Updates on Previous Posts

Issue: You actually have anything worth updating?

Short Answer: Ehh.  Maybe.

Reasoning: I haven't been watching much in the way of sports lately.  Turns out this "work" thing kind of gets in the way.  Oh, that and "playing golf" seems to get in the way as well.  So, with the College World Series just ending, the Reds playing average baseball, Wimbledon coming to an end, and millionaire football players not getting along with their billionaire bosses - I'm not sure there is much to write about right now anyway.  So, I am going to update you on the recent happenings relating to some of my older posts.  It is much more interesting than it sounds, trust me.  Here we go:

1. At the end of January I wrote this post about how awesome Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are.  At the end of the post (go ahead and scroll down, it's ok) I wrote a "runner-up" for the Odd Stat of the Week, which stated that Roger Federer was 166-0 in majors, when winning the first two sets.  Through the first four rounds of Wimbledon, he had run his record to 178-0 (this included this year's French Open as well).  However, Federer's record now sits at 178-1 after losing to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (3-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4) in the Quarterfinals at Wimbledon.  You knew it was coming sooner or later, but I don't think anyone thought the streak would end with a loss to world powerhouse Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.  Roger is just getting old.
2. In early March, at the height of the Charlie Sheen scandal(s), I wrote this post about his association with the Cincinnati Reds.  Charlie Sheen, ladies and gentlemen, is still at it.  In the upcoming Sports Illustrated magazine, Sheen admits "that he took steroids 'for like six or eight weeks' while filming the 1989 movie 'Major League.'  He adds that the performance-enhancing drugs helped his fastball go from 79 mph to 85 mph."  Talk about dedication.  The man played a Major League player in a movie, so, he figured he would do everything a true Major Leaguer does.  Including steroids.  I love that his fastball gained 6 mph of velocity, going from "batting practice" to "ridiculously hittable."  And, all he had to pay for it was some bacne (a shorthand word combining back + acne) and a few mood swings.  Sheen even admitted the steriods "made him a bit more irritable than normal."  That seems a bit scary.
3. At the beginning of May I wrote this post, challenging a top-10 list of the worst sports movies ever.  I disagreed with a few, and wrote my opinion on what makes a good sports movie.  Well, I watched a sports movie the other day that belongs on, or near, the top-10 list of worst sports movies ever.  And I'm sure most people will think I'm crazy.  Remember the Titans is downright awful.  The underlying message is great, and the director did a great job showing how difficult the times were for all students, black and white.  But, outside of that, it has to be the cheesiest sports movie EVER.  Hands down.  Seriously, watch the movie strictly from a sports standpoint next time.  It's a joke.  There is a lot of singing, a lot of dancing, and a main character (Gerry Bertier - played by Ryan Hurst) who doesn't do one thing in the movie that ISN'T cheesy.  Do me a favor and watch any part of the movie where the team is "dancing" during warm-ups or when they come up with their new "hip" entrance to the field - and watch only for Ryan Hurst.  It is absolutely hilarious.  Oh, and the fact that the movie is "based" on a true story doesn't mean Hollywood gave you the true story.
4. At the end of April I wrote this post about the NBA and NHL playoffs.  In the post I wrote "Jason Kidd will be the reason the Mavs lose" in the playoffs.  Uhhh, you see why I don't write much about the NBA?  I thought Jason Kidd was terrible.  Turns out, not only is he not terrible, but the Mavericks are the Champions of the NBA thanks in large part to him.  Oh, and that Dirk guy.  No more NBA predictions from me - ever.
5. Finally, back in January I wrote this post about the return of Tiger Woods (then wrote this one about Tiger hocking a loogey on the green, then this one about Tiger losing in the first round of the Match Play Championship, then this one about Tiger at the Masters, then this one about Tiger withdrawing from the Players Championship).  Well, I'm here to report that Tiger is not back yet, and he may not be back for awhile.  If you heard his press conference this week (to promote his tournament - one he won't be playing in) you heard a man who sounds defeated - a man who doesn't believe in himself anymore.  The old Tiger would have sat there and defiantly talked about how he would kick Rory McIlroy's ass once he came back.  But, the new Tiger danced around questions, and used words like "hopefully," "should," and "probably."  The old Tiger would have said "yes," "no," and "kiss my a#& you stupid mother [bleeper]."  Tiger needs a mental coach badly.  He needs someone to build up his ego, because his ego is what separated him from the rest of the golf world.  Back in the day, Tiger didn't think he was the best golfer in the world, he knew it.  If he gets back to that, he'll win again.  If he doesn't, he won't.  For every one's sake, I hope he does.  But, it doesn't sound like he will.  I guess watching Rory will have to suffice for now.

