This morning, a couple of talk show hosts from a Vancouver sports radio station (Team 1040) were commenting on the Roberto Luongo pad issue.
For those of you who haven't heard, the Dallas Stars allegedly complained to the NHL before the start of last year's playoffs that the Canucks goalie's knee flaps--which stuck out of his pads--gave him an unfair advantage. If you were to believe the charges, those flaps were supposedly helping Luongo make more saves.
Then in December, Stars goalies Marty Turco and Mike Smith jokingly put on home-made mock flaps during a morning skate to perhaps seemingly further insinuate that Luongo's pads had been illegal.
In reality, the knee flaps worn by Luongo supposedly are for protective purposes and nothing more, and some other goalies in the league use them too, most notably Stanley Cup champion J.S. Giguerre of the Ducks.
A couple months ago when the complaints by the Stars surfaced, the NHL had allowed Luongo to continue using the pads after checking the equipment. And that was also okayed during the Stars-Canucks first-round playoff series last spring too.
The reason that this is now an issue is that the league has apparently reversed its ruling, and has asked Luongo to remove the flaps.
And get this: apparently other goalies in the league will still be allowed to wear theirs.
Double standards? In professional sports? Welcome to the NHL.
Not that I sympathize with Luongo, of course, as I do not root for the Canucks.
But apparently an unofficial statement issued by Kay Whitmore--a former Canuck goalie who is now part of the league's "goalie police" department dealing with equipment issues--to The Province, a newspaper in Vancouver, was that the controversial ruling was handed down was due to the way Luongo was wearing his pads.
My take on this is that goalies shouldn't be allowed to wear big pads to begin with, so the league definitely needs to start cracking down on goalie equipment issues.
But getting back to the comments made by the morning show hosts in Vancouver, this is supposedly a good thing.
According to them, this ruling will motivate Luongo to take his game to the next level. Play with a chip on his shoulder, and prove to the rest of the league that he can be one of the world's best goalies in spite of this gamesmanship displayed by the Stars.
Hello? Make Luongo mad and he'll shut the door on the rest of the league?
What do these media guys know anyway?
Has Luongo proven to be in the same class as a guy like Patrick Roy, who you can certainly suggest played well when challenged in that manner?
Roy was a multiple Stanley Cup winner.
What has Luongo won?
One playoff round in his NHL career, that's what.
For these talk show hosts to even remotely suggest that Luongo may now step up and take charge because of this controversy is laughable.
Now, the hosts didn't mention Roy's name, but if you try and read between the lines, it's like saying that Luongo is suddenly going to have this unbeatable aura because of this controversy and have a "us-against-the-world" mentality.
Very few athletes have been able to take it to that kind of level. Certainly none in Vancouver's non-storied history as far as I know. Certainly not in Luongo's repetoire either.
But perhaps now the media guys are going to say that Vancouver should plan a parade for this team come June too. Better start printing those Stanley Cup tickets and plan a route for the championship celebrations!
And oh, by the way, guess what. Peter Forsberg isn't going to Vancouver either.
I guess the Vancouver media will suggest that the Canucks will land Mats Sundin or some other big name before the trading deadline too!
Is there anyone else out there who has a take on this goalie equipment/Luongo controversy? Discuss.
The Hockey Farmer / Showing Their Scales
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Radical Baseball Wild Card Format
Purists and critics have complained that far too many wild card teams in baseball have been winning or making it to the World Series.
These teams weren't even good enough to win their own division, for crying out loud!
Yet, once these second-place outfits get on a roll and get into the post-season, they start knocking other teams off.
In 2007, it was the Colorado Rockies in the National League. The 2006 Tigers and 2005 Astros also made it to the Fall Classic.
The 2004 Red Sox used the wild card route to make the post-season before stunning the world with their record-setting triumph over the Yankees in the ALCS and an anti-climatic sweep over St. Louis in the Fall Classic.
1997 and 2003 Marlins. 2002 Angels and Giants. And on and on.
Based on the current format, wild card teams do not have home-field advantage in the Division Series or League Championship Series, regardless of their won-loss records. (It's possible for a wild card team to have a better record than a division winner, but the latter will have the extra home game.)
Well, if wild card teams in baseball are havin so much success--or luck--why not give them more of a disadvantage, or penalty, if you will, for not winning their divisions?
At the present time, the Division Series is a best-of-five, with the series going 2-2-1 and the wild card team having the middle two games.
A wild card team could potentially split the first two, go home for the middle two games and sweep them, and move on to the League Championship Series.
I propose the following to eliminate such an "advantage" for these non-division champs:
Let the wild card host the first game.
Yes, you heard me right. The first game should be hosted by the "inferior" team.
Then here's the kicker.
The division winner will then host the remaining four games of the series.
That's right, a 1-4 format, with the wild card team getting just one home game, and it can't come in any of the "key" or pivotal middle games.
If a wild card team can survive that, then kudos to that team.
And let's say that team makes it past the Division Series and moves on to the League Championship Series, again, the current 2-3-2 format could be favorable.
Again, split the first two, and get the next three at home. What disadvantage is that?
My solution:
3-2-2, with the division champ hosting five of a possible seven contests.
Again, under this proposed format, if the wild card team somehow survives the first three games going 2-1, this forces them to have to win their lone two home games, otherwise they have to return to enemy territory to try and advance to the World Series.
This probably will never happen, but if baseball wants to eliminate the wild card "advantage", they must go an unconventional route in order to accomplish this.
Does anyone else out there have any bright ideas for the wild card? Discuss.
These teams weren't even good enough to win their own division, for crying out loud!
Yet, once these second-place outfits get on a roll and get into the post-season, they start knocking other teams off.
In 2007, it was the Colorado Rockies in the National League. The 2006 Tigers and 2005 Astros also made it to the Fall Classic.
The 2004 Red Sox used the wild card route to make the post-season before stunning the world with their record-setting triumph over the Yankees in the ALCS and an anti-climatic sweep over St. Louis in the Fall Classic.
1997 and 2003 Marlins. 2002 Angels and Giants. And on and on.
Based on the current format, wild card teams do not have home-field advantage in the Division Series or League Championship Series, regardless of their won-loss records. (It's possible for a wild card team to have a better record than a division winner, but the latter will have the extra home game.)
Well, if wild card teams in baseball are havin so much success--or luck--why not give them more of a disadvantage, or penalty, if you will, for not winning their divisions?
At the present time, the Division Series is a best-of-five, with the series going 2-2-1 and the wild card team having the middle two games.
A wild card team could potentially split the first two, go home for the middle two games and sweep them, and move on to the League Championship Series.
I propose the following to eliminate such an "advantage" for these non-division champs:
Let the wild card host the first game.
Yes, you heard me right. The first game should be hosted by the "inferior" team.
Then here's the kicker.
The division winner will then host the remaining four games of the series.
That's right, a 1-4 format, with the wild card team getting just one home game, and it can't come in any of the "key" or pivotal middle games.
If a wild card team can survive that, then kudos to that team.
And let's say that team makes it past the Division Series and moves on to the League Championship Series, again, the current 2-3-2 format could be favorable.
Again, split the first two, and get the next three at home. What disadvantage is that?
My solution:
3-2-2, with the division champ hosting five of a possible seven contests.
Again, under this proposed format, if the wild card team somehow survives the first three games going 2-1, this forces them to have to win their lone two home games, otherwise they have to return to enemy territory to try and advance to the World Series.
This probably will never happen, but if baseball wants to eliminate the wild card "advantage", they must go an unconventional route in order to accomplish this.
Does anyone else out there have any bright ideas for the wild card? Discuss.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Should a team get a point for losing?
Should a team get a point for losing?
Of course, everyone who follows hockey knows this.
The NHL awards teams that lose in overtime and in the tie-breaking shootout a single point, while the winning team gets two points.
Huh?
How can there be a total of three points awarded (to both teams) when a regulation game awards only two?
Strange.
Yes, I understand the league's reasoning behind it.
Previously, before the NHL started adopting the "extra point" rule (and before shootouts were used), teams could basically be tied after regulation, and then play it conservatively in the OT period and pray for that single point. Be aggressive and go for it, and have it backfire if the other team scores, and you lose everything. No points for a 60+ minute effort.
Thus, coaches preached playing it safe, and skate away after that five-minute OT session with a single point.
Yes, I get that.
So, the single point that is now awarded for OT and shootout losses is supposedly going to make teams go for it and not worry about losing if they get caught in odd-man breaks.
Teams could go for it and try to score, knowing that they have already secured that "loser" point regardless of what happens next. If they actually win, they get two points.
Yes, I know that too.
And, with a lot of games being close and all these extra bonus points awarded for losses, it has created a more competitive game--on the ice and in the standings.
For example, just randomly taking a look at the standings, say on February 14, 2008, you will see the following scenarios:
Toronto, despite being last in the Eastern Conference with 55 points (and second last overall in the entire league), was just 8 points behind eighth-place Boston (63) for the final playoff spot in the conference.
The Maple Leafs had been inconsistent all year long during the 2007-08 season, and had blown third-period and last-minute leads in several games. And they had those bonus points to show for their failures, and those points had piled up and made it seem like they still had a shot.
That's what the NHL is trying to do, trying to create this competitive balance. Teams that still think they are in the playoff race will probably not want to tank the season and start a fire sale. Good for the league, good for fan interest, et cetera, et cetera.
However, the problem here is that this system is giving fans false hope.
Tampa Bay, with 56 points on the same day, was No. 14 in the conference, but was only 6 points away from being tied for the division lead in the mediocre Southeast Division. If the Lightning went on a hot streak, they might well catch up to the division leaders and could see themselves in third place in the entire conference (since division winners were ranked 1-2-3 in the conference standings).
And just to look at this humorously for a second, a team could basically go 0-0-82 (ie. not win any games, losing all 82 games in overtime or in the shootout) and get 82 points. That's a .500 record, for not winning a single game. Wow.
Professional athletes--hockey players, that is, as we shall see in a second--are getting paid big bucks but need to be rewarded with these consolation points.
Teams can proudly proclaim that "this is the greatest season in history" and point to the high point-total that is inflated by those loser points. And perhaps jack up ticket prices too.
But seriously, is there any other league out there amongst the "big four" in North America that awards points to losers?
Nope. Not in Major League Baseball. If you lose a 23-inning marathon, that's too bad. You get nothing in the standings. Just go out and play again the next day (or same day).
Not in basketball. You keep playing until someone loses. And your team could score 150 points in the game and not be rewarded in the standings. If you lose the game.
Not in football. You lose in overtime because your kicker blew it but the other team's didn't. Well, you might have to go home while the other teams play on in the playoffs.
The only other comparable situation would be the Canadian Football League (CFL), where a missed field goal could result in a single point. But the CFL is not really a major league, so I digress.
Anyway, the point here is, the concept of giving points to losing teams is a bit goofy. No other leagues do it.
So why the NHL?
Lots of things don't make sense in the NHL, but this loser point system is one that is so ridiculous that other leagues don't even bother.
Of course, everyone who follows hockey knows this.
The NHL awards teams that lose in overtime and in the tie-breaking shootout a single point, while the winning team gets two points.
Huh?
How can there be a total of three points awarded (to both teams) when a regulation game awards only two?
Strange.
Yes, I understand the league's reasoning behind it.
Previously, before the NHL started adopting the "extra point" rule (and before shootouts were used), teams could basically be tied after regulation, and then play it conservatively in the OT period and pray for that single point. Be aggressive and go for it, and have it backfire if the other team scores, and you lose everything. No points for a 60+ minute effort.
Thus, coaches preached playing it safe, and skate away after that five-minute OT session with a single point.
Yes, I get that.
So, the single point that is now awarded for OT and shootout losses is supposedly going to make teams go for it and not worry about losing if they get caught in odd-man breaks.
Teams could go for it and try to score, knowing that they have already secured that "loser" point regardless of what happens next. If they actually win, they get two points.
Yes, I know that too.
And, with a lot of games being close and all these extra bonus points awarded for losses, it has created a more competitive game--on the ice and in the standings.
For example, just randomly taking a look at the standings, say on February 14, 2008, you will see the following scenarios:
Toronto, despite being last in the Eastern Conference with 55 points (and second last overall in the entire league), was just 8 points behind eighth-place Boston (63) for the final playoff spot in the conference.
The Maple Leafs had been inconsistent all year long during the 2007-08 season, and had blown third-period and last-minute leads in several games. And they had those bonus points to show for their failures, and those points had piled up and made it seem like they still had a shot.
That's what the NHL is trying to do, trying to create this competitive balance. Teams that still think they are in the playoff race will probably not want to tank the season and start a fire sale. Good for the league, good for fan interest, et cetera, et cetera.
However, the problem here is that this system is giving fans false hope.
Tampa Bay, with 56 points on the same day, was No. 14 in the conference, but was only 6 points away from being tied for the division lead in the mediocre Southeast Division. If the Lightning went on a hot streak, they might well catch up to the division leaders and could see themselves in third place in the entire conference (since division winners were ranked 1-2-3 in the conference standings).
And just to look at this humorously for a second, a team could basically go 0-0-82 (ie. not win any games, losing all 82 games in overtime or in the shootout) and get 82 points. That's a .500 record, for not winning a single game. Wow.
Professional athletes--hockey players, that is, as we shall see in a second--are getting paid big bucks but need to be rewarded with these consolation points.
Teams can proudly proclaim that "this is the greatest season in history" and point to the high point-total that is inflated by those loser points. And perhaps jack up ticket prices too.
But seriously, is there any other league out there amongst the "big four" in North America that awards points to losers?
Nope. Not in Major League Baseball. If you lose a 23-inning marathon, that's too bad. You get nothing in the standings. Just go out and play again the next day (or same day).
Not in basketball. You keep playing until someone loses. And your team could score 150 points in the game and not be rewarded in the standings. If you lose the game.
Not in football. You lose in overtime because your kicker blew it but the other team's didn't. Well, you might have to go home while the other teams play on in the playoffs.
The only other comparable situation would be the Canadian Football League (CFL), where a missed field goal could result in a single point. But the CFL is not really a major league, so I digress.
Anyway, the point here is, the concept of giving points to losing teams is a bit goofy. No other leagues do it.
So why the NHL?
Lots of things don't make sense in the NHL, but this loser point system is one that is so ridiculous that other leagues don't even bother.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
This week's posts
Trout, I have maintained my seven-articles-per-day streak.
Toronto Maple Leafs vs Boston preview (Sat, Feb 16) By KP Wee
Minnesota beats Vancouver on Valentine's Day (Fri, Feb 15) By KP Wee
Boston/Miami-comparison of two cities (Wed, Feb 13) By KP Wee
Evgeni Malkin & Penguins' march (Mon, Feb 11) By KP Wee
Well, 4 in 6 are not bad.
All on Bleacher Report at www.bleacherreport.com. Check them out!
Toronto Maple Leafs vs Boston preview (Sat, Feb 16) By KP Wee
Minnesota beats Vancouver on Valentine's Day (Fri, Feb 15) By KP Wee
Boston/Miami-comparison of two cities (Wed, Feb 13) By KP Wee
Evgeni Malkin & Penguins' march (Mon, Feb 11) By KP Wee
Well, 4 in 6 are not bad.
All on Bleacher Report at www.bleacherreport.com. Check them out!
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Sports Posts: Feb 9 - Feb 15, 2008
Okay, from now on, I am just going to post the links to my, KP Wee's, Bleacher Report posts on here instead of re-posting entire articles. Enjoy!
