In a game that had just eight base hits, it came down to a bases-loaded walk and a sacrifice fly to give the Saratoga Stampede a 2-0 victory over Waterford at Geyser Park on Thursday.
Stampede starting pitcher Ed Reilly remained perfect, as his record improved to 4-0 on the season, and he was quite impressive in the process, needing just 80 pitches to earn his fourth win and fourth complete game in four starts.
“Reilly has been lights out…unhittable,” Stampede head coach Paul Mound said after the game.
While Reilly was cruising, his counterpart, Waterford starter Chris Burns, was matching him inning after scoreless inning, until Saratoga broke through with the game’s only two runs in the bottom of the fifth.
Stampede catcher Noah Poissant led off the home fifth with a walk. After Reilly was hit by a pitch, shortstop Andy Brown laid down a perfect bunt for an infield single to load the bases.
Kenny Recore then battled through a 12-pitch at-bat, and when it was over, he earned the free pass, picking up the RBI as Poissant scored and giving the Stampede a 1-0 lead.
With the bases still loaded two batters later, third baseman Matt Kelley drove a pitch to deep left field, scoring Reilly on the sacrifice for a 2-0 Saratoga advantage.
That was all the Reilly needed, as he scattered five hits while helping his club lift its record to 22-4 on the year.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Triple the Teams, Triple the Success
The summer baseball is under way, and that means that it’s time for the Saratoga Stampede to make their bid for a New York State Championship.
This year is a little different than previous seasons, as the Stampede organization is fielding not just one, not two, but three different teams for the summer of 2008.
As if Manager Paul Mound, one of Saratoga’s busiest men to begin with, doesn’t have enough on his plate, he has kicked it up a notch this year by adding two brand new clubs.
In addition to the 19-and-under American Legion squad, Mound has added a 16-and-under junior Stampede team as well as a 22-and-under wood-bat club.
The Stampede has a unique support system, as several of the players play on the Legion team as well as the wood-bat team, and several players from both squads can be found supporting their organizational mates from the other Stampede clubs by attending their games.
All three teams have found success in the early going this year, as the college team holds a record of 16-2, the Legion club boasts an undefeated record of 9-0, and the junior team’s record is 9-3.
Mound spoke of why he decided to expand his workload threefold.
“Essentially, I felt that there was a two-fold need in our community to give younger players in Saratoga a chance to play legion baseball, which was requested of us by the American legion organization itself. They’re trying to get all of their senior legion franchises to establish junior legion franchises,” said Mound.
That wasn’t what motivated him, though.
“What principally motivated me to begin a junior legion team was my involvement coaching young players at Spa Catholic,” said the Saints’ junior varsity coach. “The talent that I have seen at Spa Catholic, coupled with the talent that I knew existed at Saratoga high school made establishing a junior legion program a natural because it gives us a true legion feeder program to our very successful senior legion team.
The senior team is currently ranked sixth in New York State.
Mound is also using the junior team to gauge his expectations for when they move up to the senior squad.
“I’m very anxious to see outfielder Kyle Willmott, shortstop/pitcher Billy McDonough, infielder/pitcher Dylan Anderson, left handed pitcher Jordan Stubblebine, catcher Jack Keller, who was a freshman starting catcher for the Spa Catholic varsity team, as well a infielder Dale Long, and many, many others whose future makes the senior Stampede program very, very bright.”
Mound is excited for his teams’ success, but is possibly more excited about the opportunity that the new clubs allow for the youths of Saratoga Springs.
“Although the workload is intense, it allows 50-plus players to participate in Stampede baseball in 2008, with a record of achievement as dictated by their combined 36 win, 5 loss season so far,” said Mound.
With all of the Stampede teams having stellar seasons, it makes Mound’s labor of love that much easier, and the overall future of the program looks very, very bright.
This year is a little different than previous seasons, as the Stampede organization is fielding not just one, not two, but three different teams for the summer of 2008.
As if Manager Paul Mound, one of Saratoga’s busiest men to begin with, doesn’t have enough on his plate, he has kicked it up a notch this year by adding two brand new clubs.
In addition to the 19-and-under American Legion squad, Mound has added a 16-and-under junior Stampede team as well as a 22-and-under wood-bat club.
The Stampede has a unique support system, as several of the players play on the Legion team as well as the wood-bat team, and several players from both squads can be found supporting their organizational mates from the other Stampede clubs by attending their games.
All three teams have found success in the early going this year, as the college team holds a record of 16-2, the Legion club boasts an undefeated record of 9-0, and the junior team’s record is 9-3.
Mound spoke of why he decided to expand his workload threefold.
“Essentially, I felt that there was a two-fold need in our community to give younger players in Saratoga a chance to play legion baseball, which was requested of us by the American legion organization itself. They’re trying to get all of their senior legion franchises to establish junior legion franchises,” said Mound.
That wasn’t what motivated him, though.
“What principally motivated me to begin a junior legion team was my involvement coaching young players at Spa Catholic,” said the Saints’ junior varsity coach. “The talent that I have seen at Spa Catholic, coupled with the talent that I knew existed at Saratoga high school made establishing a junior legion program a natural because it gives us a true legion feeder program to our very successful senior legion team.
The senior team is currently ranked sixth in New York State.
Mound is also using the junior team to gauge his expectations for when they move up to the senior squad.
“I’m very anxious to see outfielder Kyle Willmott, shortstop/pitcher Billy McDonough, infielder/pitcher Dylan Anderson, left handed pitcher Jordan Stubblebine, catcher Jack Keller, who was a freshman starting catcher for the Spa Catholic varsity team, as well a infielder Dale Long, and many, many others whose future makes the senior Stampede program very, very bright.”
Mound is excited for his teams’ success, but is possibly more excited about the opportunity that the new clubs allow for the youths of Saratoga Springs.
“Although the workload is intense, it allows 50-plus players to participate in Stampede baseball in 2008, with a record of achievement as dictated by their combined 36 win, 5 loss season so far,” said Mound.
With all of the Stampede teams having stellar seasons, it makes Mound’s labor of love that much easier, and the overall future of the program looks very, very bright.
A Stampede That Can't be Stopped
The Saratoga 22-and-under college wood-bat team continues to win, even though they’re not exactly burning up their wooden bats.
With a record of 16-2, the Stampede has managed to win 16 of 17 games since their opening-day road loss to the Tri-County Bees.
Even though Saratoga still hasn’t found its groove yet with the wooden clubs, manager Paul Mound has been able to guide his team to victory by enhancing other aspects of their games, such as pitching, defense, and taking advantage of the other team’s mistakes.
For example, last Tuesday night the Stampede defeated the P.N.A. Eagles by a score of 9-5, but they managed just seven base hits. The Stampede won by taking advantage of P.N.A.’s three errors, as well as the nine bases-on-balls from the Eagles’ pitching staff.
Saratoga plated a pair of runs in the bottom of the second inning when Eagles starting pitcher Will LaRose walked two of the first three batters in the inning.
In the second, the Stampede scored their third run thanks to a leadoff error by P.N.A. second baseman Dan Conley. The error landed Saratoga catcher Kenny Recore at second base, and then he went to third on a wild pitch. He would score two batters later when Neil Callahan grounded out to third.
Saratoga added another run the following inning when it looked like they were going to be sent down in order.
After Ryan Washburn and Andy Brown struck out, back-to-back walks put runners on first and second. A passed ball moved the runners up a base, and then a wild pitch plated Bobby Murphy.
The Stampede scored five more runs over the next two innings on just four hits. Again they preyed on the weakness of their foes, as they made use of five walks, mixing them in with a couple of hits to drive home three of the walked batters.
Saratoga did get a taste of its own medicine, however, as P.N.A. scored five unearned runs in the top of the fifth inning off of two Stampede errors to take a then 5-4 lead. But Saratoga starting pitcher and Skidmore College product Ed Reilly sucked it up and held on for the complete-game win, raising his record to 3-0 on the year. Similarly, the Stampede scored nine runs on only six base hits against Ravena last Monday, they scored 14 runs on just eight hits against Niskayuna on June 7, and they plated four runs on three hits against the Tri-County Bees on June 5.
Mound is confident that his team’s batting average will improve as the season goes on.
“Early on the adjustment that is made between hitting wood and aluminum is huge,” said Mound. “No Matter what type of hitter you are, you have to make a major adjustment from metal back to wood bats.”
The Stampede is beginning to make the necessary adjustments needed to win games.
“We’re hitting the ball on the screws right now,” said Mound. “Every ball that they’re hitting, they’re hitting hard. Once they made the adjustment to where the sweet spot is, the team batting average was raised by 70 points, from .200 to .270 as a team.”
When asked if he could name one player who could help the club significantly once he got hot with the wood bats, Mound did not hesitate to answer.
“Without a doubt, when Matt Kelley makes his adjustments, he’s capable of carrying a team solely on his back,” said Mound. “We’re also getting offensive contribution right now from Kenny Recore, Andy Brown, and Bobby Murphy.
Mound also spoke of Dan Randall, who has been Saratoga’s best hitter this far.
“Dan Randall has been consistent from day one with wood in his hands. He is probably one of the most feared hitters in our league, regardless of having wood or metal in his hands,” said the coach.
However, during this “slump”, it has been the Stampede’s pitching that has kept them in the win column.
Ed Reilly, Skidmore College’s ace, is undefeated at 3-0. The southpaw did a great job of keeping his composure as he surrendered five unearned runs last Tuesday night while holding on for the complete-game win.
“We’ve had consistent performances up and down our rotation,” Mound said. “We’ve gotten some solid performances out of Kevin Gent, as well as Travis Wilson. For that matter, Matt Kelley and Ryan Washburn would be indicative of our team’s 0.85 earned run average.”
Whether they start to hit the ball or not, the Stampede is still doing all the little things right that equate to wins: good defense, solid pitching, and taking advantage of the gifts that the opposition gives you.
Maybe that’s why their record is 16-2.
With a record of 16-2, the Stampede has managed to win 16 of 17 games since their opening-day road loss to the Tri-County Bees.
Even though Saratoga still hasn’t found its groove yet with the wooden clubs, manager Paul Mound has been able to guide his team to victory by enhancing other aspects of their games, such as pitching, defense, and taking advantage of the other team’s mistakes.
For example, last Tuesday night the Stampede defeated the P.N.A. Eagles by a score of 9-5, but they managed just seven base hits. The Stampede won by taking advantage of P.N.A.’s three errors, as well as the nine bases-on-balls from the Eagles’ pitching staff.
Saratoga plated a pair of runs in the bottom of the second inning when Eagles starting pitcher Will LaRose walked two of the first three batters in the inning.
In the second, the Stampede scored their third run thanks to a leadoff error by P.N.A. second baseman Dan Conley. The error landed Saratoga catcher Kenny Recore at second base, and then he went to third on a wild pitch. He would score two batters later when Neil Callahan grounded out to third.
Saratoga added another run the following inning when it looked like they were going to be sent down in order.
After Ryan Washburn and Andy Brown struck out, back-to-back walks put runners on first and second. A passed ball moved the runners up a base, and then a wild pitch plated Bobby Murphy.
The Stampede scored five more runs over the next two innings on just four hits. Again they preyed on the weakness of their foes, as they made use of five walks, mixing them in with a couple of hits to drive home three of the walked batters.
Saratoga did get a taste of its own medicine, however, as P.N.A. scored five unearned runs in the top of the fifth inning off of two Stampede errors to take a then 5-4 lead. But Saratoga starting pitcher and Skidmore College product Ed Reilly sucked it up and held on for the complete-game win, raising his record to 3-0 on the year. Similarly, the Stampede scored nine runs on only six base hits against Ravena last Monday, they scored 14 runs on just eight hits against Niskayuna on June 7, and they plated four runs on three hits against the Tri-County Bees on June 5.
Mound is confident that his team’s batting average will improve as the season goes on.
“Early on the adjustment that is made between hitting wood and aluminum is huge,” said Mound. “No Matter what type of hitter you are, you have to make a major adjustment from metal back to wood bats.”
The Stampede is beginning to make the necessary adjustments needed to win games.
“We’re hitting the ball on the screws right now,” said Mound. “Every ball that they’re hitting, they’re hitting hard. Once they made the adjustment to where the sweet spot is, the team batting average was raised by 70 points, from .200 to .270 as a team.”
When asked if he could name one player who could help the club significantly once he got hot with the wood bats, Mound did not hesitate to answer.
“Without a doubt, when Matt Kelley makes his adjustments, he’s capable of carrying a team solely on his back,” said Mound. “We’re also getting offensive contribution right now from Kenny Recore, Andy Brown, and Bobby Murphy.
Mound also spoke of Dan Randall, who has been Saratoga’s best hitter this far.
“Dan Randall has been consistent from day one with wood in his hands. He is probably one of the most feared hitters in our league, regardless of having wood or metal in his hands,” said the coach.
However, during this “slump”, it has been the Stampede’s pitching that has kept them in the win column.
Ed Reilly, Skidmore College’s ace, is undefeated at 3-0. The southpaw did a great job of keeping his composure as he surrendered five unearned runs last Tuesday night while holding on for the complete-game win.
“We’ve had consistent performances up and down our rotation,” Mound said. “We’ve gotten some solid performances out of Kevin Gent, as well as Travis Wilson. For that matter, Matt Kelley and Ryan Washburn would be indicative of our team’s 0.85 earned run average.”
Whether they start to hit the ball or not, the Stampede is still doing all the little things right that equate to wins: good defense, solid pitching, and taking advantage of the gifts that the opposition gives you.
Maybe that’s why their record is 16-2.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Mercy Rule Needed in High School
As a sports clerk for the Saratogian newspaper here in upstate New York, one of my main duties is to collect game results, mostly high school and college sports, via the E-mail, the fax machine, or from a phone call from a coach. I gather the data that is provided, and from that data I write short stories to bring you, the reader, the best game synopsis that I can, given three or four paragraphs.
As many of you may or may not know, there are several rule differences when you compare amateur-level sports to the professional ranks. In most amateur baseball and softball leagues, there is something known as the "Mercy Rule". The mercy rule generally states that depending on how many innings a full game is, if a team is ahead by 10 or 15 runs, the game is called to spare the losers any more embarrassment.
For instance, in a little league game that is scheduled for five innings, if a team is ahead by 10 or 15 runs after the third inning, after the losing team bats, the game is called. Children need to be spared their dignity, and spectators need to be spared the boredom, and rightfully so on both counts.
With that said, I learned yet another rule in high school sports (it has been so long since I played at that level that I have forgotten many of the nuances in the rule differences).
