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.
Monday, July 28, 2008
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.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
"Smokin' Joe" Frazier Fires Off One Liners in Guest Appearance on Friday Night Fights
Joe Frazier, the World Heavyweight Boxing Champion from 1968-73, compiled a 32-4-1 career record, with 27 knockouts; his only losses were to Muhammad Ali and George Foreman (twice each), while his lone draw came in his last bout at the age of 37. Frazier will always be remembered for his trilogy of fights with Ali, winning the first battle--dubbed "The Fight of the Century"--on March 8, 1971 to retain his Heavyweight crown and then losing epic rematches in 1974 and in 1975, the famous "Thrilla in Manila."
Ali taunted Frazier relentlessly, calling him a "gorilla" and saying that he was too ugly to be the champion. While fans may have found the banter entertaining, Frazier took Ali's words to heart and the wounds are still fresh even decades later. After Ali lit the torch at the 1996 Olympics, Frazier--the 1964 Olympic gold medalist--said, "I should have been picked. I wish Ali had fallen into (the flame). If I had the chance, I'd have pushed him in." Frazier told Ali biographer Thomas Hauser, "I don't like him but I got to say, in the ring he was a man...He shook me in Manila; he won. But I sent him home worse than he came. Look at him now. He's damaged goods. I know it; you know it. Everyone knows it...He was always making fun of me. I'm the dummy; I'm the one getting hit in the head. Tell me now, him or me; which one talks worse now?"
Another source of bitterness for Frazier is that Philadelphia, the city where he lives and where he trained many fighters, erected a statue to honor the fictional Rocky Balboa but has yet to put one up in his honor.
A car accident in 2002 injured Frazier's spine and made him wheelchair bound for a time but now he walks with a cane. His fighting style consisted of going forward relentlessly, always attacking, and it is that indomitable spirit that keeps him going despite his injuries and the deaths of two of his brothers earlier this month.
Frazier was this week's guest analyst on ESPN2's "Friday Night Fights" as part of "Hall of Fame Month" and he fired off some pithy, entertaining commentary. The show kicked off with host Brian Kenny introducing Frazier as the owner of the greatest left hook in the sport's history and Frazier responding with a bit of Ali-like rhyming, telling host Brian Kenny, "Hey B, sharp as a razor...I'm 'Smokin' Joe' Frazier!"
After Chris Avalos knocked out Christian Cruz in the first round, Frazier explained why Cruz lost so quickly: "You're not going to (be able to) hit coming from the back (foot) to the front. Instead, you should be there, be ready to BAM, BAM, BAM!" Frazier punched into the air for emphasis. Throughout the telecast he made the point that a lot of today's fighters are not being taught and trained as well as fighters used to be.
The early conclusion of that fight left plenty of time to show some highlights from some of Frazier's bouts, including his March 3, 1968 knockout of Buster Mathis. Frazier recalled telling Mathis, "You got your lunch? You're going to need it." Frazier replaced an injured Mathis on the 1964 Olympic team, so this was a grudge match of sorts. That victory enabled Frazier to claim the World Heavyweight Boxing Championship awarded by the New York State Athletic Commission. Muhammad Ali had been stripped of his crown because he refused to be inducted into the army; in 1970, Frazier beat Jimmy Ellis to capture the WBA and WBC championships, belts that he retained by beating Ali in 1971. Kenny and Frazier also talked about some of Frazier's 1968 title defenses, including a unanimous decision against Oscar Bonavena, who Frazier called a "tough guy...the more I hit him, the tougher he got."
In the next FNF bout, Antwone Smith knocked out Juan Novoa in the fourth round. Frazier commented, "Both guys were wild, throwing shots from left field, right field, with no protection at all...Their legs were too wide to get off combination shots. There are a lot of little things that need to be straightened out with guys in boxing."
On the other hand, Frazier liked what he saw in some classic FNF footage of the "Nigerian Nightmare," Sam Page, who went 5-0 with 5 knockouts in his FNF appearances. "He came out throwing the punches the right way," Frazier said. "Once you get a guy in trouble, get him hurt, continue throwing punches at him. Don't stop and let the referee stop it."
If you blinked, you missed the next FNF contest, a middleweight match between Julio "Baby Face" Garcia and Jose Medina. Garcia ducked a Medina punch and knocked Medina out with a left hook after just 13 seconds. It was not Tone Loc's "Funky Cold Medina" but rather "knocked out cold Medina." Kenny asked Frazier, "What did you think of that fight?" Frazier chuckled and replied, "What fight? That guy got paid to come in and take a bow. That wasn't a fight. He came up to get paid. That means one guy worked harder than the other guy because he knows he has to fight." Frazier quipped that Medina spent more time on his tattoos (of which there were several) than his training.
Speaking of training, Kenny and Frazier then reminisced about the glory days of Frazier's gym in Philadelphia. Kenny noted that Dwight Muhammad Qawi, a previous FNF guest analyst who won world titles in the Light Heavyweight and Cruiserweight divisions, had said that training in Frazier's gym was like "going to school" because there were so many people there from whom one could really learn the ins and outs of the fight game.
Frazier said, "Philadelphia guys take more pride in their job. They come to the gym daily and make sure that they get the right, proper timing inside the gym. The majority of the guys who work in the gym in Philadelphia have been in that ring before and they know that what they are telling their guy is right. All they (the fighters) have to do is follow the instructions."
FNF concluded with a 10 round split decision victory for Breidis Prescott over Richard Abril in a battle between two previously unbeaten lightweights. The fight was pretty even and not particularly exciting, the only real drama being that one judge scored it 95-94 for Prescott, one judge had it 95-94 for Abril but the third judge inexplicably came up with a 97-92 verdict in favor of Prescott. Since Prescott was penalized one point for a low blow, that meant that the third judge thought Prescott had won the fight eight rounds to two, which ESPN2 commentator Teddy Atlas said was "ridiculous." Atlas had Abril as a one point winner; Atlas added that a close decision in favor of Prescott was reasonable but a five point margin made him wonder what the judge was watching and what kind of training he had received.
