Bleacher Report - Articles by Andrew Stephan

Bring Back the Whalers: A Letter to Gary Bettman

Andrew Stephan — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:52:51 -0400

Dear Mr. Bettman,

I know you're busy squeezing the life out of a once-proud sport, but I'd like a little bit of your time to give you a little business proposal.

We all know that you don't want to move the Phoenix Coyotes to Hamilton. So here's an alternative:

Bring back the Whalers!

That's right, if you haven't considered Hartford as a destination for the Coyotes yet; you should.

Hartford might not the biggest city, and it probably won't make you the most money. But, I can guarantee that if you bring the NHL back to Hartford, we will support the team whole-heartedly.

We're like a guy whose girlfriend left them. We haven't messed around with anyone else since then; we want you back. And we promise we'll treat you better this time.

Do you need somewhere that already has an arena?

You're in luck, we have the XL Center, with 15,000 capacity. And Eddie Perez, the mayor of Hartford would be more than willing to build a new one.

Do you need fans with passion and knowledge who will loyally support their team?

Hartford has that as well. The Whalers usually averaged somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 fans. That means full arenas every night. And you'll sell even more tickets when you come back.

Do you need to sell luxury boxes?

Well, Connecticut is the wealthiest state in the Union and has plenty of millionaires and corporations.

Do you need to make television revenue?

Hartford is the 29th largest television market.

I've made my case in the only way that you'll understand, by putting it in financial terms.

Try out some human emotion for a second. Hartford had it's heart and soul stolen in 1997. The city is in a state of decay.

If you give us back our team, you will be forever beloved in the Nutmeg State.

You'll delight a legion of true hockey fans who live where hockey should be played, in the cold weather.

The ball's in your court, Mr. Bettman. Give Hartford its heart back.

Sincerely,

Andrew Stephan

Exposed: Weekend Series Reveals The Yankees' Strengths and Weaknesses

Andrew Stephan — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:17:38 -0400

As much as I hate to say it, reports of the Yankees' demise are premature.

Yes, they just got swept by their arch rivals in humiliating fashion. Looking at the bigger picture though, they are 9-9 so far without their best player. Plus, they could have easily won two of the games against the Sox.

In reality, the Yankees are far from done. This series didn't really tell us that much about where they would finish. However, it did give me a chance to look at the squad more closely. Here are the three positives and negatives that I gleaned from this weekend's series:

Positive No. 1: Robinson Cano

Cano looked incredible this weekend, knocking the ball all over Fenway. He hit so well that I now believe that this is the season where he finally fulfills his potential. I think he could very easily hit .330 with 30 homers this year.

This is a big boost for a Yankees lineup that is starting to age. The trio of Teixeira, A-Rod, and Cano could be deadly for opposing pitchers.

Negative No. 1: Bullpen

The Yankees bullpen was a huge negative this weekend. This is an area that the Yankees are certainly going to have to address if they are going to the postseason.

You cannot consistently rely on guys like Phil Coke and Edwar Ramirez. I realize that Brian Bruney is injured, but I'm not confident that he'll be the savior either.

The disappointing thing for Yankee fans has to be that the Red Sox bullpen has been so good. The Red Sox have relied on Ramon Ramirez and Takashi Saito, two pitchers the Yankees could probably have had.

But the Yankees failed to address this area in the offseason, and their hopes now rest on the 39 year old arm of Mariano Rivera.

Positive No. 2: A.J. Burnett

I know that Burnett's line from Saturday was not good, but I watched the game and he was dominant in the first couple of innings. He lost it after that, but he showed promise as a pitcher that could consistently get the Red Sox out. The Yankees haven't had that since Mike Mussina in his prime.

I was skeptical about the Burnett signing; I thought that last year was a fluke for A.J. However, it appears that Burnett will be nasty if he stays healthy.

Negative No. 2: Little Things

The Yankees have got to get the little things sorted out if they are going to beat the Red Sox. This means baserunning, bunting, etc.

A prime example was last night when Ellsbury stole home plate. That is inexcusable for a catcher and pitcher to both be so unaware of the baserunner. Particularly when it is two veterans like Pettite and Posada.

When the Yanks make little mistakes like that, it costs them on the scoreboard and it takes a toll mentally.

Positive No. 3: Big Papi neutralized

David Ortiz was not the same old Yankee killer this weekend, and that's a good sign for New York. If Papi is truly in a major decline, the Red Sox lineup has lost a lot of punch.

It also means that the Red Sox will relinquish the psychological edge that Papi had gained over Yankee pitchers. This could spell more success for the Yanks down the road.

Negative No. 3: Centerfield

From what I saw this weekend, Melky Cabrera and Brett Gardner are not qualified to be starting major league centerfielders. They are both solid enough defensively, but neither is a consistent hitter.

The Yankees' problem is that they have four starting quality corner outfielders (Swisher, Matsui, Damon, and Nady) and zero starting quality centerfielders. I expect them to address this hole at some point in the year.

Five Takes on the KG Injury: The "Experts" Weigh In (Satire)

Andrew Stephan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:55:27 -0400

Bill Simmons, ESPN Columnist

It happened. The worst thing to happen in Boston sports history in the past three months. Kevin Garnett will not be playing in the 2009 postseason.

Last night, I had to call my father to make sure he was alive, as I do after every memorable Boston sports moment. We both agreed that this downgrades the Celtics chances of winning a title from “sure thing” to “very likely.”

Of course most of us Boston faithful saw this coming. We knew that something was wrong with KG’s knee. Believe me, when Boston fans know something is up, something’s up.

Well, this just validates my TSPOATW theory. That would be The Star Player Of A Title Winner always get injured theory. Look it up, it happens all the time. In a way, it reminds me of Teen Wolf. You know that scene where Scott shoots the free throws.

Anyways, we have to do what we do when ever a calamity like this happens. Move along. Yep, these are my readers.

Rick Reilly, ESPN Columnist

Kevin Garnett’s knee injury has been called a tragedy in some circles. I say shame on these sick bastards. You idiots wanna know what a tragedy is? A tragedy is 14 year old Cody Berger of Boise, Idaho. Cody’s been in a coma for three years after trying to jump off of her trampoline and hitting her head. All Cody wants to do is play basketball.

