I'm a fan of the Vancouver Canucks. I have been for most of my 23 years on this planet. The team's had some tremendous highs in that time, including runs to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1994 and again this year, but they've also had some tremendous lows (the whole Mark Messier and Mike Keenan era, for one). Still, if anything's more likely to make me abandon my fandom than an awful team struggling under the mismanagement of Keenan, it's a few entitled idiots who take a loss in Game Seven of the Stanley Cup Finals as an excuse to start destroying property. I'm watching the images on CBC right now, and it's absolutely horrifying. It's that sort of hatred and destruction that's the worst part of sports, and for it to show up here sickens me.
If I could do away with one thing in this world, it would be hate. Hate not only leads to suffering, but it blinds us, convinces us to think irrationally, and tells us that whatever disgusting feelings we have are just fine, because whoever they're aimed at isn't worthy of consideration. It's hate that spawns hyper-partisanship, where fans blindly clothe themselves in their teams' colours and ignore whatever happens on the other side. It's hate that leads to messes like the football hooliganism we've seen over in Europe, or the reported attacks on Canucks' fans out in Boston (which probably happened in Vancouver too).It's hate that leads us to believe that sports are more than just a game, more than just a fun diversion, but rather some divinely-ordained way of determining that one group of people is better than another group. That's not acceptable with races, religions, political beliefs or anything else, so why should it be the case in sports?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Mad Libs, Tom Scocca, Tommy Craggs and why everything doesn't suck
It's a pity Leonard B. Stern, creator of Mad Libs, died earlier this week, as he's not around to see how his invention is still being used in the media. The most persistent offender on this front is Slate, the remarkable Internet outlet that seems to largely thrive on finding things people like and writing contrarian pieces on why they're really awful. In the past, they've taken bold stands against such horrors as pie, criticism of Creed and hand sanitizer. As Jonah Goldberg once wrote (in a piece for Slate itself, which must have set off some sort of contrarianism loop), "Freelancers especially seem to have figured out how to get through Slate's editorial defenses: Pitch a story, any story, that's counterintuitive, and someone on the receiving end will say "brilliant!" The idea seems very Mad Libs-inspired: "[Group of people] likes [noun], therefore it is [derogatory adjective]".
This approach is now spreading thanks to former Slate type Tom Scocca's new role as the managing editor of Deadspin, where he's already brought over the Mad Libs approach. In the crosshairs this time? Famed former New York restaurant Elaine's, a writer's hangout praised by the likes of Chris Jones, Kevin Van Valkenburg, Jeff MacGregor and now Grantland's Wright Thompson. If that many prominent people like something, it must be awful, right, Scocca? Right.
This approach is now spreading thanks to former Slate type Tom Scocca's new role as the managing editor of Deadspin, where he's already brought over the Mad Libs approach. In the crosshairs this time? Famed former New York restaurant Elaine's, a writer's hangout praised by the likes of Chris Jones, Kevin Van Valkenburg, Jeff MacGregor and now Grantland's Wright Thompson. If that many prominent people like something, it must be awful, right, Scocca? Right.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Taiwan makes the NHL a little more exciting
The people from Taiwan's Next Media Animation have their own take on who to root for in the Stanley Cup finals, plus how to make them more interesting. Check it out:
Best use of a tiger since John Cleese's classes in self-defence against fresh fruit:
Best use of a tiger since John Cleese's classes in self-defence against fresh fruit:
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
The Canucks' version of A New Hope
It is a period of cold war. The Vancouver Canucks, striking from a hidden base, have won their first, second and third series victories against allies of the evil Galactic Empire. Now, they must confront the Empire itself, which has taken on the new name of the "Boston Bruins" but kept its old logo (with slight revisions). By watching footage of Boston's most recent battles, Vancouver coaches managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, TIM THOMAS, a clogging-up-space station with enough padding to deflect an entire planet. Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Henrik Sedin races home aboard his starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save his hockey team and restore freedom to the galaxy…
...