That fight certainly did not impress Frazier, who told Kenny, "Call it a draw and come back when you are ready to fight. From what I saw, I'd call it a no-contest. Neither one of those guys threw a punch to hurt the other guy. The referee (kept) breaking(ing) it up all night long, so how could it be a good fight?" Kenny replied, "I have no argument with you, sir."
While Prescott-Abril was a dud, Frazier at his best certainly was not, as this video shows:
Ali taunted Frazier relentlessly, calling him a "gorilla" and saying that he was too ugly to be the champion. While fans may have found the banter entertaining, Frazier took Ali's words to heart and the wounds are still fresh even decades later. After Ali lit the torch at the 1996 Olympics, Frazier--the 1964 Olympic gold medalist--said, "I should have been picked. I wish Ali had fallen into (the flame). If I had the chance, I'd have pushed him in." Frazier told Ali biographer Thomas Hauser, "I don't like him but I got to say, in the ring he was a man...He shook me in Manila; he won. But I sent him home worse than he came. Look at him now. He's damaged goods. I know it; you know it. Everyone knows it...He was always making fun of me. I'm the dummy; I'm the one getting hit in the head. Tell me now, him or me; which one talks worse now?"
Another source of bitterness for Frazier is that Philadelphia, the city where he lives and where he trained many fighters, erected a statue to honor the fictional Rocky Balboa but has yet to put one up in his honor.
A car accident in 2002 injured Frazier's spine and made him wheelchair bound for a time but now he walks with a cane. His fighting style consisted of going forward relentlessly, always attacking, and it is that indomitable spirit that keeps him going despite his injuries and the deaths of two of his brothers earlier this month.
Frazier was this week's guest analyst on ESPN2's "Friday Night Fights" as part of "Hall of Fame Month" and he fired off some pithy, entertaining commentary. The show kicked off with host Brian Kenny introducing Frazier as the owner of the greatest left hook in the sport's history and Frazier responding with a bit of Ali-like rhyming, telling host Brian Kenny, "Hey B, sharp as a razor...I'm 'Smokin' Joe' Frazier!"
After Chris Avalos knocked out Christian Cruz in the first round, Frazier explained why Cruz lost so quickly: "You're not going to (be able to) hit coming from the back (foot) to the front. Instead, you should be there, be ready to BAM, BAM, BAM!" Frazier punched into the air for emphasis. Throughout the telecast he made the point that a lot of today's fighters are not being taught and trained as well as fighters used to be.
The early conclusion of that fight left plenty of time to show some highlights from some of Frazier's bouts, including his March 3, 1968 knockout of Buster Mathis. Frazier recalled telling Mathis, "You got your lunch? You're going to need it." Frazier replaced an injured Mathis on the 1964 Olympic team, so this was a grudge match of sorts. That victory enabled Frazier to claim the World Heavyweight Boxing Championship awarded by the New York State Athletic Commission. Muhammad Ali had been stripped of his crown because he refused to be inducted into the army; in 1970, Frazier beat Jimmy Ellis to capture the WBA and WBC championships, belts that he retained by beating Ali in 1971. Kenny and Frazier also talked about some of Frazier's 1968 title defenses, including a unanimous decision against Oscar Bonavena, who Frazier called a "tough guy...the more I hit him, the tougher he got."
In the next FNF bout, Antwone Smith knocked out Juan Novoa in the fourth round. Frazier commented, "Both guys were wild, throwing shots from left field, right field, with no protection at all...Their legs were too wide to get off combination shots. There are a lot of little things that need to be straightened out with guys in boxing."
On the other hand, Frazier liked what he saw in some classic FNF footage of the "Nigerian Nightmare," Sam Page, who went 5-0 with 5 knockouts in his FNF appearances. "He came out throwing the punches the right way," Frazier said. "Once you get a guy in trouble, get him hurt, continue throwing punches at him. Don't stop and let the referee stop it."
If you blinked, you missed the next FNF contest, a middleweight match between Julio "Baby Face" Garcia and Jose Medina. Garcia ducked a Medina punch and knocked Medina out with a left hook after just 13 seconds. It was not Tone Loc's "Funky Cold Medina" but rather "knocked out cold Medina." Kenny asked Frazier, "What did you think of that fight?" Frazier chuckled and replied, "What fight? That guy got paid to come in and take a bow. That wasn't a fight. He came up to get paid. That means one guy worked harder than the other guy because he knows he has to fight." Frazier quipped that Medina spent more time on his tattoos (of which there were several) than his training.
Speaking of training, Kenny and Frazier then reminisced about the glory days of Frazier's gym in Philadelphia. Kenny noted that Dwight Muhammad Qawi, a previous FNF guest analyst who won world titles in the Light Heavyweight and Cruiserweight divisions, had said that training in Frazier's gym was like "going to school" because there were so many people there from whom one could really learn the ins and outs of the fight game.
Frazier said, "Philadelphia guys take more pride in their job. They come to the gym daily and make sure that they get the right, proper timing inside the gym. The majority of the guys who work in the gym in Philadelphia have been in that ring before and they know that what they are telling their guy is right. All they (the fighters) have to do is follow the instructions."
FNF concluded with a 10 round split decision victory for Breidis Prescott over Richard Abril in a battle between two previously unbeaten lightweights. The fight was pretty even and not particularly exciting, the only real drama being that one judge scored it 95-94 for Prescott, one judge had it 95-94 for Abril but the third judge inexplicably came up with a 97-92 verdict in favor of Prescott. Since Prescott was penalized one point for a low blow, that meant that the third judge thought Prescott had won the fight eight rounds to two, which ESPN2 commentator Teddy Atlas said was "ridiculous." Atlas had Abril as a one point winner; Atlas added that a close decision in favor of Prescott was reasonable but a five point margin made him wonder what the judge was watching and what kind of training he had received.
That fight certainly did not impress Frazier, who told Kenny, "Call it a draw and come back when you are ready to fight. From what I saw, I'd call it a no-contest. Neither one of those guys threw a punch to hurt the other guy. The referee (kept) breaking(ing) it up all night long, so how could it be a good fight?" Kenny replied, "I have no argument with you, sir."
