Sunday, June 28, 2009

How real is too real for athletes?

Social networking has brought fans, writers, bloggers and even athletes closer and more intertwined then ever before. We don’t live in an age where you mail a letter (with self addressed stamped envelope included) to an athlete and maybe receive something back a few months later, but one where we can see people like Chris Bosh shoot home movies or Shaq, Steve Nash or Brandon Jennings microblog on Twitter.

Well, we used to see Jennings anyway.

Jennings twitter account, Bjennings3, was taken down some point over this weekend, likely after an appearance on rapper (and friend of Jennings) Joe Budden’s webcast. There, an unguarded Jennings made several off-colour comments about the Knicks, Ricky Rubio and ESPN analyist Jay Bilas.

But what happened isn’t really a question about wither Jennings’ comments were right or wrong. It’s about if we’ve hit a tipping point, a moment where this free access to (and by) superstars has shown too much of what’s behind the curtain, was it were.

I do think that Jennings should have watched what he said. He’s a public figure and he should have realized that anything he says – even in a private conversation – could come back and bite him.

Granted, watching the video of his interview with Budden gives the impression that Jennings may not have known he was live. But he knew Budden hosted an online show and he had appeared on it previously. On June 22, he tweeted “Out with Joe Budden. Tryin get on Joebuddentv tonight. This finna be a funny night.” To me, that shows he knew Budden had a live show and by calling him, he should have at least thought in the back of his mind that whatever he says could end up online.

Really, though, Jennings made a dumb mistake. A small one. He talked some trash, said some things that I’d assume most every athlete would say in private. Remember, they say Jordan and Bird were legendary trash talkers, Tiger has a sharp, biting wit and Wayne Gretzky once told novelist Mordecai Richler he didn’t read his books because he didn’t have time to read stuff that didn’t happen.

As one writer put it, it’s a confidence thing. That’s how they got to where they are – their confidence in themselves. Of course they’re going to talk smack about the opposition. The question is where they do it. They can say whatever they want in private and in public they’re almost coached to never say anything remotely controversial.

But with the social mediums now out there, where is the line between public and private? Shaq and Charlie V made waves with twitter accounts that further reduced the gap between them and us, the fans. This isn’t somebody blogging through a ghost writing PR agent. And that’s the rub – with less barriers between them and us, it’s easier for them to slip up.

Which is what I think happened to Jennings: he either forgot or didn’t realize that his friend could have been broadcasting the conversation and he said some mildly regrettable things. He slipped up and when he did it was out there for all to see.

It’s regrettable, yes, but it’s also minor. It’s only another anecdote of how athletes need to balance their private lives with their social lives. There’s a fine line between being accessible and open to fans and exposing too much of your private self.

Still, if there’s a lesson to be learned from this, it’s that Jennings – and every other athlete, by extension – is a public figure. Anything they say, even in what they think is a private conversation, can come back and haunt them, be it over the phone, on Twitter or an email.

After all, it’s a lot easier to think about what you’re saying (and who you’re saying it to) then it is to try and un-say it.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Lakers share the wealth in game five win over Nuggets

When Nene fouled out late in the fourth quarter of game five of the Western Conference Finals on Wednesday night, he lay on the court, shaking his head as if in disbelief.

He wasn’t alone, as the Nuggets let another one slip away, losing 103-94 to the Lakers, ceding them a 3-2 series lead.

The Nuggets had every reason to be confident they could steal a win in LA. They had survived a close call in game four, when the team nearly self-destructed in a succession of fouls, yet hung on to win. Carmelo Anthony looked good and shot good early on, while their bench had been outplaying the Lakers throughout the series.

Besides, they had won game two and nearly won game one, both played at the Staples Center.

But the Lakers were just as determined and met them head on; this game was a lot closer then it’s score shows.

It was a defencive kind of game, but not in the recent Knicks/Heat or Pistons/Spurs styles. Both sides were throwing themselves to the floor – Odon made a wild lunge at a loose ball in the fourth that’s completely illustrative of this. Both sides were making the other take it strong to the hoop – witness Chris Anderson, the Birdman, stuffing Odon early in the game, deadening his attempted dunk. Both sides were playing pressure-packed D – Carmelo wasn’t just double teamed, but had three defenders on him late in the fourth.

Bouncing back from a lackluster game four, Anthony had a good night – he shot 9-23 for 31 points and grabbed four boards in the process. From the charity stripe, he was nearly perfect, hitting 12 of 13.

He was alone in his play tonight.

Most of the Nuggets finished the game in the negative, with only Nene and Dahntay Jones having a +/- in the positive. JR Smith cooled off considerably from his game four hot streak, hitting only 3 of 13 shots (including 9 missed threes). Chauncy Billups took only seven shots, six of them threes, and hit four for 12 points – tying him with Kenyon Martin for second highest scorer on the Nuggets.

It was indicative of Denver’s shot selection, which faltered and withered late in the game. Too many quick, ill-advised long shots, plays that either took too long to develop or didn’t at all… it felt at times like if they were going to pull off the win, it was in spite of how their shots weren’t dropping.

A neat stat from the fourth: at one point, the Nuggets had a streak where they hit only three of 21 shots.

The Lakers, on the other hand, played like Denver had on Monday night. They spread the ball around, with five players scoring 12 or more points. Odom played his best game of the series and probably the playoffs, scoring 19 and grabbing 18 rebounds – and had four blocks, too.

Kobe Bryant had a similarly good game, scoring 22 on 6-of-13 shooting. He was a big reason why the Lakers were able to win: because he wasn’t forcing his shots and because he shared the load, getting eight assists. For the best example, look to one of them, from late in the fourth:

Kobe’s on the perimeter, looking for a long shot. He goes up, the Nuggets defence turns and pulls towards him… but it’s not a shot, it’s a quick pass to Odon, camped in the low post, who grabs the pass and stuffs it home. It’s either an expertly designed play, one the Nuggets completely fell for.

Or maybe it was a shot, or at least it was going to be until Kobe saw how the defence shifted, saw where Odon was and made a quick decision to go for the easy two rather then risk an iffy three.

Was it a one-off play? Or was that the turning point of this series, where Kobe realizes that no, he doesn’t have to do this alone.

One more fact: Carmelo outscored Kobe tonight, but for the first time it resulted in a loss.

Maybe this is less of a duel then a chess match after all.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Nuggets bend but don't break in game four win

If they say there are no easy baskets in the conference finals, they’re wrong.

Game four of the Western Finals seemed to be an exercise of foul shooting at times, in a game that was constantly stopped by the officals.

In the fourth quarter, the game got a little chippy and the refs started to crack down, calling fouls all over the place: to Denver and to LA… plus four technicals, with two called to the Nuggets without a second of gameplay in between.

Hence, LA got a few uncontested shots from the line.

Mind you, Denver got more then a handful too. Combined, both sides had 84 chances from the line… and with all those stoppages, it wasn’t just a blowout, it was kind of a stinker.

It wasn’t as bad as some games have been in these playoffs – game seven between the Celtics and Bulls, I’m looking at you – but it was hard to keep a flow going with this many trips to the line. Yes, play was choppy, but this is the playoffs. Things are supposed to be tough here, aren’t they?

It’s a shame that’s the lasting impression from game four, too, because it was an important win for a few reasons:
- An injured Carmelo scored 15 points, even though he was hobbling around on the floor early on.
- The Nuggets bench contributed 42 points, led by JR Smith who had a great shooting night and hit some late three’s that broke the Lakers’ back.
- Chris Anderson gave a great Dennis Rodman impression, grabbing boards like a vacuum and even shot a wildly amusing – and off mark – three. In all, he had 14 in just 24 minutes.

But there was one more thing that’s extremely telling about this win: the Nuggets composure.

When the refs cracked down late, the Nuggets started to break. They were fouling and looking lost. Carmelo picked up a technical for a stupid shove, and while Kobe shot the corresponding free throw, Kenyon Martin picked up another technical foul for the Nuggets. As a team, they were close to complete self-destruction, the kind where they lose their composure, miss shots and blow a big lead.

You know, the kind of self-destruction that the Kings and Blazers have had against the Lakers in conference finals of years past.

After the refs got everything sorted out, Bryant hit his foul shots and cut the lead to 10.

That was as close as he’d get. The Nuggets didn’t fall apart, but rallied and had a strong finish to the game. Martin hit the bench and the team settled down. When JR Smith hit two consecutive threes and made the score 113-96, the Lakers were finally out of contention.

So, it’s an important win for the Nuggets. They showed that while they have the self-destruction potential, they also can keep their head (and their lead) when it matters.

Besides that, it means the Lakers don’t have a stranglehold 3-1 lead on the series and the Nuggets gave themselves a little bit of breathing room. They showed that even without Carmelo at his best, they can still win: Billips and JR Smith both had great scoring nights (24 each), while Martin, Nene and Anderson each grabbed double-digit rebounds. They showed how deep they are, especially compared to the Lakers: 42 bench points to LA’s 24. That’s important – in a long series, that depth can pay some serious dividends.

But as the series moves to game five, the Nuggets have to be at least a little worried: if this could happen in game four, what’s to say it can’t happen again? And what happens with a hostile crowd? What if Smith misses those shots? Do they still hang on?

Still, it was a good win for the Nuggets. One that raises some questions, yes, but compared to the ones that a loss would have raised, I’m sure they’ll take them.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

As Melo goes, so go the Nuggets

Funny how things seem to repeat themselves isn’t it?

Another boneheaded inbounds pass; another quick move by Trevor Ariza… another win for the Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Conference finals.

It was a fitting end to another late game collapse by the Nuggets and another late game vanishing act by Carmelo Anthony.

As this series shifted back to Denver for game three, things felt odd; there was a weird vibe to the match: Three’s launched all over the over the place, bodies being pushed around, crazy shots that had no business hitting – Smith’s long-bomb three at the end of the third quarter or Billups’ four-point play – were dropping.

Though the Lakers leads were far and few between – they didn’t lead in the second or third quarters – the fourth was again, again a roller coaster – not a steel one with loops and drops and sharp twists, but more like a wooden one where the cart whistles around the track, almost seeming at the edge of oblivion.

