Is this even about sports? Talk about a thread that needs to die a quick death.
posted by donnnnychris at 09:09 AM on June 12
Very true LBB, very true.
posted by donnnnychris at 09:07 AM on June 12
And in reference to the article JJ, I just wanted to get the discussion started. I'm sure there will be other articles later in the week to reference or make a thread with on this subject.
posted by donnnnychris at 09:05 AM on June 12
Haha JJ, I'm sure Tiger has called Phil much better names behind closed doors. Reminds me of an old story about Arnold Palmer. It seems that during the height of the Jack Nicklaus-Palmer rivalry he used to refer to going to the bathroom in the morning as his "Daily Nicklaus." Ahhh, for the days of yore. And by the way, my pick for this year's Open is Mickelson. Not sure why, but he seems to have turned the corner finally in the mental department. David Howell is in my top 5 mix. He has been playing extremely well lately. As for the other guys mentioned, I just don't see Tiger coming back after this long of a layoff and making a run at the title. The Open requires too much precision both off the tee and on the greens and I just don't think he'll have that having taken 9 weeks off. Ernie Els seems to have forgotten how to play at the highest level lately, but two guys that might be interesting are Vijay Singh and Retief Goosen. Singh has been struggling of late but came alive this week so maybe this will be another upturn for him. Goosen is the proto-typical Open player, kind of like Hale Irwin back in the day. Straight off the tee and nerves of steel. Another name to ponder, if he can get himself righted on the greens, is Sergio Garcia. If he can't putt though, then it won't matter how well he hits it. Oh well, either way it's one of my four favorite weeks of the year. I can't wait for Thursday morning.
posted by donnnnychris at 08:49 AM on June 12
TBH, jerseygirl, great reference to the Dateline NBC specials. I couldn't believe it when I read ggermanctl@sbcglobal's comment. Talk about being inappropriate! Unreal.
posted by donnnnychris at 08:46 AM on June 12
Um, Berman may be annoying but he's nowhere near as bad as Mr. Homeboy Stuart Scott, or half of the other dingdongs they have at ESPN. The next time Scott calls Tiger Woods T-Dub I think I'm gonna break my TV. I mean, I was watching the Belmont Stakes the other day and Kenny Mayne was doing his deadpan routine on ABC's pre-race show. It was really pathetic and out of place. That's why I like to check out the Internet for sports scores and roundups. Just the facts, ma'am.
posted by donnnnychris at 08:44 AM on June 12
What a bunch of immature brats on here...I disagree with something and everybody has a fit. Pathetic. And do you really want me to go back and find every instance of you-vs.-me aggression on this site? It would take a while and be a pretty long post. So cool the schoolyard crap already.
posted by donnnnychris at 08:39 AM on June 12
Actually yerfatma, I was a sports editor for the last half of that decade, so I guess I was part of that drinking-the-kool-aid fun. And judging by a lot of the rants on Sports Filter, a mass suicide by editors would be warranted here as well (that was a joke, calm down all of you).
posted by donnnnychris at 08:36 AM on June 12
I'm the biggest Wie supporter there is but the fact is, she has trouble with short putts down the stretch. She missed another short one (four feet) on the 16th that would have kept her right in the hunt for the playoff. I think her struggles right now probably have more to do with her age than anything else. Emotionally she isn't hardened enough to withstand the grind of competition all the way to the finish. That will change with time. Everybody gets stronger as they get older in this department and she is no exception. All of that said, I agree with most of you in the fact that here we have a 16-year-old girl who has finished in the top 5 in four of the last five LGPA majors. That is unprecedented in the history of golf. No male or female has ever been this good this young, not even close. She should be applauded for her skill and the future she will bring to the sport. Those who deride her for not winning are missing the point. The wins will come. Anybody who thinks otherwise just isn't paying attention to what is happening. Give her some credit for being as good as she is up to this point. Most girls her age are worried about who they'll sit next to at lunch on Monday. She's making millions. Good for her.
posted by donnnnychris at 01:55 AM on June 12
If you lose your credential, then covering the team is nearly impossible. I was a reporter a few years back for the better part of a decade and having access to the locker room and the press conferences is essential to being able to write informative and credible stories. If you don't have that then all you are is a blogger with no inside information, which is kind of useless. Either way, this whole thing smacks of a thin-skinned owner who can't stand his team being on track to a record-breaking season in terms of futility. Now that I think about it, if I was in his shoes, I'd be pretty peeved about life as well.
posted by donnnnychris at 01:38 AM on June 11
rcade, while the organization is private it is a public entity. The Royals operate at a public level so their actions are supposedly transparent. The Royals have absolutely no justification for taking away these credentials. None. Apparently, the owner and his minions had their feelings hurt and wanted the big bad reporters to go away. Well, guess what? There will be other reporters, with probably just-as-tough questions. So what will the Royals do the next time? Keep revoking credentials until there is no one left to cover the team? Ahhhh, there's a thought. So if a team sucks as bad as the Royals, but no one gets to hear or read about it, did it really happen? This is an absolute joke. Could you imagine George getting miffed in New York and kicking out a couple of reporters? No you can't, because George doesn't let it bother him. The Royals need to fold up shop now and spare all of us the misery of their existence.
