As much as I would like to see Sparty win next week (just to continue the theme of chaos), has anyone here seen Michigan State's offense?
posted by holden at 10:41 AM on December 01
Should have used "Yinz."
posted by holden at 11:26 PM on November 17
15 years is way better than life, but still insane.
posted by holden at 09:59 PM on November 13
A great read if you want a concrete example of what's wrong with our drug laws and mandatory minimums.
posted by holden at 10:55 AM on November 13
Oregon is Clemsoning.
posted by holden at 11:25 PM on November 07
I know why workplaces enact rules. Lawyers make them extra careful. But are you in favor of Incognito being punished for using a racial slur even if everyone who heard it said it was a jocular moment without insulting intent? This wasn't something he did publicly. It was in a voicemail to one person.
No, I don't think Incognito should be retroactively punished for violating a bright-line rule relating to racial slurs that was not in effect at the time it was breached (and likely never will be enacted, for reasons you have set forth). Ex post facto and all that stuff. As noted above, however, I do think that teams or the league should think about taking steps to formally ban certain behaviors/actions/types of talk to ensure this situation does not arise in the future and so that they have a clearer legal basis for taking action of the type the Dolphins did here.
I think the voicemail was in exceedingly poor judgment at best and threatening at worst (and it goes well beyond just the use of racially-charged terms), and sounds as if it was part of a pattern of repeatedly creating or contributing to a harassing environment, which is the reason I think Incognito was (and should have been) punished. I suspect the Dolphins suspended him not necessarily because this was "beyond the pale" (my words from above), but largely because they wanted to cover themselves from a liability standpoint and because they probably have broad cover to do so under a "conduct detrimental to the team" clause in his contract. Good outcome (from my perspective), even if the motivation was somewhat self-serving.
I'm not going to shed any tears for Incognito -- by many accounts he is a dirty and disrespectful player that opponents have suggested aims to injure. In a bizzaro circumstance of "protecting one of their own" which only comes about because another of "its own" was not protected by his team or teammates, I am sure the union will try to make sure Incognito gets paid under his current contract. If he does not get another contract offer after this "character assassination," I will view that as largely of his own doing. My guess is that he makes some public apology and gets another job; in the NFL (as with many other professional sports) you can usually find at least one team willing to value talent over character.
posted by holden at 06:31 PM on November 07
Do you really think a blanket prohibition on variants of the N word is going to stop its non-antagonistic usage among young black athletes and some white ones in their social circles? If not, the end result will be occasional players punished for commonplace behavior, based on whether the outside world caught wind of it.
No, I think it is unlikely to change general usage in the culture at large, but that's not the point. The point is, allowing it in a workplace is really downside only from an employer's perspective. Putting aside the issue of homophobic slurs (which, as a somewhat tangential aside, while presumably not used as "terms of affection" among young people, also regularly show up in the same music in which racial slurs are used in a non-racial-slur sense), take the example of sexual overtures. In the non-workplace world, one is free to, and it is presumably commonplace to, hit on members of the opposite sex (or the same sex) and even to outright sexually proposition them. And to do so in the workplace is not per se illegal. But most employers rightly prohibit this type of behavior at work, even in a joking manner, without requiring a look behind how someone takes it, because the risks of turning a blind eye to that type of thing are just too great. I don't think they do it with any expectation of changing the culture at large or prohibiting lawful private behavior, but because it is just a bad policy from an employment law and risk perspective to let that go unchecked in the workplace.
posted by holden at 04:59 PM on November 07
The people involved. If Martin or anyone else who heard a racial slur was offended, then it's a big deal. But if not, not. I think a blanket rule about specific words is less likely to be well-enforced than if a situation is judged in context. The NFL should just ask everybody involved in this conflict what went down, and either punish or exonerate, as quickly as possible.
