Mario Andretti will be the Guest of Honor at the 35th Anniversary Rolex Monterey Historic Automobile Races. The event takes place on August 15-17 at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca and will salute the Alfa Romeo, the first marque to be featured at the Historics in 1975. “We are extremely pleased to have Mario Andretti join us at the Rolex Monterey Historic this year. He is a living legend for all of us, and we’ll join together to celebrate the anniversary of his winning the World Championship in 1978,” said Steve Earle, President of General Racing Ltd., the event founder and organizer. Andretti will drive a few demonstration laps in his Formula One Championship winning Lotus 79 and participate in autograph sessions on both Friday and Saturday.
Andretti said, “The Rolex Monterey Historic is the premier historic auto racing event in the country. I am pleased to be a part of these festivities and look forward to spending time with fans and enthusiasts from across the country who travel to Monterey for this wonderful event. Laguna Seca has always been one of my favorite tracks. For a driver, it’s a truly technical and challenging course that provides immense satisfaction. For a spectator, it’s phenomenal because of the many vantage points to watch the action.”
Andretti coined the phrase "the educated right foot" and he did some PhD level work with that appendage during a career that spanned five decades and included four Indy Car national championships (1965-66, 69, 84), an IROC series championship (1979) and a United States Auto Club (USAC) national dirt track championship (1974) plus victories in several of the world's most storied motor racing events: the Daytona 500 (1967), the Indianapolis 500 (1969), the Pikes Peak Hill Climb (1969), the 12 Hours of Sebring (1967, 1970, 1972) and the 24 Hours of Daytona (1972). Andretti is the only driver to win the Indy 500, the Daytona 500 and the Formula One World Championship and the only driver to be named Driver of the Year in three different decades (1967, 1978, 1984). In 1992, a panel consisting of previous Drivers of the Year plus 12 journalists voted him Driver of the Quarter Century. The Associated Press and RACER magazine separately named him Driver of the Century and RACER later named him Greatest American Driver Ever.
Rapid Rise to Prominence
Andretti started out racing on dirt tracks as a 19 year old in 1959. He quickly moved up to the USAC midget and sprint car ranks. Andretti made a big splash in 1965, winning Rookie of the Year honors at the Indianapolis 500 after qualifying fourth and finishing third in the race. He also had a fateful encounter in the pit area with legendary team owner Colin Chapman. Andretti told Chapman that he wanted to drive Formula One cars someday and Chapman replied, "When you're ready, call me." Andretti became the youngest Indy Car national champion that year and he defended his crown in 1966, winning eight out of 16 races.
Andretti had an insatiable appetite for racing: "It seems to me that there was a period in my life, a long period, where I just couldn't get enough, couldn't get enough of it. My wife would say--never complain--but she would say, 'Geez, can't you take a weekend off?' And if you look back, not for one year or a couple years but for many, many years, I just would not. I would run sprint cars, I would run sports cars. A lot of the guys would have the weekend off and usually you had the lull in between, even in Formula One. And I'd be up and away from Zandvoort to Atlanta and all that sort of thing. I did that for years and years. Teo Fabi did that for six months. What I'm saying is that some guys try that and either burn out or it doesn't make any sense. I don't fault them. I think they are smart. I think I was probably the stupid one. But for me, it worked."
Amazing Versatility
In 1966, Andretti drove 14 different cars in 51 races at an astonishing variety of circuits, including Indy Car, NASCAR, Can-Am and endurance events, claiming 14 victories in four different rides. "I never had any difficulty moving between disciplines. You get in a car, you switch off everything else and you focus on what you're at," Andretti once said. "Like I'm doing the Sebring 12 Hours on a Saturday, I fly out Saturday night, Sunday I'm racing a sprint car on a dirt oval. World of difference in the skills required but the passion's the same."
Andretti won a series-best eight out of 21 Indy Car races in 1967--including four in a row and five out of six in the middle of the season--but missed out on capturing a third straight national championship when he had to make a pit stop to refuel with three laps left in the final race of the season. Despite the failed attempt at a "three-peat," Andretti had much to be happy about in 1967: he won the first of his three Driver of the Year awards after wrestling a poor handling Ford to victory in the Daytona 500 and capturing the first of his three wins at the 12 Hours of Sebring.
In 1968, Andretti made his Formula One debut, driving for Chapman's Lotus team and setting a track record at Watkins Glen, becoming the first Formula One driver to earn the pole position in his first race. Andretti did not finish the race due to mechanical problems but at one point he was running second behind Jackie Stewart, who would win the first of his three Formula One World Championships in 1969.
Bobby Unser narrowly outpointed Andretti (4330-4319) for the 1968 Indy Car title but in 1969 Andretti dominated the circuit, winning nine of 24 races and claiming the national title 5025-2630 over Al Unser. One of Andretti's nine victories came at the Indy 500, his first and only win in that event.
Andretti only won one Indy Car race in 1970 and dropped to fifth in the national championship standings but it was still a memorable year for him. He earned his first Formula One podium finish, third place in the Spanish Grand Prix. Andretti's victory in the 12 Hours of Sebring in 1970 was particularly special, as he explained to Motor Sport magazine's Keith Howard in 2007: "What motivated me more than anything was the fact that the leading Porsche was being driven by Steve McQueen, although Peter Revson did most of the driving because Steve was so slow. I figured, 'Jeez, we can't have a Hollywood star winning the race.' I didn't really fit in the coupe--I had to reach for the pedals a bit...I drove like a madman to catch him and pull out a cushion, then sure enough the reserve light came on. There was no speed limit in the pits so I came in real quick. In those days you had to turn the engine off and get out of the car so I threw myself on the ground...(After refueling) I just buckled my lap belt and blew out of the pits again...It was the most satisfying endurance win of my career because I drove really hard and I don't think the car would have won otherwise. It was incredibly satisfying."
Andretti earned his first Formula One victory in the 1971 South African Grand Prix. Andretti drove part time for Ferrari's Formula One team in 1971 and 1972 but he still participated in most of the Indy Car races in addition to winning several endurance sports car events. He further displayed his versatility by winning the 1974 USAC dirt track title and finishing second in the Formula 5000 standings in 1974 and 1975. Andretti had a brief and unsatisfying stint with Vel's Parnelli Jones Formula One team but when they pulled the plug on their operation early in the 1976 season Andretti joined forces again with Chapman's Lotus team and decided to commit fully to pursuing his dream of winning the Formula One Championship.
Although Andretti's partnership with Chapman would prove to be very successful it was not without a certain degree of creative tension. Andretti told Motor Sport's Nigel Roebuck, "When we first got together, Colin says, 'Mario, I always want to make a car as light as possible.' I says, 'Well, Colin, I want to live as long as possible. I guess we need to talk.'" Andretti added, "Working with him was no trip in Paris but I guess you're always going to have problems with a genius, right? All in all Colin was a wonderful chapter in my life--he was such a maverick."
The Lotus cars had some reliability issues in 1976 but Andretti finished the season on a very strong note, placing third at both the Dutch and Canadian Grands Prix before capturing the pole in the season finale at Japan and then lapping the field in a driving rain to win the race. Andretti placed sixth in the driver standings. In 1977, Andretti earned seven poles and won four races en route to a third place finish in the driver standings.
Capturing the Formula One World Championship
Andretti almost ended up racing for Ferrari in 1978. Ferrari officials told Andretti that they couldn't put a price on his ability, which Andretti later said was "very flattering but also very clever, because it puts the ball right back in my court." Andretti wanted Chapman to increase his salary to $500,000 a year (Chapman had offered him $350,000 plus $10,000 per championship point), so Andretti started the negotiations with Ferrari by asking for $750,000 per year. They agreed without blinking--Andretti later said that maybe he should have asked for $1,000,000 per year--so Andretti told Chapman about Ferrari's offer and Chapman put together enough sponsorship money to match it.
Everything came together for Andretti and Lotus in 1978. Driving a pioneering "ground effects" Lotus 79, Andretti earned eight poles and six wins in 16 races to claim the Formula One Championship. This success was marred by tragedy in the Italian Grand Prix, the third to last race of the season, when Andretti's teammate Ronnie Peterson suffered critical injuries in a fiery crash and died the next day. Peterson was running second in the championship chase and, in a cruel irony, his death clinched the title for Andretti.
Andretti and Lotus were not able to maintain the momentum from their dream 1978 season. Andretti started out the 1979 season reasonably well--with one third place, two fourth places and a fifth place in the first five races--but then his unreliable rides retired from seven straight events, killing his chances to repeat as champion. After similar problems plagued the team in 1980, Andretti switched to Alfa-Romeo for the 1981 season. He had just one top five finish and eight DNFs in his final full Formula One campaign.
In 1982, Andretti ran the full Indy Car schedule for the first time since 1974 and finished third in the driver standings. When Ferrari needed a driver for the final two Formula One races, Andretti took the pole at the Italian Grand Prix and finished third. Then, in his Formula One swan song, Andretti qualified seventh at the Las Vegas Grand Prix but retired after only 26 laps due to mechanical problems.
Frustrations at Indy, 24 Hours at Le Mans
During Andretti's great career only two goals eluded him: a win at the 24 Hours at Le Mans and a repeat win at the Indy 500.
A young Mario Andretti must have thought that he was absolutely going to rewrite the Indy 500 record book. He followed up his strong rookie performance in 1965 by winning the pole position in 1966 and 1967, setting track qualifying records each time. Although he only finished 18th and 30th respectively in those races, he qualified second and won the Indy 500 in 1969, just his fifth appearance in the Greatest Spectacle in Racing. However, as the years went by Andretti would prove to be consistently fast in qualifying and early in the race only to suffer some kind of mishap that thwarted him from winning. Between 1970 and 1980 he qualified in the top ten seven out of 10 times (he skipped the 1979 race because the Monaco Grand Prix was held the same day) but he only finished in the top ten three times--never higher than sixth--and on six occasions he placed 20th or worse.
His heartbreaks at Indy--which came to be widely known as "the Andretti curse" or "Andretti luck"--only became more painful in the 1980s. He moved up from 32nd position to second place by the time the checkered flag fell in 1981 and the day after the race he was awarded the win after Bobby Unser was penalized for passing during a caution period. For five months Andretti was a two-time Indy 500 champion but Unser successfully appealed the ruling and was once again named the winner. In 1982, Andretti ran well all month and qualified fourth but Kevin Cogan got anxious during the final warmup lap and swerved wildly, wrecking four cars--including his own, Andretti's and A.J. Foyt's. Foyt was able to compete, though his car did not finish the race, but Andretti's day was over before it began. Andretti's teammate Gordon Johncock, who had been slower than Andretti all month, won the race. In 1985, Andretti qualified fourth and led more laps than anyone during the race but Danny Sullivan performed his famous "spin and win": Sullivan spun out but Andretti deftly avoided him and soon took the lead; later, Sullivan passed Andretti and led the final 60 laps, while Andretti finished second. When asked about finishing second, Andretti later remarked that to him second place is merely "first loser."
Andretti completely dominated the month of May at the Indy 500 in 1987: he easily won the pole position and he led 170 of the first 180 laps. With just 25 laps remaining, Andretti led Roberto Guerrero's second place car by a full lap and he enjoyed a nearly two lap lead over Al Unser. Then, Andretti's car slowed down on lap 177 due to electrical problems. Unser, a three-time Indy 500 winner who did not even have a ride at the start of the month and was replacing the injured Danny Ongais, took advantage of Andretti's misfortune and became the oldest winner in Indy 500 history (47).
Andretti put together good runs that came up just short in 1989 and 1991 (finishing fourth and seventh respectively) but the worst heartbreak happened in 1992. It seemed like it could be a glorious day for the Andretti family as Mario, his sons Michael and Jeff plus his nephew John all qualified for the race. However, Mario crashed on the 73rd lap and broke several toes, Jeff suffered serious leg injuries after a crash on the 115th lap and then Michael--who led 160 laps in a performance reminiscent of Mario's in 1987--dropped out of the race on the 189th lap due to mechanical problems. In 1993, Andretti led 72 laps--more than twice as many as any other driver--but finished fifth. Mario Andretti raced at Indy for the final time in 1994, qualifying a solid ninth at the age of 54 but completing just 23 laps before being sidelined by a fuel system problem.
Andretti ranks third in Indy 500 history in laps led and fifth in laps completed and he is one of just six drivers to lead each of the different 200 laps at least once at some point. Unfortunately, he only led lap 200 one time.
Andretti raced at Le Mans nine times between 1966 and 2000, when he was 60 years old and had been retired from all other forms of racing for six years. In fact, four of Andretti's runs at Le Mans came after he retired as an Indy Car driver. Andretti and co-driver Lucien Bianchi did not finish in both 1966 and 1967. Andretti's numerous other commitments kept him away from Le Mans for 15 years. In 1982 he returned to the race with his 19 year old son Michael. Their car passed the initial inspection but when it was lined up on the grid a technical violation was found and since it was too late to fix it the car never ran in the race. In 1983, the two Andrettis were joined by Phillippe Alliot and that trio finished third. Five years later, Andretti teamed up with sons Michael and Jeff to finish sixth despite losing a cylinder near the end of the race. Andretti, Bob Wollek and Eric Helary finished second in 1995; they had dropped back to 25th place after Andretti crashed into a slower car that braked sooner than he had expected but they battled back from six laps down to get back on the lead lap. Mechanical problems relegated Andretti and his teammates to a 13th place finish in 1996 and in 1997 Andretti crashed a noncompetitive ride, did not finish and was classified 27th. In 2000, Andretti's team briefly ran at the front before finishing 15th.
Competitive Until Retirement
After Andretti returned to the Indy Car circuit full time in 1982 it did not take long for him to reclaim his place at the top. He placed third in the series standings in 1982 and 1983 before winning his fourth national title in 1984. During one stretch in 1984-85, Andretti won nine out of 21 races, placed second in three others and captured 10 pole positions. He won three of the first four races in the 1985 season (and placed second in the Indy 500) but his car was running at the finish in only three of the remaining 10 races and he dropped to fifth in the final national championship standings. Andretti did not win another national championship but he ranked in the top 10 in the standings--usually placing in the top six--until his final season (1994), when he ranked 14th.
Andretti claimed his final Indy Car victory at Phoenix in 1993 at the age of 53, becoming the oldest winner in series history. That year he also set a closed course record (since broken) by taking the pole at the Michigan 500 at 234 mph. When he retired from Indy Car racing he had won 52 of 407 races, earned 67 poles and led 7587 laps. He ranks second all-time in Indy Car wins, first in pole positions, first in laps led and first in wire to wire victories (14). He is the only Indy Car driver to win races in four different decades and the only driver to win races (in any discipline) in five decades. He had at least one top three finish in an Indy Car race for 31 straight years! Counting all forms of motor racing, his career record includes 111 wins and 109 poles in 879 races.
Post Retirement Racing
As noted above, since his retirement Andretti has participated four times in the 24 Hours at Le Mans. In 2003, he stepped in for the injured Tony Kanaan with the idea of qualifying Kanaan's car at the Indy 500 and possibly even driving in the race if Kanaan did not recuperate in time. Andretti had not driven an Indy Car for nine years but he did more than 50 practice laps on April 23, posting a best one lap speed of 225.4 mph, which would have ultimately been good enough to qualify for the field if he could have maintained that pace for four laps. However, Andretti's practice session ended when his car struck some debris left behind from Kenny Brack's accident moments before; Andretti's car spectacularly flipped end over end but fortunately landed right side up and Andretti emerged unscathed. The mishap was not Andretti's fault and could have happened to anyone but the 63 year old wisely announced the next day that he would not be attempting to qualify for the race.
Sources:
--------
Various issues of Motor Sport magazine
"Mario Andretti Retires" by Bruce Martin, 1994 Indianapolis 500 Yearbook
MarioAndretti.com
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Spitz Snubbed by Olympic Organizers, TV Networks
If Michael Phelps wins a record eight Olympic gold medals in swimming, Mark Spitz will not be in Beijing to congratulate him. In the 1972 Munich Olympics, Spitz not only won seven gold medals in swimming but he (and his teammates in three relay events) set seven world records, a remarkable display of dominance that will likely never be equaled, not even by Phelps. Spitz' record has already lasted 36 years, longer than such iconic standards as Babe Ruth's single season mark of 60 home runs (34 years, broken by Roger Maris) and Jim Brown's career rushing total of 12,312 yards (19 years, broken by Walter Payton). It would only be natural to assume that Spitz would be at the Olympics to congratulate Phelps and possibly award him his final medal if Phelps breaks the record. However, Spitz is understandably disappointed that he was not invited to the Olympics by the organizers, FINA (the international body that governs swimming) or the television networks: "I never got invited. You don't go to the Olympics just to say, I am going to go. Especially because of who I am. I am going to sit there and watch Michael Phelps break my record anonymously? That's almost demeaning to me. It is not almost--it is."