posted by donnnnychris at 02:32 PM on June 10
Sorry you can't respond justgary. Guess that shows what I'm saying is true. Thanks. And by the way, I read the thread. So don't try to deflect what you said.
posted by donnnnychris at 02:26 PM on June 10
You're right. We don't know. Which means there could be nothing, while we know at least some of what they have on bonds, which is a lot. Those are facts. I'll let others deal with the conspiracy theories. We don't know? We don't know what about Palmeiro? That he FAILED a drug test? I thought that was perfectly clear. That is a FACT. Sheesh, everybody gets a free pass except for Bonds. THAT is what I'M tired of.
posted by donnnnychris at 07:13 PM on June 09
In Shaq's first five Game 1 appearances in the NBA finals he never failed to get at least 20 points and 10 rebounds. So for him, it was a bad game. 17 points and 7 rebounds just doesn't cut it for the big guy. And he was 1-for-9 at the line, so you were close. For the most part, in these playoffs, the Heat has been almost impossible to beat when Shaq is at his best. He needs to be dominant for Miami to have the upper hand in this series as well. If Shaq is less than usual Shaq, then Dallas will win easily.
posted by donnnnychris at 05:29 PM on June 09
As I've said before, it all comes down to O'Neal. He had a bad game and the Heat lost. Wade is an amazing player but he can't do it by himself without Shaq. Dallas will win in five if Shaq doesn't bounce back quickly and return to his dominating ways.
posted by donnnnychris at 04:21 PM on June 09
The tongue and cheek comments are quite hilarious. grum@work, you might want to invest in a hat (haha). It's a wonderful invention that keeps that balding pate (of which mine is fast coming) at a normal tempurature, thus limiting the meltdowns on the thought process. As for this whole HGH mess, I think blood tests are the way to go, but only if they develop one that is reliable enough to be accurate. With the way a positive test pretty much ends a career, the testers have to be nearly 100 percent sure before condemning a player.
posted by donnnnychris at 07:00 PM on June 08
Ok, I really laughed out loud on that Billy Martin/Bob Probert crack...hilarious, Bishop
posted by donnnnychris at 06:09 AM on June 08
I was reading columns on this issue and once again, Jeff Passan has written an excellent one on the Grimsley matter. He chronicles the difficulty in testing for Human Growth Hormone. It's a great read on the subject. As for this whole mess, well, the lid's about to be blown off the pot, so to speak. This might be the big one everybody's been waiting for in terms of names. In this world we live in, as you all know, nothing stays unleaked for long. It's only a matter of time before the names come out.
posted by donnnnychris at 07:10 PM on June 07
Passan's columns are really excellent. Check out the one on his thoughts about the amateur draft in general. His story about Brien Taylor is sad, but for me it is sad mostly because of the way he hurt himself, in a ridiculous scuffle with lowlifes. That's too bad that such a talent was wasted on such a trivial thing. I remember when Taylor came out, what a big deal his holdout was and then when he signed. Since then, two of my friends have been top 7 picks in the amateur draft and have collected HUGE bonuses ($700,000 for one and $1.2 million for the other; not bad chump change). Taylor's influence obviously affected their situations. Whether it's a good thing or not, who knows. Still, great stuff from Passan. I always enjoy reading his columns.
posted by donnnnychris at 02:39 AM on June 06
This whole series comes down to Shaq. If he plays like he has been, then the Heat win in five or six (mostly likely six, Dallas certainly isn't a pushover). If Shaq falters, then the Mavs win in six or seven. Either way, this should be one of the most entertaining finals we've had in a while. Maybe both teams will score over 100 points in the same game. What a thought that is.
posted by donnnnychris at 02:17 AM on June 06
I just read her final scores and well, it was closer than I thought it would be. More power to her. I hope she wins the LPGA major that's coming up, so all of the Wie haters out there can just shut it.
posted by donnnnychris at 07:16 PM on June 05
Actually, Smithee, it is newsworthy. Simply because she is a 16-year-old girl competing against men (and doing better than half the field most of the time). You seem to glaze over on that fact. For her to even be able to get halfway up the leaderboard at her age and being a girl is amazing. How you can't see that is beyond me.
posted by donnnnychris at 03:48 AM on June 05
of course, charlatan...assuming is age is correct.
posted by donnnnychris at 03:45 AM on June 05
mjkredliner, your assessment of Jack's courses is off a little bit. I did a story when I was a newspaper sportswriter on a new course he was opening up back in 1998 so I researched his basic philosophy on course design. He prefers large landings areas for the tee shots (which do play to the fade, as you said) but he doesn't like large greens. He prefers small greens because, in his own words (I interviewed him), golf should be about iron play. The large fairways he gives the golfer allow for several places to drive the ball so that there are different options on how to attack the green. Just thought I'd let you know.
