Category: Sports

Posted on

The Rolling Stones at the Superbowl

Let me get this straight:  the NFL wants to provide a half-time show that will attract the coveted 18-25 demographic– free-spending young adults who like geriatric rock stars, apparently. Would these people like to watch the Olsen Twins? No. Jessica Simpson? Well, all right– the meaning of “wholesome” has changed a bit. I know– we’ll get The Rolling Stones. Hey, aren’t they a bunch of perverts? Of course they are.

While simultaneously announcing that they have booked a filthy, disgusting, perverted band for the half-time show (by their standards, not mine), the promoters, the NFL, assures viewers that the entertainment will be quite wholesome. Suitable for the entire family. You won’t be embarrassed if your kids are watching. But your kids will want to watch.

Is this belated recognition of the fact that any interesting culture in our society seems to come from rebels and outsiders? Why on earth didn’t they book Garth Brooks or Tammy Wynette, if they wanted something wholesome?

How will the promoters ensure that the audience is spared anything shocking or inappropriate? They will have a five-second delay on the broadcast.

And it worked. During “Start Me Up” (the real obscenity here is that “Start Me Up” was sold to Microsoft as the theme for Windows 98 for millions of dollars), Mick Jagger alluded to the fact that this woman of whom he was singing was so sexy that she could cause a dead man to become aroused. But not in so many words. So the microphone went dead and Mick’s lips moved alone and silently.

All right. Everybody’s happy. The kids get to be entertained by the world’s greatest rock’n’roll band, and the adults get to sleep easy knowing that their children are still infused with good, wholesome, Calvinist virtues.

But the Rolling Stones, worried about their credibility with the in crowd, announce that they are disgusted with the censorship. But the NFL announces that if they were so disgusted with the censorship, why did they agree to play in the first place? The Rolling Stones respond, just because we knew about it in advance and agreed to it doesn’t mean we don’t think it’s stupid. Pay us first, then we’ll tell you how stupid it is.

The answer is: all of the above.

Posted on

Baseballs Smothering Inertia

Have you noticed? The Yankees finished first in the American League East, Boston finished second, and the Toronto Blue Jays finished third. And Cleveland is making run at the Central division. And Atlanta owns the National League East.

Quick– now tell me what year this is?

1994? 1995? 1996? 1997 1998? 1999? 2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? All of the above?

Pretty well all of the above, with a few minor exceptions. The American League East has been fossilized for about 10 years, from the last labour disruption in 1994 to now. In almost every season, it’s been Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles, Devil Rays.

You would think the fans would be catching on by now. Oh no. They jam the stadiums every week, paying $35 or more per ticket, to see what they have been led to believe is a contest between competitive baseball clubs for an attainable prize, the playoffs, and baseball glory.

Except– wait a minute– fans are not showing up in the same numbers in Cleveland or Baltimore, and they haven’t been showing up in great numbers in Toronto for the past few years either, and Tampa Bay, of course, is a lost cause.

If, in 1995, you would have told these fans that their team was going to finish in the same position for the next ten years, every single year, without fail, I doubt most of them would have bothered.

So what’s happened? Why is the season fixed? And it is fixed, without a doubt. Unless you really want to argue that the same five teams finishing in the same sequence ten years in a row is a cosmic coincidence. It isn’t. The game is now fixed because owners are smarter than they used to be and money is now the only factor. Owners used to squander a lot of money on washed-up over-the-hill over-rated low-average high-strikeout sluggers. But owners have gotten smarter. They trust their baseball men and scouts more and their own sentiments less.

Admittedly, the World Series itself is still up for grabs, at least, by one of the teams pre-selected for the playoffs. You can buy a regular season championship, but nobody has enough money to guarantee that your ringers will provide an optimum performance during a seven-game series. Ask Atlanta or the Yankees. The team that puts together the best confluence of talent and opportunity and determination over a five or seven game stretch will win each series. But money does determine whether, over 160 games, you finish with enough wins to play in the post season, with very rare exceptions.

I am telling you, Blue Jays fans, that the Blue Jays, for all their improvements this year, are going to finish 3rd or even 4th next year. Baltimore will finish 4th or 3rd. The Yankees will probably finish in first again, and Boston in second. And Cleveland will probably take the Central with Chicago a close second. Oakland and Anaheim will battle over the West.

