Yesterday I saw Cloverfield and then watched eight or so hours of football. Incredibly, the giant monster attacking New York wasn't as shocking as this simple fact: Eli Manning is a Super Bowl quarterback. No, not Peyton. Eli. A month ago, I wrote on this blog, "[Eli Manning] is not good. Maybe one day he'll surprise us all but right now he is not a very good quarterback." Well, that day of surprise came. It came when Eli led the Giants to a narrow loss over the juggernaut Patriots. It came when he helped the G-men beat up on the Bucs. It came when he embarrased Tony Romo. And it came yesterday, when he led his men to the NFC Championship in subzero temperatures against a legend. Eli Manning has provided consistent, intelligent, gutsy leadership over this incredible run and the team has benefitted from his transformation. Peyton Manning took forever to win in the playoffs with one of the best teams of the decade. Eli took a good team and led them to greatness.
This Giants squad has shown us some of the best team play we have ever seen. There hasn't been one star; it has truly been a team effort. Eli stepped up. Plax schooled Al Harris. Strahan and Osi brought the walls down around Romo and Favre. Ross, Webster, and Pierce dominated the secondary. Plax, Boss, Toomer, Jacobs and Bradshaw marched down the field. Tynes finally made a kick. And Tiki watched it all from home. "Who needs training camp," Strahan said Sunday night, "When you have teammates like these?" These men have come together to achieve the improbable. In Glendale, Arizona, they will attempt the impossible. Waiting for them will be the 18-0 New England Patriots, whose last loss came at the hands of Eli's brother in last year's AFC championship game.
The Patriots may look to make history, but the Giants have a date with destiny. In a season of perfection, the Giants' faults are what make them so compelling. They entered the postseason with more injuries than the Cloverfield cast. They run with a duo of rookie backs. Their quarterback spent most of his career hanging his head. But all that changed when they played New England last time. Every fault, every weakness ceased to matter. They played tough, they played together, and they overcame everything. The New York Giants are the champions of the National Football Conference and soon they will vie to become Super Bowl Champs. In taking on the juggernaut, the Giants will become America's team and Eli Manning will put sports nation on his shoulders. I now have no doubt he is up to the task.
In other news, the MARYLAND TERRAPINS defeated the North Carolina Tar Heels, previously top-ranked and undefeated. The Terps marched into Chapel Hill and outplayed North Carolina for 40 minutes, shutting down Tyler Hansbrough and the rest of Roy Williams' boys. Once again, the Maryland Mystery is visible in full force. The Terps lose to American and Ohio and then go on to beat UNC. We play to the level of our opponents in basketball and football and we've proven once again that we can lose to or beat any team, any time.
This weekend was quite a sports weekend for me. I saw Maryland knock off the top team in the country and then watched the Giants earn their ticket to the Super Bowl. I might not have always been Eli's biggest fan, but he has certainly made a believer out of me. The Giants' grit, teamwork, and faith in each other have brought them sixty minutes away from a Super Bowl ring. Who needs perfection when you have that?
Monday, January 21, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Congressman Dave G's Questioning of Senator Mitchell
This is essentially the performance of every member of Congress today:
Rep. G: Good morning Senator Mitchell, and thank you for being here today. I don't really know anything about baseball, steroids, your report, this investigation, or the United States Congress. I've been under the assumption that you were actually a major league baseball player and until he walked in here today, I had been confusing Bud Selig with Roger Clemens. I now see my mistake. Rather than reading up on this issue or leaving this discussion to my more informed colleagues, I would like to take the next five minutes to drone on in unbearable monotone while I spout generalities about the horrors of drugs and mispronounce the most famous names in the game.
But first, let me thank you. Thank you, Senator Mitchell, for your great service to this sport, this nation, and this issue. Thank you and thank you again. Thank you. George, thank you. Really. I commend you. I commend and thank you. And while we're at it, I'd like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue. I'd like to thank Commissioner Selig for his participation. And I'd also like to thank Jesus for his guidance throughout this difficult time for the game. Thank you all.
It is clear to me that the reason we are here today is for the children.
Sen. Mitchell - What children?
Rep. G: The wonderful, perfect children in my district and all across this big, great, grand land of ours who are affected by the steroid issue.
Sen. Mitchell - Oh. Them.
Rep. G: These children, from ages 3-17, are all in danger of taking steroids. It is my firm belief that when a child watches a player like Billy Bonds hit 173 home runs in a season, that child goes out, finds a steroid distributer, sells lemonade to raise the money, and then purchases steroids. In my district alone, the Babe Ruth Little League saw a 44% increase in team-by-team home runs between 2006-2007 alone -- I'd like to thank Senator Stevens for appropriating $1.2B for this study. Clearly, our children are at risk.
Cheating is not okay, under any circumstances. And I think it is only appropriate that this conversation is taking place in the temple of ethics that is the United States Capitol. I mean imagine, just for a moment, that the same unethical behaviors that have invaded Major League Baseball ever permeated the marble walls of the Capitol. Imagine -- I know it's hard, but try -- that congressmen(!) and senators(!) acted without concern for the rules and dared to challenge the ethical boundaries of this fine institution. It's scary, isn't it? I only mention this, Senator, to emphasize the point that Congress is the perfect body to cast judgment on ballplayers who pushed the rules to stay in the game and challenged the authorities just so they could win electi--ahem, ahem, ballgames.
Lastly, and I know, Mr. Chairman, that my five minutes are winding down, but I would like to take a few hours to expound on the importance of baseball to the very heart of our fine country. In my great state of Ohio, we have one and a half teams, the Cleveland Indians and the Cincinatti Reds. These teams have suffered the most from the use of steroids in baseball. While every Yankee who has played over the past decade has taken steroids, no Indian or Red has ever used an illegal substance. Frankly Senator---
Senator Mitchell: That's not true.
Rep. G: Huh?