posted by donnnnychris at 01:48 AM on June 05
Wow grum@work, that is an amazing list. I think Pujols is a great player, and I don't think he's juicing, but I just thought I'd bring up the point and start the discussion. Pujols seems like one of the honest ballplayers, if there is any of them left. As for the start of his career, if you figure out his home run pace for his first five years, it is 40.2 HRs a year. If you go deeper, he has hit home runs in 26.8 percent of the games he's played up to this point (226 HRs in 843 games). Let's say he misses 6 weeks and ends up playing 60 more games this year. He'll finish with 41 HRs if he maintains the 26.8-percent pace and his career total will be 242. Then project that pace over the next 10 years. He'll add 402 more HRs and be 36 years old with 644 HRs. That isn't that much of a reach to think he could average basically 40 HRs a year until he's 36 years old. Alex Rodriguez might eventually crash into the 700-HR club along with the Babe, Barry and Hank Aaron, but I think Pujols is the only current major leaguer with a shot at 800. If he maintained the pace I stated above for four more years he'd have 805 HRs at the age of 40. Maintaining that pace at that age is hard to do. Most of the game's sluggers throughout history have seen their long-ball production go down in their late 30s with few exceptions. That said, Pujols has set himself up for a run at it. I hope he can bounce back from this and stay healthy enough for the rest of his career to give it a shot. Wouldn't that be something? 800 freakin home runs!!!
posted by donnnnychris at 01:44 AM on June 05
Well said chicobangs. I enjoy Cuban, he's a breath of fresh air in the stuffy world of professional team ownership. Half the stuff he says about the refs everybody else wishes they could say as well. Most of the time he's pretty close to being right on, it's just you never, ever hear owners say what he says. I think it's fun. As for Shaq, his resurgence has been fun to watch. He's playing like he did in L.A. and if he continues, I find it hard to think the Heat won't come out on top in the finals. I'm saying six games (seems to be the trendy pick) but if Shaq falters then all bets are off. This is going to be the most entertaining finals in quite a while. It should be exciting.
posted by donnnnychris at 01:27 AM on June 05
grum@work, it's funny that you brought up the steroid question in this thread because my brother-in-law and I were discussing that today in regards to Pujols. What is one of the main signs of steroid use? Injuries, which Pujols seems to get from time to time. Not big injuries but muscle type injuries, because the steroids push the muscles too fast and cause them to strain or pull. That has pretty much been Pujols' injury M.O. for the past few years. When he goes down it's a strain or pull, for the most part. And I love the comparison in HR numbers. If Pujols had gone for 70 this year his four year total would almost match Bonds exactly for the four years that ended with Bonds' 73 HR season in 2001. For comparison: Bonds had 37, 34, 49 and then 73 Pujols had 43, 46, 41 and then this year's total... And the years following Bonds' 73 HR season he had 46, 45 and 45 HRs. If the juice worked so good why didn't he go all Sammy Sosa on us and blow past 60 every year? The comparison with Maris' numbers is telling because Maris never was a big-time power hitter (he did have some pop, but not overwhelmingly so) and then one season he belts 61. Yet, no one thinks he was on steroids. Why not? It's amazing how the public has completely demonized Bonds yet Pujols is the face of the "clean" era. Give me a break. I'm not saying Pujols has done steroids, but you can't ignore his sudden power surge and how he injured himself. He was running for a pop up, for pete's sake!!!!! I mean, c'mon, he's supposed to be a top athlete. He can't run back for a pop up without getting hurt? And once again, I'm not saying Bonds didn't use anything. I'm just saying everybody else in this equation, namely Pujols, should be looked at closer. Level the playing field, so to speak, in the investigative work done on these guys.
posted by donnnnychris at 08:20 PM on June 04
The Red Terror, I was talking about in the history of golf. I wasn't talking about any other sports. Just golf. Ok, do we have that down now? Now that we understand what sport we're talking about, name one other player who almost won an LPGA major tournament at the age of 14. There is none, period. And ctal1999, you are absolutely right. Female athletes do tend to develop sooner but most of them are much better (with the exception of gymnastics) when they get into the college years (18 to 22 years old). For a girl to perform at the level Michelle Wie has from 14 years old to 16 years old is amazing. And kyrilmitch_76, I couldn't have said it better myself. Having been a lifelong golfer who's lowest score ever was an 82, I can appreciate Wie's talents even more. What she is doing is unreal.
posted by donnnnychris at 08:01 PM on June 04
You know, despite everything we've been debating about, the mere fact is the odds of Wie actually qualifying on Monday are pretty low. Let's say she shoots a 68, which would equal her best round in a men's tournament (she shot 68s in 2002 and 2004 at the Sony Open). That probably wouldn't be good enough. The history of the qualifiers for the U.S. Open is that they are almost always low-scoring shootouts. Anybody remember Shigeki's 58 a couple of years ago? So there probably will be a bunch of 64s, 65s and 66s. If Wie shoots 68 she'll make the top 50 but no way will that be good enough for the top 18. If she shoots 72, like she did at the local qualifier, she won't break the top 100. All that said, it's still amazing she can compete at this level at her age.
