Now that Tim Donaghy is about to name 20 other referees involved in this gambling scandal, who's going to call three seconds in the key? Oh wait...never mind. Well, I guess that guy from the champion or russell ad during the pickup game. What was that guy's nickname?
Word of advice from Jim Halpert to the stars of the NBA: "When you're playing pickup basketball and someone tries to make you feel bad about calling a foul, remember, it's ok to call a foul. Don't let anyone make you feel ashamed, they know what they did."
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Chipper Jones Hall of Famer?
I had a long conversation with Kevin about Braves baseball and he made the comment that Chipper Jones hadn't had a bad at bat all year and the Braves needed to make one final run next year for the sake of him and Smoltz. This made me think. I've known about Chipper Jones basically since his entry into the National League in 1995 and pretty much have taken him for granted as the best third baseman in the National League. Don't argue with me: I've checked the names on the National League Rosters since 1995 and I've seen names I didn't want to (Read: Ken Caminiti). The only guy in his echelon at third in the NL at his age is Scott Rolen. So for the past decade give or take a year, Chipper Jones has been the BEST third baseman in the NL with apologies to Rolen. However, his stats aren't really Hall of Famer caliber. He hasn't reached 400 home runs and just passed 2000 hits. When you look closer though, he averaged a .306 average with 33 home runs and 110 rbis. So does the committee completely deny him because his lack of accumulated stats or realize that he was THE third baseman in the National League for the past ten years? He is 35 so might have a few more years to maybe, possibly reach 450 home runs and 2500 hits but even so...
NBA v. NFL -- Who's Got Trouble?
While driving around today for work I tuned in to some sports talk radio, and the boys on the air posed the following question:
When comparing Michael Vick's situation (harming dogs) to Tim Donaghy's (betting on games, officiating them accordingly, etc.), it's easy to conclude that killing dogs is the more heinous crime. However, which of the two is more heinous from a purely sports viewpoint? Which affects the respective sport more?
The commentators went on to discuss how it is obviously Donaghy's situation that is more harmful to its respective sport because it underminds the integrity of the league and so on.
Now, I agree with that point in its most basic sense. Donaghy's betting on games and making calls to affect their outcomes definitely underminds the integrity of the NBA; whereas, Michael Vick's situation really only affects the Falcons and Vick himself. Right?
Well, maybe not. Let's think about it. The Donaghy situation, while a big deal, seems at this point to be an isolated incident. So while it definitely had a greater affect while he was calling games, the long-term effect(s) on the game could be minimal. However, in Vick's case the damage to the league might be greater than expected. First, you have the issues with sponsors. They've all already jumped ship on Michael, but how will they continue to view their relationship with the NFL -- especially when things are considered in light of the other image problems with the NFL. I think the commissioner's office clearly felt something greater could happen which I believe led to the decision to keep Vick out of training camp. Which in itself raises a new issue / sets a new precedent. Dealing with off-the-field issues is something that the NFL clearly needs to continue to examine how they do. But now that Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, and likely Vick have (will have) received year long suspensions for their actions, a precedent has been set. How will the NFLPA respond to this? And how will that affect later bargaining agreements? These are all issues that will grow much larger for the NFL largely due to the Vick situation.
So yeah, while Donaghy's actions were damaging to the games he officiated, I believe (and certainly hope) that their effect on the NBA as a whole will be limited. On the other hand, the NFL may now face a world of questions surrounding its image and handling of off-the-field issues due to Mr. Vick -- making that situation arguably more damaging to the NFL than Donaghy's is to the NBA.
At least that's my take on it. Thoughts from anyone else? Please share.
When comparing Michael Vick's situation (harming dogs) to Tim Donaghy's (betting on games, officiating them accordingly, etc.), it's easy to conclude that killing dogs is the more heinous crime. However, which of the two is more heinous from a purely sports viewpoint? Which affects the respective sport more?
The commentators went on to discuss how it is obviously Donaghy's situation that is more harmful to its respective sport because it underminds the integrity of the league and so on.
