Man Bites Blog

• Good to see Brett Favre going to New York, where he’ll finally get some media attention.  Hey, Peter King is right down the street.
• I am a firm believer that good starting pitchers are more valuable than relief pitchers, and that many “bad bullpens” are a result of starters not eating up enough innings.
  Thus, when Adam Wainwright returns, he should go into the starting rotation. 
• Look for my ode to sports fandom soon at quiblit.com

Bill Simmons observes that Kevin Garnett is unable to raise his game for the playoffs; Matt Yglesias objects to “blaiming” Garnett for the Celtics’ lackluster performance in the playoffs so far.

This echoes back to my theme of a few weeks ago of assigning moral weight to sports skills.  “Clutch” performance is perhaps the Holy Grail of this.  Proven clutch performers, Michael Jordan, Robert Horry, Joe Carter, are lauded, and there are few reputations more difficult to shake than failing to come through in the clutch.

Thus, when it is observed that a favorite player fails to come through in the clutch, it will put that players’ fans immediately on the defensive, in a way they would not if say, his shooting ability were criticized.

The further the skill is on the virtuous continuum, the more people’s hackles get up.  For example, sabermetricians observe that Derek Jeter, for most of his career, has been at best an average defensive shortstop, and get flamed.  But observe that Ryan Howard strikes out a lot, and you won’t get nearly as much feedback.

But why should this be?  It’s not as if people think that Garnett isn’t trying hard.  If anything, he may be trying too hard.   And is there any doubt that Garnett is very valuable to the Celtics?  Maybe Robert Horry has hit more clutch shots, but we’re picking sides for a high-pressure game, I’d pick Garnett every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The problem, such as it is, with Garnett is that the stucture of the league essentailly means that a team can only afford certain amount of resources.  Garnet’s abilities dictate that he be compensated as a superstar, but his inability to raise his game in pressure situations means that Garnett’s team also needs a late-game scorer in order to win a championship.  This person also commands a number of resources, and having your crunch-time scorer be someone different from your superstar can create some team chemistry issues, if not handled extremely delicately.  For the Lakers, where Kobe Bryant is the superstar and the crunch time scorer and everybody knows it, life is a little simpler.

That’s a problem, but not a moral failure on Garnett’s part.

In the Celtics case, it might not matter, as several players recognized the potential for this team to win a championship, and that’s all that matter to them at this point.

Sports Illustrated documents the worst Philly moments since their last title 25 years ago.  With 4 major sports, that makes 100 title-free years.

SI fudges a bit by including some college moments, and Villanova did win the title in 1985, but if you included Penn, St. Joe’s, Villanova, Tample, and LaSalle basketball, that gets Philly comfortably over 100.

Another interesting list is the teams that have won championships since either the Philadelphia Phillies, Eagles, 76ers, or Flyers last won a title.  A list that includes the following:

• Tampa Bay Lightning
• Florida Marlins (twice!)
• St. Louis Rams
• Tampa Bay Buccaneers
• Baltimore Ravens
• Indianapolis Colts
• Anaheim Ducks
• San Antonio Spurs (three times!)
• Arizona Diamondbacks
• New Jersey Devils (three times!)

In addition, the New York Rangers, Detroit Red Wings, Chicago White Sox, Boston Red Sox, and Anaheim Angels all ended historic championship droughts.  There have been traditional powerhouses who have continued their dominance (Yankees, Cowboys, Lakers), as well as the upstarts above.  There’s pretty much been every variety of champion except for Philadelphia (or Buffalo or Cleveland or Seattle, but they don’t have as many teams).

 In fact, let’s spin through the other cities with at least four teams.

Boston: Celtics (twice), Red Sox (twice), Patriots(three times)

New York: Islanders, Rangers, Devils (three times), Yankees (four times), Mets, Giants (three times)

Baltimore/Washington: Orioles, Ravens, Redskins (twice)

Miami: Heat, Marlins (twice)

Tampa/Orlando: Buccaneers, Lightning

Atlanta: Braves

Chicago: Bulls(six times), White Sox

Denver: Avalanche(twice), Broncos(twice)

Los Angeles: Dodgers, Angels, Lakers(three times), Ducks

Phoenix: Diamondbacks

Dallas: Stars, Cowboys(three times)

Minneapolis/St. Paul: Twins (twice)

San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose: 49ers (four times), A’s

I don’t know if the McNabb-Reid Eagles have one more run in them.  The current Phillies need another pitcher, the Sixers need another quality scorer, but the Flyers look promising.

give Allen Iverson a standing ovation upon his return.

