One liners

So...should we just start referring to PED's as Rocket Fuel?

If Tom Brady picks up at the beginning of the coming season where he left off at the end of 2007, what's the over/under for the first bionic man reference? Week three?

If Peyton Manning struggles, what will be blamed first? Age or the change in coaching staff?

If Brady struggles, what's the over/under on blaming him for coming back from rehab too quickly?

This year's Daisuke Matsuzaka has been more crumbling Dice than tumbling Dice. Take your time figuring it out, and get back when you can.

Is it just me, or are there a lot of morons out there complaining about the value for the dollar with the Dice-man. It's three seasons into a six season contract, and this is the only season that the Dice has come up craps, so to speak.

A Penny saved...if Brad Penny continues on pace, he will have a comparable year to his 2006 campaign with the Dodgers...adjusted for pitching in the batter's A-League of course. For what it's worth, I'll take 14 to 16 wins from my fourth starter.

Am I the only one hoping that Patrick Chung turns out to be a better pick than the last man the Pats drafted with that last name - Eugene Chung?

Should we call him Steroidin' Sammy now?

Yeah, I'd be peeved at Alex Rodriguez if I were Yankee management - fatigue from an operation and playing are one thing, but Jet-setter Lag?

Yup, sometimes it's the trade that didn't happen that determines the fate of a franchise. How about them Apples, NY?

Story lines

There are some interesting story lines developing around sports right now. Some short term, some long term. I wanted to look at some...

Short term...

The Orlando Magic are one blown alley-oop away from being up 2-1 in the finals. Can they actually come back from down 2-0, or are they just making the NBA finals interesting?

Can the Penguins actually go into Detroit and pull off the upset?

Longer term stories to watch...

At some point this season the Yankees are going to win a game against the Red Sox. It could be tonight, it might not be until the next series. But will the Yankees inability to beat the Sox early in the season come back to haunt them late in the season? And on the flip side, how much could this early dominance by Boston play into the team winning the division?

Is David Ortiz actually showing signs of breaking out of his slump? He's riding a seven game hitting streak, and has had hits in 9 of his last 12. Even though it's the only time this season that he's had a hitting streak last more than three games, he hasn't exactly been tearing the cover off the ball. He's had only one multi-hit game in that stretch, and is 10 for 48 (.208) - even if you just look at his seven game hitting streak, he's a respectable 8 for 29 (.276), not exactly tearing the cover off the ball, but better. Right now it's a more compelling story than the Red Sox trials and tribulations at short stop. Will he or won't he?

As bad as Ortiz has been at the plate, Chien-Ming Wang has been worse on the mound for the Yankees. How far can they expect to go with a completely ineffective (defective?) Wang. They're already keeping their fingers crossed that AJ Burnett and Joba Chamberlain can stay healthy, what is their future (this season) going to look like if they have to rely on an imminently hittable Phil Hughes? And how long can Andy Pettitte go, with batters hitting over .280 against him?

I can't help but think over on the gridiron that the Patrick Pass signing was more or less to add depth at the position for training camp. Does he have a shot at the team? Sure, but I would be surprised if he were on the roster on opening day. Honestly, I would be surprised if he made it to the final cuts. It should be interesting to watch.

Of course, there's always the question of Tom Brady's knee, and how he will respond in game situations. A lot of people are talking about early season issues due to shaking the rust off, and while possible, I think Brady will get the time and reps to do that during the preseason games. What people aren't talking about is how the Patriots' schedule might impact their high-octane offense.

After the bye week in 2007, on the team's way to the only 16-0 regular season, the Patriots played seven consecutive cold weather games, four of which were in Gillette, the rest of which were at the Meadowlands, at Buffalo, and at Baltimore. In the coming season, after the bye the Patriots will play nine games. Four games are at home - Miami on November 8, the Jets on November 22, Carolina on December 13, and Jacksonville on December 27. Of those, only the Jets game starts later than 1:00, and the Miami game is early enough in the season that the weather may or may not be a factor.

Of the other five games, one is in Buffalo, three are either in domes or stadiums with retractible roofs (Indy, New Orleans, and Houston), and the other is in Miami. With about half of their remaining games being played either indoors or in warm places, the Patriots offense has a chance to really light things up...assuming Brady is perfectly healthy.

Outside of New England, these are the things to watch -

The play calling of the new staff in Indianapolis. This is going to go a long way towards determining where the Colts end up this season. Will it be a seamless transition from last year? Do all the coaches have a good instinct for the right defense at the right time? Will they find they have the right people at the right positions?

Is Rex Ryan the right man for the job in New York, and are they really going to make any noise with their current quarterback situation?

Can Chad Pennington stay healthy for the entire season? Pennington has struggled his entire career to put together back to back healthy seasons. When healthy he's a top ten QB in the league - no, he doesn't rack up big statistics, but he's smart and doesn't turn the ball over a whole lot, and wins, even with sub-par talent. If Pennington can't stay healthy, the Dolphins have no chance. Healthy, they can still get to the playoffs.

How is the Buffalo soap opera going to play out? Sure, they managed to get an extra weapon in Terrell Owens, but he's paired with, easily, the worst quarterback of his career (after dealing with Jeff Garcia, Donovan McNabb, Drew Bledsoe, and Tony Romo), and they open the season without their star running back for three games. If the team starts off 0-3 or 1-2, what's the likelihood that Owens will hold his tongue? The Bills are on the verge of becoming the AFC East's Bengals, or Raiders.

Speaking of the Bengals, after admitting to the press that he mailed it in back in 2008, are there any teammates that are going to trust Chad Ochocinco?

How's Jay Cutler going to fare without any legitimate, top-flight receivers?

How are teams like Denver, Cleveland and Kansas going to fare under their new regimes?

Will Lance Armstrong be ready for the Tour de France coming off his injury?

Off-hand, those are just some of the ones I can think of. Should be a fun year.

The Dog Days and the NFC North

In recent years this series - Sawx-Yanks - in the dog days of August has meant a lot to the complexion of the American League East. It has played a part in determining the East Champ, and even the Wild Card contender. It's where the wheels came off of the Sawx in 2005.

It's where the Sawx gave Yankees hope for the division last season.

This year it's less about the division than who ends up out of the playoffs. Nothing is written in stone, and both the Yankees and Sox have looked a little cooked lately, while the Twins have surged recently. Granted, the Sox were looking a little cooked at the beginning of
September last season, dropping five of their six to the Yanks in August and September and look what happened there.

But let's face a few basic facts - a month ago the Sox were by themselves as the wild card entrant if the season ended then. Now the margin of the Twins is smaller than the space between the Sox and the division leading Rays - who have added games between the two teams in the last month. The Sox still have a chance to pull it off - even the division - but the team has to play better ball of the next month than they have for the last month.

Needless to say, it's gonna be one hairy September in the Hub of the Universe.

And onto the gridiron...

The NFC North - Something feels weird about this division. It's filled with teams that all have issues, fatal flaws if you will, in regards to their aspirations to a Lombardi Trophy. All have an issue at a key position - quarterback - and some have issues that go deeper.

