Bleacher Report - Articles by Benjamin Edwards

Every Browns Fan is Two Fans in One

Benjamin Edwards — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 05:56:19 -0400

The Cleveland Browns have a bipolar, schizophrenic, love-hate relationship with glamour and crud. Of the two, we like both the most. The average Browns enthusiast, grabbing a case and a bag of chips from Maggiore’s on the way home from work, will tell you, “A guy like Joe Montana or Tom Brady would never work here in Cleveland. Nah, too Hollywood, too slick. The Browns are a blue-collar team. You know, lunch bucket, hardhat, that kinda thing.”

But if either of those too-slick guys were signed on to play for the team the following day, you would hear work whistles blow and hardhats would take flight. The fans would toast the deal over a Pabst, and say “Hey, a little white on the collar never hurts, you know?”

The dichotomy occurs because the archetypal Browns supporter merely loves his team and wants it to win. Thus, he wants sophistication and a continual updating of the team’s approach to the game. Yet he is also in love with the state of being crazy about the Browns, which means he demands that the Browns respect their age-old traditions and never abandon their blue-collar, hardhat personality.

The fan derives part of his own personal identity and self-respect from this particular element of his beloved home team. This is the sort of impossible demand that keeps team management in a never-ending struggle for sanity.

Case in point: When Hanford Dixon and Frank Minnifield, Browns cornerbacks during the ‘80s, began barking like dogs and revving up their teammates, it created an explosion of fan excitement. The two men were especially intense in their pass coverage near the end zone, and those fans in the cheapest seats close to the field paid homage to newly christened “Dawg Defense” by wearing hound dog masks and throwing milk bone treats at all 22 players waiting for the snap of the ball. Thus was The Dawg Pound inaugurated.

Now there is a shiny new stadium, which the fans love and appreciate...right? Well, yeah but...the new stadium has a special section designated as "The Dog Pound." That is simply not cool, and it needs to be pointed out. The crazies in the end-zone seats created the Dawg Pound spontaneously, and it cannot be contrived any other way.

That’s like telling a child “you can use your crayons to draw on this section of this wall.” It’s like Felix greeting Oscar saying, “I cleaned your room while you were out!” It is no longer a true den of junkyard hounds but a pit of pampered poodles. No good. New stadium, luxury boxes, specially designated Pound, secure parking, actual urinals in the men’s room instead of an old trough salvaged from the Navy, nice concession areas...all of it very nice. No good. It’s not The Browns!

Oh! And the grass. The old grass was Cleveland Browns Grass, buddy! That is to say, not really grass at all. OK, there was some grass, but not much. The old Municipal Stadium was truly a duel-purpose facility, perfectly suited to serve as a venue for both the Browns and Indians to disappoint.

Instead of laying some kind of sod upon the baseball infield, the grounds crew would actually paint the dirt green in preparation for a football game. In sunny weather, the players would be covered in something that looked like grass stain, but which was in reality nothing more than green dirt.

On rainy Sundays, green mud bespattered players, coaches, referees, the ball, everything. Split Pea soup. Nasty. Beautiful. The way the game should be played. We hated it. It was great. The new grass is lovely, and it drains very well in the rain. It retains its gorgeous appearance and stands up to abuse. Science at work. Fantastic. And we hate it because it is just not the same.

"Give us the old ways,” we cry out. “Give us lousy grass that isn’t really there, mud games, snow games, cold soft pretzels, bodily fluids dripping in rivulets on the concrete. Give us lunch-pail players who are just like us. And most of all, give us a fiercely-competitive-but-disappointing team, just like we’ve always had!”

And in the next breath...“And give us a new facility, keep it nice and clean, and bring in lots of revenue and sign great players and get a coach that uses modern methods and give us a winning culture.” Don’t give us what we need; give us what we want. Don’t give us what we want; give us what we need. Spoon feed us; watch us gag on the spoon and spit it back at you. Browns fans are bipolar in utero.

And when we first found out—lo these many years gone by—that we were signing Bernie Kosar, we were verily overwrought with elation because he was a winning quarterback from Miami of Florida, a perennial champion with a space-age offense.

Bernie was smart and sophisticated and would bring us a Super Bowl. Like priests in a third-world airport, the white on our collars was sticking way out there. Only then did we discover that Bernie was a Browns fan who grew up in nearby Boardman, OH. Then we were totally off the charts with glee. “Now we’ve got one of us behind the center. A lunch-pail guy. Blue collar. Oh yeah...sure...I knew he’d be great when he was in high school!”