DRAMATIS PERSONAE:
HENRIK SEDIN as Princess Leia (a twin, a key figure in the Rebellion)
ZDENO CHARA as Darth Vader (tall, violent)
DANIEL SEDIN as Luke Skywalker (a twin, capable of hitting small targets)
RYAN KESLER as Han Solo (cocky, shows up unexpectedly)
MANNY MALHOTRA as Obi-Wan Kenobi (called back into action from the sidelines)
ANDREW ALBERTS as C-3PO (tall (6'5'') and awkward)
KEITH BALLARD as R2-D2 (short (5'11''), importance underrated by many)
GARY BETTMAN as Grand Moff Tarkin (he'll blow up a rebellious market from time to time)
ALAIN VIGNEAULT as Jan Dodonna (he's picked out Vancouver's target)
CHRISTIAN EHRHOFF as Wedge Antilles (no one talks about him much, but he's crucial to the Rebellion's success)
MIKAEL SAMUELSSON as Biggs Darklighter (knocked out by the Empire, but important to getting them this far)
TIM THOMAS as the Death Star (dangerous, seemingly-impenetrable defences, but not really)
...
SELECTED SCENES:
ANDREW ALBERTS: "Their forwards are heading in this direction. What are we going to do? We'll be sent to the penalty box formerly reserved for Phil Kessel or smashed into who knows what!"
...
HENRIK SEDIN: "Zdeno Chara, I should have known. Only you could be so bold. The NHL's discipline committee will not sit for this, when they hear you've attacked Max Pacioretty..."
...
DANIEL SEDIN: "What is it?"
MANNY MALHOTRA: "Your father's hockey stick. This is the weapon of a Sedin twin. Not
as clumsy or as random as a blaster. An elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
...
HENRIK SEDIN: "General Malhotra, years ago you almost served this franchise in the Bure trade. Now they beg you to help them in their struggle against the Empire. ... This is our most desperate hour. Help me, Manny Malhotra, you're my only hope."
...
GARY BETTMAN: "The NHL discipline committee will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently."
...
ZDENO CHARA: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a franchise is insignificant next to the power of my elbows."
...
HENRIK SEDIN: "The more you tighten your grip, Bettman, the more franchises will slip through your fingers."
...
RYAN KESLER: "I ain't in this for your Stanley Cup victory, and I'm not in it for you, Henrik. I expect to be well paid. I'm in it for the money!"
...
ALAIN VIGNEAULT: "Tim Thomas' goal is heavily shielded and carries pads larger than half the star fleet. Its defenses are designed around a direct large-scale assault. A small one-man breakaway should be able to penetrate the outer defenses. ... The target area is only two inches wide. It's a small hole in the padding, right below Thomas' glove. The opening leads directly to the net. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the Bruins."
CHRISTIAN EHRHOFF: "That's impossible, even for a computer."
DANIEL SEDIN: "It's not impossible. I used to bullseye targets in my NHL All-Star Game appearances. They're not much bigger than two inches."
...
MIKAEL SAMUELSSON: "Sir, Daniel is the best sniper in Sweden's outer rim territories."
...
MANNY MALHOTRA: "Use the Force, Daniel!"
...
ZDENO CHARA: "I have you now."
...
RYAN KESLER: "You're all clear, Sedin! Now let's blow this thing and go party!"
...
RYAN KESLER: "Well, I wasn't gonna let you get all the credit."
FIN.
Stanley Cup Finals preview: myself on the Canucks
Here's the conclusion of this point/counterpoint setting up the Stanley Cup Finals. Earlier, my old Queen's Journal colleague Mike Woods made the case for the Bruins. Here's my take on why I think the Canucks will win.
The NHL playoffs are a funny thing, and the best team doesn't always win. In fact, as I've written before, contrary to the demands of narrative, the best team probably wins about 55 per cent of the time. That leaves 45 per cent of the time where upsets happen, and the odds may be even higher in a series like this that looks like it should be close. Thus, anything could happen here. If you're a betting man or someone making predictions, though, you want that 55 per cent chance over a 45 per cent one, and that's why I'm going with the Canucks.
What Vancouver accomplished this regular season was nothing short of historic. They finished first in the NHL with 117 points, 10 ahead of their nearest competitor (Washington) and 14 ahead of the Bruins. They scored an NHL-best 262 goals and conceded a NHL-low 185 (if you're not entirely convinced of the predictive value of goal differential, it's notable that Boston's +51 was second-best in the league, but miles behind Vancouver's +77). Even an 82-game or 162-game (as in baseball) regular season may not be enough to really give us a solid indication of who the best teams really are, but it's a pretty good sample size, and it suggests that these Canucks are a pretty incredible group.
