NFL Draft (the REAL one)

Issue: Day 1 is over, any thoughts?

Short Answer: Too many to fit into one post, and most have nothing to do with football.

Reasoning: I have written about mock drafts on this blog before.  But, when the draft finally does arrive, mock drafts and the people who compile them, make my blood boil.  Day one of the NFL Draft has come and gone (so has day two), and the only thing I can tell you is I can't wait until Todd McShay, Adam Schefter, and Mel Kiper (and Chris Mortensen and Chris Berman for that matter) go do...whatever it is they do when they aren't "breaking down film," or "grading players," or "doing anything worthwhile."  I guess it speaks to the American public's obsession with having to know everything, not as it happens, but before it happens, that people like McShay, Schefter, and Kiper have jobs.  And well-paying jobs at that (I'm guessing).  Let me make this simple: would you ever want to go have a beer with any of the three "analyists"?  It could be fun for awhile, but seriously, how annoying would they get?  Check please.

Now, let me make this clear, I do not blame the douchefecta (it's shorter than typing all three of their names every time) for completely bombing their mock drafts (I realize Schefter doesn't do mock drafts, but I can't stand him, so I am grouping him in with the two others, who I also can't stand).  Picking a draft correctly, before it actually happens, is like hitting a lottery where you have to pick 32 numbers out of an unlimited pool of numbers.  I did the math on this, and the odds are: 1 in a crapload.  It is absolutely, positively impossible.  Yet, each member of the douchefecta (it is starting to grow on me too) is paid a hefty salary (again, I'm guessing) to tell the sports-watching American public who is going to pick who, and when.  How has it come to this?  How has ESPN been able to shove this sort of thing down our throats?  Mock drafts never end, and every single one of them is complete crap, so why are people paid to compile them?

Take, for example, the mock draft put together by Todd McShay, esteemed member of the douchefecta, on February 10, 2011.  Yes, that's correct, I said February.  I'm not sure why they are doing mock drafts in February (or ever, if you haven't noticed) either.  How can I get a job like this?  Anyway, on February 10 McShay published this piece, with Clemson DE Da'Quan Bowers going #1 overall to the Panthers.  In reality (not in mock draft fantasy land) Bowers was finally taken in the second round by the Buccaneers, with the 51st overall pick.  Now, there are reasons for the discrepancy, first and foremost, concerns over a lingering knee injury.  But, isn't that reason enough to scrap the mock drafts?  You have to think the reason the douchefecta works so hard at what they do is so they don't look like complete idiots in front of the entire world.  Too late.  Anytime you project a player to be picked first, and he goes 51st, you should automatically be fired.  Or tarred and feathered.  Or both. 

To give credit where credit is due, both McShay and Kiper did nail the #1 pick.  They both (in their latest mock drafts, that is) had Cam Newton going to the Panthers with the first pick.  And that, after hours, days, weeks, and months of work, is about the only thing either of them got correct.  When do the 2012 mock drafts start?  I bet Kiper has one coming out on Monday, if he doesn't already have one out.  Sad.

Playoff Hodgpodge

Issue: Any observations from in-and-around the playoffs?

Short Answer: Plenty.

Reasoning: I don't think it is much of a secret around Uncommonly Sports, that I do not particularly like the NBA.  Most of you may not know that I don't particularly like the NHL either, for reasons all too different than my dislike for the NBA.  See, I just can't relate to the NHL.  I have never ice skated (it is a goal of mine in life to die without ever having done so) and my hockey experience is limited to floor hockey during 7th and 8th grade gym class, which, I did dominate, but still didn't enjoy.  Playoff time changes everything though.  I have tuned in to both the NBA and NHL playoffs, and here are some things I have recognized/experienced:

1. Kobe Bryant is whiney b%&ch - I have been able to see quite a bit of the Lakers/Hornets series, because when they play in L.A. the games start at about 3:30 a.m., and I don't usually hit the sack early.  Kobe Bryant is easily one of the top 3 players in the NBA, still.  But, by judging his reactions to whistles, he has never committed a foul in his entire life.  Seriously, every time the whistle blows he looks like a 17-year old boy who's girlfriend just told him that she has been cheating on him (if you have ever seen the movie Hitch, just picture Will Smith's character in his flashback - standing in the rain, crying, saying "Whyyyyyyyy?" when he caught his girlfriend making out with some other dude in a car, and that, is Kobe Bryant when he gets called for a foul).  I have noticed that I have begun to get mad anytime Kobe gets called for a foul, because that means I have to watch him cry/moan/beg.  I want to slap him in the face.
2. Jason Kidd will be the reason the Mavs lose - I watched one of the games that was played in Portland, and Jason Kidd reminded me of myself trying to play point guard.  When I was a sophomore in high school, I was asked to play point guard on the JV basketball team.  To this day I still don't know why.  But, every time I came over half court I was just trying not to turn the ball over.  Jason Kidd looks like he is doing the same thing.  He would cross half court, turn his back to the basket, and begin backing the defender down from 30-feet out.  He is slow and it looked like he realized he was slow and didn't want to look like a fool on national TV.  But I've got J Kidd figured out.  Time to let Jason Terry run the point.
3. The Spurs are old - I'm sure watching the regular season would help me out some here, but, how are the Spurs a #1 seed?  It looks like a collection of octogenarians out there.  Why not bring back David Robinson?  Or George Gervin?  The Spurs may very well come back and win the series, but I don't believe they have enough energy (unless they start taking Centrum Silver vitamins) to make it all the way through the playoffs.  I'd actually like to see Memphis win the series so some of the Spurs might retire.  And join AARP.
4. Hockey players are unreal - I don't understand how they do the things they do (other than years and years of practice).  The game moves so fast (too fast to follow on TV, which is why I don't watch much) and the players are in such control of what they are doing (for the most part) it simply amazes me.  The skill of the players, and that skill alone, is what has drawn me into watching playoff hockey.  If, you know, it isn't televised at the same time as an NBA playoff game.
5. Tip: know where/how to find obscure DirecTV channels - Late last night (around 1 a.m., so, technically I guess it was early this morning) I was watching the Lakers polish off the Hornets to take a 3-2 lead in the series.  At the same time, I was following the Vancouver/Chicago game 7 (Vancouver is the #1 seed, Chicago is the defending Stanley Cup champions) on my stat tracker (I had picked Vancouver in the Streak for the Cash on espn.com) and had realized they had gone into overtime tied 1-1.  I grabbed my remote (because Kobe was whining again) and went to the "Guide."  I knew the hockey game was on the Versus Channel, but, I honestly had zero clue where that channel was on the list.  How many times have I watched Versus?  Last time was probably the NHL playoffs, last year.  I did a quick scan and didn't find it.  So, I went back to the "Guide" and selected "Sports Channels" hoping it would show up in there.  I didn't find it.  Finally, I took a deep breath and did some thinking.  I thought I remembered Versus was in the 600's somewhere.  After hitting "Page Down" a few times, there it was!  Thankfully I got there in time to see the end of the game.  Or so I thought.  As I clicked on the channel I heard the horn going off and the crowd going crazy.  The Canucks had capitalized on a turnover in Chicago's zone and scored the series clinching goal in overtime.  All while I was trying to find the damn channel.  Unreal.

I'm sure I will do this again next week.  Hopefully I will be writing about the Lakers getting swept and Kobe getting smacked in the face by a ref who had had enough.

On a side note, check me out at http://www.examiner.com/mlb-in-cincinnati as I am the new Cincinnati Reds Examiner!  I will be covering Reds news throughout the year (oh, and I get paid based on how many people visit the site, so, don't be afraid to tell every single person you know.  And tell them to tell a few people too.) with news, game recaps, and possibly some interviews too.  That is, if they decide to let me in the clubhouse.  Which I doubt.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Can we get some more weird baseball stats?

Short Answer: I can make that happen.

Reasoning: Baseball, more than any other sport, is a game of stats.  If you would like to know how often Joey Votto got a base hit, on a 2-2 count, against right-handed pitchers, during night games, on Tuesdays in April, I pretty much guarantee you could find it.  Or, at least, that someone out there is keeping such a stat.  Most novice baseball fans may think the stat keeping is a bit out of hand.  It isn't.  Baseball (kind of like poker) is about the maximization of odds.  See, in a game where if a hitter succeeds 3 out of 10 times, he ends up in the Hall of Fame, stats matter (could you imagine an NBAer shooting 30% from the field, or an NFL QB completing 30% of his passes?).  Baseball is a game of failure, so, managers must put their teams in the best possible situation in order to succeed, and stats help them do that.

