Football is almost upon us. I love this time of year. The Washington State University commercials have been bragging about their fans and waving the Cougar flag all over the world. When your football commercials focus on your fans rather than your team, you have problems with your football team. WSU may have great fans and a great tradition with its flag, but right now the football team is not doing well. I have them picked to finish last in their division of the Pac 12.
They have chosen Idaho State as their "warm up" first game of the year. For such a small school, do you know how many NFL players have come out of ISU? Anyone know the name Jared Allen? Drafted by the Chiefs, traded to the Vikings, NFL sack machine including leading the league in 2007 with 15.5. Graduate of Idaho State. Just because ISU is a small school from the FCS (Football Championship Subdivision, formerly Division II) doesn't mean WSU is guaranteed to win. Ask Michigan how that idea to play Appalachian State worked out for them. The Wolverines dropped out of the top 25 so fast there probably should have been a sonic boom. I'll go so far as to predict an Idaho State upset. You can make fun of this idea all you want, but I'll stand by it. ISU will at least put up a fight against the Cougars. I think they'll win.
On to the Pros and the AFC West.
I am a Kansas City fan. I love the Chiefs. But I don't see them defending their division crown. Between the up and coming Raiders, who swept all six division games last year, and the usual division juggernaut Chargers, I don't think the Chiefs will be able to hold up. Last year, they only beat two teams that had records above 500. Every year that the Chiefs have had strong records, they had a weak schedule. Then, when they've gotten into the playoffs, they've been easily put out in the first round, usually playing at Arrowhead. In the 90s, Arrowhead was feared. It is still one of the loudest stadiums. But the team that plays there is not the killer defense of the 90s.
Kansas City did go out and get a great college receiver, Jonathan Baldwin, to compliment Dwayne Bowe. One of the first things Baldwin does is get in a fight with veteran running back, Thomas Jones, and injures his wrist, missing the rest of the preseason. While it really doesn't mean a whole lot as far as the regular season, preseason games are incredibly valuable in-game experience for rookies.
Kansas city was 30th (there are only 32 teams in the NFL) in passing last year. They were first in rushing, thanks to Charles and Jones. The problem with being one dimensional is that good teams will figure out a way to stop the one dimension (see Lions, Detroit, 1990s). Baltimore did it against the Chiefs in the first round of the playoffs and put the Chiefs out. The Chiefs are sitting on about $33 million in unused cap space. This is money they're sitting on. They don't get to save it and use it next season for $33 million more to spend on players. After this season, it's gone. They still have a good offensive line, even with recent retirements. The bottom line remains that they need to do more with the passing game. Cassel is going to have to continue to develop and become a top tier quarterback. Otherwise the Chiefs will be the same Chiefs we saw in the mid 2000s, a running game with a afterthought aerial attack. If they get to the playoffs with the current offensive scheme, they'll get put out in the first round, just like every other playoff game since Joe Montana guided them to the AFC Championship against Buffalo in 1993.
Prediction time: The division is starting to get some teeth after being Chargers and the other guys for so many years. I'm going to go out on a limb and pick the Raiders to take the division, though. It'll be Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs, Broncos, in that order. The Broncos will be the only team with a losing record.
Raiders: These guys will go 10-6. They had the everyone else's number in the division last year, going 6-0. Their only trouble was that they went 2-8 against the rest of their opponents. This year the AFC West plays the NFC North quite heavily. That means the defending champs, Green Bay, and the playoff team, Chicago will be tough match ups for everyone in this division. Throw in contests with the AFC East (especially the Jets and the always strong Patriots), this will be a tough season again.
Chargers: They'll go 9-7. They aren't the dominant force they once were. Last year saw them lose to divisional foes surprisingly often. They're still a good team, but they need healthy running backs. They led the league in offense and defense last year, but still lost games. Their special teams could have been cut into a montage with "Benny Hill" playing in the background (in fact, I'm relatively sure this can be found on Youtube somewhere). But special teams alone won't produce a season like San Diego had last year. They'll bounce back.
Chiefs: Oh, my beloved Kansas City, you'll go 8-8. Oakland's improvement and San Diego's recovery will cost you games from last year. Having the schedule of ultimate suckiness will mean you'll have a dry spell in the early second half of the season. (New England, Pittsburgh, Chicago, the Jets, Green Bay, and Oakland weeks 11-16). If that isn't the toughest six week run of any team in the NFL, then I have no business writing a sports blog. Their lone consolation is that they follow that with a week 17 visit to Denver. Although I'm not sure how much fun playing in Denver on New Year's Day really is. Yeah, the Chiefs will do well in the opening part of the season. I think they'll go undefeated until they hit Indy (and even that depends on how well Peyton recovers from surgery) in week 5.
Broncos: Oh, Denver. Poor, poor Denver. Denver actually has the toughest division schedule out of the AFC West. Mainly because everyone else gets to play the Broncos twice. Seriously, the schedule rankings have a 10 percentage point spread between the above teams and the Broncos. Poor Denver is going to go 3-13 this season. They haven't figured out what the heck they're doing at QB. They haven't really replaced Brandon Marshall. The last time they had a decent running back, it was because Shanahan's offensive line and blocking scheme could get your grandmother a 1000 yard rushing season. That line is gone. Shanahan is gone. The running game...is gone.
There's predictions part two in the books. Make fun of me at the end of the season for actually predicting that the Raiders are the AFC West team to beat. If reactions from part one predictions are any indication, some of you won't wait until season's end (or even beginning) to start pulling apart these.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Barry Bonds, Michael Jordan, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, Andy Pettitte
Barry Bonds, Michael Jordan, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, Andy Pettitte.
Is that a tag line for greatness or what? Look at those guys. The all-time home runs and walks leader (among other records), the greatest pro-basketball player ever, the pitcher with the most Cy Youngs, the savior of baseball after the 94-95 strike, the highest paid player in the MLB and youngest member of the 600 HR club, world series winning pitcher. Just look at them.
Now, look at them and pick out which one you despise the most. Is it Barry? Is it because all his records "should have an asterisk?" Is it A-Rod for signing the most lucrative salary of any MLB player, ever? Is it MJ because he got all those calls, all those whistles, but you really know he got them because of who he is rather than there ever being a foul?