So now I come to the main point of these perambulations. Brady Quinn is our future. We like him because he is a winner, and he is Hollywood to the bone. He is the face of the franchise–or should be, that is. He is the young Turk, our own version of Joe Willy Namath...some day...we hope.

He is that guy in all the commercials, hawking energy drinks, who rarely takes a snap on the actual field. His name is Brady, and that’s enough. Plus, he’s hip. And that, my fellows, is why Derek Anderson is getting booed when he encounters difficulty.

It has nothing to do with Derek, Brady, or the price of Vernor’s Ginger Ale at Speedway. It has to do with the ownership and the exasperating fact that they never know when to give us what we need and when to give us what we want.

They give us glamour, and we demand mud. They give us grunge, and we want stardust. And as long as they fail to bring a championship to this town, we will keep on assuming that the owner and management staff—not us—are the ones making the poor decisions.

It never occurs to some people that Derek Anderson is actually better this year than he was last year. It cannot be otherwise; he has another year of experience under his hip pads.Opponents actually have something to do with a QB’s inability to throw completions, and this year’s schedule is Draconian.

Defensive backs watch film (...pssst–they actually have a movie projector in the Ravens’ practice facility–pass it on...), and they study every quarterback until they know what that guy will choose when faced with strawberry or blueberry Pop-tarts, and the toaster setting he will use. Derek is having the same down-year-after-the-breakout-year that everyone has.

The fans know this. We like Derek. He really is alright. What we resent are these decision-makers who do not know that now is the time to push Secretariat to the front, seize the Triple Crown, and make us cool again.

“We liked the old stadium,” we are saying, “with that thing called an End Zone, that we turned into a Dawg Pound without any help from you–but you had to give us a pre-configured Poodle Pound for show dogs. We liked the old grass that wasn’t there and you gave us California grass. So it should not be difficult for you guys to bite the bullet and give us Brady Quinn!”

-From Studyofsports.com

Cero Ocho: Cincy in The Cellar

Benjamin Edwards — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:27:21 -0400

From Studyofsports.com

Where did the Bengals go wrong?

In 2005 they had the most high powered offense in all of football. Carson Palmer proved that he was the face of the franchise and the rest of the offense had promise with Chad Johnson, T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Rudi Johnson.

Now we are just three years removed from that AFC Central championship, and at 0-8 we are definitely in need of change.

So where did the Bengals go so wrong in such a short amount of time? Here’s my analysis:

1. Trouble off the field: With Odell Thurman and Chris Henry serving suspensions from the NFL and several other Bengals in the news for being arrested, this can only be bad for the program.

What good can come out of players who cannot keep their noses out of trouble? This appeared to get better after Odell Thurman and Chris Henry were both released.

However, it has not gotten better because Chris Henry was re-signed just before the start of the season, and they brought in oft-arrested Cedric Benson to run the ball. Matters off the field have not changed.

2. Chad Johnson: The guy is signed through 2010, but hasn’t wanted to play for the team since 2007. How can ownership let someone degrade the team, demand to be traded, and then tell him he won’t be traded?

If the man wants out, trade him. This can only cause problems in the locker room. How can you trust putting a guy out there if he doesn’t want to be involved in your organization? He needs to be traded.

3. Ownership vs. Management: This is probably the largest problem the Bengals have. They have Mike Brown’s son going to scout NFL games. The guy is not an NFL scout, he’s the owner’s son. The Bengals scouting department is far inferior to other teams in the league in both number of scouts and talent of scouts.

This causes the Bengals to scout opponents poorly, as well as draft questionable players, and signing free agents who are past their prime or not very solid.

Marvin Lewis also said early in this season that he would NOT be bringing back Chris Henry because of his off field issues. However, Mike Brown overrules Lewis and brings Chris Henry back.

If team management cannot be on the same page, how do you expect things to work?

These are the most glaring problems the Bengals have, but if they cannot fix their off field issues, How can they expect to produce on the field?

From Studyofsports.com

World Series Game Four

Benjamin Edwards — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:41:00 -0400

From Studyofsports.com

The Rays, playing the part of Cinderella, are the real story of the 2008 World Series. A team rising from the trenches of one season to win a championship the next is not as uncommon as you might think. Last season, the Diamondbacks came back from a horrible year in 2006 (76-86) to win the N.L. West in ‘07 (90-72).

The amazing thing about the Tampa Bay Rays is that they not only went from having the worst record in baseball to being the A.L. representative in the World Series, but that until this season, they had never ranked better than fourth in their division, a feat they accomplished back in 2004.

In fact, Lou Piniella, the manager at the time, even popped a bottle of champagne to celebrate this fourth-place status.