Now, I agree with that point in its most basic sense. Donaghy's betting on games and making calls to affect their outcomes definitely underminds the integrity of the NBA; whereas, Michael Vick's situation really only affects the Falcons and Vick himself. Right?
Well, maybe not. Let's think about it. The Donaghy situation, while a big deal, seems at this point to be an isolated incident. So while it definitely had a greater affect while he was calling games, the long-term effect(s) on the game could be minimal. However, in Vick's case the damage to the league might be greater than expected. First, you have the issues with sponsors. They've all already jumped ship on Michael, but how will they continue to view their relationship with the NFL -- especially when things are considered in light of the other image problems with the NFL. I think the commissioner's office clearly felt something greater could happen which I believe led to the decision to keep Vick out of training camp. Which in itself raises a new issue / sets a new precedent. Dealing with off-the-field issues is something that the NFL clearly needs to continue to examine how they do. But now that Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, and likely Vick have (will have) received year long suspensions for their actions, a precedent has been set. How will the NFLPA respond to this? And how will that affect later bargaining agreements? These are all issues that will grow much larger for the NFL largely due to the Vick situation.
So yeah, while Donaghy's actions were damaging to the games he officiated, I believe (and certainly hope) that their effect on the NBA as a whole will be limited. On the other hand, the NFL may now face a world of questions surrounding its image and handling of off-the-field issues due to Mr. Vick -- making that situation arguably more damaging to the NFL than Donaghy's is to the NBA.
At least that's my take on it. Thoughts from anyone else? Please share.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Briefly...
Alright, I haven't posted in awhile but that's because it just flat out takes too long. Anyways this is a just a brief comment after reading ESPN's tuesday morning quarterback on why the Patriots are awesome. Apparently, the money that it would have taken to sign Deion Branch for a long term, has instead been used to sign three wide receivers in Donte Stallworth, Wes Welker, and Randy Moss. So a solid possession receiver, a vertical threat, and a potential Pro Bowler plus the first round draft pick, all for the services of Deion Branch, a receiver who has never caught over 1000 yards. I'm not exactly sure who the Pats swindled here, but even if all three of the guys bomb (which they shouldn't), their contracts expire at the end of the year so it doesn't even hurt cap space.
Who said the Yankees were dead?
So, it's now mid-August which means we have a little over 40 games left in the MLB regular season. With all my travels and exploits this summer, I haven't been following the Show as carefully as I would have liked/usually do. However, that doesn't mean I don't have any thoughts to share with you on what to expect over the last 40 games. So what is worth paying attention to this Septemer?
(1) The AL East. You didn't need me to tell you this unless you listened to all the 'pundits' of the world (ahem... espn) in July when this division title was handed to the Red Sox. Somebody (ahem... me) kept saying not to count the boys in pinstripes out because that lineup was bound to get hot. Well here we are. After stumbling through summer as a sub-.500 club, the Bronx Bombers are now a mere 4 games back of the Red Sox. What does this mean for the average baseball fan? It means ESPN will bury you in AL East coverage Aug. 28-30 (BOS @ NYY) and Sept. 14-16 (NYY @ BOS).
(2) The AL West. Usually I would write off the AL East race as not that interesting because generally the loser of the divisional race ends up with the Wild Card anyway. Well, maybe not this year. Those pesky Seattle Mariners are trying to throw a wrench in that and doing a good job of it thus far. The M's and Yankees are currently tied for the Wild Card lead, so there's good reason to focus on those M's. I'd like to predict that the M's could catch the Angels out West for Choi's sake... but let's face it, the Angels are hot as hell right now and I don't see it happening. Sorry Choi.
