Baseball Thoughts, etc.

Well, before we go any further, I've been criticized twice in the past 24 hours for my view on Jason Maxiell, so I officially take back anything mean I've said about him. I also relinquish my right to analyze Cincinnati players.

OK, on to baseball, where Kenny Rogers went nuts yesterday afternoon on some cameraman from Fox Sports Southwest. You have to wonder what he was thinking, considering the fact that he probably would have been an All-Star this year. It's also surprising that everybody on the Rangers has pretty much accepted that Rogers is wrong, and is just waiting for what the commish decides to do.

I wonder if MLB has some sort of contingency plan for this, because we really haven't had incidents of this type in MLB (a la Ron Artest), and it's doubtful that they have some sort of precedent for this, other than the Albert Belle fiascos from a few years back.

The Rangers officially went nuts on the Angels today because of this, with Kevin Mench hitting three home runs and Texieira hitting two home runs. I think there were 8 total for Texas in the game. That lineup is pretty amazing from top to bottom, although there's still Rod Barajas to account for. It's too bad that their pitching staff is filled with nuts like Rogers, Chan Ho (the Karate Kid) Park, and Frank "Chairmaster" Francisco. Otherwise, they would probably be a wildcard contender- or at least a stronger wildcard contender. Is there anyway we can consider the Rangers to have almost gotten equal value for A-Rod with Soriano? Probably not, but Soriano's still a pretty scary offensive player.

Well, I'm about to get some pizza, so my Wimbledon analysis will have to wait for another time. Go Venus!!

Mike

Sports Update for the week...

Well, last night we had the NBA Draft, and if I have to hear Jay Bilas describe how 'long' someone is again, I might have to invoke my Second Amendment right to bear arms. Let me quickly run through the first round, and then we'll move on to the idea of "Tiger-proofing" the Masters.

I don't think there's much to say about the first six picks, though there should be some questions about Felton's shooting ability. I still don't see how Charlotte is going to score next year, but at least they'll have some good, solid character guys to build around... who might not be better than above-average. I also have this thought: do we really have a good idea about how these UNC guys are going to be in the NBA? Didn't they all make each other look a little better in college? I'm sure it's a lot easier to run the point when you can throw it in there to May, and those guys all got plenty of points in transition.

Then we have the Raptors, who took Charlie Villanueva at number 7. I actually like Charlie, mainly because I think we all realize that Araujo isn't gonna be any good and they might as well try again. See, here's the thing. Let's suppose Toronto knew what they were doing... they now have two extremely athletic, versatile power forwards who are polished scorers and rebounders. And if they didn't, they're Toronto, so what could you expect?

The Knicks taking Frye was fine, he'll be alright. If Diogu can rebound for Golden State, he'll be good too. I thought Orlando definitely should have taken Gerald Green at 11, however. He definitely could have learned how to score from Steve Francis and would have gotten some character support from Grant Hill and Dwight Howard.

Other highlights: Jerry West accusing Hakim Warrick of being from Princeton, Detroit drafting Jason Maxiell (presumably to rough up Darko in practice), New York fans mercilessly booing David Lee (who did these people want, anyway?), and Portland quietly trading for Jarrett Jack in a subtle "no-confidence" vote to Telfair. "Yeah, Sebastian, we like you, but you don't actually know what you're doing, and we think that might be important for next year."

It has come to my attention that Hootie Johnson is lengthening Augusta National next year. Rumor is that there will be a 505-yard par 4. While I was watching part of the Jim Rome show today, I heard Scoop Jackson say that this was, essentially, discrimination about Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods also came out today and said that he was "disappointed" with the changes, because "We have yet to have it hard and dry and fast for the entire week." Essentially, the old changes still haven't really had a chance to take effect yet, and it's been tossed around that, if the course is dry, the new changes will force scores over par.

Part of the mystique behind the Masters is the fact that somebody can shoot a really low number on the last day and win. I think that it's also categorically impossible to Tiger-proof a course, partially because he'll still be able to hit it farther than everyone else, and he's crafty. Seriously, one of the reasons why Tiger is so great is his ability to save par from pine straw, sand, thick rough, trees, behind galleries, and, well, you get the idea. It sort of seems like Hootie Johnson is trying to hold on to the last vestiges of the good ol' days, at the risk of alienating a new generation and race of golfers. That truly is a shame.

I'm out...

Mike

NBA Draft Preview!

Hi, it's that time of year again. This time of year marks the point in which we pretend to care about the NBA Draft. Unlike their NFL counterparts, the NBA spends a lot less time picking their players, and a lot more money paying them. (By the way, when I make this statement, I realize that rookie NBA contracts are less than rookie NFL contracts; however, of the course of any player's lifetime, it is more likely that an NBA player will make more than an NFL player.)

I read another poorly conceived page 2 article, this time written by the loud Skip Bayless. Skip is the star participant of "First and Ten," and normally has very sane things to say when he writes (not when he talks). However, I feel that in his assessment of the NBA Draft, Skip kind of missed the boat.

Let's see what Ol' Skip says about Andrew Bogut...

