thoughts on the santana trade.

i tend to be very agnostic about cheering for particular teams in professional sports. instead of cheering for a particular team without reserve, i tend to evaluate each matchup on a case-by-case basis. i use a rule of thumb to pick the team that i cheer for in a particular matchup, but i don't have any sort of mathematical way of expressing it. it's more of an intuition, a hunch, a feeling, something that tells me that this is the 'right' team to cheer for.

the feelings are arbitrary. i have cheered for the giants in the nfc because i felt like eli manning had taken a lot of unfair criticism throughout his career, and i felt like he was a true phoenix who could rise from the ashes. plus, i hate tiki barber for criticizing a young player for not being a leader. who can recall the giants taking ron dayne in 2000 because they felt like tiki wasn't an every down back? that's me. tiki was four years into his career, and he essentially had the same exact time series path that eli had. the strange thing is that i don't even like the giants. i never have, but cheering for them this year was the 'right' thing.

in the same vein, i loosely cheer for the spurs in basketball, although i'm open to other possibilities. i cheer for the hawks and the bucks because i like michael redd and joe johnson. i have some nostalgia for the nuggets and marcus camby. but game by game, i tend to pick who i cheer for sort of randomly. pacers/mavs? i'll cheer for someone, but it won't be for any defined reason. definition has its place, but not in leisure.

but i break my rule for baseball, where i cheer whole-heartedly for the minnesota twins. i never lived in minnesota, but i loved kirby puckett when i was younger, i was incensed about possible contraction, and i loved the resurgence of the small market. plus, there's the griffey baseball effect.

so when i found out that the twins traded johan santana to the mets, i was hurt. i felt as if the twins had committed to rebuilding at a time when they were still capable of contending: with liriano in the fold, i felt comfortable saying that they had the best 1-2 in the AL. with hunter/mauer/delmon/morneau in the lineup, they were able to get it done.

but they couldn't resign hunter. i felt it was ok- hunter was overrated offensively and was way too expensive. but i thought that they needed to pretend that they could compete one more year with santana. i know that the al is nightmarish; there are seven very talented teams in the al, and the central is scary. i know all these things, but santana/liriano are equalizers. that's reality.

so the twins gambled and sold santana to the nl. i guess the logic was that jon lester was perhaps not enough value, and that phil hughes might have injury issues. and there's some strategy in keeping santana out of the al; one, it doesn't throw competitive balance out of whack, and two, if teams aren't offering full value anyway (boston, e.g.) then one deal is as good as another.

because of this problem, the twins ended up with phil humber and kevin mulvey, two guys who will likely get some action this year as fourth and fifth starters, because the twins have to replace carlos silva. liriano is the ace, bonser is the two, slowey/baker are three and four. whatever. there's a lot of uncertainty there, but that's what you get.

the twins talked themselves into deolis guerra as the premium guy. is that the truth? well, it's a thought experiment. if an 18-year old, erratic (but talented) latin pitcher is ever going to be the guy, why not guerra? the caveat, of course, is that this generally doesn't work.

the hope is that carlos gomez figures out the bat. i don't know much, but i do know that coco crisp was boston's way of making their problem minnesota's. so kudos to the twins for rejecting that idea. if crisp isn't going to hit in the majors, then carlos gomez is just as good because he's much cheaper. i'll buy that.

and the yankees wanted to have melky cabrera as a centerpiece with phil hughes. sorry, but hughes is far from guaranteed, and melky cabrera seems an awful lot like a guy whose ceiling is pretty finite. does anybody see melky cabrera and think "all-star?" if not, then what's the difference between him and, say, jason kubel?

in retrospect, it's not so hard to see why the twins took the mets' deal instead of boston's or new york's- boston's deal was always of low value, while the yankees' deal had quite a bit of variance.

but as a fan, i feel shortchanged. because i still don't understand why the twins had to deal santana at all.

guest column 2: courtesy John Lorenz. Australian Open '08 Recap: Watching Women's Tennis Is Sexist Only When the Players Are Hot

