While it is true that Daniel was DiMaggio's friend and that both hits could have gone either way, had DiMaggio not run his streak to the eventual 56 games, Daniel's calls would never have been questioned Well- duh. That's like saying a ball that may or may not have hit the yellow line denoting the home run line on the left field fence isn't that big a deal to worry about. Unless, that is, that same player hit 73 other homeruns that same season. I don't think people get too worked up about whether a hit during a 10-game hit streak was really an error or not... unless that hit streak reaches the 40's. Isn't the whole point of a hitting streak- as opposed to counting stat records like HR or RBI in a season- that you can't miss it for even one game, or it's all gone? Isn't the reason we're supposed to be all agog over "Mafia" Joe's 56-game hitting streak because if he'd ever not gotten a hit during that period, the whole thing would have gone up in smoke, and he'd have to start from scratch (not to mention that 56 was mostly a coasting figure- once he passed the previous record of 44, there was no pressure left, nothing like what Castillo was starting to face when he got a little past 30)? Indeed, aren't we often reminded how, if he'd gotten a hit in that 57th game, he'd have connected it to another hit streak that would have made about 72 games in a row? Yet no one credits ol' "Money Launderer" DiMaggio with a 72 game hit streak. If DiMaggio didn't "really" get a hit in games 30 and 31, that means that he had a 29 game hit streak and a 25 game hit streak separated by two hitless games. This is still impressive- but not insanely so. For example, last year, rookie Ichiro Suzuki started off his major league career with a 23 and a 15 game hit streaks, separated by a single game; had he gotten a hit, he would have been at 39 and the media would have been going apeshit; if he is given two free passes like DiMaggio is alleged to have gotten, his hit streak would have been 45- one more than the pre-DiMaggio record and still second longest. Besides, as oddovid notes, a hitting streak is a fluke, by definition- the greatest hitting seasons in history still have a player failing 6 times out of 10. The odds of that player getting a hit in 56 straight games is extraordinarily unlikely. If it were purely skill based, Luis Castillo would have been a 4-time MVP.

I second the anti-Mathis stance. The US played its best with Mathis on the sidelines, mediocre but still decent in the Korea game, and embarassingly bad in the Polish game. I think we all see the problem here....

I suppose I've shown my World Cup ignorance again- GOOOOOOOOOOOAL is dated, apparently it's all about "Goal! Goal! Goal! Goal! Goal! Goal!" now... :)

Oh, no question: while South Korea has played extraordinarily well, the US looks over their heads. That Friedel is a heckuva of a goalie, though, and Beasley's got some fast young legs- but I think they're offensive game is lackluster at times, and I don't like their midfield- I think they're transition game seems to be a huge weakness, resulting in far fewer scoring opportunities. I say this as an absolute soccer neophyte, so my opinion is pretty much useless. :) I don't know how Mexico plays or matches up, but who knows? The US has done more than expected, and is already well into pure "bonus" territory. A win against Mexico is not inconceivable...

As a Yank, what exactly is a jammy bastard- and should I be offended? :)

thx for getting my redundant post, there- you moved quickly!

holgate, you ol' so and so! The ending of that portugal/south korea game was tense- portugal had two or three amazing chances, including one off a goal post, a great save, and some not-quite-there headers, any one of which would have put Portugal into the round of 16 at the expense of the USA- as well as several chances for South Korea on a weak defense by Portugal late in the game to make it 2-0. I still say Clint Mathis is a liability for the US, despite that late goal assist. They should seriously consider going with someone else against Mexico...

Clint Mathis is the worst fucking player I've ever seen. He's been USELESS, U-S-E-L-E-S-S, in this game. He missed a wide-fucking-open shot from 15 feet in the 66th minute. Un. Fucking. Believe. Able. Every other time he seems to touch the ball, he's giving it up to Poland with no effort. Someone shoot that asshole in the leg, he's done. That said, despite the shitty play of the US here, if Korea can hold on to a lead against a 9-man, panicky Portugal team, the US would be sitting at second in the group and actually make the second round. Not that they deserve it, sucking so badly here. That's including the refs stealing a goal from them in the early going, when it would have tied it at 1-1, because a goal was denied when a Polish player put a headlock on an American and the American was called for a the goal-removing foul. Fucking Clint shit-for-brains Mathis. The US won when he wasn't on the field, they've been shit since he showed up.

The Bonds have a sure-fire Top 10 all-time Hall-of-Famer along with a that-tier-below-HoF-level dad (not to mention non-blood related Willie Mays as godfather); the Griffeys don't shine like they used to. Don't forget the Alomars have dad and two sons, the DiMaggios had 3 brothers. The list goes on and on, and that's just in baseball- although it seems that baseball develops family trends more so than other sports. However, best bloodline in sports? My vote is for Seattle Slew and his countless progeny:

In his 20 years in the breeding shed, he sired roughly a thousand boys and girls... His offspring includes 101 stakes winners, the most prominent being Swale, who won the Kentucky Derby in 1984, A.P. Indy, Capote, Surfside and Slew O' Gold. Slew's sons and daughters have won a total of some $76 million in purses, meaning that if he were a mutual fund he would be listed under growth and value. In one of those classic stories rainbow chasers love to repeat, he was purchased for $17,500 as a gawky-looking colt by Mickey and Karen Taylor, who still are his majority owners.