The Odd Stat(s) of the Week

Issue: Does that mean we are getting more than one crazy stat?

Short Answer: It sure does.

Reasoning: June can often be a boring time for some sports fans.  The NBA is over (thank goodness), as is the NHL (who plays hockey in June anyway?).  Also, the NFL is still a few months off (or, in 2011, maybe a few years off?).  Major League Baseball and the PGA Tour pretty much dominate the major sports landscape.  Just as it should be.  Shockingly enough, the second week in June is one of my favorite sports weeks of the year.  The U.S. Open is the second best golf tournament of the year (next to the Masters) and the College World Series (something I never got to play in) is in full swing.  Plus, the Cincinnati Reds are on my TV or radio (two words for you: Marty. Brennaman.) every single day.  So, I thought I would use this time of year to spurn on my "Odd Stat of the Week" post.  Here goes:

1. Here is an odd enough stat about the U.S. Open that Rory McIlroy just dominated: the last two Open Champions both hail from tiny Northern Ireland (2010 winner was Graeme McDowell).  The population of Northern Ireland, in 2009, was 1.789 million people - that's bigger than Philadelphia, but smaller than Houston.  It covers 5,459 square miles - just slightly bigger than Connecticut.  Yet, that country has produced two golfers who have been able to win the most difficult championship in the world, in back-to-back years.  Maybe there is something in the water - or the Guinness.
2. How about some more about Rory McIlroy?  U.S. Open records that he set or tied last week: 1) Fewest holes to reach double digits under par (26); 2) Lowest first 36 holes (131); 3) Most strokes under par through 36 holes (-11 - remember, he double-bogied his 18th hole on Friday); 4) Largest 36 hole lead (6 - tied record); 5) Lowest first 54 holes (199); 6) Most strokes under par through 54 holes (-14); 7) Lowest 72 hole total (268); 8) Most strokes under par through 72 holes (-16).  Anyone see all that coming?  I thought not.
3. Now, that all sounds impressive, but, let us take a step back and realize how easy Congressional was playing in terms of a U.S. Open.  Going into last week there had only been 4 players EVER to shoot four rounds under par in a U.S. Open: Lee Trevino (1968), Tony Jacklin (1970), Lee Janzen (1993), and Curtis Strange (1994 - he didn't even win).  So, in 111 years of U.S. Opens, only 4 competitors shot four rounds under par.  In 2011, two players managed to accomplish this feat - McIlroy (duh) and Robert Garrigus (-6).  On top of that, Y.E. Yang shot three rounds under par and an even par round of 71.  Sergio Garcia also shot three rounds under par and an even par 71.  So, it is obvious the course wasn't a typical U.S. Open course, but, what McIlroy did was exceptional anyway.
4. Enough golf, let's move to college baseball.  Sort of.  Alright, this stat has nothing to do with baseball, but, the only reason I know the stat is because I saw it when I was watching the College World Series, so I think it counts.  Almost unbelievably (or absolutely believable, I still haven't decided), out of the 120 schools in the Bowl Subdivision (or, Division I for people who like to make sense, unlike the NCAA), only 17 of them have never been found guilty of a major violation in any sport.  That is about 14%.  And, it gets worse.  Only 4 of those 17 schools are from Automatic Qualifying conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Big East, Pac 10).  The four schools are: Boston College, Northwestern, Stanford, and Penn State.  What makes it even worse is the fact that between these four schools they have exactly two National Championships in the three major sports (football, basketball, baseball) - Penn State football in 1982 and Penn State football in 1986.  Of course, most students choose to go to the other three school because of their academic prowess, but it seems if a school doesn't cheat today, a National Championship is out of reach.  Maybe we should just pay athletes so cheating can't happen.  Then there would be no need for the NCAA, so, I bet that won't happen any time soon.
5. Vanderbilt University is making its first appearance at the College World Series ever.  This is odd only because they have been so good over the past decade or so.  They are attempting to become the first team to reach the finals of the World Series, in their first trip there, since...the 1994 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets led by Jason Varitek, Nomar Garciaparra, and Jay Payton.  This is only odd because I'm sure most readers are surprised that I played baseball at a school that produced quality major leaguers.  It still surprises me too.

That's all for this week's edition of the Odd Stat of the Week.  On a side note, I had mentioned here earlier that I was writing for examiner.com as the Cincinnati Reds Examiner.  Well, I quit.  Mostly because I put a lot of effort into writing my articles and I got paid about 8 cents.  Seriously.  I'd rather write for free on my blog than write for 8 cents.  At least this way I get to express my own opinion.  Farewell, Examiner (thank goodness).