Spitz adds, "They voted me one of the top five Olympians in all time. Some of them are dead. But they invited the other ones to go to the Olympics, but not me. Yes, I am a bit upset about it."
Spitz believes that Phelps will break his record, noting, "He's almost identical to me. He's a world-record holder in all these events, so he is dominating the events just like I did. He reminds me of myself." It is worth noting, though, that Spitz did not have an opportunity to compete in eight events: "If they had the 50m freestyle back then, which they do now, I probably would have won that too."
I don't know if Spitz was deliberately snubbed for some reason or if this was just a ridiculous bureaucratic oversight but whoever was responsible for this decision should be ashamed. It is important to recognize and embrace history. Mark Spitz should be given a place of honor at the Beijing Olympics.
Spitz adds, "They voted me one of the top five Olympians in all time. Some of them are dead. But they invited the other ones to go to the Olympics, but not me. Yes, I am a bit upset about it."
Spitz believes that Phelps will break his record, noting, "He's almost identical to me. He's a world-record holder in all these events, so he is dominating the events just like I did. He reminds me of myself." It is worth noting, though, that Spitz did not have an opportunity to compete in eight events: "If they had the 50m freestyle back then, which they do now, I probably would have won that too."
I don't know if Spitz was deliberately snubbed for some reason or if this was just a ridiculous bureaucratic oversight but whoever was responsible for this decision should be ashamed. It is important to recognize and embrace history. Mark Spitz should be given a place of honor at the Beijing Olympics.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Opening Ceremony, the Olympic Ideal and the Real World
The Opening Ceremony for the Beijing Olympics was a breathtaking and beautiful tribute to the highest hopes of the human spirit and a marvel of precise technical and artistic execution. The Opening Ceremony detailed important moments in Chinese history, conveyed the message that China is at its best when its society is open to the world and stressed the importance of harmony/balance for individuals and for humanity's relationship with the delicate ecology of Earth. In short, the Opening Ceremony perfectly embodied the best aspects of the Olympic Ideal. However, any sensitive, thinking and aware person cannot help but be disturbed by the huge contrast between the themes of the Opening Ceremony and the reality of life not just in China but throughout the world.
China has constructed magnificent facilities to house the Beijing Olympics but in the process the government forcibly evicted many of its citizens from their homes with little or no compensation. It is wonderful to speak of harmony/balance but China's commercial and industrial activities have literally poisoned the air in Beijing and created a very real health risk. While China has spared no expense to put on a great show, millions of her people have to survive on the equivalent of a few dollars a day. This is actually quite typical conduct for a totalitarian regime: Nazi Germany tried to impress the world by the way that it hosted the 1936 Olympics and for decades the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries attempted to "prove" the superiority of communism by winning the most Olympic medals, trying to distract attention from their failing economies, repression of dissent/free speech and numerous human rights violations.
China has ruled Tibet with an iron hand for 58 years, causing much suffering and refusing to allow Tibetans to exercise the freedoms that we take for granted in the United States. China refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the democratically elected government of the Republic of China (Taiwan); you may have noticed during the Opening Ceremony that the delegation from Taiwan was required to refer to itself as "Chinese Taipei" and forbidden to wave its national flag during the March of Nations; the delegation carried generic Olympic flags instead.
China's repressive domestic and regional policies are disturbing enough but China is also actively involved in supporting the actions of other totalitarian regimes around the world. A recent report by the New America Foundation states that China is the "most egregious violator" of the worldwide arms embargo against Sudan, a country ruled by an Islamic extremist government that is committing genocide against its non-Muslim population. China is not only virtually singlehandedly arming the Janjaweed group that is carrying out Sudan's murderous policies but China is also heavily involved with Sudan's oil industry. The New America Foundation report describes China as "the supplier of last resort for dictators and human rights abusers," citing China's military exports to Zimbabwe, Myanmar and rebel groups in Congo.
Any hope that the Olympics could provide some respite from the troubles of the real world was horrifyingly shattered when a knife wielding assailant killed the father in law of the coach of the U.S. men's volleyball team, stabbed two other people--inflicting life threatening wounds on the murder victim's wife--and then committed suicide by jumping out of a window. The attacker's motives are unknown but just two days before the Opening Ceremony the Turkistan Islamic Party released a video containing threats about terrorist attacks during the Olympics, including suicide attacks; that group has claimed responsibility for several recent terrorist attacks in China.
Thankfully, there has not been any physical violence within the Olympic venues but the Iranian delegation committed a flagrant and disgraceful desecration of the Olympic Ideal by refusing to let an Iranian swimmer compete against an Israeli swimmer. This is not the first time that the Iranian delegation has been guilty of this kind of misconduct and it really raises the question of whether Iran should be permitted to send a delegation to the Olympics at all. By not setting and enforcing standards of proper conduct, the international community gives a free pass to the very people who seek to destroy any hope of turning the Olympic Ideal into a reality.
During ancient times, the Greek city states enacted a truce during the Olympics but in the modern world the opposite is the case: a bloody conflict in the former Soviet republic of Georgia began on the eve of the Olympics, has reportedly already claimed at least 2000 lives and could very well escalate into a full fledged regional war.
Yes, it was breathtaking and inspiring to see the lighting of the Olympic torch. Yao Ming said that he was moved to tears and it is easy to understand why--but while the torch serves as a beacon of hope for what humanity is capable of at its best, real flames of death are burning around the world.
It is all too easy to spout trite sayings about how these Olympics could be a springboard to making the world a better place or that the symbolism employed during the Opening Ceremony represents a message of hope from China to the world, a signal of China's benign intentions. Unfortunately, many people thought exactly the same way about the 1936 Olympics, only to receive a rude awakening very quickly.
I'm not saying that people should not enjoy the tremendous competition taking place during the Olympics; I watched several events on Saturday and in just a few hours I will be watching intently--and then writing about--the basketball game between Team USA and China. However, at some point, in some way, we--humankind--have to really consider what we are doing to each other and to this planet. Some commentators gloss over the differences between China and the United States as "cultural misunderstandings" but it goes a lot deeper than that. The United States is a democracy that upholds freedom of speech and freedom of religion; despite a political discourse that is at times equally bitter and tawdry, there are regularly scheduled elections in the United States and an orderly transfer of power when incumbent politicians are voted out of office. China is a totalitarian country that ruthlessly suppresses free speech and the free exercise of religion. The United States is not perfect by any means but there is a big difference between a free, open society and a closed, repressive society--and that is why millions of people risk their lives to try to come to the United States in order to escape from totalitarian countries.
For those of us who are blessed to live in safety and comfort in the United States, it is all too easy to speak empty phrases about "cultural misunderstandings" but China's policies--and the policies of other totalitarian regimes--are a matter of life and death for millions of people in China, Tibet, Sudan and countless other countries. There is a temptation to close one's heart and mind to problems halfway around the world and turn our attention inward but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sagely observed, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." That statement is a philosophical truth, a prophecy--and a warning.
Simon Wiesenthal survived the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust and could have resumed his career as an architect but instead he devoted the rest of his life to bringing Nazi war criminals to justice. He explained his life choice this way: "When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, 'What have you done?' there will be many answers. You will say, 'I became a jeweler.' Another will say, 'I smuggled coffee and American cigarettes.' Still another will say, 'I built houses,' but I will say, 'I didn't forget you.'"
What will we say to the victims of today's atrocities?
China has constructed magnificent facilities to house the Beijing Olympics but in the process the government forcibly evicted many of its citizens from their homes with little or no compensation. It is wonderful to speak of harmony/balance but China's commercial and industrial activities have literally poisoned the air in Beijing and created a very real health risk. While China has spared no expense to put on a great show, millions of her people have to survive on the equivalent of a few dollars a day. This is actually quite typical conduct for a totalitarian regime: Nazi Germany tried to impress the world by the way that it hosted the 1936 Olympics and for decades the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries attempted to "prove" the superiority of communism by winning the most Olympic medals, trying to distract attention from their failing economies, repression of dissent/free speech and numerous human rights violations.
China has ruled Tibet with an iron hand for 58 years, causing much suffering and refusing to allow Tibetans to exercise the freedoms that we take for granted in the United States. China refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the democratically elected government of the Republic of China (Taiwan); you may have noticed during the Opening Ceremony that the delegation from Taiwan was required to refer to itself as "Chinese Taipei" and forbidden to wave its national flag during the March of Nations; the delegation carried generic Olympic flags instead.
China's repressive domestic and regional policies are disturbing enough but China is also actively involved in supporting the actions of other totalitarian regimes around the world. A recent report by the New America Foundation states that China is the "most egregious violator" of the worldwide arms embargo against Sudan, a country ruled by an Islamic extremist government that is committing genocide against its non-Muslim population. China is not only virtually singlehandedly arming the Janjaweed group that is carrying out Sudan's murderous policies but China is also heavily involved with Sudan's oil industry. The New America Foundation report describes China as "the supplier of last resort for dictators and human rights abusers," citing China's military exports to Zimbabwe, Myanmar and rebel groups in Congo.
Any hope that the Olympics could provide some respite from the troubles of the real world was horrifyingly shattered when a knife wielding assailant killed the father in law of the coach of the U.S. men's volleyball team, stabbed two other people--inflicting life threatening wounds on the murder victim's wife--and then committed suicide by jumping out of a window. The attacker's motives are unknown but just two days before the Opening Ceremony the Turkistan Islamic Party released a video containing threats about terrorist attacks during the Olympics, including suicide attacks; that group has claimed responsibility for several recent terrorist attacks in China.
Thankfully, there has not been any physical violence within the Olympic venues but the Iranian delegation committed a flagrant and disgraceful desecration of the Olympic Ideal by refusing to let an Iranian swimmer compete against an Israeli swimmer. This is not the first time that the Iranian delegation has been guilty of this kind of misconduct and it really raises the question of whether Iran should be permitted to send a delegation to the Olympics at all. By not setting and enforcing standards of proper conduct, the international community gives a free pass to the very people who seek to destroy any hope of turning the Olympic Ideal into a reality.
During ancient times, the Greek city states enacted a truce during the Olympics but in the modern world the opposite is the case: a bloody conflict in the former Soviet republic of Georgia began on the eve of the Olympics, has reportedly already claimed at least 2000 lives and could very well escalate into a full fledged regional war.
Yes, it was breathtaking and inspiring to see the lighting of the Olympic torch. Yao Ming said that he was moved to tears and it is easy to understand why--but while the torch serves as a beacon of hope for what humanity is capable of at its best, real flames of death are burning around the world.
It is all too easy to spout trite sayings about how these Olympics could be a springboard to making the world a better place or that the symbolism employed during the Opening Ceremony represents a message of hope from China to the world, a signal of China's benign intentions. Unfortunately, many people thought exactly the same way about the 1936 Olympics, only to receive a rude awakening very quickly.
I'm not saying that people should not enjoy the tremendous competition taking place during the Olympics; I watched several events on Saturday and in just a few hours I will be watching intently--and then writing about--the basketball game between Team USA and China. However, at some point, in some way, we--humankind--have to really consider what we are doing to each other and to this planet. Some commentators gloss over the differences between China and the United States as "cultural misunderstandings" but it goes a lot deeper than that. The United States is a democracy that upholds freedom of speech and freedom of religion; despite a political discourse that is at times equally bitter and tawdry, there are regularly scheduled elections in the United States and an orderly transfer of power when incumbent politicians are voted out of office. China is a totalitarian country that ruthlessly suppresses free speech and the free exercise of religion. The United States is not perfect by any means but there is a big difference between a free, open society and a closed, repressive society--and that is why millions of people risk their lives to try to come to the United States in order to escape from totalitarian countries.
For those of us who are blessed to live in safety and comfort in the United States, it is all too easy to speak empty phrases about "cultural misunderstandings" but China's policies--and the policies of other totalitarian regimes--are a matter of life and death for millions of people in China, Tibet, Sudan and countless other countries. There is a temptation to close one's heart and mind to problems halfway around the world and turn our attention inward but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sagely observed, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." That statement is a philosophical truth, a prophecy--and a warning.
Simon Wiesenthal survived the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust and could have resumed his career as an architect but instead he devoted the rest of his life to bringing Nazi war criminals to justice. He explained his life choice this way: "When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, 'What have you done?' there will be many answers. You will say, 'I became a jeweler.' Another will say, 'I smuggled coffee and American cigarettes.' Still another will say, 'I built houses,' but I will say, 'I didn't forget you.'"
What will we say to the victims of today's atrocities?
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Jets Acquire Favre, Maybe He Will Even Play for Them
Jay Glazer of Fox Sports reports that the Green Bay Packers have traded Brett Favre to the New York Jets. Terms of the deal have not been officially confirmed but Glazer indicates that Green Bay will receive a conditional draft pick, the value of which will be determined by Favre's performance.
Neil Everett and Stuart Scott were hosting FavreCenter when the story broke, so naturally all other sports news immediately went down the memory hole as viewers were treated to Favreapalooza 2008--highlights from his best games, plus reports from every single ESPN reporter, some of whom were probably awakened from a sound sleep so that they could breathlessly inform the nation of every word that Favre spoke to them earlier in the day before the trade had even happened (in other words, Favre quotes that were already outdated). I half expected Everett and Scott to dial up Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann to get their takes and I was surprised that Kenny Mayne did not have a "Mayne Event" feature about Favre as a Jet.
Initially, ESPN acknowledged that Glazer broke the story but pretty soon we were informed that Michael Smith had confirmed it and not long after that Glazer and Fox Sports went down the memory hole as well. By the 3 a.m. FavreCenter, ESPN will be nominating itself for an Emmy, a Pulitzer Prize and a Nobel Prize for being the first to deliver this news and thus ending our long national nightmare.
Apparently, the Favre sweepstakes came down to the Jets and the Buccaneers. The Jets want Favre because they have no faith in either of their incumbent quarterbacks, while the Buccaneers want Favre because Jon Gruden's dream is to have a roster consisting entirely of quarterbacks. Gruden was an assistant coach in Green Bay and has a history with Favre, so Favre preferred to go to Tampa Bay, which is also closer to Favre's Mississippi home. Naturally, since the entire world--nay, the entire universe--revolves around Favre, before news of the trade came down several ESPN reporters speculated that Favre is "driving the train" because he would not approve of any trade other than one sending him to Tampa Bay, thus forcing the Packers' hand because they don't want to have Favre around anymore. By the way, that's quite an accomplishment--to go from iconic figure in franchise history to despised old man who everyone hopes just goes away.
So, after the announcement that the Jets acquired Favre, Everett seemed completely dumbfounded that Favre did not get his way. After all, why shouldn't Favre get every last thing to go exactly his way? Why shouldn't Favre hold every single team in the NFL hostage? Maybe Favre can get a Clemens-like deal in which he only has to play in home games.
Moments of unintentional comedy abounded in FavreCenter coverage in the moments after news of the trade broke. Everett asked Sal Paolantonio if he (Paolantonio) would have agreed to the trade if he had been in Favre's shoes or if Favre should take his ball and going home to re-retire because Green Bay did not send him to Tampa Bay. Of course, this is a loaded question for Paolantonio to answer since he is not an NFL analyst but rather a sideline reporter who will be covering games in New York. Paolantonio called a great audible, telling Everett that he (Paolantonio) did not have such a choice in front of him and he really enjoys working for ESPN. Later, Everett asked Paolantonio how much this trade really helps the Jets. Paolantonio chuckled nervously and reminded Everett that he will be reporting from Jets' games this season (in other words, stop asking questions that I cannot answer honestly because drunken fans will be throwing beer on me if I do). Paolantonio sidestepped that land mine by saying that it is only logical to assume that the addition of Favre will improve the Jets and help them contend for a Wild Card berth, adding that otherwise it would not make sense for New York to acquire Favre.
Then Chris Mortensen joined the party and revealed that Favre really had his heart set on going to Tampa Bay. Mortensen would not rule out the possibility that Favre could decide to retire in light of this setback but then Mortensen backpedaled a bit and said that Favre saw some positives about being a Jet, too. Favre is a real piece of work. First, he grudgingly acknowledged that the Packers would probably needed to move on after he retired. Did Favre expect the franchise to simply fold after he retired or to go into suspended animation until he really, really, really retired? Now, after creating such a fuss for the past few weeks there is at least a possibility that Favre may simply stay in Mississippi, leaving the Packers, Jets and Buccaneers to clean up all of the damage caused by this turmoil.
Of course, the FavreCenter coverage would not be complete until each reporter explained how the Favre story personally impacted his life. Scott informed viewers that he had seen Favre at the ESPYs and asked how Favre was doing. Favre started to tell Scott how emotionally draining this whole ordeal has been but Scott stopped him and let Favre know that he was off duty so it was not necessary for Favre to go into such detail. Then they hugged and sang "Kumbaya" (I made that part up, though it would not surprise me if it happened). Mortensen said that it is tough covering a story that has become such a huge part of the 24 hour news cycle but that it was important because Favre is one of the greatest players ever; I half expected him to add that he got Favre's autograph at the ESPYs after Scott was done consoling Favre. Look, covering the Vietnam War was tough; covering the Iraq war is tough. Covering a diva quarterback who cannot bear being out of the spotlight is not tough.