The Nuggets held a sizeable lead for most of the game and kept the Lakers at bay. But they also picked up fouls, kept running into walls and had possessions that never seemed to go anywhere.

It’s why the Lakers never went away. About midway through the fourth, the Lakers roared back and took an 81-80 lead on a long three by Ariza. They kept the pressure on the Nuggets, who couldn’t pull away, but stalled offensively; they had four turnovers at one point, capped when Nene (saddled with five fouls) stepped in front of Vujacic.

So, fairly predictably, it was Kobe who carried the Lakers offence. He hit some nice jumpers, including a three to give them a one-point lead with just over a minute left, and made clutch free throws.

On the other side of the ball, Carmelo Anthony was quiet and in foul trouble, leaving the game with just 11 points on 4 of 13 shooting. As the game drew to a close, it meant JR Smith or Billups had taken most of the big shots for Denver, not him. After the game, ABC’s cameras caught him walking to the locker room with a frustrated air about him.

As Carmelo goes, so go the Nuggets.

He’s the catalyst to their success. In game one he vanished down the stretch. In game two, he outscored Kobe with 34 points. On Saturday, he disappeared again, scoring only three points in the second half.

His play has been a big part of why this series has been so uneven, with neither team really establishing anything. The Lakers lead 2-1, yes, but this was the only game where they outplayed the Nuggets. And even here, they had some breaks – Kobe was ice cold down the stretch from the charity stripe. Had he been anything less, this could have gone either way – it was that kind of night.

With game four coming up on Monday, nothing really seems certain. It’s been a flip-flop kind of series. Will we see the tight, tempered Nuggets of game two, led by a confident Melo? Or will we see Kobe driving the Lakers to a stranglehold 3-1 series lead? Who can tell?

Friday, May 22, 2009

It's a Wild West Kind Of Duel Between Kobe and Carmelo

Now this is playoff basketball.

The Denver Nuggets and the Los Angeles Lakers are tangled up in a tightly-matched Western Conference finals, tied with one win apiece.

Game one, a 103-105 win for the Lakers, was a skirmish. Game two, a 106-103 win for the Nuggets, was a duel. Just two games in, this series feels like a battle.

I know sportswriters – especially lazy or untalented ones – always like to fall back on war metaphors, but that’s how I honestly viewed game one and two of this series.

It’s been back and fourth, back and fourth. Los Angeles, basically the twin peaks of Kobe and Gasol, has run head-on into Denver, a hard-nosed, scrappy team that contests every shot and has no problem, none whatsoever, about getting their clothes dirty.

Look at how they handled Trevor Arerza. He drives to the basket, he’s knocked on his ass by Kenyon Martin. They put the pressure on him and he cracked, turning the ball over late and took the air out of the Lakers sails.

Look at Carmelo Anthony. He’s burst out his shell – I already look at him differently. He’s not the guy who won a NCAA title and underperformed; he’s the first player to really take Kobe to task in a while. He had 39 in game one, 34 in game two.

Look at Derek Fisher. Game one, he hits some huge shots. Game two, his game-tying shot sails wide. No way we’ve heard the last of him yet.

Look at a graph of the score. Neither side has managed to take much of a lead. Both games have been close for basically 48 minutes. This is no cakewalk for the Lakers. They haven’t been tested like this, not by Houston and not by Utah.

I think both games have been great and maybe the best games in these 2009 playoffs. Not finishes, whole games. These are ones that’ll air on ESPN Classic or Hardcourt Classics. They were hard fought, close and really could have gone either way. It’s like an old Celtics/Pistons game.

Those games were classic too, but not for their beauty. Those were tough, closely fought matches. Quite like what’s happened at the Staples Centre.

Granted, it’s been trainwreck ugly at times. Bad possessions and missed calls have showed up in both games. Both games kind of came down to missed chances at the foul line. The Nuggets could have, should have won game one. They hit a few more from the charity strips, they successfully run that inbounds pass at the end… well, maybe they’re up in this series two-nothing heading back to Denver. It’s been that close.

But it’s been great at times too. Kobe and Carmelo are dueling each other on the court. Both are lighting it up, pushing each other to new heights. It almost feels like a wild-west showdown between two gunslingers.

I don’t know if I’ve seen Carmelo play this possessed. His play – both times nearly matching Kobe’s stat line – has been nothing short of stellar.

On the other side of the ball, I’ve seen Kobe play this possessed, but only rarely. He is not doin’ work, he is worked up. When ESPN’s cameras caught him grimacing late in game two, you could almost feel his frustration as the game slipped beyond his grasp.

He is doing all he can – see his late game heroics in this series – but one man cannot carry a team, despite his best efforts. He’s hitting late shots, he’s having great nights… but that’s not enough. He needs the rest of the Lakers – Gasol, Fisher, Odom, et al – to get over this hump.

But one player can lift his team and make them play better then they ever have before. Before these playoffs began, I was firmly convinced in two things. One, the Nuggets series against the Hornets would be great (it wasn’t) and that the Nuggets were going to explode and fall apart.

They haven’t, even with these two pressure-cooker games in Los Angeles. Billups has been great at the point, Nene’s defence has been top-notch and Kenyon Martin has been good on both sides of the court; in game two he both set a tone on defence and hit a clutch shot to put the Nuggets in front. Is Carmelo the catalyst of this change? Is it Billups? I can’t say I know.

But the seeds of their destruction are already sown. They’re shooting horribly from the foul line and they’re picking up ugly fouls. You can only bang around bodies for so long in this stage of the NBA before the refs put a stop to it. Before one of your players gets hurt. Before they start treating you in kind.

Still, playing on a foreign court, they’ve kept the Lakers in check two times. Like I said, this series could very easily have been two-love for the Nuggets as they moved to Denver.

You know what? If they keep this level of play up, it could very easily be a 3-1 lead by Tuesday morning.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

I love being wrong - NBA Second Round picks

Honestly, I found the first round of the NBA Playoffs kind of underwhelming. Perhaps it’s in context of an excellent series between the Bulls and the Celtics and one that I didn’t see – but looked good on SportsCentre – between Orlando and Philadelphia.

But really, sweeps aren’t all that fun to watch unless you’ve got a stake in the sweeping team. I enjoyed watching Cleveland take apart Detroit for this reason, but I was never surprised or felt tension from those games. It felt like I was watching ESPN Classic; I had a vague recollection of what’s going to happen and I watched to see how it happened but I always knew what was going to happen.

I knew that Cleveland was going to win that series and that it was never going to be in doubt. I knew the Lakers were going to win their series. Same for Dallas. I had a pretty good idea that Orlando was going to win, too.

But every year I “know” who’s going to win. And every year I’m wrong, which is what I love about the postseason. I love being surprised. And that didn’t happen this year.

Will it pick up in the second round? Perhaps. The east will be drained, as two teams went to seven games, while the west should be nice and rested: only Houston played a sixth game and all teams had a few days rest.

Western Picks

(1) Lakers vs (5) Houston

The Lakers have looked great so far and should keep it up. Like last year, they’re a multipointed team; stop Kobe and you’ve left Gasol and Oden open. And while the Rockets have finally broken the first-round barrier, I think it’ll stop here.

The Blazers were a good team, but they were young and inexperienced in the postseason – and they still gave the Rockets a run for their money. That says a lot about the Rockets to me, so I think the Lakers will be more then able to handle them.

Lakers in five.

(2) Denver vs (6) Dallas

I didn’t get much of a chance to watch either of these two series, but what little I saw of Denver showed me how physical that series against New Orleans was. It was brutal, with bodies flying all over the place. Sure, the Nuggets eventually exploded and won by 58 points, but I was surprised by how well they responded to that aggression.

Dallas, though, almost got a pass in the first round. They beat a crippled San Antonio, a team missing one of its three most important players and relied on Anthony Mason to make clutch shots. Let’s just say I don’t remember him making too many of those in Toronto.

So I’m wary on the Mavs. I feel they haven’t really been tested yet and I don’t know what they’re capable of. On paper I think they have the talent to beat Denver, but on the court I’m not so sure. I’m going to go out on a limb and take them to win in a longish series.

Mavs in six.

Eastern conference

(2) Boston vs (3) Orlando

Both of these teams barely escaped the first round. Boston narrowly made it past the Bulls in a great series that showed how much the C’s need Garnett on the court. Orlando, it seemed, actually was pretty good even without some of its starters – but a couple baskets go the other way and maybe Philly upsets them. It was that close.

While I feel like Boston will be drained from playing such a grueling series, I also think they’re a lot better then Orlando. The Magic have a great chance to steal a win or two early on, and if they do, they’ll have a great shot at winning a long series. But if they can’t, I think Boston will be able to prevail.

Boston in six.

(1) Cleveland at (??)

I’m writing this during the first half of game seven between Miami and Atlanta. I don’t know who’s going to win, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that whomever does is going to lose to Cleveland, maybe even in a sweep. The Cavs looked that good against Detroit.

Cleveland in four.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

NHL Playoffs second round picks, Western Conference

Vancouver over Chicago

If I learned anything from the first round of the playoffs, it was that Roberto Luongo can be excellent for stretches and basically shut down a hot team.

He, and solely he, is why I’m taking Vancouver to beat the Blackhawks. There are a few other options, such as questions in Chicago’s net, their relative inexperience and their reliance on outscoring, not keeping the score down. I think this has potential to be a good series, but if Luongo plays as he did in the first, it could be over in a hurry.

Detroit over Anahiem

With the Ducks the latest of the annual winner over the Sharks, an average team is going to play a very good one.

The Ducks aren’t going to win this series nine times of ten, but they could make it interesting in most of those. I would be more receptive of them if they still had somebody a little more proven then Hiller in net, but still: they did shut down the number one seed. And the Wings have been upset before.

Just not this year. Wings are too powerful and can shoot out the lights.

Eastern Conference coming up tomorrow!

First round accuracy: 2-2

Monday, April 27, 2009

Double Overtimes Duel - '86 vs '09

Okay, so yes, there were similarities. Both went to two overtimes, both featured the same two teams. There were even two great breakout performances.