(By the way, two mistakes last week - one in the Dallas/Vancouver game where I incorrectly ridiculed Markus Naslund, and another one in the Washington post. I strive for perfection this week.)
1) Hockey Day in Ontario: Sens & Leafs win on Saturday (by KP Wee, Feb 9)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9092-NHL-Ottawa_Senators-Toronto_Maple_Leafs-Hockey_Day_in_Ontario_Sens_and_Leafs_both_win-090208?just_published=1
2) Canucks lose to Colorado (by KP Wee, Feb 9)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9099-NHL-Colorado_Avalanche-Vancouver_Canucks-Canucks-Avalanche_Forsberg_should_Now_be_Weary_of_Vancouver
3) Bedard and Mariners (by KP Wee, Feb 10)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9167-MLB-Seattle_Mariners-What_will_Bedard_s_impact_bring_to_the_Mariners_
(By the way, two mistakes last week - one in the Dallas/Vancouver game where I incorrectly ridiculed Markus Naslund, and another one in the Washington post. I strive for perfection this week.)
1) Hockey Day in Ontario: Sens & Leafs win on Saturday (by KP Wee, Feb 9)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9092-NHL-Ottawa_Senators-Toronto_Maple_Leafs-Hockey_Day_in_Ontario_Sens_and_Leafs_both_win-090208?just_published=1
2) Canucks lose to Colorado (by KP Wee, Feb 9)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9099-NHL-Colorado_Avalanche-Vancouver_Canucks-Canucks-Avalanche_Forsberg_should_Now_be_Weary_of_Vancouver
3) Bedard and Mariners (by KP Wee, Feb 10)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9167-MLB-Seattle_Mariners-What_will_Bedard_s_impact_bring_to_the_Mariners_
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Caps' rise (and Habs, Flyers), Canucks' fall, New York's championships - on Bleacher Report by me
Instead of announcing it on Overanything, I will just post the links of my articles on here.
See, Trout, I did fulfill my promise and have been posting daily...
This week:
1) Capitals' surprising rise (on Bleacher Report by KP Wee) http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8817-NHL-Washington_Capitals-Surprising_Caps_rise_to_the_top_but_can_they_hang_on_-060208
2) Canucks fall to Florida (on Bleacher Report by KP Wee)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8714-NHL-Vancouver_Canucks-Dallas_Stars-Stars-Canucks_Vancouver_Falls_Short_Against_Dallas-060208
3) Unlikely New York championships (on Bleacher Report by KP Wee)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8941-NFL-MLB-New_York_Yankees-New_York_Mets-Top_Five_Unlikely_championships_in_New_York
See, Trout, I did fulfill my promise and have been posting daily...
This week:
1) Capitals' surprising rise (on Bleacher Report by KP Wee) http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8817-NHL-Washington_Capitals-Surprising_Caps_rise_to_the_top_but_can_they_hang_on_-060208
2) Canucks fall to Florida (on Bleacher Report by KP Wee)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8714-NHL-Vancouver_Canucks-Dallas_Stars-Stars-Canucks_Vancouver_Falls_Short_Against_Dallas-060208
3) Unlikely New York championships (on Bleacher Report by KP Wee)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8941-NFL-MLB-New_York_Yankees-New_York_Mets-Top_Five_Unlikely_championships_in_New_York
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
First Non-Sports Related Blog here
This site is called "OA2", not "KP's Sports Blog" for a reason. It is meant to have discussions about anything, over anything. Obviously I am the only poster on here, but that's fine.
The topic du jour is about work.
Today we had that "staff meeting" in which Steve had said that we could iron out the issues I brought up with Grace, the school's owner. Hey, who knows, Steve said, perhaps others shared the same thoughts I did too.
But predictably, nothing really came out of this meeting.
See, for over a year, the staff room has been filled with filthy language such as name-calling and racist "jokes". I had avoided the room because I did not want any part of it. Worse, Steve, the director, was part of it. While he did not endorse it, he also didn't discourage it either.
So, during the cold months, I had no choice but to return there to hang out.
And Andrew Claxton was the worse culprit. Andrew called one of my students "Frankinstein" behind his back and took pleasure in the fact that that student was not cool. Of course, Steve let that slide for days.
Andrew was the one who started this "Wizard" comment behind Toby's back when he (Toby) was working here and even after he left. And everyone participated in that nonsense. And Andrew was the one who called people "midgets" and dissed pregnant women/women with children waiting for buses.
And surprisingly, Steve let that all slide.
Then there was the fact that Andrew--according to James--started this "letter" with the rest of the staff to try and start a movement with Grace. The fact that Andrew and his cohorts are way overpaid seemed to have been lost on all of them.
I had to basically sit down with Grace and point out every reason that they were overpaid. And yes, my numbers are right on because I know what's going on. And yet there they were, trying to get more...despite the fact that the school wasn't in good shape to begin with.
I even countered their "letter" with my own letter to Grace, outlining the facts from above. And also I caught Andrew telling a new teacher that he doesn't bother marking tests and just makes (blah blah) out of the paper.
And I communicated this to Steve before, and his response was typical. That "Wizard" comment was supposedly a rallying point, a good bonding thing because they were all united in their feelings towards Toby.
And on Tuesday, after I ripped Andrew for using the word "Frankenstein" yet again, Steve got me to go into a room for a private meeting. Apparently, I had "to watch what (I) say" because it was not appropriate. The funny thing is--and I use the word "funny" in a sarcastic way--since when was "Frankenstein" appropriate? "Wizard"?
Funny how that works.
So naturally in today's meeting, Cathryn pointed out that there shouldn't be loud radio being played (me), and I countered that I do this to block out the comments that Andrew and Co. make.
No surprise, but Andrew did not once say a word as I outlined my beef. Not a word of acknowledgement that he won't do it again. Nothing. He didn't retract from his statements. No surprise there.
So, basically I was not allowed to play my radio again unless I put on earphones.
Typical.
And one other thing out of Tuesday's private meeting with Steve brought out the fact that he did not appreciate my going to Grace with my concerns. See, the thing is, if he didn't want that, why didn't he deal with it in the first place?
It's obvious that if he was a part of the problem, then wouldn't it be natural to seek a third party?
"Watch what (I) say" - that is so laughable.
Did not appreciate me going to Grace. And yet, when I did a proposal for school activities--on my own volition, without anyone asking me to--and tried to get Steve to read it, his reaction was just show it to Grace. Brilliant.
And don't forget, Cathryn and two others were the ones dissing management after BC Day. They didn't know that BC Day was a stat and when we were paid for it, there they were snickering at how dumb management was, and "let's not tell them (that we were overpaid)". Classy.
The topic du jour is about work.
Today we had that "staff meeting" in which Steve had said that we could iron out the issues I brought up with Grace, the school's owner. Hey, who knows, Steve said, perhaps others shared the same thoughts I did too.
But predictably, nothing really came out of this meeting.
See, for over a year, the staff room has been filled with filthy language such as name-calling and racist "jokes". I had avoided the room because I did not want any part of it. Worse, Steve, the director, was part of it. While he did not endorse it, he also didn't discourage it either.
So, during the cold months, I had no choice but to return there to hang out.
And Andrew Claxton was the worse culprit. Andrew called one of my students "Frankinstein" behind his back and took pleasure in the fact that that student was not cool. Of course, Steve let that slide for days.
Andrew was the one who started this "Wizard" comment behind Toby's back when he (Toby) was working here and even after he left. And everyone participated in that nonsense. And Andrew was the one who called people "midgets" and dissed pregnant women/women with children waiting for buses.
And surprisingly, Steve let that all slide.
Then there was the fact that Andrew--according to James--started this "letter" with the rest of the staff to try and start a movement with Grace. The fact that Andrew and his cohorts are way overpaid seemed to have been lost on all of them.
I had to basically sit down with Grace and point out every reason that they were overpaid. And yes, my numbers are right on because I know what's going on. And yet there they were, trying to get more...despite the fact that the school wasn't in good shape to begin with.
I even countered their "letter" with my own letter to Grace, outlining the facts from above. And also I caught Andrew telling a new teacher that he doesn't bother marking tests and just makes (blah blah) out of the paper.
And I communicated this to Steve before, and his response was typical. That "Wizard" comment was supposedly a rallying point, a good bonding thing because they were all united in their feelings towards Toby.
And on Tuesday, after I ripped Andrew for using the word "Frankenstein" yet again, Steve got me to go into a room for a private meeting. Apparently, I had "to watch what (I) say" because it was not appropriate. The funny thing is--and I use the word "funny" in a sarcastic way--since when was "Frankenstein" appropriate? "Wizard"?
Funny how that works.
So naturally in today's meeting, Cathryn pointed out that there shouldn't be loud radio being played (me), and I countered that I do this to block out the comments that Andrew and Co. make.
No surprise, but Andrew did not once say a word as I outlined my beef. Not a word of acknowledgement that he won't do it again. Nothing. He didn't retract from his statements. No surprise there.
So, basically I was not allowed to play my radio again unless I put on earphones.
Typical.
And one other thing out of Tuesday's private meeting with Steve brought out the fact that he did not appreciate my going to Grace with my concerns. See, the thing is, if he didn't want that, why didn't he deal with it in the first place?
It's obvious that if he was a part of the problem, then wouldn't it be natural to seek a third party?
"Watch what (I) say" - that is so laughable.
Did not appreciate me going to Grace. And yet, when I did a proposal for school activities--on my own volition, without anyone asking me to--and tried to get Steve to read it, his reaction was just show it to Grace. Brilliant.
And don't forget, Cathryn and two others were the ones dissing management after BC Day. They didn't know that BC Day was a stat and when we were paid for it, there they were snickering at how dumb management was, and "let's not tell them (that we were overpaid)". Classy.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Giants' improbable Super Bowl win ends a remarkable comeback season
(Also posted on Bleacher Report by KP Wee a day earlier.)
The New York Giants have stunned the world with a 17-14 triumph over the previously unbeaten New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.
Who would have thought? Really, please stand up if you thought at any point of the season that the Giants were going to be crowned champions.
Nobody thought this was possible. Certainly not me.
Remember, in the pre-season, controversy started when former Giant Tiki Barber—who had been critical of head coach Tom Coughlin in the past—trashed QB Eli Manning, criticizing his ex-teammate's lack of leadership during the previous season. Certainly, Barber had been in the Giants' locker room through thick and thin. Surely the criticisms by Barber, the Giants' all-time leading rusher, had to be valid.
Did the Giants have a prayer with a quarterback who couldn't lead or win?
Things didn't get any better at the start of the season; the Giants went 0-2, getting outscored 80-48 by the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers. Most thought Coughlin would get the boot sooner rather than later, especially if the G-men didn't turn things around quickly.
Then they had a date with the 2-0 Washington Redskins at FedEx Field, and no one gave the Giants a shot. And worse, after facing the Redskins, New York would face another divisional opponent in the Eagles—who demolished the Lions' defense for 56 points in Week Three—followed by the Jets.
An 0-5 start wasn't out of the realm of possibility.
And even worse? Thanks to the NFL's ridiculous marketing plan and schedule, the Giants then had to travel to London, England to face the Dolphins in Week Eight.
But following the 0-2 start, the Giants didn't quit.
Despite falling behind by two TDs in hostile FedEx Field, the Giants chose to rally.
Against Washington, the Giants came back from a 17-3 first-half deficit, outscoring the Redskins 21-zip thanks to two one-yard TD runs by Reuben Droughns and Manning's 33-yard TD pass to Plaxico Burress.
And the G-men's defense came up big with a dramatic goal-line stand on fourth-and-goal to snuff out a late Washington rally at the Giants' one-yard line.
And with that first win under their belt, the Giants reeled off five straight wins and had a 6-2 record, but most thought it was a mirage. After all, several of those victories came against the worst teams in the NFL (Jets, Falcons, 49ers, and Dolphins).
New York was 6-2, but the class of the NFC East—and the entire conference—was certainly Tony Romo, Terrell Owens, and the 7-1 Cowboys.
Coming off the sextet of wins, the Giants squared off against the 7-1 Cowboys at Giants Stadium on November 11th. Romo, however, threw four TDs—two in the second half to Owens—for the visitors, and the Giants fell 31-20, practically handing the Cowboys the division title.
And Giants Stadium turned out to be home-field disadvantage, as New York then fell embarrassingly to the Vikings (a 41-17 meltdown to a 4-6 squad) and Redskins (a 22-10 defeat at the hands of a 6-7 team) and dropped to 9-5.
Both were huge blows to the team's morale: in the Minnesota debacle, Manning threw four interceptions, three of which were returned for TDs, while in the defeat against the 'Skins, the Giants also lost tight-end Jeremy Shockey for the season with a broken left fibula.
Still, the Giants were playoff-bound after a big come-from-behind victory at Ralph Wilson Stadium in Week 16, beating the Bills 38-21 under terrible weather conditions. The Giants survived a 14-0 first-quarter deficit and put the game away with three TDs in the wind and snow-filled contest.
Then came that epic Saturday night game against the mighty Patriots in Week 17. With a playoff spot clinched, the Giants elected to play their starters in an attempt to thwart New England's dreams of a perfect 16-0 season and to prevent the Pats' duo of Tom Brady and Randy Moss from setting individual records.
With seemingly the entire world watching (trying to witness history by the Patriots), the Giants showed everyone that they had game. New York took a 28-16 lead but eventually lost 38-35—allowing the Patriots, Brady, and Moss to set records during the contest.
Still, despite that effort against the Patriots in the season finale, not many expected big things from the G-men in the playoffs.
While some thought New York could beat an unimpressive Tampa Bay Buccaneers team at Raymond James Stadium in the Wild Card round, naysayers pointed to Bucs' QB Jeff Garcia's 2-0 playoff record against the Giants. After all, Garcia had led the Eagles to a playoff victory against the Giants a year ago and had engineered a remarkable 24-point comeback—the second-largest come-from-behind win in NFL playoff history—while with the 49ers in the 2003.
And Manning had never won a playoff game, and Coughlin had never won one with the Giants.
Nonetheless, the Giants handled the Bucs and moved on to Irving, Texas to face the NFC's top seed, the Cowboys. No one gave the Giants a chance against the Cowboys team that had already shredded New York's defense twice during the season.
However, Manning again proved his critics wrong with two touchdown passes—both to Amani Toomer—and no interceptions, and the Giants clinched the game when R.W. McQuarters intercepted the Cowboys' Romo with seconds remaining. The Giants had a 21-17 win and were moving on to the NFC title game in Green Bay.
And next in Wisconsin, the 13-3 Packers were supposed to be the better team, and had two other intangibles going their way: a legend in Brett Favre playing in legendary Lambeau Field.
The entire country seemingly wanted to see a New England-Green Bay Super Bowl because of the media and fans thought that seeing Favre going up against the Patriots would be a compelling story.
But the Giants didn't pay attention to all that.
The Giants intercepted Favre when it mattered, and despite Lawrence Tynes' two missed field goals, managed to pull off an overtime upset victory to vault themselves to the Super Bowl.
Starting out 0-2? No problem. The Giants made it to the playoffs.
Facing the number one seed in the NFC Divisional round against a team that had already beaten them twice? Well, the third time was the charm.
Going up against a three-time MVP in the NFC Championship Game in Green Bay? No biggie; they picked him off twice and won the game.
