Some will say Michigan proved their "toughness" by defeating cross-state arch rival Michigan State in the basketball game. Actually, they did no such thing. In fact, in front of their rabid home crowd, the Wolverines were lucky to barely escape with a 1 point victory.
Winning in the Big Ten is tough these days, especially on the road. Even Indiana, possibly the best team in the country, would probably attest to that. They've lost a couple close games on the road to teams they likely would have throttled at home (and also a couple home games that are head scratchers, but everybody has a sub-par outing once in a while). The Big Ten has 6-7 teams that could qualify for the NCAA tournament coming around in a little over a week. There's been some serious in-conference competition going on over the course of the regular season.
As for UM/MSU this time around? The Spartans didn't really have a bad game, nor did the Wolverines necessarily have a good one. In the end, a one point victory is just that. As close as it gets. But remember, this was played on Michigan's home court which, theoretically, is supposed to make a big difference. No doubt, the Wolverines wanted some pay-back for the 23 point thrashing they had suffered at the hands of the Spartans 3 weeks ago on MSU's home court. It was supposed to be a "statement" game. Instead, UM was indeed fortunate to squeak by with the narrowest of victories. That could hardly be considered a "statement" by the Maize and Blue. (Speaking of which, as I mentioned a while back, hi-def TV or not, what is it with them sometimes wearing yellow uniforms with yellow names and yellow numbers on the back that blend in so nobody can see them? There should be a rule against that. Where's a dress code when you need one?).
If anything this game showed that, despite some wonderfully gifted players, it's just not in UM's DNA (or perhaps ability?) to be able to put the hammer down -- like MSU earlier did to them -- when the other team isn't intimidated and refuses to fold. In other words, Michigan's still soft.
Depending on how the seedings and brackets come down, that could very well be exposed along about the 2nd or 3rd game in the NCAA tournament.
Look at it this way: even though Michigan flirted with being ranked #1 in the country a couple times over the course of the regular season -- do you REALLY think they're Final Four and/or national championship capable? Not me.
Conversely, once the tournament starts, and "home courts" go out the window, who would dare count out Michigan State as a serious contender? There's no consensus team out there this year that is heads and shoulders above everybody else. In fact, there's probably 10-15 teams with a legitimate shot at the title, MSU being one of them.
At this time, certainly no one knows how all the bracketology will work out, but wouldn't it be something if UM and MSU got another crack at each other somewhere down the road in the tournament at a neutral site?
And all things considered -- who do you REALLY think would win that game?
There are teams with histories of being road warriors, and there are teams with histories of melting away like the Wicked Witch of the West when the lights go up and all the pressure is on.
Between UM and MSU hoops -- I just have a hunch who's who......
Monday, March 4, 2013
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Michigan. A history of being overrated
Don't get me wrong. I like the Michigan Wolverines. Nothing against Michigan State, a mighty fine institution of education and athletics, but for some reason I grew up rooting for Michigan. Not sure how that came about, considering nobody in my family, including yours truly, ever went to school there. Maybe it's like being a hard-core Republican or Democrat. I suspect if many of them took an objective look back -- they couldn't logically explain how they originally came to embrace their party either. And be it the UM/MSU rivalry or politics, it seems that once some folks have it in their head that one side is always right, and the other always wrong -- they typically find a way to rationalize their allegiance -- even if it totally defies logic.
That said, I think Michigan is once again overrated. How the Wolverines can come into their basketball rematch against the Spartans as the #4 team in the country, versus MSU being ranked 9th -- after Michigan State absolutely destroyed them in their first contest, would indeed seem to defy logic. It's almost like the polls are rigged in Michigan's favor. The powers that be WANT them to win.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time Michigan was (in my opinion) over-hyped. Back in 1997, the Wolverines shared a national football championship with Nebraska. Both went through the season undefeated and won their bowl games. Yet then, and to this day, yours truly still believes Nebraska would have absolutely trashed Michigan if they had played head-up. A look back will tell you Michigan defeated Washington State, and a QB named Ryan Leaf, by 5 points in the Rose Bowl. Nebraska whomped Tennessee by 25 points in the Orange Bowl. The Volunteers were led by a QB named Peyton Manning.
Throughout the season, evidently the pollsters thought Michigan played in a tougher conference than Nebraska -- so they got points for that. But when it came bowl time -- all those supposedly tough teams UM had played in the Big 10 took on a different look. Washington walloped Michigan State 51-23. Arizona St. topped Iowa 17-7. Wisconsin got thumped by Georgia 33-6. Penn State went down at the hands of Florida 21-6. And the Buckeyes of Ohio State got clobbered by Florida State 31-14. If the Big Ten was such a tough conference back then, somebody forgot to tell the rest of the country. To boot, Nebraska beat its opponents by an average of 31 points a game. Michigan checked in 2 touchdowns behind with an average winning margin of 17. And those two teams shared a national championship? Somebody was overrated.