"I'm not sure about Bogut. He averaged a not-bad 14.8 points and 8.8 rebounds for Australia's Olympic team. But he could not carry his Utah team to the Final Four, which should be cause for alarm in Milwaukee (the Bucks have the No. 1 pick).

Bogut's Utes lost a Sweet 16 game by 10 to Kentucky, which didn't exactly have a front line of Walton, Olajuwon and Ewing. Bogut had 20 points and 11 rebounds. But, come on – if he were a future perennial NBA All-Star, he would have dominated Kentucky, then Michigan State, then made eventual champion North Carolina sweat in the Final Four."

Well, this line of thinking could lead to lots of bad analysis, so let's evaluate this argument. First, if I got together a group of college players to be on my Olympic team, I'd feel pretty fortunate if my center averaged 15 and 9. I think the Olympics is at least as decent of a barometer as college as far as skill level is concerned.

Second, plenty of perennial NBA All-Stars haven't led their teams to Final Fours... case and point, Tim Duncan (or Shaq.) Don't fault Bogut because his team didn't have the talent. Utah was a #6 seed in the tournament, and made it to the Sweet 16. That would have to be considered an accomplishment. Kentucky's front line was among the tougher front lines in college, with Hayes and Morris around.

Bottom line is, nobody knows what to expect from Bogut, because the track record on big white centers hasn't been very good as of late. But he sure looks like he should be able to score some points. That should be good enough to make him the number 2 pick! Why? Because the number one pick should probably be Marvin Williams. He definitely could be a force in the NBA, as he should be able to score lots of points. He's very athletic, and would've probably had better stats had he not been Sean May's backup down at UNC.

Here's my predicted Top 10:

1) Milwaukee- Andrew Bogut. Simply because I think they want to be back in the playoffs next year.
2) Atlanta- Marvin Williams. They would be stupid not to... well, they are the Hawks, but still...
3) Utah- Deron Williams. I think Chris Paul might be better, but Utah has this thing for level-headed point guards.
4) New Orleans- Chris Paul. This guy will be able to score on anyone, might be the safest pick in the draft.
5) Charlotte- Gerald Green. Since this team isn't going anywhere, they might as well draft the player with the most talent.
6) Portland- Martell Webster. This is close to home and some scoring might be desirable for the Blazers. Like the Bobcats, they aren't going anywhere.
7) Toronto- Raymond Felton. "Rafer Alston, don't let the door hit you on the way out."
8) New York- Channing Frye. At last, the Knicks are bad enough to get a decent pick, and they should get more size. Fran Vazquez might not be a bad idea either.
9) Golden State- Fran Vazquez. Here's another team that desperately needs to get bigger.
10) LA Lakers- Danny Granger. It'll be important for LA to get an NBA-ready player, and Granger fits the bill.

Guest Wimbledon Preview! (courtesy of John Lorenz)