Tampa Bay got the best deal here, because the Buccaneers escaped unscathed--Gruden deftly avoided offending any of the 25 quarterbacks on his roster and now can go back to business as usual. The Packers have had their whole offseason trashed and now every single snap that Aaron Rodgers takes will be dissected in super slow motion on FavreCenter. Good luck, kid--you're going to need it. Meanwhile, Favre's arrival in New York certainly means that Chad Pennington--who Mortensen said is a much beloved figure in the locker room--will be shipped out. I'll bet all of Pennington's friends on the team are thrilled about that. Yes, I know, this is a business and guys get traded and cut every day but the Jets are bringing in a guy who has already indicated before he even got there that he'd prefer to be in Tampa Bay. Like most older players, Favre does not want to practice and does not want to go to meetings--he just wants to play. He'll be a great example for all of the younger players on the team. The Jets were 4-12 last year and, even though they were 10-6 two years ago, it is more than a little stretch to believe that they will overtake the Patriots in the AFC East.
What happens if the Jets start 3-5--which would be a big improvement over last year--and Favre decides to really, really, really retire? Also, I don't care how many passes Favre has thrown to high school kids in the past month or two, he cannot possibly be in game shape mentally or physically. He's about to turn 39 and, believe it or not, he is not indestructible. Based on Favre's age, the amount of offseason conditioning Favre has missed and the risks of playing football when you are not fully committed to being on the field, I think that there is a good chance that he will sustain an injury that will end his remarkable consecutive games streak.
Bottom line--this will not end well for Favre or the Jets and it will be difficult for the Packers unless Rodgers plays extraordinarily well right out of the box. Congratulations, Tampa Bay--by losing the Favre sweepstakes you are in fact the big winner!
Neil Everett and Stuart Scott were hosting FavreCenter when the story broke, so naturally all other sports news immediately went down the memory hole as viewers were treated to Favreapalooza 2008--highlights from his best games, plus reports from every single ESPN reporter, some of whom were probably awakened from a sound sleep so that they could breathlessly inform the nation of every word that Favre spoke to them earlier in the day before the trade had even happened (in other words, Favre quotes that were already outdated). I half expected Everett and Scott to dial up Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann to get their takes and I was surprised that Kenny Mayne did not have a "Mayne Event" feature about Favre as a Jet.
Initially, ESPN acknowledged that Glazer broke the story but pretty soon we were informed that Michael Smith had confirmed it and not long after that Glazer and Fox Sports went down the memory hole as well. By the 3 a.m. FavreCenter, ESPN will be nominating itself for an Emmy, a Pulitzer Prize and a Nobel Prize for being the first to deliver this news and thus ending our long national nightmare.
Apparently, the Favre sweepstakes came down to the Jets and the Buccaneers. The Jets want Favre because they have no faith in either of their incumbent quarterbacks, while the Buccaneers want Favre because Jon Gruden's dream is to have a roster consisting entirely of quarterbacks. Gruden was an assistant coach in Green Bay and has a history with Favre, so Favre preferred to go to Tampa Bay, which is also closer to Favre's Mississippi home. Naturally, since the entire world--nay, the entire universe--revolves around Favre, before news of the trade came down several ESPN reporters speculated that Favre is "driving the train" because he would not approve of any trade other than one sending him to Tampa Bay, thus forcing the Packers' hand because they don't want to have Favre around anymore. By the way, that's quite an accomplishment--to go from iconic figure in franchise history to despised old man who everyone hopes just goes away.
So, after the announcement that the Jets acquired Favre, Everett seemed completely dumbfounded that Favre did not get his way. After all, why shouldn't Favre get every last thing to go exactly his way? Why shouldn't Favre hold every single team in the NFL hostage? Maybe Favre can get a Clemens-like deal in which he only has to play in home games.
Moments of unintentional comedy abounded in FavreCenter coverage in the moments after news of the trade broke. Everett asked Sal Paolantonio if he (Paolantonio) would have agreed to the trade if he had been in Favre's shoes or if Favre should take his ball and going home to re-retire because Green Bay did not send him to Tampa Bay. Of course, this is a loaded question for Paolantonio to answer since he is not an NFL analyst but rather a sideline reporter who will be covering games in New York. Paolantonio called a great audible, telling Everett that he (Paolantonio) did not have such a choice in front of him and he really enjoys working for ESPN. Later, Everett asked Paolantonio how much this trade really helps the Jets. Paolantonio chuckled nervously and reminded Everett that he will be reporting from Jets' games this season (in other words, stop asking questions that I cannot answer honestly because drunken fans will be throwing beer on me if I do). Paolantonio sidestepped that land mine by saying that it is only logical to assume that the addition of Favre will improve the Jets and help them contend for a Wild Card berth, adding that otherwise it would not make sense for New York to acquire Favre.
Then Chris Mortensen joined the party and revealed that Favre really had his heart set on going to Tampa Bay. Mortensen would not rule out the possibility that Favre could decide to retire in light of this setback but then Mortensen backpedaled a bit and said that Favre saw some positives about being a Jet, too. Favre is a real piece of work. First, he grudgingly acknowledged that the Packers would probably needed to move on after he retired. Did Favre expect the franchise to simply fold after he retired or to go into suspended animation until he really, really, really retired? Now, after creating such a fuss for the past few weeks there is at least a possibility that Favre may simply stay in Mississippi, leaving the Packers, Jets and Buccaneers to clean up all of the damage caused by this turmoil.
Of course, the FavreCenter coverage would not be complete until each reporter explained how the Favre story personally impacted his life. Scott informed viewers that he had seen Favre at the ESPYs and asked how Favre was doing. Favre started to tell Scott how emotionally draining this whole ordeal has been but Scott stopped him and let Favre know that he was off duty so it was not necessary for Favre to go into such detail. Then they hugged and sang "Kumbaya" (I made that part up, though it would not surprise me if it happened). Mortensen said that it is tough covering a story that has become such a huge part of the 24 hour news cycle but that it was important because Favre is one of the greatest players ever; I half expected him to add that he got Favre's autograph at the ESPYs after Scott was done consoling Favre. Look, covering the Vietnam War was tough; covering the Iraq war is tough. Covering a diva quarterback who cannot bear being out of the spotlight is not tough.
Tampa Bay got the best deal here, because the Buccaneers escaped unscathed--Gruden deftly avoided offending any of the 25 quarterbacks on his roster and now can go back to business as usual. The Packers have had their whole offseason trashed and now every single snap that Aaron Rodgers takes will be dissected in super slow motion on FavreCenter. Good luck, kid--you're going to need it. Meanwhile, Favre's arrival in New York certainly means that Chad Pennington--who Mortensen said is a much beloved figure in the locker room--will be shipped out. I'll bet all of Pennington's friends on the team are thrilled about that. Yes, I know, this is a business and guys get traded and cut every day but the Jets are bringing in a guy who has already indicated before he even got there that he'd prefer to be in Tampa Bay. Like most older players, Favre does not want to practice and does not want to go to meetings--he just wants to play. He'll be a great example for all of the younger players on the team. The Jets were 4-12 last year and, even though they were 10-6 two years ago, it is more than a little stretch to believe that they will overtake the Patriots in the AFC East.
What happens if the Jets start 3-5--which would be a big improvement over last year--and Favre decides to really, really, really retire? Also, I don't care how many passes Favre has thrown to high school kids in the past month or two, he cannot possibly be in game shape mentally or physically. He's about to turn 39 and, believe it or not, he is not indestructible. Based on Favre's age, the amount of offseason conditioning Favre has missed and the risks of playing football when you are not fully committed to being on the field, I think that there is a good chance that he will sustain an injury that will end his remarkable consecutive games streak.
Bottom line--this will not end well for Favre or the Jets and it will be difficult for the Packers unless Rodgers plays extraordinarily well right out of the box. Congratulations, Tampa Bay--by losing the Favre sweepstakes you are in fact the big winner!
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Art Monk Highlights 2008 Pro Football Hall of Fame Class
Today the Pro Football Hall of Fame welcomed the Class of 2008: Andre Tippett, Fred Dean, Emmitt Thomas, Gary Zimmerman, Darrell Green and Art Monk. Green, who amazingly played cornerback in the NFL for 20 years, was the only first ballot selection in that group. Tippett helped New England make it to the first Super Bowl appearance in franchise history but the Patriots fell 46-10 to the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XX. Dean was a Pro Bowler with the San Diego Chargers but he really made his mark after the San Francisco 49ers acquired him in the middle of the 1981 season; he proved to be the final piece to their Super Bowl puzzle and helped the team to victory in Super Bowl XVI after that season and again in Super Bowl XIX. Similarly, Zimmerman was a standout offensive lineman for Minnesota but did not win a Super Bowl until he went to Denver, where he was John Elway's blindside protector for several years, including 1997 when the Broncos won their first Super Bowl title. Emmitt Thomas helped the Kansas City Chiefs win Super Bowl IV and he ranks ninth on the NFL's career interceptions list with 58. He has enjoyed a distinguished 26 year career as an assistant coach, winning two more Super Bowl titles along the way, and this season he will be Atlanta's head coach.
Although those five players each enjoyed great careers, the headliner of this year's class is without question Art Monk, as indicated by the fact that he gave the last speech of the night--and could not begin for four minutes due to a rousing standing ovation from the fans AND the assembled Hall of Famers. ESPN's Tom Jackson noted several times that the current Hall of Famers have been waiting for years for Monk--a finalist on seven previous occasions--to join them. Frankly, it is baffling that Monk had to wait that long. Apparently, this had something to do with him not being considered accommodating to the media during his career but if that is true than every writer who voted against him should be ashamed; this is not supposed to be a popularity contest but rather a recognition of football greatness. Monk set a record for single season receptions (106 in 1984) that stood for eight years and for almost three years he held the career reception mark, retiring with 940 catches, a total that currently ranks seventh on the all-time list. He also set a record by catching at least one pass in 183 straight games, a streak that is still the third longest ever. Monk is the first receiver to catch at least one touchdown in 15 straight seasons and he was a productive member of three Super Bowl championship teams. He is one of those players who everyone understood was a Hall of Famer during his career--during one of his highlight clips the announcer even called him a future Hall of Famer--but somehow slipped through the cracks once the official voting process began.
Before the induction ceremony, Jackson and Trey Wingo talked about Monk's protracted wait to receive this honor but they cut short that segment--and said little about the other five inductees--in order to give viewers yet another breathless update about Brett Favre, whose selfishness has now not only hurt the Green Bay Packers but also shamelessly intruded on the night during which six classy players received the highest possible football honor. I am disgusted that ESPN could not wait three hours to talk about how many millions of dollars Favre can extort from the Packers in exchange for doing what he said he planned to do all along: retire. Jackson took Favre's side and said that Favre should call the Packers' bluff, show up in camp and dare the team to end his NFL record streak of consecutive starts. Jackson added that Favre should not accept money to not play because in his heart Favre wants to play. Here's a news flash for Jackson and ESPN: if Favre really wanted to play then all he had to do was not retire in the first place.
I wondered what all of this was about until the story surfaced a couple days ago that the Packers are working on a deal to pay Favre $20 million or more as part of a "personal services contract." Basically, it's all about the Benjamins: Favre is extorting the Packers to pay him not to play. Then Chris Mortensen had the nerve to say that Favre loves the Packers too much to want to hurt the team or be a distraction--while in the same breath saying that if the Packers won't take Favre back then Favre wants to go to a team in their division so he can kick their butts twice a year; nothing shows your love for the Packers quite like beating them twice a year after ruining their whole offseason.
I've largely avoided writing about this whole Favre saga because I find his conduct so disgusting but when he interferes with the Hall of Fame ceremony that is going too far. I realize that he did not directly interfere with the ceremony but by making a public spectacle of himself he has encouraged this saturation coverage of his every text message and phone call. Football fans tuning in to the Hall of Fame ceremony deserved to hear about this year's honorees, not more Favre nonsense. Perhaps when Favre is eventually inducted the commentators can spend the minutes before that ceremony talking about Tippett, Dean, Thomas, Zimmerman, Green and Monk. That would be poetic justice.
Although those five players each enjoyed great careers, the headliner of this year's class is without question Art Monk, as indicated by the fact that he gave the last speech of the night--and could not begin for four minutes due to a rousing standing ovation from the fans AND the assembled Hall of Famers. ESPN's Tom Jackson noted several times that the current Hall of Famers have been waiting for years for Monk--a finalist on seven previous occasions--to join them. Frankly, it is baffling that Monk had to wait that long. Apparently, this had something to do with him not being considered accommodating to the media during his career but if that is true than every writer who voted against him should be ashamed; this is not supposed to be a popularity contest but rather a recognition of football greatness. Monk set a record for single season receptions (106 in 1984) that stood for eight years and for almost three years he held the career reception mark, retiring with 940 catches, a total that currently ranks seventh on the all-time list. He also set a record by catching at least one pass in 183 straight games, a streak that is still the third longest ever. Monk is the first receiver to catch at least one touchdown in 15 straight seasons and he was a productive member of three Super Bowl championship teams. He is one of those players who everyone understood was a Hall of Famer during his career--during one of his highlight clips the announcer even called him a future Hall of Famer--but somehow slipped through the cracks once the official voting process began.
Before the induction ceremony, Jackson and Trey Wingo talked about Monk's protracted wait to receive this honor but they cut short that segment--and said little about the other five inductees--in order to give viewers yet another breathless update about Brett Favre, whose selfishness has now not only hurt the Green Bay Packers but also shamelessly intruded on the night during which six classy players received the highest possible football honor. I am disgusted that ESPN could not wait three hours to talk about how many millions of dollars Favre can extort from the Packers in exchange for doing what he said he planned to do all along: retire. Jackson took Favre's side and said that Favre should call the Packers' bluff, show up in camp and dare the team to end his NFL record streak of consecutive starts. Jackson added that Favre should not accept money to not play because in his heart Favre wants to play. Here's a news flash for Jackson and ESPN: if Favre really wanted to play then all he had to do was not retire in the first place.
I wondered what all of this was about until the story surfaced a couple days ago that the Packers are working on a deal to pay Favre $20 million or more as part of a "personal services contract." Basically, it's all about the Benjamins: Favre is extorting the Packers to pay him not to play. Then Chris Mortensen had the nerve to say that Favre loves the Packers too much to want to hurt the team or be a distraction--while in the same breath saying that if the Packers won't take Favre back then Favre wants to go to a team in their division so he can kick their butts twice a year; nothing shows your love for the Packers quite like beating them twice a year after ruining their whole offseason.
I've largely avoided writing about this whole Favre saga because I find his conduct so disgusting but when he interferes with the Hall of Fame ceremony that is going too far. I realize that he did not directly interfere with the ceremony but by making a public spectacle of himself he has encouraged this saturation coverage of his every text message and phone call. Football fans tuning in to the Hall of Fame ceremony deserved to hear about this year's honorees, not more Favre nonsense. Perhaps when Favre is eventually inducted the commentators can spend the minutes before that ceremony talking about Tippett, Dean, Thomas, Zimmerman, Green and Monk. That would be poetic justice.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Number One Stunner: Federer's Record Reign May be Over
Ivo Karlovic, the 6-10 Croatian who is the 22nd ranked tennis player in the world, defeated number one ranked Roger Federer 7-6 (6), 4-6, 7-6 (5) in the third round of the Cincinnati Masters tournament. Karlovic blasted 21 aces past Federer, including a 140 mph screamer that nearly knocked the racket right out of Federer's hand. Federer has been the top ranked player in the world for a record 235 consecutive weeks (Pete Sampras still holds the all-time mark with 286 total weeks as world's number one player) but the end of his reign is very much in sight; if Rafael Nadal wins the Cincinnati Masters he will officially pass Federer in the rankings.
It seems like Nadal has had to endure the Trials of Hercules to get to this point; Bum Phillips used to say that Don Shula "can take his'n and beat your'n or he can take your'n and beat his'n" and Nadal has done something similar to Federer this year: he beat Federer on Federer's favorite surface--the Wimbledon grass--and Nadal smoked Federer on the French Open clay that Nadal has tamed like no one since the great Bjorn Borg. Despite those victories in the two biggest tournaments of the year and despite an active 31 match winning streak Nadal still has not officially surpassed Federer even as the allegedly best player staggers from one early tournament exit to another throughout the year. Someone needs to take the ATP ranking formula back to the lab, because you don't have to be a tennis expert to figure out that Nadal is clearly the best player in the world and has been for several months at least.
Last year I said that Nadal had a great chance of pulling off the French-Wimbledon double--a feat that had not been accomplished since Borg incredibly did it from 1978-80--and I have repeatedly made the observation that it was extremely premature for people to trumpet Federer as the greatest player of the Open Era, let alone the greatest player of all-time. As I mentioned in a January 8, 2008 post, Borg has an edge over Federer in several key areas:
1) Youngest player to win 11 Grand Slams (25).
