"Sports" Illustrated

This is going to be a rant, so if you don't feel like listening to me complain, go ahead and just close the window now. I'm pissed off. I'm upset that Sports Illustrated is no longer the magazine I once loved. For the better part of the past decade I've had a subscription to Sports Illustrated, it's always been a birthday present from my parents. I looked forward each week to the new issue and reading stories from around the world of sports. Not anymore.

My love for SI first hit a bump earlier this year. I get my issue every Wednesday; always have, since day 1. However this year, right before March Madness began I didn't get it on Wednesday, I got it on Thursday. Normally not a big deal, but for someone who loves March Madness as much or more than the Super Bowl, I was upset. This is the issue that breaks down each team/region and gives you the pullout bracket you can fill in. Now it's entirely possible that this is because of the Post Office, but I thought I would bring it up to SI through their Twitter account. I voiced my displeasure/concern and they asked if I normally got my issue on Wednesday or Thursday. I said I've always gotten them in the past on Wednesday's, and their response was something to the effect of oh, well that stinks. Not exactly what you would call excellent customer service. But I brushed it off, not like there was anything they could do.

What really started this fire burning was when my Kings won the Stanley Cup. Their first Stanley Cup in the history of the organization. That would surely merit coverage and the cover of the most prominent sports publication in print journalism right? Nope. The covers of Sports Illustrated during July featured in order; Ken Caminiti, Josh Hamilton, Kevin Durant or LeBron, depending on where you live, LeBron again (this time attempting to dunk over Serge Ibaka, and if you didn't know any better you'd think he did, but in fact Ibaka totally stuffed him) and then to start off July LeBron was on the cover again. So depending where you live you might have received 3 straight issues with LeBron James on the cover. Wow. Talk about shoving it down our throats. The Stanley Cup is widely regarded as the most difficult trophy to win in North American professional sports, and it wasn't on the cover of Sports Illustrated. That's unacceptable. Not only that, but there was never a story written about the Kings winning the Cup. There was a story about Jonathan Quick that was great, but come on guys. I looked up covers to see when the last time the Stanley Cup Champions didn't appear on the cover, it was 2007 when the Ducks won. Apparently Southern California doesn't matter. What a joke.

The past two weeks have really made my blood boil when I've opened my mailbox on Wednesday. Last week Deron Williams was on the cover. I have no idea why. The NBA season is weeks away, the NFL season is in full swing, and the MLB playoffs were going on. Yet a player who is nowhere near the top 10 in the NBA on a team that finished 22-44 last year was on the cover. Not only that, but there was only 1 MLB story in the entire issue. This week, Tyrann Mathieu is on the cover. WHAT IS GOING ON?!?! Why is a player who had one good year, who isn't playing this year and isn't enrolled in school on the cover of a sports magazine? This makes absolutely no sense. Miguel Cabrera just won the Triple Crown. The Atlanta Falcons are 6-0 right now. The NHL is in the midst of yet another lockout. Even NASCAR is in the middle of their run towards the championship. But no, a college kid who got kicked off a team for drugs is on the cover. Disgusting. The major stories in this week's issue are college football (Alabama), college football (Mathieu, which really isn't college football seeing as he's NOT PLAYING THIS YEAR), Lance Armstrong and his legal troubles (better suited for Time magazine in my opinion), NFL (the Vikings punter is profiled, does anyone outside of Minnesota care?), and a baseball story that isn't related to the MLB playoffs. There is no mention of the playoffs except for the Leading Off section that shows some great pictures. But that's it. Football, football, football, and cycling. In the last two issues of Sports Illustrated there has been one story related to the MLB playoffs.

I looked up the cover and the stories in last year's Sports Illustrated from the same week. NASCAR superstar Jimmie Johnson was on the cover, and there were stories about the NFL, the MLB playoffs, college football, golf, and a little bit of basketball. Yes the NBA was in the middle of their lockout, so naturally coverage would be lighter. But still. Look at the difference between the two years. I'm sure it would be even worse if I dug through the issues I've saved (all of them) and looked at the diversity of stories from around the same time. Don't get me wrong, there are still things I love about SI. I love the Sign of the Apocalypse, the They Said It quote, By The Numbers, the back page article, and the Dan Patrick interview. I just want to be able to read stories from the world of sports, not just the world of football and basketball. Miguel Cabrera won the first Triple Crown in 45 years, how does that not merit some sort of story? I realize we'll probably get a feature story at some point in the next month or two, but come on guys. How is this not brought up without a story a page long or so?

