Young/Vazquez Trade a Good One for D-Backs and White Sox
CF Chris Young of the Diamondbacks looks to be a stud prospect boasting speed, power, and outstanding defense.  Much has been made of the former White Sox farmhand, who, on December 20, 2005 was traded along with Orlando Hernandez and Luis Vizcaino to Arizona for SP Javier Vazquez.  I've heard general comments from White Sox fans saying that it was a mistake to trade Young, and recently Foxsports.com's own Ken Rosenthal quipped that this past offseason's acquisition of Carlos Quentin from Arizona would finally help ease the pain of losing out on Young to Arizona.  What seems left out in this talk every time is that the White Sox acquired a bona fide #1 or #2 starter in Vazquez, who is MLB's second leading strikeout pitcher since 2001 and went 15-8 with a 3.74 ERA in 2007 while playing his home games in hitter friendly U.S. Cellular Field for a 4th place team that lost 90 games.  Sure, the White Sox could use the speedy CFer in their leadoff spot right now, but something tells me that their GM Kenny Williams wouldn't be willing to give up Vazquez to re-acquire him.  A potential 30/30 OFer is about the going rate these days for an Ace.

Rays' Seeason a Pleasant Surprise But...
This in response to Foxsports.com's Dayn Perry's column that the Tampa Bay [Devil] Rays winning season is great for baseball.  It sure is nice to see somebody besides New York and Boston atop the A.L. East, but I greatly fear a Tampa divisional title would give MLB execs a false sense of parity in baseball.  (By the way, they will always be the Devil Rays to me, just as the Angels will always be the Anaheim Angels, or occasionally, the California Angels).  Before this season, I'd have given the Devil Rays a 0% of ever making the playoffs under MLB's current structure.  I now see that they are a legitimate contender for the not only the division, but the pennant.  However, these types of seasons are few and far between.  MLB is in desperate need of a salary cap that would give other small(er) market teams a more fair chance more often.  All top notch free agents have three teams that can afford to sign them:  the Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets; once in a while the Cubs, Dodgers, or Angels will join the mix.  In a couple seasons when the Devil Rays' players hit free agency, they will let them walk and they'll stink again... that is if they don't head towards Marlin-i-zation and trade them all before it even gets that far.  The Red Sox and Yankees will never stink so long as they are allowed to throw money around like it's candy.

Whatifsports (WIS) a Must See for Any Sports Fan
Here is a unpaid advertisement for www.whatifsports.com, a subsidiary of Foxsports.com.  WIS is just an amazing website, and if you're a sports fan who hasn't heard about it yet, you should check it out immediately.  Ever been sitting in a bar with your buddies and argue about who would win a series between the 1927 Yankees and the 1969 Mets?  Or how about Grant Hill and Christian Laettner vs Bobby Knight's undefeated Indiana team?  '72 Dolphins against the '85 Bears?  Jordan's Bulls against Wilt's Lakers?  Whatifsports uses a highly complex simulation to match any historical teams in MLB, NFL, NBA, CBB, NHL, and CFB, and then generates a box score with play by play so you can read it as if the game were actually played.  I've simmed all these games and hundreds more and I can't get enough.  WIS also has SimLeagues where you can mix and match players from any era on any team and form your all time dream team (How about Nolan Ryan throwing pirtches to Ivan Rodriguez behind the plate with Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith, Roberto Alomar, and Keith Hernandez as their infield defense?).  My favorite though is the Dyansty leagues.  I'm in a MLB Hardball Dynasty where I get to play GM of a baseball franchise complete with 5 minor league teams.  There's a Rule 5 draft, amatuer draft, international free agents, and full trades and free agent signing.  It's just absolutely awesome.

Edited 10-19, 1pm Central.  Yes, the below blog contains incorrect facts.  No, I'm not going to correct it.  What I want to know is if this trade can be worked out and what would be fair.  My opinion follows my (inaccurate) analysis.  Now that you are forewarned that the following will contain inaccurate information.  Read at your own peril!!!





Will he or won't he? Kobe Bryant, arguably the best player in today's NBA and without question one of the top 10 player's in the league's history, is rumored to be on the trading block. The controversial superstar is considered to be a bit of a prima donna. After all, he's the guy who whined that his Los Angeles Laker locker room wasn't big enough for both he and Shaquille O'neal and demanded O'neal be traded. After getting his wish, Kobe's Lakers haven't made any progress in the playoffs and now Bryant is demanding they bring in more talent around him or else trade him to a contending team.