But don’t kid yourself. Sunday’s two-overtime duel between the Celtics and the Bulls was nothing like their two-OT duel that was Michael Jordan’s coming out party in 1986.

Let’s set them up.

In ’86, the Bulls were facing a great Celtics team. They were not a great team and finished with a 30-52 record, albeit mostly because of a nagging foot injury for Jordan (indeed, it was their worst record in the Jordan era). But to beat the Celtics – who had lost exactly one home game all season and who had been to the last two NBA finals – would have been an upset of exceptional proportions.

Game two was the second time Jordan lit up twice times in that series, scoring 49 in game one and 63 in game two (he spend game three in foul trouble and finished with just 19), and basically carried his team as far as they got – namely, a three game sweep against a team that was just too good to handle.

In 2009, the Celtics were a team ripe to be upset. Kevin Garnett, the foundation of their defence and a vital part of their big three, was ruled out on the cusp of the postseason. In his absence, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen had to pick up some slack and reserve big men Glen Davis and Brian Scalabrine got many more minutes then usual.

On the other hand, the Bulls of 2009 were a team that came together at the right time, winning seven of their last ten games, with two of those losses by five points or less. Rookie Derrick Rose was the best of his class, averaging 17 points and six boards a game. One would be foolish to overlook Ben Gordon and John Salmon’s contributions too: together they led the team in minutes and points.

It was a 2-seed vs an 8-seed, but an upset wasn’t all that unlikely.

Let’s look at the teams.

2009’s Bulls team is a little more balanced. Yes, Rose had another great game – his third triple-double in four games – but he’s got a solid supporting cast. Gordon, who hit that ridiculous three to tie the game up late. Even Noah, who made some clutch plays down the stretch that helped tip the game.

Even the Celtics aren’t as powerful. The ’86 C’s were one of the great teams in recent memory, basically six hall of fame players deep: Bird, McHale, D.J., Ainge, Parish and Walton coming off the bench.

And while I’m not doubting that Ray Allen and Paul Pierce are great players, it would be foolish to put this Celtic team in the same breath as the ’86 team – especially without KG. The 85-86 Celtics lost one game at home and only three in the playoffs.

Not to sound flippant, but Glen Davis is not and never will be Robert Parish or Bill Walton and maybe not even Tom Kite.

Let’s look at the finishes.

Sure, Jordan was ice-cold in ’86, nailing free throws at the Garden with no time left. He was clutch, carrying the Bulls into extra time. But he only got to OT because of a stupid play by McHale, who left his man to try and make a block.

In overtime, Jordan launched a wide-open jumper that would have given the Bulls the lead with two seconds left… but it clanked out (Ditto for Bird, who hit the back of the rim on a long three). Then, in the second OT, the Celtics pulled away.

On Sunday, the Bulls lasted through two breakneck OT periods on top of a great 48. Salmons, hit four clutch free throws and blocked a potential game winner. Gordon hit a huge three to tie the game at 110. Allen hit a late three in regulation to send the game to OT. It was a bona-fide classic.

Yes, there were missed shots: Rose missed a game winner at the end of the fourth, Allen had a late shot blocked in OT. And the second OT wasn’t that competitive: if the game was a tug-of-war, it was when one side runs out of steam and falls slowly towards the mud. Still, I’d much rather watch that then ’86 any day – Jordan and Bird be damned.

So, which one is best?

If one had to choose between these two games – both excellent games, mind you – one would have to wildly different answers for wildly different reasons. ’86 was a coming out, the opening chapter to a legendary NBA career. ’09 was a great game that will likely be played on ESPN Classic (although had it been broadcast on TNT… maybe on NBA-TV in a couple years).

Of course, context means a lot, too. Had MJ lit up against Don Nelson’s Bucks, would we remember it as fondly ? If Larry Bird doesn’t say “that was God disguised as Michael Jordan”, do we even care? Maybe.

In this sense, it’s too early to say anything about Sunday’s game. Was it a coming-out for Rose? Or was it a spurt of greatness on national TV? Or will it be doomed to vague memory, like that great three-OT game in the 1993 Finals.

I hope not. Because if I had to choose which one to watch later tonight, I’d take ’09 in a heartbeat.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Official North of the 400 NBA Playoff picks, first round

Eastern Conference

No. 1 Cleveland vs. No. 8 Detroit
Obviously Cleveland in this series. I think Detroit's too old and too banged up to even pose much of a threat, really. Cavs in five.

No. 2 Boston vs. No. 7 Chicago
You know what, now that Garnett's maybe out for the whole postseason, I feel like the Bulls can pull off a huge upset. I like the way they've been playing lately, there's some good matchups and if they can steal an early win in Boston they'll have a great chance at winning this series. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Bulls in seven.

No. 3 Orlando vs. No. 6 Philadelphia
I don't know if I'm sold on Orlando going too deep, but I think they'll get past Philly without a lot of problems. Orlando in five.

No. 4 Atlanta vs. No. 5 Miami
I'm taking Miami since I really like the way Wade's played this season and I haven't really seen Atlanta play much. Miami in six.

Western Conference

No. 1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. No. 8 Utah
I think the Jazz are starting to self-destruct and the Lakers will walk all over them. I don't even think it'll even have a close game. Lakers in 4.

No. 2 Denver vs. No. 7 New Orleans
I really like this matchup. More then anything, I like the Billups/CP3 matchup. It's a great point against a George Karl-coached point, so I think it'll be neat. I like what little I've seen of the Nuggets, so I'm going to take them to win in six.

No. 3 San Antonio vs. No. 6 Dallas
I also really like this too. Normally I'd like the Spurs, but with Manu out and Duncan hurt, this could go either way. And since the Spurs are relying on Roger Mason Jr. to make big shots, I'll take the Mavs in seven.

No. 4 Portland vs. No. 5 Houston
Another cool series, too. I really like Houston this year (mostly because I want them to win without T-Mac) but Portland is fun to watch and I like Brandon Roy a lot. I think Portland's inexperience will be a factor, though, so I like Houston in six.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Third annual NHL Playoff picks - Western Conference

And here's part two, with my western picks, briefly:

San Jose over Anahiem

First, the Sharks are good. Nabakov has been excellent this season, winning 41 games and posting a goals-against of 2.44. And they're a solid offensive team, even now Jonathan Cheechoo's scoring touch has all but vanished. The Ducks will be hard pressed to match them.

Detroit over Columbus

A popular pick this spring is to choose Columbus and there are pretty solid reasons. Steve Mason has been nothing short of superb this year, etc. But they're over-thinking it. Detroit's offence will keep the pressure on Mason and they will get to him. I wouldn't expect this series to go very long.

Vancouver over St. Louis

Mostly because I think St. Louis is playing with house money since they've made it this far. They're old and Vancouver's Luongo can come up big in the postseason. I can see this one getting over in a hurry.

Calgary over Chicago

Because Chicago is young and still inexperienced. They remind me of the Penguins of a couple seasons ago, the ones that faced the Sens in the first round. Come next year, they might go a lot deeper, but for now they'll just give chase to the Flames.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Third annual NHL Playoff picks - Eastern Conference

It's time for the second season to begin, so here's some playoff picks for the NHL.

Boston over Montreal

Bob Gainey got the Habs under control late this season, when it looked like they had peaked early. Still, they're a team that was a sleeper pick by some (myself included) to win the Cup in October; now they barely made the playoffs. Goalie Carey Price will have to be strong in net and a few Habs - Kovalev and Kostitsyn in particular - will have to play a lot better then they have throughout the season.

Boston, on the other hand, just missed winning the Presidents trophy, albeit in a weak division - the only other team from it are the Habs - but have looked great. Tim Thomas has stood out as one of the best goalies in the NHL and looks able to carry his team. And these Bruins faced a much better-playing Habs last year in the playoffs and took them to seven games. I expect this year, they won't even have to go that far. I like the Bruins in five.

Washington over New York

Yes, the Rangers look good. Even Avery. And Lundqvist looks good. But the Rangers haven't endeared themselves to me, not yet. I don't think they're deep enough, I don't know if they have enough experience and as a whole they look like a team in transition between leaders - in other words, they miss Jagr.

The Caps are great though. They can score in bunches and look to improve from last year, when they left the postseason early. Ovechkin will force Lundqvist to play great; nobody on the Rangers will push Theodore that hard. With him, they won't go deep, but I think they can outscore the Rangers in seven games, which is what I think this series will go to.

Carolina over New Jersey

Martin Brodeur has had a great season, setting records and winning games. He's bound to be feeling better then he has in any postseason in recent memory, as he's played less games this year then he has in over a decade. And he's part of a good Devils team, too, that can score.

But Carolina is peaking, as they say, at the right time. Cam Ward is hot, maybe the hottest goalie in the East, and I think that makes the Canes - excuse the cliche - a dark horse to go deep. It will be tough for them and I'm still not sold on their offense, but if Ward keeps playing at this clip, they have a good shot at beating the Devils, maybe in as little as five games.

Pittsburgh over Philadelphia

The Flyers are solid - not great, not bad - and they know the Penguins; one could say a rivalry has formed between the two teams, especially after last season's meeting between the two. They're about the same as the Penguins, in record and statistically - but they're not as deep. After a handful of heavies, they drop off pretty quickly. But I like their tandem of goalies.

I do like the Penguins, though, who are about as good as last year, if a little more shallow. But Crosby and Malkin are still the best 1-2 punch any team in the East has and Fleury's won 35 games; no easy feat in a tight division that sent three teams to the playoffs, with none seeded lower then fifth. They'll have a tough time, I imagine, but this is a winnable series for the Pens. I like them in six.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Ovechkins celebrations a cause better left alone

Last night in Toronto, Capitals sniper Alexander Ovechkin wore a Coach's Corner T-shirt while warming up before the game. On the back was written "RESPECT".

For those not in the loop, that is Don Cherry's CBC segment. The segment where Cherry has blasted Ovechkin this season for his goal celebrations.