Not only are there a million stats out there, some of them are tough to decipher.  Most baseball fans have heard of the stats, but few can tell you what they actually mean.  Take for example:

• Batting average - This stat tells you what percentage of the time a player actually gets a hit.  However, when figuring out batting average, only "at-bats" are used, not "plate appearances."  Walks, hit by pitches, and sacrifices (bunts and flies) count as "plate appearances" but not "at-bats."  Therefore, if a player has 100 "plate appearances" with 25 walks and 25 hits, the player has a batting average of .333 (25 hits in 75 at-bats).
• On-base % - This stat tells you what percentage of the time a player actually reaches base.  Here, all "plate appearances" (not just "at-bats") are used.  Using the example above, the player has an on-base % of .500 (50 times on base in 100 "plate appearances").
• Slugging % - This stat tells you how many bases the player averages per "at-bat" (notice I didn't say "per plate appearance").  The highest slugging % a hitter can actually have is 4.000, if, in fact, he hit a home run every single time he came to the plate.  If a hitter managed a single every single time up, his slugging % would be 1.000 and his batting average would be 1.000 (oh, and he would be the greatest player of all time).  All one must do to figure this stat is add up a player's total bases (1 for a single, 2 for a double, 3 for a triple...do I need to continue?) and divide that number by the total number of "at-bats."  Right now, Troy Tulowitzki is leading the National League (I would have done the Major League leader, but it's Alex Rodriguez and I don't want to say anything good about him) with a .729 slugging % (10 singles, 5 doubles, 1 triple, 7 home runs = 51 total bases/70 at-bats = .729), which means, in essence, that every time Tulowitzki comes to the plate, he will get his team almost 3/4 of a base.  Yeah, baseball is weird.

I tell you all of the above for educational purposes (not real sure I managed that, but, oh well), and to set up the Odd Stat of the Week.  When I first heard the stat, I couldn't believe it.  On Monday, April 18, the Milwaukee Brewers and the Philadelphia Phillies went into extra innings.  After no score in the 10th or 11th innings, the Brewers came to bat in the top of the 12th.  This is what happened:

1. Rickie Weeks walks;
2. Carlos Gomez sacrifice bunts and a throwing error allowed him to reach and Weeks moves to third (official score says, even though there was an error, Gomez is still credited with a sacrifice);
3. Ryan Braun hits sacrifice fly to center, Weeks scores;
4. Prince Fielder hit by pitch, Gomez to second (wild pitch then moves Gomez to third and Fielder to second);
5. Casey McGehee intentionally walked;
6. Yuniesky Betancourt sacrifice fly to left, Gomez scores;
7. Mark Kotsay intentionally walked.

That's right, 7 hitters, 2 runs, 0 official at-bats.  Remember folks, walks, hit by pitches, and sacrifices do not count as official at-bats (plate appearances, yes, at-bats, no).  Those who know and love baseball, know how quirky 7 straight hitters coming to the plate without an official at-bat is.  For those that don't know and love baseball, take it from me, this is crazy.  For the record, the 8th hitter of the inning, Jonathan Lucroy, singled to right scoring Fielder but McGehee was gunned down at the plate to end the inning.  The stat line for the Brewers 12th: 1 hit, 1 at-bat, 3 runs.  I love baseball.

Nepotism is Alive and Well

Issue: Nepotism is not usually condoned most places, why here?

Short Answer: Because it's my blog.

Reasoning: For those of you who are still confused, "nepotism" is defined as "patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship."*  Generally, in the "real world," nepotism is frowned upon, as well it should be.  However, when someone writes their own blog, there is no one to stop the favoritism that I am about to bestow on one of my family members, i.e., the first family member to have an entire post dedicated to him (guess that officially rules out my mother, stepmother, and sister - sorry!).  Yes, I have mentioned my brother Casey here numerous times, since he sends me articles and videos that he believes may be appropriate for the blog.  But, I have never written an entire post on him alone.