When Joe Maddon became the fourth manager of the Rays in December 2005, he brought with him a positive, can-do attitude that helped a then-crippled Devil Rays team believe they could win; and win they did this season.

The Rays ended the season with an impressive 97-65 record, third best in the American League. Maddon used a team-building analogy that the players and the fans embraced; 9=8. It meant nine players working together would be one of the eight teams in the playoffs. Little did he know that nine would equal two, with his Rays still playing ball in late October.

Winning Game Four of the World Series has been shown in the past to be crucial in taking home the trophy. In the last 50 years, 35 World Series champions have won Game Four.

The Rays left Tropicana Field with the series tied 1-1, and then had a disappointing late-night loss in Game Three. They made a valiant effort, but in the bottom of the ninth, a single off the bat of Carlos Ruiz ended the night for the Rays.

Tonight, Andy Sonnanstine is on the mound, and now more than ever, the Rays are depending on him to keep the Phillies from putting this series out of reach. Sonnanstine was an important part of their win in Game Four of the ALCS against the Red Sox and has an ERA if 2.82 in his last six starts, including the playoffs. He has often been called the Rays' forgotten starter but has recently proven to be an asset to their bullpen.

Tonight, America will be watching Game Four, and I will be there among them with the hopes of a win for the Rays. This dynamic, underdog team deserves its place in baseball history.

9=2 indeed.

Liz Churchville is a guest writer for Studyofsports.com

Jazzed and Ready: Utah Jazz 2008-2009 Preview

Benjamin Edwards — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:32:27 -0400

From studyofsports.com:

Tuesday marks the tip-off of the 2008-2009 NBA regular season. For Salt Lake City patrons, Wednesday night will be the first opportunity to watch the Utah Jazz, who open the season against the Denver Nuggets at the Pepsi Center in Denver.

The Jazz are currently on a five-game win streak in their season openers, with their last loss coming at the hands of the New Orleans Hornets on Oct 30. of 2002. The fact that Karl Malone was the team’s leading scorer with 20 points shows just how long ago that game was played. Utah will also have to compete without point guard Deron Williams, who was sidelined with a grade-two ankle sprain on Oct 18. during a preseason game against the Chicago Bulls.

After a trip to the Western Conference semi-finals last season, Utah will not be able to fly under the radar as they did the past two seasons, and even with Williams injured for the opener, this season looks to be the Jazz’s best shot at winning an NBA championship since NBA Finals losses in both 1997 and 1998.

Some numbers stick out in favor of the Jazz returning to the success of the late-90’s. As a team, in 1997-1998, they averaged 101.0 points per game, to their opponent's 94.4. In the 2007-2008 season, the Jazz scored 101.5 points per game, but gave up 98.6 points. On paper, the two teams are extremely comparable, with a dominant power forward (Boozer/Malone), a great point guard (Williams/Stockton), and a dependable long-range shooter (Korver/Hornacek).

Last year, Boozer did not average as many points as Karl Malone did in ‘98, but he did have more rebounds. Williams also averaged more points and assists than John Stockton did in that same year. Add Andre Kirilenko, who seems to be returning to his All-Star form, and Mehmet Okur (17.6 ppg), in place of Bryon Russell and Greg Ostertag, and this year’s Jazz team actually has more firepower than the back-to-back Finals teams.

It will be interesting to see how the Jazz continue to build on two solid seasons. Statistics show that the team's offense is as good as or better than the Utah teams that made it to the NBA Finals. If the defense can hold opponents close to 95 points a game, a deep run similar to the Jazz teams of 1997 and 1998 is certainly possible this year.

Thoughts?

Michael Giovacchini is the Jazz writer for Studyofsports.com

What Might Have Been?

Benjamin Edwards — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:37:45 -0400

From Studyofsports.com:

We at S.O.S. were talking last week about Bo Jackson and all the obligatory "what might have beens". This led us to the question of "which athlete whose career was cut short due to injury or early retirement would we have liked to see finish out their playing days?"

I think Bo is the favorite here, but lets look at some of the other possibilities.

1. Roberto Clemente: After the Pirates slugger claimed his 3000th career hit, he was killed in a plane crash. However Clemente was already 38 and only had a couple of years left anyway.

2. Barry Sanders: Sanders quit with just over 15,000 rushing yards and would have clearly been the all-time leader had he not retired at just 30 years of age.

Had he played to 35, like Emmitt Smith, statistically he would have ended his career with 22,900 yards, over 4,000 more than Emmitt.