Let’s remember this the next time folks in my new town of St. Louis start congratulating themselves on what wonderful fans they are for giving Tino Martinez a curtain call when he was hitting .220.

Brett Hull pretty much saved the St. Louis Blues franchise.  And what thanks did he get?  He was booed out of town, and booed everytime he returned here.

The Rams get behind in a playoff game?  The fans start booing and leaving a game the Rams ultimately came from behind to forece overtime.

Give me the Philly fans any day.  I’m glad this year’s Sixers are giving them something to root for.

Reading the two Bill Simmons columns on the mess with the Seattle Sonice (here and here), one thing that jumps out is that it seems that the NBA prefers to do business with cities where the NBA is the only show in town, so that they have immense leverage.

There was a lot of talk ab out how Seattle is “tapped out” having just built stadiums for the Seahawks and the Mariners, and is unwilling to build a new arena for the Sonics.

Enter Oklahoma City.  Currently, they’re most famous for being the site of an infamous terrorist attack.   But here comes the NBA to put it on the map.  Let’s say the Soonerics move there, and in five years aren’t so thrilled with the arena.  Does Oklahoma City really want to lose a team that quickly?  Seattle can afford to tell the NBA to take a hike.  Could Oklahoma City?

The NBA has teams in Portland, Sacramento, Memphis, Orlando, Charlotte (twice!), Salt Lake City, and San Antonio.  They have no team in Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Buffalo, St. Louis, or Kansas City. 

So, if your city’s on that last list and you’re looking for a team, I wouldn’t get your hopes up.  If you’re in an up-and-coming city that doesn’t have any major leagues sports (say, Las Vegas), the NBA may be on its way.

But if your’re in a medium size city with other sports teams (say, Milwaukee, Cleveland, even Atlanta), I wouldn’t get too attached to your NBA team.  It may be on its way out.

Shorter than Easterbrook, and without the cherry-picking of times when teams get burned on the blitz…

• My new hare-brained theory is the Belichek got caught on purpose.

  Think about the last few sports champions.  With the exception of the Spurs, they all came in with some narrative — either “us against the world” or “nobody except the men in this room believed in us.”

  The Patriots couldn’t plausibly claim the “no respect” angle”  Everyone considers Belichek a genius, Brady one of the best QB’s, etc.  The Patriots are not loved by the league and the media, but not hated like, say, the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys were (I’m an Eagles fan, so this may be skewed).

  But now?   They’ve got their “us against the world” narrative.  What’s more Belichek can come up to Tom Brady and say, “They all think you won because of videotaping — why don’t you go out there and prove them wrong?” 

  The offense seemed so stupid and unnecessary, I do wonder if it was intentional.  Bill Belichek does seem like the type of guy who would trade an eighth of his salary for a ring.

• The Rams lost, but looked better.  But I don’t see Marc Bulger making it through the year.  Of course, I said that last year….
• The Eagles lost as well.  It would be a damn shame if this was the end of the Donovan McNabb era.  I’m seeing parallels to Eric Lindros that I’m not happy with.
• Notre Dame is a bad football team, which is hard to fathom, considering the recuiting advantages they have.  And for the conspiratorial among us, it’s worth noting that this team appears to be much worse than any team led by Ty Willingham.
• If the Phillies could just play the Mets the rest of the year, they’d win the East.  I kind of suspect they’ll run out of gas sometime soon, and as usual fall a handful of games short of the playoffs.

• The Cardinals had to go and win three straight from the Brewers to create the illusion that they can contend, so they probably won’t be sellers at tomorrow’s trade deadline.

  With Jason Insringhousen having said he would excercise is veto right over any trade, I’m not sure the Cards had any valuable parts anyway, but it could have been useful.

• The games themselves were very exciting, with the Cards overcoming two five run deficits.

  I’d say the Brewers may be in trouble, and I’m predicting the Cubs take the Central.

• The Braves had nab Mark Teixeira. I can’t recall the Braves making deadline deals during their run of dominance. I guess Fred McGriff counts. We’ll see what this does.
• The Celtics apparently going to try to win the title with Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and nothing else. In the East it could work. Unless one of them gets hurt, which seems likely.
• RIP Bill Walsh.