For those of you who know me and my family, you have probably already deduced who I am talking about: my little brother Michael.  For everyone else (who doesn't know), Michael is the starting shortstop for the Indiana Hoosiers.  They are having a fairly good year so far (24-12, 6-3 in Big Ten), including a win over #23 Louisville last night (they also have wins over then #18 Coastal Carolina and #14 Connecticut).  Currently Michael is hitting .295, with 10 2B, 3 HR, 16 RBI, and a .495 Slugging %.  Not bad for a sophomore (although, I know he will be reading this, so, DUDE - you aren't drawing enough walks.  5 in 105 at-bats?  Stop thinking you need to get a hit every time up and start being a little more selective at the plate).  Indiana has won its first three series in Big Ten play, taking 2 of 3 from Michigan, Ohio State, and Iowa.  They play Minnesota this weekend, which is the consensus best-team-in-the-Big-Ten, unless, of course, Indiana goes in and takes 2 or 3 games from them.  We shall see.

Back to the Ohio State series though.  Indiana dropped the first game of the series 6-1.  Ohio State's pitchers combined to give up exactly 0 earned runs over the nine inning game, and, well, Indiana was never really in it (Michael ended up 1 for 4).  Saturday though, the Hoosiers turned it around.  The score was 5-3 after three innings, and, strangely enough, 5-3 was the final score (could have been an Odd Stat of the Week).  Michael had himself a good one, going 2 for 3 with an RBI and a run scored.  Then came the Sunday rubber match.  Win and you have had a heck of a weekend; lose and you have just dropped a home series to a team that probably will not contend for the Big Ten title (Ohio State is in a down year).  The game was more high scoring than the first two (as per usual on Sundays, when weaker pitchers are generally starting), and ended in crazy fashion.  Indiana came into the bottom of the ninth inning down by 3 runs (9-6).  An error and two singles meant the bases were loaded for the Hoosiers, but, after a strikeout, there were two outs, and they were still down three.  But, as Yogi Berra once said: "It ain't over 'til it's over."  I wish cellphone cameras were around when I was playing baseball, because what happened next can't be explained in words, only in pictures:

Nice job bro.  Man, do I miss playing baseball.

*Dictionary.com

The Beginning of the New Big Red Machine?

Issue: When did the Reds become contenders again?

Short Answer: March of 2006.

Reasoning: Being a former professional baseball player, I feel as if I, more than others, can legitimately speak on the talents of those players we watch on TV everyday.  The vast majority of them upset me only because they make the game look so easy that every Joe Schmoe out there thinks if he hadn't gotten hurt in 8th grade/had a coach that didn't like him/hadn't gotten cut from the JV team, they would be playing right along side the Albert Pujols' of the world.  It actually makes me sick when conversation turns to professional baseball and guys that can't walk and chew gum at the same time tell me about the reason they aren't millionaire professional athletes.  It cheapens how good the guys in the big leagues actually are.  The average fan doesn't know how hard it is to do what big leaguers do, because they are so damn good at it.  I know how good big leaguers are, because I almost was one, but, alas, I just wasn't good enough.

I say all this because, from time to time, I see a player in Major League Baseball that has absolutely no business being there.  Jason LaRue (former Reds catcher) is at the very top of my list.  I'm pretty sure he couldn't have made my high school team (maybe because I was the catcher?).  The fact that he played for the Reds only made my life worse, as I had to watch him "catch" and "hit" every single day.  It's only fitting that LaRue's career ended in a bench-clearing brawl, in Cincinnati, when Johnny Cueto kicked him in the head.  I'm certain Cueto was sent in as a "hit-man" by his current Reds teammates who, unfortunately, had to pitch to LaRue when he was with the Reds (I kid, I kid).  Other Major Leaguers on my list (you will notice a lot of these guys are Reds - what can I say?):

1. Ryan Freel - His uniform was always dirty, he would run through a cement wall to catch a baseball, he would do anything asked of him, but, hustle doesn't make you a good player.  Freel was the shining example of this.
2. Johnny Gomes - From the Freel-school-of-hustle, which I love.  But, when you are a one-tool player (Gomes can drop bombs), you don't belong in the big leagues.  Lucky for Gomes, he plays in a park where my sister could probably hit 20 homers a year.
3. Kevin Youkilis - Look, the guy has turned himself into a great player.  But watch him play.  Doesn't he just piss you off?  What's with that batting stance?  Does he ever just have a salad for lunch?  If he didn't walk (i.e., get on base) as much as he did, he would be selling meat door-to-door with Ickey Woods.
4. Sean Casey - For the record, I loved Sean Casey.  He busted his butt everyday.  He got more out of the little talent he had than anyone not named Kevin Youkilis.  His nickname "The Mayor" comes from him being one of the most likable players in Major League history.  He loves Cincinnati, and, Cincinnati loves him.  But, as a first baseman, in an 11 year Major League career, Casey hit 130 home runs.  That averages out to less than 12 a year.  Not acceptable for a big league first baseman.
5. Austin Kearns - I played against him in high school, when he was a much better pitcher than he was a hitter.  And, have you seen the size of his ears?  I realize this is the pot calling the kettle black, but seriously, the dude could take flight in a small windstorm.  He has no real tool except a strong arm.  Not sure how that got him to the big leagues, but, I'm sure he is fairly happy about it.
6. Edwin Encarnacion - An absolute joke.  Can't believe it took the Reds so long to get rid of him.

