Gallaga Returns

I mean Pacman er...Adam Jones. This guy:

Apparently Adam Jones has managed to avoid strip clubs (and shootings in and around strip clubs) sufficiently to be granted full reinstatement to the NFL by commissioner Roger Goodell. Which, really I think is fair. Q-bert has served his time, kept his head down and managed to avoid "knuckleheads." He's earned the trust (or at least paycheck from) of Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and it sounds like he's started to surround himself with friends (teammates) who will be a positive influence on him.

There are a lot of people out there predicting that Adam won't make it through the season. But I want to believe. Not just because I have the Cowboys defense on one of my fantasy teams, but because I really want to see his life turned around. I think that would be cool. Like Josh Hamilton - now that is a cool story.

What I find hilarious is that Mr. Jones was at Hooters when he received word of his reinstatement. Seriously, Hooters. At least he wasn't at a strip club...

An Open Letter to Shawne Merriman

Dear Mr. Merriman,
I understand that you're experiencing some injury issues this year and that you might miss some playing time. A lot of playing time. You have two ligament tears (in the PCL and LCL), yet you still are dead-set on playing this season. You've even flown to Miami today to get a fourth opinion on your knee because everyone else has been telling you that you will need to miss the season if you go for the full repair of your knee this season. In the words of Gilbert Godfrey, "You fool!"

I know that you love to play football and the idea of completely missing the 2008 season is heartbreaking for you. But if you try to come back with your knee not totally healed you're almost guaranteeing yourself a career-ending injury. Even Tiger Woods, a golfer, is taking the rest of 2008 off after jacking up his knee in his US Open win. No one is more competitive than Tiger, and if Tiger's giving up golfing to get his knee right, then maybe you should question your single mindedness towards playing in 2008. I mean, Tiger isn't going to have 300-pound linemen ready to put a helmet on his kneecap. You will.

You need to consider what's more important, playing in 2008 on what will probably be a great Chargers team, or playing for another 10 years on what will probably still be a really good Chargers team (at least in the near future). The choice is yours: potential Super Bowl ring or a bust in Canton? Because if your season ends this year, you will not have the longevity to reach the Hall of Fame.

Best Regards,
Jeff Lorow

peanutvendors.blogspot.com

Some nominations on the Phelps "greatest ever" debate

So, I was having the "Is Phelps the greatest ever?" debate with a good friend of mine. He generally falls into the "you can't compare across sports" camp, which I get, but the day after the conversation he forwarded me an interesting article on the topic he found from the LA Times. The article suggests that Phelps is #6 right now, thus giving 5 nominations for athletes better than Phelps. They are: Carl Lewis (track and field), Pavvo Numri (track and field), Larissa Latynina (gymnastics), Birgit Fischer-Schmidt (kayak/flatwater canoe), and Steven Redgrave (rowing). Some of these have already been mentioned by my co-contributor, some have not. I shall tackle a few of them in future entries as I have time amongst other topics, but for today, I want to lay an assault to a number of the author's premises which I find flawed.

Where he primarily goes wrong is in doing what I refused to do, which is compare various sports (primarily track and field vs. swimming) in terms of the difficulty of the athletic feat. He makes the point that swimming is less demanding on the body than track and gymnastics. This is very true, but that doesn't mean by itself that swimming 8 events is less of a physical feat than competing in 4 track events, or competing in all the gymnastics events. Until a few years ago, before the team competition format changed to allow for more specialists, it was that uncommon for a gymnasts or two in a given Olympics to compete in the team, the all-around, and all the event finals - and every gymnast that competed in both the team and individual all-around would have done their full program 3 times before event finals anyhow. Nor is it that out of the ordinary for an athlete to compete in 4 track and field events. I would also submit to you that his sources for this supposition that minimizes the athletic feat that Phelps' performance was are all track athletes, who aren't exactly qualified to speak to the rigors of being a world class swimmer, any more than Phelps could speak to the rigors of being a world class sprinter, jumper, or distance runner. Unless you can find me a world class gymnast or track athlete who became a world class swimmer, or vice versa, I don't think there's anyone qualified to make this comparison.

A second supposition of his which I find to be completely bogus is the idea that Phelps' proficiency in both the fly and free is almost trivial. Clearly, the free, back, and fly are much more similar and easier to interchange than the breaststroke, but being proficient at multiple strokes and being dominant at multiple strokes are completely different things. A quick glance at the list of all-time Olympic medalists tells me that the number of men who have won individual gold in both fly and free at the same Olympics is quite small, and in fact may just be limited to Phelps and Spitz. I'll have to do a more careful study at some point. It's not that it's difficult to master both strokes, but it is exceedingly difficult to beat guys who are specialists in the individual strokes when you have to split your training between both, or in Phelps case, all 4 strokes as an IMer. Oh, here's another short list for you - men who have won either IM and an individual gold in a single stroke race in the same Olympics. I'm pretty sure that, to channel Brad Pitt's Rusty in Ocean's Eleven, Phelps "is the list." Good at multiple strokes? Meh. World class at multiple strokes? Very nice, but nothing to get shaken up over. Golden in multiple strokes? That's something special and rare, especially on the men's side.

I also take issue with his use of Ryan Lochte swimming finals less than 30 minutes apart as justification for his point on the ease of piling up swimming golds. Doing that, and being successful at it are two different things. Sure, Lochte won the gold in the 200 back and bronze in the 200 IM. However, in the IM, which was his second race, he was considered a legitimate threat to Phelps for gold, and he never came anywhere near that. Contrast that to Phelps, who earlier swam the 200 fly and 4 x 200 free in similar proximity to each other - setting a world record in the fly and then just missing his own world record in the 200 free leading off the relay. (By the way, one point I do agree with the author on is that about the world records not meaning much in evaluating Phelps' accomplishment - the pool and the new suits made that a virtual given.) And let's not forget Katie Hoff, who tried a Phelpsian program of 5 individual events herself, and clearly couldn't handle, coming up very short in a number of events in which she was favored for gold, and not even qualifying for the final of the 800 free, in which she was supposed to be a medal contender. Heck, even Spitz himself failed dismally at his first attempt at a Spitzian medal haul in 1968 As easy as Phelps might have made what he did look, it's clearly not.

The other thing to note is that Phelps is doing the closest swimming equivalent of being a world class middle distance runner and a world class sprinter at the same time. Phelps doesn't really train for sprints, as is evidenced by the fact that the 100 fly is his most vulnerable event. And yet, he led off the 4 x 100 freestyle relay with a time that is an American record, and would have put him on the podium in the 100 free. I'm not going to try and draw a direct comparison between that and track, but I will definitely say you'd be hard to pressed to find anyone else in swimming today, and perhaps ever, who has had the endurance to win a 400 IM while still maintaining the sprint speed necessary to be a medal contender at the 100 free. If, as he apparently wishes, Phelps sets his sights on the sprints for 2012, we may get an opportunity to see just what kind of difference full dedication to specific events can mean.

Let me be clear - my point here is not to make the same mistake the author did in trying to stack these sports up against each other in terms of sheer athletic difficulty, but only to point out flaws in the author's case for subjugating the relative difficult of Phelps' acheivement. This is also not me denigrating any of his nominations - as I said, I'll deal with them in time, and with an open mind. A cursory glance indicates that all are among the very, very best Olympians ever, and quite worthy of joining in the discussion.