2) Career Grand Slam winning percentage (.898, first all-time).
3) Winning Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year (Borg did this three straight years; no one else had done this even once until Nadal accomplished the feat this year).
4) Winning three Grand Slam events without losing a single set (only three other players have won a Grand Slam without losing a set and none of them did it more than once).
5) Borg won at least one Grand Slam title in a record eight straight years (Sampras matched this feat).
Borg remains the greatest player of the Open Era; he was king of both the French Open (six titles) and Wimbledon (five titles) in an unprecedented fashion and he achieved that mastery by the age of 25, retiring from active play shortly thereafter following a year in which he made three Grand Slam finals and won one Grand Slam title. Sampras, due to his longevity at the top and the fact that he holds the career Grand Slam singles record (14), ranks second; Sampras did not have Borg's multi-surface versatility and played several years longer than Borg to move past him on the career list of Grand Slam singles winners. For now, Federer is third but Nadal is several years younger than Federer, owns a decisive head to head advantage and has already won five Grand Slam titles at an age when Federer had just claimed one Grand Slam title; Nadal certainly has a chance to surpass Federer not just in the current rankings but in the mythical Open Era rankings. I will not make the mistake that others did with Federer and prematurely crown Nadal but Nadal's achievements are very impressive and he seems more than capable of winning several more Grand Slams in the next few years.
It seems like Nadal has had to endure the Trials of Hercules to get to this point; Bum Phillips used to say that Don Shula "can take his'n and beat your'n or he can take your'n and beat his'n" and Nadal has done something similar to Federer this year: he beat Federer on Federer's favorite surface--the Wimbledon grass--and Nadal smoked Federer on the French Open clay that Nadal has tamed like no one since the great Bjorn Borg. Despite those victories in the two biggest tournaments of the year and despite an active 31 match winning streak Nadal still has not officially surpassed Federer even as the allegedly best player staggers from one early tournament exit to another throughout the year. Someone needs to take the ATP ranking formula back to the lab, because you don't have to be a tennis expert to figure out that Nadal is clearly the best player in the world and has been for several months at least.
Last year I said that Nadal had a great chance of pulling off the French-Wimbledon double--a feat that had not been accomplished since Borg incredibly did it from 1978-80--and I have repeatedly made the observation that it was extremely premature for people to trumpet Federer as the greatest player of the Open Era, let alone the greatest player of all-time. As I mentioned in a January 8, 2008 post, Borg has an edge over Federer in several key areas:
1) Youngest player to win 11 Grand Slams (25).
2) Career Grand Slam winning percentage (.898, first all-time).
3) Winning Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year (Borg did this three straight years; no one else had done this even once until Nadal accomplished the feat this year).
4) Winning three Grand Slam events without losing a single set (only three other players have won a Grand Slam without losing a set and none of them did it more than once).
5) Borg won at least one Grand Slam title in a record eight straight years (Sampras matched this feat).
Borg remains the greatest player of the Open Era; he was king of both the French Open (six titles) and Wimbledon (five titles) in an unprecedented fashion and he achieved that mastery by the age of 25, retiring from active play shortly thereafter following a year in which he made three Grand Slam finals and won one Grand Slam title. Sampras, due to his longevity at the top and the fact that he holds the career Grand Slam singles record (14), ranks second; Sampras did not have Borg's multi-surface versatility and played several years longer than Borg to move past him on the career list of Grand Slam singles winners. For now, Federer is third but Nadal is several years younger than Federer, owns a decisive head to head advantage and has already won five Grand Slam titles at an age when Federer had just claimed one Grand Slam title; Nadal certainly has a chance to surpass Federer not just in the current rankings but in the mythical Open Era rankings. I will not make the mistake that others did with Federer and prematurely crown Nadal but Nadal's achievements are very impressive and he seems more than capable of winning several more Grand Slams in the next few years.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Gossage is Finally a HoFer but the Hall Still Refuses to Properly Honor Buck O'Neil
On Sunday, the Baseball Hall of Fame welcomed six new members: Barney Dreyfuss (Pirates owner who helped create the World Series), Bowie Kuhn (MLB Commissioner, 1969-84), Walter O'Malley (Dodgers owner whose team won four World Series championships and 11 NL pennants), Billy Southworth (St. Louis manager won two World Series championships), Dick Williams (Oakland manager won two World Series championships, later became second skipper to guide three different franchises to the World Series) and ace reliever Rich "Goose" Gossage, who finally received this much overdue honor. As Tom Paciorek once said after facing Gossage in his prime, "You need a cape to face Gossage, not a baseball bat."
It took the voters nine times to do something that they should have done as soon as Gossage became eligible. I've never understood the Byzantine set of unwritten rules that govern Hall of Fame elections, particularly with baseball but in other sports as well: certain guys are deemed worthy but not "first ballot worthy," other players receive virtually no consideration initially but then their candidacies mysteriously gain ground over the years even though their statistics have obviously not changed and other people who clearly belong in the Hall simply never receive enough votes. In this context it must also be mentioned that the Baseball Hall of Fame changed its rules after Pete Rose's lifetime ban specifically to keep Rose--a first ballot Hall of Famer if there ever was one--out of a shrine that is filled with mementos denoting his numerous achievements (people on MLB's banned list were not barred from being on the HoF ballot until after MLB Commissioner Bart Giamatti excommunicated Rose from the sport).
I could document all the reasons that Gossage should have been inducted nearly a decade ago but the great William Nack--longtime writer for Sports Illustrated--beat me to it with a wonderfully descriptive ESPN.com article that is based on some firsthand reporting that Nack did during Gossage's prime. You really should read the entire thing but here is a taste to whet your appetite:
"No pitcher in the modern era brought a more palpable aura of menace to his work. At 6-foot-3 and 220 pounds, drooping handlebar mustache and all, his eyes as big as pie tins, Gossage would turn his back to batters as he wound up--actually facing toward left field and showing them his number--then explode towards home plate in a tangle of arms and legs, like a man falling out of a tree, hiding the ball until it finally came spinning out of the pinstriped blur. It's no surprise many opposing hitters would wonder, does he have any idea where this pitch is going? And then, discreetly, step to the back of the batter's box."
On October 2, 1978, Gossage's New York Yankees faced the Boston Red Sox in a one game playoff to decide the AL East title. The Yankees led 4-3 in the bottom of the ninth. There were two outs and two men on base when another Hall of Famer, Carl Yastrzemski, stepped into the batter's box to face Gossage, who had literally dreamed about such a matchup: "I went to bed the night before thinking about coming into the game, and I thought I might be facing Yaz with the game on the line. I thought about facing him because he was such a great clutch hitter...It might have been the biggest game of my life."
Gossage induced Yaz to pop up and Nack, who was seated behind home plate, vividly describes the scene: "That they could preserve that moment, in a diorama under glass, in some small corner at Cooperstown--the roaring crowd going instantly silent, as if cut off by a switch. Nearly 33,000 horrified faces looking up, all mouths open. The ball seeming to rise forever, hanging like a blue moon over Fenway, before plunging like an arrow into the heart of...Graig Nettles' glove."
Nack recounts that Gossage was so unhittable that sometimes his catcher would not even try to hide the signs, blatantly letting the batter know that a fastball was coming. It wasn't like there was anything anybody could do about it; Gossage sometimes struck out the side on just 10 or 11 pitches. Closers often work just one inning now but 193 of Gossage's 310 career saves required more than three outs. Nack concludes, "Of the big closers who preceded him to the Hall, including Rollie Fingers (341 saves) and Bruce Sutter (300 saves), Gossage was by far the most fearsome and intimidating, the guy you'd really want facing Yaz in the bottom of the ninth."
At least Gossage finally has been inducted and he lived long enough to enjoy this special day; the great Buck O'Neil passed away and the Hall still has not rectified the injustice that it did to him. O'Neil played 12 seasons in the Negro Leagues and also won multiple Negro League championships as a manager. Statistics from that era are not always reliable but if there was any question about whether his playing credentials earned him induction in the Hall of Fame then his decades-long service as a great ambassador for the sport--including his pivotal role in the creation of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City--should have sealed the deal without question. He played an instrumental role in prodding the Hall of Fame to grant induction to many Negro Leaguers whose achievements had been neglected for decades but in a sad and twisted irony O'Neil fell short of the required votes when he was placed on a special Negro League Hall of Fame ballot in 2006. If this unjustified slight made the then-94 year old bitter he did not let those feelings show publicly, declaring, "God's been good to me. They didn't think Buck was good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. That's the way they thought about it and that's the way it is, so we're going to live with that. Now, if I'm a Hall of Famer for you, that's all right with me. Just keep loving old Buck. Don't weep for Buck. No, man, be happy, be thankful." The Hall invited O'Neil to introduce the new Negro League Hall of Famers at the 2006 induction ceremony that should have been a crowning honor for him. Many people would have told the Hall exactly where to stick that invitation but O'Neil came there and stole the show. He passed away just a few months later.
It is obvious that O'Neil should have been inducted in the Hall of Fame but the Hall cannot seem to bring itself to correct this error; instead, after O'Neil's death the Hall built a statue of O'Neil to be placed in the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum and created a Buck O'Neil Lifetime Achievement Award. The first winner is none other than O'Neil himself. I can't recall another example of an award being created to honor the person for which it is named but I guess this is the Hall's way of admitting it messed up without actually admitting it messed up.
It took the voters nine times to do something that they should have done as soon as Gossage became eligible. I've never understood the Byzantine set of unwritten rules that govern Hall of Fame elections, particularly with baseball but in other sports as well: certain guys are deemed worthy but not "first ballot worthy," other players receive virtually no consideration initially but then their candidacies mysteriously gain ground over the years even though their statistics have obviously not changed and other people who clearly belong in the Hall simply never receive enough votes. In this context it must also be mentioned that the Baseball Hall of Fame changed its rules after Pete Rose's lifetime ban specifically to keep Rose--a first ballot Hall of Famer if there ever was one--out of a shrine that is filled with mementos denoting his numerous achievements (people on MLB's banned list were not barred from being on the HoF ballot until after MLB Commissioner Bart Giamatti excommunicated Rose from the sport).
I could document all the reasons that Gossage should have been inducted nearly a decade ago but the great William Nack--longtime writer for Sports Illustrated--beat me to it with a wonderfully descriptive ESPN.com article that is based on some firsthand reporting that Nack did during Gossage's prime. You really should read the entire thing but here is a taste to whet your appetite:
"No pitcher in the modern era brought a more palpable aura of menace to his work. At 6-foot-3 and 220 pounds, drooping handlebar mustache and all, his eyes as big as pie tins, Gossage would turn his back to batters as he wound up--actually facing toward left field and showing them his number--then explode towards home plate in a tangle of arms and legs, like a man falling out of a tree, hiding the ball until it finally came spinning out of the pinstriped blur. It's no surprise many opposing hitters would wonder, does he have any idea where this pitch is going? And then, discreetly, step to the back of the batter's box."
On October 2, 1978, Gossage's New York Yankees faced the Boston Red Sox in a one game playoff to decide the AL East title. The Yankees led 4-3 in the bottom of the ninth. There were two outs and two men on base when another Hall of Famer, Carl Yastrzemski, stepped into the batter's box to face Gossage, who had literally dreamed about such a matchup: "I went to bed the night before thinking about coming into the game, and I thought I might be facing Yaz with the game on the line. I thought about facing him because he was such a great clutch hitter...It might have been the biggest game of my life."
Gossage induced Yaz to pop up and Nack, who was seated behind home plate, vividly describes the scene: "That they could preserve that moment, in a diorama under glass, in some small corner at Cooperstown--the roaring crowd going instantly silent, as if cut off by a switch. Nearly 33,000 horrified faces looking up, all mouths open. The ball seeming to rise forever, hanging like a blue moon over Fenway, before plunging like an arrow into the heart of...Graig Nettles' glove."
Nack recounts that Gossage was so unhittable that sometimes his catcher would not even try to hide the signs, blatantly letting the batter know that a fastball was coming. It wasn't like there was anything anybody could do about it; Gossage sometimes struck out the side on just 10 or 11 pitches. Closers often work just one inning now but 193 of Gossage's 310 career saves required more than three outs. Nack concludes, "Of the big closers who preceded him to the Hall, including Rollie Fingers (341 saves) and Bruce Sutter (300 saves), Gossage was by far the most fearsome and intimidating, the guy you'd really want facing Yaz in the bottom of the ninth."
At least Gossage finally has been inducted and he lived long enough to enjoy this special day; the great Buck O'Neil passed away and the Hall still has not rectified the injustice that it did to him. O'Neil played 12 seasons in the Negro Leagues and also won multiple Negro League championships as a manager. Statistics from that era are not always reliable but if there was any question about whether his playing credentials earned him induction in the Hall of Fame then his decades-long service as a great ambassador for the sport--including his pivotal role in the creation of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City--should have sealed the deal without question. He played an instrumental role in prodding the Hall of Fame to grant induction to many Negro Leaguers whose achievements had been neglected for decades but in a sad and twisted irony O'Neil fell short of the required votes when he was placed on a special Negro League Hall of Fame ballot in 2006. If this unjustified slight made the then-94 year old bitter he did not let those feelings show publicly, declaring, "God's been good to me. They didn't think Buck was good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. That's the way they thought about it and that's the way it is, so we're going to live with that. Now, if I'm a Hall of Famer for you, that's all right with me. Just keep loving old Buck. Don't weep for Buck. No, man, be happy, be thankful." The Hall invited O'Neil to introduce the new Negro League Hall of Famers at the 2006 induction ceremony that should have been a crowning honor for him. Many people would have told the Hall exactly where to stick that invitation but O'Neil came there and stole the show. He passed away just a few months later.
It is obvious that O'Neil should have been inducted in the Hall of Fame but the Hall cannot seem to bring itself to correct this error; instead, after O'Neil's death the Hall built a statue of O'Neil to be placed in the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum and created a Buck O'Neil Lifetime Achievement Award. The first winner is none other than O'Neil himself. I can't recall another example of an award being created to honor the person for which it is named but I guess this is the Hall's way of admitting it messed up without actually admitting it messed up.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
WePlay.com: A Youth Sports Community for Coaches, Parents, Kids and Teams
Weplay.com is a new online youth sports community that unites kids, parents, coaches, and professional athletes. Jake Rosenberg of YouCast Corporation informed me via email, "It's a great way to interact and network with people who share the same love for sports. Weplay also features exclusive footage and blogs from professional athletes such as Lebron James and Tony Parker." Currently, Brandi Chastain, Derek Jeter, Jennie Finch, LeBron James, Peyton Manning, Ryan Howard, Shaun Alexander, Summer Sanders and Tony Parker each have blogs at the site. I found out I have something in common with Brandi Chastain: her favorite video game is Galaga. She asks rhetorically if that 80's classic still exists and I am happy to report that in 2001 a 20th anniversary edition of it was released and you can find it in sports bars and other establishments that have video games--and if you can't find any place in your area that has Galaga you can play it online at Smilie Games.
Looking through some of the other athlete blogs, Manning says that his dream job is "relief pitcher w/ a 100 mph fastball," Howard's favorite team of all-time is the 90's Bulls, Sanders' favorite teams are "Sacto Kings, Buffalo Bills and Team USA" and Tony Parker's favorite team is "San Antonio Spurs, of course."
Looking through some of the other athlete blogs, Manning says that his dream job is "relief pitcher w/ a 100 mph fastball," Howard's favorite team of all-time is the 90's Bulls, Sanders' favorite teams are "Sacto Kings, Buffalo Bills and Team USA" and Tony Parker's favorite team is "San Antonio Spurs, of course."
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Shark Falls Short in Bid for Third British Open Title
For Greg Norman, a British Open that started out as such a wonderful and completely unexpected fairy tale story came with a very familiar ending: he entered Sunday's final round with a two stroke lead and finished up in a tie for third, six strokes behind winner Padraig Harrington, who claimed this title for the second year in a row. This is the seventh time that Norman held or shared the lead in a Grand Slam event going in to the final round but did not win the tournament; he won the 1986 British Open after having a 54 hole lead and he also won the 1993 British Open despite trailing going into the final round. Those are Norman's only Grand Slam wins, though he famously "won" the so-called "Saturday Slam" in 1986: Norman led after the third round in all four majors only to come up empty each time other than his British Open victory.
When Norman electrified the golf world by taking the lead in this year's British Open, the Chicago Tribune's Mike Downey rightly noted that no one should feel sorry for Norman because of his previous disappointments in the final round of Grand Slam events. After all, Norman still must be considered one of the greatest golfers of all-time. He topped the end of the year Official World Golf Rankings seven times (1986-87, 89-90, 95-97) and finished second on three other occasions (1988, 1993-94). Only Tiger Woods (nine) has ranked first at the end of the year more times than Norman has. Norman spent a total of 331 weeks ranked as the number one golfer in the world, second only to Woods' 504 weeks at the top--and the next closest competitor is, frankly, not even close: Nick Faldo was ranked number one for 98 weeks. Norman was the leading money winner on the PGA Tour in 1986, 1990 and 1995 and in 1989-90 and 1994 he won the Vardon Trophy for posting the lowest scoring average on the PGA Tour.