And then knocking off arguably the greatest team in NFL history, the previously 18-0 New England Patriots with aspirations to become just the second team ever to finish a season undefeated.
People laughed when Burress predicted the 14-point underdog Giants would win the Super Bowl during media week.
This extra week between the Conference title games and Super Bowl was supposed to hurt the Giants more than the Patriots. After all, the Giants' momentum was supposedly going to be hampered by this unnecessary bye week.
Brady and his record-setting offense were supposed to walk all over the Giants.
For three quarters in Super Bowl XLII though, the Giants' defense came up huge against the Patriots. The Giants then took a 10-7 lead in the fourth quarter, seemingly ready to deny the Pats their dream of perfection.
But once again, most thought it was déjà vu when Brady hooked up with Moss with three minutes left. It was the same duo that provided the fourth-quarter go-ahead score for the Pats in Week 17. This was exactly what New England had been doing all season long.
But the Giants again rallied, as they had all season, and when Manning found Burress in the end zone with under a minute left for the winning score—they were world champions.
Who would have scripted this?
That's why games are decided on the field.
The Giants proved that in 2007-08.
The New York Giants have stunned the world with a 17-14 triumph over the previously unbeaten New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.
Who would have thought? Really, please stand up if you thought at any point of the season that the Giants were going to be crowned champions.
Nobody thought this was possible. Certainly not me.
Remember, in the pre-season, controversy started when former Giant Tiki Barber—who had been critical of head coach Tom Coughlin in the past—trashed QB Eli Manning, criticizing his ex-teammate's lack of leadership during the previous season. Certainly, Barber had been in the Giants' locker room through thick and thin. Surely the criticisms by Barber, the Giants' all-time leading rusher, had to be valid.
Did the Giants have a prayer with a quarterback who couldn't lead or win?
Things didn't get any better at the start of the season; the Giants went 0-2, getting outscored 80-48 by the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers. Most thought Coughlin would get the boot sooner rather than later, especially if the G-men didn't turn things around quickly.
Then they had a date with the 2-0 Washington Redskins at FedEx Field, and no one gave the Giants a shot. And worse, after facing the Redskins, New York would face another divisional opponent in the Eagles—who demolished the Lions' defense for 56 points in Week Three—followed by the Jets.
An 0-5 start wasn't out of the realm of possibility.
And even worse? Thanks to the NFL's ridiculous marketing plan and schedule, the Giants then had to travel to London, England to face the Dolphins in Week Eight.
But following the 0-2 start, the Giants didn't quit.
Despite falling behind by two TDs in hostile FedEx Field, the Giants chose to rally.
Against Washington, the Giants came back from a 17-3 first-half deficit, outscoring the Redskins 21-zip thanks to two one-yard TD runs by Reuben Droughns and Manning's 33-yard TD pass to Plaxico Burress.
And the G-men's defense came up big with a dramatic goal-line stand on fourth-and-goal to snuff out a late Washington rally at the Giants' one-yard line.
And with that first win under their belt, the Giants reeled off five straight wins and had a 6-2 record, but most thought it was a mirage. After all, several of those victories came against the worst teams in the NFL (Jets, Falcons, 49ers, and Dolphins).
New York was 6-2, but the class of the NFC East—and the entire conference—was certainly Tony Romo, Terrell Owens, and the 7-1 Cowboys.
Coming off the sextet of wins, the Giants squared off against the 7-1 Cowboys at Giants Stadium on November 11th. Romo, however, threw four TDs—two in the second half to Owens—for the visitors, and the Giants fell 31-20, practically handing the Cowboys the division title.
And Giants Stadium turned out to be home-field disadvantage, as New York then fell embarrassingly to the Vikings (a 41-17 meltdown to a 4-6 squad) and Redskins (a 22-10 defeat at the hands of a 6-7 team) and dropped to 9-5.
Both were huge blows to the team's morale: in the Minnesota debacle, Manning threw four interceptions, three of which were returned for TDs, while in the defeat against the 'Skins, the Giants also lost tight-end Jeremy Shockey for the season with a broken left fibula.
Still, the Giants were playoff-bound after a big come-from-behind victory at Ralph Wilson Stadium in Week 16, beating the Bills 38-21 under terrible weather conditions. The Giants survived a 14-0 first-quarter deficit and put the game away with three TDs in the wind and snow-filled contest.
Then came that epic Saturday night game against the mighty Patriots in Week 17. With a playoff spot clinched, the Giants elected to play their starters in an attempt to thwart New England's dreams of a perfect 16-0 season and to prevent the Pats' duo of Tom Brady and Randy Moss from setting individual records.
With seemingly the entire world watching (trying to witness history by the Patriots), the Giants showed everyone that they had game. New York took a 28-16 lead but eventually lost 38-35—allowing the Patriots, Brady, and Moss to set records during the contest.
Still, despite that effort against the Patriots in the season finale, not many expected big things from the G-men in the playoffs.
While some thought New York could beat an unimpressive Tampa Bay Buccaneers team at Raymond James Stadium in the Wild Card round, naysayers pointed to Bucs' QB Jeff Garcia's 2-0 playoff record against the Giants. After all, Garcia had led the Eagles to a playoff victory against the Giants a year ago and had engineered a remarkable 24-point comeback—the second-largest come-from-behind win in NFL playoff history—while with the 49ers in the 2003.
And Manning had never won a playoff game, and Coughlin had never won one with the Giants.
Nonetheless, the Giants handled the Bucs and moved on to Irving, Texas to face the NFC's top seed, the Cowboys. No one gave the Giants a chance against the Cowboys team that had already shredded New York's defense twice during the season.
However, Manning again proved his critics wrong with two touchdown passes—both to Amani Toomer—and no interceptions, and the Giants clinched the game when R.W. McQuarters intercepted the Cowboys' Romo with seconds remaining. The Giants had a 21-17 win and were moving on to the NFC title game in Green Bay.
And next in Wisconsin, the 13-3 Packers were supposed to be the better team, and had two other intangibles going their way: a legend in Brett Favre playing in legendary Lambeau Field.
The entire country seemingly wanted to see a New England-Green Bay Super Bowl because of the media and fans thought that seeing Favre going up against the Patriots would be a compelling story.
But the Giants didn't pay attention to all that.
The Giants intercepted Favre when it mattered, and despite Lawrence Tynes' two missed field goals, managed to pull off an overtime upset victory to vault themselves to the Super Bowl.
Starting out 0-2? No problem. The Giants made it to the playoffs.
Facing the number one seed in the NFC Divisional round against a team that had already beaten them twice? Well, the third time was the charm.
Going up against a three-time MVP in the NFC Championship Game in Green Bay? No biggie; they picked him off twice and won the game.
And then knocking off arguably the greatest team in NFL history, the previously 18-0 New England Patriots with aspirations to become just the second team ever to finish a season undefeated.
People laughed when Burress predicted the 14-point underdog Giants would win the Super Bowl during media week.
This extra week between the Conference title games and Super Bowl was supposed to hurt the Giants more than the Patriots. After all, the Giants' momentum was supposedly going to be hampered by this unnecessary bye week.
Brady and his record-setting offense were supposed to walk all over the Giants.
For three quarters in Super Bowl XLII though, the Giants' defense came up huge against the Patriots. The Giants then took a 10-7 lead in the fourth quarter, seemingly ready to deny the Pats their dream of perfection.
But once again, most thought it was déjà vu when Brady hooked up with Moss with three minutes left. It was the same duo that provided the fourth-quarter go-ahead score for the Pats in Week 17. This was exactly what New England had been doing all season long.
But the Giants again rallied, as they had all season, and when Manning found Burress in the end zone with under a minute left for the winning score—they were world champions.
Who would have scripted this?
That's why games are decided on the field.
The Giants proved that in 2007-08.
Horcoff's loss crippling for Oilers
Center Shawn Horcoff of the Oilers apparently will miss the rest of the NHL season.
Word is that Horcoff, who will have surgery on his left shoulder this week in effect ending his season, aggravated the injury during the NHL All-Star game over a week ago.
Horcoff, who was on pace to top 30 goals for the first time in his career, seemed destined to set career highs in goals (22) and had an outside shot at surpassing his high in points (73) until this setback.
According to media reports, Horcoff first sustained the shoulder injury on October 12. And the Oilers' leading scorer had been putting off surgery throughout the season.
But hearing word that a premier player (Horcoff leads the team with 21 goals and 50 points in 53 games this season) had to miss the rest of the year--perhaps crippling his team's playoff chances--thanks to an injury suffered in a meaningless mid-season game that no one takes seriously must make fans cringe.
Even if you don't root for the Oilers, you can't help but feel their pain. Unless of course, you are a Flames fan.
Would Horcoff's season have been extended longer if he hadn't participated in the All-Star game?
That is debatable.
Horcoff may well have aggrevated the injury at another point during the season.
But surely he could have suited up for at least a few more games--helping the Oilers get some valuable points in the standings--had he not dressed for the Western Conference against the East in Atlanta on January 27th.
There have been some who have suggested in the past--most notably Bob McCown from Prime Time Sports--that the NHL just scrap the annual All-Star contest, and it is injuries like this that just make you wonder why the league even bothers.
Is there any meaning to the All-Star game, which unlike baseball's mid-summer classic, does not guarantee the winning conference an extra home game in the Stanley Cup Final?
Why didn't the Oilers, knowing that Horcoff already had a bad shoulder, demand that he skip the game in the first place?
Why on earth did Horcoff even bother attending, instead of joining others (including Sidney Crosby, Henrik Zetterberg, Dany Heatley, Roberto Luongo and Martin Brodeur) who chose to incline the invitation for various reasons?
Obviously, Horcoff doesn't have the elite status as the other all-stars who missed the all-star weekend, but losing him does not bode well for a struggling Oilers club from here on out.
Now, it will be a tough road for the Oilers, who are tied for 13th place in the Conference with a 23-26-5 record and 51 points, on the fringe of playoff contention being 8 points back of 8th-place Nashville.
Without Horcoff, the Oilers will probably be battling to stay out of the basement of the entire league instead of battling for a playoff spot.
Los Angeles is last overall in the league with 45 points, followed by Tampa Bay at 47.
A devatasting blow to the Oilers indeed.
Word is that Horcoff, who will have surgery on his left shoulder this week in effect ending his season, aggravated the injury during the NHL All-Star game over a week ago.
Horcoff, who was on pace to top 30 goals for the first time in his career, seemed destined to set career highs in goals (22) and had an outside shot at surpassing his high in points (73) until this setback.
According to media reports, Horcoff first sustained the shoulder injury on October 12. And the Oilers' leading scorer had been putting off surgery throughout the season.
But hearing word that a premier player (Horcoff leads the team with 21 goals and 50 points in 53 games this season) had to miss the rest of the year--perhaps crippling his team's playoff chances--thanks to an injury suffered in a meaningless mid-season game that no one takes seriously must make fans cringe.
Even if you don't root for the Oilers, you can't help but feel their pain. Unless of course, you are a Flames fan.
Would Horcoff's season have been extended longer if he hadn't participated in the All-Star game?
That is debatable.
Horcoff may well have aggrevated the injury at another point during the season.
But surely he could have suited up for at least a few more games--helping the Oilers get some valuable points in the standings--had he not dressed for the Western Conference against the East in Atlanta on January 27th.
There have been some who have suggested in the past--most notably Bob McCown from Prime Time Sports--that the NHL just scrap the annual All-Star contest, and it is injuries like this that just make you wonder why the league even bothers.
Is there any meaning to the All-Star game, which unlike baseball's mid-summer classic, does not guarantee the winning conference an extra home game in the Stanley Cup Final?
Why didn't the Oilers, knowing that Horcoff already had a bad shoulder, demand that he skip the game in the first place?
Why on earth did Horcoff even bother attending, instead of joining others (including Sidney Crosby, Henrik Zetterberg, Dany Heatley, Roberto Luongo and Martin Brodeur) who chose to incline the invitation for various reasons?
Obviously, Horcoff doesn't have the elite status as the other all-stars who missed the all-star weekend, but losing him does not bode well for a struggling Oilers club from here on out.
Now, it will be a tough road for the Oilers, who are tied for 13th place in the Conference with a 23-26-5 record and 51 points, on the fringe of playoff contention being 8 points back of 8th-place Nashville.
Without Horcoff, the Oilers will probably be battling to stay out of the basement of the entire league instead of battling for a playoff spot.
Los Angeles is last overall in the league with 45 points, followed by Tampa Bay at 47.
A devatasting blow to the Oilers indeed.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
More fun times for Canucks Haters: Vancouver chokes in Florida
Ah... fun times again last night (Feb. 1st) for Canucks Haters like myself.
The Vancouver Canucks again fell to an inferior team, dropping a 4-3 shootout decision to the Florida Panthers in Sunrise, Florida.
And this time, the Canucks found new ways to lose.
Vancouver, who has had to play from behind recently--they just endured a six-game stretch at the end of January in which they failed to hold a lead at any point--and had let the opposition score first in seven straight before breaking the streak earlier this week, never trailed against Florida.
In fact, this time the Canucks blew three one-goal leads and fell to 2-6-2 in their last ten games with this latest defeat. And the defensive-minded Canucks were badly outshot in the third period (15-5), allowing Stephen Weiss to get the tying goal with 6:14 remaining.
Second, overpaid Canucks captain Markus Naslund was awarded a penalty shot with time winding down in overtime, but couldn't beat Panthers goalie Tomas Vokoun for the winner. Oh, isn't Naslund paid boatloads of money to score big goals? Yup, 17 goals and 41 points in 53 games for the $6-million-a-year captain. Incredibly, the SportsNet.ca and TSN websites are listing Naslund as "hot" for his measily three points in his last three games, randomly assigning those useless labels without looking at the big picture. But then, I guess that point-per-game pace in his last three sure beats his season totals.
Third, the Canucks continued to let defenseman Alexander Edler partake in shootouts, and the goat from the previous night's loss in Tampa Bay--he made a bad pass which led to the Lightning's go-ahead goal--couldn't deliver. Yes, Edler had gotten two shootout game-winners in January, but if the Canucks are counting on him on a nightly basis, they are in big trouble.
Fourth, the Canucks were brutal on face-offs, winning only 35% off the draw. And they allowed 43 shots, making Roberto Luongo busy in the Vancouver net.
Ah yes...Luongo. The Canucks' superstar in goal, who played five seasons in a Panthers uniform, was supposed to be the difference in the game. After all, Luongo, the $6.5-million man, was a finalist for both the Hart and Vezina Trophies. And he was playing in Florida for the first time since being acquired by Vancouver to boot. Athletes returning to their former stomping grounds in a new uniform often found ways to stick it to their old club.
And the Panthers came into the contest tied for 13th place out of a 15-team Eastern Conference with a 22-25-5 record, just two points ahead of last-place Tampa Bay, who by the way, took care of the Canucks a night earlier.
Yes, Luongo did his job with 40 saves. However, he couldn't prevent his team from losing yet another game.
Nonetheless, despite the loss, the Canucks still managed to move ahead of Nashville in the standings, tied for 7th place with the Avalanche in the Western Conference because the NHL has a dumb rule about rewarding shootout losers with a sympathy point. (Really now, why on earth should a losing team get a point? But that would be the topic for another day.)
But hopefully the Canucks' recent slump will stop dellusional fans in B.C. from continuing their nonsense Mats Sundin (Leafs) or Peter Forsberg (unrestricted free agent) daydreams.