In high school, there is a mercy rule for girls' softball. In a seven inning game, the rule would take effect after the fifth inning. There is no such rule for boys' baseball.
The county where I live is in Section II. As in many counties and Sections, there are large schools and small schools. Being a native of New York City, a large school here would be considered a small school in the Big Apple.
In a large school there are tryouts for the sports teams, and you have to earn a place on the squad. In smaller schools, it's all that the coaches can do to round up enough recruits to field a team. This was the case between two Section II teams that played baseball last Tuesday night.
Galway High School, a school so small that its baseball team consists of just 10 players, hosted Northville, a school of similar size. What happened in that game should never happen to a high school player.
The Galway Eagles defeated the Northville Falcons by a score of 38-0. Since the scheduled seven innings must be played in its entirety according to high school rules, there was no stopping the beating that Galway laid upon Northville.
The Eagles scored several runs in the first two innings, and then exploded for 12 runs in the third. That gave them a 16-0 lead, and by the fifth inning, when the lead was increased to 24-0, the game should have been called. Since Northville was the visiting team, the game sould have been stopped due to the mercy rule in the middle of the fifth inning.
However, there is no said rule, the game was required to be played in its entirety, and the Falcons of Northville were bound by rule to take a beating that no team should be forced to endure. Especially when it involves young athletes who can have their confidence severely shaken after such a lopsided affair, possibly to the extent that they never recover.
There was a second game with a similar outcome on the same night. Waterford-Halfmoon defeated Hadley-Luzerne by a score of 27-4.
Waterford opened the game with three runs in the first inning. Hadley responded with a run in the bottom of the second to make it 3-1, but then Waterford answered with a 12-run third. Four more runs in the fourth made it a 19-1 game.
In the fifth, Waterford scored 2 more to go up 21-1, and then Hadley plated three to make the score 21-4 after five innings. The game should have been stopped at that point.
What is the rationale for making these teams suffer such humiliating defeats? Is it necessary for high school kids to be ashamed of themselves, their schools, and their teammates for being beaten by 30-some-odd runs? Is that supposed to build character? I don't think so.
Put yourself in the position of being part of a baseball team that was so small that you knew, as a starting pitcher, that there was no way that you were working less than five innings, no matter how badly you were hit or how many runs you gave up.
Can you imagine surrendering 20 or 30 runs simply because there was no one else to pitch?
I spoke to the Galway coach that night. His team was the winning team, and he only had 10 players. He had no bench players to replace starters that had terrific games. He had no choice but to play all of his players until the game was over.
He told me that as the winning coach that the game was painful to watch.
I won't reveal exactly what he told me that he did, but let's just say that he advised a player on the other team. The player took the advice, but he still didn't make the play, scoring more runs for the winning team.
I have been involved in baseball as a player, a radio announcer, and a writer for more than 35 years. Never, in all of my experience, has a 30-run annihilation been a part of the spirit of baseball.
It leaves a bade taste in your mouth. This is not healthy competition, or even an easy game for the winners. It's hard. It's hard for the coaches, the spectators, the parents, and most of all, the winners and losers, or the players. And, after all, isn't that what the game is all about?
We need a mercy rule in high school baseball. If we, as a community, are going to support amateur sports, as we should for so many reasons, we should be advocating healthy competition.
In football, they score in seven-point increments (for the most part). To lose 38-0 in football would be an embarrassment. To lose 38-0 in baseball, where you score one run at a time, is an absolute atrocity.
If it happened at the pro level, that would be ugly enough. For it to happen to teenagers is simply unnecessary.
We need a mercy rule in high school baseball. The kids don't need to be embarrassed like this.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
NHL: Detroit Tandem the Best
The National Hockey League is filled with great talent between the pipes, and you may argue who is the best goalie, whether it be Brodeur from New Jersey, DiPietro from the Islanders, Lundqvuist from the Rangers, or Miller from the Sabres in the East; or San Jose's Nabokov, Anaheim's Giguere, or Hasek from the Red Wings in the West, but theres' no doubt as to who the best goaltending tandem in the NHL is: Chris Osgood and Dominik Hasek of the Detroit Red Wings.
Since they split their playing time fairly even in Detroit, it's tough for either one of them to be on the league leader's list for wins, but they both have impressive numbers, with Osgood boasting a 23-7 record in 33 games, and Hasek's record standing at 19-7 in 30 games.
But what's even more outstanding is that the two netminders are currently ranked first and second in the league in the goals-against-average department, and that stat is a truer measuring bar because the amount of games played does not affect the statistic.
Hasek is ranked No. 1 in the league with a 2.07 goals against, while Osgood stands in the two-hole at 2.11.
Obviously they have a lot of help from their amazing defensemen, namely veterans Nicklas Lidstrom, Chris Chelios, and Brian Rafalski, but yet these stats show that Hasek and Osgood are still on top of their games.
Some people thought that Hasek may have been done when he retired a couple of years ago, and even more thought that Osgood's best days were behind him when he left the Motor City for Long Island.
Osgood has some incredibly impressive career numbers, as well. This season, he owns a GAA of 2.11, and if it holds up it would be the best of his career.
Also, Osgood, now in his 14th NHL campaign, has never had a GAA higher than 2.86 in any season he has played. His goals-against has been below 2.4 in three of his last four years, and his 23 wins this season is the most for Osgood since he won 31 for the St. Louis Blues in the 2003-'04 season.
He's been a little shaky since the All-Star break, but I would expect Chris Osgood to return to the form that he has been showing all season long.
As for Hasek, what more needs to be said about a man who has more than 380 career wins, 80 shutouts, and a career goals-against of 2.20.
And this season, with his GAA at 2.07, Hasek is making a statement that he has not lost a step and he plans to be around for a while.
There's an old saying in hockey that a goalie that gets hot in the playoffs can be ridden to a championship. Many teams have a good goalie, even a great one. Some even have a formidable backup. But no team has the 1-2 punch that the Red Wings have, and that can be scary for the rest of the NHL come April and May.
Since they split their playing time fairly even in Detroit, it's tough for either one of them to be on the league leader's list for wins, but they both have impressive numbers, with Osgood boasting a 23-7 record in 33 games, and Hasek's record standing at 19-7 in 30 games.
But what's even more outstanding is that the two netminders are currently ranked first and second in the league in the goals-against-average department, and that stat is a truer measuring bar because the amount of games played does not affect the statistic.
Hasek is ranked No. 1 in the league with a 2.07 goals against, while Osgood stands in the two-hole at 2.11.
Obviously they have a lot of help from their amazing defensemen, namely veterans Nicklas Lidstrom, Chris Chelios, and Brian Rafalski, but yet these stats show that Hasek and Osgood are still on top of their games.
Some people thought that Hasek may have been done when he retired a couple of years ago, and even more thought that Osgood's best days were behind him when he left the Motor City for Long Island.
Osgood has some incredibly impressive career numbers, as well. This season, he owns a GAA of 2.11, and if it holds up it would be the best of his career.
Also, Osgood, now in his 14th NHL campaign, has never had a GAA higher than 2.86 in any season he has played. His goals-against has been below 2.4 in three of his last four years, and his 23 wins this season is the most for Osgood since he won 31 for the St. Louis Blues in the 2003-'04 season.
He's been a little shaky since the All-Star break, but I would expect Chris Osgood to return to the form that he has been showing all season long.
As for Hasek, what more needs to be said about a man who has more than 380 career wins, 80 shutouts, and a career goals-against of 2.20.
And this season, with his GAA at 2.07, Hasek is making a statement that he has not lost a step and he plans to be around for a while.
There's an old saying in hockey that a goalie that gets hot in the playoffs can be ridden to a championship. Many teams have a good goalie, even a great one. Some even have a formidable backup. But no team has the 1-2 punch that the Red Wings have, and that can be scary for the rest of the NHL come April and May.
NHL: Islanders are League's Hottest Club
Earlier in the National Hockey League season I wrote about how, at the time, the Atlantic Division was the best team in the league, and I had the stats to back up my claim.
Now, not only does that statement still hold true (just check the standings), but the hottest team in the entire National Hockey League is the New York Islanders, who sit in last place in the Atlantic, and 10th overall in the Eastern Conference.
The Islanders are winners of five straight games, and going into tonight's battle against the Tampa Bay Lightning at the Nassau Collisuem, New york owns a record of 29-25-7 and they have 65 points.
Even more impressively, since their first game of the calendar year, New York lost seven games in a row, nine of 10, and 14 of 18 contests before the current five-game winning streak.
The Chicago Black Hawks, in the Central Division of the Western Conference, are the next-best cellar-dwelling team in the NHL with a 28-26-6 record and 62 points. The Hawks are off tonight.
It hasn't been pretty, as the Islanders have outscored their opponents only 19-12 during the streak, but New York is doing the little things that they need to do to win.
In goal, Rick DiPietro has allowed just five goals in his last three games, which has more than put his club in a position to win.
Mike Comrie and Bill Guerin have done the bulk of the scoring, with Comrie putting up 18 goals and Guerin with 19. Perhaps even Miro Satan, who has been dormant for much of the season, may be waking up, as he now has two goals in his last three games for 13 on the season.
There is a tie for the seventh, eighth, and ninth positions in the East, with Boston, Philadelphia, and Buffalo all sitting at 66 points.
This should be a great second half to the Eastern Conference's second half of the season, with all of these teams throwing down for the final two or three playoff spots in the conference.
The Bruins have the advantage of the four teams, as they have only played 59 games as they trail the Florida Panthers by a 1-0 score with eight minutes left in the first period. The Flyers and the Sabres have both played 60 games, and they are both playing tonight.
Buffalo is at Toronto and holds a 1-0 first-period lead, and Philly trails the Sharks at home by a 1-0 score after one. The Islanders and Tampa are scoreless after one, with New York holding a 15-10 shots advantage.
There's a lot of hockey left to be played in the regular season, and the race to the playoffs in the East should have a very entertaining finish.
Now, not only does that statement still hold true (just check the standings), but the hottest team in the entire National Hockey League is the New York Islanders, who sit in last place in the Atlantic, and 10th overall in the Eastern Conference.
The Islanders are winners of five straight games, and going into tonight's battle against the Tampa Bay Lightning at the Nassau Collisuem, New york owns a record of 29-25-7 and they have 65 points.
Even more impressively, since their first game of the calendar year, New York lost seven games in a row, nine of 10, and 14 of 18 contests before the current five-game winning streak.
The Chicago Black Hawks, in the Central Division of the Western Conference, are the next-best cellar-dwelling team in the NHL with a 28-26-6 record and 62 points. The Hawks are off tonight.
It hasn't been pretty, as the Islanders have outscored their opponents only 19-12 during the streak, but New York is doing the little things that they need to do to win.
In goal, Rick DiPietro has allowed just five goals in his last three games, which has more than put his club in a position to win.
Mike Comrie and Bill Guerin have done the bulk of the scoring, with Comrie putting up 18 goals and Guerin with 19. Perhaps even Miro Satan, who has been dormant for much of the season, may be waking up, as he now has two goals in his last three games for 13 on the season.
There is a tie for the seventh, eighth, and ninth positions in the East, with Boston, Philadelphia, and Buffalo all sitting at 66 points.
This should be a great second half to the Eastern Conference's second half of the season, with all of these teams throwing down for the final two or three playoff spots in the conference.
The Bruins have the advantage of the four teams, as they have only played 59 games as they trail the Florida Panthers by a 1-0 score with eight minutes left in the first period. The Flyers and the Sabres have both played 60 games, and they are both playing tonight.
Buffalo is at Toronto and holds a 1-0 first-period lead, and Philly trails the Sharks at home by a 1-0 score after one. The Islanders and Tampa are scoreless after one, with New York holding a 15-10 shots advantage.
There's a lot of hockey left to be played in the regular season, and the race to the playoffs in the East should have a very entertaining finish.
Friday, February 15, 2008
MLB: One and Done is the Only Answer
If the Major League Baseball Player's Association wants anyone to take them seriously when it claims that they want to get rid of the steroid epidemic in their game, there is only one way to do it: baseball needs a policy of one strike and you're out, not three.
Under the current collective bargaining agreement, the first time a player fails a steroid test, he gets 50 games off. The next time, the penalty is more severe, 100 games. Only if a player fails the test three different times is his career then in jeopardy.
This agreement has got to go. All this did was appease the owners that there was some type of testing and consequenses in place.
Donald Fehr says that he and the players want to put an end to this problem.
I say that all of them need to put their money where their mouths are and institute a "one and done" policy.
Under the terms of this agreement, if a player fails a test for steroids or HGH JUST ONCE, he will be banned from baseball for life.
No "extra chances", no milking the system for as long as you can until you get busted a second time. You will take it seriously from the start, and you will know going into professional baseball that you only get one shot. Then, and only then, will players take each and every screening test seriously.
Of course, there will be room for error. Some people say that you can't do that because what if the test has been tampered with.
OK, I'll give you that, there is that possibility. But more than likely, that instance would only happen once. To think that a test could be botched twice on the same player is unrealistic. So, if a player's test turns up positive, he is to be called in IMMEDIATELY for another sample. If he's truly clean, the second test will reveal that result.
But, if a player comes up dirty a second time, that's it. He obviously is doing something wrong, and he should know that he tossed a multi-million dollar career out the window.
Let's face it folks, the public, the people who are paying the exorbitant ticket prices and buying all of the jerseys, T-shirts, jackets, hats, and everything else with their team's logo on it, deserve - and demand - to know that these players that they are coming out to see are not just playing by the rules, but by the law. Let's not forget that first and foremost, steroids and HGH are illegal, plain and simple. So, using them isn't just breaking a policy or a league rule, it's breaking the law.
The fans deserve better than this, and it's time that the league and the union got on the same page and showed the world that they are seriously doing something to eliminate the problem.
Under the current collective bargaining agreement, the first time a player fails a steroid test, he gets 50 games off. The next time, the penalty is more severe, 100 games. Only if a player fails the test three different times is his career then in jeopardy.
This agreement has got to go. All this did was appease the owners that there was some type of testing and consequenses in place.
Donald Fehr says that he and the players want to put an end to this problem.
I say that all of them need to put their money where their mouths are and institute a "one and done" policy.
Under the terms of this agreement, if a player fails a test for steroids or HGH JUST ONCE, he will be banned from baseball for life.
No "extra chances", no milking the system for as long as you can until you get busted a second time. You will take it seriously from the start, and you will know going into professional baseball that you only get one shot. Then, and only then, will players take each and every screening test seriously.