For Americans, the tennis season culminates with the US Open. Of course, I say this as if any Americans still watch tennis, which is, of course, fallacious. (By the way, fallacious is the most unintentionally funny word in the English language. If you don't know why, then you must not enjoy the art of the double entendre as I do.) As the calendar progresses, the American tennis fan becomes more interested, reseting after the Open. There aren't rises and falls - it's all rise. And I don't mean the American fan in the generic sense - I refer to myself, as I am the last one left. This is more strange quirk than by planning. Obviously, the US Open is the most fun and our "hometown" tournament. Working backwards along the calendar, Wimbledon is probably of next greatest importance, despite being the least fun, probably just because Americans have dominated this one for about 25 years post-Borg to Federer. Way to go Johnny Mac. And there was a time when NBC made Breakfast at Wimbledon a big event. Although, ever since they fired Bud Collins, NBC should have their rights to air tennis revoked. Despite being our least successful tournament, by a wide margin, the French is after Wimbledon in importance by default simply because even hardcore fan don't watch tennis at 3 AM. Sorry, Australia, you have an awesome country, but nobody in this country cares.

Now the Australian Open has probably survived as a major only by emulating the US Open in format and style, and thus is actually the 2nd most fun tournament despite the fact that nobody watches it. If you did watch it (like me), you would have seen three of the most preternaturally hot women on the face of the planet make the semifinals of the women's draw in some kind of tennis hotness supernova explosion. It's winter here in America, but it's summer in Australia. It's hot and muggy and I swear it looks the Australian Open has a professional to mist down the women during change overs much like during a swimsuit photo session for a now, unfortunately irrelevant, certain sports mag. The thing about hot women playing tennis - they glisten. It's almost too much to watch when combined with the skimpy outfits designed to give "freedom of motion." Everyone wins with a Sharapova/Ivanovic final, but frankly I was rooting for Hantuchova. Daniella Hantuchova is kind of the forgotten hotness of the women's tour. She rose to prominence in between Kournikova and Sharapova, but quickly fell out due to the fact she cried before losing matches... a lot... like a lot a lot... like every time she missed a shot. It's nice to see her back in the top 10. If you saw the first set against Ivanovic, it was a revelation. She could win a grand slam. But apparently she still has a mental demon or two to overcome, which is unfortunate because that first set against Ivanovic was Federer-like - spins and angles to go with power. And also, she could quite possibly be the hottest of the Sharapova/Ivanovic/Hantuchova triumvirate of hotness, as women's tennis shall from henceforth be referred to as.

And before you judge me, I've been watching women's tennis a long time. I've rooted for Lindsay Davenport titles and watched a few Jana Novatna meltdowns. I've seen Steffi Graf win... a lot. I've seen Hingis win and then not win, then retire and then come back, and then be accused of doing cocaine during Wimbledon. I've seen Aranxta-Sanchez Vicario embarrass some people on clay. I've seen Conchita Martinez win using nothing but a lob, and been entertained to no end. I've laughed uproariously at the umpires declaring "Advantage Schett!" during a Barbara Schett match. ("Advantage Schett" should really be an album title or band name.) At no point have the champions been this hot. I've waited a long time for this and I will not have it taken away. And props to Ivanovic for waiting to be 19 before making a grand slam final. Watching Wimbledon in 2004 (Sharapova's first title, then 16) was fun, but you shouldn't have to feel dirty for watching tennis.

As for the men's side, they had a match between Hewitt and Bagdatis end at 4:30 in the morning, which just after noon the previous day here. Saturday morning tennis is awesome. Only the crazies and diehards are around at 4:30 - and the stadium was still almost full. From a crowd standpoint, this was probably the most fun match since Rafter/Ivanesivic played for a Wimbledon title on a Monday due to rain back in ought-one. Also, Blake had a good run. Federer got pushed by a Serbian and won only to get basted by another. Bonnie Ford (who writes tennis for ESPN.com along with Greg Garber) had a really good article about this, which basically just said this was bound to happen eventually. It's shocking, but I can't really add more to it. Nadal lost to one Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who, if you had seen him play before, you can't totally surprised he won. He made a run kind of deep at Wimbledon last year. He can really smash you off the court. I give Djokovic a 70% against him - shockingly low for the world #3 vs. world #38. Tsonga has had injuries, and probably would have been the best of the promising young French (Gasquet, Monfils, etc.) if not for them.