4. Lions - They may actually have the best quarterback in the division in John Kitna (and this might be the first time in Kitna's career that has EVER been written about him), and based on last year, Rod Marinelly might finally have this team heading in the right direction. But let's face two basic facts: The Ford Family ownership of this team has been an unending nightmare, and Matt Millen's tenure as a GM has been record shattering, and not in a good way. No team in the history of the NFL has had as many consecutive seasons with double-digits in the loss column, and I have a hard time buying that he's learned to be better than any of his in-division counterparts. If the Lions finish ahead of another team in the division, I'm guessing it has less to do with the Lions elevating their level of play than it does with the other team spitting the bit. I have a hard time seeing this team improving on their 7-9 season of last year, and considering their schedule gets considerably tougher after the first three games of their season, I wouldn't be surprised if they regressed to four wins.

3. Bears - The carousel goes around and around at the signal caller position, and it looks like Kyle Orton is getting the call again. You'd think someone there could pick a pro-caliber QB, but alas, no. But the real killer for this team is that the D is not what it once was, and lacks depth. I'm guessing in the vicinity of 8-8.

2. Vikings - Despite the deficiencies of Tavaris Jackson, I think this team will compete for the division, and may even win the division, but that's going to depend on three things. One - Jackson has to keep from making the mistake that kills the team. Two - the health of Adrian Peterson. The young running back racked up some hard miles in his rookie year, and breaking down is a strong possibility, and if that happens this team will plummet in the standings. His ability to pound the ball last season made the Minnesota defense better by keeping them rested. If he's not touching the ball, they pay. Three - the health of Aaron Rogers.

1. Packers - The Packers won 13 games last season and were a few plays away from the Super Bowl. Their only major change was at quarterback. Rogers has been in the system for three seasons already, has been solid in preseason, and was better against the Cowboys last season than Brett Favre. If Rogers stays healthy, the Pack wins the division, albeit not by much. Last year they were five games better than the 8-8 Vikings. This season they're maybe two games better, and maybe not even that.

Live from the Outer Banks, iiiiiittttt'sss the Aaaaannnngry Fan

So, I've been in Corolla, NC, for the last week (I'm still there as I type this on the porch of the beach house the family has rented). It's been a little difficult to give a rat's ass about a whole lot going on when I've been sitting in breezy low 80 degree temperatures. It has also been kind of hard to focus with my two daughters and four nieces tearing around the house like miniature banshees. So I have largely been spending days at the beach cranking through Dennis Lehane novels.

Some quick thoughts and then my pre-season take on the NFC West...

Is it just me, or has there been a domino effect on the bullpen every time Clay Buchholz has pitched lately? He struggles, they go to the pen, and they struggle. It's almost as though they're taking their cue from whoever the starter is and if the starter sucks it up, so too does the pen. I haven't looked closely to see if this is true, but it certainly feels like this is what's been happening lately. It's probably for the best that Buchholz was sent back down.

If the Sox can't come up with a viable replacement for Buchholz, a guy who can go at least .500 in his place, the Sox are going to lose out on the division, and likely the playoffs, as the AL Central looks like it has a pretty strong chance of sending two teams to the big dance.

Carl Pavano is expected to start for the Yankees on Saturday. Stick a fork in 'em. Right now this is their rotation -

Mike Mussina
Carl Pavano
Darrell Rasner
Andy Pettitte
Sid Ponson

That's not only not a championship rotation, it's a rotation that's barely average. Only one of the starters gives up fewer than four runs per nine innings pitched, and that's Mike Mussina. Not exactly known for coming up big in the late season pressure games (sure, he hasn't been awful in the post-season, but 7-8 with a 3.42 ERA is hardly dominating, or impressive).

Now onto the West...

This is a hard one to call because, like the AFC West, the NFC West is rife with mediocre and bad teams. It's hard to ascribe any separation between the Rams and the 49ers, as well as the Cardinals and the Seahawks. The two duos definitively make up the top and the bottom of a bad division. One of the teams might surprise, it's always possible, but this is how I see it...

4. 49ers - I think this is a team going backwards. They appear to lack a true NFL quality quarterback, instead having three guys that would be back-ups on other teams. Frank Gore is solid at running back, but the passing game and the defense are suspect. I have a hard time seeing this team improve on the five wins of a year ago, and suspect that they could slip to a four win season easily.

3. Rams - Like San Fran, I'm not convinced of this team's improvement. However, with contests against the rival 49ers (twice), the Jets, Dolphins, Falcons, and Bills, there's a chance this team could eke out five or six wins, although, I suspect at least one loss to the Niners, and possible losses to the Jets and Bills. I wouldn't be surprised by three wins, but I would be by any more than six.

2. Seahawks - I haven't been thrilled by this team's personnel moves since the Super Bowl loss to the Steelers. I think they overpaid for Deion Branch, an oft-injured, undersized receiver who got it into his head, and into the Seahawks' heads that he was better than really is. They let one of the better offensive linemen on the team walk away. They signed TJ Duckett, who I feel has never quite lived up to what little hype has surrounded him. The only signing I liked was Julius Jones. While they are clearly one of the most consistent teams in the NFC, I believe time has chipped away at their hold on the division and that they may be in danger of missing the post-season this year. All that said, I'm looking at nine wins, maybe ten for this team.

1. Cardinals - I'm buying into the hype. The last time I did, I got burned, but I'm going to ride with it again. Knowing the history of this team, they could easily wind up at the bottom of the division, but I think they're poised for a playoff run. They have a young, high-octane offense in place that has shown signs of life the last two seasons. With the offensive weapons in place, the Arizona brain trust has concentrated on their defensive shortcomings, and the buzz out of the desert is that the D could be pretty good this year. If that happens, this could be a team that makes some noise. They'll have their work cut out for them with all the teams from the East on their schedule, but I can see them stealing one here and there to fight their way to around ten wins.

Cassels made of sand

I won't get to see last night's pre-season match-up between the Patriots and Ravens until Saturday, but I think I can safely say that Matt Cassel needs to play better than he did to remain on the roster. Cassel completed two of four passes for eleven yards. Unfortunately, one of those completions was to the Ravens.

In fact, without Brady playing, Pats signal-callers tossed three int's to no touch downs.

Cassel, in the last year of his contract, will need to perform better in the subsequent exhibition matches to find himself on the Pats roster - or possibly any other roster come the regular season opener.

On an encouraging note - the Pats got a big play from their connection to the roots of the NFL - rookie linebacker Shawn Crable, a third round pick, had three tackles, an assist, half a sack and an interception.

Crable, a six-foot-five, 245-pound alum of Tom Brady's alma mater, was born and raised in Massillon, OH. For those who don't know, Massillon was home to the Massillon Tigers, a football team that folded in 1920. The Tigers won the Ohio Independent Championship (the pro championship) for three consecutive years, from 1904 to 1906 - beating the Canton Bulldogs in the '06 title game. In October of 1906, Canton is the first team credited with completing a forward pass under a rule change for the '06 season.