Of course, there will be room for error. Some people say that you can't do that because what if the test has been tampered with.
OK, I'll give you that, there is that possibility. But more than likely, that instance would only happen once. To think that a test could be botched twice on the same player is unrealistic. So, if a player's test turns up positive, he is to be called in IMMEDIATELY for another sample. If he's truly clean, the second test will reveal that result.
But, if a player comes up dirty a second time, that's it. He obviously is doing something wrong, and he should know that he tossed a multi-million dollar career out the window.
Let's face it folks, the public, the people who are paying the exorbitant ticket prices and buying all of the jerseys, T-shirts, jackets, hats, and everything else with their team's logo on it, deserve - and demand - to know that these players that they are coming out to see are not just playing by the rules, but by the law. Let's not forget that first and foremost, steroids and HGH are illegal, plain and simple. So, using them isn't just breaking a policy or a league rule, it's breaking the law.
The fans deserve better than this, and it's time that the league and the union got on the same page and showed the world that they are seriously doing something to eliminate the problem.
Clemens: Much ado About Nothing (for MLB)
Roger Clemens appeared before a congressional panel this past Wednesday in an attempt to clear his name in the whole Mitchell Report/steroids affair.
Few questions were answered in the four-hour long hearing, but perhaps some new questions were raised.
Right off the bat, Brian McNamee's credibility comes into question because of not only his part in this whole torrid situation, but because he lied on several occasions before the hearing or the Mitchell report.
McNamee presented "physical proof" that he injected Clemens by turning over a used syringe and some gauze that he believes will show that Clemens' DNA is on them.
To me, this only presents another question.
First of all, Clemens has already admitted to being shot up by McNamee, but the two differ on just what the substance was that was in the syringe. McNamee, of course, claims that it was steroids or human growth hormones. Clemens insists that it was a B-12 shot.
My question is even if they do find the DNA of Roger Clemens on the syringe or gauze, how does that prove what the needle contained? Unless there is some type of residue on the inside of the syringe, how can they prove that it was steroids? And, even if they do find steroid or HGH residue in the needle, who's to say that McNamee didn't plant the residue inside it? So, to me, the "proof" is really no proof at all.
The next question is where was Andy Pettite during this hearing? If Pettite does believe that Clemens admitted to him that he did something illegal, then why didn't McNamee's attorneys see to it that Pettite was there?
And, as Clemens suggests, if Pettite misinterpreted what was said during this conversation that the two of them had, why haven't Clemens and Pettite ironed out what was exactly said so that Pettite could have showed up in Roger's defense?
This is the most troubling question to me. With all that Clemens is going through to try to prove his innocense, wouldn't he want his best friend, a man that everyone involved agrees is an honest man, and would therefore be perhaps the most credible witness in this mess, there to help clear his name? To me, Pettite's testimony is the key to this whole circus.
Third, one of the congressmen held up a large poster-board that had pictures of Clemens throughout various stages of his career, and it was pretty much agreed upon that whether he was pitching for Toronto, the Yankees, or Houston, there was no obvious change in the build of Clemens' body.
To me (and others that were watching), that suggests that there was no steroid use in this time period, which was more than 10 years long.
Now, you could say that none of those pictures were from his Boston days. That is true, but if you consider that Roger Clemens built the bulk of his reputation, and had quite a good deal of success, with the Sox, that obviously it was talent, not steroids, that made him the pitcher that he was in those days.
I have yet another unanswered question. Roger Clemens has been pitching in the major leagues for more than 20 years. From what I have heard, there is somewhere between three and five different dates, or time periods, that are in question. Even if Clemens is guilty of taking something illegal on these dates that are in question, can those few instances be given the credit for a 20-plus year hall-of-fame career? I think not.
In Roger's defense, it has been well documented for years and years how much of a gym rat he is, and how much time he invests in working out. It has even been said that on days that he pitches, he spends an hour riding an exercise bike after the game.
And on top of all of this, he has given countless speaches to high school and college student-athletes where his message has been that there are no shortcuts to success, it's all about hard work, and that it has been proven that steroids will break your body down in the long run.
I think that if Roger Clemens was a 'roid head, he would have never achieved the success in baseball that he has, and his body certainly would not have stayed as strong as it has over the course of his career.
I'm not saying that Clemens is innocent, but there are a lot of reasons to believe him. And just one known liar that is trying to give us reasons not to.
And, through it all, what will all of this prove? What will be the penalties for those involved? As for now, if Clemens is lying, of course he could be facing perjury charges and jail time.
But, aside from that, from a baseball vantage point, what are the consequenses? Major League Baseball knows that it can't prosecute someone for doing something before it was against the rules. So, what does it all mean?
I think that even if they find Clemens took steroids, that there is little that MLB can or will do about it.
What Congress does about it is a different story.
Few questions were answered in the four-hour long hearing, but perhaps some new questions were raised.
Right off the bat, Brian McNamee's credibility comes into question because of not only his part in this whole torrid situation, but because he lied on several occasions before the hearing or the Mitchell report.
McNamee presented "physical proof" that he injected Clemens by turning over a used syringe and some gauze that he believes will show that Clemens' DNA is on them.
To me, this only presents another question.
First of all, Clemens has already admitted to being shot up by McNamee, but the two differ on just what the substance was that was in the syringe. McNamee, of course, claims that it was steroids or human growth hormones. Clemens insists that it was a B-12 shot.
My question is even if they do find the DNA of Roger Clemens on the syringe or gauze, how does that prove what the needle contained? Unless there is some type of residue on the inside of the syringe, how can they prove that it was steroids? And, even if they do find steroid or HGH residue in the needle, who's to say that McNamee didn't plant the residue inside it? So, to me, the "proof" is really no proof at all.
The next question is where was Andy Pettite during this hearing? If Pettite does believe that Clemens admitted to him that he did something illegal, then why didn't McNamee's attorneys see to it that Pettite was there?
And, as Clemens suggests, if Pettite misinterpreted what was said during this conversation that the two of them had, why haven't Clemens and Pettite ironed out what was exactly said so that Pettite could have showed up in Roger's defense?
This is the most troubling question to me. With all that Clemens is going through to try to prove his innocense, wouldn't he want his best friend, a man that everyone involved agrees is an honest man, and would therefore be perhaps the most credible witness in this mess, there to help clear his name? To me, Pettite's testimony is the key to this whole circus.
Third, one of the congressmen held up a large poster-board that had pictures of Clemens throughout various stages of his career, and it was pretty much agreed upon that whether he was pitching for Toronto, the Yankees, or Houston, there was no obvious change in the build of Clemens' body.
To me (and others that were watching), that suggests that there was no steroid use in this time period, which was more than 10 years long.
Now, you could say that none of those pictures were from his Boston days. That is true, but if you consider that Roger Clemens built the bulk of his reputation, and had quite a good deal of success, with the Sox, that obviously it was talent, not steroids, that made him the pitcher that he was in those days.
I have yet another unanswered question. Roger Clemens has been pitching in the major leagues for more than 20 years. From what I have heard, there is somewhere between three and five different dates, or time periods, that are in question. Even if Clemens is guilty of taking something illegal on these dates that are in question, can those few instances be given the credit for a 20-plus year hall-of-fame career? I think not.
In Roger's defense, it has been well documented for years and years how much of a gym rat he is, and how much time he invests in working out. It has even been said that on days that he pitches, he spends an hour riding an exercise bike after the game.
And on top of all of this, he has given countless speaches to high school and college student-athletes where his message has been that there are no shortcuts to success, it's all about hard work, and that it has been proven that steroids will break your body down in the long run.
I think that if Roger Clemens was a 'roid head, he would have never achieved the success in baseball that he has, and his body certainly would not have stayed as strong as it has over the course of his career.
I'm not saying that Clemens is innocent, but there are a lot of reasons to believe him. And just one known liar that is trying to give us reasons not to.
And, through it all, what will all of this prove? What will be the penalties for those involved? As for now, if Clemens is lying, of course he could be facing perjury charges and jail time.
But, aside from that, from a baseball vantage point, what are the consequenses? Major League Baseball knows that it can't prosecute someone for doing something before it was against the rules. So, what does it all mean?
I think that even if they find Clemens took steroids, that there is little that MLB can or will do about it.
What Congress does about it is a different story.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The 1972 Miami D(sgusting)olphins
I have been a sports fan for some 30-odd years now. In that time, I have seen many records in sports come and go.
I watched Hank Aaron hit home run No. 715 off of Al Downing of the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1975. I remember seeing the Pittsburgh Steelers win four Super Bowls - the first team to accomplish such a feat - until Joe Montana and the San Francisco 49ers came along and won five (not all five with Joe, of course). I saw Wayne Gretzky pass Gordie Howe as the all-time leading scorer in NHL history. Mark Maguire beat Roger Maris' record of 61 home runs in a single season. Emmitt Smith became the NFL's all-time leading rusher, passing one of my all-time favorites, Walter Payton. And, more recently, Barry Bonds surpassed Aaron by becoming the all-time home run king, steroids or not.
In watching many of these records about to fall, there has always been a common thread, especially in baseball.
Usually, the person whose record is about to be broken is on hand at the game to congratulate the new record-holder's accomplishment.
That, folks, is what sports is all about. It's about watching the younger, stronger, faster players that come into the game take over the record books.
Gordie Howe congratulated Gretzky when he broke Howe's long-time-standing record. The Maris family was in St. Louis, anticipating Maguire's new record, and they took part inthe celebration. Even Hank Aaron, who was more than a little stand-offish when Bonds was at the threshold of the record, finally took the high road and congratulated Bonds for his feat.
Then, there are the 1972 Miami Dolphins.
As an Oakland Raiders fan in the early 70's, Miami was a perennial playoff foe of Oakland's.
Back then, there were basically three powerhouses in the AFC that took turns representing the conference in the Super Bowl - Miami, Oakland, and the Pittsburgh Steelers.
With Franco Harris making the (illegal) immaculate reception to knock the Raiders out of the playoffs in my cousin's rookie season, the Steelers quickly became one of the teams that I would despise in the NFL.
Miami went on to defeat Pittsburgh and went to the Super Bowl, but for some reason I liked the Dolphins. I didn't hate them like I did the Steelers. I had respect for them, and I thoroughly liked Bob Griese, Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield and other players.
Being a New York sports fan, I very rarely root for any team from Boston. That's just life in major league sports between the two cities. We just don't like each other. There would have to be something pretty bad to make me root for a team from Boston.
Hence, we have the '72 Dolphins.
To go back to my point at the beginning of this piece, records are meant to be broken. And good sportsmanship suggests that the old welcomes in the new.
This '72 Miami club has provided us with the worst case of sportsmanship possible.
Instead of wishing luck to whatever team could match their record of an undefeated season, these crotchety old men - Nick Buoniconti, Mercury Morris, et al., sit around in their homes every season and follow the NFL until there is just one undefeated team left. At that point, they get together on Sundays at Buoniconti's house, or whoever's, maybe even Don Shula's, they put a bottle of champagne on ice, and root for the undefeated team to lose. Once the last undefeated team has lost, and Miami's perfect 17-0 record remains in tact, they pop the cork on the champagne and celebrate.
I guess these miserable old men have such empty lives that they feel that they would be worthless without the record. It's simply the most disgusting case of poor sportsmanship that I have ever witnessed out of so-called "professionals."
So, with the Giants struggling through much of the season, and with me having many doubts about how successful the 2007 campaign was going to be, I actually didn't mind the fact that a team from Boston was going for perfection. I just wanted some team, any team, to finally make that stupid bottle of bubbly go flat on those annoying old men.
Also, Giants fans hate the Cowboys. With Dallas looking as though they were going to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl, I started to root for the Patriots.
Of course, I wasn't rooting for them against Big Blue, but once they beat the G-men, I figured what the heck, let's see some history.
I am still riding on a high from the Giants' win last week. It's just surreal to me to think about the frustrations of not just starting 0-2, but nearly starting the season at 0-3. I think about the four picks against the Vikings, with three of them returned for touchdowns, and I can't believe that that is the team that took on the league's best and prevailed. They made history by preventing it, and they took down the closest team to perfection in 35 years.
That says quite a bit. They beat all of the odds, and all of the doubters. I couldn't be happier to see my team win the Super Bowl. It's just a shame that the greater Miami gray-hair-and-denture club will be chilling another bottler for next year. What a sickening display.
I watched Hank Aaron hit home run No. 715 off of Al Downing of the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1975. I remember seeing the Pittsburgh Steelers win four Super Bowls - the first team to accomplish such a feat - until Joe Montana and the San Francisco 49ers came along and won five (not all five with Joe, of course). I saw Wayne Gretzky pass Gordie Howe as the all-time leading scorer in NHL history. Mark Maguire beat Roger Maris' record of 61 home runs in a single season. Emmitt Smith became the NFL's all-time leading rusher, passing one of my all-time favorites, Walter Payton. And, more recently, Barry Bonds surpassed Aaron by becoming the all-time home run king, steroids or not.
In watching many of these records about to fall, there has always been a common thread, especially in baseball.
Usually, the person whose record is about to be broken is on hand at the game to congratulate the new record-holder's accomplishment.
That, folks, is what sports is all about. It's about watching the younger, stronger, faster players that come into the game take over the record books.
Gordie Howe congratulated Gretzky when he broke Howe's long-time-standing record. The Maris family was in St. Louis, anticipating Maguire's new record, and they took part inthe celebration. Even Hank Aaron, who was more than a little stand-offish when Bonds was at the threshold of the record, finally took the high road and congratulated Bonds for his feat.
Then, there are the 1972 Miami Dolphins.
As an Oakland Raiders fan in the early 70's, Miami was a perennial playoff foe of Oakland's.
Back then, there were basically three powerhouses in the AFC that took turns representing the conference in the Super Bowl - Miami, Oakland, and the Pittsburgh Steelers.
With Franco Harris making the (illegal) immaculate reception to knock the Raiders out of the playoffs in my cousin's rookie season, the Steelers quickly became one of the teams that I would despise in the NFL.
Miami went on to defeat Pittsburgh and went to the Super Bowl, but for some reason I liked the Dolphins. I didn't hate them like I did the Steelers. I had respect for them, and I thoroughly liked Bob Griese, Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield and other players.
Being a New York sports fan, I very rarely root for any team from Boston. That's just life in major league sports between the two cities. We just don't like each other. There would have to be something pretty bad to make me root for a team from Boston.
Hence, we have the '72 Dolphins.