While Prescott-Abril was a dud, Frazier at his best certainly was not, as this video shows:
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Old School Video: Hagler-Hearns, "The War"
Marvelous Marvin Hagler (he legally changed his name so that everyone has to call him "Marvelous") held the World Middleweight Boxing Championship from 1980-87, successfully defending the crown 12 times, 11 by knockout. On April 6, 1987, he lost a controversial split decision to Sugar Ray Leonard. Hagler's supporters contend that he landed the more punishing blows, that he controlled the fight and that Leonard "stole" some rounds by throwing flashy but ineffective combinations in the waning seconds; Leonard's advocates argue that he successfully followed his game plan of avoiding a big "bomb" by Hagler and that he "out-fought and out-thought" the defending champion.
Leonard retired after the Hagler fight but--like many boxers--he came out of retirement several times; he won his first three fights after beating Hagler but then he lost a 12 round unanimous decision to Terry Norris in 1991 and he was knocked out in five rounds by Hector "Macho" Camacho in 1997 before hanging up his gloves for good.
Hagler took a much different path than Leonard--and most other boxers. He asked Leonard's camp for a rematch but Leonard refused so Hagler, who was never knocked out and whose only losses came by decision, announced his retirement--and he never came back. He has spent the last two decades working as an actor and a boxing commentator and devoting time to charitable work, most notably with the Laureus World Sports Academy.
Hagler retired with a record of 62 wins (52 by knockout), 3 losses and two draws.
Check out these four videos of "The War," when Hagler defended his World Middleweight title against Tommy "Hitman" Hearns on April 15, 1985.
First, Al Michaels and the late, great Curt Gowdy set the stage by explaining who these two great champions faced prior to their epic showdown:
Here is the first round, still considered to be the greatest in boxing history:
The second round starts off slowly but ends with a bang:
Michaels summed up round three perfectly: "It's Hagler, full of blood...It didn't go very far but it was a beauty!"
Leonard retired after the Hagler fight but--like many boxers--he came out of retirement several times; he won his first three fights after beating Hagler but then he lost a 12 round unanimous decision to Terry Norris in 1991 and he was knocked out in five rounds by Hector "Macho" Camacho in 1997 before hanging up his gloves for good.
Hagler took a much different path than Leonard--and most other boxers. He asked Leonard's camp for a rematch but Leonard refused so Hagler, who was never knocked out and whose only losses came by decision, announced his retirement--and he never came back. He has spent the last two decades working as an actor and a boxing commentator and devoting time to charitable work, most notably with the Laureus World Sports Academy.
Hagler retired with a record of 62 wins (52 by knockout), 3 losses and two draws.
Check out these four videos of "The War," when Hagler defended his World Middleweight title against Tommy "Hitman" Hearns on April 15, 1985.
First, Al Michaels and the late, great Curt Gowdy set the stage by explaining who these two great champions faced prior to their epic showdown:
Here is the first round, still considered to be the greatest in boxing history:
The second round starts off slowly but ends with a bang:
Michaels summed up round three perfectly: "It's Hagler, full of blood...It didn't go very far but it was a beauty!"
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Why Steroid Users Should Be Banned for Life
Although there are some economists who foolishly question the effectiveness of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDS), sound medical research shows that PEDs do indeed enhance performance. It is important to emphasize the word "sound," because some of the initial research into PEDs in the 1970s was sabotaged by Tony Fitton, who has since been dubbed "The Godfather of Steroids" by Sports Illustrated. As Charles Yesalis, a leading expert about steroids, told SI, "Denying that these drugs worked is still to some extent damaging (the medical community's) credibility today."
Not only do steroids enhance performance, but research recently conducted by the Department of Integrative Medical Biology at Sweden's Umea University provides evidence that steroids improve athletes' performances even after those athletes discontinue their steroid usage. A Wall Street Journal article about the study begins with the provocative question, "Should athletes who take steroids be banned for life?" I think that the answer to that question should be "Yes," for two reasons:
1) Taking illegal--and otherwise harmful--substances to gain a competitive advantage puts other athletes in a no-win situation of either having to risk breaking the law while endangering their long term health or forgoing the opportunity to have a fair chance to be the very best at their sport. This is a serious offense and therefore an athletic "death penalty" in the form of a lifetime ban is quite appropriate.
2) If it is true that taking steroids confers an advantage that lasts even after usage is discontinued then there is no way to level the playing field between reformed steroids users and those who have never taken steroids.
Athletes have already proven that they will disregard the likelihood that steroid usage will cause them longterm health problems but if they knew that being caught just once would end their careers forever that would serve as a much more effective deterrent than the slap on the wrist penalties that most sports leagues, federations and governing bodies currently employ.
Not only do steroids enhance performance, but research recently conducted by the Department of Integrative Medical Biology at Sweden's Umea University provides evidence that steroids improve athletes' performances even after those athletes discontinue their steroid usage. A Wall Street Journal article about the study begins with the provocative question, "Should athletes who take steroids be banned for life?" I think that the answer to that question should be "Yes," for two reasons:
1) Taking illegal--and otherwise harmful--substances to gain a competitive advantage puts other athletes in a no-win situation of either having to risk breaking the law while endangering their long term health or forgoing the opportunity to have a fair chance to be the very best at their sport. This is a serious offense and therefore an athletic "death penalty" in the form of a lifetime ban is quite appropriate.
2) If it is true that taking steroids confers an advantage that lasts even after usage is discontinued then there is no way to level the playing field between reformed steroids users and those who have never taken steroids.