Senator Mitchell: Your statement is incorrect, Congressman. Actually 17 players connected to the Indians were named in my report, including such prominent players as Juan Gonzalez, Matt Williams, and David Justice.
Rep. G: Who?
Senator Mitchell: Nevermind.
Chairman: Congressman G, your time has expired.
Rep. G: Mr. Chairman, will you permit me one final question?
Senator Mitchell: You haven't asked a question yet.
Rep. G: Be that as it may...Mr. Chairman, may I?
Chairman: Of course, rule and order is of no consequence to the U.S. Congress.
Rep. G: Excellent. Then let me close by asking you, Senator Mitchell. Have you ever taken steroids or any other performance enhancing substances?
Sen. Mitchell: What? No! Have you?
Rep. G: Time's up, Mr. Chairman.
Rep. G: Good morning Senator Mitchell, and thank you for being here today. I don't really know anything about baseball, steroids, your report, this investigation, or the United States Congress. I've been under the assumption that you were actually a major league baseball player and until he walked in here today, I had been confusing Bud Selig with Roger Clemens. I now see my mistake. Rather than reading up on this issue or leaving this discussion to my more informed colleagues, I would like to take the next five minutes to drone on in unbearable monotone while I spout generalities about the horrors of drugs and mispronounce the most famous names in the game.
But first, let me thank you. Thank you, Senator Mitchell, for your great service to this sport, this nation, and this issue. Thank you and thank you again. Thank you. George, thank you. Really. I commend you. I commend and thank you. And while we're at it, I'd like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue. I'd like to thank Commissioner Selig for his participation. And I'd also like to thank Jesus for his guidance throughout this difficult time for the game. Thank you all.
It is clear to me that the reason we are here today is for the children.
Sen. Mitchell - What children?
Rep. G: The wonderful, perfect children in my district and all across this big, great, grand land of ours who are affected by the steroid issue.
Sen. Mitchell - Oh. Them.
Rep. G: These children, from ages 3-17, are all in danger of taking steroids. It is my firm belief that when a child watches a player like Billy Bonds hit 173 home runs in a season, that child goes out, finds a steroid distributer, sells lemonade to raise the money, and then purchases steroids. In my district alone, the Babe Ruth Little League saw a 44% increase in team-by-team home runs between 2006-2007 alone -- I'd like to thank Senator Stevens for appropriating $1.2B for this study. Clearly, our children are at risk.
Cheating is not okay, under any circumstances. And I think it is only appropriate that this conversation is taking place in the temple of ethics that is the United States Capitol. I mean imagine, just for a moment, that the same unethical behaviors that have invaded Major League Baseball ever permeated the marble walls of the Capitol. Imagine -- I know it's hard, but try -- that congressmen(!) and senators(!) acted without concern for the rules and dared to challenge the ethical boundaries of this fine institution. It's scary, isn't it? I only mention this, Senator, to emphasize the point that Congress is the perfect body to cast judgment on ballplayers who pushed the rules to stay in the game and challenged the authorities just so they could win electi--ahem, ahem, ballgames.
Lastly, and I know, Mr. Chairman, that my five minutes are winding down, but I would like to take a few hours to expound on the importance of baseball to the very heart of our fine country. In my great state of Ohio, we have one and a half teams, the Cleveland Indians and the Cincinatti Reds. These teams have suffered the most from the use of steroids in baseball. While every Yankee who has played over the past decade has taken steroids, no Indian or Red has ever used an illegal substance. Frankly Senator---
Senator Mitchell: That's not true.
Rep. G: Huh?
Senator Mitchell: Your statement is incorrect, Congressman. Actually 17 players connected to the Indians were named in my report, including such prominent players as Juan Gonzalez, Matt Williams, and David Justice.
Rep. G: Who?
Senator Mitchell: Nevermind.
Chairman: Congressman G, your time has expired.
Rep. G: Mr. Chairman, will you permit me one final question?
Senator Mitchell: You haven't asked a question yet.
Rep. G: Be that as it may...Mr. Chairman, may I?
Chairman: Of course, rule and order is of no consequence to the U.S. Congress.
Rep. G: Excellent. Then let me close by asking you, Senator Mitchell. Have you ever taken steroids or any other performance enhancing substances?
Sen. Mitchell: What? No! Have you?
Rep. G: Time's up, Mr. Chairman.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Red Zone Blues: The Tony Romo Story
Well folks, things change quickly in sports. One minute, you're on top of the world, banging Jessica Simpson and leading "America's Team" to glory. The next, you're being lambasted in the press for the same relationship and you're ending your season with a red zone bungle for the second year in a row. Tony Romo, how the mighty have fallen.
DALLAS vs. GIANTS
I like Tony Romo, or I guess I should say I don't dislike him. He's a fun player to watch, he seems like a good guy, and he throws passes to Giants. What's not to like?
The whole Jessica Simpson thing is ridiculous. She didn't cause him to lose. He lost on his own. The media likes stories like this and blew this one up to unfathomable extremes. The real story here isn't that he dates Jessica Simpson. It's that he loses when it matters. Tom Brady impregnates that girl from the movie with Colin Farrell and then dates Gisele Bunchen and it's a story for 10 minutes because he then goes out and wins three Super Bowls and goes 17-0. Romo goes on vacation with his girlfriend and it's front page news - because he then goes out and loses. In sports, there's one sure-fire way to stay above bad press: back it up on the field. For all the horrible sports stories out there (OJ, Sean Taylor, Spygate) I just can't get worked up about a guy going on vacation with his girlfriend. It's a really, really, really stupid story. And it's not the reason he choked. Tony Romo ended last season with his butt on the turf too, long before he ever met Jessica Simpson.