Going a little further back, consider the "Fab Five" era in basketball at Michigan. In 1991, despite their obvious raw physical talent, it was pretty much unheard of to have one, let alone five freshmen starters on a major college basketball team. They were the talk of the nation. Hype, hype, hype. To their credit, they made it all the way to the NCAA championship game -- but they lost. Come 1992, with a year of experience under their belts, surely they would be champions -- right? The media hype was in overdrive. Wrong. They lost in the finals again. Recently, legendary coach Bobby Knight may have summed it up quite well when he said regardless of the NCAA tournament runs -- Michigan didn't even win the Big 10 championship during those 2 years, so he failed to see what was so fab about the "Fab 5". Sour grapes? Maybe, but Knight's Indiana teams went 3-1 against Michigan during those "fabulous" two years, so how can one seriously dispute his take on it? He was there, and he beat them 3 out of 4.
Much more recently, Michigan hired a new football coach named Brady Hoke. Even as a rookie, Hoke just couldn't resist disrespecting Ohio State, referring to them as merely "Ohio". Nevermind that before their football program imploded, the Buckeyes had absolutely owned the Wolverines for several years. Brady finally broke the jinx and UM defeated OSU, even though Ohio State's football program was in a shambles at the time. All hail Michigan. Then, as usual, they got cocky and decided to take on Alabama, the reigning national champs, in the opening game of the following season. Despite Alabama having lost several key players to the NFL after the previous season, Michigan promptly got annihilated by a vastly superior team.
It just seems like Michigan is always overrated -- and takes it for granted -- while Michigan State continues to struggle for respect every step of the way. If one looks at the Tom Izzo era in basketball, and even MSU's football record over the last several years against UM, one would think it should be the other way around.
Looking at it another way -- Michigan State hard. Michigan soft. Though I'm usually wrong when I make predictions, I fully expect MSU to dump the Wolverines in Ann Arbor to sweep the season series.
And even if not -- which team do you think has more of what it takes to be a threat in the upcoming NCAA tournament?
That said, I think Michigan is once again overrated. How the Wolverines can come into their basketball rematch against the Spartans as the #4 team in the country, versus MSU being ranked 9th -- after Michigan State absolutely destroyed them in their first contest, would indeed seem to defy logic. It's almost like the polls are rigged in Michigan's favor. The powers that be WANT them to win.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time Michigan was (in my opinion) over-hyped. Back in 1997, the Wolverines shared a national football championship with Nebraska. Both went through the season undefeated and won their bowl games. Yet then, and to this day, yours truly still believes Nebraska would have absolutely trashed Michigan if they had played head-up. A look back will tell you Michigan defeated Washington State, and a QB named Ryan Leaf, by 5 points in the Rose Bowl. Nebraska whomped Tennessee by 25 points in the Orange Bowl. The Volunteers were led by a QB named Peyton Manning.
Throughout the season, evidently the pollsters thought Michigan played in a tougher conference than Nebraska -- so they got points for that. But when it came bowl time -- all those supposedly tough teams UM had played in the Big 10 took on a different look. Washington walloped Michigan State 51-23. Arizona St. topped Iowa 17-7. Wisconsin got thumped by Georgia 33-6. Penn State went down at the hands of Florida 21-6. And the Buckeyes of Ohio State got clobbered by Florida State 31-14. If the Big Ten was such a tough conference back then, somebody forgot to tell the rest of the country. To boot, Nebraska beat its opponents by an average of 31 points a game. Michigan checked in 2 touchdowns behind with an average winning margin of 17. And those two teams shared a national championship? Somebody was overrated.
Going a little further back, consider the "Fab Five" era in basketball at Michigan. In 1991, despite their obvious raw physical talent, it was pretty much unheard of to have one, let alone five freshmen starters on a major college basketball team. They were the talk of the nation. Hype, hype, hype. To their credit, they made it all the way to the NCAA championship game -- but they lost. Come 1992, with a year of experience under their belts, surely they would be champions -- right? The media hype was in overdrive. Wrong. They lost in the finals again. Recently, legendary coach Bobby Knight may have summed it up quite well when he said regardless of the NCAA tournament runs -- Michigan didn't even win the Big 10 championship during those 2 years, so he failed to see what was so fab about the "Fab 5". Sour grapes? Maybe, but Knight's Indiana teams went 3-1 against Michigan during those "fabulous" two years, so how can one seriously dispute his take on it? He was there, and he beat them 3 out of 4.