posted by donnnnychris at 03:04 AM on June 04
Good point mjkredliner. The lack of interest in this post is telling, for sure. I usually watch the President's Cup when it's on but sometimes it seems like too much. Either way, some golf is better than no golf!!!
posted by donnnnychris at 02:43 AM on June 04
Justgary, I never said Barry didn't use steroids. What I said was the media's scrutiny of Barry and Lance is very unbalanced. Lance has NEVER gotten the third degree at any stage of his career (except from the French). The U.S. media has basically given him a free pass the entire time. I'm just curious why that is. All you have to do is read Rick Reilly (Sports Illustrated's back-page columnist and winner of 7 straight sportswriter of the year awards, so he's supposedly the creme of the crop) to see the difference. Even before the Grand Jury and the book he had convicted Barry Bonds. The columns he wrote about Bonds were embarrassing they were so one-sided. At the same time he wrote a couple of the most glowing pieces imaginable about Lance. At that time (remember, this was BEFORE the book and the Grand Jury, just so we're clear), Barry and Lance were roughly in the same boat in terms of accusations leveled against them. Yet Lance was given the pass and Barry was vilified. So to say there hasn't been a distinct bias in this situation is both uninformed and ignorant. Sorry, but that's the truth. And just so you can't say, "well, that's one sportswriter," it was that way across the board. I know this because I was a sports editor from (1997 to 2002, at several mid-sized dailies in California) at the time and I read hundreds of stories on the news wires on both Lance and Barry. The majority of them were pro-Lance and against Barry. And to say there isn't any "hard" evidence against Lance is, in your words, sticking your own head in the sand. Numerous ex-teammates have come out and said, flatly, that he used. Some of them even had some "hard" evidence. Unfortunately, there is no Grand Jury into cycling, so Lance hasn't been forced to get up and tell the truth about all of this. Whether Bonds lied or not he'll have to deal with that on his own, but to say Lance hasn't had some hard evidence tossed his way is not correct. He's just been able to deflect it, with the help of all of his media lackeys in the U.S. The thing is, people just don't want to believe Lance did anything wrong and that's fine. But I don't choose to "stick my head in the sand" and give him a free pass, that's all.
posted by donnnnychris at 02:37 AM on June 04
And Smithee, she is 16 YEARS OLD!!!! I can't say that enough. No golfer in the history of the sport has ever competed at as high a level at that age, men or women. Tiger was missing regular tour cuts by a mile at 16, for a comparison. Sure, he was an amateur monster, but not against the pros, not at that age. Wie is in the top 5 almost every single women's tournament she plays in, and has been since she was 14!!!! If that isn't worth the attention then I'm not sure what is.
posted by donnnnychris at 02:24 AM on June 04
I think Michelle Wie is going to fight the same demons her whole career. So true everett, so true.
posted by donnnnychris at 02:21 AM on June 04
My goodness, I'm a Niners fan and even I don't have that big of an imagination. Alex Smith couldn't lead a Pop Warner team, let alone the Niners. Let's just say it was a sad, sad day last year when Matt Leinart decided to stay in school.
posted by donnnnychris at 12:56 AM on June 04
sprman92, Nate Thurmond and Walt Bellamy were both very strong players but the majority of the centers in the league at that time were 6-foot-9 or shorter. Heck, even Russell was only 6-foot-9 (he's listed at 6-10 in his NBA.com but several sources list him an inch shorter than that). As for Walton, when I judge my centers I don't use statistics or longevity, but by the way they played at their peak. People that follow basketball and have played the game all say Walton is in the top 5 centers of all-time. He was the best passing center and when he was healthy he was one of the top scorers. Sure, if you want to base your argument on longevity and compilation of numbers he wouldn't stack up, but I would take a healthy Bill Walton over Shaq, Hakeem, the Admiral, Ewing or any other center today at their peak.
posted by donnnnychris at 12:52 AM on June 04
I think almost everybody is missing the point here (and I said almost, a few of you get it). All Wie needed to enter the U.S. Open was a handicap index of 2.4 and the entry fee. That's it. She had it, she entered (like any of us could have done with the entry fee and the qualifying handicap), and she has advanced this far because she scored low enough to advance. No gimmees, no hand-outs, just her play scored against the others who were competing against her. Nobody gave her an exemption to this, she's earned her spot. And if she finishes in the top 18 on Monday she will have EARNED her spot in the U.S. Open. There is absolutely no arguing that point, no matter what you think of all the other stuff that she's done. For this one tournament she has done it exactly right, so why fault that? And remember to all the Michelle Wie doubters out there, I remember when Tiger Woods first came out as a pro and everybody was pissed he was making a bunch of money (the chirping from the other pros was brutal). He kind of lived up to the hype, didn't he? Give Wie a chance to prove herself like Tiger did. And yeah, Tiger destroyed the amateur ranks before turning pro but that wasn't Wie and her family's choice. If 10 years from now Wie hasn't won hardly anything then maybe it was a mistake, but let's give her an honest chance to live up to the hype. Personally, a girl her age that whacks 300 yard drives and plays like her is astounding. I think when she does play on the LPGA Tour she'll absolutely dominate in a few years (if not sooner). And if the sponsors want to give her exemptions to some PGA Tour events, then that is THEIR choice. They want to make money and Wie is a big-time draw for spectators, sponsors and the TV people. And could you imagine if she makes the cut and actually is in contention on Sunday in a men's event? The ratings would go through the roof.
