Bleacher Report - Articles by Stew Winkel

How To Fix Major League Baseball's Fiscal Imbalance

Stew Winkel — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:03:34 -0500

First, let me get this out of the way—congratulations to the New York Yankees and their fans on winning the World Series. They were the best team and deserved to win.

Okay, now I can move on to why the rest of baseball needs to see what the Yankees accomplished in the last twelve months, and why they should be afraid—be very afraid.

Over that time, the Yankees signed three of the top four free agents on the market, a year after signing Alex Rodriguez to the richest contract in the sport. They then opened a brand new stadium that despite all those stories about empty seats still brought in more money than its predecessor did the year before.

Everyone else around baseball needs to realize something must be done now to attempt to level the playing field in Major League Baseball. Some actions must be taken to give all teams a chance to compete with the few big market teams, not just on the field, but also in the free agent market.

This isn’t anti-Yankee in any way. The Yankees put together the best team they could within the rules of the sport. There is nothing wrong with that, and there is no reason why the Yankees or their fans should apologize for one second for all the money they spent.

And this isn’t about trying to stop the Yankees.

It is about trying to do what is best for the sport of baseball, as compared to the way MLB currently operates, where they seemingly just try to do what is best for TV ratings.

I am tired of seeing the same stories every offseason about how the same handful of teams are all competing over the top free agents, while everyone else has to make good with the leftover scraps.

This year has to serve as a wake-up call, not just because of the Yankees winning, but also because of a postseason that was dominated by the presence of the big market teams from New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

Baseball has become almost irrelevant in too many places around the country over the last decade. If MLB does not take action soon to at least attempt to level the playing field, I believe that it risks losing large percentages of the fanbases in some of these cities for good.

I know all sports are a business these days, but competition should still matter, and what does it say about competition when only a handful of teams have an ability to sign the game’s top players.

Year in and year out we see young, talented players either become free agents, or be the subject of trade rumors not because their original teams don’t want them, but because those teams know they have no chance of paying them.

These teams have to try to catch magic in a bottle—attempt to win a World Series in the small window where they still have these talented players. If it works out, great. If not, it's time to basically trade away your best players.

A great example is the Cleveland Indians.

In 2007, C.C. Sabathia wins the Cy Young and helps Cleveland reach Game Seven of the ALCS. The following year, Cliff Lee wins the Cy Young. And Sabathia and Lee earn these awards with a catcher named Victor Martinez.

Now it is 2009, and Sabathia, Lee, and Martinez all played significant roles in the postseason, only that they did so playing for new teams. The Indians had to trade away all three because they knew they could not afford to resign them.

The Indians are far from the only team.

The Colorado Rockies made the playoffs this year, but imagine how much better they could have been had they not been forced to trade away Matt Holliday last offseason.

I am reading today about the Detroit Tigers possibly having to trade away Edwin Jackson, a 26-year old pitcher coming off a career season, due to financial concerns.

Or how about the Toronto Blue Jays possibly having to trade Roy Halladay? Do you think they want to trade one of the game’s top pitchers? Absolutely not, but they can’t afford him.

Now, I would love to see a salary cap, but I think that baseball has waited so long to do anything, that it is no longer possible.

If MLB tried to put in some sort of meaningful salary cap, what happens with teams like the Yankees and the other big market teams that would already be well over it? With long-term deals to Sabathia, Rodriguez, and Mark Teixeira, it seems to me impossible to then force the Yankees to get under some sort of cap.

Yes, I know there is a luxury tax and baseball apologists out there will say it has brought fiscal balance to the sport.

Revenue sharing may have put a few extra dollars in some teams' wallets, but it seems each year the discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots has only grown.

Every offseason the list of top free agents is posted in newspapers and web sites, and each offseason, the same four or five teams are listed as the leading candidates to sign these top players.

When MLB instituted the luxury tax in 2002, the Yankees payroll was $125M. In 2003, the first year the tax went into effect, at $117M, the Yankees payroll jumped to $152M. It then peaked in 2008 at $209M. Last season, New York trimmed its belt, cutting down to a measly $201M.

Clearly, the luxury tax has not stopped their spending.

The luxury tax hasn’t brought any balance back to the sport. In 2000, exactly 15 teams spent more and 15 teams spent less than the average payroll. This past season, only 11 teams spent more than the average, while 19 teams spent less.

Some of the non-big market teams have found ways to compete, namely the Minnesota Twins and the Oakland A’s a few years back. But for any success those small market teams may have had, neither was ever able to win a playoff series in the last 15 years.

Over the past decade, while the Yankees made the postseason nine times, the St. Louis Cardinals seven, and the Red Sox, Angels, and Braves six times, eleven different teams either failed to reach the postseason at all or only made it one time. And unlike the NFL, where long stretches of poor play causes a team's fans to become angry, in baseball, fans of teams that have been struggling year after year, are simply becoming indifferent.

So, what can MLB do?