Athletes have already proven that they will disregard the likelihood that steroid usage will cause them longterm health problems but if they knew that being caught just once would end their careers forever that would serve as a much more effective deterrent than the slap on the wrist penalties that most sports leagues, federations and governing bodies currently employ.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Tiger's High Stakes Gamble Pays Off--For Now
Tiger Woods' high stakes gamble paid off but it may be years until we know the ultimate cost. As you have undoubtedly heard by now, Tiger Woods will not play golf for the rest of 2008 due to a torn ACL in his left knee and a double stress fracture in his left tibia (lower leg)--injuries that he overcame to win the U.S. Open after 91 agonizing, brutal holes. That moved Woods one major win closer to tying Jack Nicklaus' all-time record but knee surgery and the ensuing recuperation process will force Woods to miss at least two majors. Basically, Woods took the bird in hand--a major that he felt confident that he could win on one leg--over the two in the bush. It is only fair to wonder, though, if Woods' grit, stubbornness and determination may end up costing him many birds in the bush.
While announcing that he will need reconstructive knee surgery, Woods revealed that he tore his ACL 10 months ago. Since that time he won 10 of the 13 events that he played in--never finishing lower than fifth--and he added two majors to his trophy case. The delay in getting his ACL repaired resulted in cartilage damage and that was the reason for his April 15 knee surgery, a stopgap procedure that Woods hoped would help him make it through this year. That plan fell apart when it was later discovered that he had stress fractures in his left leg. If Woods had gotten his ACL repaired immediately then he probably would not have sustained the cartilage damage and the stress fractures. He truly made a Faustian bargain with the older version of himself, betting that the young, hobbled version of himself has a better chance to win majors than an older, not hobbled version would.
Perhaps he was right; as noted above, he won two majors despite not being 100% healthy. However, if Woods develops nagging knee or leg problems that shorten his career or curtail his dominance he may one day look back on his memories of winning while limping and wonder if he would not have been better off listening to his doctors, who told him he should be on crutches instead of playing golf.
An athlete's body is like a finely tuned machine and when one part is not functioning at 100% that places tremendous pressure on the other parts. Woods generates tremendous torque with his powerful drives and he literally has ripped his left leg apart in multiple places. Modern surgical procedures can most likely repair the damage for now but a rebuilt body part is never as sound or functional as it originally was. Also, whatever it is about his swing that caused this damage will inevitably place pressure on his knee and lower leg once he resumes playing. If Woods is not able to change his swing without reducing its effectiveness then he will most likely have a recurrence of this problem in a few years.
The reality is that for a great, supremely confident athlete like Woods no other choice was possible: the same self-assuredness that convinced him that he could not only tolerate the pain but play well enough to win the U.S. Open also is why Woods undoubtedly believes that next year he will come back fully healthy and better than ever. I sure hope that he is right. I don't know the ins and outs of golf strategy the way that I do about basketball, football and other sports, but I love watching Tiger Woods play because I recognize in him the same focus, will power and skill set mastery that only a select few--guys like Michael Jordan and Jerry Rice--possess. It would be a shame to see Woods cut down in his prime.
While announcing that he will need reconstructive knee surgery, Woods revealed that he tore his ACL 10 months ago. Since that time he won 10 of the 13 events that he played in--never finishing lower than fifth--and he added two majors to his trophy case. The delay in getting his ACL repaired resulted in cartilage damage and that was the reason for his April 15 knee surgery, a stopgap procedure that Woods hoped would help him make it through this year. That plan fell apart when it was later discovered that he had stress fractures in his left leg. If Woods had gotten his ACL repaired immediately then he probably would not have sustained the cartilage damage and the stress fractures. He truly made a Faustian bargain with the older version of himself, betting that the young, hobbled version of himself has a better chance to win majors than an older, not hobbled version would.
Perhaps he was right; as noted above, he won two majors despite not being 100% healthy. However, if Woods develops nagging knee or leg problems that shorten his career or curtail his dominance he may one day look back on his memories of winning while limping and wonder if he would not have been better off listening to his doctors, who told him he should be on crutches instead of playing golf.
An athlete's body is like a finely tuned machine and when one part is not functioning at 100% that places tremendous pressure on the other parts. Woods generates tremendous torque with his powerful drives and he literally has ripped his left leg apart in multiple places. Modern surgical procedures can most likely repair the damage for now but a rebuilt body part is never as sound or functional as it originally was. Also, whatever it is about his swing that caused this damage will inevitably place pressure on his knee and lower leg once he resumes playing. If Woods is not able to change his swing without reducing its effectiveness then he will most likely have a recurrence of this problem in a few years.
The reality is that for a great, supremely confident athlete like Woods no other choice was possible: the same self-assuredness that convinced him that he could not only tolerate the pain but play well enough to win the U.S. Open also is why Woods undoubtedly believes that next year he will come back fully healthy and better than ever. I sure hope that he is right. I don't know the ins and outs of golf strategy the way that I do about basketball, football and other sports, but I love watching Tiger Woods play because I recognize in him the same focus, will power and skill set mastery that only a select few--guys like Michael Jordan and Jerry Rice--possess. It would be a shame to see Woods cut down in his prime.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Tiger Woods Marches--and Limps--Toward Golf Immortality
Tiger Woods certainly looked mortal at times during his marathon 91 hole U.S. Open victory, particularly when his balky knee made him wince as he shuffled around Torrey Pines with a gait more like Fred Sanford's than that of one of the greatest athletes in the world. Woods joked that during his 18 hole playoff with Rocco Mediate he played "military" golf because his shots veered "left, right" but Woods made no excuses, refusing to discuss in detail how much he was hurting or how much his pain/limited mobility affected his game. However, you don't have to be a golf expert to realize that Woods was experiencing a serious problem and that impression is confirmed by Woods' statement that he is going to rest his knee for an indeterminate period.
Hall of Fame forward Kevin McHale played with a broken foot in the 1987 NBA playoffs as he tried to help the Boston Celtics win back to back championships. The Celtics fell short and he was never again the same player. Woods' gritty effort this weekend brought him his third U.S. Open title and moved him to within four Grand Slams of tying Jack Nicklaus' career record but it will be interesting to see in the coming weeks, months and years if Woods pays a long term price for his stubbornness and toughness; his doctors advised him not to play and it is very possible that Woods caused further damage to his knee by disregarding their recommendations.