posted by donnnnychris at 12:39 AM on June 04
Musselman was able to actually make the Warriors into a respectable team (I know, having suffered as a Warriors fan through the ugly 90s) before the unsufferable folks in the front office (i.e. Chris Mullin) forced him out. He'll do fine in Sacramento. Artest doesn't mind playing for anybody that he respects and I think Musselman will earn that respect with his hard work. As for Adelman, well, he is the Jim Mora (the older one, who could never seem to make any progress in the NFL even though his teams were always right on the edge) of the NBA. Adelman seems like a nice guy but his teams have always come up just short. What the Kings need now is a guy who can push them over the hump and Musselman might be that guy. It'll be interesting to watch (I live in the Kings TV coverage area so I'll probably tune in a little next season to check it all out) and I'm sure the Maloofs will get their share of criticism/kudos no matter how it goes. Just to note, when the Maloofs booted Adelman the newspaper columnists around here went crazy. It was not a very popular decision among the scribes, although pleasing that audience is secondary I imagine for the Maloofs. On the other hand, we'll see how those crazy Sacramento fans react when the first losing streak hits and Musselman has to assert himself. It'll be fun.
posted by donnnnychris at 09:35 PM on June 03
Haha grum@work...I hate the cap-lock posters, soooooo annoying.
posted by donnnnychris at 09:27 PM on June 03
The thing to remember about all of this is that Michelle is 16 years old!!! The mere thought of any golfer, male or female, qualifying in today's ultra-competitive environment for the men's U.S. Open at that age is mind-boggling. I think when those in the golf community talk about Wie her age is totally forgotten. They criticize her like she is a 25-year-old tour veteran. She gets criticized for not winning, for doing this, for doing that. I mean, when I was 16 I just wanted to get my driver's license and go out and get drunk. Forget about competing at the highest level of any sport. What she is doing is unprecedented in the history of golf and I applaud her. I hope she makes it on Monday and I hope someday she competes on a regular basis on the men's tour.
posted by donnnnychris at 09:26 PM on June 03
My top centers of all-time, in order, are: 1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 2. Bill Walton, 3. Wilt Chamberlain, 4. Shaquille O'Neal, 5. Bill Russell. I know you can debate who belongs in what spot forever (so we might as well not even go there) but overall, those are my top 5 and Shaq certainly belongs in that group. Just because some people might say he hasn't had the same competition (which is debatable), it doesn't exclude him from being in that group. Besides, take away Wilt and Russell and what you had in the 1960s was a bunch of 6-foot-9 guys playing center. Shaq has to deal with 7-footers not only at center but at power forward and in some cases, even at small forward. So to say the physical nature of the players in today's era doesn't measure up is just wrong.
posted by donnnnychris at 09:18 PM on June 03
WeedyMcSmokey, How can you have a PER for Wilt and not Russell? They played at the same time. Just curious.
posted by donnnnychris at 04:13 PM on June 03
Actually, to answer the question of whether the Pistons had the best start/most wins not to make the finals, well, ESPN had the list up last night. Detroit's 64 wins were the second-most in NBA history for a team that didn't make the finals. No. 1 was the Celtics in 1972-73 with 68 wins. Also, San Antonio's 63 wins this year ranks third on that list. As for the finals, I think Miami has a great chance to knock off either Dallas or Phoenix if, and only if, Shaq continues to bring his A-game each night. If Shaq falls off there is nothing D-Wade can do to carry the team. It all rests on the combination of Wade and Shaq. Should be a great finals though, and interesting as well without the borrrrrrrrrring (and ridiculously arrogant) Pistons involved. All that talk about Detroit being one of the all-time great teams sure died down quickly after mid-season. I couldn't believe people were comparing them to the Bulls of the 90s, the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s, etc. What a joke that was. The Pistons are a very good team but certainly not in that class. By the way, grum@work, we're usually at odds on Sports Filter but I wanted to tell you that you did great work on the rule changes attributed to Mikan, Kareem (Alcindor) and Chamberlain.