Much more recently, Michigan hired a new football coach named Brady Hoke. Even as a rookie, Hoke just couldn't resist disrespecting Ohio State, referring to them as merely "Ohio". Nevermind that before their football program imploded, the Buckeyes had absolutely owned the Wolverines for several years. Brady finally broke the jinx and UM defeated OSU, even though Ohio State's football program was in a shambles at the time. All hail Michigan. Then, as usual, they got cocky and decided to take on Alabama, the reigning national champs, in the opening game of the following season. Despite Alabama having lost several key players to the NFL after the previous season, Michigan promptly got annihilated by a vastly superior team.
It just seems like Michigan is always overrated -- and takes it for granted -- while Michigan State continues to struggle for respect every step of the way. If one looks at the Tom Izzo era in basketball, and even MSU's football record over the last several years against UM, one would think it should be the other way around.
Looking at it another way -- Michigan State hard. Michigan soft. Though I'm usually wrong when I make predictions, I fully expect MSU to dump the Wolverines in Ann Arbor to sweep the season series.
And even if not -- which team do you think has more of what it takes to be a threat in the upcoming NCAA tournament?
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Dennis Rodman in North Korea
Ideally, everybody's supposed to be equal in this country, but we're really not. It all depends on who you are. Some people can do things that are deemed OK, while if others do the very same thing, people are outraged.
Dennis Rodman seems to be a good example. Recently, the Worm took a trip to North Korea. Evidently, he was not only welcomed with open arms, but treated like royalty. Rodman was photographed sitting next to the Premier of the country, one Kim Jong Un, I believe, yukking it up at a basketball game. At that, Americans have been led to believe North Korea is bad. Even part of "an axis of evil". How do we know this? Because our government says so, and they've never lied to us -- right? In reality, the average American citizen has no idea what's going on over there.
Nevertheless, nobody seems to be in an uproar over Rodman visiting North Korea and hanging out with the Premier. On the contrary, it's generally looked upon almost like some form of entertainment. After all, with his various antics over the years, Rodman is sometimes viewed as the world's biggest kid. He's just having a good time experiencing something new. No harm done. In a few days everybody will forget about it.
But just for kicks, imagine what the reaction would have been if, say, Bill Laimbeer, a former teammate of Rodman's on the Detroit Pistons, was doing the same thing. Just a guess, but Laimbeer may very well have been painted as some sort of public enemy, much like Jane Fonda was decades ago when she went to North Viet Nam. Instead of his action being considered harmless, Laimbeer might have been hauled before a Congressional committee to be grilled, and likely stigmatized for life as some sort of traitor. Between two former teammates -- going to the same country, sitting next to the same guy, and having a few laughs watching the same basketball game would likely be viewed in vastly different ways. One guy can slide. The other probably wouldn't.
It all depends who you are. A guy like Ernie Els, "the big easy" could probably goose the Queen of England and get away with it. Royal laughter would resound throughout Buckingham Palace. Plug another guy like Manny Pacquiao into the same scenario, and his Filipino butt might find itself in a dungeon somewhere. Her Highness would not be amused -- as they say.
I hope they hurry up and decide on a new Pope. What I REALLY want to see is Sir Charles Barkley, the former "round mound of rebound", give the new Pontiff a "wedgie" when His Eminence delivers his inaugural address to the adoring throngs below in St. Peter's square. That dude can get away with just about anything, and already has, including his golf swing, but somehow everybody still loves him.
Dennis Rodman seems to be a good example. Recently, the Worm took a trip to North Korea. Evidently, he was not only welcomed with open arms, but treated like royalty. Rodman was photographed sitting next to the Premier of the country, one Kim Jong Un, I believe, yukking it up at a basketball game. At that, Americans have been led to believe North Korea is bad. Even part of "an axis of evil". How do we know this? Because our government says so, and they've never lied to us -- right? In reality, the average American citizen has no idea what's going on over there.
Nevertheless, nobody seems to be in an uproar over Rodman visiting North Korea and hanging out with the Premier. On the contrary, it's generally looked upon almost like some form of entertainment. After all, with his various antics over the years, Rodman is sometimes viewed as the world's biggest kid. He's just having a good time experiencing something new. No harm done. In a few days everybody will forget about it.
But just for kicks, imagine what the reaction would have been if, say, Bill Laimbeer, a former teammate of Rodman's on the Detroit Pistons, was doing the same thing. Just a guess, but Laimbeer may very well have been painted as some sort of public enemy, much like Jane Fonda was decades ago when she went to North Viet Nam. Instead of his action being considered harmless, Laimbeer might have been hauled before a Congressional committee to be grilled, and likely stigmatized for life as some sort of traitor. Between two former teammates -- going to the same country, sitting next to the same guy, and having a few laughs watching the same basketball game would likely be viewed in vastly different ways. One guy can slide. The other probably wouldn't.