To go back to my point at the beginning of this piece, records are meant to be broken. And good sportsmanship suggests that the old welcomes in the new.
This '72 Miami club has provided us with the worst case of sportsmanship possible.
Instead of wishing luck to whatever team could match their record of an undefeated season, these crotchety old men - Nick Buoniconti, Mercury Morris, et al., sit around in their homes every season and follow the NFL until there is just one undefeated team left. At that point, they get together on Sundays at Buoniconti's house, or whoever's, maybe even Don Shula's, they put a bottle of champagne on ice, and root for the undefeated team to lose. Once the last undefeated team has lost, and Miami's perfect 17-0 record remains in tact, they pop the cork on the champagne and celebrate.
I guess these miserable old men have such empty lives that they feel that they would be worthless without the record. It's simply the most disgusting case of poor sportsmanship that I have ever witnessed out of so-called "professionals."
So, with the Giants struggling through much of the season, and with me having many doubts about how successful the 2007 campaign was going to be, I actually didn't mind the fact that a team from Boston was going for perfection. I just wanted some team, any team, to finally make that stupid bottle of bubbly go flat on those annoying old men.
Also, Giants fans hate the Cowboys. With Dallas looking as though they were going to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl, I started to root for the Patriots.
Of course, I wasn't rooting for them against Big Blue, but once they beat the G-men, I figured what the heck, let's see some history.
I am still riding on a high from the Giants' win last week. It's just surreal to me to think about the frustrations of not just starting 0-2, but nearly starting the season at 0-3. I think about the four picks against the Vikings, with three of them returned for touchdowns, and I can't believe that that is the team that took on the league's best and prevailed. They made history by preventing it, and they took down the closest team to perfection in 35 years.
That says quite a bit. They beat all of the odds, and all of the doubters. I couldn't be happier to see my team win the Super Bowl. It's just a shame that the greater Miami gray-hair-and-denture club will be chilling another bottler for next year. What a sickening display.
Eli Hushes the Critics
Eli Manning has had to endure much criticism the last couple of years as the starting quarterback of the New York Giants.
New York football fans were content to give him a season or two to flourish, with most noting that big brother Peyton didn't exactly set the league on fire in his first season or two as a starter, either.
Peyton started full-time as a rookie in 1998 at 22 years old. First off, the '98 Colts had a better offensive line and a more solid coaching staff than the '04 Giants did for Eli.
Peyton went into the '98 season knowing he would be the starter, and in his first 16 games with the Colts, he threw 26 touchdowns, which is definitely impressive, especially for a rookie. But, he also threw 28 interceptions, which will kill a lot of scoring drives.
Eli began his rookie season on the bench behind starting quarterback Kurt Warner. After several games had already been played in the '04 season, Eli was thrown into the fire cold at 23 years old. He only threw six TD's, but he also threw just nine picks.
Peyton's numbers improved over the next few seasons, with his completion percentage continually rising, and his interceptions continually on the decline.
Eli's critics began to speak about his regression in '06, when he threw for fewer yards, the same amount of TD's (24), and one more INT than the previous year.
I can not say these things without adding that I was one of Eli's biggest critics.
I spoke openly about how he looked confused on the field, was not becoming the leader that the Giants need, and how basically he was costing the Giants football games.
With that said, let's just say that I'm glad that I am not the Giants General Manager.
Giants' management, whether it was the front office or the coaching staff, continued to believe in Eli, although there were many times that I wasn't quite sure why.
As we all saw, it was the right choice to make. Eli proved myself and a lot of others wrong when we called for his head. He stood tall through it all and stunned the world, literally, when he drove the Giants down field and threw what would be the winning touchdown of Super Bowl XLII, making history by stopping history, as the then 18-0 New England Patriots were finally defeated.
Unfortunately for the Pats, they are going to go down as probably the worst 18-1 NFL team ever. Because the one loss was the biggest game of the year - the game that should have been their coronation of a perfect season. Especially when you consider that the Patriots were not met by the NFC favorites. In fact, it was a Wild Card team, a team that had to go on the road and beat first Tampa Bay, and then on to the cities that were boasting the two best teams in the NFC: Dallas and Green Bay.
In the games against Dallas, Green Bay, and New England, the critics' picks were lopsided against New York each week.
Each week on ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS, most of the so-called "experts" picked the Giants to lose.
First, they said that the Cowboys were the best team in the conference.
Then, they said that it was Brett Favre's year. That with all of the records that he broke this year, and the fact that he took his team further than anyone would have guessed, suggested a win for the Pack, especially on the frozen tundra of Green Bay.
So, the season seemd to be on Favre's side. Throw in the week 2 game between the two teams where the Giants looked terrible at the Meadowlands and fell to 0-2, and it was basically a no-brainer that the Packers would win. Or, so one would have thought.
Instead, New York took the Packers to the brink, with the game being decided in overtime by the foot of Lawrence Tynes, another Giant who had his ups and downs this year.
The Super Bowl was the next stop for Eli and the boys. Again, few in the media gave the Giants any serious chance at all to win.
The Patriots were 18-0, and cruised through the season. They also beat New York in week 17, another point that was supposed to be in their favor.
It was supposed to be destiny for the Pats, the first time in 35 years that a team went into the Super Bowl with the chance to play an undefeated schedule.
To write a movie with those circumstances and have the Giants win the game, people wouldn't believe it. It wouldn't make a dime at the box office because it would be looked at as corny and predictable.
But Eli did just that. He watched his defense completely dominate what was supposed to be the best offense in the NFL, and make them look like a flag football team.
He moved his team strategically down the field, and even though they fell short a few times in the first half, when they should have been up by at least 14 points, Manning did not lose his confidence one bit.
Manning did what he had to do when he had to do it. He bounced back from a 14-10 deficit with less than three minutes remaining in the game and drove his team down the field for the winning touchdown.
Eli may have been inconsistent for some, or even most, of the season. But he played in the clutch so well, and produced such fantastic results, that he truly showed the mark of a champion.
Eli Manning is a Super Bowl champion and MVP, and that's enough to shut everyone's mouth.
New York football fans were content to give him a season or two to flourish, with most noting that big brother Peyton didn't exactly set the league on fire in his first season or two as a starter, either.
Peyton started full-time as a rookie in 1998 at 22 years old. First off, the '98 Colts had a better offensive line and a more solid coaching staff than the '04 Giants did for Eli.
Peyton went into the '98 season knowing he would be the starter, and in his first 16 games with the Colts, he threw 26 touchdowns, which is definitely impressive, especially for a rookie. But, he also threw 28 interceptions, which will kill a lot of scoring drives.
Eli began his rookie season on the bench behind starting quarterback Kurt Warner. After several games had already been played in the '04 season, Eli was thrown into the fire cold at 23 years old. He only threw six TD's, but he also threw just nine picks.
Peyton's numbers improved over the next few seasons, with his completion percentage continually rising, and his interceptions continually on the decline.
Eli's critics began to speak about his regression in '06, when he threw for fewer yards, the same amount of TD's (24), and one more INT than the previous year.
I can not say these things without adding that I was one of Eli's biggest critics.
I spoke openly about how he looked confused on the field, was not becoming the leader that the Giants need, and how basically he was costing the Giants football games.
With that said, let's just say that I'm glad that I am not the Giants General Manager.
Giants' management, whether it was the front office or the coaching staff, continued to believe in Eli, although there were many times that I wasn't quite sure why.
As we all saw, it was the right choice to make. Eli proved myself and a lot of others wrong when we called for his head. He stood tall through it all and stunned the world, literally, when he drove the Giants down field and threw what would be the winning touchdown of Super Bowl XLII, making history by stopping history, as the then 18-0 New England Patriots were finally defeated.
Unfortunately for the Pats, they are going to go down as probably the worst 18-1 NFL team ever. Because the one loss was the biggest game of the year - the game that should have been their coronation of a perfect season. Especially when you consider that the Patriots were not met by the NFC favorites. In fact, it was a Wild Card team, a team that had to go on the road and beat first Tampa Bay, and then on to the cities that were boasting the two best teams in the NFC: Dallas and Green Bay.
In the games against Dallas, Green Bay, and New England, the critics' picks were lopsided against New York each week.
Each week on ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS, most of the so-called "experts" picked the Giants to lose.
First, they said that the Cowboys were the best team in the conference.
Then, they said that it was Brett Favre's year. That with all of the records that he broke this year, and the fact that he took his team further than anyone would have guessed, suggested a win for the Pack, especially on the frozen tundra of Green Bay.
So, the season seemd to be on Favre's side. Throw in the week 2 game between the two teams where the Giants looked terrible at the Meadowlands and fell to 0-2, and it was basically a no-brainer that the Packers would win. Or, so one would have thought.
Instead, New York took the Packers to the brink, with the game being decided in overtime by the foot of Lawrence Tynes, another Giant who had his ups and downs this year.
The Super Bowl was the next stop for Eli and the boys. Again, few in the media gave the Giants any serious chance at all to win.
The Patriots were 18-0, and cruised through the season. They also beat New York in week 17, another point that was supposed to be in their favor.
It was supposed to be destiny for the Pats, the first time in 35 years that a team went into the Super Bowl with the chance to play an undefeated schedule.
To write a movie with those circumstances and have the Giants win the game, people wouldn't believe it. It wouldn't make a dime at the box office because it would be looked at as corny and predictable.
But Eli did just that. He watched his defense completely dominate what was supposed to be the best offense in the NFL, and make them look like a flag football team.
He moved his team strategically down the field, and even though they fell short a few times in the first half, when they should have been up by at least 14 points, Manning did not lose his confidence one bit.
Manning did what he had to do when he had to do it. He bounced back from a 14-10 deficit with less than three minutes remaining in the game and drove his team down the field for the winning touchdown.
Eli may have been inconsistent for some, or even most, of the season. But he played in the clutch so well, and produced such fantastic results, that he truly showed the mark of a champion.
Eli Manning is a Super Bowl champion and MVP, and that's enough to shut everyone's mouth.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
NFL: Eli Must Play Well for Giants to Win
If the New York Giants want to keep their season alive, they will have to do something that they have not been able to do so far this season: beat the Dallas Cowboys.
After watching the talk shows with the so-called experts stating what their keys to the game are, I noticed that they all left out an ingredient that is key for the Giants to win: Eli Manning must play well.
You may say that there is nothing profound in that statement, that anyone could have said it, but guess what – they didn’t, but I did.
The panel of ESPN’s NFL crew – Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Keyshawn Johnson, and Emmitt Smith, all spoke of different aspects of the game that they thought were most important – the Giants’ pass rush, Michael Strahan, the Dallas running game, etc., etc.
But what the point that they all failed to bring up is how Manning is such a perfect example of the Jeckyl and Hyde syndrome. From week to week, you don’t know what you’re going to get out of Eli until the game is played.
The Giants lost just one game on the road this year, and it was week 1 against Dallas. Manning played well in that game as he was 28-for-41 for 312 yards, four touchdowns, and a pick.
Plaxico Burress had one of his best games of the season, with eight receptions for 144 yards and three TD’s, and they ran the ball for more than 100 yards.
The Giants lost that game because the secondary simply fell apart in the fourth quarter. The Giants lost the game by 10 points, and two fourth-quarter touchdowns by the Cowboys were the difference.
Entering the final period, the Giants were trailing 31-19. A Giants’ field goal made it 31-22, but then Romo connected with T.O. for a 47-yard strike, as Dallas went 71 yards in three plays and less than two minutes. That made it 38-22, and things didn’t look good for New York.
However, the Giants came back after that, as two straight touchdown passes by Manning pulled the Giants to within 38-35 with time winding down. New York needed a defensive stop and a score to tie or win the game.
But, the secondary let the team down for the second time in the quarter, as Romo hit Sam Hurd (who?) for a 51-yard bomb that put the game away.
Week 2 was another disappointment, as the Giants were beaten by a Green Bay team that nobody expected anything from. Eli’s numbers were average, going 16-for-29 for 211 yards, a TD, and a pick. The offense wasn’t terrible in the loss, but for the defense, it was a complete meltdown.
Brett Favre played the game that propelled the Packers to the unbelievable season that they have had. Favre was 29-for-38 with three TD’s, and his confidence was completely restored.
After six straight wins, the Giants went into the bye week on an incredible high. I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth from New York defeating the then 0-7 Miami Dolphins by a mere three points in London.
The rest didn’t seem to help New York, because the Giants were again thumped by Dallas. The Giants stayed with the Cowboys for most of the game, but another meltdown gave Dallas the easy win.
Manning threw a pair of picks, and the defense collapsed, giving Owens two more touchdowns in the final 25 minutes. One was in the third quarter that went for 25 yards about midway through the quarter, and then in the fourth another bomb, this one for 50 yards, completed the scoring as Dallas outscored the Giants 14-3 in the last quarter-and-a-half to make it look easy.
New York lost three more games down the stretch, against Minnesota, Washington, and New England. And all three of those games were played at Giants Stadium.
The game against the Vikings was simply awful, and by far Manning’s worst outing of the season. He went 21-for-49 for a mere 273 yards one TD, and four – count ‘em – four picks – and three of them, including one in the fourth quarter that was returned 93 yards, went for touchdowns.
Against Washington, Manning was again poor, completing just 18 out of 52 passes for 184 yards, a lost fumble, and a TD. Even Brandon Jacobs’ big game of 130 yards couldn’t give the G-men a win and his fine performance went to waste.
Eli was good against the Patriots, as the Giants scored more points against New England than any other team that the Pats faced all year.
Of course, Manning had to throw a fourth-quarter interception that killed a Giants’ drive and helped lead to the loss.
The defense didn’t help, however. In the fourth quarter, they gave up a 65-yard touchdown to Moss, and then with less than five minutes left they gave up a score on the ground to Maroney for the game-winner.
So, as we see the pattern, it’s quite clear. It doesn’t matter how stingy the defense is, and it doesn’t matter if Jacobs runs for 500 yards. If Manning doesn’t play well and protect the ball even better, the Giants have no chance to beat Dallas.
After watching the talk shows with the so-called experts stating what their keys to the game are, I noticed that they all left out an ingredient that is key for the Giants to win: Eli Manning must play well.
You may say that there is nothing profound in that statement, that anyone could have said it, but guess what – they didn’t, but I did.
The panel of ESPN’s NFL crew – Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Keyshawn Johnson, and Emmitt Smith, all spoke of different aspects of the game that they thought were most important – the Giants’ pass rush, Michael Strahan, the Dallas running game, etc., etc.