France draw 0-0 against Uruguay in the second match See, that's my newbie American mind dealing with soccer- where every game, as they say, ends in a tie. I should have said, "without winning a single match", but to an American sports fan by nature, "not winning" is the same as "losing".

Yep, the US played pretty incoherent this game, no offense really at all (but unlike the Koreans, they managed to close the deal on those rare excursions towards the Korean goal), and the Koreans owned the ball it seemed the entire game- it was practically an event for the ball to cross midfield for the US! Although I do echo msacheson's sense that the refs seemed to call it tighter on the US players than the home team. Walking out of that game with a point is a major achievement, and makes the US a team that has gained some respect at the World Cup. I mean, if they actually reached the quarterfinals I'd be stunned (as will the entire world), and I shudder to think what would happen if/when the US faces a team of the caliber of a Brazil, but already they've done more than anyone could expect and should feel immensely proud right now. If the US can make the second round, they can go back and prepare for 2006 knowing they've finally made it.

I should add that, as a soccer newbie, I'm liking one thing about this sport: no timeouts. There's something exciting and convenient about their being 90 minutes to a game, no exceptions. As an at-home viewer, I know pretty much exactly how much time I'm committing to watching the game. Usually, when there's like 1 minute left in the 4th quarter of a basketball game, that means you'll be watching for another 10-15 minutes, then possibly overtime(s). In soccer, the clock doesn't stop- at best, they'll take 3-4 minutes at the end of the half for stoppage.

USA is already up 1-0 in the 37th minute as I type this. Lessee, next set of games: USA (3) v. South Korea (3) Poland (0) v. Portugal (0) then lastly USA (3,4 or 6) v. Poland (0, 1, 3) South Korea (3, 4, 6) v. Portugal (0, 1, 3) Whoever wins this of course is in automatically (unless it's a draw), while the other can still make it, but only with a win or draw in its final game and hopefully a win on points in the case of a tie. Best case scenario for both US and SK seems to be a draw in Poland/Portugal, ensuring that both those teams can earn 4 points at best- so even a loss in game 3 could leave US and/or SK with a win on points. Either way, a Pol/Por draw would leave both US and SK with their own fate solidly in their hands in game 3 regardless of the outcome of this US/SK game (US and SK each would have at least 3 against Poland or Portugal going into Game 3, meaning a win or draw against Poland or Portugal would put them into the second round guaranteed.). WOW! Friedel just made an amazing penalty kick save that could have tied it in the 41st minute; that might have been the game right there. We're headed into halftime with the US up 1-0; the way this game is playing, another goal for the US should clinch the win.

Um.... what's that last little comment? It doesn't look like a properly formatted post at all, not even close.

The "what is a sport" argument is a lot like the "I know obscenity when I see it" debate. I, too, have a qualm about calling computer gamers athletes or sports players, feeling like "sport" should be reserved for the obvious, traditional sports. But we shouldn't then craft the criteria for a sport in an ad-hoc manner, trying specifically to exclude things we would call non-sports- i.e., stating that it must involve the whole body just to exclude gamers, and then find that it leaves other athletes out of the mix: 1. It can be played outdoors, or it was first played outdoors. No reason you couldn't put the computers outside, and many sports (like racquetball) are pretty much only indoors, though they wouldn't need to be. The appeal to tradition is tempting: weren't most sports started with something simple outside? 2. It can be played in a low-tech format. Which actually precludes autoracing- but then, I tend to not think of autoracers as athletes, but sports competitors by my definitions above. Car racing is a highly technical area, with advantages sought in tiny changes to tire, engine, or body through technological investigation. The competitors simply maneuver their technological tools to win a competition. 3. The mode of interaction between players requires them to be in the same place at the same time, in the same arena. This is perhaps the most intriguing one, and one I'd agree with, largely. It's like my distinction between game and sport; sport being a game with a physical skill level involved. Requiring a physical skill would seem to avoid the "proxy" issue (I can play poker or chess by mail, or by giving instructions to someone else). However, is there any requirement- other than in the rules- that two bowlers be in the same alley, if all alleys meet the same requirements? I think what this hints at is the idea of offense/defense: namely, that the competitors face each other, and can inhibit the other's performance directly. But then, golf and some track & field events are out, while gaming remains in, since obviously there is an immense amount of interaction. 4. Technology is not the primary focus of the sport, physical training and ability is. I'd say that gets into the "whole-body" requirement that would distinguish "sports" from something like darts, where you could play without moving anything besides your arm. But again, do bowlers train their bodies, or do they just practice bowling? Is that, then, much different than practice sessions in UT involving certain maneuvers or team interaction? Isn't the real focus of gaming the strategy and reflexes/coordination? 5. Technological leaps in equipment enhance the ability of the athletes to perform, but do not revolutionize or make the sport obsolete. This doesn't preclude gaming, if you think of the FPS as a sport unto itself, with each title or game scenario being a different "arena" with its own characteristics and quirks, like Fenway or Wrigley. If faster computers come out, the core sport- reflexes, strategy- doesn't change, only the tools. If Barry Bonds uses a maple bat instead of ash or the olden days hickory, is he no longer playing baseball? 6. Ceremony and history are part of the beginning and end of a season, to the end. This seems an appeal to tradition; for all we know, 50 years of computer games including a perfected virtual game with virtual body suit could develop traditions, leagues, seasons, and all the trappings of "real" sports. I suppose the first sandlot games by Doubleday didn't look like much, either. Basically, I have a hard time calling computer gaming a "sport"- but I'm also playing a little devil's advocate, because I'm not willing to toss it out as a non-sport if I can't adequately define "sport" to begin with. As I said, we shouldn't create definitions specifically seeking to exclude what we consider non-sports. We run into the problem that our definitions begin to conflict and exclude/include activities that clearly are or are not sports. I feel my original definitions- games, sports, and athletes- are pretty good, but even those have loopholes, which I could list ad nauseum. This is why I feel it's in error to call computer gaming not a sport. Maybe we need a new word to classify things like darts, autoracing, computer gaming, bowling etc. if sports isn't sufficient, but until we have that word sports will have to be the umbrella for all of them.