  As The Blind Side laid out, Walsh essentially ushered in modern football, and was the first of the “genius” coaches, with the 49ers being the first true “system” team. Other coaches like Lombardi, Landry, and Noll were more motivators and organizers, getting the players to perform at a high level. For Walsh, it was about the system. Even though they’re very different, Bill Belichek is his logical successor.

• Traning camp has started. Man, I miss football… And both the Rams and Eagles have reason for optimism.

Hey, I love Pater King’s MMQB column, but I gotta call him on this little sequence..

Two weeks ago, I reported on NBC that I gave Saban two chances to say he would be back with the Dolphins in 2007 and not take a college job, and he wouldn’t say he’d definitely be back. I thought it was news. NBC thought it was news. We aired it.

followed by…

Deep Coach answered the question the way I wish all of them would.

“Sorry I can’t help you,” he said. “I just don’t talk about my contract. Ever.”

Great! Don’t lie, don’t tell. That should be the policy of every coach.

The hell you do, Peter. Otherwise, you wouldn’t ask. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have called it “news” when Saban did pretty much exactly what you’re proposing.

And King isn’t the only one on a high horse.

Look, I know Saban “lied.” Lying isn’t good.

And isn’t it possible that when Saban made those commitments he hadn’t imagined an offer like the one he received? And he’s supposed to leave that on the table because he had told some sportswriters otherwise? Do you think that if any of them were offered a record contract to jump ship, they wouln’t do it, regardless of what they might have said earlier?

But exactly who was hurt by this lie? He took the job in the first week of the offseason, giving the Dolphins as much time as possible to adjust. It’s not like he had recruited players under the assumption he would be their coach.

No, Saban just made a few sportswriters look bad, and they’re taking their revenge. And it’s ugly.

Jeff Gordon takes a look at the question of whether Mark McGwire will reach the Hall of Fame, and receives some responses.

To lay my cards on the table, I was here in St. Louis during McGwire’s time. I enjoyed watching him. I remember visiting my parents when the Cardinals were in Philadelphia, and arriving early at a game and watching the show in batting practice — I was practically giddy watching him spray balls into the upper deck of left field at the Vet.

At the same time, I don’t think I quite got caught up in it as much as other folks did. I have enjoyed the Cardinals’ recent run of success much more than the home run chase. I won’t pretend that I always suspected something was amiss — I didn’t, it’s just that McGwire didn’t impress me as possessing a singular talent — he was just a bit bigger and stronger than those who came before him, which I figured was due to improved conditioning techniques. He was the next evolutionary step, rather than a virtuoso. Impressive, yes, but not fascinating as someone like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods is. So, I can’t say I was devastated when he dissembled his way through his congressional hearing, as many around here seemed to be,

Also, I am one of those who think that steroids are a big deal. Not so much because I don’t want sacred records to be tainted, or I think someone like McGwire can’t make his own decisions, but because if steroids become tolerated, they will in essence become required, and I think that will have all sorts of bad effects. But that’s a whole ‘nother post

I can say with coincidence that there is almost no chance McGwire will be elected on the first ballot this time around. No-brainers, and fan and press favorites Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken debut on the ballot, and I’m quite certain the writers are loathe to mar their election with steroid controversy if they can help it.

McGwire has two things going for him:

• Massive power numbers
• Looking impressive racking them up.

He’s got literally nothing else going for him. He won a Gold Glove at first base (as did Rafael Palmeiro in a year in which he was primarily a DH), but was at best an average defensive first baseman. He won one World Series, but that was for a team that probably should have won more than one championship, and (though this is not McGwire’s or his teammates’ fault) there was a damper on that World Seriese win because it came in the aftermath of the earthquake. Other than the record-setting HRs, he never really had a signature moment. He was never identified as a particularly good teammate or leader. His relationship with Sosa during the chase was endearing, but is counter-balanced by how he seemed to regard the attention he received that year as a terrible burden. One of Gordon’s correspondents notes that McGwire had some other impressive non-power numbers, notably on base percentage, but that is somewhat a secondary effect of his power. He got a lot of walks in part because pitchers were afraid that if they put it over the plate, McGwire would put it in the cheap seats.