Did you know that it took nearly half a decade for Michael Jordan to fall out of the most popular athlete spot according to ESPN? Why is that? Is it because he was the greatest basketball player that ever lived? What about Bonds? He is the greatest home run hitter in a game obsessed with the long ball. Just look at those two for a minute. Think about their interviews while they were still playing. Michael and his well-spokenness. His graciousness in dealing with the media during and after his career (all three times). Do you remember any of his scandals? Do you remember his gambling problems in the early 90s? How about the woman who extorted him claiming that she was his mistress? What about his demand to keep Isaiah Thomas off of the original Dream Team and that Scottie Pippen instead be named?
What about the other hated guy? Alex Rodriguez was reviled by most of the fan world because of his defection from Seattle for a huge payday. He was reviled when he later signed with the most reviled team in sports, the New York Yankees. He was chewed up, spit out, picked up and thrown back down by the New York media. And then he came out of his post season slump and got his World Series ring. All was forgiven in New York, the Yankees had #27. He did steroids? He has an illegal poker night? Who really cares?
Now, what about Bonds? This is a guy who blew off the media. This is a guy who walked past autograph seekers, his adoring public. This is a guy who angered his teammates, coaches, general managers, and team owners. This is also the man who was on the verge of tears as he thanked baseball, the fans, even the other team, and especially his deceased father when he broke Hank Aaron's record. This is the man who scooped up his young son at home plate when Barry broke Mark McGwire's single season record and gave him a hug and a kiss on national television. This is also the man who never had a positive steroid test.
Consider this: Bonds broke Mark McGwire's home run record. McGwire has since come out as saying he took steroids as early as his years with the Oakland A's. That's okay, Mark. You're honest. Thanks for coming clean. By the way, no one brought up the asterisk for his accomplishments. Roger Clemens was just tried and mis-tried for perjury stemming from the steroids scandal. He still wasn't raked over the coals that Bonds has been pulled through. Same with Alex Rodriguez. Same with Andy Pettitte.
Now, note the list of players. The last four players named; Clemens, McGwire, Rodriguez, and Pettitte. They're all white or close enough to it (light enough skinned). We gave them passes in the court of public opinion. None of them faced sanctions from baseball. None of them were fined for steroid use. Clemens is the only one who hasn't admitted to steroid use.
But look at the other two, the first two on the list. They're both black. But it's okay, right? We adore Jordan; we're not racist! Bonds is a punk and a cheater. Once again, Bonds never tested positive for steroids. But Bonds is defiant. He isn't the type of black man white people love to like. Michael Jordan, with his endorsements, articulate speech, style, and success, is the type of black man we want to see. We love to like him.
How dare Bonds disrespect the game like he did. Here's a problem. MLB was the problem. MLB didn't test or even ban steroid use until 2003. 2003! Italics, underline, asterisk, bold--2003. Even if Bonds was on steroids when he broke the single season record in 2001, he didn't break any rules. But, but, but, Scott...he sorta kinda maybe might've taken an illegal substance! That should give him the asterisk. If taking an illegal substance give you an asterisk, then we should probably be putting asterisks by a lot more names than that of Bonds. Last time I checked, marijuana and cocaine are illegal substances...Well, fuck, there goes almost every record of any player who ever played any game between 1970 and now. The other issue is Bonds' constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty. There is no proof. There are no positive tests. There is no clear proof that BALCO injected Bonds with anything illegal.
Bonds is the defiant, talented, cocky black man. We white people can't abide that. If he were white (Clemens fits just about that to a tee, defiant-check, talented-check, cocky-check, suspected of steroids-check) there wouldn't be talk of an asterisk at all. Clemens doesn't have an asterisk next to the 7 Cy Youngs. Clemens doesn't have an asterisk next to the World Series wins.
Michael Jordan is talented, cocky, and black. But he is gracious. He keeps his image clean. The worst things we could say about him was he was kind of an asshole during his first-ballot-entry-to-the-hall-of-fame induction speech where he reminded us, "oh, yeah, I'm better than any of you ever will be." But MJ is not defiant. MJ didn't piss off, or on, the press. MJ pissed off teammates, but he was good enough that he also made those teammates better, or they weren't on his team much longer. MJ. is. the. type. of. black. man. we. love. to. like. Bonds is not nor will he ever be.
And that's a dirty shame because he's the greatest home run hitter that ever lived.
Is that a tag line for greatness or what? Look at those guys. The all-time home runs and walks leader (among other records), the greatest pro-basketball player ever, the pitcher with the most Cy Youngs, the savior of baseball after the 94-95 strike, the highest paid player in the MLB and youngest member of the 600 HR club, world series winning pitcher. Just look at them.
Now, look at them and pick out which one you despise the most. Is it Barry? Is it because all his records "should have an asterisk?" Is it A-Rod for signing the most lucrative salary of any MLB player, ever? Is it MJ because he got all those calls, all those whistles, but you really know he got them because of who he is rather than there ever being a foul?
Did you know that it took nearly half a decade for Michael Jordan to fall out of the most popular athlete spot according to ESPN? Why is that? Is it because he was the greatest basketball player that ever lived? What about Bonds? He is the greatest home run hitter in a game obsessed with the long ball. Just look at those two for a minute. Think about their interviews while they were still playing. Michael and his well-spokenness. His graciousness in dealing with the media during and after his career (all three times). Do you remember any of his scandals? Do you remember his gambling problems in the early 90s? How about the woman who extorted him claiming that she was his mistress? What about his demand to keep Isaiah Thomas off of the original Dream Team and that Scottie Pippen instead be named?
What about the other hated guy? Alex Rodriguez was reviled by most of the fan world because of his defection from Seattle for a huge payday. He was reviled when he later signed with the most reviled team in sports, the New York Yankees. He was chewed up, spit out, picked up and thrown back down by the New York media. And then he came out of his post season slump and got his World Series ring. All was forgiven in New York, the Yankees had #27. He did steroids? He has an illegal poker night? Who really cares?
Now, what about Bonds? This is a guy who blew off the media. This is a guy who walked past autograph seekers, his adoring public. This is a guy who angered his teammates, coaches, general managers, and team owners. This is also the man who was on the verge of tears as he thanked baseball, the fans, even the other team, and especially his deceased father when he broke Hank Aaron's record. This is the man who scooped up his young son at home plate when Barry broke Mark McGwire's single season record and gave him a hug and a kiss on national television. This is also the man who never had a positive steroid test.
Consider this: Bonds broke Mark McGwire's home run record. McGwire has since come out as saying he took steroids as early as his years with the Oakland A's. That's okay, Mark. You're honest. Thanks for coming clean. By the way, no one brought up the asterisk for his accomplishments. Roger Clemens was just tried and mis-tried for perjury stemming from the steroids scandal. He still wasn't raked over the coals that Bonds has been pulled through. Same with Alex Rodriguez. Same with Andy Pettitte.