Computer games are still not yet a sport How do you figure? How is the skill of golf any different than the dexterity skill of Unreal Tournament? Basketball, football, soccer, baseball, the track & field events- these seem obviously "sports" like, in part because they can be seen as full-body sports, involving at some point all the muscle groups and a wide variety of skills and maneuvers- they aren't just repetitive motions or behaviors. In gamers, there's this gray area where the physical realm is involved, but to a minor degree. The precision and coordination required to putt from 30 feet isn't really that different than practicing and perfecting a deadly strafe move in Quake III, or bowling a strike. How about a darts player, then? Is it a sport? Are they athletes? What about the riflery or archery masters who win gold medals in the Olympics- athletes, all? Perhaps not. To me, computer games are a "sport" and a "game" as much as golf or football or basketball- but the players may not be athletes, not in the big-c Classical sense. One might argue that unlike gamers, even golfers lift weights and work out like "real" athletes (although that is a relatively new trend, forced to be the case in part by the greatness of Tiger Woods), but I'm sure the top gamers do the necessary exercises to keep in shape for their sport, even if that means wrists and thumbs of steel along with a big flabby gut and sunken chest. So what about Ken Griffey, Jr., who infamously boasted about not lifting weights or working out to keep in shape for the game, other than simply stretching (a strategy in defiance of all scientific wisdom about sports wisdom, an ignorance he has been paying mightily for of late)? Does his lack of physical conditioning regimen, or that of Rich Garces of the BoSox, mean they aren't athletes? Or does the nature of their sport, regardless of their own fitness or devotion to physical perfection still classify them as athletes? Does that mean every weak-kneed beer-bellied plumber playing a Wednesday night over-30 basketball league is an athlete- or is he not "fit" enough? To me, I break it down like this: there are games, sports, and athletes as three distinct definitions. If it's a competition in a Finite Game with set rules and clear and objective scoring/determination of a winner, then it's a "game" and if the competition has any physical element of skill it becomes a "sport". This means that poker: game, but not a sport. The card game Egyptian Rat Screw: game AND a sport, in which incidentally I may be the greatest player ever to stride the planet. This is in addition to my world-reknowned Minesweeper prowess, making me a two-sport star on par with Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders. :) Aaaanyway.... semantically separate from that is the question of "athletes", who I'd call that group of whole-body physical performers, regardless of whether they work their bodies into peak conditioning from head to toe. Ballet dancers and figure skaters are athletes, but not sports competitors; riflemen and computer gamers are sports competitors without being athletes. Golfers and weight lifters- despite the repetitive physical motions- are athletes because of the coordination of legs, torso, arms, etc. necessary. Not all athletes play a sport, not all who play sports are athletes. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they do not. Even this is not, of course, a perfect definition, as a myriad of loophole scenarios can be devised to put lie to these particular types of distinctions. If basketball players are athletes, then what about wheelchair basketball? Is there a need to define two types of athletes- the isolated or repetetive action (golf, power lifting, darts, bowling, even pitching) that may use the whole body, and the non-repetitive free-flowing athlete that may not use certain parts of the body at all, or very little (that Irish line dancing where the upper body stays still, or the aforementioned wheelchair basketball)? These are tough questions to answer, and it seems to suggest that, like the word "terrorism", terms like "athlete" or perhaps even "sport" are impossible to define with absolute clarity. But this does in effect suggest that shortchanging computer gaming as not a sport is too simplistic and knee-jerk to ring true.

grum: well, sure, in the last few minutes of Game 7 (or really, Game 7 as a whole for the most part) the officiating was fine. Look, when the Celtics lost against the Nets, I was sad, but recognized the Nets just outplayed the Celtics and Boston didn't play the right game. Fair enough. Likewise, Sacramento played brilliantly well for about 43 minutes... and after that, they made silly, tired, rushed mistakes (inability to hit wide open 3's on shaky legs, Turkaglo's insane pass into heavy traffic in OT, etc.). Sacramento lost Game 7 fair and square, and in a deciding game LA won it as champions are supposed to. But the complaint of many fans is that the Lakers should never have even had a chance at Game 7 to begin with; that Sacramento in the first 6 games of the series, sans the alleged bad officiating, would have won at least 4 of them and ended the series before that winner-take-all final game. It would be like an umpire calling a horrible and biased strike zone for 8 innings, then faulting your team for not winning it in the 9th.