Mr. Top 10

Issue: How well does ESPN do in compiling their nightly top 10 plays list?

Short Answer: Not well at all.

Reasoning: I watch ESPN all the time.  I mean, it has to be the best channel ever.  Seriously.  Sports 24 hours a day?  Yes, please.  However, just because a channel plays sports and sports highlights all day, every day, doesn't mean the people running the channel actually know anything about sports.  And, no where is this any more obvious than in SportsCenter's nightly segment - "top 10."  Don't get me wrong, the plays I see during this segment are fantastic, often times jaw-dropping.  But, what really grinds my gears (kudos if you know where I stole that from*) is how grossly out of order the plays are, especially the baseball plays (ok, maybe not "especially" (because all of the plays are out of order) but since I played baseball I can speak to how difficult, or not, the play actually was).

Most of the time, particularly in the summer (when baseball dominates the national sports landscape - except for losers who can't wait for the summer X-games), baseball plays make up most of the top 10.  And, most of the time, the #1 play is a diving catch in the outfield - and that shouldn't be.  I played outfield in college, and, believe it or not, I made a few diving plays in my day.  That alone should tell you that making a diving play in the outfield really isn't that hard.  It looks impressive, but it isn't difficult.  Did you see Jonny Gomes make three diving catches, in the same game, in left field, against the Dodgers last weekend (if not, you can check them out here)?  See, told you it isn't hard.  The point is, infield highlights should always be ranked ahead of outfield highlights.  Infield plays are harder to make.  The problem is, most MLB infielders make the difficult play look so easy, that it fools the novice viewer (i.e., ESPN employees) into thinking the play wasn't really that hard in the first place.  Wrong.  I am often shocked at how easy major leaguers make impossible plays look.  Especially DatDudeBP.  For those of you not hip to the Twitter (which includes me - because Twitter is stupid) DatDudeBP is Brandon Phillips, a.k.a., the best defensive second baseman in the game.  That's a fact, not opinion (ok, it's an opinion, but it should be a fact).

Brandon Phillips has made a bevy of unreal highlights already this year.  There was this one:

And, this one:

This one too:

And, of course this one:

As you can see, he is pretty good, and he makes it look really, really easy.  So, last night he made this unreal play (sorry I couldn't post the actual video, but MLB.com won't let you embed their newest videos).  Where does ESPN put this in their top 10 plays?  Number 4.  There were not four plays made yesterday that were better, I promise.  Brandon Phillips makes it look so easy, that ESPN can't put it #1 because it's not "cool" enough.  See, ESPN puts 10 plays together that they think are "cool."  That is why you see diving catches in the outfield and dunks in NBA basketball games.  How hard is it for an NBA player to dunk a basketball?  It is only a top 10 play because it looks cool (unless it is Blake Griffin posterizing someone - then it is top 10 worthy).  Based on skill alone, every time Brandon Phillips makes one of the plays you see above, it should be #1, period.  The plays he makes are ridiculous, and I would argue there is only one second baseman on the planet that could make the plays he makes.  For the record, MLB.com had Brandon's play last night as the #1 play of the night.  Weird that the people at that website would understand how awesome of a play that was, while people at ESPN would not.  Glad Dat Dude is on my team.

*It's from the Family Guy episode where Peter gets a job ranting on the local news in a segment called "Grinds my Gears."

The "Senator" from Ohio

Issue: Jim Tressel?

Short Answer: Unfortunately, yes.

Reasoning: Allow me first to say, that above all things, Jim Tressel was wrong.  He lied and he got what he deserved.  Nothing I am about to say is meant to exonerate the ex-head coach of The Ohio State University.  It is a rough time to be a fan of the University, thanks, for the most part, to Jim Tressel.  But, I have a slightly different outlook than most, on the transgressions that he committed.  I can't believe this whole scenario is because of tattoos.  Freakin' tattoos, that a bunch of 18-21 year old kids decided not to pay for.  Just like a punch to the face of a Clemson player brought down the best coach in Ohio State history, tattoos brought down the second greatest coach in Ohio State history.  It almost seems part of Ohio State lore - coaches being brought down under the strangest of circumstances.  It's downright crazy.