In the National League East, Atlanta will finish in first, and Philadelphia and Florida will argue over second. St. Louis will contend again in the Central and Houston will again finish in second.

Does the league think there is any problems with this? Does it think fans will lose interest in a league in which the final standings are determined, generally, by team revenues, and where those revenues are a relatively fixed amount?

Not as long as you and I keep buying tickets.

Like any other Blue Jays fan, I can easily convince myself that next year will be better. They will have Halliday for the full season– we hope. Rios will hit more home runs. Hudson will not get injured. Koskie won’t strike out as often. Wells will pick it up a bit in April and May.

Dream on– a rational person can only draw one conclusion from the last 10 years of statistics: another 3rd place finish.

Where the Blue Jays will finish in 2006:
Third.

Where the Blue Jays will finish in 2007:
Third.

Where the Blue Jays will finish in 2008:
Third.

Where the Blue Jays will finish in 2009:
Third.

2022-05:  Where they actually finished:

2005: 3rd

2006: 2nd

2007: 3rd

2008: 4th

2009: 4th

As you can see, I was never off by more than one position.

Posted on

Pull the Goalies

I have been thinking about this particular problem for years. Why is it a good strategy for a hockey team to pull their goalie in the last minute of a hockey game when they are trailing by one goal, but not a good strategy at any other time?

I’ll tell you right off the bat that I have a strong suspicion that almost every one uses this strategy because it’s always been used, and everyone else does. There is not a single coach, manager, or player who has any credible proof that it’s a good strategy. All of the evidence is anecdotal and religious in nature.

I believe that it is actually a bad strategy and that a team has a better chance of tying the game by keeping their goalie in the net. Sound strange?

The assumption at work is that by removing the goal-tender and adding a skater, you thereby increase your chances of scoring to an extent that more than offsets the rather obvious disadvantage of not having a goalie and thereby increasing the other team’s chances of scoring on you.

It is immediately obvious that this strategy is flawed in terms of logic. If removing your goalie and adding a skater gave you a real advantage, teams would do it all the time. Obviously nobody does. So why do teams think that doing it in the last minute of a game is different?

In defense of the strategy, people will argue that you only pull your goalie when you have possession of the puck and you are headed for the other team’s end. They argue that the attacking team will summon remarkable strength and courage in the face of adversity that will somehow bend the rules of logic and result in an advantage that no coach, in the history of the NHL, has been able to demonstrate under any other circumstance.

Having possession of the puck improves your chances for a few seconds, but it doesn’t really address the issue. Teams obtain possession of the puck in their own end dozens of times during a game. If that strategy works in the last minute, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t work in the first minute. Why not pull your goalie every time you have possession of the puck and start a rush out of your own end? Because the other team might get the puck back and score on you? How is this different in the last minute of a hockey game?

I suppose you could argue that 60 seconds is not long enough for the other team to get a good shot at your net. If that was true, we would rarely see an empty net goal. But we see them all the time.

There is another weird consideration. The defending team will quite often change it’s style of play as well– though not as much as they used to. The defending team will suddenly retreat behind their own blue line and form a box. When they get possession, instead of rushing down the ice and trying to score– precisely what the attacking team does not want them to do– they skate up to centre and then take a pot shot at the net. Often, they take the opportunity to change lines, on the weird assumption that the other team is going to get the puck back almost immediately and renew the attack.

The shot from centre doesn’t go in very often because usually one or more members of the attacking team are able to get back on time to block it, and the defending team doesn’t try to create a sustained counter-attack. But it does go in often enough to really finish off the team that is trailing.

We will never know the truth until some coach somewhere decides to go a season or two without ever pulling the goalie. But that would require genuine leadership. It would require genuinely independent thought. It would require someone unafraid of heresy.

The NHL does not even know when the first goalie was pulled. The New York Rangers, coached by Frank Boucher, are credited with inventing the move, in 1939 or 1940 or 1941 (like I said, the NHL doesn’t know).

I wrote here that nobody tries this strategy at any time other than the end of the game, but there was a game, years ago, in which the strategy was employed throughout. The circumstances were thus: two teams were going to be tied in points on the last day of the regular season. The team with the most goals (not the best differential, I note) would be the one to advance to playoffs. So when one team realized it was going to lose this critical game, they began to pull their goalie at every opportunity, in order to try to score as many goals as possible. Think about that. In other words, they acted as if pulling the goalie really was a good strategy. But if I remember correctly, they gave up as many or more goals than they scored.