The Mavericks and Suns are two teams that have both the chips to deal and the mentality and support of ownership to win now, but GM Jerry West would be a buffoon to deal Bryant to a fellow Western Conference team. It would take more than Paul Pierce for Boston to land him, but the Celtics have few players left after trading the moon to land Kevin Garnett. That leaves the John Paxson led Chicago Bulls as the most likely trade partner for the Lakers should they decide to part ways with Bryant's phenomenal talent.

The Lakers would almost assuredly require that 22-year-old budding star Luol Deng, who averaged 18.8 ppg last season and has progressed nicely in his first three NBA seasons, be included in that potential blockbuster. Deng is Chicago's most consistent and most popular player, and Paxson won't part ways with him unless he gets a big time player in return--such as Bryant or Phoenix's Shawn Marion. This is with good reason, as Deng is viewed as a potential All-Star who can net 25-28 points per game once he reaches his prime.

But come on now, we're talking about Kobe Freakn' Bryant. The guy who scored 82 points in barely over three quarters of play last year in a single game. He was benched for most of the 4th quarter because the lead was considered insurmountable. He draws double and triple teams on every offensive possession. He's the guy that when it's crunch time, the opposing coach gulps when the ball touches his hands. He's a significantly better basketball player than Deng.

If it were only that simple, there would be no reason to write this blog--the trade would have already been made by now. But the Lakers will also likely ask for the 6' 2" defensively challenged Ben Gordon be included in that deal. This poses a problem for Chicago because Gordon is truly one of the most clutch shooters in the NBA today. He's a finisher; a closer you want no business guarding. Although inconsistent, Gordon led the Bulls in scoring last season at 21.4 ppg.

It's been a while since I aced my high school trigonometry class, but Gordon's 21.4 plus Deng's 18.8 is considerably less than Bryant's league leading 31.6 in the 2006-07 season.

And that doesn't take into consideration that the Lakers will also likely ask that a role player like Andres Noccioni, a youngster like Tyrus Thomas, and/or a 1st Round Draft pick be thrown in to sweeten the deal even more.

For my money, I couldn't trade both Deng and Gordon to acquire Bryant's services. If I'm the Lakers, I would have to ask for as much as I could possibly get, but the Bulls couldn't trade their two leading scorers for the game's best player without considerable risk. Doesn't that make them the Eastern Conference's version of the Lakers circa 2006?

I hope the Bulls offer the Laker's the option of these two packages: Deng, Chris Duhon, Noccioni, rookie Joakim Noah, and a 1st Rd pick. Or, Gordon, Thomas, Noah, Noccioni, and a 1st Rd pick. That may very well not be enough, but so be it. They might as well take their chances
that Deng progresses another year and Gordon finds a way to maintain his rhythm over the course of a full 82-game schedule. The Bulls are one of the NBA's deepest and youngest teams, but they aren't yet talented enough to overcome the loss of their two best players.

Every once in a while there is a moment in sports broadcasting that prompts us to beg the question.

What is with the celebrity appeal in sports broadcasts? 

The most recent Monday Night Football telecast on ESPN is the latest example.  The guest in the booth, comedian Jimmy Kimmel, made a smart alec retort directed towards former MNF analyst Joe Theismann. Whether or not Kimmel and Theismann have any kind of adverse history is unclear, but the point is a moot one.  Kimmel had no business being on the air in the first place.


If I want to laugh (or more like
contemplate suicide) I'll watch his
show.  Otherwise, keep him
away from my NFL games.

ESPN has had other “guest announcers” in recent Monday Night telecasts, including NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley and movie star and Chicago area meatball Jim Belushi.  I couldn’t tell you what these folks add to the presentation or what the clowns who are in charge at ESPN were thinking when they invited them on, but I could tell you that most football fans could do without their irrelevant comments and opinions.


Chuck knows his basketball, but there's
no reason for him to spew his mouth
about the NFL

MNF on ESPN isn’t the only culprit.  NBC had singer Pink doing their introductory song in 2006, but apparently ratings weren’t high enough, so this year Faith Hill gets the honor.  Anybody who has watched a Super Bowl on any network knows there is almost as much hoopla made of the commercials and halftime show than there is about the game.

Fox is guilty too.  Raise your hand if your baseball intelligence is insulted by Scooter, the talking baseball who teaches us the physics of different pitches thrown by the starting pitcher.  In football, they have those ridiculous football playing robots and celebrity analysts giving predictions on the pre-game show. 

Every single network showing college and professional football games have decided that more people tune into their relay if a past-her-prime female who knows nothing about football updates us on coaches’ halftime speeches and player’s injuries.  The same occasionally is true for NBA games. 