Other sand castles...

The Jets feel they have added the final component to becoming a contender with Brett Favre. This followed an off-season during which they over-hauled their offensive line, adding Alan Faneca (32 years old) at left guard and Damien Woody (31) at right tackle. The 32-year old Faneca will be wedged between D'Brickshaw Ferguson at left tackle and Nick Mangold at center. While that improves the left side of the line, Faneca was largely manhandled by Patriots linemen in the last couple of Steelers-Patriots meetings, and, at 32, there's very likely not much left in his tank (yes, Faneca was first team all-pro last year, but he also had better people around him than he will in the Meadowlands).

As for Woody, their answer to stopping people on that side is a career interior lineman with a weight problem and slow feet. 'Nuff said.

All in all, the Jets should be better, but this isn't an offensive line that anyone is going to worry about until they show they can really manhandle their opponents.

As for Manny...I would be a lot more interested in Major League Baseball's announced investigation into Manny Ramirez and Scott Boras if I believed that anything could really come of it. I appreciate that Bud Selig feels it should be investigated. I believe discipline should be in order, but, despite some of the Union's recent losses in the court of public opinion and in the halls of the Nation's law makers, I don't think that MLB will be able to make anything stick in regards to Manny. They might be able to sanction Scott Boras, but that's where that discipline will end.

In Da Bronx the starting rotation is quickly unraveling. Joba Chamberlain will miss at least two more starts, and possibly more (some rumors floating out there say that even when he gets back, it might be straight to the bullpen), and now word is that Andy Pettitte might miss a start with stiffness in his pitching arm. None of this should be a surprise given - Chamberlain was rushed into the rotation, almost never throwing in excess of 30 pitches per outing in the last season and a half, and then, within four starts throwing at least 100 pitches, and averaging more than that per start since then.

As for Pettitte. I guess it's harder to be as effective as he was in Houston now that he's off the juice.

With the Yankees rotation crumbling, it will take a miracle for the Bommahs to make the post-season. It's not unrealistic - just very, very unlikely.

For the fans

I used to watch the All-Star game.

I still remember back in the late 1980's when Dwight Evans made his last one. Late in a close game, Evans was in right with speedster Tim Raines on third. Evans charged hard on a sinking liner as Raines cheated up the line, waiting for his chance to break on the ball. The rock hit the ground about a step in front of Evans and Raines broke. Dewey played the ball cleanly and fired, as he did many a time from Fenway's eastern-most lawns, a heat seeking laser.

Raines stopped after two steps, and walked back to third, watching the throw.

He knew.

I remember actually being excited about the All-Star game. Watching people at or close to the top of their game. Sure, there was the occasional player who really didn't belong. But most of the time these were the guys.

Then, somewhere along the way the players stopped taking it seriously and baseball worried about their cash cow - a meaningless game intended to maximize viewership and minimize other real costs associated with the 162 game drag of a season. They wanted us to believe that it was about the fans, want us to still believe - that tickets to an event with no real impact and stars appearing for an inning or two at a time selling for hundreds of dollars is about us and not their bottom line. That a voting process that doesn't allow for the best shortstop this year to be starting, or a catcher batting under .220 is a good thing for the game.

It's not.

It's not a good thing for the game, and it's not about anything other than the corporation that is Major League Baseball finding another way to line their pockets.

I, for one, would be happy to see the MLB All-Star game go, as well as the NFL's Pro-Bowl. Just do the all-pro lists, keep the fan voting away from it and call it good. Just stop telling me that this annual ritual in money grubbing and the fans, as it is only the soft-minded fan that really believes this game is about him or her and not about lining the corporate pockets.

Before I sign off for the evening, I would like to note that I was going to touch on the Brett Favre cluster-fuck, but I think that no one out there has addressed this better than Paul Zimmerman at si.com.

Mass-destruction and a fond farewell

The last time any region has experienced a decade with as much dominance over the professional sports scene was probably in the 1960's when Massachusetts saw titles in the NBA practically every year, closed out the decade (1969-70 season) with a Stanley Cup, and sent the Sox to the 1967 World Series and the Patriots to the 1963 AFL Championship (both lost).

From 1961 until 1970 the city was home to nine titles in the big four of professional sports...of course eight of those came from the Celtics.

With the '08 baseball season in front of us still, we're looking at three more seasons before the end of the decade (starting from '01) and Boston already has six titles spread over three sports.

While there were more titles in the 1960's, by virtue of where the titles have come from - the Patriots (3), the Red Sox (2), and the Celtics (1) - and how much of it happened.

Consider - since 2001 the Patriots finally rose to prominence, becoming the most dominant football team of the decade, winning three Super Bowls, appearing in a fourth, and amassing the two longest regular season winning streaks in league history including the only undefeated 16-game regular season.

Move into baseball and you have the Red Sox who have swept their National League counterpart in the World Series twice - the first of the Championships after turning the table on the arch-rival Yankees. En route to delivering their first Series Title since 1918, the Sox became the first team to ever overcome an 0-3 deficit in the ALCS and had a hand in dealing the worst meltdown in the history of the post-season to their rivals. It was a thing of beauty. Add to all that the fact that the Sox are the only team to win two since 2001 and the Yankees are 0-2, it's only icing for the members of Red Sox Nation.

That brings us to the Celtics.

For the better part of the decade the Celtics have been awful. I mean, brutally bad. Not Knicks bad - they weren't carrying either the payroll nor the highly touted talent - but they were scraping the bottom.

In delivering this year's Championship, the team was part of the NBA's biggest turn around ever, extended their league leading number of championship banners to 17, and prevented Phil Jackson from passing Red Auerbach as the coach with the most Championships. Putting together this season's edition, Danny Ainge positioned the team to compete for the rest of the decade.

On the periphery, taking the place of previous Boston area teams that got to the Big Dance, but not able to seal the deal has been the New England Revolution. The Revs have been the runners up to the MLS Cup four times ('02, '05, '06, and '07).

Of the six major league sports now represented in Boston (including the Major League Lacrosse Boston Cannons), New England/Boston has made appearances in the finals of five of the leagues, missing out on only hockey. The Cannons lost by two goals in the 2004 championship game.

In the combined seven seasons since the inception of the 2001 seasons there have been 41 potential titles (hockey missed one due to labor strife). The teams from the Boston Bay area has had teams compete for 12 of those (29.3 percent) and won close to 15 percent of the titles.

By any account, those are impressive numbers.

Speaking of impressive numbers and the post season...

While he hasn't officially announced retirement, Curt Schilling is done. His shoulder is cooked.

It's been a fun ride while it's lasted. I haven't always agreed with Schill's opinions - but as someone who makes his scratch as a reporter, I can tell you, he's a reporter's dream. An absolute quote machine and a clutch performer.

He's the sort of person that I think I would not get along with in a personal relationship - but he'll always get a pass for bringing Boston their first World Series title since Babe Ruth was on the team.

I wish him well recovering from his shoulder surgeries and in whatever his subsequent career is.