It all depends who you are. A guy like Ernie Els, "the big easy" could probably goose the Queen of England and get away with it. Royal laughter would resound throughout Buckingham Palace. Plug another guy like Manny Pacquiao into the same scenario, and his Filipino butt might find itself in a dungeon somewhere. Her Highness would not be amused -- as they say.
I hope they hurry up and decide on a new Pope. What I REALLY want to see is Sir Charles Barkley, the former "round mound of rebound", give the new Pontiff a "wedgie" when His Eminence delivers his inaugural address to the adoring throngs below in St. Peter's square. That dude can get away with just about anything, and already has, including his golf swing, but somehow everybody still loves him.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Highlight rants
See Tiger Woods miss a putt. See Tiger miss another putt. See Tiger miss yet a third putt. See Tiger taking off his shoes and socks before he wades into a pond where his last shot came to rest. See Tiger 6 shots back after one round of the Honda Open. These are highlights? Why in the hell would I want to watch some guy miss putts and take his footwear off? And what's next? Will we be force-fed video clips of Tiger downing a cheeseburger in the clubhouse? Good grief. We've already had to endure watching him drink water and eat bananas in the past while real action was going on everywhere else on the course. Here's a novel idea. How about showing us what the leaders of the tournament did?
See Kobe Bryant whirl, twist, spin, and gyrate to take an off-balance shot into triple coverage while ignoring two wide-open teammates for an easy pass. See Kobe and the Lakers every night on sports recaps. Like Tiger, Kobe highlights seem to be mandatory. See the Lakers with a 29-30 record, in 9th place in the Western Conference, and 2 games out of the last playoff spot. If one buys into the hype, the Lakers making the playoffs seems to rank right up there with matters of national security. It's like if they fail, our entire country will be in grave danger. It's the plague. The nukes are coming. The Lakers didn't make the playoffs. Please. And even if they do -- what's the point? They'll just get blown out in the first round by the likes of San Antonio or Oklahoma City anyway.
I can't wait for the NFL draft. Why? Because some team, mercifully (for us), will take former Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o, and the on-going soap opera, replete with imaginary girlfriend and how fast he ran the 40-yard dash at the NFL combine, will have finally aired it's last episode.
Los Angeles Angel outfielder Mike Trout has the talking heads in an uproar lately. Evidently, he reported to spring training weighing 30-40 pounds more than he did last year. Hey, if he can still hit .300, have 80-90 RBIs, steal 30 bases, and continue his stellar defensive play, it shouldn't matter if he showed up looking like Kim Kardashian though -- I must admit -- that would be very interesting. Bet the Angels' locker room and shower facilities would liven up a bit too, but I digress.
It's been almost an hour since I sat down to write this rant. Just peeked at the TV.
Now they're showing Tiger putting his shoes and socks back on -- again. C'mon man. Is there no end to this?
See Kobe Bryant whirl, twist, spin, and gyrate to take an off-balance shot into triple coverage while ignoring two wide-open teammates for an easy pass. See Kobe and the Lakers every night on sports recaps. Like Tiger, Kobe highlights seem to be mandatory. See the Lakers with a 29-30 record, in 9th place in the Western Conference, and 2 games out of the last playoff spot. If one buys into the hype, the Lakers making the playoffs seems to rank right up there with matters of national security. It's like if they fail, our entire country will be in grave danger. It's the plague. The nukes are coming. The Lakers didn't make the playoffs. Please. And even if they do -- what's the point? They'll just get blown out in the first round by the likes of San Antonio or Oklahoma City anyway.
I can't wait for the NFL draft. Why? Because some team, mercifully (for us), will take former Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o, and the on-going soap opera, replete with imaginary girlfriend and how fast he ran the 40-yard dash at the NFL combine, will have finally aired it's last episode.
Los Angeles Angel outfielder Mike Trout has the talking heads in an uproar lately. Evidently, he reported to spring training weighing 30-40 pounds more than he did last year. Hey, if he can still hit .300, have 80-90 RBIs, steal 30 bases, and continue his stellar defensive play, it shouldn't matter if he showed up looking like Kim Kardashian though -- I must admit -- that would be very interesting. Bet the Angels' locker room and shower facilities would liven up a bit too, but I digress.
It's been almost an hour since I sat down to write this rant. Just peeked at the TV.
Now they're showing Tiger putting his shoes and socks back on -- again. C'mon man. Is there no end to this?
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Time out from time outs
With apologies to Dick Vitale, I need a T.O. (time-out) baby -- from time-outs.
Watch an NBA game and you'll see both teams get 5 time-outs per half. That's 20 in all at their disposal, and a lot of times they use every last one of them. There's a reason why the last "two minutes" of so many games take about a half hour. Too many damn time-outs.