The point of all this complaining is that fans watching the games are more annoyed by this than “turned on.”  I’m not more likely to watch the upcoming Monday Night game between the Colts and Jaguars because I’m curious to know who the guest in the booth will be.  No, I’m going to watch the game because I want to see how Peyton Manning will fare against one of the top three defenses in the NFL and while playing on the road.  I’m going to watch because Maurice Jones-Drew is on my fantasy team.  I’m going to watch because I like football.  Period.  End of freakin’ story.

In the absolute best case scenario, many fans are prone to mute the T.V. and/or listen to the play-by-play on the radio.  In the worst case, sports fans will watch “How I Met Your Mother.” 

Getting back to ESPN and their Monday Night debacle, could anybody out there explain what Tony Kornheiser is supposed to bring to the table?  I enjoy him on “PTI,” but he knows less about play-by-play than Mike Tirico and knows absolutely nothing about analyzing, so what are they paying him to do besides annoy listeners?

Here’s hoping that one day networks will wake up and tailor their sports broadcasts to sports fans and not pray these promotional stunts grab the attention of people who don’t care anyway.

In other words, individuals need not apply.  To win a championship (from here on I’ll be referring to the four major professional American sports—hockey, football, baseball, and basketball), a team needs to be complete; there are very few weaknesses and most championship teams have none. 

To fully understand the basis for this post, you may find interest in reading two previous blogs: Cease and Desist: Sports Related Things That Need to Stop, and The Double Standard QB.  Please also read the ensuing comments and arguments.

 Often times we sports fans find ourselves engaged in hypothetical discussions of “which player would you rather have…”, or “will So-And-So make the Hall of Fame (HOF)?”  Inevitably, one of our friends will always recite the “championship fallacy.”  It has a few variations, but in its most popular form it states “Player A was so great because he won a Championship Title.”

 My goal is to make the championship fallacy go the way of the Dodo bird.  Or at least, slowly decrease its usage.

 I have met dozens of people over the years who agree with me that Barry Sanders was a better running back than Emmitt Smith.  He had a higher yards per carry average over his career, was not used in goal line situations (thus reducing his touchdown numbers), and lacked the luxury of playing behind one of the NFL’s greatest offensive lines (which Smith had for several seasons in Dallas).  The same people who (rightfully) say Sanders was a better player than Smith will occasionally hypocritically say that Derek Jeter is a better shortstop than Alex Rodriguez or that John Elway is a better quarterback than Dan Marino.  Why?  The championship fallacy.

 Smith, Jeter, and Elway are all fantastic players with HOF caliber careers.  There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with holding the opinion that Elway is the superior to Marino.  But, to reason this way because Elway won two Super Bowls while Marino never did is a form of logical lunacy.

Over the course of a 17-year career, Marino compiled passing statistics that are unlikely to be surpassed.  The NFL’s all-time passer with 61,361 yards and 420 touchdowns, he played in one Super Bowl as a rookie, lost the game, and never returned to the Promised Land again.  Elway finished his 16^th NFL season about 10,000 yards and a full 120 touchdown passes behind Marino.  Troy Aikman had almost half the yardage and less than half the touchdowns.  Terry Bradshaw fared slightly better than Aikman, but posted a touchdown to interception ratio of approximately 1:1 (Marino’s ratio was 1.66:1).

 How is it that Elway, Aikman, and Bradshaw combined to win 9 Super Bowls compared to Marino’s zero despite playing inferior quarterback? 

 The Cowboys’ three Super Bowl winning teams contained current or future HOFers Emmitt Smith, Deion Sanders, Michael Irvin, and Larry Allen along with perennial Pro Bowlers Nate Newton, Erik Williams, Jay Novacek, Daryl Johnston, Charles Haley, and Darren Woodson.

Aikman won three Super Bowls with some elite teammates...

 Denver’s two Super Bowl teams were loaded with HOFers Shannon Sharpe, Terrell Davis (he was well on his way before injuries ended his career prematurely), and Tom Nalen, not to mention studs like Neil Smith, Rod Smith, Steve Atwater, Bill Romanowski, and Trevor Pryce.

 The Steelers teams for which Bradshaw played and won four titles had HOFers Mel Blount, Joe Greene, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, and Mike Webster.  Added to the list are greats Glen Edwards, John Stallworth, and Mike Wagner.

 The Dolphins, during Marino’s stint, only had two HOFers—OL Dwight Stephenson, and LB Junior Seau. Only twice in 17 years did the Dolphins field a top 3 NFL defense and only once did his backfield contain a 1000-yard rusher.  Those who say Marino wasn’t a winner don’t understand what it takes to win.  Teams win games and championships, not players. 

...while Marino had to do the dirty work alone.