I think it is easier to have a blanket rule that frankly would not result in much loss of camaraderie or loss of any meaningful social good than to rely on self-reporting when it has clearly been established that speaking out is likely to result in character attacks and being ostracized. Sure, it might be unpopular and/or difficult to enforce, but it seems the social good of a blanket prohibition would outweigh any benefit of continued use of racial slurs even when not intended as racial slurs. And, not that you have applied this logic to the homophobic slurs side of the coin (which you have elected to ignore), but I think this logic really starts to fall apart when you think about homophobic slurs in a locker room/team environment and the possible resulting adverse consequences in terms of inculcating an environment in which gay players could really never feel comfortable.
posted by holden at 04:11 PM on November 07
A form of the racial slur is in countless hip hop songs and is used colloquially in a friendly manner by many young people among themselves. I think a blanket rule against using it in the NFL is likely to run head first into that reality, particularly given how many players are black.
Art/entertainment and social media/social interactions inhabit or occur in cultural spaces, not workplaces. I am all for the right of people to say whatever they want, to present it in their creative outputs, etc. But I see no reason to condone or accept behavior that is okay from a first amendment standpoint in a workplace, even one as idiosyncratic as that of an NFL team. I appreciate that these things may come out in the heat of battle (and, if a player is unlucky enough to have a mic or lipreader pick it up, we have seen some of them fined for it), but as an employer you have the right to set rules of conduct for your employees and I think this should be one that is deployed (and one that it is in the interest of teams to deploy, from a legal liability standpoint).
If an NFL player calls another player that in a context that is not taken as offensive by the people who heard it, I don't see why it should matter to anybody else.
But who's to say someone has or hasn't take offense? I think this situation has effectively proven (via the outrage over Martin allegedly violating "the code" -- i.e., the sanctity of the locker room) that even if someone is offended, they likely would not pipe up about it. If we use my other example of baseline rules and apply this logic and assumption (that no one is offended, so who cares?) to homophobic slurs, you get a line of thinking that is certainly conducive to a locker room culture in which gay athletes would never even think of coming out.
rcade: There aren't many businesses where workers are trained to physically brutalize each other and they face debilitating injuries every day they go to work.
grum: The armed forces?
grum: The armed forces?
This article by a former marine is a good read. While the comments suggest that the enforcement of the Marines policy may leave a bit to be desired, at least they have a policy.
posted by holden at 03:34 PM on November 07
Given how strongly worded your comment was, particularly the passage I quoted, I think I gave it a fair reading.
Look, I won't quibble on your intent. I will just say I feel you read what I wrote to erect a strawman (NFL workplace = all other workplaces and should be governed by all the same rules) into my statement that was not there, and missed a key qualifier.
If there are basic rules that should apply to this situation, what are they, specifically? I think context is everything here, even in the infamous voicemail. A lot of people think Incognito should be drummed out of the league for using a racial slur in a threatening voicemail. But what if neither side thought it was a threat, and what if teammates say that slur was thrown around in a joking manner often?
How about no use of racial or homophobic slurs under any circumstances, for one? Who cares if it is done often? It has no place in civilized society and certainly should not be condoned (or have a blind eye turned to it) in any workplace. That is just an issue of human dignity/human decency. Also, federal laws addressing workplace harassment as relating to hostile work environments. I suspect if Martin wanted to pursue a legal case here (and maybe that it his last best chance for a big payday if he does not want to or will not be able to continue a career as a professional football player), this will get settled out and we probably will not see a court/jury try to struggle through the concept of applying these laws to the football context and determining whether Martin was part of a protected class, but I would probably not want to be arguing the Dolphins side on that one.
I'm not saying Incognito should be run out of the league for this (although I am sure some are). The norms and ways of football culture are what they are at this point and should be taken into account when judging his actions. I just think they should change -- not to the same level of behavior expected in other workplace contexts, but to a level that is compatible with 21st century standards of general human behavior.
posted by holden at 02:33 PM on November 07
Comparing football to other businesses is silly. There aren't many businesses where workers are trained to physically brutalize each other and they face debilitating injuries every day they go to work. And nothing is as physical in football as playing on the line.
rcade -- I was not trying to suggest that the same rules apply to all workplaces. Obviously, what goes on and is acceptable in a law firm is different than what is acceptable in a military platoon or a football locker room. However, as noted, I think there are some basic rules that should apply across the board and, in this case, seems that even a fairly low generally-applicable baseline has been breached. I suppose one can dispute that the specifics in this case breach some subjective and mythical baseline standard, but to take what I wrote as suggesting that the NFL should be held to the same standards as all other work places is a misreading at best and disingenuous at worst.
