For as long as I can remember, I've been a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Growing up in Long Beach we went to Dodger games, not Angel games. Vinny was the soundtrack I did my homework too as I waited for the freedom of Summer, and my friends and I pretended to be Hershizer, Piazza, and Karros when we played baseball. I remember Nomo's no-hitter and the five-straight Rookies of the Year. Anytime I watch Gibby's home run in 88 I still get teary eyed. The Dodgers even sent a few players to our little league field a couple times. I still have the autographs I cherished getting 15+ years ago.
But it's hard to care this season.
I'm not saying I don't want the Dodgers to win, that part hasn't changed, but not being able to watch them makes it harder for me to be invested in the team.
I'll be the first to admit I root for the Red Sox just as much as I root for the Dodgers. In year's past, I would listen to Red Sox games thanks to MLB GameDay Audio and then watch the Dodgers on TV. Sometimes I'd be paying attention to both games at the same time. But I can't do that this season and listening to two games at the same time isn't possible, at least for me, and I've had to make a choice.
Red Sox games come on first, typically when I'm finishing up working for the day, they're a nice distraction. By the time the Dodgers are on, the wife is home and she wants to watch TV or go out to dinner. If there was a Dodger game on, we'd watch that or go somewhere that was showing it. But that's not possible. None of the bars or restaurants close to us have Time Warner. So I have to make a decision- shun the wife so I can listen to the Dodgers, or check Twitter every once in a while and follow the action there? Not a tough choice at all.
On top of this, I don't even get Dodger games on MLB Network. Last night, MLB Network had regional coverage. The listing said the game being shown would either be Reds vs. Dodgers or Astros vs. Royals. I had the Astros vs. Royals game. I live less than 30 miles from Dodger Stadium. Thankfully ESPN 2 broke coverage to show some of Ryu's attempt at a perfect game, but otherwise I wouldn't have seen a single pitch.
Lots of people want someone to blame for SportsNetLA not being available. I don't care. As far as I'm concerned everyone involved is to blame. Time Warner Cable for wanting to charge too much, the Dodgers for letting them handle the negotiations, and the other providers for leaving the fans basically in the dark.
Do I expect this blog to change anything? No, not at all. Stan Kasten isn't going to read this, neither is Magic or any of the executives at Time Warner or any of the other providers. But maybe someone who has a larger following than I is experiencing the same thing and will be inspired to write something similar. Though with articles already having been published in the LA Times, among other places, I don't think anything will change this season. The vast majority of Dodger fans will continue to miss out on games and, if they're anything like me, they'll continue to feel disconnected from a team they grew up loving.
Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Mike D'Antoni Resigns
According to Ramona Shelburne of ESPN, Mike D'Antoni has resigned as head coach of the Lakers. The news is surprising as just last week it sounded like both sides were ready to commit to the 2014-15 season and possibly the 2015-16 season. Clearly those reports were premature.
Stay tuned as I'll be updating this as more information becomes available.
https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne/status/461675712546877440
UPDATE- From the Lakers press release (found here) “Given the circumstances, I don’t know that anybody could have done a better job than Mike did the past two seasons,” said Kupchak. “On behalf of the Lakers, we thank Mike for the work ethic, professionalism and positive attitude that he brought to the team every day. We wish him the best of luck.”
Follow me on Twitter for instant updates- @TwittinSports
Stay tuned as I'll be updating this as more information becomes available.
https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne/status/461675712546877440
UPDATE- From the Lakers press release (found here) “Given the circumstances, I don’t know that anybody could have done a better job than Mike did the past two seasons,” said Kupchak. “On behalf of the Lakers, we thank Mike for the work ethic, professionalism and positive attitude that he brought to the team every day. We wish him the best of luck.”
Follow me on Twitter for instant updates- @TwittinSports
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Donald Sterling: This Isn't New
Donald Sterling is a bad human being. This is not news. In fact, this is old news.
Tommy Craggs did an article for Deadspin 5 years ago about Sterling and how awful he was.