Now, note the list of players. The last four players named; Clemens, McGwire, Rodriguez, and Pettitte. They're all white or close enough to it (light enough skinned). We gave them passes in the court of public opinion. None of them faced sanctions from baseball. None of them were fined for steroid use. Clemens is the only one who hasn't admitted to steroid use.
But look at the other two, the first two on the list. They're both black. But it's okay, right? We adore Jordan; we're not racist! Bonds is a punk and a cheater. Once again, Bonds never tested positive for steroids. But Bonds is defiant. He isn't the type of black man white people love to like. Michael Jordan, with his endorsements, articulate speech, style, and success, is the type of black man we want to see. We love to like him.
How dare Bonds disrespect the game like he did. Here's a problem. MLB was the problem. MLB didn't test or even ban steroid use until 2003. 2003! Italics, underline, asterisk, bold--2003. Even if Bonds was on steroids when he broke the single season record in 2001, he didn't break any rules. But, but, but, Scott...he sorta kinda maybe might've taken an illegal substance! That should give him the asterisk. If taking an illegal substance give you an asterisk, then we should probably be putting asterisks by a lot more names than that of Bonds. Last time I checked, marijuana and cocaine are illegal substances...Well, fuck, there goes almost every record of any player who ever played any game between 1970 and now. The other issue is Bonds' constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty. There is no proof. There are no positive tests. There is no clear proof that BALCO injected Bonds with anything illegal.
Bonds is the defiant, talented, cocky black man. We white people can't abide that. If he were white (Clemens fits just about that to a tee, defiant-check, talented-check, cocky-check, suspected of steroids-check) there wouldn't be talk of an asterisk at all. Clemens doesn't have an asterisk next to the 7 Cy Youngs. Clemens doesn't have an asterisk next to the World Series wins.
Michael Jordan is talented, cocky, and black. But he is gracious. He keeps his image clean. The worst things we could say about him was he was kind of an asshole during his first-ballot-entry-to-the-hall-of-fame induction speech where he reminded us, "oh, yeah, I'm better than any of you ever will be." But MJ is not defiant. MJ didn't piss off, or on, the press. MJ pissed off teammates, but he was good enough that he also made those teammates better, or they weren't on his team much longer. MJ. is. the. type. of. black. man. we. love. to. like. Bonds is not nor will he ever be.
And that's a dirty shame because he's the greatest home run hitter that ever lived.
Monday, August 15, 2011
NFL Predictions Almost Certain to be Wrong Part I
After analyzing some of the flurry of post-lockout trades (usually consisting of such genius analysis as "God, Philadelphia's trades are BRILLIANT!), and watching and reading ESPN and ESPN.com a whole lot, I feel that I am as qualified as anyone of the talking heads to make NFL predictions. So, I will start with part one of X (X=however many of these I feel like doing before I get bored or the season starts) of my NFL Predictions Almost Certain to be Wrong.
Part one of X takes us to the NFC West. The NFC West (Arizona, San Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis) is the worst division in sports. Forget worst division in football, SPORTS. Not even the NCAA Football cellar dweller conference, The Sun Belt, had a conference (in this case division) winner with a sub-500 winning percentage. Seattle went to the playoffs with a 7-9 record. As a division winner. This wasn't some league wide crappy season where a wild card squeaked in at 8-8, this was a division winner coming in two games below 500.
It ain't getting better. Arizona and Seattle got new QB's this season and St. Louis is still the only team in the division that has one. Seattle looks to start Tavaris Jackson, the former Viking who lost his job to the reanimated corpse of Brett Favre. Arizona went out and got Kevin Kolb, the "Quarterback of the Future" for Philly, who lost his job to a convicted felon. San Francisco's starter is the quarterback with the most experience but suffers from a unique condition known as Being Alex Smith (BAS). That leaves St. Louis' second year quarterback, Sam Bradford as the one quarterback in this division. If St. Louis would have won the final game of the season (against Seattle), this division would have sent an 8-8 winner to the playoffs instead of the laughingstock 7-9, Seattle's playoff upset of New Orleans not withstanding.
Prediction: Bradford lead the Rams to the division crown with a 9-7 record. They start really roughly with three straight losses (they open the season against the new-look Philly, an experienced Giants team, and the defensive gods that are the Baltimore Ravens). The second half of the season, they'll rattle off wins against the rest of the division.
Seattle will put up a good fight, but without standout quarterback, they won't do as "well" as they did last year. Last year's quarterback, Matt Hasslebeck, is now a Titan. The offense didn't have a rusher run for more than 600 yards. No offense means no scoring. None of these teams has a very good defense. Seattle goes 5-11.
San Francisco has a new head coach. They have the same old quarterback and an offensive weapon (Frank Gore) who can't stay healthy (4 IR trips in the last 4 seasons). They'll put up a fight against Seattle, but so would most of the Pac-12. They go 6-10.
Arizona has someone else's backup quarterback starting. Matt Leinart is gone (Texans) and now they have Kevin Kolb formerly of Philadelphia. The Cardinals have a great receiver (note the singular), a running back who must have signed an endorsement with Butterfinger, and a defense like cheese cloth. They tried the "sign someone else's castaway" approach with running backs years ago and wound up with a washed up Emmitt Smith and an equally washed up Edgerrin James. They're trying this strategy with quarterbacks now. Three years ago, it paid off and Father Time Kurt Warner led them to a Super Bowl. I wonder if they've got Favre on speed dial. They'll go 4-12.
Write those down. At the end of the season, you can send me e-mails and comments telling me how little I know about NFL football, I'll almost guarantee it.
Part one of X takes us to the NFC West. The NFC West (Arizona, San Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis) is the worst division in sports. Forget worst division in football, SPORTS. Not even the NCAA Football cellar dweller conference, The Sun Belt, had a conference (in this case division) winner with a sub-500 winning percentage. Seattle went to the playoffs with a 7-9 record. As a division winner. This wasn't some league wide crappy season where a wild card squeaked in at 8-8, this was a division winner coming in two games below 500.