The last guy on my list, I actually contribute to helping the resurgence of the Cincinnati Reds.  His name is Wily Mo Pena.  From day one, I thought this guy was a joke.  He was a defensive liability.  He couldn't hit a curveball if you told him it was coming.  He took plays off and was hurt all the time.  But, back in 2004-2005, people in Cincinnati thought he was the second coming of Manny Ramirez.  I'm not joking.  Maybe those people just wanted to believe so badly, that they overlooked the fact that he was terrible.  That's the only thing I could come up with.  However, Wily Mo helped turn the Reds into what they are now - a legitimate contender (never thought I would type those three words in my lifetime).  See, in March of 2006, then Reds GM Wayne Krivsky pulled the trigger on perhaps the best trade the Cincinnati Reds have ever made.  First, because we got rid of Whiffy Mo Pena, second, because we got much needed pitching (always the Reds achilles' heel).  Who did the Reds get for Pena?  None other than Bronson Arroyo.  Okay, I realize Arroyo is no Hall-of-Famer, but, the guy is a top-of-the-line starter who chews up innings, throws a ton of pitches, and, can actually hit a little bit (.132 career hitter (better than most pitchers) with 5 career homers).  Take a look at what Arroyo has done since he came to the Reds (not counting 2011)*:

• Ranks first in starts (171) in the NL, second in MLB;
• Ranks first in innings (1087 1/3) in the NL, fourth in MLB (behind C.C. Sabathia, Dan Haren, and Roy Halladay);
• Combined 70-60 record;
• Along with Mark Buerhle and Dan Haren, the only three pitchers to throw at least 200 innings each of the last 6 years (Arroyo did it in 2005 for the Red Sox);

How about Wily Mo's stats since 2006:

• 760 at-bats, .259 average (must not throw as many curveballs in the AL), 26 HR, 91 RBI, 232 K (okay, maybe they do), 52 BB.  He hasn't played in a Major League game since 2008.

Folks, this was Wayne Krivsky's coup d'etat as GM of the Reds.  This move started an organizational movement toward good pitching, which was the key to the Reds 2010 NL Central Championship.  Oh, that and the fact that we had the NL MVP in Joey Votto playing first base for us everyday.  Think we would have won the Central with Sean Casey at first base?  Me neither.

*Stats taken from here.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Can we get some baseball here?

Short Answer: Yes.

Reasoning: The Major League Baseball season is well under way, and ESPN already knows who is going to win the World Series.  It's crazy, but if you watch "The Worldwide Leader in Sports" (ha), you would begin to wonder why they even play the games.  ESPN has more analysts that tell me what is going to happen, before it actually happens, than my local fortune teller (and she tells me some zany stuff).  And, the experts in Bristol have already come up with doomsday prophecies for a few of the slow-starting teams.  The fact is this - the baseball season is 162 games long.  Any talk about teams in trouble of not making the post season is about as ludicrous as a preseason NCAA football or basketball poll.  Nothing can be ascertained by what has transpired to this point, period.  Baseball is a game of streaks (both individually and collectively) and the Red Sox are just as likely to win 12 games in a row starting today, as they are at any point during the season.  Let's not overanalyze a season that is not even 10% complete yet.  Please.

However, when a team loses historically, that is something we can talk about.  Even though, in the grand scheme of things, losing historically doesn't hinder a team's postseason chances (unless of course that historical losing consists of a losing streak of epic proportions - here, it does not).  The Tampa Bay Rays (I still have difficulty not calling them the "Devil Rays") have been a big factor in Major League Baseball over the last few years.  They have young players like Evan Longoria, Carlos Pena, B.J. Upton, David Price, and Dan Johnson (okay, he isn't young, but he was my spring training roommate when I was with the Oakland A's, and, I felt like name dropping - deal with it).  The (Devil) Rays made it to the World Series in 2008 before losing to the Philedelphia Phillies, and, in 2010 made the playoffs again, but lost to the Texas Rangers in the ALDS.  So, one would figure, with much of their roster returning, that the Rays would be poised to make another postseason run.  If the guys at ESPN were watching their first week of baseball, they are probably talking about moving the team to a new city, sending all the players down to AAA, or contracting the team altogether.