Anyway, I got through a tennis article without taking a potshot at Mary Carillo. I must be growing as a person. So to everyone who reads this blog and doesn't care about tennis, I say there is a women's final on tonight! Watch, or regret it forever...

welcome, guest nfl columnist.

i bring you john lorenz.

Word on the street is that the widespread readership of this blog isn't quite down with the NFL... in fact, any form of American Football seems to take a back seat to basketball, both professional and amateur, as well as MLB and minor league baseball. (On a side note, shouldn't there be a blog dedicated to the comings of goings of the D-league? This True Hoop Blog entry says yes. While I'm pimping blogs, have you checked out Straight Cash Homey yet? Possibly the funniest sports related site around. Alright, close parentheses.) Well, today friends, I am here to convince that yes, you should care about the NFL playoffs - and anybody that says college football is better than pros, I present this year's putrid bowl season as exhibit A why your assumptions are false. I completely forgot that they hadn't yet played the national championship game. Do I care that OSU and LSU played for it tonight? Maybe... kinda... I mean, they both lost, didn't they? And it was a week after New Year's Day. It was kind of hard to maintain any kind of enthusiasm. Then again, I'm not from the O-H-I-O...

So, why should you care about the NFL Playoffs? I tend to be rather prolix when I try to do such an analysis, so I'll just present a nutshell of why each game is going to be awesome.

And as is the custom with this particular blog, I introduce blog entry proper with lyrics from a random song... I'm going with "Sons and Daughters" by The Decemberists:

These currents pull us 'cross the border
Steady your boats
Arms to shoulder
'till tides are pulled
Hold our grounds
Making this cold harbor now home

NFC
Dallas v. NYG
This game is entitled, "Eli Manning now has more playoff wins than Tony Romo." Is Tony Romo still the holder for field goals? I haven't been paying attention but probably not. The alternate title is, "I can watch the game on a 42 inch HD Plasma screen and there will be shots of Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders." Anyone want to come over?

A fun subplot is that you can turn this into a drinking game. Just take a drink every time one of following happens:
Jessica Simpson is on camera or is mentioned
Tony Romo runs around like a chicken without a head
Anytime you could vaguely picture Wade Phillips as Santa Claus in the Macy's Thanksgiving day parade
Shot of Tom Coughlin in a state of utter confusion and/or disgust after an official's call or a poor play
Roy Williams makes a horsecollar tackle
You have to chug if TO yells at either Romo or Phillips for an extended period of time. (This one use to be a weekly drinking game in and of itself, but TO has behaved pretty well and I have some catching up to do.)

Green Bay v. Seattle
Do you really need more incentive than "We want the ball and we're going to score!"? I say no, but how can you not be entertained by a matchup between the oldest and and the baldest QB in the league?

AFC
Indianapolis v. San Diego
Really, they should just skip the semi-final round games and let Indy play New England. I say you could turn this one into a drinking for by taking a swig every time Phillip Rivers looks totally overmatched, but I would only advise doing that under a doctor's supervision. But Indianapolis is kind of a weak 14-2 to me (if such a thing exists) and San Diego has LT and a stout D. Oh yeah, I totally forgot the revelation of last years super bowl that God is rooting for the Colts. What does that count for? Well, they did have to play against Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl last year... you decide...

New England v. Jacksonville
I'm going to take a more serious tone on this one. Everyone wants the Jags to win... not only that, football minds everywhere have deluded themselves into thinking they will win. But they're just being populist - everyone hates the Patriots, right? They cheated. They're the Yankees of the NFL. I'm not from Boston, so what do I care?

I'll tell you why I care.

They are freakin' good.

The Yankees they are not. They don't spend the most. Bill Russell era Celtics may be a better comparison - people take pay cuts to play for New England. They do not spend the most.

Did they cheat in the first game? Probably. But they went 16-0! They demolished teams! They broke records! This is Tiger Woods winning makers by 10+ strokes. This Roger Federer winning Wimbledon without dropping a set. Perhaps it's even Federer or Woods winning a calendar year grand slam - I don't know... but we're probably not going to see it again. You've got to root for it to happen. If nothing else, you've got to root for them to win it all so that there will never be another Brady v. Manning debate again. It's not allowed - it's forbidden from this day hence.