It ain't getting better. Arizona and Seattle got new QB's this season and St. Louis is still the only team in the division that has one. Seattle looks to start Tavaris Jackson, the former Viking who lost his job to the reanimated corpse of Brett Favre. Arizona went out and got Kevin Kolb, the "Quarterback of the Future" for Philly, who lost his job to a convicted felon. San Francisco's starter is the quarterback with the most experience but suffers from a unique condition known as Being Alex Smith (BAS). That leaves St. Louis' second year quarterback, Sam Bradford as the one quarterback in this division. If St. Louis would have won the final game of the season (against Seattle), this division would have sent an 8-8 winner to the playoffs instead of the laughingstock 7-9, Seattle's playoff upset of New Orleans not withstanding.
Prediction: Bradford lead the Rams to the division crown with a 9-7 record. They start really roughly with three straight losses (they open the season against the new-look Philly, an experienced Giants team, and the defensive gods that are the Baltimore Ravens). The second half of the season, they'll rattle off wins against the rest of the division.
Seattle will put up a good fight, but without standout quarterback, they won't do as "well" as they did last year. Last year's quarterback, Matt Hasslebeck, is now a Titan. The offense didn't have a rusher run for more than 600 yards. No offense means no scoring. None of these teams has a very good defense. Seattle goes 5-11.
San Francisco has a new head coach. They have the same old quarterback and an offensive weapon (Frank Gore) who can't stay healthy (4 IR trips in the last 4 seasons). They'll put up a fight against Seattle, but so would most of the Pac-12. They go 6-10.
Arizona has someone else's backup quarterback starting. Matt Leinart is gone (Texans) and now they have Kevin Kolb formerly of Philadelphia. The Cardinals have a great receiver (note the singular), a running back who must have signed an endorsement with Butterfinger, and a defense like cheese cloth. They tried the "sign someone else's castaway" approach with running backs years ago and wound up with a washed up Emmitt Smith and an equally washed up Edgerrin James. They're trying this strategy with quarterbacks now. Three years ago, it paid off and Father Time Kurt Warner led them to a Super Bowl. I wonder if they've got Favre on speed dial. They'll go 4-12.
Write those down. At the end of the season, you can send me e-mails and comments telling me how little I know about NFL football, I'll almost guarantee it.
Friday, August 12, 2011
When Off-Field Encroaches On-Field
Why do our best players let us down once they get off the field? Why do our Lawrence Taylors and Daryl Strawberrys do drugs? Why do our Derrick Thomases get their fool asses killed by driving under the influence and speeding? Why do our Pacmans and Larry Johnsons and Ray Lewises and Vince Youngs have to get into fights/trouble at every nightclub they go to? Why are the people who are so smart and savvy on the field so stupid off it? Why does Alex Rodriguez have to play poker? Wait...What? He's in trouble for poker?? He might face a minor suspension for POKER?? He came clean on steroid use and didn't face any punishment from the league, but the guy has a high stakes poker night and he gets in trouble?? What the hell? Can he and his friends not afford it? For the love of Selig.
How many of us have been disappointed by a sports hero? Of my two favorite football players of all time, one is now a registered sex offender (Lawrence Taylor) and one is dead (Derrick Thomas). Coming out of the Steroid Era, find me a team with no players untouched by the scandal. Here's a challenge to all our professional athletes: What's say we go a damn week without one of you running someone over (Donte Stallworth), shooting someone including yourself (Plaxico Burress), sexually assaulting someone (Ben Roethlisberger), getting nailed with drugs (pick one), murdering someone (Rae Carruth, Eric Naposki), or getting YOURSELVES killed (Steve McNair, Darrent Williams, David Turner). Just one week. No one fuck up. Play your sport, go to practice, study game film, take batting practice, sight see whatever city you're visiting, go out for some nice food at a nice restaurant, meet fans, sign autographs. Stay out of trouble, put down the booze. You're famous, people watch you every week. They're going to recognize you with a Red Rider Wagon full of marijuana.
Some people would claim that it is upbringing that causes these issues. Some would say that it is the sudden rise to fame at young ages and not being able to deal with it. Does being good at sports mean not having common sense? Are they inversely related? Even an 18-year-old knows right from wrong. It doesn't matter who you are or how much you make. You might feel like you are invincible. You're playing a game for a living. You're getting paid millions. People are worshiping you. I get it. But you still know that if a woman says "no" that you should not force her into a hotel room, SUV, dark alley, etc. Be a moral human being! You may have more money than God, but you are also in a precarious position. You are usually guilty until proven...no, you're still guilty in the public eye. You are targets for blackmail because you are guilty until no, you're still guilty. Don't put yourself in the situations where you've seen others get in trouble. There are plenty of examples of what NOT to do. You probably have teammates who can tell you by experience what not to do.
What about the teams? They have invested so much time and money into these players. They've used draft choices and developed offensive and defensive schemes around these players. They've paid millions in salaries an training. The teams write legal and behavior clauses into contracts, but then don't fully enforce them. Or they are so vague that no one can enforce or understand them. The teams could help support these players moving from college to the professional level. If they were moving into any other profession, they would have guidance. They would have people to talk to and deal with and learn from and seek out for advice. In professional sports, they don't have this as much. Or, they have veteran players who are still making the same dumb choices.
Coaches and front offices make sure that players attend meetings and practices. Why not make sure that players attend counselling for both the emotional transition and the financial transition? If these players had help and guidance, then they perhaps, just perhaps, wouldn't wind up in jail, suspended, bankrupt, or, I don't know, DEAD. There is not guarantee that this would keep players from messing up. But it might just give them the tools to at least make the adjustment.
Team management must be stricter with their young players. I know that most of these players are 22-23 years old and older. They are legally adults. But they've come from bad backgrounds or they've had a lot handed to them through college programs and then into the pros. Having a strict team front office that enforces curfews and moral clauses will keep these brand new, young millionaires from making fools of themselves, more importantly from making felons of themselves. The teams must take a more active role in their players' lives. Does this violate their rights? Not if it's written into the contract. Think about the discipline of the U.S. Armed Forces. Are new recruits' (or veterans' for that matter) rights violated by strict curfew enforcement?
I have never been a sudden millionaire. I haven't gone from struggling college student from a poor background to a contracted millionaire. I am on the outside looking in and watching this behavior. I can't positively say how I'd act with newly found fame and fortune. These guys don't want to distance themselves from old friends, no matter how bad an influence they might be. But it isn't only the sudden fortune that causes these choices. Go to Google. Now, type "NFL player arrested" and see how many news stories you get. (I just got 51 pages of 490,000 results). Now, type in "Lottery winner arrested" and see how many. (I just got 13,000 results). Hmm, 2.65% as many.