You see, the Tampa Bay Rays started off this season like no other team in history.  Take a look at their first 7 games:

1. vs. Baltimore, Loss, 4-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
2. vs. Baltimore, Loss, 3-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
3. vs. Baltimore, Loss, 5-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
4. vs. L.A. Angels, Loss, 5-3 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
5. vs. L.A. Angels, Loss, 5-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
6. @ Chicago, Loss, 5-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game)
7. @ Chicago, Win, 9-7 (Tampa Bay never led in the game, until, my boy Dan Johnson hit a 3-run homer to cap a 5-run 9th inning).

There you have your Odd Stat of the Week - Tampa Bay finally won its first game of the season after trailing for 62 straight innings!  And, to think, they were down 7-4 heading into the 9th, and were about to go 0-7.  You can't make this stuff up folks.  In the first 6 games the Rays scored a total of 8 runs; in their first win, they scored 9*.  In their first 6 games the Rays hit .145 as a team; in their first win, they hit .256 as a team.  In their first 6 games the Rays held the lead for exactly 0 innings; in their first win they held the lead for exactly 1 inning - but, that one inning was enough.  Just a few more reasons why baseball is the greatest game on earth.

P.S. The Rays dropped the next 2 games to the White Sox to fall to 1-8.  In those two games they held the lead for only 1 inning.  So, in the Rays' first 9 games, they held the lead for 2 out of 81 innings, but actually won one of those games.  Wow.

*Stats taken from here.

Masters Sunday

Issue: Hell of a Sunday, no?

Short Answer: It most certainly was.

Reasoning: I wrote about what the Masters means to me here.  To the golfers, however, it means quite a bit more.  To win a Masters Tournament means to cement your name in the history books.  Just ask Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, or Arnold Palmer.  Or ask Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, or, you guessed it, Charl Schwartzel.  Maybe Charl will win a bunch of times over the next decade and we can put him into the former list.  But, I'm betting he doesn't, and we can keep his name on the latter list.  Yesterday was ol' Charlie's first ever win on the PGA Tour, even though he played as if he had done it hundreds of times before.  Schwartzel was unflappable in birdieing the final four holes of the tournament, although the last birdie was not needed, it put an exclamation point on his win.

To me though, the story wasn't about Schwartzel (alright, it was, but it's no fun to talk about someone that no one knows anything about).  The Masters was more about the following (remember, this is only my opinion):

American golf is being dominated by the world - If you have tuned into the Ryder Cup over the last decade or so, you already know this.  Since 1995, the United States has only won the Ryder Cup twice, and one of those was 1999 when the U.S. put together the greatest comeback in the history of the event (remember the Justin Leonard putt?  And the most horrible shirts in the history of the Cup?).  So what does this have to do with the Masters?  At the end of the third round, the leaderboard looked like this:

1. Rory McIlroy -12 (Northern Ireland (I thought he would shoot his 80 on Saturday, but, you knew it was coming))
2. Angel Cabrera -8 (Argentina)
3. Jason Day -8 (Australia)
4. Charl Schwartzel -8 (South Africa)
5. K.J. Choi -8 (South Korea)
6. Adam Scott -7 (Australia)
7. Luke Donald -7 (England)
8. Bo Van Pelt -6 (United States)

That's right, Bo Van Pelt was the closest American to the lead going into the final round.  Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone really gave Van Pelt much of a shot to win, even after he made eagle at 13 and eagle at 15.  And, guess what?  He bogeyed 16 and 17 and finished at -8, six shots off the lead.  Tiger Woods was the only American to finish in the top 7.  If we don't do something as a country soon, the U.S. Open may have to be renamed.