posted by donnnnychris at 04:08 PM on June 03
donnnnychris, I can sense another "agree to disagree" coming on, but you didn't really answer grum's question. What would it take for you to belive that Armstrong was innocent? Basically your argument comes down to "he's too good, it has to be cheating." It has nothing to do with Lance being "too good," Amateur, but rather the mere fact that he could recover so quickly and return to the height of his sport. It was the speed and totality of his recovery that has me questioning his methods. Also, a few of his associations have turned out to be dirty (doctors, other riders), while he has gotten a complete free pass from the media and the public. The public has reacted this way because of the cancer recovery and his work in that area, so that's understandable, but the media's job is to investigate these things and I just don't think any kind of effort has been put into looking into any of Lance's activities (except by the bumbling French, who were so sloppy they've probably screwed up any investigation involving Armstrong in the future). He has been given the benefit of the doubt when so many other athletes have not, which doesn't seem fair. I just think there should be less of the all-out praising of Lance and more scrutiny of his associations and actions, that's all. And by the way, if the "too good" theory were to apply to me then I'd be convinced that Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and all the other great athletes used steroids, which I do not. I just think in Lance's case there should be more doubt than is being cast. Sometimes people do great things without chemical enhancements. I think Lance should be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as there is some real evidence that he did something. At the very least, we should look skeptically at WADA, the Tour, and L'Equipe who were willing to embrace dubious evidence to confirm their suspicions. Hmmm, sounds like you could be talking about the B-word here. I know everyone is convinced that all the hard evidence is out there but B-boy has never failed a drug test and all of the "details" in that book come from an ex-mistress with an axe to grind (not to mention a book to sell) and Grand Jury testimony, not physical evidence. Why is it that everyone is willing to give Lance the benefit of the doubt and not Barry? (oops, I said his name). If it is just their personalities, then that is sad. And please don't write back spouting all of the "evidence" against Barry. There isn't anything solid, period.
posted by donnnnychris at 10:19 AM on June 02
Wow, the WHA...that's a blast from the past. Makes me want to go get my highlight VCR tapes (yeah, they still work in this DVD-gone-crazy world) of Gretzky and his merry band of offensive wizards from the 80s. I never got to see the WHA in action (TV coverage of hockey in the U.S. was pretty light in those days) but Edmonton in the 80s was the next best thing.
posted by donnnnychris at 06:39 AM on June 02
Ok TBH, I'll give you that one. The nameless one certainly is a bigger prick in public, that's for sure.
posted by donnnnychris at 06:35 AM on June 02
Nowitzki has finally learned how to be a big-game player. What a joy it was to watch him light up the Suns for 50. Dallas has all the tools to take down either the Heat or the Pistons, with Dirk's emergence the chief reason. That, along with the stellar play of Josh Howard, who is really breaking out in this series, makes the Mavs my favorite to win it all. That is, if the Pistons don't suddenly wake up and remember they're the best team in the league. Detroit's yawn-yawn approach to all of this is pathetic. Sure, they came up big in Game 5 but where has that passion been during the entire playoff run. They only seem interested when they have to be, which is a dangerous style to play when it gets down to the final four teams. At some point the Pistons will go to turn it on and it won't be there. Will that be in Game 6 tonight? Or will it be in the finals? Who knows, but that is exactly the problem. Turning it on and off is a risky proposition. So if Detroit can't magically become a bring-it-every-night team again, then it's Dallas over Miami in six for the championship. Even if the Pistons make it to the finals I still like the Mavs because of Detroit's skittish play.
posted by donnnnychris at 05:39 AM on June 02
That was the funniest thing I've seen on here in a while. What a great article. I've said in other posts that Clemens is arguably the most arrogant athlete in all of sports. This article plays to that completely. I love the part that he gets to switch teams each inning based on who's winning the game. Absolutely priceless.
posted by donnnnychris at 05:37 AM on June 02
Unfortunately grum@work, we'll probably never know whether Lance did or didn't because his word is really all we have to go by. Accusations aren't the lone basis for my judgment. I just look at his remarkable comeback and find it hard to believe he had no chemically-enhanced help to get his body back into shape to win 7 Tours in a row. That's it. So if that's too cold for you, then oh well, we can agree to disagree on this one. I don't know the man so taking his word at face value doesn't really make any sense to me at all. Too many athletes have looked straight into the camera and lied with a smile on their face to allow me to be that liberal with my faith. Sorry, but the world has hardened me up. Unfortunate probably, but that's the way it is.
posted by donnnnychris at 05:32 AM on June 02
Chico...ummm, Arnold seems to have done pretty well in the financial relm and, along with his agent McCormack (the first name eludes me), Palmer spearheaded the concept as an athlete as a product. So to say Jack was first in that department is not right. Arnold was the first to sell himself based on his status as an athlete, at least aggressively (remember, athletes had been pitching stuff since sports had been invented). Jack has done amazing things in business but there was also a time in the mid-1980s when he was struggling financially. He outlined his struggles in his book "My Way." He wasn't broke but he had some significant struggles. As for your assessment that Arnold did only well with just golf fans, well, that's completely off base. Arnold was one of the pre-eminent sports stars of the 50s and ushered in the TV era that embraced sports during that time. Jack merely jumped along for the ride in that area. I don't deny Nicklaus' greatness as a golfer, he's the best of all time, but as a person who changed the landscape? No way. And at the top of the game for a half century? Try just over a quarter century (1960-1986). Don't overestimate his dominance. It was amazing but not even close to 50 years. Jack has done incredible things with his course building and he won more significant titles than any golfer in history, but he didn't fundamentally change the sport or how it operated like Arnold did, or for that matter, Tiger. Woods took the game out of the country club and to the masses, where it had never been before. Purses on the PGA Tour increased ten-fold in the first part of his career and it was totally due to his appeal on TV and as a spokesman for the game. And like I said before, Tiger made it cool to play golf for everyone, from the farmlands to the inner cities. Simply put, he changed the perception of the sport for the masses. Every major golf writer, historian and all the players that I've heard interviewed from the PGA Tour say the same thing: Tiger made golf into a major sport capable of competing with the biggies (football, baseball, basketball). He also made it possible to have near million dollar first-place purses on a weekly basis. How you can discount that is beyond me.