The Dallas/Giants game was awesome, if you were rooting for the Giants. The premier quarterback fell flat and Charlie Brown reincarnated came through. Eli Manning has now led the underdog Giants to two straight postseason wins, showing poise and skill in the process. He might not be the best quarterback in the League, but he has come through when it has mattered this season and is getting the job done. Early in his career (and later in his career, and currently) Peyton Manning played better regular season football than anyone, ever. But he could never bring that level of play into the playoffs. He would always find a way to lose. Eli seems to be the opposite. During the regular season, he has been unconfident and inconsistent. But starting with that New England game, he has looked phenomenal. He has led the Giants to a place Peyton Manning failed to lead the Colts this season, to the conference championship game.
I don't really expect Eli to go into Lambeau and outplay Brett Favre. Even if the Giants lose to the Packers (a superior team with a tremendous home field advantage), Eli's accomplishments this postseason cannot be forgotten. He has done what it took his brother much longer to do: win football games in January.
Following the game, Terrell Owens gave a press conference in which he broke down in tears defending Tony Romo. You can watch this here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=X7huZxy2QNE. A lot of people are giving him grief, and let's face it, he deserves grief, but I actually give TO credit here. For the first time in his career, his thoughts are on someone besides Terrell Owens. I also give Romo credit for being the first QB since Steve Young to command such respect from Owens.
Colts vs. Chargers
The game that upset me the most was the Colts game. Tony Dungy may well retire after this season and if he does, he will leave with 3 or 4 or 5 fewer rings than he deserves. I have written extensively about the post-season failures of Peyton Manning and I truly believe that if Tom Brady and Peyton Manning played for the opposite teams, the Colts might have won 3-5 Super Bowls instead of only one. Yesterday's loss was not Manning's fault. Despite his two interceptions, the fatal plays were Harrison's fumble and Wayne's drop (which wasn't really his fault, since he was laid out faster than Jessica Simpson in Cabo). Peyton Manning may very well be the best regular season quarterback of all time, but before he won the Super Bowl, he found a way to lose every single year despite consistently having the best team in the NFL. It's incredible when you consider that Brady won three Super Bowls with vastly inferior weapons during a time when the Colts were the best team in the NFL. I like Peyton Manning and do think that he is behind his postseason troubles, but it's almost unforgivable that he squandered all those seasons and robbed Indianapolis of the dynasty it could have had.
Speaking of Brady, he's f'ing incredible. That's all I have to say about that.
I'm bitter that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady won't be playing each other next week. I mean, is there a less likable quarterback in the NFL than Philip Rivers? First he mocks Jay Cutler after the Chargers beat the Broncos. Then he gets into a fight with the Colts fans in a game that he left and watched his backup win. Seriously, dude. Stop it. He played well yesterday before he was injured but the Chargers reached the playoffs in the first place in spite of his performance, not because of it. I watched this guy play in college when he was at NC State and really liked his game. Now he makes TO look like Cal Ripken. Even LT couldn't believe Rivers wasn't going back into that game. I can't wait for New England to beat the poop out of him next week - if he even plays.
To close, let me share with you a statement my dad made during the Packers game: "This is football the way it's meant to be played." Brett Favre at Lambeau in the snow.
Only way it could be better is if they were playing the Giants. I can't wait 'til next week.
DALLAS vs. GIANTS
I like Tony Romo, or I guess I should say I don't dislike him. He's a fun player to watch, he seems like a good guy, and he throws passes to Giants. What's not to like?
The whole Jessica Simpson thing is ridiculous. She didn't cause him to lose. He lost on his own. The media likes stories like this and blew this one up to unfathomable extremes. The real story here isn't that he dates Jessica Simpson. It's that he loses when it matters. Tom Brady impregnates that girl from the movie with Colin Farrell and then dates Gisele Bunchen and it's a story for 10 minutes because he then goes out and wins three Super Bowls and goes 17-0. Romo goes on vacation with his girlfriend and it's front page news - because he then goes out and loses. In sports, there's one sure-fire way to stay above bad press: back it up on the field. For all the horrible sports stories out there (OJ, Sean Taylor, Spygate) I just can't get worked up about a guy going on vacation with his girlfriend. It's a really, really, really stupid story. And it's not the reason he choked. Tony Romo ended last season with his butt on the turf too, long before he ever met Jessica Simpson.
The Dallas/Giants game was awesome, if you were rooting for the Giants. The premier quarterback fell flat and Charlie Brown reincarnated came through. Eli Manning has now led the underdog Giants to two straight postseason wins, showing poise and skill in the process. He might not be the best quarterback in the League, but he has come through when it has mattered this season and is getting the job done. Early in his career (and later in his career, and currently) Peyton Manning played better regular season football than anyone, ever. But he could never bring that level of play into the playoffs. He would always find a way to lose. Eli seems to be the opposite. During the regular season, he has been unconfident and inconsistent. But starting with that New England game, he has looked phenomenal. He has led the Giants to a place Peyton Manning failed to lead the Colts this season, to the conference championship game.
I don't really expect Eli to go into Lambeau and outplay Brett Favre. Even if the Giants lose to the Packers (a superior team with a tremendous home field advantage), Eli's accomplishments this postseason cannot be forgotten. He has done what it took his brother much longer to do: win football games in January.
Following the game, Terrell Owens gave a press conference in which he broke down in tears defending Tony Romo. You can watch this here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=X7huZxy2QNE. A lot of people are giving him grief, and let's face it, he deserves grief, but I actually give TO credit here. For the first time in his career, his thoughts are on someone besides Terrell Owens. I also give Romo credit for being the first QB since Steve Young to command such respect from Owens.