Tiger Woods IS NOT BACK (yet) - Look, I am a Tiger Woods fan.  I was explaining to someone the other day that we should all be happy to be alive at a time when one of the best golfers to walk the earth is playing the game.  I wrote about Tiger in this very blog here.  And, I have never, and will never, doubt the ability of Tiger.  He got to where he is for a reason, and once he stops being so mechanical, he will dominate again.  During the final round yesterday, I heard a lot of people (experts?) talk about how Tiger, after a front nine 31 (-5), was back.  Wrong.  The old Tiger wouldn't have celebrated so demonstratively after an eagle on hole 8.  Yeah, hole 8.  Still got a few holes to play there, buddy.  The old Tiger would have expected to shoot 31 on the front, and would have brought Augusta to its knees on the back nine.  But, Tiger parred 10 and 11, then missed a 3-footer for par on 12.  I figured it was over right then, but, he still had 13 and 15 to play.  After a huge drive on 13 (with a 3-wood no less), Tiger had a 7-iron into the par 5.  He hit it over the green, misplayed his chip, missed his birdie, and made par.  They say par is never a bad score, but I beg to differ at that point in the tournament.  Tiger hit it close on 14 and missed his birdie.  Then, on 15, from 215 yards, Tiger stuck it to 4 feet.  He then missed his eagle putt.  A birdie put him back to -10 and into a tie for the lead, but he was 4 holes ahead of the final group, and only 16 is a birdie opportunity on Sunday at Augusta (unless your last name is Schwartzel).  Tiger finished par, par, par and everyone watching had to know his chances were gone.  After a front nine 31, Tiger shot 36 (even par) on a back nine where Schwartzel shot 32, Day shot 32, Scott shot 33, Ogilvy shot 31, Ryan Palmer shot 32, and Justin Rose shot 33.  The opportunity was there for Tiger to win the Masters, and, he did not take it.  The old Tiger would have.

All that being said, I still don't doubt Tiger Woods.  He is not back, yet.  But, he will be.  I can almost guarantee it.  As long as he stays away from Perkins' waitresses and keeps his car on the road.

Opening Day

Issue: Wasn't that a week ago?

Short Answer: For baseball, yes.

Reasoning: Major League Baseball opening day is supposed to signify the beginning of Spring.  Recently, however, most opening days have been played in arctic-like temperatures.  Hell, the Cincinnati Reds played their opening day in HIGH temperatures of 44 degrees.  I realize Cincinnati has a storied history (we were the first ever professional baseball team), and playing a game on opening day in Cincinnati is a long standing tradition (although it has been quite a few years since we have played the actual first game in baseball - something I contribute to us sucking for so long).  But seriously, wouldn't it make more sense for the Reds to open up in San Diego or Atlanta or Houston or Florida?  Actually, it wouldn't make more sense, it would make too much sense.  Anyway, my point is, baseball opening day does not signify the beginning of Spring anymore.  Today, the beginning of the second week of April, signifies the beginning of Spring (or, at least the end of winter).

Not only does the second week of April mean the beginning of Spring (I realize that Spring really began on March 20 - bear with me), but it also caps off one of the best stretches of sport, anywhere, anytime.  Baseball opening day was March 31, followed by the Final Four matchups on April 2, then the national championship game April 4, followed by today, April 7, the beginning of the Masters.  I mean, if only the Super Bowl and the World Series were next week, right?  Augusta National Golf Course is the Mecca for all golfers.  People I know that love the game of golf, talk about their trips to Augusta (mostly for practice rounds Monday, Tuesday, and/or Wednesday - but some for the weekend too) talk about them with a tear of joy in their eye.  They have been to a place most people can only talk about going, or hope to go "some day" (just imagine a 5 year old kid at the bus stop who just got back from Disney World and that is how someone who just got back from Augusta National is treated - with reverence).  I was once asked what I would give, literally, not hypothetically, to play one round of golf on Augusta National.  My first answer was my car, which, at that time, was a 1997 Mitsubishi Montero Sport.  It was probably a $20,000-$25,000 SUV.  The problem then arose - how would I get there?  So I can't give up my car, because Augusta was two hours by car from Atlanta, so, walking, with my golf clubs, would probably take a couple of days.  The answer was then clear - I would have to give a testicle (you can still conceive a child with only one, right?).  See, I didn't have anything else worth anything.  Lungs and kidneys are fairly vital organs.  Testicles are too, but, I would literally give my left (or right) nut to play Augusta National.  I'm not kidding.  Ask anyone who really knows me.  Too bad no one at Augusta really wants my testicle anyway.