It was a sign that Ovechkin is ready to move on from the micro-controversy that has been clouding over him since a fateful game against Tampa Bay when he scored his 50th goal of the season. After hitting on a wrist shot, taken just inside the blue line to the left of Lightening goalie Mike McKenna, Ovechkin dropped his stick and pantomimed that he couldn't pick it up, it was too hot.

On the scale of celebrations, it was far from the worst. It was Terrell Owens running to midfield after scoring a touchdown against Dallas. There was no disrespect, no taunting. Ovechkin was having a lark, like he does with most of his goals. One remembers him running on the ice or jumping into the boards after big goals. He is not one to simply smile and raise a hand when he scores. Rather, he wears his emotion on his sleeve.

And this wears on some people's patience.

Don Cherry is one. He disagrees with what Ovechkin does and compares it to Jerome Iginla, who rarely does anything much after scoring. If Ovechkin is excitable, Iginla is workmanlike in his poise. After scoring his 50th last season against Vancouver, he put his stick up in the air and hugged a couple players.

Cherry makes a few points. By celebrating so much, he opens himself up to criticism. A parallel to baseball, as poised by Cherry, is fitting: if you stare too long at a home run, you're likely to get thrown at. That happens. In hockey, Ovechkin may find that he's getting a few more elbows thrown his way and that referees might decide to let them play.

Cherry keeps at it, though. "They're laughing at you, Alex" he opined this past weekend. He found the stick-play more then harmless. A taunt. Rubbing it in. Think of the poor Lightening, all the way down in the standings.

Here he oversteps, and not just because Ovechkin is has 50 goals because he's on a good Capitals team — if anything, the Capitals are a good team because Ovechkin has 50 goals. He reads too far into Ovechkins actions and leads one to wonder if in Cherry's ideal world, there would have be no celebrations and pitchers can throw at hockey forwards.

Unaddressed by Cherry was Cliff Ronning in the 1991 Smythe finals, Theo Fleury in the 91 Smythe semi-finals or Teemu Selanne setting the goal record for a rookie.

One wonders if the shirt will be addressed on Saturday by Cherry. It's a show of respect, yes, but the shirt means something else too: he's tired of talking about it.

What's a better sign then what Ovechkin did last night after scoring his 51st against the Maple Leafs? After crossing in front of Leafs goalie Martin Gerber, he pulled the puck in, waited for Gerber to bite and backhanded the puck past him.

And then he hugged some teammates with what looked to me like a hand pointing up to the press box.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Sidney Crosby is a player under pressure

Second in an ongoing series at current athletes

There’s this ad in Canada right now for Tim Horton’s that stars Sidney Crosby. He’s riding a bus – presumably with the rest of the Pittsburgh Penguins – out in some kind of countryside.

The bus breaks down, Crosby looks out the window and sees a group of kids playing hockey on a pond. And grabbing his stick, skates and gloves (nice to know he keeps those handy), he goes out and plays with them while a light snow begins to fall.

It’s a cute ad, though it’s one I like a bit for an entirely unrelated reason. And it’s one of many, many ads that prominently feature one Sidney Patrick Crosby, currently of the Pittsburgh Penguins. His likeness is attached to everything from clothing (including the stuff he wears in that Tims ad) to Gatorade.

The NHL is hitching its wagon to Crosby. He is the face of the league, hockey’s spokesperson and maybe the best talent to come out of Canada in a long, long time. Already the captain of the Penguins at the young age of 21, he’s already tearing into the league; he led the league in scoring in his second season by putting up the Gretzky-like 120 points – before he turned 20.

Fair or unfairly, that is a shadow he is gong to have to with. The shadow of Gretzky will always lie on hockey, but especially so on Crosby, as it has on every Canadian player in recent memory, from Eric Lindros to Alexandre Daigle. But for Crosby, it is perhaps the best comparison that could be made.

Like him he wears a high number. Like him he’s got a great scoring touch – but is just as likely to set somebody else up instead. Like him, he started his career on a young team brimming with talent. And like him, Crosby came into the league with a ton of hype.

Gretzky lived up to his, putting up unreal numbers in a time where scoring was at a peak. His 200 plus point seasons are unlikely to ever be repeated, let alone broken. Even now, close to a decade after his final game, his name is still shorthand for greatness in hockey.

This has to weigh down on Crosby. He a great talent, yes, but the entire league sometimes seems to pivot on his shoulders. Gretzky never had to save anything from oblivion.

He started immediately after the NHL cancelled an entire season. He is, through no fault of his own, the savior of hockey, the player who will rescue the sport from cable-TV obscurity.

The NHL he inherited was a league in it’s worst shape in decades, since the halcyon days of Gretzky, Lemieux and Messier. The league had moved from ESPN to OLN, a small network best known for broadcasts of fishing and the Tour de France and an occasional game on NBC. The NHL had just endured a lockout that cancelled a season – the first time an entire season had been cancelled in a major pro sport. Scoring was down.

Hockey was in danger of losing its position as the fourth sport in the US. Some would even argue it already had: to NASCAR.

So along came this baby-faced kid, not even old enough to vote, who was supposed to change all of this. He was supposed to be a tremendous talent, somebody that the NHL could latch itself to.

He thusly was prominently featured on NBC’s game of the week. He is in almost innumerable ads. He is the face of hockey in North America, to the North American fan. And this must certainly have put an incredible amount of pressure upon him.

Sidney Crosby is cranky. He has been called a whiner. He jawbones at referees, he argues for calls and it has been written that other players think he’s soft. This was most evident earlier this year, when he complained a hit from Alexander Ovechkin was dirty.

So, yes, he does complain. But no other player has the same circumstances he does; the expectations, the pressure, the hype and the weight.

Back to that ad I like so much. I don’t like it for it’s contrived scenario, or for it’s forced punch line. I like it for what I think it unconsciously shows about Crosby.

He gets away, but he’s still known. He escapes to a backwoods pond but everybody still recognizes him. He smiles because he loses himself in the game. He’s away from all the lights, from all the hype and the noise and the talk and the expectations…

Phil Dusenberry, the former chairman of BBDO North America, once wrote that advertising is not about ideas, but insights. What insight, then, is behind that ad? Was it an attachment of hockey being an escape for Crosby? Or was it an extension of earlier ads that showcased his history with minor hockey? Or was it even saying something at all?

I remember a couple years ago, Crosby was on the Tonight Show. He brought along the dryer he used to shoot pucks at in the basement of his parents house, back when he was growing up. That was how he used to practice his shot. Not against an older brother, not against a family friend, not against his dad. But by shooting pucks into an open dryer.

A solitary activity, turned by his talent, into him charged with saving a professional sport from obscurity.

It’s a heavy weight for a kid who’s barely old enough to order a beer.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

March Madness Running Blog - Day one, part 2

A quiet night up here, mostly toggling around between two games (one online, one on TV), with a lot of time spent on American/Villanova, which I'll get to later.

***

It wasn't — as I'm so wont to say — a classic; it wasn't even a game that I'll remember much about come next spring, but the last few minutes of Clemson/Michigan was fun to watch.

Clemson had their chances to win and after the Wolverines only hit one of two from the line late, some 15 or so seconds to tie it up. That's a lot of time to move it up court, set something up and take a shot, even two. But some solid defence by Michigan kept Clemson far along the outside and with the clock running out, the Tigers forced up a long shot that wasn't even close. 63-59 for the Wolverines.

***

I didn't watch any of the Minnesota/Texas game, but I'm not surprised Texas pulled away with that one. The Gophers were buried deep in the big 10 which I thought was a weak conference to begin with.

***

It was one of those games where a small, scrappy team found it's stroke and looked to topple the favourite. American University, a 14 seed, was way out in front of Villanova, a three that one wagers goes deep on most brackets.

Right at the start of the second hald, American had a huge lead on Villanova, but slowly it fell away. Not because Nova did anything special, but because American went cold, hitting just two of 15 from downtown - they only pulled away in the first half by hitting those long shots.

When you live by the three, you die by the three.

Granted, they began to switch to playing inside, but they didn't have the kind of presence to keep up with Villanova at that game. It wasn't long before they pulled away and an upset became a blowout.

***

Gonzaga was kind of the same, minus the three-ball. They just outlasted Akron, which couldn't keep up with them and pulled away with about five minutes left, when they went on a monster 19 to one run . After that, it was barely a contest - final score 64-77, and not even that close.

March Madness Running Blog - Day one

A pretty quiet opening day by most stretches of the imagination. Two 16 vs 1 games that aren't even close, a couple of blowout wins and no major upsets.

A couple early game notes, though:

Memphis is crazy lucky they got away with one today. They rode a great shooting day by Roburt Sallie into a win. He was lights out, hitting 10 of 14 from downtown and finished with 35 points as Memphis survived a scare by Cal State Northridge. It was a close one throughout the second half and Memphis only pulled away when Cal went without a basket for four minutes. It was fun for a while, but ended anticlimactically.

Butler/LSU was a pretty solid game, but not really as close as it looked - it was of those games where teams free throws late. I found it kind of dull, to be honest.

UNC and UConn both had convincing wins where they crushed 16 seed teams, but I can't imagine anybody who didn't expect that. I didn't see any of Texas' victory over BYU, nor any of Purdue's win, so I can't comment on them.

The closest thing to an upset I've seen today was Maryland putting up a win over Cal, but I'm wont to call it an upset. Maryland has put together a solid season against good teams: they beat UNC and put Duke and Wake Forest (they later beat Wake in the conference tournament) to the test while remaining unranked. They play smart defence and don't turn the ball over often. I wouldn't sleep on them.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Canadian net neutrality is also a sports issue

The issue of Net Neutrality isn't exactly one that most, if any, sports fan really concerns themselves with — if indeed they've even heard of it at all.

But it's one they should be worried about, because it's directly effecting the way sports broadcasting will head. And they should be warned — it's a two pronged, complex issue.

The big part of this issue is that the bulk of the internet is controlled by the few, that a few internet providers can distribute bandwidth as they see fit: for a fictional example, an ISP (let's say Comcast) can allot more bandwidth and show higher quality video for their services then that of their competitors (let's say Hulu). Therefore, there is more incentive for their users to watch their videos then any others.