Frankly, the unjust venom spewed towards the Patriots is displaced secret hatred of the Red Sox. There's a resentment about Boston being good at every sport (although to be fair, Boston used to suck at a lot... now just hockey....) but we're unwilling to take it out on the Red Sox because they beat the Yankees. But Red Soxs fans are everywhere and it drives the rest of us crazy - but we can't hate them because, well, wasn't Johnny Damon's beard saga of 2004 awesome?

I'm going to close with this:
The most exhilarating thing to watch in sports in the past year has been Tom Brady winding up to make a 60 yard throw. You already know who he's passing it to. You can follow the parabolic arc before it ever manifests and results in the hands of the most talented wide receiver the game has known. You can bitter that they are better than your team if you like, but if you do, you're missing quite a show.

hornets

turn the light out say goodnight
no thinking for a little while
lets not try to figure out everything at once
it’s hard to keep track of you falling through the sky
we’re half-awake in a fake empire
we’re half-awake in a fake empire

when the atlanta hawks passed on taking chris paul, perhaps one of the most obvious picks in the last decade, they saved the nba draft.

oh, they didn't save it right away. we saw boston pass on brandon roy, and we'll see chicago pay dearly for passing on aldridge/al thornton in favor of thomas/noah.

but everybody learned a lesson by 2007: when in doubt, take the player who is the best and most likely to contribute right now.

we saw atlanta bite the bullet and take another forward in horford. seattle played conservatively, taking jeff green over yi. and the talented risks, the thaddeous youngs and javaris crittendons of the world, fell.

because everybody who watched the nba over the last two years didn't realize how freakin' unstoppable chris paul was, even though nobody else on his wake team was good enough to draft.

mathy math math!

chris paul > steve nash (superior defender) (1)
PROOF: obvious and immediate.
chris paul > deron williams (superior decision-maker) (2)
PROOF: see the assist/turnover ratio, and extrapolate this idea to the two records that the players' teams have, respectively.
chris paul > jason kidd (superior scorer) (3)
PROOF: see (1)

those three inequalities give some insight as to why the hornets are arguably the best team in the west. i'll take the spurs, because in the playoffs, tim duncan is probably the last true force. but at this point, i would at least have to consider the hornets as being among the best.

signing peja was critical for the hornets. there are only a few pure shooters left in the league, and to go out and buy one is roughly equivalent to the cost of buying an all-star. of course, the media saw that stojakovic only has one main dimension to his game, and so the signing was immediately labeled as a poor move.

to label such signings in this way is erroneous: it completely ignores the idea of scarcity, for one, and it neglects to mention the obvious reason why you want stojakovic out behind that line, namely, that somebody has to guard him.

allow me to take this idea further. because a large small forward or power forward has to guard rashard lewis, dwight howard has gone nuts in the paint this year. in the same vein, since the opponent's small forward cannot leave peja, chris paul is able to get down the lane with more regularity, which means that he is even more effective. or, to describe it in terms of cavemen, MORE POINTS MORE ASSISTS.

let me describe "the idea of david west."

david west is a strange nba player. in my mind, he is what drew gooden should have been coming out of college: a highly skilled shooter whose height allows him to get 10 rebounds a game. and while west isn't physically dominant, he plays better than almost all power forwards away from the basket. in short, he isn't mechanical. you would think that this would cause him to have rebounding numbers that are similar to rashard lewis, but his combination of activity and skill allows him to have a few easy baskets a night.

so the hornets are effective on offense because they can spread the floor effectively, which makes chris paul arguably as effective as he can be.

but one might think that the hornets aren't physical enough on defense. and so tyson chandler comes into play. chandler was never going to score in the league, primarily because he started from such a low level of offensive skills. it would have taken years for chandler to figure out the offensive end of the court, and so the bulls angrily gave up on the kid, claiming that he was lazy, wasn't trying, etc. but the hornets figured out what denver figured out with marcus camby, namely that these players were able to protect the rim in the same way that ben wallace could. and the hornets and nuggets both make no pretense of wanting camby and chandler to score, which is nice for both guys.

the bottom line is that the hornets' starting five actually works as a team, particuarly on offense. mo pete can take over the scoring, and bobby jackson can come off the bench to be a leader/spell chris paul.

and that's good enough to maybe be the best team in the west.