Credibility and other things on my mind...

"I’ve never seen a game like that in all these years I’ve coached in The Finals"

-Phil Jackson on game two of the Finals when the Celtics went to the foul line by an almost 4 to 1 margin.

The same Phil Jackson whose Laker team benefited from a 28 to 10 margin in the fourth quarter of a semi-finals game against the Kings to get to a game 7. The same game that disgraced official Tim Donaghy implied was fixed to give the Lakers the win in order to get the team to game 7.

The same Phil Jackson whose Laker team, earlier in the playoffs, went to the line 43 times against the Jazz's 16.

Of course Jackson was going to point out the free-throw disparity, because the actual proportion of fouls called in that game - 4-3 (28 on L.A., 21 on Boston - which, of course, is more an indictment of the Lakers' play in that game than the officiating).

Game 3...

The third game is not a game that should have given the Lakers a lot of confidence. Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett played poorly and the Lakers could only win by six, and they couldn't score 90 on their home floor against Boston.

At this point, I'm thinking the C's win in six, giving the Boston faithful something to celebrate on the parquet.

The Fix is in...

For years pundits and fans alike have speculated that the fix may very well be in when it comes to the post-season in the NBA. Now it seems as though most of those pundits are very quick to come to the NBA's defense in regards to Tim Donaghy's allegations about fixing games.

Of course, this is also the same press that was quick to dismiss Jose Canseco's allegations of steroid use in Major League Baseball, in spite of the fact that others before him - including the late Ken Caminiti, a former MVP and steroid user - had already made the same claims.

Personally, I think Donaghy is on the level regarding this. Or at the very least, he believes he is on the level.

Let's consider two very important facts in regards to that particular year -

First - a game seven would generate significant additional revenue for the league and give the Lakers an extra shot at getting to the finals.

Second - what team is going to garner the most viewers? The Kings or the Lakers? As such, which team is going to generate the most advertising revenue?

Circumstantially, the evidence really does favor Donaghy, and not just in this instance.

Anyone else waiting to hear Arlen Specter crying foul? I mean, this isn't a team trying to break the rules - this is a league trying to fix games, if what Donaghy says has even an iota of truth.

This requires an independent investigation far more than any issues the NFL is currently facing.

Here's one final NBA thought to leave everyone with - How, exactly, did David Stern turn the league around? Adding games in the playoffs?

Dontrelle Willis...

Am I the only one that saw this one coming?

Willis, often billed as the second coming of Lefty Grove, has had only one ace-like season under his belt when he went 22-10 with a 2.63 ERA en route to the World Series. Only once has he won more than 14 games. His ERA has increased by one run or more in each of the last three seasons.

This season Willis is no longer in the hitters' B-league and only twice has lasted more than two innings and only once as long as five. In five appearances he has averaged two innings per appearance and is giving up over ten runs per nine innings.

Okay, this is worse than what I thought, but I didn't think the Willis trade and signing was that great a move by Detroit.

Things I think about this weekend

• I think the finals are designed in such a way as to minimize the impact of home-court in the NBA. With three straight games coming up in Los Angeles, and the way the Celtics have played on the road, the Lakers still worry me. I think for the Celtics to win this thing they absolutely, positively need to take one in LA, and I think it needs to be one of the first two games they play against the Lakers, because I'm not convinced that they will be able to take the third if they drop two in a row.

• I think the Celtics lack the ability to stick the dagger in a team when they have it dead to rights. I think that was obvious when they nearly coughed up a 24-point lead, and over 40 points in fourth quarter to the Lakers in game two.

• I think that the Celtics tend to go away from what gave them their lead when they get one.

• I think with a 3-0 record and a 2.59 ERA (only one start in which he gave up more than one run) in four major league starts, the Red Sox are going to have a hard time justifying sending Justin Masterson back to AAA when Clay Buchholz gets healthy.

• I think it's amazing that people were positive that a horse with a cracked hoof had a shot at the triple crown. And that they were surprised when Big Brown didn't run well.

• I think Cedric Benson's an idiot. After being picked up for drunk driving this past weekend, he has lost the benefit of the doubt in relation to the incident last month on the boat. wherein police claim Benson was boating drunk.

• I think the Red Sox need to learn how to be the same team on the road as they are at home...or even half that team. Currently when they're on the road they're...well, they're the Baltimore Orioles.

• I think the more we see of him, the more everyone will realize that Jeremy Shockey is one of those supremely talented me-first guys who causes a team more harm then good with his selfishness. I still firmly believe that the Giants don't even make the Super Bowl, let alone win it, with a healthy Shockey.

• And one final note - I think the three most important people in the Celtics' win were Paul Pierce who has been the best player on the court in the first two games, Rajon Rondo who has been finding the open man seemingly every time he has touched the ball, and Leon Powe who played less than 15 minutes and scored 21 points.
  

Political personal foul

There's always a lot of controversy regarding sports and politics. It's coming up a lot right now in relation to the Olympics.

There is a certain faction that feels that the Games should just be about the athletes, and that the Olympics is not the venue for politics and political protest.

Unfortunately, that should be the case in sports as a whole, but let's face it...politics and sport have always been intertwined, and not just in as much as the Kennedy family's joy in playing touch football on the East Lawn.

Whether meant to be or not, Jackie Robinson's rookie year in Major League Baseball was as much political statement as it was an opportunity for a talented ball-player.

In 1965 the American Football League pulled their All-Star Game out of New Orleans when the black players were treated poorly by local businesses, including the hotels in the Crescent City.

The NFL had to make decisions on whether to play their scheduled slate on Sundays based on national tragedies - the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They have made security decisions based on the invasion of Iraq in 1990. They have combined teams (The Eagles and Steelers in the 1940's) to keep the league playing games at a time of war.

All of these decisions were influenced by the politics of the times.

There was even, in the NFL, a controversy in hair in the late 1960's when Joe Namath came into the league. He represented young, rebellious America during a time of civil unrest in America, while Baltimore's Johnny Unitas represented the old guard.

But the Olympics are different.

The Olympics have always been political because governments have always been involved. Governments sponsor teams, they compete to host the event, and even when watched, it is about us against them. It's about which country can win the most. It is not about, what the Olympic Committee wants you to believe, some higher ideal of competition or cooperation.

The so-called Olympic ideal is a myth. It's not about a level playing field and the best athletes in the world. Were it about a higher ideal, no country would be awarded the games. We all engage in human rights violations - China (Tibet), the United States (Guantanamo Bay, and, historically, civil rights issues with just about every minority in this country...the most glaring in the last century being the last time we engaged in internment camps for the Japanese, not unlike Gitmo for the Muslims, during World War II), England (over the last 40 years in Northern Ireland), and the list goes on.

It has always been about politics, whether world, national, or individual.

Just a sampling of what the history of the Olympic games has indeed been in the regards to politics...

In 1916 the Olympics, to be held in Berlin, Germany, were canceled due to World War I. Twenty years later Berlin hosted the Olympics again, Adolf Hitler seeing the event as an opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of the Aryan race...to further his political agenda in the world arena.

