Most of the time, an athlete being called a one-man or a one-woman team is pure hyperbole; a compliment to the superstar player, but an insult to their teammates and an exaggeration of their role. It's extremely rare to actually see one person win a game in a team sport by themselves. Even some of the best athletic performances of all time that come close to this status eventually fall short: the example that comes to mind is Diego Maradona's performance against England in the quarter-finals of the 1986 World Cup, where he scored possibly the greatest goal of all time (slo-mo version with classical musichere) as well as the most controversial one (consider yourself lucky if the words "Hand of God" don't evoke sporting memories). Maradona needed very little help on either goal, as it was a mishit clearing attempt from England's Steve Hodge that produced his "divine intervention" rather than a pass from a teammate, and he dribbled through most of the England team on his second and greatest goal (which, unfortunately, has been overshadowed by the Hand of God). However, even though Argentina won 2-1 over a great England side on the strength of Maradona's play, it wasn't a true one-man performance: the rest of the team turned in a solid defensive effort and created their own chances, and it took an 87th minute save from Julio Olarticoechea to put Argentina through.
In the last couple weeks, however, two performances worthy of the one-athlete team label were recorded. Jobi Wall of Faith Christian High School pitched a perfect game (over five innings) and hit for the cycle (in only four innings) in the same game, an 18-0 victory over Coal Ridge. Wall's performance literally was enough on its own to win, as his home run supplied the only run his team would have needed with his pitching. Neate also found an amazing story about Bonnie Richardson, a Texas high-school track and field athlete who was the only member of her school's team to qualify for the state championships, but yet wound up taking home the team title.
Sure, both only happened at the high school level, but those are incredible feats. Even Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game wasn't enough to beat the Knicks: the Philadelphia Warriors won that one 169-147 (aside: wouldn't it be something to see an NBA game like that again!). Are there any athletes I haven't thought of who really have singlehandedly won a match for their teams?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
EPL: Manchester United v. Wigan: Live Blog
It's for all the marbles this time, as the final wave of EPL matches kick off across England and fans around the world set up camp on their couches, chairs and bar stools. By the end of the day, all will be decided, including the title race, the quest for European spots and the battle to avoid relegation. I'll be keeping track of the United - Wigan match mostly, but will fill in updates from the other important matches as they come. Feel free to leave thoughts or updates from other games in the comments. Here we go!
0:00: The Score is having feed issues on their UK end, so we're treated to more commentary from James Sharman (insightful) and Brian Budd (not so much). At least Budd's supporting United today: however, that somewhat speaks to his ridiculous nature, as he's usually a Liverpool fan, and Scousers and Mancunians tend to mix like sodium and water. I'd never support the Scouse, unless they were playing a team I hate more or a victory for them would aid United in turn.
5:00: Budd actually just made a good point about how important communication is among the back four and the goalkeeper. From my soccer experience, good communication helps more than any number of skills, but you rarely hear it mentioned on broadcasts.
10:00: Funnily enough, they just cut to the Chelsea game for a second and it illustrated the communication aspect perfectly: John Terry didn't talk with his own keeper, Petr Cech, and wound up getting hit in the head and knocked out of the match as a result. That's a big loss for Chelsea.
18:00: Still no sign of a video feed, but the match is still 0-0. I've got the lineups from the ManUtd.com match tracker. Here they are:
United:
Van der Sar; Brown, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra; Ronaldo, Carrick, Scholes, Park; Tevez, Rooney.
Bench: Silvestre, Saha, Hargreaves, Giggs, Kuszczak.
Wigan:
Kirkland; Boyce, Bramble, Scharner, Figueroa; Valencia, Palacios, Brown, Koumas; Bent, Heskey.
Bench: Skoko, Sibierski, Taylor, Pollitt, King.
22:00: Rooney's obviously a surprise inclusion here, as he was only supposed to crack the bench at best. Choosing Ji-Sung Park over Ryan Giggs is also a bit of an unexpected move, although he has been in good form lately. United have a lot of potential impact on that bench.
29:00: This is ridiculous: almost half an hour in and still no sign of the feed. I don't blame The Score, as the problem's apparently on the English end, and they just buy the feed. Sharman's understandably apologetic as well. United are producing some good chances, according to the match tracker, and Kirkland just made a great stop off a Ronaldo blast.
33:00: Still no video feed: what a time for this to happen! At least my own supplies are holding out: I'm double-fisting black coffee and Dark Scottish Ale (in honour of gaffer Sir Alex Ferguson) at the moment, as well as eating homemade breakfast burritos, which helps to alleviate the pain.
35:00: Bloody hell! We just got video and it's 1-0 United, with the first image we saw that of Ronaldo celebrating. According to the match tracker, Boyce brought down Rooney in the box and Ronaldo converted the ensuing penalty brilliantly for his 41st goal of the year in all competitions. Fantastic, but I would have loved to see it. At least the feed's working now...
37:00: And the ever-dangerous Marcus Bent just slotted a 12-yard volley into the United side netting. That was close. United have to work on their aerial defence.
38:00: Hellfire and brimstone, the feed's gone and died again. A quick switch to the Chelsea match (Setanta) reveals that it's still 0-0.
42:00: We have our feed back, just in time for a United corner. The ball falls to Rooney, but he fails to accomplish much with it due to the maze of players in the way.
43:00: Updates from the relegation race and the Chelsea match: Derby 0, Reading 1; Birmingham 1, Blackburn 0; Portsmouth 0, Fulham 0; Chelsea 0, Bolton 0.
44:00: Thus, at the moment, Fulham and Birmingham would both go down to the Championship, while Reading and Bolton would survive. See my post from last night for the various possible scenarios.'
46:00: And here we are at halftime. Apparently, there's some controversy, not over the penalty awarded by referee Steve Bennett, but over the lack of an earlier penalty off a supposed handball by Rio Ferdinand. Hard to comment without seeing it.
Halftime: A quick update on the European qualification situation. There's only one UEFA Cup spot available through the league, as the Carling Cup winner (Tottenham Hotspur) and FA Cup finalists (Portsmouth and Cardiff City) haven't automatically qualified. Thus, only the team that finishes fifth will grab a spot. At the moment, that's Everton, with 62 points. If they get anything today from their home match against Newcastle United at Goodison Park, they'll lock up the spot: they're currently up 1-0. The other contenders are Aston Villa, three points back on 59 but with equal goal differential (+20) heading in. They're currently tied 1-1 away against West Ham United. If they win and Everton lose, they'll take the spot on goal differential. The scores of the other matches remain the same as at my last update. Also, Wigan surprisingly outshot United 8-5 in the first half.
Halftime: They just showed another video of John Terry's injury, and it looks bad. Sharman and Budd speculated that it might be a broken arm or a separated shoulder, either of which could keep him out of May 21's Champions League final against United in Moscow.
46:00: And here we go again! No changes for the second half by either side. The weather seems to be getting worse: the announcers talked about lightning during the break, and rain's pouring down on the pitch. The match is slightly delayed, as it's supposed to begin at the same second as Chelsea-Bolton down in London: thus, the announcers are joking about synchronized swimming.
46:00: And they kick off. This pitch really isn't looking good, and as the Score guys pointed out at the break, that probably will help Wigan: it's difficult to play technical football on a soaking-wet pitch.
47:00: Park goes down just outside the area, setting up a free kick for Ronaldo. He brilliantly curves it over the wall, but it's punched clear by Kirkland. Carrick can't do much with the ensuing corner.
53:00: Scholes is taken down viciously in the box by Bramble, who doesn't get any part of the ball, but no penalty is called despite United's appeals. A good corner from Park, but Ronaldo heads just wide. That's at least his third great chance of the day.
56:00: Rooney makes a great inside-outside move on his defender and gets a powerful shot away, but Kirkland makes a tremendous fingertip save. United don't do much with the ensuing corner, but they do earn another one.
57:00: Another wasted corner from United.
57:00: The announcers just made a great point: United aren't too likely to sit on this lead, as many other sides would do. That's wise in my mind: too many late goals have doomed 1-0 leads.
58:00: Rooney gets in behind the defenders and appeals for a handball, but the call goes against him.
59:00: Park does a great job to set up Tevez, but he's denied by Kirkland, who is singlehandedly keeping Wigan in it so far. Wigan are sitting back and hoping for a counterattack chance.
63:00: Out-of-town Scoreboard: Andriy Shevchenko, the almost-useless Ukrainian striker, has scored a vital goal for Chelsea to give them a 1-0 lead at the Bridge. At the moment, United will triumph on goal difference, but anything can still happen. Reading have second and third goals at Derby, which will help their battle to stay afloat. Blackburn have drawn level with Birmingham, making it more unlikely that the Blues will stay up, and Newcastle have tied their match with Everton, but Everton will still claim the last UEFA Cup spot at the moment. Villa are now up 2-1 against West Ham, but that game won't matter unless Newcastle beat Everton.
69:00: United substitutions: Hargreaves on, Scholes off, and Giggs on, Park off. With that, Giggs ties Sir Bobby Charlton's club record of 758 appearances in a United shirt, which he'll likely break in Moscow. A truly impressive record for a deserving man, and one of the best wingers to ever play the game. It speaks to his quality that he was able to put up so many starts in an era where United have enjoyed both great success and great depth.
72:00: A clever free kick sees Rooney played in behind the defence, but Wigan are aware and clear for a corner. Wigan head the first corner out for another one, but Vidic makes a great run on the second attempt, fights off Heskey and heads just wide. United have had a tremendous amount of chances, but haven't been able to put them away.
75:00: A quarter of an hour to go, but it will feel like eternity for United fans. In other scores, Birmingham have pulled ahead 2-1 and Fulham are up 1-0 at Portsmouth. This scoreline would see Reading and Birmingham both go down despite their victories. Everton and Chelsea both still lead. Also, in a result sure to bring a smile to the face of United fans everywhere, Middlesbrough are demolishing Manchester City 5-0 at the Riverside.
77:00: Oh, that was a vicious challenge for the ball by Valencia, who nailed Vidic in the back in an attempt to claim an aerial ball. He gets a yellow card for his trouble. Vidic is obviously somewhat fragile at the moment, but he seems to be all right. Ferguson is furious.
80:00: Ten minutes to go. United are defending valiantly, but Wigan seem to have much of the momentum now. I'd like to see a more aggressive United here: a one-goal lead is never enough for comfort.
80:00: RYAN GIGGS! As I wrote that last post, he snuck through the middle, took a pass, and drilled it by Kirkland. On a day where he ties one of the most sacred club records, he's proved that he still has what it takes to be a productive member of one of the world's top sides. The man is absolutely clutch: you can add that to his list of key goals, topped by the marvelous 1999 FA Cup winner in extra time against Arsenal and the 90th minute equalizer against Juventus in that same year. Atrocious defending by Wigan: they left Giggs completely unmarked between their central defenders, and he made the absolute most of the opportunity.
85:00: This should be enough to see United win the title. The air seems to have gone out of Wigan, and United are controlling the play and the possession. Despite Soccernet's prediction, it looks as if the Red Devils will retain their trophy.
87:00: A dangerous Wigan corner, headed back by a United player but cleared off the line by Ryan Giggs. He's proving to be valuable at both ends.
88:00: Wigan are again going for it, but Sibierski's header is punched clear by Van der Sar.
90:00: Out-of-town scoreboard: Reading 4, Derby 0; Chelsea 1, Bolton 0; Fulham 1, Portsmouth 0; Everton 3, Newcastle 1; West Ham United 2, Aston Villa 2; Middlesbrough 8, Man City 1.
90:00: 3 minutes of added time. A Heskey header is saved on the line by Van der Sar.
90:00: And the final whistle! As the announcer called it, "It has been one of the great finishes in the Barclay's Premier League." A fantastic victory for United, and symbolic goals from both the old and new generation of wingers. Wigan put in a valiant effort, and their heart cannot be questioned, but United were the better side. In the end, Chelsea gave up a late equalizer at the Bridge to Bolton, so the title wasn't decided on goal differential at all. The Blues put up a great fight down the stretch after everyone had counted them out, but in the end, the most consistently dominant team won. That's the Red Devils' tenth Premier League title (amazing, considering that the league only formed in 1992) and 17th English top-tier title overall, one short of Liverpool's record.
All the games are wrapped up now, and it's a perfect day for United supporters: not only has their side retained their title, but City went down to a miserable 8-1 defeat at Middlesbrough. Fulham hung on for an away win at Portsmouth, so Reading and Birmingham are each relegated despite 4-0 and 4-1 wins respectively. Everton also won, so they claim the final UEFA Cup spot. That's it for this post: thanks for reading!
0:00: The Score is having feed issues on their UK end, so we're treated to more commentary from James Sharman (insightful) and Brian Budd (not so much). At least Budd's supporting United today: however, that somewhat speaks to his ridiculous nature, as he's usually a Liverpool fan, and Scousers and Mancunians tend to mix like sodium and water. I'd never support the Scouse, unless they were playing a team I hate more or a victory for them would aid United in turn.
5:00: Budd actually just made a good point about how important communication is among the back four and the goalkeeper. From my soccer experience, good communication helps more than any number of skills, but you rarely hear it mentioned on broadcasts.
10:00: Funnily enough, they just cut to the Chelsea game for a second and it illustrated the communication aspect perfectly: John Terry didn't talk with his own keeper, Petr Cech, and wound up getting hit in the head and knocked out of the match as a result. That's a big loss for Chelsea.
18:00: Still no sign of a video feed, but the match is still 0-0. I've got the lineups from the ManUtd.com match tracker. Here they are:
United:
Van der Sar; Brown, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra; Ronaldo, Carrick, Scholes, Park; Tevez, Rooney.
Bench: Silvestre, Saha, Hargreaves, Giggs, Kuszczak.
Wigan:
Kirkland; Boyce, Bramble, Scharner, Figueroa; Valencia, Palacios, Brown, Koumas; Bent, Heskey.
Bench: Skoko, Sibierski, Taylor, Pollitt, King.
22:00: Rooney's obviously a surprise inclusion here, as he was only supposed to crack the bench at best. Choosing Ji-Sung Park over Ryan Giggs is also a bit of an unexpected move, although he has been in good form lately. United have a lot of potential impact on that bench.
29:00: This is ridiculous: almost half an hour in and still no sign of the feed. I don't blame The Score, as the problem's apparently on the English end, and they just buy the feed. Sharman's understandably apologetic as well. United are producing some good chances, according to the match tracker, and Kirkland just made a great stop off a Ronaldo blast.
33:00: Still no video feed: what a time for this to happen! At least my own supplies are holding out: I'm double-fisting black coffee and Dark Scottish Ale (in honour of gaffer Sir Alex Ferguson) at the moment, as well as eating homemade breakfast burritos, which helps to alleviate the pain.
35:00: Bloody hell! We just got video and it's 1-0 United, with the first image we saw that of Ronaldo celebrating. According to the match tracker, Boyce brought down Rooney in the box and Ronaldo converted the ensuing penalty brilliantly for his 41st goal of the year in all competitions. Fantastic, but I would have loved to see it. At least the feed's working now...
37:00: And the ever-dangerous Marcus Bent just slotted a 12-yard volley into the United side netting. That was close. United have to work on their aerial defence.
38:00: Hellfire and brimstone, the feed's gone and died again. A quick switch to the Chelsea match (Setanta) reveals that it's still 0-0.
42:00: We have our feed back, just in time for a United corner. The ball falls to Rooney, but he fails to accomplish much with it due to the maze of players in the way.
43:00: Updates from the relegation race and the Chelsea match: Derby 0, Reading 1; Birmingham 1, Blackburn 0; Portsmouth 0, Fulham 0; Chelsea 0, Bolton 0.
44:00: Thus, at the moment, Fulham and Birmingham would both go down to the Championship, while Reading and Bolton would survive. See my post from last night for the various possible scenarios.'
46:00: And here we are at halftime. Apparently, there's some controversy, not over the penalty awarded by referee Steve Bennett, but over the lack of an earlier penalty off a supposed handball by Rio Ferdinand. Hard to comment without seeing it.
Halftime: A quick update on the European qualification situation. There's only one UEFA Cup spot available through the league, as the Carling Cup winner (Tottenham Hotspur) and FA Cup finalists (Portsmouth and Cardiff City) haven't automatically qualified. Thus, only the team that finishes fifth will grab a spot. At the moment, that's Everton, with 62 points. If they get anything today from their home match against Newcastle United at Goodison Park, they'll lock up the spot: they're currently up 1-0. The other contenders are Aston Villa, three points back on 59 but with equal goal differential (+20) heading in. They're currently tied 1-1 away against West Ham United. If they win and Everton lose, they'll take the spot on goal differential. The scores of the other matches remain the same as at my last update. Also, Wigan surprisingly outshot United 8-5 in the first half.