This isn't illegal, but it's not fair either.

In the sports world, we already see this to an extent: ESPN's online video wing is ESPN360, where they show original programming, live streams of ESPN networks and out of market games. And they only let certain ISPs (who themselves have to pay for this service) allow users to see ESPN360. And ESPN can block a competitor from seeing these. For example, Comcast, who have their own competing sports network, aren't on the list of participating providers.

Again, this isn't illegal, but for sports fans it's grossly unfair, like how Rogers Cable subscribers are being punished by CTV/Globemedia and not able to see TSN2.

In Canada, the CRTC is holding meetings about Candian Content in New Media and on Monday both Score Media and a representative of the NHL spoke at it. Both spoke of their rights as content providers on the internet, but it was Score Media who made the most compelling case.

They're the little brother in the world of Canadian sports broadcasting. They don't own the rights to anything major: they don't show baseball, don't show the NHL or curling. Their forte, for a long time, has been Canadian college sports (the CIS in particular), basketball and horse racing. And one of their main competitors, Rogers, is one of the biggest internet providers in Canada.

They would want protection from any kind of digital limitations that Rogers could, in theory, put on them - such a limit in bandwidth, for example. And they want protection against US media infringement into Canada - like from ESPN360.

It's the same problem that radio and television have faced in the past. Because Canada is a nation that looks to the US for so much of our entertainment, it would all too easy to be swallowed up by US media. Thusly, there are minimum amounts of Canadian content that all radio and TV stations have to reach. It's a tad socialist, yes, but it's there to protect the "Canadian Identity".

In the world of sports, this would translate to why we have TSN, which shows Canadian-based sports and programming, then just a feed of ESPN (or even ESPN Canada).

And the argument is that this should also extend online as well.

So online, the CTRC is looking into placing similar restrictions - that TSN.ca can't just show the exact things that ESPN360 does, but that they should reflect Canadian broadcasting standards.

As they should. Canadian sports would all to easily be swallowed up by ESPN, who thanks to a major stake in TSN, would be able to have a virtual monopoly in online video. It would be all too easy for TSN shut out their rivals by exclusively showing marquee programming.

And there's even the worst-case scenario, where Rogers could limit access to the site on their ISPs.

All Canadian sports fans are already being subjected to this squabbling nonsense with TSN2. The CRTC should step in now and set regulations for Canadian content and net neutrality before this issue comes to a head.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Is Sports Journalism Dead?

Sometime in late 2008 - perhaps November 18th, the date of the first post - Phoenix Suns centre and quote machine Shaquille O'Neal launched an account on Twitter, an unfiltered look into whatever he felt like saying, was thinking and felt like sharing with his fanbase.

Since then, he's posted over 640 updates which include everything from pictures of him lying in bed or shopping at Wal Mart, his take on popular culture and his opinion about the league, the game and the players he plays against.

This is both the best and the worst thing to happen to the NBA and to sports journalism since Bill Simmons first started writing about baseball games while he was still watching them.

And the fact almost nobody realizes that is what's wrong with everything with sports media.

Recently, I read Will Litech's excellent book of essays, "God Save The Fan". In it, he argues that Deadspin - and by extension other sports blogs - are going to make sports journalism obsolete, since nobody needs it anymore. Fans don't need to have games reported to them, since they can see them themselves on cable. Or watch the highlights on Sportscenter, or even YouTube. There are so many, many options for fans these days that they don't need the fourth estate.

This is true. But not new.

ESPN effectively drove the stake into the heart of newspaper sports sections years ago, about the same time that Sportscentre stopped aping popular culture and became popular culture - a pretty big distinction (a process itself started by former ABC Sports head honcho Roone Alridge, when he created the Halftime Highlights segment on Monday Night Football in 1971).

With that, sports media had effectively reached a crux: if somebody needed to know the score, they didn't have to wait until the next day, only until Sportscenter. It was almost as if sports sections weren't read for news, but for opinion within.

Jump forward about 10, 15 years. The rise of the web. A former sportswriter - and then bartender - launches a website where he writes about sports and calls himself The Boston Sports Guy. And don't laugh when you read this, but Bill Simmons' website was the most important thing to happen to sportswriting since BIll James first started writing about baseball. It's a proto-blog, if ever there was one. It's the first time in a long time that a fan began writing about his teams in a format that was widely accessible.

While he may not have been the first person to do this, he was by far the most successful at it: it's about a decade since he started writing online - I found references to him bartending until 1997, but nothing I'd take as definitive - and he's evolved into one of ESPN's biggest personalities. That's no easy feat.

His brand of personality-driven opinion has rippled across the internet. While not every sports blogger is a fan of his, they all owe him a small debt. He didn't report on sports, he just wrote what he thought about them. He wrote about games as they happened (his live diaries are live blogs in all but name).

This style caught on, and as more people began to write their own blogs, another barrier fell; if people could post their opinion and read anybody else's on the internet, why would they keep reading a columnist? What would any person have to say that a columnist doesn't? Was this the point when newspaper columns started being contrarian? When some writers - I'm not going to name names - started lashing out more.

Taking it a step further, there are several sites, such as this one, where users can upload their own sports writings for all to see. It's extraordinarily easy to get almost all the opinion you could ever want from those sites alone. As sites like this one continue to grow, why would we still need newspaper columnists?

As Will Litech pointed out in another essay, ESPN's show Around The Horn is rarely a vehicle for discussion, but sportswriters yelling at each other for 30 minutes. This model seems to go hand in hand with the direction sports media seems to be headed - opinion is cheap and it sells. The only downside is that when you see these professional reporters, the people who cover sports for a living, yelling all the time, making fools of themselves (in one memorable case, eating dog food), how can we take them - or their opinion - seriously?

Another effect ESPN has had, one that Litech didn't address, is how it's elevated the players into popular culture. Not just superstars, who would have been there anyway (my mom, who has never watched an entire NBA game, knows who Wilt Chamberlain is, for instance), but the smaller stars, the ones who may not have been widely known otherwise. People like Chris Bosh, Baron Davis and Steve Nash - all of whom use Twitter.

With that, these stars suddenly have a way to talk directly to fans, the same ones who have the blogs. They don't have to go through the normal outlets - the team beat writer, the local columnist, the talk radio host - anymore. They can just talk directly to their fans.

Greg Oden did this, with a blog on Yardbarker. Terrell Owens had a message board where he would reply to posts and answer questions. Chris Bosh's YouTube account arguably helped him get to the 2007 All-Star game. Shaq's Twitter account has over 300 thousand people following it - 8th most on the site.

They don't need the fourth estate. We don't need the fourth estate. They don't offer anything we can't already find and what they do offer seems less about making a point as it does about making waves. In short, they're irrelevant - and if they are, why should we even care about them at all?

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Trade deadline winners and losers not so easily defined

The old adage when to comes to trades is not “why does this work for both teams”, or even “Does the trade work for player X?” , but “Who won?”. Like everything else in sports, it comes down to winning, bettering your foe.

Of course, this doesn’t mean much.

When you sit down and really think about it, why would a general manager readily agree to a trade where his team takes a significant blow? Where it puts his team at a disadvantage? It wouldn’t make sense, unless he’s trying to pull a George Costanza.

So really, most trades aren’t really wins or losses for either team, they’re just a reshuffling of the deck, as it were.

Take last season’s blockbuster trade: Marion Hossa (and Pascal Dupuis) to Pittsburgh for a bundle of prospects and a draft pick. Pittsburgh was widely thought to have “won” the trade and in a sense they did: they went to the NHL finals. But during the off-season, Hossa left to sign with Detroit. But two of the prospects (Angelo Esposito and Colby Armstrong) are still with Atlanta (though Erik Christensen was traded early in March to Anaheim).

Who really won that trade, then? Did anybody win? Both teams got what they wanted out of it – Atlanta some prospects to help rebuild the team; Pittsburgh bolstered it's lineup for a deep playoff run. Wouldn't it be fair to say that nobody really won that trade?

Of course, this isn’t to say every trade works for both sides. One needs only to look back to early 1992, when the Toronto Maple Leafs picked up Jamie Macoun, Ric Nattress, Kent Maderville, Rick Wamsley and Doug Gilmour for Gary Leeman, Alexander Godynyuk, Jeff Reese, Michel Petit and Craig Berube. A huge ten player deal, that, when viewed in present context, was completely lopsided in Toronto’s favour.

But forgotten is why Calgary made that deal - they had problems with all of the players sent to Toronto. For example, Gilmour bailed on the Flames over his paycheque. He took the team to arbitration in December of 1991 and was awarded a salary of $750 thousand, much less then the $1.2 million he was looking for. So on Janurary 1st, Gilmour told Doug Risebrough he was leaving the team.

He was traded to Toronto shortly after, the key part of a deal that Toronto Globe and Mail writer David Shoalts called a “moving of malcontents”. Leaf defenceman Todd Gill summed up the mood at the time of the trade: "(It) should be pretty good for both teams. I hope this change can get a few guys on our team going."

Even in such an extreme example, it’s not always so clear-cut to call a winner or loser in trades. Essentially, Calgary got rid of a player who didn’t want to play and got one back who would only score 11 more NHL goals – but cleared the dressing room of players who had been causing problems for the team all season. All of the players sent to Toronto were having contract problems with the team. One had even threatened to leave the Flames for the national team. At the same time, Toronto was considered a bad team that had just picked up some good players – but nobody was predicting two straight runs to the conference finals in the next two seasons.

Which brings me to this season’s trade deadline. The biggest, arguably most important move was Calgary’s acquisition of Olli Jokinen and Jordan Leopold. While nobody is now calling them favourites to win the Cup – Dallas, Detroit and Boston still hold those – they are being called the winners of their trades.

But as history has shown, isn’t it a little early to make those calls? Shouldn’t we – the pundits, the fans, etc – wait just a little bit first?

Lost in the orgy of information on trade deadline Wednesday – over eight hours of debate and opinion on two different channels can hardly be called anything else – was the most basic rule of every trade: you make it to improve your team, either by addition or subtraction. But that doesn’t make for riveting television – it’s exactly why The Sports Reporters is a non-entity and why Around The Horn is on five times a week.