But what the point that they all failed to bring up is how Manning is such a perfect example of the Jeckyl and Hyde syndrome. From week to week, you don’t know what you’re going to get out of Eli until the game is played.
The Giants lost just one game on the road this year, and it was week 1 against Dallas. Manning played well in that game as he was 28-for-41 for 312 yards, four touchdowns, and a pick.
Plaxico Burress had one of his best games of the season, with eight receptions for 144 yards and three TD’s, and they ran the ball for more than 100 yards.
The Giants lost that game because the secondary simply fell apart in the fourth quarter. The Giants lost the game by 10 points, and two fourth-quarter touchdowns by the Cowboys were the difference.
Entering the final period, the Giants were trailing 31-19. A Giants’ field goal made it 31-22, but then Romo connected with T.O. for a 47-yard strike, as Dallas went 71 yards in three plays and less than two minutes. That made it 38-22, and things didn’t look good for New York.
However, the Giants came back after that, as two straight touchdown passes by Manning pulled the Giants to within 38-35 with time winding down. New York needed a defensive stop and a score to tie or win the game.
But, the secondary let the team down for the second time in the quarter, as Romo hit Sam Hurd (who?) for a 51-yard bomb that put the game away.
Week 2 was another disappointment, as the Giants were beaten by a Green Bay team that nobody expected anything from. Eli’s numbers were average, going 16-for-29 for 211 yards, a TD, and a pick. The offense wasn’t terrible in the loss, but for the defense, it was a complete meltdown.
Brett Favre played the game that propelled the Packers to the unbelievable season that they have had. Favre was 29-for-38 with three TD’s, and his confidence was completely restored.
After six straight wins, the Giants went into the bye week on an incredible high. I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth from New York defeating the then 0-7 Miami Dolphins by a mere three points in London.
The rest didn’t seem to help New York, because the Giants were again thumped by Dallas. The Giants stayed with the Cowboys for most of the game, but another meltdown gave Dallas the easy win.
Manning threw a pair of picks, and the defense collapsed, giving Owens two more touchdowns in the final 25 minutes. One was in the third quarter that went for 25 yards about midway through the quarter, and then in the fourth another bomb, this one for 50 yards, completed the scoring as Dallas outscored the Giants 14-3 in the last quarter-and-a-half to make it look easy.
New York lost three more games down the stretch, against Minnesota, Washington, and New England. And all three of those games were played at Giants Stadium.
The game against the Vikings was simply awful, and by far Manning’s worst outing of the season. He went 21-for-49 for a mere 273 yards one TD, and four – count ‘em – four picks – and three of them, including one in the fourth quarter that was returned 93 yards, went for touchdowns.
Against Washington, Manning was again poor, completing just 18 out of 52 passes for 184 yards, a lost fumble, and a TD. Even Brandon Jacobs’ big game of 130 yards couldn’t give the G-men a win and his fine performance went to waste.
Eli was good against the Patriots, as the Giants scored more points against New England than any other team that the Pats faced all year.
Of course, Manning had to throw a fourth-quarter interception that killed a Giants’ drive and helped lead to the loss.
The defense didn’t help, however. In the fourth quarter, they gave up a 65-yard touchdown to Moss, and then with less than five minutes left they gave up a score on the ground to Maroney for the game-winner.
So, as we see the pattern, it’s quite clear. It doesn’t matter how stingy the defense is, and it doesn’t matter if Jacobs runs for 500 yards. If Manning doesn’t play well and protect the ball even better, the Giants have no chance to beat Dallas.
NHL: Atlantic Division Strongest in the League
Most of this year’s attention in the National Hockey League has been paid to the standout teams – e.g. the Detroit Red Wings, and the game’s superstars – e.g. the Sydney Crosbys et al, but few headlines or discussions have mentioned the best division in the league, and that would be the Atlantic Division.
The Atlantic Division is the only division that can boast that all of its teams are over .500, and that they all have at least 20 wins. The teams in the Northwest Division, which consists of Minnesota, Vancouver, Calgary, Colorado, and Edmonton, have all won a minimum of 20 games, but Edmonton is one game under .500.
Only three teams in the league have surrendered less than 100 goals, and one of them is the New Jersey Devils, with 99. The Red Wings have allowed 96 and the Sharks have given up 95.
As a division, they have allowed fewer goals than any other division in hockey, giving up 568. The Central Division, with Detroit’s 96, are the only other division to surrender less than 600, at 572.
Sydney Crosby of Pittsburgh leads the league in assists, with 41, and he is also fourth in the league with 59 points. Philadelphia’s Mike Knuble is tied for fifth with 10 power-play goals. Those are the only players in the division who rank highly on any major offensive stat sheet.
The Atlantic is doing it with a phrase that’s most associated with football: defense and special teams.
If you take a look at the numbers, most or all of the teams in the Atlantic rank in the top 50 percent in categories that are most associated with winning games (other than obviously goals scored).
Goaltending can win a championship, and the Atlantic has plenty of it.
In the category of goals against average, Martin Brodeur ranks sixth at 2.11. Henrik Lundqvist is 14th in the league at 2.41, and Rick DiPietro of the Islanders sits in the 16th position with a goals-against average of 2.56.
Looking at the wins list, Brodeur is ranked 2nd with 23, Lundqvist is tied for eighth with 18, and DiPietro is tied for 10th with 17.
The save-percentage stat is very strong in the Atlantic as well. Brodeur again leads the way in the division, tied for 7th in the NHL at .920. Matthew Biron of the Flyers is 9th with a percentage of .919, and DiPietro is 16th with a .911.
Moving on to shutouts, Lundqvist is tied for 2nd with six, Brodeur is 4th with four, DiPietro is tied for the 12th spot with two, and both Pittsburgh goalies have two shutouts apiece. One of them, Dany Sabourin, is tied for 2nd with four shootout wins.
Brodeur is seventh with three wins in the shootout, and DiPietro is tied for eighth as he has won two games for New York via the shootout.
With all of these rankings, keep in mind that there are 44 goalies ranked in these lists, so if a goalie is ranked even as low as 22nd, he’s in the top half of the goalies in the league.
Now let’s take a look at special teams, an intangible part of hockey that can turn a game around in a flash.
The teams in the Atlantic Division rank among the best in these departments, and there are at least three teams from the division that are in the top half of the league.
On the power play, Philadelphia is ranked 2nd, scoring at a clip of 23.5 percent. The Penguins are 8th at 18.9 percent, the Rangers rank 15th at 17.4, and the Islanders sit in the 22nd spot at 16.3. Not bad numbers for a division in a league of 30 teams.
The penalty-kill numbers are even better, with four clubs ranked in the top 14 spots.
The Islanders are the 4th-best team in the NHL at killing penalties, squashing 86.4 percent of their opponents’ opportunities. Three other teams from the Atlantic are bunched in right behind each other. The Rangers ranked 12th at 83.3, followed by the Devils at 83.1, and Philly at 82.7.
So, other teams may score more goals, have flashier players, or, except for the Rangers, spend more money, but as strong as the defense and special teams are for the teams in the Atlantic Division, I’ll take my chances with any of these clubs against any of the other high-octane teams in the league.
The Atlantic Division is the only division that can boast that all of its teams are over .500, and that they all have at least 20 wins. The teams in the Northwest Division, which consists of Minnesota, Vancouver, Calgary, Colorado, and Edmonton, have all won a minimum of 20 games, but Edmonton is one game under .500.
Only three teams in the league have surrendered less than 100 goals, and one of them is the New Jersey Devils, with 99. The Red Wings have allowed 96 and the Sharks have given up 95.
As a division, they have allowed fewer goals than any other division in hockey, giving up 568. The Central Division, with Detroit’s 96, are the only other division to surrender less than 600, at 572.
Sydney Crosby of Pittsburgh leads the league in assists, with 41, and he is also fourth in the league with 59 points. Philadelphia’s Mike Knuble is tied for fifth with 10 power-play goals. Those are the only players in the division who rank highly on any major offensive stat sheet.
The Atlantic is doing it with a phrase that’s most associated with football: defense and special teams.
If you take a look at the numbers, most or all of the teams in the Atlantic rank in the top 50 percent in categories that are most associated with winning games (other than obviously goals scored).
Goaltending can win a championship, and the Atlantic has plenty of it.
In the category of goals against average, Martin Brodeur ranks sixth at 2.11. Henrik Lundqvist is 14th in the league at 2.41, and Rick DiPietro of the Islanders sits in the 16th position with a goals-against average of 2.56.
Looking at the wins list, Brodeur is ranked 2nd with 23, Lundqvist is tied for eighth with 18, and DiPietro is tied for 10th with 17.
The save-percentage stat is very strong in the Atlantic as well. Brodeur again leads the way in the division, tied for 7th in the NHL at .920. Matthew Biron of the Flyers is 9th with a percentage of .919, and DiPietro is 16th with a .911.
Moving on to shutouts, Lundqvist is tied for 2nd with six, Brodeur is 4th with four, DiPietro is tied for the 12th spot with two, and both Pittsburgh goalies have two shutouts apiece. One of them, Dany Sabourin, is tied for 2nd with four shootout wins.
Brodeur is seventh with three wins in the shootout, and DiPietro is tied for eighth as he has won two games for New York via the shootout.
With all of these rankings, keep in mind that there are 44 goalies ranked in these lists, so if a goalie is ranked even as low as 22nd, he’s in the top half of the goalies in the league.
Now let’s take a look at special teams, an intangible part of hockey that can turn a game around in a flash.
The teams in the Atlantic Division rank among the best in these departments, and there are at least three teams from the division that are in the top half of the league.
On the power play, Philadelphia is ranked 2nd, scoring at a clip of 23.5 percent. The Penguins are 8th at 18.9 percent, the Rangers rank 15th at 17.4, and the Islanders sit in the 22nd spot at 16.3. Not bad numbers for a division in a league of 30 teams.
The penalty-kill numbers are even better, with four clubs ranked in the top 14 spots.
The Islanders are the 4th-best team in the NHL at killing penalties, squashing 86.4 percent of their opponents’ opportunities. Three other teams from the Atlantic are bunched in right behind each other. The Rangers ranked 12th at 83.3, followed by the Devils at 83.1, and Philly at 82.7.
So, other teams may score more goals, have flashier players, or, except for the Rangers, spend more money, but as strong as the defense and special teams are for the teams in the Atlantic Division, I’ll take my chances with any of these clubs against any of the other high-octane teams in the league.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Ups and Downs of Football Picks
As we enter week 10 of the NFL season, I suppose that it’s about time that I talked about my weekly NFL picks.
I play in two different pools: one of them is in a local restaurant, and the other one is at the newspaper where I work. We run an “Armchair Experts” section of the Sunday Saratogian, where five of us from the sports department go through the NFL schedule and choose our projected winners for the week.
In the restaurant pool we play with a point spread. At the newspaper we do not, we just pick the winner of the game.
Point spreads have never been one of my friends, and week in, week out for years I have lost many a bet, a football sheet, or a pool simply on a lousy half point.
To say that picking winners in the NFL is not an exact science is about as obvious as saying that wild animals live in Africa.
At the newspaper, where there are no points involved, I am doing quite well. I have been running consistently second or third out of five all season.
The restaurant pool, however, is a totally different story. All I can say about that is that I’m glad that my choices in the restaurant pool do not get posted in the paper, or no doubt some maniac would have hunted me down already and skinned me alive because he lost his house based on one of my losing selections.
Hey, this is a small town, and it isn’t easy to hide when you work for the only newspaper in the county.
It seems that last week, Week 10 in the NFL, I took a turn for the worse in the standings.
With a record of 84-47 entering last week, I was holding my own quite well, running second in the standings only to my editor, two games back.
To say that last week was tough on all of us is a huge understatement. The boss was a mediocre 7-7, as was Stan. I was a dreadful 5-9, Adam went an amazing 9-5 to take the top weekly honors, and even Ian, who has been picking up the rear all season long, out-picked me by one game.
That shook up the standings a bit. Instead of me still on Brian’s heels, I am now four games behind him.
I opened the week one game in front of Adam, two games ahead of Stan, and was leading Ian by seven, but now that’s all changed. Now, I am tied with Stan for third place, behind Adam, which does not make me very happy.
Upsets were abound, there’s no doubt about that, and once again the underachievers played the spoiler, the winless or near-winless finally played with some enthusiasm, and the favorites did not cover the spreads. Ha ha.
It was an atrocious week, one I would like to soon forget. The Chiefs were one of the teams to stick it to me. Kansas City has been playing better as of late, and they’re always tough at Arrowhead. The Denver Broncos have been something short of horrible, and they have been a nightmare on the road. Take the Chiefs, right? Wrong. Denver jumps out of the gate to take an early lead, and K.C. was never in a game that it lost, 27-11.
Next up, Carolina. The Panthers have been somewhat inconsistent, with all of their quarterback injuries and what not. But somehow, Carolina has been able to keep its head above water.
In come the Atlanta Falcons, who have had a miserable season, starting with the whole Michael Vick fiasco that lead to Atlanta losing its quarterback before the season even began.
This wasn’t a game that anyone expected to be a landslide, but even with Carolina’s troubles, it wasn’t a tough guess to think that the Panthers would muster up enough offense to come away with a win against the reeling Falcons.
Nuh-uh. Instead, Atlanta (like Denver) took an early lead and never looked back as they beat Carolina 20-13. Loss number two.
Next up, it was the New Orleans Saints’ turn to foil my predictions. They were hosting the winless St. Louis Rams. Another no-brainer, you say? NO SOUP FOR YOU!! The Saints, at home and winners of four straight games, could not even handle the hapless Rams. St. Louis goes on to win a shootout, 37-29, and once again, the bookies never lose.
Tennessee was next to sock it to me, as they were at home against the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Another matchup that didn’t take too long to consider. The Jaguars have been rocky, and the Titans have had one of the league’s stingiest defenses all year. The Titans at home would be the logical choice, but once again, no. Tennessee could not get points on the board for most of the game and the Jaguars went home 28-13 winners.
Baltimore-Cincinnati was a bit of a toss-up, but as good as the Ravens’ defense is and as unpredictable as the Bengals have been, I took Baltimore at home.
Another mistake. Again, Cincinnati took a quick lead and the Ravens could not catch up all game, and the Bengals walked away with the 21-7 win on the road.
The Detroit Lions continue to let me down this year. I just can not win with them. When I think that they are going to stumble, they win convincingly, and when I think that they have a win in the bag on Saturday, sure enough on Sunday they revert back to looking like last year’s squad.