Halftime: They just showed another video of John Terry's injury, and it looks bad. Sharman and Budd speculated that it might be a broken arm or a separated shoulder, either of which could keep him out of May 21's Champions League final against United in Moscow.
46:00: And here we go again! No changes for the second half by either side. The weather seems to be getting worse: the announcers talked about lightning during the break, and rain's pouring down on the pitch. The match is slightly delayed, as it's supposed to begin at the same second as Chelsea-Bolton down in London: thus, the announcers are joking about synchronized swimming.
46:00: And they kick off. This pitch really isn't looking good, and as the Score guys pointed out at the break, that probably will help Wigan: it's difficult to play technical football on a soaking-wet pitch.
47:00: Park goes down just outside the area, setting up a free kick for Ronaldo. He brilliantly curves it over the wall, but it's punched clear by Kirkland. Carrick can't do much with the ensuing corner.
53:00: Scholes is taken down viciously in the box by Bramble, who doesn't get any part of the ball, but no penalty is called despite United's appeals. A good corner from Park, but Ronaldo heads just wide. That's at least his third great chance of the day.
56:00: Rooney makes a great inside-outside move on his defender and gets a powerful shot away, but Kirkland makes a tremendous fingertip save. United don't do much with the ensuing corner, but they do earn another one.
57:00: Another wasted corner from United.
57:00: The announcers just made a great point: United aren't too likely to sit on this lead, as many other sides would do. That's wise in my mind: too many late goals have doomed 1-0 leads.
58:00: Rooney gets in behind the defenders and appeals for a handball, but the call goes against him.
59:00: Park does a great job to set up Tevez, but he's denied by Kirkland, who is singlehandedly keeping Wigan in it so far. Wigan are sitting back and hoping for a counterattack chance.
63:00: Out-of-town Scoreboard: Andriy Shevchenko, the almost-useless Ukrainian striker, has scored a vital goal for Chelsea to give them a 1-0 lead at the Bridge. At the moment, United will triumph on goal difference, but anything can still happen. Reading have second and third goals at Derby, which will help their battle to stay afloat. Blackburn have drawn level with Birmingham, making it more unlikely that the Blues will stay up, and Newcastle have tied their match with Everton, but Everton will still claim the last UEFA Cup spot at the moment. Villa are now up 2-1 against West Ham, but that game won't matter unless Newcastle beat Everton.
69:00: United substitutions: Hargreaves on, Scholes off, and Giggs on, Park off. With that, Giggs ties Sir Bobby Charlton's club record of 758 appearances in a United shirt, which he'll likely break in Moscow. A truly impressive record for a deserving man, and one of the best wingers to ever play the game. It speaks to his quality that he was able to put up so many starts in an era where United have enjoyed both great success and great depth.
72:00: A clever free kick sees Rooney played in behind the defence, but Wigan are aware and clear for a corner. Wigan head the first corner out for another one, but Vidic makes a great run on the second attempt, fights off Heskey and heads just wide. United have had a tremendous amount of chances, but haven't been able to put them away.
75:00: A quarter of an hour to go, but it will feel like eternity for United fans. In other scores, Birmingham have pulled ahead 2-1 and Fulham are up 1-0 at Portsmouth. This scoreline would see Reading and Birmingham both go down despite their victories. Everton and Chelsea both still lead. Also, in a result sure to bring a smile to the face of United fans everywhere, Middlesbrough are demolishing Manchester City 5-0 at the Riverside.
77:00: Oh, that was a vicious challenge for the ball by Valencia, who nailed Vidic in the back in an attempt to claim an aerial ball. He gets a yellow card for his trouble. Vidic is obviously somewhat fragile at the moment, but he seems to be all right. Ferguson is furious.
80:00: Ten minutes to go. United are defending valiantly, but Wigan seem to have much of the momentum now. I'd like to see a more aggressive United here: a one-goal lead is never enough for comfort.
80:00: RYAN GIGGS! As I wrote that last post, he snuck through the middle, took a pass, and drilled it by Kirkland. On a day where he ties one of the most sacred club records, he's proved that he still has what it takes to be a productive member of one of the world's top sides. The man is absolutely clutch: you can add that to his list of key goals, topped by the marvelous 1999 FA Cup winner in extra time against Arsenal and the 90th minute equalizer against Juventus in that same year. Atrocious defending by Wigan: they left Giggs completely unmarked between their central defenders, and he made the absolute most of the opportunity.
85:00: This should be enough to see United win the title. The air seems to have gone out of Wigan, and United are controlling the play and the possession. Despite Soccernet's prediction, it looks as if the Red Devils will retain their trophy.
87:00: A dangerous Wigan corner, headed back by a United player but cleared off the line by Ryan Giggs. He's proving to be valuable at both ends.
88:00: Wigan are again going for it, but Sibierski's header is punched clear by Van der Sar.
90:00: Out-of-town scoreboard: Reading 4, Derby 0; Chelsea 1, Bolton 0; Fulham 1, Portsmouth 0; Everton 3, Newcastle 1; West Ham United 2, Aston Villa 2; Middlesbrough 8, Man City 1.
90:00: 3 minutes of added time. A Heskey header is saved on the line by Van der Sar.
90:00: And the final whistle! As the announcer called it, "It has been one of the great finishes in the Barclay's Premier League." A fantastic victory for United, and symbolic goals from both the old and new generation of wingers. Wigan put in a valiant effort, and their heart cannot be questioned, but United were the better side. In the end, Chelsea gave up a late equalizer at the Bridge to Bolton, so the title wasn't decided on goal differential at all. The Blues put up a great fight down the stretch after everyone had counted them out, but in the end, the most consistently dominant team won. That's the Red Devils' tenth Premier League title (amazing, considering that the league only formed in 1992) and 17th English top-tier title overall, one short of Liverpool's record.
All the games are wrapped up now, and it's a perfect day for United supporters: not only has their side retained their title, but City went down to a miserable 8-1 defeat at Middlesbrough. Fulham hung on for an away win at Portsmouth, so Reading and Birmingham are each relegated despite 4-0 and 4-1 wins respectively. Everton also won, so they claim the final UEFA Cup spot. That's it for this post: thanks for reading!
Saturday, May 10, 2008
EPL: Stage set for Sunday showdown
For once, the English Premier League has gone right down to the wire, with the championship, European places and the relegation battle all to be decided on the final day of the season. At the top, Manchester United and Chelsea are even on 84 points, but United have a vastly superior goal differential (+56 to +39). Thus, if United can secure an away victory against Wigan at the JJB Stadium, they will claim the title and Chelsea's game at home against Bolton will be meaningless. The Red Devils should be in good shape in their bid to claim a tenth Premier League title, as they look to have regained their form of old after last week's brilliant 4-1 victory over West Ham United, where they prevailed despite being limited to ten men after Nani's first-half suspension. However, Chelsea have also been hot lately, and they eked out a narrow 2-1 victory over United two weeks ago at the Bridge.
United received some good news on the injury side this week, as Serbian central defender Nemanja Vidic is likely to be available. Vidic, who missed last week's match with a concussion suffered against Chelsea, is a key figure for the Reds: he, Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra and Wes Brown have formed the most consistently effective defence in the Premiership this season, conceding a league-low 22 goals. United's offence has also been the best in the league, finding the net 78 times over the season: five more than second-best Arsenal and 14 more than sixth-best Chelsea. The Red Devils may get an offensive boost as well, as striker Wayne Rooney could be able to start on the bench. Rooney's been trying to recover from a hip injury for the last few weeks, and having him back would certainly be a boost.
The United lineup will be interesting to watch. Last week, Owen Hargreaves was again used as a right back, with Wes Brown shifted into the centre to cover for Vidic. With Vidic's return, there's a sudden competition for spots in the midfield, with Ryan Giggs, Michael Carrick, Paul Scholes, Hargreaves, Cristiano Ronaldo and Ji-Sung Park all looking for spots. The matter is only minorly less complicated by Nani's absence. I'd love to see Sir Alex Ferguson trot out a 4-5-1 here, pushing up Giggs and Ronaldo on the wings to help central attacker Tevez, and having Scholes and Carrick closely support from the midfield while Hargreaves plays the covering role he's so adept at. What's probably more likely is a traditional 4-4-2, though, with Ronaldo playing forward alongside Tevez, Park filling in on the wing and one of Hargreaves or Carrick starting on the bench.
Wigan have also been in good form lately, as they're undefeated in their last five matches. Former United star Steve Bruce has had an excellent season as the Lactics' manager, and they currently sit a respectable 13th in the table, not bad at all for a side that only earned promotion in 2005. They'll certainly give it their all on Sunday, and it won't be easy for United. A full-out win will likely be necessary, as Chelsea are almost certain to prevail at the Bridge against Bolton.
I'll be live-blogging the United match tomorrow, so check in here for updates. In a brilliant Premier League strategy, all the games take place at the same time (10 a.m. Eastern), so everything will happen at once: thus, I'll be updating the crucial other scores as well.
The battle at the bottom end of the table is also quite compelling. Derby County, the worst team in the history of the Premiership are already relegated with 11 points, but Birmingham (32 points), Reading (33) and Fulham (33) are all in severe danger, and two of the three are likely to go down. Bolton, on 36 points, are also mathematically threatened, but their -18 goal differential should see them clear, as Reading have a -29 mark and Fulham are -23: in order for the Trotters to go down, Reading and Fulham would have to win big and Chelsea would have to defeat Bolton handily.
Birmingham will be in tough, as they host the ninth-place Blackburn Rovers. Their survival would be ensured if they eke out a win and both Fulham and Reading lose or tie. However, their solid goal differential (-19) means that a draw with Blackburn combined with losses from both Fulham and Reading would also see them through.
Reading are also in severe danger. Their horrible goal differential, fed by several painful defeats this year, means that they're likely to go down if they and Fulham finish with the same results in Sunday's matches. Reading are away against Derby, a match that they should easily win: however, they'll really need to pile on the goals in case Fulham also win.
Fulham are also away, against eighth-place Portsmouth at Fratton Park. They're in good form coming in after a victory over Birmingham last week. On paper, this is a tougher matchup. However, they may be aided if Portsmouth decide to rest some veterans ahead of next Saturday's F.A. Cup final at Wembley. Personally, though, I think there's a good chance Reading will beat Derby and Fulham may slip up against Pompey, seeing them and Birmingham join Derby in the procession to the Championship.
One of the greatest things about the Premiership is the relegation race. It avoids the tanking for high draft picks that is so common in North American professional sports, and instead means that every team has something to play for for most of the season. Between the overall title, the European spots and relegation, there are surprisingly few meaningless games, the bane of any sport. In fact, the relegation battle is often more interesting than the title race, which frequently is wrapped up by this point. The significant financial rewards from maintaining Premiership status as opposed to returning to the Championship add further incentive to the fire: ESPN Soccernet's Phil Holland has stated that a club can make 60 million pounds in guaranteed revenue from just one season in the Premiership, which tends to multiply over time due to increased attendance and sponsorship numbers.
I'd love to see some North American leagues adopt a similar system: wouldn't it be great to see the worst MLS team drop down to the USL, or the Vancouver Whitecaps or Montreal Impact earn promotion? Similarly, the Tampa Bay Lightning could be tearing it up in the AHL next season instead of winning the Stamkos derby. Obviously, there are some issues that would need to be addressed, as many of the current minor-league clubs are mere feeder-franchises, but it would forever eliminate the issues of tanking to get draft picks and make games between teams in the lower halves of leagues near the end of the season both more watchable and interesting.
United received some good news on the injury side this week, as Serbian central defender Nemanja Vidic is likely to be available. Vidic, who missed last week's match with a concussion suffered against Chelsea, is a key figure for the Reds: he, Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra and Wes Brown have formed the most consistently effective defence in the Premiership this season, conceding a league-low 22 goals. United's offence has also been the best in the league, finding the net 78 times over the season: five more than second-best Arsenal and 14 more than sixth-best Chelsea. The Red Devils may get an offensive boost as well, as striker Wayne Rooney could be able to start on the bench. Rooney's been trying to recover from a hip injury for the last few weeks, and having him back would certainly be a boost.
The United lineup will be interesting to watch. Last week, Owen Hargreaves was again used as a right back, with Wes Brown shifted into the centre to cover for Vidic. With Vidic's return, there's a sudden competition for spots in the midfield, with Ryan Giggs, Michael Carrick, Paul Scholes, Hargreaves, Cristiano Ronaldo and Ji-Sung Park all looking for spots. The matter is only minorly less complicated by Nani's absence. I'd love to see Sir Alex Ferguson trot out a 4-5-1 here, pushing up Giggs and Ronaldo on the wings to help central attacker Tevez, and having Scholes and Carrick closely support from the midfield while Hargreaves plays the covering role he's so adept at. What's probably more likely is a traditional 4-4-2, though, with Ronaldo playing forward alongside Tevez, Park filling in on the wing and one of Hargreaves or Carrick starting on the bench.
Wigan have also been in good form lately, as they're undefeated in their last five matches. Former United star Steve Bruce has had an excellent season as the Lactics' manager, and they currently sit a respectable 13th in the table, not bad at all for a side that only earned promotion in 2005. They'll certainly give it their all on Sunday, and it won't be easy for United. A full-out win will likely be necessary, as Chelsea are almost certain to prevail at the Bridge against Bolton.
I'll be live-blogging the United match tomorrow, so check in here for updates. In a brilliant Premier League strategy, all the games take place at the same time (10 a.m. Eastern), so everything will happen at once: thus, I'll be updating the crucial other scores as well.
The battle at the bottom end of the table is also quite compelling. Derby County, the worst team in the history of the Premiership are already relegated with 11 points, but Birmingham (32 points), Reading (33) and Fulham (33) are all in severe danger, and two of the three are likely to go down. Bolton, on 36 points, are also mathematically threatened, but their -18 goal differential should see them clear, as Reading have a -29 mark and Fulham are -23: in order for the Trotters to go down, Reading and Fulham would have to win big and Chelsea would have to defeat Bolton handily.
Birmingham will be in tough, as they host the ninth-place Blackburn Rovers. Their survival would be ensured if they eke out a win and both Fulham and Reading lose or tie. However, their solid goal differential (-19) means that a draw with Blackburn combined with losses from both Fulham and Reading would also see them through.
Reading are also in severe danger. Their horrible goal differential, fed by several painful defeats this year, means that they're likely to go down if they and Fulham finish with the same results in Sunday's matches. Reading are away against Derby, a match that they should easily win: however, they'll really need to pile on the goals in case Fulham also win.
Fulham are also away, against eighth-place Portsmouth at Fratton Park. They're in good form coming in after a victory over Birmingham last week. On paper, this is a tougher matchup. However, they may be aided if Portsmouth decide to rest some veterans ahead of next Saturday's F.A. Cup final at Wembley. Personally, though, I think there's a good chance Reading will beat Derby and Fulham may slip up against Pompey, seeing them and Birmingham join Derby in the procession to the Championship.
One of the greatest things about the Premiership is the relegation race. It avoids the tanking for high draft picks that is so common in North American professional sports, and instead means that every team has something to play for for most of the season. Between the overall title, the European spots and relegation, there are surprisingly few meaningless games, the bane of any sport. In fact, the relegation battle is often more interesting than the title race, which frequently is wrapped up by this point. The significant financial rewards from maintaining Premiership status as opposed to returning to the Championship add further incentive to the fire: ESPN Soccernet's Phil Holland has stated that a club can make 60 million pounds in guaranteed revenue from just one season in the Premiership, which tends to multiply over time due to increased attendance and sponsorship numbers.
I'd love to see some North American leagues adopt a similar system: wouldn't it be great to see the worst MLS team drop down to the USL, or the Vancouver Whitecaps or Montreal Impact earn promotion? Similarly, the Tampa Bay Lightning could be tearing it up in the AHL next season instead of winning the Stamkos derby. Obviously, there are some issues that would need to be addressed, as many of the current minor-league clubs are mere feeder-franchises, but it would forever eliminate the issues of tanking to get draft picks and make games between teams in the lower halves of leagues near the end of the season both more watchable and interesting.