Colts vs. Chargers
The game that upset me the most was the Colts game. Tony Dungy may well retire after this season and if he does, he will leave with 3 or 4 or 5 fewer rings than he deserves. I have written extensively about the post-season failures of Peyton Manning and I truly believe that if Tom Brady and Peyton Manning played for the opposite teams, the Colts might have won 3-5 Super Bowls instead of only one. Yesterday's loss was not Manning's fault. Despite his two interceptions, the fatal plays were Harrison's fumble and Wayne's drop (which wasn't really his fault, since he was laid out faster than Jessica Simpson in Cabo). Peyton Manning may very well be the best regular season quarterback of all time, but before he won the Super Bowl, he found a way to lose every single year despite consistently having the best team in the NFL. It's incredible when you consider that Brady won three Super Bowls with vastly inferior weapons during a time when the Colts were the best team in the NFL. I like Peyton Manning and do think that he is behind his postseason troubles, but it's almost unforgivable that he squandered all those seasons and robbed Indianapolis of the dynasty it could have had.
Speaking of Brady, he's f'ing incredible. That's all I have to say about that.
I'm bitter that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady won't be playing each other next week. I mean, is there a less likable quarterback in the NFL than Philip Rivers? First he mocks Jay Cutler after the Chargers beat the Broncos. Then he gets into a fight with the Colts fans in a game that he left and watched his backup win. Seriously, dude. Stop it. He played well yesterday before he was injured but the Chargers reached the playoffs in the first place in spite of his performance, not because of it. I watched this guy play in college when he was at NC State and really liked his game. Now he makes TO look like Cal Ripken. Even LT couldn't believe Rivers wasn't going back into that game. I can't wait for New England to beat the poop out of him next week - if he even plays.
To close, let me share with you a statement my dad made during the Packers game: "This is football the way it's meant to be played." Brett Favre at Lambeau in the snow.
Only way it could be better is if they were playing the Giants. I can't wait 'til next week.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Good Day for Goose!
Goose Gossage was elected to the Hall of Fame today with nearly 86% of the vote.
Jim Rice, Bert Blylevin, Andre Dawson, and others did not receive the necessary 75%.
Jim Rice, Bert Blylevin, Andre Dawson, and others did not receive the necessary 75%.
Monday, January 7, 2008
The Manning Redemption
Eli Manning's shoulders got a little lighter yesterday as the young quarterback finally won a playoff game. Eli completed 20 of 27 passes yesterday for 185 yards, throwing two touchdowns and no interceptions. If the New England game was Eli's coming out party, yesterday was his redemption. After two years of losing playoff games and four years of boos from fans who compared him to his brother, Eli finally came up big. But it's more than that, isn't it? He looked different. His game looked complete. He was composed, he was patient, he was smart. He took his time and read the defense, using the pump-fake and finding the open man. The Giants didn't win in spite of him. They won because of him. How many times have we been able to say that? I'm not saying Eli is out of the woods. He won a playoff game, not a Super Bowl, and his regular season performance was still shaky and inconsistent. But he looks different. He looks better. He looks (dare I say?) like a very good NFL quarterback. Let's see how he maintains this level of play going forward.
Now Wild Card weekend is over and we are one step closer to the All-Manning Super Bowl of which Archie has long dreamed. Let me first say that I nailed every pick this weekend. I rule. Now onto next weekend:
New England over Jacksonville:
If New England wants to make it to the Super Bowl, they'll have to beat the two other toughest offenses in the NFL (sorry, Dallas). Beating the Patriots would certainly be a tall order for Jacksonville, but the Jags are capable of doing it. If they can contain them on defense, their offense is perfectly capable of keeping up with Brady's Boys. I love David Garrard and not just because he's another Dave G. The guy looks like the real deal. He is so confident in the pocket, so accurate, and yet he is willing to find the open lane if he needs to run. That 32-yard scramble is one of the top five plays by anyone this season. If you disagree, you are wrong. And stupid. And a Steelers fan. Garrard and the seemingly unstoppable one-two punch of Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew will be a huge test for the Pats. But, I think they've proven they're up to a challenge.
That being said, I'm taking New England. When a team is undefeated, they have to give you a reason to pick against them. Another team's success is hardly a just cause. I'd like to see Jacksonville win this game (because I like Jacksonville, not because I dislike NE) but you just can't pick against 16-0 unless a major piece is missing. Sorry, Dave G.
Indianapolis over San Diego:
San Diego is a good team. Indy is a great team. That's it. End of discussion. A year or two ago, I would have said that Peyton would have given up the game...and I still might bring up the choke argument later in the playoffs. But there's no way Peyton Manning will give away a first round game. Marvin Harrison will be back and even if he isn't 100%, Manning still has Wayne and Clark and every other weapon he used all year. By the way, have you heard of a fella named Joseph Addai?
Simply put, the Colts are awesome. They're the defending champs, they dominated this season, and the usual argument against them - that they lose big games - is significantly diminished now that they've won the Super Bowl. The only reason people aren't talking more about the Colts are because the Patriots went undefeated. The Colts are better than the rest of the NFL. They'll roll over the Chargers and then they'll play in what may be one of the best games ever against the Patriots. I think it's more likely that the Jags will beat the Patriots than that the Bolts will beat the Colts. The Colts are heading to the AFC Championship game. It's only a matter of time.
Now Wild Card weekend is over and we are one step closer to the All-Manning Super Bowl of which Archie has long dreamed. Let me first say that I nailed every pick this weekend. I rule. Now onto next weekend:
New England over Jacksonville:
If New England wants to make it to the Super Bowl, they'll have to beat the two other toughest offenses in the NFL (sorry, Dallas). Beating the Patriots would certainly be a tall order for Jacksonville, but the Jags are capable of doing it. If they can contain them on defense, their offense is perfectly capable of keeping up with Brady's Boys. I love David Garrard and not just because he's another Dave G. The guy looks like the real deal. He is so confident in the pocket, so accurate, and yet he is willing to find the open lane if he needs to run. That 32-yard scramble is one of the top five plays by anyone this season. If you disagree, you are wrong. And stupid. And a Steelers fan. Garrard and the seemingly unstoppable one-two punch of Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew will be a huge test for the Pats. But, I think they've proven they're up to a challenge.