And if either Sundin or Forsberg really had any inclination of wanting to play in Vancouver, surely those thoughts have evaporated by now. Why on earth would Forsberg sign with a non-contender like the Canucks if he wants to win another Stanley Cup? And I wouldn't say that being a 7th or 8th-place outfit is a selling point to convince Sundin to waive his no-trade clause and head out to the West Coast. Surely neither Forsberg nor Sundin would go the Curtis Joseph route, with Cujo choosing to sign with the Calgary Flames, not exactly a legitimate Cup contender.
In the meantime, Canucks fans will always laugh at Florida for giving away All-Star Luongo to Vancouver in exchange for forward Todd Bertuzzi (now with Anaheim), goalie Alex Auld (now with Boston), and defenseman Bryan Allen in the June 26, 2006 trade. That could go down as one of the most one-sided deals in hockey history, right up there with the acquisition of Naslund from Pittsburgh for the immortal Alek Stojanov (6 points in 45 NHL games after the deal).
Come to think of it, maybe the value of those two trades mentioned above are over-stated by Canucks fans. Luongo, who I predict will never lead the Canucks to a Stanley Cup, was outplayed by rookie Karri Ramo a night earlier and couldn't protect a third-period lead last night. And Naslund, the Canucks' all-time leading scorer who is over the hill, was on the bench during the shootout, passed over for the great Edler.
Okay, all the joking aside, the Canucks clearly won the Luongo trade.
At least for one night, the Panthers get the last laugh.
Canucks Haters like myself, also get another good laugh as well for another night.
Unfortunately, the fun stops for a few days. The Canucks have three days off before taking on the Stars in Dallas on Tuesday night, meaning there will be no good times for at least half a week.
But come Tuesday night, hopefully there will be another post on the Canucks by this Canucks Hater.
The Vancouver Canucks again fell to an inferior team, dropping a 4-3 shootout decision to the Florida Panthers in Sunrise, Florida.
And this time, the Canucks found new ways to lose.
Vancouver, who has had to play from behind recently--they just endured a six-game stretch at the end of January in which they failed to hold a lead at any point--and had let the opposition score first in seven straight before breaking the streak earlier this week, never trailed against Florida.
In fact, this time the Canucks blew three one-goal leads and fell to 2-6-2 in their last ten games with this latest defeat. And the defensive-minded Canucks were badly outshot in the third period (15-5), allowing Stephen Weiss to get the tying goal with 6:14 remaining.
Second, overpaid Canucks captain Markus Naslund was awarded a penalty shot with time winding down in overtime, but couldn't beat Panthers goalie Tomas Vokoun for the winner. Oh, isn't Naslund paid boatloads of money to score big goals? Yup, 17 goals and 41 points in 53 games for the $6-million-a-year captain. Incredibly, the SportsNet.ca and TSN websites are listing Naslund as "hot" for his measily three points in his last three games, randomly assigning those useless labels without looking at the big picture. But then, I guess that point-per-game pace in his last three sure beats his season totals.
Third, the Canucks continued to let defenseman Alexander Edler partake in shootouts, and the goat from the previous night's loss in Tampa Bay--he made a bad pass which led to the Lightning's go-ahead goal--couldn't deliver. Yes, Edler had gotten two shootout game-winners in January, but if the Canucks are counting on him on a nightly basis, they are in big trouble.
Fourth, the Canucks were brutal on face-offs, winning only 35% off the draw. And they allowed 43 shots, making Roberto Luongo busy in the Vancouver net.
Ah yes...Luongo. The Canucks' superstar in goal, who played five seasons in a Panthers uniform, was supposed to be the difference in the game. After all, Luongo, the $6.5-million man, was a finalist for both the Hart and Vezina Trophies. And he was playing in Florida for the first time since being acquired by Vancouver to boot. Athletes returning to their former stomping grounds in a new uniform often found ways to stick it to their old club.
And the Panthers came into the contest tied for 13th place out of a 15-team Eastern Conference with a 22-25-5 record, just two points ahead of last-place Tampa Bay, who by the way, took care of the Canucks a night earlier.
Yes, Luongo did his job with 40 saves. However, he couldn't prevent his team from losing yet another game.
Nonetheless, despite the loss, the Canucks still managed to move ahead of Nashville in the standings, tied for 7th place with the Avalanche in the Western Conference because the NHL has a dumb rule about rewarding shootout losers with a sympathy point. (Really now, why on earth should a losing team get a point? But that would be the topic for another day.)
But hopefully the Canucks' recent slump will stop dellusional fans in B.C. from continuing their nonsense Mats Sundin (Leafs) or Peter Forsberg (unrestricted free agent) daydreams.
And if either Sundin or Forsberg really had any inclination of wanting to play in Vancouver, surely those thoughts have evaporated by now. Why on earth would Forsberg sign with a non-contender like the Canucks if he wants to win another Stanley Cup? And I wouldn't say that being a 7th or 8th-place outfit is a selling point to convince Sundin to waive his no-trade clause and head out to the West Coast. Surely neither Forsberg nor Sundin would go the Curtis Joseph route, with Cujo choosing to sign with the Calgary Flames, not exactly a legitimate Cup contender.
In the meantime, Canucks fans will always laugh at Florida for giving away All-Star Luongo to Vancouver in exchange for forward Todd Bertuzzi (now with Anaheim), goalie Alex Auld (now with Boston), and defenseman Bryan Allen in the June 26, 2006 trade. That could go down as one of the most one-sided deals in hockey history, right up there with the acquisition of Naslund from Pittsburgh for the immortal Alek Stojanov (6 points in 45 NHL games after the deal).
Come to think of it, maybe the value of those two trades mentioned above are over-stated by Canucks fans. Luongo, who I predict will never lead the Canucks to a Stanley Cup, was outplayed by rookie Karri Ramo a night earlier and couldn't protect a third-period lead last night. And Naslund, the Canucks' all-time leading scorer who is over the hill, was on the bench during the shootout, passed over for the great Edler.
Okay, all the joking aside, the Canucks clearly won the Luongo trade.
At least for one night, the Panthers get the last laugh.
Canucks Haters like myself, also get another good laugh as well for another night.
Unfortunately, the fun stops for a few days. The Canucks have three days off before taking on the Stars in Dallas on Tuesday night, meaning there will be no good times for at least half a week.
But come Tuesday night, hopefully there will be another post on the Canucks by this Canucks Hater.
2008: Litsch a key for the Blue Jays?
I never thought I would say this, but I actually feel sorry for the Toronto Blue Jays. I have been for years now.
There was a time when I hated the Blue Jays, and that was during their back-to-back championship years (1992-1993) when they had the resources to outspend everyone and pick up expensive free agents (Jack Morris, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, to name a few) and hired guns (David Cone, Rickey Henderson). And whatever trades they pulled off seemed to benefit them (Devon White, Roberto Alomar, Joe Carter).
But the Blue Jays, who have not made it back to post-season play since 1993, have been stuck playing in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees.
As a fan who roots for underdogs, my hatred for Toronto fizzled away. After all, my Red Sox had already won it all in 2004 (before winning again last year), so there was no reason to dislike the Blue Jays.
Toronto seemed to have made progress in 2006 finishing in second place above the Red Sox. And the Jays also started 2007 well, and they were in contention and had a shot--albeit a long one--at the AL Wild Card in the final months because of their pitching.
Toronto eventually finished with a 83-79 record in 2007, winning four fewer games than a year earlier.
And it looks like their pitching will have to be a key once again if they are to contend in 2008. Unless realignment happens, the Blue Jays will probably not make the playoffs again, given that the Red Sox and Yankees have taken to try and one-up each other during the past few years.
Of course, games are played on the field and not on paper, and if Toronto gets decent pitching, they will have a shot at the Wild Card.
It would be a nice contrast for sure, though, say if the Yankees miss the post-season. I, for one, am tired of seeing the pinstripers play October baseball annually.
Back to Toronto's pitching, long-time Jays radio broadcaster Jerry Howarth said on the Fan 590 this week that he believes Jesse Litsch (7-9 record, 3.81 ERA) is the best fifth starter in major league baseball.
That's a huge compliment, a bold statement actually, considering Litsch was a rookie in 2007, and didn't make his debut until May 15th. Litsch had his moments, and one highlight came against Josh Beckett and the Red Sox, a 2-1 win in July.
Litsch will no doubt be a huge upgrade over the train wreck that was Josh Towers (5-10, 5.38). I mean, anyone can do better than Towers, right? However, Litsch will probably not duplicate the numbers of A.J. Burnett, who despite being unable to stay healthy, still managed a 10-8 mark and 3.75 ERA.
Baltimore lefty Erik Bedard, who at one point was mentioned as a possibility with the Blue Jays, probably won't be traded to Toronto. Though the Jays probably wouldn't need him anyway, if the optimism for Litsch's contributions is legit.
So, if Litsch is going to deliver as the fifth starter, as Howarth predicted, what about the rest of the staff?
The top three in the rotation seem to be as solid a 1-2-3 punch as any in baseball, if they all stay healthy and pitch the way they did last season.
Here's a look at what those top three did for Toronto last season:
Blue Jays ace Roy "Doc" Halladay had an off-year by his own standards, going 16-7 with a rather high 3.71 ERA (for a staff ace) in 2007. "Doc", who started the season well, ran into problems in the middle of the year. He had a span of three outings in a four-start stretch where he gave up seven runs or more each time out, and also went on the DL on May 11th. However, Halladay rebounded in the second half, going 6-3 with a 2.75 in his final 14 starts and averaging 7.95 innings per outing over that span with 5 complete games.
While Halladay is no longer a strikeout pitcher and may never regain his 2003 Cy Young form, he is still capable of winning 15 to 18 games in 2008, provided that he stays healthy and gets enough run support. Halladay has shown that he could still go deep in ballgames, pitching a total of 7 complete games and averaging over 7 innings per start.
Dustin McGowan (12-10, 4.08) showed flashes of brilliance, tossing a near-no-hitter against Colorado at the Rogers Centre on June 24th. McGowan also had 15 quality starts (6+ IP, 3 R or fewer), and had 6 outings in which he allowed one or fewer runs. For the season, he allowed fewer hits than innings pitched (7.74 H/9 IP) and struck out 144 in 169.2 innings. And McGown showed that he could at least pitch against the beasts of the AL East, going a combined 3-3 against the Yankees and Red Sox. McGowan posted a respectable 7-5 record and a 3.29 ERA over his final 14 starts of the year.
Shaun Marcum (12-6, 4.13 overall) was another Blue Jay that impressed in 2007, although it didn't start out that way. Marcum began the year in the bullpen, pitching to a 6.06 ERA in 13 appearances. On Mother's Day (May 13th), Marcum was put into the rotation, and he delievered with 6 no-hit, no-run innings with seven strikeouts against the Devil Rays, but the Blue Jays lost 2-1. Ironically, Marcum would have five starts during the year without allowing any runs in 6+ innings pitched, but would have only a 2-0 record with three no-decisions in those appearances. Marcum, who remained in the rotation the rest of the way (and made 25 starts), was 9-2 with a 2.91 ERA as a starter after a 2-1 win over the Angels on August 15th. He faded a bit down the stretch, posting a 7.47 ERA in his final 7 starts, but still won 11 games (with a 3.91 ERA) as a starter.
Halladay is a "given", a starter who would give the Jays a shot every five days, and if McGowan and Marcum can duplicate their 2007 successes, that would give Toronto three dependable arms in the rotation.
So, as long as Halladay, McGowan, Marcum, and Litsch do their jobs, the Blue Jays will have a shot. If stopper B.J. Ryan can make a comeback from Tommy John surgery, and Jeremy Accardo (2.14 ERA), Scott Downs (2.17) and Casey Janssen (2.35) can come through again out of the pen, that would take a lot of pressure off the starters.
And if newcomer Scott Rolen (acquired in the Troy Glaus trade two weeks ago) can chip in offensively along with David Eckstein, Alex Rios, and Aaron Hill, all the better for the Jays. Toronto will also need old-timers Matt Stairs and Frank Thomas to deliver long balls and solid batting averages again as they did in 2007.
Lyle Overbay (10 HR, .240), who was re-signed to a four-year deal two weeks ago, and Vernon Wells (16 HR, .245), who had signed a contract extension prior to the 2007 season, were two busts last season. Both will have to have big comeback years.
But the pitching has to come together, and assuming Howarth is right, Litsch will have to be one of the keys.
If so, the Jays might contend for the Wild Card.
If not, GM J.P. Ricciardi's tenure in Toronto will be looked upon as a bust.
There was a time when I hated the Blue Jays, and that was during their back-to-back championship years (1992-1993) when they had the resources to outspend everyone and pick up expensive free agents (Jack Morris, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, to name a few) and hired guns (David Cone, Rickey Henderson). And whatever trades they pulled off seemed to benefit them (Devon White, Roberto Alomar, Joe Carter).
But the Blue Jays, who have not made it back to post-season play since 1993, have been stuck playing in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees.
As a fan who roots for underdogs, my hatred for Toronto fizzled away. After all, my Red Sox had already won it all in 2004 (before winning again last year), so there was no reason to dislike the Blue Jays.
Toronto seemed to have made progress in 2006 finishing in second place above the Red Sox. And the Jays also started 2007 well, and they were in contention and had a shot--albeit a long one--at the AL Wild Card in the final months because of their pitching.
Toronto eventually finished with a 83-79 record in 2007, winning four fewer games than a year earlier.
And it looks like their pitching will have to be a key once again if they are to contend in 2008. Unless realignment happens, the Blue Jays will probably not make the playoffs again, given that the Red Sox and Yankees have taken to try and one-up each other during the past few years.
Of course, games are played on the field and not on paper, and if Toronto gets decent pitching, they will have a shot at the Wild Card.
It would be a nice contrast for sure, though, say if the Yankees miss the post-season. I, for one, am tired of seeing the pinstripers play October baseball annually.
Back to Toronto's pitching, long-time Jays radio broadcaster Jerry Howarth said on the Fan 590 this week that he believes Jesse Litsch (7-9 record, 3.81 ERA) is the best fifth starter in major league baseball.
That's a huge compliment, a bold statement actually, considering Litsch was a rookie in 2007, and didn't make his debut until May 15th. Litsch had his moments, and one highlight came against Josh Beckett and the Red Sox, a 2-1 win in July.
Litsch will no doubt be a huge upgrade over the train wreck that was Josh Towers (5-10, 5.38). I mean, anyone can do better than Towers, right? However, Litsch will probably not duplicate the numbers of A.J. Burnett, who despite being unable to stay healthy, still managed a 10-8 mark and 3.75 ERA.
Baltimore lefty Erik Bedard, who at one point was mentioned as a possibility with the Blue Jays, probably won't be traded to Toronto. Though the Jays probably wouldn't need him anyway, if the optimism for Litsch's contributions is legit.
So, if Litsch is going to deliver as the fifth starter, as Howarth predicted, what about the rest of the staff?
The top three in the rotation seem to be as solid a 1-2-3 punch as any in baseball, if they all stay healthy and pitch the way they did last season.
Here's a look at what those top three did for Toronto last season:
Blue Jays ace Roy "Doc" Halladay had an off-year by his own standards, going 16-7 with a rather high 3.71 ERA (for a staff ace) in 2007. "Doc", who started the season well, ran into problems in the middle of the year. He had a span of three outings in a four-start stretch where he gave up seven runs or more each time out, and also went on the DL on May 11th. However, Halladay rebounded in the second half, going 6-3 with a 2.75 in his final 14 starts and averaging 7.95 innings per outing over that span with 5 complete games.