Female athletes: tougher than you might think
Neate came across a very interesting book excerpt in this weekend's New York Times magazine. It's by Michael Sokolove, and called Warrior Girls: Protecting Our Daughters Against the Injury Epidemic in Women’s Sports: well worth a read. Sokolove makes some very interesting points, and presents a balanced picture overall, but the centre of the piece focuses on research suggesting that girls who play sports like basketball, volleyball and soccer suffer significantly more concussions and knee injuries than boys playing the same sports: by a factor of five in certain cases. According to the NCAA, women's soccer players suffer concussions at the same rate as men's football players. I actually came across some of this data while doing my piece on concussions, but it didn't seem to fit with the larger angle of the story, so I didn't include it there.
The problem is what to do with this data. Those who oppose the opportunities offered to women's sports by Title IX will certainly add it to their arsenal of arguments suggesting that women cannot, or should not, compete at high levels. This doesn't seem to be Sokolove's argument, as his piece focuses more on injury prevention (although it's tough to tell from only a book excerpt) but some will undoubtably take the stats without context. It's also a problem to go too far the other way, and suggest that biological differences have zero impact on athletics: as Sokolove writes, the higher flexibility and less muscle mass that most girls tend to have, and the corresponding differences in the way they move, can put them more at risk for certain injuries, particuarly those that affect the knees and head. This doesn't mean girls should be kept out of certain sports: I'd prefer to see them playing everything possible, but they (and their parents) should be fully appraised of the potential risks involved in each sport before they sign up.
Another danger is the lack of awareness on the potential dangers of returning to sporting activity too soon. As the article points out, some of the increased injuries likely come because girls tend to play through more pain than guys. In my mind, it's important to increase the education aspect of sports, for both men and women. The long-term health of the athlete should always be paramount, far more so than any title or championship. The biomechanic coaching Sokolove discusses seems very promising: if it proves to be effective at reducing the knee injury rate of athletes, perhaps club and school coaches should receive some training in identifying athletes whose natural motion could cause injury down the road. Rather than preventing them from play, they should perhaps be referred to biomechanic specialists early on, who can help them refine their form before they run into injury problems. Athletes of both genders should also be made aware of the serious risks of playing sports, and all athletes and coaches should have it drummed into their heads that no athlete should return from injury before they're ready.
The other interesting point the article brings up is the problems with the club system and the idea of early specialization in one particular sport. I've talked to several high-level coaches who are firmly against early specialization policies, and prefer recruits who have played several different sports, as this tends to develop better-rounded athletes. Each sport builds different strengths and skills, which the athletes can then incorporate into their other sports. Thus, I agree with this portion. However, the criticisms of the club system are too harsh in my mind.
As Sokolove writes, "In many sports, a youth athlete’s paramount relationship is now with a club rather than a school team. Annual fees and travel to tournaments often run into the thousands of dollars. Parents pay for camps and private sports tutors. The guiding principle is that childhood sport is too important to be left to volunteers and amateurs. The quality of coaching, in terms of skills and tactics, is probably better than in past generations, but it is also narrower. Rather than being coached by educators who see them during the school day and have some holistic sense of them as children, young athletes are now mentored by coaches who cultivate only their athletic side. ... The club structure is the driving force behind the trend toward early specialization in one sport — and, by extension, a primary cause of injuries. To play multiple sports is, in the best sense, childlike. It’s fun. You move on from one good thing to the next. But to specialize conveys a seriousness of purpose. It seems to be leading somewhere — even if, in fact, the real destination is burnout or injury."
I take issue with this. Playing multiple sports isn't childlike, in my mind: it can be seen as the best way to further develop an athlete's total talents. In fact, many of the best athletes have been drafted by a couple pro leagues, and some like "Neon" Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson have even been able to play in two leagues at once. Steve Nash has talked about how the skills he gained playing soccer have molded him into such a great basketball player: in fact, he's even been known to practice with MLS teams from time to time. There's a good reason a lot of hockey players warm up by kicking a soccer ball around. In short, multiple sports help develop high-calibre athletes to their full potential.
I'd also argue that yes, "childhood sport is too important to be left to volunteers and amateurs" - at the highest levels. I'm not in favour of forcing six-year-olds onto rep teams, but high-calibre athletes do need to be identified early and trained by professionals. European clubs are probably the best example of this, with the academy system (slowly taking hold with such North American clubs as Toronto FC and the Vancouver Whitecaps): much of Manchester United's late-90's success came from the players they brought up from their own academy, such as David Beckham, Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Nicky Butt and the Neville brothers. The academy system signs kids at eight, which is perhaps too young, but it does identify top talent early and gets professionals involved. Recreational and mid-competitive sport is incredibly valuable for those who aren't going to make a career out of the game, but we shouldn't focus on the recreational side to the exclusion of high performance. There is a "seriousness of purpose" for the top athletes, and that's a good thing in my books.
Anyways, this is obviously a very complicated topic to discuss. As Mary Jo Kane, the director of the University of Minnesota's Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport, pointed out to Sokolove, the problem with analyzing injury trends like these is they can be used as ammunition against women's sports by Title IX opponents.
"I’m not in any way suggesting that this topic should not be taken seriously,” she tells Sokolove. “We need to do everything we can do to prevent injuries. But when you look at the stories that get told, that those who cover women’s sports are interested in telling . . . it does seem that so little coverage focuses on women’s accomplishments, on their mental toughness and physical courage. There is a disproportionate emphasis on things that are problematic or that are presented as signs of women’s biological difference or inferiority.”
Sokolove made a similar point himself. "The bigger barrier, though, may be political, he wrote. "Advocates for women’s sports have had to keep a laser focus on one thing: making sure they have equal access to high-school and college sports. It’s hard to fight for equal rights while also broadcasting alarm about injuries that might suggest women are too delicate to play certain games or to play them at a high level of intensity."
This illustrates the central dilemna posed by this question. It's tough to look at ways to solve the evident injury problems in women's sports while avoiding the dangerous path of reducing opportunities for female athletes. My suggestion would be to make as much information as possible on injury risks for both men and women available to coaches, athletes and parents, and work on ways to correct movement patterns that might lead to injuries before they occur. The central goal, though, should be to allow as many athletes as many opportunities as possible. Women shouldn't be told that they're too delicate to play any sport: rather, just like the men, they should be informed of the risks and allowed to make their own decisions. Sports are dangerous, and high-performance sports more so, but that's no reason to stop people of any gender from playing.
Related:
- A great Journal column from Queen's soccer goalie (and Journal staff writer) Katie McKenna on gender equity in sports.
- Mary Buckheit's feature for ESPN's Page 2 on the six female U.S. soccer players who have continued their careers after becoming mothers: a very impressive group of athletes.
The problem is what to do with this data. Those who oppose the opportunities offered to women's sports by Title IX will certainly add it to their arsenal of arguments suggesting that women cannot, or should not, compete at high levels. This doesn't seem to be Sokolove's argument, as his piece focuses more on injury prevention (although it's tough to tell from only a book excerpt) but some will undoubtably take the stats without context. It's also a problem to go too far the other way, and suggest that biological differences have zero impact on athletics: as Sokolove writes, the higher flexibility and less muscle mass that most girls tend to have, and the corresponding differences in the way they move, can put them more at risk for certain injuries, particuarly those that affect the knees and head. This doesn't mean girls should be kept out of certain sports: I'd prefer to see them playing everything possible, but they (and their parents) should be fully appraised of the potential risks involved in each sport before they sign up.
Another danger is the lack of awareness on the potential dangers of returning to sporting activity too soon. As the article points out, some of the increased injuries likely come because girls tend to play through more pain than guys. In my mind, it's important to increase the education aspect of sports, for both men and women. The long-term health of the athlete should always be paramount, far more so than any title or championship. The biomechanic coaching Sokolove discusses seems very promising: if it proves to be effective at reducing the knee injury rate of athletes, perhaps club and school coaches should receive some training in identifying athletes whose natural motion could cause injury down the road. Rather than preventing them from play, they should perhaps be referred to biomechanic specialists early on, who can help them refine their form before they run into injury problems. Athletes of both genders should also be made aware of the serious risks of playing sports, and all athletes and coaches should have it drummed into their heads that no athlete should return from injury before they're ready.
The other interesting point the article brings up is the problems with the club system and the idea of early specialization in one particular sport. I've talked to several high-level coaches who are firmly against early specialization policies, and prefer recruits who have played several different sports, as this tends to develop better-rounded athletes. Each sport builds different strengths and skills, which the athletes can then incorporate into their other sports. Thus, I agree with this portion. However, the criticisms of the club system are too harsh in my mind.
As Sokolove writes, "In many sports, a youth athlete’s paramount relationship is now with a club rather than a school team. Annual fees and travel to tournaments often run into the thousands of dollars. Parents pay for camps and private sports tutors. The guiding principle is that childhood sport is too important to be left to volunteers and amateurs. The quality of coaching, in terms of skills and tactics, is probably better than in past generations, but it is also narrower. Rather than being coached by educators who see them during the school day and have some holistic sense of them as children, young athletes are now mentored by coaches who cultivate only their athletic side. ... The club structure is the driving force behind the trend toward early specialization in one sport — and, by extension, a primary cause of injuries. To play multiple sports is, in the best sense, childlike. It’s fun. You move on from one good thing to the next. But to specialize conveys a seriousness of purpose. It seems to be leading somewhere — even if, in fact, the real destination is burnout or injury."
I take issue with this. Playing multiple sports isn't childlike, in my mind: it can be seen as the best way to further develop an athlete's total talents. In fact, many of the best athletes have been drafted by a couple pro leagues, and some like "Neon" Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson have even been able to play in two leagues at once. Steve Nash has talked about how the skills he gained playing soccer have molded him into such a great basketball player: in fact, he's even been known to practice with MLS teams from time to time. There's a good reason a lot of hockey players warm up by kicking a soccer ball around. In short, multiple sports help develop high-calibre athletes to their full potential.
I'd also argue that yes, "childhood sport is too important to be left to volunteers and amateurs" - at the highest levels. I'm not in favour of forcing six-year-olds onto rep teams, but high-calibre athletes do need to be identified early and trained by professionals. European clubs are probably the best example of this, with the academy system (slowly taking hold with such North American clubs as Toronto FC and the Vancouver Whitecaps): much of Manchester United's late-90's success came from the players they brought up from their own academy, such as David Beckham, Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Nicky Butt and the Neville brothers. The academy system signs kids at eight, which is perhaps too young, but it does identify top talent early and gets professionals involved. Recreational and mid-competitive sport is incredibly valuable for those who aren't going to make a career out of the game, but we shouldn't focus on the recreational side to the exclusion of high performance. There is a "seriousness of purpose" for the top athletes, and that's a good thing in my books.
Anyways, this is obviously a very complicated topic to discuss. As Mary Jo Kane, the director of the University of Minnesota's Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport, pointed out to Sokolove, the problem with analyzing injury trends like these is they can be used as ammunition against women's sports by Title IX opponents.
"I’m not in any way suggesting that this topic should not be taken seriously,” she tells Sokolove. “We need to do everything we can do to prevent injuries. But when you look at the stories that get told, that those who cover women’s sports are interested in telling . . . it does seem that so little coverage focuses on women’s accomplishments, on their mental toughness and physical courage. There is a disproportionate emphasis on things that are problematic or that are presented as signs of women’s biological difference or inferiority.”
Sokolove made a similar point himself. "The bigger barrier, though, may be political, he wrote. "Advocates for women’s sports have had to keep a laser focus on one thing: making sure they have equal access to high-school and college sports. It’s hard to fight for equal rights while also broadcasting alarm about injuries that might suggest women are too delicate to play certain games or to play them at a high level of intensity."
This illustrates the central dilemna posed by this question. It's tough to look at ways to solve the evident injury problems in women's sports while avoiding the dangerous path of reducing opportunities for female athletes. My suggestion would be to make as much information as possible on injury risks for both men and women available to coaches, athletes and parents, and work on ways to correct movement patterns that might lead to injuries before they occur. The central goal, though, should be to allow as many athletes as many opportunities as possible. Women shouldn't be told that they're too delicate to play any sport: rather, just like the men, they should be informed of the risks and allowed to make their own decisions. Sports are dangerous, and high-performance sports more so, but that's no reason to stop people of any gender from playing.
Related:
- A great Journal column from Queen's soccer goalie (and Journal staff writer) Katie McKenna on gender equity in sports.
- Mary Buckheit's feature for ESPN's Page 2 on the six female U.S. soccer players who have continued their careers after becoming mothers: a very impressive group of athletes.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Fantasy Selections for Round Three
Round Three of the NHL playoffs starts tonight, so here's the promised update on my fantasy hockey team (in the GlobeSports Fantasy Hockey Playoff Challenge). The challenge lets you pick six forwards, four defencemen and two teams' goalies (one team from each conference) for each round: you then get two points for each goal scored by your players, one point per assist, two points for a goalie's win and an extra point for a shutout. Here's the breakdown of my picks so far and how they've done.
Round 1:
Forward 1: Alex Ovechkin, WSH: 13 points (tied for Forward #1 lead with Jarome Iginla, CGY)
Forward 2: Evgeni Malkin, PIT: 9 points (leader: Vaclav Prospal, PHI, 12 points)
Forward 3: Marian Hossa, PIT: 6 points (leader, Daniel Briere, PHI, 17 points)
Forward 4: Petr Sykora, PIT: 6 points (leader, Alexander Semin, WSH, 11 points)
Forward 5: J.P. Dumont, NSH: 2 points (leader, Ryane Clowe, SJS, 12 points)
Forward 6: Jeff Carter, PHI: 7 points (leader, Joe Pavelski, SJS, 10 points)
Defenceman 1: Nicklas Lidstrom, DET: 5 points (leaders, Mike Green, WSH, and Dion Phaneuf, CGY, 10 points)
Defenceman 2: Mark Streit, MTL: 3 points (leader, Brian Rafalski, DET, 5 points)
Defenceman 3: Niklas Kronwall, DET: 5 points (tied for lead with Shea Weber, NSH)
Defenceman 4: Dan Hamhuis, NSH: 3 points (tied for lead with Mike Komisarek, MTL)
Goaltenders: Montreal (10 points, leader) and San Jose (9 points, tied for lead)
Total points for Round 1: 78
Rank: 17th overall for Round 1
Comments: I did all right here, but Dumont killed me: I figured a 72-point player who was his team's leading scorer during the regular season would be a steal at the fifth forward slot, particularly against an aging Detroit goalie corps. Unfortunately, Dumont disappeared, and so did my production. Also, when did Daniel Briere suddenly decide to earn his $10 million as one of the league's highest-paid players?
Round 2:
Forward 1: Sidney Crosby, PIT: 6 points (leader, Pavel Datsyuk, DET, 10 points)
Forward 2: Evgeni Malkin, PIT: 11 points (leader: Henrik Zetterberg, DET, 14 points)
Forward 3: Daniel Briere, PHI: 5 points (leader, Marian Hossa, PIT, 9 points)
Forward 4: Petr Sykora, PIT: 4 points (leaders, Brenden Morrow, DAL, and Saku Koivu, MTL, 9 points)
Forward 5: Ryane Clowe, SJS: 2 points (leader, Johan Franzen, DET, 19 points)
Forward 6: Sergei Kostitsyn, MTL: 2 points (leader, Jeff Carter, PHI, 6 points)
Defenceman 1: Nicklas Lidstrom, DET: 4 points (leaders, Brian Campbell, SJS, and John-Michael Liles, COL, 5 points)
Defenceman 2: Brian Rafalski, DET: 3 points (tied for lead with Ryan Whitney, PIT, and Craig Rivet, SJS)
Defenceman 3: Niklas Kronwall, DET: 3 points (leader)
Defenceman 4: Mike Komisarek, 1 point (leader, Jason Smith, PHI, 2 points)
Goaltenders: Montreal (2 points, leader, Pittsburgh, 9 points) and Dallas (8 points, tied for lead)
Total points for Round Two: 51
Rank: 38th overall for Round Two
Comments: This round hurt. My picks were still decent overall, but Clowe and Briere returned to normal (read: mediocre) form after I jumped on their bandwagons, while guys I dropped like Hossa and Carter promptly responded with fantastic rounds. Also, Carey Price proved extremely vulnerable to a not-very-good Philly team, as did the Canadiens as a whole. The overall question from this round: who the hell is Johan Franzen and why is he suddenly amazing?