Men’s Draw
Round of 16
Federer v. Ferrero – Ah, the battle of tennis players who look like pirates... I’m glad to see Juan Carlos back in the mix of things. The one time French Open champ and #1 in the world has been plagued with injuries for about a year and a half. Unfortunately, this is Federer on grass. Federer in 3.
Gonzalez v. Youzhny – I know a little about Gonzalez and nothing about Youzhny. My instincts say never pick the South American on grass, but he hits it really hard. Gonzalez in 4.
Hewitt v. Dent – Tradition says take the serve and volleyer on grass. But Hewitt’s won it once from the baseline, and while Dent will give him trouble... C’MON! Hewitt in 5.
Ancic v. Lopez – Lopez is the oddest player on tour – a Spanish left-handed serve and volleyer. Ancic serves and volleys as well. Get ready to see 8 million points at net. Ancic in 3.
Mirnyi v. Johansson – The Beast v. the Consistent Swede – aka the most illegitimate major winner of the last decade. Mirnyi should mop up on grass but is totally inconsistent. Johansson has had a resurgence. Mirnyi in 4 tiebreaks.
Nalbandian v. Gasquet – Nalbandian beats one teenager only to face another. I think he loses this time. Gasquet in 4.
Grosjean v. Tursonov – Grosjean is surly and French. He also serves and volleys and always had his greatest success on grass. Grosjean in 3.
Coria v. Roddick – My instincts say never pick the South American on grass. Roddick in 3.
Quarters
Federer v. Gonzalez – Federer in 3. (This needs an explanation?)
Hewitt v. Ancic – One time when my girlfriend asked if I wanted to watch Wimbledon I replied, “I’ve seen this one before. Henman loses to Roddick in the Semis, who loses to Federer in the finals.” I then ended up losing a 5 dollar bet when this crazy Ancic kid beat Henman in the quarters. Ancic in 4.
Mirnyi v. Gasquet – I don’t really know much about Gasquet, but Mirnyi seems like the kind of guy who has 1 or 2 crazy runs at a major title from nowhere a la Ivanesivic or Krajicek. Mirnyi in 5.
Grosjean v. Roddick – Roddick in 3. (He hits it REALLY hard.)
Semis
Federer v. Ancic – Ancic could really work Federer over I think. This is one guy he does not want to play if he’s not at the top of his game. But still... Federer in 4.
Roddick v. Mirnyi – The real question is, who’s going to return either of these guys’ serves? Whoever does wins. ***UPSET SPECIAL – Mirnyi in 4 tiebreaks***
Finals
Federer v. Myrnyi – Did I just pick a Federer v. Mirnyi final? I am officially unqualified to talk about tennis. Federer defeats Roddick in 4 sets. (Consider my bet officially hedged...)
Women’s Draw
Round of 16
Davenport v. Clijsters - **MATCH OF THE DAY ALERT** - I’m going out on a limb and saying whoever wins this wins Wimbledon. Davenport in 3.
Maleeva v. Kuznetsova – Kuznetsova in 2 – she’s good...
Mauresmo v. Likhovtseva – The question of every women’s draw is which round will the inevitable collapse of Ameile Mauresmo occur? Is it this one? No. Mauresmo in 2.
Myskina v. Dementieva – A couple of bipolar Russians who wish they could bypass the serve and go straight to groundstrokes. Who needs a serve anyway on grass? Can I flip a coin? Dementieva in 2 because Myskina has never looked stable on grass.
Pennatta v. Pierce – Mark must be happy about the play of Mary Pierce over the past month. Pierce in 2.
Williams v. Craybas – Vengence is mine! Williams in 2.
Petrova v. Peschke – Petrova v. who? Petrova in 2.
Sharapova v. Dechy – Sharapova’s mouth must be watering over her side of the draw. Dechy might be her toughest opponent until the finals. Sharapova in 2.
Quarters
Davenport v. Kuznetsova – Wow... there’s a lot of parity in the women’s game. I’m not confident Davenport will beat “Thunder Thighs” Clijsters. I’m not confident she’ll beat Kuznetsova. But she was my pick to click and I’m not gonna change! Davenport in 3.
Mauresmo v. Dementieva – I’d say Mauresmo would meltdown in the Quarters but Dementieva beats her too it with an ill conceived mind game strategy. Mauresmo in 2.
Pierce v. Williams – Pierce has been playing better tennis, but I’m a sucker for Venus Williams whom I believe has just been playing possum for the past 3 years only to unleash her grand scheme at the 2005 Championships. That or she’s just not as good as she used to be. Williams in 3.
Sharapova v. Petrova – Sharapova is by far the most stable of the Russians and quite frankly too attractive to lose before the semis. Sharapova over Petrova in 2.
Semis
Davenport v. Mauresmo – Mauresmo meltdown alert! Although, if Mauresmo played Sharapova in the finals, do you think she’d, um, you know... make a pass at Maria? (C’mon, you’re all thinkin’ it... )Davenport in 3.
Sharapova v. Williams – The way everything has gone, this is Sharapova’s tournament to win. She’s a proven winner. So I’m picking Venus Williams. Williams in 3.
Finals
Davenport v. Williams – Someone please inform me this is 2005, not 2001, and I meant to pick Clijsters against Sharapova. Anyway, Davenport in 2.

So there it is... the truth. I think I’ve overstayed my welcome, and my picks are probably grossly inaccurate. But take one thing from my so called expertise – never pick the South American or Spaniard in the 2nd week – unless its Feliciano Lopez whom I refuse to acknowledge as Spanish. See you in September when I will pick all 7 rounds of the US Open.

`I've never been big on practicing. I've kind of just been all about playing.''

This is an actual quote from Serena Williams a couple days before she got bounced by someone named Jill Craybas. Well, practicing isn't exactly a prerequisite for tennis, but that might be why you're not dominatin' the game like you once were. I actually went to Serena's website, and I was informed that I could get a Serena ringtone for my new phone! How exciting! I'm not really sure what that means, but it seems like awfully good news for me.

Well, I don't like Serena too much, mainly because I think she's arrogant and she should be nicer, like her sister Venus. Is it too late for me to cheer for Venus Williams to win one more major? I guess so.

(This concludes the Wimbledon talk for today, possibly the week.)

On to baseball, which is what I think my blog's supposed to be about, mainly. I still have no idea why the Nationals are winning, but I think it's probably because of that adequate starting rotation and shiny new bullpen. Kudos should also be given to Washington for drafting Chad Cordero a few years back; both him and Huston Street are giving me faith again in the first-round closer.

Stat of the day: BJ Upton has 27 errors for Triple-A Durham.

That's all for now...

Mike

Sports Highlights, etc...

Wow, we've had an exciting day in the world o' sports... let's start with the NBA Finals!

Oh, look who was the NBA Finals MVP? Was that Tim Duncan who single-handedly rendered the Pistons' vaunted interior D useless? It just might have been. I have to say, I only made it to the second half of this one, but Duncan made his foul shots for the most part and did sort of what Shaq did to Ben Wallace at times in the Lakers' series... made him look small. And I'm starting to like Ben Wallace, I swear, but I still contend that he's too small for the Pistons' center position and would probably be better off at power forward. The problem, of course, is that Wallace is a huge offensive liability, which is of course why Darko needs to develop so Wallace can be free to grab twenty rebounds a night, and so 'Sheed Wallace and Prince can kill the small forwards they would get play against.

Duncan now has three NBA titles, so he's about halfway to Michael Jordan. It's entirely possible that he could get there, though of course the Spurs would need to hold that lineup together, and Tony Parker will probably have to get better too. Bill Walton can officially eat his words about Duncan after one of the more impressive second-half performances in the playoffs.