While Halladay is no longer a strikeout pitcher and may never regain his 2003 Cy Young form, he is still capable of winning 15 to 18 games in 2008, provided that he stays healthy and gets enough run support. Halladay has shown that he could still go deep in ballgames, pitching a total of 7 complete games and averaging over 7 innings per start.
Dustin McGowan (12-10, 4.08) showed flashes of brilliance, tossing a near-no-hitter against Colorado at the Rogers Centre on June 24th. McGowan also had 15 quality starts (6+ IP, 3 R or fewer), and had 6 outings in which he allowed one or fewer runs. For the season, he allowed fewer hits than innings pitched (7.74 H/9 IP) and struck out 144 in 169.2 innings. And McGown showed that he could at least pitch against the beasts of the AL East, going a combined 3-3 against the Yankees and Red Sox. McGowan posted a respectable 7-5 record and a 3.29 ERA over his final 14 starts of the year.
Shaun Marcum (12-6, 4.13 overall) was another Blue Jay that impressed in 2007, although it didn't start out that way. Marcum began the year in the bullpen, pitching to a 6.06 ERA in 13 appearances. On Mother's Day (May 13th), Marcum was put into the rotation, and he delievered with 6 no-hit, no-run innings with seven strikeouts against the Devil Rays, but the Blue Jays lost 2-1. Ironically, Marcum would have five starts during the year without allowing any runs in 6+ innings pitched, but would have only a 2-0 record with three no-decisions in those appearances. Marcum, who remained in the rotation the rest of the way (and made 25 starts), was 9-2 with a 2.91 ERA as a starter after a 2-1 win over the Angels on August 15th. He faded a bit down the stretch, posting a 7.47 ERA in his final 7 starts, but still won 11 games (with a 3.91 ERA) as a starter.
Halladay is a "given", a starter who would give the Jays a shot every five days, and if McGowan and Marcum can duplicate their 2007 successes, that would give Toronto three dependable arms in the rotation.
So, as long as Halladay, McGowan, Marcum, and Litsch do their jobs, the Blue Jays will have a shot. If stopper B.J. Ryan can make a comeback from Tommy John surgery, and Jeremy Accardo (2.14 ERA), Scott Downs (2.17) and Casey Janssen (2.35) can come through again out of the pen, that would take a lot of pressure off the starters.
And if newcomer Scott Rolen (acquired in the Troy Glaus trade two weeks ago) can chip in offensively along with David Eckstein, Alex Rios, and Aaron Hill, all the better for the Jays. Toronto will also need old-timers Matt Stairs and Frank Thomas to deliver long balls and solid batting averages again as they did in 2007.
Lyle Overbay (10 HR, .240), who was re-signed to a four-year deal two weeks ago, and Vernon Wells (16 HR, .245), who had signed a contract extension prior to the 2007 season, were two busts last season. Both will have to have big comeback years.
But the pitching has to come together, and assuming Howarth is right, Litsch will have to be one of the keys.
If so, the Jays might contend for the Wild Card.
If not, GM J.P. Ricciardi's tenure in Toronto will be looked upon as a bust.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Another Brilliant Game by the Canucks..... and Canucks Lovers such as me Love it!
Thursday night (Jan. 31st) was another great one for a self-proclaimed "Canucks Hater" like myself.
The Vancouver Canucks blew another game, falling 4-3 to the lowly Tampa Bay Lightning.
The Lightning squad went into the game dead last in the Eastern Conference (and only two points ahead of the NHL's worst team, the Los Angeles Kings), sporting a 20-26-5 record despite playing in the Southeast Division, the league's weakest quintet.
The 2003-04 champion Lightning had won only 5 of their previous 16 games going in.
Yet there were Tampa Bay's big guns coming out firing, with Brad Richards (1 goal, 2 assists), Martin St. Louis (3 assists), and Vincent Lecavalier (go-ahead goal late in the second period) all contributing offensively.
Lecavalier even got involved in a skirmish early in the game with the Canucks' Alex Burrows--and won.
Meanwhile, the Canucks' so-called top guns, the Sedin's, weren't a factor, with Daniel Sedin picking up a cheap assist on Alex Edler's goal with 25 seconds left when the game was pretty much over--in Tampa Bay's favor. Henrik was held without a point.
Edler had that late goal, but was the goat who led to Lecavalier's go-ahead tally. Lecavalier's 31st goal came from a pass from St. Louis, who intercepted Edler's clearing attempt late in the second.
Oh, this time the Canucks scored first, with overrated defenseman Luc Bourdon scoring just a couple minutes into the game. Of course, they blew a couple of one-goal leads and fell behind 4-2 by the third period.
Don't people say that defense and goal-tending trumps offense? Wasn't Vancouver's defensive style and goalkeeping supposed to shut down the Lightning's vaunted offense? Nope, not this round.
The Canucks' $6.5-million goalie Roberto Luongo, who opted to skip the All-Star Game last weekend and got permission from the team to miss Vancouver's previous game with Dallas, was outplayed by a rookie (Karri Ramo) in the Tampa goal. And by the way, the rookie earns ten times less money than Luongo, at $650,000 per year.
On a recent radio talk show in Vancouver, fans were asked if they cared that Luongo was allowed to stay in Florida to be with his pregnant wife--who by the way, isn't due until playoff time in April--for the Dallas game.
And an overwhelming majority (around 80%) supported the goalie's request and the team's grant. Luongo deserved that time off, fans said, especially since this was for family reasons.
Put it this way: if the Canucks miss the playoffs by one or two points, we can all look back and say that perhaps missing their goalie against Dallas game cost them. And who knows, perhaps this is the midst of a long slump for Vancouver, who could have avoided this had their most expensive player (Luongo) decided to play against the Stars.
Injuries? Yes sure, the Canucks and their fans can cry about a host of players not in the line-up, such as D-men Sami Salo and Willie Mitchell, to name a few. But please, let's not use that as an excuse.
Didn't Dallas miss a number of players too in the last game, most notably defenseman Sergei Zubov and forward Jere Lehtinen?
And didn't the Stars vanquish the Canucks?
So this injury excuse doesn't wash.
Vancouver is now tied for eighth in the Western Conference with Nashville. Both have 26-21-5 records and 57 points after 52 games after the Predators beat Columbus, who has 56 points.
As a Canucks Hater like myself, last night was another beauty.
Vancouver doesn't have time to lick its chops, with another game tonight against the Florida Panthers (22-25-5), who are no better than Tampa Bay in the standings.
The Vancouver Canucks blew another game, falling 4-3 to the lowly Tampa Bay Lightning.
The Lightning squad went into the game dead last in the Eastern Conference (and only two points ahead of the NHL's worst team, the Los Angeles Kings), sporting a 20-26-5 record despite playing in the Southeast Division, the league's weakest quintet.
The 2003-04 champion Lightning had won only 5 of their previous 16 games going in.
Yet there were Tampa Bay's big guns coming out firing, with Brad Richards (1 goal, 2 assists), Martin St. Louis (3 assists), and Vincent Lecavalier (go-ahead goal late in the second period) all contributing offensively.
Lecavalier even got involved in a skirmish early in the game with the Canucks' Alex Burrows--and won.
Meanwhile, the Canucks' so-called top guns, the Sedin's, weren't a factor, with Daniel Sedin picking up a cheap assist on Alex Edler's goal with 25 seconds left when the game was pretty much over--in Tampa Bay's favor. Henrik was held without a point.
Edler had that late goal, but was the goat who led to Lecavalier's go-ahead tally. Lecavalier's 31st goal came from a pass from St. Louis, who intercepted Edler's clearing attempt late in the second.
Oh, this time the Canucks scored first, with overrated defenseman Luc Bourdon scoring just a couple minutes into the game. Of course, they blew a couple of one-goal leads and fell behind 4-2 by the third period.
Don't people say that defense and goal-tending trumps offense? Wasn't Vancouver's defensive style and goalkeeping supposed to shut down the Lightning's vaunted offense? Nope, not this round.
The Canucks' $6.5-million goalie Roberto Luongo, who opted to skip the All-Star Game last weekend and got permission from the team to miss Vancouver's previous game with Dallas, was outplayed by a rookie (Karri Ramo) in the Tampa goal. And by the way, the rookie earns ten times less money than Luongo, at $650,000 per year.
On a recent radio talk show in Vancouver, fans were asked if they cared that Luongo was allowed to stay in Florida to be with his pregnant wife--who by the way, isn't due until playoff time in April--for the Dallas game.
And an overwhelming majority (around 80%) supported the goalie's request and the team's grant. Luongo deserved that time off, fans said, especially since this was for family reasons.
Put it this way: if the Canucks miss the playoffs by one or two points, we can all look back and say that perhaps missing their goalie against Dallas game cost them. And who knows, perhaps this is the midst of a long slump for Vancouver, who could have avoided this had their most expensive player (Luongo) decided to play against the Stars.
Injuries? Yes sure, the Canucks and their fans can cry about a host of players not in the line-up, such as D-men Sami Salo and Willie Mitchell, to name a few. But please, let's not use that as an excuse.
Didn't Dallas miss a number of players too in the last game, most notably defenseman Sergei Zubov and forward Jere Lehtinen?
And didn't the Stars vanquish the Canucks?
So this injury excuse doesn't wash.
Vancouver is now tied for eighth in the Western Conference with Nashville. Both have 26-21-5 records and 57 points after 52 games after the Predators beat Columbus, who has 56 points.
As a Canucks Hater like myself, last night was another beauty.
Vancouver doesn't have time to lick its chops, with another game tonight against the Florida Panthers (22-25-5), who are no better than Tampa Bay in the standings.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Warner: Mr. Underappreciated
--Also posted by KP Wee on Bleacher Report.com)--
Eight years ago this week (Jan. 30, 2000), the St. Louis became the first ever dome team to win the Super Bowl.
Kurt Warner led the once-dreadful franchise to the memorable victory in Super Bowl XXXIV, claiming MVP honors in the big game.
Warner, who has also won two NFL MVP awards (1999, 2001), is currently third all-time--behind Steve Young and Peyton Manning--in career passer rating (93.2), and is the second-most accurate QB in league history, with a career mark of 65.1% in pass completion.
Warner has also been to three Pro Bowls, and ranks fourth all-time with a mark of 8.1 yards per pass attempt.
And Warner took the Rams back to the Super Bowl two years after winning it all, ultimately falling short to the underdog Patriots. Still, two trips to the Super Bowl in three years--with one victory--after a decade long of mediocrity for the Rams organization is a great feat.
And in Warner's first year as a starter in the NFL in 1999, he helped turned the Rams, once a laughing stock in the NFL, to a winner. After all, the Bengals and Rams were the two losingest teams of the 1990s heading into that final year of the decade. And the Rams organization (45-99 going into Warner's first year) didn't make the playoffs even once during the '90s -- that is, until Warner showed up.
Despite all those accomplishments, it seems Warner's career has been underappreciated by the media and his teams.
Yes, backup pivot Marc Bulger came along when Warner got injured, and played well. After all, Bulger was six years younger, and showed he could lead "The Greatest Show on Turf" as well as Warner.
Warner was finally released by the Rams in 2004, and he moved on to the Giants. Warner was certainly not horrible for the G-men, and the two-time MVP led New York to a 5-2-0 record in their first seven games. But a two-game losing streak (in which Warner threw two TDs and two picks, not really enough to bench him) ensued, and head coach Tom Coughlin gave the starting role to rookie Eli Manning. Of course, at the time, the Giants were 5-4-0 and in contention, but after the QB switch, the team finished 6-10-0.
Warner was gone following the season, and signed on with Arizona Cardinals. Injuries again hampered Warner, but in 2006, Warner was healthy. However, after a Week One, 301-yard performance against the 49ers, the Cards lost three straight. Head coach Dennis Green also benched Warner in favor of rookie Matt Leinart.
Same deal as in New York.
Yes, the Cardinals had a poor record with Warner at the helm -- but remember, these were the Cards after all -- but why was a two-time MVP shown such disrespect? Yes, he has not been able to stay healthy throughout his career, but still, he was a proven veteran and his stats backed him up. Yes, younger QBs were able to step in -- well, Eli did go 1-6-0 as Warner's replacement. But still.
I again have to look at the 2004 season. Warner led the Giants to a 5-2-0 record and then lost two straight. Then he was basically banished. And you look elsewhere in the league, and you wonder why. In the same season out in Green Bay, Brett Favre led the Packers to a 1-4-0 record -- including a Week Four loss to Warner and the Giants at Lambeau Field -- and yet he was allowed to continue playing, protecting his consecutive-games streak. (For the record, Favre lost his first four starts and began 1-7-0 the next season, and yet played on.)
Warner lost his jobs in St. Louis, New York, and Arizona. Favre, on the other hand, didn't in Green Bay. Was it because Favre had one more MVP than Warner (3-2)? Just looking at those two QBs as an example, both led their teams to two Super Bowl appearances, winning once -- with Warner's not coming in New York, of course. So that part of it was a wash. Was it because Warner had better backups waiting to make a difference? Well, out in Green Bay, the Packers of course have had Aaron Rodgers, a guy at one point thought of as a potential No. 1 overall draft pick -- who actually became the 24th pick in 2005 -- still waiting for his shot behind Favre. (Why didn't Rodgers take over for Favre in 2005 after a disatrous 4-12 campaign?)
Warner's Rams in 2002 even manhandled Favre's Packers in the playoffs, but no one seems to remember that.
Warner did gain a measure of respect in 2007, a season in which he started out as Leinart's backup. Warner played when Leinart was ineffective and later injured, and had 27 TDs for the year. And the Warner-led Cardinals, who were in playoff contention, gave the NFC West leaders, the Seattle Seahawks, a scare late in the year before ultimately falling short.
Still, the Kurt Warner story is still one that could have been much better. Too many teams haven't given him a fair shake the way other QBs have received in the NFL.
But, let's celebrate Warner this week because of that great Super Bowl XXXIV performance that he delivered eight years ago in temporarily turning the Rams franchise around.
Who are some other underappreciated players in sports (relatively speaking, of course, since these guys are paid pretty well to begin with)? Discuss.
Eight years ago this week (Jan. 30, 2000), the St. Louis became the first ever dome team to win the Super Bowl.
Kurt Warner led the once-dreadful franchise to the memorable victory in Super Bowl XXXIV, claiming MVP honors in the big game.
Warner, who has also won two NFL MVP awards (1999, 2001), is currently third all-time--behind Steve Young and Peyton Manning--in career passer rating (93.2), and is the second-most accurate QB in league history, with a career mark of 65.1% in pass completion.
Warner has also been to three Pro Bowls, and ranks fourth all-time with a mark of 8.1 yards per pass attempt.
And Warner took the Rams back to the Super Bowl two years after winning it all, ultimately falling short to the underdog Patriots. Still, two trips to the Super Bowl in three years--with one victory--after a decade long of mediocrity for the Rams organization is a great feat.
And in Warner's first year as a starter in the NFL in 1999, he helped turned the Rams, once a laughing stock in the NFL, to a winner. After all, the Bengals and Rams were the two losingest teams of the 1990s heading into that final year of the decade. And the Rams organization (45-99 going into Warner's first year) didn't make the playoffs even once during the '90s -- that is, until Warner showed up.