 The numbers are staggering.  Counting the quarterbacks being compared the Cowboys, Broncos, and Steelers combined for 18 players in the Pro Football Hall of Fame and nine Lombardi Trophies.  The Dolphins: three and zero.  Sanders was the only HOFer playing for the Lions in his ten years.

 To say Sanders and Marino aren’t “winners” or that they didn’t do enough to get the job done is crazy.  What would Marino have to do to hoist the trophy?  Maybe if he had thrown 80,000 yards and 600 touchdowns he wouldn’t be underrated.

 Flash back to 1989.  With the first pick in the NFL Draft the Cowboys selected Aikman and at number two went Tony Mandarich to the Packers.  If Dallas had mistakenly taken the drug abusing lineman from Michigan State and Green Bay jumped on the UCLA quarterback what would the picture look like today?  My hypothesis is that the Packers would not have won any championships with Aikman at the helm, not even in 1995 (when they did win it with Brett Favre), but, with the Cowboys’ roster stacked as it was, they might have been lucky to win at least a one with Jason Garrett or another player which they would have been forced to acquire.  As for Aikman, his resume wouldn’t have looked nearly as impressive as a Packer and his name would have been long-forgotten by now.

 Tom Brady is a stellar player in this league, but those who feel he has already assured himself of seeing his bust enshrined in Canton would be committing the championship fallacy.  Brady’s three rings are impressive, but he didn’t earn them alone.  The Patriots’ defense ranked 6^th, 2^nd, and 1^st for his three titles.  Peyton Manning is the best active quarterback and stands a great chance to win at least one title in the future, although the Colts’ loss of Edgerton James certainly hurts that cause.  Regardless of whether he achieves Super Bowl success or not, Manning should be revered as one of the top quarterbacks of all time.

 So many other phenomenal players have come and gone without winning a championship.  Nobody should ever say that Karl Malone and John Stockton weren’t good enough to win the NBA Title.  The Utah Jazz were just one or possibly two players away.  Patrick Ewing came close on several occasions but the Knicks never could find the right combination of shooting and defense.  Ken Griffey Jr. and Barry Bonds (steroid usage aside) are two of the greatest outfielders in Major League history.  Together, they hit over 1200 home runs but have never won a World Series.  Don’t blame them, however.  Blame the rest of their Mariners, Reds, Pirates, and Giants teammates because these two players did everything they possibly could.

 Jeter, like Brady, has HOF support from a vast majority of voters.  I hope it’s not because of his World Series Championships.  Jeter has had a steady career; a .300+ lifetime hitter boasting both speed and power, he has been the heart and soul of the Yankees for the last decade.  You would have to be utterly insane to pick him over his teammate, Rodriguez (fantasy draft or otherwise).  Sure, their 2006 numbers don’t necessarily support the conclusion (Jeter is batting .345 while A-Rod has had his worst season as a pro), but Rodriguez, even if he never wins a championship is a far better on-the-field player than Jeter will ever be.  He’ll hit at or above 650 homers in his career.  With the Mariners, A-Rod lacked, among other things, solid protection in the lineup and depth at starting pitching.  While with the Rangers, his teams were utterly pathetic, but he cannot be blamed (he won the MVP in 2003 despite the team’s .438 winning percentage).  Since joining the Yankees in 2004, he’s ran into a Red Sox team whose destiny would not be denied and has since experienced poor team management from Brian Cashman and George Steinbrenner and to a lesser extent Joe Torre.  He also won another MVP last year.

 I’m not making excuses for A-Rod.  I’m simply saying that “championships is a team statistic.”  Rodriguez has done his part to win and when evaluating his level of talent it makes no sense to consider his team’s lack of success since he controls only 1/25 of what happens.

A-Rod did more than his fair share while with the Rangers

 Coaches contribute to team success too.  Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant were two of the NBA’s biggest superstars, but couldn’t win a title together until 2000 when Phil Jackson came to the Lakers.  Bryant has failed to win a title in L.A. since Shaq left town, but only a fool would say he’s not a winner.  He certainly played well enough to win last year, averaging 35.6 points per game.  But no Shaq equals incomplete team.  Likewise, only a fool committing the championship fallacy would put Robert Horry in elite company.  Horry has been fortunate enough to win six championship rings, but couldn’t have done so without Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, Shaq, and Bryant.  Horry doesn’t possess a winning personality per say.  He was lucky enough to play for three different teams employing five different HOF players.

 The opposite is true for Sanders and Marino.  Certainly they were good enough players to win a Super Bowl, but they were unfortunate in that they didn’t have enough talent around them to win.  Bryant’s talents should net him another title with the Lakers because he is that good.  He’s just not good enough to win playing one against five.