At Mexico City in 1968 two American sprinters were expelled from the games for, as the IOC stated, "The basic principle of the Olympic Games is that politics plays no part whatsoever in them. U.S. athletes violated this universally accepted principle . . . to advertise domestic political views." The two runners, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, were expelled for demonstrating their support for the Civil Rights movement in the United States by giving the Black Power salute during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner at the time of the awards ceremony.

In 1972 there were the terrorist attacks in Munich, killing members of the Israeli team.

In 1980 the US boycotted the Moscow Olympics in reaction to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. More than 60 other countries followed suit.

In 1984 the Soviets boycotted the Los Angeles games, claiming that the US was politicizing the games, stirring up anti-Soviet propaganda and sentiment, and that the US was being cavalier in their attitudes towards providing adequate security for the Soviet athletes. In the US response to the Soviet accusations, the US spokesman took another opportunity to attack the Soviets for the invasion of Afghanistan. Practically all the Eastern Bloc countries followed suit.

There were other years that the Olympics were marred by some form of political statement, boycott, or other political issue affecting attendance or scheduling. This is just a sample, a notation that the idea that the two are separate or should be expected to be separate is ridiculous.

Should it be? Yes. The athletes who train their whole lives for these games should not have their opportunity destroyed by political issues, but don't expect it to ever be that way.

On a side note...

This is from New York Newsday about Isiah Thomas' new roll with the Kickerbockers...

Isiah no longer full-time. Walsh didn't say the reassigned Isiah Thomas was forbidden to have contact with the players next season, but it certainly sounded as if Thomas' new role involves being completely invisible. "He's not coming in every day like he used to," Walsh said, "but he is there as a resource for me."

Is it just me, or has Donnie Walsh turned Isiah Thomas into Milton Waddams from Office Space? It's just a matter of time before he's sitting at a desk in some broom closet in Madison Square Garden with a can of bug spray and his paychecks cut off.

Weekend discoveries

Things I learned this past weekend...

One - It's early yet, but the Yankees pitching looks about how I expected - not much beyond Chien-Ming Wang. Phil Hughes was battered for six earned runs in two innings and Mike Mussina's outing doesn't even qualify as a quality start (defined as six innings completed with no more then three earned runs allowed), completing five and two-thirds while giving up four earned runs.

The irony of the weekend is that the Red Sox turned in two quality starts for the weekend series, but won only one of them - Josh Beckett's start on Saturday night.

Two - The Yankees' issues go far beyond starting pitching.

I know the Sox have more speed on the base paths than they used to, but when has anyone ever heard of the Red Sox stealing six bases? SIX?! Ten, fifteen years ago that would have been the team's total for the first two months of the season, and they did it in one game.

If the Yankees don't shore up the catching, the team could be cooked early.

Three - Boy...the Detroit Tigers are a special sort of bad right now. With the second worst batting average (.235), and the worst ERA (5.94), Detroit has put together a grand total of two wins through the first 12 games. The next worst team, the Washington Nationals, has still managed at least four wins.

Considering no team that has started 0-7 in the history of baseball (the Tigers started 0-7) has even made the post-season, it might just be time to start thinking about next year in Mo-Town.

Four - I'm always trying to introduce my daughter to women's sports and female athletes in an effort to give her healthy female roll models in athletics to look up to. To that end I watched yesterday's broadcast of one of the big gymnastics tournaments.

We had the opportunity to be introduced to Nastia Liukin, a 19-year old Olympic hopeful.

Liukin might be the most impressive gymnast I have seen since Mary-Lou Retton. If she doesn't garner multiple gold in the games in Beijing, I'll be shocked.

Five - I often forget about athletes that aren't involved in what we consider sports. My wife sent me this youtube video of The Great Chinese State Circus. This might be some of the most incredible athletic stunts I've ever seen performed...

Wrapping up the weekend...

The Red Sox finished up an absolutely brutal road trip in brutal fashion. After a solid showing, taking three of four from the Athletics, the Sox got their hats handed to them by the Blue Jays, getting swept in a three game set at the Rogers Center in Toronto.

In dropping their first three of the 2008 season to Toronto, there was little good that the Sox did. In three games the Sox had nearly half as many errors as they did runs - four errors and nine total runs. The team batted .220 north of the border with the heart of the line-up - David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, and Mike Lowell - batting a combined .206 (7 for 34) with two RBI's. Pair that against the fact that the Jays scored 23 runs, with 22 earned, it becomes obvious that this was a whole team breakdown - the Sox sputtered on offense, defense, and with their pitching.

Hopefully it's just a case of jet lag from covering Japan, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Toronto in the last two weeks.

Hair today...

The NFL owners mulled over a proposition regarding penalties for hair that obscures the nameplates of player jerseys. I don't care one way or the other that a player wants to grow his hair long - he just needs to understand that if the locks are long, then they're fair game for tackling.

But beyond that, there has been rumbling from certain quarters that this idea might be racially motivated.

The irony, of course, is that the idea came from Chiefs coach Herm Edwards, an African-American.

The moral - before people begin yelling that this is just another case of the white aristocracy trying to keep the black man in his place, maybe, just maybe they should check the actual source.

I'm not saying that things don't happen for racist reasons. Things like that happen all the time, and vigilance is required. All I'm saying is that people need to make sure they know where an idea comes from before they begin claiming that it's another case of white ownership trying to control the black players.

Three down and Celtic Pride...

Celtic pride...there's a term I haven't heard in a while. But the team has earned it.

Maybe at not time more so than this weekend.

On Friday night the Celtics added to team legend by accomplishing the greatest single-season turn-around in the history of the NBA when they won their 61st game of the season. With six games still left on the schedule, the team has already won 37 more games than they did last season.

On Friday they did it without their new Big Three, without Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, or Kevin Garnett. What's more, it was never close.

The names leading the charge? A veritable "Who's that" of the NBA. With names like James Posey (19 points), Leon Powe (22 points, 9 rebounds, 2 steals), and Eddie House (16 points, 2 rebounds, 1 steal), the casual basketball fan is going to look at this line-up and wonder how this team destroyed a Charlotte team that features Emeka Okafor and Earl Boykins by 23 points.

And going into the season the weakness of this team, said analysts, would be the bench.

So much for conventional wisdom.

East Coast Bias

There is, quite often, an accusation leveled at the national sports press of an East Coast bias in the corps' reporting.

There is probably some truth to favoritism of the East Coast teams, not because of proximity to the New York offices of Sports Illustrated, or the Connecticut offices of ESPN, but because the teams on top of the pile draw the most attention. East Coast teams in the major team sports, except for basketball, have won or represented more than half of all championship contenders for an extended period of time.

Starting from the low end of the totem pole, over the last 14 seasons in the NHL the East Coast has been represented in 12 of the 28 potential contestants for the Stanley Cup. Teams from states that abut the Atlantic (in the US) have represented six of the sport's winners. Those totals go up when eastern Canada is in the mix.