Now, on to my Round Three picks. This round encompasses both the Conference Finals and the Stanley Cup finals, leaving entrants with a tough decision: do they stack their teams with players who they think will advance, or do they try and cover their bases with some guys from each team? I'm going all-in, and stocking the lineup with only Penguins and Stars (see my predictions for reasons why I think those teams will win). As each slot only has one player available from each team, this makes the decisions somewhat easier: I've gone from four players at each slot to two. Thus, below is a breakdown of the options at each remaining slot, along with my selection and comments.
Forward 1:
Option 1: Sidney Crosby, PIT
Stats: 2-12-14 in 9 playoff games, 24-48-72 in 53 regular-season games
Option 2: Brad Richards, DAL
Stats: 2-9-11 in 12 playoff games, 20-42-62 in 74 regular-season games
Pick: Crosby
Comments: Crosby's clearly the better player here. Both are playmakers, so they won't give you huge production on the goals side, but Crosby's put up more points in less games during both the season and the playoffs.
Forward 2:
Option 1: Evgeni Malkin, PIT
Stats: 6-8-14 in 9 playoff games, 47-59-106 in 82 regular-season games
Option 2: Mike Ribeiro, DAL
Stats: 3-11-14 in 12 playoff games, 27-56-83 in 76 regular-season games
Pick: Malkin
Comments: Another pretty easy choice, pitting an MVP candidate against a very good player. Malkin's additional goals also swing the scales his way, as Ribeiro is more of a setup guy.
Forward 3:
Option 1: Marian Hossa, PIT
Stats: 5-5-10 in 9 playoff games, 29-37-66 in 72 regular-season games
Option 2: Mike Modano, DAL
Stats: 4-6-10 in 12 playoff games, 21-36-57 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Hossa
Comments: I love Modano, but Hossa's numbers are a lot better. Modano's just as valuable and perhaps more to his team due to his complete game, but this fantasy pool is all about offense, so Hossa's the pick.
Forward 4:
Option 1: Petr Sykora, PIT
Stats: 4-2-6 in 9 playoff games, 28-35-63 in 81 regular-season games
Option 2: Brenden Morrow, DAL
Stats: 7-4-11 in 12 playoff games, 32-42-74 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Morrow
Comments: The first Star to crack the lineup. Morrow's been carrying his team offensively, whereas Sykora is a depth scorer (a very good depth scorer, though!).
Forward 5:
Option 1: Jordan Staal, PIT
Stats: 2-1-3 in 9 playoff games, 12-16-28 in 82 regular-season games
Option 2: Jere Lehtinen, DAL
Stats: 4-4-8 in 12 playoff games, 15-22-37 in 48 regular-season games
Pick: Lehtinen
Comments: Lehtinen's clearly the better player here, as Staal's still mired in his sophomore slump.
Forward 6:
Option 1: Gary Roberts, PIT
Stats: 2-0-2 in 4 playoff games, 3-12-15 in 38 regular-season games
Option 2: Niklas Hagman, DAL
Stats: 2-0-2 in 12 playoff games, 27-14-41 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Hagman
This one's a bit of a tough call, as Roberts is a proven clutch-time performer, but I'm going with Hagman based on his regular-season sniping ability. He's also more durable, as Roberts has missed several games with groin trouble these playoffs.
Defenceman 1:
Option 1: Sergei Gonchar, PIT
Stats: 1-4-5 in 9 playoff games, 12-53-65 in 78 regular-season games
Option 2: Stephane Robidas, DAL
Stats: 1-7-8 in 12 playoff games, 9-17-26 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Gonchar
Comments: This one's a bit tough. Robidas is the better all-around defenceman, and has actually had a better playoffs offensively (but in more games). However, Gonchar's proven to put points up there, so I'm going with him, as this game's all about offence.
Defenceman 2:
Option 1: Ryan Whitney, PIT
Stats: 0-4-4 in 9 playoff games, 12-28-40 in 76 regular-season games
Option 2: Matt Niskanen, DAL
Stats: 0-3-3 in 11 playoff games, 7-19-26 in 78 regular-season games
Pick: Whitney
Comments: I'm going with Whitney here: he's got the better offensive track record and also plays on a more offensively-minded team.
Defenceman 3:
Option 1: Kristopher Letang, PIT
Stats: 0-2-2 in 9 playoff games, 6-11-17 in 63 regular-season games
Option 2: Philippe Boucher, DAL
Stats: 0-0-0 in 3 playoff games, 2-12-14 in 38 regular-season games
Pick: Letang
Comments: Letang has the better stats, and Boucher's also injured (hip strain) and may not crack Game 1.
Defenceman 4:
Option 1: Darryl Sydor, PIT
Stats: Healthy scratch so far in playoffs, 1-12-13 in 74 regular-season games
Option 2: Trevor Daley, DAL
Stats: 0-0-0 in 12 playoff games, 5-19-24 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Daley
Comments: Daley is the obvious choice, as Sydor may not even get to play, but he has pretty good stats for a fourth defenceman.
Obviously, I'm going with Dallas and Pittsburgh for goaltending as well. Let's see how this goes.
Round 1:
Forward 1: Alex Ovechkin, WSH: 13 points (tied for Forward #1 lead with Jarome Iginla, CGY)
Forward 2: Evgeni Malkin, PIT: 9 points (leader: Vaclav Prospal, PHI, 12 points)
Forward 3: Marian Hossa, PIT: 6 points (leader, Daniel Briere, PHI, 17 points)
Forward 4: Petr Sykora, PIT: 6 points (leader, Alexander Semin, WSH, 11 points)
Forward 5: J.P. Dumont, NSH: 2 points (leader, Ryane Clowe, SJS, 12 points)
Forward 6: Jeff Carter, PHI: 7 points (leader, Joe Pavelski, SJS, 10 points)
Defenceman 1: Nicklas Lidstrom, DET: 5 points (leaders, Mike Green, WSH, and Dion Phaneuf, CGY, 10 points)
Defenceman 2: Mark Streit, MTL: 3 points (leader, Brian Rafalski, DET, 5 points)
Defenceman 3: Niklas Kronwall, DET: 5 points (tied for lead with Shea Weber, NSH)
Defenceman 4: Dan Hamhuis, NSH: 3 points (tied for lead with Mike Komisarek, MTL)
Goaltenders: Montreal (10 points, leader) and San Jose (9 points, tied for lead)
Total points for Round 1: 78
Rank: 17th overall for Round 1
Comments: I did all right here, but Dumont killed me: I figured a 72-point player who was his team's leading scorer during the regular season would be a steal at the fifth forward slot, particularly against an aging Detroit goalie corps. Unfortunately, Dumont disappeared, and so did my production. Also, when did Daniel Briere suddenly decide to earn his $10 million as one of the league's highest-paid players?
Round 2:
Forward 1: Sidney Crosby, PIT: 6 points (leader, Pavel Datsyuk, DET, 10 points)
Forward 2: Evgeni Malkin, PIT: 11 points (leader: Henrik Zetterberg, DET, 14 points)
Forward 3: Daniel Briere, PHI: 5 points (leader, Marian Hossa, PIT, 9 points)
Forward 4: Petr Sykora, PIT: 4 points (leaders, Brenden Morrow, DAL, and Saku Koivu, MTL, 9 points)
Forward 5: Ryane Clowe, SJS: 2 points (leader, Johan Franzen, DET, 19 points)
Forward 6: Sergei Kostitsyn, MTL: 2 points (leader, Jeff Carter, PHI, 6 points)
Defenceman 1: Nicklas Lidstrom, DET: 4 points (leaders, Brian Campbell, SJS, and John-Michael Liles, COL, 5 points)
Defenceman 2: Brian Rafalski, DET: 3 points (tied for lead with Ryan Whitney, PIT, and Craig Rivet, SJS)
Defenceman 3: Niklas Kronwall, DET: 3 points (leader)
Defenceman 4: Mike Komisarek, 1 point (leader, Jason Smith, PHI, 2 points)
Goaltenders: Montreal (2 points, leader, Pittsburgh, 9 points) and Dallas (8 points, tied for lead)
Total points for Round Two: 51
Rank: 38th overall for Round Two
Comments: This round hurt. My picks were still decent overall, but Clowe and Briere returned to normal (read: mediocre) form after I jumped on their bandwagons, while guys I dropped like Hossa and Carter promptly responded with fantastic rounds. Also, Carey Price proved extremely vulnerable to a not-very-good Philly team, as did the Canadiens as a whole. The overall question from this round: who the hell is Johan Franzen and why is he suddenly amazing?
Now, on to my Round Three picks. This round encompasses both the Conference Finals and the Stanley Cup finals, leaving entrants with a tough decision: do they stack their teams with players who they think will advance, or do they try and cover their bases with some guys from each team? I'm going all-in, and stocking the lineup with only Penguins and Stars (see my predictions for reasons why I think those teams will win). As each slot only has one player available from each team, this makes the decisions somewhat easier: I've gone from four players at each slot to two. Thus, below is a breakdown of the options at each remaining slot, along with my selection and comments.
Forward 1:
Option 1: Sidney Crosby, PIT
Stats: 2-12-14 in 9 playoff games, 24-48-72 in 53 regular-season games
Option 2: Brad Richards, DAL
Stats: 2-9-11 in 12 playoff games, 20-42-62 in 74 regular-season games
Pick: Crosby
Comments: Crosby's clearly the better player here. Both are playmakers, so they won't give you huge production on the goals side, but Crosby's put up more points in less games during both the season and the playoffs.
Forward 2:
Option 1: Evgeni Malkin, PIT
Stats: 6-8-14 in 9 playoff games, 47-59-106 in 82 regular-season games
Option 2: Mike Ribeiro, DAL
Stats: 3-11-14 in 12 playoff games, 27-56-83 in 76 regular-season games
Pick: Malkin
Comments: Another pretty easy choice, pitting an MVP candidate against a very good player. Malkin's additional goals also swing the scales his way, as Ribeiro is more of a setup guy.
Forward 3:
Option 1: Marian Hossa, PIT
Stats: 5-5-10 in 9 playoff games, 29-37-66 in 72 regular-season games
Option 2: Mike Modano, DAL
Stats: 4-6-10 in 12 playoff games, 21-36-57 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Hossa
Comments: I love Modano, but Hossa's numbers are a lot better. Modano's just as valuable and perhaps more to his team due to his complete game, but this fantasy pool is all about offense, so Hossa's the pick.
Forward 4:
Option 1: Petr Sykora, PIT
Stats: 4-2-6 in 9 playoff games, 28-35-63 in 81 regular-season games
Option 2: Brenden Morrow, DAL
Stats: 7-4-11 in 12 playoff games, 32-42-74 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Morrow
Comments: The first Star to crack the lineup. Morrow's been carrying his team offensively, whereas Sykora is a depth scorer (a very good depth scorer, though!).
Forward 5:
Option 1: Jordan Staal, PIT
Stats: 2-1-3 in 9 playoff games, 12-16-28 in 82 regular-season games
Option 2: Jere Lehtinen, DAL
Stats: 4-4-8 in 12 playoff games, 15-22-37 in 48 regular-season games
Pick: Lehtinen
Comments: Lehtinen's clearly the better player here, as Staal's still mired in his sophomore slump.
Forward 6:
Option 1: Gary Roberts, PIT
Stats: 2-0-2 in 4 playoff games, 3-12-15 in 38 regular-season games
Option 2: Niklas Hagman, DAL
Stats: 2-0-2 in 12 playoff games, 27-14-41 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Hagman
This one's a bit of a tough call, as Roberts is a proven clutch-time performer, but I'm going with Hagman based on his regular-season sniping ability. He's also more durable, as Roberts has missed several games with groin trouble these playoffs.
Defenceman 1:
Option 1: Sergei Gonchar, PIT
Stats: 1-4-5 in 9 playoff games, 12-53-65 in 78 regular-season games
Option 2: Stephane Robidas, DAL
Stats: 1-7-8 in 12 playoff games, 9-17-26 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Gonchar
Comments: This one's a bit tough. Robidas is the better all-around defenceman, and has actually had a better playoffs offensively (but in more games). However, Gonchar's proven to put points up there, so I'm going with him, as this game's all about offence.
Defenceman 2:
Option 1: Ryan Whitney, PIT
Stats: 0-4-4 in 9 playoff games, 12-28-40 in 76 regular-season games
Option 2: Matt Niskanen, DAL
Stats: 0-3-3 in 11 playoff games, 7-19-26 in 78 regular-season games
Pick: Whitney
Comments: I'm going with Whitney here: he's got the better offensive track record and also plays on a more offensively-minded team.
Defenceman 3:
Option 1: Kristopher Letang, PIT
Stats: 0-2-2 in 9 playoff games, 6-11-17 in 63 regular-season games
Option 2: Philippe Boucher, DAL
Stats: 0-0-0 in 3 playoff games, 2-12-14 in 38 regular-season games
Pick: Letang
Comments: Letang has the better stats, and Boucher's also injured (hip strain) and may not crack Game 1.
Defenceman 4:
Option 1: Darryl Sydor, PIT
Stats: Healthy scratch so far in playoffs, 1-12-13 in 74 regular-season games
Option 2: Trevor Daley, DAL
Stats: 0-0-0 in 12 playoff games, 5-19-24 in 82 regular-season games
Pick: Daley
Comments: Daley is the obvious choice, as Sydor may not even get to play, but he has pretty good stats for a fourth defenceman.
Obviously, I'm going with Dallas and Pittsburgh for goaltending as well. Let's see how this goes.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Hockey: Round Three Picks
So, Round Two's officially wrapped up and I went 2-2 with my predictions, continuing my .500 mark (now 6-6 overall). I got the Penguins and Stars, but flubbed on the Avs and Habs. For this round, I tied with Bob McKenzie, Eric Duhatschek and Maggie the Monkey, lost to Allan Maki (who's now a ridiculous 11-1 overall), Darren Dreger and David Shoalts (3-1), but beat James Mirtle, Matt Sekeres and Zanstorm (1-3). Most of them are beating me overall, though, due to my 4-4 first-round efforts.
Here's my picks for the conference finals.
East:
Pittsburgh versus Philadelphia: Penguins in six.
Nice to see the biggest Battle of Pennsylvania since Gettysburg reinvigorated. I like Pittsburgh here because of their overwhelming offense and great goaltending from Marc-Andre Fleury. Philly will try and run them out of the rink in the old Broad Street Bullies model, but ultimately, that won't be enough to prevail overall. Look for home-ice advantage to play a big role in this one: I think Pittsburgh will probably win all their home dates but go 1 for 3 in Philly.
West:
Detroit versus Dallas: Stars in seven.
This should be a tight series. Detroit has a tremendously deep offense, but I don't trust Chris Osgood in net at this point in his career (and the ancient Dominik Hasek isn't a much better option). I like Dallas' defence, and Marty Turco is playing lights-out at the moment. Brenden Morrow is also unbelievable, dishing out hits like there's no tomorrow. The aging Red Wings may wear down, and I'm not sure if Johan Franzen can continue to carry the offensive load: he may disappear in the next round a la Ryan Clowe.
I'll have an update on my fantasy team later, along with my selections for the next round there.
Here's my picks for the conference finals.
East:
Pittsburgh versus Philadelphia: Penguins in six.
Nice to see the biggest Battle of Pennsylvania since Gettysburg reinvigorated. I like Pittsburgh here because of their overwhelming offense and great goaltending from Marc-Andre Fleury. Philly will try and run them out of the rink in the old Broad Street Bullies model, but ultimately, that won't be enough to prevail overall. Look for home-ice advantage to play a big role in this one: I think Pittsburgh will probably win all their home dates but go 1 for 3 in Philly.
West:
Detroit versus Dallas: Stars in seven.
This should be a tight series. Detroit has a tremendously deep offense, but I don't trust Chris Osgood in net at this point in his career (and the ancient Dominik Hasek isn't a much better option). I like Dallas' defence, and Marty Turco is playing lights-out at the moment. Brenden Morrow is also unbelievable, dishing out hits like there's no tomorrow. The aging Red Wings may wear down, and I'm not sure if Johan Franzen can continue to carry the offensive load: he may disappear in the next round a la Ryan Clowe.
I'll have an update on my fantasy team later, along with my selections for the next round there.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Volleyball: Playing with the big boys
Here's one of my stories from this weekend: check out the tournament site for more!
In the men’s 18U division, one of the 40 teams is not like the other 39. The 16U Ottawa Mavericks, a team composed of players two years younger than most of their competition, were a last-minute addition to the tournament after another team withdrew unexpectedly.