But, I am not as quick to jump on Jim Tressel as being a hypocrite, as most journalists have been.  That may seem strange for me to say, as lying straight to the face of the NCAA doesn't seem to fit with a person who wrote books entitled The Winner’s Manual: For The Game of Life, and; Life Promises For Success: Promises From God on Achieving Your Best.  But, since when does writing books about how to live a quality life mean the author is free from all sin?  I'm not sure it does.  If the title of one of his books was I Am Perfect and I Have Never Made a Mistake In My Life, Here's How You Can Be This Awesome Too, then I would be the first to jump on board in calling Jim Tressel the biggest hypocrite on the planet.  Many people have already jumped on board, saying it is the hypocrisy, not the crime, that bothers them the most.  It seems like a good argument, but it has holes.  See, "[h]ypocrisy consists not in failing to practice what we preach, but in not believing what we preach."  Jim Tressel absolutely failed to practice what he preaches.  No one would ever doubt that.  My question is this: how can anyone out there say that Jim Tressel doesn't believe what he preaches?  Call me crazy, but Jim Tressel is really the only person who knows if he is a hypocrite or not.  For what it's worth, I don't think he is.  I think Jim Tressel absolutely believes everything he has ever preached to his student-athletes.  It is human nature to want to protect everything you have when you are on top of the world (Rep. Anthony Weiner, anyone?), which is where Jim Tressel used to be.  When faced with allegations of players breaking the rules, Jim Tressel made a huge mistake, and he got caught.  He was fired and ridiculed in the media, and will be for a long time coming.  He got what he had coming.  But everyone makes mistakes, and that is all Jim Tressel is guilty of - making a huge mistake.

I read the Sports Illustrated investigation into allegations of Jim Tressel cheating all the way back to his days as an Ohio State assistant coach in the early-1980's and as the head coach at Youngstown State.  It is a good article and one that makes it look as if Jim Tressel has been a damn cheater his whole life.  Yet, not one place in the article is there any physical link to the impropriety that was going on to Jim Tressel himself.  People are quoted and relationships examined, but not one time is there a direct link between cheating and Tressel.  Sure, it all looks suspicious, but suspicious isn't enough to convict.  Unless, it all comes out after someone has already been convicted of lying, like Tressel.  See, Tressel admitted he lied, so what better time to publish a bunch of hearsay than right after that?  It makes it all sound so much more believable, whether it is or not.  And, I have no idea if it is all true or not.  I'm pretty sure no one else knows if it true or not either.  But, publishing conjecture at a time when people want to believe that Jim Tressel is a liar (he is) and a cheat (he may or may not be) is a very sly tactic indeed.

At this point, most people are probably wondering how I can say that Jim Tressel isn't a cheater.  Is it really possible that players were taking money, selling memorabilia, and driving around in cars they can't afford, and he not know any of it was going on?  My answer is simply, yes.  Do you think Tyrelle Pryor was given a couple thousand dollars in cash and then went straight to Tressel and said, "hey coach, just thought you'd like to know..."?  The very last person on earth that the cheating players would want to know what they were doing, is Jim Tressel.  The players knew what they were doing was an NCAA infraction, and they wouldn't want their coach to find out, that's for sure.  Yes, it is a far stretch to think Tressel had absolutely no idea what was going on, but to think that he masterminded or allowed everything to go on the way it did, is just as far of a stretch.  I remember when I got into a little trouble in college, the one person that I didn't want to find out, the one person I would do anything I could to keep it from, was my head coach.  Had I been successful in keeping the secret, would my head coach have been to blame for my transgression?  I think not.  A lot of people have said there is no way Tressel couldn't have known what was going on.  Really?  Why is that?  Just because it sounds good to say?  Because taking the side of Tressel at this point would be crazy?  No one really knows if he knew anything before December 2010 or not.  Maybe everything that came to light completely took Tressel by surprise.  Maybe it didn't.  But, I'm not sure how anyone outside the Ohio State athletic department can claim to know either way.  Because they don't.