3. Michael Jordan: Mike left the game in 1993 and lost most of two seasons before returning to the court. Also, consider that when he "retired" in 1998, he left as a champion with the classic Bulls roster still intact. Could he have won eight or more titles in a row?

4. Roy Campanella: Campy had been selected to eight consecutive All-Star games when a car accident left him paralyzed in 1957. A sad story indeed, but like Clemente and our next "what if", Campanella was at the end of his career anyway.

5. Lou Gehrig: This two time MVP was one of the most resilient players in baseball history. Yet ALS took his life at the age of 38.

6. Thurman Munson: Adored by yankee fans everywhere. Killed in a plane crash at the age of 32, seven time All-Star, three time Gold Glover. AL MVP in '76 and Rookie of the Year, 1970.

7. Magic Johnson: Forced to leave the NBA when in 1991, he announced that he had contracted the HIV virus. Only 31 at the time. Three time MVP, five time NBA champion.

8. Terrell Davis: The most dominant running back in the NFL for three seasons in the late 90's. Led his Broncos to two Super Bowl championships and rushed for 2,008 yards in 1998. Never recovered from injury the following season.

Who is your choice? Who am I forgetting?

Benjamin Edwards is lead writer for Studyofsports.com

Two of a Kind: The Greatest Running-Back Duos in NFL History

Benjamin Edwards — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:05:17 -0400

From Studyofsports.com:

We received a letter this week from “Zebow,“ a reader in Colorado, that asks:

“It seems like the NFL doesn’t have any good running-back tandems anymore. We used to have great pairs all the time. Who do you guys think is the best tandem ever?”

We compiled a list of our 12 best combos. Tell us what you think.

12. Dalton Hilliard & Craig Heyward - '90s Saints

From ‘88 to ‘92, these guys punished defenses for 4,879 yds.

11. Kevin Mack & Eric Metcalf - '90s Browns

Mostly known as a kick returner, Metcalf had the starting role for a few years in Cleveland. They amassed 4,034 yards.

10. Tony Dorsett & Herschel Walker - '80s Cowboys

In only two years (’86 & ‘87), these guys racked up 2,832 yards, and while it was never quite the “dream backfield,” as it had been billed to be, it was effective and memorable.

9. Earnest Byner & Gerald Riggs - Late '80s Redskins

These guys won the 1991 Super Bowl and gained 4,402 yards along the way.

8. Ickey Woods & James Brooks - '80s Bengals

While the Ickey Shuffle may have dominated the league for only one season, James Brooks was a very good running back for many years. As a team, they almost beat Joe Montana in the '88 Super Bowl. 5,270 yards and 49 TDs.

7. Christian Okoye & Barry Word - '90s Chiefs

The "Nigerian Nightmare’s" big season was a year before Word joined the team, but as teammates, they ruled in K.C. for three seasons. 4,590 yds and 34 TDs.

6. Warrick Dunn & Mike Alstott - '90s Bucs

These two played together for five seasons and gained 7,805 years in that time. Alstott was unstoppable.

5. Jim Brown & Bobby Mitchell - Early '60s Browns

In four seasons, these guys (mostly Brown) ran for 7,818 yards and surprisingly had a combined 2,453 receiving yards.

4. Larry Csonka & Mercury Morris - '70s Dolphins

1969 to 1974 was a very good time for the fish. Three Super Bowl appearances and a perfect season were made possible by the running game. 8,902 yards in that time along with 66 touchdowns puts these guys way up on this list. And to think that Jim Kiick also rushed for over 3,000 more yards for those early-'70s Dolphins.

3. Bo Jackson & Marcus Allen - '80s Raiders

While I usually try to stay away from the “what might have beens,” it’s impossible when it comes to Bo Jackson. These guys rushed for 5,342 yards in four years. If not for that day against Cincy, these guys may have been No. 1 on the list. Also, Bo Jackson’s impact on Tecmo Bowl is the stuff of legend.

2. Rocky Bleier & Franco Harris - '70s Steelers

Rocky is a war hero; Franco is a Pittsburgh hero. These guys won four Super Bowls in the '70s and a nation of fans. Learn about Rocky’s life. They racked up 13,178 yards and scored 99 touchdowns from 1972-1980.

1. Jim Taylor & Paul Hornung - '60s Packers

These guys are my No. 1 pick because they worked as a team better than any of the other duos. They rushed for 11,989 yards and scored 133 TDs in the years from 1957 to 1966, while winning four championships. The '60s Packers were a team full of good players that Lombardi made into great players.

Who did we leave out? Where did we get the rankings wrong?