Special teams also look like a particular advantage for Vancouver. The Canucks put up a NHL-best 24.3 per cent mark on the power play during the regular season, an area where Boston particularly struggled; the Bruins were 20th with a 16.2 per cent mark. Those trends have continued in the postseason, where Vancouver's third with a 28.3 mark (behind only first-round exitees Anaheim and Phoenix), while Boston is 14th with a miserable 8.2 mark (ahead of only the Rangers and Pittsburgh). Postseason penalty killing has also been an edge for Vancouver, where they've put up a 80.6 per cent mark against Boston's 79.4 per cent; that advantage was even more stark in the regular season, where Vancouver's 85.6 per cent mark (third in the league) was notably better than Boston's 82.8 per cent (16th). As close playoff games often come down to what you can do with the man advantage, it's hard not to like the Canucks there.
Vancouver's roster is strong throughout as well. Despite criticism of goaltender Roberto Luongo, his playoff save percentage is a sparkling .920, eighth-best all time. Boston's Tim Thomas may hold an even better .928 mark, but Luongo is no goaltending slouch, and he's got plenty of support. The Canucks' defining characteristic is their depth, as in addition to superb production from Henrik Sedin (a playoff-best 21 points), Daniel Sedin (16) and Ryan Kesler (18), they're also getting key contributions from the likes of Mason Raymond (eight points) and Chris Higgins (seven points). Their defence is also deep and consistent, with everyone from Christian Ehrhoff to Alex Edler to Kevin Bieksa having tremendous playoffs. Moreover, this year has been proof that bruins can be defeated by prominent B.C. products. I think it's going to be close, as Boston's a great team too, but I think the Canucks have enough edges to take this series.
Prediction: Canucks in seven
The NHL playoffs are a funny thing, and the best team doesn't always win. In fact, as I've written before, contrary to the demands of narrative, the best team probably wins about 55 per cent of the time. That leaves 45 per cent of the time where upsets happen, and the odds may be even higher in a series like this that looks like it should be close. Thus, anything could happen here. If you're a betting man or someone making predictions, though, you want that 55 per cent chance over a 45 per cent one, and that's why I'm going with the Canucks.
What Vancouver accomplished this regular season was nothing short of historic. They finished first in the NHL with 117 points, 10 ahead of their nearest competitor (Washington) and 14 ahead of the Bruins. They scored an NHL-best 262 goals and conceded a NHL-low 185 (if you're not entirely convinced of the predictive value of goal differential, it's notable that Boston's +51 was second-best in the league, but miles behind Vancouver's +77). Even an 82-game or 162-game (as in baseball) regular season may not be enough to really give us a solid indication of who the best teams really are, but it's a pretty good sample size, and it suggests that these Canucks are a pretty incredible group.
Special teams also look like a particular advantage for Vancouver. The Canucks put up a NHL-best 24.3 per cent mark on the power play during the regular season, an area where Boston particularly struggled; the Bruins were 20th with a 16.2 per cent mark. Those trends have continued in the postseason, where Vancouver's third with a 28.3 mark (behind only first-round exitees Anaheim and Phoenix), while Boston is 14th with a miserable 8.2 mark (ahead of only the Rangers and Pittsburgh). Postseason penalty killing has also been an edge for Vancouver, where they've put up a 80.6 per cent mark against Boston's 79.4 per cent; that advantage was even more stark in the regular season, where Vancouver's 85.6 per cent mark (third in the league) was notably better than Boston's 82.8 per cent (16th). As close playoff games often come down to what you can do with the man advantage, it's hard not to like the Canucks there.
Vancouver's roster is strong throughout as well. Despite criticism of goaltender Roberto Luongo, his playoff save percentage is a sparkling .920, eighth-best all time. Boston's Tim Thomas may hold an even better .928 mark, but Luongo is no goaltending slouch, and he's got plenty of support. The Canucks' defining characteristic is their depth, as in addition to superb production from Henrik Sedin (a playoff-best 21 points), Daniel Sedin (16) and Ryan Kesler (18), they're also getting key contributions from the likes of Mason Raymond (eight points) and Chris Higgins (seven points). Their defence is also deep and consistent, with everyone from Christian Ehrhoff to Alex Edler to Kevin Bieksa having tremendous playoffs. Moreover, this year has been proof that bruins can be defeated by prominent B.C. products. I think it's going to be close, as Boston's a great team too, but I think the Canucks have enough edges to take this series.