For now, though, all we can do is marvel at what Woods accomplished and how he added to his already rich legacy. Focus and preparation are the two keys to success for elite athletes. Pain and injury sap most people's ability to focus but Woods overcame that obstacle well enough to best a strong field of players at a very tough golf course. Just as impressive is the fact that Woods did this with very little preparation due to his physical limitations in the wake of his April 15th knee surgery. Woods' swing coach Hank Haney says, "He bent over to read a putt for the first time on Thursday"--in other words, during the first round of the U.S. Open. It is amazing to be able to win a major championship with such little preparation.
Nicklaus set the standard for golf excellence but Woods is well on his way to surpassing Nicklaus' records. Woods won his 14th Grand Slam in his 46th appearance in a major as a professional, while Nicklaus won 11 Grand Slam titles in his first 46 majors as a pro. Nicklaus scored 26 over par in those 46 majors, while Woods has posted a mind boggling 126 below par score. Nicklaus had more second place finishes (10-5) and more top three finishes (26-22) in those events but, frankly, I don't think Woods is very interested in those marks. Woods' only goal is victory and what is remarkable about him is that when he is on form--or even close to being on form--he has an extraordinarily high winning percentage; that is why the fact that he has never lost in a Grand Slam after having a lead at the 54 hole mark is much more significant than the fact that he has never won a major after trailing at that point. Woods has an 11-1 career record in PGA Tour playoffs, the best winning percentage in the past 50 years for players who have participated in at least four playoffs. Nicklaus (13-10) and Arnold Palmer (12-8) are the only players in the past half century to win more PGA Tour playoffs than Woods but their winning percentages are far worse than his. When Woods is playing well enough to be in contention to win a tournament he almost always wins the tournament.
Woods has now joined Nicklaus as the only players to ever win each of the Grand Slams at least three times. This was also Woods' 65th PGA Tour win, moving him past Ben Hogan into third place on the all-time list behind Sam Sneed (82) and Nicklaus (73). Woods has won a major in four straight years for the second time (1999-2002, 2005-2008), something that only three other players (Nicklaus, Tom Watson and Walter Hagen) accomplished even once.
Woods birdied the 18th hole on Sunday to tie Mediate and force a playoff and Woods again birdied at 18 on Monday to force a sudden death playoff match, which Woods won on the first hole by scoring a par at number seven while Mediate bogeyed. This will most likely turn out to be the best--and last--chance for the 45 year old Mediate to win his first Grand Slam title. Mediate said, "It was just a pleasure--an honor--being out there. I'm sure I scared him. I did good today...I almost--I just about got him." Those are nice sentiments and Mediate certainly won over many fans with the engaging personality that he displayed throughout the weekend but I can say with 100% certainty that never in Woods' life has he gone out on the golf course satisfied to "scare" his opponent. After a runner up finish in the Indy 500, Mario Andretti once said, "Second place is first loser." That may sound harsh and unremitting to the average person--but that is why average people don't win Indy 500s or Grand Slam golf tournaments. One characteristic of people and teams that score big upsets--Joe Namath's Jets, Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield, the 2007 New York Giants--is that they have no fear of their opponents. If Woods ever loses in a major after having a 54 hole lead it will be to a player whose goal is to defeat Woods, not cause him momentary anxiety.
Hall of Fame forward Kevin McHale played with a broken foot in the 1987 NBA playoffs as he tried to help the Boston Celtics win back to back championships. The Celtics fell short and he was never again the same player. Woods' gritty effort this weekend brought him his third U.S. Open title and moved him to within four Grand Slams of tying Jack Nicklaus' career record but it will be interesting to see in the coming weeks, months and years if Woods pays a long term price for his stubbornness and toughness; his doctors advised him not to play and it is very possible that Woods caused further damage to his knee by disregarding their recommendations.
For now, though, all we can do is marvel at what Woods accomplished and how he added to his already rich legacy. Focus and preparation are the two keys to success for elite athletes. Pain and injury sap most people's ability to focus but Woods overcame that obstacle well enough to best a strong field of players at a very tough golf course. Just as impressive is the fact that Woods did this with very little preparation due to his physical limitations in the wake of his April 15th knee surgery. Woods' swing coach Hank Haney says, "He bent over to read a putt for the first time on Thursday"--in other words, during the first round of the U.S. Open. It is amazing to be able to win a major championship with such little preparation.
Nicklaus set the standard for golf excellence but Woods is well on his way to surpassing Nicklaus' records. Woods won his 14th Grand Slam in his 46th appearance in a major as a professional, while Nicklaus won 11 Grand Slam titles in his first 46 majors as a pro. Nicklaus scored 26 over par in those 46 majors, while Woods has posted a mind boggling 126 below par score. Nicklaus had more second place finishes (10-5) and more top three finishes (26-22) in those events but, frankly, I don't think Woods is very interested in those marks. Woods' only goal is victory and what is remarkable about him is that when he is on form--or even close to being on form--he has an extraordinarily high winning percentage; that is why the fact that he has never lost in a Grand Slam after having a lead at the 54 hole mark is much more significant than the fact that he has never won a major after trailing at that point. Woods has an 11-1 career record in PGA Tour playoffs, the best winning percentage in the past 50 years for players who have participated in at least four playoffs. Nicklaus (13-10) and Arnold Palmer (12-8) are the only players in the past half century to win more PGA Tour playoffs than Woods but their winning percentages are far worse than his. When Woods is playing well enough to be in contention to win a tournament he almost always wins the tournament.
Woods has now joined Nicklaus as the only players to ever win each of the Grand Slams at least three times. This was also Woods' 65th PGA Tour win, moving him past Ben Hogan into third place on the all-time list behind Sam Sneed (82) and Nicklaus (73). Woods has won a major in four straight years for the second time (1999-2002, 2005-2008), something that only three other players (Nicklaus, Tom Watson and Walter Hagen) accomplished even once.