What's Next for Michael Phelps

With all the medals and world records in Michael Phelps possession you can't help but wonder what's next for the young swimmer. I know he's probably stuck for ideas himself, so I've compiled a list for him:

1. Become a Coast Guard Surface Rescue Swimmer. If Ashton can do it, surely Phelps can!

2. Race a goldfish. Or a shark, or crocodile or something. You know, like Chad Johnson and that horse.

3. Race Chad Johnson.

4. Blog. I heard he's taking six months off. Why not?

5. Do a triathlon. His lead would be so big coming out of the water, it would surely make up for any deficiencies he might have running or on the bike.

6. Write a(nother) book. (Actually, he'll probably do that anyways.)

7. Take up spearfishing.

8. Do a ridiculous long-distance swim.

9. Auction off his Bronze Medals (from Athens) for charity. I mean really, what value is a bronze medal to someone who has 14 gold? Does he even keep them in a safe? I'm thinking he probably just uses them as paperweights or something.

10. Join the US water polo squad. I mean, seriously, how hard could that be for someone like him?

Japan downs USA for softball gold. Wait, what?

I know this is coming pretty late relative to when the event occurred, but my internet was down for the better part of two days, and I just can't let this go without a comment.

Anyhow, the people that run the Olympic softball tournament managed to ensure that I will not be in favor of the game returning to the Olympics in 2016 - it, along with baseball, has been dropped for 2012. I mean, the reality is that I wouldn't have cared that much anyhow, but the stupidity of their tournament design has moved me to the point of active opposition.

You may have heard that Japan upset the heavily favored USA team in the gold medal game, becoming the first team other than the US to win the gold, and ending a 20+ game Olympic winning streak for the Americans. And that's all well and good, but you may not have seen how that transpired.

There were 8 teams in the softball tournament this year, and this tournament started off with a round-robin. The top 4 teams advanced to the medal round. Now, if you know me, you know I'm generally not thrilled with having playoffs to determine a champion when you've already had a full round-robin. However, I understand the "need" to have a defined gold medal game, so I accept these kind of setups in the Olympics.

That is, of course, assuming the medal round setup isn't mind boggling in it's stupidity. Unlike a traditional 4 team medal round, which would play 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs 3, with the winners playing for gold and the losers playing for bronze, in softball, it's 1 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 4. The winner of 3 vs. 4 plays the loser of 1 vs. 2 in the bronze medal game. Except it's not the bronze medal game, because the bronze medal goes to the loser, and the winner advances to the gold medal game against the winner of 1 vs. 2.

So, as it played out this year, the US (1) played Japan (2), and beat them. Japan then beat Australia in the "bronze medal" game, and returned to play the US in the gold medal game. Now, as convoluted as I find that setup, I wouldn't really have a problem with it, IF Japan would have had to beat the US twice to win gold. They didn't, the winner of that single game was the gold medalist. Huh?

How does that make any sense at all? Look at it this way: this was a 4 team tournament that was single elimination for 3 teams, and double elimination for 1, Japan. Japan's one victory in the gold medal game was apparently enough to overpower the US's preliminary victory, which gave them the 1 seed to begin with, and their earlier medal round loss. How can you declare a champion in a tournament where each participating team has 1, and only 1, loss? And this setup was not some random experiment, it's been used in (at least, I couldn't find records on '96) 3 of the 4 Olympics that softball has been played.

So, to you, softball, I say good-bye, and good riddance, at least until you find someone who can design a medal round tournament that doesn't suck. Seriously, it's not that hard.

2008 Patriots: the Dynasty Fades

I don't take preseason too seriously. Because it's the preseason and coaches are mostly looking to see what their players can do more than win games. But last night's New England - Philadelphia game doesn't seem to foreshadow any greatness for the Patriots in 2008.

Brady was out last night with a foot issue so back up Matt Cassel started in the Patriots' 27-17 loss to the Eagles. Their play could be described as "sluggish" and 27-17 doesn't really show just how one-sided the affair was. The score had been 27-3 until New England Scored two fourth quarter touchdowns against the Eagles' third string. Maybe it was just that they don't have a great back up for Brady, or maybe the Patriots' age was finally showing?

Last season the unstoppable Patriots seemed to die slowly as the wear and tear of the season took its toll on the NFL's oldest team. After a couple late-season scares against the Eagles and Giants, the Pats were looking pretty vulnerable going into the playoffs. In the playoffs, they dominated a strong Jaguars team, but struggled against the banged-up San Diego Chargers, foreshadowing their loss in the Super Bowl.

There was a lot of talk using vague terms like the Patriots "peaked too early" or that teams had finally "figured them out." But maybe the Patriots were just finally showing their age.

And I wouldn't expect anything else to happen this year. In fact, I think the Patriots will likely finish the season 11-5, with losses to San Deigo, Denver, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and splitting their season series with Buffalo. 10-6 may even be more like it with a surprise loss from an upstart team like San Francisco, Seattle or the New York Brett Favres.... er... Jets. They will probably still win the weak AFC East division, but I definitely would not expect the Patriots to have the kind of dominating season that they had in 2007.

Something in the Water?

I know this is easy for me to say, but there's something funny about all those Jamaican sprinters.

Usain Bolt crushed two world records - including Michael Johnson's record in the 200 meters that many thought may never be broken. In a headwind. Two-thirds of a second faster than anyone else on the track at the time. His performance has been super-human.

Then there's the Jamaican women, sweeping the medals in the 100 meters and winning gold and bronze in the 200. That's five out of six medals in those two events.

Maybe it's just the age we live in but that kind of performance from a relatively poor country with only 2.65 million people makes me think twice about crowning Jamaican runners as the best of all-time. Or maybe it's the fact that Jamaica opted out of the Caribbean Regional Anti-Doping Organization. Or that it's not clear that their own anti-doping authority, the Jamaican Anti-Doping Comission is even operational.

Off-season drug testing for Jamaican athletes can be described as minimal at best. The off-season is when true fitness gains are made by athletes, while in-season workouts are designed to keep the athlete's body from breaking down due to regular competition. So if Jamaicans are doping in the off-season they are likely benefitting from it, but no test in Beijing is going detect it.

...and I will point out that the braces worn by Shelly-Ann Frazer and Melanie Walker do remind me somewhat of a certain disgraced American sprinter...I'm just sayin'

More on Phelps as the greatest ever

Okay, I'm back, after doing some research to make sure a number of assumptions I had were correct, and I'm going to stick by my assertion of Michael Phelps as greatest Olympian ever. Now, bear in mind that I already conceded (albeit in a poorly written manner) that given the differences across sports and so forth, the word "indisputable" just isn't going to apply here. The only thing I would say is indisputable is that you can't put anyone clearly above him, and that he's clearly peerless in the pool at this point.

However, I will state my case for his place as greatest individual Olympian ever, and will take on all comers, with as open a mind as possible.

How am I going to draw comparisons across sports, eras, etc? Very simply, the way that I compare across eras in other sports - how does Phelps stack up relative to his peers, other swimmers, who at least in theory have had relatively the same opportunities that he has.

An initial dislaimer here - I'm throwing out the relays when evaluating swimming acheivements. There are two reasons for that. The first is that I'm looking at individual accomplishments, and trying to figure out how much an individual contributes to a relay outcome is very nebulous. Secondly, until very recently, relays were owned by the USA, so it unfairly tilts the playing field in favor of US swimmers. Case in point, Jenny Thompson, who is now tied for 3rd on the list of swimmers with 8 gold medals in her career - none of which came in an individual race. An excellent swimmer no doubt, but nowhere near the discussion of all-time best.

