Bleacher Report - Articles by Nathan Blunck

Albert Pujols Should Have Surgery as Soon as Possible

Nathan Blunck — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:51:51 -0400

I need to let everyone know where this is coming from. I'm a Chicago Cubs fan. More importantly, though, I'm a baseball fan. Albert Pujols is an absolutely incredible player, and from everything I see from him he seems like a genuinely good guy as well.

He's definitely a tough guy having played with an injured elbow since 2003. Foxsports has major league sources saying that Pujols will wait until after next year to have surgery. The entire year we've heard that he's one bad throw or one awkward swing from completely shredding his elbow.

As a baseball fan, I say enough is enough Albert. Go get the surgery. This honestly has nothing to do with my love of the Cubs. This is entirely motivated by having a player like Pujols around and as productive as possible for a long time. I'm worried about him blowing out his elbow and coming back as a shell of himself.

The recovery time for reconstructive elbow surgery is 6-8 months. If he has the surgery in October, it's looking unlikely that the Cardinals will make the postseason behind two teams in both the division and wild card races, he would be able to get back in early April.

His reasoning for delaying the surgery one more year is that he wants to play in the World Baseball Classic and he wants to give himself the best possible chance at being an All-Star since the game is in St. Louis.

Pujols must really love the Cardinals organization and the fans that support them, because it seems like he's really putting himself out there for them. I just hope he gets this fixed before it's too late.

Mark Spitz Is Steamed over Olympic Snub

Nathan Blunck — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:20:59 -0400

Mark Spitz is a little angry. According to Spitz, no one extended him an invitation to the Olympics as Michael Phelps tries to break his record of seven gold medals in one Olympics.

"I never got invited. You don't go to the Olympics just to say, I am going to go. Especially because of who I am," Spitz told AFP in Hong Kong.

Spitz goes on to say that he is demeaned by not being able to watch Phelps in person. He even went so far as to suggest that he should be the one hanging the medals around Phelps' neck.

He was also upset about how much face time the cameras gave him in Athens in 2004, saying that they never once showed him at the pool. However, once the chase was over and he was attending volleyball matches, those cameras seemingly couldn't get enough.

Spitz does think that Phelps could do it, though, because "he's almost identical to me, he reminds me of myself."

Anyone else think he's more than just a tad arrogant? I understand that he is upset about not being there to see the record broken, but seriously. Does he think that him being there is the most important thing to the world? That it would somehow legitimatize Phelps' accomplishment?

As for him not being invited, apparently he's too important to buy his own plane ticket as evidenced by him saying that you don't go to the Olympics just to be there, and it's even more prominent in his case because of who he is. Are you kidding me?

Spitz will always be remembered as an incredible athlete and an amazing Olympian—he was voted in the top-5 Olympians of all time. But, it sounds like he lives in a dream world. Records are made to be broken. If they weren't, would Spitz even be famous?

Spitz seems to be tarnishing his legacy with this, in my opinion anyway. He doesn't seem to realize that he's only mentioned in the same breath as Phelps because Phelps is more dominant than he was. Personally, I hope Phelps breaks Mark Spitz's record and I hope for his sake that Spitz can give Phelps heartfelt congratulations, in Beijing or in the States.

What do the people that were able to watch Spitz in his prime think? Did he dominate the field the same way Phelps is right now? Who would you take head-to-head in their respective primes?

All information and quotes were taken from this article on Yahoo!Sports.

Is Becky Hammon a traitor? Look in the mirror if you said "yes".

Nathan Blunck — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:09:18 -0400

Much has been made lately of Becky Hammon's decision to play for Russia in the Beijing Olympics coming up in a few weeks.

The decision has some people saying that Hammon is incredibly unpatriotic and she is just chasing after the money. She does get a $250,000 if the Russians happen to win gold.

They say that she should be competing for free much like our own athletes—even though Michael Phelps has a deal with Speedo for $1 million should he tie or break Mark Spitz's record seven gold medals in one Olympics. If you think other athletes compete for free, read this: Athletes for Free?

I say that the American public is misinformed on this situation.