Benjamin Edwards is lead writer for Studyofsports.com

USA Men's Gymnastics Team: As American As Humble Pie

Benjamin Edwards — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:01:27 -0400

From studyofsports.com:

Every four years, the world’s top athletes come together to compete at the Summer Olympics. They have the opportunity to serve as ambassadors for their country, which is an honor that should be handled with the utmost dignity and respect.

The Olympic Games is a misnomer—this is no game. This is a fierce competition, where athletes push themselves beyond their own limitations: broken ankles, sickness, personal tragedy all must be overcome to pursue the gold medal and the respect of their country and the world.

We watch these competitions full of hope, wanting our nation’s athletes to perform well for themselves and for us. We cringe when the women gymnasts step out of bounds on their floor routines or fall flat on their back during their vault landings. We cheer when our swimmers break world records, even though they’re disappointed because they know they could have been faster.

These people are giving their all because they know what an honor it is to have the opportunity to compete at the world’s top sporting event. Which leads me to this week’s burning question:

Am I the only one embarrassed by the American men’s gymnastics team after their performance on Sunday evening?

No, I’m not talking about their terrible round on the pommel horse or the weak 12.75 and 13.75 two of the members brought in that night. I’m talking about their humiliating display of immaturity every time they realized they were in the presence of the media.

Granted, they had the right to be excited. After all, they’re at the Olympics representing their country in the sport that they love in front of a crowd full of cheering onlookers.

But maybe if they had spent their time between competitors focusing on their routines, or concentrating on what needed to be done to excel in the event and had spent a little less time writing notes on their palms and waving at the cameras to send messages home, or giving uninvited (and awkward) interviews to the cameramen, or making faces up close into the camera as it swept by, maybe then they could have earned better than a “surprising” bronze medal.

It’s true, the team was a long shot to place considering the Hamm brothers both had to leave the team due to injuries. Winning a bronze medal is truly great news.

But is placing third as satisfying when there’s the possibility that if they’d focused more on their responsibilities instead of hamming it up to the news cameras, they could have placed higher? Did they really try their best?

The team competed with two alternate teammates who didn’t make the cut the first time because they weren’t quite good enough. The Americans came in fourth on vault, fifth on parallel bars, seventh on floor and last on pommel horse, just barely pulling off a bronze medal. The last thing the American team should be shouting into the camera (repeatedly, I might add) is, “That’s how we roll!”

That’s how we roll?? You rely on teammates who weren’t really qualified to be there in the first place, you mess around on the sidelines and don’t focus on the task at hand, you drop a rank at each event only to finally screw up royally in the final round of this series, and you luckily manage to get a bronze medal (after making it publicly clear that you couldn’t do the math to determine whether you’d placed in the top three after all, a moment that wasn’t lost on the sports caster).

To top it off, you jump around hollering at the media like a bunch of college freshmen who spotted the MTV Spring Break cameraman? That’s how you roll? That’s how you represent your country? Your moms must be proud.

Well, congratulations, boys. You’ve earned America another medal. And you’ve certainly cost America a lot of respect.

Enjoy those bronze medals. Now that the team has done so well in 2008, four of the members plan to return to the 2012 Olympics in London.

Hopefully, the training plan will include a lesson in humility.

For more articles by Benjamin Edwards, please visit Studyofsports.com

Monday Morning Quarterback: Steve DeBerg

Benjamin Edwards — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:42:47 -0400

From Studyofsports.com:

We are proud to introduce a new section today. Each Monday throughout the football season, we will spotlight a quarterback from the past that you may not know. We call this section “Monday Morning Quarterback”. Today we focus on a QB with a great story, Steve DeBerg.

Steve had one of the most interesting careers in NFL history by having some very bad luck. Here is his story:

Steve’s career looked to have a very bright future when in 1977, he was drafted by the Dallas Cowboys who would win the Super Bowl that season. Roger Staubach was 35 at the time and was at the end of his career. It looked like Steve could jump right in and continue the dynasty of the ’70s Cowboys.

However, Steve was traded to the San Francisco 49ers in 1978. With Bill Walsh, DeBerg was the first significant pro “West Coast” offense quarterback, and in the 1979 and 1980 NFL seasons he set several records for sheer number of passing attempts and completions. As long as he kept his job, he would have continued success in the league. However, from the University of Notre Dame came Joe Montana.

DeBerg was traded to Denver in 1981 where he would play as a backup for Craig Morton. Again, it looked like once the aging veteran stepped down, DeBerg could step in. But then a first round draft pick from Stanford named John Elway changed his career for the second time.