The power numbers, in a vacuum, would put him in the Hall of Fame, easily. Single-season HR record, 10th all time, easily over the 500 mark. But it wasn’t just that. Hank Aaron and Roger Maris broke home run records, too, and they did so before I was born, but I don’t think there was the buzz about their home runs that there was about McGwire’s. There weren’t thousands of people in the ballpark early to watch them take batting practice. His home runs, at least during his Cardinals days were events. They had, as my wife said, a “flow” to them.

Unfortunately for McGwire, these skills are the ones most easily associated with steroid use, because they are associated with brute strength, and there was a noticeable up tick in them during the period of heavily suspected steroid use. Which is why I don’t buy Buster Olney’s argument (quoted by Gordon) that it is unfair to penalize McGwire because he was given a subpeona and other stars weren’t. He was subpoenaed because he, more than anyone else, rose to prominence using skills that are linked to steroid use.

This may be unfair, and is kind of junk science. You still have to recognize strikes and hit them in order to hit home runs. It’s not like someone with absolutely no skill could shoot himself up to become a major league caliber hitter. Besides, we don’t know exactly what steroids do. Maybe they don’t really help a batter hit baseballs further. Maybe they’re more helpful in allowing a pitcher to throw the ball 95 MPH or make a ball curve. Maybe they allow a fielder to cover more ground. Maybe they help a catcher make accurate throws to second base, or a base stealer to get a better jump. Maybe they help a batter to take an outside pitch the opposite way for a base hit.

But we know what we know, and that is hitters in the late 90’s seemed to be a lot bigger than they were before, and that home run totals went way up. Mark McGwire was bigger and stronger than anyone else, and put up the biggest numbers. So it seems reasonable that he would be a representative for the era, and receive the subpoena.

Thus, it seems reasonable to discount McGwire’s accomplishments relative to those who played in different eras. This is not to judge that McGwire cheated; rather it is to not assume that other players benefited from the homer-friendly environment (which may or may not have included steroids), and McGwire didn’t. If all the offensive accomplishments of the last 10 years are under suspicion, McGwire’s are no exception. And since McGwire’s accomplishments were pretty much exclusively confined to those areas that were generally booming in that era, it seems especially prudent. In other words, to not apply a discount would be to in essence assume that everyone except McGwire was using steroids, which strains credulity.

Gordon recommends discounting McGwire’s home run total by 100, to 483, and then evaluating his career in those terms (I suspect this would include discounting McGwire’s individual history-making seasons, since peak performance is a part of almost any Hall of Famer’s case – there’s a reason Sandy Koufax is in the Hall of Fame in spite of unimpressive win and strikeout totals). That strikes me as a bit crude and arbitrary.

I propose that we look at McGwire’s performance relative to his peers, and compare that to other recent power hitters at corner positions who have or have not made (or are likely to or not likely to) make the Hall of Fame, and ignore the absolute numbers. In other words, Dale Murphy leading the league in home runs with 36 is equivalent to McGwire leding the league with 66. This isn’t entirely fair – 66 home runs have more impact on the team’s performance than 36, but I think this is offset by how McGwire’s high HR totals inflated his walk total, which in turn inflated his on base percentage.

Statistics come from Baseball Almanac

Mark McGwire led his league in home runs 4 times, and hit 58 dingers in 1997 split between the A’s and Cardinals, which would have led either league, so let’s call it 5. He led the league in RBI only once, in 1999. He also led the league in slugging percentage 4 times, and in on base percentage once.

BCS, NFL, NHL thoughts below…

BCS “Mess”
I’m convinced that the BCS exists to give sports columnists an easy target to fill column inches. Here’s my local example — I’m sure your local newspaper has a column about what a travesty it is that the national football championship is being decided based on style points and computer algorithms rather than the novel ideal of being settled on the field.

Baloney.

First of all — it will be settled on the field — Ohio St. will play Florida, and the winner will be the national champion. Michigan had their opportunity to make it to this game, and the lost it on the field!!!! I’ll agree that it is hard to say that Michigan is not the No. 2 team in the country after they lost on the road to the No. 1 team by only 3 points, but they were aware of the stakes, and didn’t get the job done.

