Happy Birthday, Mr. Koufax

Issue: Did you know today is Sandy Koufax's birthday?

Short Answer: Thanks to my brother, I do now; and on his birthday, we should celebrate his excellence.

Reasoning: Today is Mr. Koufax's 75th birthday.  I still wish he were pitching today.  Although I never did see him pitch (I'm not THAT old people!), I have heard stories from those that did, about how unbelievable he really was.  If his career had not been shortened by an elbow injury, we may talk about him today as if he were the best pitcher ever.  He pitched for 10 years, some, if not most of it in considerable pain.  He retired when he was only 30 years old.  For most good pitchers, 30 is still in the prime of their careers.  In Koufax's last years, from 1962-1966 (age 26-30), here are his stats*:

• Wins: 111
• Losses: 34
• ERA: 1.95
• Games started: 176
• Complete games: 100
• Shutouts: 33
• Innings: 1,377
• Hits allowed: 959
• Strikeouts: 1,444

Beyond that, Koufax was the first pitcher ever to allow less than 7 hits per 9 innings pitched (6.79) and strikeout more than 9 batters per 9 innings (9.28).  In his last 10 seasons (1957-1966), Koufax had a batting average against of .203, with a .271 on base percentage against and a .315 slugging percentage against.  In four World Series, Koufax was 4-3 with a 0.95 ERA (run support must have been awful in those days).  He won 3 Cy Young Awards (all by unanimous votes), was selected to 7 straight All-Star games (1961-1966 (I realize that would only be 6, but 1961 marked the last year MLB held two All-Star games in the same year, and Koufax was selected to both All-Star games in 1961)), had 3 25+ win seasons, and among National League pitchers with 2,000+ innings has the highest winning percentage ever (.655) and had the lowest ERA (2.76) until surpassed by Tom Seaver (2.73)**.  The guy was an absolute stud on the mound, and on his birthday today, we should all remember that.  Happy Birthday, Mr. Koufax.

*Stats taken from my brother (don't worry, I double-checked!)

**Stats taken from Wikipedia (not a trusted source?? I double-checked these too!)

The Brownies

Issue: Have the Cleveland Browns done anything, ever, worth writing about?

Short Answer: I was shocked too, but...

Reasoning: Check out these letters, written by a "fan", to the Browns, and the Browns subsequent reply (thanks to my friend Tim for originally posting this on his Facebook page, and thanks to Deadspin for the actual letters):

And the reply:

Classic.

The Buck"I"s

Issue: What do I make of the whole Ohio State football debacle?

Short Answer: It is quite sad, actually.

Reasoning: First, let me tell you why the players are at fault.  This is single-handedly one of the most selfish acts I have ever seen (hence, the title of this post).  Terrelle Pryor, Dan Herron, DeVier Posey, Mike Adams, and Solomon Thomas have spat in the face of the Ohio State tradition.  They have taken awards, jerseys, championship rings, and gold pants (awarded for a victory over the University of Michigan), and sold them for money and tattoos.  These things were given to them by the football team and they sold them for the betterment of themselves (if, you know, tattoos make you "better").  In the HBO documentary film Michigan vs. Ohio State: The Rivalry, Ohio State players talk about their gold pants as if they are their most prized possession.  Players from the 1930's can't help but smile when they hold up their gold pants for the camera.  Current Buckeye players sold theirs so they could get more tattoos.  Sad.

Another reason the players are at fault is because they knew the rules.  Let me explain why this rule exists.  Let's look at a college baseball player (something I believe I am qualified to speak on) and imagine what the University gives him.  A new glove every year (value $200), a new bat every year (value $300+), a pair of cleats (value $100), a pair of turf shoes (value $75), a pair of Oakley sunglasses (if you are at a school sponsored by them, value $150), a ring (if you win something, value $1000) and sweatshirts, sweatpants, hats, t-shirts, sliding shorts, a protective cup (a must), and batting gloves (value $300).  Now, say that kid decides to go sell some of it, or take it back to the store, or trade it for something.  Is this fair?  No, it's not.  These things are given to the kids to use, not to make a profit.  The rule exists for a reason, and the Buckeye players knew it.  I'm sure they just thought they wouldn't get caught.  Life lesson: if you are going to do something illegal, make sure you don't do it with someone who is also doing something ELSE illegal (the tattoo parlor was under investigation by the IRS).  Sad.