Normally, I don't care enough about women's sports to write about them, or even think about them really, but the level of ignorance in many posts about this issue has compelled me to write about it.

It has been confirmed by many sources that Becky Hammon was not even on the 29-player pool the committee could choose from.

The United States did not even want her on the team. I found this rather weird and have looked into the issue some more.

The guards listed on the women's roster are as follows: Sue Bird, Kara Lawson, Candace Parker, Cappie Pondexter, Katie Smith, and Diana Taurasi.

We'll omit Parker and Taurasi as they are listed at multiple positions and they are probably in the top 5 known American women basketball players.

So how does Hammon stack up to Bird, Pondexter, Lawson and Smith. I looked up this year's stats in the WNBA.

The Tale of the Tape

Hammon: 17.4 Points/G, 4.7 Assists/G, 2.9 Rebounds/G, 93% FT, 34.4% 3-point shooting

Bird: 13.5 Points/G, 1.9 Assists/G, 2.6 Rebounds/G, 85% FT, 32.5% 3-point shooting

Pondexter: 22.3 Points/G, 4.4 Assists/G, 4 Rebounds/G, 83% FT, 34.7% 3-point shooting

Lawson: 11.1 Points/G, 2.3 Assists/G, 2.5 Rebounds/G, 91% FT, 40.8% 3-point shooting

Smith: 15.1 Points/G, 3.9 Assists/G, 2.9 Rebounds/G, 90% FT, 36.7% 3-point shooting.

So her stats compare very favorably to Bird, Lawson, and Smith, and I would probably have to give Hammon the edge over all the three.

Now I know that putting a team together is more than finding the best and throwing them together.

Like "Herb Brooks" said in Miracle, "it's not about finding the best players, it's about finding the right ones", but doesn't Hammon at least deserve the opportunity to see if she's the best?

She is very close to passing three of the four guards on the roster and she's not even in the 29-player pool.

I just cannot understand that for the life of me!

The Women's Basketball Committee started to say that Hammon was unpatriotic almost as soon as she announced that she would play for Russia. I have a hard time believing them!

The Olympics are all about the best in the world playing.

The United States did not want Hammon. I'm sure she was crushed, but she still has an opportunity to play in Beijing.

Isn't using your talents to advance yourself the American dream? That's all she's doing.

I really hope that Hammon's teammates do not look at her badly because she made the choice to follow a dream and play in the Olympics.

She just isn't wearing the jersey I'm sure she thought she would.

On the men's side, Chris Kaman and J.R. Holden are playing for Germany and Russia respectively, but no one is upset about that. Maybe it's because they aren't as talented?

Now for the look in the Mirror.

Obviously, no one else is representing their home country right? And surely none on the American squad, right? The answer to both questions being "NO".

The United States' roster has 33 foreign born athletes, and all of them are in the areas that the U.S. has traditionally struggled.

We do not need any swimmers or basketball players because we produce enough of those.

This report from MSNBC shows the athletes' country of origin and their events: Athletes—Origins.

I hope you, the reader, takes this information and understands that even the Olympics, that incorruptible symbol of all that is good with competition and sport, is becoming subject to free agency.

Apparently the American public, myself included, only want to condemn the athletes leaving us, all the while celebrating ourselves as we rack up our gold medal count with athletes we have poached from other countries.

Olympic athletes, regardless of country, deserve to be recognized for excellence in their sport, not condemned for wearing the wrong jersey.

10 New Commenting Rules: A Must Read for Bleacher Creatures

Nathan Blunck — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:57:25 -0400

I spend quite a bit of time on the internet. It kills time at work and I like to know what's going on in the world. I'm a sports nut as well, so I spend most of that time on ESPN.com.

It's usually a nice place to get information, but if you want a good laugh, go to the comments section after every article. I used to be able to laugh all the time at that stuff, now it's just getting frustrated. People really are ridiculous when it comes to their favorite team. So, I thought up some rules so people will sound somewhat reasonable on message boards.

1. Learn to spell properly—on won cna raed wen yuo splel liek thsi (No one can read when you spell like this). Dictionaries are great for this, and it makes you look smarter if you have a dictionary by your computer desk, or you can bookmark "www.m-w.com".