This is what I know: Jim Tressel had one of the biggest falls from grace in the history of college football, all because of tattoos.  Maybe we should take a look at the social acceptance of 18-22 year old kids having as many tattoos as they do.  Watch a college basketball or football game and count the number of tattoos you see.  You won't be able to, because there isn't enough time in the games.  How do these kids afford these tattoos?  They are not cheap to get.  Why do these kids get so many tattoos anyway?  I'm not really sure, and I'm sure Jim Tressel is wondering the same thing.  Had the Ohio State players traded memorabilia with a tattoo parlor owner who wasn't under investigation by the FBI, it would still be going on right now, and no one would be worse for the wear.  That means NCAA violations would still be going on, but really, how bad is getting a couple of free tattoos?  These players should be getting paid anyway.  That's why I don't care when I hear about players receiving money.  I played college sports, and I could have used a little dough in my pockets (even though baseball is a sport that doesn't make money for a university).  Football teams support entire universities.  It's crazy to think the players don't see a dime of it.  But, that is an entirely different story.  You know when Tressel was informed of the violations, he did what he thought was in the best interest of his players - tell them to stop, and not tell the NCAA about it.  It was the wrong decision, but not one that makes him a hypocrite.  But, that decision ultimately cost Tressel his job and maybe any future job.  When you lie, you have to be prepared for the consequences.  But, I can't help but think Tressel, at some point in time, figured his players trading memorabilia for tattoos wouldn't be his ultimate undoing.  He felt like he could sweep it under the rug, and, he was wrong.  Freakin' tattoos.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: What, no Jim Tressel?

Short Answer: It's coming, don't worry.  I just saw this stat....

Reasoning: It's obvious that Jim Tressel and the debacle at The Ohio State University has dominated, and will continue to dominate the news lately.  My opinion differs than most other's (shocking, I know), so I must plan carefully what I am going to say, lest I get called stupid, oblivious, naive, etc. by those who read this blog.  My opinion on Tressel is coming, just give me a bit more time.  Meanwhile, as I was doing a little light reading today I came across a stat that is certainly odd, yet, to me, it's more ridiculous than anything.

See, anytime something is done for only the 2nd time in Major League history, it must truly be an odd stat.  When one of the people who accomplished the feat (I realize you don't know what I'm talking about yet, but I will get there) is none other than George Herman "Babe" Ruth, it has to be something special.  Here is what I am talking about (finally): In MLB history, only 2 players have hit 17 or more home runs and 5 or more triples, before June 1.  First off, that is a ridiculous stat.  It makes sense that it hasn't happened much in history.  In order to pull it off, a player must have speed and power, two tools that usually don't go hand-in-hand.  You may be saying to yourself, "Babe Ruth didn't have speed."  But, the truth is, many of the ballparks he played in had center field fences that were a couple light years away from home plate.  Most other players of the time probably ended up with inside-the-park home runs if they burned the center fielder.  But, Babe only ended up on third base (by the way, I pretty much made that up, but it sounds real right?  And, I'm pretty sure there is some truth to it - I just don't know how else to explain Babe Ruth having 5 triples in his career, let alone before June 1 in a single season.  Although his legs are moving pretty fast in all those old clips I see of him.).

I guess by this point it should be revealed who the 2nd player ever to accomplish this feat is: Curtis Granderson.  This, I swear, I did not make up.  The Elias sports bureau tells us that "Curtis Granderson's first-inning homer (on May 31) was his 17th of the season to go along with his five triples. Granderson became only the second player in major-league history with 17 or more home runs and five or more triples in a season before June 1. The other was Babe Ruth, who did it for the Yankees in 1928 (five triples and 19 homers through May 31)."  One thing I can tell you is that I underestimated Granderson's power.  I looked up his stats, and, for a little guy, he has some pop.  In 2006, (his first full season in MLB) he hit 19 homers.  He hit 23 in 2007, 22 in 2008, 30 in 2009, and 24 in 2010.  Remember too, from 2006-2009 he played in Detroit's Comerica Park - where home runs go to die.  However, the other thing I noticed when looking up his stats, was his "all-time rank among batters."  Please don't take this as fact, but the two players Granderson is sandwiched between are named Dick Bartell and Roy Sievers.  Think the Babe is around there anywhere?

Look, Curtis Granderson is a heck of a player.  I'd love to see him in a Reds uniform (in left field maybe??).  But, what this stat tells me is how ridiculous the new Yankee Stadium is.  The Yankees have hit 82 home runs this year.  The next closest team is the Diamondbacks with 64.  The Seattle Mariners (who obviously stink) have hit only 29.  In Granderson's defense, only 8 of his 17 home runs have been at the new Yankee Stadium, so he is obviously having himself quite a year.  But, if we don't count those 8, his total of 9 home runs so far this year would be more on par with his career stats.  Since those 8 do count, Granderson's name will forever be etched in the record books next to the Babe.  What a joke.

P.S. - I looked up the Babe's stats too.  He hit more triples than one may think.  In 1918 he was 5th in the AL (11); in 1919 he was 6th in the AL (12); in 1921 he was 4th in the AL (16); and in 1923 he was 5th in the AL (13).  He had 136 triples in his career, good for 71st on the all-time list.  Maybe the "big ball park" theory I proposed above is absolutely true.  Maybe?