How many of us have been disappointed by a sports hero? Of my two favorite football players of all time, one is now a registered sex offender (Lawrence Taylor) and one is dead (Derrick Thomas). Coming out of the Steroid Era, find me a team with no players untouched by the scandal. Here's a challenge to all our professional athletes: What's say we go a damn week without one of you running someone over (Donte Stallworth), shooting someone including yourself (Plaxico Burress), sexually assaulting someone (Ben Roethlisberger), getting nailed with drugs (pick one), murdering someone (Rae Carruth, Eric Naposki), or getting YOURSELVES killed (Steve McNair, Darrent Williams, David Turner). Just one week. No one fuck up. Play your sport, go to practice, study game film, take batting practice, sight see whatever city you're visiting, go out for some nice food at a nice restaurant, meet fans, sign autographs. Stay out of trouble, put down the booze. You're famous, people watch you every week. They're going to recognize you with a Red Rider Wagon full of marijuana.
Some people would claim that it is upbringing that causes these issues. Some would say that it is the sudden rise to fame at young ages and not being able to deal with it. Does being good at sports mean not having common sense? Are they inversely related? Even an 18-year-old knows right from wrong. It doesn't matter who you are or how much you make. You might feel like you are invincible. You're playing a game for a living. You're getting paid millions. People are worshiping you. I get it. But you still know that if a woman says "no" that you should not force her into a hotel room, SUV, dark alley, etc. Be a moral human being! You may have more money than God, but you are also in a precarious position. You are usually guilty until proven...no, you're still guilty in the public eye. You are targets for blackmail because you are guilty until no, you're still guilty. Don't put yourself in the situations where you've seen others get in trouble. There are plenty of examples of what NOT to do. You probably have teammates who can tell you by experience what not to do.
What about the teams? They have invested so much time and money into these players. They've used draft choices and developed offensive and defensive schemes around these players. They've paid millions in salaries an training. The teams write legal and behavior clauses into contracts, but then don't fully enforce them. Or they are so vague that no one can enforce or understand them. The teams could help support these players moving from college to the professional level. If they were moving into any other profession, they would have guidance. They would have people to talk to and deal with and learn from and seek out for advice. In professional sports, they don't have this as much. Or, they have veteran players who are still making the same dumb choices.
Coaches and front offices make sure that players attend meetings and practices. Why not make sure that players attend counselling for both the emotional transition and the financial transition? If these players had help and guidance, then they perhaps, just perhaps, wouldn't wind up in jail, suspended, bankrupt, or, I don't know, DEAD. There is not guarantee that this would keep players from messing up. But it might just give them the tools to at least make the adjustment.
Team management must be stricter with their young players. I know that most of these players are 22-23 years old and older. They are legally adults. But they've come from bad backgrounds or they've had a lot handed to them through college programs and then into the pros. Having a strict team front office that enforces curfews and moral clauses will keep these brand new, young millionaires from making fools of themselves, more importantly from making felons of themselves. The teams must take a more active role in their players' lives. Does this violate their rights? Not if it's written into the contract. Think about the discipline of the U.S. Armed Forces. Are new recruits' (or veterans' for that matter) rights violated by strict curfew enforcement?
I have never been a sudden millionaire. I haven't gone from struggling college student from a poor background to a contracted millionaire. I am on the outside looking in and watching this behavior. I can't positively say how I'd act with newly found fame and fortune. These guys don't want to distance themselves from old friends, no matter how bad an influence they might be. But it isn't only the sudden fortune that causes these choices. Go to Google. Now, type "NFL player arrested" and see how many news stories you get. (I just got 51 pages of 490,000 results). Now, type in "Lottery winner arrested" and see how many. (I just got 13,000 results). Hmm, 2.65% as many.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Sports' Spine-Tingling Moments II: The All Blacks Haka
During a conversation last evening, I realized I had forgotten one of sports' most spine-tingling moments. This is one I have never witnessed live, but would absolutely love to. If you have never heard of the New Zealand All Blacks, drop what you are doing and go to YouTube. Do it NOW, I'll wait. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTGEPW6p4M0
This is the Fiji (in white) Cibi first. It is the challenge to their rivals dating back to the "uncivilized" tribal era. The All Blacks Haka also dates to pre-European contact. They are signs of respect to their rivals, but also meant to be intimidating. The All Blacks Haka dates back to Te Raupraha, the Maori leader who defeated the British so many times before signing the Treaty of Waitangi. These aren't just sports teams doing the Tomahawk Chop because they're called the Braves or the Chiefs. This is a part of the old New Zealand culture. Many of the All Blacks are of Maori descent. The white players are New Zealanders who respect the history of their islands. And it works. Since forming in 1903 (roughly the same time as the formation of the New York Yankees) The All Blacks have won 75% of their rugby matches. 75%! Let's put that in perspective. That would mean, if The All Blacks were a MLB team, that they would average 121 wins per season. The most wins ever in an MLB season is 116. If they were NFL, they'd average a 12-4 season. NBA, they'd average 62 wins a season. The NBA and NFL seasons sound plausible, since league leaders usually achieve these numbers. However, The All Blacks average those marks since 1903. No team in America's Big Three sports comes close. The Yankees, for all their great teams since 1901, averaged a .568 winning percentage as of 2010.
Rugby doesn't have seasons, per se, as we would think of them. Rugby has tours, instead. The biggest tour coming every four years, the Rugby World Cup, like its more famous cousin in soccer. The Rugby World Cup started in 1987, with the All Blacks being the first winners. While they haven't won a World Cup since, The All Blacks do carry a unique distinction in international play. They are the only team to have a winning record against all other teams. Their worst winning percentage is 56.1 against South Africa. The U.S., Tonga, Samoa, Romania, Portugal, Pacific Islanders, Japan, Italy, Fiji, and Canada have never won or drawn against The All Blacks. Ireland, Scotland, and Argentina have never won against them (with four draws between them). Australia has beaten the All Blacks the most, with 40 wins, and drawn with them the most with 5 draws. This comes at the expense of 96 loses to The All Blacks (the most wins The All Blacks have against one opponent).
The All Blacks open every match with the traditional Haka. Other teams usually respond or initiate (Fiji's Cibi), but the haka of The All Blacks is the most widely known. Based on their lifetime record, it's also the most successful...and spine-tingling.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
One of the Most Entertaining Plays in Sports
Contrary to the ratings of recent championships (this year's NBA finals notwithstanding), defense is always more fun to watch than offense. In any of the big four sports, defense will always bring the crowd to their feet. Think about ESPN's Web Gems, The Plays of the Week, or just about any great highlights. Most, if not all, of them are going to be defense. The diving catch, the double play, the sack, the interception, the steal leading to a fast-break, the check that levels the would-be scorer.