One then supposes that the real winners on trade deadline day are the networks, who turned a fairly meaningless day where nothing much important into a huge TV event.

After all, it’s not like any of the teams are winning or losing because of the day.

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

As usual, Jays are a non-televised-factor

Another year, another summer with Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.

But Toronto sports fans need not worry; the Jays aren't making an appearance on FOX's game of the week. Again. At this point - Toronto hasn't had a "Game of the week" for as long as I remember - one starts to wonder if there's a vendetta against Canada's team.

One could argue that it's because the Jays are a lackluster team that doesn't win a lot. But just look at some of the teams who are being televised:
- Baltimore, 68 wins -93 losses (one game)
- Detroit, 74-88 (six games)
- Seattle, 61-101 (one game)
- Oakland, 75-86 (one game)
- Texas, 79-83 (four games)
- Atlanta, 72-90 (eight games)
- San Francisco, 72-90 (four games)

None of those teams are over .500. And yet they're all being showcased for games of the week.

Granted, the Jays aren't alone. Joining Toronto on the no-show list are Kansas City, Washington, Cincinnati, Colorado and Pittsburgh. And with them lies the case that media markets have something to do with teams being broadcasted. Granted, Pittsburgh is the 26th largest TV market in North America and Kansas City is 27th. Yet Washington is the 7th largest market. Denver is 18th. Those are significant markets.

So then why is Toronto - the fourth largest city in North America - again ignored? Is it because FOX doesn't have a station in Toronto (never mind that basic cable in the GTA includes FOX)? Would something that petty come into effect?

One can only wonder.

Monday, March 02, 2009

Friday, February 27, 2009

Avery, Marbury Are Birds Af A Feather

With Stephon Marbury expected to sign with the Boston Celtics sometime today, one expects that New Yorkers will breathe a little easier. But as a certain hockey player comes closer and closer to coming to New York, another headache is on the horizon.

The player is Sean Avery, late of the Dallas Stars, currently filling a spot on the Rangers AHL affiliate. Like Marbury, he had signed with a big market team for a bundle and wore out his welcome fast. After stirring up problems in the dressing room, both players found themselves not playing their sport at all.

Marbury’s off-court antics (peaking in an infamous truck party) and fights with management led to an exile from the team and his eventual banning from practice. Avery’s off-ice problems – and especially saying Dion Phaneuf went after his sloppy seconds – led to his out from the league.

Both were suspended indefinitely, not allowed to dress for games or attend practice or even travel with the team. Avery went to counseling, Marbury infamously flew to LA to watch his Knicks play the Lakers.

And now, both players could end up in a homecoming kind of way. Avery is likely headed to the Rangers, the team where he first rose in stature in the past few seasons. Marbury is likely to sign with the Boston Celtics, where he would play alongside Kevin Garnett again, like his did in his Minnesota days.

Let’s not get carried away here, though, since there are some pretty big differences between the two. Marbury is the more talented of the two and in his prime was one of the best point guards in the NBA. He went to two All-Star games, led the league in assists in 2004 and has been named to two All-NBA teams.

Avery, at his best, is been a second-line forward who works best by drawing the other team into taking penalties. True, he scored 18 goals once, but he’s only had one season – his first – with less then a 150 penalty minutes.

Obviously, Marbury coming to the Celtics means a lot more on paper then Avery coming to the Rangers does.

The Celtics now have somebody to backup Rondo and Marbury is an improvement from Sam Cassell. Boston is hoping that either Garnett’s influence or Marbury’s desire to win a title will temper any problems that may arise, like if Marbury decides he doesn’t want to come off the bench.

Of course, him acting out is unlikely and doesn't give Marbury any credit. At this point in his career, Marbury likely realizes his situation and won't stir up much trouble.

But if Avery comes to New York, he doesn’t add much. A little depth, perhaps, but he doesn’t address their problems: their lack of a scorer, their lack of defence and their power play – it’s ranked 28th in the NHL right now, behind Tampa Bay, the NY Islanders and Phoenix. The Rangers have deeper problems then Avery can fix, but by signing him they at least look like they’re trying.

While he might not bring his baggage to the team – he loves the spotlight, but I’m sure he loves actually playing more – he doesn’t really solve anything and doesn’t make the Rangers any better.

If they can get him, anyway. Unlike Marbury, Avery has yet to clear waivers – and the rumour mill says St. Louis, Minnesota, Edmonton and Pittsburgh are all interested in him too.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Some thoughts on Crosby

Second in an occasional series

There’s this ad in Canada right now for Tim Horton’s that stars Sidney Crosby. He’s riding a bus – presumably with the rest of the Pittsburgh Penguins – out in some kind of countryside. The bus breaks down, Crosby looks out the window and sees a group of kids playing hockey on a pond. And grabbing his stick, skates and gloves (nice to know he keeps those handy), he goes out and plays with them.

It’s a cute ad, and it’s one I like a bit for an entirely unrelated reason. And it’s one of many, many ads that prominently feature one Sidney Patrick Crosby, currently of the Pittsburgh Penguins. His likeness is attached to everything from clothing (including the stuff he wears in that Tims ad) to Gatorade.

The NHL is hitching its wagon to Crosby. He is the face of the league, hockey’s spokesperson and maybe the best talent to come out of Canada in a long, long time. Already the captain of the Penguins at the young age of 21, he’s already tearing into the league; he led the league in scoring in his second season by putting up the Gretzky-like 120 points – before he turned 20.

Fair or unfairly, that is the mark he is gong to have to with. The shadow of Gretzky will always lie on hockey, but especially so on Crosby, as it has on every Canadian player in recent memory, from Eric Lindros to Alexandre Daigle. But for Crosby, it is perhaps the best comparison that could be made.

Like him he wears a high number. Like him he’s got a great scoring touch – but is just as likely to set somebody else up instead. Like him, he started his career on a young team brimming with talent. And like him, Crosby came into the league with a ton of hype.

This has to weigh down on Crosby. He a great talent, yes, but the entire league sometimes seems to pivot on his shoulders. He started immediately after the NHL cancelled an entire season. He is, through no fault of his own, the savior of hockey, the player who will rescue the sport from cable-TV obscurity.

He thusly is prominently featured on NBC’s game of the week. He is in almost innumerable ads. He is the face of hockey. And he must certainly have an incredible amount of pressure put upon him.

Sidney Crosby is cranky. He has been called a whiner. He jawbones at referees, he argues for calls and it has been written that other players think he’s soft. This was most evident earlier this year, when he complained a hit from Alexander Ovechkin was dirty.

So, yes, he does complain. But no other player has the same circumstances he does; the expectations, the pressure, the hype and the weight.

Back to that ad I like so much. I don’t like it for it’s contrived scenario, or for it’s forced punch line. I like it for what it almost unconsciously shows about Crosby. He gets away, but he’s still known. He escapes to a backwoods pond but everybody still recognizes him. He smiles because he has to – but I can almost imagine that sometimes he wishes it could happen, that he could get away from all the lights, from all the hype and the noise and the talk and the expectations…
Get away and simply go back to the game, the one he enjoyed as a kid.

I remember a couple years ago, Crosby was on the tonight show. He brought along the dryer he used to shoot pucks at in the basement of his parents house, back when he was growing up. That was how he used to practice his shot. Not against an older brother, not against a family friend, not against his dad. But by shooting pucks into an open dryer.

A solitary activity, turned by his talent, into him charged with saving a professional sport from obscurity.

It’s a heavy weight for a kid who’s barely old enough to order a beer.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Shahar Peer A Victim Not of Race, But of Politics

Some have called the United Arab Emirates racist for denying a visa to Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer, forcing her to withdraw from the Barclays Dubai Tennis Championships.

Those doing it are missing the point of the UAE’s actions: it’s not so much racist as it is reactionary, as the country reacted as much of the Arabic world would seem to in recent days, with swift judgment against Israel.

Last month, Israel launched an invasion on the Gaza strip that was extraordinarily unpopular in the Middle East. Already unpopular, their utter destruction of the area has turned opposition even more against them: there have been protests as far away as Canada and the United States.

Peer’s visa denial is just another step in the reaction towards Israel. The UAE is a country without an established relationship to Israel, so their interaction is going to be limited to passive actions like this.

But for those who are calling this a decision based on race are only partially right; yes, she was denied because she has an Israeli background. But she was not denied because of it. It is not like Arthur Ashe being denied the right to play in South Africa. This is politics infringing upon sport, like the US pulling out of the 1980 Olympics – or the Soviet Bloc pulling out of the 1984 Olympics.

Politics aren’t the only thing hurting this tournament. Dubai is a city in free fall. Its unfettered growth has slowed down and is even beginning to sink. People – often westerners – are slinking away from the country in debt, some leaving behind everything: apartments, cars and bills.

There has even been talk of cancelling the tournament. The Toronto Star reported that the chief executive of the women’s tournament, Larry Scott, came close to cancelling the event but relented only because so many players had already arrived in Dubai.

Besides, the freeze between the two countries could be starting to thaw too; a visa was granted to Andy Ram, an Israeli doubles tennis player. For Peer, though, it may already be too late. She’s become a casualty in a game of global politics through no fault of her own.

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Sorry, Sean, but we've moved on

I should probably start this by saying I defended Sean Avery, pretty much just to be contrarian. It did net me a link from Deadspin (pretty cool) and at least one comment (meaning this isn't just a complete vanity project). And still, I think Avery is a bizzare kind of player.

He's good, but not great. He's a role player who doesn't play a role, if that makes sense. At his best, when he's most effective, he's a modern Esa Tikkanen. He's a pest, a third-line player who bugs people, draws the other team into penalties. And if he can score a few goals, then good for him. But primarily, he's just a nuisance.

And boy, was he ever one in Dallas.

I read a story from about the time he made his "Sloppy Seconds" dig about how it went over in the dressing room. Even his team thought he had crossed a line. Even his team thought he was too much of a pest. He had played his role almost too well.