Also, and this point is made in the Grantland article I linked, if the NFL clearly (or even from the standpoint of perception) has a problem with its employees' mental health and with violent tendencies spilling over off the field, seems some efforts should be made to address the factors that contribute to that and to try to limit those (to the greatest extent possible) to on-field brutish behavior only. I appreciate that it is not possible to simply flip the switch on and off on this stuff, but the NFL and its teams can and should do a better job of addressing that. Just because this type of behavior is fairly widespread does not mean that that's the way it must be and should continue to be.
posted by holden at 01:45 PM on November 07
Maybe it's just me, but this seems like a bit of a well-polished smear job, from a guy who, while professing to be friends with Martin and Incognito, actually seems to have only ever played with Incognito (at college and in the pros). Maybe Murtha really is objective and has no axe to grind, but when the most you can muster in terms of balance is that Incognito's only mistake was to use the N-word, seems a bit suspect to me.
I am sure a lot of this is being overblown -- calling the ask/demand for $15k "extortion" is a bit rich (as is the hyperbole that Incognito's threats are or should be criminal offenses), and this article provides some additional context for that Vegas trip piece of it. But, as observed by (noted philosopher) Jim Schwartz in connection with previous hazing incidents and repeated more recently, at the end of the day the NFL and each NFL team is not a fraternity, but a multibillion dollar business. Why some pretty basic rules of civility and workplace behavior that should be observed in all businesses should not apply because football is "a man's game" is beyond me and is complete and utter bullshit. I don't care about the broader context of Incognito's voicemails and whether Martin originally viewed them as a joke or what have you (there are a lot of victims of bullying or abusive behavior who will make light of it to try to ingratiate themselves with their tormentors), some of this stuff is just beyond the pale.
I think this article by Brian Phillips at Grantland does a good job of addressing the "man up" response this whole things seems to have engendered from a number of players, talking heads, and assholes with Twitter accounts.
posted by holden at 12:33 PM on November 07
That was the best run I've seen all year, just great. He also had a couple runs up the middle where he seemed to warp space-time and appear at the other side of a mass of tacklers for a ten-yard gain. Amazing performance.
The run by Lamar Miller on which he got the ball punched out inside the 10 was actually a pretty great run, too (up until losing the ball of course), although Bernard's was incredible.
posted by holden at 11:10 AM on November 01
Given that at $3M/WAR, Mike Trout would have earned about $60M over the last two years, why the hell WOULDN'T you sign that contract? Because math is hard? I dont have a math degree, but at $30M/yr, I'd happily calculate and double check Trout's compensation for a mere 1% handling fee.
Incentive-based contracts are already pretty rare, and typically deal with playing time incentives for players who are massive injury risk. Achievement-type incentives other than playing time are typically for things like All Star appearances, home run or batting titles, etc. and typically add marginal comp to the overall deal (i.e., are not a major component of overall compensation, but more token bonuses).
The primary reason this will not be done is because a contract is an attempt to balance risk in a kind of veil of ignorance/original position state. With fully guaranteed contracts, the club is at risk that players break down and are unable to play or unable to play to expectations (the crazy thing about this Cardinals team and the run they were able to make is that they paid Chris Carpenter, Rafael Furcal, and Jason Motte approx. $24MM this year in the aggregate and none of them played a single game -- and each of them, save Motte, would likely have been a pretty significant upgrade over his replacement). The player, on the other hand, takes the risk that he will majorly outperform his contract and thus have left money on the table. So the parties try to find some fair middle ground that protects the club from the downside risk of the player underperforming/not playing (while giving the club the upside of potential overperformance) and the player takes the sure thing of a guaranteed contract knowing that if he ends up getting injured (even career-ending), he will get paid his guaranteed amount (but taking the downside risk that he could end up underpaid relative to performance).
posted by holden at 10:16 AM on November 01
Hats off to the Red Sox. Pretty impressive to win a third World Series in a decade, with very different personnel than the first one in 2004.