Ah, crap. Other than Mike Bibby, no one was apparently playing for the Kings for that last 10 minutes- he did an admirable job of playing 5 on 1 basketball in overtime. I can't believe the ineptitude of Doug Christie (or any King from 3 point land)! Any of those puppies fall, and the game turns out differently. It looked like the Kings lost all their energy, and every shot was short or off. But this game was lost by the Kings at the free throw line. It was a cleanly officiated game, the refs wisely saying, "Guys, just play- no cheap fouls." And how about Kobe acting all shocked on the foul call near the end of regulation when he literally ran Bibby into the ground to prevent him getting open- Kobe, shut your yap and accept that you got the foul, you prima freakin' donna! Anyway... Go Nets! Beat LA! Beat LA! Beat LA!

Works great on the Lockerroom comments issue. However, one last tweak, possibly: both results come back in chronological order. Is reverse chronological possible, a la MeFi, so the newest posts/comments are first?

Shooting 3's is fine- but shooting 3's at the start of the possession is silly. A forward who can hit the 3 is fine, but he should be doing it as part of a series of passes, penetrate in with Pierce, or Anderson, or someone- then kick out to an open Walker to nail the dagger-like 3 pointer. Walker shooting the 3 all by his lonesome, with a defender in his face, never is a good game plan.

The user page Locker Room links don't work- they link to a list of the main page posts/comments instead. They are virtually the same link to www.sportsfilter.com/ search_comments.cfm? user_ID=NN and www.sportsfilter.com/ lockerroom/ search_comments.cfm? user_ID=NN I presume that the problem lies in search_comments.cfm being the same page copied to two locations, i.e. having the same code and database calls even though it's located in two different URL locations.

The Nets-Celtics series wasn't offensive; even though I was rooting for the Celtics, they lost fair and square. No ref'ing in the world kept Walker and Pierce to 3 points in the 4th, or made Antoine Walker stupidly keep hoisting up ill-planned 3's with no green jersey under the basket for the rebound (what, did Walker suddenly forget about driving in and kicking it out to the perimeter- which is how you're supposed to get open 3 pointers?). O'brien sat Walker before the game ended, it was so bad- they were still within 4 or so when he sat him. No, the thread before this one, about Sacramento-LA, is the one we all should be talking about. From the article: With 12 seconds left, Bryant dropped Bibby to the ground with an apparently inadvertent elbow to the point guard's face on an inbounds play. Bibby's nose wasn't broken. Apparently inadvertent- that's being polite! A guy doesn't possess the coordination and physical skills to make spinning dunks above the rim, then suddenly forearm someone directly to the face "inadvertently". It was patently disgusting- Kobe's forearm to Bibby in plain, bloody view of the refs and the camera without a call was insane: that play alone should have been an offensive foul with the Kings shooting two to potentially take a one point lead with 12 seconds left. Instead, Kobe ends up getting fouled because the Kings have to stop the clock and gets to take two shots to put the Lakers up 3- plus the Kings had to waste their last timeout to get Bibby to stop bleeding, which means they can't stop to plan a 3 point attempt to tie it in their last possession. Huge call, one of many blunders in the game. Pollard, Divac, Webber- the Kings were getting royally reamed all game by the refs. My friend turned it off with a minute left, saying it was the worst officiated game he'd ever seen: even Bill Walton, an unabashed Laker booster, was consistently saying with that Walton sneer, "That's a TERRIBLE call". I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I do think the refs phoned this one in, deferring way to much to the defending champions as if they could do no wrong.

insomnyuk has a point; while there isn't a first technical in baseball, perhaps there should be. Or perhaps the umpire's should be thinking like there is- outside of extreme behavior (spitting on or otherwise assaulting an ump), the player/manager should be warned unless they continue to make a federal case out of it. The good umps usually let a manager vent, so long as he doesn't go nuts, and get it out of his system for the rest of the game instead of tossing him immediately. A bad manager throws a player out for a "look". :) Lou's ejection is a perfect case, actually- he was ejected, but he had to work for it. And Lou had a point- the stupid Tampa Bay staff actually replayed those pitches on the jumbotron, for all the stadium to see. It was then that Lou went into a tirade, but the unwritten (or is it written?) rule is that controversial plays and calls are not supposed to be shown in-stadium. In both Lou and A-Rod's cases, the umpire appeared to be wrong on the call, but in Lou's case- despite, or perhaps because of, a longstanding reputation as a fiery combatant- he got latitude before getting tossed. I also agree Wilson should not have cleaned the plate, and it seems the "right" thing to do is quietly refuse, instead of being the peacemaker and doing it yourself. That is the umpire's job, and the umpire should have cleaned it no matter how it got messed up or what had just happened- that aloof dispassionate attitude I talked about earlier. Another example of the prima donna ump rearing its ugly head...

This is absurd!! He's been thrown out a couple of times lately, and for idiotic reasons. One was him stumbling as he got up from a slide and bumping the umpire, a questionable one at best but one can at least say that technically, he bumped the umpire. But this... this is stupidity. ESPN showed that play on Tuesday, and the umpire was shown to be wrong on the replays. It adds insult to injury that he then threw out Rodriguez for merely "looking" at him in an intimidating way. The umpires have to be much thicker-skinned than this: seeming above the fray, impersonal and aloof, is what gives them credibility as impartial arbiters of the rules of the game. It's when they show personal emotion or involvement or hyper-sensitivity that their ability to umpire begins to be called into question on every call. The classic example of a good umpire is one who stands there like a stone statue while an old school Lou Piniella type rants and raves an inch from their face; a good amount of slack is given before the umpire finally tosses the manager. There should be disciplinary action on the umpire, but of course there won't be. I hope Rodriguez and the Player's Union file some kind of grievance, because it almost seems some umpires have a chip on their shoulder against Alex. It's too bad, because this is a problem that flares up every few years; the umpires begin to act like they're bigger than the game, or show a certain dictatorial fiat about their decisions. Last time, we saw a mass of umpires laid off and the umpires consolidated into one office instead of for each league.