Arguably the most entertaining play in sports is the one that takes the most time and people to set up. When it works, oh my God does it work. When it fails, it is usually just as spectacular. This time, I'm writing about the zone blitz. When a football defense lines up in their regular formation before the snap, but after the snap all hell breaks loose. You could have anyone coming in on the blitz. You could have a defensive end dropping into coverage. A defensive end? In coverage?? Imagine one of those three-hundred pound guys stepping back away from the other three-hundred pound guys and getting in the way of a pass. Or, better yet, imagine a three-hundred pound guy leveling your favorite receiver trying to catch a slant over the middle. It'd be like a ping-pong ball bouncing off a Sherman tank! (hehe).
The aforementioned scenario is actually my least favorite aspect of the zone blitz. Linemen are not supposed to drop back into coverage. If you're playing a 3-4, have all three linemen pass rush and then bring a linebacker (preferably from the quarterback's blind side) and one of the defensive backs on the blitz. Do it with a different linebacker and defensive back each time. Do it for every play for the first quarter, especially if you're getting hits on the quarterback. Then...stop. Let him see that everyone in front of him is dropping back into pass coverage. Let him rush the throw because he's thinking that if everyone he can see is dropping back, that means the linebacker is coming up behind him. Let him freak. The few times I've seen Peyton Manning rattled, this was the strategy. If you have a chance, rewatch the Saints do it to him in Super Bowl XLIV, leading to the game icing pick.
The zone blitz is the most entertaining play in sports because it takes all eleven guys to execute it correctly. If an inside linebacker blitzes, the other linebackers or, heaven forbid, a lineman must slide into his area for coverage. If a defensive back blitzes, the other three must split the field so that everyone is still covered, preferably without allowing single coverage. If the offense keeps the tight-end and one running back (assuming a two back set) back to block for a passing play, then there are seven blockers and a quarterback. If the three linemen can occupy the five offensive linemen, that leaves the tight end and running back as blockers. If the backer and defensive back are both coming from the weak side (side away from the tight end), then the running back has to block both. One is probably getting through to either hurry the QB, flush him from the pocket, or, my favorite, make him say hello to Uncle Dirtnap.
Assuming that the offense has kept its tight end and one running back in to block, as above, then that means there are only three receivers. The two wide receivers and the running back coming out of the back field. The three receivers would be covered by three defensive backs (one of the four is blitzing) and three linebackers (again, one of the four is blitzing). Even if the receivers find the seam in the zone (the edges of the coverage area where they overlap), they should be covered. With only three receivers to worry about, double coverage isn't just possible, it's virtually assured. Receivers covered, pocket collapsing, unless you're the Eagles' Michael Vick, or the old Donovan McNabb before too much Chunky soup commercials, you're quarterback is going to get chased down and some defender is getting an incentive bonus at the end of the week.
The fun part of this defense is also playing in it when it is working on all cylinders. The Sam Blitz, The Corner Blitz, Mad Dog, The 6-9 Wild Dog, or my two personal favorites from playing high school football, the 66 Up Yours and the 52 Fuckit. Get creative! Have players draw straws in the huddle, the two long straws blitz. Suddenly, the quarterback finds linebackers all in coverage and is sandwiched between cornerbacks (honestly, who sends BOTH corners??) Have contests and see which two players work best. Overload a side and send two from the same side. Switch it up and balance it, then overload a different side. An effective zone blitz a la Dick LeBeau should have quarterbacks wanting to hand the ball off to the running back. "Here ya go, dude. May the force be with you." Sacks, monster hits, and interceptions follow in its wake. And that is just fun to watch.
Hot monkey lovin', the NFL is back without missing a regular season game. Let the blitz begin.
Arguably the most entertaining play in sports is the one that takes the most time and people to set up. When it works, oh my God does it work. When it fails, it is usually just as spectacular. This time, I'm writing about the zone blitz. When a football defense lines up in their regular formation before the snap, but after the snap all hell breaks loose. You could have anyone coming in on the blitz. You could have a defensive end dropping into coverage. A defensive end? In coverage?? Imagine one of those three-hundred pound guys stepping back away from the other three-hundred pound guys and getting in the way of a pass. Or, better yet, imagine a three-hundred pound guy leveling your favorite receiver trying to catch a slant over the middle. It'd be like a ping-pong ball bouncing off a Sherman tank! (hehe).
The aforementioned scenario is actually my least favorite aspect of the zone blitz. Linemen are not supposed to drop back into coverage. If you're playing a 3-4, have all three linemen pass rush and then bring a linebacker (preferably from the quarterback's blind side) and one of the defensive backs on the blitz. Do it with a different linebacker and defensive back each time. Do it for every play for the first quarter, especially if you're getting hits on the quarterback. Then...stop. Let him see that everyone in front of him is dropping back into pass coverage. Let him rush the throw because he's thinking that if everyone he can see is dropping back, that means the linebacker is coming up behind him. Let him freak. The few times I've seen Peyton Manning rattled, this was the strategy. If you have a chance, rewatch the Saints do it to him in Super Bowl XLIV, leading to the game icing pick.
The zone blitz is the most entertaining play in sports because it takes all eleven guys to execute it correctly. If an inside linebacker blitzes, the other linebackers or, heaven forbid, a lineman must slide into his area for coverage. If a defensive back blitzes, the other three must split the field so that everyone is still covered, preferably without allowing single coverage. If the offense keeps the tight-end and one running back (assuming a two back set) back to block for a passing play, then there are seven blockers and a quarterback. If the three linemen can occupy the five offensive linemen, that leaves the tight end and running back as blockers. If the backer and defensive back are both coming from the weak side (side away from the tight end), then the running back has to block both. One is probably getting through to either hurry the QB, flush him from the pocket, or, my favorite, make him say hello to Uncle Dirtnap.
Assuming that the offense has kept its tight end and one running back in to block, as above, then that means there are only three receivers. The two wide receivers and the running back coming out of the back field. The three receivers would be covered by three defensive backs (one of the four is blitzing) and three linebackers (again, one of the four is blitzing). Even if the receivers find the seam in the zone (the edges of the coverage area where they overlap), they should be covered. With only three receivers to worry about, double coverage isn't just possible, it's virtually assured. Receivers covered, pocket collapsing, unless you're the Eagles' Michael Vick, or the old Donovan McNabb before too much Chunky soup commercials, you're quarterback is going to get chased down and some defender is getting an incentive bonus at the end of the week.