DeBerg, now 30, was traded to Tampa Bay in 1984 where he quickly took on the starting job. He had a solid season and things began to look up until the following year’s draft when lo and behold, the Bucs select Steve Young from BYU. This time however, DeBerg kept his starting role and had another good season in 1985.

In 1986, Steve Young took over and DeBerg was once again forced to ride the bench. When Young was traded to the 49ers at the end of the season, DeBerg had a second chance. He started eight games for the Bucs in 1987, but later in the year was forced to share playing time with a new kid from Miami named Vinny Testaverde.

Finally at the age of 34, Steve got his break when he was traded to the Kansas City Chiefs. For the next four seasons, he would be the starter and lead his Chiefs to two playoff appearances in ’90 and ‘91.

In 1990, his best season, he had a 101.2 quarterback rating, passing for 3,444 yards, 23 touchdowns and only 4 interceptions. But he wouldn’t be the QB to lead the Chiefs to the AFC championship game in 1993, that team would be led by…Joe Montana.

Over the next two seasons, DeBerg would be a backup in Tampa Bay and Miami and would retire after the 1993 season. His story doesn’t end there however.

In 1998, at the age of 45, Steve would return to the game as a backup to Chris Chandler for the Atlanta Falconsand on Jan 31, 1999, Steve DeBerg finally made it to the Super Bowl.

His Falcons were defeated that day 34-19 by the Denver Broncos…

led by John Elway.

Benjamin Edwards is lead writer for Studyofsports.com

Theyyyyy’re Out! The Fate of Baseball in the Olympics

Benjamin Edwards — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:24:41 -0400

From Studyofsports.com:

Tonight is the Opening Ceremony for the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, where athletic representatives in 28 sports from 205 countries will come together for the chance to take home the gold.

We’ll hear heart-warming stories of triumph over tragedy, the painstaking road traveled for the chance to honor one’s family and country, the power of the human spirit.

We’ll see teammates come together in overwhelming embraces of victory, and we’ll see grown men crumple in tears of defeat. It’s a truly exciting time for competitors and viewers alike.

In between the personal interviews and the fuzzy-lensed pseudo-biographies, be sure to pay special attention to this year’s Games, viewers, because at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, the 28-sport listing will be short two events.

After a top secret ballot held by International Olympic Committee (IOC) members to determine which sports to axe from the existing list of games, softball and baseball didn’t earn enough votes to keep them in the lineup.

Softball. And Baseball.

These are the first sports to be cut from the Olympics since polo was ousted in 1936, yet synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics are still going strong.

The main argument against softball is that it doesn’t have the wide appreciation and participation that other sports have; and while baseball’s lack of substantial appeal in much of the world was a factor (apparently despite its presence in America, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Italy, and several Latin American and European nations), more important is baseball’s failure to reach an agreement with Major League Baseball that would send top players to the Olympics.

Let’s face it, the 30-team U.S. league won’t shut down its April-October season so top talent can attend the Games. Further claims state that the two sports are too similar, which also resulted in their downfall.

If this is true and the two sports are too much alike, then it seems that between the two, removing softball would be the obvious choice. After all, historically speaking, baseball was first, and therefore has seniority.

So how could a sport with such a wide following and so much popularity not be included in the Olympics, the Mecca of all sporting events? Is the MLB scheduling issue big enough to remove the entire sport from the Games? If the NHL can work it out during the winter games, why can’t baseball take a break for the summer games?

Unfortunately, because of the seasonal nature of baseball and the high priority its fans place on the integrity of major-league statistics from one season to the next, it would be more difficult to accommodate such a break in MLB.

Okay, so pro players can’t make it. But baseball was introduced to the Olympics in 1992, and pro players didn’t participate until 2000. Why not keep the sport in the Games and invite non-pro players to attend? Then again, the Olympics are supposed to be the events for the top athletes in their field, the best of the best. After all, the Olympic motto is Citius Altius Fortius (swifter, higher, stronger). By not including pro athletes, are we giving the sport of baseball a handicap? Would they be the best of the worst?

The plan for now is that baseball is definitely out for 2012, but each year, voting among the IOC will take place to determine whether it will be allowed back into the Games. 2016 could be its year, since the Olympics may be held in baseball hotbeds Tokyo or Chicago. Even with no hope of MLB talent playing at the Games, U.S. Olympic baseball general manager Bob Watson is confident the American pastime will be voted back in next year. So there’s still hope.

Until then, you may want to start reading up on the strategy of ribbon dancing.

So what do you think? Should baseball be included in the Olympics, or does the scheduling conflict with the MLB make an effective case?