Prediction: Canucks in seven
Stanley Cup Finals preview: Mike Woods on the Bruins
To get you set for the Stanley Cup Finals, myself and former Queen's Journal colleague Mike Woods are running one of our traditional point/counterpoint pieces predicting who will win. First up, here's Mike to make the case for the Bruins. My piece on the Canucks will follow later before the series kicks off at 8 p.m. Eastern/5 p.m. Pacific today. Take it away, Mike!
After the Boston Bruins’ nail-biting 1-0 win over the Tampa Bay Lightning last week that got them a berth in the Stanley Cup final, my first thought was that the series would be evenly-matched and picking a winner would be a toss-up.
Instead, most people outside New England seem to be casting the Bruins as underdogs by a wide margin.
It’s hard to blame them. The Vancouver Canucks are rolling; they tamed the San Jose Sharks in the Western Conference final’s first four games, then relied on show-stopping goaltending from Roberto Luongo in Game 5, who stopped 54 of 56 shots when his team faltered. A President’s Trophy-winning team that has hit full stride heading into the final is hard to pick against. Even EA Sports’ NHL ’11, which is 13-for-14 so far this postseason, is picking the Canucks.
But don’t count Boston out so fast. The Bruins, who seem perfectly happy playing the underdog role, bring a number of things to the table the Canucks haven’t seen yet. How Vancouver responds to them will determine who takes the cake (or, if you will, the pizza).
The series’ most important match-up is Zdeno Chara lining up against the Daniel and Henrik Sedin. The Sedins thrived, of course, against the Sharks last round, who eventually resorted to using Kent Huskins and Marc-Edouard Vlasic to shut down Vancouver’s top line, which didn’t work at all.
The Sedins had the most trouble these playoffs against Nashville. Against a strong shutdown defensive pairing in Shea Weber and Ryan Suter, the twins combined for just seven points in six games—hardly top line numbers. They were also a combined minus-16 through the first two rounds.
Chara usually plays with Dennis Seidenberg, but the Big Z by himself is as good as any shutdown pair in the league. He’s likely to disrupt the Sedins’ cycle game, which is their bread and butter.
With the Sedin twins neutralized in Round 2, Vancouver beat Nashville largely due to a superhuman effort from Ryan Kesler. The Bruins and Predators are similar teams – both feature Vezina-calibre goaltending and stifling 5-on-5 defensive play. The difference, of course, is while Nashville could barely put together one scoring line, Boston’s forward depth is on par with Vancouver’s.
Boston’s top line has been as clutch as Vancouver’s, and even their third line features goal-scoring threats Michael Ryder and Tyler Seguin, who are more of a threat to score than the Canucks’ third unit. Vancouver hasn’t had to look beyond their top two lines for goal-scoring, but that could change against Boston.
Tim Thomas and Roberto Luongo are Vezina nominees who have both experienced blips. Luongo’s came in the first round, when he was the backup goalie in Game 6 against Chicago before an injury to Cory Schneider forced him back into action. Thomas’s have been less significant: a couple of games against Tampa where he let in five goals, and that’s about it. Questioning Luongo’s playoff credentials is kind of tacky at this point, but unless he wins a Cup, those questions aren’t going away.
Thomas is a wild card in net, which is just the way he and the Bruins like it. Thomas’s flopping around in the net, reminiscent of Dominik Hasek in his prime, could prove to be an asset against the Sedins; it could also be a hinderance. Not to read too much into regular-season stats, but it’s worth noting that Thomas has won his last two games against the Canucks, stopping 96 of 97 shots in the process.
The biggest concern for the Bruins heading into the final, as it has been all playoffs, is their atrocious power play. It’s a disastrous 5-for-61 in the playoffs, and it took until Game 6 of the conference finals for them to score a power-play goal on the road. The Canucks’ penalty killing was third-best in the league this season, which also doesn’t bode well for the B’s.
On the other hand, it can be said that the Bruins’ five-on-five play has made up for their awful power play. After all, they’ve made it this far while firing blanks with the man advantage the whole way. If they can pick things up on the power play, they could have the Canucks on the ropes early in the series.
These teams are evenly-matched five-on-five squads, and this series has great potential to be the most compelling Stanley Cup final in years. It’s right to call Vancouver the favourite, but writing Boston off is a huge mistake. If Chara effectively contains the Sedins and the Bruins’ special teams get back on track, look for the Bruins to be hoisting the Cup later this month.
Prediction: Bruins in 7.