So, having removed the relays from consideration, what are we left with? Well, Phelps has won gold on 5 US relays, leaving him with 9 all-time individual gold medals. #2 on that list for all swimmers is Kristina Egerzegi of Hungary, with 5 individual golds. After her, you get a handful of swimmers with 4 individual golds (including Spitz), several with 3, etc. All of this is to say, prior to Phelps, 4 individual gold medals would have given you a legitimate claim to being the all-time greatest individual swimmer in Olympic history. Phelps and his 9 more than double that.

Let's go a little further. Phelps' 5 individual golds in Beijing was a new swimming record (it's been done a couple times in other sports), surpassing the previous record of 4 that his 2004 Athens haul shared with Spitz in '72 and Kristin Otto in '88 (Otto has a massive black cloud hanging over her accomplishments however, as the star of an East German women's program that was later discovered to have been involved in dramatic and systematic doping). Anyhow, Phelps also had a bronze in '04, which to the best of my research made him the first swimmer to medal in 5 individual events in the same Olympic. The point I'm getting at here - the two best performances by an individual swimmer in a single Olympics both belong to Phelps.

So, what am I driving at here? Well, I started out by saying I was going to compare Phelps to his swimming peers. The reality is, in terms of individual accomplishments, he is completely peerless in the pool. Career-wise, you could assign the difference between his accomplishments and the second-best on that list to another swimmer, and that swimmer would be in the conversation of all-time greats himself. And his second best performance at an single Games is better than anyone elses' best. Not to mention that, were I going to take the time to era-adjust accomplishments, I'd tend to give the nod to later accomplishments in swimming, simply because of how the sport has grown and the way the depth of the field has increased over time - more than twice as many countries won swimming medals in 2008 than did, for instance, in 1972.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that if Phelps is peerless in the pool, it's going to take an athlete who is similarly peerless in their arena to challenge him for the title of "greatest ever Olympian". I'm going to be doing some of my own research on this (slowly - remember, this is a hobby, not a profession), but I certainly welcome nominations.

Jay Mohr: Worst. Radio. Host. Ever.

Like many men between the ages of 25 and 39 I enjoy my daily dose of "The Jungle" - better known as The Jim Rome Show between noon and 3 PM.

However, this week Rome is on vacation and listeners are being subjected to lackluster fill-in hosts. Monday and Tuesday there was Jason Whitlock, who while being dry and often just plain wrong (because college football does need a playoff system!) is at least knowledgable and talks about sports.

Today we were "treated" to actor/"comedian" Jay Mohr (and yes, those quotes are around the word "comedian" on purpose). Mohr himself will say that he is lazy about his hosting duties and was quickly evident when he opened with a news story that broke last Thursday. Yes, the fact that there is a major jock itch outbreak on the USC football team is funny. At least it was funny for about 5 minutes when I heard it Thursday morning.

But I guess if you have the maturity of an eighth-grade boy, then maybe it is still funny. Just like his comparison of the food at Carl's Junior to a dirty diaper. Or describing the sounds that come out of an airport bathroom. Or comparing the PA announcer at the Staple's Center's voice to that of a pedophile. "Pedophiles--you know, they molest children, hilarious!"

Rome's been known to use borderline humor, but that's just it. It's borderline. He never allows fart or butt jokes when he's in studio yet when he's gone and Jay Mohr's hosting it's a free-for-all. You can hear the production crew snickering like 12 year-olds when their eighth-grade hero talks to them about the time his older brother left a bag of flaming dog poo on their elderly neighbor's doorstep.

So how is it that the uninformed, crude and unfunny "Slam Man" get to fill in for Rome? I think we all know. Incriminating photographs.

Reality Television Event of the Century

I'm not one for reality shows - documentary shows like The Deadliest Catch, yes - but not Survivor, American Idol, The Bachelor-type reality shows. Scott may try to dispute that, but I assure you his information is outdate and irrelevant to this post.

And I really don't like celebrity-based reality shows like Hogan Knows Best or Keeping up with the Kardashians (which I probably just spelled wrong, but consider the show too insignificant to even check). But I do like what the Golf Channel is about to do.

The Golf Channel will be doing a service to manking by having Hank Haney fix Charles Barkley's golf swing. Jim Rome called this "the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object". All you need to know about Haney is that Tiger Woods let him tinker with his swing. And all you need to know about Charles Barkley is that he was on the original USA Basketball "Dream Team"...and his golf swing makes small children cry.

How bad is Sir Charles' swing?

see for yourself:


In fact I'm pretty sure that Tiger Woods blew out his knee watching Chuck's swing.

It doesn't appear that days and times have been released, but when it is, you can bet that for the first time ever, I'll watch an entire program on the Golf Channel.

When is a tie not a tie?

First of all, let me be kind and issue a spoiler alert. I'm fairly certain the event I'm about to discuss will be broadcast on NBC in primetime tonight. So, if you haven't heard the results of the women's uneven bar final, and don't want to, please don't continue reading. (But come back after you've watched!)

Who would have thought that gymnastics scoring could get anymore convoluted? Certainly not me, that's for sure. After a series of judging controversies in Athen in 2004, the powers that be scrapped the 10 point system that had been the standard in gymnastics for decades, and implemented the current code of points, which takes 2 scores the A score (for the difficulty of the attempted elements, and I believe theoretically unlimited) and the B score (for execution, which is still graded on a 10 point scale. So, there is no longer a "perfect" score, although a gymnast could still get perfect marks for execution.

As we've learned in these Games, that change has really accomplished... nothing. Well, it's accomplished nothing that it set out to do anyhow. There are still head scratching scores, gymnasts still don't always get the right start values, and there's still inconsistencies from judge to judge and panel to panel. On top of that, the new system has thrown the all-around competition out of balance, because some apparatus have become higher scoring than others, which was not what the FIG was going for. And, as we learned early this morning US time, they've put in a convoluted tie-breaking procedure that relegated all-around champion Nastia Liukin to a silver on the uneven bars, where in any previous Olympic competition, she would have tied for the gold.

That's right, Liukin received the exact same score (16.725) as gold medalist He Kexin, but settled for silver.

I've read through the tie-breaking procedures, and while I finally think I understand the mechanics, the rationale for them escapes me. But that's really not the point. The point is that once again, gymnastics is getting a negative spotlight for their scoring and judging system, and taking (at least in this case), a very unnecessary black eye. Why, all of a sudden, is a tie a bad thing? If you've gone through all these complicated procedures to determine that two routines deserve the exact same score, why do you have to go back and nit-pick to distinguish?

I've tended to lean to the idea in the past that competitions that are judged should not be considered sports, and especially not Olympic sports. Gymnastics is one of the few things that keeps me from going fully over to that camp, because I watch how amazingly athletic both the men and women are, and I can't bring myself to say that they don't belong on an Olympic stage. I have no such difficulty with say, figure skaters.

The fact of the matter is, however, that it doesn't need to be this way with gymnastics. Given the nature of the events, it wouldn't be that hard to take virtually all the subjectivity out of the judging and really just render it as score keeping. And, from what I understand, the new system is moving in that direction. And I hope so, because if jokes like this continue, I may just have to put it up alongside the likes of figure skating, and I'd really hate to do that.

Here's a Little More Perspective

I had a pretty funny post planned about Michael Phelps that I was going to post today, until I read Scott's post from last night and now I choose not to let that go unchallenged.

Phelps may have the most Olympic medals of all time, but I don't think that necessarily means he's the greatest Olympian of all time.