Since the Bills started their run of four straight appearances in the Super Bowl there have been 34 teams that have vied for the Lombardi trophy. Twenty teams from the states on the Eastern Seaboard have been among the 34 fighting to raise the silver trophy each January or February and nine of the winners have been from the East.

Since 1994 in Major League Baseball 14 of the 26 teams that have made it to the 13 World Series held over that span. Nine of the winners have been from the East.

Out of the 44 pro championships noted above, 24 have had a champion from the East - 54.5 percent of all the winners. Forty-six of the 88 contestants have come from the East accounting for 52.3 percent of the teams represented in the games. The teams have won at a rate of 52.2 percent.

In recent years divisions like the NFC West and the NL West have cycled into down periods, sometimes producing division champions that barely breaking a .500 winning percentage.

A simple rule in sports has always been that winning garners attention. The more you win, the more attention you get. It is why great players on bad teams have difficulties with Hall of Fame recognition.

There are players and teams off the East Coast deserving of attention, but until the winning percentage swings the other way, the focus is going to stay on the old powers like New York and Boston.

The quick and the dead...

There's a lot to be said about setting up a salary cap structure for Major League Baseball.

Even with one in football, there's a lot of dead money under the caps of a lot of teams. Sometimes it's because of players no longer on rosters, sometimes you can consider the money dead even with the player on the roster.

The San Francisco 49ers project to have $3.64 million in dead money under their cap next season.

Those are players no longer on their roster.

The Patriots will consistently put players on IR for the season, starting at the end of training camp. That's money that counts against their cap, not counted as dead, but it may as well be.

Then there are those players who just take up space on rosters. Usually they don't stick around
and the dead money hit on an NFL team is minimal.

Baseball is different.

In MLB there are players that just don't live up to their contract, sometimes receiving contracts they haven't earned. Other times demonstrating the requisite talent, however, fail to stay on the field due to injury issues or a lack of toughness.

JD Drew will come to the mind of Red Sox fans - a player who received a fat contract from the Sox who essentially were in a bidding war with themselves for his services.

While the owners need to be protected from themselves. Fans need to be protected from the owners. Teams like the Marlins should not be allowed to spend fewer dollars than they receive from their cut of the Yankees luxury tax.

Teams and fans of teams that aren't the Red Sox or Yankees whine about the spending of those teams, but the Orioles are carrying $11 million in dead money into this season over one player. Just before the season started, the team cut oft injured outfielder Jay Gibbons. While it's admirable that the team would cut its losses with a player that has a hard time staying on the field, it should be noted that they evidently feel they can eat an $11 million salary without a problem.

If that's the case, then why can't they spend in a way that keeps them in the neighborhood of their division rivals?

Honestly, other teams have proven it's not the spending itself, but how you spend.

That said - what about the ridiculousness that the Brewers engaged in during this off-season...

Gagne, baby Gagne...

After a season during which Eric Gagne, once the premier closer in the majors, blew a number of hold for the Red Sox down the stretch, the Milwaukee Brewers signed Gagne to a one-year $10 million contract. This signing happened before the Mitchell Report essentially said that his couple of years of domination came out of a syringe.

On opening day Gagne blew the save in a 3-0 game, getting smoked on a three run shot by a rookie. Gagne later got the win, but showed nothing to merit the Brewers' $10 million worth of faith in him.

If Gagne doesn't break, at the very least, the 20 save margin,or a combined 30 saves and holds, that's just more dead money on a major league roster.

The people that look at contracts like this and don't think it's time for a salary cap should go get professional help. Lord knows, if I'm a fan of a team like a Kansas City or a Milwaukee that decides to go out and make a big splash in free agency by signing someone like Gagne, and then hearing the party line that my team can't compete with the big-markets...well, I'm just gonna be really pissed.

The error cost them the game, and other observations

A [satellite] dish best served up cold...

This morning I woke up and turned on the television with the expectation that I would be getting the Red Sox season opener live from the Tokyo Dome on ESPN2. For those without DirecTV, that's channel 209 on my dial, direct from what my receiver calls satellite 2.

Rather than the game, I was receiving a message that I was not receiving signal from that particular satellite.

At first I thought the issue might have been my recent attempt to upgrade to HD and the replacement of my dish...that is until I began receiving a placard with the following message on all the affected channels...

"No need to call us. We are aware this TV station is temporarily unavailable. We'll have this channel back as soon as possible. Sorry for the interruption."

Based on that message I could only conclude that there has been some sort of technical glitch at DirecTV's end of things. With the satellite that carried Major League Baseball's inaugural game of the 2008 season. Someone somewhere screwed the pooch on this one.

The future is now

The opening day line-up for the Red Sox included four starters (not including the pitching) that were under the age of 30, three of which had a year or less service time at the major league level. Including the starter and relievers, the Sox had eight players that were either under the age of 30, or with a year or less service time appear in the game - Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, Brandon Moss, Jacoby Ellsbury, Coco Crisp, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Hideki Okajima, and Jonathan Papelbon.

While the speculation is that Crisp isn't long for the Red Sox, the tandem of Moss and Ellsbury could be a glimpse of the future of the Boston outfield.

For all the fanfare that has followed Ellsbury into the season after bursting on the scene with a memorable post-season, Moss was the hero in the opener. On a day when David Ortiz and Jason Varitek combined to go 0 for 8, and after the bullpen blew a one run lead, Moss led the way. Down to their final two outs, Moss launched a solo home-run to tie the game and send it into extra innings.

With JD Drew signed for the next couple of years, and Manny Ramirez's contract coming due, is it possible that the future of the outfield is Moss, Ellsbury, and Drew?

Guts and glory...

Okajima, the old-timer of the players entering only their second season (he's 32), struggled in the opener. The set-up man got the win while throwing 19 pitches, giving up no runs on no hits. However, he walked one and nine of his pitches were balls. Those 19 pitches garnered three outs and the win.

To put that into perspective, in last season's ALCS, Okajima had a 1 2/3 inning appearance, getting five outs on 18 pitches.

Bad pitchers give up the ghost when they don't have their A-game. Good pitchers find a way to win when they don't have their best stuff. Oki didn't have his best stuff, but still did his job.

That's the early season for you...still working out the kinks.

Land of the Rising Sun

It is a great public relations gimmick.

Send at least one of the league's premier teams from the previous season overseas, or to another country on the same continent to help cultivate the game in a country that's already baseball crazy.

It will be the fifth time since 1999 that Major League Baseball will start its season on foreign soil. In 1999 it was the the 1998 pennant winning Padres taking on the Rockies in Monterrey, Mexico. In 2000 the 1999 NL wild-card Mets, winners of 97 games, played the bottom of the NL Central barrel Cubs in Tokyo. Four years later, the capital of Nippon hosted the AL Champion Yankees against the bottom feeding Devil Rays. In 2001 it was the bottom scrubbing Rangers playing a Blue Jays team that missed the AL East title by a mere four and a half games.

This season it's the World Champion Red Sox opening against an Athletics squad that finished only a game out of last place in the AL West and 20 wins behind the Red Sox. Not exactly a marquee match-up.