But Mike Warren, director of the local Men’s over-40 rec league, won’t let her play in his league. Gimme a break, these 40 year old geezers can play, but you won’t let a sweet little girl play basketball? You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Warren.

And Charles Barkley, who I played golf with the other day, agrees with me. We called Mr. Warren at his office, and he didn’t pick up. So the question now is: Mr. Warren, where is your decency? A nation waits on your response.

Jemele Hill, ESPN columnist

A lot has been made of Kevin Garnett’s recent knee injury. We’ve talked about how this injury affects his team and the city of Boston, but what about its effect on race relations in the United States?

I think it’s fair to say that if Kevin Garnett were white, this would not be such a big issue. The mainstream media would be too busy reporting about what a great family man he was. But just because he’s black, it’s all about how his knee is injured. Well, I say it’s a sad commentary on American society, how blown out of proportion this is.

The other issue most people are ignoring right now is the city of Detroit. Detroit is going through a really tough time right now. Ford and GM are in big trouble, and Michigan State lost in the NCAA finals.

Yet, nobody even thought to ask regular Detroit citizens how they feel about the Kevin Garnett injury. Way to kick us while we’re down. Detroit will not be ignored.

Jim Caple, ESPN baseball columnist

The East Coast media has been spouting so much drivel about Kevin Garnett’s injury lately, that it’s hard to keep track of other major news stories. I bet that you didn’t know that Kenji Johjima is going on the DL.

You see in reality, the whole world doesn’t revolve around the East Coast. Just because a few super obnoxious Boston fans are a little upset, doesn’t mean that the whole world stops. Seriously, how many of these fans cared about the Celtics before last year?

The truth of the matter is that these fans can’t really hold a candle to the legendary Seattle fans. Seattle has been through the worst year for any city in sports history. And yet they still stay loyal. Not like those despicable Boston fans. They might even be worse than Yankee fans.

Peter King, Sports Illustrated football columnist

Five Things I Think I Think I Thought

1. Kevin Garnett’s injury will have a big impact on the Celtics

2. The Lakers just have to be the favorite in the Western Conference

3. Detroit is going to enter the first round as huge underdogs

4. One of these final 16 teams will emerge as NBA champions

5. Philadelphia would be ecstatic to win another championship

Disclaimer: All of these are fake. I didn't actually interview any of these journalists.

The Top Ten Seattle Athletes

Andrew Stephan — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:29:01 -0500

This is part one of a series where I'm going to try and determine the top ten athletes in the four major sports for each American city or region. I'm only going to be doing cities and regions with two or more major teams (sorry Portland). I'm going to start with Seattle, aka the Emerald City. The home of grunge rock, Starbucks, and most of the Internet. 2008 was a rough time for Seattle sports, so what better time to talk about the greats that were in Seattle.

Begin Slideshow

2009 Yankees = 2007 Patriots?

Andrew Stephan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:46:50 -0500

With the news that broke today about Alex Rodriguez, the Yankees have become one of the most hated baseball teams in recent memory.

They have a perfect storm of controversy: their beloved ex-manager has published a tell-all that reflects negatively on several players, they have built a new deluxe stadium using taxpayer dollars, they just signed the three most coveted free agents in baseball, and now their best player has been found to have tested positive for anabolic steroids.

I tried to reach into recent memory to think if a team that was as reviled and embroiled in controversy as these Yanks will be, and almost immediately I thought of the 2007 Patriots.

For those of you who don’t remember, the 2007 Pats acquired stars Wes Welker, Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth, and Adalius Thomas in the off-season. They entered the season as favorites to win the Super Bowl.

After obliterating the Jets in the first game, the story of the year broke about the Pats. They had been caught videotaping defensive signals since 2001. Suddenly, the media began to go after the Patriots with torches and pitchforks.

They called into question all of the team’s recent accomplishments. The Pats became hated by just about every non-Patriots fan.

Bill Belichick and the Patriots did not take this lying down, and began to destroy opponents, running up the score and showing no remorse in slaughtering opponents.

This simply increased the animosity between the Patriots and the rest of the league. The Patriots finished the regular season undefeated, only to lose in the Super Bowl.

Would the Patriots have played as well and sought to dominate as much, if Spygate had never happened? I highly doubt it.

They were angry at having their accomplishments questioned, and they took on an “f--- the world” mentality. They channeled this emotion into playing the best they could.

So the question is: how will the Yankees react to the controversy that is sure to surround them for the entire season? How will they react to the consistently negative press?

The way I see it, there are two ways that they can react: 1. They can channel their anger and use the emotion to play the best ball of their lives; or 2. They can crumble under the pressure of trying to silence millions of critics.

What the Yankees do remains to be seen. If they crumble under the pressure, we could see a nuclear meltdown on the part of the new boss, Hank Steinbrenner.

If they channel their emotion, they could be one of the most dominant single season teams in recent memory. Or perhaps, emotion will have a different impact in baseball, where emotion can cause fatigue in the day to day grind.

However, if they do become the 2007 Patriots: arrogant, dominating, not giving a damn what anyone else thinks; you can bet that this 2009 season will be one of the most exciting ever.

The Top Ten Quarterbacks In The NFL Today

Andrew Stephan — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:14:20 -0500

I thought it might be fun to put together a top ten list of quarterbacks in the NFL today and see what happened. Here’s my list and I’m hoping it will spark quite a bit of debate and controversy here on BR. That’s pretty much why I ever go on this site, so please feel free to post any comments, no matter how nasty and rude they are.

10. Chad Pennington

At this point you might be saying: Whuh??? Chad Pennington?

Well let me explain. First of all, he’s sixth in the league in yards per attempt at 7.92. If you look at the Dolphins, they have improved from 1-15 to a potential playoff team and one of the biggest changes that they have enacted is a new quarterback in Pennington. His top wide receivers are Greg Camarillo and Ted Ginn Jr. That’s not exactly Harrison-Wayne or Moss-Welker. Obviously, the Dolphins are a run-first team, but Pennington has been very effective and mistake prone when he needs to throw the ball. This is a different player than the one that we had seen with the Jets over the past few years.