That being said, I'm taking New England. When a team is undefeated, they have to give you a reason to pick against them. Another team's success is hardly a just cause. I'd like to see Jacksonville win this game (because I like Jacksonville, not because I dislike NE) but you just can't pick against 16-0 unless a major piece is missing. Sorry, Dave G.
Indianapolis over San Diego:
San Diego is a good team. Indy is a great team. That's it. End of discussion. A year or two ago, I would have said that Peyton would have given up the game...and I still might bring up the choke argument later in the playoffs. But there's no way Peyton Manning will give away a first round game. Marvin Harrison will be back and even if he isn't 100%, Manning still has Wayne and Clark and every other weapon he used all year. By the way, have you heard of a fella named Joseph Addai?
Simply put, the Colts are awesome. They're the defending champs, they dominated this season, and the usual argument against them - that they lose big games - is significantly diminished now that they've won the Super Bowl. The only reason people aren't talking more about the Colts are because the Patriots went undefeated. The Colts are better than the rest of the NFL. They'll roll over the Chargers and then they'll play in what may be one of the best games ever against the Patriots. I think it's more likely that the Jags will beat the Patriots than that the Bolts will beat the Colts. The Colts are heading to the AFC Championship game. It's only a matter of time.
Green Bay over Seattle
I make this pick cautiously because I think Seattle is a good team with good coach and a good quarterback and a good running game and a good defense. The Packers, though, can be great. Favre will play like it's his last chance because it just may well be.
New York over Dallas
The Giants have already gotten two looks at Dallas this year and it's going to be difficult for Dallas to beat them a third time. The Giants have not been hotter under the Eli era than they are right now. Manning's playing great football (Holy shit, I can't believe I wrote that!), the offense is red hot, and the defense is stifling. With TO less than healthy, the Dallas offense isn't at it's top form and let's not forget that as good as Romo is, he has not yet won a playoff game. Eli Manning has one more playoff win than Tony Romo. Beat that, Wade Phillips!
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Cooperstown Questions: What Makes a Hall of Famer?
The 2008 Hall of Fame ballot, one so strong as to include legends like Jose Rijo and Todd Stottlemyer, will fall into the hands of baseball writers this week as they vote on their choices to join the immortal. On Tuesday, Hall of Fame hopefuls will wait anxiously by their phones to see if Cooperstown will call. It likely won’t. 2008 may see Jim Rice and Goose Gossage enter the Hall of Fame after more than a decade on the ballot, while writers balk on Mark McGwire and laugh at names like Rijo, Stottlemyer, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Chuck Finley, and Brady Anderson. The only new addition to the ballot who warrants consideration is Tim Raines, and he is certainly not a first ballot Hall of Famer.
The two major criteria for Hall worthiness, as far as I am concerned, are numbers and longevity. Numbers are law and lord in baseball. They are how players are compared through the ages and are how players judge themselves and each other. They objectify a subjective game and help substitute reason for passion when deciding who makes it to Cooperstown. Longevity is also crucial. Thousands of players have dominated for a year or two or five. Far fewer have had the staying power to maintain Hall-worthy careers over fifteen or twenty years. Fifteen years is my general cutoff for a few reasons. First, fifteen years into their careers, players are in their mid-to-late thirties and are usually on the decline. Second, aside from Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens, fifteen years of a player’s career gives you an idea of the shape of his entire career, and is when his numbers begin to add up to Hall status or something short of it.
Numbers and Longevity. Those are my two criteria and I think the Hall does a pretty good job of enforcing those boundaries. Of course, the Hall is not completely full of players who played two decades or reached the magical numbers of 3000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 wins, or 3000 strikeouts. There are exceptions and, rightfully so, discretion is used. This discretion, though, often leads to players being inducted whose career stats are far lower than the Hall usually considers worthy. Sometimes this is acceptable. Often, it is not. I have broken these down into a few categories and have come up with rules and explanations of how players with sub-par career stats end up in the Hall of Fame.
The Koufax Corollary:
If a player completely and utterly dominates enough over a 5 or 6-year period so much that he transcends that game, he is considered for the Hall. Koufax only ended up with 165 career wins and 2396 strikeouts, but during the period between 1961 and 1966, he was far and away the best pitcher in baseball and maybe the best pitcher ever. In that period, he won 129 games, struck out 1713 batters, and had an earned run average of 2.24. In six years.
I have only been able to come up with two more recent examples of players who would fall into the Koufax Corollary, Pedro Martinez and (more-so) Mariano Rivera. However, both players’ careers have lasted long enough by now to give them Hall numbers anyway, thus rendering the Koufax Corollary irrelevant in their cases.
The Maris Rule to the Koufax Corollary:
Hitters are virtually exempt from the Koufax Corollary. Maris’s 61 home runs in 1961, his back-to-back MVP awards, and his 3 World Series championships were not enough to get him into the Hall. I pretty much agree with his exemption but I think it is worth using his case as a benchmark for future players: you need to dominate for a long time. Many, many hitters have dominated the sport for short amounts of time, but prior to the steroid era, no non-Hall of Famer has transcended the sport over a short period like Maris. His exemption from the Hall virtually excluded hitters from the Koufax Corollary. Hitters, even moreso than pitchers, must be judged on longevity.
Another note: Neither Johnny Vandermeer, who pitched back to back no hitters, nor Don Larsen, who pitched a perfect game in the World Series, are Hall of Famers. It’s about your career, not a season or a single event.