Remember what it was like back in early December? Dallas had just paid a ton of money for an agitator, the team was in the cellar and the season was looking lost. Marty Turco wasn't playing well; his record was 7 and 14. Since then, he's basically found his groove: he's now 24 and 24 - a vast improvement in the past six weeks. Obviously, they don't miss Avery.

And nobody else does either, it seems, since Avery has cleared waivers.

Still, there is talk of his coming back to New York, where the team has floundered since he left last spring. But to say that he's the solution is wrong. The Rangers have taken some big losses this year, Jagr and Shanahan the biggest of them. Avery is not the solution to the problems they have.

At best, he brings maybe 15 goals. At worst, his ego flourishes in the media spotlight and he becomes another distraction for a team trying to find itself. Granted, maybe his exile has leveled him down a bit. Or maybe it's a little unfair to say he'll act out prematurely.

But honestly, with his track record, I don't see it not happening. Avery loves the spotlight and he'll never get into it with his talent alone. If he comes back, he will do something to make himself noticed again. One can only hope it isn't as stupid as his last one.

Monday, February 02, 2009

Some thoughts on Ovechkin

First of an irregular look at the NHL

On Janurary 16, 2006, Alexander Ovechkin was on a fast break, steaking down the ice in Phoenix. Taking the puck at mid ice, he tried to get past defenceman Paul Mara. He moved to make a deke, but Mara got his stick in the way; the two tied up as they moved further into Phoenix’s zone, and Ovechkin managed to fall on his back. With one hand on his stick, he managed – somehow – to side the puck towards the net and past a sprawling Brian Boucher.

It was unlike any other goal scored that day, year or era for the NHL; perhaps no other goal has been scored from that position, in that situation ever. It’s a snapshot at why Alexander Ovechkin is perhaps the best single individual player in the NHL.

Unlike some other greats, Ovechkin is exciting to watch. In a league that is over 75 years old, he is still finding new ways to do things – scoring, passing, celebrating, even wearing his equipment.

His skate laces are yellow; he wears a visor that’s sort of tinted – it’s smoked, as they say. He used to wear a mirrored one, but the NHL quickly outlawed it. He doesn’t tuck his jersey in, except on his back left side, where a pad juts up and over it.

These all seem symbolic of Ovechkin. They, like him, immediately stand out from the rest of the league. Since his rookie campaign in 2005-06, no player has made such an immediate impact on the league – not even fellow wunderkind Sidney Crosby. His league-high 65 goals last year were the most scored by a single player in over a decade.

He’s a vibrant player, one who wears his emotions on his sleeve. The way he streaks down, the way he shoots almost seem secondary, sometimes, to what he does afterward, when he jumps into the glass to celebrate.

That’s what he did on April 11, 2008, seconds after scoring his first NHL playoff goal. After forcing a Flyers pass towards their own net with his forechecking, he stole the puck from Ryan Parent, moved to his right while Flyers goalie Martin Biron slid on the ground, trying to stack his pads on Ovechkin – who waited for Biron to make his move, and then shot the puck over him. That goal put the Capitals up 5-4 with just under five minutes to play and capped a three goal comeback.

He responded like he usually does after a goal: he ran on the ice to the boards, jumped into the glass, then into the arms of his teammates, while the whole of the Verizon Centre crowd lost it.

On some players, celebrations like that would seem contrived or forced, but with Ovechkin, they seem natural; the man seems sometimes like a tightly-coiled ball of energy that explodes in front of the net.

In this way, he’s perfect for the new look NHL, a league that almost seems tailor-made for his skill set. Gone is the two-line pass, which gives him time to speed across. Clutching and grabbing are limited, which give him space to operate. Equipment on goaltenders has been limited in size, giving him room to shoot at. Perhaps more then anybody else, Ovechkin represents what’s right with the NHL at this point in time; he’s the speedy and exciting sniper who loves to score goals.

It can be argued that the NHL’s recent gains in attendance and rating are at least in part because of Ovechkin – Washignton’s ratings are up 140% this year – and that he could actually be saving the league from a neutral-zone trap-aided abyss.

In this way, he’s more then just important to the NHL. He’s essential to its success.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Dissecting the dangerous effects of hype

I've been trying to get a Super Bowl column out for a few days now, but it just wasn't coming. Perhaps this is because I'm tired of hearing the storylines, so tired I stopped reading anything coming out of Tampa the day after both conference championships. Perhaps because it doesn't really matter to me how and why Kurtis met Brenda; that Larry Fitzgerald has a sportswriter dad; that the Cardinals are the underrated team of the year or whatever.

I just honestly haven't been paying attention. So, with that, here's my super bowl piece.

Going In
Without really looking at any number or stats or any real prep work, I like the Steelers. I think their defence should be able to handle anything Arizona can throw at them - or to Fitzgerald - and while I don't know how well Roethlisberger will play, I kind of think it's secondary.

If I was going to make a paraell of this one to another, I'd say it's like the XXV, between the Giants and the Bills. Not in the sense that they're closely matched, or in a storyline way or anything. But in a great defence against a great offense and not much else. That was a game won the Giants not because of a missed FG, but because the Giants offense was able to keep the Bills offense were only on the field for eight minutes in the second half.

I can see that happening again. So much has been said of the Steelers defence and almost as much has been said of the Cardinals offense. But really, I think those two might cancel each other out. This could be a game won because of much time the Steelers offence can burn up.

A Cursory Glance at the Numbers
My favourite stat - by a mile - is the point differential; the number of points scored by a team minus the points they allow. My reasoning for looking at it is that I think the bigger it is, the better the team is. This season it was +124 for the Steelers; +1 for the Cards.

That's exceptionally low for a playoff team, let alone one in the Super Bowl. I think it kind of explains why the Cards were just a 9-7 team this season. But that's just the season, not the playoffs.

For just these playoffs, it's suddenly the opposite: +20 for the Steelers, +33 for the Cardinals. The Cards are starting to look a lot better. Keep in mind though, that the lion's share of that difference is from their demolishing of the Panthers in the Divisional round; combined, the other games were won by just 13. I still think these two teams match up better then either of those suggest.

Let's move to something a little more tangible: Kurt Warner vs the Steelers defence. If the Cards are going to win this game, it will be thanks to Warner's arm. In all three of their playoff games, their running game has been effective, but not dominating. But Warner has had three great games in a row. Larry Fitzgerald has exploded in the recent past, including a three major day against the Eagles. And it's interesting that Warner's worst game (220 yards, 2 TD on 21 of 32 passing) was during their biggest win.

But Carolina was middle of the road against the pass; 16th in the NFL. The Eagles were third overall, allowing just over 180 passing yards a game; Warner picked them apart with a 279 yard, 4 TD on 21 of 28 day. He knows how to pick his spots.

At the same time though, Warner picked up the bulk of those in the first half of the game, when the Cards took a 24-6 lead to the locker room. In the second half, Warner was 8 of 12 for 76 yards. I think it's worth noting more then a few of those were short passes that led to big YAC numbers, but I don't have specific information handy.

Other side of the ball. Pittsburgh is the number one-ranked defence against the pass. They're allowing about 157 passing yards a game; the number two defence allowed nearly 180. They're allowing about 14 points per game, again the best in the league. They could pose trouble.

A look at the effects of hype
Every year, it seems to happen: one team gets an inordinate amount of hype. The Rams used to get it - they were the Greatest Show on Turf (pity they only scored 23 points in their Super Bowl win). For a while the Patriots got it. I vaguely remember the Steelers getting a lot, but Drive for Five or One for the Thumb kind of roll of the tongue, so it's kind of justified.

But this year, nobody wants to be surprised. I think so many people were taken aback by the Giants upsetting the Patriots, they want to call it again. I know I'd like to; I picked the Patriots to win that game and I'd do it again. It's an impressive thing, being able to call an upset before it happens. It's trendy. It's like telling your friends that Slumdog Millionare is going to get a best picture nomination before any of them had heard of it.

I think that's whats happening this year. So many people are picking the Cardinals to win; maybe because it's a trendy pick. Maybe people are choosing it because other people are. Because they want to be right if an upset happens.
A quick look at who's taking who's taking the Cardinals:
King Kaufman, Salon.com
Gregg Esterbrook, ESPN
Michael Silver, Yahoo.com
Will Litech
Dan Shanoff

Who's taking the Steelers
John Clayton, ESPN
Tony Kornheiser (I think)
Peter King, Sports Illustrated
Most of the writers at SI, ESPN, CBS Sports, and most of what I'd call the sports writing establishment


So what does this mean? Ultimately nothing; people known for their outside the box take on sports are tending to fly towards the Cardinals while people who are established are taking the favourite. I don't mean to sound like I'm hating on anybody here, but it seems this bowl might be hinging on the gap between the two groups; that bloggers are willing to take a bigger risk and pick the Cards almost as if they can't agree with the establishment.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the establishment doesn't want to go out on a limb; they're reactionary as opposed to proactive. I don't know.

Wherein Chuck D has never let me down
The Cardinals are a good story. Kurt Warner is a good story. So it the one about Fitzgerald's dad. They're fun, they're the underdog and I get why so many people like them.

But they are hyped. They may be the buzzsaw, to use Litech's term, but that doesn't make the Steelers a piece of pine. I don't like hype. Whenever I have bought into the hype and gone against my gut, it never seemed to end well - when I bought into Reggie Bush and took USC over Texas; when I decided that the Rockies were a team of destiny a couple years ago. So I'll go with my gut.

Why? My problem with the Cards is their defence. They are allowing more and more yards each game. 250 against the Falcons, 269 against the Panthers and over 450 against the Eagles. If I were a Cardinals fan, this would worry me.

Pittsburgh isn't a offensively dominant team in any way, really, but they're about as capable as any of those teams. If they can put up 23 points against the Ravens, they can put up at least that many against the Cards, I'm sure.

So, I don't care that the cool kids are choosing the Cardinals. It's cool that a dad gets to cover his son in the Super Bowl, but it doesn't mean he'll play any better; his dad has been writing about him for a long while, apparently. I'm going to take Chuck D's advice here and not believe the hype.