9. Jay Cutler

The Vandy Dandy exploded at the beginning of the year and looked like one of the top quarterbacks in the league. Since the first few games, he cooled off, but he is still one of the top ten in my book. The guy has a rocket arm and is a major reason for the development of guys like Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal.

Right now, I think he’s a poor man’s Brett Favre. He has the ability to win games, but he can also lose games with mistakes. If the Broncos ever get a defense around him, look out.

8. Philip Rivers

This Bolts leader has been very effective this year. He’s second in QB rating and first in touchdowns. He’s also had to carry an offense that has regressed with an aging LaDanian Tomlinson. Rivers is a gutsy leader who has shined despite a disappointing season for the Chargers.

7. Brett Favre

Now a lot of folks would put Favre higher up on this list. Not me. Favre has certainly been good this year, good enough to be the number seven quarterback. But there seems to be an argument out there that he is the sole reason behind the Jets’ improvement. He certainly has had a big effect; their offense is averaging about 50 yards more per game.

But let’s not forget that the Jets had one of the worst QBs in the league last year in Kellen Clemens. It’s not a shocker that their offense got so much better. Plus, Favre has a bad habit of throwing interceptions, he has 14 this year. Favre is a very good quarterback, but he is no longer a great quarterback.

6. Drew Brees

I think Drew Brees is great, but I just couldn’t justify putting him any higher so he comes in at number six. Here’s a guy who has never had a truly great wide receiver and always makes the guys around him better. Look at Lance Moore, Marques Colston, and Antonio Gates. He’s a smart player who has consistently put up big numbers without a ton of talent around him. I think he would have a ring by now, but he’s never been in the right situation.

5. Tony Romo

I know there are going to be some objections to this one. Let me justify myself.

Tony Romo leads the league in QB rating and yards per attempt. The change in the Cowboys since he came back has been dramatic. True, he’s been fortunate enough to play with unbelievable weapons for his whole career. And he has never won that ring. I think it is unfair to call him a choker, though. Ok, so he dropped a snap and that was stupid.

But, we don’t judge quarterbacks on holding anymore than we would judge a running back on their ability to kick. So let’s not blame that on Tony Romo the quarterback. Holding is not a part of the quarterback position. He really wasn’t that bad last year, either. He threw for 201 yards with one touchdown and one pick against the Giants. Those numbers are pretty respectable. This guy’s a leader and a franchise quarterback. He’s the best quarterback without a ring.

4. Eli Manning

Eli showed a lot of cojones in beating the undefeated Pats last year. Quite a departure from the spoiled kid who refused to play for the Chargers. He’s been outstanding this year as well. There’s a good chance that Eli will win another ring this year. He has really matured into a confident, seasoned NFL quarterback and one of the better in the league.

3. Ben Roethlisberger

Yes, Big Ben has a ring. And yes, he wasn’t really the most important player on that championship team. But since then, he has evolved into a player who can do more than just not lose games. Now, he can win them himself. On top of all that, the guy is just a warrior. He will play hurt and can take a hit with the best of them. If he continues on this path, I think the Hall of Fame could be in the future for this linebacker-sized passer.

2. Peyton Manning

Peyton proved that he could win a championship two years ago in Miami, so now there’s nothing keeping from the Hall of Fame. Peyton is a guy who is a meticulous worker and a tremendous leader. He has practically willed the Colts through some games this year. He has inferior stats this year because he has been nicked up, but in the past he has been the most prolific passer in the league. He’s not better than Brady though.

1 Tom Brady

Here are a few reasons why Brady is better than Manning, if he has a healthy leg:

Three > One- Brady’s got three rings and Peyton’s only got one.

Talent Around Him- Brady has had consistently subpar wide receivers compared to Peyton. Yet, he still has been able to put up respectable numbers during most of his career. In fact, the one year when Brady had receivers that were comparable to Manning was last year and Brady put together the greatest single season of any quarterback in NFL history.

Listen, I’ve heard all the counter arguments. Brady has had better teams around him and that has allowed him to win more rings. Fair enough, but Manning’s stats are only better because he has had more offensive talent around him. I just have to go with my eyes and my heart and from what I’ve seen, Brady is the better player. But it’s very very very very very close, with the emphasis on the very. I think that Brady is a smidgen better and is the best quarterback in the NFL.

BCS Mess? Well Here's The Mop

Andrew Stephan — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:32:05 -0500

As obviously everyone knows, the BCS has created a huge controversy this year. The only real solution to this problem is to overhaul the whole BCS system. It just plain sucks and it’s very anti-climactic. Here’s my solution along with possible counter-arguments from indignant college football bigwigs.

Step 1: 16 team playoff

Indignant bigwigs- You can’t do that, that adds a month onto the season. These are student athletes and they need to study.

Really?? You can’t add a month to the season? Because that’s what they do in college basketball. And you don’t seem to have a problem with that. The first two rounds in the playoffs can even be played at the home fields of the higher seed to cut down on travel time.

The reason for 16 teams is because, first of all, it makes the playoffs longer. And who doesn’t want more college football?

Second, it allows us to include teams like Boise State, Utah, and Ball State that wouldn’t otherwise. These teams deserve a shot to play for a title.

Step 2: Allow the NCAA to schedule each school’s non-conference schedule

Indignant bigwigs- No way should the NCAA be allowed to dictate who each team plays. Coaches should be the only ones to make those decisions.

No. Coaches should not be the ones to make those decisions, and here’s why. Coaches are motivated by two things, money and winning. So they are going to try and schedule big name programs that will help them rake in the bucks, but won’t give them too much of a challenge. Why do you think people schedule Notre Dame? Most teams don’t want to already have one loss when they start their grueling conference schedule. So they’re not going to schedule Boise State and Utah.

In order to balance off the schedules, the NCAA should force teams like Florida and Oklahoma to schedule teams like Boise State and Utah. This way we can see how good these mid-majors really are. Also, we need to see more play between big conferences. We need more games to see how the Big Ten stacks up against the Big East for example. If the NCAA schedules these games, we can get a better idea of how teams stack up.