One of the many damning quotes from Craggs' article- "When Sterling first bought the Ardmore, he remarked on its odor to Davenport. "That's because of all the blacks in this building, they smell, they're not clean," he said, according to Davenport's testimony. "And it's because of all of the Mexicans that just sit around and smoke and drink all day." He added: "So we have to get them out of here." Shortly after, construction work caused a serious leak at the complex."
The quote is from 2002.
His attitude toward non-whites is not new. He is a racist. This didn't just happen. So why is it all of a sudden in the news?
Because the Clippers are doing well. And that's wrong.
Fact is, up until a few days ago the NAACP was preparing to give Sterling a second lifetime achievement award.
Did you miss that?
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE WAS GOING TO GIVE A RACIST MAN A LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FOR THE SECOND TIME!!!
What is going on? His basketball team doesn't suck anymore so now he gets called out for being racist? That's unacceptable.
Tolerating, let alone rewarding, someone like Sterling isn't OK as long as his team doesn't do well. The man is certainly entitled to his beliefs and to the right to express them. But he shouldn't be rewarded or ignored. He should be called out for being a bigot.
That this has been ignored by the mainstream media is disgusting. Yes, new quotes just came out that Sterling is racist. The reaction is completely justified, it's just way too late.
Sure, better late than never. But this is something that should've been made widely known many years ago. In some circles, it has been known.
In July last year Jeff Pearlman wrote about Sterling. He talked to Rollie Massimino, who met Sterling about possibly becoming the head coach of the Clippers in 1983. Massimino told Pearlman that during the "interview" Sterling said to him, "I wanna know why you think you can coach these niggers.”
That was 31 years ago. Yet somehow Sterling still owns a professional sports franchise.
I wonder if the Lakers had the Clippers record this season, and vice versa, what would the reaction to all of this be? Would it be swept under the rug if they'd be cellar-dwellers?
The history tells me it would have. That's wrong. It's the job of the media to report facts. The fact is Donald Sterling is a racist and should not be allowed to own the Clippers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this is finally getting the attention it should. It's just disappointing to know something could have been done three decades ago.
Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports
Tommy Craggs did an article for Deadspin 5 years ago about Sterling and how awful he was.
One of the many damning quotes from Craggs' article- "When Sterling first bought the Ardmore, he remarked on its odor to Davenport. "That's because of all the blacks in this building, they smell, they're not clean," he said, according to Davenport's testimony. "And it's because of all of the Mexicans that just sit around and smoke and drink all day." He added: "So we have to get them out of here." Shortly after, construction work caused a serious leak at the complex."
The quote is from 2002.
His attitude toward non-whites is not new. He is a racist. This didn't just happen. So why is it all of a sudden in the news?
Because the Clippers are doing well. And that's wrong.
Fact is, up until a few days ago the NAACP was preparing to give Sterling a second lifetime achievement award.
Did you miss that?
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE WAS GOING TO GIVE A RACIST MAN A LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FOR THE SECOND TIME!!!
What is going on? His basketball team doesn't suck anymore so now he gets called out for being racist? That's unacceptable.
Tolerating, let alone rewarding, someone like Sterling isn't OK as long as his team doesn't do well. The man is certainly entitled to his beliefs and to the right to express them. But he shouldn't be rewarded or ignored. He should be called out for being a bigot.
That this has been ignored by the mainstream media is disgusting. Yes, new quotes just came out that Sterling is racist. The reaction is completely justified, it's just way too late.
Sure, better late than never. But this is something that should've been made widely known many years ago. In some circles, it has been known.
In July last year Jeff Pearlman wrote about Sterling. He talked to Rollie Massimino, who met Sterling about possibly becoming the head coach of the Clippers in 1983. Massimino told Pearlman that during the "interview" Sterling said to him, "I wanna know why you think you can coach these niggers.”
That was 31 years ago. Yet somehow Sterling still owns a professional sports franchise.
I wonder if the Lakers had the Clippers record this season, and vice versa, what would the reaction to all of this be? Would it be swept under the rug if they'd be cellar-dwellers?