 But don’t hold that against him!

 Tony Gonzalez is certainly on his way to becoming one of the greatest tight ends in NFL history and is on pace to break several of Shannon Sharpe’s receiving records for that position.  However, Gonzalez has yet to make it past the first round of the playoffs while Sharpe has three rings with the Broncos and Ravens.  When comparing these two future HOFers head-to-head, all that matters is their ability to block, run routes, and catch the football—after all, that is all they do.  Had Gonzalez played alongside Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson, Jonathan Ogden, Sam Adams, Peter Boulware, Chris McAlister, and Jamal Lewis, in addition to the great Broncos players named earlier, I’m sure he’d have at least one piece of bling on his finger by now.  You see, Sharpe didn’t win those titles by himself, so saying he is better than Gonzo for that reason and that reason only is to commit the championship fallacy since Gonzo has proven himself to be an All-Pro TE for ten years and counting.

  Could Sharpe have won the Super Bowl in 1997 with say, Elvis Grbac throwing and Greg Hill running?  Could he have won it in 2000 with the Chief’s defense that surrendered 354 points? 

 Comparing Sharpe against Gonzalez need only involve their personal abilities and not the teams they played for.

 In 2005, ESPN asked Ravens head coach Brian Billick who he thought was the greatest defense in NFL history.  The options were the 1985 Chicago Bears or the 2000 Ravens (for which he coached).  Billick declared the Ravens because they set the record for fewest points allowed and won the Super Bowl.  In contrast, it was the 1986 Bears who (at that time) set the points record and the ’85 team was the one that hoisted the trophy.  The problem is that Super Bowls are won by teams, not defenses or individual players.  I’m nearly positive if you asked Billick who the greatest offense was in NFL history he’d say the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, for whom Billick was the offensive coordinator and who set the record for most points scored in a single season.  However, that year’s Vikings went 15-1 in the regular season and lost the NFC title game to the Falcons.  So which is it Brian?  Is it points or championships?  For the record, it’s points that determine the best offense, and the ’98 Vikings were the best offensive team ever.

 Some people wrongfully say that Ray Bourque couldn’t be considered one of the greatest NHL defensemen ever—until he won his first Stanley Cup with the Avalanche in 2001—or that Frank Thomas couldn’t make the HOF until he sipped champagne in 2005.  It’s absolutely bogus!  Athletes who play a long time and never go all the way cannot be faulted because they were unfortunate enough to play on lousy teams. 

Critics finally gave the Big Hurt credit after last year, but he was great before he kissed the trophy

 Often times great athletes reach the postseason on such atrocious teams that they would have finished several games out of the race without the player in question.  This was certainly the case with Marino, Sanders, Malone, and to a lesser extent A-Rod.  In these instances, the player deserves more accolades for carrying a mediocre team as far as he did, as opposed to less because he couldn’t seal the deal.

 Case in point: the 1990-1993 Buffalo Bills, who had such great players like Bruce Smith, Thurman Thomas, and Jim Kelly.  Those Bills teams should be considered some of the best ever, even though at the time they happened to run into some better Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys teams during an era of NFC dominance.  Likewise, Smith is one of the greatest pass rushers ever even though he never won a championship and Reggie White did.

 Saying somebody “knows how to win” is complete garbage.  I know how to win; it’s actually a simple formula.  Following through on the plan is the difficult part.  All you have to do is completely dominate your opponent.  Aikman certainly didn’t do that by himself as he was statistically a run of the mill player for years.  But, he had help from Pro Bowl players around him.  Did Michael Jordan “know how to win?”  Not really, he was simply the best player in the league during his era and had a host of talented teammates like Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, and Horace Grant. 

 The Jordan who played from 1987-89, averaging 34.7 points per game and won zero championships was better than the Jordan who played from 1996-98, averaging 29.5 ppg and winning three titles.  The elder Jordan was slower and less dynamic than his younger self, but played with a better team.  Larry Bird had Robert Parrish and Kevin McHale and Magic Johnson had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  If Bird or Magic (in their primes) played for the 2005 Raptors then Toronto would have still had a lottery pick.

 A ring on an athlete’s finger is not a clear cut sign of greatness as dozens of role players have multiple championships because they had solid supporting casts.  Horry, Tedy Bruschi, Jim McMahon, Bill Cartwright, and Scott Brosius are all perfect examples.  They are decent players who don’t “know how to win,” but they played on winning teams and cannot under any circumstances be considered amongst the best at their respective positions.