Finally, the reason the kids aren't at fault: The NCAA is the most hypocritical governing body on the face of the earth.  The NCAA makes millions, if not billions of dollars off of these kids.  Yes, they get a free education for it, but you can't tell me they don't deserve something more.  Take it from a former college athlete, who wasn't allowed to work in college (not that I would have anyway) - the extra money would help.  Beyond that, the NCAA spat in the face (there seems to be a lot of that happening in this post) of our entire sports-watching-society when they suspended the players for the first five games of next year, but NOT the Sugar Bowl (with a little helping hand from the Sugar Bowl CEO).  The NCAA knows how much money the Sugar Bowl will make with Terrelle Pryor and Dan Herron and DeVier Posey playing, and the NCAA knows how much the Sugar Bowl will make without Terrelle Pryor and Dan Herron and DeVier Posey playing.  It's safe to assume (yes, I know) the figures are not close.  So, the NCAA decides it is going to teach a lesson to these 18-22 year old kids by suspending their suspensions for 8 months.  What kind of message does this, and the Cam Newton situation (using the "I didn't know about it" defense) send to kids that play at smaller schools?  Would they get the same treatment?  The answer is a resounding NO.  The NCAA does what it wants, when it wants, because they have no one governing them.  So, so, sad.

And when these Buckeye players declare for the NFL draft next year, instead of sticking around for their suspensions and a half of a season, it is going to hurt the kids, the University, and college football.  Sad indeed.

New York, New York

Issue: Can I write an entire post about something other than sports?

Short Answer: Probably...not.

Reasoning: Well, because this is a sports blog.  Duh.  However, my buddy Tore (short for Salvatore - yes, he is Italian.  Really Italian.), just got back from a memorable enough trip to New York City, that I wanted to tell everyone about it.

Tore is a Jets fan (I know, right?), and his girlfriend Stephanie has a bunch of guy friends who are also Jets fans (seriously).  So, a few months ago they were discussing travelling somewhere to catch a Jets game (yes, I think it's a waste of money too, but let's humor them).  The group of couples decided on a home game at the new Meadowlands, against the Miami Dolphins, on December 19th.  The day before the game, however, Tore had a big surprise.  In front of the Rockefeller Tree, Tore proposed to Stephanie.  And (luckily) she said yes.  A big congratulations to both Tore and Stephanie - they will be a great couple.

Now, with the sappy stuff out of the way, the real reason for this post.  While at the Jets game, Tore took a video on his iPhone of Fireman Ed doing the "J-E-T-S Jets, Jets, Jets!" cheer.  You might want to check out the scoreboard for a glimpse of Fireman Ed, but the audio is the best part anyway.  Tore, and everyone he was with, may or may not have had a few cocktails before the game.  Watch it all the way through, as the end of the video explains it all.  Aside from one expletive at the end, the video is safe for work.  Check it out:

That was pretty f**kin' awesome.

The Big (?) 10

Issue: Could the Big 10 have made a worse decision in naming their conference divisions?

Short Answer: No. Freakin'. Way.

Reasoning: Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delany granted himself a stay of execution last week when he announced the Big 10 may consider changing the name of the divisions he and the rest of the Big 10 brass had originally chosen.  In case you have been living somewhere they don't cover news stories, or you can't read, the Big 10 (which will have 12 teams next year) will split into two divisions and call them "Leaders" and "Legends".  Uh, Jim, please stop considering, and do it.  They sound stupid, look stupid, make zero sense, and no other conference in the country does this (although, I guess that could be an argument for not changing the division names, but it is a rather weak one).

I have read quite a few editorials on the topic, and none have been positive (rightly so).  Other than being just plain corny, I can see the optimism with which Jim Delany announced this decision.  The Big 10 brass was looking at this as a good thing.  It's not.  But, the words "leader" and "legend" is something every college athlete aspires to be, although very few ever achieve said aspiration.  The words have an extremely positive connotation.  The Big 10 brass had their hearts in the right place.  But, they obviously didn't have their heads in the right place.

The problems with bigger conferences is the perennial bottom feeders.  When I played college baseball in the ACC (waaaay back when there were still only 9 teams), Duke and Maryland were, year-in and year-out, playing each other on the first day of the ACC Tournament to see who actually got to play in the ACC Tournament.  Big 10 football has a few candidates as well - Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, and Indiana (I'm sure these schools excel in "other" sports, which happen to not matter) are non-factors when it comes to a Big 10 football championship.  So, can we rightly place any of these teams in a division entitled "Leaders" or "Legends"?  No chance.  Why don't we let Indiana play in the "East" or "South" or "Plains" division, but please, please, not in the "Legends" division.  Time to go back to work Jim.

Geno Auriemma

Issue: Did every person who saw the title of this post either react by 1) skipping the post entirely; or 2) saying, "who?"

Short Answer: Yes.

Disclaimer: I know women athletes are good at what they do.  I know any woman on UConn's team could smoke me in one-on-one, HORSE, around-the-world, or whatever.  The following post is not an indictment on women athletes, just the place women's athletics hold in our society.