I'll give Tolbert credit: I don't like him, or his style (something about him screams "I'm stupid"), but at least he's willing to lay predictions on the line. Team TNT is obviously the best studio sports team; they have a natural camraderie and good-natured ribbing that real sports fans share. For in- game announcing, Jon Miller is pretty good (ESPN Baseball) while his partner Joe Morgan is abysmally ignorant and moronic; Hall of Fame credentials do not an eloquent or informed speaker make, and Morgan says some stupid things. Local Mariner announcer Rick Rizz is pretty decent, although some of his partners (former Mariners like Dave Henderson and Dave Valle) tend to be idiotic color men who demonstrate with each broadcast that same gross misunderstanding of the game that ensured they never became great players during their uniformed years. This reminds me of a related question: does anyone, I mean ANYONE, actually like Bill Walton? He's got to be the worst announcer/color man in the NBA, if not all of pro sports. Why does this guy keep getting a paycheck? 've been hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think Walton is a biased, bloviating gasbag of incompetence and inanity... I can only assume he has secret pictures of the head of the NBC Sports division naked and cavorting with a goat and an 11-year-old altar boy.

Sadly, the Celtics lost 94-92 tonight- they did the same sort of thing, the Nets pulling out to a lead and the Celtics coming right back again. Could have won tonight if Pierce had hit those clutch free throws with 1.1 left; but more telling is the fact that the Nets couldn't keep the Celtics out of it; kind of like LA's win, it only was won on a fluke at the buzzer. If that last-second putback had gone, the Celtics take that game; that doesn't bode well for the series... I still pick the Celtics, but at least the Nets have made a series of it again.

kirkaracha: The greatest fourth quarter comeback in NBA history Technically, the greatest in playoff history- although in terms of context and setting of a Conference Finals, it may have been the greatest ever as well. From the article: This one seemed lost at the end of three, and Pierce noted that the Nets' reserves were laughing at the Celtics. Oh, that's really smart of them... I have a feeling Byron Scott might have a talk with them about NOT doing that in Game 4. Not that it will do a huge amount of good- the Celtics have immense momentum, and I predict on Memorial Day we may see a remake of that Game 5 in the Celtics/76ers series, when a confident Celtics got their mojo working and simply embarassed the Sixers. The Celtics- and Pierce in particular- seem to have finally woken up in this Series, like Bryant noted in seeing how this could play out like the Detroit-Boston series. Once that happens, and especially with their ability to pour it on in the 4th like they've shown, it seems almost no one can stop them. The Celtics seem headed to the Finals, and it now seems more questionable whether it will indeed be the Lakers who meet them there. In terms of NBA Finals Ratings, though, I'm sure Stern is hoping for Celtics/Lakers...

From looking around the web, apparently Brady Anderson is a very popular target of these rumors. No surprise- it's because Brady Anderson is a pretty boy. I call this the "Tom Cruise" effect (or Brad Pitt effect, if you prefer). Some people are projecting their own desires onto these celebrities and passing it off as rumor or fact- they want Tom to be gay, or Brad to be gay. But mostly I think it's either it's so they can co-opt a big-name celebrity as a "respectable, mainstream" idol in the gay community, or simply to fuel their masturbatory fantasies by imagining that- all other reasons not withstanding- Brad Pitt being gay would mean they have a chance. I think if Anna Kournikova were publicly gay, there'd be rumors on the net that she was secretly straight. And anyway, there is the stereotype in society at large that if a guy is well-groomed and attractive, he must be gay. Or at least, those are my theories 'bout that. I suppose I should leave the armchair psychology to the armchair psychologists... Also, you'll notice players like Randy Johnson seem to be immune from these rumors- I mean, even with that name, no gay rumors! Then again, with his fastball, would you want to be the player that outed Randy?

Wait- Wade Boggs is gay?!

I'd say this was a double post, but SportsFilter needs the posts these days, even if they're repeats. :)

True, rcade; for all the Mavs boosting, the fact that the Kings beat them, and beat them decisively, means that this year at least hey have that X-factor that will help them against the Lakers. Limping in against the Lakers- whether it was the Mavs or Kings- would have been like a lamb before the slaughter. Right now, a Kings victory isn't out of the question. They showed tremendous ability to manufacture plays and keep everyone involved, which is the only way to beat LA. I'm still hoping that the Celtics can topple the Nets in the conference finals- no easy task, but doable- to set up a Celtics-Lakers Finals... :)

The same chance of your posting that comment twice in 10 minutes?

It's kinda nice that the top 4 in each conference made it through; 8 over 1 upsets are a big story, but not really much fun for watching a team get lucky in 5 games and then get stomped in the next round. I like New Jersey over Charlotte, Boston over Detroit. In the Eastern finals, it's a close one but I pick Boston over New Jersey. I think Walker and Pierce are too good a duo right now to be stopped, and the Nets were only 3 games better in the regular season- hardly a dominating performance. Of course, I'm a Boston fan, so I may be biased here... :) In the West, Dallas over Sacramento, LA will demolish San Antonio (although Robinson's health could make that a closer series than expected). LA over Dallas in a close Western Finals, setting up... Celtics vs. Lakers in the Finals. Because it was meant to be...