It is hard to understand or explain why such a talented and highly accomplished athlete has fallen short so many times in Grand Slam events. It is easy to mock Norman as a "choker," but that label is clearly inappropriate regarding this year's British Open: he set a record by becoming the oldest player to hold the 54 hole lead in a major championship and finishing third is quite an accomplishment for a 53 year old who hardly even plays golf anymore. This result is so much better than anyone could have reasonably expected that it cannot be classified as a failure for Norman, particularly considering how well Harrington played in the final round.
As for Norman's disappointing Grand Slam finishes during his prime years, they are frankly quite puzzling; he obviously won a lot of big events in order to maintain his world number one ranking, so it's not like Norman does not know how to manage final round pressure and emerge victorious. I don't believe in luck but Norman seemed to have a lot of bad fortune that directly coincided with good fortune for his opponents in those situations. Perhaps the best explanation is that the traits that make Norman great also leave him vulnerable: he is a confident, aggressive golfer, so the same bold strokes that enable him to carve out big leads can also result in bogeys at the most inopportune times.
Woods is something of an "anti-Norman" in terms of Grand Slams. While Norman will forever be known as the Shark who let many "fish" get away, Woods has never lost a Grand Slam after having the 54 hole lead. As I mentioned in a July 23, 2007 post titled "The Difference Between Winners and Champions," "I hear golf analysts make much of the fact that on the one hand Woods rarely gives up a lead on Sunday but on the other hand he has never come from behind on Sunday to win a major. I think that the former is much more significant than the latter. When Woods has his 'A' game, as he would put it, he wins, point blank--he gets a lead, he keeps it and they put his name on the trophy. When he has his 'B' or 'C' game, he still may be in contention just because he is so good but someone else who is having the tournament of his life may end up winning."
According to the standard that I mentioned in that post, Woods is a "champion" while Norman is a "winner" but I wonder if in this case that harsh distinction is really fair or accurate. Norman spent the better part of a decade ranked as the number one player in the world in his sport and he did win two Grand Slams. Even though Norman has come up short so many times in Grand Slams, I must say that he is still a champion--just not as great a champion as Woods, who seems to be on a path to become the greatest champion in golf history and one of the greatest champions in sports history.
When Norman electrified the golf world by taking the lead in this year's British Open, the Chicago Tribune's Mike Downey rightly noted that no one should feel sorry for Norman because of his previous disappointments in the final round of Grand Slam events. After all, Norman still must be considered one of the greatest golfers of all-time. He topped the end of the year Official World Golf Rankings seven times (1986-87, 89-90, 95-97) and finished second on three other occasions (1988, 1993-94). Only Tiger Woods (nine) has ranked first at the end of the year more times than Norman has. Norman spent a total of 331 weeks ranked as the number one golfer in the world, second only to Woods' 504 weeks at the top--and the next closest competitor is, frankly, not even close: Nick Faldo was ranked number one for 98 weeks. Norman was the leading money winner on the PGA Tour in 1986, 1990 and 1995 and in 1989-90 and 1994 he won the Vardon Trophy for posting the lowest scoring average on the PGA Tour.
It is hard to understand or explain why such a talented and highly accomplished athlete has fallen short so many times in Grand Slam events. It is easy to mock Norman as a "choker," but that label is clearly inappropriate regarding this year's British Open: he set a record by becoming the oldest player to hold the 54 hole lead in a major championship and finishing third is quite an accomplishment for a 53 year old who hardly even plays golf anymore. This result is so much better than anyone could have reasonably expected that it cannot be classified as a failure for Norman, particularly considering how well Harrington played in the final round.
As for Norman's disappointing Grand Slam finishes during his prime years, they are frankly quite puzzling; he obviously won a lot of big events in order to maintain his world number one ranking, so it's not like Norman does not know how to manage final round pressure and emerge victorious. I don't believe in luck but Norman seemed to have a lot of bad fortune that directly coincided with good fortune for his opponents in those situations. Perhaps the best explanation is that the traits that make Norman great also leave him vulnerable: he is a confident, aggressive golfer, so the same bold strokes that enable him to carve out big leads can also result in bogeys at the most inopportune times.
Woods is something of an "anti-Norman" in terms of Grand Slams. While Norman will forever be known as the Shark who let many "fish" get away, Woods has never lost a Grand Slam after having the 54 hole lead. As I mentioned in a July 23, 2007 post titled "The Difference Between Winners and Champions," "I hear golf analysts make much of the fact that on the one hand Woods rarely gives up a lead on Sunday but on the other hand he has never come from behind on Sunday to win a major. I think that the former is much more significant than the latter. When Woods has his 'A' game, as he would put it, he wins, point blank--he gets a lead, he keeps it and they put his name on the trophy. When he has his 'B' or 'C' game, he still may be in contention just because he is so good but someone else who is having the tournament of his life may end up winning."
According to the standard that I mentioned in that post, Woods is a "champion" while Norman is a "winner" but I wonder if in this case that harsh distinction is really fair or accurate. Norman spent the better part of a decade ranked as the number one player in the world in his sport and he did win two Grand Slams. Even though Norman has come up short so many times in Grand Slams, I must say that he is still a champion--just not as great a champion as Woods, who seems to be on a path to become the greatest champion in golf history and one of the greatest champions in sports history.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Favre May Discover that 38 is Not So Special for Quarterbacks
Brett Favre had an excellent season in 2007 and there seems to be an assumption that if he plays in 2008 then he will pick up right where he left off but that is not necessarily the case. Favre turned 38 early last season and, as Don Pierson noted in a December 29, 2006 Chicago Tribune article (a free abstract is available at ChicagoTribune.com or you can read the entire piece by paying a small fee), "As peculiar and arbitrary as it may seem, age 38 represents a wall for so many quarterbacks it's impossible to ignore." Pierson notes the obvious--that many NFL quarterbacks don't even make it to 38 in the first place--but he lists a number of quarterbacks whose health and/or effectiveness declined markedly at or around that age. Here is a summary of what happened to several Hall of Fame quarterbacks who found out that 38 is not so special:
1) Dan Marino turned 38 during his last season (1999). He missed five games and posted the lowest passer rating of his 17 year career (67.4, 12.6 points worse than his 1998 rating).
2) During the 1999 season, Steve Young sustained a career-ending concussion two weeks before his 38th birthday. In the three games he played in that year, Young compiled a 60.9 rating, his worst since his second year in the league and a whopping 40.2 point decline from his 1998 rating.
3) John Elway retired after the season in which he turned 38 (1998), though to be fair he did not seem to be on his last legs at the time. He missed three games due to injury but was healthy enough to lead the Broncos to their second Super Bowl title in a row.
4) Johnny Unitas hung around until he was 40 but in his last three seasons he registered just three, four and three touchdown passes.
5) Similarly, Len Dawson played until he was 40 but was not an effective full time starter after he turned 38.
6) Sammy Baugh attempted just 33 passes in the 1952 season before retiring at the age of 38.
7) Even the legendary ageless wonder George Blanda was not immune to the effects of turning 38. He reached that milestone in 1965, the last year that he was a full-time starting quarterback. He played for 10 more seasons but primarily served as a kicker.
Pierson also mentions a couple exceptions, most notably Warren Moon, who had Pro Bowl seasons at 39 and 41. Still, there is no denying that health and productivity tend to rapidly decline for NFL quarterbacks at or around 38, even for players who had been healthy and productive right up to that age. Just because Favre turned back the clock last season does not mean that he can do so again this year.
Perhaps the most dramatic cautionary tale for Favre is what happened to Y.A. Tittle. In 1963, the 37 year old Tittle led the NFL in touchdowns (36), completion percentage (60.2) and yards per attempt (8.6) while directing the New York Giants to an 11-3 record and a 14-10 Championship Game loss to the Chicago Bears. Those individual numbers--and the close loss to the eventual NFL Champion--eerily mirror what Favre and the Packers did in 2007. However, in 1964, Tittle's numbers dropped dramatically (10 touchdowns, 52.3 completion percentage, 6.4 yards per attempt average) and the Giants fell to 2-10-2. Tittle retired after that campaign.
While some people may think that it is foolhardy for the Packers to not welcome Favre back so that they can replace him with the untested Aaron Rodgers, there is a sizable amount of historical evidence that suggests that Favre is hardly a sure bet to be successful in a season during which he will turn 39. Last year was a fairy tale for Favre and the Packers but the clock could very well strike midnight if he plays in 2008.
Above and beyond the numbers, the problem that I have with what Favre has done is the complete selfishness that he is displaying. No one begrudges him the right to leave the game on his own terms, whether that consists of retiring after a storybook season or continuing to play--with another team if necessary--until his wheels fall off. However, Favre is holding an entire team and its fans hostage with his vacillating. If he wanted to play, then he should have said so during the spring. After Favre made his tearful retirement announcement, the Packers quite naturally devoted their offseason planning to getting Rodgers ready to take the helm. Favre recently said that he understood that the Packers have moved on, as if he is making a big concession. Did he think that the Packers would just put their plans on hold after Favre made it quite clear that he had no intentions of playing again? If Favre had originally said that he wanted to keep playing then the Packers surely would have welcomed him back with open arms but now he has placed the team in an untenable situation: if they bring him back then they have wasted their whole offseason but if they grant Favre his release then he may go to a division rival and hurt them. The Packers are under no obligation to do something that could damage them competitively just to satisfy the whims of a diva who suddenly decided that he wants to be in the spotlight a little while longer. Is there anything more pathetic than a future Hall of Famer whining to a gushing Greta Van Susteren about how unfair life is?
None of this tarnishes Favre's legacy as a quarterback. Whether he stays retired, comes back and plays well or comes back and plays poorly, he will remain one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time. After all, no one dwells on Unitas' last days as a Charger or Joe Namath's brief run as a Ram. However, the selfish, petulant and classless way that Favre is handling himself does tarnish his legacy as a person. Just imagine for one second that Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Kobe Bryant or any other athlete who is a lightning rod for criticism did what Favre is doing. How do you think the media would portray the situation? How would fans react? Favre has received some criticism--and deservedly so--but he has been given a free pass compared to the treatment that those guys would get if they were involved in a similar scenario.
1) Dan Marino turned 38 during his last season (1999). He missed five games and posted the lowest passer rating of his 17 year career (67.4, 12.6 points worse than his 1998 rating).
2) During the 1999 season, Steve Young sustained a career-ending concussion two weeks before his 38th birthday. In the three games he played in that year, Young compiled a 60.9 rating, his worst since his second year in the league and a whopping 40.2 point decline from his 1998 rating.
3) John Elway retired after the season in which he turned 38 (1998), though to be fair he did not seem to be on his last legs at the time. He missed three games due to injury but was healthy enough to lead the Broncos to their second Super Bowl title in a row.
4) Johnny Unitas hung around until he was 40 but in his last three seasons he registered just three, four and three touchdown passes.
5) Similarly, Len Dawson played until he was 40 but was not an effective full time starter after he turned 38.
6) Sammy Baugh attempted just 33 passes in the 1952 season before retiring at the age of 38.
7) Even the legendary ageless wonder George Blanda was not immune to the effects of turning 38. He reached that milestone in 1965, the last year that he was a full-time starting quarterback. He played for 10 more seasons but primarily served as a kicker.
Pierson also mentions a couple exceptions, most notably Warren Moon, who had Pro Bowl seasons at 39 and 41. Still, there is no denying that health and productivity tend to rapidly decline for NFL quarterbacks at or around 38, even for players who had been healthy and productive right up to that age. Just because Favre turned back the clock last season does not mean that he can do so again this year.
Perhaps the most dramatic cautionary tale for Favre is what happened to Y.A. Tittle. In 1963, the 37 year old Tittle led the NFL in touchdowns (36), completion percentage (60.2) and yards per attempt (8.6) while directing the New York Giants to an 11-3 record and a 14-10 Championship Game loss to the Chicago Bears. Those individual numbers--and the close loss to the eventual NFL Champion--eerily mirror what Favre and the Packers did in 2007. However, in 1964, Tittle's numbers dropped dramatically (10 touchdowns, 52.3 completion percentage, 6.4 yards per attempt average) and the Giants fell to 2-10-2. Tittle retired after that campaign.
While some people may think that it is foolhardy for the Packers to not welcome Favre back so that they can replace him with the untested Aaron Rodgers, there is a sizable amount of historical evidence that suggests that Favre is hardly a sure bet to be successful in a season during which he will turn 39. Last year was a fairy tale for Favre and the Packers but the clock could very well strike midnight if he plays in 2008.
Above and beyond the numbers, the problem that I have with what Favre has done is the complete selfishness that he is displaying. No one begrudges him the right to leave the game on his own terms, whether that consists of retiring after a storybook season or continuing to play--with another team if necessary--until his wheels fall off. However, Favre is holding an entire team and its fans hostage with his vacillating. If he wanted to play, then he should have said so during the spring. After Favre made his tearful retirement announcement, the Packers quite naturally devoted their offseason planning to getting Rodgers ready to take the helm. Favre recently said that he understood that the Packers have moved on, as if he is making a big concession. Did he think that the Packers would just put their plans on hold after Favre made it quite clear that he had no intentions of playing again? If Favre had originally said that he wanted to keep playing then the Packers surely would have welcomed him back with open arms but now he has placed the team in an untenable situation: if they bring him back then they have wasted their whole offseason but if they grant Favre his release then he may go to a division rival and hurt them. The Packers are under no obligation to do something that could damage them competitively just to satisfy the whims of a diva who suddenly decided that he wants to be in the spotlight a little while longer. Is there anything more pathetic than a future Hall of Famer whining to a gushing Greta Van Susteren about how unfair life is?
None of this tarnishes Favre's legacy as a quarterback. Whether he stays retired, comes back and plays well or comes back and plays poorly, he will remain one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time. After all, no one dwells on Unitas' last days as a Charger or Joe Namath's brief run as a Ram. However, the selfish, petulant and classless way that Favre is handling himself does tarnish his legacy as a person. Just imagine for one second that Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Kobe Bryant or any other athlete who is a lightning rod for criticism did what Favre is doing. How do you think the media would portray the situation? How would fans react? Favre has received some criticism--and deservedly so--but he has been given a free pass compared to the treatment that those guys would get if they were involved in a similar scenario.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Michael Young Helps MLB Avoid its Worst Nightmare: Another All-Star Game Tie
Michael Young's sacrifice fly in the bottom of the 15th inning not only gave the American League a 4-3 win over the National League in the All-Star Game but it averted the potential of yet another major embarrassment for Major League Baseball and Commissioner Bud Selig. The abominable 11 inning, 7-7 tie in the 2002 All-Star Game was bad enough but if this contest resulted in a tie or turned into a farce with position players pitching it would have been yet another black eye for a sport that has seen plenty of them during Selig's reign. Ever since the 2002 fiasco, the All-Star Game has decided home field advantage in the World Series, so apparently this time around the teams would have stayed on the field until some position player blew out his arm trying to pitch.
J.D. Drew went 2-4 with a two run home run, a walk and a stolen base to claim MVP honors and the relief on Selig's face was palpable when he awarded Drew the MVP trophy. The game obviously did not have too many offensive highlights and, frankly, the first six innings were pretty boring. The only truly memorable plays during that time were a solo home run in the fifth inning by Matt Holliday and a great throw by Ichiro Suzuki to gun down Albert Pujols at second base, though replays indicated that Pujols probably beat the tag; still, it is amazing that a small guy like Ichiro has such a howitzer for an arm and Fox analyst Tim McCarver said that Ichiro is the best defensive right fielder he has seen since the legendary Hall of Famer Roberto Clemente.
While the early going was not exciting, things heated up in the seventh inning when Drew's two run shot tied the score and then the latter innings of this game featured numerous tremendous defensive plays by both teams, including several gems by Miguel Tejada and a number of bang bang plays at home plate that kept the score tied.
ESPN's Jayson Stark notes that a staggering number of records were set or tied in this All-Star Game, including, "Longest game ever (290 minutes). Most runners left on base ever (28). Most players in a box score ever (63). Most pitchers in an All-Star box score ever (23). Even most strikeouts ever (34)." The 15 innings tied a record set in 1967 and you can also add to the list of records the three errors committed by National League second baseman Dan Uggla, who also struck out three times and grounded into a double-play in what Stark aptly described as perhaps the worst All-Star performance ever.
This extra innings marathon would have been a lot more thrilling to watch if not for the dark cloud that hung over the last few innings: the very real possibility that one or both of the managers would run out of pitchers. Based on some of the interviews conducted after the game, it sounds like there was some kind of mandate from Selig that the game must have a decisive outcome no matter what, which could potentially have led to home field advantage in the World Series being decided with a position player on the mound. The only thing worse than that would be a position player--a franchise player for some team--blowing out his arm while pitching in an exhibition game.