Despite all those accomplishments, it seems Warner's career has been underappreciated by the media and his teams.
Yes, backup pivot Marc Bulger came along when Warner got injured, and played well. After all, Bulger was six years younger, and showed he could lead "The Greatest Show on Turf" as well as Warner.
Warner was finally released by the Rams in 2004, and he moved on to the Giants. Warner was certainly not horrible for the G-men, and the two-time MVP led New York to a 5-2-0 record in their first seven games. But a two-game losing streak (in which Warner threw two TDs and two picks, not really enough to bench him) ensued, and head coach Tom Coughlin gave the starting role to rookie Eli Manning. Of course, at the time, the Giants were 5-4-0 and in contention, but after the QB switch, the team finished 6-10-0.
Warner was gone following the season, and signed on with Arizona Cardinals. Injuries again hampered Warner, but in 2006, Warner was healthy. However, after a Week One, 301-yard performance against the 49ers, the Cards lost three straight. Head coach Dennis Green also benched Warner in favor of rookie Matt Leinart.
Same deal as in New York.
Yes, the Cardinals had a poor record with Warner at the helm -- but remember, these were the Cards after all -- but why was a two-time MVP shown such disrespect? Yes, he has not been able to stay healthy throughout his career, but still, he was a proven veteran and his stats backed him up. Yes, younger QBs were able to step in -- well, Eli did go 1-6-0 as Warner's replacement. But still.
I again have to look at the 2004 season. Warner led the Giants to a 5-2-0 record and then lost two straight. Then he was basically banished. And you look elsewhere in the league, and you wonder why. In the same season out in Green Bay, Brett Favre led the Packers to a 1-4-0 record -- including a Week Four loss to Warner and the Giants at Lambeau Field -- and yet he was allowed to continue playing, protecting his consecutive-games streak. (For the record, Favre lost his first four starts and began 1-7-0 the next season, and yet played on.)
Warner lost his jobs in St. Louis, New York, and Arizona. Favre, on the other hand, didn't in Green Bay. Was it because Favre had one more MVP than Warner (3-2)? Just looking at those two QBs as an example, both led their teams to two Super Bowl appearances, winning once -- with Warner's not coming in New York, of course. So that part of it was a wash. Was it because Warner had better backups waiting to make a difference? Well, out in Green Bay, the Packers of course have had Aaron Rodgers, a guy at one point thought of as a potential No. 1 overall draft pick -- who actually became the 24th pick in 2005 -- still waiting for his shot behind Favre. (Why didn't Rodgers take over for Favre in 2005 after a disatrous 4-12 campaign?)
Warner's Rams in 2002 even manhandled Favre's Packers in the playoffs, but no one seems to remember that.
Warner did gain a measure of respect in 2007, a season in which he started out as Leinart's backup. Warner played when Leinart was ineffective and later injured, and had 27 TDs for the year. And the Warner-led Cardinals, who were in playoff contention, gave the NFC West leaders, the Seattle Seahawks, a scare late in the year before ultimately falling short.
Still, the Kurt Warner story is still one that could have been much better. Too many teams haven't given him a fair shake the way other QBs have received in the NFL.
But, let's celebrate Warner this week because of that great Super Bowl XXXIV performance that he delivered eight years ago in temporarily turning the Rams franchise around.
Who are some other underappreciated players in sports (relatively speaking, of course, since these guys are paid pretty well to begin with)? Discuss.
Modano finally makes difference for Dallas...barely
(Also posted by me on Bleacher Report.com)
Last spring featured one of those unbelievable playoff feats you'll never see again for a long time. A goalie gets his team three shutouts in a seven-game series, and they still lose.
That's right. That was Marty Turco getting three goose-eggs for the Dallas Stars in their first-round series against the Vancouver Canucks. However, Vancouver won Game Seven 4-1 (it was actually 2-1 until the Canucks scored two late empty-netters to make it seem like a blow-out), rendering Turco's achievements meaningless.
There was another story about that series. The top two draft picks in the 1988 NHL Entry Draft--the Stars' Mike Modano and the Canucks' Trevor Linden--were still playing. Modano looked like he still had it, as he had tallied his 500th career NHL goal and also became the career leading goal-scorer among American-born players just a month prior to the series. Meanwhile, Linden, who seemed to have been signed by management merely because of sentimental reasons, was long removed from being a dominant offensive threat, finishing with just 12 goals in 80 games.
But it was Linden who got the last laugh, potting the series-winner seven minutes into the third period in Game Seven, his second game-winning goal in a span of a week. Meanwhile, Modano was shut out in the finale, finishing with a disappointing two points for the series.
And those two teams hooked up again at GM Place last night, in what was Vancouver's 200th straight sellout at the building also known as The Garage. And it was the first game for both teams following the All-Star break. Radio color commentator Tom Larschied proclaimed before the game that Linden usually plays his best hockey in the second half of the season, seemingly promising big things for the ex-captain for the rest of the year.
But while Linden was shut out this time around, it was Modano who got a big goal for Dallas. Actually, it was more like a fluke, but they all count. Modano's slap shot from just inside the blue line early in the second stanza somehow eluded goaltender Curtis Sanford, who just waved at it. It gave Dallas a 2-1 lead, and the Stars would build a 4-1 cushion and hang on for a 4-3 victory.
For Modano, it was a big goal (and part of a two-point night), but let's not call it a clutch play. Had the Canucks' No. 1 goalie Roberto Luongo--who was still in Florida to be with his pregnant wife--been in net, that puck might not have gotten in. And though Modano has been productive this season (15 goals, 36 points, third in team scoring), he is also a dreadful -12, worst (by far) on the team.
For the Canucks, it was the seventh straight game in which the opposition scored first, and the sixth in a row in which they have not even had the lead at any point during the contest. Seventh place in the Western Conference with 57 points, just one more than three other teams battling for the final eighth spot. If the Canucks go on to miss the playoffs, they can lament Sanford waving at that Modano shot.
The Stars, battling for first in the Pacific Division--they have 63 points, same as the Sharks--can look at Modano's goal as a positive, the fact that they took advantage of a struggling Canucks team that was missing its top goalie.
Nine months after that playoff series between the two teams, it appears that the Stars are in much better shape. They can keep that going if they continue to get timely goals from their 500-goal man.
Last spring featured one of those unbelievable playoff feats you'll never see again for a long time. A goalie gets his team three shutouts in a seven-game series, and they still lose.
That's right. That was Marty Turco getting three goose-eggs for the Dallas Stars in their first-round series against the Vancouver Canucks. However, Vancouver won Game Seven 4-1 (it was actually 2-1 until the Canucks scored two late empty-netters to make it seem like a blow-out), rendering Turco's achievements meaningless.
There was another story about that series. The top two draft picks in the 1988 NHL Entry Draft--the Stars' Mike Modano and the Canucks' Trevor Linden--were still playing. Modano looked like he still had it, as he had tallied his 500th career NHL goal and also became the career leading goal-scorer among American-born players just a month prior to the series. Meanwhile, Linden, who seemed to have been signed by management merely because of sentimental reasons, was long removed from being a dominant offensive threat, finishing with just 12 goals in 80 games.
But it was Linden who got the last laugh, potting the series-winner seven minutes into the third period in Game Seven, his second game-winning goal in a span of a week. Meanwhile, Modano was shut out in the finale, finishing with a disappointing two points for the series.
And those two teams hooked up again at GM Place last night, in what was Vancouver's 200th straight sellout at the building also known as The Garage. And it was the first game for both teams following the All-Star break. Radio color commentator Tom Larschied proclaimed before the game that Linden usually plays his best hockey in the second half of the season, seemingly promising big things for the ex-captain for the rest of the year.
But while Linden was shut out this time around, it was Modano who got a big goal for Dallas. Actually, it was more like a fluke, but they all count. Modano's slap shot from just inside the blue line early in the second stanza somehow eluded goaltender Curtis Sanford, who just waved at it. It gave Dallas a 2-1 lead, and the Stars would build a 4-1 cushion and hang on for a 4-3 victory.
For Modano, it was a big goal (and part of a two-point night), but let's not call it a clutch play. Had the Canucks' No. 1 goalie Roberto Luongo--who was still in Florida to be with his pregnant wife--been in net, that puck might not have gotten in. And though Modano has been productive this season (15 goals, 36 points, third in team scoring), he is also a dreadful -12, worst (by far) on the team.
For the Canucks, it was the seventh straight game in which the opposition scored first, and the sixth in a row in which they have not even had the lead at any point during the contest. Seventh place in the Western Conference with 57 points, just one more than three other teams battling for the final eighth spot. If the Canucks go on to miss the playoffs, they can lament Sanford waving at that Modano shot.
The Stars, battling for first in the Pacific Division--they have 63 points, same as the Sharks--can look at Modano's goal as a positive, the fact that they took advantage of a struggling Canucks team that was missing its top goalie.
Nine months after that playoff series between the two teams, it appears that the Stars are in much better shape. They can keep that going if they continue to get timely goals from their 500-goal man.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Ex-Bostonians and their revenge
A couple things made me write this post.
First, no Super Bowl this past weekend, as the NFL has decided to do the skip-a-week routine this year again. What a letdown though in the AFC title game, as the Indianapolis Colts choked against the San Diego Chargers one week earlier in the divisional round, meaning that the Colts didn't get to play the New England Patriots, and ex-Pats kicker Adam Vinatieri didn't get a chance to haunt his old team and break the undefeated streak. Thankfully.
Second, this past week was Bob Sweeney's birthday. Sweeney is a native of Boston and played for the Bruins from 1987 to 1992. He was a decent player, but one thing that has always bugged me was the fact he couldn't get a goal in the 1990 playoffs and the Bruins lost to the Oilers in the Finals. Had he popped a couple in in the Edmonton series--he had chances in the triple-OT game--the Bruins would have won the Cup that year. At the start of the 1992-93 season, the Bruins waived Sweeney, and he was picked up by the Buffalo Sabres. And Sweeney came back to Boston Garden in Game One of the playoffs with the Sabres, scoring the OT winner. He later added a crucial goal in Game Three in Buffalo. The Bruins fell in a four-game sweep.
Ah yes… those ex-Boston players coming back to haunt us.
I decided to take a look back at some of the recent “traitors” to stick it to the Boston teams.
There was 1991, when the Red Sox were just two games out of first place on September 26th with 11 to play following a victory in the first game of a doubleheader in Baltimore. The Orioles (63-88) were down 4-0 and 5-1 in the second game, but managed to pull to within 5-4 going into the last of the ninth. With two outs, Cal Ripken Jr. singled home the tying run. The Orioles loaded the bases, and there was former Red Sox great Dwight Evans at the plate, with the game—and the Red Sox’s season—on the line. And there was Evans taking ball four from Boston reliever Greg Harris to drive in the winning run. The Red Sox never recovered, and finished seven games out at season’s end.
Evans, of course, had spent the first 19 seasons of his major league career with Boston—bashing 379 homers with over 1300 RBIs—before joining the Orioles in his final year in 1991.
In 1993, the Red Sox were again in contention, tied with both Toronto and the Yankees for first place in the AL East. Winners of ten straight and holding a 2-1 lead in Milwaukee on July 26th, the Red Sox were one out away. And there was former Sox right fielder Tom Brunansky (1990-92), hitting a two-out, two-run home run off Jeff Russell in the bottom of the ninth to beat Boston 3-2, ending the ten-game streak and knocking the Bosox out of first place for good.
Tony Pena (1990-93) did one better than Brunansky. In the opener of the 1995 American League Division Series, Pena, a backup catcher with the Cleveland Indians, got into the game in the late innings and proceeded to hit a game-winning, solo home run in the bottom of the 13th, to beat the Red Sox, 5-4. The Red Sox ended up getting swept. Were the Red Sox better than the powerful Indians (100-44) back then? No. But did the Red Sox have a chance in the series. Definitely. However, Pena changed all that with one swing.
March 1988. The Bruins sent winger Geoff Courtnall and goalie Bill Ranford to the Edmonton Oilers for goaltender Andy Moog. Fast forward to March 9th, 1989, just a year and two days later. Courtnall, now with the Washington Capitals, returned to Boston Garden and scored three goals on three shots on Moog. Then in the spring of 1990, it was Ranford who brought his Oilers back to Boston Garden and won three games on Garden ice. Ranford’s MVP puck-stopping performance helped Edmonton capture the Stanley Cup. (And Ranford was mediocre when he returned to the Bruins in 1995-96 for a second tour of duty.)
Dennis Eckersley (1978-84). A 20-game winner for the Red Sox in 1978, Eckersley became a closer in Oakland for the great A’s teams in the late ’80s. In the 1988 ALCS, the former Red Sox star picked up four saves in four games against Boston without yielding a run. In 1990, Eckersley got two more saves against the Red Sox in the ALCS, again having a 0.00 ERA. So, Eck was essentially perfect when it mattered in the post-season against Boston. And yet when Eckersley returned to the Red Sox for one final big-league season in 1998, it was a different story. The Red Sox made the playoffs. In Eck’s first post-season appearance with Boston in Game Three at Fenway, he gave up a ninth-inning home run to the first man he faced—Manny Ramirez. The Red Sox rallied but lost the game by one run. Bummer. It was his only playoff appearance in a Boston uniform.
Ah yes, The Rocket. Roger Clemens (1984-96) left the Red Sox and went to the Blue Jays. In his first start back at Fenway, on July 12, 1997, Clemens gave up just four hits and struck out a Blue Jays record sixteen in only eight innings, and the Blue Jays beat the last-place Red Sox, 3-1. Since leaving the Red Sox, Rocket Roger has gone 8-5 against Boston while pitching for the Jays and Yankees. With the Yankees, Clemens won two championship rings. It was only after he went to Houston, that the Sox finally got past New York in the post-season.
And of course, everyone knows the Babe Ruth story. No need to rehash it here.
But what about the rest of you? Any Toronto stories? Any other "traitors" that haunted your home teams? Discuss.
First, no Super Bowl this past weekend, as the NFL has decided to do the skip-a-week routine this year again. What a letdown though in the AFC title game, as the Indianapolis Colts choked against the San Diego Chargers one week earlier in the divisional round, meaning that the Colts didn't get to play the New England Patriots, and ex-Pats kicker Adam Vinatieri didn't get a chance to haunt his old team and break the undefeated streak. Thankfully.
Second, this past week was Bob Sweeney's birthday. Sweeney is a native of Boston and played for the Bruins from 1987 to 1992. He was a decent player, but one thing that has always bugged me was the fact he couldn't get a goal in the 1990 playoffs and the Bruins lost to the Oilers in the Finals. Had he popped a couple in in the Edmonton series--he had chances in the triple-OT game--the Bruins would have won the Cup that year. At the start of the 1992-93 season, the Bruins waived Sweeney, and he was picked up by the Buffalo Sabres. And Sweeney came back to Boston Garden in Game One of the playoffs with the Sabres, scoring the OT winner. He later added a crucial goal in Game Three in Buffalo. The Bruins fell in a four-game sweep.
Ah yes… those ex-Boston players coming back to haunt us.
I decided to take a look back at some of the recent “traitors” to stick it to the Boston teams.