“Due to the withdrawal of one of the Ontario teams that was driving, we had a vacancy,” Tournament Competitions Chair Brenda Willis said, adding that an unfilled spot would have meant a time-consuming process of redoing the tournament draw, difficult due to the late date of the withdrawal. “We were quite fortunate to have the 16U Mavericks step up and fill the vacancy, even though they’re two years younger. It’s a tremendous opportunity for them to improve, because they’re playing up. Hopefully, when they go out to their nationals in a week, it will all seem easy because the hitting will be lower and softer.”
Perhaps predictably, the Mavericks found playing against competition two years older to be a struggle at first. They lost their first match Friday 25-8, 25-12 to Bam (Calgary, AB). They improved in their second match against the Titans de Limoilou (Quebec City, Quebec), but still fell 25-14, 25-18. Their third match of the day seemed a foregone conclusion to many, as they were facing the Fraser Valley Volleyball Club Blue squad, who came into the weekend as the second-seeded 18U men’s team after winning the British Columbia provincial championships.
Strange things sometimes happen in sports, though. The Mavericks came out with determination, and shockingly claimed the first set 25-22. Despite an early deficit in the second set, they bounced back and took a 19-15 lead. For a moment, it seemed as if the unthinkable might happen. However, the Blue rallied after a timeout to win the second set 26-24, and then claimed a 15-11 victory in the third set.
Despite the loss, Mavericks’ head coach François St-Denis said he was thrilled with his team’s great performance against the Blues, which he chalked up to their execution of the game’s fundamentals.
“These are 16U boys playing in an 18U event,” he said. “I just had to tell the guys not to be blown away by the quality of the big event, just to try and take care of the little things. We had a bit of a hard time doing that the first two matches, but the third match was kind of set up for that. I told them, ‘You know, guys, we’re playing against the top team in the pool, but hey, it’s still the same story: it’s a volleyball team, we’ve got to take care of our serving, our passing and our defence.’ They actually did that very well, and it was very enjoyable for me.”
Outside hitter Marc Bégin said the team’s already learned a lot from the weekend, and is preparing to make more of an impact on the tournament in the next years when they play opponents their own age.
“It’s a good experience,” he said. “By the time we get up to that age, we’ll be ready.”
The Mavericks continued their improvement today. They lost a close 25-20, 25-17 first match to the Rhinos (Bonnyville, AB), but picked up their first win of the weekend with a thrilling 25-23, 23-25, 15-10 victory over RVC (Lloydminster, AB). Their next match is at 12:15 p.m. against Canuck Aikido (Calgary) on Court 4 at the Cégep de l’Outaouais.
The Mavericks will be competing in the 2008 East Canadian 14/15/16U Open from May 9-11, which takes place in Moncton, NB. St-Denis said the experience the team gains from playing at a higher level of competition this weekend should help them in that tournament.
“All year, we’ve been our own worst enemies,” he said. “We’ve been lacking intensity, or not working hard: the last month, it’s been that. I think this weekend will help with that. ... It’s going to be a phenomenal weekend.”
In the men’s 18U division, one of the 40 teams is not like the other 39. The 16U Ottawa Mavericks, a team composed of players two years younger than most of their competition, were a last-minute addition to the tournament after another team withdrew unexpectedly.
“Due to the withdrawal of one of the Ontario teams that was driving, we had a vacancy,” Tournament Competitions Chair Brenda Willis said, adding that an unfilled spot would have meant a time-consuming process of redoing the tournament draw, difficult due to the late date of the withdrawal. “We were quite fortunate to have the 16U Mavericks step up and fill the vacancy, even though they’re two years younger. It’s a tremendous opportunity for them to improve, because they’re playing up. Hopefully, when they go out to their nationals in a week, it will all seem easy because the hitting will be lower and softer.”
Perhaps predictably, the Mavericks found playing against competition two years older to be a struggle at first. They lost their first match Friday 25-8, 25-12 to Bam (Calgary, AB). They improved in their second match against the Titans de Limoilou (Quebec City, Quebec), but still fell 25-14, 25-18. Their third match of the day seemed a foregone conclusion to many, as they were facing the Fraser Valley Volleyball Club Blue squad, who came into the weekend as the second-seeded 18U men’s team after winning the British Columbia provincial championships.
Strange things sometimes happen in sports, though. The Mavericks came out with determination, and shockingly claimed the first set 25-22. Despite an early deficit in the second set, they bounced back and took a 19-15 lead. For a moment, it seemed as if the unthinkable might happen. However, the Blue rallied after a timeout to win the second set 26-24, and then claimed a 15-11 victory in the third set.
Despite the loss, Mavericks’ head coach François St-Denis said he was thrilled with his team’s great performance against the Blues, which he chalked up to their execution of the game’s fundamentals.
“These are 16U boys playing in an 18U event,” he said. “I just had to tell the guys not to be blown away by the quality of the big event, just to try and take care of the little things. We had a bit of a hard time doing that the first two matches, but the third match was kind of set up for that. I told them, ‘You know, guys, we’re playing against the top team in the pool, but hey, it’s still the same story: it’s a volleyball team, we’ve got to take care of our serving, our passing and our defence.’ They actually did that very well, and it was very enjoyable for me.”
Outside hitter Marc Bégin said the team’s already learned a lot from the weekend, and is preparing to make more of an impact on the tournament in the next years when they play opponents their own age.
“It’s a good experience,” he said. “By the time we get up to that age, we’ll be ready.”
The Mavericks continued their improvement today. They lost a close 25-20, 25-17 first match to the Rhinos (Bonnyville, AB), but picked up their first win of the weekend with a thrilling 25-23, 23-25, 15-10 victory over RVC (Lloydminster, AB). Their next match is at 12:15 p.m. against Canuck Aikido (Calgary) on Court 4 at the Cégep de l’Outaouais.
The Mavericks will be competing in the 2008 East Canadian 14/15/16U Open from May 9-11, which takes place in Moncton, NB. St-Denis said the experience the team gains from playing at a higher level of competition this weekend should help them in that tournament.
“All year, we’ve been our own worst enemies,” he said. “We’ve been lacking intensity, or not working hard: the last month, it’s been that. I think this weekend will help with that. ... It’s going to be a phenomenal weekend.”
Friday, May 02, 2008
Volleyballing
Apologies for the lack of posts around here lately: I'm currently serving as the Communications Coordinator for the 2008 Canadian Open 17U/18U volleyball championships, which means a lot of writing, editing and dealing with local media (yes, I've gone to the dark side) and not a lot of time to do anything else. We're working 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. days trying to keep everything going, and it can be a little difficult, especially given the scope of the tournament. Anyways, this is a pretty cool tournament with a lot of interesting stories, and it's also related to university volleyball: there's over 100 university coaches, scouts and recruiters here from Canada and the States to evaluate potential new talent for their programs. To give some background on the tournament, one of the lead-in stories I wrote is posted below: you can check out my other pieces on the tournament website. I'll try to check in with an update here whenever possible. There's also good tournament coverage over at Bomberino. Let me know if you have any questions on the tournament.
P.S. While I'm blatantly self-promoting, I wrote about the BLG Awards, Canadian Interuniversity Sport's top honours, on The CIS Blog last week: even if you don't want to read my pieces (shame on you!), Neate's takes on the CFL Draft and point guard Greg Carter choosing Lakehead are well worth looking at the blog.
Here's the piece on the tournament:
17U/18U Championships Set to Kick Off
Over 2400 volleyball players from 202 different teams will step onto courts around Ottawa tomorrow for the first day of the 17U/18U Canadian Open Volleyball Championships. The tournament, which will utilize 34 different courts at five different venues over three days, features many of the top players in Canada at the 17-year-old and 18-year-old age levels. Many of the players at the 18U level have already committed to universities in Canada and the United States. At least 50 scouts from American universities and colleges are expected to be in attendance, as well as more than 50 scouts from Canadian schools.
Some of the best players in the tournament can be found at the men’s and women’s 18U Division I levels. The men’s 18U Division I tournament features several high-profile clubs, such as the top-seeded defending champion Bison Gold team from Winnipeg, Manitoba, the second-seeded Fraser Valley Volleyball Club Blue team from Langley, British Columbia, and the third-seeded NAVC Gold Bears from Edmonton, Alberta. All three teams won their recent provincial championships. Seeding is determined by how each province’s teams fared in last year’s national championships in Abbotsford, B.C.
The Bison Gold club will be led by Chris Voth, a 6’5 setter who was voted as the top Manitoba high school volleyball player in 2007. Voth, who was named the tournament MVP at the Manitoba provincials, is a highly-prized recruit who has committed to play for the University of Manitoba Bisons next season. Last summer, he was the captain of the Manitoba provincial team that claimed gold at the Western Canada Games. He has also played for the Junior National team, and has maintained a 92 per cent average throughout high school. He will continue a strong family tradition of playing for the Bisons: his father Lloyd played five years of volleyball for the university in the 1970s, and his sister Ashley is in her second season with the Bisons’ women’s team.
In the women’s 18U competition, the defending champion Fraser Valley Volleyball Club Blitz claimed the top seed by earning their fifth consecutive provincial gold medal April 20 at the B.C. championships in Kelowna. Other strong contenders in the women’s 18U Division I tournament will be the second-seeded Dinos from Calgary, Alberta, and Whitby, ON’s third-seeded DRVC.
The Blitz have proved to be a force at the nationals over the last five years, winning gold three times and bronze twice. Left side hitter Sophie Schlagintweit, who was named the tournament MVP at the provincial championships, will be a force for the Blitz. As a 17-year-old, she played with older players for the FVVC 18U club that won the national championship last year and was named to the tournament all-star team. Another player to watch for the Blitz will be Rosie Schlagintweit, a 16-year-old right side hitter who put up 13 kills in one game at the provincial championships against players two years older than her.
The tournament features regular pool play on Friday. On Saturday, teams are redistributed into power pools and tiers according to their finish in their pool. The playoffs take place on Sunday. The 18U men’s and women’s Division I teams play Friday and Saturday mornings, with the first games at 7:30 a.m. and the last games at 1:30 p.m. each day. The men’s 18U Division I games will be in the Carleton University (1125 Colonel By Drive) Field House Friday and Saturday mornings, with some additional games at Algonquin College (1385 Woodroffe Avenue) Friday and the Cégep de l’Outaouais (333 Boulevard de la
Cité-des-jeunes, Gatineau) Saturday. The women’s 18U Division I games will be in the Carleton Ice Palace and Norm Fenn Gymnasium Friday morning, with some additional games at Aberdeen Pavilion (1015 Bank Street).
P.S. While I'm blatantly self-promoting, I wrote about the BLG Awards, Canadian Interuniversity Sport's top honours, on The CIS Blog last week: even if you don't want to read my pieces (shame on you!), Neate's takes on the CFL Draft and point guard Greg Carter choosing Lakehead are well worth looking at the blog.
Here's the piece on the tournament:
17U/18U Championships Set to Kick Off
Over 2400 volleyball players from 202 different teams will step onto courts around Ottawa tomorrow for the first day of the 17U/18U Canadian Open Volleyball Championships. The tournament, which will utilize 34 different courts at five different venues over three days, features many of the top players in Canada at the 17-year-old and 18-year-old age levels. Many of the players at the 18U level have already committed to universities in Canada and the United States. At least 50 scouts from American universities and colleges are expected to be in attendance, as well as more than 50 scouts from Canadian schools.
Some of the best players in the tournament can be found at the men’s and women’s 18U Division I levels. The men’s 18U Division I tournament features several high-profile clubs, such as the top-seeded defending champion Bison Gold team from Winnipeg, Manitoba, the second-seeded Fraser Valley Volleyball Club Blue team from Langley, British Columbia, and the third-seeded NAVC Gold Bears from Edmonton, Alberta. All three teams won their recent provincial championships. Seeding is determined by how each province’s teams fared in last year’s national championships in Abbotsford, B.C.
The Bison Gold club will be led by Chris Voth, a 6’5 setter who was voted as the top Manitoba high school volleyball player in 2007. Voth, who was named the tournament MVP at the Manitoba provincials, is a highly-prized recruit who has committed to play for the University of Manitoba Bisons next season. Last summer, he was the captain of the Manitoba provincial team that claimed gold at the Western Canada Games. He has also played for the Junior National team, and has maintained a 92 per cent average throughout high school. He will continue a strong family tradition of playing for the Bisons: his father Lloyd played five years of volleyball for the university in the 1970s, and his sister Ashley is in her second season with the Bisons’ women’s team.
In the women’s 18U competition, the defending champion Fraser Valley Volleyball Club Blitz claimed the top seed by earning their fifth consecutive provincial gold medal April 20 at the B.C. championships in Kelowna. Other strong contenders in the women’s 18U Division I tournament will be the second-seeded Dinos from Calgary, Alberta, and Whitby, ON’s third-seeded DRVC.
The Blitz have proved to be a force at the nationals over the last five years, winning gold three times and bronze twice. Left side hitter Sophie Schlagintweit, who was named the tournament MVP at the provincial championships, will be a force for the Blitz. As a 17-year-old, she played with older players for the FVVC 18U club that won the national championship last year and was named to the tournament all-star team. Another player to watch for the Blitz will be Rosie Schlagintweit, a 16-year-old right side hitter who put up 13 kills in one game at the provincial championships against players two years older than her.
The tournament features regular pool play on Friday. On Saturday, teams are redistributed into power pools and tiers according to their finish in their pool. The playoffs take place on Sunday. The 18U men’s and women’s Division I teams play Friday and Saturday mornings, with the first games at 7:30 a.m. and the last games at 1:30 p.m. each day. The men’s 18U Division I games will be in the Carleton University (1125 Colonel By Drive) Field House Friday and Saturday mornings, with some additional games at Algonquin College (1385 Woodroffe Avenue) Friday and the Cégep de l’Outaouais (333 Boulevard de la
Cité-des-jeunes, Gatineau) Saturday. The women’s 18U Division I games will be in the Carleton Ice Palace and Norm Fenn Gymnasium Friday morning, with some additional games at Aberdeen Pavilion (1015 Bank Street).
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Avery in hospital?
Just saw this update from the Globe's David Shoalts. Apparently, Sean Avery was rushed to a New York hospital this morning in cardiac arrest. I detest the guy, but you don't want that to happen to anyone. Get well soon, Avery: the league depends on you to get it some headlines. It says a lot about him that there aren't any hockey pictures of him other than fights until the third page of Google Image Search (Photo credit: Ed Betz/AP, from New York Times site).
Update, 7:23 PM: Not a heart attack, an apparently ruptured (or maybe not ruptured?) spleen. Still very severe, but it seems difficult to mix up the two, particularly as Avery apparently walked into the hospital under his own power instead of being carried in unconscious and not breathing. Serves me right for believing a report published by that paragon of journalism, the New York Daily News. In fact, as Alanah and Eric McErlain have pointed out, the Daily News hasn't even admitted their mistake yet and just changed their story without bothering to tell anyone or call it an update. David Singer of hockeyfights.com has a nice screen capture of the original (since-removed) story and a good post on the subject. As he writes, "The NY Daily News post about Avery is all sorts of different now. There are subtractions, additions, and not one mention of an edit. I understand a story like this breaks, and everyone can’t nitpick all the facts as there’s a race to report, but the original sourced story around the web right now is from the News and it looks like we’ve all quoted phantom material. The timestamp is different, that’s about it. It’s alright to post edits and updates, it doesn’t make your organization look weak, it makes you look like you’re continuously reporting, and certainly helps your readers understand what’s correct." Looks like some mainstream media (if you can call the Daily News that) could benefit from blogger ethics.
Update, 10:20 AM May 1: The fallout from Averygate continues: check out the pieces at Regret the Error and James Mirtle's blog. The Daily News may have wanted attention, and they got it in spades, but perhaps not of the kind they'd have liked.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Good moves, bad moves, you know he's made his share
It sounds like the days of John Gibbons as the manager of record for the Toronto Blue Jays may be numbered. Consider the opening paragraphs of Jeff Blair's Globe column after today's 5-2 win over Kansas City:
"John Gibbons had to do something because, let's be honest, there will come a time when the decision making is taken out of his hands.
He knows it, and has become increasingly open about how much longer he will or won't have to manage the Toronto Blue Jays. He's down to the short strokes, in other words, so it was only right and proper that he pull off a massive lineup shuffle Sunday."
This time, the lineup shuffle worked, the Jays came through with some key hits and the Royals gave them the game with several terrible errors. Thus, Gibbons may stick around for a while longer, but you can bet he's still on a short leash. I'm not entirely convinced firing him would make a huge difference, though.