This week was no different, as the Lions went out west to visit the underachieving Arizona Cardinals. Arizona went into the game at 3-5, and the Lions were at 6-2. With the Lions looking like a football team lately – no, honest, they really have – I didn’t think that Detroit would have much of a problem. Once again, I couldn’t have been more wrong if I said that gas was going to drop to $1.50 per gallon next summer. Cards 31, Lions 21.
Next up, Chicago at Oakland. The Raiders are one of my two favorite teams, but they have been so absolutely miserable in recent years that I have pretty much decided that I would not pick them until they showed me something.
They still can’t score any points, but the defense has not been playing that badly and the special teams have been playing well. Add that to the fact that Brian Griese continues to throw interceptions in key situations, and that the only offense that the Bears have had recently has been their kick returner, Devin Hester, and I thought that maybe the silver and black would find a way to win at home against a stumbling opponent.
Wrong again. The Raiders stayed with Chicago for most of the game, but the Bears pulled away in the fourth quarter for the 17-6 win.
My two disappointments of the day by far were the Giants and the Colts.
The Giants were winners of six straight going into their rematch with the Dallas Cowboys. Had New York avenged their earlier loss to Dallas, the two teams would have been tied for first place. The game was in The Meadowlands, and the Giants had all the momentum that they could ask for.
They squandered their opportunity, as they turned the ball over on their first possession and Eli Manning was sacked twice and threw a pair of picks in the first half.
That set the table for the Cowboys, and they did what good teams will do – they make you pay for your trespasses. Dallas took a quick lead, added to it, and by the time it was over the Giants were left hanging their heads and Dallas returned home with a two-game lead in the NFC East.
The Colts were visiting the San Diego Chargers in what should have been a fairly easy game for the Colts.
Indianapolis has been excellent all year (except, of course, when they played the Patriots, but everyone had looked bad against New England, so you almost have to give the Colts a pass on that one) even without their star wide receiver, Marvin Harrison.
That game featured something that has never happened before, and is likely to never happen again – Peyton Manning threw six interceptions.
No team, not even the Patriots, could think that they could get away with throwing six picks and still winning. Turnovers are the name of the game in football. If you win the turnover battle, more often than not you will win the game. The Chargers proved it, as they beat the Colts during a season that San Diego has played less than dominant, even at home.
So, it was a pretty gut-wrenching week for the old football picks. The only teams that did not disappoint me were the Packers, the Bills, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Seattle.
And I don’t even want to mention how I did against the spread at the restaurant. I had what had to be the worst week of my life, as I won just two games.
Maybe, at least, I will qualify to win low-man honors for the week. How pathetic.
I play in two different pools: one of them is in a local restaurant, and the other one is at the newspaper where I work. We run an “Armchair Experts” section of the Sunday Saratogian, where five of us from the sports department go through the NFL schedule and choose our projected winners for the week.
In the restaurant pool we play with a point spread. At the newspaper we do not, we just pick the winner of the game.
Point spreads have never been one of my friends, and week in, week out for years I have lost many a bet, a football sheet, or a pool simply on a lousy half point.
To say that picking winners in the NFL is not an exact science is about as obvious as saying that wild animals live in Africa.
At the newspaper, where there are no points involved, I am doing quite well. I have been running consistently second or third out of five all season.
The restaurant pool, however, is a totally different story. All I can say about that is that I’m glad that my choices in the restaurant pool do not get posted in the paper, or no doubt some maniac would have hunted me down already and skinned me alive because he lost his house based on one of my losing selections.
Hey, this is a small town, and it isn’t easy to hide when you work for the only newspaper in the county.
It seems that last week, Week 10 in the NFL, I took a turn for the worse in the standings.
With a record of 84-47 entering last week, I was holding my own quite well, running second in the standings only to my editor, two games back.
To say that last week was tough on all of us is a huge understatement. The boss was a mediocre 7-7, as was Stan. I was a dreadful 5-9, Adam went an amazing 9-5 to take the top weekly honors, and even Ian, who has been picking up the rear all season long, out-picked me by one game.
That shook up the standings a bit. Instead of me still on Brian’s heels, I am now four games behind him.
I opened the week one game in front of Adam, two games ahead of Stan, and was leading Ian by seven, but now that’s all changed. Now, I am tied with Stan for third place, behind Adam, which does not make me very happy.
Upsets were abound, there’s no doubt about that, and once again the underachievers played the spoiler, the winless or near-winless finally played with some enthusiasm, and the favorites did not cover the spreads. Ha ha.
It was an atrocious week, one I would like to soon forget. The Chiefs were one of the teams to stick it to me. Kansas City has been playing better as of late, and they’re always tough at Arrowhead. The Denver Broncos have been something short of horrible, and they have been a nightmare on the road. Take the Chiefs, right? Wrong. Denver jumps out of the gate to take an early lead, and K.C. was never in a game that it lost, 27-11.
Next up, Carolina. The Panthers have been somewhat inconsistent, with all of their quarterback injuries and what not. But somehow, Carolina has been able to keep its head above water.
In come the Atlanta Falcons, who have had a miserable season, starting with the whole Michael Vick fiasco that lead to Atlanta losing its quarterback before the season even began.
This wasn’t a game that anyone expected to be a landslide, but even with Carolina’s troubles, it wasn’t a tough guess to think that the Panthers would muster up enough offense to come away with a win against the reeling Falcons.
Nuh-uh. Instead, Atlanta (like Denver) took an early lead and never looked back as they beat Carolina 20-13. Loss number two.
Next up, it was the New Orleans Saints’ turn to foil my predictions. They were hosting the winless St. Louis Rams. Another no-brainer, you say? NO SOUP FOR YOU!! The Saints, at home and winners of four straight games, could not even handle the hapless Rams. St. Louis goes on to win a shootout, 37-29, and once again, the bookies never lose.
Tennessee was next to sock it to me, as they were at home against the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Another matchup that didn’t take too long to consider. The Jaguars have been rocky, and the Titans have had one of the league’s stingiest defenses all year. The Titans at home would be the logical choice, but once again, no. Tennessee could not get points on the board for most of the game and the Jaguars went home 28-13 winners.
Baltimore-Cincinnati was a bit of a toss-up, but as good as the Ravens’ defense is and as unpredictable as the Bengals have been, I took Baltimore at home.
Another mistake. Again, Cincinnati took a quick lead and the Ravens could not catch up all game, and the Bengals walked away with the 21-7 win on the road.
The Detroit Lions continue to let me down this year. I just can not win with them. When I think that they are going to stumble, they win convincingly, and when I think that they have a win in the bag on Saturday, sure enough on Sunday they revert back to looking like last year’s squad.
This week was no different, as the Lions went out west to visit the underachieving Arizona Cardinals. Arizona went into the game at 3-5, and the Lions were at 6-2. With the Lions looking like a football team lately – no, honest, they really have – I didn’t think that Detroit would have much of a problem. Once again, I couldn’t have been more wrong if I said that gas was going to drop to $1.50 per gallon next summer. Cards 31, Lions 21.
Next up, Chicago at Oakland. The Raiders are one of my two favorite teams, but they have been so absolutely miserable in recent years that I have pretty much decided that I would not pick them until they showed me something.
They still can’t score any points, but the defense has not been playing that badly and the special teams have been playing well. Add that to the fact that Brian Griese continues to throw interceptions in key situations, and that the only offense that the Bears have had recently has been their kick returner, Devin Hester, and I thought that maybe the silver and black would find a way to win at home against a stumbling opponent.
Wrong again. The Raiders stayed with Chicago for most of the game, but the Bears pulled away in the fourth quarter for the 17-6 win.
My two disappointments of the day by far were the Giants and the Colts.
The Giants were winners of six straight going into their rematch with the Dallas Cowboys. Had New York avenged their earlier loss to Dallas, the two teams would have been tied for first place. The game was in The Meadowlands, and the Giants had all the momentum that they could ask for.
They squandered their opportunity, as they turned the ball over on their first possession and Eli Manning was sacked twice and threw a pair of picks in the first half.
That set the table for the Cowboys, and they did what good teams will do – they make you pay for your trespasses. Dallas took a quick lead, added to it, and by the time it was over the Giants were left hanging their heads and Dallas returned home with a two-game lead in the NFC East.
The Colts were visiting the San Diego Chargers in what should have been a fairly easy game for the Colts.
Indianapolis has been excellent all year (except, of course, when they played the Patriots, but everyone had looked bad against New England, so you almost have to give the Colts a pass on that one) even without their star wide receiver, Marvin Harrison.
That game featured something that has never happened before, and is likely to never happen again – Peyton Manning threw six interceptions.
No team, not even the Patriots, could think that they could get away with throwing six picks and still winning. Turnovers are the name of the game in football. If you win the turnover battle, more often than not you will win the game. The Chargers proved it, as they beat the Colts during a season that San Diego has played less than dominant, even at home.
So, it was a pretty gut-wrenching week for the old football picks. The only teams that did not disappoint me were the Packers, the Bills, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Seattle.
And I don’t even want to mention how I did against the spread at the restaurant. I had what had to be the worst week of my life, as I won just two games.
Maybe, at least, I will qualify to win low-man honors for the week. How pathetic.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
The Green Dot
I have been a football fan for more than 35 years now. I have seen many changes in the National Football League. Different styles, new and improved design changes in equipment, and so on.
I also have always been the type of person that pays very close attention to detail. If you watch TV or a movie with me, you may find that several times during the production, I will point out technical errors.
For instance, perhaps someone in a movie is speaking and from one camera shot they have a corsage on their lapel, and then in the next shot the corsage is missing. Switch back to the first angle and the flower reappears. Those are the kinds of things that I notice.
I also have been good at, especially when I was growing up and we collected baseball cards and actually read magazines, noticing changes in uniforms in sports. Even to this day, I could tell the difference when the Miami Dolphins added that touch of blue in their logo, for example, or when any other changes, no matter how subtle or slight, were made to team uniforms.
Last year during training camp I noticed that the Minnesota Vikings changed their style of unis, and the year before that when there was a change made in the NFL officials’ uniforms.
Usually, when there is any kind of league-wide change to team uniforms, whether it be something that is added or deleted, we will learn about these changes when we watch the games on television. The announcers will normally make us aware of the changes and the reason or reasons for the changes.
Until this year. There has been a change that I have noticed, it has been a league-wide alteration, and for some reason, to this day (Week 9 in the NFL just passed), nothing has been mentioned about it.
The announcers haven’t talked about it. I haven’t seen any story about it on the internet. I watch 4-6 NFL games per week and I haven’t heard anything mentioned.
It is a small change, a change so subtle that as the first few weeks of the season went on, and I found myself watching a game with someone that I know for the first time of the season, I would ask if they noticed it, or if they had heard what it was for. One by one, they all informed me that they had neither seen it before or heard why the change was made.
You can see this difference literally 100 times per game. It’s a small thing, something little, but I have been looking at it constantly each and every Sunday and Monday for the last nine weeks and still no one has explained where it came from or why it is now there, and it’s really beginning to annoy me.
How could this difference in the NFL uniform be on television screens from coast to coast 50-100 times per game, but yet be ignored by the announcers of the game all season long, as if it’s a secret, league-initiated coup that everyone is to be tight-lipped about, something that they don’t want the fans to know about.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, or maybe you still haven’t even noticed it, it’s the little green dot that is currently on the back of every NFL quarterback’s helmet.
I don’t know where the green dot came from, and thus far, no one has been willing to talk about it.
They haven’t mentioned it on Sports Center, on any of the pre-game shows, any Website, in any magazine, or by any of the announcers during the games.
What is the reason for the green dot? What is its significance? What is it trying to tell us? I don’t know the answers to these questions and it’s bothering me tremendously.
Now that I have mentioned what it is, you can clearly see that I was not exaggerating when I said that you can see it at least 100 times per game.
You can see the dot before every play, when the quarterback is huddling up the team, is in the huddle, or perhaps when he’s calling out the signals at the line of scrimmage and he turns his head to shout to the other side.
I have come to believe that most TV announcers do a pretty good job of letting us know the new developments in the teams, and even the uniforms, at season’s beginning.
But somehow the NFL has snuck in this little green dot without heed or warning. They have not offered us any explanation as to why we are forced to stare at this hideous little lime green circle all day and night on Sundays and for three hours on Monday night. And I want answers. And the sooner, the better, folks, because I haven’t been alerted to reason of the little fluorescent sticker’s existence, and the more I see it, the more I wonder just what the NFL is up to now. And, more importantly, why aren’t they talking about it.
I also have always been the type of person that pays very close attention to detail. If you watch TV or a movie with me, you may find that several times during the production, I will point out technical errors.
For instance, perhaps someone in a movie is speaking and from one camera shot they have a corsage on their lapel, and then in the next shot the corsage is missing. Switch back to the first angle and the flower reappears. Those are the kinds of things that I notice.
I also have been good at, especially when I was growing up and we collected baseball cards and actually read magazines, noticing changes in uniforms in sports. Even to this day, I could tell the difference when the Miami Dolphins added that touch of blue in their logo, for example, or when any other changes, no matter how subtle or slight, were made to team uniforms.
Last year during training camp I noticed that the Minnesota Vikings changed their style of unis, and the year before that when there was a change made in the NFL officials’ uniforms.
Usually, when there is any kind of league-wide change to team uniforms, whether it be something that is added or deleted, we will learn about these changes when we watch the games on television. The announcers will normally make us aware of the changes and the reason or reasons for the changes.
Until this year. There has been a change that I have noticed, it has been a league-wide alteration, and for some reason, to this day (Week 9 in the NFL just passed), nothing has been mentioned about it.
The announcers haven’t talked about it. I haven’t seen any story about it on the internet. I watch 4-6 NFL games per week and I haven’t heard anything mentioned.
It is a small change, a change so subtle that as the first few weeks of the season went on, and I found myself watching a game with someone that I know for the first time of the season, I would ask if they noticed it, or if they had heard what it was for. One by one, they all informed me that they had neither seen it before or heard why the change was made.
You can see this difference literally 100 times per game. It’s a small thing, something little, but I have been looking at it constantly each and every Sunday and Monday for the last nine weeks and still no one has explained where it came from or why it is now there, and it’s really beginning to annoy me.
How could this difference in the NFL uniform be on television screens from coast to coast 50-100 times per game, but yet be ignored by the announcers of the game all season long, as if it’s a secret, league-initiated coup that everyone is to be tight-lipped about, something that they don’t want the fans to know about.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, or maybe you still haven’t even noticed it, it’s the little green dot that is currently on the back of every NFL quarterback’s helmet.