There was 1991, when the Red Sox were just two games out of first place on September 26th with 11 to play following a victory in the first game of a doubleheader in Baltimore. The Orioles (63-88) were down 4-0 and 5-1 in the second game, but managed to pull to within 5-4 going into the last of the ninth. With two outs, Cal Ripken Jr. singled home the tying run. The Orioles loaded the bases, and there was former Red Sox great Dwight Evans at the plate, with the game—and the Red Sox’s season—on the line. And there was Evans taking ball four from Boston reliever Greg Harris to drive in the winning run. The Red Sox never recovered, and finished seven games out at season’s end.
Evans, of course, had spent the first 19 seasons of his major league career with Boston—bashing 379 homers with over 1300 RBIs—before joining the Orioles in his final year in 1991.
In 1993, the Red Sox were again in contention, tied with both Toronto and the Yankees for first place in the AL East. Winners of ten straight and holding a 2-1 lead in Milwaukee on July 26th, the Red Sox were one out away. And there was former Sox right fielder Tom Brunansky (1990-92), hitting a two-out, two-run home run off Jeff Russell in the bottom of the ninth to beat Boston 3-2, ending the ten-game streak and knocking the Bosox out of first place for good.
Tony Pena (1990-93) did one better than Brunansky. In the opener of the 1995 American League Division Series, Pena, a backup catcher with the Cleveland Indians, got into the game in the late innings and proceeded to hit a game-winning, solo home run in the bottom of the 13th, to beat the Red Sox, 5-4. The Red Sox ended up getting swept. Were the Red Sox better than the powerful Indians (100-44) back then? No. But did the Red Sox have a chance in the series. Definitely. However, Pena changed all that with one swing.
March 1988. The Bruins sent winger Geoff Courtnall and goalie Bill Ranford to the Edmonton Oilers for goaltender Andy Moog. Fast forward to March 9th, 1989, just a year and two days later. Courtnall, now with the Washington Capitals, returned to Boston Garden and scored three goals on three shots on Moog. Then in the spring of 1990, it was Ranford who brought his Oilers back to Boston Garden and won three games on Garden ice. Ranford’s MVP puck-stopping performance helped Edmonton capture the Stanley Cup. (And Ranford was mediocre when he returned to the Bruins in 1995-96 for a second tour of duty.)
Dennis Eckersley (1978-84). A 20-game winner for the Red Sox in 1978, Eckersley became a closer in Oakland for the great A’s teams in the late ’80s. In the 1988 ALCS, the former Red Sox star picked up four saves in four games against Boston without yielding a run. In 1990, Eckersley got two more saves against the Red Sox in the ALCS, again having a 0.00 ERA. So, Eck was essentially perfect when it mattered in the post-season against Boston. And yet when Eckersley returned to the Red Sox for one final big-league season in 1998, it was a different story. The Red Sox made the playoffs. In Eck’s first post-season appearance with Boston in Game Three at Fenway, he gave up a ninth-inning home run to the first man he faced—Manny Ramirez. The Red Sox rallied but lost the game by one run. Bummer. It was his only playoff appearance in a Boston uniform.
Ah yes, The Rocket. Roger Clemens (1984-96) left the Red Sox and went to the Blue Jays. In his first start back at Fenway, on July 12, 1997, Clemens gave up just four hits and struck out a Blue Jays record sixteen in only eight innings, and the Blue Jays beat the last-place Red Sox, 3-1. Since leaving the Red Sox, Rocket Roger has gone 8-5 against Boston while pitching for the Jays and Yankees. With the Yankees, Clemens won two championship rings. It was only after he went to Houston, that the Sox finally got past New York in the post-season.
And of course, everyone knows the Babe Ruth story. No need to rehash it here.
But what about the rest of you? Any Toronto stories? Any other "traitors" that haunted your home teams? Discuss.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Jan 20, 2008: Green Bay LOST; Favre HORRIBLE
Yes, mark it down on the calendar. January 20th, 2008 - NFC title game. The overrated Brett Favre and Green Bay played host to the New York Giants at Lambeau Field for the right to face New England in the Super Bowl.
And yes, those Green Bay fans taunted me and continued their Favre-worshipping.
Didn't matter. The QB is overrated. Two TDs, yes. But also two INT's, with the second one coming in OT on the Packers' second play of the extra session. That led to the winning field goal by the Giants. 23-20 New York.
And where was that so-called greatness by Favre? With a trip to the Super Bowl on the line, he came up with a stinker? Where was that so-called awesome performance that he dished out against Seattle a week earlier? Could it be that the Seahawks were that much inferior--and as it turned out, yes, for not tacking on more points after being given a two-TD lead?
Lambeau magic? Please.
And again Favre was lucky. His first interception didn't cost the Packers the game because the Giants gave the ball right back. And again he got huge breaks when the Giants' Lawrence Tynes missed two fourth-qurter field-goal attempts--the latter which would have won it for New York at the end of regulation had the kicker made good on it, but didn't thanks to a bad snap.
And yes, this was the third-coldest title game in history, so-called perfect weather for Favre. He never loses in these types of games. And yet there he was, going just 19-for-35 for 236 yards. Favre was supposed to be better than the much more inexperienced Eli Manning, and yet it is the latter going on to the Super Bowl.
Say, if Manning makes it back again once more in his career, would he have tied Favre in appearances in the big game? After all, Favre has only been to two. Lots of other QBs have been there before too. And of course, this will be Patriots QB Tom Brady's fourth appearance, two more than the overrated Green Bay pivot.
And while fans from New England and New York wait in anticipation of the big game in Arizona in two weeks, Cheesehead fans in Wisconsin can just await the Brett Favre soap opera again as to his on-and-off, should-I-retire-or-come-back routine.
"For me, I kept thinking how many opportunities are we going to let slip away," Favre was quoted as saying. Damn right you are, Brett. You'll probably never get to another Super Bowl unless you get a ticket to get in the stands.
But one consolation: whatever you do, Brett Favre, there will be millions out there worshipping you. No many how many losses you endure, there will always be those who say you're great. Is there any other way to define "overrated"?
And yes, those Green Bay fans taunted me and continued their Favre-worshipping.
Didn't matter. The QB is overrated. Two TDs, yes. But also two INT's, with the second one coming in OT on the Packers' second play of the extra session. That led to the winning field goal by the Giants. 23-20 New York.
And where was that so-called greatness by Favre? With a trip to the Super Bowl on the line, he came up with a stinker? Where was that so-called awesome performance that he dished out against Seattle a week earlier? Could it be that the Seahawks were that much inferior--and as it turned out, yes, for not tacking on more points after being given a two-TD lead?
Lambeau magic? Please.
And again Favre was lucky. His first interception didn't cost the Packers the game because the Giants gave the ball right back. And again he got huge breaks when the Giants' Lawrence Tynes missed two fourth-qurter field-goal attempts--the latter which would have won it for New York at the end of regulation had the kicker made good on it, but didn't thanks to a bad snap.
And yes, this was the third-coldest title game in history, so-called perfect weather for Favre. He never loses in these types of games. And yet there he was, going just 19-for-35 for 236 yards. Favre was supposed to be better than the much more inexperienced Eli Manning, and yet it is the latter going on to the Super Bowl.
Say, if Manning makes it back again once more in his career, would he have tied Favre in appearances in the big game? After all, Favre has only been to two. Lots of other QBs have been there before too. And of course, this will be Patriots QB Tom Brady's fourth appearance, two more than the overrated Green Bay pivot.
And while fans from New England and New York wait in anticipation of the big game in Arizona in two weeks, Cheesehead fans in Wisconsin can just await the Brett Favre soap opera again as to his on-and-off, should-I-retire-or-come-back routine.
"For me, I kept thinking how many opportunities are we going to let slip away," Favre was quoted as saying. Damn right you are, Brett. You'll probably never get to another Super Bowl unless you get a ticket to get in the stands.
But one consolation: whatever you do, Brett Favre, there will be millions out there worshipping you. No many how many losses you endure, there will always be those who say you're great. Is there any other way to define "overrated"?
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Bruins do something right at last: Celebrating O'Ree
For years, the Boston Bruins have not done anything right.
Trading away Andy Moog after the 1993 season was dumb. The Bruins have not recovered since then, winners of just two playoff rounds after that season. People like Byron Dafoe and Andrew Raycroft just weren't able to get the job done come playoff time.
Then there was the trade of Ray Bourque to Colorado for sentimental reasons. What on earth did the Bruins get out of that trade? What did that accomplish?
Firing Robbie Ftorek with eight games to go despite the Bruins being playoff-bound and having a winning record. Dumb. Did GM Mike O'Connell really think that he would be that great as a coach?
Blowing a three-games-to-one lead in 2004 to the hated Canadiens despite having two more home games in the series. All this after Montreal's Alexi Kovalev's so-called fake-injury allowed the Bruins to steal a double-OT victory in Montreal in Game Four. Brutal.
And the Joe Thornton debacle. Didn't he win the Hart Trophy for MVP that same year in San Jose? And the Bruins got spare parts for a perennial MVP candidate. (Well, then the other side is that Thornton just chokes in the playoffs, but still...)
Well, looks like the Bruins finally did something right for a change.
There was a little blurb on the radio earlier today about the Bruins having "Willie O'Ree Night" in their game against the Rangers on Saturday (Jan. 19th), to celebrate O'Ree's breaking of the color barrier 50 years ago in the NHL. O'Ree made his NHL debut on January 18th, 1958 with the last-place Bruins at the Montreal Forum, becoming the first black player in league history.
O'Ree was no Jackie Robinson--in the sense that the former Bruin wasn't a superstar player the way his baseball counterpart was--but being the first black player was a big milestone in the sport of hockey. Just ask current stars like Jerome Iginla and Mike Grier.
No, O'Ree's emergence didn't pave the way for others to join him--Mike Marson was next, being drafted by Washington 16 years later. However, O'Ree deserves the accolates, and is looked upon as a role model and pioneer by many. And the NHL is doing its part as well, apparently intending to honor O'Ree during the All-Star Game at the Philips Arena in Atlanta on January 27th.
Ironically, the Red Sox were known as the last major-league baseball team to have a black player on their roster, while the Bruins were the first in the NHL 50 years ago.
Unfortunately, O'Ree's career was brief--45 lifetime games all told. O'Ree, who was 95% blind in one eye--finished with four goals and ten assists in the NHL.
Still, the fact that the current Bruins recognized this as being a significant event and was willing to honor O'Ree, shows that the team is at least on the right track this time.
One bright move by the Bruins after all those horrible decisions and deals in the recent past. That's got to count for something too.
Trading away Andy Moog after the 1993 season was dumb. The Bruins have not recovered since then, winners of just two playoff rounds after that season. People like Byron Dafoe and Andrew Raycroft just weren't able to get the job done come playoff time.
Then there was the trade of Ray Bourque to Colorado for sentimental reasons. What on earth did the Bruins get out of that trade? What did that accomplish?
Firing Robbie Ftorek with eight games to go despite the Bruins being playoff-bound and having a winning record. Dumb. Did GM Mike O'Connell really think that he would be that great as a coach?
Blowing a three-games-to-one lead in 2004 to the hated Canadiens despite having two more home games in the series. All this after Montreal's Alexi Kovalev's so-called fake-injury allowed the Bruins to steal a double-OT victory in Montreal in Game Four. Brutal.
And the Joe Thornton debacle. Didn't he win the Hart Trophy for MVP that same year in San Jose? And the Bruins got spare parts for a perennial MVP candidate. (Well, then the other side is that Thornton just chokes in the playoffs, but still...)
Well, looks like the Bruins finally did something right for a change.
There was a little blurb on the radio earlier today about the Bruins having "Willie O'Ree Night" in their game against the Rangers on Saturday (Jan. 19th), to celebrate O'Ree's breaking of the color barrier 50 years ago in the NHL. O'Ree made his NHL debut on January 18th, 1958 with the last-place Bruins at the Montreal Forum, becoming the first black player in league history.
O'Ree was no Jackie Robinson--in the sense that the former Bruin wasn't a superstar player the way his baseball counterpart was--but being the first black player was a big milestone in the sport of hockey. Just ask current stars like Jerome Iginla and Mike Grier.
No, O'Ree's emergence didn't pave the way for others to join him--Mike Marson was next, being drafted by Washington 16 years later. However, O'Ree deserves the accolates, and is looked upon as a role model and pioneer by many. And the NHL is doing its part as well, apparently intending to honor O'Ree during the All-Star Game at the Philips Arena in Atlanta on January 27th.
Ironically, the Red Sox were known as the last major-league baseball team to have a black player on their roster, while the Bruins were the first in the NHL 50 years ago.
Unfortunately, O'Ree's career was brief--45 lifetime games all told. O'Ree, who was 95% blind in one eye--finished with four goals and ten assists in the NHL.
Still, the fact that the current Bruins recognized this as being a significant event and was willing to honor O'Ree, shows that the team is at least on the right track this time.
One bright move by the Bruins after all those horrible decisions and deals in the recent past. That's got to count for something too.
Schilling not deserving of Hall
Some--including Bleacher Report’s own David Cassilo--have suggested that Boston Red Sox World Series hero Curt Schilling belongs to the Baseball Hall of Fame. But has Schilling really done enough so far to merit Hall induction?
Look, I am a Red Sox fan and recognize Schilling’s legendary status because of 2004. Schilling will forever be a part of Boston sports lore, but I say he hasn’t done enough to make it.
Let’s look at the arguments against Schilling getting in.
Regular Season
Schilling’s lifetime regular-season numbers including the 2007 season:
W-L ERA IP K’s
216-146 3.46 3261 3116
We’ll compare his stats to those of two former big-leaguers whose final numbers match up closely to his, Bob Welch and Kevin Brown:
W-L ERA IP K’s
Welch 211-146 3.47 3092 1969
Brown 211-144 3.28 3256.1 2397
Other than the strikeout totals, all three have very similar won-loss records and ERAs.
No one is going to suggest that Welch is a Hall of Famer, even though he won 27 games and the AL Cy Young in 1990 for Oakland after spending several solid seasons in Los Angeles. Likewise for Brown, whom the Dodgers made the first $100-million man in 1999 but didn’t deliver. If neither former Dodgers hurlers deserve to make it, then the same should be said for Schilling.
Dominance
Schilling has never won a Cy Young, though he came close three times, finishing second in all three occasions. And that happened in a four-year span. In those three seasons, he won 20+ games--the only times he reached that magical mark. Schilling was unfortunate in 2001 and 2002, when his Arizona teammate Randy Johnson--with better ERAs--beat him out despite his 22-6 and 23-7 seasons. Schilling could have won it too in 2004, winning 21 games in his first year in Boston (21-6, 3.26, 203 K’s), but Johan Santana (20-6, 2.61, 265 K’s) was just that much more dominant with the Twins.
Thus, Schilling was great in those years, but unfortunately Johnson and Santana had career seasons to deny the Red Sox’s 2004 World Series hero the awards.
Still, the fact remains that Schilling has never won that coveted Cy Young. Of course, others have made it to the Hall without ever coming close to that award, but still, the fact that he hasn't won the Cy Young makes the argument against Schilling that much stronger.
Post-season
Here is the biggest source of argument. People will point to Schilling’s 11-2 record and 2.23 ERA and say that gets him in. Also there’s his 2001 co-MVP award in the World Series, and 1993 NLCS MVP.