But this is less about the match-up than about the impact of opening in a different country.

What does it really mean? Is it difficult for the team's involved to recover from the requisite travel? Or is the impact dependent on the team make-up, the manager, and any number of other factors? The numbers are less than telling.

The Yankees in 2004 got off to a horrible start, struggling in April and May, but recovered to win 101 games.

On the other hand are the 1999 Padres, just a season earlier with 98 wins and an appearance in the World Series, dropped to fourth place and 74 wins when starting the season in Mexico. Their opponents, the Rockies dropped from 77 to 72 wins.

In 2000 the Cubs slipped by two games from 67 to 65 wins, while the Mets still qualified for the wild card with 94 wins, down from their 1999 total of 97 after taking their first at-bats of the season in Tokyo. That same year the Rangers and Blue Jays won 71 and 83 games respectively. The following season, kicking off the season in (I know, technically American soil) Puerto Rico, those Rangers and Jays finished 2001 with 73 and 80 games respectively. An increase for the Rangers, but a drop-off for the Jays.

In 2004 the Yankees matched their previous season's win total, while the Rays increased their win total from 63 to 70 after starting it all in Tokyo.

Eight teams, a variety of results. Nothing telling. One team broke even. Two teams increased their win total by an average of 4.5 games, and five teams slipped a combined total of 37 games. Realistically, the Padres skew that number with a 24 game drop-off. Sixty-two-and-a-half percent of the teams experienced a drop in performance reflected in their win-loss record. The average drop, not including the Padres, is 3.25 games per team.

Assuming this is actually indicative of this season's performance, there's a 62.5 percent chance that the Sox will drop to 93 wins from last season's 96-win showing. Last year that would have put the team a game behind the Yankees in the final standings, and given the Red Sox the wild card.

What any statistician will tell you is that eight teams, eight results in over a century's worth of seasons is not a sampling that is indicative of anything.

Hope Springs eternal

Spring.

It's a time of renewal, a time for new hope. It's when fans of the Cubs and Indians say things like, "this is the year. This year the [insert team name here] are gonna win it all."

On the surface, it might seem a little ridiculous. There are twelve franchises in Major League Baseball that haven't won a World Series for at least 25 years (some of the teams haven't won since their inception as long ago as 1961...the Texas Rangers/Washington Senators). For Cleveland it's been 60 years and this will mark 100 for the Cubs. As the saying goes...when the sun comes up every morning, you come to rely on the fact that it will rise the next morning.

The Cubs perennially seem to find a way to blow their championship opportunities. The Indians haven't exactly fared much better.

Why should these teams, the fans of these teams hold out hope? Fans of the Cubs, Indians, Giants, Rangers, Astros, Brewers, Nationals, Padres, Mariners, Pirates, Phillies, and Orioles will all have differing levels of hope based on personnel, management, and ownership of their respective teams.

The fans of the Cubs and Indians hope to be this season's 2004 Red Sox, breaking a Championship drought that spans generations. Fans of the Orioles hope for a chance, in spite of the past incompetencies of Peter Angelos' ownership.

Why do they continue to hope, in spite of years of heartbreak?

Why, when there are teams that, on paper, that are better? Teams like the Red Sox, Mets, and Tigers.

It's simple really...

It comes down to two things. One is faith.

I've talked before about the religion of sport and the teams being the different denominations. It's no more evident than at the beginning of a season when, in spite of all proof to the contrary, we believe that the team we root for will be the one standing at the end of the season...whether on the diamond, the court, the gridiron, or the rink.

But the second is a little more tangible.

We watch the Red Sox break an 86-year drought to win two World Series titles in four seasons. We watch a Colorado Rockies team that wasn't even supposed to be a contender sweep its way into the 2007 Series. We see a Cardinals team that barely played over .500 ball during the regular season in 2006 win that year's championship.

We see these things and think about our teams, "why not us? Why not this season?" And we believe.

Ultimately, we believe because we're fans.

Go Sox.

Mythology

It's amazing, the difference between fact and fiction in professional sports. That which is accepted as fact, often by the apologists or those looking to bolster their own arguments in an effort to make a player, coach, or organization look either better or worse. Sometimes the myth is true...or more accurately, the truth is so wild or great that it becomes mythic - the Immaculate Reception, Carlton Fisk's home run in game six of the 1975 World Series, Kirk Gibson, the 1980 Olympic American ice hockey team, and so on. Sometimes it becomes difficult to separate myth from fact.

Let's take a shot at a couple of the big myths floating around professional sports today...

Myth - Bill Belichick was fined $500,0000.00 for filming the Jets' signals. The knock, among fans of other teams, is that Belichick cheated by stealing signals.

Fact - Belichick was fined for filming from the sideline, the fact that he was shooting the defensive signals was incidental. According to the following report from when the story broke -

From reports when the story broke -

As part of the league's investigation, Goodell determined the filming of Jets coaches had no impact on the outcome of the game. Goodell also ruled that Robert Kraft and Patriots ownership were unaware of the filming...The NFL's rules state that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game" and that all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

So...according to the NFL, the issue had nothing to do with them taping signals, and everything to do with where they taped from. According to this, any team can film its opponent's signals as long as the filming location is not accessible during the game - like, say, one of the skyboxes, which is enclosed on all sides with a picture window facing the field.

Myth - "Steroids don't help you hit the ball." This is the favorite defense of Bonds apologists who first will argue that he never used (he did, he admitted it, get it through your thick skulls) and even if he did...(see statement above)...

Fact - No, the performance enhancers largely don't help a person with their natural ability to hit the ball, but they do, in the end, help a batter hit...

To wit, steroids and other performance enhancers in baseball are used in order to recover faster from games, double headers, and other workouts. They also make the player stronger.

Increased strength and faster recovery time results in the following -

• Balls hit harder, thus, the ball travels both farther and faster. Balls dying on the warning track get deposited three rows behind the outfield wall. Balls barely reached by the middle infielder in the hole get by for hits.
• The player using these drugs is fresher at the end of a ten game stretch than the one not using, thus allowing the user to turn on a ball, with the greater likelihood of putting it into play than the tired opponent whose timing might be off enough to make his swing result in a foul ball or strike, instead of a hit. Hmmm...help hitting the ball. Who would've thought. Oh, right, the ball players injecting themselves with steroids.
• Balls get thrown harder by power pitchers losing their power

Myth - Baseball didn't even have a rule banning steroids in 1998.

Fact - MLB had a rule passed in 1971. According to the Mitchell Report a drug policy was written in MLB that prohibits using any prescription medicine without a prescription. From all reports, virtually none of the players named for use of either steroids or HGH had a prescription from a doctor. And those that did had their prescription from less than reputable doctors (see Paul Bird).

So, based on this 1971 rule, steroid and HGH users were in violation of MLB's rules and regulations, and use of those substances, in essence, has been against baseball's rules for the last 26 years.

Then in 1991, just to be safe, then commissioner Fay Vincent added steroids to the prohibited substance list.