And yet, the Knicks and Suns managed to steal some of the Finals thunder with a proposed Q-Rich for Kurt Thomas deal. Many analysts feel that this trade should benefit both teams, but I'm not too sure about that. For one thing, the whole gimmick of the Phoenix Suns is their ability to get out and bomb a team into submission, but I'm not sure how well they'll be able to do that without Richardson. Q-Rich didn't show up in the playoffs, but in order to get that zesty home-court advantage, you have to win a bunch in the regular season, and I just get a feeling that the Suns will miss that offensive output. Plus, this trade is contingent on Phoenix re-signing Jimmy Jackson; if they don't do that, they'll be in trouble.

Likewise, New York is acquiring another shooting guard, leaving them with four shooting guards (Allan Houston, Jamal Crawford, Anfernee Hardaway, and Richardson). I don't know too much about the contract situations of these guys, but I think this is probably a bad thing. Of these guys, Richardson is probably the most consistent, so he should start, but I can already hear the whining. It might be interesting to see a Marbury-Crawford-Richardson backcourt, they could be really good... it would be really nice if the Knicks could figure out a way to fun and gun this backcourt.

Wimbledon is officially teetering on the brink of unwatchable. Nadal, Safin, and Henman, three of the six most compelling players in the draw are already gone. Lleyton Hewitt really needs to go far or this tournament is dead to me.

I might actually let one of my friends who knows something about tennis write a tennis article for me handicapping the rest of Wimbledon... until then, I'll give you Michael's Wimbledon odds:

MENS:

Federer: 3:2
Roddick: 5:1
Ancic: 10:1
Hewitt: 12:1
Nalbandian, Lopez 15:1
Taylor Dent 18:1
Coria 25:1
Ferrero, F. Gonzalez 40:1
Johannson, Grosjean 50:1
Anyone else: 100:1

WOMENS:
Sharapova 2:1
S. Williams 5:2
Davenport 4:1
Mauresmo 10:1
V. Williams 12:1
Clijsters 15:1
Dementieva, Kuznetsova 20:1
Petrova 30:1
Myskina 50:1
Anyone else: 75:1

I don't know how betting works, so I'm not sure if these numbers are supposed to add up to get something, but I don't really care because I've gotta go do something else.

Mike

Game 7 Preview...

We can all breathe a big sigh of relief; the NBA Finals are over and we can go on and cheer for more important things, like... Wimbledon. However, my pick-to-click Justine Henin-Hardanne is already gone, so I really have no reason to watch the women's draw.

But wait, there's still that pesky Game 7, which I'll spend a little bit talking about...

I think that Detroit has about a coin flip's chance to win this game, but it sort of depends on how they shoot. Richard "Nobody beats the Rip" Hamilton had a pretty solid game, and I think that if he plays badly, so will Detroit. If Hamilton can't score, Detroit won't win, but Hamilton always seems to be able to get his points, which moves me to point numero uno.

What will Detroit get out of Tayshaun Prince?

If Tayshaun Prince can score a lot of points (anything more than 15) it will put a lot of pressure on San Antonio, because they will be forced to play a more terse man-to-man instead of cheating on the guards. Also, we know he can make the difference on the defensive end.

We know Billups and Hamilton will score their points. We don't know, however, who will score for the Spurs...

So which Ginobili and Parker show up? San Antonio will need perimeter shooting from one of these guys to win. Ginobili didn't have a particularly good shooting night in Game 7, and his outside game appears to be a bit off.

What makes this series compelling is the complete lack of consistency from its participants. At times, every player in this series has taken the night off, save Chauncey Billups. There's no good way to pick a winner because of this little fact, and so that's why we play the game.

Non Sports Post of the Week...

I am now formally introducing the brand new "Non-Sports" post of the week. This will be a forum for me to promote some cause or complain about something not related to sports, or to write something nice about my girlfriend Rachel, who is currently doing God's work in Ghana.

Today's post, however, has nothing to say about the lovely and talented Ms. Gibson. It is instead a forum to promote the United Nations' World Food Programme, as it is spelled.

READ THIS:

MEALS OF GRASS

Teetering between survival and starvation, women in the Sudan's southern Bahr el Ghazal region are boiling leaves and grass to feed their children after raiders from hostile tribes stole their cows to feed their own desperate families. "Our husbands don't have enough energy to fight," said Aluong Mawien, 35, who trekked to a feeding centre set up by relief workers in a mud village outside town the town of Marial. "I can't feed my baby, there's no milk in my breasts." The few aid workers in the region, one of the poorest places on earth, say that unless food starts arriving soon, large numbers of people will die -- starting with the children. "Governments and private individuals have worked very hard over the last 22 years to establish some kind of peace accord -- it's happened," said Patrick Murphy, medical coordinator at a bush hospital in Marial run by Medecins Sans Frontieres. "One of the ways to support that is to make sure that the people here don't starve to death," he said, speaking in a ward where dozens of mothers and babies lay on mats, recovering after weeks of foraging for nuts and leaves in the wilderness.

This article came from Yahoo news.