As a Cardinals fan, I am happy to have seen two World Series wins in the past 10 years (witnessing the clinching of one in person and going to at least one game in each of the four World Series the Cards have been in since '04), and think they will be competitive in the coming years. I do feel bad for Beltran, who I think likely will not be back with the Cards. Seems like a guy that deserves a WS ring.
posted by holden at 12:47 AM on October 31
If Pedro has only been here for '99 and 2000 he might still be my favorite Sox player. And you need to remember he also brought that same wonderful sense of personality to the park. And you need to remember he also brought that same wonderful sense of personality to the park. People talk about certain players as "Appointment Television", that you plan your week to see them. Pedro's starts were more like being in prison: there was no chance you were going anywhere for anything.
I was a grad student in Boston in this period, and remember going through the schedule periodically during the season, figuring out when Pedro would pitch, and then getting tickets for just those games. These were the days back when you could actually buy tickets the day of games, or certainly within a couple weeks of a game (with the obvious exception of Yankees games and a few other marquee matchups). Best thing was that if the game was against lower tier or unsexy competition (saw a lot of A's, Rays, and Twins), the pricing was such that you could get decent seats for about $15. I think I saw about 15 games at Fenway from 1999-2002, and Pedro probably started 12 of them. I remember that every game he pitched, there was always a groan in the crowd when he gave up his first hit or walked his first batter, because the sense was always that today might be the perfect game or no-hitter.
posted by holden at 09:48 AM on October 30
Yeah, my heart couldn't take a game 7
I don't know if my kids' trick-or-treating plans can take a Game 7, but I am hoping we will have to adjust their Halloween schedule.
posted by holden at 01:39 PM on October 29
Ortiz has been unconscionable this series. Just an amazing performance.
Last night was probably the first game that did not have some weird, fluky, or sloppy play or highly questionable managerial decisions (you could argue Matheny should have pulled Wainwright at the first signs of trouble in the 7th, but I think if there's one pitcher on the Cardinals staff you stick with in that situation, it's him). Just a good, tight ball game with two starting pitchers who were really bringing it -- with the exception of the two doubles in the first inning and then Ross in the 7th, did not seem that there were many hard-hit balls off of Wainwright (and he obviously had the curve working for strikes) and Lester obviously threw an excellent game. If this does go 7, the Red Sox will be idiotic to not pitch Dubront in Game 7, as the Cardinals have continued to struggle with lefties (their battering of Kershaw in Game 6 of the NLCS notwithstanding).
posted by holden at 09:17 AM on October 29
I just have a feeling this thing has to come down to a Halloween Game 7.
posted by holden at 11:32 PM on October 28
Eh, some decisions. Matheny has gotten a lot of criticism for bringing in a ground ball pitcher instead of a strikeout pitcher to face gomes. He was hoping for a double play. If he gets it, brilliant call.
When Maness faced Gomes, there were two outs. Not sure why Matheny went to a ground ball specialist when the guy at the plate Ks over 30% of the time.
posted by holden at 06:29 PM on October 28
If I remember correctly, he was pretty pissed later on when he found out it only counted as a single.