Sports Illustrated used to be my go to source for sports information. You could find stats and stories that you wouldn't see or hear anywhere else. That's just not the case anymore. If it's not football or basketball, they just don't care. Yes there are baseball-centric issues, but they are so few and far between now that it's laughable. Hockey coverage is nearly non-existent, and forget soccer. I have no reason to ask for my subscription to be renewed. They don't cover the sports I'm most interested in. I realize the NFL and college basketball are the most popular sports in the country, but maybe that’s because the sports magazine with a circulation of over 3.2 million chooses to focus on them and nearly nothing else. The magazine no longer lives up to its name, the name Sports Illustrated is misleading.  It’s upsetting, but my wife will be thrilled that I won’t be getting more magazines I refuse to throw away, so at least there’s an upside.

Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports Like the blog on Facebook- A Bloop And A Blast

My AL MVP Vote Goes To....

I put this off for a while because I really wanted to gather as many statistics as I could before making a decision, and I apologize, this is going to be a long one. Living in Orange County, I saw a lot more of Mike Trout than I did Miguel Cabrera this season. Obviously I'm aware that Cabrera won the AL Triple Crown this year. Something that hadn't been done in 45 years, an amazing accomplishment for sure. But that shouldn't guarantee him the MVP award. It's Most Valuable Player, not Most Valuable Hitter. Trout set numerous rookie records and will undoubtedly win the AL Rookie of the Year award. But that too doesn't mean he deserves the MVP award. Let's dive into some numbers.

Defense-Simply looking at which player made more errors would be irresponsible. They play two completely different positions, so I went a little bit further than that. I went to overall fielding percentage. Trout had a total of 268 chances during the season, remember he was in the minors for the first month or so. Cabrera had 383 total chances. Clearly Cabrera is going to have more errors. He had more chances, and this was his first season playing 3rd base after moving from 1st. Cabrera's overall fielding percentage was .966 compared to Trout's which was .993 this year.

Another big stat in my mind is range factor. Range Factor is calculated by adding putouts and assists and then dividing that number by the total number of defensive innings played. To me, this gives a very accurate number on a player's defensive value. Trout's Range Factor was 2.70 and Cabrera's was 2.52. Again, I know they play different positions and Trout is going to have more chances to make putouts and Cabrera is going to have more assist opportunities. It's just one of the many things I considered when making my decision.

Offense- I don't think there is any reason to go over the big 3 statistical numbers. We all know Cabrera led the AL in home runs, batting average, and runs batted in. But it is worth mentioning that Trout was 2nd in average, .326 compared to .330. But let's extrapolate those numbers a bit. Cabrera struck out 98 times in 622 at-bats, Trout fanned 139 times in 559 trips to the plate this year. Cabrera also had 19 more extra base hits, but he also grounded into 28 double-plays compared to just 7 for Trout. Obviously it's easier for Cabrera to hit into double-plays since he's not a leadoff hitter and Trout is, but it's worth mentioning.

Also worth mentioning is the stat known as batting average on balls in play. Trouts BABIP this year lead the league at .378 while Cabrera checked in with a .322 average which is actually quite a bit lower than his .345 career average. This too can be attributed to Trout having significantly fewer at-bats than Cabrera, but to be honest, who knows how high it would have been for Trout had he played the full season.  Trout also lead the AL in stolen bases with 49 swipes while only being caught 5 times. Cabrera only stole 4 bases and was caught once this year. This again is a pretty unfair comparison because they are such different players, but it does need to be considered.

I hate the argument that Trout doesn't deserve the award because the Angels didn't make the the playoffs. Guess what, the Angels ended the year with a better record than Cabrera's Tigers did. Should Trout be "punished" because he played in a tougher division? That certainly doesn't seem fair. Think of this too, Trout played 50 games against AL West staffs that ranked 2nd, 4th, and 8th in AL ERA. Cabrera played 70 games against AL Central staffs that ranked 9th, 10th, 13th, and 14th in AL ERA. 

I also hate the argument that Trout's MLB leading 10.7 WAR automatically should give him the MVP award. Granted it's significantly higher than Caberera's 6.9 WAR, but it's not the end all be all. You can't argue with what Cabrera did at the plate this year. It's literally historic. We'll all be telling our kid's about his Triple Crown just like our parents told us about Yastrzemski's. But like I said earlier that shouldn't guarantee an MVP award. Ted Williams won two MVP's and two Triple Crowns, none of which happened in the same year.