posted by donnnnychris at 05:27 AM on June 02
Lance is not quite the angel everybody makes him out to be. While he's not as bad as Bonds in the personality department there have been several stories commenting on his prickly nature. And granted, the fact that Bonds has testified is a major difference in this situation. But I'd love to see what Lance's answers would be if he were forced to tell the truth in front of a Grand Jury. I suspect we might hear a different tale then his standard line, "I've never tested positive for anything." Things change when perjury is introduced into the equation and so far, Armstrong hasn't had to deal with that variable, so he can say whatever he wants and all of his minions fall into line. Pretty easy to deny, deny, deny in that situation. By the way, TBH, I know a couple of guys who have "worked" with Bonds and think he's a great guy. These are friends of mine who played in the major leagues and were on teams with Bonds. So to buy into the media's notion that Bonds is 100 percent disliked by his co-workers is absurd. There is always two sides to every story, even though the world seems to have forgotten that in this case. And yes, it's horrible that Lance had cancer and I applaud his comeback from that. At the same time, I don't allow complete autonomy from all his actions just because of his cancer. He still has to answer his critics just like anybody else. If he did do any of the doping things we've been talking about then I could care less about his recovery. He would be the biggest fraud in the history of sports because of his holier-than-thou attitude. If he didn't do it, I would apologize to every person I've ever brought this up to. But to suggest the evidence is clear in Lance's case is ridiculous. He has had ex-teammates, doctors and people that he's worked with come out with accusations numerous times. All we have is Lance's word that he didn't do it, along with passed tests (haha, big deal, with all the masking technology out there I'd expect him to pass these tests). That isn't good enough for me and probably never will be.
posted by donnnnychris at 05:34 PM on June 01
For those of you who credit Jack for the golf explosion 40 years ago this is slightly off base. The reason golf started to succeed on TV and took off the way it did was Arnold Palmer in the late 1950s. Jack added to the attraction when he came along because of the rivarly that him and Palmer had going. Pretty much every golf history book and golf historian agrees that Arnold was the reason for the golf explosion and that he was the beginning of the big money that we see today. And grabofsky74, the thread never said Jack would never play golf again at all. It just said he wasn't going to play competitively. As for the top six most significant athletes (God, I love where this thread took off, thanks Chico), I'd have to go with: Ali Jackie Robinson Babe Ruth Wayne Gretzky Tiger Woods Billie Jean King You might be saying, "the last three?" Well, all three athletes, Gretzky, Woods and King, spearheaded incredible expansions of their sports. Gretzky is the sole reason we have hockey in San Jose, Phoenix, Florida, Texas, etc...Woods made golf cool again (and believe me, when I was in high school and college in the late 80s and early 90s, golf was anything but cool. Now every kid wants to be Tiger)...and King was the driving force behind Title IX and the entire women's movement in not just tennis but all of sports. I'd say that qualifies as influential. The other three speak for themselves I think.
posted by donnnnychris at 05:28 PM on June 01
Also, what the "math" of probability has given us in baseball is the parade of pitchers that are trotted out every other batter because of "tendencies" and "probabilities." It would be nice to see a manager just let a starter gut out an inning once in a while, instead of slowing down the game with his righty-lefty strategy. But hey, it's good math though, right?
posted by donnnnychris at 07:15 AM on June 01
Haha...my friend and I have a running argument over this very topic. I say Barry and Lance's cases are very similar except for how the media treats Lance's innocence as compared to Bonds. Bdaddy, you are very right. Lance is innocent until proven guilty while Bonds is guilty until proven innocent. I guess if you kiss a few media asses then you get the benefit of the doubt.
posted by donnnnychris at 07:10 AM on June 01
Simple, yerfatma, because humans can't be broke down into numbers...if they could, the Oakland A's would win the MLB title every year, and nobody would get married since the probability of divorce is so high. People do it anyway because they are human. And try to keep the language down, there's no need to get hostile. I didn't when the board tried to math me into submission. Give me the same respect.