Granted, Gibbons has made several very questionable moves lately. Refusing to use John McDonald, the appropriately-named Prime Minister of Defense (thanks Drunk Jays Fans) as a late-innings defensive replacement for David "Short and Scrappy" Eckstein is certainly one of them. Benching Frank Thomas for a slow start in order to use a stellar Rod Barajas at DH (which, of course led to the inevitable parting of the ways with Frank the Tank) is another, although there are questions about how much of that was contract-related pressure from above. Similar questions abound on the subject of Adam Lind's extended time in the minors after Thomas's departure, and whether it was a managerial move by Gibbons or a contract-related decision by J.P. Ricciardi.
We haven't gotten to one of the worst yet, though: Friday's decision to have Scott Downs intentionally walk Tony Pena Jr., he of the .156/.179/.203 numbers this season, to pitch to David DeJesus (.364/.405/.455) and set up a lefty/lefty matchup. DeJesus is actually hitting for a better average against lefties than righties this year (.412 vs .313), but his OPS drops from .921 against righties to .801 against lefties This is a small sample size, so let's look at his career numbers: .266/.343/.380 against southpaws versus .290/.366/.430 against right-handers. Sure, there's a drop there, but it isn't that huge. Pena, on the other hand, has hit slightly better against lefties than righties (.257/.276/.341 versus .251/.270/.338) over his career.
On the surface, both players seem to show that they follow the conventional wisdom of left-handers hitting better off righties and vice versa. Even with that, though, DeJesus is still hitting .266/.343/.380 against lefties over his career, compared to Pena's .257/.276/.341. Using the stats from this season, the discrepancy is even more glaring: Pena is hitting .125/.167/.188 against southpaws, while DeJesus has put up .412/.389/.412 numbers against LHP. Thus, Gibbons walked a guy with a .354 OPS against LHP this year to pitch to someone whose OBP and SLG numbers are both better than that! As Joe Posnanski wrote, "And finally, I’d say most of the intentional walks I see are INCREDIBLY STUPID strategic moves. The kind that make my teeth hurt. I’ve never seen a more offensive walk than Friday night. Never."
This one is pretty bad. It's overthinking on the level of Mr. Burns removing Darryl Strawberry to pinch-hit Homer Simpson instead, despite Strawberry's nine home runs ("It's called playing the percentages!"). Incidentally, Neate, Tyler and I agreed the other day that "Homer at the Bat" is one of the greatest Simpsons episodes ever, so apparently the universe can survive agreement between Tyler and myself (as long as it's only on minor points). Posnanski went on to say that he would have fired Gibbons on the spot: "I’m just telling you … I’d have fired somebody. I’m just telling you that intentionally walking Tony Pena Jr. or any other light-hitting middle infielder hitting .150 would be a fireable offense on my team. I’d have that written on a clubhouse sign."
(Brain Massage Images)
However, I'm not of a mind to fire Gibbons yet. Sure, he's made some bad decisions, but he's also made some very good ones. I liked the hit-and-run calls today to force the issue, and one had the nice side effect of snapping Vernon Wells out of a slump. As Darrin Fletcher (the baseball player and Sportsnet commentator, not the Manchester United winger) pointed out on today's broadcast, you don't usually call a hit and run with someone like Wells at the plate, but when they're in an 0 for 15 slump, it sometimes makes sense. I know from my own playing days that you're often overthinking and trying to do too much when you get into a protracted slump, and the manager creating a situation where you're aiming to just get contact (and have pressure on you to do so) seems like an inventive slump-breaker in my books.
As Blair points out, there are some good things about the new lineup as well: Alex Rios did very well out of the leadoff spot, and Scott Rolen turned in a great performance batting third. Gibbons also can't really be blamed for many of the team's struggles to this point, which, as Mike Wilner points out, have had much more to do with their terrible batting performance with runners in scoring position. Better minds than I, including Blair, Wilner and Dustin Parkes have come to the conclusion that Gibbons isn't at fault and shouldn't be fired yet, so I'm inclined to agree. Managers make a hell of a lot of decisions every day: some work out brilliantly, some are passable, and some are horrendous failures. Gibbons might need some more brain massaging to avoid moves like walking Tony Pena Jr., but unlike Posnanski, I wouldn't fire him purely for that. Until we see far more managerial moves in the "horrendous failure" category, firing Gibbons would be a move that's purely for show and highly unlikely to right the ship.
As an aside: Alex Rios proved today why speed and good decision-making on the basepaths are still valuable assets, as he managed to score from first on a Scott Rolen single when Jose Guillen threw to second base. It was a great call by third-base coach Marty Pevey, but he doesn't even have the chance to make that call if someone slower, say Matt Stairs, is on first base, as they might not even get past second on that hit. Speed isn't the be-all and end-all, but it's a nice tool to have. Baseball Prospectus' Nate Silver made a strong case for the value of speed a while back, so I'll leave the summary to him.
"The last question, of course, is how much baserunning really matters. And the general rule of thumb is that it can make about a win’s worth of difference at the extremes: a really fast/skilled baserunner will produce about 8-10 extra runs for his team on a going-forward basis as compared with a really slow/terrible baserunner. Or, if you prefer, a great baserunner will produce about an extra half-win for his team (4-5 runs) per season versus an average baserunner.
This is nothing to sneeze at. Baserunning is another in that category of things that might be overrated by the mainstream media, but has nevertheless been underrated by sabermetricians. "
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"John Gibbons had to do something because, let's be honest, there will come a time when the decision making is taken out of his hands.
He knows it, and has become increasingly open about how much longer he will or won't have to manage the Toronto Blue Jays. He's down to the short strokes, in other words, so it was only right and proper that he pull off a massive lineup shuffle Sunday."
This time, the lineup shuffle worked, the Jays came through with some key hits and the Royals gave them the game with several terrible errors. Thus, Gibbons may stick around for a while longer, but you can bet he's still on a short leash. I'm not entirely convinced firing him would make a huge difference, though.
Granted, Gibbons has made several very questionable moves lately. Refusing to use John McDonald, the appropriately-named Prime Minister of Defense (thanks Drunk Jays Fans) as a late-innings defensive replacement for David "Short and Scrappy" Eckstein is certainly one of them. Benching Frank Thomas for a slow start in order to use a stellar Rod Barajas at DH (which, of course led to the inevitable parting of the ways with Frank the Tank) is another, although there are questions about how much of that was contract-related pressure from above. Similar questions abound on the subject of Adam Lind's extended time in the minors after Thomas's departure, and whether it was a managerial move by Gibbons or a contract-related decision by J.P. Ricciardi.
We haven't gotten to one of the worst yet, though: Friday's decision to have Scott Downs intentionally walk Tony Pena Jr., he of the .156/.179/.203 numbers this season, to pitch to David DeJesus (.364/.405/.455) and set up a lefty/lefty matchup. DeJesus is actually hitting for a better average against lefties than righties this year (.412 vs .313), but his OPS drops from .921 against righties to .801 against lefties This is a small sample size, so let's look at his career numbers: .266/.343/.380 against southpaws versus .290/.366/.430 against right-handers. Sure, there's a drop there, but it isn't that huge. Pena, on the other hand, has hit slightly better against lefties than righties (.257/.276/.341 versus .251/.270/.338) over his career.
On the surface, both players seem to show that they follow the conventional wisdom of left-handers hitting better off righties and vice versa. Even with that, though, DeJesus is still hitting .266/.343/.380 against lefties over his career, compared to Pena's .257/.276/.341. Using the stats from this season, the discrepancy is even more glaring: Pena is hitting .125/.167/.188 against southpaws, while DeJesus has put up .412/.389/.412 numbers against LHP. Thus, Gibbons walked a guy with a .354 OPS against LHP this year to pitch to someone whose OBP and SLG numbers are both better than that! As Joe Posnanski wrote, "And finally, I’d say most of the intentional walks I see are INCREDIBLY STUPID strategic moves. The kind that make my teeth hurt. I’ve never seen a more offensive walk than Friday night. Never."
This one is pretty bad. It's overthinking on the level of Mr. Burns removing Darryl Strawberry to pinch-hit Homer Simpson instead, despite Strawberry's nine home runs ("It's called playing the percentages!"). Incidentally, Neate, Tyler and I agreed the other day that "Homer at the Bat" is one of the greatest Simpsons episodes ever, so apparently the universe can survive agreement between Tyler and myself (as long as it's only on minor points). Posnanski went on to say that he would have fired Gibbons on the spot: "I’m just telling you … I’d have fired somebody. I’m just telling you that intentionally walking Tony Pena Jr. or any other light-hitting middle infielder hitting .150 would be a fireable offense on my team. I’d have that written on a clubhouse sign."
(Brain Massage Images)
However, I'm not of a mind to fire Gibbons yet. Sure, he's made some bad decisions, but he's also made some very good ones. I liked the hit-and-run calls today to force the issue, and one had the nice side effect of snapping Vernon Wells out of a slump. As Darrin Fletcher (the baseball player and Sportsnet commentator, not the Manchester United winger) pointed out on today's broadcast, you don't usually call a hit and run with someone like Wells at the plate, but when they're in an 0 for 15 slump, it sometimes makes sense. I know from my own playing days that you're often overthinking and trying to do too much when you get into a protracted slump, and the manager creating a situation where you're aiming to just get contact (and have pressure on you to do so) seems like an inventive slump-breaker in my books.
As Blair points out, there are some good things about the new lineup as well: Alex Rios did very well out of the leadoff spot, and Scott Rolen turned in a great performance batting third. Gibbons also can't really be blamed for many of the team's struggles to this point, which, as Mike Wilner points out, have had much more to do with their terrible batting performance with runners in scoring position. Better minds than I, including Blair, Wilner and Dustin Parkes have come to the conclusion that Gibbons isn't at fault and shouldn't be fired yet, so I'm inclined to agree. Managers make a hell of a lot of decisions every day: some work out brilliantly, some are passable, and some are horrendous failures. Gibbons might need some more brain massaging to avoid moves like walking Tony Pena Jr., but unlike Posnanski, I wouldn't fire him purely for that. Until we see far more managerial moves in the "horrendous failure" category, firing Gibbons would be a move that's purely for show and highly unlikely to right the ship.
As an aside: Alex Rios proved today why speed and good decision-making on the basepaths are still valuable assets, as he managed to score from first on a Scott Rolen single when Jose Guillen threw to second base. It was a great call by third-base coach Marty Pevey, but he doesn't even have the chance to make that call if someone slower, say Matt Stairs, is on first base, as they might not even get past second on that hit. Speed isn't the be-all and end-all, but it's a nice tool to have. Baseball Prospectus' Nate Silver made a strong case for the value of speed a while back, so I'll leave the summary to him.
"The last question, of course, is how much baserunning really matters. And the general rule of thumb is that it can make about a win’s worth of difference at the extremes: a really fast/skilled baserunner will produce about 8-10 extra runs for his team on a going-forward basis as compared with a really slow/terrible baserunner. Or, if you prefer, a great baserunner will produce about an extra half-win for his team (4-5 runs) per season versus an average baserunner.
This is nothing to sneeze at. Baserunning is another in that category of things that might be overrated by the mainstream media, but has nevertheless been underrated by sabermetricians. "
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Irony, thy name is Stern
I was perusing the Sports Illustrated Vault (greatest way to kill time ever) and came across this great profile of David Stern, written in November 2006 by Jack McCallum. It features some great unintentional comedy, as many things written about Stern then seem hilarious in retrospect. Consider the following examples:
"Over the past months the NBA drafted a mission statement of which Stern is exceedingly proud. It talks about values and social responsibility, and it pledges that NBA employees will "conduct ourselves in accordance with the highest standards of honesty, truthfulness, ethics and fair dealing."
Commentary: Guess that was before Clay Bennett joined the club.
"Now, there is plenty of room for cynicism when bottom-liners start talking altruism. And the many NBA haters in the U.S. would suggest that players such as Stephen Jackson are living repudiations of the league's mission statement. But Stern holds that the document has had a 'profound effect' on him and on those who work for him. He hardly gets through a day without mentioning the NBA's Basketball Without Borders program, which each summer sends dozens of players to conduct clinics in far-flung and often impoverished parts of the world, and he fumes when the league is criticized for too often airing its NBA Cares spots. 'We're going to keep right on showing them," the commissioner says pugnaciously, "because social responsibility is extremely important to us.'"
Commentary: Apparently, social responsibility permits stealing deeply-entrenched franchises away from fans who have loyally supported the league for generations while falling over backwards to help sleazeball corporate raiders.
"It troubles him, then, that the league is increasingly doing business in countries with abhorrent or at least questionable government policies." ... "China presents an even greater conflict for Stern because it has both colossal business potential and a terrible human rights record. The commissioner has traveled throughout the country, both for business and to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, and there is no doubt that China is critical to the global future of the NBA. Yet its repressive policies fly in the face of the league's mission statement."
Commentary: Yeah, that hasn't stopped him from seeing "more of a need for new pro basketball teams in China than in North America."
"'Believe me, the China situation bothers me,' Stern says one day, traveling between Paris and Cologne. 'And a voice at home [he means (his wife) Dianne, who is more outspoken about politics than he is] reminds me about it all the time.' He sighs heavily. 'But at the end of the day I have a responsibility to my owners to make money," he says. "I can never forget that, no matter what my personal feelings might be.'
Commentary: Stern can play the self-effacing political martyr all he wants, but I've got a feeling the cash is more important to him than he lets on here. We do get a bit of truth here though: Stern lets out that it is the bottom line behind every NBA decision.
There is one image from the piece, though, that makes it possible that Stern has merely been played as a pawn by Bennett, who, after all, considers him "just one of my favorite people on earth." "Though Stern's inner compass in leading the NBA has been largely unerring, he has trouble finding his way back from somewhere if his wife is not along," McCallum writes. "As he enters hotels, for example, he invariably makes the wrong turn to get to the elevator, though he makes it decisively. 'He has no sense of direction,' says Dianne, 'yet he always knows where he's going.'" That damn-the-torpedoes attitude that doesn't allow for admitting that you're wrong may have doomed Stern to the wrong side in the Sonics situation: enticed by Bennett's flattery, he jumped onto the Oklahoma bandwagon and promptly refused to entertain the notion that Clay and co. could be lying out of the sides of their faces, going so far as to say that he hadn't even studied the e-mails in question before the crucial relocation vote.
However, that kind of naivety doesn't seem to fit with the workaholic, obsessive, detail-oriented character McCallum describes.
"He has been traveling abroad for so long that he knows not only the names of international basketball officials and TV executives, but also their kids' names. Stern's attention to detail is astonishing. As he greets Coca-Cola officials in Barcelona, his first question is, 'How's Sprite Zero doing?' Perusing a notebook full of bar graphs and sales-figure charts during a meeting in Rome, he stops and points to one. 'You left a percent sign out here,' he says to Umberto Pieraccioni, Adidas Italy's managing director. Before the tour's final doubleheader, in Cologne on Oct. 11, the commissioner's eyes run over the seating chart. 'How about if you move George Bodenheimer over here?' he says. The ABC Sports/ESPN honcho is duly moved. On planes and in cars Stern usually decides who sits where, calling for a reporter to sit near him on occasion and, on others, exiling the scribe to a different seat or different vehicle, depending on whether or not he feels like answering questions."
It sounds like a disservice to that sort of man to suggest that he's unaware of what each and every one of his owners is up to, and he's clearly paid some attention to what's going on in Seattle, as evidenced by his fine of Aubrey McClendon for telling the truth. That leaves two possibilities. The first is that he was deceived by his first impression of Bennett, is loath to change his mind, and thus conveniently blames everything negative on the others in the group.
The second possibility is that this shifting of blame is merely a PR tactic to appease the factions calling for Bennett's head, and that Stern has secretly been backing the move all along. As I pointed out earlier today, the NBA may lose a large media market, but all of their owners gain substantial leverage in negotiating with local governments. They can threaten to move elsewhere if the pursestrings aren't loosened, and use the Sonics as a key example: "Look what happened to Seattle."
It's the old extortion tactic, but it makes perfect sense for a sports league: no one wants to be known as the politician who let the local team walk, so you can bet that there will be a considerable amount of enthusiasm for publically-funded arenas in NBA or soon-to-be-NBA markets. As TrueHoop's Henry Abbott wrote, "The more I see the situation play out in Seattle, the more I see that David Stern is really good at his job. His current assignment: getting as many dollars as possible from taxpayers and to NBA owners. Oklahoma City stepped up to the plate, with public dollars to remodel the public building they built some time ago."