I think the article speaks for itself, people are trying to eat grass to survive. If you feel compelled to try to alleviate the problem, you can donate money to the UN via this website. Every little bit helps. I only donated a mere $40, but any amount of money can buy food because it is so cheap for the essentials.

Also, you would think the UN would be a little bit more proficient and trustworthy at what they do than some of the other children-saving organizations out there. They have more resources and are probably better-equipped. And your donation is tax-deductible, if any of you actually care about such matters.

I'm out.

Mike

Reds Fire Dave Miley...

I kid you not, the Reds just fired their manager, Dave Miley. I'm anxious to see the press conference on this one...

"Um, we just felt it was best for this franchise to pursue a different direction... Dave put his heart out on the line for us but in the end the performance just wasn't satisfactory."

Of course, it would have helped if Dave had known who was going to be in the lineup or on his bench every night, and it might have helped if you hadn't fired his closer, but oh well.

Reds Management Woes...

Quietly lurking in the world of NL Central mismanagement have been the Cincinnati Reds, a once-proud franchise owned by a rather crazy old woman, at least for a time. My roommate brought up how Dan O'Brien is actually is a worse GM than Jim Bowden was, and I think it's important to assess the validity of that statement. Normally I wouldn't do two posts on bad management so quickly, but I was actually just talking to another one of my friends about which Reds outfielder should be traded and why for like twenty minutes, and it seemed as if this was the perfect forum to air all the relevant issues.

Well, Jim Bowden was a bad GM, and my friend is quite right to say that he deserves little of the credit for the Nationals' success, although he did manage to sign Jose Guillen. Fortunately for Bowden, the Nationals have a pitching staff already in place, so there's no need to acquire pitching, although Bowden did recently trade away Tomo Ohka for Junior Spivey, which I thought was a bit suspect.

I don't really know where to begin with this, so let's try to look at the facts. From 2001-now the Reds haven't had a winning record. Among the competent outfielders they have had in the last five years that are now gone are: Dmitri Young, Juan Encarnacion, Brady Clark, and Jose Guillen. Shawn Estes, Gabe White, Ryan Dempster, and Jimmy Haynes all received large contracts during that time- in which only Dunn, Kearns, and Pena made it through the minors successfully to the majors. During that time, a fire sale was conducted which led to the departure of Aaron Boone, Scott Williamson, and Jose Guillen for what turned out to be Aaron Harang and Brandon Claussen. Unfathomably, Danny Graves was turned into a starter in 2003, and pitched poorly.

All of these moves were made in the Bowden era, so what makes O'Brien so much worse?

Let's look at the 2005 Reds. Eric Milton was awarded a large contract and has been terrible to the point in which his career could be in trouble. Danny Graves, arguably the most consistent Reds pitcher over the last five years, was unceremoniously dumped after a few bad outings and told to get a new job. Austin Kearns was sent to the minor leagues, a move that led my friend to ask, "Will we see Kearns again in Cincinnati, or will he get traded for a box of corn flakes?" Marignal free agents were signed to fill holes, like every year, and the Reds are once again horrible.

From this sample, it's difficult to tell if O'Brien is any better or worse than Bowden, although Bowden paid a lot less for his bad pitching than O'Brien is paying for his. I think the true test for O'Brien will be deciding which outfielder to trade. The answer should probably be Adam Dunn, although if Dunn is traded, Reds fans might take guns to the ballpark. Kudos should also go to O'Brien for sufficiently de-valuing Austin Kearns by sending him to the minors, that was clutch.

What is sad for the Reds is the fact that they have a brand new ballpark, but absolutely no incentive for anyone to go to it. Too many former prospects have been signed instead of actual big leaguers. Minor league scouting has been terrible, and the Reds have little talent that is major-league ready. It's easy to say that things would have been different if Griffey was healthy for this whole time, but Ken Griffey can't pitch, and that's something the Reds should have learned. I'm not quite ready to say that O'Brien is worse than Bowden, but he definitely doesn't have a definitive view on the franchise, or anything like that. His job should certainly be in question, because he definitely hasn't learned anything while he's been on the clock.

Mike

Here we go again...

Today Page 2 was dominated by the Sports Guy's article of why Robert Horry should be in the Hall of Fame. More non-convincing, non-factual arguments were given as to why Horry should be in the Hall, so I thought I would take some time to dissect the fallacious reasoning that has been given to us.

Let's start with pretentious claim number one: "Horry's career has always been a nice litmus test for the question, "Do you understand the game of basketball or not?" Nearly all of his strengths aren't things that casual fans would notice."

Yes, Horry is a great clutch player. So was Vinnie "The Microwave" Johnson. So was Horace Grant. Horry can hit threes better than most big men, and is a great defensive player, like Simmons said. But with strengths come liabilities: namely durability, consistency, ability to post up, etc. Horry has had few of those strengths in his career. He hasn't started in years, and periodically doesn't show up for games (like game 3 and game 4). Hall-of-Famers don't get shut out. REPEAT: Hall-of-Famers don't get shut out. Hall-of-Famers also play more than 20 minutes a night. Look, all those Yankee middle relievers of the late nineties were dynamic pitchers who won lots of rings and will not make the Hall-of-Fame.