Step 3: Keep the BCS ratings

Okay, no big wigs would disagree with this one. But here’s the thing: there’s nothing wrong with the BCS itself. It’s the way that it’s applied. A computer ranking is useful for selecting a group of teams, like the RPI is used for basketball. However, it is not useful for selecting the top two teams.

Think of it this way: If the BCS is selecting 16 teams, chances are that it will select 16 of maybe 20 deserving teams. Those four teams that get left out are going to have beef, but as a lower seed you’re going to be a long shot anyways. That’s why nobody screams about the RPI when a bubble team gets left out, because those teams were not going to win the title anyways.

If the BCS is selecting two teams for the title game, that’s a big deal. One wrongfully selected team and the whole championship is flawed. When I look at the champions from some of the past few years, I think that they are great teams. But they lack that kind of luster that one only gets from making a difficult playoff run.

Step 4: Trim the bowl schedule

Obviously with 16 teams taken out of the bowl field, the schedule is going to have to be trimmed by at least eight games. But I say, trim it to 15 bowl games. It should be open to teams that win eight games or more and if there aren’t enough of those, take the best 7-5 teams.

Indignant big wig: That takes away our revenue! Now there are going to be less games and less teams involved. Not to mention the fact that it deprives some players of the opportunity to play in the postseason.

Actually, with a 16 team playoff, you would have exactly 30 postseason games which would be pretty comparable to what we have now. Plus, these games would be more meaningful and competitive. As for depriving players of the opportunity, I agree we would be. But I think that when we let 6-6 teams play in the postseason, we kind of lessen the accomplishment that it is getting to a bowl game. Hopefully, our bowl games will be more interesting and more competitive because of this change.

The other bowl game change is that the NCAA makes the bowl schedule. This way we can see more interesting match ups than we have in the past. For example, who in New England wouldn’t want to see something like Boston College vs. UConn? That would be a fun match up that couldn’t exist under the current system.

Okay, so here’s my proposal again outlined:

1. 16 team playoff- winners of the major six conferences get in and ten at large bids determined by the BCS. First two rounds are played at the higher seeds home field. Second two rounds are played at traditional bowl sites like the Rose Bowl.

2. Schedule changes- NCAA now schedules non-conference games

3. Bowl games- only 15 bowl games, limited to the 30 best non-playoff teams. All of these match ups are chosen by the NCAA.

That’s basically it. Let me know what you think in the comments section.

You Suffered More For Your Team? Who Gives A Crap?

Andrew Stephan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:41:56 -0400

Recently there’s been a lot of talk about which city has been through the most and a lot of media coverage on Philly’s 100 years of losing.

And to be honest I’m kind of sick of it all.

I'm not necessarily upset about the Philly part, but rather the constant comparisons that we make between cities and how much “suffering” they’ve been through. Not only is suffering impossible to measure, it is rather childish to constantly be comparing it.

It’s like the presidential candidates competing over who had the shittiest childhood. “I grew up in a working class household.” “I grew up on the mean streets of Scranton.” “I lived off of anchovies and cheese whiz for the first 12 years of my life, until I was old enough to get a job working in the coal mines.”

It gets tiresome.

I believe that it has created a new brand of fan known as the “bottom runner.” Now these fans don’t really have the balls to support a team like the Lions or the Bengals, but they will definitely jump on the Cubs bandwagon. Why? Because they know they will get attention.

It’s cool to look like you suffered for your team and when a team is close like the Cubs, they can say that they’ve been through it all and still enjoy the victory when it comes. They would never root for the Lions, because the Lions are years away from a Super Bowl and it's not worth their time. They support well-publicized suffering teams like the Cubs and Rays, just so they can appear to be “real” sports fans and look down on those “fake” sports fans or front-runners; aka anyone who supports a team that has won a title recently.

As a Boston sports fan, I’m a little sick of being looked down upon because I happen to support winning teams. People automatically assume that I’m a front-runner, which is simply not true. I have supported the Celtics, Pats, and Red Sox from birth, and by the way, they didn’t win any titles for the first 12 years of my 18-year-old life.

Now I will concede that Red Sox fans are largely responsible for the phenomenon I described in the first two paragraphs. However, most true Boston fans that I know never tried to make it about who has suffered more. The ones who did were the bottom-runners who jumped on the Sox bandwagon in 2003 and 2004.

Being a good fan is not about how much losing you’ve seen in your lifetime. Why is it that when I wear a Red Sox shirt after they lose, it’s called loyalty, but when I wear one after they win, it’s called arrogance? I have just as much right to enjoy my victories as the true fan of any other team.

Being a good fan is sticking with your team through the good and the bad, watching their games, caring about the outcomes, and generally knowing what’s going on. I know plenty of Red Sox and Yankees fans who do all these things, despite the fact that we’re all bandwagon fans, according to the rest of the country. So I get a little tired of being consistently scorned and written off. The fans of winning teams are victimized, even though we’re not really the enemies.

The real enemies are the countless numbers of bandwagon fans who act like they’re kings of the world when their team wins and totally disown their teams when they lose.

The way to combat these fans is not to “bottom run”. By doing that you’re just creating another bandwagon. The way to combat the bandwagoners is to ignore them. Let them root for who they want to root for and let them think what they want. Pity them, because they don’t really know what they’re missing.

The Ten Cities That Hate Boston The Most

Andrew Stephan — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:54:25 -0400

It seems like the city du jour for haters is Boston. Boston has been the most successful sports city since 2001 with six total championships in that time. Just take a look at any sports website and you’ll find countless jabs at Red Sox Nation, the Celtics bandwagon, Spygate, and 18-1.

Why do they hate us? Well, it has something to do with jealousy. And it has something to do with Massholes. Anyways, here’s a look at the ten cities that hate Boston the most.