I'm taking the Steelers.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

John Updike - The original Free Darko

Famed writer and essayist John Updike died early on Tuesday at 76. Best known, perhaps, for his series of Rabbit novels, Updike was also a longtime writer for The New Yorker, where he wrote about a wide range of topics, among them baseball.

In an age where the most common sportswriting were columns sports traditionalists like Red Smith or Jimmy Cannon, writers who wrote short columns and carried on the legacy of Grantland Rice, Updike wrote long form essays on the game.

Perhaps the most famous was "Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu", a six-thousand plus word look at the final game of Ted Williams, a piece that is often cited as one of the best pieces of baseball writing ever. The piece – widely available online – is good enough that I don’t feel a need to recite it; honestly, just read it yourself. It’s that good.

Of course, there was more to Updike then just that piece, though it’s all that’s commonly remembered. He wrote further essays, poems and other assorted pieces of reporting on the sport over the years, although none were quite as good.

Still, though, many writers have followed in his wake, writing smart, literate pieces on sports: Roger Angell, George Plimpton, Gay Talese, Richard Be Cramer, David Halberstam, etc. Some of these writers took the formula and improved it – Angell first started writing about baseball two years after “Hub Fans” and has become perhaps the best essayist on the sport - while others used it’s impact to create their own pieces; without Updike’s piece, would there have been a market for talented profile writers as Talese or Cramer to write on athletes?

I’d go so far as to say that even now, the wake from that piece is still being felt: would a website like Free Darko, which mixes intelligent analysis with smart, literate prose, exist without Updike?

As Salon.com’s King Kaufman pointed out, the similarities between the media in 1960 and today aren’t as pronounced as they seem; columnists still rip on famous athletes for arbitrary reasons.

It’s the intelligent kind of writing like Updike’s that stands the test of time. He was still remembered; Huck Finnegan, who wrote a scathing column on Ted Williams that helped to inspire “Hub Kids” has been all but forgotten.

Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Habs documentary leaves much to be desired

I wonder why it is that the CBC’s new documentary on the Habs seems to have almost as much music video footage as it does game footage?

Why does it gloss over the downfall of the Habs over the last 20 years; when they have been to just two Stanley Cup finals and gone through their longest Cup drought ever.

And why does it seem, at times, like a plea for anglos and quebecois to get along?

Well, it’s honestly because this is less a telling of what happened and why as it is a retelling of memories. Memories of Skrudland scoring nine seconds into overtime in 1986; of Dryden’s outstretched leg in 1970; of a draw in 1975; of Roy winking in 1993.

Montreal is home of the Canadiens and, for a time, the most celebrated arena in hockey, the Montreal Forum. The Canadiens are maybe the most successful team in all of professional sports; maybe only the New York Yankees or Boston Celtics come close to rivaling their streak of success.

And it’s a pretty good cultural town, too. More then a few good bands have come from the city, many of which seem to be prominently featured in this documentary. It seems that for each player interviewed, there seems to be either an actor, a singer or somebody vaguely described as a performer.

Sam Roberts talks of his fandom; Viggo Mortenson explains that he wore a Canadiens shirt under his costume in Lord of the Rings; Guy Lafleur’s disco record makes a cameo appearance. Only the late Mordecai Richler is missing from this tapestry of the Montreal arts, for the obvious reason of his death.

But this isn’t an arts documentary, so where are the athletes? Host George Strombolopolis talks to Bob Gainey, Guy Lafleur, Guy Carboneau and Jean Beliveau. But Patrick Roy is conspicuously absent despite being a segment devoted to him; so are current Habs like Saku Koivu, who’s captaincy is briefly discussed.

There is some game footage, but it’s loosely defined. Bits and pieces are mixed together; only eagle-eyed fans are likely to tell cup runs apart. Still, there are the timeless clips: The Red Army playing in the Forum on the eve of 1976, Patrick Roy winking after a big save in the 1993 Finals, Jean Beliveau carrying the Stanley Cup off the ice in the last game he ever played.

On the whole, this was a fun program to watch, even for a devoted Leaf fan. But still, it seemed to lack focus; there was just so much on the cultural impact of the Canadiens, it seemed too much. There were light jokes about Montreal’s nightlife, there was a clips from assorted French-Canadian artists (Malajube’s Montreal -40 Celsius actually showed up twice) and precious little on key figures in Canadiens history: I barely heard the names Sam Pollock, Scotty Bowman and Danny Galavan.

For something as important as the hundredth anniversary of the Canadiens, this documentary was more then a little underwhelming.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Breaking down how and why the Cardinals are the NFC Champion

If nothing else, this certainly wasn’t expected.

By beating the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday, the Arizona Cardinals earned a trip to Super Bowl XLIII, the first time the team has ever been to one

It wasn’t exactly the easiest of routes, for sure.

By winning the tepid NFC East, where no other team finished above .500, the Cards barely made the playoffs; they were seeded fourth but lost more games then Philadelphia, the sixth seed. In the first round, they weren’t given much of a chance against the Atlanta Falcons, a young and surging team led by Matt Ryan.

In a shootout, the Cards held on to win, 24-30. Their suddenly strong defence limited Ryan to under 200 yards and picked him off twice. Kurt Warner looked years younger, throwing for over 270 yards, 100 of them to Larry Fitzgerald. Remember that name.

Next week, the Cards went on the road to face Carolina, a team who won 12 games – and four of their last five. The Panthers, a six point favourite on ESPN, were blown out, 33-13. Why? Again, the mix of a defence that was coming together and an offence that was dynamic. Again, Warner threw for two majors and for over 200 yards. Again, the defence forced turnovers – five interceptions and a fumble. Again, a convincing win.

All of a sudden, these Cards looked like a threat.

But there was a pattern beginning to form. The Cards were a team that liked to throw the ball, early and often. They liked to score as soon as they could, and they usually did. In the first half, they had 14 against Atlanta, 27 points against Carolina. And as the game wound down, they usually did too: they only scored five points combined in both of those games’ fourth quarters.

This was their weakness. If a team kept running the ball early, controlling the clock, and wound down the defence early, there seemed to be a good chance they could stage a comeback late; they just had to keep the score from getting out of hand.

On to the NFC Championship, against Philadelphia, where the same script seemed to unfold. Throughout the first half, the Cards dominated – three touchdowns to Larry Fitzgerald. Two field goals. A 24-6 lead at the half.

But the Eagles kept pounding away. Eagles QB Donovan McNabb capped off a 90-yard drive with a 6-yard pass for a major. Shortly after, he completed four of five passes to move 60 yards, and made it a one-possession game after three.


And right at the beginning of the fourth, the Eagles took the lead on a huge, 62-yard score by McNabb to DeSean Jackson. The two-point failed, but still, the Eagles led 25-24.

This is how it was going to be lost for the Cards, right? This is right about when the wheels were supposed to fall off. When Kurt Warner drops back, forces a throw to Fitzgerald who’s in triple coverage, gets picked off and the game ends. That’s what we expect, isn’t it?

But instead, Warner went short, making quick passes that got the first downs, while using their running backs to keep clock moving. If you get a chance, look at the drive: 14 plays, 72 yards and almost eight minutes eaten off the clock. It wasn’t dynamic, it wasn’t a flashy show of exhibition.

But it was smart. It kept them going, kept the Eagles off the field and make the clock the Eagles enemy. Philly ended up burning their second timeout, just to keep some time left to retaliate.

They tried, too. McNabb threw throughout the next series, and after a couple first downs had a quick three-and-out. That was pretty much it for the Eagles.

Basically, in this win, the Cardinals proved themselves, if that makes sense. Out of all their playoff games, nobody tested them as hard as the Eagles did. The Cards got out early with a great passing game, but nearly lost it all when their defence began to lapse. But intead of sticking to what was working – but would have been the wrong choice – they went back to basics, driving the ball up the middle.

This change threw off the Eagles, who were so keyed in to Warner’s arm that it cost them the game. When they began to adapt to the running game, Warner began to throw quick short passes that kept the drive alive. After testing the secondary with bombs all throughout the first, this seemed to work.

All in all, it was a well deserved win.

Friday, January 09, 2009

Tebow dominates in Gators win

Late in September, Tim Tebow made a promise. Standing in front of the TV lights, reporters and banks of cameras, his team upset by Ole Miss, he promised the room that no team was going to play as hard. That nobody was going to push their team as hard.

That nobody was going to play as hard for the rest of the season.

Thursday night, Tebow fulfilled his promise with one of the most dominating performances in recent BCS memory, the best since Vince Young’s rout of USC three years ago.

In what was primarily a defensive affair for the first three quarters, Tebow led the Gators to an upset win over number-one ranked Oklahoma, 24-14. He was a monster all over the field, throwing for over 200 yards and rushing for over 100 more. He directed two late Gator drives to put them in front and the Sooners just couldn’t retaliate.

How fast this game changed.

Early in the fourth, the Sooners had all the momentum. They had held down Florida’s offence, limiting them to just two majors, and had picked off Tebow twice. In just two and half minutes, the Sooners moved 76 yards and tied the game up at 14 on a Sam Bradford pass.

The Sooners QB was playing great so far, and finished the night with over 250 yards passing with two majors – and if not for a Gator interception at their three yard line, it would likely have been three.

The Heisman Trophy winner was cool in the pocket and completing his passes; on the drive that ended with the Gator pick, he completed seven passes in a row as the Sooners moved across the field. Oklahoma was looking good – mostly, anyway.

Because when it seemed to matter most, the Sooners just couldn’t convert. Twice in the second they were inside Florida’s 10 yard line with a first and goal. Twice nothing came of it.

That wasn’t the only time that Florida’s defence shut them down; they blocked a Sooner field goal in the third – their ninth block of the season.

In all, the Gators defence took a Sooner offence that had only scored less then 45 points once this season – 35, against TCU – and limited them to 14. They took a dominating quarterback, one who threw for over 350 yards per game, and held him to just over 250, taking the Sooners biggest weapon and all but muzzling it.

In all, the game was a slugfest, sloppy even, and most definitely not the shootout that all indications thought it would be. It didn’t matter. Florida was soundly the better team in Miami tonight – and Tebow, delivering on his promise, was definitely the better quarterback.