Reasoning: Let's get something straight first - Geno Auriemma is one of the best coaches, period, ever.  I don't care if you coach women's little league softball for a bunch of 7 year olds, if you win as much as he does, you are good.  But let's be honest, he is also one of the most irrelevant coaches ever.

Looking back at the original issue - who are the people that thought about skipping over this post entirely?  Men.  And men don't give a crap about women's sports, college or pro (yes, the WNBA STILL exists; how or why I am not sure).  Alright, that is not completely true.  I do like some women's sports, i.e., those which have hot women dressed scantily.  I have watched enough women's basketball in my day (about 7 minutes and 23 seconds in over 32 years of life) to know that women's basketball does not fall into said "hot women dressed scantily" category.  At all.  Beach volleyball does.  Tennis does.  Soccer kind of does (if they started wearing less clothes, it might).  Basketball does not.  So, in order to be a relevant coach you either need to 1) coach men; or 2) coach hot chicks.  Sorry Geno.  Oh for two.

Looking back at the original issue - who are the people who said, "who?"  Women.  Yes, that's right, if a woman is telling you the truth, even she will admit that women's sports are irrelevant.  They exist only because of political correctness and Title IX (Sidenote: Title IX was the worst piece of legislation, maybe ever.  For those who don't know, Title IX stated that all athletic departments must have the same number of women scholarship athletes as men (excluding football).  Ouch.  When I was on a recruiting trip to Mississippi State in the fall of 1996, I got the chance to sit across from, and converse with, one of the greatest college baseball coaches ever, Ron Polk.  He was lamenting Title IX because schools had to either add sports (which costs a lot of money) or cut sports (which no university wants to do).  He told me a story about his niece, who went to the University of Iowa.  She was standing in line to register for classes (remember life before the Internet?) when she was approached by someone from the athletic department who asked if she wanted to join the women's rowing team (a sport that was added in order to comply with Title IX).  She had never rowed in her life, but she was a thicker, powerful looking girl.  The nearest lake to the University of Iowa is 45 minutes away.  What would they give her to join the team?  A full scholarship.  Ladies and gentlemen, Title IX!).  Women's sports make zero money.  In fact, they make negative money (to be fair, almost all collegiate sports, other than football and men's basketball, actually lose money).  The biggest thing that has happened in women's college basketball in the last 25 years is Brittney Griner - a woman (I think - seriously, type her name into google and one of the autocompletes google comes up with is "Brittney Griner man") who can dunk.

I know this is not politically correct, but women's sports are, and always will be, irrelevant.  When I watch sports I want to watch the best of the best, and men are bigger, faster, and stronger, so they put on a better show.  Let's put it this way: if you were going to go watch a high school football game, would you go watch the freshman team play, or the varsity?  Exactly.  So, what does this all mean to Geno Auriemma?  He will always be really, really, really far down the list of "best coaches ever" (maybe even behind Tennessee coach Pat Summit, the coach that women's basketball seems to love the most).  If he could have put up the same numbers (735-122, 7 National Championships) in the men's game, he may be considered the best coach ever.  But he didn't, so he won't.  Sorry Geno.

Let's Go Streaking

Issue: What is the greatest streak of all time?

Short Answer: All of them are ridiculous.  Period.

Reasoning: My brother Casey sent my father and me an e-mail yesterday asking what we thought was the most impressive streak of all time, out of the ten he listed.  Starting with the "least" impressive, here is my list:

1. Wayne Gretzky 51 straight games with a point - It's hockey, so who really cares?  Yes, sometimes we let our personal biases affect our decision making.  One can either attempt to not be biased, or just roll with it.  I choose to roll with it.  I love Canada, and Canadians are so nice it is annoying, but have you seen their sports?  Besides hockey, curling is their most popular sport.  And have you seen how they play football?  Plus, I believe this is the most breakable streak of the ten (Sidney Crosby, anyone?).
2. Johnny Unitas 47 straight games with a TD pass - The second most breakable streak out there.  I mean, have you seen Tom Brady play the last few weeks (or years)?  He could go 100 games if he felt like it. 
3. Edwin Moses 107 straight hurdles finals wins - It falls here because a) it seems more impressive than the first two; and b) I'm not really sure how impressive it is.  I have no benchmark.  Anyone know what the next longest hurdles finals streak is?  I thought not.
4. Lance Armstrong 7 straight Tour De France wins - This streak is quite impressive - and even I know it.  This streak probably should be closer to the top (or bottom in this case) of the list.  But, in a sport where the winner is usually the guy who took the most steriods or found an undetectable steriod, any streak becomes less impressive (just like Barry Bonds hitting 73 home runs - doesn't matter that he took more steriods than a world class bodybuilder - it's still impressive).
5. Johnny Vander Meer consecutive no-hitters - Do I think anyone will ever match, or even surpass this streak?  No.  But I watch enough baseball to know it is not out of the relm of possibility that a guy like Roy Halliday, Tim Lincecum, Cliff Lee, or C.C. Sabathia could do this.  At least it is not unthinkable, like some of the streaks lower on this list.  Also, any streak that stops at 2, just doesn't seem that impressive.
6. Cal Ripken 2,632 consecutive games played - I realize that no one will ever sniff this streak.  Too many outside factors in play today.  It is one of the single most impressive streaks out there.  But that's all it is.  Playing in that many straight games doesn't mean anything in the win/loss column neccessarily.  All it means is that you are durable (not a bad thing).  Most of the other streaks on this list translate into wins (or are wins themselves), and this one does not.  Cal Ripken only played (and won) one World Seriers, in 1983, his second year.  Playing a bunch of games in a row is a great feat, but it translates to nothing, other than a great feat.  Plus, it's baseball, how strenuous can it be anyway?
7. Brett Favre 297 consecutive regular season starts - It beats Ripken's streak only because Favre did it in football.  A few more chances to tweak an ankle on the football field.  If there are any other questions, please see above, Ripken, Cal.  Brett Favre only won one Super Bowl, in 1996, his fifth season.
8. Orel Hershiser 59 1/3 consecutive scoreless innings - Let's just take a look at how he did this: on August 30th, 1988, Hershiser finished off a complete game against Montreal (remember the Expos?), with 4 scoreless innings.  His next 5 starts, all complete games: 3-0 over Atlanta, 5-0 over Cincinnati (damn; however, it would be Barry Larkin and the Reds who would eventually snap the streak), 1-0 over the Braves, 1-0 over the Astros, and 3-0 over the Giants.  To break the record, Hershiser threw 10 shut-out innings against the Padres in his next start.  That alone is ridiculous.  The Dodgers went to the playoffs that year, and in his first start Hershiser threw 8 1/3 scoreless innings (which did not count on his streak).  His September stats during the streak: 5 complete games, 55 innings pitched, 30 hits, 34 strikeouts, 8 walks, 5-0 record (duh), and a 0.00 ERA (duh).  This is absolutely one of the top three streaks of all time.
9. Joe Dimaggio 56 game hitting streak - Surprised?  Most people always have this at the top.  And I certainly can't argue that.  So, why do I not have it as the most impressive streak ever?  Because any streak that is subjective (yes, shockingly enough, scorekeepers do cheat for their players sometimes), cannot be number one.  However, the next longest hitting streak in the history of MLB - Willie Keeler, at 45 games, in 1896-97 - was still a full two weeks from tying Dimaggio's record.  Take a look at a few stats pertaining to this streak*: 1) It began on May 15 and didn't end until July 16; 2) Dimaggio's Yankees won the World Series that year and Dimaggio himself won the MVP (Ted Williams hit .406 that same year); 3) Dimaggio had 91 hits in 223 at-bats (.409) during the streak; 4) Of those 91 hits, 35 of them went for extra bases (16 2B, 4 3B, 15 HR) and he had 55 RBI during the streak; 5) He hit safely in another 17 games after his record-setting streak ended (that would have made 74 total); 6) When Dimaggio played for the San Francisco Seals in the Pacific Coast League he had a 61 game hitting streak.  Basically, Dimaggio could hit.  Impressive.  But not as impressive as....
10. Byron Nelson 11 consecutive PGA Tour wins - This is absolutely unbelievable.  It is so unbelievable that the only negative argument I could come up with is the fact that the PGA Tour, then, is not as competitive as the PGA Tour, now.  How many people have won 5 or more in a row?  Two.  Ben Hogan (6 in 1948), and Tiger Woods (5 in 2007-08, 6 in 1999-2000, and 7 in 2006-07).  Notice a few names missing?  Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, etc.  There aren't enough superlatives to describe how impossible winning 11 tournaments in a row is.  It is downright inconcievable.  How about this: during the 1940's Nelson came in the money 113 consecutive times (Nicklaus has his streak snapped in 1976 at 105), and in the same year he won 11 straight tournaments, Nelson won 18 times.  18 times in a single year.  Unreal.

Please remember, this is just my opinion.  You could invert the list and still make a pretty good argument.  If your name appears on this list, you are good.  Period.

* Most stats taken from Baseball Almanac

Week 14

Issue: Can anyone write about fantasy football...and make it worth reading?

Short Answer: Since you asked...