1. New York—Okay this is a given. The Yankees and the Red Sox have the most heated rivalry in all of sports. The Jets fans hate Bill Belichick after the Spygate fiasco was discovered last year in New York. This is not even to mention the fact that the Knicks-Celtics and Rangers-Bruins rivalries have not always been civil. Simply put, New York and Boston hate each other with a passion.

2. Los Angeles—The obvious is the Lakers-Celtics rivalry. This is one of the classic rivalries in American sports, and it was rekindled this year when the two teams met in the finals. Not to be overlooked however is the disdain the Angels are sure to feel for the Red Sox after being beaten in the playoffs by them three times in the past five years.

3. IIndianapolis-Colts fans hate the Pats. Just hate them. For anybody who questions this, just watch the tape of the 2007 AFC championship game. Colts fans were absolutely out of their mind delirious after beating the Pats.

4. Cleveland-In October 2007, the Red Sox rallied from a 3-1 deficit to knock the Indians out of the ALCS. Then in June 2008, the Celtics knocked the Cavs out of the playoffs in seven games. A couple of devastating losses like that could make a city just a little bitter. Plus, Cleveland fans have never really gotten over the loss of Manny Ramirez and Bill Belichick to the hub of the universe.

5. Philadelphia-Philadelphia is just like Boston: a bunch of pissed off drunk guys who generally like to support their team rabidly and are willing to fight anyone to defend their city. So as you can imagine, when these cities meet it isn’t pretty. The Sixers and Celtics have a long history of animosity as Eastern Conference rivals. And of course the Patriots are responsible for ending the first Super Bowl dream that the Eagles had had in 25 years.

6. Hartford-I know, I know. Hartford isn’t really a city per se, but there is a lot of hatred towards Boston there. Why? Well, back in the mid-90s, Hartford let their professional hockey franchise, the Whalers, move to Carolina, believing that they would be getting the New England Patriots.

Ha ha funny thing about that, the Patriots were just using Hartford as leverage to get a new stadium deal in Foxboro. So Hartford basically got screwed. And that’s why the name Bob Kraft is a swear word in Connecticut.

7. San Diego- The Patriots have been responsible for the Chargers last two playoff eliminations. After defeating the Chargers in 2006, the Patriots celebrated by making the universal choking sign, their hands around their throats. This prompted LaDainian Tomlinson to call the Pats “classless”.

8. St. Louis- Boston has ended the Gateway’s title hopes twice in this new millennium. The Patriots ended the Rams dynasty hopes back in 2001 and in 2004 defeated the Cardinals in the World Series.

9. Baltimore- Sox fans routinely invade Camden Yards and drive O’s fans crazy.

10.Oakland- The Red Sox stole the Moneyball strategy from Billy Beane, and then went on to defeat the A’s in the 2003 ALCS. Then, they tried to steal Billy Beane when it looked like Theo Epstein was leaving. The Patriots have irked Raiders fans by getting maximum effort out of Randy Moss, and of course the notorious “Tuck Rule” game.

TBS: Terrible Baseball Station

Andrew Stephan — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:00:44 -0400

Okay, I'm really pissed off right now. Let me tell you why. It is partially because the Red Sox are losing 8-6 to the Tampa Bay Rays in Game Two of the ALCS. But mostly it is because of the terrible baseball coverage on TBS.

Actually, it's not really TBS; it's you, Chip Caray. I decided to give you a second chance after last year when you practically had an orgasm every time the Yankees got a hit in the ALDS against Cleveland. But I can't be quiet anymore.

I'm a diehard Red Sox fan, and I'm a little upset over the way you're calling this game. Let's compare your home run calls between the Rays and the Red Sox:

Pedroia's home run: A high flyball to left field. Pedroia homers to the first row. The Red Sox take the lead.

B.J. Upton's home run in the same inning: Upton hits a deep drive to left field!!!!!! It's gone!!!!!! B.J. Upton absolutely crushed that ball and the Rays are right back in the series!!!!!!! YOU JUST CAN'T KEEP THE RAYS DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, those weren't the exact words, but you get my point. Another good example would be in the first inning when Carlos Pena doubled. You said something to the effect of, "The Rays are back in this series!!!!!!!!!!!" This is on a two-out double. In the first inning. With the Rays trailing by two.

I don't care if you root for the Rays, Chip. Just let someone who is not a diehard fan call the game. Then you can sit in the stands and ring your little cowbell with your pink Scott Kazmir jersey on. So I guess what I'm asking is that you leave your job. You don't need the money. In fact, I will pay you not to call baseball games anymore.

Do some soul-searching and think about what you really want to do. Do you want to keep rooting from the announcer's booth for whatever team you choose, or do you want to be in the stands with the rest of the fans?

It's your choice, but remember that if the Red Sox win the series, it would be pretty embarrassing for you to cry in the booth. Remember that it's just a game. Please try to control your voice and your bowels for the remainder of the series.

The 10 Most-Frustrating Ways To Lose at Madden

Andrew Stephan — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:57:07 -0400

Everybody knows what it's like to be frustrated by losing at a video game. You feel like an idiot for caring, but you just can't help it.

Let's face it: Losing at video games is much more frustrating than losing in real sports. When you lose in a video game, it's a completely negative experience.

At least when you lose in a real sport you feel like you accomplished a little bit of something, not just tapping some buttons.

So anyways, here are the 10 most frustrating ways to lose at Madden, the most popular sports video game in America.

10. The Mismatch

Don't you hate that sinking feeling when you know you're going to lose before the game even begins? This is like every time two players go to the team select screen and one chooses the Colts or Patriots in Madden.

Seriously dude? You're gonna be the best team?

Then he goes out and demolishes you with the superiority of his players. The most frustrating aspect of this loss is that you feel as if skill has been eliminated from the equation. Where's the fun if the game is inherently slanted in one team's favor?

9. The Unstoppable Player

In Madden 2006 and 2007, there are a few of these beasts. They include LaDanian Tomlinson, Shaun Alexander, and Peyton Manning. But by far, the most unstoppable is Michael Vick.

In Madden 2007, Vick is not only one of the fastest players in the game, he is also one of the best quarterbacks. When using Vick, all one really has to do is to call a Hail Mary and let Vick work his magic.