The result, of course, was a chaotic, bizarre game that called the very integrity of the sport into question. The NHL changed the rules next year to ensure that this circus would not happen again.

[Added 2008-11]

It took me a while, but I finally found an online reference to that game referred to above. It was New York in 1970, in the 1969-70 season. Eddie Giacomin was in — or out of goal. The reference I found didn’t mention the other team involved or the final score.

I came across a report about a study last year that claimed to objectively prove that the strategy of pulling your goalie was, in fact, demonstrably effective. I won’t be convinced until I have a look at the study.

[Added 2022-05]

I did find that study and analyzed it.  The study shows only a tiny, marginal benefit to pulling the goalie.  But the study has one very significant flaw:  not one single NHL team will not pull their goalie in the final minute of a close game so it cannot compare the results with teams that do.  However, the in KHL (Russian NHL) pulling the goalie is quite rare: the prevailing belief there is that it is not a net benefit.

 

Posted on

1968 Olympic Scandal: the Black Power Salute

I just happened to notice that at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico, where the three American athletes gave the black power salute as they stood on the podiums after receiving medals, the Mexican government had killed between 200 and 300 students in the weeks leading up to the games. These students were protesting against the dictatorial policies of the one-party Mexican state. The CIA had reported to the U.S. government that the students had agreed to refrain from protesting during the Olympics. The Mexican government didn’t feel like waiting to find out. They didn’t want an embarrassment.

The Olympics loves to claim that they are “apolitical” and most rational people have realized long ago that that claim is utter bullshit: the Olympics are the expression of the hosting regime’s legitimacy and stature.  Officials from governments of all participating countries glory in the success of their athletes.  Audiences everywhere are only interested in events in which someone from their country has a shot at winning.  Sports that favor a particular country (women’s soccer, for example, basketball) are included while other sports (buzkashi, for example) are not.  It is absolutely saturated with politics.

Okay. Kill 200 – 300 students– no problem. The Americans were delighted to honor the Mexican government by participating.

Raise your fist, as if you don’t believe in America the wonderful, the blessed, the just?

It was Avery Brundage, the American president of the IOC, who insisted they be banned from the Olympic Village.  (They did not, contrary to popular myth, have to return their medals.)  Avery Brundage– who had no objection to the Nazi salute at the 1936 games in Berlin.  I am not kidding.  Brundage was a known Nazi sympathizer up U.S. entry into the war.

The U.S. Olympic Committee– to their credit– refused to ban them from the Olympic village until Avery Brundage threatened to ban the entire U.S. track team.

It’s scandalous. It’s absolutely scandalous. And don’t forget that the people who made that judgment– who decided that the Olympics should go on even if the Mexican government murders hundreds of students and even if the the Mexican government was a one-party dictatorship– and then decided that the these three black athletes should be escorted out of the Olympic village– these people were part of that large, large group of gratuitous sycophants and parasites called “the Olympic Delegation” and your tax dollars help pay for their hotels and champagne.

And they really should add Buzkashi to the roster.

[Yes, I know– in the U.S., most money for the Olympic teams is raised privately. But that’s not total cost of maintaining and supporting a national Olympic team. There are stadiums and universities. And because the donations to the Olympic teams is tax deductible– aren’t they?– you really are subsidizing them. ]

Posted on

An Honest Olympics

I propose an honest Olympics. We set up a new international organization. Every four years, we select about 50 people at random from a pool of volunteers from each country. And I mean “random”, as in, “from the general population”. Not athletes. I don’t care how pathetic they are– I want to see them race, jump, throw, and swim. I want to know that the winners did it without cheating, because they couldn’t have cheated.

The competition will be held in existing sports facilities– none of this billions of dollars in new stadiums and housing crap.  They can stay in the nearest college dorm.

And when they win a competition, they actually have to sing their own national anthems, solo, in front of thousands of people.

Then you get your medal.

Seriously: I would enjoy watching this way, way more than the current ugly spectacle of the Olympics.

Posted on

Is There a Single Honest Athlete in the House?

It has recently been reported that Lance Armstrong is attempting to prevent publication of a book that alleges he may have used steroids.

