

4. Les Miles- 1 championship. that's it. and his team rarely makes adjustments. he's overrated as hell. he recruits very well i'll give him that, but he's a shitty coach.

5. Rick Barnes- Texas Basketball Coach- every year he has a team filled with next level studs. every year his teams flame out. every year he reloads, rinse and repeat. he's a joke. he's the absolute worst college coach of an elite team in college basketball. He's the opposite of Tom Izzo who is 13-1 in the round of 32 the last 15 years and who's players play way above expectations. Rick Barnes you suck.


Who would you add to the list?

right price

I think every sane person on the face of planet earth can all agree that professional athletes are grossly overcompensated. Yes, it is our, the fans, that are somewhat responsible for such high contracts but I want to know what the right price you think is fair for a professional athlete to make and than what "superstars" such as lebron, brady, etc should make. I think that a ceo of a fortune 500 company should be making no more than 8-10 million a year, some are making into the hundreds of millions, these individuals are also paid to be consultants, appearance fees and have stock in the company that puts their net wealth much high than a yearly salary so i'll use that as my baseline.

NBA
Bench Player (15-20 appearances a year, journeymen, etc): 1.5 million avg
Role Players (play most games, coming off bench): 2-5 million avg
Stars/Superstars : 5-10. There are only maybe 5 superstars in the nba (lebron, kobe, carmelo (though i think he is quite possibly the most 1 dimensional superstar ever!!!), durant and westbrook) These are the faces of the nba the "CEOs" Adam Silver is the commissioner but he is like the GM, these players run it, if it wasn't for them the nba would be nothing.

MLB
This was a little more difficult to guage. The season is longer, they player spring training and they can go down in the minors, they can also play other signifant roles like pinch hitting/running/ etc and the scope of players and their roles with the team and importance is hard to compare to the nba, but here is my best analysis and will be broken into a few more groups.

Bullpen/Bench Player (situational relievers, utilitymen, and backup position players): 2-4 million.
       Like I said this one is a little hard to judge. I can't argue that a closer is anymore important then a reliever that comes in to face a left hander with runners in scoring position and get a ground out...i'm judging it on body of work
Regular Position Player with Avg Stats/Long Relievers : 4-6million
Stars/Superstars: 7-15. Can be pitchers, position players, DH's. The WAR replacement between an avg position player and a star/superstar can be as high as 5-6 which is huge in the MLB.

NFL
          I actually won't try to break this league down....it's so complicated and convoluted. Many of the bench players play key special team roles, the backup qb can be huge for a team if the starter goes down and needs to come in for a few games. Superstar running backs that make such a huge impact on a team that it's almost a position that I as a GM would never pay top dollar to get one out side of a draft (Peterson, Johnson etc are the best over the years and they've won how many playoff games? if you want to talk about lynch how'd he do in Buffalo?) Wide receivers are valuable. QB's are valuable and a good o-line. Those are the value positions in my book, Defensive position players are in the 2nd group and than running backs and special teams. That's my breakdown. No NFL player should make more than 12-15 and no less than 2.

what do you think?

withdrawls

Right now, i'm on a sports withdrawl. Football is over. Baseball really hasn't started yet and granted march madness and nba seasons are entertaining at times i'm completely bored out of my mind. I know sports talk radio isn't for everyone, but even the blow hards are running out of topics to discuss. I can honestly name maybe 2 players in all of college basketball, and one of them is a tall white guy that plays for Wisconson...my kings are having another horrible year and though they might be going in the right direction by hiring George Karl they are painfully awful to watch most of the time. The most i've enjoyed an nba season in recent memory was the strike shortened 50 game season, 3-4 games a week, 3 games in 3 nights, it was quick, every game mattered and players actually performed on both ends of the floor. Right now, the usual talking heads are discussing the nfl draft and putting out their 15th goddamn mock draft that no matter how much they study are always so awful i don't know how they continue to be considered experts. Does anyone else feel this emptiness in regards to sports as I do?

Baseball HOF voting

I'm getting pretty sick of the hall of fame voting process.  There are comments (no quotes, too tired) that basically say that they think 8-10 guys are worthy, but they only voted for 5 or 6.  If they are worthy they are worthy.  Then there are the jackanapes' who refuse to vote for somebody first ballot.  Why the hell does it matter if they make it on the first ballot or not.  Spare me the respect for the game bullshit.  Finally, the voters who are waiting for proof that certain players didn't take steroids.  Do I think Jeff Bagwell took steroids?  Sure I do.  Do I have any proof except for him shrinking like a cold pen15 during his later years?  Nope.  If he has HOF numbers and was a HOF player, then vote for him.  Does Mike Piazza belong?  Yes he does.  So what if the guy had bacne.  Guy might just have oily skin.

Last thought.  Stop trying to champion average players.  Seriously.  Jack Morris was a so-so player with a couple of big moments.  He completed a lot of games because that's what pitchers did when he pitched.  Is Curt Schilling a HOFer because of a couple of World Series (his candidacy is debatable.. I say no)?

If you think a guy belongs, vote for him.  It really isn't complicated unless you have 11 you like (or 13 going forward).