If the player chooses to run with Vick, he can usually get 15 to 20 yards and a first down. If he decides to throw the ball, Vick can fire a 70-yard bomb right on the money for a touchdown.

Even more frustrating is Vick's bizarre ability to sprint full speed away from the offensive line and then turn and fire the ball 70 yards directly to the wide receiver. This seems to be physically impossible.

My friends and I decided that being the Falcons was not allowed because of this ridiculousness. Simply put, if you face on of these monsters, you cannot win.

8. The Unexplainable Crappiness of your Team

Let me tell you a story. One time, I was the Vikings, and I was playing my friend who was the New England Patriots.

I was beating him and then Mewelde Moore happened.

Let's just say that Mewelde managed to fumble consecutive kickoffs (this was before the hit stick), and both resulted in touchdowns. I ended up losing by one touchdown.

Sometimes in Madden, your team is just inexplicably crappy and there's nothing you can do about it. This is incredibly annoying.

7. The Glitchy Loss

Everybody has gone through the experience where on a key play, something that is just not allowed by the laws of physics happens.

For example, on a Hail Mary, the ball goes through the body of a defensive player and is caught by a wide receiver. One time, I broke a big run with Vince Young and went to dive into the end zone. He was literally untouched, but, yet he fumbled the ball as he was going into the end zone. It went out and went to the other team as a touchback.

Needless to say, I was pissed.

6. The Unstoppable Play

This is the play that your opponent calls every time, but works every time. You try everything, 3-4, 4-3, dime, and nickel; but you cannot stop it. He keeps running it at you and scores at will.

Eventually, late in the game, you figure it out and get a stop.

Once you do this, he invariably switches it up and finds yet another unstoppable play. You don't have enough time to figure this one out and you end up losing.

5. The External Circumstance Loss

This is when something in the real world screws you up. For example, somebody walks in front of the screen on a key fourth down or your phone rings in the middle of a play. You can't go back and do it over, so you basically get screwed.

4. The Screwing Around Mistake

In the first half of many games, people will assume that the game is just for fun. They will go for it on fourth down and go for two, willy nilly. All the while, your opponent is kicking field goals and extra points, punting, and generally doing things the right way.

The game remains close, and becomes more hotly contested. Both competitors will begin to talk trash and get more serious about the game. Eventually, your screwing around in the first half will come back to bite you in the ass. This is because the game doesn't like to be screwed with.

They like you to act like a real NFL coach, and if you don't, you pay the price.

3. The Karmic Payback

This is closely related to the screwing around mistake. This can be triggered by any number of things, like showboating on a long pass play, hit-sticking the QB after the play, or going for two when it is not necessary.

In these three scenarios, respectively, you will always at least once: 1) get stopped on the one-yard line and be unable to score a crucial touchdown, 2) get called for roughing the passer on a key third or fourth-down play, or 3) end up losing by one point after a huge comeback by your opponent.

Once again, the game doesn't like it when you play the game the wrong way and will eventually punish you.

2. The Good Half-Bad Half

This sounds like every other Madden game I ever played. In the first half, you dominate, stopping your opponent repeatedly and scoring with ease.

You get cocky and start saying that you can beat the opponent by 40 or even rooting for them to "make it more interesting."

In the second half, everything that you did in the first half doesn't work. Your opponent comes back and beats you.

You're doubly humiliated by the fact that you choked and the fact that you were talking smack the whole way.

1. The Novice Trap

I call this a trap because you can't possibly win. You face off against someone who really doesn't know how to play or isn't very good. Before the game, there is always somebody who talks you up: saying that you play Madden non-stop and you're the best player that they know.

Then, for some reason you lose. Now you look like a jackass because everybody thought you were really good.

The worst part, however, is that the person you just lost to doesn't even care. They don't even like Madden that much and they'll say something to you like "Good game."

Good game?

You just ripped out my soul and humiliated me in front of a group of people and that's all you can say? It almost would be better if they went crazy and danced a jig in front of you. Then at least you could challenge them to a rematch without feeling like a jerk or looking like a poor sport.

No, you will never play them again and will be forever saddled with the knowledge that you lost and will be viewed as some sort of Madden paper champion. This is the worst form of losing in Madden.

Chicago Cubs Fans Need To Keep the Faith

Andrew Stephan — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:49:51 -0400

Lots of Cubs fans have been jumping out of windows lately, and for me, it's not hard to understand why. I remember what it felt like before the Red Sox won in 2004—that feeling that it was never going to happen. Well, I got news for you, Cubs fans: It's gonna happen.

It may not be next year. Or the year after. But eventually, it will happen. I know this because it happened to the Red Sox, and if it can happen to them, it can happen to anybody.

Let's look at the reasons you still have to keep following this team. First of all, they're a great team. They're all going to be back next year. A couple of key additions, and they could be even better.

The window on this squad hasn't closed. They're not chokers. Derrek Lee has won a World Series with the Marlins. Soriano has made playoff runs with the Yankees before. They just need to get hot at the right time.

I could understand your fatalism if you were the fan of a small-market team. But the Cubs have a huge market; they can continue to spend money and make this team a winner every year. Eventually, if you keep knocking, you will break down that door. For a small-market team, the window closes so quickly, and they have to make the best of every opportunity. The Cubs have the luxury of continuously building this team up.

Go to a ballgame. Go to your beautiful ballpark and enjoy watching your favorite team in one of America's most beloved landmarks. Win or lose, you will have a good time, and let's face it: This is supposed to be fun. Have a couple beers, kick back, and enjoy yourself. Sports should be an escape from life, not life itself.

The most important reason to keep the faith is the reward. When the Cubs finally win, it is going to be the most happy any fanbase in any sport has ever been. And why is that? Because you soldiered through all the hard times. Because you sweated and cried over this franchise.

Believe me, I'm a Red Sox fan. I know what this kind of joy feels like, and let me tell you something: It was worth the 86 years. The emotional release will be amazing.

So don't walk away from the Cubs. They need you now more than ever. There are tough times to come, but there are great times up ahead as well. Keep the faith, brothers and sisters, and if you ever need an encouraging word, just turn to your cousins up in Boston. We believe in the Cubbies, and we know you'll do it eventually.