Second, it’s not like the BCS is spitting out a completely nonsencial championship match-up. Really, there were two reasonable outcomes — Ohio St. - Michigan or Ohio St.- Florida (I suppose someone could make a case for Ohio St. - Boise St.), They’re not deciding that, say, Louisville should be in the champioship game in spite of their loss to Rutgers because their average margin of victory was so large.

Finally, I don’t know when we decided that the object of the college football season is to determine a national champion. College football used to be about rivalries and tradition, and now it’s about positioning yourself for the national championship game. Michigan gets to go to the Rose Bowl and take on USC — that used to be a dream, but not anymore. I think it says something about our society that we’ve made this shift — maybe it’s not anything bad, maybe just the nationalization of the media with ESPN. Before ESPN, a Big Ten fan wouldn’t know much about the SEC or Big 8 (now 12), and probably wouldn’t care to. But now we do.

Anyway, it’s always good for a cheap column — the BCS tries to fit a round peg in a square hole — to determine the two teams that will play for the championship, when there aren’t always 2 clear contenders. It makes for easy pickings.

UCLA defeats USC
If you’re a senior at UCLA, you must have been getting damn tired of hearing about the Torjans across town, so that victory must indeed have been sweet.

And that tip and interception in the 4th quarter was one of the best plays I’ve seen.

Rutgers loses in triple OT
And so instead of the Orange Bowl, the Scarlet Knights head to the Texas Bowl. Can’t like that.

I do hope this was not a fluke. It would be a great thing for the Northeast to have a college team to get behind, and going into Morgantown and taking the Mountaineers to 3 OT’s proved they were not a fluke.

No. 16 to be retired
The Blues will retire Brett Hull’s No. 16 tonight, it what may be their only sell-out of the season.

I went to what I think turned out to be Hull’s final home game in the playoffs against the Red Wings. He left the ice to a chorus of boos, and that always bothered me. So he didn’t get along with Mike Keenan — who did? This guy was The Franchise, and he gets booed out of town.

In any instance, I hope the Golden Brett gets a warm reception tonight, and that this is the beginning of a renewed partnership between the Blues and their greatest player.

Cowboys defeat Giants
So, I guess putting Tony Romo in was the right move, huh?

Say what you want about Jeremy Shockey, the guy goes out there to play, and gets the crowd going. That’s more than you can say for then hangdog Eli Manning.

Cards defeat Rams; Bulger rips team
It seems that since Orlando Pace went down, the Rams’ offensive line has pretty much packed it in. And Marc Bulger is getting killed back there. I’m surprised he’s made it this long. When he trotted out there with 2 minutes left and the Rams down by 21 and took a sack, I was screaming at the TV for Linehan to take Bulger out of the game before a stretcher does it for him. I don’t see how he’ll last through next Monday night’s game against the Bears.

So, I can completely see where he’s coming from.

I think the team misses Marshall Faulk in a lot of ways, which is why I was excited to hear that he wants to come back, and wants to come back as a Ram.

I’m not expecting him to put up 2500 all-purpose yards again, but I think he would help the culture of the offense. His rant on Sunday aside, Bulger isn’t really a rah-rah guy. Torry Holt and Stephen Jackson don’t strike me as leaders, either. But if a rookie offensive lineman sees a guy like Marshall Faulk, with his place in the Hall of Fame already secure, going out there every day and working his tail off, I think it would make a big difference.

Eagles defeat Panthers
Didn’t see this one coming — the Panthers are the hardest team in the league to predict, and have been for some time. And now the Eagles have playoff life.

Coming attractions
Brace yourselves for my upcoming series on Mark McGwire’s Hall of Fame candidacy.

Michigan Loses to Ohio St.; Remains No. 2

That seems about right. Ohio St. won the game, so they deserve to be number one, and it’s had to think there’s another team in the three-pont difference between Michigan and Ohio St.

That being said, I do have a problem with that No. 2 ranking translating into a rematch in the BCS Championship Game. Michigan had their crack at the Buckeyes; they didn’t take advantage of it. None of the other teams may be “as deserving,” but Michigan definitely isn’t.

To put my cards on the table, I’ve never thought that a college football season ending with some ambiguity over who was the “national champion” was a tragedy. The BCS has resulted in some great games — last year’s Rose Bowl, the Ohio St.-Miami game from a couple years ago — so I like it as far as it goes. But I never thought it was a grave injustice if the two best teams didn’t match up with each other in a bowl game. It’s nice to know what your ceiling is, but if you need to be declared “national champion” in order to feel good about an undefeated seaon, there’s something wrong. It’s not enough to win all your games — you must be declared better than everyone else.