Near as I can tell, each team gets 3 "regular" time-outs and two 20-second time-outs each half. In theory, the regular time-outs are supposed to last one minute, but in reality, they're more like 2 or 3.
True 20-second time-outs don't exist. After one is called -- nobody seems to know for sure exactly when the 20 seconds start. Somewhere around 25-30 seconds after it's been called, the arena horn will sound, evidently signalling the time-out is over -- but coaches and players routinely ignore it to keep discussing strategy on the sidelines. It appears they won't come back on the floor until they're good and ready, regardless of the supposed 20 seconds, and worse, the officials let them get away with it. If it's supposed to be 20 seconds -- then dammit -- make it 20 seconds -- or call it something else. Like 30 seconds, 60 seconds, or "when we get around to it", whatever.
Football games are more devious with their time-outs. Yes, each team gets 3 per half, for a total of 12 for the whole game, but those sneaky devils have found another way to make games last so long. If one is in a stadium watching a game, they'll notice that at times, play is stopped for several minutes for no apparent reason. A look up at the scoreboard will reveal that neither team has been charged with a time-out, and no players are sprawled on the field with an injury. So what gives?
Enter the wonderful world of TV time-outs. Thou shalt worship the "sponsors" whether thou like it or not. All those commercials cut both ways. For the people sitting at home watching on the tube, it gives them a chance to reload their refreshments or perhaps "relieve" themselves without missing any of the action -- a good thing. And, after all, if it weren't for the advertising folks, the game wouldn't even BE on TV. But the fans in the stadium that paid big bucks to attend the game are left in a sort of purgatory. Those time-outs aren't long enough for them to dash to the refreshment stand or rest rooms, without likely missing something spectacular happening on the field (because that's the way it seems to go) but definitely long enough be annoying -- a bad thing. At any rate, they definitely prolong the games.
Baseball is different. The very nature of the game dictates at least 17 time-outs in a regular 9 inning game as the teams switch from being on the field to being at bat. Yet they're guilty in a few other ways of dragging the games out too long. Pitchers shaking off 4-5 signs from their catcher when they only know how to throw 3 different pitches, and generally taking WAY too long between pitches anyway. Confabs at the pitcher's mound that never end until the home plate umpire has to break them up. Even players on the field calling time-out, sometimes for dumb reasons. Let's say a player just "stole" second base. After that runner slides -- he usually wants time-out. And why? To dust off his uniform? Hey, the dude's making millions of bucks. A little dirt on his pants isn't going to hurt him. Play ball. Let's GO!!!
Hockey is much better. Each team only gets one time-out -- for the whole game. That's more like it.
Soccer is a whole different animal. During each half -- nothing seems to stop the clock in the game. Player substitutions come and go, but the clock keeps running. A player down on the field, perhaps with a serious injury? The clock keeps going. What's very strange about soccer is that even when the clock has expired at the end of the game -- it's not over. There's always "extra" time, at the whim of the head official on the field. Nobody in the stands or watching on TV has any idea how much time this is. It's a secret, known only to that official. Play goes on until he decides to stop it. How nuts is that?
Soccer isn't chock full of commercials like another American sports. Then again, soccer hasn't really ever caught on much in the US -- popularity-wise.
Could it be that Americans have been brain-washed into actually LIKING all the stoppages in action in their more popular sports?
Somehow it reminds yours truly of Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men".
We want these commercials. We NEED these commercials.
Scary thought.....
Watch an NBA game and you'll see both teams get 5 time-outs per half. That's 20 in all at their disposal, and a lot of times they use every last one of them. There's a reason why the last "two minutes" of so many games take about a half hour. Too many damn time-outs.
Near as I can tell, each team gets 3 "regular" time-outs and two 20-second time-outs each half. In theory, the regular time-outs are supposed to last one minute, but in reality, they're more like 2 or 3.
True 20-second time-outs don't exist. After one is called -- nobody seems to know for sure exactly when the 20 seconds start. Somewhere around 25-30 seconds after it's been called, the arena horn will sound, evidently signalling the time-out is over -- but coaches and players routinely ignore it to keep discussing strategy on the sidelines. It appears they won't come back on the floor until they're good and ready, regardless of the supposed 20 seconds, and worse, the officials let them get away with it. If it's supposed to be 20 seconds -- then dammit -- make it 20 seconds -- or call it something else. Like 30 seconds, 60 seconds, or "when we get around to it", whatever.
Football games are more devious with their time-outs. Yes, each team gets 3 per half, for a total of 12 for the whole game, but those sneaky devils have found another way to make games last so long. If one is in a stadium watching a game, they'll notice that at times, play is stopped for several minutes for no apparent reason. A look up at the scoreboard will reveal that neither team has been charged with a time-out, and no players are sprawled on the field with an injury. So what gives?