And what is this garbage about casual fans not understanding what Horry does? Even assuming that Horry is, say, one of the ten best defensive players in the league, does that make him any more valuable then, say, Bruce Bowen, who basically does the same thing that Horry does, play defense and make threes? Over the course of a season, who is more valuable to San Antonio?

Ok, ok, enough about that. Let's move on to argument number two: "He picks his spots and only asserts himself in big situations when his team truly needs him."

The last time I checked, your team needs you to play well... every time you're on the court. I think Horry's Spurs needed him in Games 3 and 4 as well.

Here's outrageous claim number three: "If the Spurs had lost that game, they would have eventually blown the series and everyone would have blamed Duncan all summer, mainly because of his epic stink bomb down the stretch that brought back memories of Karl Malone and Elvin Hayes. Now he's just another great player who had an atrocious game at the wrong time."

Well, this may be sort of true. I'm sure Spurs fans would have basted Duncan with his missed foul shots and missed tip-ins. But to call Duncan's 26 point, 19 rebound performance atrocious is obviously stupid. Duncan changed the complexion of this game with irritating putback after putback in the first half, and played some very nice defense on Chauncey Billups at the end.

I think Simmons heard too much of Bill Walton before the game, where Walton boldly claimed that Duncan had "never won a championship on his own," as if David Robinson was some dominant force his last year. It's fashionable to hate on Tim Duncan because he's not fun to watch and doesn't yell at people. I'm just wondering how many titles he has to win before people give him some respect. Maybe the magic number is 21 or something, I don't really know.

Well, that's all for now, maybe there's more later if I feel like it.

Mike

The Cubs Are Not Cursed (They are Just Not Too Smart)

I would like to take a column and devote it to bad management decisions of the Cubs of the last fifteen years, because I think it's important to recognize that part of why this team is "cursed" is their own fault.

In 1992 the Cubs had a distinct decision to make with regard to a future Hall of Famer, Greg Maddux. Maddux had just won his first Cy Young Award, going 20 and 11 at the age of 26, with a 2.18 ERA in WRIGLEY FIELD. However, Chicago declined to re-sign Maddux, instead letting him go to an NL rival, the Atlanta Braves. Maddux went on to win three more Cy Youngs, and the Cubs had a five year stretch in which their leading pitchers were... Steve Trachsel, Greg Hibbard, and Frank Castillo.

And it isn't as if Cubs pitchers weren't getting paid, either. The following pitchers got paid over $3 million a year for at least one season during the 1990s: Kevin Tapani (who inexplicably got 19 wins in 1998 despite an ERA near 5), Mark Clark (who the Cubs judiciously awarded $5 mil in 1998 based on 9 1997 starts), Mel Rojas (kept for exactly half of one season), Ismael Valdes (lasted exactly 12 starts), Jamie Navarro (who actually was the best of this bunch, pitching fairly well in 1995 and 1996), Mike Morgan (when he was 35, no less), Randy Myers, and Jose Guzman (who is now in independent baseball in Louisiana).

What is fairly clear is that the $7 or $8 million it might have taken to re-sign Maddux was better than all the fill-ins.

The Cubs, however, did no better in their farm system, developing around zero players until 1998, when they threw Kerry Wood into the majors, let him throw too many pitches, and watched him blow out his arm.

But, you say, we're in the 2000s, and a whole new better era of Cubs baseball is upon us.

This may be true. Corey Patterson, Mark Prior, Carlos Zambrano, and Sergio Mitre are all competent farm-grown Cubs. Additionally, the Cubs have actually been on a streak lately of signing decent players to fill their lineup, something they never did for Sammy Sosa. Just imagine if Sosa had, say, Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez behind him for more than the latter part of his career.

However, as you might expect, the penny-pinching Cubs decided not to re-sign Matt Clement, one of their solid, perfectly durable starters. Moises Alou and Sammy Sosa were deemed expendable, and have been replaced by such stars as Todd Hollandsworth and Jeromy Burnitz. Now there are pitching problems again, and Prior and Wood are hurt again. But hey, at least the Cubs are trying to put younger players on the field, and are not (generally) settling for older, more expensive players who are average (calling Mickey Morandini and Henry Rodriguez).

The fact of the matter is that any team who does not manage their personnel well is not cursed, they are just poorly managed. Cubs fans should take a good hard look at every off-season in the past few decades, and it will become apparent that they are only cursed by bad management.

More All-Star Talk.

I promised I would continue the "possible non All-Star watch," so here it is:

Andre Miller- This guy is another Western Conference point guard that has gotten denied a few All-Star appearances; although he should have been an All-Star in 2002, when he led the NBA in assists for a very marginal Cleveland team. Miller isn't flashy, which is one thing that I think will hurt him, as he doesn't make too many highlight reels. It's too bad Cleveland couldn't keep that lineage of competent point guards going, they might have really had something there.

Cuttino Mobley- He can score, and someday he should be an All-Star because of that. Plus, he brings some "And-1" quality flavor to the NBA. But I think it will be difficult for him not to get overshadowed by guards in his conference, and we might not see Cuttino in an All-Star game ever.