So I’ve also never been in favor of a playoff system. It would remove the last semblance that these guys are supposed to be students, for one thing. Also, as last year’s baseball season demonstrated, a playoff does not guarantee identifying the best team.

I also think the BCS has concentrated too much attention on the teams in contention for the No. 1 ranking. For example, last year’s Heisman nominees were Reggie Bush, Matt Lienart, and Vince Young, all of whom were in the national championshop game. Lienart one the previous Hiesman. The year before, Leinart won it for #1 USC. The year before that, Jason White won it for #1 Oklahoma. Now, I know there’s usually a correlation between outstanding individual performances and team success, but this seems beyon conincidental.

I propose one change to the BCS system — you must win your conference in order to be in the champtionship game, and each conference must declare a champion. This would prevent re-matches, and things like Nebraska getting to the championshop game despite not even getting to its on conference title game. It would also return some focus to winning your own conference instead of positioning yoursel for a national title.

Panthers Shut Out Rams

Stick a fork in the Rams — they’re done. Without Orlando Pace, the Rams couldn’t protect Bulger, which takes away their two Hall of Fame-caliber receivers. This will not end well. I don’t see Bulger making it through to the end of the year.

McNabb out for year

The Eagles are done, too.

I had high hopes for this year. I thought that with the Owens thing in the rear view mirror, the Eagles could be poised for a good year. But things never quite came together, and you wonder if their window has close.

Miscellany

• Not too worried about the Colts, despite their Rutgers ride was fun while it lasted.
• This was one of the oddest endings I’ve seen, with Denver seeming to want to blow the game, and San Diego not quite letting them.

  These odd endings seem to happen a lot in prime-time games, by the way.

• If you don’t have the NFL network, you will miss NFL games! I like how they worded these ads to make you think you’ll miss games you would have seen in previous years, and try to make you think you’ll miss playoff games.

ON THE WHOLE “HAND SUBSTANCE” THING
I’d buy the explanation that Tony LaRussa didn’t want all that “BS” if he were a “you put your best nine guys out there, I’ll put my best nine guys out there, and we’ll see who’s better” type of manager.

But he’s not.

LaRussa, more than any other manager, inserts himself into the competition. He’ll use three pitchers to get the last three outs when his team is up by four runs. He’ll bat the pitcher eighth. He’ll order squeeze plays. He’ll play a .200 hitter in left field because he likes the match-up with the starting pitcher.

This isn’t all about between-the-lines strategy. La Russa gets in the opposition’s head, and makes the other team do stupid things (like, making several throws over to first base when the runner on first is a hulking slugger with a bad hamstring, and one of those throws ends up in right field).

If pitchers looking for every edge is part of the game, then paying the price when caught is as well. If there’s some sort of gentlemen’s agreement that opposing managers don’t press things like this, then part of that agreement should be that players be somewhat skillful in disguising it — i.e. don’t get caught on camera with a giant smudge on your hand. Kenny Rogers made Tony La Russa look like either a moron or a chump. There’s nothing gentlemanly about that.

OLIVER PEREZ MUST NOT BAT
It’s not the be-all and end-all, but in my opiniion, if Mets starter Oliver Perez steps to the plate with a bat in his hand in tonight’s game, the Mets probably win. If not, the Cardinals probably win.

Given how ineffective Perez has been this year, the fact that he’s pitching on short rest, the Mets probably only want to get through three or so innings anyway. So if he bats, it means:

• It’s the first or second inning, which means the Mets have had at least three base runners against Suppan in the first two innings, or
• Perez is mowing down the Cardinals hitters in the first three innings such that Randolph doesn’t feel moved to pinch-hit for him in the third.

Either way, it’s bad news for the Cardinals, whose greatest advantage in this game is the starting pitching match-up.

If I see Perez in the batter’s box, it will mean the Cardinals have failed to capitalize on that advantage.

And then things don’t look so good…

RYDER STYLES
OK — whose idea was it for the US and European teams to both play their matches in the same color blue shirt an black pants? In a rainy day? With a lot of American rookies and European players we’re not familiar with? Unless it was someone like Tiger Woods, you could hardly tell whether each player was American or European.