Woods birdied the 18th hole on Sunday to tie Mediate and force a playoff and Woods again birdied at 18 on Monday to force a sudden death playoff match, which Woods won on the first hole by scoring a par at number seven while Mediate bogeyed. This will most likely turn out to be the best--and last--chance for the 45 year old Mediate to win his first Grand Slam title. Mediate said, "It was just a pleasure--an honor--being out there. I'm sure I scared him. I did good today...I almost--I just about got him." Those are nice sentiments and Mediate certainly won over many fans with the engaging personality that he displayed throughout the weekend but I can say with 100% certainty that never in Woods' life has he gone out on the golf course satisfied to "scare" his opponent. After a runner up finish in the Indy 500, Mario Andretti once said, "Second place is first loser." That may sound harsh and unremitting to the average person--but that is why average people don't win Indy 500s or Grand Slam golf tournaments. One characteristic of people and teams that score big upsets--Joe Namath's Jets, Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield, the 2007 New York Giants--is that they have no fear of their opponents. If Woods ever loses in a major after having a 54 hole lead it will be to a player whose goal is to defeat Woods, not cause him momentary anxiety.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Sports Are Part of What Makes Us Uniquely Human
In the May 24, 2008 issue of New Scientist, there is an article that discusses which characteristics truly distinguish human beings from other members of the animal kingdom: So You Think Humans Are Unique? (subscription required but you can get more information about this subject here). Culture, "mind-reading" (the ability to outwit/deceive someone else), emotions, tool use, morality and personality are all traits that were once thought to be uniquely human but have now been discovered to exist in varying degrees in members of other species. The article concludes by asking plaintively, "What's left to us?" The answer to that question is art, cooking, religion, humor--and sport: "All social animals play, but sport is a unique kind of play often entailing special equipment, complex rules, referees and dedicated spectators. Far from being trivial, sport is underpinned by many of our most advanced cognitive abilities."
So the next time someone asks you why you spend so much time playing, watching, writing and/or thinking about sports, there is your answer!
So the next time someone asks you why you spend so much time playing, watching, writing and/or thinking about sports, there is your answer!
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
"The Kid" is "The Man": Griffey Blasts His 600th Home Run--Naturally
Ken Griffey Jr. joined the elite 600 Home Run Club with a 413-foot first inning shot against Florida left hander Mark Hendrickson on Monday, a two-run blast that provided the first scores for the Cincinnati Reds in a 9-4 victory. Griffey was voted to the All-Century Team in 1999 and selected as the Player of the Decade in the 1990s but after several injury plagued seasons he has become an almost forgotten man, so in a way it is fitting that he hit this milestone home run run in front of just 16,003 fans in Dolphin Stadium.
Here is Griffey's historic blast:
An old Inside Sports article about Jim Rice once described the Boston slugger's swing as "short, compact, POW." That is also a fitting way to characterize Griffey's swing, a work of athletic artistry worthy of being displayed in the Louvre. Has anyone ever had a prettier, smoother and more effortless hitting stroke? Griffey has been called "The Natural," which is of course a reference to Bernard Malamud's novel of the same name--but that term carries another, very special meaning now, because Griffey has joined the home run immortals without even the whiff of a cheating scandal, unlike Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, 600 Home Run Club members whose numbers are more suspect than Enron's.
It seems like only yesterday that Ken "The Kid" Griffey, Jr. burst on to the national scene. His father played on two World Series championship teams, made the All-Star Team three times and won the 1980 All-Star Game MVP award but it quickly became apparent that Junior Griffey would leave even bigger footprints in the game's record book. The elder Griffey stuck around long enough--or the younger Griffey was prodigious enough, depending on how you want to look at it--to be his son's teammate in Seattle for two seasons. In 1990, they accomplished something together that had never been done before and is unlikely to ever be done again, hitting back to back home runs against the Angels' Kirk McCaskill. What makes that even more remarkable is that the elder Griffey was 40 years old at the time, hit only four home runs that season and compiled just 152 home runs in his 19 season major league career.
Griffey Jr. was the youngest player to reach 300, 350, 400 and 450 home runs and he seemed to be well on course to breaking Hank Aaron's career record of 755 home runs. After Seattle traded him to Cincinnati--where his father played for most of his career--he had 40 home runs and 118 RBI in 2000, his first season with the Reds. Griffey Jr. missed more than 400 games due to various injuries in the next four seasons but he has had at least 428 at bats each of the past three years, launching 35, 27 and 30 home runs in 2005-2007. It is unlikely that he will catch Babe Ruth (714) for the number three spot all-time but Sosa (609) is definitely within reach and if he plays two more years with reasonable health he has a shot at passing Willie Mays (660). That would be a truly amazing accomplishment for someone who has overcome so many injuries: as Hall of Fame baseball writer Hal McCoy detailed in Tuesday's edition of the Dayton Daily News, "Three screws in his tailbone keeps his hamstring attached to the bone, six screws hold his shoulders in place and (Griffey adds), 'I used to have five screws in my elbow.'"
Cincinnati Manager Dusty Baker, who hit 242 home runs during his 19 year career, was a teammate of Aaron's and managed Barry Bonds in San Francisco, said, "He must really love the game, because he doesn't need the money. He has gone through a lot of pain and suffering. I have to damn near drag him out of the lineup."
Here is Griffey's historic blast:
An old Inside Sports article about Jim Rice once described the Boston slugger's swing as "short, compact, POW." That is also a fitting way to characterize Griffey's swing, a work of athletic artistry worthy of being displayed in the Louvre. Has anyone ever had a prettier, smoother and more effortless hitting stroke? Griffey has been called "The Natural," which is of course a reference to Bernard Malamud's novel of the same name--but that term carries another, very special meaning now, because Griffey has joined the home run immortals without even the whiff of a cheating scandal, unlike Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, 600 Home Run Club members whose numbers are more suspect than Enron's.
It seems like only yesterday that Ken "The Kid" Griffey, Jr. burst on to the national scene. His father played on two World Series championship teams, made the All-Star Team three times and won the 1980 All-Star Game MVP award but it quickly became apparent that Junior Griffey would leave even bigger footprints in the game's record book. The elder Griffey stuck around long enough--or the younger Griffey was prodigious enough, depending on how you want to look at it--to be his son's teammate in Seattle for two seasons. In 1990, they accomplished something together that had never been done before and is unlikely to ever be done again, hitting back to back home runs against the Angels' Kirk McCaskill. What makes that even more remarkable is that the elder Griffey was 40 years old at the time, hit only four home runs that season and compiled just 152 home runs in his 19 season major league career.
