It's been interesting to see the "big three" pro sports finally begin to acknowledge fantasy sports in the last year or two.  Note that I didn't say "good" or "bad" -- just interesting.  At first they seemed to be hesitant, looking at fantasy sports as a fad at best, and at worst a distraction to the real game.  But as cyber-world took a true foothold in America, they (most importantly) realized the sheer number of fans that participate in fantasy sports, and hence spend more money on everything from gambling to gear.  Personally, I have about three fantasy teams per sport going at any given time, which is a heckuva head spinner in the fall.  Yes, I'm a big ol' nerd.  And my home start page looks like the line wall at Pimlico.

And yes, I live on Fantasy Isthmus, surrounded on three sides by those "big 3" sports.  Right now, pretty much every Sunday at my house starts the same way, with the same neurotic conversation (teams & players are interchangeable): "OK, we need to root for the Cowboys to beat the Seahawks, of course, but we need it to be a low-scoring game because we have Seattle's D.  But we have Terry Glenn, so we need Seattle to go ahead early, so Dallas will have to come back and beat them with long, downfield bombs.  Which, however, can only result in field goals (and maybe 1 Terry Glenn TD, with a missed extra point so they don't get over 10) since we can't have too many points scored on Seattle's D.  OK, so... we need Dallas to win 9-7, with their 9 points coming off five different 85-yard drives in the last 2 minutes of the game-- one ending in the Terry Glenn touchdown and missed extra point, one ending in a field goal, and the other three ending in interceptions (more points for me!).  I mean, that's not so much to ask, is it?

It sure would be nice sometimes just to be able to say, "Go Cowboys."

Which begs the question, 'Are fantasy sports good for sports?'  On one hand, it brings more fans into the games and the players, and adds dimensions to each sport that were never there before.  How else would I have known that Darren Sproles gets 25.2 yds per kick return?  Why would I have cared that Neil Rackers kicked 5 field goals over 50 yards last year, and already has 6 this year?  Without fantasy sports, I would be stuck in the old I-know-my-favorite-team-and-star-players-and-everybody-else-sucks mode, which a lot of fans get mired in.  The casual fan is able to see the entire league more clearly, and the X's-and-O's make more sense than him/her than ever before.  On the other hand, we also get drawn into the never-ending vortex of stats, stats, and more stats, and the intangibles get lost.  'Quick, I only have 5 minutes before games start today!!  I have to know what Jeremy Affeldt's WHIP percentage is when he plays an away game at night, in a dome, on his mother's birthday, in a leap year, on a day that starts with "T"!!!  And I have to know right now!!'  A prime example where stats are overrated is Michael Vick.  I hear analysts yammering on about how he's the worst QB in the NFL because he has a career QB rating of 76.7, a career completion percentage of 54.2, and has never thrown for more than 16 TD's.  The next moment, another analyst calls him one of the premier QB's in the league, a perennial MVP candidate, and one of the most amazing players he's ever seen.  How can there be such a disparity in opinions over one player?  Because analysts and fans get bogged down by stats, and can't/won't look at the overall picture of what a player does for his team, and where they would be without him.  Guys like Michael Vick and Tom Brady are mediocre fantasy players, but are absolutely invaluable to their teams and are potential hall-of famers. 

The stats can hurt the game if we're not careful, and fantasy sports are a big culprit there.  But because of fantasy sports, more people are there to know and care about those stats than any time in sports history.

Gotta run now -- I have to go see what Peja Stojakovic's free-throw percentage is during home games in December, against teams with green uniforms that have an assistant coach with a moustache.  

RCW

I guess my next order of business is to talk some baseball.  And, again, since I'm smack dab in the middle of the Lone Star State, I might as well start there.

Texas Rangers:  Since this year's winter meetings in Dallas were only a twinkle in the youthful eye of new GM Jon Daniels, all they promised was, "pitching, pitching, pitching."  Which was music to the ears of Rangers fans, who have been long denied that one basic principle of baseball.  They haven't had a solid, signature, opening-day hoss of an ace since Nolan Ryan.  They've limped along with the streaky Kenny Rogerses and Ryan Dreses of the world, trying to hold a rotation together long enough to get to their equally inconsistent bullpen.  They've had solid hitting for the last 10 years, from the I-Rod and A-Rod days to today's tandem of Young, Teixeira, and Blalock.  And in Francisco Cordero, they've finally gotten a closer who is a adequate at worst, and flat-out nasty at best.  So what's the final piece?  Pitching, pitching, pitching.  Past Ranger front offices have promised pitching as an off-season priority, but none have fullfilled that promise.  And they haven't this year, either.... yet.