The fun part of this defense is also playing in it when it is working on all cylinders. The Sam Blitz, The Corner Blitz, Mad Dog, The 6-9 Wild Dog, or my two personal favorites from playing high school football, the 66 Up Yours and the 52 Fuckit. Get creative! Have players draw straws in the huddle, the two long straws blitz. Suddenly, the quarterback finds linebackers all in coverage and is sandwiched between cornerbacks (honestly, who sends BOTH corners??) Have contests and see which two players work best. Overload a side and send two from the same side. Switch it up and balance it, then overload a different side. An effective zone blitz a la Dick LeBeau should have quarterbacks wanting to hand the ball off to the running back. "Here ya go, dude. May the force be with you." Sacks, monster hits, and interceptions follow in its wake. And that is just fun to watch.
Hot monkey lovin', the NFL is back without missing a regular season game. Let the blitz begin.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Patriots, Broncos, and Karma(?)
As I sat at the local pool hall/sports bar watching the final rivalry game between my Alma Mater, Idaho and the hated Broncos of Boise State, I found myself thinking about karma. When Boise State threw another long bomb already up by 30+ points, I hoped karma existed. In fact I predicted that Boise would lose to Nevada two weeks later. Karma reared its head in the form of two missed field goals.
Did Brotzman miss those field goals because BSU decided to send a message with the game all but won against U of I? I'd like to think so. Obviously it was karma. It had nothing to do with wind, temperature, pressure in an end of game situation, the holder, the snap, the blocking, the opposing defense, the screaming of a hostile crowd, fatigue, or any other factor. It had to be karma.
The New England Patriots remember karma. They had a perfect regular season in 2007, running up the score against the Dolphins, the Redskins, and the Bills. They threw deep bombs in the fourth quarter already up by a blowout...with their starters still in the game.
They lost the Super Bowl to the New York Giants. It was karma again. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Giants had played them closely in the final game of the regular season. It had nothing to do with the Giants preparation and adjustments based on that game and the game tapes from it. It had nothing to do with a catch held onto thanks to a helmet or a scramble that could have easily been a textbook lesson on how to hold as an offensive lineman. It had to be karma, right? The Patriots were the villains. They were the undefeated and undefeatable juggernaut. They were every antagonist from every sports movie...ever! They were destined to lose. Karma wouldn't let them win.
Karma wouldn't let them join the 1972 Dolphins, those bunch of pricks who get together to drink champagne when the last undefeated team loses and announce that they are still the only residents in the Perfect Season Neighborhood. Never mind that they are the only team in that illustrious neighborhood because the NFL doesn't recognize its predecessors. The AFL had a perfect team in the Los Angeles Bulldogs. In the All-American Football Conference, the 1948 Cleveland Browns, (Remember them? They're now the Baltimore Ravens because Art Modell screwed the city of Cleveland back in the 90s.) had a perfect season but isn't recognized by the modern NFL because not all the teams from the AAFC were absorbed into the NFL. So one of the more storied franchises of the current NFL can't count its history in football before the NFL.
Then again, maybe the previous perfect season winners somehow angered what/who Gregg Easterbrook calls "The Football Gods," or what I call "Karma."
Did Brotzman miss those field goals because BSU decided to send a message with the game all but won against U of I? I'd like to think so. Obviously it was karma. It had nothing to do with wind, temperature, pressure in an end of game situation, the holder, the snap, the blocking, the opposing defense, the screaming of a hostile crowd, fatigue, or any other factor. It had to be karma.
The New England Patriots remember karma. They had a perfect regular season in 2007, running up the score against the Dolphins, the Redskins, and the Bills. They threw deep bombs in the fourth quarter already up by a blowout...with their starters still in the game.
They lost the Super Bowl to the New York Giants. It was karma again. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Giants had played them closely in the final game of the regular season. It had nothing to do with the Giants preparation and adjustments based on that game and the game tapes from it. It had nothing to do with a catch held onto thanks to a helmet or a scramble that could have easily been a textbook lesson on how to hold as an offensive lineman. It had to be karma, right? The Patriots were the villains. They were the undefeated and undefeatable juggernaut. They were every antagonist from every sports movie...ever! They were destined to lose. Karma wouldn't let them win.
Karma wouldn't let them join the 1972 Dolphins, those bunch of pricks who get together to drink champagne when the last undefeated team loses and announce that they are still the only residents in the Perfect Season Neighborhood. Never mind that they are the only team in that illustrious neighborhood because the NFL doesn't recognize its predecessors. The AFL had a perfect team in the Los Angeles Bulldogs. In the All-American Football Conference, the 1948 Cleveland Browns, (Remember them? They're now the Baltimore Ravens because Art Modell screwed the city of Cleveland back in the 90s.) had a perfect season but isn't recognized by the modern NFL because not all the teams from the AAFC were absorbed into the NFL. So one of the more storied franchises of the current NFL can't count its history in football before the NFL.
Then again, maybe the previous perfect season winners somehow angered what/who Gregg Easterbrook calls "The Football Gods," or what I call "Karma."
Monday, August 1, 2011
Mmmm, Crow and WTF Mariners?
In one of my first posts, I thought that Derek Jeter should step aside and let the backups get some time and see how they improve. Jeter went on the DL and his backups got their playing time. They've actually been getting time between giving Jeter, Rodriguez, and Cano breaks. They aren't doing as well as The Captain.
Yes, Jeter is still performing at lower than Jeter numbers, but maybe this is because early Jeter numbers were spoiling Yankees fans. He is still productive in the Yankee lineup. He has started to even show some more range in the outfield. The pride of the Yankees has long been that there is no one that you want to pitch to. You don't walk one guy to get to the next one, because that can hurt you just as badly. In this lineup, Jeter is tied for 4th in hits. The three people ahead of him, Cano, Granderson, and Texiera, have played 21, 20, and 21 more games respectively, than Jeter. They have 59, 39, and 47 more at bats, respectively. Jeter is hanging with his teammates in doubles. He is last out of regular starters in strikeouts. Homerun/extra base machine, Curtis Granderson has Jeter more than doubled up on SO's with 115.
He is still the face of the franchise and has kept a squeaky clean rep. Fans love him and he is a great leader for the team. There is still a strong argument for The Captain to keep playing. I'll go with it for now.