The history tells me it would have. That's wrong. It's the job of the media to report facts. The fact is Donald Sterling is a racist and should not be allowed to own the Clippers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this is finally getting the attention it should. It's just disappointing to know something could have been done three decades ago.
Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports
Sunday, March 30, 2014
2014 MLB Predictions
The time is upon us. After a 5-month layoff, baseball is back. It's been a fairly crazy offseason, which hopefully means we're in for an entertaining year. Instant replay will be used to a whole new extent, and collisions and home are now outlawed. Sort of. But before the lines are chalked and the umpires yell "play ball" I figured I might as well put my predictions in writing.
Division Winners
NL West- Have to go with the Dodgers here. I'm a whole lot less confident in this pick with the news that broke yesterday about Kershaw going on the DL, but I'm hoping it's nothing too serious. If he can come back and even be 80% of what he was last year, the Dodgers are set up to make another deep run in the playoffs. Their biggest concern is of course injuries. But if they can get and stay healthy, they match up with anyone across the league. And they should considering how much money they've spent recently
AL West- Quite possibly my favorite division in baseball. The teams spend money like it's going out of style, other than Oakland of course, but never get the desired results. Is this the year the Angels finally get what they're paying for? Can the A's continue out-playing their division rivals despite having the 6th lowest payroll in all of baseball? Will the Rangers get back to the playoffs? Honestly, I have no idea. I'm going to go with the A's again. They're scrappy, they good starting pitching, and they don't seem to pay attention to anyone's opinion of them. I love that.
NL Central- Cardinals. It's always the Cardinals. The Pirates were a nice surprise last year and I sincerely hope they build on the 2013 season, but I can't go against St. Louis. They're just too good.
AL Central- Much like the NL Central, the AL Central is dominated by one team. The Tigers have one of the best top-to-bottom lineups in baseball in a pretty mediocre division. The Royals could make some noise, and the Indians were certainly a pleasant surprise last year. But until someone dethrones the Tigers I see no reason to go against them.
NL East- The division should be decided between the Nationals and Braves. The Nationals have the same issue the Dodgers do, injuries. If they can stay healthy and perform at the level we all know they're capable of, they should take the division with relative ease. The Braves lost Hudson and McCann, two guys who were big parts of their success.
AL East- Easily the most stressful division. Can the Red Sox repeat? Will the Rays make yet another run? Sorry Yankees fans, but I don't believe in your ancient lineup. As for the Orioles, you never know what you'll get from them. I'm gonna be a homer and pick the Red Sox simply based on their pitching, but it won't surprise me one bit if the Rays end up taking the division.
Wildcards- In the National League the Braves and Pirates should both make the postseason again in 2014. It won't surprise me if either end up winning their division, but I don't have enough confidence to just pick them outright. As for the American League I'm going with the Rays (or Red Sox if the Rays end up winning the division) and the Angels. The Rays are yet again a very good team, and I think the Angels are finally going to get some results out of their ridiculous payroll.
World Series- Is this the year the Dodgers finally bring a title back to Los Angeles for the first time since 1988? They're certainly built to. They have an abundance of outfielders and a fantastic pitching staff. They should win the World Series. In fact, I'm predicting a rematch of the '88 Series. LA over Oakland, only this time in 6 games. I love the Red Sox, but being able to capture the magic they had last season again is nearly impossible. The Tigers were pushed to the brink by the A's last season in the ALDS and I think the experience the A's gained last year will only serve to push them over the top this year. But LA has the best shot at winning the World Series this year.
Individual Awards
NL Rookie of the Year- Billy Hamilton, Billy Hamilton, Billy Hamilton, Billy freakin' Hamilton. I think this guy is really going to be a game-changer. If he gets on base he's going to steal. There are no two ways about it. Between putting himself in scoring position and disrupting the pitcher's process, he can have a huge impact on the outcome of a game. I really think he's going to excel.
AL Rookie of the Year- Xander Bogaerts. We all saw what he did in the postseason last year. His slash line was .296/.412./.481 in the playoffs. His average in the ALCS was .500, against the Tigers. The guy can hit and he's sure-handed in the field.