Magnolia Hempstead is a contributing writer for Studyofsports.com

The Decline and Fall of Hank Blalock.

Benjamin Edwards — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:20:20 -0400

From Studyofsports.com:

Rangers fans, remember the good ol’ days when the left field bleachers at the Ballpark were filled with those fun-loving, cowboy boot wearing college boys with their silly signs and brooms, yelling for an up-and-coming new third baseman? A player who hit a monster shot off Eric Gagne in the 2003 All-Star game, and who at 23 years old already had 64 home runs and two All-Star appearances?

Number Nine's time has come and gone, and with it go the beloved Hank’s Homies, as you can clearly see with this article. Hank Blalock has got to go. Too bad he no longer has any trade value. Hank made 4.8 Mil last year to play in 58 games. So far this season, the Rangers have played 115 games and Hank has seen action in only 31 of them. He’s hit 30 home runs in the last three years combined.

Many people think that it was the All-Star game HR that sealed the deal for Hank. They say that after that game, he began to take bigger swings, and that it hurt him as an overall hitter. So let’s look at that first.

Hank batted 51 points higher in the first half than he did in the second half of 2003, and his OBP dropped almost 60 points. He was hitting a bomb about every 7.5 games prior to the AS break, but that jumped to one home run every four games afterward. Hank was batting .323 before Gagne threw that pitch, and has a career .270 average after it went over the wall.

Of course we can’t blame it all on the home run, but Rangers fans are starting to wonder how long management is going to put up with a guy who consistently hits .265, has very little pop, and is on the DL two-thirds of the season while making almost five million per year. The problem is that he doesn’t just not help the team, he hurts them.

Let’s look at how the Rangers have fared this season with and without Hank in the lineup:

Hank and the boys took the field this April and began the season with an 8-16 record. Hank gets hurt on the 25th, and the Rangers go 14-6 over the next 20 games.

By the time he returns to the lineup on July 18th, the Rangers have a record of 50-46, their best showing on that date since 2004. The Rangers go 4-6 and then he gets hurt again (just before the trade deadline, so there is no chance of getting anything for him). Since then, the Rangers have won six of their last nine. They are averaging 5.6 runs per game this season, but only 4.2 while Hank is playing.

In the meantime, his backup is hitting .321 with a .390 OBP.

I think Hank’s days are numbered in Arlington and I think it’s fitting, for just as the UTA boys graduated and gave up the brooms and the painted chests for the real world, maybe it’s time for Hank to graduate to Pittsburgh or Washington or Seattle…

Thoughts?

Benjamin Edwards is lead writer for Studyofsports.com

Nolan Ryan Apologetics

Benjamin Edwards — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:43:57 -0400

From Studyofsports.com:

We received an interesting email recently from “Plunk”, one of our members, that asks:

“From 1957 to 2007, which MLB pitcher has allowed two hits or less in the most games?”

We talked this one over before jumping on baseball-reference.com and couldn't agree on an answer.

Second on the list is Jim Palmer with 17. First is Nolan Ryan, with 37.

37?

That's just ridiculous.

Seven no-hitters and 30 one-hit or two-hit games gives Nolan a 20-game lead over the next best player in that category.

It’s time to find out just how good Nolan really was.

Nolan Ryan is as close to a Texas legend as one man can be. He came here in 1980 at the age of 33 and won 157 games as an Astro and a Ranger. 11 times, in that span, he won at least 10 games, and three times he won over 15.

He threw three no-hitters and struck out 2,805 batters while averaging almost seven K's per game. That and all those Cy Young awards...

But wait...Nolan never won a Cy Young.

In fact, Nolan had a 20-game season only twice in his illustrious 27-year career. Sure, he won 324 games, but he also lost 292. He was an All-Star in only eight of his 27 seasons and never got higher than 14th in the MVP voting.

But he has an excellent career ERA of 3.19.

He led the league in strikeouts 11 times and is the all-time leader in the category with 5,714, which is almost 1,000 more than any other pitcher in MLB history. He ranks first all-time in wild pitches, which would make sense considering his career length, but then again, he led the league six times in wild pitches.

He’s the all-time leader in walks (by about 1,000), and he led the league eight times in that category. The guy started 773 games, and of those, he completed 222. You just don’t see that anymore. Greg Maddux has 109 complete games, and Clemens has tallied 118, and Roger has pitched 24 years.

Nolan is also the all-time leader in fewest hits allowed per 9 innings. But shouldn’t Nolan Ryan be higher than 511th in the rankings of career W-L percentage? There is no way that he should be below Tim Wakefield and Hideo Nomo (who are tied for 481st on the list).

