Friday, March 30, 2007
Just an employee
Oh, Mark Prior.
You ignorant slut.
You moping crybaby.
You brittle twit.
The Cubs sent you to the minor leagues to begin the season, and you decided to raise a stink about it.
He's not pulling a Lance Briggs or anything, but he did make the decision to be completely passive-aggressive about his demotion. The key line in here is Prior saying that he's "just another employee." Actually, he's not. Because if Mark were just another employee, he probably would have been fired by now.
I'm not sure what he expected from his spring. He spent the few starts he made last year getting hammered, and then he shows up this year throwing 84 mph and posting a 6.97 ERA. He also had nine walks against six strikeouts. That's what No. 4 starters on Little League teams do.
He spoke of the "progress" he's made, which I think means he's now throwing 87-89. As everyone but him remembers, the good Mark Prior throws 94-95 and doesn't walk batters. This spring, he's walked a batter every 1.1 innings; in his dominant 2003 season, he walked a batter every 4.2 innings. The command isn't there, the velocity isn't there, and his curve ball isn't breaking.
What did he expect?
Enjoy Iowa, Mark. I hear Des Moines has some nice restaurants. I'd especially recommend the Denny's on Euclid. I hear their bacon is extra crispy, if not overdone.
You know, like your career.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
I speak, therefore it is done
As many of you know, Kobe Bryant has been incredible lately. Perhaps you've been sidetracked by thrilling 55-49 NCAA Tournament games where teams miss 55 open jumpers and it gets called "defense," but if you've been paying attention to the sporting world, you've seen Kobe has been lighting up scoreboards all over the NBA.
However, the love for everyone's favorite
The basis of her argument is three-fold:
1. Michael Jordan isn't necessarily a better person than Kobe, because MJ has done bad things too.
2. The league is better now than when Michael played.
3. Kobe is better as Michael.
Let's address these in order.
1. I don't know what this point has to do with anything, other than possibly making it easier for people to agree that Kobe is a better basketball player than Michael. Sorry, it still doesn't help me.
2. This. Is. Nuts. Completely insane. There are about four too many teams in the league right now, and the talent is completely watered down by 19 and 20-year old projects that teams have taken purely based on potential. When Michael played, guys like Tyrus Thomas were still in college, developing their skills and learning how to do things like move their feet and dribble the basketball without falling over. Now, the league is flooded with dozens and dozens of players who shouldn't be there. And Kobe has the opportunity to exploit and abuse them every single night. Michael wasn't able to do that nearly as frequently.
As for her point that athletes are faster and stronger now than when Michael played, it's all relative; Kobe is able to take advantage of the same training as everyone else.
3. This is something that afflicts sportswriters everywhere. They make a statement, and they then assume that since they have the power to put those words in print, it becomes true. But guess what? It doesn't work that way. You can't just say "Kobe is as good as Michael" and suddenly make it a fundamental truth. Also, Jemele loses all credibility when she says that Kobe is as good of a defender as Michael.
Let's look at some numbers. It'll be brief and painless, I promise.
Last season was Kobe's best year, at age 27. Per 40 minutes, he put up 34.6 points, 4.4 assists and 5.2 boards. Not bad, of course.
In Michael's age 27 season (not even his best year), he posted 40-minute rate stats of 34.0 points, 6.0 assists and 6.2 rebounds. He threw in THREE steals a game, to boot.
But here's where the glaring difference kicks in. Kobe shot 45 percent from the field. Michael (a guard, mind you) shot 54 percent from the field.
That's called efficiency, my friends. And that's why Kobe will never be as good as Michael. It doesn't matter how many points you score -- it's how they're scored. Even if you take away the clear advantages Jordan has in assists, rebounds and defense and boil it down to points, Kobe comes up short. If you let me stand out on an NBA floor and take enough shots, I could put up 50 points in a game. It might require me to take 115 shots, but I'd eventually get it done.
Now that I've used numbers and various kinds of logic to make my points, I will go ahead and make my decree: Kobe Bryant is not close to Michael Jordan. And he never will be.
Friday, March 23, 2007
A good luck post
I write about a lot of sports on here, but I've always focused on the professional, non-familial version of that. I'm going to change that for one day at least.
My brother is going to the state tennis tournament. And I'm pretty proud of the kid. His name is Alex, he's pictured above, and he's a junior in high school. He has a killer forehand and a super-consistent serve. He's also cat-like quick on the court. However, the backhand could probably use some work, if I'm being honest here.
His record on the year is 21-4, with two of those losses coming against his own teammates from Galesburg at the conference and sectional meets (the two teams played each other in the championship match -- a rare accomplishment). The other two losses were against powerhouse suburban teams from near Chicago.
It was always my goal in high school to make it to state, but I came up one win short in my senior year. Now I can live vicariously through Alex. That's something, right?
So, best of luck to Alex tomorrow morning when he faces off against Niles West.
Note: I would be going to state to watch, but I have contracted dysentery and can't make the trip.
Crossroads
JR is chastising me again. He says that I'll get my Internet license revoked if I let a third blog die, and he's probably right. It's hard to maintain a loyal readership of 3-8 people if you don't post regularly, so I appreciate everyone sticking with me.