It may be fair to say that he's the greatest Olympic swimmer of all time, but the fact that he competes in swimming immediately gives him a leg up on anyone in any other sport. In no other Olympic sport are there so many seperate events that require the same set of strengths and training. Not even track and field with it's endless list of distances can compare to swimming.

And the fact that the relays this year were so hotly contested, while certainly "illustrates why doing what Phelps did is so much harder now" it is not evidence of Phelp's greatness, since had he been born in Ireland he would not have that medal to add to his count.

So when we talk about greatest Olympians, lets not leave out gymnast Larissa Latynina of the old Soviet Union (who has two more medals than Phelps, although fewer gold - only three of which were in team events), runner Pavo Nurmi a Fin whose Olympic career was cut short by his choice to accept money as an athlete thus potentially violating the amateurism of the Olympic Games. Not to mention German Brigit Fischer whose Olympic career spanned 24 years earned her 12 medals in flatwater canoeing. Or Cross-Country Skier Bjoern Dahlie whose eight gold medals for Norway is the most every for a Winter Olympian.

And don't forget all the athletes who participate in boxing, table-tennis, soccer, basketball, volleyball, or water polo who only get the chance to win one medal all four years. Whose to say that beach volleyball players Misty May-Treaner and Kerri Walsh who have won over 100 consecutive volleyball matches aren't greater Olympians than Michael Phelps, after all they only get one chance every four years.

And just to pile on here's someone who agrees. (Okay, so this post came after his, but you get my point.)

Trying to put it in perspective

Well, I've been holding back all games, but here it is, the Michael Phelps entry. Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you know that just minutes ago, Phelps and the US 4 x 100 medley relay team were victorious, giving Phelps his 8th gold of these 2008 Games, and placing him alone in Olympic history, 1 clear of Mark Spitz. He also now owns 14 gold medals overall, leaving him a staggering 5 medals ahead of any other Olympian in history. You can discuss swimming's place in the greater athletic pantheon if you wish, but at this point, two things are indisputable from where I sit - Phelps is the greatest Olympian of all-time (okay, you can make an argument for athletes in sports which don't present the sheer volume of medal opportunities, but I don't think you could put anyone ahead of him now), and his 2008 effort the greatest performance in a single games, ranking ahead of Spitz, and his own efforts in 2004.

Here are a few superlatives and impressions I was left with from throughout his run:

400 IM - Phelp's first race, and supposed to be one of the trickiest, turns out to be an incredible initial display of his dominance, as he runs away from the field and smashes the world record. The most amazing thing: he clocks the fastest split in the entire field on the breaststroke, his "weak" stroke.

4 x 100 free relay - This race, to me, illustrates why doing what Phelps did is so much harder now than it was when Spitz did it. For some perspective, in 1972, the US won the 4 x 100 free relay by over 3 seconds. In 2008, the US was not the favorite, and it took a herculean last leg from Jason Lezak for the US to win by less than a tenth of a second. Making the 3 US relays in '72 was 3 assured, easy golds. Not the case in 2008, which is to say that Phelps' contributions to his relay teams were more important than what Spitz brought to his. Take Phelps off the 2008 team, they lose, in all likelihood. Take Spitz off the '72 team, they still win very easily. This is not a knock on Spitz, but simply recognizing the way the world is catching up in the relays.

200 butterfly - Just when you think Phelps can't do anything to surprise you, he goes out and wins the 200 fly, in world record fashion, while swimming practically blind due to leaky goggles.

100 butterfly - Even though he's the two-time defending champion in this event, it does serve to remind us that he is human. Well, almost, anyhow. This race is dangerous for him because it's so short, if it's a 110, he's a clear winner every time. As it is, he's touched first at each of last two Olympics, but I still haven't figured out how he did it.

4 x 100 medley relay - The US has still never lost in this relay, but the rest of the world, the Aussies in particular, have gotten close enough that this wasn't a foregone conclusion, until Phelps got into the pool and buried his Aussie counterpart.

Here's the thing - Phelps got the 8th gold to give him a clear line to distinguish himself from Spitz, but I don't know that he needed it to surpass Spitz in terms of the impressive nature of achievement. Let's look at a few things that separated Phelps' program from Spitz's.

#1 - Number of swims: Phelps swam an extra individual event, and had to swim semi-finals in races that Spitz didn't, adding up to Phelps swimming 4 more times than Spitz did.

#2 - Length of swims: Phelps swam in 3 100 meter events, 4 200 meter events, and the 400 IM. Spitz swam in 4 100 meter events and 3 200 meter events.

#3 - Number of strokes: For his two IM golds, Phelps had to master all 4 strokes, Spitz swam only fly and free

#4 - Degree of difficulty: Phelps won 5 golds on his own, to Spitz's 4. Phelps was a part of one razor thin relay win and another that was at least a contest, Spitz won all 3 of his relays just by showing up with Team USA.

Now, the point of this is not to put down Mark Spitz - his achievements still stand among a handful of the greatest of all-time. It's just to provide a proper context and comparison for appreciating what Phelps just got done doing.

I sincerely hope that many of you had the opportunity that I did, to witness every stroke of each of Phelps' gold medal swims. It's going to come back every 4 years for as long as the Olympics are around, and it will be a very special memory to recall.

(Oh, by the way, Phelps might still be around at the next Games. Probably not going for 8 golds again, at the ripe old age of 27, but could you imagine if he could even get 4 for his 18th career, doubling the previous record?)

Apparently, you can go too far...

I'll be honest, I wasn't really sure that you could go too far in praising Michael Phelps' accomplishments in the pool during this Olympic games. I've been saving up my own superlatives for after he finishes off his effort with what everyone now assumes with be his record 8th gold in the 4 x 100 medley relay. I can really only post once a day, and so I didn't want to be totally on one subject for a week.

I found out that you can, in fact, go too far last night. As you probably already know, Phelps matched Mark Spitz's 7 gold medals in the 1972 games with his 7th gold of 2008, with a ridiculously narrow victory in the 100 meter butterfly. Later in NBC's coverage, there was the obligatory interview with both Phelps and Spitz, which was, for the most part, must watch TV. However, in his effusive praise of Phelps, Spitz crossed a line, in my opinion. I can't find a transcript for the exact language, but when speaking of the US team's amazing victory in the 4 x 100 meter relay, he essentially said that it was all because of Phelps, that Jason Lezak had an incredible finish, but that the team and the result was inspired by Phelps as their leader.

Michael Phelps is, without question, the best swimmer in the world, and in fact probably the best all-around swimmer in history. He was a huge part of that victory, but there were 3 other guys swimming. And I'm not saying that the team didn't take at least some sort of inspiration from Phelps and his historic quest. However, to essentially credit Phelps for the fact that Jason Lezak swam the greatest relay swim in history and chased down a world record holder who had been spotted a half second lead? Let's get real here. That just goes way too far. Phelps swam a great leadoff leg, but it would have been irrelevant without Lezak, just like it would have been irrelevant if any one of the other 2 swimmers hadn't done their jobs. That's how a relay works.

Furthermore, if you've heard Lezak talk since the relay (I have), you know that, while he's happy for Phelps, he clearly doesn't feel like he was swimming for Phelps. In my entry after the relay, I detailed Lezak's association with past US relay failures, and comments I've heard from him make it clear that those, and not Phelps' shot at history, along with the fact that this was really his last chance, were what pushed him to the wall.