Griffey Jr. was the youngest player to reach 300, 350, 400 and 450 home runs and he seemed to be well on course to breaking Hank Aaron's career record of 755 home runs. After Seattle traded him to Cincinnati--where his father played for most of his career--he had 40 home runs and 118 RBI in 2000, his first season with the Reds. Griffey Jr. missed more than 400 games due to various injuries in the next four seasons but he has had at least 428 at bats each of the past three years, launching 35, 27 and 30 home runs in 2005-2007. It is unlikely that he will catch Babe Ruth (714) for the number three spot all-time but Sosa (609) is definitely within reach and if he plays two more years with reasonable health he has a shot at passing Willie Mays (660). That would be a truly amazing accomplishment for someone who has overcome so many injuries: as Hall of Fame baseball writer Hal McCoy detailed in Tuesday's edition of the Dayton Daily News, "Three screws in his tailbone keeps his hamstring attached to the bone, six screws hold his shoulders in place and (Griffey adds), 'I used to have five screws in my elbow.'"
Cincinnati Manager Dusty Baker, who hit 242 home runs during his 19 year career, was a teammate of Aaron's and managed Barry Bonds in San Francisco, said, "He must really love the game, because he doesn't need the money. He has gone through a lot of pain and suffering. I have to damn near drag him out of the lineup."
Monday, June 9, 2008
Fantastic Four: Nadal Matches Borg's French Open Streak
With a resounding 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 victory over world #1 Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal won the French Open for the fourth straight time, matching the record streak set by Bjorn Borg from 1978-81. Nadal became the first man to win a Grand Slam without dropping a single set in the entire tournament since Federer swept through the 2007 Australian Open and the first man to win the French Open in this fashion since Borg, who is the only man to go through more than one Grand Slam unscathed--incredibly, Borg accomplished this feat three times (1976 Wimbledon, 1978 and 1980 French Opens).
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 difficult to compare different eras in tennis but I still maintain that the most impressive feat of the Open Era is Borg's "triple-double"--winning the French Open and Wimbledon each year from 1978-80. No one else has pulled off such multi-surface mastery even once in the same year, let alone three years running. Not only that, but at one time Borg held the Open Era records for most Wimbledon titles (five) and most French Open titles (six); he still holds the French Open mark, while only Pete Sampras has exceeded his Wimbledon total (seven; Federer won his fifth last year). In light of Nadal's dominant performance against Federer in this year's French Open, it seems less likely than ever that Federer will eventually win that title. Although Federer has won 12 Grand Slam titles--one more than Borg, equal with Roy Emerson and behind only Sampras (14) on the all-time list--his total is padded by three Australian Opens; Borg only played in Australia once, forgoing that tournament during the rest of his career because he felt that there should be a break somewhere in the schedule. There is no doubt that Borg could have won that title a few times; for that matter, he had won four straight French Opens when he retired and he reached the Finals the last time that he played at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, so Borg could easily have finished with 14, 15 or even 16 Grand Slams had he played for a few more years.
Obviously, players can only be judged based on what they actually accomplished but that is a good reason to wait before anointing Federer: until this year many people simply assumed that he would shatter Sampras' career Grand Slam record but there is good reason to wonder about that now. Also, regardless of how many total Grand Slams Federer wins, if he never wins the French Open and finishes with a losing career record against Nadal then how can he be considered the greatest player of all-time? Borg had a 15-8 record against Jimmy Connors, a 7-7 record against John McEnroe and he was uniquely deadly on both grass and clay.
Frankly, a much better case can be made that Nadal is pushing Borg for the title of greatest clay court player ever than can be made for saying that Federer is the greatest player of all-time. Both Borg and Nadal won four French Open titles by age 22; Borg won two more and then retired, so it would seem that if Nadal stays healthy he has a chance to tie or even break Borg's record. Nadal's four year run of dominance at the French Open (2005-08) is very similar to Borg's 1978-81 performance: Borg went 84-5 in sets, 533-204 in games, had 24 love sets and 24 straight set wins, while Nadal went 83-7 in sets, 537-261 in games, had 21 love sets and 24 straight set wins.
Nadal pushed Federer to five sets in last year's Wimbledon Finals, so it would seem that he has a decent chance of winning that event this year and joining Borg as the only Open Era players to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year. If Nadal accomplishes this then how could anyone say that Federer is a greater player than Nadal, let alone the greatest player of all-time?
Nadal's total dominance of Federer in yesterday's match was nothing short of amazing. After Nadal took a 2-1 first set lead Federer only won two more points in the rest of the set. In one stretch spanning the end of the first set and the early part of the second set, Nadal won 21 of 23 points and at that juncture of the match Federer had already committed 21 unforced errors. Federer finished with 35 unforced errors, while Nadal had only seven. Nadal had break points in 10 of Federer's 11 service games and he converted eight of them. Early in the match, McEnroe--now a commentator for NBC--said of Federer, "His body language is even more negative than in the past." You could tell just by looking at Federer that no matter how brave his words were before the match that once he got on the court with Nadal he realized that he had no chance to win. That is simply not how the greatest player of all-time looks, acts or plays. It is hard to think of a claimant to that title in any endeavor who looked as befuddled and outclassed as Federer did.