I write all of this to implore those of you out there that don't play or watch golf, to tune into the Masters.  In my opinion, Augusta is the most beautiful place on earth, and, they happen to play one of the most important golf tournaments on it every year.  If you haven't watched the Masters in high definition, you haven't seen the most breathtaking scenery you may ever see.  You want to know how much I love watching the Masters?  I went and bought a blank VHS tape last night so I can tape the coverage.  Let me answer all the questions I know you are asking right now:

1. I have baseball games to coach, so I can't watch it live;
2. It is actually a DVD/VCR combo;
3. I only own one VHS - Mallrats - "That kid, is BACK on the escalator!";
4. I do not have DVR - and I'm not sure why;

If you have any other questions, just tune in and watch the best golfers in the world play the best golf course in the world.  I know I will.  Once my tape rewinds.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Did you watch that abomination of a national championship game?

Short Answer: Unfortunately, I did.

Reasoning: The NCAA national championship basketball game is supposed to offer us the best of the best of college basketball.  Two teams who have won five straight games against the toughest competition on the planet, battling each other for 40 minutes, to decide which is the best team in the entire country (and since college basketball at this level doesn't exist outside this country (maybe in Canada, but we all know that doesn't count), we can safely say the best team in the WORLD).  Anyone who knows anything about sports knows that it isn't always the two best teams that match up in the national championship game, but the two hottest teams.  I have been overly critical of the Big East on this blog (and I will continue to be so), but, UConn was undoubtedly the hottest team in the country.  They had won five straight games to win the Big East tournament crown (which is impressive, even in a weak conference), and five more straight games (that is ten straight for all you non-math majors out there) in the NCAA tournament.  It is tough to get any hotter than that.  However, Butler, going into last night, had won 14 straight games, i.e., possibly the second hottest team in the country.  So, we should have been in for one of the greatest championship games ever.  Should have.

What we were treated to, however, was easily the worst NCAA championship game ever, and, possibly the worst basketball game I have ever seen.  As Billy Hoyle famously said in White Men Can't Jump, "Is this s#%t regulation?"  It looked like both teams were playing on 12-foot rims or using an oversized ball.  UConn and Butler looked like Shaq shooting free-throws.  Neither could hit water if they fell out of a boat, sand if they fell of a camel, mud if they fell off a pig...okay, you get it.  This is the first time in my life I have felt sorry for the NCAA - could that game have been anymore anti-climactic?  The answer is no.

The Odd Stat of the Week is probably an obvious one to anyone who watched the game.  Even if you didn't see the stat or hear the announcers, you realized that Butler's futility was historical.  The only question is: how historical?  Well, ladies and gents, Butler just got finished shooting the worst field goal percentage in the history of national championship games.  Period.  I briefly saw a stat last night that said the previous record was held by Washington State in the 1941 national championship game (I didn't even know Washington was a state then), when they shot a paltry 21% from the field.  That seems impossible to beat.  You have to try to shoot that bad.  But, thanks to the Butler Bulldogs, a 70-year old record fell, and fell hard.  Butler shot 18.8% from the field (12 for 64) last night.  That, is the Odd Stat of the Week, but, listen to the rest of this*:

• UConn's 53 point total was the lowest winning total since 1949, when Kentucky (barf) put up 46 points in its win;
• Butler's 18.8% field goal percentage was the third lowest in any NCAA tournament game ever;
• Butler's 12 field goals tied a record low in an NCAA championship game - Oklahoma State had only 12 field goals against Kentucky in 1949 (which tells us how Kentucky won scoring only 46 points);
• Butler was 3 for 31 from INSIDE the 3-point arc.  Yes, they shot under 10% from 2-point range;
• Butler's 3 2-point field goals were the fewest by any championship game participant ever - by 6 (the previous low was 9).  Of course, we should give Butler some deference, because before 1986, there was no three-point line anyway, so, all buckets were 2-pointers.  No way any team is only making three buckets the entire game.

In the end, it is a shame.  I think most people outside of New England were rooting for Butler.  Brad Stevens, Matt Howard, and Shelvin Mack are all likable guys.  Plus, no matter what anyone says, they were underdogs.  Not many people had them getting out of the second round, including all the "experts" on ESPN.  It is mostly a shame because those guys choked on the biggest stage there is.  And, no matter how much we like the guys from Butler, they did choke.  But, after this year, I see no reason why they won't be back there again next year, fighting for a national title.  Are you going to doubt them?

* Stats taken from Andy Katz.