Not as pissed as some Vegas sports books that supposedly started to pay out the "over" bets (over/under for the game was 7.5 runs) only to find out that the game actually officially ended 4-3, and not 7-3.
posted by holden at 04:58 PM on October 28
The thing that I love about the World Series above other championship series is that, save travel days, the teams play every day. Just fun to watch a series go back and forth and know that they'll be back at it the next night, with last night's narrative (crazy obstruction call!) quickly being replaced by tonight's (pick off to end the game!).
posted by holden at 10:57 AM on October 28
Saying that the Red Sox have thrown away two games, while technically true, also undersells the Cardinals' efforts/actions in getting in a position for that to happen. Getting runners on base and then the double steal in Game 2, getting 2nd and 3rd with one out vs. Uehara last night, although one of those runners was Workman's. (Although sending Molina was questionable, it, coupled with Craig advancing, obviously put pressure on Boston's defense.). It seems to me that the focus on the deciding play obscured some really questionable managing by Farrell (obviously mentioned by a couple of folks above, though).
This series is actually reminding me a bit of the 2006 Cards-Tigers series, where I think Tigers pitchers had at least one error in each game. Just has been kind of weird and sloppy, where sloppy plays have decided or contributed to the outcome of all 3 games (as a Cards fan, I will be somewhat delusional in thinking that Game 1 would have gone differently had Wainwright gotten that double play to get out of the first with no runs, rather than the Kozma error).
I will say that the ending of the game last night, as noted above, was bizarre from a live fan experience in terms of just trying to figure out what happened and how to react. Reaction was generally "Oh no!" followed by fireworks out in centerfield followed by "Woooo? I guess?" My two oldest sons can tell their kids someday that they were at the only World Series game decided on a walk-off obstruction call, cause I bet it ain't happening again. What a weird and beautiful sport this can be.
posted by holden at 08:26 PM on October 27
I was at the game last night and must admit it was the most bizarre ending to a game I have experienced personally (duh). The crowd really didn't know what to make of it -- instead of the standard eruption you get on a walk-off, most people seemed pretty confused (followed by being pretty happy, obviously). For what it's worth, I saw Joyce point out the obstruction right away (I was on the third base side, just past the bag in the lower level) and knew that Craig was probably going to be awarded home (although honestly thought it was automatic, without reference to whether the run was likely to score -- although I do think healthy Craig likely scores on that play without the interference, not sure about current Craig).
What's a shame is that lost in this is that Allen Craig actually had a monster 9th-inning clutch hit off of one of the best closers in baseball (who seems to be bordering on unhittable at present); shame that the indelible memory of him from this 9th inning will be of him stumbling and bumbling down to home. My abiding memory of that game, aside from the 9th, will be the squandered opportunities of the Cardinals. They had a man on third with no outs in two different innings (including once with the bases loaded) and failed to score each time. Exciting game, but not a particularly well-played game.
posted by holden at 09:08 AM on October 27
No self-linking, grum.
posted by holden at 11:28 AM on October 24
That would be such an enormous risk to take it's hard to imagine him doing it.
Anyone remember Kenny Rogers in Game 2 of the 2006 World Series? Discussed in length here in your obligatory trip to the SpoFi archives.
For the record, I doubt anything was amiss with Lester.
posted by holden at 11:26 AM on October 24
In some ways, I think a drubbing like that may be easier to bounce back from than a close loss turning on a bad play, a walk-off, or something of that nature. It also stands to mention that the Cardinals obviously did themselves no favors; it's not like they ran into a juggernaut that just dominated every phase of the game -- they committed 3 errors (including one that could have potentially gotten them out of the first with no runs allowed), left quite a few opportunities on the table (bases loaded with one out, second and third with two outs), etc. But the Red Sox obviously acquitted themselves quite well, and Cardinals pitchers are going to have to think about their approach vs a line-up that is obviously willing to be patient and work counts. Still think this one will go 6 or 7.
posted by holden at 11:19 AM on October 24
grum@work has apparently been reduced to code.
posted by holden at 04:20 PM on October 22
Interesting game, for sure. Indy seemed to take the Patriots circa early-to-mid-2000s strategy on how the DBs approached Manning's receivers -- lots of clutching, grabbing, and physical play that, for the most part, went uncalled. Indy's pass rush also took advantage of Denver's patchwork offensive line, and Manning did not look real comfortable in the pocket all night.
posted by holden at 01:05 PM on October 21
That's a great story, beaverboard.