The book is “LA Confidential: Secrets of Lance Armstrong” by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester.

Now, it’s not unimaginable that the book is entirely scurrilous. But it is written by two serious European sports reporters and it’s information comes from named sources.

And it’s not as if Lance Armstrong is saying, “I am a clean athlete who wouldn’t go near an illegal supplement or steroid”.

In fact, he will go very near.

One of the experts Lance Armstrong regularly consults with is Dr. Michele Ferrari, an Italian who has been charged with involvement in producing erythropoietin (EPO) for illegal use by athletes.

Ferrari is a protégé of Francesco Conconi who is also suspected of involvement with doping. Armstrong does not, obviously, deny his association with Ferrari– he can’t; it’s on the record. Armstrong correctly describes Ferrari as an expert on training and fitness and claims that that is the only reason he consults with him and allows him to perform physiological testing.

If you were clean, would you admit a close personal association with an expert on doping, even as you claim it is for other reasons? Would you be willing to risk your reputation and all your endorsement contracts for… what? His friendship and encouragement? Is there really no other expert in the world who can perform the same services… without the suspicious background?

Recent reports suggest that a large number of top U.S. athletes may have been using illegal substances. Some of these substances were not detectable until an informant obtained a syringe containing traces of the supplement and supplied it to the authorities.

There was also that allegation in 2002 that the U.S. Postal Team had tried to dispose of several bags of Actovegin during a race.

In fairness, the U.S. Postal Team tested clear. In fairness, it is now known that certain masking agents can be used to disguise the use of steroids.

Is there a single honest athlete in the house? What is the point of these competitions? You won? You cheated. Case closed.

Not fair? Why aren’t athletes speaking out? Why are there no public demands that the athletic federations work harder to clean up their sports? Why isn’t there an outcry from honest athletes– you cheaters are destroying the credibility of our games?

If I was a world-class athlete and I was not cheating, I would be enraged. I would be enraged because I know that if I actually won an event, everybody would assume I was cheating anyway. If I improved my time dramatically: cheating. If I managed to set a world record: boy, you really cheated. Why would any honest athlete choose to remain in athletics?

Do you watch any of these cycling races?  Why?

I would tell the press that I want tougher testing and tougher regulations because unless the public can be convinced that they are witnessing honest, real performances, they will, sooner or later, stop watching.

Just how big of a scam is this?

I don’t think I personally will accept that any world records established after about 1968 are valid. I don’t accept Barry Bond’s record for home runs. I don’t accept that Roger Clemens can still pitch competitively at 40 just because he works out every day.  I don’t accept that David Ortiz, like a fine wine, is improving with age.

I don’t accept that the organizations that are responsible for ensuring the integrity of their sports really cares. Ask yourself if it hurts them, to have world records broken at almost every meet, every season.

 

Posted on

Janet Jackson at the Superbowl

Did you see it? You probably missed it. You were probably in the bathroom.

At the end of Janet Jackson’s rather sorry spectacle of a circus of a fireworks extravaganza of incredibly self-indulgent excessive spatter-fest of over-wrought writhing orgiastic dancers and musicians– her boob popped out. In fact, it appeared as though Justin Timberlake pulled off one of her leatherette little shields and there it was. CBS remarkably cut the camera within a second or two. Maybe there was a slight delay available to them– you know, whatever they call it, when they reserve to themselves a slight cushion of time just in case someone like Janet Jackson, on nationwide tv, does something inappropriate.

So you are mom. You’re watching the half-time show because, Lord knows, you can’t stand to watch football. Your kids are watching too. They are Janet Jackson fans. The dancers wear costumes inspired by S & M fantasies. They gyrate and move in motions meant to suggest intercourse. You smile and continue your knitting. They are singing something about being naked for you or whatever. Doesn’t matter. You nod and shake your head– modern music. Then it happens. You leap up and cover your children’s eyes. If you were fast enough, you may have spared them a life-time of deviance and sexual perversion. They might not have realized that they had seen Janet Jackson’s breast.

The opening act for this bizarre annual ritual– the Superbowl– was Aerosmith. Hoo hah. There are tail-gate parties, which they also have at state prisons on the nights they are going to execute people.