The Puckett Problem:
As I said a few sentences ago, hitters must be judged on longevity. One thing that angers me more than anything else is when fans tout the Hall credentials of 27-year old players. Countless players start their careers with a string of Hall of Fame seasons only to a) fall off or b) get injured or die. An all-star team of these players, “Hall-of-Famers-turned-average-players,” would look like this:
C: Thurmon Munson (died)
1B: Don Mattingly (hurt his back)
2B: Chuck Knoblauch (mental errors)
SS: Nomar Garciaparra (fell off)
3B: Matt Williams (fell off)
OF: Darryl Strawberry (drugs)
OF: Tony Conigliaro (hit by pitch)
OF: Albert Belle (insanity)
OF: Kirby Puckett* (health problems/hit by pitch)
P: Dwight Gooden
*inducted anyway, for reasons beyond rational understanding
All of these players were once considered Hall of Fame material but fell off due to a variety of reasons. It can happen to anyone. Albert Pujols right now is in the best position of any 27-year old who has ever played the game. His first seven seasons have far surpassed the first seven seasons of any player, ever. But he is not a Hall of Famer. Not yet. If he gets hit by a bus tomorrow, he will finish his career with fewer than 300 home runs and less than 1400 hits, far from Hall of Fame credentials. He’ll almost certainly get there one day, but let’s not crown him yet. A problem occurs when the Hall balks on the longevity/numbers boundary and gives a pass to a player who may not be deserving. Let’s call this the Puckett Problem.
Kirby Puckett is now a Hall of Famer with 2300 hits, 207 home runs, and 1085 RBI’s. His .318 average is unbelievable, but that’s because his career didn’t have a back-nine, when his numbers could fall. Don Mattingly, in comparison, finished his career with 2153 hits, 222 home runs, and 1099 RBI’s. His .307 batting average, still incredible, fell only after he battled back problems for the better part of a decade. I’m not saying Mattingly deserves to be in the Hall of Fame – he doesn’t. But neither does Puckett. When you put Puckett in the Hall of Fame, it lends credibility to Mattingly’s cause. When you let one player into the Hall who has sub-Hall numbers, it opens the debate for other players with short careers and/or subpar career numbers.
In addition to the players with superb short careers are the players with long, decent careers. Fred McGriff and Juan Gonzalez are probably are not Hall of Famers, even though their numbers suggest some consideration. McGriff, .284, 2490, 493, 1550 over 19 seasons and Gonzalez, .295, 1936, 434, 1404 over 17 seasons, had great careers, but neither is probably Hall-worthy. Those are great numbers but for a first-baseman and an outfielder, respectively, they don’t get you into the Hall of Fame. And neither have the defensive qualifications of an Ozzie Smith to push them over the top. Often, players hang on too long and inflate their numbers to Hall of Fame range, even when they are not quite at that level.
The Gossage Dilemma:
Another phenomenon of the Hall of Fame is when changes in the game following a player’s retirement affect that player’s Hall of Fame chances. Goose Gossage might have been the best relief pitcher of his era but his was an era when relief pitchers were not given as much credit. Closers pitched two or three innings a game and saves were far rarer than they are today. Trevor Hoffman’s 500 saves and Mariano Rivera’s heroics have made the closer into a priceless commodity. If Gossage pitched today, he would surely have been used differently and his stats would be exponentially higher. But should this speculation qualify him for admission? The game is constantly changing and it is seemingly impossible to compare players across generations. Pitchers once pitched both ends of a double header. How can you compare Roger Clemens’ 354 wins with Cy Young’s 511? Or, for that matter, Gossage’s 310 saves with Hoffman’s 524? The answer is that you can’t. You just can’t. So should the writers consider this when they vote on older players like Gossage? Yeah, I think they have to. It’s not easy and it’s not clear, but I think they have to measure a player based on the standards of his day, not the current era. No player in Gossage’s era could possibly measure up to today’s save totals. But he was the most dominant of his era and his stats were the best of his era. What more can you ask of a player?
This week, Gossage and Jim Rice will likely be elected to the Hall of Fame. Gossage should get in for the reasons listed above. Rice, I think, falls just a bit short. He played 16 seasons, satisfying the longevity criteria, but his numbers just aren’t there. Rice never dominated the game like Koufax did and while .298, 2452, 382, 1451 are all good numbers, they are certainly not GREAT numbers. The Hall shouldn’t settle for anything less.
The two major criteria for Hall worthiness, as far as I am concerned, are numbers and longevity. Numbers are law and lord in baseball. They are how players are compared through the ages and are how players judge themselves and each other. They objectify a subjective game and help substitute reason for passion when deciding who makes it to Cooperstown. Longevity is also crucial. Thousands of players have dominated for a year or two or five. Far fewer have had the staying power to maintain Hall-worthy careers over fifteen or twenty years. Fifteen years is my general cutoff for a few reasons. First, fifteen years into their careers, players are in their mid-to-late thirties and are usually on the decline. Second, aside from Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens, fifteen years of a player’s career gives you an idea of the shape of his entire career, and is when his numbers begin to add up to Hall status or something short of it.
Numbers and Longevity. Those are my two criteria and I think the Hall does a pretty good job of enforcing those boundaries. Of course, the Hall is not completely full of players who played two decades or reached the magical numbers of 3000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 wins, or 3000 strikeouts. There are exceptions and, rightfully so, discretion is used. This discretion, though, often leads to players being inducted whose career stats are far lower than the Hall usually considers worthy. Sometimes this is acceptable. Often, it is not. I have broken these down into a few categories and have come up with rules and explanations of how players with sub-par career stats end up in the Hall of Fame.
The Koufax Corollary:
If a player completely and utterly dominates enough over a 5 or 6-year period so much that he transcends that game, he is considered for the Hall. Koufax only ended up with 165 career wins and 2396 strikeouts, but during the period between 1961 and 1966, he was far and away the best pitcher in baseball and maybe the best pitcher ever. In that period, he won 129 games, struck out 1713 batters, and had an earned run average of 2.24. In six years.
I have only been able to come up with two more recent examples of players who would fall into the Koufax Corollary, Pedro Martinez and (more-so) Mariano Rivera. However, both players’ careers have lasted long enough by now to give them Hall numbers anyway, thus rendering the Koufax Corollary irrelevant in their cases.