Shocked by Sox? Not Me.

Andrew Stephan — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 04:18:48 -0400

Many seem to be shocked about how the Boston dominated the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in games one and two...not me. Why? Because the Angels were never really as good as we gave them credit for. Let’s take a look at some of the common arguments that people used to determine the Angels as the favorites:

T11100 wins argument

The prevailing wisdom was that the Halos had won 100 games, five more than the Red Sox, thus they were a truly better team.

Not really.

The Red Sox Pythagorean record was 95-67, the best in the AL. The Angels were only 88-74, the worst of all four playoff teams. Essentially, the Angels won twelve extra games through luck.

We also can’t ignore the fact that the Red Sox played in the toughest division in baseball, where four teams won at least 86 games.

The Angels played in the only other division in baseball that didn’t have more than one team with a winning record. If the Red Sox had been in the AL West, they would have won at least 100 games.

9-19-1 Season Record vs. Red Sox

This is true, the Angels did dominate the Red Sox during the regular season. But, all ten of these games came before July 31^st. The Sox have been a much healthier and more dominant team since the beginning of August. If the Sox had faced the Angels later in the year, it’s safe to say that the record would have been a little more even.

TheBullpen Argument

Conventional wisdom said that the Angels had a better bullpen than the Sox. Where did this come from? Maybe its because Francisco Rodriguez had 62 saves, everybody decided that he was out of this world.

Never mind that his ERA was only 0.10 lower than Johnathan Papelbon’s and they had very similar save percentages. K-Rod had 23 more save opportunities than Paps. Also, for some reason the Red Sox were believed to have a shallow bullpen.

The Red Sox have had four solid performers in the pen this year (besides Paps): Hideki Okajima, Javier Lopez, Manny Delcarmen, and Justin Masterson. They also have playoff veterans like Mike Timlin and Paul Byrd coming out of the pen.

The Angels on the other hand, have three solid guys: Darren Oliver, Scott Shields, and Jose Arredondo. And besides that they have uh…I don’t really know. None of the other names on this roster are familiar, unless you are a huge Salt Lake Bees fan.

TheMost Complete Team in Baseball Argument

This is the most infuriating argument for me. Every baseball analyst wants to pick “the most complete team”. What the hell does this even mean? It doesn’t mean the best team, which common sense says you would want to pick. I guess it means that the Angels have no glaring weakness.

OK fair enough, that’s a decent argument, except for the fact that the Red Sox don’t either. Nobody in the playoffs has a glaring weakness, that’s why they’re in the playoffs.

RevRevenge Argument

Common sense seemed to be that the Angels were out for revenge against the Sox, who beat them nine straight times in the postseason. This would be true, except for the fact that the Angels were favored in this series.

This gave the Sox the motivation to beat them—how would you feel if you were the World Series champion and you were the underdog in the first round against a team that you swept last year? I’m guessing the Sox were pretty pissed.

In watching this series so far, it is pretty clear that the Red Sox are the more confident, motivated team. They come up with big hits when they need them and they are able to keep the Angels from doing too much damage in key situations.

It’s not over yet for the Angels though. If Josh Beckett has trouble in his first start back, the Angels could steal one. Then Tim Wakefield pitches for the Sox, and he’s unpredictable. If they can win two in Fenway, they may have enough momentum to win this series in LA.

But as for now, it appears that the Red Sox are simply a better playoff team than the Angels.

Comparing Female Pop Stars to NFL QBs

Andrew Stephan — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:31:15 -0400

As I was watching football last week, it struck me how similar the life of an NFL quarterback is to the life of a female pop star. Both have millions of screaming fans. Both have a vast and varied wardrobe. Both are forced to run an effective two minute drill. Both wear obnoxious amounts of makeup. So without further ado, here is who various NFL quarterbacks would be if they were famous female pop stars.

Jessica Simpson = Donovan McNabb

"Is this chicken or tuna?" - Jessica Simpson

Like Jessica, McNabb's popularity peaked about four years ago. Both have not been the same since being separated from their partners, Terrell Owens and Nick Lachey. Both have been consistently good but have never been the best at their fields.

Key Similarity: Both have been humiliated on national television.

Key Difference: Donovan McNabb would not look good in Daisy Duke's shorts.

Katy Perry = Derek Anderson

"I kissed a girl and I liked it, I hope my boyfriend don't mind it." - Katy Perry

Both appear to have been one hit wonders after exploding on to the scene last year. Both were inspired by Joan Jett and Janis Joplin.

Key Similarity: Both have been wildly disappointing since their first hit.

Key Difference: I doubt that Derek Anderson even has a boyfriend, so he's free to kiss all the girls that he wants.

Beyonce Knowles = Tom Brady

"To the left, to the left, everything you own in a box to the left." - Beyonce Knowles

Both are simply the best. Both have spouses that are just as famous as they are. Both have parented children out of wedlock.

Key Similarity: Both can be accurately described as "bootylicious."

Key Difference: Beyonce Knowles has two working ACLs and two working MCLs.

Rihanna = Tony Romo

"That was quite a show oooh-oh, very entertaining, but its over now, go on and take a bow." - Rihanna

Both are superstars who came on to the scene a couple years ago and appear to be here to stay. Both could have been pro golfers.

Key Similarity: Disturbia, Ain't used to what you like, Disturbia

Key Difference: Rihanna has never dated Jessica Simpson, as far as we know.

Madonna = Brett Favre

"I've given everything I possibly can give to this organization, to the game of football, and I don't think I've got anything left to give, and that's it. I know I can play, but I don't think I want to." - Madonna

Neither one will give up. Both were extremely popular in the 1990s.

Key Similarity: Both express their sexuality through music.

Key Difference: Brett Favre plays for the Jets, Madonna still has her dignity.

Britney Spears = Jon Kitna

"I’m not that innocent." - Britney Spears

Both are clinically insane. Both have had surprisingly successful careers.

Key Similarity: Both are required to wear strait jackets to their prospective professions.