Would it be too much to ask for the American team to dress in colors from the American flag? Like red shirts with flag blue pants? Forget these stupid pale blue shirts, or the beige/grey stuff from yesterday. Could they actually look like they’re proud to represent the country they’re representing?

WHY I WANT SPORTS TO BE CLEAN
The positive drug test on Tour de France winner Floyd landis have caused some to echo the oft-heard question of why we care if sports are clean.

The answer isn’t out of some paternalistic concern for Barry Bonds or Floyd Landis. I agree that they are old enought to make decisions for themselves.

The problem is that if steroid use is widespread, then it will be seen as a requirement for entry into competitve athletics, much like year-round physical training is now. That Barry Bonds takes steroids to hit 73 home runs rather than 45 isn’t a great concern to me. What is a concern is 100 major league back-ups using steroids to crack the starting line-up, and exponential increases in those numbers as we work our way down the pyramid.

What did Crash Davis say?

Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It’s 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There’s 6 months in a season, that’s about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp… you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes… you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week… and you’re in Yankee Stadium.

The difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter in the major leagues is several million dollars a year. The difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter in AAA is the difference between travelling in buses and motels through third-tier cities and flying in chartered jets and staying in the nicest hotels in the biggest cities in the country. Think some .250 hitter who might have a family to support might want to take that risk if they think it will get them that extra hit a week? Especially if the best major leaguers are doing it and not suffering effects?

And someone like Barry Bonds or even Floyd Landis has the resources to use steroids carefully and limit his risk. The scrappy AAA utility player wouldn’t have access to these resources, and would be more desperate to take risks.

Think this is only risky because steroids are illegal? If you were the scrappy minor leaguer who got better using steroids, even if steroids were legal, would you want the organization to know that’s why you’ve suddenly improved? Wouldn’t you still want to hide your use so that the organization thought you were simply reaching your own potential?

To put things slightly darker, what’s the lifestlye difference between being a high school assistant coach, head coach, or college coach? If steroids are an acceptable part of the game, might he not pressure his players to use them, to get that edge, to propel him to the next level?

I don’t care so much if Barry Bonds wants to use steroids to put up historic rather than merely superstar numbers. I don’t even buy the “role model” argument, since that’s what parents are for. And while I probably have a vague preference for athletic competition that is not based on chemicals, that’s a business problem for the league and unions.

But I don’t want to get to the point where steroids are perceive as part of the price of competing in athletics at the highest level. And if steroids were legalized and de-stigmatized, I don’t see how it could be otherwise.

UPDATE: Here is an example of what I’m talking about. Do you think stroids might have helped Trev Faulk recover from his surgery faster? If so, it could have been the difference between having a job in the NFL and being out of work.

The problem isn’t people at the top setting ridiculous records. I’d rather they didn’t, but don’t feel moved to stop it. The problem is those at the margins who’ve devoted their life to their sport, don’t know how to do anything else, but end up just short.

And there’s a lot more of them than there are Barry Bondses.

DANG! DANG!

IVERSON OVERRATED
Malcolm Gladwell reviews a book that concludes that players like Allen Iverson are overrated. It includes this:

We see Allen Iverson, over and over again, charge toward the basket, twisting and turning and writhing through a thicket of arms and legs of much taller and heavier men—and all we learn is to appreciate twisting and turning and writhing. We become dance critics, blind to Iverson’s dismal shooting percentage and his excessive turnovers, blind to the reality that the Philadelphia 76ers would be better off without him.

I would amend that and propose that, say, the Detroit Pistons are better off without and Allen Iverson who plays like he does on th Sixers.

I have not read the book, but it seems to place a high value on scoring efficiency; i.e. a high shooting percentage.

But the reality is that in order to score, somebody has to shoot before 24 seconds elapse. So to say that the Sixers would be better off without Iverson, it’s not sufficient to say that he scores his points in an inefficient manner. You must also demonstrate that the shots Iverson takes and misses are inferior options to the alternatives. An what alternatives have the Sixers had?

I agree that a team with an offense built arouns 2005-6 version of Allen Iverson is not a contending team. But how much of Iverson’s play is determined by his environment. If you put Iverson on the Pistons or Spurs or Mavericks, would he take as many shots and commit as many turnovers? I tend to think not.