NL Cy Young- Of course I had Kershaw penciled in here. He is the best pitcher in baseball. But this injury has me worried. He's never been on the DL before. So not only does he have to get healthy, but how will he respond when he does come back? I'm still picking him as the favorite to win the award.
AL Cy Young- Yu Darvish and Justin Verlander are the most popular picks by the "experts" but I'm going in a different direction. I'm going with Jon Lester. I think this will be the year he pitches as well in the regular season as he does in the postseason. Will I be surprised if Darvish or Verlander end up winning it? Of course not, but it's no fun picking the same person as everyone else.
NL MVP- I can't help but wonder why I see so many people picking Bryce Harper here. The kid is a fine ballplayer, but so far he hasn't been anything special at the plate. His lifetime, mind you that's only two seasons, average is .272 and he strikes out far too often in my mind. He did cut his strikeout total by nearly 30 last year compared to his rookie season, but his home run, RBI, stolen base, doubles, and triples all dropped as well and his total walks only went up by 5. He has a long way to go. Anyway, I'm going with Hanley Ramirez. He's in a contract year and if he can stay healthy and do what he did last season (.345/.402/.638) he could run away with the award.
AL MVP- Mike Trout. Definitely should've won it in 2012 and probably should've won it last year too. He's the best all-around player in the game. If the Angels make the playoffs he should be the clear winner. Finally.
There ya go. I have less confidence in these picks than any other predictions I've written about. This season should be ridiculous. Between Cano in Seattle, Jeter's farewell season, Puig's first full year, and everything else we can't predict, it's going to be a fun year.
Follow me on Twitter
Division Winners
NL West- Have to go with the Dodgers here. I'm a whole lot less confident in this pick with the news that broke yesterday about Kershaw going on the DL, but I'm hoping it's nothing too serious. If he can come back and even be 80% of what he was last year, the Dodgers are set up to make another deep run in the playoffs. Their biggest concern is of course injuries. But if they can get and stay healthy, they match up with anyone across the league. And they should considering how much money they've spent recently
AL West- Quite possibly my favorite division in baseball. The teams spend money like it's going out of style, other than Oakland of course, but never get the desired results. Is this the year the Angels finally get what they're paying for? Can the A's continue out-playing their division rivals despite having the 6th lowest payroll in all of baseball? Will the Rangers get back to the playoffs? Honestly, I have no idea. I'm going to go with the A's again. They're scrappy, they good starting pitching, and they don't seem to pay attention to anyone's opinion of them. I love that.
NL Central- Cardinals. It's always the Cardinals. The Pirates were a nice surprise last year and I sincerely hope they build on the 2013 season, but I can't go against St. Louis. They're just too good.
AL Central- Much like the NL Central, the AL Central is dominated by one team. The Tigers have one of the best top-to-bottom lineups in baseball in a pretty mediocre division. The Royals could make some noise, and the Indians were certainly a pleasant surprise last year. But until someone dethrones the Tigers I see no reason to go against them.
NL East- The division should be decided between the Nationals and Braves. The Nationals have the same issue the Dodgers do, injuries. If they can stay healthy and perform at the level we all know they're capable of, they should take the division with relative ease. The Braves lost Hudson and McCann, two guys who were big parts of their success.
AL East- Easily the most stressful division. Can the Red Sox repeat? Will the Rays make yet another run? Sorry Yankees fans, but I don't believe in your ancient lineup. As for the Orioles, you never know what you'll get from them. I'm gonna be a homer and pick the Red Sox simply based on their pitching, but it won't surprise me one bit if the Rays end up taking the division.
Wildcards- In the National League the Braves and Pirates should both make the postseason again in 2014. It won't surprise me if either end up winning their division, but I don't have enough confidence to just pick them outright. As for the American League I'm going with the Rays (or Red Sox if the Rays end up winning the division) and the Angels. The Rays are yet again a very good team, and I think the Angels are finally going to get some results out of their ridiculous payroll.