Steve Tyler himself. Most young football fans yearned for his daughter, Liv. Liv, ridiculously, played a psychiatrist in one of Jim Carrey’s most earnest and preposterous movies, “Reign Over Me”.

Then Beyonce sang the national anthem, with all the heartfelt authority and sincerity Hollywood can muster. Then 40 grown men pumped to preposterous proportions by steroids (professional football does not test anybody for anything except marijuana) chase each other over a 100 yard field trying to retrieve an oblong object made of pigskin. This crowd cheers wildly.

There are 100 commercials. They watch the commercials (that’s why they cost an average of $2.5 million– they do watch.) They think, I will be happy if I have some Pepsi. I will download legally. I will have an erection. Most of these people would say they are Christians. In God’s name, I have no clue what they think they are talking about.

There is approximately 10 seconds of action for 20 minutes of commercials, inane chatter, Janet Jackson’s breast, Steve Tyler’s tongue, and American flags.

The audience, apparently, has what they want– the ratings for Superbowl games are great. These people are American voters. Not only are they choosing the type of costume they want Janet Jackson to wear, but they are also choosing the next government of Iraq and the future of the Israel-Palestinian peace plan. Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake apologized about the breast.

Both of their careers, however, have been enhanced. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Posted on

Don Cherry’s Violence in a Bottle

It is believed by some that if you ban fighting in hockey, the incidences of other infractions– high-sticking, elbowing, slashing– will increase, because hockey players have a certain amount of brutality in them, and if it doesn’t come out in the fists, it has to get out somehow. (Lord knows, Don Cherry wouldn’t want it to emerge in the form of sexual aggression or we might have hazings.)

Is that true? I don’t know of any research that supports this belief, but I’m sure that a lot of people believe it anyway because it seems to make sense and because “experts” like Don Cherry believe it.

I think it is an unexamined belief. I don’t know of any study that shows that it’s true. I know Cherry often liked to claim that European players were dirtier than their brawling North American counter-parts because instead of punching each other in the face like good honest all-American hockey players do, they supposedly hacked at each other more often with their sticks.

Don Cherry also believes that helmets’ lead to people hitting each other on the head. Why would you hit someone on the head if he didn’t have a helmet on?

To injure him?

Posted on

The 2003 Blue Jays

Here’s the starting lineup for the Toronto Blue Jays as of June 24, and their batting averages (from a game against the Expos– hence Halladay):

jays2003.jpg (53276 bytes)

I’ve been following the Blue Jays since about 1983 and I doubt they have ever had as formidable a hitting line-up as they do now. Five batters over .300, six, if you include Shannon Stewart, who is currently on the DL. Average, of course, is not the most important number. Wells and Delgado lead the league in RBI; Delgado leads in homers, and Wells is fourth or fifth. The Blue Jays hit for average and power and they take a lot of pitches. They lead in almost all offensive categories: average, on-base percentage, hits, runs, etc., except home runs. They are third, currently, with 97, about ten behind the leaders, the Yankees and Texas.

Baseball is game of streaks, so it pays to be careful before making judgments about how good a team is. The Jays have periodically shown flashes of inspiration in the past decade, but seem to always end up in third place, behind Boston and New York.

Are the 2003 Jays the real thing? Do they have the horses to make the wild card, or perhaps even over take the Yankees?

The most obvious weakness of this team is the pitching. For the first month, Jays pitchers were as horrible as any Blue Jays staff has ever been going back to 1982. The fact that they are still near the bottom of the league in pitching stats, however, is more indicative of that horrible month, during which they went 8-18, than of the quality of their current staff.  Roy Halladay, Kelvim Escobar, and Mark Hendrickson have pitched very well in the past week or so, and Corey Lidle pitches well enough to win, usually. But the bullpen is unusually week, and Cliff Politte has not yet shown that he has solved their closer problem. I watched Politte today, one day after he gave up a home-run to lose a game the Jays should have won to the Expos. His off-speed stuff was well off the plate and his fast balls were high in the strike-zone and didn’t fool anybody. He gave up a single, and two fly ball outs within inches of the outfield wall. The Jays won, but it was a white-knuckle victory, especially after Halladay had given them 8 innings of two-hit ball.