On to the Mariners. Who have apparently written off this season after their record setting 17 game losing streak. At the trade deadline, the Mariners have gutted their starting rotation in exchange for prospects (minor leaguers). Their pitching was what had them in contention in the first place before the losing streak! Their pitching is what kept most of those games at least close! They have gutted their staff for more pitchers. What they needed was offense. Ichiro is having a season akin to Jeter's. He has lost a step. He is no longer getting the in-field hits because he can't outrun the throws anymore. The problem is that for years, Ichiro drove the offense. Now, the Mariners have no offense. They weren't getting any run support for the pitchers they just sent to other teams. How did these conversations go down?
"Hey, great job at the beginning of the year, Bedard. You've really pitched well. It's a shame you didn't get the run support you needed to get more wins. There's good news though with the trades we've made."
"You've traded for some offensive players who have a batting average higher than their shoe size?" (Seriously, why the hell is Figgins still starting? And have you seen Olivo's batting average?...Has anyone seen Olivo's batting average?)
"No, we're sending you to the Red Sox. We're saving ourselves money on the rest of the season by getting minor leaguers for you."
"But you're not improving the team this season, nor are you even getting solutions for the problems you're having."
"We know, but hey, between trading you and Fister, look how much money we saved."
Look at the empty seats. You are out of contention. This has continued since the early 2000s. The Mariners celebrated the 10 year anniversary of their record setting 116 wins. It was the last time the Mariners were relevant. Since then they have traded any good player not named "Ichiro" away. They had a great rotation this year. It was a rotation that they could build on. Pitchers don't have many dominant years, but the Mariners' pitching staff were young and showed signs of melding into a great staff that probably could give the vaunted Phillies a run for their money in the future. All they needed was an offense. Now, they need pitching, too. How in the world was trading Fister and Bedard a good idea? Thank God they didn't trade Hernandez, too!
Scrolling through stats of the Mariners and now former Mariners and looking at the earned runs by their pitching staff, it is a killer to see so many 1s in games that were losses. Your starting pitcher gives you 6-7 innings of 1 run ball and you lose? Consistently?? AND NOW YOU TRADE SAID PITCHERS?
This is what I don't get about teams. "We wanted to trade him to a contender." BOTH TEAMS YOU MADE TRADES WITH, Boston and Detroit, ARE IN THE AMERICAN LEAGUE. YOU MADE TWO RIVALS STRONGER!! IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE STUPID TRADES DO IT WITH THE LEAGUE YOU DON'T PLAY AGAINST! Why trade good players to a contender? So the contender can cut some dead wood and get better? Out of some loyalty to the player wanting to win? Be selfish bastards! You could both win in the end. We decided to keep him and not trade him to a contender so that next year we could be contenders ourselves and he could play for a contender here.
Yes, Jeter is still performing at lower than Jeter numbers, but maybe this is because early Jeter numbers were spoiling Yankees fans. He is still productive in the Yankee lineup. He has started to even show some more range in the outfield. The pride of the Yankees has long been that there is no one that you want to pitch to. You don't walk one guy to get to the next one, because that can hurt you just as badly. In this lineup, Jeter is tied for 4th in hits. The three people ahead of him, Cano, Granderson, and Texiera, have played 21, 20, and 21 more games respectively, than Jeter. They have 59, 39, and 47 more at bats, respectively. Jeter is hanging with his teammates in doubles. He is last out of regular starters in strikeouts. Homerun/extra base machine, Curtis Granderson has Jeter more than doubled up on SO's with 115.
He is still the face of the franchise and has kept a squeaky clean rep. Fans love him and he is a great leader for the team. There is still a strong argument for The Captain to keep playing. I'll go with it for now.
On to the Mariners. Who have apparently written off this season after their record setting 17 game losing streak. At the trade deadline, the Mariners have gutted their starting rotation in exchange for prospects (minor leaguers). Their pitching was what had them in contention in the first place before the losing streak! Their pitching is what kept most of those games at least close! They have gutted their staff for more pitchers. What they needed was offense. Ichiro is having a season akin to Jeter's. He has lost a step. He is no longer getting the in-field hits because he can't outrun the throws anymore. The problem is that for years, Ichiro drove the offense. Now, the Mariners have no offense. They weren't getting any run support for the pitchers they just sent to other teams. How did these conversations go down?
"Hey, great job at the beginning of the year, Bedard. You've really pitched well. It's a shame you didn't get the run support you needed to get more wins. There's good news though with the trades we've made."
"You've traded for some offensive players who have a batting average higher than their shoe size?" (Seriously, why the hell is Figgins still starting? And have you seen Olivo's batting average?...Has anyone seen Olivo's batting average?)
"No, we're sending you to the Red Sox. We're saving ourselves money on the rest of the season by getting minor leaguers for you."
"But you're not improving the team this season, nor are you even getting solutions for the problems you're having."
"We know, but hey, between trading you and Fister, look how much money we saved."
Look at the empty seats. You are out of contention. This has continued since the early 2000s. The Mariners celebrated the 10 year anniversary of their record setting 116 wins. It was the last time the Mariners were relevant. Since then they have traded any good player not named "Ichiro" away. They had a great rotation this year. It was a rotation that they could build on. Pitchers don't have many dominant years, but the Mariners' pitching staff were young and showed signs of melding into a great staff that probably could give the vaunted Phillies a run for their money in the future. All they needed was an offense. Now, they need pitching, too. How in the world was trading Fister and Bedard a good idea? Thank God they didn't trade Hernandez, too!
Scrolling through stats of the Mariners and now former Mariners and looking at the earned runs by their pitching staff, it is a killer to see so many 1s in games that were losses. Your starting pitcher gives you 6-7 innings of 1 run ball and you lose? Consistently?? AND NOW YOU TRADE SAID PITCHERS?
This is what I don't get about teams. "We wanted to trade him to a contender." BOTH TEAMS YOU MADE TRADES WITH, Boston and Detroit, ARE IN THE AMERICAN LEAGUE. YOU MADE TWO RIVALS STRONGER!! IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE STUPID TRADES DO IT WITH THE LEAGUE YOU DON'T PLAY AGAINST! Why trade good players to a contender? So the contender can cut some dead wood and get better? Out of some loyalty to the player wanting to win? Be selfish bastards! You could both win in the end. We decided to keep him and not trade him to a contender so that next year we could be contenders ourselves and he could play for a contender here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)