Myth - The offensive coordinator of a record setting offense will make for a great head coach.

Fact - Right now 31-year old Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniel is generating interest from both the Falcons and the Ravens for their head coaching vacancies. Recent jumps from record setting coordinator to head coach have included Mike Martz and Brian Billick.

While it can be debated as to how successful Billick was, winning a Super Bowl and making multiple playoffs, one thing is certain - Billick was brought to a Ravens team that already had a solid defense, with the purpose of putting together a championship caliber offense. His offenses, over his nine years with the Ravens, have averaged 23rd. Only twice in the Ravens last six seasons have the Ravens achieved at least ten wins and the playoffs.

He inherited a team that had an improving defense, a slowly improving record, and an opportunity to build the offense he wanted. The offensive guru has been so good at identifying the talent he needed at key positions that he had 12 different quarterbacks start for him during his nine seasons at the helm.

Mike Martz won a Super Bowl ring running the Greatest Show on Turf for Dick Vermeil. Without Vermeil's tempering hand, Martz eventually went pass-happy, let the defense deteriorate, and the team's record eventually suffered in subsequent years.

Under Vermeil, during his last season at the helm, the Rams ranked 4th in points allowed on defense. Under Martz in the first year, 31st. Over the five full seasons at the helm, his defenses finished an average of 17th in points allowed and was fired in a year that the team was again 31st.

Gaudy numbers get you noticed, and there is success to be had with these coaches, but the numbers in a record setting season sets the bar impossibly high. Billick's offense in Minnesota was fueled by a young Randy Moss, just as McDaniels' offense in New England is fueled by Moss.

What is the likelihood that McDaniels will be the solution in Baltimore when they have a scouting office that can't identify a pro-ready quarterback on the collegiate level, or a veteran that still has some gas left in the tank?

Rules violations

Eat it steroid apologists who defend steroid usage by these players with the following argument - well it wasn't banned by baseball at the time. There are a number of reasons that it doesn't matter. Many which I have already addressed. One is that Baseball shouldn't have to make rules regarding substances that are banned by federal law. It should be understood that you can't administer anything to yourself that is banned by federal law without a prescription.

And there's one of the key words. Prescription.

Which brings me to 1971.

It's an important year for baseball.

MLB is within its rights to discipline players for steroids and HGH for the pre-ban time period because of 1971. According to the Mitchell Report a drug policy was written in MLB that prohibits using any prescription medicine without a prescription. From all reports, virtually none of the players named had a prescription from a doctor.

So, based on this 1971 rule, steroid and HGH users were in violation of MLB's rules and regulations.

In 1991, just to be safe, then commissioner Fay Vincent added steroids to the prohibited substance list.

All of the above notwithstanding, I put the following question to the steroid apologists out there - If administering these drugs wasn't really cheating because, as you like to say, it wasn't against baseball's rules (which, apparently it was), then why did the players do all of this in a clandestine manner? Why sneak around? Why deny it when caught if there's nothing wrong with what you're doing?

No Excuses

"I did it to recover faster from an injury, not to gain a competitive advantage on the field."

That is the popular excuse being presented by athletes caught using HGH and other performance enhancing substances. "I only used it to recover from (insert injury du jour here)."

This is the excuse that San Diego defensive end Louis Castillo first made popular before the 2005 NFL draft. It is the excuse that Patriots safety Rodney Harrison used (in spite of the fact that records show he initially purchased it during a time that he had no reported injury - no one followed up on that and he offered no additional excuse) when caught, it is the excuse that Andy Pettitte is hiding behind and it is the excuse that former second baseman Fernando Vina.

It is the excuse that any number of athletes I expect will use in the future.

It is a complete crock.

For anyone who thinks it isn't, I put to you the following question - if star player from Team A and star player from Team B suffer identical injuries, and Player A goes through proper (ie: legal and legitimate) physical therapy and rehab to get back on the field and it takes that player five weeks to get back, but Player B uses HGH and is back in three and half weeks, then how is that NOT a competitive advantage?

This smacks of the same argument put forth by Bonds supporters of, "it doesn't help him hit the ball," but, in light of recent studies - they're wrong. There was a recent report stating that HGH appears to improve eyesight. Improved eyesight will help a batter see the ball. The hormone helps muscles rebound faster from workouts - which means that in that tenth straight game, when non-users are fatigued, the user is fresher and more apt to be able to turn on a ball. It helps them get stronger, resulting in balls hit farther, faster.

Make no mistake. None of this is just about "recovering faster." It's all about getting on the field and an unfair competitive advantage.

Just once, I would like to hear one of these athletes say, "I cheated, I was caught and I'm sorry. I have disgraced myself, my team, and my sport. I knew at the time I was doing something wrong, but I want so bad to be the best on the field that it drove me to do something stupid and unforgivable in the context of the sport in which I compete. I wish I could promise that I would not make the same choice had I a chance to do it all over again, but, given my competitive nature, I don't think I can make that promise. I'm sorry."

We'll never hear it. But it really would be nice to hear one of these athletes completely own up to their mistake rather than try to find a way to excuse it that they believe will be palatable to the general public.

Unfortunately, there are many in the general public that are part of the problem - also making excuses for why, when their sports heroes are caught red-handed, we should take their less-than-heartfelt apology at face value. I'd like to thank Lisa at A Red Sox State of Maine for providing a link to the following from the New York Sun -

Corrupt in conception, inept in execution, this is in general a vile report. What decency there is in it comes from, of all people, Andy Pettitte. The ostentatiously religious Pettitte, who deserves and will receive a rousing ovation the next time he takes the mound at Yankee Stadium, will be scorned by many as a hypocrite, but according to the second-hand accounting of this report, he decided to use HGH because he thought it would "speed his recovery and help his team." And what could be nobler than that?

This reporter's defense of Pettitte is that he's "ostentatiously religious." First, I have to question whether or not this reporter knows what the word ostentatious means, or if he's just using big words to try to make people think he's intelligent. Because he comes off as an idiot. Were I Pettitte and truly religious, I would be offended by someone who described me as ostentatiously so.

For people wondering - it means rich and showy: marked by a vulgar display of wealth and success designed to impress people. So this dude is saying that Pettitte is showing religion only to impress people.

But I digress.

His argument (I will leave the whole "noble" thing to Lisa who handled that quite well) is that we should give Pettitte the benefit of the doubt because he's religious and, in essence, religious people would never do bad things. To that I give two names that are just the tip of the iceberg: John J. Geoghan and Ronald H. Paquin.

For those of you unfamiliar with those names, they are both priests - a profession that most would agree has some fairly religious people. These two were part of the Catholic Church's long running conspiracy to conceal child molesters within its clergy. Geoghan died in jail after convicted, Paquin plead guilty to the crime, claiming that he himself was a victim at the hands of a member of the clergy while a boy in Salem.

By reporter Tim Marchman's reasoning, this couldn't be true because these men are religious.

What an idiot.

On a lighter note (pardon the pun) - down to 184 this morning, a total loss of 4.5 pounds.