How about this kid John Icci, who handles the 8th inning? He from the North End?
posted by holden at 09:23 PM on October 20
Bad night for Tigers -- at one point last night I flipped over from LSU losing on a FG to Victorino's GS to KO the Detroit nine and then went in search of a competitive sporting event only to stumble across Clemson getting stomped by FSU.
posted by holden at 03:33 PM on October 20
I was at Games 3 and 4 of the 2004 World Series, which was both a bummer (as a Cards fan) and pretty cool (from a baseball history perspective). Am thinking it will be a bit more competitive this time around. Have not seen anything written on this, but off the top of my head I think the only player on either team still around from that series is Ortiz. Chris Carpenter was on the Cardinals that year but was not on the playoff roster due to some nerve impingement or something (not surprising) that flared up towards the end of the 2004 season and he sat out this year injured.
Looks like I will get to go to Game 3 or 4 this year and take my 5 year-old son and 7 year-old son (together with my wife and her parents). Hope they will appreciate just what a special thing this is (although likely not for a couple of years). It actually will be the second World Series game for my oldest, who slept through Game 3 of the 2006 World Series (Tigers at Cardinals) as a 9 month-old. I married into some pretty sweet season tickets; single guys (or gals), add it to your "marriage material" checklist.
posted by holden at 02:59 PM on October 20
E9 sinks Dodgers' battleship.
posted by holden at 07:44 PM on October 19
I feel really bad for Panama, but hats off to the U.S. for going for the win and maintaining the integrity of the competition. Hopefully Panama will be back in the mix for 2018.
When Zusi scored the goal, the Panamanian player closest to Davis (who sent in the cross) just turned to Davis with a sad look and put his hands up as if to say "Why?" Video here.
posted by holden at 10:26 AM on October 18
posted by holden at 10:24 PM on October 16
That is pretty awful from the Post-Dispatch. The one thing that grates on me about certain corners of Cardinals' fandom (and media cheerleaders apparently) is the sanctimonious "right way/Cardinal way" and "best fans in baseball" crap. St. Louis is actually a great baseball town, with generally knowledgeable fans, but a number of fanbases can say that. The fans also tend to be irrationally exuberant about "scrappy" (i.e., small, white) no-hit middle infielders such as David Eckstein, Brendan Ryan,Skip Schumacher, and Bo Hart. Magary's screed is certainly a bit over the top, but some Cardinals fans are not helping the cause.
posted by holden at 06:21 PM on October 11
Apparently (you'll just have to trust that I read this in a reputable source that I cannot currently find), Girardi was loathe to leave NY and uproot his family. So it's worth noting that money and the potential for success on the field are only two factors among many, and who knows how Girardi ranks those personally.
As to the Cubs, I think the rebuild is going to take a while longer than just the next couple of years. They did flip some vets (e.g., Garza, Feldman) for prospects and apparently signed the two best international free agents, but their cornerstone stars (Rizzo, Castro) regressed this year and they are going to have to try to become competitive in a division with two other teams with good young talent in St. Louis and Pittsburgh. Epstein and Hoyer inherited a pretty mediocre roster and a relatively barren farm system, and it's going to take a while to build both up.
posted by holden at 05:46 PM on October 10
hincandenza, I think the Cardinals are about to play the Yankees of the National League in the NLCS (if you go by payroll and market size). If you are going by historical and more recent sustained excellence and being a regular face in the post-season (at least in the divisional era), then yeah.
posted by holden at 04:05 PM on October 10
Good to have the Pirates back. As a Cardinals fan, was impressed with the Pirates all year and in this last playoff series, and would have put my rooting interests behind the Pirates had they advanced. Great core of young talent, and if they can keep their players (having McCutchen locked in for 6 or so more years and Cole under team control for a while certainly helps on that front), the future is bright. I think re-signing Martin is going to be key for them, as he seems to handle that staff really well and makes up for mediocre offense with great defense.
posted by holden at 09:45 AM on October 10
Between being the self-appointed enforcers of home run-watching rules to this childishness, this Braves team is just insufferable. Shame on Brian McCann, in particular, for not catching his former teammate and future Hall of Famer.
