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.

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

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.

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.