World Series- Is this the year the Dodgers finally bring a title back to Los Angeles for the first time since 1988? They're certainly built to. They have an abundance of outfielders and a fantastic pitching staff. They should win the World Series. In fact, I'm predicting a rematch of the '88 Series. LA over Oakland, only this time in 6 games. I love the Red Sox, but being able to capture the magic they had last season again is nearly impossible. The Tigers were pushed to the brink by the A's last season in the ALDS and I think the experience the A's gained last year will only serve to push them over the top this year. But LA has the best shot at winning the World Series this year.
Individual Awards
NL Rookie of the Year- Billy Hamilton, Billy Hamilton, Billy Hamilton, Billy freakin' Hamilton. I think this guy is really going to be a game-changer. If he gets on base he's going to steal. There are no two ways about it. Between putting himself in scoring position and disrupting the pitcher's process, he can have a huge impact on the outcome of a game. I really think he's going to excel.
AL Rookie of the Year- Xander Bogaerts. We all saw what he did in the postseason last year. His slash line was .296/.412./.481 in the playoffs. His average in the ALCS was .500, against the Tigers. The guy can hit and he's sure-handed in the field.
NL Cy Young- Of course I had Kershaw penciled in here. He is the best pitcher in baseball. But this injury has me worried. He's never been on the DL before. So not only does he have to get healthy, but how will he respond when he does come back? I'm still picking him as the favorite to win the award.
AL Cy Young- Yu Darvish and Justin Verlander are the most popular picks by the "experts" but I'm going in a different direction. I'm going with Jon Lester. I think this will be the year he pitches as well in the regular season as he does in the postseason. Will I be surprised if Darvish or Verlander end up winning it? Of course not, but it's no fun picking the same person as everyone else.
NL MVP- I can't help but wonder why I see so many people picking Bryce Harper here. The kid is a fine ballplayer, but so far he hasn't been anything special at the plate. His lifetime, mind you that's only two seasons, average is .272 and he strikes out far too often in my mind. He did cut his strikeout total by nearly 30 last year compared to his rookie season, but his home run, RBI, stolen base, doubles, and triples all dropped as well and his total walks only went up by 5. He has a long way to go. Anyway, I'm going with Hanley Ramirez. He's in a contract year and if he can stay healthy and do what he did last season (.345/.402/.638) he could run away with the award.
AL MVP- Mike Trout. Definitely should've won it in 2012 and probably should've won it last year too. He's the best all-around player in the game. If the Angels make the playoffs he should be the clear winner. Finally.
There ya go. I have less confidence in these picks than any other predictions I've written about. This season should be ridiculous. Between Cano in Seattle, Jeter's farewell season, Puig's first full year, and everything else we can't predict, it's going to be a fun year.
Follow me on Twitter
Monday, March 17, 2014
March Madness Bracket Tips
As usual, RJ Bell of Pregame.com put out his extensive list of bracket tips and trends. It's a comprehensive list that takes a bit of time to read, but he points out things that the common fan, and even some die-hards, might normally miss.
Let's start with some astonishing numbers that will put into perspective how unlikely a perfect bracket really is.
Let's start with some astonishing numbers that will put into perspective how unlikely a perfect bracket really is.