2. Learn Grammar and when to use certain words—Is it too much to ask that people know when to use there, their, they're, your, and you're? And how about using some punctuation? Since I still have a small belief in the education system here in America, I say no. Learn the difference.

3. Read previous posts—You don't have to read all of them, just enough to see where the conversation has been and where it's going. You can also see who's on what side and all that.

4. Don't Troll—If you're a fan of a different team, by all means share your perspective on a situation. Just make sure it's not "team a/player b sucks". Everyone knows what trolls are—don't be one.

5. Identify Yourself—This is especially helpful if you're on another teams' message board. Just say who your team is—if you get taunted, be the bigger person, call them an idiot in real life and move on. It's not your fault they're a homer.

6. Don't be a Homer—You can respect another team or other players if they're not "yours". I'm a Cubs fan. The Cardinals are playing good baseball this year. I said it and I'm not any less of a Cubs fan. This also includes knowing about the other teams in the league, especially your division. Makes it that much sweeter if you can tell a rival fan why your team is better and back it up.

7. Come up with original arguments—If I had a dime for every time I read the Cubs aren't going to win this year and the 100 years since the last title or the annual cubs drop off was mentioned I could pay off my college loans. Come on people, let's get some new material.

8. Come up with new insults—I'm sick of seeing "moron" or idiot". Let's get some variety on these boards. Remember the dictionary you have sitting by your computer now, use it.

9. Don't be a sore loser—I know your team just blew a huge lead late, but the other team was there too right? The other team didn't just lay down right? Give them some credit. It's a respect thing again. The other team fought just as hard as yours.

I have to bring this up because of Matt Leinart. After Vince Young and Texas beat his USC Trojans for the National Championship in 2006, he told reporters that the Trojans were the better team in that game. Sorry Matt, you're wrong. You may have had the more talented roster and the best players, but Texas executed as a unit to win the game. They won the game too, that makes them the better team on the field.

10. Don't be a sore winner—Just as important as rule nine. Don't say a team sucks because they lost. I'm pretty sure that the chances of your team going undefeated are really bad. You can be glad that you won the game and all, but don't rub it in unless you know exactly how everyone is going to take it. Hopefully you can develop some friendly trash talk with a fan of the other team and rub it in a little.

Hopefully these rules catch on. Anything I should change, anything you'd add, anything you think is stupid—just let me know, but please use these rules.

Racism in Sports: Open Mic Response

Nathan Blunck — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:51:25 -0400

A couple of days ago Willie Randolph said that he was being judged more critically because he was black. He added that black quarterbacks are perceived differently as well.

I have to preface this by saying that while I don't consider myself a racist, I do laugh at those jokes. I am white and I think the white jokes are a heck of a lot funnier than minority jokes. If you have any, let me know--if it's not against site policy.

Moving on, I don't think Willie is being judged harshly because he's black. I think he's being judged harshly because his team is losing with the second or third highest payroll in the league, and he just so happens to be in America's largest media market. Not exactly the ideal setting for a slow start. If he can get things turned around, he'll be alright.

I personally don't see a whole lot of help coming though.

The only serious injuries that the team has had to deal with are Alou, Church, and Pedro. Pedro's back, but in my opinion he needs to be more of a three starter at this point in his career, not a 1-2 type starting pitcher. Church is back after his concussion from a scary collision at second base a few nights ago, and Alou is almost glass at this point.

The Mets' biggest problem has just been underachieving. Delgado isn't getting it done, Reyes isn't, Castillo isn't either. Wright is starting to come around, but he's better than how he's playing, as are the rest of the Amazin' Mets.

As for quarterbacks though. He's probably right on that score. You never hear of a black quarterback being a polished passer. You hear about how athletic they are and how they make things happen, but never about how much leadership they have or anything else that is usually attributed to white quarterbacks.

I guess I've rambled enough. I think Randolph was overreacting to his situation, but racism does exist in sports. Is it as extreme as people think? I say the race card is played too often. How about you?