The reason why this kind of issue never came up until recent years is that in the "good old days" the starting All-Stars played longer and there was an understanding that not every single player would get on the field if the game only went nine innings. Now, by trying to get the best of all worlds MLB annually opens up the possibility of living out a nightmare scenario: the game "counts" yet the managers try to get every player on the field (except for a few pitchers who are on the rosters but whose regular teams don't want them to pitch). If the game goes nine innings then everyone is happy but if it goes extra innings instead of celebrating baseball everyone is suddenly focused mainly on the possibility of the game ending in a tie or a farce with All-Stars playing out of position.
The other problem with the way that the All-Star Game is run is that a terrible strain is being placed on pitchers who have to warm up, then sit down, then warm up, then sit down, then go into the game. Apparently, Brad Lidge had thrown upwards of 100 warmup pitches in a two hour period before he entered the game for the National League in the 15th inning and got saddled with the loss.
The solution is simple: the starting pitchers for each team should go at least five innings, unless of course one of them is getting shelled and needs to come out sooner. Then a relief pitcher should come in for an inning or two and that process should be repeated until the end of the game. That way, guys are not repeatedly warming up and then sitting down, because they will know exactly when they are going in the game. Just being selected to the All-Star team is an honor and it is not practical to get every single player in the game. The fact is, the players who the fans voted in should get the lion's share of the innings anyway.
No one had to tell the players in the 1970s and 1980s that the All-Star Game "counted"; back then, the players felt tremendous pride in trying to win to assert the superiority of their league and that is another reason that starters (position players as well as pitchers) used to play more innings than they do now. If the game really "counts" then it should be managed more like a real game. Pete Rose ran over catcher Ray Fosse to score the winning run in the 12th inning of the 1970 All-Star Game precisely because, in Rose's mind, the game "counted"; he often has said that he could not have looked his father in the eye if he had played any other way and that he would have felt like he was cheating the fans if he did not play 100% at all times. Perhaps Rose took things to an extreme in that instance but that also reflects the intensity of the rivalry between the leagues at that time.
Speaking of Rose, I could not help but think of MLB's all-time hits leader during the pregame introductions when 49 Hall of Famers took the field at their old positions and greeted this year's All-Stars. It was great to see so many of the game's legends on the same field at the same time, let alone on the hallowed (and soon to be closed) grounds of Yankee Stadium. I also like that rather than single out one Yankee as the greatest or most worthy of recognition that Whitey Ford, Yogi Berra, Reggie Jackson and Rich "Goose" Gossage each simultaneously threw out ceremonial first pitches. Joe DiMaggio used to demand that he be introduced as the "Greatest living Yankee" but I like the way the Yankees chose to honor multiple stars (and eras) from their storied history.
Rose would surely have been a first ballot Hall of Famer if not for the Hall of Fame changing the rules after MLB banned Rose for life for the gambling that he did while managing the Cincinnati Reds after he retired as a player. In the first 55 years of its existence, the Hall of Fame never had a rule barring someone who is on the banned list from being on the Hall of Fame ballot but in 1991 the Hall hastily implemented such a rule just before Rose would have become eligible to appear on the Hall of Fame ballot. Thus, the Hall of Fame voters never had a chance to decide whether or not to vote him in, so Rose's situation differs completely from that of guys like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds; many people believe that McGwire and Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and thus McGwire has received few Hall of Fame votes and Bonds may also get much less support than he otherwise would have--but McGwire is on the ballot and as things stand now Bonds will be on the ballot as soon as he becomes eligible. Apparently, Rose is the only baseball player in history who MLB has decided is beyond redemption and forgiveness, something that is ironic and sad considering how Josh Hamilton is praised for overcoming his addictions and that the Hall of Fame has already opened its doors to someone who was suspended for one year for consorting with gamblers (Leo Durocher) and a player who was convicted of drug smuggling (Orlando Cepeda).
Rose was selected to the All-Star team 17 times and he started at five different positions (second base, left field, right field, third base and first base). If Rose had been allowed to participate in the pregame ceremony then MLB would have had to clone him in order for him to simultaneously be present at all the spots on the field where he played at an All-Star level. Yes, there are Hall of Famers who made the All-Star team at multiple positions but as far as I know Rose is the only player who started at five different positions in All-Star play.
The ceremony was great but I found myself wondering which position Rose would have represented and how big of an ovation he would have received. He received louder cheers than anyone else when MLB had to begrudgingly include him in a similar ceremony in 1999 when the All-Century Team was chosen. The difference in that case is that corporate sponsor MasterCard insisted on including Rose, a strong indication that MLB's stance regarding Rose is hypocritical and not truly a moral stance based on upholding the integrity of the game: basically, if the price is right then MLB will recognize Rose but otherwise he is ostracized. Rose committed a serious offense and I don't think that he should be allowed to manage again but it is terrible for MLB to act like his honestly achieved playing accomplishments never took place and it will be disgusting if even one PED cheater is inducted in the Hall of Fame, especially if Rose continues to be banned.
J.D. Drew went 2-4 with a two run home run, a walk and a stolen base to claim MVP honors and the relief on Selig's face was palpable when he awarded Drew the MVP trophy. The game obviously did not have too many offensive highlights and, frankly, the first six innings were pretty boring. The only truly memorable plays during that time were a solo home run in the fifth inning by Matt Holliday and a great throw by Ichiro Suzuki to gun down Albert Pujols at second base, though replays indicated that Pujols probably beat the tag; still, it is amazing that a small guy like Ichiro has such a howitzer for an arm and Fox analyst Tim McCarver said that Ichiro is the best defensive right fielder he has seen since the legendary Hall of Famer Roberto Clemente.
While the early going was not exciting, things heated up in the seventh inning when Drew's two run shot tied the score and then the latter innings of this game featured numerous tremendous defensive plays by both teams, including several gems by Miguel Tejada and a number of bang bang plays at home plate that kept the score tied.
ESPN's Jayson Stark notes that a staggering number of records were set or tied in this All-Star Game, including, "Longest game ever (290 minutes). Most runners left on base ever (28). Most players in a box score ever (63). Most pitchers in an All-Star box score ever (23). Even most strikeouts ever (34)." The 15 innings tied a record set in 1967 and you can also add to the list of records the three errors committed by National League second baseman Dan Uggla, who also struck out three times and grounded into a double-play in what Stark aptly described as perhaps the worst All-Star performance ever.
This extra innings marathon would have been a lot more thrilling to watch if not for the dark cloud that hung over the last few innings: the very real possibility that one or both of the managers would run out of pitchers. Based on some of the interviews conducted after the game, it sounds like there was some kind of mandate from Selig that the game must have a decisive outcome no matter what, which could potentially have led to home field advantage in the World Series being decided with a position player on the mound. The only thing worse than that would be a position player--a franchise player for some team--blowing out his arm while pitching in an exhibition game.
The reason why this kind of issue never came up until recent years is that in the "good old days" the starting All-Stars played longer and there was an understanding that not every single player would get on the field if the game only went nine innings. Now, by trying to get the best of all worlds MLB annually opens up the possibility of living out a nightmare scenario: the game "counts" yet the managers try to get every player on the field (except for a few pitchers who are on the rosters but whose regular teams don't want them to pitch). If the game goes nine innings then everyone is happy but if it goes extra innings instead of celebrating baseball everyone is suddenly focused mainly on the possibility of the game ending in a tie or a farce with All-Stars playing out of position.
The other problem with the way that the All-Star Game is run is that a terrible strain is being placed on pitchers who have to warm up, then sit down, then warm up, then sit down, then go into the game. Apparently, Brad Lidge had thrown upwards of 100 warmup pitches in a two hour period before he entered the game for the National League in the 15th inning and got saddled with the loss.
The solution is simple: the starting pitchers for each team should go at least five innings, unless of course one of them is getting shelled and needs to come out sooner. Then a relief pitcher should come in for an inning or two and that process should be repeated until the end of the game. That way, guys are not repeatedly warming up and then sitting down, because they will know exactly when they are going in the game. Just being selected to the All-Star team is an honor and it is not practical to get every single player in the game. The fact is, the players who the fans voted in should get the lion's share of the innings anyway.
No one had to tell the players in the 1970s and 1980s that the All-Star Game "counted"; back then, the players felt tremendous pride in trying to win to assert the superiority of their league and that is another reason that starters (position players as well as pitchers) used to play more innings than they do now. If the game really "counts" then it should be managed more like a real game. Pete Rose ran over catcher Ray Fosse to score the winning run in the 12th inning of the 1970 All-Star Game precisely because, in Rose's mind, the game "counted"; he often has said that he could not have looked his father in the eye if he had played any other way and that he would have felt like he was cheating the fans if he did not play 100% at all times. Perhaps Rose took things to an extreme in that instance but that also reflects the intensity of the rivalry between the leagues at that time.
Speaking of Rose, I could not help but think of MLB's all-time hits leader during the pregame introductions when 49 Hall of Famers took the field at their old positions and greeted this year's All-Stars. It was great to see so many of the game's legends on the same field at the same time, let alone on the hallowed (and soon to be closed) grounds of Yankee Stadium. I also like that rather than single out one Yankee as the greatest or most worthy of recognition that Whitey Ford, Yogi Berra, Reggie Jackson and Rich "Goose" Gossage each simultaneously threw out ceremonial first pitches. Joe DiMaggio used to demand that he be introduced as the "Greatest living Yankee" but I like the way the Yankees chose to honor multiple stars (and eras) from their storied history.
Rose would surely have been a first ballot Hall of Famer if not for the Hall of Fame changing the rules after MLB banned Rose for life for the gambling that he did while managing the Cincinnati Reds after he retired as a player. In the first 55 years of its existence, the Hall of Fame never had a rule barring someone who is on the banned list from being on the Hall of Fame ballot but in 1991 the Hall hastily implemented such a rule just before Rose would have become eligible to appear on the Hall of Fame ballot. Thus, the Hall of Fame voters never had a chance to decide whether or not to vote him in, so Rose's situation differs completely from that of guys like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds; many people believe that McGwire and Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and thus McGwire has received few Hall of Fame votes and Bonds may also get much less support than he otherwise would have--but McGwire is on the ballot and as things stand now Bonds will be on the ballot as soon as he becomes eligible. Apparently, Rose is the only baseball player in history who MLB has decided is beyond redemption and forgiveness, something that is ironic and sad considering how Josh Hamilton is praised for overcoming his addictions and that the Hall of Fame has already opened its doors to someone who was suspended for one year for consorting with gamblers (Leo Durocher) and a player who was convicted of drug smuggling (Orlando Cepeda).
Rose was selected to the All-Star team 17 times and he started at five different positions (second base, left field, right field, third base and first base). If Rose had been allowed to participate in the pregame ceremony then MLB would have had to clone him in order for him to simultaneously be present at all the spots on the field where he played at an All-Star level. Yes, there are Hall of Famers who made the All-Star team at multiple positions but as far as I know Rose is the only player who started at five different positions in All-Star play.
The ceremony was great but I found myself wondering which position Rose would have represented and how big of an ovation he would have received. He received louder cheers than anyone else when MLB had to begrudgingly include him in a similar ceremony in 1999 when the All-Century Team was chosen. The difference in that case is that corporate sponsor MasterCard insisted on including Rose, a strong indication that MLB's stance regarding Rose is hypocritical and not truly a moral stance based on upholding the integrity of the game: basically, if the price is right then MLB will recognize Rose but otherwise he is ostracized. Rose committed a serious offense and I don't think that he should be allowed to manage again but it is terrible for MLB to act like his honestly achieved playing accomplishments never took place and it will be disgusting if even one PED cheater is inducted in the Hall of Fame, especially if Rose continues to be banned.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Morneau Wins Home Run Derby but Hamilton Steals the Show
Justin Morneau defeated Josh Hamilton 5-3 in the final round to win the 2008 Home Run Derby but Morneau seemed almost apologetic when he received the trophy--and for good reason: Hamilton put on a stunning show in the first round by blasting a Derby record 28 home runs, hitting 13 straight out of the park at one point. Hamilton hit so many home runs that he did not even need to take a second round swing to advance to the final round but he decided to take a few cuts to stay loose. By the final round, both players were clearly exhausted, taking full swings but only displaying warning track power for the most part. Hamilton finished with 35 home runs overall--even though he only used up four of his 10 outs in the second round--while Morneau had 22 home runs.
We have seen these kinds of anticlimactic finishes in several previous Home Run Derbys and the reason for this is obvious: the derby lasts too long and fatigue inevitably sets in, all but ensuring that the best slugger does not win because he wears himself out in the early rounds. It makes no sense that after carrying over the home runs from the first round to the second round the totals are reset before the final round; it's like we are supposed to imagine that we did not really watch Hamilton put on one of the most amazing exhibitions of batting practice power ever. Hamilton blasted several of the longest shots in Home Run Derby history, including a 518 foot rocket that is the third longest ever launched in the event, trailing only Sammy Sosa's 524 foot homer in 2002 and Frank Thomas' 519 foot homer in 1994.
Leave it to Major League Baseball to provide two hours of great entertainment and still find a way to end the night on a down note. I have nothing against Morneau, who performed well, but it was almost painful to watch he and Hamilton struggle to hit the ball out of the park in the final round. Instead of being dramatic, the final matchup was sloppy and unsatisfying. The Home Run Derby should either reduce the number of outs per round or, even better, simply eliminate one round entirely. That would lead to a much more high quality event and make it more likely that the best slugger on that night actually takes home the trophy.
The Home Run Derby is baseball's version of the Slam Dunk Contest and the two events will always fascinate and captivate young and old fans alike for a simple reason: the vast majority of people can neither dunk a basketball nor hit a pitch--even a grooved batting practice pitch--out of a baseball stadium. It is truly wondrous to see the greatest athletes in a sport put their talents on display. Watching Hamilton hit home runs or Dwight Howard dunk is seeing a perfect blending of talent, timing and explosive power.
We have seen these kinds of anticlimactic finishes in several previous Home Run Derbys and the reason for this is obvious: the derby lasts too long and fatigue inevitably sets in, all but ensuring that the best slugger does not win because he wears himself out in the early rounds. It makes no sense that after carrying over the home runs from the first round to the second round the totals are reset before the final round; it's like we are supposed to imagine that we did not really watch Hamilton put on one of the most amazing exhibitions of batting practice power ever. Hamilton blasted several of the longest shots in Home Run Derby history, including a 518 foot rocket that is the third longest ever launched in the event, trailing only Sammy Sosa's 524 foot homer in 2002 and Frank Thomas' 519 foot homer in 1994.
Leave it to Major League Baseball to provide two hours of great entertainment and still find a way to end the night on a down note. I have nothing against Morneau, who performed well, but it was almost painful to watch he and Hamilton struggle to hit the ball out of the park in the final round. Instead of being dramatic, the final matchup was sloppy and unsatisfying. The Home Run Derby should either reduce the number of outs per round or, even better, simply eliminate one round entirely. That would lead to a much more high quality event and make it more likely that the best slugger on that night actually takes home the trophy.
The Home Run Derby is baseball's version of the Slam Dunk Contest and the two events will always fascinate and captivate young and old fans alike for a simple reason: the vast majority of people can neither dunk a basketball nor hit a pitch--even a grooved batting practice pitch--out of a baseball stadium. It is truly wondrous to see the greatest athletes in a sport put their talents on display. Watching Hamilton hit home runs or Dwight Howard dunk is seeing a perfect blending of talent, timing and explosive power.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Eric Davis: "Like Having an Atomic Bomb Sitting Next to You in the Dugout"
Baseball has never thrilled or excited me the way that some other sports--particularly basketball--do but a handful of great baseball players have captivated me as much as any athletes in any sport and right at the top of that list is the wondrous Eric Davis. In 1986 and 1987 it seemed possible that he might become the greatest all-around baseball player ever. If that statement sounds absurd to you, then check out the words that the equally incomparable Ralph Wiley used to open his May 25, 1987 Sports Illustrated cover story about Davis:
Let's get it straight from the beginning. Eric Davis is not Willie Mays or Henry Aaron or Roberto Clemente. Eric Davis is E. That's it, just E, the single-letter nickname his friends know him by. E's friends are everywhere now, and many of them never saw Mays or Aaron or Clemente. Children who play on scarred inner-city blacktops, manicured suburban lawns and wide-open country fields join E's legions with every sweet, vicious swing of his 32-ounce bat. That's E, as in Everything—which is what the new Cincinnati Reds star has.
"Eric is the one guy who can lead our league in home runs and stolen bases," says Pete Rose, Davis' manager. "Name me another cleanup hitter who can steal 100 bases. Name one. It's like having an atomic bomb sitting next to you in the dugout."