After the Boston Bruins’ nail-biting 1-0 win over the Tampa Bay Lightning last week that got them a berth in the Stanley Cup final, my first thought was that the series would be evenly-matched and picking a winner would be a toss-up.
Instead, most people outside New England seem to be casting the Bruins as underdogs by a wide margin.
It’s hard to blame them. The Vancouver Canucks are rolling; they tamed the San Jose Sharks in the Western Conference final’s first four games, then relied on show-stopping goaltending from Roberto Luongo in Game 5, who stopped 54 of 56 shots when his team faltered. A President’s Trophy-winning team that has hit full stride heading into the final is hard to pick against. Even EA Sports’ NHL ’11, which is 13-for-14 so far this postseason, is picking the Canucks.
But don’t count Boston out so fast. The Bruins, who seem perfectly happy playing the underdog role, bring a number of things to the table the Canucks haven’t seen yet. How Vancouver responds to them will determine who takes the cake (or, if you will, the pizza).
The series’ most important match-up is Zdeno Chara lining up against the Daniel and Henrik Sedin. The Sedins thrived, of course, against the Sharks last round, who eventually resorted to using Kent Huskins and Marc-Edouard Vlasic to shut down Vancouver’s top line, which didn’t work at all.
The Sedins had the most trouble these playoffs against Nashville. Against a strong shutdown defensive pairing in Shea Weber and Ryan Suter, the twins combined for just seven points in six games—hardly top line numbers. They were also a combined minus-16 through the first two rounds.
Chara usually plays with Dennis Seidenberg, but the Big Z by himself is as good as any shutdown pair in the league. He’s likely to disrupt the Sedins’ cycle game, which is their bread and butter.
With the Sedin twins neutralized in Round 2, Vancouver beat Nashville largely due to a superhuman effort from Ryan Kesler. The Bruins and Predators are similar teams – both feature Vezina-calibre goaltending and stifling 5-on-5 defensive play. The difference, of course, is while Nashville could barely put together one scoring line, Boston’s forward depth is on par with Vancouver’s.
Boston’s top line has been as clutch as Vancouver’s, and even their third line features goal-scoring threats Michael Ryder and Tyler Seguin, who are more of a threat to score than the Canucks’ third unit. Vancouver hasn’t had to look beyond their top two lines for goal-scoring, but that could change against Boston.
Tim Thomas and Roberto Luongo are Vezina nominees who have both experienced blips. Luongo’s came in the first round, when he was the backup goalie in Game 6 against Chicago before an injury to Cory Schneider forced him back into action. Thomas’s have been less significant: a couple of games against Tampa where he let in five goals, and that’s about it. Questioning Luongo’s playoff credentials is kind of tacky at this point, but unless he wins a Cup, those questions aren’t going away.
Thomas is a wild card in net, which is just the way he and the Bruins like it. Thomas’s flopping around in the net, reminiscent of Dominik Hasek in his prime, could prove to be an asset against the Sedins; it could also be a hinderance. Not to read too much into regular-season stats, but it’s worth noting that Thomas has won his last two games against the Canucks, stopping 96 of 97 shots in the process.
The biggest concern for the Bruins heading into the final, as it has been all playoffs, is their atrocious power play. It’s a disastrous 5-for-61 in the playoffs, and it took until Game 6 of the conference finals for them to score a power-play goal on the road. The Canucks’ penalty killing was third-best in the league this season, which also doesn’t bode well for the B’s.
On the other hand, it can be said that the Bruins’ five-on-five play has made up for their awful power play. After all, they’ve made it this far while firing blanks with the man advantage the whole way. If they can pick things up on the power play, they could have the Canucks on the ropes early in the series.
These teams are evenly-matched five-on-five squads, and this series has great potential to be the most compelling Stanley Cup final in years. It’s right to call Vancouver the favourite, but writing Boston off is a huge mistake. If Chara effectively contains the Sedins and the Bruins’ special teams get back on track, look for the Bruins to be hoisting the Cup later this month.