| ***2014 NCAA Tournament Action: Over $12 BILLION worldwide expected to be wagered on NCAA Tournament That’s more action combined than on the Super Bowl! Less than 1% of worldwide sports betting occurs in Nevada Over 100 million people expected to take part in tournament bracket contests! ***Perfect Bracket Odds:
Yeah, no wonder Warren Buffet is offering a billion dollars. Alright, on to the actual tips and trends for the tournament and your bracket. By the way, I expect a cut of the billion if you read this and end up striking gold. 68 vs. 64 teams: The calculations above assume a 64 team bracket – if expanded to consider 68 teams, multiple the figures by 4. *** 14 Bracket Picking Rules from Vegas! (all records since modern era began in 1985 unless noted) FIRST ROUND picks: TIP: Pick ZERO #1 or #2 seeds to lose. #16 seeds are 0 for 116 #15 seeds are 7 for 116 TIP: Pick at least ONE #13 or #14 seed to win. At least one Top 4 seed has lost in the first round 25 of 29 years #13 and #14 seeds combined win 18% of first round games TIP: Don't be shy picking upsets with #12 through #9 seeds. #12 seeds have won at least one game 23 of 25 years #9 seeds are 4 wins above .500 vs. #8 seeds SECOND ROUND picks: TIP: Advance #1 seeds into the 3rd round unless very good reason not to. 88% of #1 seeds advance to the Sweet 16 TIP: Keep advancing any #12 seeds you picked to win in Round One. #12 seeds win nearly half the time in Round Two #12 seeds have more Sweet 16 appearances overall than #7 seeds A double digit seed has made the Sweet Sixteen 27 of 29 years TIP: Pick at least ONE upset of a #2 or #3 seed. Only ONCE in 29 years has all the top three seeds (#1, #2, #3) made the Sweet Sixteen TIP: Do NOT pick any seed worse than #12 to win in the 2nd round. Only 9 of 464 teams (less than 2%) advancing past Round 2 were seeded worse than #12 Sweet 16 round picks: TIP: Advance exactly three #1 seeds into the Elite 8. 71% of #1 seeds make the Elite 8 (that's a higher percentage than #5 seeds that win a single game!) TIP: Advance no team worse than a #11 seed into the Elite 8 26 seeds worse than 11 have made it the Sweet 16 but only ONE (of 232) Elite 8 teams seeded worse than #11 Elite 8 round picks: TIP: Advance exactly ONE or TWO #1 seeds to the Final Four. The Final Four has included exactly one or two #1 seeds 23 of 29 years TIP: Advance no team worse than a #9 seed to the Final Four. Only 3 of 140 Final Four teams (since 1979) have been seeded worse than #9 FINAL FOUR round picks: TIP: Advance NO team worse than a #6 seed to the Championship game. Only ONE team worse than #6 has made it in last 28 years TIP: Do NOT advance TWO #1 seeds to Championship game Since tournament seeding began 35 years ago (1979) only 6 times have two #1 seeds made the finals CHAMPIONSHIP GAME pick: TIP: Pick a #4 seed or better to win it all. For 25 straight years the champion has been a #4 seed or better! There you have it, I told you that was going to be a ton of information. But where else are you going to find that many tips and trends in one place? You aren't. Bell is simply the best at what he does and I'm grateful he shares this information with me so I can then pass it on to you. Good luck!!!! Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports |
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Hall of Fame Solution
Rather than just sit here and complain about the Hall of Fame, I'm going to offer a solution. Granted, no one who is anyone is going to read this, but I don't care. I'm sick and tired of people talking about the PEDs issue with potential Hall of Famers and how it's unfair to judge them because of the use of amphetamines throughout much of MLB's history.
Here it is, elect players based on what they did on the baseball diamond. I know this seems like a ridiculous concept. However, I'm not done. For guys like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and eventually A-Rod (puke), they get their own special wing in Cooperstown. I've actually written about a little bit about this before. Members of the 1919 White Sox would be in there. Pete Rose would finally be home. All of the steroid guys, who "deserve" to go in, could go in. The selection process would be the same, but don't give them the induction ceremony. No speeches, no celebrations, just a plaque/bust/exhibit commemorating their achievements in the game and explaining why they are in this special wing. I feel like this would truly represent their career. Which is what the Hall of Fame is supposed to do.
You cannot deny the contributions made to baseball by the guys I mentioned above. However, I fully understand why this won't work. People like Ken Gurnick screw up this idea. His notion that he'll never vote for any Steroid Era players screws this up. But having this option might actually open his mind. Instead of these guys he's so dead-set against going in to his coveted Hall of Fame with all the glitz and glamour of the players he deems clean, he could actually vote for people who were the best of their era.