If I had to vote, and I'm glad I don't, I'd vote for Cabrera. I feel he was overall more valuable to his team. This is what put me over the edge. While on the surface it looks like the Tigers would have more lineup protection for Cabrera, the stats tell me otherwise. As a team the Angels lead the AL in batting average while the Tigers were 3rd, .274 compared to .268. Not only that, but the Angels hit 24 more home runs than the Tigers did. I was fully prepared to vote for Trout until I saw these numbers. I thought his offensive output combined with his stellar defense gave him the overall value edge. But after considering all the aspects, Cabrera just eeks him out. People are saying that we should think about how bad the Angels would have been without Trout, and that's a great point. But think about how bad the Tigers would have been without Cabrera. In my mind, they both would have been much worse off, but the Tigers more so.

Like I said, I'm really happy I don't have a vote in this thing. In fact, I'd absolutely LOVE IT if they were named co-MVPs, but that isn't going to happen.... unless the Mayans really are right.

Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports Like the blog on Facebook- A Bloop And A Blast

How About Them Cowboys?

No seriously, where the hell are they?  Where is the Dallas team that beat the Giants in Week 1? As it sits right now, the Cowboys will be lucky to finish 7-9. This team won't beat the Giants again, they won't beat the Eagles, the Ravens, the Falcons, or the Steelers. They've got a shot to beat Washington twice, but even that's iffy.

Let me get something out of the way right now, I've never been a Romo fan. He has all the talent in the world, but he can't man up. That's what it boils down to. Yes I've seen him lead the team to victories after trailing in the 4th quarter, and that's great, but when he continually makes poor decisions and doesn't take care of the football, that doesn't matter. He doesn't put his team in a position to win. I'm not even talking about his 5 interceptions Monday night. Yeah they were all bad, one could've been ruled a fumble and one bounced off Ogletree's arms but whatever, it's the throws that he makes to open receivers and misses. His decision-making when the game is there for the taking is atrocious on a consistent basis. I don't see how Jerry Jones can say he believes in Tony Romo and actually mean it. Of course he has to say it, you can't go out and trash your franchise QB, but there is no way he can believe it right? There is a reason why QBs like Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, Brees (not so much this year, but it's not his fault their defense has more holes in it than a beer can that's been hit with birdshot), Matt Ryan, and Roethlisberger are so successful. They make good decisions. They know when to throw the ball away, or when to check down, or how to let a play develop. Romo doesn't, he panics. When Bryant blew that route, he still threw the ball. He didn't throw it away or look for another option. He gave Chicago 6 points right there.

Is Monday's loss to the Bears squarely on Romo's shoulders? Not at all. He got little help from his receivers as both Ogletree and Bryant had trouble actually catching the ball and running the right routes. The Cowboys highly touted defensive line only managed  2 sacks against the Bears who have had trouble keeping Cutler upright since he got to Chicago. Coming into the game Cutler had thrown 5 interceptions on the year compared to 3 touchdowns. That revamped Dallas secondary didn't pick him off once. Rob Ryan's defense looked as bad if not worse than last 3 years. They Dallas defense as a whole only forced 2 3-and-outs all game. 3 if you count the forced fumble that they recovered. That simply isn't good enough. The offense sputtered as well, but that's not all that surprising to be honest. They've managed 7 total touchdowns in 4 games. Their 16.2 points is 31st in the NFL. If Jason Garrett and Rob Ryan aren't worried about their jobs right now, they should be. This isn't an acceptable return with the amount of talent on that team. It's the coach's job to get the individuals to work together as a unit, and they have both failed to do this so far.

I've been a Cowboys fan my entire life, something I'm not ashamed of nor will I ever apologize for it. But I'm a rational fan. I know this team has enough talent to make a serious Super Bowl run. But they lack leadership, coaching, discipline, and to speak frankly, balls. They play like they're owed something, and that's not only sad, but it's embarrassing and insulting. Like the title of this post says, how about them Cowboys? Well to me, I can sum up their season pretty easily so far. The defense is inept and the offense is clumsy. Not exactly what I'd call a recipe for success.

Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports Like the blog on Facebook- A Bloop And A Blast