Key Difference: Britney Spears has always had hair, oh wait never mind.

Shakira = Drew Brees

"My hips don’t lie and I’m starting to feel you boy." - Shakira

Both are overshadowed by their more successful counterparts despite being consistently talented. Both try to avoid beautiful liars.

Key Similarity: Shakira and Drew Brees both have collaborated with Wyclef Jean.

Key Difference: Shakira is a female pop star. Drew Brees is a starting quarterback in the NFL. Duh!

Missy Elliot = Ben Roethlisberger

"This is for my ghetto motherf***ers!" - Ben Roethlisberger

Both are umm…husky? Both are extremely talented. Both saw that Jerome Bettis won a Super Bowl in his hometown of Detroit. What a story!!

Key Similarity: Both appear in public primarily in track suits.

Key difference: Missy Elliot is more courageous in stepping up in the pocket and finding the open receiver.

So as you can see, the similarities between pop stars and quarterbacks are eerie. In fact, I propose that we start a TV show that involves all of these people switching places. It could be an improvement to have Beyonce take over the starting position on the Pats, and I’d love to see Derek Anderson live in concert. FOX, get on that.

Can the Boston Red Sox's Bullpen Come Through When Needed?

Andrew Stephan — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:02:22 -0400

The Boston Red Sox are cruising into the postseason once again, and with most of their championship team from last year returning, they look to be capable of making another deep run.

They have an extremely deep and experienced rotation, and a lineup that is capable of pounding opposing pitchers. Their one glaring question mark, however, may be their bullpen.

The Sox's bullpen this year has been erratic at times; although, in evaluating the season as a whole, the numbers are solid. The main issue with the Sox's bullpen is that it is not particularly deep. Beyond three or four key guys, they have very few options. In this article, I'll break down some of those key pitchers in the Sox pen.

Top options

Jonathan Papelbon

The Sox's closer has been one of the top closers in the league again this year. His electric stuff and gamer mentality allow him to get the Sox out of sticky situations. A reason for concern may be that, lately, Paps has been getting the Red Sox into jams rather than getting them out of them. He needs to snap out of it if the Sox are to make a run.

Manny Delcarmen

Delcarmen has been spotty at times this year, but overall he has been solid. His fastball can be overpowering, but sometimes he relies too much on power instead of deception.

Javier Lopez

Lopez has been the lefty specialist on the Sox for most of the year. His sidearm delivery can be deadly against hitters on either side of the plate. For the most part, Lopez has been trustworthy this year, and this is why he is the only major Red Sox reliever not to earn a loss.

Hideki Okajima

Okajima was the Sox's set-up man for most of last year, but this year he has played a decreased role in the Red Sox's 'pen. He is still a good option for the Sox, though last year, in the World Series, he had some rough patches. Okajima is the second-best lefty option on the Sox.

Justin Masterson

Masterson started off the year as a starter, but the Sox converted him into a reliever when some of their injured starters came back. Masterson is their best long-relief option, but he has never appeared in the postseason.

Other options

Paul Byrd

Mainly a long-relief option. He may be called on to make a start

David Aardsma

Will probably be used sparingly in the postseason.

Mike Timlin

Has been brutal since coming off the DL. If he's called in with the game in doubt, the Sox are in trouble.

The Red Sox's bullpen could be a wild card for this team. The Sox should get solid starts from Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, and Daisuke Matsuzaka; they don't want to squander these with the bullpen.

I believe that the Red Sox's bullpen will be effective for the most part this postseason. However, the important thing is whether or not it can perform with men on base in a hostile road situation, something the team did not really face a lot in last year's postseason.

As the wild card this year, their relievers will have to be stronger than ever to keep the momentum out of the hands of the home team.

Defending Josh Howard: Were the Mavericks Star's Comments That Bad?

Andrew Stephan — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:45:53 -0400

There have been a few articles ripping Josh Howard over the past few days, so I thought that I'd try to present his side of the story here. Let me preface this article by saying that I don't agree with what he said.

I love America, and I'm truly appreciative of all the opportunities my family and I have been given here. But I feel like the firestorm that Josh Howard's comments have started is a little overblown, and I'm going to try to justify his mindset, at least a little bit.

First of all, I have heard the argument that the responsibility lies not on Howard, but on the culture of the NBA. I don’t believe this, and I think that it is unfair to other NBA players to put them in the same boat. He was the one who made the remark; he is the only one responsible until someone else comes out with a similar comment. I would be willing to bet that the majority of NBA players are very respectful of this country and recognize the opportunities that it has given them.

In Howard’s defense, his comment was not malicious; he was simply expressing his point of view on respecting the National Anthem. For the record, he said he didn't celebrate The Star-Spangled Banner because he was black. He didn’t say he hated America, he didn’t say he thought America should no longer exist. He was simply utilizing his freedom of speech, which is one of the most important rights we have as Americans.

Are we seriously prepared to take every disrespectful comment by Americans about America as high treason? We are all frustrated with some aspect of American life, and it is not illegal to express it. Granted, Howard’s comments were not particularly insightful, but they did bring to mind an important issue in American history, the treatment of minorities.

Keep in mind that this National Anthem is the same one that we have had since the days of segregation and slavery, the days of Native American genocide, and the days of Japanese internment camps.

Can we really expect minorities to completely respect this anthem when it has in the past symbolized discrimination and racism? African-Americans have been treated unfairly by this country for so many years, and we expect them to have complete respect for our national symbols?

I don’t get how this works; we’re allowed to bully them and discriminate against them for two-hundred years, but God forbid one of them makes a negative remark about the National Anthem.

I know that Josh Howard probably hasn’t experienced much of this racism, and most of his opportunities are due to this country, but he still identifies himself as a black man, and that means that his history with this country has been troubled.

So, to sum it up, was what Howard said really that bad? In my opinion, he was simply attempting to exercise his right to freedom of speech and express a fundamental imbalance in this country’s history.

Did he put it eloquently or choose an appropriate moment to protest? Probably not. But I believe that the motive behind his comments was plausible and understandable. You might not agree with what he said, but Josh Howard is no villain.