Spitz is a great champion, and he had a lot of great things to say and much great insight throughout the interview. And I'm sure his intent was not to discredit Lezak, but that was absolutely the implication of what he said. I understand the desire to heap praise on Phelps, I'll be doing myself at some point later tonight or tomorrow. However, the man has done great things on his own in the pool, and there's just no reason to start embellishing his resume by assigning him responsibility for the performances of other athletes. Phelps contributed to that relay victory with a great leadoff leg. He did not make it happen all by himself, and implying it was all him would be just as wrong as acting like it was all about Lezak.

Replay rules!

Well, my co-contributer has (quite possibly without knowing it) just campaigned against one of my pet issues in all of sports, and as such, has thrown down the gauntlet. He has also succeeded in breaking up my run of Olympic-related posts, so if you're not into the Olympics, you can thank him for that. If you're also not into baseball, well, in that case, I'm beginning to question whether this is really a blog you should be visiting. (But please, don't go away!)

This is yet another issue that I had previously brought up on my blog. I'm not going to re-hash that whole post, you can read it for yourself if you're interested. However, I will respond to some of Jeff's points.

First of all, human error is a part of every sport's tradition, at least to some degree, and only by necessity. Where it can be eliminated without screwing with the sport in question it should be, and virtually every other sport out there does so. I mean, I guess we could stick with judges and hand-timing in swimming, but why? Boundary calls in baseball might be some of the most ready-made for replay assistance, and are also ridiculously signficant, one of the those calls that literally can take points off the board or put them on if messed up. They are also, due to positioning, often some of the most difficult calls for umpires, becoming more difficult on a yearly basis as new parks open up and blur the lines between fans and field further. I'm generally a baseball purist myself, but the fact that blown calls have always been a part of the game just isn't justification for continuing to miss them unnecessarily.

Jeff's point about the length of baseball games is fair. The last thing baseball needs is something to further slow the game, especially given the efforts being made to go in the other direction. However, replay on boundary calls won't do that, at all. Why? If you've ever seen a disputed boundary call, you already know the answer. On a disputed boundary call, the manager who believes his team was on the wrong end of a missed call is invariably going to come out of the dugout and argue for at least a minute or two, and he may succeed in getting an umpire conference to see if anyone had a better view, which will burn a couple more minutes. A replay might actually take less time in such a situation, and certainly won't take more, and, as an added bonus, the right call will be made.

The "slippery slope" point is also interesting. However, there's a rather significant barrier that should hold off the proliferation of replay, and that is the lack of a good way to correct most calls in baseball if they are overrturned. If Torri Hunter trapped that ball and it was ruled a catch, how do you fix that? The play completely changes. Boundary calls are easy to correct if there's an overturn, because the game is already stopped. The lone exception would be on a ball that was ruled a home run when it was actually in play, but with replay in place, I would assume umpires would be instructed to let any questionable ball that winds up back in play go, and then use replay after the fact.

I will say this, while I'm in favor the system being put into place, I'd prefer to go a bit further, and just put technology in place which would eliminate the potential for error on these calls, without the need for replay. I'm fairly certain something could be setup to instantly indicate which side of the foul pole a ball passed on, or whether or not it cleared the fence. At least, it seems like that should be possible in this day and age...

Regardless, my stance in general will always remain that where human error can be easily and unintrusively eliminated from sports officiating, it should be. I find such a stance to be unimpeachable, and thusly, I shall not be moved. Well, at least not today...

Baseball Gets Instant Replay

I know I'm in the minority when I say this, but that stinks.

For years Major League Baseball has been trying to find a way to speed up their games. Apparently they have given up that chase because they're going to allow umpires to use instant replay on "boundary calls", that is home run vs. off-the-wall (or ground-rule double) or fair-foul calls.

I'd like to say that my opposition comes from me being a baseball purist and that human error is simply part of baseball tradition. But honestly, I haven't watched an entire baseball game (start-to-finish) on television in probably four years.

Because it takes forever and I have better things to do with my time. And now to make things worse, the MLB is allowing umps to stick their head under a curtain to watch the replay of every questionable home run calls. I'm sure Orioles fans say this is coming 12 years too late, but frankly, they weren't going to win the 1996 ALCS anyway.

Besides, right now it will be for "boundary calls" but as I heard someone mention on the radio today, what happens when Tori Hunter traps a ball on a big play in a playoff game this fall? Jason Giambi is called out and the New York crowd starts chanting "re-play! re-play!" will Bud Selig stick to his guns and maintain the boundary-only policy next season? What if Manny Ramirez manages to slide under a tag a third base in Dodger Stadium, but is called out anyway? What then?

Instant reply on boundary calls is just the first small step towards the six hour nine inning game. Boo.

My kind of "reality tv"

Back about 6 weeks go, before this blog began and while the US Olympic Trials were all over my TV, I posted on my personal blog about how much I love the Olympics, and that one of the main reasons why was how the lack of "next year" makes the sporting drama so much more real and compelling. Of course, you have the Michael Phelps's of the world (okay, so there's only really one person in his class, but you get the point) who get and take advantage of multiple shots at Olympic glory, but for the vast majority of athletes, the shot at their Olympic dream, however big or small it may be, comes only once, and even that one shot can be somewhat fleeting. It's that backdrop that gets me up on the edge of my seat while watching athletes that I had never heard of a month ago, and sports that I probably won't have in the front of my mind again for another 4 years.

Nowhere that I've seen has that reality been more in the forefront in the early part of the Beijing Games than in the gymnastics venue. First, there was the men's team final on Monday night (really Tuesday morning in Beijing). You had the host Chinese, erasing several past Olympic failures and finally bringing home the gold in front of the home crowd, finally seizing their moment. And then there was Jonathan Horton of the USA, who was unexpectedly thrust into the position of being the leader and star of his team after Paul and Morgan Hamm had to withdraw with injury, grabbing his Olympic moment by the horns and being virtually flawless all night long in leading his team to a surprising bronze. We can't forget about Sasha Artemev, either. Here's a guy who had his Olympic dream killed twice - first when he failed to make the team and was selected as an alternate, and then again when Paul Hamm pulled out and he was not the alternate chosen to replace him. Then, Morgan Hamm's withdrawal finally opened the door. In a matter of days, Artemev went from off the team, to the last performer for the US in the team final, on pommel horse (an event where he was described by NBC commentators as "explosively inconsistent), with that bronze medal seemingly on the verge of slipping away. Artemev came through in a big way, and he'll get to extend his Olympic dream in the individual all-around and pommel horse event finals.

All of those images contrast starkly with the image of David Durante, the lone US alternate who didn't get the call, in the stands at the end of the competition, being comforted while fighting a losing a losing battle to keep back the tears. There was assuredly joy there for his friends and teammates, and yet also assuredly the sting of knowing he had missed perhaps his one chance at his own Olympic dream. For him, this moment was the epitome of bittersweetness.

Fast forward a day and see the US women's team. In perhaps no other sport is the Olympic dream more fleeting than in women's gymnastics, where a window of opportunity very rarely spans more than one Olympiad. None of these girls competed in Athens, and it's very likely that none will make it to London. That's just how it works. Witness Chelssie Memmel, at 20 already old by gymnastics standards, a former world all-around champion who no doubt came to Beijing with plans of being a major contributor to the US team and having medal opportunities of her own. An ankle injury shortly after arriving in China limited her to 2 30 second uneven bars routines, one of which she faltered badly on, costing her a chance go for an individual medal in that even. Even worse, for Samantha Pezek, who was injured right before the qualifiers and saw her Olympic moment reduced to a single bars routine. At 16, Pezek could possibly dream of London, but it's an uphill climb in all likelihood. The same is true for Bridget Sloan, who seized her brief Olympic moment, leading the US off with an excellent vault in her only appearance in the team final.