I don’t know where the green dot came from, and thus far, no one has been willing to talk about it.
They haven’t mentioned it on Sports Center, on any of the pre-game shows, any Website, in any magazine, or by any of the announcers during the games.
What is the reason for the green dot? What is its significance? What is it trying to tell us? I don’t know the answers to these questions and it’s bothering me tremendously.
Now that I have mentioned what it is, you can clearly see that I was not exaggerating when I said that you can see it at least 100 times per game.
You can see the dot before every play, when the quarterback is huddling up the team, is in the huddle, or perhaps when he’s calling out the signals at the line of scrimmage and he turns his head to shout to the other side.
I have come to believe that most TV announcers do a pretty good job of letting us know the new developments in the teams, and even the uniforms, at season’s beginning.
But somehow the NFL has snuck in this little green dot without heed or warning. They have not offered us any explanation as to why we are forced to stare at this hideous little lime green circle all day and night on Sundays and for three hours on Monday night. And I want answers. And the sooner, the better, folks, because I haven’t been alerted to reason of the little fluorescent sticker’s existence, and the more I see it, the more I wonder just what the NFL is up to now. And, more importantly, why aren’t they talking about it.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Consistency or Wins? That is the Question
As the NASCAR season headed to its “Chase for the Cup,” a new points system took over which, if you weren’t too dizzy from watching cars go around in circles for eight months, brought a very interesting question to mind: “What matters more in the NASCAR Chase, wins or consistency?”
If you were to talk to some of the old-time NASCAR fans, crew chiefs, or drivers, undoubtedly they would all answer “consistency.”
Which makes perfect sense. Since winning the championship is based on points, and points are based upon performance, i.e. not only how many races you won, but how you finished in ALL of the races from February through November.
So, the general thinking was that if you ran consistently well throughout the season, and collected points each week based upon how you finish in each race, you very easily could win the title by finishing strong each week. If you end up with, say, 10-15 top-10 finishes, maybe between five and ten top-fives, and throw in three or four wins, you have a recipe for nearly guaranteed success.
That has all changed now. Here, in the 2007 season, we see how drastically things have changed in NASCAR. Jeff Gordon has had, by most accounts, a model year for another strong championship run. He has had a nearly flawless ’07 campaign right from the start, where he finished 10th at Daytona, and throughout the course of the season amassed 21 top-10 finishes, 15 top fives, 10 top-threes, four second-place finishes, and four wins, while posting just one DNF (did not finish) on the year. Gordon also finished ahead of Johnson in 16 races.
As for Johnson, along with his six wins, he recorded 16 top 10s, 14 top fives, 11 top threes, one second-place finish, and he did not finish four races. Johnson finished ahead of his mentor nine times.
When the regular season ended, and NASCAR switched to the points system for the Chase, Gordon’s season suddenly didn’t look so dominant, as his 300-plus points lead evaporated like a politician’s campaign promises.
Jimmy Johnson had a solid season, to that there is no doubt. He did not have a dominant season, not a season that other drivers looked at in awe, but it was very good, especially compared to the 41 other drivers in the Nextel Cup Series, besides Gordon.
Johnson didn’t run as consistently as Gordon, he didn’t have as many top-10 finishes, or as many top fives, but he did do one thing that Gordon did not: he won six races.
Gordon won four races on the year, but it seemed like more with all of the success he had week in and week out, all season long.
One difference in the points system once the regular season ends, is that there is a points bonus for winning races. That boded well for Johnson, because although he didn’t have the type of season that he would have liked to, he did manage to squeak out six wins, which ironically, enough, was two more than Gordon (who at that time had a lead of more than 300 points).
Since NASCAR decided to put a premium on winning races regardless of how you finish in the other races, and despite how consistently well you ran all season long, Johnson was the big winner, as he entered the “Chase Season” in first place over Gordon.
This is an issue that NASCAR needs to address. They can not simply put a premium on winning races. There has to be some value to the regular season in another way, not just if you won, or how many races you won. What happened to Jeff Gordon is not right. It completely devalues all of the hard work that he, his crew chief, and his crew did all season long to make the 24 DuPont Chevrolet a serious contender to win the NASCAR Nextel Cup Championship.
Apparently, it doesn’t matter to NASCAR whether you come in third or 43rd week in and week out, only if you won or not.
That sends a bad message to the drivers, crews, and fans of the sport. There should and must be some type of reward for running well all season long. Perhaps they should consider some type of system where the regular season points leader gets extra points, pro-rated on how much of a points lead he has accumulated.
Take, for example, that Gordon finished the season with a 400-point lead. If there was a system that awarded the driver 20 percent of the points lead and added that to the points he would have started the Chase with, Gordon would have then received an additional 80 points. That seems fair, considering that nobody really posed a threat to the No. 24 team all season long. They should get a bonus for a great season, a season where they dominated the field from start to finish.
I’m not saying that what I have suggested is the answer, or the only answer, but something has to be done. And if they like, I’ll give NASCAR all the help that I can.
If you were to talk to some of the old-time NASCAR fans, crew chiefs, or drivers, undoubtedly they would all answer “consistency.”
Which makes perfect sense. Since winning the championship is based on points, and points are based upon performance, i.e. not only how many races you won, but how you finished in ALL of the races from February through November.
So, the general thinking was that if you ran consistently well throughout the season, and collected points each week based upon how you finish in each race, you very easily could win the title by finishing strong each week. If you end up with, say, 10-15 top-10 finishes, maybe between five and ten top-fives, and throw in three or four wins, you have a recipe for nearly guaranteed success.
That has all changed now. Here, in the 2007 season, we see how drastically things have changed in NASCAR. Jeff Gordon has had, by most accounts, a model year for another strong championship run. He has had a nearly flawless ’07 campaign right from the start, where he finished 10th at Daytona, and throughout the course of the season amassed 21 top-10 finishes, 15 top fives, 10 top-threes, four second-place finishes, and four wins, while posting just one DNF (did not finish) on the year. Gordon also finished ahead of Johnson in 16 races.
As for Johnson, along with his six wins, he recorded 16 top 10s, 14 top fives, 11 top threes, one second-place finish, and he did not finish four races. Johnson finished ahead of his mentor nine times.
When the regular season ended, and NASCAR switched to the points system for the Chase, Gordon’s season suddenly didn’t look so dominant, as his 300-plus points lead evaporated like a politician’s campaign promises.
Jimmy Johnson had a solid season, to that there is no doubt. He did not have a dominant season, not a season that other drivers looked at in awe, but it was very good, especially compared to the 41 other drivers in the Nextel Cup Series, besides Gordon.
Johnson didn’t run as consistently as Gordon, he didn’t have as many top-10 finishes, or as many top fives, but he did do one thing that Gordon did not: he won six races.
Gordon won four races on the year, but it seemed like more with all of the success he had week in and week out, all season long.
One difference in the points system once the regular season ends, is that there is a points bonus for winning races. That boded well for Johnson, because although he didn’t have the type of season that he would have liked to, he did manage to squeak out six wins, which ironically, enough, was two more than Gordon (who at that time had a lead of more than 300 points).
Since NASCAR decided to put a premium on winning races regardless of how you finish in the other races, and despite how consistently well you ran all season long, Johnson was the big winner, as he entered the “Chase Season” in first place over Gordon.
This is an issue that NASCAR needs to address. They can not simply put a premium on winning races. There has to be some value to the regular season in another way, not just if you won, or how many races you won. What happened to Jeff Gordon is not right. It completely devalues all of the hard work that he, his crew chief, and his crew did all season long to make the 24 DuPont Chevrolet a serious contender to win the NASCAR Nextel Cup Championship.
Apparently, it doesn’t matter to NASCAR whether you come in third or 43rd week in and week out, only if you won or not.
That sends a bad message to the drivers, crews, and fans of the sport. There should and must be some type of reward for running well all season long. Perhaps they should consider some type of system where the regular season points leader gets extra points, pro-rated on how much of a points lead he has accumulated.
Take, for example, that Gordon finished the season with a 400-point lead. If there was a system that awarded the driver 20 percent of the points lead and added that to the points he would have started the Chase with, Gordon would have then received an additional 80 points. That seems fair, considering that nobody really posed a threat to the No. 24 team all season long. They should get a bonus for a great season, a season where they dominated the field from start to finish.
I’m not saying that what I have suggested is the answer, or the only answer, but something has to be done. And if they like, I’ll give NASCAR all the help that I can.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Once Again, American League too Tough
Another beaseball season has come and gone, and once again, the American League has prevailed.
It has happened quite often lately, and it's beginning to look as though the A.L. has a bit of a dominance over the "senior circuit."
Now, before you self-dubbed "purist" National League fans start getting all bent out of shape, screaming about the designated hitter, or the Cardinals in '06, or the Marlins and Diamondbacks clubs that have won the Series recently, look at what has been going on between the two leagues over recent years.
For one, the last time that the N.L. won the All-Star Game was all the way back in 1996, a 6-0 victory.
The American League is 10-0-1 since 1997 (the 7-7 tie in '02 being the only non-win), and has won 16 of the last 20 mid-summer classics, with the National League winning three ('94, '95, and '96), with the last one being over a decade ago. Put it this way, if your kid is less than 14 years old, he probably doesn't remember seeing the National League win an All-Star Game. That' dominance.
There was a time when the N.L. fan could say that the All-Star game doesn't mean anything, but as we all know, now it does, as the winner hosts the World Series. That means something.
Over those 20 years, the A.L. has outscored the N.L. 110-74.
In the fall classic since 1991, the A.L. has won 11 out of the last 16 series', and they have beaten the N.L. 55 series games to 33.
To look even further at National League futility against the American League, consider in the last four years, the A.L. has won the Series three times, and the N.L. has failed to win a game in any of those series'. That's dominance.
Or, just look at what happened this year. The Colorado Rockies were America's darlings, winning 21 of 22 games going into the Series, including back-to-back sweeps of the Philadelphia Phillies, who got hot in mid-September to steal first place away from the reeling Mets, and the Arizona Diamondbacks, who were the best team in the National League all season long.
The Rockies got an eight-day layoff between game four of their series with the Diamondbacks and the first game of the World Series. Some of the experts wondered if the layoff might hurt Colorado, who had been a team afire going into the series.
Maybe that did have something to do with it, but the team that had somewhere around a .280 batting average looked like a little league team against Josh Beckett and company.
Let's face it, folks. I know that, like I said earlier, you can bark about the '06 Cardinals, a vicious veteran lineup that went against the young Tigers' pitching staff (who also committed at least one error in each game against the Cards), or the '03 Marlins and the '01 D-backs who beat the Yankees, but those three teams have been the exception rather than the rule for the National League against their A.L. rivals.
Regardless of wether they use the designated hitter (hitters hitting, kind of makes sense), or the (Ho-Hum, yawn yawn) pitchers-behaving-badly-trying-to-hit National League rules, the American League is bi-annually torturing the National League, in the All-Star Game and in the World Series, and I'm loving it.
It has happened quite often lately, and it's beginning to look as though the A.L. has a bit of a dominance over the "senior circuit."
Now, before you self-dubbed "purist" National League fans start getting all bent out of shape, screaming about the designated hitter, or the Cardinals in '06, or the Marlins and Diamondbacks clubs that have won the Series recently, look at what has been going on between the two leagues over recent years.
For one, the last time that the N.L. won the All-Star Game was all the way back in 1996, a 6-0 victory.
The American League is 10-0-1 since 1997 (the 7-7 tie in '02 being the only non-win), and has won 16 of the last 20 mid-summer classics, with the National League winning three ('94, '95, and '96), with the last one being over a decade ago. Put it this way, if your kid is less than 14 years old, he probably doesn't remember seeing the National League win an All-Star Game. That' dominance.
There was a time when the N.L. fan could say that the All-Star game doesn't mean anything, but as we all know, now it does, as the winner hosts the World Series. That means something.
Over those 20 years, the A.L. has outscored the N.L. 110-74.
In the fall classic since 1991, the A.L. has won 11 out of the last 16 series', and they have beaten the N.L. 55 series games to 33.
To look even further at National League futility against the American League, consider in the last four years, the A.L. has won the Series three times, and the N.L. has failed to win a game in any of those series'. That's dominance.
Or, just look at what happened this year. The Colorado Rockies were America's darlings, winning 21 of 22 games going into the Series, including back-to-back sweeps of the Philadelphia Phillies, who got hot in mid-September to steal first place away from the reeling Mets, and the Arizona Diamondbacks, who were the best team in the National League all season long.
The Rockies got an eight-day layoff between game four of their series with the Diamondbacks and the first game of the World Series. Some of the experts wondered if the layoff might hurt Colorado, who had been a team afire going into the series.
Maybe that did have something to do with it, but the team that had somewhere around a .280 batting average looked like a little league team against Josh Beckett and company.
Let's face it, folks. I know that, like I said earlier, you can bark about the '06 Cardinals, a vicious veteran lineup that went against the young Tigers' pitching staff (who also committed at least one error in each game against the Cards), or the '03 Marlins and the '01 D-backs who beat the Yankees, but those three teams have been the exception rather than the rule for the National League against their A.L. rivals.
Regardless of wether they use the designated hitter (hitters hitting, kind of makes sense), or the (Ho-Hum, yawn yawn) pitchers-behaving-badly-trying-to-hit National League rules, the American League is bi-annually torturing the National League, in the All-Star Game and in the World Series, and I'm loving it.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
George has Flashback to Earlier Years
It seems that New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner has reverted back to his wicked, old ways.
Just as many of us thought that George was losing his capacities, as his lack of appearances at Yankee Stadium, paired with the medical confirmation of his sad news would suggest, he transcended time and went to a place that he is most recognized for: the 1970's and 1980's, primarily.
In his heyday, Steinbrenner got as much press as his team did, if not more.
Steinbrenner's antics were well documented, from hiring and firing Billy Martin five times, to labeling Dave Winfield "Mr. May" after the Yankees fell to the Los Angeles Dodgers in the 1981 World Series, to firing Buck Showalter - when all Showalter did was to help mold the club that would bring home four world titles from 1996-2000.
In more recent years, it seemed as though the Boss had mellowed, with his sudden lack of voice in the media as well as his lack of appearances in the clubhouse.
Some thought that perhaps he had finally learned his lesson, and decided to let the men in the clubhouse and dugout do the motivating and criticizing.
Then, the monster reared its ugly head.