Yes, but then look at Jack Morris, the man universally praised for winning the World Series for the Twins with that gutsy 10-inning shutout. Morris was the 1991 MVP of the Fall Classic, and started his post-season career 7-1 with a 2.60 ERA--until age and fatigue caught up to him. (Morris went 0-3 with a 7.43 ERA in the 1992 post-season, his final 4 playoff starts.)
Morris’s teams won 6 of 7 series in the post-season. (Schilling’s clubs--Philadelphia, Arizona, and Boston--went 10-2 in 12 post-season series.)
Of course, Morris, with a lifetime mark of 254-186, is on the outside looking in, having garnered just 42.9% of votes from the writers this past year.
And Morris, who many have referred to as one of the best come playoff time, won championships with three different teams (Detroit, Minnesota, Toronto twice). Morris is not in the Hall. Schilling, who narrowly lost out with the Phillies in 1993 before winning with the D-Backs and Red Sox (twice), is essentially in the same boat.
Other positives
Yes, Schilling is still active, and still has a chance to improve on his career numbers. But look, he will be 41 in 2008, and he’s coming off an injury-plagued 9-8 season (despite his one-hitter in June). Can he put together two or three more dominant--and injury-free--seasons? I say not.
Yes, Schilling has had three 300-strikeout seasons and has over 3,100 K’s. But 3,000 is not a magical number like it is for hitters in terms of hit totals. Just ask Bert Blyleven, who with 3,701 lifetime strikeouts, has still not been enshrined.
Yes, Schilling did win a pair of Pitcher of the Year awards from The Sporting News while with Arizona. However, the Cy Young is the arguably more prestigious award, something that Schilling may never win.
Intangibles
And forget the East Coast bias thing. Sure, Schilling has pitched the last few seasons in Boston. However, that means little. Look at Jim Rice. Didn’t he spend his entire big-league career in Beantown? Rice is still waiting for that phone call from the Hall. And didn’t Goose Gossage--a star closer with the Yankees--wait until this year to get elected, despite playing all those years in the biggest media center in the world?
Bottom line: Schilling has not done enough to merit Hall enshrinement. What do others out there think? Discuss.
Look, I am a Red Sox fan and recognize Schilling’s legendary status because of 2004. Schilling will forever be a part of Boston sports lore, but I say he hasn’t done enough to make it.
Let’s look at the arguments against Schilling getting in.
Regular Season
Schilling’s lifetime regular-season numbers including the 2007 season:
W-L ERA IP K’s
216-146 3.46 3261 3116
We’ll compare his stats to those of two former big-leaguers whose final numbers match up closely to his, Bob Welch and Kevin Brown:
W-L ERA IP K’s
Welch 211-146 3.47 3092 1969
Brown 211-144 3.28 3256.1 2397
Other than the strikeout totals, all three have very similar won-loss records and ERAs.
No one is going to suggest that Welch is a Hall of Famer, even though he won 27 games and the AL Cy Young in 1990 for Oakland after spending several solid seasons in Los Angeles. Likewise for Brown, whom the Dodgers made the first $100-million man in 1999 but didn’t deliver. If neither former Dodgers hurlers deserve to make it, then the same should be said for Schilling.
Dominance
Schilling has never won a Cy Young, though he came close three times, finishing second in all three occasions. And that happened in a four-year span. In those three seasons, he won 20+ games--the only times he reached that magical mark. Schilling was unfortunate in 2001 and 2002, when his Arizona teammate Randy Johnson--with better ERAs--beat him out despite his 22-6 and 23-7 seasons. Schilling could have won it too in 2004, winning 21 games in his first year in Boston (21-6, 3.26, 203 K’s), but Johan Santana (20-6, 2.61, 265 K’s) was just that much more dominant with the Twins.
Thus, Schilling was great in those years, but unfortunately Johnson and Santana had career seasons to deny the Red Sox’s 2004 World Series hero the awards.
Still, the fact remains that Schilling has never won that coveted Cy Young. Of course, others have made it to the Hall without ever coming close to that award, but still, the fact that he hasn't won the Cy Young makes the argument against Schilling that much stronger.
Post-season
Here is the biggest source of argument. People will point to Schilling’s 11-2 record and 2.23 ERA and say that gets him in. Also there’s his 2001 co-MVP award in the World Series, and 1993 NLCS MVP.
Yes, but then look at Jack Morris, the man universally praised for winning the World Series for the Twins with that gutsy 10-inning shutout. Morris was the 1991 MVP of the Fall Classic, and started his post-season career 7-1 with a 2.60 ERA--until age and fatigue caught up to him. (Morris went 0-3 with a 7.43 ERA in the 1992 post-season, his final 4 playoff starts.)
Morris’s teams won 6 of 7 series in the post-season. (Schilling’s clubs--Philadelphia, Arizona, and Boston--went 10-2 in 12 post-season series.)
Of course, Morris, with a lifetime mark of 254-186, is on the outside looking in, having garnered just 42.9% of votes from the writers this past year.
And Morris, who many have referred to as one of the best come playoff time, won championships with three different teams (Detroit, Minnesota, Toronto twice). Morris is not in the Hall. Schilling, who narrowly lost out with the Phillies in 1993 before winning with the D-Backs and Red Sox (twice), is essentially in the same boat.
Other positives
Yes, Schilling is still active, and still has a chance to improve on his career numbers. But look, he will be 41 in 2008, and he’s coming off an injury-plagued 9-8 season (despite his one-hitter in June). Can he put together two or three more dominant--and injury-free--seasons? I say not.
Yes, Schilling has had three 300-strikeout seasons and has over 3,100 K’s. But 3,000 is not a magical number like it is for hitters in terms of hit totals. Just ask Bert Blyleven, who with 3,701 lifetime strikeouts, has still not been enshrined.
Yes, Schilling did win a pair of Pitcher of the Year awards from The Sporting News while with Arizona. However, the Cy Young is the arguably more prestigious award, something that Schilling may never win.
Intangibles
And forget the East Coast bias thing. Sure, Schilling has pitched the last few seasons in Boston. However, that means little. Look at Jim Rice. Didn’t he spend his entire big-league career in Beantown? Rice is still waiting for that phone call from the Hall. And didn’t Goose Gossage--a star closer with the Yankees--wait until this year to get elected, despite playing all those years in the biggest media center in the world?
Bottom line: Schilling has not done enough to merit Hall enshrinement. What do others out there think? Discuss.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Good Call, Bad Call: What Baseball can learn from Basketball
Last week, the NBA took a victory away from the Atlanta Hawks, sending them and the Miami Heat back onto the floor to replay the final 51 seconds of a December 19th contest.
The reason was that the official scorer erroneously ruled that Miami center Shaquille O’Neal had fouled out.
The Hawks’ record fell to 15-16 minus the victory, putting them in eighth place in the East. Of course, if they go on to lose the do-over—scheduled for March 8th—and miss the playoffs by one game, it would be their own fault.
See, when O’Neal was called for a foul in overtime with Atlanta leading 112-111, the scoring table personnel, employed by the hometown Hawks, ruled it was Shaq’s sixth foul when it was actually only his fifth.
We’ll find out how badly the blunder will cost Atlanta later in the season.Which brings me to the New York Yankees. Yes, baseball.
Who could forget the infamous Royals-Yankees “Pine Tar” game from July 24th, 1983?
With two outs in the top of the ninth and Kansas City down by a run, George Brett homered off Goose Gossage with a man aboard for an apparent 5-4 KC lead.
However, after Yankees skipper Billy Martin protested that Brett’s bat had too much pine tar on it, umpire Tim McClelland called Brett out, and the game ended.
The Royals filed a protest and the AL ruled in their favor, meaning the two teams would have to finish the game on August 18th with KC up 5-4. The ruling took a win away from the Yankees, who were in contention in the AL East at the time.
While the Yankees lost out in that game, they certainly gained 13 years later, in the 1996 ALCS.
On October 9th, 1996, the Bombers trailed Baltimore 4-3 in the opener of the League Championship Series. In the bottom of the eighth, rookie Derek Jeter’s fly ball to deep right appeared at least playable, if not catchable, by Orioles right fielder Tony Tarasco. However, 12-year-old fan Jeffrey Maier reached over the fence and stole the ball away from Tarasco.
Right field ump Rich Garcia immediately ruled it a home run, meaning the game was tied 4-4. Tarasco and O’s manager Davey Johnson protested, to no avail.
The Yanks then went on to win in the 11th on Bernie Williams’ home run.
The Orioles and owner Peter Angelos filed a protest, but it was no use. The AL denied the protest because under the rules, judgment calls cannot be protested.
The Yankees lost Game Two before rallying to sweep three straight at Camden Yards to knock off the O’s.
The Garcia ruling was one of the worst in professional sports history. And the Orioles couldn't even protest it.
Give NBA Commissioner David Stern credit for righting the wrong committed against Miami. It won't help the woeful Heat make the playoffs, but at least it gives the league some measure of credibility in the wake of the Tim Donaghy scandal.
Yes, yes—different sport, different rules. But in this case, the NBA did the right thing. Baseball, for years, hasn't.
Anyone else out there want to share their thoughts on the worst calls or controversial non-calls ever in pro sports?
The reason was that the official scorer erroneously ruled that Miami center Shaquille O’Neal had fouled out.
The Hawks’ record fell to 15-16 minus the victory, putting them in eighth place in the East. Of course, if they go on to lose the do-over—scheduled for March 8th—and miss the playoffs by one game, it would be their own fault.
See, when O’Neal was called for a foul in overtime with Atlanta leading 112-111, the scoring table personnel, employed by the hometown Hawks, ruled it was Shaq’s sixth foul when it was actually only his fifth.
We’ll find out how badly the blunder will cost Atlanta later in the season.Which brings me to the New York Yankees. Yes, baseball.
Who could forget the infamous Royals-Yankees “Pine Tar” game from July 24th, 1983?
With two outs in the top of the ninth and Kansas City down by a run, George Brett homered off Goose Gossage with a man aboard for an apparent 5-4 KC lead.
However, after Yankees skipper Billy Martin protested that Brett’s bat had too much pine tar on it, umpire Tim McClelland called Brett out, and the game ended.
The Royals filed a protest and the AL ruled in their favor, meaning the two teams would have to finish the game on August 18th with KC up 5-4. The ruling took a win away from the Yankees, who were in contention in the AL East at the time.
While the Yankees lost out in that game, they certainly gained 13 years later, in the 1996 ALCS.
On October 9th, 1996, the Bombers trailed Baltimore 4-3 in the opener of the League Championship Series. In the bottom of the eighth, rookie Derek Jeter’s fly ball to deep right appeared at least playable, if not catchable, by Orioles right fielder Tony Tarasco. However, 12-year-old fan Jeffrey Maier reached over the fence and stole the ball away from Tarasco.
Right field ump Rich Garcia immediately ruled it a home run, meaning the game was tied 4-4. Tarasco and O’s manager Davey Johnson protested, to no avail.
The Yanks then went on to win in the 11th on Bernie Williams’ home run.
The Orioles and owner Peter Angelos filed a protest, but it was no use. The AL denied the protest because under the rules, judgment calls cannot be protested.
The Yankees lost Game Two before rallying to sweep three straight at Camden Yards to knock off the O’s.
The Garcia ruling was one of the worst in professional sports history. And the Orioles couldn't even protest it.
Give NBA Commissioner David Stern credit for righting the wrong committed against Miami. It won't help the woeful Heat make the playoffs, but at least it gives the league some measure of credibility in the wake of the Tim Donaghy scandal.
Yes, yes—different sport, different rules. But in this case, the NBA did the right thing. Baseball, for years, hasn't.
Anyone else out there want to share their thoughts on the worst calls or controversial non-calls ever in pro sports?
Why Cujo? This whole thing makes no sense
So goalie Curtis Joseph has signed with the Calgary Flames.
My question:
Why are teams interested in acquiring a 40-year-old who's never won anything?
Cujo has never been on a Stanley Cup winner, and has never even reached the Finals. Joseph was credited for leading the underdog Oilers to first-round upset victories in 1997 and 1998—but that was ten years ago.
And when he moved on to the Maple Leafs, Cujo didn't do anything. Last time I checked, the Leafs' Cup drought is still going.
Then he signed with the Red Wings because he wanted to play for a contender. A first-round sweep at the hands of lowly Anaheim in 2003 showed what a money goalie Joseph wasn't—and won't be.
The Maple Leafs were apparently part of the Cujo sweepstakes, according to Bob McCown of Prime Time Sports. And McCown echoed what every hockey fan is wondering:
Why on earth were the Leafs even interested in a 40-year-old?
Yes, Joseph played well playing for Canada in the Spengler Cup in Switzerland. But that's not the NHL.
Cujo's a backup at best—and for the Leafs to even show any interest is laughable.
My other question:
Why Calgary?
The only reason Joseph would come back would be to play for a Cup contender. In Calgary, he'll be reunited with Mike Keenan, who booted him from St. Louis.
So, why the Flames?
Let me be blunt here: If the Flames were to have to rely on Cujo, they'd be in trouble. It would mean No. 1 goalie Miikka Kiprusoff was out extended period of time. Good luck then.
Just ask Wayne Gretzky down in Phoenix. If Cujo still has it, why didn’t No. 99 jump at the chance to re-sign him to play in the desert?
The truth is, Cujo was overrated when he was a No. 1 man in the NHL. Yes, he's won a lot of regular-season games—but I repeat, he has never won a Cup. Never.
The fact that teams are still willing to go get him is just plain dumb.
If it were a Wayne Gretzky or Mark Messier being sought after as a 40-year-old, then it might be a big deal. But for a backup goalie who has never been a winner...
I just have to wonder why it's even on the news.
My question:
Why are teams interested in acquiring a 40-year-old who's never won anything?
Cujo has never been on a Stanley Cup winner, and has never even reached the Finals. Joseph was credited for leading the underdog Oilers to first-round upset victories in 1997 and 1998—but that was ten years ago.
And when he moved on to the Maple Leafs, Cujo didn't do anything. Last time I checked, the Leafs' Cup drought is still going.
Then he signed with the Red Wings because he wanted to play for a contender. A first-round sweep at the hands of lowly Anaheim in 2003 showed what a money goalie Joseph wasn't—and won't be.
The Maple Leafs were apparently part of the Cujo sweepstakes, according to Bob McCown of Prime Time Sports. And McCown echoed what every hockey fan is wondering:
Why on earth were the Leafs even interested in a 40-year-old?
Yes, Joseph played well playing for Canada in the Spengler Cup in Switzerland. But that's not the NHL.
Cujo's a backup at best—and for the Leafs to even show any interest is laughable.
My other question:
Why Calgary?
The only reason Joseph would come back would be to play for a Cup contender. In Calgary, he'll be reunited with Mike Keenan, who booted him from St. Louis.
So, why the Flames?
Let me be blunt here: If the Flames were to have to rely on Cujo, they'd be in trouble. It would mean No. 1 goalie Miikka Kiprusoff was out extended period of time. Good luck then.
Just ask Wayne Gretzky down in Phoenix. If Cujo still has it, why didn’t No. 99 jump at the chance to re-sign him to play in the desert?
The truth is, Cujo was overrated when he was a No. 1 man in the NHL. Yes, he's won a lot of regular-season games—but I repeat, he has never won a Cup. Never.
The fact that teams are still willing to go get him is just plain dumb.
If it were a Wayne Gretzky or Mark Messier being sought after as a 40-year-old, then it might be a big deal. But for a backup goalie who has never been a winner...
I just have to wonder why it's even on the news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