And yet perhaps no one athlete I've mentioned personifies the roller coaster ride of the Olympic dream like Alicia Sacramone. At 16 in 2004, her Athens Olympic dream narrowly died. Bitterly disappointed, she was unsure whether to stick it out and go for Beijing. She did, and was rewarded for her persistence, beating the long odds of her sport. At 20, she was named team captain, and was to be a critical piece of the US quest for the team gold. With the US needing greatness from each performance to win the gold, she faltered and fell once on each of her last two events, the 2nd being floor, one of her signatures, and those mistakes made a large chunk of the final margin between silver and gold - Sacramone's Olympic dream once again becoming a nightmare. Even still, however, her roller coaster ride has a chance for a final upwards move, the individual vault finals.

Stories like these are why, in my mind, sports, and in particularly the Olympics, will always be the best "reality tv" you can find.

A Kick in the Asterisk

I know this is a couple days late, but in case you haven't heard Ireland's Padraig Harrington won his second consecutive (Tiger-less) major this Sunday at the PGA Championship. He's the first European in 78 years to win the PGA and the first European ever to win two consecutive majors.

And even though Tiger wasn't there, there should be no asterisk to this accomplishment. Here's a few reasons why:

1. He beat Eldrick last year at the (British) Open Championship.

2. Sergio choked (not to be confused with Sergio spitting), giving the PGA "official major" status.
3. Since 1997, of the 46 Majors that Woods participated, he won 14 of them, meaning the other 32 were won by someone else (duh!). So Harrington's victory is at least 69% legitimate, giving him a two-thirds majority.

4. Padraig Harrington is a cousin of poker player and former World Series of Poker Champion "Action Dan" Harrington. He was just playing the odds and going all-in when he held pocket aces and the flop came up with a third. (I'm not sure where I was going with that...)

5. Jack Nicklaus won all 18 of his Majors in tournaments without Tiger Woods. Does he deserve an asterisk?

6. He is also a cousin to (former?) NFL quarterback Joey Harrington...actually, scratch that-that may be a reason for an asterisk.

So bloggers, media members and golf honks: you can see here six...er...four good reasons to keep Harrington's Major victories asterisk-free. That and the fact that asterisks are stupid. (Except for the one on the Bonds baseball - that asterisk is awesome!)

There Are No Words

Okay, I'm going to apologize up front, because I'm about to continue a time honored literary and journalistic tradition of saying "there are no words" to describe a certain event, and then proceeding to try and some words anyhow. In fact, even the story I'm going to reference took that line.

I sincerely hope that, despite the late hour, many of you witnessed what I witnessed last night shortly before midnight: the incredible men's Olympic 4 x 100 meter freestyle relay. If you weren't watching it live, with an emotional investment in the outcome, and no knowledge of the finish, I'm not sure you'll ever really get it. You may be able to appreciate it's place in sporting history, you may grasp what an impressive comeback it was, and how close of a finish it was, but I still don't think you'll get "it". And what is "it"? "It" is what made me practically jump out of my bed, where I was watching the drama unfold, clapping and yelling in the midst of an empty house at nearly midnight on a Sunday evening. "It" was one of the greatest Olympic moments I've had the opportunity to witness. And "it" may ultimately serve as the ultimate punctuation on one of greatest athletic achievements of all-time.

If you've been paying any attention to the Olympics at all, you know the storyline: Michael Phelps, the best swimmer in the world, is attempting to win 8 gold medals in a single Olympic Games. That would surpass Mark Spitz's 1972 performance as the greatest single Games performance ever, and coupled with the 6 golds he won in Athens in 2004, would absolutely shatter the record for most career gold medals. 5 of Phelps' events are individual, and he's swimming 3 relays. One of those, of course, was last night's 4 x 100 free. This is an event in which gold would have been a foregone conclusion for him as a part of the American team anytime prior to 2000, but the US had failed to win in both the last two Olympics, and were not the favorites last night (that honor belonged to then-100 meter free world record holder Alain Bernard and the trash talking French), meaning that this relay represented the biggest threat to derail the Phelps train.

And through about 375 meters, it seemed that was just what would happen. Phelps and teammate Garrett Weber-Gale had gotten the US off to a good start and a slight lead, but with their slowest swimmer in the 3rd leg, the French had taken over, and handed Bernard (now the former world record holder, as Eamon Sullivan of Australia had broken his 100m free record on the opening leg, as is allowed) about a half second lead. American anchor Jason Lezak was unable to put any dent in that lead through the first 50 meters of his leg. However, drafting off of Bernard, he had not allowed the French anchor to pull away either. Even still, with about 25 meters to go, the race seemed out of reach. Then, all of a sudden, the gap started to narrow. At every point, I'm thinking, man there's just not enough time, until suddenly with 5 meters to go they were almost even, and then there it was, Lezak had out touched Bernard by .08 seconds, shattering the world record by over 4 seconds, finishing off the fastest relay leg in history, giving the US a gold medal that only about 10 seconds and 25 meters earlier had seemed a distant dream, and setting off a raucous display of excitement from Phelps and his US teammates.

I admit it, I've caught Phelps fever, much like I did in Athens. I'm pulling for this guy like crazy, and I want to see him do something that has never been done before. These are the kinds of things I want to be able to tell my kids about someday when we're watching the Olympics. I'm sure that's a big part of what I was so invested in this outcome. However, whether Phelps wins 6, 5, 1, or no more gold medals at this Olympics, it is my hope that the performance of this relay team, and Lezak specifically, won't just wind up as a nifty footnote to the Phelps story.

Let's get a little more perspective on Lezak here. (I have more superlatives for Phelps that I will likely bring out in a later entry). This was Lezak's 3rd 4 x 100 m freestyle in the Olympics, and his 3rd time as the anchor. In 2000, he was the first US anchor not to touch the wall first in the Olympics, and in 2004, he brought the US home behind 2 other teams. Fair or not (he did anchor 2 world championship winners in that time), he had in many ways became the face of the USA's fall from dominance in this event. In 2008, at the age of 32 when most swimmers have fallen off the map, here he was as the USA anchor once more. And not only that, but he was given a half second deficit to a guy who was supposed to be faster than him. And what does Lezak do, except turn in the swim of his life (and the greatest relay swim ever), when absolutely nothing less than that would have gotten the job done. NBC commentator Rowdy Gaines had said before the race that he had broken the race down over and over, and just kept coming up with the French winning. He, like everyone else, just didn't see Lezak coming, and that's what makes sports so incredible.

So, after an entry full of them, I come back to where I started and say "There are no words" for what Lezak did last night. And in an Olympics that is likely to be full of memorable performances, including several more from his more famous teammate, here's hoping that Lezak's tour de force receives it's just place in the annals of Olympic history.

Beijing is Suddenly a Happy Place

After reading Scott's post, I feel my Olympic knowledge may be insufficient for this post. Because I've never seen an Olympic Team Handball match, and have only watched maybe a couple hours of Olympic coverage this weekend (I have been out of town, if you need an excuse).

But I did notice how suddenly you don't hear anything about athletes coughing up soot when they go for a jog around the block. Or how there are suspicions that the steroids Chinese farmers pump into their livestock may cause a "false" positive test in an athlete who consumes products of Chinese Agriculture. Or how China has quietly been on the wrong side of the genocide in Darfur. Or anything about Tibet.