Enter the wonderful world of TV time-outs. Thou shalt worship the "sponsors" whether thou like it or not. All those commercials cut both ways. For the people sitting at home watching on the tube, it gives them a chance to reload their refreshments or perhaps "relieve" themselves without missing any of the action -- a good thing. And, after all, if it weren't for the advertising folks, the game wouldn't even BE on TV. But the fans in the stadium that paid big bucks to attend the game are left in a sort of purgatory. Those time-outs aren't long enough for them to dash to the refreshment stand or rest rooms, without likely missing something spectacular happening on the field (because that's the way it seems to go) but definitely long enough be annoying -- a bad thing. At any rate, they definitely prolong the games.
Baseball is different. The very nature of the game dictates at least 17 time-outs in a regular 9 inning game as the teams switch from being on the field to being at bat. Yet they're guilty in a few other ways of dragging the games out too long. Pitchers shaking off 4-5 signs from their catcher when they only know how to throw 3 different pitches, and generally taking WAY too long between pitches anyway. Confabs at the pitcher's mound that never end until the home plate umpire has to break them up. Even players on the field calling time-out, sometimes for dumb reasons. Let's say a player just "stole" second base. After that runner slides -- he usually wants time-out. And why? To dust off his uniform? Hey, the dude's making millions of bucks. A little dirt on his pants isn't going to hurt him. Play ball. Let's GO!!!
Hockey is much better. Each team only gets one time-out -- for the whole game. That's more like it.
Soccer is a whole different animal. During each half -- nothing seems to stop the clock in the game. Player substitutions come and go, but the clock keeps running. A player down on the field, perhaps with a serious injury? The clock keeps going. What's very strange about soccer is that even when the clock has expired at the end of the game -- it's not over. There's always "extra" time, at the whim of the head official on the field. Nobody in the stands or watching on TV has any idea how much time this is. It's a secret, known only to that official. Play goes on until he decides to stop it. How nuts is that?
Soccer isn't chock full of commercials like another American sports. Then again, soccer hasn't really ever caught on much in the US -- popularity-wise.
Could it be that Americans have been brain-washed into actually LIKING all the stoppages in action in their more popular sports?
Somehow it reminds yours truly of Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men".
We want these commercials. We NEED these commercials.
Scary thought.....
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The 1984 Detroit Tigers
Technically, George "Sparky" Anderson had lied. After Sparky achieved fame with the Big Red Machine in Cincinnati in the mid 70's, which basically featured a future Hall of Fame lineup, Sparky was unceremoniously fired in late 1978 by the Reds as the team had begun to go downhill.
In the meantime, a guy named Les Moss, who had proven himself in the minor leagues, had been hired as the new manager of the Detroit Tigers for the 1979 season. But the Tigers hadn't expected Sparky to be fired by the Reds. When that happened, through no fault of his own, basically Les Moss got the shaft. HE was fired early in the 1979 season to make room for Anderson. Inheriting the likes of Jack Morris, Dan Petry, Lance Parrish, Kirk Gibson, Alan Trammel, and Lou Whitaker -- all young players at the time, once again, Sparky had fallen into a rose garden of talent. Anderson was quick to proclaim that if he couldn't win a pennant within 5 years with that team -- he'd quit. Fast forward 5 years to June, 1984. Though the Tigers would not only win the pennant that year, but the World Series as well -- Sparky's self-imposed 5 year clock had run out, but nobody seemed to remember his promise of 1979, because the Tigers were doing so well. Nevertheless, technically, he lied.
And what a season 1984 was. The Tigers had begun the season 35-5 for an .875 winning percentage which was, and remains, the best start for a team in major league history. Barring the Harlem Globetrotters, nobody can maintain a .875 winning percentage forever. Nor did those Tigers. After those first 40 games, they went 69-53 for the remainder of the regular season, which equates to a still respectable .565 winning percentage, but nothing spectacular. Actually, for the last 122 games, the Toronto Blue Jays played them just about even-up, but after their incredible start, the Tigers won their division by a whopping 15 games.
Quick quiz. Name the modern era major league team that posted the most wins in a regular season. If you don't know, the answer -- below -- may surprise you. (I didn't know either. I looked it up).
The Tigers would finish that regular season with a 104-58 mark for a .642 winning percentage. Most would agree that finishing 46 games above .500 is outstanding. In fact, any team would be thrilled just to win 100, with a .617 winning percentage. But when you really stop to think about it -- just how good is that anyway? Basically, out of every 10 games played, they would have won 6 and lost 4. In that light it doesn't seem so dominant. If one game goes the other way -- they're back to a .500 club and nothing special. Then again, if over the long haul, a team's record is far better than everybody else's, it speaks for itself. It all depends on how one wishes to look at it.