The Maris Rule to the Koufax Corollary:
Hitters are virtually exempt from the Koufax Corollary. Maris’s 61 home runs in 1961, his back-to-back MVP awards, and his 3 World Series championships were not enough to get him into the Hall. I pretty much agree with his exemption but I think it is worth using his case as a benchmark for future players: you need to dominate for a long time. Many, many hitters have dominated the sport for short amounts of time, but prior to the steroid era, no non-Hall of Famer has transcended the sport over a short period like Maris. His exemption from the Hall virtually excluded hitters from the Koufax Corollary. Hitters, even moreso than pitchers, must be judged on longevity.
Another note: Neither Johnny Vandermeer, who pitched back to back no hitters, nor Don Larsen, who pitched a perfect game in the World Series, are Hall of Famers. It’s about your career, not a season or a single event.
The Puckett Problem:
As I said a few sentences ago, hitters must be judged on longevity. One thing that angers me more than anything else is when fans tout the Hall credentials of 27-year old players. Countless players start their careers with a string of Hall of Fame seasons only to a) fall off or b) get injured or die. An all-star team of these players, “Hall-of-Famers-turned-average-players,” would look like this:
C: Thurmon Munson (died)
1B: Don Mattingly (hurt his back)
2B: Chuck Knoblauch (mental errors)
SS: Nomar Garciaparra (fell off)
3B: Matt Williams (fell off)
OF: Darryl Strawberry (drugs)
OF: Tony Conigliaro (hit by pitch)
OF: Albert Belle (insanity)
OF: Kirby Puckett* (health problems/hit by pitch)
P: Dwight Gooden
*inducted anyway, for reasons beyond rational understanding
All of these players were once considered Hall of Fame material but fell off due to a variety of reasons. It can happen to anyone. Albert Pujols right now is in the best position of any 27-year old who has ever played the game. His first seven seasons have far surpassed the first seven seasons of any player, ever. But he is not a Hall of Famer. Not yet. If he gets hit by a bus tomorrow, he will finish his career with fewer than 300 home runs and less than 1400 hits, far from Hall of Fame credentials. He’ll almost certainly get there one day, but let’s not crown him yet. A problem occurs when the Hall balks on the longevity/numbers boundary and gives a pass to a player who may not be deserving. Let’s call this the Puckett Problem.
Kirby Puckett is now a Hall of Famer with 2300 hits, 207 home runs, and 1085 RBI’s. His .318 average is unbelievable, but that’s because his career didn’t have a back-nine, when his numbers could fall. Don Mattingly, in comparison, finished his career with 2153 hits, 222 home runs, and 1099 RBI’s. His .307 batting average, still incredible, fell only after he battled back problems for the better part of a decade. I’m not saying Mattingly deserves to be in the Hall of Fame – he doesn’t. But neither does Puckett. When you put Puckett in the Hall of Fame, it lends credibility to Mattingly’s cause. When you let one player into the Hall who has sub-Hall numbers, it opens the debate for other players with short careers and/or subpar career numbers.
In addition to the players with superb short careers are the players with long, decent careers. Fred McGriff and Juan Gonzalez are probably are not Hall of Famers, even though their numbers suggest some consideration. McGriff, .284, 2490, 493, 1550 over 19 seasons and Gonzalez, .295, 1936, 434, 1404 over 17 seasons, had great careers, but neither is probably Hall-worthy. Those are great numbers but for a first-baseman and an outfielder, respectively, they don’t get you into the Hall of Fame. And neither have the defensive qualifications of an Ozzie Smith to push them over the top. Often, players hang on too long and inflate their numbers to Hall of Fame range, even when they are not quite at that level.
The Gossage Dilemma:
Another phenomenon of the Hall of Fame is when changes in the game following a player’s retirement affect that player’s Hall of Fame chances. Goose Gossage might have been the best relief pitcher of his era but his was an era when relief pitchers were not given as much credit. Closers pitched two or three innings a game and saves were far rarer than they are today. Trevor Hoffman’s 500 saves and Mariano Rivera’s heroics have made the closer into a priceless commodity. If Gossage pitched today, he would surely have been used differently and his stats would be exponentially higher. But should this speculation qualify him for admission? The game is constantly changing and it is seemingly impossible to compare players across generations. Pitchers once pitched both ends of a double header. How can you compare Roger Clemens’ 354 wins with Cy Young’s 511? Or, for that matter, Gossage’s 310 saves with Hoffman’s 524? The answer is that you can’t. You just can’t. So should the writers consider this when they vote on older players like Gossage? Yeah, I think they have to. It’s not easy and it’s not clear, but I think they have to measure a player based on the standards of his day, not the current era. No player in Gossage’s era could possibly measure up to today’s save totals. But he was the most dominant of his era and his stats were the best of his era. What more can you ask of a player?
This week, Gossage and Jim Rice will likely be elected to the Hall of Fame. Gossage should get in for the reasons listed above. Rice, I think, falls just a bit short. He played 16 seasons, satisfying the longevity criteria, but his numbers just aren’t there. Rice never dominated the game like Koufax did and while .298, 2452, 382, 1451 are all good numbers, they are certainly not GREAT numbers. The Hall shouldn’t settle for anything less.
Friday, January 4, 2008
The 2008 Playoff Preview - and a Major Motion Picture
After a long hiatus, I return triumphantly to the media powerhouse that is Dave G's Dugout. Thankfully for my sleeping sense of creativity, the NFL has decided to help me out by scheduling the first round of the playoffs during the same week I return to the blogosphere. Thus, the Dave G Playoff Preview is born.
Washington at Seattle:
The Washington Redskins are a Disney movie in the making. Seriously, you cannot write a better Hollywood script. They'll have to change the name, though. Hmm...