That kind of Machiavellian manipulation sounds like a project worthy of a brilliant workaholic like Stern. Perhaps his comments about social responsibility, honesty, truthfulness and the like are merely spin. What would be even worse, though, is if he actually believes in those laudable goals and somehow thinks he's serving them. At the end of the day, he's sold his soul and his ethics to the almighty bottom line. It may be ironic, but after further reflection, it isn't all that funny, especially if you're one of the Seattle fans he's trampled on in the process.
"Over the past months the NBA drafted a mission statement of which Stern is exceedingly proud. It talks about values and social responsibility, and it pledges that NBA employees will "conduct ourselves in accordance with the highest standards of honesty, truthfulness, ethics and fair dealing."
Commentary: Guess that was before Clay Bennett joined the club.
"Now, there is plenty of room for cynicism when bottom-liners start talking altruism. And the many NBA haters in the U.S. would suggest that players such as Stephen Jackson are living repudiations of the league's mission statement. But Stern holds that the document has had a 'profound effect' on him and on those who work for him. He hardly gets through a day without mentioning the NBA's Basketball Without Borders program, which each summer sends dozens of players to conduct clinics in far-flung and often impoverished parts of the world, and he fumes when the league is criticized for too often airing its NBA Cares spots. 'We're going to keep right on showing them," the commissioner says pugnaciously, "because social responsibility is extremely important to us.'"
Commentary: Apparently, social responsibility permits stealing deeply-entrenched franchises away from fans who have loyally supported the league for generations while falling over backwards to help sleazeball corporate raiders.
"It troubles him, then, that the league is increasingly doing business in countries with abhorrent or at least questionable government policies." ... "China presents an even greater conflict for Stern because it has both colossal business potential and a terrible human rights record. The commissioner has traveled throughout the country, both for business and to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, and there is no doubt that China is critical to the global future of the NBA. Yet its repressive policies fly in the face of the league's mission statement."
Commentary: Yeah, that hasn't stopped him from seeing "more of a need for new pro basketball teams in China than in North America."
"'Believe me, the China situation bothers me,' Stern says one day, traveling between Paris and Cologne. 'And a voice at home [he means (his wife) Dianne, who is more outspoken about politics than he is] reminds me about it all the time.' He sighs heavily. 'But at the end of the day I have a responsibility to my owners to make money," he says. "I can never forget that, no matter what my personal feelings might be.'
Commentary: Stern can play the self-effacing political martyr all he wants, but I've got a feeling the cash is more important to him than he lets on here. We do get a bit of truth here though: Stern lets out that it is the bottom line behind every NBA decision.
There is one image from the piece, though, that makes it possible that Stern has merely been played as a pawn by Bennett, who, after all, considers him "just one of my favorite people on earth." "Though Stern's inner compass in leading the NBA has been largely unerring, he has trouble finding his way back from somewhere if his wife is not along," McCallum writes. "As he enters hotels, for example, he invariably makes the wrong turn to get to the elevator, though he makes it decisively. 'He has no sense of direction,' says Dianne, 'yet he always knows where he's going.'" That damn-the-torpedoes attitude that doesn't allow for admitting that you're wrong may have doomed Stern to the wrong side in the Sonics situation: enticed by Bennett's flattery, he jumped onto the Oklahoma bandwagon and promptly refused to entertain the notion that Clay and co. could be lying out of the sides of their faces, going so far as to say that he hadn't even studied the e-mails in question before the crucial relocation vote.
However, that kind of naivety doesn't seem to fit with the workaholic, obsessive, detail-oriented character McCallum describes.
"He has been traveling abroad for so long that he knows not only the names of international basketball officials and TV executives, but also their kids' names. Stern's attention to detail is astonishing. As he greets Coca-Cola officials in Barcelona, his first question is, 'How's Sprite Zero doing?' Perusing a notebook full of bar graphs and sales-figure charts during a meeting in Rome, he stops and points to one. 'You left a percent sign out here,' he says to Umberto Pieraccioni, Adidas Italy's managing director. Before the tour's final doubleheader, in Cologne on Oct. 11, the commissioner's eyes run over the seating chart. 'How about if you move George Bodenheimer over here?' he says. The ABC Sports/ESPN honcho is duly moved. On planes and in cars Stern usually decides who sits where, calling for a reporter to sit near him on occasion and, on others, exiling the scribe to a different seat or different vehicle, depending on whether or not he feels like answering questions."
It sounds like a disservice to that sort of man to suggest that he's unaware of what each and every one of his owners is up to, and he's clearly paid some attention to what's going on in Seattle, as evidenced by his fine of Aubrey McClendon for telling the truth. That leaves two possibilities. The first is that he was deceived by his first impression of Bennett, is loath to change his mind, and thus conveniently blames everything negative on the others in the group.
The second possibility is that this shifting of blame is merely a PR tactic to appease the factions calling for Bennett's head, and that Stern has secretly been backing the move all along. As I pointed out earlier today, the NBA may lose a large media market, but all of their owners gain substantial leverage in negotiating with local governments. They can threaten to move elsewhere if the pursestrings aren't loosened, and use the Sonics as a key example: "Look what happened to Seattle."
It's the old extortion tactic, but it makes perfect sense for a sports league: no one wants to be known as the politician who let the local team walk, so you can bet that there will be a considerable amount of enthusiasm for publically-funded arenas in NBA or soon-to-be-NBA markets. As TrueHoop's Henry Abbott wrote, "The more I see the situation play out in Seattle, the more I see that David Stern is really good at his job. His current assignment: getting as many dollars as possible from taxpayers and to NBA owners. Oklahoma City stepped up to the plate, with public dollars to remodel the public building they built some time ago."
That kind of Machiavellian manipulation sounds like a project worthy of a brilliant workaholic like Stern. Perhaps his comments about social responsibility, honesty, truthfulness and the like are merely spin. What would be even worse, though, is if he actually believes in those laudable goals and somehow thinks he's serving them. At the end of the day, he's sold his soul and his ethics to the almighty bottom line. It may be ironic, but after further reflection, it isn't all that funny, especially if you're one of the Seattle fans he's trampled on in the process.
Sonics: The unravelling
Things are looking better and better for the Sonics. The array of lawsuits against their ownership are demonstrating that even more evil lurks in Clay Bennett's computer than previously thought. As I wrote a while ago, "Given that the e-mails came out of discovery in the city lawsuit, who knows what other dirty laundry might show up to aid the various cases for keeping the Sonics?" Some more dirty laundry has in fact come tumbling out of the closet, which should push the credibility of Bennett and his group into negative numbers if it wasn't there already.
The best of the newly-released e-mails, which came as part of Howard Schultz's lawsuit to unwind the sale, showed that two days before he bought the team, Bennett was already contemplating a "sweet flip" to obtain another team and move them to Oklahoma City if by some chance an arena solution materialized in Seattle. ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson had a great column stating that the new information gives Schultz a substantial case (thanks to Seth Kolloen for the link). As Munson writes, "The allegations against Bennett and his group are serious and seem to indicate a fraud at the time of the sale. The chronology of the e-mails is compelling evidence that will allow Schultz to push Bennett and his group into a bad corner." This might even be enough to make fighting this lawsuit out all the way better than using the leverage it provides, as I advocated previously, but there's still the risk of a loss taking away all the city's bargaining power, and you can bet that the NBA won't be in a hurry to negotiate with a city that tried to take it out in court.
The best aspect of Schultz's lawsuit is that it advocates revoking the sale and turning the team over to a "constructive trust," administered by a judge, which would then sell the franchise to local ownership. Thus, Schultz isn't in it to get the team back, which strengthens his case: it allows him to argue that the sale was fraudulent without him benefiting if it is voided. Munson called the "constructive trust" language "a brilliant idea," and considered it one of the key components in making the case "more than a public relations stunt."
Another fantastic e-mail that came out later in the week showed that the NBA itself questioned Bennett's "good-faith efforts" after Aubrey McClendon's ill-advised comments to the Oklahoma Journal-Record. The Seattle Times has a great list of the key e-mails that have been released so far: reading those, it becomes even harder to understand David Stern's assertion that "Clay, as the managing partner and the driving force of the group, was operating in good faith."
As more information comes out, it's looking increasingly likely that there's still a chance to keep the Sonics in Seattle, particularly with the Schultz lawsuit. Hopefully, this will prove that pro sports franchises and their owners can't just selectively pick and choose which laws to adhere to. This kind of blatant lying to facilitate a potentially fraudulent purchase wouldn't be acceptable in the corporate world, so it shouldn't be acceptable in the sports world. The sad thing is, though, this situation was pretty obvious ever since Schultz sold the team to Bennett. Just about everyone knew he would do anything to get a team to Oklahoma, but if he hadn't slipped up by revealing such in detailed and indiscreet e-mails, he'd likely already be there. This should serve as a warning to sports fans everywhere: be very, very careful with out-of-town owners, particularly if they have interests in another market without a team. Many of them will try to move, and it's unlikely that they'll all prove as incompetent as Bennett has.
Despite all this incriminating evidence about Bennett's intentions that should cause concern among NBA management, Stern is still sticking to his guns about moving the team. That demonstrates that this isn't entirely about relocation, or media markets: it's really about the public paying for teams' arenas, a huge goal of Stern's. Oklahoma City is willing to throw public money at the NBA, while Seattle is more reluctant: in Stern's view, that seems to make up for its other obvious deficiencies, such as being the country's 45th-largest media market. As Henry Abbott pointed out in this excellent TrueHoop piece, "Right now, the way it commonly happens is that teams ask for a sweetheart deal, and if they don't get it, they leave for somewhere that will give a sweetheart deal. All that happens with the blessing of the NBA, an organization that serves the owners." The lawsuits, the incriminating information, and the court proceedings will undoubtedly help the case to keep NBA basketball in Seattle, but in the end, the city and the state will still have to come forward with some money. It doesn't have to be a ridiculous plan like Bennett's $500 million arena in Renton: the Ballmer alternative keeps sounding better and better, but in the end, there will still need to be public money involved. The amount, the source and the terms are up for debate, but public funding of arenas to some degree is a necessary evil these days: if your town isn't willing to pony up the cash, some other city inevitably will.
Related:
- Henry Abbott has more on how this case is casting a shadow over an otherwise great playoffs.
- Abbott on how Aubrey McClendon's honesty makes him "4% more likable than the other owners" (a comparison to Josh Howard recently admitting to smoking marijuana).
- A hilarious-in-retrospect October 1, 2006 piece from the Tacoma News-Tribune's Frank Hughes, which features Clay Bennett serving lamb testicles to unsuspecting Seattle businessmen (is that ever a metaphor!), and also the following paragraph: "Ask anyone who knows Clay Bennett, and most say he is straightforward, a "straight shooter" as they say down here. He might not always give you an answer, they say, but he does not lie. He is a tough negotiator, but fair. He knows when he has leverage, and is not afraid to use it to his advantage, but does not necessarily take advantage of people."
- Seth Kolloen on Clay Bennett's inferiority complex over at Enjoy the Enjoyment.
- Greg Johns of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on how the city plans to pursue its lawsuit.
- Seattle Times columnist Jerry Brewer has a hilarious mock e-mail exchange with David Stern and Clay Bennett.
- The Times' Percy Allen has a good piece on Richard Yarmuth, Howard Schultz's lawyer, who was involved in the city's lawsuit against the American League after the Pilots left town that resulted in the league granting the town the Mariners franchise (the same lawsuit current city representative Slade Gorton spearheaded).
- A post at Hotdog and Friends showing that Bennett was happy to hold a gun to Oklahoma legislators' heads as well. They also have a good post on how David Stern defies logic. (Thanks to Deadspin for the link).
The best of the newly-released e-mails, which came as part of Howard Schultz's lawsuit to unwind the sale, showed that two days before he bought the team, Bennett was already contemplating a "sweet flip" to obtain another team and move them to Oklahoma City if by some chance an arena solution materialized in Seattle. ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson had a great column stating that the new information gives Schultz a substantial case (thanks to Seth Kolloen for the link). As Munson writes, "The allegations against Bennett and his group are serious and seem to indicate a fraud at the time of the sale. The chronology of the e-mails is compelling evidence that will allow Schultz to push Bennett and his group into a bad corner." This might even be enough to make fighting this lawsuit out all the way better than using the leverage it provides, as I advocated previously, but there's still the risk of a loss taking away all the city's bargaining power, and you can bet that the NBA won't be in a hurry to negotiate with a city that tried to take it out in court.
The best aspect of Schultz's lawsuit is that it advocates revoking the sale and turning the team over to a "constructive trust," administered by a judge, which would then sell the franchise to local ownership. Thus, Schultz isn't in it to get the team back, which strengthens his case: it allows him to argue that the sale was fraudulent without him benefiting if it is voided. Munson called the "constructive trust" language "a brilliant idea," and considered it one of the key components in making the case "more than a public relations stunt."
Another fantastic e-mail that came out later in the week showed that the NBA itself questioned Bennett's "good-faith efforts" after Aubrey McClendon's ill-advised comments to the Oklahoma Journal-Record. The Seattle Times has a great list of the key e-mails that have been released so far: reading those, it becomes even harder to understand David Stern's assertion that "Clay, as the managing partner and the driving force of the group, was operating in good faith."
As more information comes out, it's looking increasingly likely that there's still a chance to keep the Sonics in Seattle, particularly with the Schultz lawsuit. Hopefully, this will prove that pro sports franchises and their owners can't just selectively pick and choose which laws to adhere to. This kind of blatant lying to facilitate a potentially fraudulent purchase wouldn't be acceptable in the corporate world, so it shouldn't be acceptable in the sports world. The sad thing is, though, this situation was pretty obvious ever since Schultz sold the team to Bennett. Just about everyone knew he would do anything to get a team to Oklahoma, but if he hadn't slipped up by revealing such in detailed and indiscreet e-mails, he'd likely already be there. This should serve as a warning to sports fans everywhere: be very, very careful with out-of-town owners, particularly if they have interests in another market without a team. Many of them will try to move, and it's unlikely that they'll all prove as incompetent as Bennett has.
Despite all this incriminating evidence about Bennett's intentions that should cause concern among NBA management, Stern is still sticking to his guns about moving the team. That demonstrates that this isn't entirely about relocation, or media markets: it's really about the public paying for teams' arenas, a huge goal of Stern's. Oklahoma City is willing to throw public money at the NBA, while Seattle is more reluctant: in Stern's view, that seems to make up for its other obvious deficiencies, such as being the country's 45th-largest media market. As Henry Abbott pointed out in this excellent TrueHoop piece, "Right now, the way it commonly happens is that teams ask for a sweetheart deal, and if they don't get it, they leave for somewhere that will give a sweetheart deal. All that happens with the blessing of the NBA, an organization that serves the owners." The lawsuits, the incriminating information, and the court proceedings will undoubtedly help the case to keep NBA basketball in Seattle, but in the end, the city and the state will still have to come forward with some money. It doesn't have to be a ridiculous plan like Bennett's $500 million arena in Renton: the Ballmer alternative keeps sounding better and better, but in the end, there will still need to be public money involved. The amount, the source and the terms are up for debate, but public funding of arenas to some degree is a necessary evil these days: if your town isn't willing to pony up the cash, some other city inevitably will.
Related:
- Henry Abbott has more on how this case is casting a shadow over an otherwise great playoffs.
- Abbott on how Aubrey McClendon's honesty makes him "4% more likable than the other owners" (a comparison to Josh Howard recently admitting to smoking marijuana).
- A hilarious-in-retrospect October 1, 2006 piece from the Tacoma News-Tribune's Frank Hughes, which features Clay Bennett serving lamb testicles to unsuspecting Seattle businessmen (is that ever a metaphor!), and also the following paragraph: "Ask anyone who knows Clay Bennett, and most say he is straightforward, a "straight shooter" as they say down here. He might not always give you an answer, they say, but he does not lie. He is a tough negotiator, but fair. He knows when he has leverage, and is not afraid to use it to his advantage, but does not necessarily take advantage of people."
- Seth Kolloen on Clay Bennett's inferiority complex over at Enjoy the Enjoyment.
- Greg Johns of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on how the city plans to pursue its lawsuit.
- Seattle Times columnist Jerry Brewer has a hilarious mock e-mail exchange with David Stern and Clay Bennett.
- The Times' Percy Allen has a good piece on Richard Yarmuth, Howard Schultz's lawyer, who was involved in the city's lawsuit against the American League after the Pilots left town that resulted in the league granting the town the Mariners franchise (the same lawsuit current city representative Slade Gorton spearheaded).