 If you try your hardest and still can’t forget about the number of championship titles, then the easiest way to compare two players is to hypothetically switch their teams.  Would Bruce Smith have won the Super Bowl with Green Bay in 1995 if Reggie White wasn’t there?  Could Ewing have won a title with the Bulls if Pippen was on the Knicks?  Would the Red Sox still have won the World Series in 2004 if they had Randy Johnson instead of Pedro Martinez?  

 A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the above questions doesn’t automatically presume one player was better than the other, but it does go a long way in finding the truth.

 Anytime somebody says that Player A was great because he won a championship, or that Player B wasn’t so good because he never won it; that is the championship fallacy.  And it’s completely wrong.  From now on, whenever you assess one athlete’s individual abilities look only at what he accomplished alone:  yardage, points, homeruns, MVP’s and Rookie of the Year’s.  No one player can control the indecisiveness of his coach, the dropped pass by his teammate, or the red-hot team he unluckily faced in the playoffs.  Nobody deserves automatic credit because a team won the championship just like he doesn’t deserve blame if the team doesn’t.  Championships is a team statistic and individual players can only do so much.

Here is a list of ridiculous sports motifs I’m sick and tired of hearing about:

 

1)      1) The health of Barbaro.  Folks, it’s a horse.  It’s not an athlete, and it’s not a sport.  I feel bad for the poor little guy, but I don’t want the story of his impending euthanasia polluting my sports page.  One anchor on an ESPN show quipped recently “When will the day come when every single American has as good of a Healthcare package as this horse is getting?”  Until that happens, I don’t want to hear about Barbaro.

 

2)      2) Nicknaming every athlete with a first name of Ben “Big Ben.”  I refuse to acknowledge the usage of this nickname, namely Wallace, Roethlisberger, and Gordon.  Could anybody be a little bit more creative?

 

3)      3) (Speaking of “Big Ben”) Over-hyping Ben Roethlisberger.  I don’t care that he played for the Super Bowl winning team last year.  If Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning, Jake Delhomme, or Trent Green were quarterbacking the Steelers, they still would have won it all.  Roethlisberger had run of the mill regular season stats in both of his two NFL seasons so far (last year: 2385 yards, 17 TDs, 9 INTs).  If he puts up similar numbers to his 2005 postseason in the 2006 regular season for 16 games, I’ll jump on his bandwagon.  If he does that, I’ll remove him from the group of QBs that contains David Carr and Trent Dilfer and put him in the group containing Manning, Tom Brady, and Carson Palmer.

I readily admit that Roethlisberger is one of my most hated athletes

4)      4) Aaron Boone’s home run in the 2003 ALCS.  I realize that Fox and ESPN are desperate for another ratings-boosting ALCS pitting the Yankees against the Red Sox.  But if I have to suffer through another replay of that homer in Game 7 I’ll never watch another baseball game on whatever network was playing it at the time.  For that matter, if any broadcasters are reading, don’t talk about it either.

 

5)      5) Jon Papelbon as American League MVP.  I’ll put it as plainly and simply as I possibly can.  No.  I don’t care if Boston wins 100 games and he finishes with 55 saves and a 0.25 ERA.  A closer who pitches 75 innings can NEVER be more valuable than any batter who makes 500 plate appearances, even if the batter was a DH and didn’t play the field.  David Ortiz and Jim Thome are neck-and-neck right now and Papelbon wouldn’t finish in the top 5.

 

6)     6)  FoxSports bloggers basing their opinion of an athlete or team on results from their fantasy league.  Real life and fantasy sports are different.  Just because you traded Johnny Damon for Carlos Beltran doesn’t mean the Yankees and Mets should swap centerfielders.  Just because you benched Aramis Ramirez because of his low batting average doesn’t mean the Cubs should follow suit. 

 

7)      7) Calling the White Sox’s offensive approach anything except “Power Ball.”  They don’t play “smart ball,” “small ball,” or “Ozzie ball.”  They lead the major leagues with 136 homers, 511 RBI, and 532 runs.  They have the highest percentage of runs scored via the long ball.  Hence, “Power Ball.”

 

8)      8) People saying they need to go to Wrigley Field before they die.  It may look pretty on TV, but believe me when I tell you that you ain’t missin’ much.  Parking is horrible, concourses are crowded and dirty, concrete occasionally crumbles from the rafters, the bathrooms are disgusting and small (and you have to wait in line 15 minutes to get in one), and the neighborhood is a frat boy’s party haven, making it unattractive to families.  Besides, Cubs fans don’t want tourists donating dollars to reinforce the Tribune Company’s supplying a garbage baseball team.