Prediction: Bruins in 7.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Winnipeg, Phoenix, Seattle and why relocation is awful
It looks like the Phoenix Coyotes are going to be around Glendale, Arizona for at least another year. TSN's Dave Naylor writes that the city council there voted 5-2 to give the team a $25 million subsidy if they haven't found a buyer by the end of the 2011-12 season. As Joe Yerdon writes, that subsidy should keep them there for at least another year, if not longer, and that means Winnipeg probably isn't getting a team this summer. Of course, that won't make everyone happy; it was only decided after a hilarious council meeting (described perfectly by friend of the blog Dennis Tarwood) that featured plenty of comments both for and against the idea, and it's sure to meet with criticism from the Goldwater Institute, many Canadian hockey fans and media outlets, economists and others. However, while there are substantial issues around hockey in Phoenix that still need to be addressed, keeping the team there is a good thing from this perspective.
It's not that economic arguments should be written off entirely. Having a league directly subsidize a team (as the NHL has been doing with Phoenix over the last while) is very problematic for the perception of that league, and it's also troubling from a financial point of view. Having a city council potentially hand out that kind of money to what's supposedly a professional, for-profit sports franchise isn't necessarily a great idea either; I can't speak for the taxpayers of Glendale, but they can decide if that's the best use of their money or not. It's certainly not the greatest long-term solution. However, there are positives to keeping the team in Phoenix, and those need to be recognized.
It's not that economic arguments should be written off entirely. Having a league directly subsidize a team (as the NHL has been doing with Phoenix over the last while) is very problematic for the perception of that league, and it's also troubling from a financial point of view. Having a city council potentially hand out that kind of money to what's supposedly a professional, for-profit sports franchise isn't necessarily a great idea either; I can't speak for the taxpayers of Glendale, but they can decide if that's the best use of their money or not. It's certainly not the greatest long-term solution. However, there are positives to keeping the team in Phoenix, and those need to be recognized.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
When narrative goes too far, and inequalities fail
Regular readers will know that I'm pretty interested in how narratives shape our perception of sports. One of the most significant ones lately has been in the Vancouver-Chicago series in the NHL playoffs, where the Canucks led 3-0 before the Blackhawks won three straight games to force tonight's seventh game. Of course, that's led to plenty of pieces on how this is a defining moment for Vancouver, a historic occasion and all the rest. Those stories aren't necessarily wrong, as there certainly is a significant mental aspect to sports, and that mental element will be involved tonight; I give it more credence than Joe Posnanski does, even if I share some of his other opinions on storylines. What's happened in the series so far does have a bearing on tonight's game in my mind, so it's perfectly relevant to talk about the pressure, the situation and the rest.
What I don't like is when that analysis takes the next step, though, and ascribes narrative reasons to why one team lost and another won and narrative solutions as to how to remedy this in the future. We've seen this plenty of times before, with certain teams or players being labeled simply as "chokers" for poor performances in small playoff sample sizes, or authoritative declarations that there was some clear flaw in the team that lost; they didn't have enough depth, enough grit, good-enough goaltending or anything else. None of those claims are necessarily wrong or problematic on their own, as it's certainly worthwhile to try and analyze what went wrong and think about how it could potentially be solved. What bothers me is more along the lines of the shades of grey discussion; in essence, any particular claim about size, scoring, goaltending or the rest isn't necessarily wrong and could in fact be right, but pointing to one of those things as the definitive cause of a team's downfall and something that has to be remedied if they're going to win in the future is generally inaccurate.