- A post at Hotdog and Friends showing that Bennett was happy to hold a gun to Oklahoma legislators' heads as well. They also have a good post on how David Stern defies logic. (Thanks to Deadspin for the link).
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Round Two Playoff Predictions
Well, I went 4-4 in the first round of the NHL playoffs, which puts me on a level with the Globe's David Shoalts and slightly behind Maggie the Monkey and the Globe's NHL scout, who were both 5-3. Hey, a little better and I could have a job in this league! Let's see if I can channel Allan Maki or Eric Duhatschek instead, who were 8-0 and 7-1 respectively. Here's my thoughts on Round Two.
East:
Montreal versus Philadelphia: Habs in six
The Canadiens slept through much of the first round and let Boston take them to seven, but they turned it on when it counted, winning the decisive seventh game 5-0. Rookie goalie Carey Price appears to be back in world-beating form, and you don't want to bet against Montreal with a hot rookie goalie (see Dryden, Ken; Roy, Patrick). Montreal also has reasonable depth on both offence and defence.
Pittsburgh versus New York: Penguins in six
The Rangers did better than I expected in the first round, knocking off always-dangerous New Jersey. They're in good form, and "Swedish King" Henrik Lundqvist looks to be at the top of his game, but I think Pittsburgh's tremendous offensive firepower will prove too much for them.
West:
Detroit versus Colorado: Avalanche in seven
This will be the series to watch: the greatest rivalry of the 1990s is back for Round Two, with many of the same names and faces (Foote, Forsberg, Sakic, Osgood, Lidstrom, Draper and McCarty, to name just a few). Jose "Hair Loss" Theodore's back in Hart Trophy form for the Avalanche, which gives them an edge over Detroit and their aging netminder Chris "Still in the league?" Osgood, who actually looks like a spring chicken next to Dominik "Washed Up" Hasek. Both sides are full of wily veterans, but Colorado's balanced offense should push them over the top.
San Jose versus Dallas: Dallas in seven
This should be billed as the "Battle of the Choke Artists": both teams have been hovering around the edges of contention for a while, but haven't been able to make that last jump. For Dallas, goaltender Marty Turco's proven that last year's strong performance against the Canucks wasn't a fluke with his spectacular play against the Ducks. For the Sharks, I'm not sure if Patrick "Not Clutch" Marleau and Evgeni Nabokov can overcome their normal playoff deficiencies. This could be close, but Dallas knocked off the defending cup champions last round, who I (along with many others) had picked to repeat. Thus, I have to go with them here.
East:
Montreal versus Philadelphia: Habs in six
The Canadiens slept through much of the first round and let Boston take them to seven, but they turned it on when it counted, winning the decisive seventh game 5-0. Rookie goalie Carey Price appears to be back in world-beating form, and you don't want to bet against Montreal with a hot rookie goalie (see Dryden, Ken; Roy, Patrick). Montreal also has reasonable depth on both offence and defence.
Pittsburgh versus New York: Penguins in six
The Rangers did better than I expected in the first round, knocking off always-dangerous New Jersey. They're in good form, and "Swedish King" Henrik Lundqvist looks to be at the top of his game, but I think Pittsburgh's tremendous offensive firepower will prove too much for them.
West:
Detroit versus Colorado: Avalanche in seven
This will be the series to watch: the greatest rivalry of the 1990s is back for Round Two, with many of the same names and faces (Foote, Forsberg, Sakic, Osgood, Lidstrom, Draper and McCarty, to name just a few). Jose "Hair Loss" Theodore's back in Hart Trophy form for the Avalanche, which gives them an edge over Detroit and their aging netminder Chris "Still in the league?" Osgood, who actually looks like a spring chicken next to Dominik "Washed Up" Hasek. Both sides are full of wily veterans, but Colorado's balanced offense should push them over the top.
San Jose versus Dallas: Dallas in seven
This should be billed as the "Battle of the Choke Artists": both teams have been hovering around the edges of contention for a while, but haven't been able to make that last jump. For Dallas, goaltender Marty Turco's proven that last year's strong performance against the Canucks wasn't a fluke with his spectacular play against the Ducks. For the Sharks, I'm not sure if Patrick "Not Clutch" Marleau and Evgeni Nabokov can overcome their normal playoff deficiencies. This could be close, but Dallas knocked off the defending cup champions last round, who I (along with many others) had picked to repeat. Thus, I have to go with them here.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
A helluva column
I should preface this by stating that I respect the Globe and Mail's William Houston as a writer who's been doing a tough job for a long time, and I frequently read his columns. He does a fantastic job as a reporter who digs up interesting details on media coverage of Canadian sports, and his takes on the competition among the various channels and the TV ratings of different events are always worth a look. However, his analysis of networks' on-air coverage is much more hit-and-miss. Some of it is bang-on, such as his analysis of the different networks' trade deadline shows. I don't agree with many of his other ideas, particularly about what makes good and bad commentary, but I can usually at least understand where he's coming from. On occasion though, he'll drop in something that's so absurdly out-of-the-blue that I can't even begin to fathom the thought process he went through in constructing it.
A great example of the latter is his column from yesterday's Globe criticizing Hockey Night in Canada's coverage of the playoffs. Personally, from the games I've seen, I think Hockey Night's been doing their usual stellar job, but I can respect someone who disagrees with me and can support their reasoning. Unfortunately, Houston's effort does not meet this standard. Just look at the first couple paragraphs of his piece:
"The Hockey Night in Canada telecast of the San Jose Sharks-Calgary Flames game last Sunday was weak in spots, but helpful in identifying some of the show's problems," he writes. Okay so far: we still disagree that it was weak, but I'm looking forward to his explanation.
"Let's start with host Ron MacLean, an excellent broadcaster and a popular hockey personality."
Interesting. If he's such an excellent broadcaster, why is he the primary problem? We're about to find out.
"On a semi-regular basis, MacLean uses "hell of a" to describe something exceptional, such as "a helluva third period." He uttered "helluva" once on Sunday."
Good Lord! I had no idea my tax dollars were going to fund such gross profanity! We clearly need a censorship law for the CBC: it can come in right alongside the new Bill C-10 set to deny tax credits to films and videos "deemed offensive to the public", which star director Ang Lee points out is more state censorship than he ever experienced in China, that noted haven of free speech. Hey, if we're going to destroy Canadian cinema, we might as well take out Canadian TV while we're at it so we can replace it with the bland, inoffensive entertainment that Houston apparently prefers. No one had better send him a Trailer Park Boys DVD: he might have a heart attack just from reading the box!
Seriously though, how can "helluva" be considered offensive in this day and age? It's a short form for "hell of a", a commonly used superlative for a strong athletic performance. What's so offensive, the word "hell"? Well, it occurs fifty-five times in the Bible, so clearly all copies of that book need to be burnt instantly. It's also the name of a town in Michigan, so we should wipe that off the map as well. The Hells Angels? Gone. Hells Bells? Toast. Hell freezing over? Better burn those Eagles CDs. Never mind the following Wikipedia entry:
"The word "Hell" used away from its religious context was long considered to be profanity, particularly in North America. Although its use was commonplace in everyday speech and on television by the 1970s, many people in the US still consider it somewhat rude or inappropriate language, particularly involving children.[15] Many, particularly among religious circles and in certain sensitive environments, still avoid casual usage of the word. In British English and some parts of North America, the word has fallen into common use and is not considered profane; often considered to be a safer and less offensive alternative to swearing, as in the phrase, 'Go to Hell.'"
Well, I guess Houston still lives in a time before the 1970s and still considers hell profane. As he excitingly goes on about MacLean, "Last week, he used damn and hell in the same breath. They're minor expletives, but CBC Sports is the only place we know where a host is allowed to swear on the air." You can feel the implied exclamation marks, and the shock he expects to arise as millions of Canadians spill their morning coffee reading such tales of horror and instantly flee to their 1970s-style typewriters to bang out indignant letters to the editor over the degradation of society and the absence of any and all morals. As Macdonald Hall's Bruno Walton might say, "Our world is crumbling around us!" Damn and hell in the same breath? On the airwaves? Forget the censorship bill, you might as well just burn MacLean at the stake right now. Oh, rats: I just used damn and hell in the same breath. William Houston, if you're reading this, you're welcome to come burn me as well for violating your sacrosanct media sphere of morality.
The funny thing is, it's not just the times that Houston is out of touch with. I've been reading "best-of" collections of great Canadian sportswriters like Jim Coleman and Milt Dunnell recently, and they spent much of their time at horse tracks and boxing rings. I sincerely doubt if either man ever recoiled when they heard a "damn" or a "hell" from the legendary characters they hung out with. Sure, it's somewhat different when it's in the media, but should it really be? That's what makes sites like Drunk Jays Fans so refreshing: those guys don't bother to take the rough edges of their passionate commentary, regardless of who they offend. Slipping in a "helluva" really shouldn't offend anyone these days, anyways,(except for those hopelessly behind the times).
The trend's starting to catch on: at our own humble paper, we're certainly not reticent to use "damn" or "hell" when quoting people, and even occasionally in our own writing. We're also not afraid to throw in even naughtier words when someone says them. This is especially important in sports: I know I'd much rather hear "We put up a hell of a fight" than the clichéd, sans emotion comments like "We went out there and did our best." In an era where most athletes and coaches are taught to spin everything in the blandest way possible, the occasional outburst of pure passion should be lauded, not censored.
This isn't to say that language should be used just for pure shock value. There's a point where it's real, and a point where it's just contrived, where you lose the passion that made pushing the boundaries great in the first place. However, particularly in sports, there's a lot of emotion involved, and the fans who read/watch/listen to them are better able to connect with the game and the athletes if coaches, players and even announcers can truly express what they feel than if they're forced into politically correct language. Even the mainstream media's starting to get this: Houston's colleague Jeff Blair had a fantastic story today about the Jays' loss, which started off with manager John Gibbons dropping three consecutive "fucks". Of course, the paper didn't actually print the word in question, but Blair didn't condemn Gibbons for his language, and he came through as a guy who was genuinely passionate and frustrated about his team. I know I'd rather have a character like him or Ozzie Guillen managing my club than a dull figure who sticks to Houston's rules. There's other great examples, such as Joe Posnanski, my favorite Kansas City Star columnist, who recently held a fantastic swear-off between Scott Raab and Pat Jordan. Now, those guys might fall into the category of "swearing just to draw attention", but I can say that that was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.
In any case, I don't want to return to the "Leave it to Beaver" world espoused by Mr. Houston. I prefer my athletes and commentators as real people, who curse when they miss a shot or complement something amazing with "that was a hell of a play". So don't worry, Ron: I'm sure there are plenty of people who have moved on from the old days and can actually handle a little helluva here and there in their media. Unfortunately, none of them happen to write the sports television column for the Globe and Mail.
A great example of the latter is his column from yesterday's Globe criticizing Hockey Night in Canada's coverage of the playoffs. Personally, from the games I've seen, I think Hockey Night's been doing their usual stellar job, but I can respect someone who disagrees with me and can support their reasoning. Unfortunately, Houston's effort does not meet this standard. Just look at the first couple paragraphs of his piece:
"The Hockey Night in Canada telecast of the San Jose Sharks-Calgary Flames game last Sunday was weak in spots, but helpful in identifying some of the show's problems," he writes. Okay so far: we still disagree that it was weak, but I'm looking forward to his explanation.
"Let's start with host Ron MacLean, an excellent broadcaster and a popular hockey personality."
Interesting. If he's such an excellent broadcaster, why is he the primary problem? We're about to find out.
"On a semi-regular basis, MacLean uses "hell of a" to describe something exceptional, such as "a helluva third period." He uttered "helluva" once on Sunday."
Good Lord! I had no idea my tax dollars were going to fund such gross profanity! We clearly need a censorship law for the CBC: it can come in right alongside the new Bill C-10 set to deny tax credits to films and videos "deemed offensive to the public", which star director Ang Lee points out is more state censorship than he ever experienced in China, that noted haven of free speech. Hey, if we're going to destroy Canadian cinema, we might as well take out Canadian TV while we're at it so we can replace it with the bland, inoffensive entertainment that Houston apparently prefers. No one had better send him a Trailer Park Boys DVD: he might have a heart attack just from reading the box!
Seriously though, how can "helluva" be considered offensive in this day and age? It's a short form for "hell of a", a commonly used superlative for a strong athletic performance. What's so offensive, the word "hell"? Well, it occurs fifty-five times in the Bible, so clearly all copies of that book need to be burnt instantly. It's also the name of a town in Michigan, so we should wipe that off the map as well. The Hells Angels? Gone. Hells Bells? Toast. Hell freezing over? Better burn those Eagles CDs. Never mind the following Wikipedia entry:
"The word "Hell" used away from its religious context was long considered to be profanity, particularly in North America. Although its use was commonplace in everyday speech and on television by the 1970s, many people in the US still consider it somewhat rude or inappropriate language, particularly involving children.[15] Many, particularly among religious circles and in certain sensitive environments, still avoid casual usage of the word. In British English and some parts of North America, the word has fallen into common use and is not considered profane; often considered to be a safer and less offensive alternative to swearing, as in the phrase, 'Go to Hell.'"
Well, I guess Houston still lives in a time before the 1970s and still considers hell profane. As he excitingly goes on about MacLean, "Last week, he used damn and hell in the same breath. They're minor expletives, but CBC Sports is the only place we know where a host is allowed to swear on the air." You can feel the implied exclamation marks, and the shock he expects to arise as millions of Canadians spill their morning coffee reading such tales of horror and instantly flee to their 1970s-style typewriters to bang out indignant letters to the editor over the degradation of society and the absence of any and all morals. As Macdonald Hall's Bruno Walton might say, "Our world is crumbling around us!" Damn and hell in the same breath? On the airwaves? Forget the censorship bill, you might as well just burn MacLean at the stake right now. Oh, rats: I just used damn and hell in the same breath. William Houston, if you're reading this, you're welcome to come burn me as well for violating your sacrosanct media sphere of morality.
The funny thing is, it's not just the times that Houston is out of touch with. I've been reading "best-of" collections of great Canadian sportswriters like Jim Coleman and Milt Dunnell recently, and they spent much of their time at horse tracks and boxing rings. I sincerely doubt if either man ever recoiled when they heard a "damn" or a "hell" from the legendary characters they hung out with. Sure, it's somewhat different when it's in the media, but should it really be? That's what makes sites like Drunk Jays Fans so refreshing: those guys don't bother to take the rough edges of their passionate commentary, regardless of who they offend. Slipping in a "helluva" really shouldn't offend anyone these days, anyways,(except for those hopelessly behind the times).
The trend's starting to catch on: at our own humble paper, we're certainly not reticent to use "damn" or "hell" when quoting people, and even occasionally in our own writing. We're also not afraid to throw in even naughtier words when someone says them. This is especially important in sports: I know I'd much rather hear "We put up a hell of a fight" than the clichéd, sans emotion comments like "We went out there and did our best." In an era where most athletes and coaches are taught to spin everything in the blandest way possible, the occasional outburst of pure passion should be lauded, not censored.
This isn't to say that language should be used just for pure shock value. There's a point where it's real, and a point where it's just contrived, where you lose the passion that made pushing the boundaries great in the first place. However, particularly in sports, there's a lot of emotion involved, and the fans who read/watch/listen to them are better able to connect with the game and the athletes if coaches, players and even announcers can truly express what they feel than if they're forced into politically correct language. Even the mainstream media's starting to get this: Houston's colleague Jeff Blair had a fantastic story today about the Jays' loss, which started off with manager John Gibbons dropping three consecutive "fucks". Of course, the paper didn't actually print the word in question, but Blair didn't condemn Gibbons for his language, and he came through as a guy who was genuinely passionate and frustrated about his team. I know I'd rather have a character like him or Ozzie Guillen managing my club than a dull figure who sticks to Houston's rules. There's other great examples, such as Joe Posnanski, my favorite Kansas City Star columnist, who recently held a fantastic swear-off between Scott Raab and Pat Jordan. Now, those guys might fall into the category of "swearing just to draw attention", but I can say that that was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.
In any case, I don't want to return to the "Leave it to Beaver" world espoused by Mr. Houston. I prefer my athletes and commentators as real people, who curse when they miss a shot or complement something amazing with "that was a hell of a play". So don't worry, Ron: I'm sure there are plenty of people who have moved on from the old days and can actually handle a little helluva here and there in their media. Unfortunately, none of them happen to write the sports television column for the Globe and Mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