 

Wrigley is nowhere near as nice as this; really, it isn't

9)      9) Anything and everything related to #### Vitale.  For the love of God can somebody please assassinate the most annoying man on television?  10 extra credit points to whoever does.  Well, maybe I shouldn’t be saying that.  How about 10 points to the doctor who can shoot him up with an extra large dosage of the strongest prescription strength depressant currently on the market. 

 

Did I miss anything?  Post your ideas as comments to my blog.

The Chicago Bulls finally have a legitimate, big time scorer and now they appear to be willing to deal Ben Gordon via trade. It just doesn’t make sense.

Sure, the Bulls need a big man; a guy who can guard the low post, grab 10 rebounds a game, and possibly score 20 points. They had that a few years in Elton Brand, whom they traded to the Clippers for Tyson Chandler. If GM John Paxson is hell-bent on bringing C Kevin Garnett to Chicago, he has to find a way to do it without trading their leading scorer. Gordon appears to be a future 25 ppg player and the Bulls, even with Garnett at C, couldn’t replace his points.

The Bulls should offer both of their first round picks in 2006 and their first rounder in 2007 to Minnesota for Garnett. If they are unsuccessful in acquiring him for that price, Paxson would be better off using the draft picks to select LaMarcus Aldridge from Texas or Tyrus Thomas from LSU with their highest pick, and UCONN’s Josh Boone later in the first round. Paxson could also make a run at signing free agent Al Harrington to play Forward.

Gordon is the type of player the Bulls should build around, not trade away like they did with Brand.

This morning my local newspaper, the Rockford Register Star (www.rrstar.com), ran a column containing the opinions of several writers, players, and coaches that tried to determine the boundary between what is considered cheating and not cheating. Intrigued by this column, and in the aftermath of my blog “The Definition of ‘Sport,’” (http://blogs.foxsports.com/JCScheffres/2006/05/05
/The_Definition_of_Sport), here is my definition of “cheating” in sports.

First, the paper differentiates between fooling the opposing team (a shortstop bluffing a baserunner to think he has the ball in his glove, when actually it has rolled safely into centerfield), and the referee (a forward celebrating a goal even though he saw the goaltender cover up the puck while it was still balancing on the crease). The paper hypothesizes maybe it’s ok to trick a player, but not the ref. Personally, I have no problem with either.

Part of the competitive nature of sports is tricking your opponent. You make him believe one move is coming, then surprise him with another. Many sports would not exist or would significantly lose excitement if intentionally fooling the other team was outlawed. Other examples include: a playaction pass or statue of liberty play in football and the old fake-to-first-throw-to-third pickoff move in baseball.

Faking out a referee becomes a bit tricky, pun intended. In basketball, defenders often take a flop to fake an offensive charging foul and force a turnover. Register Star writer Matt Trowbridge says that the contact should at least be enough to make the player wobble. I agree. Hockey players do the same thing, faking a tripping or high sticking penalty. Weak or light contact should be ignored by players and officials alike. A hockey player who hits the deck when a stick whiffs across his face hitting nothing but air, should be penalized. If the stick nicks his chin, I’m in favor of falling to the ice so the official knows there was indeed contact. NBA officials need to be aware of this as well. Shaquille O’Neal should never be on his rump, as there isn’t a player in the league strong enough to knock him down. Therefore, it is not cheating to fake a ref in this fashion, but my solution to this problem is for the refs to ignore such fakes, or better yet, call the penalty on the faker.

Another category of faking out refs is not in drawing penalties but in making a call of a completed pass, an out, or a score. If an outfielder makes a sliding “catch” in which he thinks he may have trapped the ball—or even if he knows he trapped it but the play was very close and the umpire may not have seen the ball all the way—it is acceptable to pretend as if the ball landed in his glove. The same rule applies to a wide receiver going down to make a low catch in football. If a player knows with 100% certainty that a referee missed a call in his favor, he should never correct the umpire or argue against his own team. The umpire will occasionally blow a call against you as well, so the player should take it in stride.

Sometimes circumstances are such that a player will attempt to fake the umpire even though the play was so obviously the opposite of what an athlete would attempt to have him believe. Although I do not consider this cheating, I would advise athletes against it because the other team knows what happened and they will act accordingly. Take the outfielder trapping a ball between the grass and his glove for example. The batter and umpire both know the ball hit the ground despite the fielder’s best effort to make it look like a clean catch. Thus, all baserunners will be hustling to the next base while that fielder is wielding his glove in the air trying to sell a catch that didn’t happen.