Pitching aside, I'll admit I was disappointed by their failure to get Juan Pierre.  I'm a Juan Pierre guy.  A Pierre-head, maybe?  How about "Pierre-iot"?  The Rangers are lousy with outfielders, all "B+" players:  Delucci, Nix, Mench, Hidalgo, Matthews, Jr., all basically good players, and basically interchangeable anywhere in the outfield or in the 5 through 8 spots in the batting order.  But in Juan Pierre, they would have had a proven, upper-echelon center fielder and solid leadoff hitter with a World Series ring.  Granted, he had a down year last year in almost every category, but I believe that can be chalked up to a bad team with no direction.  But by all accounts he has an impeccable work ethic, a great attitude, and can be a clubhouse leader.  He has amazing speed and base-stealing ability.  He does lack home run power, but has become a true leadoff hitter in the last two years, drawing walks and hitting the ball to all fields.  He lacks arm strength, but his speed in the outfiled makes up for a great deal of that.  In Juan Pierre, they would have gotten a solid, potentially great player, a team leader, and a dynamic personality that would have put fans in the seats.  All they would have had to give up was one of their two best pitching prospects, and we all know how predictable those "hot prospects" can be.  They always turn out to be effective and profitable, right?  Sure.

So, failing that, what did they do?  They traded Alfonso Soriano -- good idea -- for Brad Wilkerson -- bad idea.  We all knew Soriano had to go, and the hope was to put him & his contract in a direct trade with an equally valuable starting pitcher.  But what did they do?  They traded an A+ player and got in return another B+, interchangeable outfielder along the lines of Delucci, NIx, and the rest.  Also in the trade for Wilkerson, they got yet another B-level outfielder in Termel Sledge, and a pitching prospect.  OK, maybe Wilkerson can hit leadoff.  Maybe.  We'll pretend he didn't hit .248 last year.  The thinking of the Rangers front office is that, by saving money on this trade (about $5 million) and adding to their dirth of outfielders, that will allow them to go harder after a solid #1 pitcher.  Maybe.

The problem is, the options are dwindling in an already thin herd of available starting pitchers.  They've looked at the aging and injury-prone-but-effective Matt Morris.  The Great Marlins Fire Sale '05 is apparently over, so Dontrelle Willis is out.  Josh Beckett is already with the Red Sox.  The Rangers are apparently looking at Kevin Millwood (back issues), Jarrod Washburn (arm issues), and Jeff Weaver (mental issues).  All guys who are decent #2's in a rotation, none of whom are solid aces.  In trading Soriano, their very best trading card, for anybody less than an ace pitcher, they lost any hope of getting one.  You think the Giants will take Laynce Nix and a Triple-A infielder for Jason Schmidt??  Neither do I.  How about Richard Hidalgo, Gary Matthews, Jr, and a Double-A bat boy to the Cubs for Mark Prior?  Not gonna happen.

Piching, pitching, pitching... right, Mr. Daniels?  Right?  Right?  We're waiting.

RCW

 Christmas??  OK, sure.  Or -- if you're a sports junkie Scrooge like myself -- you think of the middle of December as the "most wonderful time of the year" for sports!

Right now, we fools for sports, both college and pro, have a little bit of everything:  football heading to its climax, basketballers jockeying for position out of the gate (if I may mix metaphors), and enough behind-the-scenes soap-opera wheeling and dealing keep us all riveted to "As The MLB Turns".  Where to start?  What to blog?  As the old adage says, "write what you know."  Being saddled here in Texas, I 'reckon' the best idea is to start there --  and one thing I know at this moment is that the race for the Heisman Trophy should be a lot closer than it's currently made out to be. 

First, let me put my Longhorn bias aside and say that Reggie Bush should probably win.  The guy is insanely quick, strong, and has breakaway speed.  He has uncanny vison for a young player, and he's a threat to cause permanent emotional damage to defenders every time he touches the ball.  But the "best player in the last 20 years"?  A bit of a stretch.  I may be wrong, but don't they say that about top Heisman candidates at least once every 3 years?  Heck, they're even calling the race for last place in the NFL this year (and thus next year's #1 draft pick) the "Reggie Bush Sweepstakes".  But does the name "Clinton Portis" ring a bell here?  Yes, I know he didn't win the Heisman.  But Clinton Portis is a perfect example of what a Reggie Bush-type player (one who relies on speed to the hole and elusiveness in the open field) will do in the NFL.  In the right system (Denver), he can be a superstar. In another system (Washington), or a plain bad team (O-line-less Houston or decrepit San Francisco), that type of player will be a top 10 RB at best (Portis in Washington), and most likely only mediocre; which is what Reggie Bush will be next year.  And, also true, Vince Young's arm motion alone would keep him from being an NFL starter next year, if he decides to go.  But all that is neither here nor there; the Heisman goes to the best player in college football that year, period. 

With that criterion, the race between Vince Young and Reggie Bush should be neck-and-neck.  And here's why:  Vince Young can do things both Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart cannot.  He's a QB who can run the ball almost as well as Reggie Bush, but Bush obviously can't throw it like Young.  Young can throw it as well as Matt Leinart (Young has a higher QB rating & completion %), but Leinart has limited mobility.  OK, maybe he can run one yard if Reggie Bush gives him a good hard shove.  But the argument can easily be made that Vince Young is the most complete, versatile, and therefore most dangerous player in college football this year, and is deserving of the 2005 Heisman Trophy.

Again, I reassert that Reggie Bush probably should and will win the Heisman.  And it will be deserved -- the guy's a flat-out RB freak.  But it shouldn't be a "hands down" race, as the SoCal spin doctors keep hammering at us, and there should be much more balanced arguments for Vince Young.  If Reggie Bush wins it, I'll be happy.  He deserves it.  If Vince Young wins, he deserves it also.  And I'll be ecstatic.