posted by donnnnychris at 06:24 AM on June 01
Thanks to a couple of defensive gems, if memory serves right. You are right, mjkredliner, it was Ken Keltner of the Indians I believe who made two ridiculously great plays at third base to stop DiMaggio's streak. Joe D's streak is beloved because it has the air of attainability, not unlike the lottery. And players will routinely "approach" it every few years, so it will remain consistently in baseball's consciousness. BullpenPro, that is the best description I have ever heard of that record, comparing it to the elusiveness of the lottery. Not that long ago I missed the lotto by one or two numbers on all of the numbers. I was jacked until my brother said very matter-of-factly, "you still lost dude." I guess that's the case with this record. Everybody can get close but to make it there it's something special. It's stated in the baseball rules about streaks that a player has to get at least one at-bat in a game for it to count. If a batter is walked every appearance, deliberate or otherwise, then he's had ZERO at-bats (but has had plate appearances for the same of "games played" streaks). Therefore, that game would not count towards his hitting streak. If that's the case, grum@work, then I stand corrected. However, the rule must've changed since DiMaggio's streak in 1941 because there was a game during the streak where the manager tried to intentionally walk him each at-bat. Like I said before, DiMaggio snuffed out that attempt by reaching across the plate and belting a single to right field on one of the IBB pitches. Maybe the rule has changed but that was the case back in 1941. Either way, I still think if someone were to get real close then he would be walked by some of today's managers to deny him a chance to break the record. Meaning, after getting a few at-bats in a game and then having one more chance in the late innings. That would be sad. By the way, thanks for all the math workups that have been done. I just don't take much stock in all of that. Interesting numbers though, although I wouldn't consider a 1-in-231,205 chance to be "unfathomable," which is defined by the dictionary as: 1. Impossible to come to understand 2. So deep as to be unmeasurable 3. Of depth; not capable of being sounded or measured. Because you've done the math I think it's safe to say we can understand the numbers and they are certainly measurable. So wrong choice of words there.
posted by donnnnychris at 01:52 AM on June 01
It was funny that halfway up the board the B-word almost, allllllmost made it into the thread. Glad it didn't though, it's getting tiresome to talk about. As for Lance, well, to think he never took anything at all is very hard to believe. Kudos to him for never being caught and for proving that in this situation he was clean. But with the incredible masking technology available to the dopers out there, it's probable that Lance, with the money of his team behind him, used the best to keep his drug use under the radar. Now if he didn't, then I apologize, but I find it hard to believe he didn't. I hope for his sake it doesn't come out some day that he did dope because he would look like a worse ass than the B-word boy because of Lance's holier-than-thou pronouncement about himself and this issue. In regards to cycling, I am, unfortunately, one of those ignorant Americans who has no clue about the overall scope of the sport. Thanks to all of the posters who have enlightened me with their knowledge. It's interesting to read about the different races, the racers who have dominated, etc.
posted by donnnnychris at 04:08 PM on May 31
Good for the Astros, now Clemens can choke again in the clutch and cost another team a title. He may have been a good pressure pitcher earlier in his career, but recent history suggests he can't get it done when the chips are down. He can dominate all he wants in the regular season but if he can't do it when the playoff heat is on then he's a big waste of money.
posted by donnnnychris at 03:56 PM on May 31
Wow, post a thread and go to sleep and boom, it explodes. Nothing like good old football predictions to stir up the opinions. Being a 49er fan I'm in perpetual depression these days (God, why didn't Leinert come out a year early?). As for Mr. King's supposed to bias to Boston teams, I would wholeheartedly agree with that statement. I read his Monday Morning Quarterback column every single week and have been for a long time and when in doubt he always goes with the Red Sox, Patriots, Celtics, Bruins...it's almost embarassing sometimes. It's particularly evident when talking about the Patriots. I love his column for the most part but that is really starting to get old. As for my Super Bowl picks? I would go with Denver if it wasn't for Cutler making Plummer nervous by waiting in the wings. Plummer has never had a solid psyche and this can't be good for him. I'm playing a wait-and-see game with Peyton and the Colts, especially with Edgerrin gone. The Patriots will be good, if only because Tom Brady and Tedy Bruschi won't let them be bad. And Pittsburgh and Cincy (especially if Palmer is healthy) will duke it out for the division, so whoever is left standing from that one will be strong. My thought is that if Palmer is back to normal the Bengals go to the Super Bowl. They would've last year if he hadn't gotten hurt. If Palmer isn't up to par, well, I like the Patriots by a fraction over the other teams, mainly due to the Brady factor. In the NFC, Carolina is always a trendy pick and they always stumble so who knows with that bunch. The Cowboys are intriguing but I've never really liked Bledsoe and he's more immobile now than ever. My choice will be either Seattle or Philly. They have the best players and solid coaching and well, it doesn't take much more than that in the NFC. So if I have to choose, I say Seattle goes back. Whew, that was fun
posted by donnnnychris at 03:53 PM on May 31
Yeah, and nobody buys Dwayne Wade jerseys either. I think you underestimate the popularity of D-Wade. Well said, The_Black_Hand
posted by donnnnychris at 06:10 AM on May 31
Actually, I just thought about it and I change my mind on DiMaggio's record. Not that someone couldn't get there but in today's MLB there would be one wimp manager (LaRussa anyone?) who would walk the guy four times intentionally if the streak got close. Even DiMaggio had that happen to him during the streak, although he was able to reach across the plate and belt one of the Intentional Walk pitches for a hit to right field. So, yeah, it can't be broken because of today's managers. Bunch of pussies that they are.
posted by donnnnychris at 01:36 AM on May 31
Copyright © 2014 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.