The year is 2007. The Washington team is 5-6 when their franchise player, a Pro Bowl safety, is brutally murdered in his home. They travel to Buffalo, where their coach, a grizzled veteran of three Super Bowl wins, forgets a rule and loses the game. Their young quarterback injures his knee and is forced to miss the rest of the season. They are finished. They are done. They are left for dead. Or are they?
After an inspirational speech by the near-senile coach, the team, led by a lifetime backup and geriatric quarterback, a star runningback (a close friend of the murdered safety) who regains his strength, and a defense reborn in the wake of their teammate's death, lead the team on an improbable run toward the playoffs and then toward the Super Bowl. Starring Walter Mathau as Todd Collins, Morgan Freeman as Joe Gibbs, and Peyton Manning as himself, Walt Disney pictures is proud to present: The Native Americans.
I sense an Oscar buzz.
Anyway, this game is unpredictable. Anything can happen. Seattle has a tremendous home field advantage and fields the better team and I'd take Matt Hasselbeck over all but maybe Brady, Manning, Favre and Romo in a playoff scenario. But the Skins are playing phenomenal football and seem to be pushed right now by an invisible force. I have a hard time picking them to win this game, but I hope it happens. For Sean Taylor, for Joe Gibbs, and for good old Jerome, I hope this happens.
Jacksonville at Pittsburgh:
I have to go with Jacksonville here, but cautiously. The Jags are the better team. Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew offer a one-two punch that is maybe unparalleled in the League and David Garrard, who helped bring my fantasy team (The Maryland Terrapins) the championship, is a solid young quarterback who simply does not give up the ball. The Steelers, on the other hand, are playing without injured RB Willie Parker. But here's the thing: they're tested. I don't care what David Garrard did in the regular season. The man has never played a post-season game. Ben Rothlisberger is a Super Bowl quarterback and the Steelers are a team that has won big games (including the biggest of them all) over the last number of years. I'm going with Jacksonville because they are clearly the better team, but let's see how these intangibles work in Pitt's favor.
Giants and Bucs:
Which Eli will show up? The Eli who looked more like Peyton in the first half of the Pats game? Or the Eli from the rest of the season who looked less sure of himself than McLovin in the liquor store? This question will decide this game.
San Diego and Tennessee:
As I am slowly working my way back into blogging and clearly exhausted my efforts on the Redskins section, I am going to forego an explanation of my decision here and simply say San Diego. It means "A Whale's Vagina." That alone gives them the edge.
While I was gone:
-Pettitte apologized.
-The BCS screwed Missouri.
-Michigan got a damn good coach.
-Maryland phoned in the Emerald Bowl.
-Maryland Basketball lost to Ohio and American.
-Jimmy Leyritz killed a woman.
-Peyton Manning filmed 157 commercials. As some point, this will cease to be funny. It might have already happened, but if it did, I am unaware.
Washington at Seattle:
The Washington Redskins are a Disney movie in the making. Seriously, you cannot write a better Hollywood script. They'll have to change the name, though. Hmm...
The year is 2007. The Washington team is 5-6 when their franchise player, a Pro Bowl safety, is brutally murdered in his home. They travel to Buffalo, where their coach, a grizzled veteran of three Super Bowl wins, forgets a rule and loses the game. Their young quarterback injures his knee and is forced to miss the rest of the season. They are finished. They are done. They are left for dead. Or are they?
After an inspirational speech by the near-senile coach, the team, led by a lifetime backup and geriatric quarterback, a star runningback (a close friend of the murdered safety) who regains his strength, and a defense reborn in the wake of their teammate's death, lead the team on an improbable run toward the playoffs and then toward the Super Bowl. Starring Walter Mathau as Todd Collins, Morgan Freeman as Joe Gibbs, and Peyton Manning as himself, Walt Disney pictures is proud to present: The Native Americans.
I sense an Oscar buzz.
Anyway, this game is unpredictable. Anything can happen. Seattle has a tremendous home field advantage and fields the better team and I'd take Matt Hasselbeck over all but maybe Brady, Manning, Favre and Romo in a playoff scenario. But the Skins are playing phenomenal football and seem to be pushed right now by an invisible force. I have a hard time picking them to win this game, but I hope it happens. For Sean Taylor, for Joe Gibbs, and for good old Jerome, I hope this happens.
Jacksonville at Pittsburgh:
I have to go with Jacksonville here, but cautiously. The Jags are the better team. Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew offer a one-two punch that is maybe unparalleled in the League and David Garrard, who helped bring my fantasy team (The Maryland Terrapins) the championship, is a solid young quarterback who simply does not give up the ball. The Steelers, on the other hand, are playing without injured RB Willie Parker. But here's the thing: they're tested. I don't care what David Garrard did in the regular season. The man has never played a post-season game. Ben Rothlisberger is a Super Bowl quarterback and the Steelers are a team that has won big games (including the biggest of them all) over the last number of years. I'm going with Jacksonville because they are clearly the better team, but let's see how these intangibles work in Pitt's favor.
Giants and Bucs:
Which Eli will show up? The Eli who looked more like Peyton in the first half of the Pats game? Or the Eli from the rest of the season who looked less sure of himself than McLovin in the liquor store? This question will decide this game.
San Diego and Tennessee:
As I am slowly working my way back into blogging and clearly exhausted my efforts on the Redskins section, I am going to forego an explanation of my decision here and simply say San Diego. It means "A Whale's Vagina." That alone gives them the edge.
While I was gone:
-Pettitte apologized.
-The BCS screwed Missouri.
-Michigan got a damn good coach.
-Maryland phoned in the Emerald Bowl.
-Maryland Basketball lost to Ohio and American.
-Jimmy Leyritz killed a woman.
-Peyton Manning filmed 157 commercials. As some point, this will cease to be funny. It might have already happened, but if it did, I am unaware.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