With the Yankees' back against the wall in the division series against the Cleveland Indians, Steinbrenner said in a statement to the press that if his club didn't come back and win the World Series, that Manager Joe Torre would, in all likelihood, not be invited back with the club.
Joe Torre, who, upon the announcement that he was named the Yankees manager, was dubbed "Clueless Joe" in the New York papers.
All "clueless Joe" did in his 12-year tenure as manager was win 10 A.L. East titles, six pennants, and four world championships.
The Yankees, as we all know, were bounced by the Indians, and for the seventh year in a row, New Yorks would not win baseball's ultimate prize.
This put Big Stein in a hell of a spot. Once again, Mr. Steinbrenner opens mouth and inserts foot. On one hand, if he asks Torre back, he loses credibility of being able to stand behind his words. If he doesn't ask Torre back, he risks the rath of the New York media, and most of all, the fans.
So, George has to then figure out a way where he can make everyone happy. He has to make good on his threat, but how can he appease the fans that are so heavily on Torre's side?
In the Godfather, there was a saying that Don Vito Corleone would "make someone an offer that they couldn't refuse." Steinbrenner, along with his brain trust of his children and his general manger, came up with an idea of making Torre an offer that he couldn't accept.
They came up with an idea to make Torre an offer (that alone would appease the fans who would otherwise call for their collective heads) that they knew Joe would never go for (thus, Torre does not return, as per the wishes of the Boss in the first place).
After all that Torre has done, the Yankees offer him a one-year deal with a pay cut, as if Torre has anything else to prove. Is there any doubt why Torre wouldn't take that deal?
Joe Torre has received credit for a lot of things, but not enough credit for others.
Torre ranks (and rightfully so) alongside other great Yankee managers, such as Miller Huggins and Joe McCarthy. However, there is one huge, underrated difference between the kid from Marine Park, Brooklyn and the others.
If you look at the Yankees' rosters in the days of Huggins and McCarthy, there is something that the two have in common: the rosters changed slightly, if at all.
It must have been very comforting for Huggins to know at the end of the season that all of his boys, including Ruth, Gehrig, Dickey, Lazzeri, and others were locked into contracts that would keep them in pinstripes for years to come.
McCarthy surely slept soundly during the winter months knowing that Rizzuto, Berra, DiMaggio, and later Mantle would be back without question the following seasons to defend their crowns.
Torre didn't have that luxury. From year to year, Torre was never quite sure in November what his club was going to look like the following spring.
But, through it all, Torre kept on winning. Whether it was Clemens retiring, Pettite going to Houston, Knoblaugh not being able to throw to first, Giambi's injuries and steroid scandal, an unhappy Scheffield, Stottlemyre and Zimmer leaving, free agents taking off, or any other of the ump-teen personnel changes that he had to endure, Torre kept winning. And those were many, many obstacles that neither Huggins nor McCarthy would have had to think about in their wildest dreams.
Who can blame Torre for not accepting a one-year deal and a pay cut. This man has proven many, many times that he is a winner, a manager that can overcome adversity and is more than likely going to the hall of fame as a skipper. Even if the Yankees haven't won the series since 2000.
So, the Yankees prepare to enter a new era. It's been a long time since New York had a new manager. And, it's been a long time since they didn't have Joe Torre. The Yankees, primarily King George, won't truly appreciate Torre until after he's gone. And, to quote Oliver Hardy, I say to George, "Now look at the fine mess that you've gotten us into!"
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Michael Vick needs to pay
One of the hottest topics entering the 2007 NFL season hasn't been the upcoming season itself, it has been about Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and his involvement with dog fighting at one of his homes.
When the story first broke, Michael Vick began the process by denying any knowledge of what was going on at the house, which is in Surry, Virginia, citing that he had cousins living there and that he did not go there very often himself.
It's funny how stories change. After entering a not guilty plea, others that were indicted in the case decided to plead guilty. After this turn of events, Vick has suddenly changed his plea to guilty. Perhaps he, or at least his attorney, could see the writing on the wall, and they knew that if everyone else turned state's evidence, Vick would end up being the fall guy for everyone involved. So, out of fear, if nothing else, Vick changed his plea to guilty.
Michael Vick has lied to all of us. He has let down his teammates, his coaching staff, his NFL organization, and the fans, many of whom are teenagers and children that wear his Falcons number 7 jersey.
Several videos have been circulating following the investigation, videos that were too barbaric and gruesome to show on network television.
There were some horrendous things going on in that house and the property that surrounds it. What investigators found as evidence, including various tools and devices that are meant for torturing purposes, are utterly disgusting.
When police first inspected the property back in April, 54 pit-bulls were found. Later investigations of the grounds turned up seven graves of dogs that were killed by "Bad Newz Kennels", the company that Vick's relatives were running. These dogs were killed by strangulation, electrocution, bullet wounds, or other means when they were found either not to be good fighting prospects, or punishment for dogs who lost their fights. It was also discovered that dog fighters from as far away as South Carolina, Texas, and New York would come for the events.
"Bad Newz Kennels" also put on exhibitions and sponsored fights in other parts of Virginia, North and South Carolina, and other states.
We have a major problem in this country when it comes to this matter: the laws as well as the punishments for these heinous acts are minimal, at best. On Tuesday it was released that Vick has worked out an "agreement" with prosecutors in the matter. It has been said that prosecutors want Vick to serve 12 to 18 months.
As a human being with a basic conscience, an animal lover, as well as a vegetarian, I am personally insulted at the lack of penalty that Vick may or not have to serve.
I can not believe that where the laws state that these types of crimes may warrant fines of $350,000 and up to six years in prison, that they can be reduced to such a minimal level.
Why should they cut a deal with Vick? If they have evidence to put him away, then it would appear to me that they are in the driver's seat, and I say, fire away, and let him serve SIGNIFICANT jail time.
I am not saying that the value of an animal's life is on the same level as a human's, but at the same time, torturing any living creature, whether it is human or not, is cruelty, and it is no less cruel or sick to torture an animal as it is to torture a human being.
This is not a crime that was a one-time act. That could be looked at as a mistake, something that could possibly be forgiven or made up for with a minimal penalty. This is a series of vulgar mistreatments of animals that went on for a period of at least five years, and severe penalties are in order, and should be exercised.
There is an awful lot yet to be sorted out, such as Vick's punishment, the "deal" which will be formally made next Monday, his contract, his future with the league, and so on.
But I believe that our lawmakers will discover, through this case, that they have their own work cut out for themselves, when it comes to the laws that are currently on the books for animal cruelty, torture, and abuse. The penalties for these crimes are ridiculous, and need to be sharply stiffened.
It seems that the men and women who make the laws and punishments in this country leave things very lenient until a case comes about when the whole country becomes outraged at a national story.
I believe that this is the national story that will and should outrage Americans when it is announced next week that Vick's punsihment will be barely more than a slap on the wrists.
It breaks my heart, because Michael Vick used to be one of my favorite quarterbacks in the National Football League. Yes, I said used to be.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Stampede win District Title
SARATOGA SPRINGS – In a game that would have not been believable had it been scripted in a Hollywood movie, the Saratoga Stampede overcame an eight-inning deficit to win the District IV American Legion Tournament as they defeated the Anaconda Indians by a 4-3 score on Sunday.
Starting pitcher Zach Hartman got into trouble early, as a base hit, a triple, and a ground ball to shortstop resulted in a 2-0 lead for Anaconda in the first inning.
Mike Center took the mound for Anaconda, and he was very impressive, as he would turn away most of Saratoga’s threats during the course of the game.
The Stampede would finally get on the scoreboard in the third. With one out and Kenny Recore on first via a base on balls, Andy Brown grounded into a force play at second. After stealing second and third, center fielder Vince Farfaglia smacked a line drive to left field, scoring Brown and cutting the Indians’ lead to 2-1.
The game would remain 2-1 until the ninth. Hartman, meanwhile, settled down, and after giving up three hits in the first, he would not allow another hit until the sixth.
Brown made a rare error at short to open the fourth that put Ed Shively at second, but Hartman picked his teammate up by wheeling and throwing to Brown to pick Shively off. Shawn Kennedy smacked a single up the middle with two outs in the sixth, but Hartman caught Kennedy in a rundown, and Kennedy was retired on a 1-3-6 caught stealing to retire the side.
In the bottom of the inning, Chris Hackett led off by slapping a single to center, and was moved over to second on Ryan Washburn’s bunt. But Center fought back, and he struck out Justin Wilock, and two batters later he got Brad Elliott to fly out to center to end the inning.
Saratoga again got the leadoff hitter aboard in the fifth, as Kenny Recore struck out, but made it safely to first on a wild pitch. After Brown bunted him over to second, Vince Farfaglia hit a ground ball to Matt Kelly at short, and Kelly threw to third for the fielder’s choice. Neil Callahan then struck out and the inning was over.
In the home sixth, Hackett led off with his second hit of the game, a single to left, but a fly ball to right and a ground ball back to Center turned into a 1-6-3 double play to squash the Stampede’s threat.
Hartman then pitched a perfect seventh and eighth innings, but gave up an insurance run in the top of the ninth. Billy Nikolski lined abase hit to left to start the inning, and Hartman tried to pick him off, but his throw was out of Callahan’s reach, advancing Nikolski to second. Center then flied out to Farfaglia, but Kennedy got the run home with a single to left to make it a 3-1 game. Hartman was then relieved by Ryan Washburn, who got the next two batters to end the inning. Then things got interesting.
Washburn reached safely on a dribbler between third and short that resulted in an infield single to open the ninth, and then Wilock drew a walk, putting runners on first and second. Jeff Mound laid down a bunt to move the runners to second and third, and then Manager Paul Mound sent in pinch hitter Kyle Baldani. Baldani got the job done with a base hit, and Washburn and Wilock both scored to tie the game at three apiece and send the game into extra innings.
In the tenth inning, Washburn got Jordan Pennings to fly out to Recore, who was moved to right field, and then Recore made a tremendous catch in foul territory off of the bat of Dave Filak for the second out. Pinch hitter Joe Privatera then grounded out to Mound at second for the final out.
Farfaglia grounded out for the first out in the bottom of the frame, but then Neil Callahan, who has struggled in his last two games, belted a shot towards the left field wall. Mike Center had a bead on the ball as he neared the wall, but it popped out of his glove, and Callahan was on second base with one out.
Paul Mound then sent in his fastest player, Mike DeGregory, to pinch run. Saratoga could smell a victory, and Hackett came through with his third hit of the game, an infield single. Degregory got a great jump on the play, and he raced home from second for the winning run that propelled the Stampede in the state tournament.
When asked about his winning hit, Hackett was pleased, while also being a bit perplexed.
“It wasn’t quite a line drive, but it will look like it in the box score…I didn’t even see what happened…I saw him coming home, and I thought that was awesome, a good feeling.”
Anaconda had a terrific tournament, and the first and third-ranked teams in New York State showed why they are ranked where they are, as both teams played a tremendous game, and both are worthy of playing in the state tourney.
Anaconda head coach Jim DeMidio was obviously disappointed, but he was proud of the way that his team performed throughout the tournament, as he should have been.
“The better team won today. They out hit us in the last two innings, and that’s what counted. (My team) played excellent. I couldn’t ask for anything else. Maybe they were tired. This was our seventh game (of the tournament, while the Stampede played just four games).
Neil Callahan, who drove in the winning run, was equally impressed with his club’s tourney play.
“Coming out of this district without a loss is pretty impressive,” said Callahan.
“We started out the tournament slow. Our bats were slow, and then today, they were slow, too. But I think we’ve got to get the momentum of starting off early like they did, and keep going all night, those long innings. It was a great tournament for us. The pitching stepped up huge the entire tournament, which was awesome. Hackett threw a great game (on Friday night, 7-2/3 innings, one earned run, eight strikeouts). Hartman throwing, probably, the game of his life, and just couldn’t get any run support. It was great, and we’ve got a pretty good shot to go back to the state championship game. Hopefully, we won’t come back until Sunday (after the state title game).
Zack Hartman offered his viewpoint on the game.
“(In the) first inning, I think we were a little anxious. I was over-throwing a little bit, and I got knocked around, and after that, I settled down, and I just waited for the guys to score, and once they did, it was kind of nice.
Hartman was also quick to give credit to his opponent.
“They can hit one through nine (in the batting order)… They have some good players on their team that can hit, through their lineup, some good pitchers. They’re a tough team, and we were fortunate to pull that one out late.”
When asked about the upcoming state tournament, Hartman is looking forward to it.
“I can’t wait for the states. We’re all excited, we’re riding pretty high, that was a big win for us, and hopefully that can carry over to the states.”
Manager Paul Mound also shared some thoughts about the team that he had to get through to get to the states, as well as what he expects from his club in the state tourney.
“Right from the beginning of the season I felt like Anaconda and Saratoga were the best two teams in the district, and the state rankings indicate such, we’re number one and they’re number three. So it’s fitting that the championship be played between the two of us. They’re an awfully tough team, I mean they’re not going to give you anything for free. You rarely get them to make an error in the field, and the one error they did make, we were able to capitalize on it, and score the game-winning run. It was a fitting ending to a great tournament and a great summer, now we go on to the state championship for the second year in a row. Out of 228 (teams), there are eight left, and we are one of them, so it’s already an accomplishment, and I’m not for one minute, not looking to win the state title. We want that, that is our goal, however, that’s gravy as far as I’m concerned, because winning our district is really, really huge. We’re going to go and give it our best shot, and win, lose, tie, or draw, it’s been a heck of a lot of fun. I think we’ve got the horses to win it, and that’s how we’re going to go about it…an extra-inning ball game, two best teams in the district, I don’t think that you can argue, either side…in fairness to them, they (Anaconda) gave it everything they had, they battled us right to the end… but we got it done in the tenth, it was a great battle, I think it’s great for the district that the two best teams in the district ended up in the championship game, and obviously, for our kids, I’m ecstatic that they’re going back to the states. It’s tons of fun.
Travis Wilson will get the start for game one, followed by Hartman in game two.
The Stampede has a record of 78-18 over the last two seasons, something that Mound is very proud of.
“This is an outstanding ball club, fitting of being a New York State representative, said Mound.
"We’re going to match up with anybody that could possibly come against us, so, we like our chances.”
The Stampede will play their first game on Wednesday, against Coughlin, out of Rochester.
The State Tournament will be aired over an internet webcast. For more information, go to www.americanlegionbaseball.org.
The Stampede will play their first game on Wednesday, against Coughlin, out of Rochester.
The State Tournament will be aired over an internet webcast. For more information, go to www.americanlegionbaseball.org.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)