Or to be more particular: if I read one more Joe Morgan column at ESPN where he blathers incoherently that if Willie Mays played today he'd hit 80 homeruns, I'm gonna scream. :)

True- I meant as you suggest the kind of well-structured system that (I believe) started with Branch Rickey where it provided a path for young talent to develop at a steady pace into full-blown major league players. I have the Bill James historical abstract on my shelf, actually; his last one (what, 15 years ago?) made quite an impression on me, opening not only the old world of early baseball, but a more thoughtful analysis of the game itself.

I didn't say "all old players were crap". What I mean is that with a smaller population, lack of inclusion of black athletes, lower status of the game as an occupation, lower pay, no little league, no minor league farm system, no real statistical analysis or measurement to properly evaluate talent, no international scouting, the talent pool was much much thinner than it is today. I've been meaning to write up a full article on this for a while, but I've no place to put it if I did (unless the SpoFi folk will accept a submission). See, Babe Ruth was a great player- in his day. Look who he played against- no Ichiro, no Pedro, no Sammy Sosa. Ruth was playing against a talent pool that was triple-AAA at best; with the lack of good scouting and analysis, all the great players weren't in the league; a few got through (like Ruth, Wagner, Johnson) but that only meant they'd dominate statistically in a way today's players could never do. They say that the great Jimmy Foxx was scouted because a scout was driving by a field where Jimmy was plowing, and asked him for directions for any nearby baseball fields. Foxx lifted up his plow with one brawny arm and pointed off to the distance, and was immediately signed by the scout because of his obvious strength. An apocryphal story, to be sure, but compare that to today when every 13-year-old kid in the dusty streets of the Domincan Republic who can throw the ball 60+ mph is getting invited to a year-round sponsored training camp in his home town where he gets the best instruction available. How good is the competition? That's what determines how good your numbers are, how successful you are. Players of yesteryear were not the very best players the planet could offer. Sure, some of the very best by sheer chance were in the group of players that ever had a chance of playing in the majors; but many more never even knew about baseball. That situation is changing every day, and the modern game is closer and closer to the ideal of finding the 700 best players on the planet to populate the rosters- and not just the 500 best white players you happen to stumble across in a drive through the Mid-west. Oh, as for the roto-trade; it might seem lopsided, but remember: Griffey is on the DL for the 3rd time in 3 years without a clear timetable for his return, while the roto player had both Guillen and Lowe on his bench because he didn't need them (he was terribly pitching heavy and had Nomar as his current SS). He practically begged me to tell him how he could get Cameron, and that's the trade I offered after much haggling; I'd be giving up a surefire centerfielder for one who might not even play much of the season along with two players he wasn't using. Not a great trade, but still...

Man, I was hoarse in that 5th inning- when he hit that 4th one, I leaped from my chair and screamed "YES! YES! YES!" at the top of my lungs for a full minute. Amazing! Pissed me off that he got hit in the 7th, and knew immediately in the 9th from the sound of the bat that he didn't get an unheard of 5th homerun. It was sounding like a cannon for those four shots he did hit, but that one- as close as it came- just didn't have that same pop. Better still, he's on my fantasy team, and I was about to trade him yesterday- but the person wouldn't give me what I was asking (DL'ed Griffey along with Guillen and Lowe), so he rejected the trade. Don't think I'll be putting him on the trading block again this season for any reason. :) As for the "juiced ball" crap, I give it no truck. The fact is, the players today are better athletes and better trained; the pitchers will catch up- this game not withstanding, we're seeing a lot of 1- and 2- hit performances these days as well. If we magically transported Babe Ruth to 2002, he'd be above average at best; if we transported Barry Bonds to 1920, he'd hit 80-90 homeruns easily against those shitty drunken players (assuming we gave him a pigmentation overhaul). It seems unfair to pull out juiceball theories and the like, because it's an attempt to diminish the amazing accomplishments of some phenomenally talented players.

You're not calling Belle "the greatest player of the last several decades," are you? Don't be silly! Belle was one of the very best hitters of the 1990's, as I said. Later in the paragraph when I said "greatest player" I was referring then of course Barry Bonds, who's only real competition for that title might come from Alex Rodriguez. From what I heard, Rick Reilly was apparently stood up for an interview by Bonds back in the very early 90's, and neither Reilly nor SI have let him forget it, being continuously harsh on him through his career. It's a lowlight in sports journalism, the way writer and magazine have let their personal dislikes influence their coverage so strongly (while at the same time giving a generally free pass to the similarly egotistical and standoffish Jeff Kent). actually the maple bats are a lot less breakable than the ash Hm, should have clarified my statement. I was paraphrasing Adair's statement, since he didn't predict maple in particular but just new wood types that would have a lighter, cork-weighted-feel. I've heard that maple is explosive when it breaks, so Adair wasn't 100% correct. The real breakability in bats these days is in their thin handles, which I've always found odd: it's a scientific fact that a thicker handled bat has a greater "good" hitting area than a thinner handled one, yet by putting that weight in the handle results in very little impact to hitting speed.