It's also ironic that there are times when the best (percentage-wise) team in the league can be swept in a series by the last place team. It happens. Such is the nature of big league baseball.
Recording artist Meatloaf once had a hit song titled "Two out of three ain't bad". That doesn't sound so tough, but in major league baseball, that would equate to winning 108 games during the regular season, which would be considered stupendous.
Answer to quiz. Though in the previous three years the Seattle Mariners had lost such future superstars as Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr., and Alex Rodriguez, and ranked merely 11th in player payroll, their 2001 team posted a record of 116-46, for a .716 winning percentage. They would go on to lose in the AL championship series to the NY Yankees. (On a related note, that was also the year Japanese star Ichiro Suzuki made his debut in the major leagues on the Mariners.)
Back to Sparky Anderson and Les Moss. Sparky would go on to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. He died in Thousand Oaks, California, at the age of 76, in 2010. That was media-worthy.
Les Moss would bounce around a few other clubs as a pitching coach but never got a chance to manage again. He quietly passed away in August of 2012, in Longwood, Florida, at the age of 87. Nobody seemed to notice.
With all due respect to Sparky and his legacy, somehow I still find what became of Les Moss profoundly sad. But for a quirk of fate beyond his control, he might well have gone down as one of the greatest managers in Tiger history as well with the same team Sparky inherited. Who knows how it would have turned out?
In the meantime, a guy named Les Moss, who had proven himself in the minor leagues, had been hired as the new manager of the Detroit Tigers for the 1979 season. But the Tigers hadn't expected Sparky to be fired by the Reds. When that happened, through no fault of his own, basically Les Moss got the shaft. HE was fired early in the 1979 season to make room for Anderson. Inheriting the likes of Jack Morris, Dan Petry, Lance Parrish, Kirk Gibson, Alan Trammel, and Lou Whitaker -- all young players at the time, once again, Sparky had fallen into a rose garden of talent. Anderson was quick to proclaim that if he couldn't win a pennant within 5 years with that team -- he'd quit. Fast forward 5 years to June, 1984. Though the Tigers would not only win the pennant that year, but the World Series as well -- Sparky's self-imposed 5 year clock had run out, but nobody seemed to remember his promise of 1979, because the Tigers were doing so well. Nevertheless, technically, he lied.
And what a season 1984 was. The Tigers had begun the season 35-5 for an .875 winning percentage which was, and remains, the best start for a team in major league history. Barring the Harlem Globetrotters, nobody can maintain a .875 winning percentage forever. Nor did those Tigers. After those first 40 games, they went 69-53 for the remainder of the regular season, which equates to a still respectable .565 winning percentage, but nothing spectacular. Actually, for the last 122 games, the Toronto Blue Jays played them just about even-up, but after their incredible start, the Tigers won their division by a whopping 15 games.
Quick quiz. Name the modern era major league team that posted the most wins in a regular season. If you don't know, the answer -- below -- may surprise you. (I didn't know either. I looked it up).
The Tigers would finish that regular season with a 104-58 mark for a .642 winning percentage. Most would agree that finishing 46 games above .500 is outstanding. In fact, any team would be thrilled just to win 100, with a .617 winning percentage. But when you really stop to think about it -- just how good is that anyway? Basically, out of every 10 games played, they would have won 6 and lost 4. In that light it doesn't seem so dominant. If one game goes the other way -- they're back to a .500 club and nothing special. Then again, if over the long haul, a team's record is far better than everybody else's, it speaks for itself. It all depends on how one wishes to look at it.
It's also ironic that there are times when the best (percentage-wise) team in the league can be swept in a series by the last place team. It happens. Such is the nature of big league baseball.
Recording artist Meatloaf once had a hit song titled "Two out of three ain't bad". That doesn't sound so tough, but in major league baseball, that would equate to winning 108 games during the regular season, which would be considered stupendous.
Answer to quiz. Though in the previous three years the Seattle Mariners had lost such future superstars as Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr., and Alex Rodriguez, and ranked merely 11th in player payroll, their 2001 team posted a record of 116-46, for a .716 winning percentage. They would go on to lose in the AL championship series to the NY Yankees. (On a related note, that was also the year Japanese star Ichiro Suzuki made his debut in the major leagues on the Mariners.)
Back to Sparky Anderson and Les Moss. Sparky would go on to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. He died in Thousand Oaks, California, at the age of 76, in 2010. That was media-worthy.
Les Moss would bounce around a few other clubs as a pitching coach but never got a chance to manage again. He quietly passed away in August of 2012, in Longwood, Florida, at the age of 87. Nobody seemed to notice.
With all due respect to Sparky and his legacy, somehow I still find what became of Les Moss profoundly sad. But for a quirk of fate beyond his control, he might well have gone down as one of the greatest managers in Tiger history as well with the same team Sparky inherited. Who knows how it would have turned out?