A good prediction, Chipper!
posted by holden at 09:22 AM on October 09
Okay -- so looks like the Cards-Bucs get a game in prime time after all, in light of the other NL series wrapping tonight. But still.
posted by holden at 01:00 AM on October 08
The whole postseason scheduling has been a bit ridiculous (unless you are a Red Sox or Rays fan). Cardinals-Bucs games have all been afternoon games. Only game of that series I have been able to watch was Sunday's.
And TBS' coverage has been absolutely awful -- missing action so they can let the talking heads talk, etc.
posted by holden at 11:50 PM on October 07
Check out this video of a Rice onside kick where the kicker does a Rabona. Someone has been playing a lot of FIFA 2013 or watching Ronaldo highlights on YouTube. The greatest part is not that he had the balls to kick it that way but that the kick itself was absolutely perfect (although the Houston guy on the return team closest to the ball should have moved up to try to attack the ball instead of retreating to receive it).
posted by holden at 01:02 PM on September 23
Fight question -- when Scott starts going after Kessel and Kessel then starts whacking at Scott's ankles with two-handed chops, does that violate fighting rules (not in the NHL rulebook sense, but in terms of fighting code/etiquette)?
posted by holden at 11:00 AM on September 23
It's a suspension for making a gesture that was penalized on the field. Big deal. Probably no suspension necessary.
posted by holden at 12:26 AM on September 21
I think Dempsey missed that penalty at the end purposefully just to keep the scoreline.
Overall, outstanding result, but not a great game. U.S. conceded the ball way too easily -- a sharper and more incisive side could have really blown the lid off of that game. Obviously missing Bradley hurt significantly, as did missing some of the others. Also, Mexico dominated the opening 20 or so minutes, and could have been a much different game had they managed to convert that dominance into a goal and put the U.S. in a position where it had to press. Lots to work on between now and next summer, but for now the team should celebrate a job well done in qualifying.
posted by holden at 10:52 AM on September 11
Don't forget T.O., grum.
posted by holden at 10:09 AM on September 11
There's a Thursday night game every week this season in the NFL. Is this new?
Started last year -- although the first Thursday game (Giants-Cowboys) was moved to avoid conflict with the Democratic National Convention.
posted by holden at 10:55 AM on September 10
Well, beating Texas last night puts them one game back of the idle Cardinals and, coupled with the Reds' loss to the Cubs, gave them an extra game cushion on the Reds. The Cardinals have the easiest schedule of the three NL Central teams the remainder of the season (the Nats are the only team with a winning record the Cardinals play in their last 19), while the Reds are not far behind (6 against the Pirates but every other series against a team with a losing record), while the Pirates get the Rangers (2 more games) and then 6 against the Reds, for the most difficult schedule of the three NL Central contenders. Really will likely come down to the 6 head-to-head games between the Reds and Pirates (third-to-last series of the year and final series of the year). Should be exciting.
posted by holden at 10:08 AM on September 10
Also, a philosophical/lexigraphicological question for the group: My spouse is of the opinion that it is no longer acceptable to call a certain receiver "WELKAH," as he is from Oklahoma, went to Texas Tech, and has not actually played the majority of his career in nor currently plays anywhere near Bahston. I aver that he made his name in That Fair City and that said name ought reflect its origin (or its ahhrigin, as the case may be).
Which of us is morally, linguistically and/or technically correct?
Which of us is morally, linguistically and/or technically correct?