Two things: 1) Albert Belle was one of the greatest hitters of the 1990's, and but for that hip injury (and his fiery personality) he would be in the last few years of a celebrated if unlikable hall of fame career. I still think he's a borderline HOFer who doesn't quite make the cut, but even if he'd played a few more years he still might not have made it because sportswriters are morons- for example, Rick Reilly of SI who has let his petty personal grudge against the greatest player of the last several decades infect his writing. 2) The corked bat thing may be true, but if so it was likely giving little if any advantage to Belle. Robert K. Adair's MLB-commissioned "The Physics of Baseball" (1990) spends a chapter discussing corked and other altered bats, and concludes that a corked bat offers a slight increase in bat speed (because 1.5-2 ounces lost come at the end of hte bat) but results in lost power because the cork or rubber that is used in the hole cuts down on the stored energy that is normally given back to the ball in the ball-bat collision. To a monster hitter like Belle, the feet lost off the homerun swing are possibly worth it for that slight increase in ability to time the pitch with a lighter bat, but interestingly offers no advantage over the hitter simply choking up on the bat or reducing the bat's barrel size from 2.5 to 2.4 inches in diameter. As a sidenote, Adair effectively predicted this new wave of maple bats, noting that a lighter (and more breakable) wood than the ash used for many years would emulate the lighter weight of a corked bat within the rules of baseball without losing as much of the elasticity as is lost when corking the bat. Here's a thought: why don't the hitters of today start switching back to hickory bats, or at least larger and thicker handled ash bats? See, the trend towards lighter bats occured because the pitchers got faster and craftier, so the batspeed increase with a lighter bat was needed to hold back on the ball a little longer- and the hitters got stronger, so they can still put it out of the yard with a good swing. But the properties of hickory bats, or larger and thicker handled bats, allow for a greater hitting area (much like an aluminum bat) since the mis-hit ball is the rule not the exception. With some players today resembling linebackers, swinging a 38oz bat shouldn't slow them down- they're strong enough that the only factor in total bat speed is how fast they can move their hands anyway. Thus they could maintain their power but add 20, 30 points to their batting average.

I'm with moz too- if his idea was to tank the team so as to prevent Washington-based competition, then it's a conspiracy that's been going on for years; the Baltimore franchise isn't just a mess at the major-league level, but all through the farm system- it will take years to right that ship through solid trades and stocking the farm system, a la Beane in Oakland. An aside: One thing I never could stand about the movie "Major League" was that the basic plot premise is horribly flawed. First, why doesn't the owner just sell the team and retire to Miami? Or failing that, there's no reason she couldn't live in Miami even if the team is in Cleveland. How many owners actually live in the cities of the team they own, seeing as outright owning an entire MLB franchise- Bud Selig's protestations notwithstanding- should make you wealthy enough to afford some swanky housing anywhere, along with a nice private jet to ferry you back and forth (not that we're lead to believe Phelps is much of a baseball fan)? Lastly, and most disturbing to me, the magic number is 800,000 in attendance- not implausible, although the only team to draw less than a million fans in the last two years was Montreal, which still averaged just under 800,000 (they managed 926,213 in 2000 and 642,745 in 2001). So let's assume that the fictional Indians team was on pace to draw only 600,000 for that fictional season until they began their winning ways. However, once the Indians hit a winning streak, and the audience was treated to montage sequences of people suddenly noticing and rooting for this upstart team, even 10-15 home games of ~35,000 people (and based on the crowd shots showing a well-filled stadium, it's worth noting that old Municipal Stadium could seat 74,000 at full capacity, and that as a winning team Cleveland in the 90's was drawing capacity crowds of 40,000) would skyrocket attendance enough to shoot them well past 800,000 for the season. Indeed, by mid-August at least, the owner would have to concede defeat in her diabolical plan when the team had already drawn well more than 800,000 fans- so why does she keep trying to make them lose and kill attendance? Nothing to gain by it except losing money, and we're not lead to believe the Rachel Phelps character is actually retarded or otherwise mentally disabled. I swear, that has ALWAYS bugged me....

corpse: there were some decent people to be found in the waiver list (and might still be)- no great starting pitchers or power hitters, but some decent upgrade players (like Ruben Sierra, who may have a very good year this year). I've been looking over my team, and I might not do too badly with a couple more trades as the season gets started. Don't give up hope! :)

Am I the only one who forgot to show up? I've been looking it over, and truth be told, it's actually not THAT bad a team- if only it were it a "real" team that had been put together for a mid-level payroll, we'd stand a good chance of putting together a nice season and making a playoff run. Ah, but in Rotissirie, I'm gonna get creamed by some of these All-World, All- Scott Boras lineups. Hoo-boy, indeed.

Um, I hate to ask what must be a stupid question: what's so special about November 28th?

I feel bad for owillis... the Bledsoe-> Redskins thing seemed to make an inherent sense...

this article made me realize I'm not following my team closely enough: [...] the Expos Oh, so you're the one.

I didn't say I'd want Jim Fregosi as manager, only that that might be who they pursue. It wasn't well worded on my part; me, I want Jimy Williams back. Actually, Bill Simmons had an excellent idea (natch): hire Showalter just so you can fire him; the following year the Red Sox will win the world series. Yay!

*sigh*. You know who would be a great manager for this team? Jimy Williams. Now if only they can find a way to convince the Astros to part with him... Seriously, they might be able to get Jim Fregosi or Felipe Alou, since the ownership issues have been sorted out; Alou might have come last year to replace Williams, but apparently cited the upheaval in Boston at the time as a deciding factor.