What I don't like is when that analysis takes the next step, though, and ascribes narrative reasons to why one team lost and another won and narrative solutions as to how to remedy this in the future. We've seen this plenty of times before, with certain teams or players being labeled simply as "chokers" for poor performances in small playoff sample sizes, or authoritative declarations that there was some clear flaw in the team that lost; they didn't have enough depth, enough grit, good-enough goaltending or anything else. None of those claims are necessarily wrong or problematic on their own, as it's certainly worthwhile to try and analyze what went wrong and think about how it could potentially be solved. What bothers me is more along the lines of the shades of grey discussion; in essence, any particular claim about size, scoring, goaltending or the rest isn't necessarily wrong and could in fact be right, but pointing to one of those things as the definitive cause of a team's downfall and something that has to be remedied if they're going to win in the future is generally inaccurate.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Subdivisions, exclusion and communities in sports
I was reading Gary Smith's fantastic, tear-jerking piece entitled "The Wheels of Life" in my most recent Sports Illustrated magazine today, and it got me thinking. The piece is a superb tale of Dick Hoyt and his paralyzed son, Rick, and how they've worked together to compete in everything from marathons to triathlons for over 30 years. On one level, it's a great story of two people who have overcome incredible adversity to do things that many able-bodied people never will be able to, but I think there's a broader point there as well, and one that applies to our current sports world. Read this paragraph and see if you can figure out where I'm going with this:
Race day came a few days later. So closeted were the disabled in 1977 that many people, including Dick before the birth of his first son, had never laid eyes on a wheelchair or a quadriplegic, let alone one in a five-mile race. Dick's two other sons, Rob and Russ, wisecracked that the Hoyts' race number, 00, summed up their chances of making it to the finish line. Most people figured Dick would shove the kid as far as the first corner and peel off. None had a clue what happened inside Dick Hoyt's head when it bumped against a task.What I take from that is that Dick and Rick's racing career isn't just a man-versus-himself conflict (them trying to overcome their physical limitations), or a man-versus-nature one (them trying to overcome the racecourse), or even man-versus-man (them trying to beat other racers), but also contains a profound element of man-versus-society. For them, racing is a way to prove that Rick in particular belongs and has value, despite the world's attempts to say that he doesn't. That point is emphasized more prominently in a later section of the piece, describing what happened after Dick experienced severe medical issues following their first race:
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Canucks - Blackhawks Game IV live blog
The last one of these was a lot of fun, so we're doing it again! Join me and a cast of Internet types for a live blog of tonight's Vancouver - Chicago game. Will the Canucks sweep the series, or will the Blackhawks live to fight another day? Find out in the live blog below, starting at 8 p.m. Eastern (5 p.m. Pacific). All are welcome to join!
Friday, April 15, 2011
Canucks - Blackhawks Game II live blog
I'll be live-blogging tonight's Canucks - Blackhawks clash with an assortment of interweb friends, including Beau Brace and Josh Koebert. Vancouver's up 1-0 in the series after a 2-0 win Wednesday night, but Chicago certainly can't be written off yet. Everyone's welcome; drop in and give us your thoughts on the game, the series and the rest of the playoffs so far. The puck drops in Vancouver at 7 p.m. local (10 p.m. Eastern), so swing by and join us then!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
NHL playoff preview: setting up the first round
The NHL playoffs get rolling tonight, with the Tampa Bay Lightning and Pittsburgh Penguins going head-to-head in one early game, the Phoenix Coyotes and Detroit Red Wings facing off in another clash and the New York Rangers and Washington Capitals in a third. There are also a pair of late games, featuring the Vancouver Canucks and Chicago Blackhawks and the Nashville Predators and Anaheim Ducks. There should be some excellent hockey on display tonight, and hopefully for much of the rest of the playoffs as well. Here's a preview of each first-round matchup, organized by game time (broadcast info from The 506):
(4) Pittsburgh Penguins - (5) Tampa Bay Lightning
First game: Wednesday, 7 p.m. Eastern, CBC (Ontario east, except Windsor)
This is an interesting one. The Penguins have a stronger defence and better goaltending (I'll happily take Marc-Andre Fleury over Dwayne Roloson), but their offence doesn't look as promising without Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin (at least to start). Meanwhile, Tampa Bay is deep up front with the likes of Steven Stamkos, Martin St. Louis and Vincent Lecavalier, but their depth is an issue just about everywhere else. I like Pittsburgh in this one, but the Lightning shouldn't be an easy out.
Prediction: Penguins in six
(4) Pittsburgh Penguins - (5) Tampa Bay Lightning
First game: Wednesday, 7 p.m. Eastern, CBC (Ontario east, except Windsor)
This is an interesting one. The Penguins have a stronger defence and better goaltending (I'll happily take Marc-Andre Fleury over Dwayne Roloson), but their offence doesn't look as promising without Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin (at least to start). Meanwhile, Tampa Bay is deep up front with the likes of Steven Stamkos, Martin St. Louis and Vincent Lecavalier, but their depth is an issue just about everywhere else. I like Pittsburgh in this one, but the Lightning shouldn't be an easy out.
Prediction: Penguins in six
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Writing, competition, golf and basketball: a response to Chris Jones
I'm really enjoying Esquire writer Chris Jones' Son Of Bold Venture blog and his take on writing. There isn't enough dialogue about the art and importance of writing out there, and Jones adds a lot to the conversation, particularly with his interviews (notable recent ones include ESPN's Wright Thompson, the Boston Globe's Charles P. Pierce and Glenn Stout, series editor of The Best American Sports Writing. With that said, though, I have to take issue with his two most recent posts, on awards and motivation.