Cheating comes down to one simple principle. Altering equipment, the ball, the field, or your own body with any unnatural or illegal substance is cheating. This would obviously include any performance enhancing drug (not counting caffeine). Football players who apply cooking spray to their jerseys (to make them slippery and hard to tackle) and who use any sticky material on their hands (to better catch a ball or grasp another player’s uniform) are cheating. Corking a bat, putting tar in a glove, or spitting on the baseball is definitely cheating. Any time a football player wipes foreign substances in another player’s face at the bottom of a pile, he is cheating. Altering the playing field is seldom seen, but one example is a baseball player erasing the back line of the batter’s box so the umpire cannot see his rear foot is outside the line. Wearing pads bigger than the legal size is cheating in hockey. Cheating also includes paying money or offering other favors to an opposing player or official to favor one team over the other. Accepting this offer, of course, is cheating as well. Also, the home team should make reasonable attempts to ensure that each team has a fair and equal chance of winning. This includes equality on the sidelines, dugouts, and locker rooms such as: heaters on both sidelines for outdoor football games, phones in both dugouts and bullpens, and tidy, secured locker rooms.

A later edit to this blog: I also consider any player who intentionally attempts to injure his opponent to be a cheater. I do not have a problem with targeting a specific player as long as the contact is legal and does not carry intentions of ending the opponent's career, season, or game.

Purposely deceiving an umpire, referee, or opposing player is not cheating. Altering any piece of equipment that is used during the game is.

As mentioned in my profile, I sometimes have radical opinions. This is probably the most controversial of them all.

Sport #### - a physical and mentally competitive activity carried out with a recreational purpose for competition, for self-enjoyment, to attain excellence, for the development of a skill, or some combination of these (Source: wikipedia.org).

I have always found this popular definition to be extremely broad and I personally cannot accept it. This definition is worded such that the act of cooking a meal, building a house, writing a computer program, or drawing a picture could all be considered sports. Clearly, the majority of individuals reading this blog would not recognize the above activities as sports. Golf, rugby, softball, soccer, and basketball are more widely considered as sports.

This is where my connotation of “sport” REALLY narrows down what activities can be called a sport.

If you ask me, golf, tennis, racing, running, billiards, swimming, cheerleading, driving, boxing, figure skating, poker, cycling, fishing, bowling, hunting, wrestling, chess, and weight lifting are very strenuous and difficult endeavors. They take courage, athleticism, devotion, and years of practice to master. But none of them are “sports.” The amount of athletic ability it takes to compete in any event has no bearing on whether it is a sport and something else isn’t.

This may read more like a philosophy book than a sports blog, but below are the factors for what I consider to be a sport:

1) First and foremost, this quality is of utmost importance. To be a sport, the activity MUST have some way of strategizing to defeat your opponent. There should be some kind of “offense” and “defense.” There has to be a way that you can use your physical and mental ability to outsmart your opponent and impede his chances of achieving his goal. In bowling for example, you roll your ball then take a seat and watch your opponent do the same. There is no way to hinder your opponent’s ability to knock down more pins than you. To be a sport, there must be constant game planning—a way to build a strategy that will change depending on weather conditions, the strength of the opponent you are facing, the score at the time, and etc.

2) The activity in question must be team oriented. This helps tie in rule #1. You must be able to strategize with your teammates; the moves that you make will be coincided with their moves and vice versa. Furthermore, the teams MUST be at least 3 team members per side. 2 people form a partnership, not a team. There can be only 2 teams competing in the event at one time (no more, no less). And, both teams MUST compete in the arena simultaneously.

3) There must be some way of knowing with 100% certainty whom the winner of the event is. There must be “points” or “goals” that let the audience know who has won the match. There can never be any judges (not counting referees who will call penalties and enforce the game’s rules). There must be a definitive way of scoring a point or goal. The game must end when a pre-determined amount of time has elapsed or a certain score is reached.

Some sports that meet these criteria: basketball, hockey, soccer, rugby, baseball, lacrosse, softball, volleyball, and football.

The rest are leisure activities.

The lengths at which a professional sports owner will go to turn a profit are getting out of hand. Stadiums built as recently as the mid-70’s are now considered out of date and the owners of these stadiums are demanding their own customers—the taxpayers—pay for the upgrade.

Part of being an entrepreneur is assuming your own risks. That’s why owners are billionaires; they take the most risk, they make the most money. An owner should make more than a player, for players don’t set forth on a business plan, buy the property, or hire a staff.

But taxpayers pay for the stadium. If part of my taxes goes towards building a new stadium in my local town, I can’t help but feel like I’m a part owner. I feel like I should get a piece of the profits, or at least get a 35% discount on tickets and concessions.

I’ve never heard of Kerasotes threatening to move their movie theatre across the country if the city doesn’t plan on paying for the construction of a brand new 36-screen building with luxury seating and valet parking. I don’t understand what makes a sports owner think they are any different.