I realize this poses a ton of problems. In Gurnick's mind, Maddux, Thomas, and Glavine all played in the Steroid Era and he won't vote for them. So maybe in his mind he thinks they should go in the wing with Rose and McGwire. But the vast majority of people don't think any of those three used PEDs and should be given the full enshrinement. So maybe he still wouldn't vote for those guys. Or maybe he would, who knows? And what would the criteria be for a player going into the "tainted" wing? A positive test? An admission? Overwhelming evidence? I'm sure there are people much smarter than me who could figure that out, but I doubt they'd get everyone to agree with them.
It's time to stop ignoring history and start learning from it. You don't want to glorify Mark McGwire because he admitted using steroids? Fine. Then use it as a teaching moment. When a kid goes to the Hall of Fame and reads about everything he did in that magical season of 1998, including the PED use, and then sees that he's not in the same part of the Hall as Babe Ruth and Roger Maris, maybe that kid will understand.
Again, I know this is pretty much just a rant. But I'd love to know what other solutions there are. Don't tell me drugs should keep a player out of Cooperstown. Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, and Willie Mays have all said they used amphetamines when they played because it helped them perform. But I don't see anyone arguing that they should be removed.
Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports
Here it is, elect players based on what they did on the baseball diamond. I know this seems like a ridiculous concept. However, I'm not done. For guys like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and eventually A-Rod (puke), they get their own special wing in Cooperstown. I've actually written about a little bit about this before. Members of the 1919 White Sox would be in there. Pete Rose would finally be home. All of the steroid guys, who "deserve" to go in, could go in. The selection process would be the same, but don't give them the induction ceremony. No speeches, no celebrations, just a plaque/bust/exhibit commemorating their achievements in the game and explaining why they are in this special wing. I feel like this would truly represent their career. Which is what the Hall of Fame is supposed to do.
You cannot deny the contributions made to baseball by the guys I mentioned above. However, I fully understand why this won't work. People like Ken Gurnick screw up this idea. His notion that he'll never vote for any Steroid Era players screws this up. But having this option might actually open his mind. Instead of these guys he's so dead-set against going in to his coveted Hall of Fame with all the glitz and glamour of the players he deems clean, he could actually vote for people who were the best of their era.
I realize this poses a ton of problems. In Gurnick's mind, Maddux, Thomas, and Glavine all played in the Steroid Era and he won't vote for them. So maybe in his mind he thinks they should go in the wing with Rose and McGwire. But the vast majority of people don't think any of those three used PEDs and should be given the full enshrinement. So maybe he still wouldn't vote for those guys. Or maybe he would, who knows? And what would the criteria be for a player going into the "tainted" wing? A positive test? An admission? Overwhelming evidence? I'm sure there are people much smarter than me who could figure that out, but I doubt they'd get everyone to agree with them.
It's time to stop ignoring history and start learning from it. You don't want to glorify Mark McGwire because he admitted using steroids? Fine. Then use it as a teaching moment. When a kid goes to the Hall of Fame and reads about everything he did in that magical season of 1998, including the PED use, and then sees that he's not in the same part of the Hall as Babe Ruth and Roger Maris, maybe that kid will understand.
Again, I know this is pretty much just a rant. But I'd love to know what other solutions there are. Don't tell me drugs should keep a player out of Cooperstown. Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, and Willie Mays have all said they used amphetamines when they played because it helped them perform. But I don't see anyone arguing that they should be removed.
Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports
Friday, December 27, 2013
UFC 168 Preview
The biggest rematch since Serra vs. GSP II goes down on Saturday when Chris Weidman faces Anderson Silva. Last time around, as we all know. Weidman put Silva to sleep and ended what many believe to be the most dominant era in MMA. Silva toyed around with the wrong guy and he paid for it. No one had challenged him since Chael Sonnen nearly beat him back in 2010, though that victory would've been most likely vacated since Sonnen test positive for illegal substances. But when push comes to shove, Silva ran the Middleweight division for years. He has a chance to get back on top of that mountain on Saturday.