Yes, suddenly Beijing is a happy place and all the negative stories leading up to the games has evaporated. In fact the only time I heard anything remotely negative about the Chinese government or life in Beijing was during Bob Costas' interview with President Bush. But even that was pretty light on criticism.

With the exception of the stabbing of one American (which the Chinese Government insists is an isolated incident), Beijing has been the home to happy stories, like Michael Phelps seventh career gold medal (in the 400M medley) and the gumption of the U.S. women's gymnastics team. But remember, it's all fun and games until someone coughs up a wad of soot in the marathon. Safe to say that Captain Phil Harris will NOT be anywhere near China this summer.

Let the Games begin!

So, as you probably noticed, the Olympic Games are underway in Beijing. And I have to admit right now, I need help.

Why? Well, let me explain. I was gone last night, so I did miss the opening ceremonies (okay, let's be honest, I wouldn't have watched them even if I had been home), but that avoidance didn't last long. I was up early this morning to reserve a late morning tee time for myself and my Dad, and by 10 o'clock, here is a list of the sports that I had watched, at some point or another:

Fencing (women's individual sabre, a USA medal sweep, by the way)
Team Handball (Germany vs. Brazil, a Brazil runaway)
Women's soccer (USA vs. Japan)
Badminton
Equestrian
Women's basketball

Yeah, I've got a problem. But it's NOT my fault!

NBC is flooding the world with live coverage this year. Across (I think) 7 TV stations, they will be providing 1200 hours of coverage. I have temporarily upgraded my satellite TV package so I can get a couple of those stations that I don't normally have. And if that's not enough for you, there will be 2400 hours of streaming video available from nbcolympics.com. My understanding is that every event/game will be available live over the internet, with the exception of those that NBC will be airing on the main network. Crazy, crazy. How could any big-time sports nut resist that? Really, I'm quite fortunate that there's a 12 hour time difference between the East Coast of the US and Beijing, because that will prevent me from spending every waking hour watching Olympic coverage. Right now, you see, it's 4:30 am in Beijing, and there just isn't much happening.

My sickness goes deeper, however. I was a part of a fantasy Olympic draft. 8 players, 21 rounds, picking an athlete/team in an individual event. That's what spurred me not only to take a passing glance at fencing (which is what I did with equestrian and handball), but to actually watch the entire bronze medal match - I had drafted Becca Ward in the individual sabre competition, who let me down by not winning the gold, but did salvage a bronze medal. The US sweep of the event gives me high hopes for my pick of the US in the team competition, however. And don't worry, I've got lots of picks from more "mainstream" sports like swimming, diving, and gymnastics.

So, I don't know what Jeff's planning to talk about for the next two weeks, but hopefully for the sake of you all, he'll hit you with something other than the Olympics, because that's certainly where I'll be sitting.

It's over (?)

Well, by now, I'm sure that if you're interested enough in sports to be interested in this blog, you've heard the news - the Brett Favre saga ended overnight with the future Hall of Famer being traded to the New York Jets. The Packers even did us all (well, I doubt they were actually concerned about us so much as themselves) a favor by killing any speculation that the Jets might turn around and send Favre to the Minnesota Vikings. I suppose the Jets could do that, but they'd have to give the Packers 3 first round picks, which means the Vikings would have to give the Jets even more than that to do the deal. Regardless, the point is, that this is over.

Except that it isn't over. This round is over, but Favre's return and now change of venue has made sure that the media will continue to follow him around like lost little puppies. I mean, think about this for a second - Favre was able to generate all this fuss while splitting his time between Nowheresville, Mississippi, and Green Bay, Wisconsin. Neither are exactly media hot spots. Now, he's squarely in the center of the media capital of the world. Anyone expecting immediate calm on the Favre front is going to be sorely disappointed.

No, Favre will likely be the lead football story at least until they start playing football games that count, and will probably be a major story throughout the season, good, bad, or ugly. And here's the punchline - this offseason, we'll now get to deal with another offseason of "will he or won't he" with regards to Favre and retirement. That, by the way, seems tame and pleasant in regards to this last week. I can only pray that the soap opera that has played out this summer will give the media some pause in how they handle things this coming spring. However, if you know my attitude towards the media, you probably also know I'm not overly optimistic about that.

My one hope for some sanity the next time around lies in the fact that it seems clear to me that this most recent saga has left Favre's previously almost universal appeal tarnished, and genuinely left a large segment of the public just flat out tired of him. The media had to play this one out to completion, but here's hoping they are observant enough to realize that fact going forward.

Erin Andrews is Not My Little Sister

...and probably not yours either.


There has been a bit of a flap in the news lately about a column by Mike Nadal that questioned ESPN reporter Erin Andrews' professionalism as a sideline reporter.


"Erin Andrews, the ESPN "it" babe who clearly isn't afraid to flaunt it, sauntered around the visiting clubhouse, flitting from one Cubs player to another. Her skimpy outfit -- designed to accentuate her, um, positives -- had players leering at her. Some made lewd comments under their breath. Others giggled like 12-year-olds."


Andrews' response was that it was "sad" and that the players see her more as a little sister and that she's just a tomboy.


Sorry Erin, but you're not their little sister and frankly, guys like tomboys. It appears that Erin has made an unfortunate assumption about the male mind (or possibly hormones?) that is rather common among women. What she sees as harmless banter or "chumminess" around players, they may see as flirtation or a pass. Worse yet, their wives may see it as flirtation or a pass.


Yes, I understand the resistance and struggle that women had faced to get clubhouse access, but there is still a difference between men and women. While Andrews might not be titilated by the washboard abs and biceps of the players she interviews, you can bet that they notice her low-cut shirts or short skirts. Men are just different that way. You can say that you're just a tomboy and they don't look at you that way- but they do, they can't help it. By acting less than professional, Erin Andrews does more to disrespect the struggle that her predecessors went through than celebrate it.

By all means, Andrews should have access to the clubhouse, just like any male reporter, but in a sports media that already has a tendency to objectify women (just listen to some of the promos on your local sports talk station) its imperative that female reporters act professionally, especially if they want to avoid the appearance of being the "token hot girl" on the reporting team.

The X Games Need Better Announcers

This past weekend I caught a little bit of the X-games.

And, I mean a little bit. Mostly I was just flipping channels and became mystified by the big air ramp. It just looked really cool.

But I also caught a bit of a skateboard competition that I didn't understand, and I think the announcers did a pretty poor job of explaining it. This isn't an exact quote, but it went something like this:

Guy in Hurley T-shirt: We're here in LA for the Men's Skate Street Finals.

Chris Farley Impersonator: Yeah and it's, like gonna be awesome.

GHT: We've got guys ready to take it to the rail on their boards.

CHI: And it's like totally cool! One time I saw this guy fall..and oh man!

GHT: Looks like they're getting started and...ooh that was a great kickflip up to the rail. And Paul Rodriguez just lost his board...

CHI: He was like, awesome in Born in East L.A.!

GHT: Umm...different Paul Rodriguez...


And so on.

Paul Rodriguez

Paul Rodriguez

As you can see from this sample, there's not really a lot of depth or analysis in the announcing. That's why I think ESPN should consider pulling in some new talent for the X-games. Of course, I some suggestions.


1. Joe Buck
He would add a certain amount of legitimacy to the games. Unless of course he does that "Slam-a-lam-a-ding-dong" bit.