Mighty Girl kicks butt, I check her blog regular for those vastly entertaining slices- of- life "Overheards". Plus, she's a cutie. :)

I just signed up as the "Seattle Sluggers"- naturally enough. This is my first fantasy league, actually, so this ought to be... interesting.

The game was played by athletes showing great heart and sportsmanship, and while it might sound trite, there weren't any losers here today. I wish more sports had hockey's tradition of the little-league like meeting on the ice after the game. Now, if only Rusty Smith hadn't spilled out yesterday, the US would have medalled in the 5000m-relay in short skate for a 35th medal. *sigh*

salmacis: hincandenza: Please save your racist remarks for another board. One athlete != Whole Nation First, in the words of David Hyde Pierce in "Wet Hot American Summer": Oh, f*ck my cock. Second: not racism. South Korea != Race. Third, my wording was poor; I was trying say "not to be to harsh here about the nation of South Korea, but did they [by "they", I meant the short-skate team, not the whole nation] learn sportsmanship and ethics ....", the fact is there do seem to be a lot of spills, bumps, and disqualifications on the part of the So. Korea skate team, not just in the big races but in the qualifying heats as well.

So, not to be to harsh here about the nation of South Korea, but did they learn sportsmanship and ethics at the "Evil Rich Kids' Camp Across the Lake Training Academy" or something? Thank god the Winter Olympics doesn't have a whitewater rafting competition, or someone might get hurt!

Like everyone else, I just want the freakin' music, man. But it was a good commercial...

More to the point, why didn't they rerun the race? In the men's 5000 relay I alluded to earlier, more than half way through a team wiped out, taking another team with it- and even though the handily leading USA team wasn't affected, the race was negated and everyone forced to rerun it from the beginning. Why not do it for this race, especially when the standings were clearly affected by this wipeout? Just doesn't make sense. A 90 second race, why the heck not rerun it? The fact that Ohno is from Seattle, like myself, has no bearing on my feelings in this issue. :)

I'd be interested in fantasy baseball- but is it pay or free? If it costs money at Yahoo, and it's not too difficult to do, why not set up our own league at SpoFi?

And what's with the Australian acting all happy, like he just won a gold medal (er, you know what I mean)? I mean really, dude- at least show a little contrition or humility, you only medalled because of a collision among the competent skaters.

Is it me, or does this just seem like an ugly Olympics? At least, an ugly Olympics when it comes to ice.... the idea of the clear favorite not getting the gold because an also-ran knocked him over (and possibly injured him for the rest of the Olympics) while the guy in the back of the pack skates across for an easy gold, just seems contrary to the Olympic spirit. Ohno wouldn't have medalled at all if he hadn't been close enough to throw a skate across the line to snag silver. The rest of that article details other falls and spills, and that 5000 relay heat which had to be completely stopped and redone are just further examples of Athletes Gone Wild. Perhaps its a double edged sword; the fast ice that has led to so many new world records is also causing athletes to skate out of control.

Actually, Pedro showed up about ~10 pounds heavier this year, mostly muscle. He worked out all winter so as to not have that now-regular late summer fade when his smaller frame gets worn by the beating of a regular season schedule. This IS the year. Unless something goes wrong...

Hot diggity.

Damn straight- the heckling was consistent even in the start of the season from most all quarters, until that first win streak started to shut people up. A true measure of his greatness as an athlete and a competitor is that he's not necessarily the greatest weapon in his team's arsenal on a particular night, and doesn't try to be- which is why they're winning. He's still way too good to ignore as a major threat, as his 51 points against Charlotte attest, but if a team spends too much time and effort shutting him down they could still lose when Hamilton or Haywood take advantage of that for 20-30 points. So while this season can already be counted a success in virtually every way, the Wizards still have a long way to go- and until they get into the 10+ games over .500 position, any cold streak or bad run against the top teams may knock them right back out of the playoff hunt. And their chances of going all the way, or even the conference finals, are still pretty much nil (although I may end up eating crow in a couple of months much as his preseason detractors are doing now). However, a playoff berth will be as much of a victory as anyone could have hoped for- and honestly, I don't know many teams that would want to face Jordan and the Wizards in a 5-game series; they could be a spoiler team with Jordan saving his energy for a series of 40-point explosions.

I can't decide, if the Red Sox did the World Series, if I'd want to be in Boston when they did, or if I'd want to be as far away as possible. And then there's the part of every Red Sox fan that wonders if winning would be anticlimactic, if every season after that would seem hollow or meaningless, like Buzz Aldrin felt after he came back from the moon. Regardless, as tieguy notes, the Patriots Championship and subsequent celebration would be absolutely dwarfed by the Caligula-esque pandemonium of a Red Sox win. The Patriots are a team to root for; the Red Sox are a freakin' religion...

While I'm admittedly only a fair weather Patriot/football fan- baseball is my real passion- it kind of stunned me when I fully realized today that this is the first time in my sports-enjoying life that a New England/Boston team has won a championship. The last one, the '86 Celtics, were both too dominant in that decade and too early (I was 11) for me to really notice them or get swept up in the thrilling "underdog" fever. My sports coming-of-age occured later that year, just in time to witness the heartbreak of the '86 World Series. I have to admit, being "Champions" is rather nice... :)

I like the idea of sports-like 'themes', although it's probably an extra load of work. Wasn't there something in the blog community regarding 'skins' for a blog? Perhaps a set of 4 or 5 could be made, and alternated between, or custom chosen, or something. This is SO not my area of expertise...