For all the deficiencies of their bullpen, the Blue Jays have been playing terrific ball for the past month and a half. Only the Mariners have been equal to them over that period. That’s long enough to justify the opinion that the 2003 Jays will be competitive. They have closed steadily on the Yankees and Boston and currently sit 2 games back of New York, .5 games up on Boston. It is fair to say that almost no baseball pundits picked them to play this well. Of course, we’re not half way through the season yet.

The Blue Jays virtually never sacrifice bunt or steal. If you believe in the sacrifice bunt and the steal as offensive weapons, it’s hard to explain why the Jays lead the league in almost all offensive categories.

It also appears that baseball writers, while noting the spectacular offense, haven’t generally noticed that the starting pitching has improved dramatically. Halladay has 11 consecutive wins, and the rest of the staff — except for the bullpen– has pitched well enough to win most nights.

The Up Side: This team can score runs! Look at the averages above. The Blue Jays lead the league in most offensive categories, including batting average with runners in scoring position, and in scoring position with two outs.

Both Hinske and Stewart are due to return from the disabled list soon and Hinske, last year’s rookie of the year, at least, will be an improvement at third over Mike Bordick (.260, 2 hrs.). The Blue Jays lead all of baseball in runs scored, and Delgado and Wells lead both leagues in RBI. Delgado theoretically could drive in 160 runs this year, though it’s not altogether likely he’ll maintain this pace through the second half. Delgado should be a shoe-in for first base on the all-star team and Wells should be starting centre field, but he is not well-known outside of Toronto and the baseball writers association. Greg Myers is having a career year at 38 years old. Catalanotto had an off year last year with injuries, but his performance this year is not a fluke. Even the subs, Howie Clark and Reed Johnson, have hit remarkably well. In fact, the Jays would obviously like to find a way to keep Reed Johnson in the line-up after Stewart returns, but this is now a tough line-up to crack.

Pitching has been up and down, but has improved significantly since May 1. Halladay, Escobar, and Hedrickson have pitched very well in the past four weeks. Escobar has always had dominating stuff, but the story was that he occasionally lost focus and was prone to giving up the big inning. Hedrickson pitched poorly for a while but improved when manager Tosca made it clear his job was on the line.

The best indicator of all is the relative youth of the Blue Jays line-up. Young players are cheap, and they tend to improve. That may sound like common sense, but it’s surprising how many baseball teams (like the New York Mets) ignore that simple axiom. Vernon Wells, Orlando Hudson, Eric Hinske, Josh Phelps, Chris Woodward, Howie Clark, and Reed Johnson are already performing well and will likely get better in the next few years. In fact, their performances this year, so far, are somewhat extraordinary, which raises the suspicion that some of them will cool off later in the season. Is Hudson really a .300 hitter? Can Josh Phelps handle the slop pitchers will start to throw at him once they realize what he can do to a fast ball up in the strike zone? Will Hinske continue to improve defensively at 3rd base? If Catalanotto slumps, will Wells start to see more junk pitches?

Josh Phelps is the only hitter in the current line-up who still swings at bad pitches. It’s a scary thought– what if he gets some plate discipline? What if Hinske comes back and hits .300 with power?

The Blue Jays don’t seem to be intimidated by strong, power pitchers. They hammered a finesse pitcher, like Andy Pettite, and they hammered Vasquez in Montreal and scored five runs against Wood in Chicago. The only team that has given them trouble in the last month has been St. Louis.

The Blue Jays swept both Boston and New York in 3 and 4 game sets, the last time they played their divisional rivals.

The Down Side: relief pitching remains a major problem. Politte has given up far too many home runs, and Sturtze and Tam have been ineffective. This is the one area of the line-up Ricciardi might be thinking of improving. Any teams out there with a good strong, durable reliever to trade for a premiere lead-off hitter? Shannon Stewart is a terrific player, but the Jays are awash in good hitters and outfielders right now. Stewart becomes a free agent next year. It would not be a dumb idea to trade him now for a good relief arm or two.

The question of depth is often raised with young, over-achieving teams like the Blue Jays. Often they ride career years by a few key players, disguising their weaknesses with astute management and a bit of good luck. Delgado and Wells are indeed having outstanding years, but when Delgado recently drove in only one run in six games, the Blue Jays still went 5-1. The two bench players called up to replace Stewart and Hinske are batting .325 and .450, with power. Woodward and Hudson, shortstop and second base, are batting a respectable .265 and .298. In their last two starts, Hendrickson, Halladay, and Escobar have each allowed two runs or less each.