2. The Sklar Brothers
If you've seen Cheap Seats, then you know.


3. John Madden
This is my ultimate pick. I would love to hear Madden try to explain big air skateboard:


"Well, you got these ramps and they go down, voom and they go over this gap and a do a little stunt. It's called a gap because there's a gap between the ramps and they could fall in, and that would be bad, because they'd probably be injured pretty bad. So they go over the gap and then it really gets crazy because there's a big ramp and whoom! The go up the big ramp, do a stunt in mid air and come down and boom! there you have it."


It would be spectacular. So if Madden is working the booth for the ice climbing wall at the next Winter X-Games, you know where the four-letter got the idea.

Lidge "saves" the day for the Phillies

Thanks for that introduction Jeff, though I fear you have been too generous regarding everything except my inability to make a point in fewer than 5 paragraphs. Ultimately my hope is that this blog will be far superior for both of our contributions than any sports blog either of us could do on our own would be. Hopefully between the two of us, you as readers will find yourself entertained, informed, or provoked (and perhaps all 3) each time you stop by.

Anyhow, onto my topic of the day. Last night, I was watching the Phillies play the Cardinals on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball. The Phillies had been trailing all game, but a 4 run outburst in the top of the 8th inning put them in front 5-2. A Cardinals run in the bottom of the 8th made the score 5-3, and that's where it stood when Phillies closer Brad Lidge took the mound in the bottom of the 9th.

Lidge proceeded to do the following: Give up a tape measure home run to Troy Glaus, get Yadier Molina out; load the bases by giving up singles to Aaron Miles and Rick Ankiel and then drilling Cesar Izturis in the shoulder with a 1-2 pitch; strike out the last 2 Cardinal batters with the tying run at 3rd and the winning run at 2nd. The end result: a 5-4 Phillies win, and Lidge being credited with his 28th save of the year in 28 chances.

Now, like all sports, there are a few things in baseball that either don't make sense or are just plain silly. The save as a stat often falls into both category. Calling what Lidge did last night a "save" implies that he saved the game in some way. Really? Taking a team from a relatively comfortable 2 run lead with half an inning to play to the brink of defeat before recovering to escape = saving the game? Call me skeptical, at best.

The save is one of baseball's most nonsensical (and sadly, most overrated) statistics. To help frame that point, consider that had Lidge been pulled from the game after loading the bases and his replacement had struck out the next 2 batters, or induced a game ending double play, he would have been credited with the same exact save that Lidge got. Further, had his replacement done the unthinkable and given up a sac fly prior to getting the 3rd out, he, and not Lidge, would have been credited for blowing the save. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. And let's go one step beyond that. Let's say a similar sequence had occurred (with different pitchers) in the 8th inning, and a pitcher had come in to get out of the bases loaded, one out jam to preserve the one run lead. If Lidge then comes in and works a 1-2-3 ninth, he gets the save, but let's be real, who saved the game?

If you're going to have a stat called a save, and have it mean something, shouldn't at least one of the criteria be that your outing ends with your team in as least as good a position as they were when it began. Lidge didn't save a lead last night, he just managed (barely) not to give it away.

New Contributer

It didn't take long for this blog to attract a second contributer. Sure it's only had 40 hits in its short life but this may be a sign that it will take off. So hop on the bandwagon early!


...or not.


My good friend, former roommate and occasional softball opponent, Scott Benedict will be contributing on occasion. His posts will almost certainly prove to be longer, more profound and better thought out. Because he really likes sports and really follows sports well. Way more than I do.


So now there will not only be short, witty and occasionally sarcastic posts here, but also deep commentary. (And corrections of all my factual errors.) So we'll have something for everybody. Unless you hate sports. Then you should read one of our personal blogs.

Manny Loves LA

It really shouldn't come as a surprise that the attention-loving former Red Sox loves Southern California.

But what is a surprise is that in less than three days wearing Dodger blue, Manny Ramirez has said that he would like to retire as a Los Angeles Dodger.

At the very least, this will make Jim Rome happy.

So in less than a week of Joe Torre's management, Don Mattingly's coaching and presumably unbeatable weather, Manny had decided this is where he'd like to stay. Sure he had two World Series Rings in Boston (and two AL pennants in Cleveland), but three days in LA - that's where he wants to settle down.

Well, good for Manny. I spent three days in LA and it was enough for me to know that it was where I didn't want to be, so I guess maybe it works the other way, too. But personally, I don't think Manny loves Hollywood as much as he's glad to be out of Boston.

So everybody wins in the deal. LA gets Manny, Manny gets LA, Boston gets top performer Jason Bay (1-3, a triple, and 2 runs scored last night), and the Pirates gets some players they can develop and trade away later for more players that they can develop. Yep, everybody wins.

Manny being Manny

Rodney Harrison is Dirty

This of course, is slightly old news.

In an ESPN NFL Coaches poll, the Patriots' Rodney Harrison was voted the leagues dirtiest player. He beat the master of the horse-collar tackle, Roy Williams by nine votes. Williams had two.

This week, when the media finally got a chance to talk to Harrison about the poll, he compared himself to Jesus. Then he said he wasn't comparing himself to Jesus:

"It's unfortunate that you have stigma like that, but what can you say? They crucified Jesus Christ, too. So -- and I'm not comparing myself to him -- but people are going to say things. They're going to slander you."

While it's good to hear that Harrison isn't letting the poll bother him and probably won't change his style because of it, you just don't do that!

There are certain phrases that you just don't use when talking to the media:

1. "No disrespect to ___________" - this is the usual precurser to someone getting disrespected.

2. "_____ has 25 million reasons to stay alive" - We're talking about life and death here, don't bring money into it.

3. "I am officially retiring from the NFL and the Green Bay Packers" - Okay, this only applies if your name is Brett Favre. And you don't mean it.

...and you definitely never compare yourself to Jesus. Or any religious figure. Buddha, Mohammed, Vishnu - just don't do it. People will be offended. Just ask John and Yoko.

An Open Letter to the Green Bay Packers

This was originally posted on my personal blog, Another Mile (8/1/08).

To Ted Thompson, Mark Murphy, Mike McCarthy and anyone else who may be in charge of the money:

It has recently come to my attention that you have offered Brett Favre $20 million to NOT show up to training camp, NOT play football for the Packers or any other team and stay retired.I would like the opportunity to bid on this position that Favre has been offered.

I am far more experienced in not playing professional sports and would probably serve the Packers far better the Favre in this capacity. You see, I have not played professional, collegiate, high school or even Pop Warner football in my entire life. I have a solid 28 years of experience not playing football.

How can you trust someone who has been an NFL MVP, won a Super Bowl, and served the Packers as starting Quarterback for 16 seasons to not play football? Favre has talked a good talk about not playing football, but he's made it clear that not playing football is not where his passion or his talents lie . I think my record makes it clear that I will be a much better non-football player than Favre for the 10 years that has been offered in the contract.

In fact, I don't even need $20 million dollars. For the sum of $15 million for the next 12 years I will be willing to not play football in the NFL. That's two extra years for five million dollars less. In fact, I will even quit my current job and not take a steady job anywhere else for those 12 years and I will definitely not work for another NFL club. I'd use that time to give back to the community that has supported me so much for the 28 years I have not played football and given me the opportunity to show you just how good of a non-football player I can be.

Obviously, the non-work clause would have to have exclusions to allow me to run, cycle, and well ... blog, but that is something we can work out at the bargaining table.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best Regards,
Jeff Lorow
PeanutVenders.blogspot.com