Lamar Odom- A definite All-Star in my book, Odom received a royal shaft by not being named an All-Star in 2004, when he took on massive responsibility with the Heat, grew up some, had his best season ever, led them to the second round, and got absolutely no love. This year he averaged a double-double playing for LA, and was considered to be a disappointment. Still, you would have to think that if he stays consistent he will be an All-Star someday.

Jalen Rose- This is the most egregious omission of all. Jalen Rose (along with Reggie Miller, I suppose) basically took the 2000 Indiana Pacers to the NBA Finals, and has averaged over 20 a game 4 times in his career. Now 32, Rose probably only has a few more good years in him, and will likely never be an All-Star. This is yet another example of scorers being treated with little respect in today's media (a la Dominique Wilkins, Bernard King, and Glenn Robinson).

Rod Strickland- Charles Barkley couldn't believe this guy was never an All-Star and I can't either. In 1998 he finally got some respect as he was second-team all-NBA. Rod is the seventh-leading assist man of all time, and is considered to be one of the best at driving the lane.

There are a few others who will be on this list in a couple years (Larry Hughes, Keith Van Horn, etc.), but this is all the time I have to whine right now, and these guys are still young and sort of lack the qualifications I want.

Mike

Well, we have a series...

Apparently Detroit is mad at me personally for picking the Spurs, but how was I supposed to know they were going to show up? Anyway, here's some thoughts for game 5:

1) Antonio McDyess is back. For those of you who are unfamiliar with mid-90s or early-millenium basketball, Antonio McDyess was actually a legitimate star for a little while. Then the dark times came, in which he found himself hurt and playing for the Knicks (seriously, what could be worse?) Now he's back, which is sort of unfortunate for the Spurs, because he can really score, which is something that hurts coming off the bench.

2) Play Glenn Robinson. If your team can't score, couldn't you at least try putting in the one-dimensional scorer? He didn't even play in Game 4, and I venture to say he can jack up shots better then, say, Devin Brown. Here's hoping the Big Dog gets one last crack at greatness in this Finals.

By the way, whenever you hear analysts talk about best players never to make an All-Star team, two names come up: Eddie Johnson and Derek Harper. For reference's sake, Eddie Johnson played 17 years and is the 35th leading scorer in NBA history, while Derek Harper is the 17th-leading assist man in NBA history. So I thought it might be fun to take a look at players who might follow (but hopefully won't) in their deserving but unrecognized footsteps.

1) Damon Stoudamire. Stoudamire suffered from not being in the right place in the right time for the first part of his career, and is suffering from playing for Portland right now. He was the Rookie of the Year in 1996, and has averaged around 15 and 7 for most of his career. Last year he scored 51 in a game.

2) Mike Bibby. This is bound to change, and is ridiculously inexcusable, but every year Mike Bibby, one of the best playoff players of our generation, gets screwed out of an All-Star berth. Put him in next year on principle, please.

3) Hamilton/Billups. You would think that one of these Pistons could have been an All-Star this year, but hopefully one of them will be one next year. I actually think that it's pretty likely that Chauncey Billups will never be an All-Star due to his perceived inconsistency and the likelihood that voters will fall in love with Wallace, Prince, or Rip Hamilton before they think to put him in the game.

4) Jim Jackson. This is the most likely non All-Star of our bunch, because his career is in its twilight. Can anybody imagine how good Dallas could have been with Kidd, JJ, and Monster Mash though in their primes?

More coming on this later... I've been on basketballreference.com for about an hour now and I need to get something to eat.

Mike

Robert Horry Hall of Fame Watch...

Yeah, Horry played pretty well against the Pistons last night; so did Ginoboli, though he was hurt, to be fair. I rest my case.

Proving that HOF voters are generally not that smart...

Dominique Wilkins was an All-Star NINE CONSECUTIVE TIMES and is not in the Hall of Fame. He is also the NINTH LEADING SCORER in NBA HISTORY. And yeah, he could dunk and take teams to the playoffs in his time too.

For comparison's sake, let's take a look at Alex English, former Mavericks and Nuggets star. English led the league in scoring twice, was the 11th leading scorer ever, and made eight consecutive all-star teams. Unlike Wilkins, who was ALL-NBA 7 times, English made it just 3. Neither player was particularly adept at shooting threes, and neither player took their team to a final. So Wilkins was essentially at least similar or better to English.

English had no trouble making the hall. Let's hope Wilkins gets in NEXT YEAR.

We can't really expect too much out of the Hall voters, because these people are notoriously slow on the draw. Dan Issel and George Gervin got screwed for a couple years because they played in the ABA, but every coach on the planet gets to go to the Hall if they put in thirty years with a decent record. Let's put some heat on the Basketball Hall voters... they need to get this procedure figured out.

Mike

Shutouts are AWESOME!!!

Apparently tonight was shutout night in MLB, so here's the tale of the tape:

Chicago Cubs 14, Florida 0

Hey, Sergio Mitre wants to be the Cubs' fifth starter! What's more shocking is the Josh Beckett implosion.

NY Yankees 9, Pittsburgh 0

Mussina shuts out Pirates. This is actually his second shutout of the year, you might recall that he was the one to finally throw a shutout after that long shutout-free Yankee stretch.