A 22-year-old Ryan played in the ‘69 World Series as a member of the champion New York Mets and registered a save in the series but never again appeared in a World Championship.

This leads me to the first assumption: “Nolan never played for good teams.”

Nolan played for teams that were over .500 in 14 of his 27 years. However, only seven times did his team finish 10 games over .500.

The best team he ever played for (as far as regular-season standings) was the ’69 Mets, who won 100 games. Only twice more did his team win 90+ games. But conversely, he only played for six teams that ended up 10 games below .500.

His four team’s combined record over his career was 2,171-2,143. Not good, not bad. A lot like Ryan’s win-loss total.

So where does that leave us? On one hand, seven no-hitters and 30 one or two-hitters shows his utter dominance. (I’ve said for years that Ryan would have been the greatest closer in history.) But why isn’t Nolan talked about seriously in the “greatest pitcher of all time” conversation?

When I am asked about the greatest of all-time, I mention Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Koufax, Clemens, and Feller. I never think of Nolan. Is it the losses? Is it the walks?

Toby Harrah once said that, “Nolan would load the bases with walks and then strike out three guys in a row.” Is that the most effective pitcher?

What are your thoughts?

Benjamin Edwards is the lead writer for Studyofsports.com

Was Ted Williams Robbed?

Benjamin Edwards — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:55:38 -0400

“My only goal is that one day, when I walk down the street, I want someone to say ‘Look, there goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived.’”

Here is a quick rundown of Ted’s stats:

Career batting avg: .344 (7th all time)

Home Runs: 521 (17th)

Runs Batted In: 1839 (13th)

On Base Percentage: .482 (1st)

Slugging Percentage: .634 (2nd)

Walks: 2021 (4th)

All-Star games: 17 (7th)

Pretty good, I’d say. Keep in mind however that Ted lost three years when he was fighting in WWII and the majority of two more during the Korean War. Had he played those seasons, you can add about 150 home runs to his total, which would bring him up to around 670 and he would also be in the 3,400 hit range. Ted was also the last batter to hit .400 in a season (1941).

I mention all of those facts to tell you this:

Ted Williams was robbed. He won the AL MVP in 1946 and again in 1949 but came in second four times in his career. All four times, he lost to Yankees. He came in third in 1948. The statistics will show that Ted deserved most of these MVPs.

1. 1941- Ted bats .406, DiMaggio hits in 56 straight games. Ted has a batting average almost 50 points higher and seven more home runs in almost 100 fewer at-bats. Only one other player had hit .400 in the previous 15 years and no one has done it since.

Name Team AB H HR BA OPS SB

1 Joe DiMaggio NYY 541 193 30 .357 1.083 4
2 Ted Williams BOS 456 185 37 .406 1.288 2

2. 1942- Ted Williams wins the Triple Crown and Joe Gordon, a career .268 hitter, bats over .300 and beats out Ted for the MVP. Ted hits twice as many homers as Gordon who would never again hit above .284 in his career.

Name AB H HR BA OPS SB

1 Joe Gordon NYY 538 173 18 .322 .900 12
2 Ted Williams BOS 522 186 36 .356 1.147 3

3. 1947- Again, Ted wins the Triple Crown, but Joltin’ Joe wins again.

Name Team AB H HR BA OPS SB

1 Joe DiMaggio NYY 534 168 20 .315 .913 3
2 Ted Williams BOS 528 181 32 .343 1.133 0

4. 1948- This time it’s a three way battle as Ted comes in third. Look at the at-bat totals.

Name Team AB H HR BA OPS SB

1 Lou Boudreau      CLE    560 199 18   .355    .987   3
2 Joe DiMaggio        NYY    594 190   39   .320    .994    1
3 Ted Williams       BOS    509 188   25 .369   1.112 4

5. 1957- This one is the closest as a 38-year-old Ted goes neck and neck with 25 year old Mickey Mantle. Notice that Ted has 54 less at-bats.

     Name                Team      AB      H     HR    BA     OPS    SB
1 Mickey Mantle     NYY      474   173   34    .365   1.177    16
2 Ted Williams         BOS      420   163   38   .388   1.257   0

I think you will agree that at least a few of these should have gone to Ted. If all of them had, he would have seven, which is the record held by Barry Bonds.

Postseason play is not supposed to be considered in the MVP voting in case you were thinking about the World Series wins by the Yankees in these years.

Ted was robbed. Any doubters?

Benjamin Edwards is the lead writer for Studyofsports.com