Hanging it up

One of my many downfalls of being a professional sports fan is that I watch the aging process of an athlete right in front of my eyes and watch as his body breaks down, is skills deteriorate and his attitude changes. Some athletes go off into the sunset riding high with a small decline but going out on their own accord rather than a string off injuries force him out or the unfortunate situation of not being signed as a free agency. Mariano Riveiera comes to mind, his last year was almost as impressive as all the previous years.  I dont remember or have any memories of Birds, Magics, Barkleys, etc last days playing, but I remember Jordans. Going to play in washington was so depressing to watch. I went to a kings game and watched Jordan in his last year but 15 points up in the 1st quarter, than watched as he went 2-17 the final 3 quarters, 2 missed lay ups, a dunk that he could barely put down, 1-7 from the free throw line and he finished the game with 22 points as he fouled out half way through the 4th quarter to a standing ovation from the crowd of innocent bystanders to that performance. I think the decline is much more visible in basketball because of the massive egos and the players are easily recognizable. Kobe comes to mind right now. I've nevvvvvvvvvvvvvver liked the guy, but despite the disdain for him, i've always said he's a top 5 player of all time. Not even Jordan could match the horror that I felt every time he launched a game tying/winning shot. His motion was flawless, his hustle is unquestionable, his desire to win is unmatched. Now, he's a former shell of himself...for the better part of 3 years he's had injury after injury and is no longer the player he once was. This got me wondering what other athletes, have basically nothing to prove should retire or walk away, though they might still be able to compete somewhat over the course of an entire season that's where the problems arise. Manning, you aren't going to win another super bowl, you own like 50 passing records, and despite the fact that you didn't win multiple super bowls you are still one of the greatest of all time, walk away my man. Baseball is unique from the other 2 major sports in that it has multiple positions that can help prolong a players career that is on the back end. DH, relief pitchers, spot starters, minors, etc, right field (<-----Just kidding). For the most part many athletes quietly leave the game without much noise and most casual fans a year after they retire or are forced to will randomly go..."what happened to Jermaine Dye, Eric Chavez, "insert name here" but for those that don't, I wish you a good retirement.

The games this weekend

Here are my picks, along with (ir)rationale.

Game 1: Packers at Seahawks.  Before I give the pick, I'm going to explain what I see.  I see a Packers team that has played poorly on the road this year against a few pretty good defenses (with the exception of the Saints).  I also see a Packers team with a very much improved defense and a really good offensive line (can't believe I'm saying it, and it's true!).  The Seahawks have a great defense.  They also have an offense with a really great ability to run the ball.  However, I think the Packers go into Seattle and win and here's why.  I think they will finally be able to slow down a mobile QB.  Wilson is really good, but if you force him to throw from the pocket, he gets a bit inaccurate.  I think the Packers contain him.  I see a close game, made 28-24.  I also see Rodgers playing like the best player in the league.  I'm probably going to be wrong, but who cares.  This game is going to be close either way, and I think the Packers pull it off.

Game 2:  Colts at Patriots.  The Patriots are going to blow the doors off the Colts.  The Colts have somehow appeared to have a good O-line and a good defense.  They have neither.  The Patriots will score early and often and win by at least 10.

manning

hahahhaahah. just retire my man. its embarrassing now.  

sincerly- brennan

Is Kurt Warner a Hall of Famer?

I fall pretty squarely in the yes category for this question.  For a number of years, he was a top 3 QB (Manning and Brady were 1 and 2 for most of those).  However, these years were his Arizona years at the end of his career.  What I think gets him in is the early years with the Rams.  He was probably the best QB in the league (in hindsight) for the few years that he was QB of the Rams (the last two years aside... those were a mess with poor play and the whole Mark Bulger crap).  These years were prior to the ATG dominance that was Brady and Manning in the mid 2000s.  I guess the one thing I wonder is if he had the same career, but starting two years later, would he be in... The answer is maybe not.  I'm really big into defining a Hall of Fame career based on comparison to contemporaries, and Warner compares favorably.  He was probably the best early, and he was probably third best during the Arizona years, primarily because Aaron Rodgers had not ascended to that upper eschelon yet. 

This all seems like an arbitrary and very personal argument, and it's pretty good evidence that I shouldn't have a football HOF vote, but this is my view on the whole thing. 

Oh good, Oregon's not soft anymore

Why is "Oregon beat FSU so you can't see Oregon as soft anymore" a storyline? I heard it during the broadcast, I've seen it on ESPN and SI websites. I don't listen to talk radio or watch ESPN etc., but I'm sure it's all over the airwaves as well. This is a program that's seen success through three different head coaches, that's beaten USC and UCLA and Stanfurd in the Pac-10/12; that has beaten Kansas State and Texas and Wisconsin in major bowl games recently; that does so in part because its players are so well-conditioned they can run other teams into the ground (and yeah, that's "tough"). Ohio State isn't getting that vocabulary applied to it after beating Alabama, so I guess a soft OSU has never been part of the narrative--they just weren't very good for a bit there.

So is that "soft" storyline simply a refuge of lazy journalists? Is it just playing to the preconceptions of a bunch of college football fans who've spent the last decade insisting their conference is the only one in which real football is played and that teams out west are "soft" (which basically has seemed like a means of denying Pac-10/12 and minor conference teams access to the national championship whenever possible)? Is it just code for deriding sophisticated offensive innovation in favor of some conservative, romanticized impulse? Because I've been watching Pac football for 15 years, and watching other college games more the last few years because I live on the East Coast and can't find games I'm really interested in, and I don't see qualitative differences I'd characterize as "soft/tough." That's not to say that there aren't stronger and weaker conferences, stronger and weaker programs, stronger and weaker teams, but those characteristics are hardly as permanent as this shocked "Oregon's not soft" narrative would seem to imply.

So basically it seems like a made-up vocabulary designed to deny that western conferences and independent teams are equals of those in the southeast. And this reporting simply perpetuates that implication, even if it's one that makes little/no sense to people who've been paying attention and levying an honest assessment of what they see, rather than simply what they want to believe.