Weidman is a huge match-up problem for Silva. He's very good on the ground, and as we all witnessed, he has one-punch knockout power. Silva took Weidman lightly the first time around, which was pretty much his style. While I think Weidman has the capability to retain his title, I don't think he will. Silva has waited years for someone to rise to the challenge, someone to motivate him to care, to try, to really train hard again. He has that in that in Weidman. Silva should take this fight more seriously than any fight in his career. He was exposed the last time he was on in the Octagon. He doesn't want to tarnish his legacy by having back-to-back losses to the same opponent. I think Silva takes this fight by unanimous decision.
The other big fight, another rematch, on the UFC 168 card is Ronda Rousey vs. Miesha Tate. This matchup stems from their recent stint as opposing coaches on The Ultimate Fighter. Their dislike for each other is well known and probably only grew from TUF. Rousey seems to take it much more seriously than Tate for whatever reason, and it does border on annoying. However, I wouldn't put it past Dana White to tell them both to do whatever they can to hype this fight up. Rousey was first supposed to face Cat Zingao but she ended up blowing out her knee and was replaced by Tate. Nothing against Miesha Tate, but she's not in the same class as Rousey. Ronda should absolutely dominate this fight and win it with an armbar in the first round. Does that mean Tate can't pull the upset? Absolutely not. She is fully capable of jumping on Rousey if she makes a mistake and making her pay for it with her title. Rousey needs to put her emotions aside when she steps in the Octagon and not let her mind get the best of her. She absolutely should win this fight in dominating fashion.
The only other fight on the card I'm interested in is Uriah Hall vs. Chris Leben. Both guys are pretty much fighting for their job. Leben hasn't won since he beat Wanderlei Silva back in July of 2011 and has also failed a drug test since then. Hall has yet to notch a victory in the UFC despite his immense potential. He ran through his season of The Ultimate Fighter until the finale when he looked completely disinterested. He lost again in August in a fight where he just seemed to be bored. Leben is probably closer to the end of his UFC career, but if Hall can't pull off this victory his will most likely be over before it even starts.
Follow me on Twitter- https://twitter.com/TwittinSports
Weidman is a huge match-up problem for Silva. He's very good on the ground, and as we all witnessed, he has one-punch knockout power. Silva took Weidman lightly the first time around, which was pretty much his style. While I think Weidman has the capability to retain his title, I don't think he will. Silva has waited years for someone to rise to the challenge, someone to motivate him to care, to try, to really train hard again. He has that in that in Weidman. Silva should take this fight more seriously than any fight in his career. He was exposed the last time he was on in the Octagon. He doesn't want to tarnish his legacy by having back-to-back losses to the same opponent. I think Silva takes this fight by unanimous decision.
The other big fight, another rematch, on the UFC 168 card is Ronda Rousey vs. Miesha Tate. This matchup stems from their recent stint as opposing coaches on The Ultimate Fighter. Their dislike for each other is well known and probably only grew from TUF. Rousey seems to take it much more seriously than Tate for whatever reason, and it does border on annoying. However, I wouldn't put it past Dana White to tell them both to do whatever they can to hype this fight up. Rousey was first supposed to face Cat Zingao but she ended up blowing out her knee and was replaced by Tate. Nothing against Miesha Tate, but she's not in the same class as Rousey. Ronda should absolutely dominate this fight and win it with an armbar in the first round. Does that mean Tate can't pull the upset? Absolutely not. She is fully capable of jumping on Rousey if she makes a mistake and making her pay for it with her title. Rousey needs to put her emotions aside when she steps in the Octagon and not let her mind get the best of her. She absolutely should win this fight in dominating fashion.
The only other fight on the card I'm interested in is Uriah Hall vs. Chris Leben. Both guys are pretty much fighting for their job. Leben hasn't won since he beat Wanderlei Silva back in July of 2011 and has also failed a drug test since then. Hall has yet to notch a victory in the UFC despite his immense potential. He ran through his season of The Ultimate Fighter until the finale when he looked completely disinterested. He lost again in August in a fight where he just seemed to be bored. Leben is probably closer to the end of his UFC career, but if Hall can't pull off this victory his will most likely be over before it even starts.
Follow me on Twitter- https://twitter.com/TwittinSports
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)