"Eric," says the Reds' six-time All-Star outfielder Dave Parker, "is blessed with world-class speed, great leaping ability, the body to play until he's 42, tremendous bat speed and power, and a throwing arm you wouldn't believe. There's an aura to everything he does. I tell you frankly that I'd pay to see him if I had to."
Everyone who has paid to see Eric Davis lately has gotten his money's worth. As most of America knows, E is off to one of the all-around best starts in National League history. His numbers: .358 average, 15 homers, 36 runs scored, 16 steals, 38 RBIs, and two weeks still remaining in the month of May. But it's the ease with which he has amassed these stats that has astonished older fans and enraptured younger ones. Meanwhile, baseball cognoscenti are left with an inescapable conclusion: To find an appropriate comparison for the soon-to-be 25-year-old outfielder, one must hark back to the '50s and '60s, to Mays and Aaron and Clemente.
Davis was the Swiss Army knife of five-tool players; he had more tools than Home Depot: Davis could hit for average, hit for power, run, field his position with amazing range/stunning grace and throw like he had a bazooka attached to his shoulder. He specialized in using whatever tool was necessary to win a particular game, delivering game winning RBI, game saving catches and game breaking steals with equal aplomb. Wiley noted that after a 2-0 Reds victory over the Mets during which Davis scored a run, stole three bases and robbed Darryl Strawberry of a home run with a catch of which Rose said, "I didn't think Superman could get to that ball," Mays commented, "It's an honor to be compared to Eric Davis. I hope Eric is honored." Aaron declared, "Eric Davis has unlimited ability—awesome ability. I don't think he'll be Willie Mays. That would take some doing. But, on the other hand, I don't think he has a weakness, either."
In that magical summer of 1987, Davis set NL records for grand slams in one month (three in May) and most home runs by the end of May (19). He won the NL Player of the Month Award in April and May. Although injuries limited him to 129 games, he still finished with 37 home runs (fourth in the NL), 100 RBI (eighth), 120 runs scored (third), 50 stolen bases (fourth), a .593 slugging percentage (second) and a .293 batting average. At that time he was just the seventh 30-30 player and he reached those numbers earlier in the season than anyone ever had. Davis was the first 30-50 player in MLB history, a feat later matched by Barry Bonds.
The previous season, Davis put up these gaudy numbers while playing in three more games but with 59 fewer at bats: 27 home runs (fifth in the NL), 71 RBI, 97 runs scored (third), 80 stolen bases (second) and a .523 slugging percentage (which would have ranked second if he had enough at bats to qualify). Davis and Rickey Henderson (who had 28 home runs and 87 stolen bases in 1986) remain the only 25-80 players in MLB history.
It may be hard for younger fans to believe but before Mark McGwire did whatever he does not want to talk about and Barry Bonds (allegedly) used various performance-enhancing drugs to become the not so jolly home run bashing Giant, a 30-plus home run season was quite an accomplishment, because 40 home run seasons were exceptional and 50 home run seasons were very rare. Only one player hit at least 50 home runs in a season between 1965 and 1976 (Willie Mays hit 52 in 1965), while between 1977 (George Foster, 52) and 1990 (Cecil Fielder, 51) no MLB player hit 50 or more home runs in a season; in many of the years between 1965 and 1990, 37 would have been good enough to be a league-leading total and Davis blasted that many home runs in 1987 despite missing a fifth of the season and being a premier base stealer.
Davis won three straight Gold Gloves (1987-89) and in both 1987 and 1989 he made the All-Star Team and won the Silver Slugger Award. He also won the 1989 Home Run Derby. Davis ranked in the top ten in the NL in home runs, slugging percentage and OPS (on base percentage plus slugging) each year from 1986-89. He was not only a prolific base stealer but also a very efficient one: Davis was never caught stealing in high school or in his first year of pro ball and his stolen base percentage of 84.1 ranks second in MLB history behind Tim Raines (84.7) ; Davis' 85.0 NL stolen base percentage is also second behind Raines (85.7).
In 1990, Davis had 24 home runs and 86 RBI for a Reds team that led the NL West wire to wire and then swept the powerful Oakland A's in the World Series. Davis hit a two-run home run in his first World Series at bat to give the Reds a 2-0 first inning lead in game one, setting the tone for a 7-0 victory over the defending World Champions. Davis was not able to celebrate the sweep with his teammates because he suffered a potentially life threatening kidney laceration while diving for a ball in the outfield during game four. He was hospitalized for 11 days. Reds' owner Marge Schott did not even pay for his plane ride back to Cincinnati and after Davis labored through an injury-riddled 1991 season the Reds traded him to the L.A. Dodgers.
Davis continued to struggle with his health and in 1993 the Dodgers traded him to the Detroit Tigers. A disc injury in his neck limited him to just 37 games in 1994 and he retired after that season. However, by 1996 Davis had recuperated sufficiently from his various ailments to attempt a comeback and he was literally a smashing success, blasting 26 home runs and 83 RBI in 129 games for the Reds. He even stole 23 bases. Davis won the NL Comeback Player of the Year Award but did not get along well with Manager Ray Knight and thus decided to sign with Baltimore as a free agent. Davis' Baltimore career hardly began before he was diagnosed with colon cancer. He vowed to return before the end of the season and was true to his word, overcoming surgery and chemotherapy to rejoin the team's lineup in September. Davis hit a ninth inning home run in the Orioles' 4-2 victory in game five of the ALCS but the Cleveland Indians won game six to advance to the World Series. Davis won the Roberto Clemente, Hutch and Tony Conigliaro Awards in 1997, honors that acknowledged his character, fighting spirit and ability to overcome adversity.
Although Davis was no longer a base stealing threat, in 1998 he proved that at 36 years of age he still had a lot of pop left in his bat, ranking fourth in the AL with a career high .327 average while hitting 28 home runs and notching 89 RBI. Davis ranked eighth in on base percentage (.388), ninth in slugging percentage (.582) and 10th in OPS (.970). He also had a 30 game hitting streak that season, setting an Orioles franchise record. Davis finished his career by playing two seasons in St. Louis and one in San Francisco.
We will never know for sure what Davis could have accomplished had he been healthier during his career but he hit at least 20 home runs in eight different seasons and he persevered long enough to amass 282 home runs and 349 stolen bases in 17 MLB seasons.
Let's get it straight from the beginning. Eric Davis is not Willie Mays or Henry Aaron or Roberto Clemente. Eric Davis is E. That's it, just E, the single-letter nickname his friends know him by. E's friends are everywhere now, and many of them never saw Mays or Aaron or Clemente. Children who play on scarred inner-city blacktops, manicured suburban lawns and wide-open country fields join E's legions with every sweet, vicious swing of his 32-ounce bat. That's E, as in Everything—which is what the new Cincinnati Reds star has.
"Eric is the one guy who can lead our league in home runs and stolen bases," says Pete Rose, Davis' manager. "Name me another cleanup hitter who can steal 100 bases. Name one. It's like having an atomic bomb sitting next to you in the dugout."
"Eric," says the Reds' six-time All-Star outfielder Dave Parker, "is blessed with world-class speed, great leaping ability, the body to play until he's 42, tremendous bat speed and power, and a throwing arm you wouldn't believe. There's an aura to everything he does. I tell you frankly that I'd pay to see him if I had to."
Everyone who has paid to see Eric Davis lately has gotten his money's worth. As most of America knows, E is off to one of the all-around best starts in National League history. His numbers: .358 average, 15 homers, 36 runs scored, 16 steals, 38 RBIs, and two weeks still remaining in the month of May. But it's the ease with which he has amassed these stats that has astonished older fans and enraptured younger ones. Meanwhile, baseball cognoscenti are left with an inescapable conclusion: To find an appropriate comparison for the soon-to-be 25-year-old outfielder, one must hark back to the '50s and '60s, to Mays and Aaron and Clemente.
Davis was the Swiss Army knife of five-tool players; he had more tools than Home Depot: Davis could hit for average, hit for power, run, field his position with amazing range/stunning grace and throw like he had a bazooka attached to his shoulder. He specialized in using whatever tool was necessary to win a particular game, delivering game winning RBI, game saving catches and game breaking steals with equal aplomb. Wiley noted that after a 2-0 Reds victory over the Mets during which Davis scored a run, stole three bases and robbed Darryl Strawberry of a home run with a catch of which Rose said, "I didn't think Superman could get to that ball," Mays commented, "It's an honor to be compared to Eric Davis. I hope Eric is honored." Aaron declared, "Eric Davis has unlimited ability—awesome ability. I don't think he'll be Willie Mays. That would take some doing. But, on the other hand, I don't think he has a weakness, either."
In that magical summer of 1987, Davis set NL records for grand slams in one month (three in May) and most home runs by the end of May (19). He won the NL Player of the Month Award in April and May. Although injuries limited him to 129 games, he still finished with 37 home runs (fourth in the NL), 100 RBI (eighth), 120 runs scored (third), 50 stolen bases (fourth), a .593 slugging percentage (second) and a .293 batting average. At that time he was just the seventh 30-30 player and he reached those numbers earlier in the season than anyone ever had. Davis was the first 30-50 player in MLB history, a feat later matched by Barry Bonds.
The previous season, Davis put up these gaudy numbers while playing in three more games but with 59 fewer at bats: 27 home runs (fifth in the NL), 71 RBI, 97 runs scored (third), 80 stolen bases (second) and a .523 slugging percentage (which would have ranked second if he had enough at bats to qualify). Davis and Rickey Henderson (who had 28 home runs and 87 stolen bases in 1986) remain the only 25-80 players in MLB history.
It may be hard for younger fans to believe but before Mark McGwire did whatever he does not want to talk about and Barry Bonds (allegedly) used various performance-enhancing drugs to become the not so jolly home run bashing Giant, a 30-plus home run season was quite an accomplishment, because 40 home run seasons were exceptional and 50 home run seasons were very rare. Only one player hit at least 50 home runs in a season between 1965 and 1976 (Willie Mays hit 52 in 1965), while between 1977 (George Foster, 52) and 1990 (Cecil Fielder, 51) no MLB player hit 50 or more home runs in a season; in many of the years between 1965 and 1990, 37 would have been good enough to be a league-leading total and Davis blasted that many home runs in 1987 despite missing a fifth of the season and being a premier base stealer.
Davis won three straight Gold Gloves (1987-89) and in both 1987 and 1989 he made the All-Star Team and won the Silver Slugger Award. He also won the 1989 Home Run Derby. Davis ranked in the top ten in the NL in home runs, slugging percentage and OPS (on base percentage plus slugging) each year from 1986-89. He was not only a prolific base stealer but also a very efficient one: Davis was never caught stealing in high school or in his first year of pro ball and his stolen base percentage of 84.1 ranks second in MLB history behind Tim Raines (84.7) ; Davis' 85.0 NL stolen base percentage is also second behind Raines (85.7).
In 1990, Davis had 24 home runs and 86 RBI for a Reds team that led the NL West wire to wire and then swept the powerful Oakland A's in the World Series. Davis hit a two-run home run in his first World Series at bat to give the Reds a 2-0 first inning lead in game one, setting the tone for a 7-0 victory over the defending World Champions. Davis was not able to celebrate the sweep with his teammates because he suffered a potentially life threatening kidney laceration while diving for a ball in the outfield during game four. He was hospitalized for 11 days. Reds' owner Marge Schott did not even pay for his plane ride back to Cincinnati and after Davis labored through an injury-riddled 1991 season the Reds traded him to the L.A. Dodgers.
Davis continued to struggle with his health and in 1993 the Dodgers traded him to the Detroit Tigers. A disc injury in his neck limited him to just 37 games in 1994 and he retired after that season. However, by 1996 Davis had recuperated sufficiently from his various ailments to attempt a comeback and he was literally a smashing success, blasting 26 home runs and 83 RBI in 129 games for the Reds. He even stole 23 bases. Davis won the NL Comeback Player of the Year Award but did not get along well with Manager Ray Knight and thus decided to sign with Baltimore as a free agent. Davis' Baltimore career hardly began before he was diagnosed with colon cancer. He vowed to return before the end of the season and was true to his word, overcoming surgery and chemotherapy to rejoin the team's lineup in September. Davis hit a ninth inning home run in the Orioles' 4-2 victory in game five of the ALCS but the Cleveland Indians won game six to advance to the World Series. Davis won the Roberto Clemente, Hutch and Tony Conigliaro Awards in 1997, honors that acknowledged his character, fighting spirit and ability to overcome adversity.
Although Davis was no longer a base stealing threat, in 1998 he proved that at 36 years of age he still had a lot of pop left in his bat, ranking fourth in the AL with a career high .327 average while hitting 28 home runs and notching 89 RBI. Davis ranked eighth in on base percentage (.388), ninth in slugging percentage (.582) and 10th in OPS (.970). He also had a 30 game hitting streak that season, setting an Orioles franchise record. Davis finished his career by playing two seasons in St. Louis and one in San Francisco.
We will never know for sure what Davis could have accomplished had he been healthier during his career but he hit at least 20 home runs in eight different seasons and he persevered long enough to amass 282 home runs and 349 stolen bases in 17 MLB seasons.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Rafael Nadal Is Coming for That Number One Spot
"Whoa! Don't slip up or get got! (Why not man?)
I'm comin' for that number one spot!"--Ludacris, "Number One Spot"
The official computer rankings still say otherwise but Rafael Nadal's 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5-7), 6-7 (8-10), 9-7 victory over Roger Federer in the Wimbledon Final certainly seems to signal a changing of the guard at the top of the tennis world. Nadal became the first male player to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year since Bjorn Borg, who incredibly accomplished this feat three years in a row (1978-80). Federer retains his number one overall ranking but no one can really consider him to be the best player in the world now: Nadal not only owns a 12-6 head to head advantage over Federer but Nadal defeated Federer in this year's French Open and Wimbledon Finals. The clay at Roland Garros is Nadal's best surface and he has won four straight titles there, matching Borg's record (1978-81), but Wimbledon's grass had been home turf for Federer, who was seeking to break another Borg record by capturing a sixth straight Wimbledon title.
After Federer beat Nadal in a tough five set match in last year's Wimbledon Final, I predicted that Nadal would flip the script this year: "I think that Nadal is closer to beating Federer on grass than Federer is to beating Nadal on clay and that 2008 could very well be Nadal's opportunity to match another Borg feat: winning the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year." Then, when Nadal destroyed Federer in straight sets in this year's French Open Final, I declared, "For quite some time, people have been trying to anoint Federer as the greatest tennis player of all-time but despite his impressive accomplishments it makes no sense to confer that title on him when it is not even certain that he will be considered the best player of the current era: his main rival Nadal owns an 11-6 head to head record against him and has come much closer to beating him on the grass at Wimbledon than Federer has come to defeating him on the clay at the French Open. Considering that Nadal is almost five years younger than Federer it is entirely possible that he will eclipse what Federer has done; after all, five years ago Federer had just won his first Grand Slam, while Nadal already owns four Grand Slam titles, beating Federer along the way each time."
It is interesting that it takes the combined efforts of the two best players of this era to challenge the marks that Borg set three decades ago; Nadal has been taking aim at Borg's French Open records, while Federer has been pursuing Borg's Wimbledon standards. By winning at both venues this year Nadal has elevated himself above Federer and if Nadal adds some more Wimbledon and French Open trophies to his collection then it will be possible to compare his career to Borg's.
Prior to the Federer-Nadal Wimbledon Final, three-time Wimbledon champion John McEnroe recalled his two Wimbledon battles with Borg. In the 1980 Wimbledon Final, McEnroe won the fourth set tiebreak and seemed poised to end Borg's Wimbledon winning streak at four titles, but Borg bounced back to capture the fifth set and thus earn his fifth Wimbledon crown. McEnroe recalled, "When I won that fourth set breaker, I said, 'This thing is over. I think I'm going to get it done. He's won four in a row. He can't dig that much deeper and want it that much more badly.' He taught me a lesson that true champions--great, great champions--find another gear and find some more willpower. He made me hungrier. I think there is a very similar situation with what happened last year with Federer. He was in the fifth set and Nadal had him on the ropes...I know Nadal thought he should have won the match and I know I thought that I should have won that match in 1980. Federer showed that extra will...(In 2008) Nadal has found another gear and he's gotten quite a bit better." McEnroe's words proved to be very prescient.
McEnroe added, "We should really appreciate this moment for what it is, the magnitude of the occasion for our sport. We do try to build up every Final but in this particular case I think that it is justified. When I played Borg in 1981 and won that match little did I ever think that that would be his final match here at Wimbledon. Who would have thought that (Justine) Henin would quit 10 days before the French Open? I'm not suggesting that's going to happen with Federer...but I think that we should enjoy this for the spectacular occasion that it is."