After the match, McEnroe interviewed Borg, who returned to Roland Garros for the first time since 1981, when he won the final match that he played there. McEnroe said that Borg and Nadal are the two greatest clay court players he has ever seen--earlier in the telecast he called Nadal the greatest clay court player ever--and he asked Borg how he would have played against Nadal. When Bill Russell was once asked a similar question about a young Kareem Abdul-Jabbar he answered, "Young man, you have the question backwards." Borg replied that against Nadal it is important to be patient, to begin the match with the mindset that you are going to be out there for a long time and that you are going to make Nadal hit a lot of winners, as opposed to trying to end points early. It is fascinating that while many observers have recommended that Federer be more aggressive against Nadal on clay Borg advocates a completely different approach; of course, what Borg suggested is right in line with the style and mindset that helped him to be a great champion: Borg relied on patience, mental toughness and physical fitness to break the will of his opponents. Borg looked and acted unfazed if someone hit a great shot against him; his attitude was that his opponent would have to hit many, many such shots to beat him. It would be wonderful to see a match on clay between Borg in his prime and Nadal; don't automatically assume that Nadal would win such an encounter, because Borg was quite capable of executing the anti-Nadal game plan that he described.
McEnroe asked Borg who he thought would win Wimbledon this year and Borg said that Nadal has a great chance, which is what I wrote right after last year's Wimbledon Finals when I suggested that in 2008 Nadal might duplicate Borg's French/Wimbledon double. If Nadal pulls that off he has every right to be included in any discussion of the all-time greats but for now I still consider Borg to be the greatest tennis player of the Open Era because of his unique combination of mental toughness, physical fitness and multi-surface mastery.
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 difficult to compare different eras in tennis but I still maintain that the most impressive feat of the Open Era is Borg's "triple-double"--winning the French Open and Wimbledon each year from 1978-80. No one else has pulled off such multi-surface mastery even once in the same year, let alone three years running. Not only that, but at one time Borg held the Open Era records for most Wimbledon titles (five) and most French Open titles (six); he still holds the French Open mark, while only Pete Sampras has exceeded his Wimbledon total (seven; Federer won his fifth last year). In light of Nadal's dominant performance against Federer in this year's French Open, it seems less likely than ever that Federer will eventually win that title. Although Federer has won 12 Grand Slam titles--one more than Borg, equal with Roy Emerson and behind only Sampras (14) on the all-time list--his total is padded by three Australian Opens; Borg only played in Australia once, forgoing that tournament during the rest of his career because he felt that there should be a break somewhere in the schedule. There is no doubt that Borg could have won that title a few times; for that matter, he had won four straight French Opens when he retired and he reached the Finals the last time that he played at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, so Borg could easily have finished with 14, 15 or even 16 Grand Slams had he played for a few more years.
Obviously, players can only be judged based on what they actually accomplished but that is a good reason to wait before anointing Federer: until this year many people simply assumed that he would shatter Sampras' career Grand Slam record but there is good reason to wonder about that now. Also, regardless of how many total Grand Slams Federer wins, if he never wins the French Open and finishes with a losing career record against Nadal then how can he be considered the greatest player of all-time? Borg had a 15-8 record against Jimmy Connors, a 7-7 record against John McEnroe and he was uniquely deadly on both grass and clay.
Frankly, a much better case can be made that Nadal is pushing Borg for the title of greatest clay court player ever than can be made for saying that Federer is the greatest player of all-time. Both Borg and Nadal won four French Open titles by age 22; Borg won two more and then retired, so it would seem that if Nadal stays healthy he has a chance to tie or even break Borg's record. Nadal's four year run of dominance at the French Open (2005-08) is very similar to Borg's 1978-81 performance: Borg went 84-5 in sets, 533-204 in games, had 24 love sets and 24 straight set wins, while Nadal went 83-7 in sets, 537-261 in games, had 21 love sets and 24 straight set wins.
Nadal pushed Federer to five sets in last year's Wimbledon Finals, so it would seem that he has a decent chance of winning that event this year and joining Borg as the only Open Era players to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year. If Nadal accomplishes this then how could anyone say that Federer is a greater player than Nadal, let alone the greatest player of all-time?
Nadal's total dominance of Federer in yesterday's match was nothing short of amazing. After Nadal took a 2-1 first set lead Federer only won two more points in the rest of the set. In one stretch spanning the end of the first set and the early part of the second set, Nadal won 21 of 23 points and at that juncture of the match Federer had already committed 21 unforced errors. Federer finished with 35 unforced errors, while Nadal had only seven. Nadal had break points in 10 of Federer's 11 service games and he converted eight of them. Early in the match, McEnroe--now a commentator for NBC--said of Federer, "His body language is even more negative than in the past." You could tell just by looking at Federer that no matter how brave his words were before the match that once he got on the court with Nadal he realized that he had no chance to win. That is simply not how the greatest player of all-time looks, acts or plays. It is hard to think of a claimant to that title in any endeavor who looked as befuddled and outclassed as Federer did.
After the match, McEnroe interviewed Borg, who returned to Roland Garros for the first time since 1981, when he won the final match that he played there. McEnroe said that Borg and Nadal are the two greatest clay court players he has ever seen--earlier in the telecast he called Nadal the greatest clay court player ever--and he asked Borg how he would have played against Nadal. When Bill Russell was once asked a similar question about a young Kareem Abdul-Jabbar he answered, "Young man, you have the question backwards." Borg replied that against Nadal it is important to be patient, to begin the match with the mindset that you are going to be out there for a long time and that you are going to make Nadal hit a lot of winners, as opposed to trying to end points early. It is fascinating that while many observers have recommended that Federer be more aggressive against Nadal on clay Borg advocates a completely different approach; of course, what Borg suggested is right in line with the style and mindset that helped him to be a great champion: Borg relied on patience, mental toughness and physical fitness to break the will of his opponents. Borg looked and acted unfazed if someone hit a great shot against him; his attitude was that his opponent would have to hit many, many such shots to beat him. It would be wonderful to see a match on clay between Borg in his prime and Nadal; don't automatically assume that Nadal would win such an encounter, because Borg was quite capable of executing the anti-Nadal game plan that he described.
McEnroe asked Borg who he thought would win Wimbledon this year and Borg said that Nadal has a great chance, which is what I wrote right after last year's Wimbledon Finals when I suggested that in 2008 Nadal might duplicate Borg's French/Wimbledon double. If Nadal pulls that off he has every right to be included in any discussion of the all-time greats but for now I still consider Borg to be the greatest tennis player of the Open Era because of his unique combination of mental toughness, physical fitness and multi-surface mastery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