Reasoning: Week 14 of the NFL season.  The first round of the fantasy football playoffs.  Let's pick up the action at around 7:00 p.m. (the time is a little hazy, as I am still in disbelief): If you told me Tom Brady was Jesus reborn, at this point, I'd probably believe you.  Has there ever existed a better week to be playing against him?  20 degrees, wind chill below zero, snow (6 inches on the ground and more falling), white-out conditions, and 50 mile-per-hour gusts.  Jackpot.  48 fantasy points later and I am beginning to think, "there is still no way I can lose this game, right?"  If you have never gambled in your life, you have no idea what it's like to have your heart ripped out by a meaningless field goal as time expires, to make the final point margin 17 when you were giving 17.5.  That is basically what happened to me on what I now dub, "crazy-ass fantasy Sunday."

You want to know how crazy fantasy football is?  Halfway through writing this post, I changed it.  Dramatically.  Right about now, I was going to bitch and moan about how Knowshown Moreno and Tim Hightower (yes, those were 2 of his 3 running backs) scored 3 touchdowns between them, in the 4th quarter, of one of the most meaningless NFL games of the year.  As I was doing that, I received a text, from the commissioner of my other fantasy league:

Commish: So, in the Arizona v. Denver game [yup, that same meaningless game that screwed me] Arizona intercepted a pass, returned it near the end zone, fumbled, then recovered [by a different Cardinal] for a touchdown.  Is it a defensive touchdown or not?

I didn't reply right away.  I jumped on yahoo.com to see how important the touchdown actually was.  The score of the game, as it stood, was 42-39 (it is pretty much a touchdown only league), and the 6 points for the defensive touchdown would make the score 45-42, i.e., it was the difference in the game.  Holy s*&t!  This is a league where the Super Bowl winner gets 600 peanuts (you know, because gambling is illegal).

Me: I think once you intercept the ball you become the offensive team [I actually have no idea if this is right or not].  Although, I think you, me, and everyone else would consider it a defensive TD.

Commish: The league says no TD because the fumble is loss of possession and another player recovered [thanks for the clarification?] I'm looking for a vote to make the final decision.  TD or not?

This is not good.  Especially since I play the winner of this game in the second round, and I would rather play the guy who has Arizona's defense (who wouldn't?).  But...trying...to do...the right...thing...

Me: If it were me, I would be adamant that it is a defensive TD.  Seems like one.  But the rule may say otherwise.

Commish: I know.  Rules are rules.  And it is bulls*&t.  I think it should be a TD too but it is written by the NFL so...tough luck [player's name who got screwed, which I am withholding].

Me: Ouch.  Tell him it ain't right.  I'd be pissed if I were him.

Commish: He is pissed and I don't blame him.  I guess I will buy him a beer or something.

Me: I will buy him a beer too.  However, he would have gotten smoked by PainfullyLargeDump [my fantasy team name...yes, I know I have a problem] anyway.

It's crazy, how crazy, fantasy football can be.  I was so pissed about losing to one of the worst fantasy teams ever assembled, and someone else in my other league gets screwed by a crazy NFL rule about fumbles and whatnot.  I can't wait until draft day next August.

And, just for the record, here is my team and the team I lost to (point total in parentheses): Him (6-7) - Tom Brady (48), Knowshown Moreno (17), Chris Ivory (4), Tim Hightower (29), Terrell Owens (2), Nate Washington (4), Vinsanthe Shiancoe (0), Chargers D (44), Garrett Hartley (8) - total (156).  Me (10-3) - Philip Rivers (19), Maurice Jones-Drew (22), Matt Forte (5), Jeremy Maclin (1), Desean Jackson (48), Anquan Boldin (4), Jason Witten (18), Saints D (27), Matt Bryant (7) - total (151).  FM(fantasy football)L.

The Evil Empire(s)

I realize it is December, and snow is falling outside my window as I write this, but baseball is my thing...

Issue: Could I possibly hate the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox any more than I did?

Short Answer: Apparently, yes.

Reasoning: Every sports league needs villians.  The NBA has the Miami Heat (thanks LeBron!), the Los Angeles Lakers, and the Boston Celtics; college basketball has the Duke Blue Devils; college football has the SEC (I already told you how much I hate that conference); the NFL has, well, that's a tough one.  The villian of the NFL used to be the Oakland/Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders.  However, a team must actually win in order to be a villian (see the above list), and the Raiders haven't done that in awhile.  The New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts fall into the villian category (and where I'm from, so do the Steelers, Ravens, and Browns (Who Dey! - yes, even when we've lost 10 straight games)).  Baseball is different - everyone hates the Yankees and Red Sox.  I live in Cincinnati and of course I hate the Cubs, Cardinals, Astros, and Pirates (actually I just feel sorry for the Pirates), but the Yankees and Red Sox deserve their own category.  I hate everything about them.  Let us examine some of the reasons:

1. They have more money than God, and they flaunt it - In 2010 the Yankees had a payroll of $206,333,389* (highest) and the Red Sox had a payroll of $162,447,333* (2nd).  In comparison, the World Series Champion San Francisco Giants had a payroll of $98,641,333* (9th), and the National League Central Champion Cincinnati Reds had a payroll of $71,761,542* (20th).  The Red Sox have already signed Carl Crawford (7 years, $142 million) and traded for Adrian Gonzalez (from the San Diego Padres, perhaps one of the best 1st basemen in the game).  The Yankees have re-signed Derek Jeter (3 years, $51 million) and Mariano Rivera (2 years, $30 million).  All of these moves will do nothing but drive the two highest payrolls in Major League Baseball, even higher.  Coming from a small market city, this alone is enough for me to hate both the Yankees and the Red Sox.  And I do.
2. Even the players they have that I should like, I don't - Derek Jeter is one of the best shortstops ever.  He has never been in trouble with anyone.  He is well educated, well spoken, and usually has super-hot girlfriends.  Yet, I despise him.  It may be solely because he is a Yankee, but if he would have gone somewhere else this winter (besides Cincinnati that is), I'm pretty sure I would still hate him.  I guess we'll never know.  Mariano Rivera is the best closer ever.  He seems like a nice guy.  I can't stand him - partly because he is a Yankee - but mostly because I know he would strike me out or break my bat everytime, if I was ever lucky enough (or unlucky enough) to face him.  Mark Teixeira is a former college teammate of mine.  We played together for 3 years (1999-2001).  I have always considered him a friend of mine.  Until he joined the Yankees.  Dustin Pedroia is the exact type of player I would want playing for me.  He always hustles and his uniform is always dirty.  He gives 100% absolutely all the time.  Yet, I can't help but feel like he's a complete ass.  Then there is Kevin Youkilis.  He and I both grew up in Cincinnati and happened to play together when we were 13.  Here are two things I've never heard in the same sentence: "Kevin Youkilis" and "is a swell guy."  I'm not going to bash him here, but I don't like him.  Check out this post from one of my favorite blogs: SportsbyBrooks.
3. The Yankees and Red Sox love being hated - Yankees and Red Sox players are hated because they're good.  At least that's what they will tell themselves, and us.  And it is partly true.  There is no need to waste energy hating a team that stinks.  So, if that is how they want it, I can certainly oblige.  As a small-market team fan, I guess I will just keep hating the Yankees and Red Sox until they stink.  Could be awhile.

So what keeps me going??  This is baseball people!  The Reds can win the NL Central.  The Marlins can win the World Series (twice).  The Rays can play in, and compete in, the same division as the Evil Empires do (in fact, they finished 2nd in 2010 and the Red Sox were playing golf in October).  The Royals can beat the Yankees.  The Pirates can beat the Phillies.  The old baseball adage is: anyone can beat anyone on any given day.  That is what makes the game great.  And when the Royals do beat the Yankees, it makes it worth it for the average fan.  We love to see the Yankees and their $200 million payroll go down.  And go down in flames.  With the Red Sox.

Red, one of the greatest movie characters ever (The Shawshank Redemption), once said, "hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."  Here is to the hope that the Yankees and Red Sox both miss the playoffs in 2011!

* USA Today

Peyton Manning

Issue: Why are so many "sportswriters" and "sports media" members (re: ESPN) up in arms about Peyton Manning's recent struggles?

Short Answer: Because most of them only understand sports from the outside looking in, as they never actually played the sport they cover.

Reasoning: Overheard on the December 9 edition of "Outside the Lines" on ESPN: "[there is] a crisis with the state-of-the-art quarterback," and "how has Peyton Manning morphed into Jeff George right before our eyes?"  Let us take a look at each of these quotes separately:

1. There is a crisis on hand with Peyton Manning - No.  There isn't.  "Crisis" is defined by dictionary.com as a "decisive stage or point (I looked this up on mobile site on my new Droid 2.  Could the Droid be the best/coolest phone ever?  Do I even need a computer anymore?  Do you think this thing has an app that can make me fly?  My phone is sweet - don't be jealous).  So, Peyton Manning has 3 bad games in a row, and we have reached a crisis?  Hogwash.  Let's take a look at some stats: Career (54,156 yards passing, 392 TD, 196 INT, 94.9 passer rating); this season (4,028 yards passing, 26 TD, 15 INT, 91.2 passer rating); and his last three games (@New England, vs. San Diego, vs. Dallas (1,046 yards passing, 8 TD, 11 INT, 77.2 passer rating)).  He has thrown a few too many interceptions in his last 3 games.  Period.  The only "crisis" Peyton Manning is facing right now is whether or not he can lead the Colts to the playoffs, AGAIN.  He could throw 100 more interceptions this year and he would still be one of the best (if not the best) quarterbacks ever.  Crisis averted.  Phew.
2. Peyton Manning has morphed into Jeff George - This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.  Seriously.  Maybe this is ESPN's attempt at humor.  It is more likely ESPN's attempt at conjuring up drama where none exists.  Here is a short list of similarities between Manning and George: 1) Both were overall #1 draft picks by the Colts; 2) Both played the position of quarterback; 3) Both are white; and 4) Both are male.  And that's it.  One football statistics website has a section entitled "[p]layers whose career was of similar quality and shape."  Jeff George: Lynn Dickey, Bernie Kosar, Steve Bartkowski, Tommy Kramer, Bobby Hebert, Jeff Hostetler, Jon Kitna, Ed Brown, Richard Todd, Eddie LeBaron, and Peyton Manning: Johnny Unitas*, Joe Montana*, Dan Marino*, Ken Anderson, Steve Young*, Dan Fouts*, Brett Favre, John Elway*, Roger Staubach*, Jim Kelly*.  If you can't tell, the asterisk means that person is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  Maybe ESPN is funnier than I thought.

So, how can Peyton Manning's recent 3-game stretch be explained?  It is simply a SLUMP.  Every athlete has them.  Montana, Marino, Tiger Woods, Ted Williams, Michael Jordan - the reason we love(d) watching these guys is because they are so good at what they do.  (Sidenote: Professional athletes are professional athletes because they make being a professional athlete look so easy.  I often lament Major League Baseball players because they make playing baseball at the highest level in the world look so easy.  It makes Joe Schmo think he can do it too.  It makes being a former professional baseball player, well, kind of suck.  Anytime I am in a conversation with someone that I just met or barely know, the conversation invariably turns to me having been a professional baseball player.  This is what I normally get: "I used to play baseball (when I was in high school, when I was in junior college, when I was 7, etc.), and then "if I hadn't (hurt my arm, had a jerk for a coach, played with dolls so much, been such a complete wuss, etc.) then I could have been pretty good."  So, are you telling me you could have played professional baseball too?  Guess what?  You wouldn't have.  And thank you for cheapening all the hard work I put in to become a professional baseball player.  Dick.)  So what happens when they have a bad game and the media talks about it every minute of every day?  They try harder, and that is never a good thing.  I play golf all the time, and when I go double-bogey, bogey, bogey, double-bogey, it doesn't make it easier for me to make it better.  Usually, I start trying even harder, and my game continues to get worse (if that is possible).  Peyton Manning is trying so hard to shut everyone up, that he is making throws he wouldn't normally make.  And his numbers have suffered for it.

Peyton Manning is in a slump.  Sort of.  He is not facing a crisis, and he is not morphing into Jeff George.  If this 3-game stretch turns into a 16-game stretch, then we can worry.  Until then, let ESPN drudge up all this negative press about nothing.  That is what they are good at anyway.

Michael Vick

Issue: Has anyone ever paid a higher price for mistakes he has made than Michael Vick?

Short Answer: No.

Reasoning: Caveat #1: I don't agree with anything Michael Vick did.  Caveat #2: I don't hate dogs, in fact, I love dogs (but I probably hate YOUR dog - I mean, just because you are used to your dog being annoying as hell, doesn't mean I am, nor does it mean that I want to deal with it.  Why do I have to let him/her get used to me?  It's a dog.  How about we put it outside or in it's cage until it learns how to behave around people?  But, I digress).  On to the post...

Michael Vick has paid his debt to society.  He has been arrested, convicted, sentenced, imprisoned, embarrassed, and humiliated.  He paid for it too.  Severely.  And literally (he filed bankruptcy and had to pay $20 million to his creditors).  And for what?  Killing dogs.  6-8 dogs was the range he admitted to.  6-8 dogs.  Killing one dog is wrong, but let's lend some perspective to this figure:

• Between six and eight million dogs and cats enter U.S. shelters every year.*
• Four million cats and dogs—about one every eight seconds—are put down in U.S. shelters each year.*
• Total number slaughtered last year (2009)**:
• Cows: 980,000
• Pigs: 113,733,800
• Chickens: 8,658,860,000