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The Detroit Tigers now, and then
For however much it counts (it doesn't), so far the Detroit Tigers are cruising right along down in the grapefruit league this year. Their pitching looks solid, the hitters are banging the ball around and out of the parks, and everything looks to be all-systems-go for a great 2013 campaign. Many have projected the Tigers as a serious threat to return to the World Series this year. Yet a lot of strange things can happen in baseball -- and oftentimes do.
Though all Tiger fans remember that their team made it to the World Series last year only to get swept by the SF Giants, they likely forget the Tigers barely squeaked into the post-season at all with a 88-74 regular season record. Percentage-wise, that was .543 -- not so impressive. In fact, the Tigers only had the 7th best record in the American League. In other words, a few other teams with better records in better divisions got left out of the playoffs. The Tigers were indeed fortunate to be playing in the woeful AL Central Division, else their run to the World Series never would have happened.
Whether or not the current system is fair continues to be the subject of much debate. Ever since 1969, when both the American and National leagues split into divisions, then expansion teams came along and "wild cards" were later added to the playoffs, baseball purists have continued to object. "Baseball was just fine from 1903 through 1968, when the best of each league went to the World Series and there were no playoffs", they claim.
Certainly they have a point. Baseball WAS just fine back in those days. Actually, a very good argument could be made that most of the players we consider truly legendary came BEFORE baseball changed its format. Consider names like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Spahn, Musial, Mays, Mantle, DiMaggio, Clemente, Aaron, and Williams, to name just a few. Quick, taking the performance enhancing drugs era into account, name 3 players that have reached the same legendary status since 1969 as those just mentioned. See what I mean?
Of course, the purists overlook the obvious. It's about the money the playoffs did and continues to generate -- and money seems to have had a way of prevailing in most things over the last few decades in the sports world. Throw in the ridiculous player contracts that have come about and, in its simplest form, that's why the average family of four might have to skip a house/rent payment to attend a game.
But back to the 2012 Tigers. One wouldn't normally think a mediocre .543 record should have qualified a team for a chance at any post-season glory, but it happened. And it could happen to them, or another team this year. Whether or not that's "right" is for each individual to decide for themselves -- opinions likely depend on which way the chips fall at the end of the regular season for any particular fans and their team -- but it is what it is, and it's highly doubtful it will go away any time soon.
Speaking of now and then, 28 years ago, the Tigers had won the World Series, and haven't since. That's about one year for every team in the major leagues these days. Not such a good track record.
A look back at those 1984 Tigers -- with some improbable stats -- tomorrow.
Though all Tiger fans remember that their team made it to the World Series last year only to get swept by the SF Giants, they likely forget the Tigers barely squeaked into the post-season at all with a 88-74 regular season record. Percentage-wise, that was .543 -- not so impressive. In fact, the Tigers only had the 7th best record in the American League. In other words, a few other teams with better records in better divisions got left out of the playoffs. The Tigers were indeed fortunate to be playing in the woeful AL Central Division, else their run to the World Series never would have happened.
Whether or not the current system is fair continues to be the subject of much debate. Ever since 1969, when both the American and National leagues split into divisions, then expansion teams came along and "wild cards" were later added to the playoffs, baseball purists have continued to object. "Baseball was just fine from 1903 through 1968, when the best of each league went to the World Series and there were no playoffs", they claim.
Certainly they have a point. Baseball WAS just fine back in those days. Actually, a very good argument could be made that most of the players we consider truly legendary came BEFORE baseball changed its format. Consider names like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Spahn, Musial, Mays, Mantle, DiMaggio, Clemente, Aaron, and Williams, to name just a few. Quick, taking the performance enhancing drugs era into account, name 3 players that have reached the same legendary status since 1969 as those just mentioned. See what I mean?
Of course, the purists overlook the obvious. It's about the money the playoffs did and continues to generate -- and money seems to have had a way of prevailing in most things over the last few decades in the sports world. Throw in the ridiculous player contracts that have come about and, in its simplest form, that's why the average family of four might have to skip a house/rent payment to attend a game.
But back to the 2012 Tigers. One wouldn't normally think a mediocre .543 record should have qualified a team for a chance at any post-season glory, but it happened. And it could happen to them, or another team this year. Whether or not that's "right" is for each individual to decide for themselves -- opinions likely depend on which way the chips fall at the end of the regular season for any particular fans and their team -- but it is what it is, and it's highly doubtful it will go away any time soon.
Speaking of now and then, 28 years ago, the Tigers had won the World Series, and haven't since. That's about one year for every team in the major leagues these days. Not such a good track record.
A look back at those 1984 Tigers -- with some improbable stats -- tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)