The Blue Jays are not a fluke.

This is a remarkable team. It is unknown, except for Delgado and maybe Halladay, but likely to overtake the Yankees within the next two weeks.

Fistfull of Dollars: Blue Jays Payroll is about $80 million, solidly in the middle of the pack, and well below the Yankees’ $175 million.  Below is what the Yankees get for their $175 million:

yanks_ba.jpg (97679 bytes)

Blue Jays Pitchers –

Starters:

Roy Halladay
Mark Hendrickson
Cory Lidle
Doug Davis
Kelvim Escobar

Relievers:

Cliff Politte
Tanyon Sturtze
Pete Walker
Jeff Tam
Aurilio Lopez
Doug Creek

In their 25 year history, the Blue Jays have had three great offensive line-ups.

The first, roughly 1983-1987, featured George Bell, Lloyd Moseby, Jesse Barfield, Tony Fernandez, Damaso Garcia, Rance Mulliniks, and Ernie Whitt. Willie Upshaw holds the team record for longest period of coming out of his slump. In fact, he’s still coming out of his slump.

The second, roughly 1992-1994, featured Roberto Alomar, Devon White, Kelly Gruber, Ed Sprague, Pat Borders, John Olerud, and Joe Carter with trade-deadline guests, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, and Rickey Henderson. I suspect both Winfield’s and Henderson’s contributions were minimal, but Molitor joined Olerud and Alomar as three of the best hitters in the league in 1993. The Blue Jays won two World Series with this team, including the infamous 15-14 victory over Philadelphia in game 5, and, of course, Joe Carter’s walk-off series-winning home-run off Mitch Williams..

Joe Carter and George Bell were dominating for brief periods. Olerud was an outstanding hitter at times, and extremely consistent, if unspectacular. He’ll have a 3,000 hit career but won’t make the Hall of Fame. Delgado is probably the greatest offensive threat to ever wear a Blue Jays uniform.

But of the entire pack of them, Roberto Alomar was, in his prime, the best all-round player the Blue Jays ever had, and the most likely to be the first Blue Jay to go into the Hall of Fame (as a Blue Jay)..

 

Posted on

Figure Skating Scandal at the Olympics

If I were in charge of the ISU, here’s how I would have solved the huge scandal over the pairs figure-skating competition. Call me crazy, but here’s what I would have done:

1. Convene all the judges for a press conference. Direct them to answer every question put to them by the world’s media. Have side-by-side videos of the two disputed performances on the screen to illustrate. Let them defend, in detail, their rankings and choices.

Issue these stern directives to all the judges:

– answer honestly, politely, and completely.
– take every question seriously
– don’t be afraid to admit mistakes

Oh. And remove your blindfolds before the press conference.

2. Have the two pairs concerned join the press conference and add their comments to the questions and answers. Were all the moves equally difficult? Which elements of your program did you think were more difficult than those of your competitors?

3. Acknowledge that the judges don’t like it when public perception is different from the scoring results. Don’t blame it on an ignorant public. Accept the blame for not doing a good enough job of communicating to everyone what the standards are. Encourage people to look closely at all figure skating results and make helpful suggestions where-ever possible.

I know the judges would read these suggestions in horror. You can’t expect ignorant peasants to understand the subtleties of figure-skating! And the judges would be right. Do you know the difference between a double-lutz and a double-axle? Me neither. But the public doesn’t know how ignorant they are right now. And they will know it even less the more you imply, with your actions, your secrecy, and your jealously guarded privileges, that you don’t give a damn about what anybody thinks, as long as you get your travel and accommodations and meals paid for.

Did Sale and Pelletier earn the gold medal? I think they probably did, but it’s not cut and dried. The Russians skated a powerful program, though they were clearly not as fluid and smooth as Sale and Pelletier were. The Russians say their skate was more difficult, but nobody can identify the particularities of this.

The real problem was that the actual skating at the competition didn’t seem to matter. The skaters, as in ice dancing, are locked into their positions early on and their free skates and long programs have almost no effect on their final position. The Americans certainly seemed to have skated better than the Chinese on their long program, but they moved nary a centimeter.

In ice dancing, Bourne and Kraatz will finish 4th, as usual.