To be clear, this isn't to say that Jones is wrong or that his arguments are invalid. Both of those posts deal heavily with his own feelings and his own approach, and that approach has obviously led to a lot of success for him over the years, so it can't be all that bad. It's not necessarily bad advice for young writers, either; everyone's different, and Jones' approach, involving writers "keeping score" and competing will undoubtedly work very well for some people. The only reason I'm writing this is to express my own feelings that while those may be valid ways to succeed as a writer, they aren't the only ways out there. That may not fit with Jones' avowed attraction to black and white, but it's reflective of one of the things I feel most strongly about; the shades of grey.
To be clear, this isn't to say that Jones is wrong or that his arguments are invalid. Both of those posts deal heavily with his own feelings and his own approach, and that approach has obviously led to a lot of success for him over the years, so it can't be all that bad. It's not necessarily bad advice for young writers, either; everyone's different, and Jones' approach, involving writers "keeping score" and competing will undoubtedly work very well for some people. The only reason I'm writing this is to express my own feelings that while those may be valid ways to succeed as a writer, they aren't the only ways out there. That may not fit with Jones' avowed attraction to black and white, but it's reflective of one of the things I feel most strongly about; the shades of grey.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Bob McCown doesn't stand for all of us
[Image: Prime Time Sports host Bob McCown]
Dear Mr. McCown,
I'm writing to inform you that your statements (go to 1:37) on yesterday's nationally-syndicated Prime Time Sports radio/television show are not only offensive and inaccurate, but are also potentially defamatory and libelous.
For the record, you said, "The sole motivation for a man to watch any woman's sport is are they half-naked? Are they good-looking?" You then went on to say "Other than that, I don’t care if it’s a world championship or your next-door neighbour playing somebody. Guys are only interested in woman’s sport if it’s good-looking chicks."
Of course, it's mind-bogglingly stupid for a nationally-broadcast radio host to make those kinds of remarks on International Women's Day, but that's your own affair. What I'm more concerned with is that you're making a "statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group,government, or nation a negative image", that this statement is false, and that it was communicated to a large group of people coast-to-coast. I can inform you that your comments definitely have the potential to give a group (men) a negative image, and that they are untrue. There are many of us who watch and appreciate women's sports for the sport value, just as we do with men's sports. We appreciate the sports on their own merits, not just how attractive the players are.
This isn't meant to seriously threaten a lawsuit, as I certainly don't have the time or inclination to bother with that, and I'm generally not a fan of trying to restrict speech. In my mind, you're perfectly welcome to express your troglodytic views on women's sports on your national platform; maybe that will help diminish your undeserved prominence. However, please don't claim to speak for all men while doing so; when you do that, you're ascribing your own misguided views to the rest of us and damaging our reputations in the process, and I don't think that's particularly fair. While you're stuck in the darkness and talking about leering at suggestive cave paintings, some of us have managed to move out into the light. It would be nice if you came to join us some day, but I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Lisa Olson lists all the wrong reasons for FanHouse's end
This sportsjournalism.org piece from Dave Kindred, which relays the thoughts of FanHouse's Lisa Olson on the forthcoming demise of that institution, has been gnawing at me for a few weeks; this is a delayed reaction to it, but I think it's still worth writing about. Kindred's article begins in promising fashion, eviscerating Bleacher Report for the lack of interest they've historically shown towards quality control, and I don't really disagree with the general theory that it would be nice to see quality material rewarded with more pageviews. However, it goes on to arbitrarily draw the line to blast all bloggers, and uses Olsen's words to do so:
If you believe Olson, it was the mainstream journalists who made the bold move to jump to FanHouse who were involved in making that site something new and exciting before it was tragically sold by AOL. I don't buy that, though. Yes, FanHouse was making a lot of progress and had some great people, but I think that was as much in spite of the "big names" they recruited as because of them.
She thought of FanHouse that way, a gathering of veterans on a journalistic adventure. "We were all experienced and qualified, not some 25-year-old bloggers," she said. "The motto was, ‘Go, go, go. Grow, grow, grow.' And we did. Then, this. It's devastating."
If you believe Olson, it was the mainstream journalists who made the bold move to jump to FanHouse who were involved in making that site something new and exciting before it was tragically sold by AOL. I don't buy that, though. Yes, FanHouse was making a lot of progress and had some great people, but I think that was as much in spite of the "big names" they recruited as because of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