So, we slaughter eight and a half billion chickens, and euthanize 3 to 4 million dogs a year in this country, and we are going to send a guy to the slammer for almost two years for killing 6-8 dogs?  (Two more things here: 1) I realize that he probably killed way more than 6-8 dogs, but after looking at the above statistics, even if he killed 600-800 it still doesn't change my opinion (it says 3 to 4 MILLION!); and 2) I realize that Michael Vick, in running a dogfighting ring, committed serious federal crimes, which, by definition, carry longer prison sentences.  OK?  I get it.)  However, it still seems like overkill to me. Isn't pet overpopulation a serious problem in our country?  Don't you remember Bob Barker reminding you, at the end of "The Price is Right," to have your pets spayed or neutered?  And at the same time, society, and our justice system, values the life of a dog (or 6.  Or 600) over two prime years of one's life.  How do we justify this discrepancy?  We can't.  The word "asinine" comes to mind.  And yes, part of me feels this way because I have been robbed of watching him play during that time.  I loved watching him play even when he couldn't complete a pass and/or ran on every play.  He's electrifying.  And football is even more fun to watch when he is playing.  I realize that is not a mitigating fact pertinent to his jail sentence, but this is my blog, so deal with it.

You want another reason?  How about this: Donte Stallworth (another NFL player) was convicted of killing another human being, while driving an automobile, while drunk.  He served 30 days in jail.  30 days.  How do we justify this discrepancy?  Again, we can't.  Let Michael Vick be.  He served his time and continues to pay his debt to society (he is speaking at schools about the ills of dogfighting and the negative effects it had on his life, and he has partnered with the Humane Society to attempt to eradicate dogfighting in America).  Let's just continue to enjoy watching one of the best comebacks in the history of sports.

And I hope I don't have to face him in my fantasy playoffs.

* The Humane Society

** United State Department of Agriculture

Cam Newton

Issue: Should Cam Newton's past transgressions affect the Heisman Trophy voting?

Short Answer: No.

Reasoning: Well, he has been in the news more than body scanners and TSA gropings lately, and since the Heisman Trophy will be awarded this Saturday, I figured he was a good place to start.

Cam Newton should win the Heisman Trophy this year by the largest margin ever.  He is Tyrelle Pryor on steriods (and by steriods, I mean he can read defenses and throw passes that are caught by his own receivers).  He is going up against Andrew Luck (who will be a great professional quarterback (Bengals?), Kellen Moore (never trust a lefty quarterback unless his name is Young or Esiason), and LaMichael James (the old, wise, "sportswriters" who vote, will never allow a sophomore to win it).  Who in their right mind could NOT vote Cam Newton as the best player in the country?  Stats: Passing - 188.16 (efficiency), 165-246-6 (completions-attempts-interceptions), 67.1 (completion %), 2589 (yards), 28 (TD); Rushing - 242 (attempts), 1409 (yards), 5.8 (per carry avg.), 20 (TD).*  That's 48 touchdowns.  It must have been hard for the Heisman committee to figure out who the other 3 invitees should be. 

So why am I writing this post?  Because there are sportswriters out there who have put in print, that they will not vote for Cam Newton due to his checkered past.  The "academic dishonesty", the "stolen laptop", and the "pay-for-play" scandal have called Cam's character into question.  I think the problem is that these sportswriters are too far removed from ages 18-22, to remember what it was like to be 18-22.  Although, to be honest, I don't remember that much about being 18-22 either, other than the fact that 1) I had a blast; and 2) I did some things that you will probably never read about in this blog.

I am not condoning what Cam Newton has done in the past by any means, but I can relate.  I had an episode in college that is the definition of "academic dishonesty," and I have had to explain that to more than one company/school/person in my life.  I wish it never happened.  But, I look back on the kid I was - someone who was relatively famous in the small-campus life of Georgia Tech; someone who thought he could get away with anything and everything because he was smarter than everyone else; someone who thought he was invincible; someone who, in part, believed he deserved special treatment - and I can't imagine the situation happening any differently, even if I had it to do over again today.  Society worships good athletes, and Cam Newton is the best athlete in our most beloved sport.  He needs to be held responsible for his actions, and he will, as his mistakes will follow him around for the rest of his life (mostly because they have been so widely reported).  But let us all withhold judgment, not Heisman votes, until we see if he actually learns from his mistakes.  That's one of the most important things you learn from college anyway.

P.S. I despise the SEC...go Ducks!

* Auburn Tigers

Welcome to Uncommonly Sports...

...where you will read, mostly, about sports.  Sometimes I may have something to say about some other topic, but, I figured I would stick with what I know best - sports.  In this blog, I hope to offer a perspective unlike any other.  A perspective that combines the knowledge of the games being played, the absolute love for anything competitive, the experience of a former professional athlete, and the wherewithall of someone who has both bachelors and doctorate degrees.  Hopefully this perspective lends itself to a fun and readable blog, but honestly, it may not.  I will leave the end decision to you, the reader.

With that said - read on!