Milwaukee 4, Tampa Bay 0

Tomo Ohka throws the shutout! Apparently he's pretty glad to be going to a team that stays in one place, even if it is the Brewers. I actually think that Milwaukee's staff is pretty good: Santos, Davis, Capuano, and Ohka have all been decent this year, and of course Ben Sheets is dominant when he pitches. Nobody on that staff has an ERA above 4, which is remarkable.

Boston 7, Cincinnati 0

This was a one-hitter by Boomer Wells, and you would figure that the hot and cold Reds might play a part in it. If anything, they're excellent candidates to get no-hit sometime this year.

St. Louis 7, Toronto 0

Chris Carpenter dominated the Blue Jays tonight; I guess he's getting some revenge on his former team. Ten strikeouts, one hit.

As we speak, Oakland's Joe Blanton is shutting out the Mets through six, and there's no score in the Washington/Anaheim game through five. It's a good night for pitching, I reckon.

Spurs/Pistons Game 3

What? The Spurs are beating the Pistons? You're kidding...

Here's why San Antonio should have not been picked against no matter their opponent. Let's consider their results so far.

First Round: Beat Denver, 4-1. This series was a fashionable upset pick by many, especially after the Spurs collapsed in Game 1 by not hitting any free throws. And Denver didn't win another game, as Kenyon Martin got outplayed by Tim Duncan in another playoff series, and Denver inexplicably turned to Earl Boykins for their main scoring threat. And the scary thing is, Denver actually sort of matched up with San Antonio, as they had some bulk inside and some guys with mean streaks. Even Carmelo was thuggin' it up, as he got called for a flagrant on Manu in Game 3. No matter.

Second Round: Beat Seattle, 4-2. This could have easily been 4-0, but Duncan missed a little twelve footer at the buzzer in Game 3, which would have probably slammed the door shut on the Sonics. Instead, Ray Allen went nuts in Game 4, and the Spurs had to close it out with a dramatic game 6 win at Seattle. The one team nobody thought could have a shot at the Spurs played angry, and San Antonio survived a surprisingly dangerous Sonics team.

Conference Finals: Beat Phoenix, 4-1. Phoenix won one game because Amare Stoudemire had the game of his life. Yes, Virginia, he can play defense sometimes. But Quentin Richardson and Shawn Marion had dreadful series (Q eventually got benched some), and Duncan pretty much matched Amare.

The point of all of this is that these teams won 163 games, while Detroit's opponents won 146. And Detroit had more trouble with their draw than the Spurs did.

Well, Detroit might win game 3, mainly because they have to, and the Spurs probably don't care if they do or not.

By the way, I read the Sports Guy's article today, and I thought two of his points were absolute train wrecks.

"If Manu Ginobili finishes the series the way he started, does he have to be considered the most dominant all-around two-guard in the league (ahead of Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady and everyone else)?"

Yeah, I think that Kobe Bryant didn't win three titles with LA, and T-Mac couldn't figure out how to slam home a few titles with a legit point guard and Tim Duncan. Please. I remember how we thought Jason Kidd was the best point guard ever when he took the Nets to two finals, and now we don't quite think the same way.

These players are more dominant than Ginoboli at the 2: T-Mac (did you forget his series against the Mavs, he's freakin' unstoppable), Kobe, Vince Carter (well, this one might be a stretch), and... Lebron James (I think he's a 2, anyway.) All of these guys would be perfectly acceptable guys to run shotgun for Duncan.

"Since Robert Horry has been the third-best player in the series, and he's probably headed for Ring No. 6 … do we need to start thinking about him as a potential Hall of Famer?"

Simmons goes on to put Horry in the same breath as Dennis Johnson, Michael Cooper, Dennis Rodman, and Bobby Jones as great players who didn't make the Hall.

Over his career, Horry has averaged... 9 points and 6 rebounds per PLAYOFF game, and 7.5 points and 5 rebounds per regular game. As you might imagine, he's been to zero All-Star games.

Dennis Johnson's stats: 14.1 ppg (17.3 playoffs), 5 All-Star teams
Michael Cooper's stats: 8-time all defensive, 8.9 ppg, 3.2 rebounds
and you get the point...

More thoughts later...

The John Kruk and Peter Gammons.

I was watching Baseball Tonight and I overheard this exchange between Kruk and Gammons about the Expos lineup... paraphrased, of course, I'm kinda going on memory here.

Gammons: "The Expos have a great bullpen. If they're going to win, their starting pitching on the road has to get better. They're giving up over five runs per game, and they need to get more consistency, since Livan Hernandez is the only pitcher who pitches with any sort of consistency on the road."

Kruk: "Their lineup is terrible... it's awful!"

Gammons: "I mean, their lineup is mediocre at best. It's maybe an average..."

Kruk: "Peter, come on, it's bad!"

Gammons (slinking back) "Yeah, um..."

You get the feeling that Gammons is going to go nuts on Kruk one of these nights, and it's gonna be Electric Six awesome.

Well, I gotta go, I work at eight!

Mike

Post #1!

I saw all sorts of other blogs on baseball and sports on the internet, so I wanted to try my hand at it. If it sucks, I can delete it (at least I think so).

Have fun reading!

Mike