The issue here is that I don't know what my blog should be. It doesn't need to be a pure Cubs blog (Hire Jim Essian and Desipio have that locked down). I don't watch enough television or movies to truly comment about that sort of thing. As for music tastes, I only listen to what Pitchfork tells me to like, so I don't need to talk about that.
Just kidding about that last part. I hope.
JR Radcliffe has his top-ten list niche, and that works well for him. Andrew Hershberger (still one of my favorite blogs) brings little recommendations to you to improve your life. I can't compete with that.
Should I write about the mundane details of my day-to-day existence? Do I just write about how much I hate Peter King and Bill Simmons? Do you want a journal of everything I eat for meals? What clothes I wear? Tips on how to dominate two fantasy sports, but hopelessly fail in football? Maybe lend some of my extensive knowledge of rutabaga gardening? Anyone want to write a collaborative blog? Should Flotsam be dug up from its grave?
That probably won't happen, by the way.
So I am asking you, loyal readers, to help. Tell me what to write. I will hang up now and listen for your answer.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Seeding perks
Apparently, the higher seeds at the NCAA Tournament receive better hotel accommodations. Who knew?Wednesday, March 14, 2007
I have an obsession
I should just re-name my blog "I hate Bill Simmons."I don't care if you're tired of hearing about it, but the fact that he's the world's most popular sports columnist drives me nuts.
Today, he writes 3,538 words to preview the NCAA Tournament, and doesn't offer a single piece of reasonable analysis during the entire article. He picks teams based on comments made by players to newspapers, the way their names sound and where he went to school. Oh, and of course, there's a few e-mails from his buddies. Did you know House is a Maryland fan? Great news. I wasn't aware.
Then, after all of that, he closes his column by saying that tomorrow we can expect his wife's picks.
This is the best that ESPN has to offer, apparently.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
So you're telling me there's a chance
Right now, the Bulls have a 0.8 percent chance of landing the top pick in the NBA Draft. That's not good. I spend most of my time rooting against the Knicks, who aren't playing well and are banged up right now. As it stands, they have the 11th-worst record in the NBA, and I could see it getting worse by a spot or two before the season is over.
That would get the Bulls up to a 3.55 percent chance. That's still not good.
So if the Bulls don't land a top-3 pick, they fall to whatever spot in the draft the Knicks would have been. We're likely looking at a slot in the 7-10 range. Since Oden and Durant will be long gone, who should I be rooting for the Bulls to take?
As you know, I've sworn off college basketball simply for the sake of contrarianism, so I need my college-hoops-following friends to tell me who might be available and who might be exciting. Keep in mind that the Bulls are almost certainly going to take a post player, preferably one who can score.
Who's worth looking at? Al Horford? Spencer Hawes? Roy Hibbert? I'm assuming Joakim Noah and Brandan Wright won't be available.
Lend me your insight, please.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Trainwreck of the week
Time for the first installment in my
But for now, the trainwreck is the ludicrous plot and story of this season of '24.' Oh, how far you have fallen, you pandering television drama.
24 was never realistic; it was never revolutionary. I never pretended otherwise. But it was fun to follow, and most episodes had you perched on the front of your chair at some point (tangent: the word "perch" always makes me think of a bird, which makes me think of "The Raven", which makes me think about Edgar Allen Poe, which makes me think about alcoholism, nevermore).
While I have followed this season rather intently, it's mostly because it's just a weekly habit. Last night's episode continued the plunge of the show into babbling, incoherent madness. We saw Jack take former president Charles Logan to the Russian consul's compound in Los Angeles because Logan thought the consul could help him find a Russian terrorist who had nuclear weapons. After Logan talked to this particularly intense Russian, he told Jack that the Russian was definitely lying. So Jack then took it upon himself to go back into the compound, in violation of every international law, and torture the consul until he got the information about the Russian terrorist who was working with the Arab terrorist, all of which is somehow coordinated by Jack's own father. In the process, Jack cut off one of the consul's fingers.
Meanwhile, the president of the United States lies in a hospital after nearly being killed by a bomb.
Got it?
Yeah, me neither.
Last season was a nice, simple plot. There was nerve gas in the hands of terrorists. They wanted to let the nerve gas out in public, and Jack was trying to stop them. The twist was that there was a government conspiracy and the president was involved. Beyond that, you just got to watch Jack run around a lot and yell. The show made you interested in Edgar, the Logans and Christopher Henderson. Hell, even Rudy/Samwise was interesting for the time he was on the show. Now we're just left with Jack and Chloe. Everyone else is bland and worthless (though I am glad to see Logan back this season).
This season, Jack does some of that characteristic running and yelling, but we also don't know who he's going after. Is it the Arabs? The Russians? His dad? The moles within the U.S. government? Where is Audrey? Why did they have to kill Curtis? Where did Jack get that suit he was wearing last night? I mean, you can't just find a well-fitting suit anywhere. Since when does Jack speak convincing enough Russian to fool one of the compound's guards? Why was I glad that Palmer was hit by a bomb? Are we officially past watching Palmer's sister have to do anything? Where is Jack's daughter?
When a show kills off pretty much every interesting character for pure shock value, it better be left with a compelling story and plot. There's still time for 24 to regain one in the last 12 hours of the show, but as Jack would say, damn it, Chloe, time is running out!