Nadal jumped on Federer right from the start, taking advantage of three of his first four break point opportunities to claim a two sets to none lead; Federer actually had more break point opportunities during those sets (six) but he only converted one of them. As ESPN commentator Patrick McEnroe put it late in the second set, "Every crucial point somehow Nadal has found a way to win it." While Nadal was making points, Federer was making excuses, visibly upset that gusts of wind affected some of his shots; of course, the same thing happened to Nadal as well and Patrick McEnroe said, "Federer has to get it out of his head because nobody is going to remember that it was windy if he loses this match."
Federer did not convert any of his break point opportunities in the third and fourth sets but he scored "mini breaks" in both tiebreakers to win those sets. Nadal raced to a 5-2 lead in the fourth set tiebreaker and later squandered two match points, including one on his serve. Incredibly, after taking a two sets to none lead Nadal came within three points of losing the match in the fifth set before rallying to win the 14th game. Nadal then broke Federer--the first break by either player since the second set--and held serve to win the match.
Nadal and Federer both played at a very high level in this match and it is doubtful that any other player in the world could have beaten Federer on Sunday. Nevertheless, Federer's candidacy for the hypothetical title of greatest player of all-time has taken a serious beating this year. The lack of a French Open title is a giant hole in Federer's resume, as is the fact that his main rival is much younger than he is and has a dominant score in their head to head encounters; it does not seem likely that Federer will be able to do much to address either situation: if Federer could not win the French Open or have an overall advantage versus Nadal during his prime years then it is not logical to expect him to reverse those trends now.
Even when Federer was at the absolute peak of his powers Nadal still held the head to head advantage, a fact that some people dismissed by noting that the vast majority of Nadal's wins over Federer came on clay--but that is not relevant in a discussion about the greatest player of all-time, because the greatest player of all-time should be able to win on multiple surfaces and should not have a losing record against his main rival. Nadal is just entering his prime years but he already owns four more Grand Slam wins than Federer did at the same age. Just like I thought that it was too soon to call Federer the greatest of all-time two or three years ago, I think that it is too soon to call Nadal the greatest of all-time now--but in many ways Nadal seems to be making a more potent case to claim that title than Federer ever did. Who can say for sure that in four or five years Nadal won't own more career Grand Slam titles than Federer's 12? Nadal has more speed and hits with more power than Federer and Nadal is also in better physical condition; perhaps Federer has a more delicate touch on certain shots but that is not enough to cancel out Nadal's advantages. The closeness of the Wimbledon Final--Nadal scored just five more points than Federer--is a little deceptive because, as Patrick McEnroe noted, Nadal seemed to win all of the big points. Obviously, that is not literally true or else Nadal would have triumphed in straight sets but whatever mystique or aura that Federer has relative to other players simply does not affect Nadal at all.
I'm comin' for that number one spot!"--Ludacris, "Number One Spot"
The official computer rankings still say otherwise but Rafael Nadal's 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5-7), 6-7 (8-10), 9-7 victory over Roger Federer in the Wimbledon Final certainly seems to signal a changing of the guard at the top of the tennis world. Nadal became the first male player to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year since Bjorn Borg, who incredibly accomplished this feat three years in a row (1978-80). Federer retains his number one overall ranking but no one can really consider him to be the best player in the world now: Nadal not only owns a 12-6 head to head advantage over Federer but Nadal defeated Federer in this year's French Open and Wimbledon Finals. The clay at Roland Garros is Nadal's best surface and he has won four straight titles there, matching Borg's record (1978-81), but Wimbledon's grass had been home turf for Federer, who was seeking to break another Borg record by capturing a sixth straight Wimbledon title.
After Federer beat Nadal in a tough five set match in last year's Wimbledon Final, I predicted that Nadal would flip the script this year: "I think that Nadal is closer to beating Federer on grass than Federer is to beating Nadal on clay and that 2008 could very well be Nadal's opportunity to match another Borg feat: winning the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year." Then, when Nadal destroyed Federer in straight sets in this year's French Open Final, I declared, "For quite some time, people have been trying to anoint Federer as the greatest tennis player of all-time but despite his impressive accomplishments it makes no sense to confer that title on him when it is not even certain that he will be considered the best player of the current era: his main rival Nadal owns an 11-6 head to head record against him and has come much closer to beating him on the grass at Wimbledon than Federer has come to defeating him on the clay at the French Open. Considering that Nadal is almost five years younger than Federer it is entirely possible that he will eclipse what Federer has done; after all, five years ago Federer had just won his first Grand Slam, while Nadal already owns four Grand Slam titles, beating Federer along the way each time."
It is interesting that it takes the combined efforts of the two best players of this era to challenge the marks that Borg set three decades ago; Nadal has been taking aim at Borg's French Open records, while Federer has been pursuing Borg's Wimbledon standards. By winning at both venues this year Nadal has elevated himself above Federer and if Nadal adds some more Wimbledon and French Open trophies to his collection then it will be possible to compare his career to Borg's.
Prior to the Federer-Nadal Wimbledon Final, three-time Wimbledon champion John McEnroe recalled his two Wimbledon battles with Borg. In the 1980 Wimbledon Final, McEnroe won the fourth set tiebreak and seemed poised to end Borg's Wimbledon winning streak at four titles, but Borg bounced back to capture the fifth set and thus earn his fifth Wimbledon crown. McEnroe recalled, "When I won that fourth set breaker, I said, 'This thing is over. I think I'm going to get it done. He's won four in a row. He can't dig that much deeper and want it that much more badly.' He taught me a lesson that true champions--great, great champions--find another gear and find some more willpower. He made me hungrier. I think there is a very similar situation with what happened last year with Federer. He was in the fifth set and Nadal had him on the ropes...I know Nadal thought he should have won the match and I know I thought that I should have won that match in 1980. Federer showed that extra will...(In 2008) Nadal has found another gear and he's gotten quite a bit better." McEnroe's words proved to be very prescient.
McEnroe added, "We should really appreciate this moment for what it is, the magnitude of the occasion for our sport. We do try to build up every Final but in this particular case I think that it is justified. When I played Borg in 1981 and won that match little did I ever think that that would be his final match here at Wimbledon. Who would have thought that (Justine) Henin would quit 10 days before the French Open? I'm not suggesting that's going to happen with Federer...but I think that we should enjoy this for the spectacular occasion that it is."
Nadal jumped on Federer right from the start, taking advantage of three of his first four break point opportunities to claim a two sets to none lead; Federer actually had more break point opportunities during those sets (six) but he only converted one of them. As ESPN commentator Patrick McEnroe put it late in the second set, "Every crucial point somehow Nadal has found a way to win it." While Nadal was making points, Federer was making excuses, visibly upset that gusts of wind affected some of his shots; of course, the same thing happened to Nadal as well and Patrick McEnroe said, "Federer has to get it out of his head because nobody is going to remember that it was windy if he loses this match."
Federer did not convert any of his break point opportunities in the third and fourth sets but he scored "mini breaks" in both tiebreakers to win those sets. Nadal raced to a 5-2 lead in the fourth set tiebreaker and later squandered two match points, including one on his serve. Incredibly, after taking a two sets to none lead Nadal came within three points of losing the match in the fifth set before rallying to win the 14th game. Nadal then broke Federer--the first break by either player since the second set--and held serve to win the match.
Nadal and Federer both played at a very high level in this match and it is doubtful that any other player in the world could have beaten Federer on Sunday. Nevertheless, Federer's candidacy for the hypothetical title of greatest player of all-time has taken a serious beating this year. The lack of a French Open title is a giant hole in Federer's resume, as is the fact that his main rival is much younger than he is and has a dominant score in their head to head encounters; it does not seem likely that Federer will be able to do much to address either situation: if Federer could not win the French Open or have an overall advantage versus Nadal during his prime years then it is not logical to expect him to reverse those trends now.
Even when Federer was at the absolute peak of his powers Nadal still held the head to head advantage, a fact that some people dismissed by noting that the vast majority of Nadal's wins over Federer came on clay--but that is not relevant in a discussion about the greatest player of all-time, because the greatest player of all-time should be able to win on multiple surfaces and should not have a losing record against his main rival. Nadal is just entering his prime years but he already owns four more Grand Slam wins than Federer did at the same age. Just like I thought that it was too soon to call Federer the greatest of all-time two or three years ago, I think that it is too soon to call Nadal the greatest of all-time now--but in many ways Nadal seems to be making a more potent case to claim that title than Federer ever did. Who can say for sure that in four or five years Nadal won't own more career Grand Slam titles than Federer's 12? Nadal has more speed and hits with more power than Federer and Nadal is also in better physical condition; perhaps Federer has a more delicate touch on certain shots but that is not enough to cancel out Nadal's advantages. The closeness of the Wimbledon Final--Nadal scored just five more points than Federer--is a little deceptive because, as Patrick McEnroe noted, Nadal seemed to win all of the big points. Obviously, that is not literally true or else Nadal would have triumphed in straight sets but whatever mystique or aura that Federer has relative to other players simply does not affect Nadal at all.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Torres' Tough Training Pays Off
Dara Torres' intense training methods have helped the 41 year old, nine-time Olympic medalist to qualify for her fifth Olympic appearance. On Friday night she won the 100-meter freestyle at the U.S. Olympic Trials and on Saturday at the Olympic Trials she set an American record in the 50-meter freestyle, winning her semifinal heat in 24.38 seconds. Torres will swim in the 50-meter freestyle final on Sunday to attempt to qualify for a second event in the upcoming Beijing Olympics.
Torres celebrates setting an American record in the 50-meter freestyle.
Torres hugs Emily Silver on Friday night after Torres won
the women's 100-meter freestyle.
Torres celebrates setting an American record in the 50-meter freestyle.
Torres hugs Emily Silver on Friday night after Torres wonthe women's 100-meter freestyle.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Brett Favre's Selfishness
Brett Favre is not Michael Jordan, the Green Bay Packers are not the Chicago Bulls circa 1995 and the NFL is not the NBA. In other words, a Favre comeback is unlikely to lead to even one championship for Green Bay, let alone three. Favre acknowledged this reality when he announced his retirement four months ago, saying that anything less than winning a Super Bowl would be a failure for him at this point and that the odds were against the Packers doing better in 2008 than they did in their dream 2007 season during which everything came together perfectly. So why is Favre reprising his role as Achilles in the tent pondering whether or not to return to battle?
Despite the constant attempts by his fawning fans in the media to airbrush his image, Favre has demonstrated his selfishness on several occasions. For instance, in 2004 when wide receiver Javon Walker made the Pro Bowl and wanted to restructure his contract with the Packers, Favre--who of course already had his big money deal in place--publicly took management's side, breaking the "code" that players do not interfere with other players' contract negotiations. Walker ultimately reported to camp without getting a new deal and promptly suffered a season-ending knee injury. Favre is also notorious for not providing much guidance for his backup Aaron Rodgers; at one point, Favre bluntly said that the Packers were paying him to play, not to be a coach. Red Auerbach's Boston Celtics had a completely different approach when they won 11 championships in 13 seasons: sixth man Frank Ramsey schooled John Havlicek in the ways of the NBA and veterans like Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman similarly helped K.C. Jones and Sam Jones.
For the past several years, Favre has effectively held the Packers' future hostage with his annual vacillations about retiring--and it's not like Favre has been leading the Packers to championships during this time: they went 4-12 in 2005 and 8-8 in 2006 before their 13-3 storybook campaign last year. Favre has a 3-5 playoff record since 2002, with 14 touchdowns and 16 interceptions in those games; the three times that he had a passer rating over 100 the Packers won but he also had three games with a passer rating lower than 56 and the Packers lost by at least 14 points on each of those occasions.
The Packers do not want Favre to come back but if anyone in the organization says that then they will be painted as the bad guys. Meanwhile, Favre holds the franchise, the players and the loyal Packer fans in limbo while he decides what he thinks is in his best interest. No one can question Favre's skills, toughness or competitive zeal--but any other player who repeatedly displayed such selfishness would be loudly condemned.
Despite the constant attempts by his fawning fans in the media to airbrush his image, Favre has demonstrated his selfishness on several occasions. For instance, in 2004 when wide receiver Javon Walker made the Pro Bowl and wanted to restructure his contract with the Packers, Favre--who of course already had his big money deal in place--publicly took management's side, breaking the "code" that players do not interfere with other players' contract negotiations. Walker ultimately reported to camp without getting a new deal and promptly suffered a season-ending knee injury. Favre is also notorious for not providing much guidance for his backup Aaron Rodgers; at one point, Favre bluntly said that the Packers were paying him to play, not to be a coach. Red Auerbach's Boston Celtics had a completely different approach when they won 11 championships in 13 seasons: sixth man Frank Ramsey schooled John Havlicek in the ways of the NBA and veterans like Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman similarly helped K.C. Jones and Sam Jones.
For the past several years, Favre has effectively held the Packers' future hostage with his annual vacillations about retiring--and it's not like Favre has been leading the Packers to championships during this time: they went 4-12 in 2005 and 8-8 in 2006 before their 13-3 storybook campaign last year. Favre has a 3-5 playoff record since 2002, with 14 touchdowns and 16 interceptions in those games; the three times that he had a passer rating over 100 the Packers won but he also had three games with a passer rating lower than 56 and the Packers lost by at least 14 points on each of those occasions.
The Packers do not want Favre to come back but if anyone in the organization says that then they will be painted as the bad guys. Meanwhile, Favre holds the franchise, the players and the loyal Packer fans in limbo while he decides what he thinks is in his best interest. No one can question Favre's skills, toughness or competitive zeal--but any other player who repeatedly displayed such selfishness would be loudly condemned.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Dara Torres Turns Back the Clock in Bid to Make Olympic Team for Fifth Time
Dara Torres has already won nine medals in four different Olympic years (1984, 1988, 1992, 2000) but she is far from resting on her laurels: the 41 year old swimmer, who set the first of her three world records as a 14 year old in 1982, is employing a unique stretching and conditioning program that is enabling her to beat competitors who are less than half of her age. You can read all about her in this New York Times article by Elizabeth Weil.
Here is some visual proof of how well conditioned Torres is:
Here is some visual proof of how well conditioned Torres is:
MLB Should Not Accept McGwire Until He Says the Magic Words
Mark McGwire is either a home run hitting hero whose good name has been wrongly smeared or a one dimensional player who augmented his main skill--crushing baseballs--by taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). Ever since he infamously told a Congressional panel in 2005 that he did not want to "talk about the past," McGwire has been in de facto baseball exile. He has all but disappeared from the public eye and the slugger who briefly held the single season home run record received less than a fourth of the vote both times he has been on the Hall of Fame ballot (a candidate must receive 75% of the vote to be inducted).
Now, McGwire and some of his friends are testing the waters to see if MLB and the general public would be willing to accept the idea of McGwire returning to the big leagues, this time as a hitting instructor. As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friend." Unlike Pete Rose, McGwire has not been formally banned by MLB, so any team is free to hire him if he and the team think that they can deal with the inevitable public relations backlash--but there is a lot more at stake here than p.r. Point blank, either McGwire cheated or he didn't. If McGwire did not cheat, then he should explain why he clammed up in front of Congress and he should reveal everything he knows about the PED culture that permeated MLB during his playing days; if McGwire did cheat, then he should be a man and forthrightly say exactly what he did and when he did it. In either case, he should become actively involved in efforts to cleanse his sport of PED cheaters.
Until McGwire comes clean--one way or the other--and says a lot more than "I'm not here to talk about the past" MLB should continue to keep its distance from him. McGwire's silence not only calls his own feats and statistics into question but casts doubt on many ball players who did not cheat but had the misfortune of playing during the "Steroids Era."MLB literally dropped the ball by not instituting testing and not monitoring this situation until long past the time that it became a serious problem and thus we may never know for sure who cheated and who did not. As a central figure in this drama, it is McGwire's responsibility to set the record straight about exactly what he did and what he knows. If he is not willing to do that, then he should remain in exile.
Now, McGwire and some of his friends are testing the waters to see if MLB and the general public would be willing to accept the idea of McGwire returning to the big leagues, this time as a hitting instructor. As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friend." Unlike Pete Rose, McGwire has not been formally banned by MLB, so any team is free to hire him if he and the team think that they can deal with the inevitable public relations backlash--but there is a lot more at stake here than p.r. Point blank, either McGwire cheated or he didn't. If McGwire did not cheat, then he should explain why he clammed up in front of Congress and he should reveal everything he knows about the PED culture that permeated MLB during his playing days; if McGwire did cheat, then he should be a man and forthrightly say exactly what he did and when he did it. In either case, he should become actively involved in efforts to cleanse his sport of PED cheaters.
Until McGwire comes clean--one way or the other--and says a lot more than "I'm not here to talk about the past" MLB should continue to keep its distance from him. McGwire's silence not only calls his own feats and statistics into question but casts doubt on many ball players who did not cheat but had the misfortune of playing during the "Steroids Era."MLB literally dropped the ball by not instituting testing and not monitoring this situation until long past the time that it became a serious problem and thus we may never know for sure who cheated and who did not. As a central figure in this drama, it is McGwire's responsibility to set the record straight about exactly what he did and what he knows. If he is not willing to do that, then he should remain in exile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