(3) The NL Central. Watch this division for two reasons. First and foremost, Rick Ankiel. I won't go into detail about why this story is so great and reminds me of why i love this game so much, but I will say this: I was at game one of that series against the Braves in 2000... and I've never felt Busch Stadium so collectively uncomfortable. Seeing him hit that homerun and get the curtain call finally relieved all that. Welcome back rick. The second, and less fun, reason to watch this division is for the race itself. This week is a big one as the Brewers and Cubs square off for series with my Redbirds. Can the Cards seriously climb back into this thing and make up 5.5 games? Maybe, but count me in the skeptical column until they're above .500. Although the way things are going there's really nothing stopping a sub-.500 club from winning this division.
(4) The NL West. On the MLB radio preview show last spring on wvfi (wvfi.nd.edu -- tune in again this fall when Choi, Adam and I will provide you with our collective sports thoughts; time and day TBD) I picked the Diamondbacks as a sleeper to watch for -- mainly because I have a small love for Stephen Drew and Justin Upton (hey, youth is fun to watch). And here we are halfway through August and they have a 3 game lead. Although this is arguably just as much the Dodgers doing (for going 2-8 in their last 10) as it is this Diamondbacks (to their credit, they're 7-3 in that same stretch). So here's me hoping the young guys can pull this one out.
Well, that's about it. My apologies to the NL East (yeah, that New York team really has been set since May. Just in a good way.) and the AL Central (it's a good race, I just don't have anything to offer about it -- although if there is one thing really worth watching in this division it's whether the Twins and Santana can sort things out). Take care all.
(1) The AL East. You didn't need me to tell you this unless you listened to all the 'pundits' of the world (ahem... espn) in July when this division title was handed to the Red Sox. Somebody (ahem... me) kept saying not to count the boys in pinstripes out because that lineup was bound to get hot. Well here we are. After stumbling through summer as a sub-.500 club, the Bronx Bombers are now a mere 4 games back of the Red Sox. What does this mean for the average baseball fan? It means ESPN will bury you in AL East coverage Aug. 28-30 (BOS @ NYY) and Sept. 14-16 (NYY @ BOS).
(2) The AL West. Usually I would write off the AL East race as not that interesting because generally the loser of the divisional race ends up with the Wild Card anyway. Well, maybe not this year. Those pesky Seattle Mariners are trying to throw a wrench in that and doing a good job of it thus far. The M's and Yankees are currently tied for the Wild Card lead, so there's good reason to focus on those M's. I'd like to predict that the M's could catch the Angels out West for Choi's sake... but let's face it, the Angels are hot as hell right now and I don't see it happening. Sorry Choi.
(3) The NL Central. Watch this division for two reasons. First and foremost, Rick Ankiel. I won't go into detail about why this story is so great and reminds me of why i love this game so much, but I will say this: I was at game one of that series against the Braves in 2000... and I've never felt Busch Stadium so collectively uncomfortable. Seeing him hit that homerun and get the curtain call finally relieved all that. Welcome back rick. The second, and less fun, reason to watch this division is for the race itself. This week is a big one as the Brewers and Cubs square off for series with my Redbirds. Can the Cards seriously climb back into this thing and make up 5.5 games? Maybe, but count me in the skeptical column until they're above .500. Although the way things are going there's really nothing stopping a sub-.500 club from winning this division.
(4) The NL West. On the MLB radio preview show last spring on wvfi (wvfi.nd.edu -- tune in again this fall when Choi, Adam and I will provide you with our collective sports thoughts; time and day TBD) I picked the Diamondbacks as a sleeper to watch for -- mainly because I have a small love for Stephen Drew and Justin Upton (hey, youth is fun to watch). And here we are halfway through August and they have a 3 game lead. Although this is arguably just as much the Dodgers doing (for going 2-8 in their last 10) as it is this Diamondbacks (to their credit, they're 7-3 in that same stretch). So here's me hoping the young guys can pull this one out.
Well, that's about it. My apologies to the NL East (yeah, that New York team really has been set since May. Just in a good way.) and the AL Central (it's a good race, I just don't have anything to offer about it -- although if there is one thing really worth watching in this division it's whether the Twins and Santana can sort things out). Take care all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)