Welker came into the league in 2004 and has played 3 seasons in Miami (plus played in one game of his first season for San Diego), 6 in New England, and now part of 1 in Denver. So, he has actually played the majority of his professional career in New England. Plus, 672 of 777 career catches (divide by 7, multiply by 6 and what do you get? -- Whoreslayer's Younger Brother?) came in NE, 37 of his 40 touchdowns receiving TDs, etc. and there you go. Safe to associate him with New England for the foreseeable and likely for the entirety of his career. If he was a Hall of Famer (I suspect he's not, although tack on a couple of years catching 70-100 passes from Manning and who knows) and the Pro Football HoF enshrined players as members of a certain team (it does not), my money would be on him going in as a Patriot.
posted by holden at 02:37 PM on September 06
Certainly, that history is no worse than Braun, who only got 50 games, and had previously failed an actual test long after the 2003 amnesty tests... but got off on a technicality.
Braun actually (oddly) got 65 games, which seemed to account for some past acts and/or obstruction of the investigation type of things. I think A-Rod may have gotten a better deal (not necessarily Braun's deal, but better than rest of this season and all of next -- maybe 100 games, say), if he had tried to negotiate a settlement a la Braun.
posted by holden at 06:46 PM on August 06
Seeing your wife or significant other shit on the delivery table is worth $1 million in blackmail/embarrassment/hush/STFU money, amirite?
Kidding aside, to each his/her own. I witnessed the birth of each of my three sons (although number one was only 30 hours, so I got nuthin' on rcade), and would not trade it for anything -- but, to justgary's point, I live reasonably comfortably. Wonderful experience for me, but could see how it could be traumatic for some/most. We took some hippie birthing class that probably brainwashed me into thinking this this was a more low-key experience than it was.
posted by holden at 11:36 PM on July 31
Not sure anyone is going to have an appetite for pizza once the placenta is delivered.
posted by holden at 12:25 PM on July 31
The usual: keel-haulings, careening onto shore, termites from wooden legs infesting the bat rack, bitter parrots giving away your signs.
Don't forget scurvy.
posted by holden at 12:18 PM on July 31
posted by holden at 12:46 AM on July 28
I just have to ask who the hell writes a contract that triples a guy's base salary if he comes to workouts.
From the team perspective, it makes a lot of sense, as it creates a massive disincentive to skipping OTAs as part of a hold-out.
I guess they had to juice it for the schedule to work, but odd that there are 16 teams in the East (50% chance of making the playoffs, all other things being equal) but only 14 in the West (57% chance).
posted by holden at 09:24 AM on July 20
"Fulham sale adds to the alarming US takeover of English football," writes David Conn, Guardian columnist and Manchester City supporter, apparently without irony.
Appreciate that he likely did not write the headline, but funny in its sky-is-falling-sensationalism nonetheless. Particularly in light of the fact that if you could choose to take issue with owners coming from a culture of unbridled capitalism as opposed to ones with wealth coming out of an oligarchic kleptocracy or places with no real history of wealth creation but vast natural resources wealth and dubious human rights records and treatment/views of women, you got to go after the first category, right?
Comments thread is pretty funny as well. Apparently, American ownership of EPL teams means that the Americans will look to strip the clubs of assets and bleed them dry (not exactly sure how this would be done, but Bain) and/or use the clubs to make money (the horror!) and that relegation will be relegated to the scrapheap of history. And maybe they will add a "moneyball" or something to the last 5 minutes of each half where each goal counts as two. Okay, I made that last one up.
posted by holden at 09:18 AM on July 13
Is that true or is it that Uruguay makes for good 3rd place games?
2002 WC Consolation Game -- Turkey 3 - South Korea 2.
2002 WC Final -- Brazil 2 - Germany 0
2006 WC Consolation Game -- Germany 3 - Portugal 1
2006 WC Final -- Italy 1 - France 1 (Italy wins on PKs)
2010 WC Consolation Game -- Germany 3 - Uruguay 2
2010 WC Final -- Spain 1 - Netherlands 0
posted by holden at 05:58 PM on June 30
I love that some of the major international tournaments have third place games. Often seem to be more exciting than the main event. Obviously the pressure is lower, and as a result the games tend to be more open.
posted by holden at 04:34 PM on June 30
Copyright © 2013 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.