Here are a few ideas that even without a salary cap, would go a long way to providing real financial balance to the sport:

Create max contracts. While all current contracts would not be subject to this, it would go into effect for all future contracts. This would stop the big market teams from just being able to blow away the competition with their offers.
Reward teams for resigning their own players. A possibility would be that only a certain percentage of the new contract would count towards a team’s luxury tax level. Also, similar to the NBA, provide financial incentive for players to remain with their original teams.
Restrict the number of Type A free agents one team can sign in an offseason, not counting players that a team resigns. It could either be a set in stone restriction, where teams can sign, let’s say, just one Type A. Or it could be more flexible, where a team can sign one Type A, and if they want to sign more than one, those other contracts weigh more heavily towards the luxury tax.
Speaking of the luxury tax, let’s come up with a meaningful amount and meaningful repercussions for teams that go over the luxury tax. As I wrote about above, the luxury tax has done nothing to control big market spending. This season, the average payroll was about $80 million and the luxury tax for next year is an absurd $170 million. Those two numbers need to be much closer.
And lastly, fix the draft. There needs to be some sort of slotting system. Too often, the best player available isn’t being drafted because a team knows they can’t afford him. So that players slips to the big market teams. An example of this is Daniel Bard of the Red Sox. Coming out of North Carolina, teams were afraid to draft him, so this talented pitcher who should have been a high pick, slipped to the Red Sox. Second, allow teams to trade picks. And third, baseball is an international game—international players should be subjected to the draft so that the big market teams no longer have a monopoly on signing the top foreign players.

Whether you root for the Yankees, Red Sox, or Pirates, I have to think that anyone who cares about the sport of baseball would agree that bringing true fiscal balance to the game would only lead to improved competition and ultimately greater interest in Major League Baseball. Now, we just need to get the powers that be to take time away from figuring out how many more offdays they can add to the postseason, and actually take some decisive meaningful action towards creating competitive balance throughout the sport.

Roger Goodell's Cowardice Shows in Handling of Tom Cable Situation

Stew Winkel — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:23:35 -0400

News today out of the NFL is that if Oakland Raiders head coach Tom Cable is implicated by police in the assault of an assistant coach, then commissioner Roger Goodell will act, and Goodell expects to receive a report from the police “in the next couple weeks.”

For someone who has attempted to paint a picture of himself as this get-tough commissioner who will not tolerate anyone tarnishing the NFL brand through his off-the-field actions, Goodell's handling of this matter strikes me as rather cowardly.

In case anyone does not remember, this situation stems from an incident that happened in August, over two months ago. A story of a head coach of one of the NFL’s teams possibly breaking the jaw of an assistant coach occurs, and the commissioner doesn’t deem it necessary to get involved.

What is he waiting for?

The answer is that Goodell is afraid to make a decision one way or the other on his own and is clearly going to use the cover of this expected police report to insulate himself from any criticism. If the police implicate Cable, then Goodell will take action, and if anyone is upset, he will just point to the police report.

If the police don’t act, same excuse for his inaction.

This is his league; he runs it. Why does he have to wait for anyone or rely on what anyone else concludes?

I respect not having a knee-jerk reaction to situations. But that is not what is going on in this case. If Goodell wanted, he could have stepped in and determined on his own what happened that day and if any punishment was warranted. He obviously has no inclination to do so.

Whether or not the police act should have no bearing on this situation. The police, and prosecutors, have other factors to consider before moving ahead with criminal charges against a person.

Goodell has one thing to consider—the good of his league. He doesn’t have to prove anything in court beyond a reasonable doubt. He just needs to know what happened.

Why can’t he himself speak to those involved and to those who were there to determine if there is any validity to the story? The only reason is fear of getting his hands dirty. If a person tries to hide behind a lawyer or says he can’t speak because of an ongoing investigation, Goodell is free to let that person know that they can remain silent all they want, but he will factor that into any decision.

Instead, Goodell waits and waits and waits, and is content to sit back and allow the burden to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the police.

Allowing this story to drag on does the league no good. If true, Goodell could have stepped in a long time ago and taken decisive action against Cable. If false, Goodell's unwillingness to get involved forced a head coach and its fans to operate under this negative cloud all season.

Let’s contrast Goodell’s inability to act with similar actions from another commissioner, David Stern.

What Goodell is doing would be the equivalent of Stern having waited for the police report until he decided how to discipline Ron Artest and the other players involved in the fight in Detroit.

Or maybe a better comparison is when Latrell Sprewell choked P.J. Carlesimo at practice. Stern acted immediately, suspending Sprewell for the entire season. He didn’t have to wait for a police report.

Here, if Goodell wants his decisions and his punishments to be taken seriously, he needs to stop using police reports as shields for his actions.

Unquestionably, there are times where facts are unclear and where the NFL may need to let the police process run its course. This is not one of them, especially when it appears all those involved, participants and witnesses, fall under Goodell's NFL authority—Goodell should have spoken to those involved, made a determination, and not allowed this to linger for months on end.

If he had wanted to act, he would have done so. Instead, he continues to hide behind whatever it is the police ultimately do or don’t do in this case. That isn’t leadership; it is an act of cowardice not befitting the image of a so-called get-tough commissioner.

NFL: With All Due Respect, Mike Florio Writes Pure Fiction About Randy Moss

Stew Winkel — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:33:50 -0400

When it comes to journalism in this Internet era, there should still exist a difference between opinion pieces and stories fabricated out of thin air. That difference, however, apparently matters little to Mike Florio or NBC Sports.

It is really my own fault for reading the web site. Florio runs profootballtalk.com which, as of recently, is part of NBC Sports.

And it appears Florio, a notorious spreader of baseless rumors in my opinion, is at it again. This time, with his "reporting" on a story about Randy Moss, he has in my mind erased any semblance of standards that might apply to what he writes.

Florio probably hit his head on the ceiling from jumping up for joy when he saw that a writer from a different media outlet had written a story suggesting that Randy Moss has been dogging it. Any follower of his site knows that Florio loves a story depicting an NFL player in a poor light, especially if it involves a high-profile player and team like Moss and the Patriots.

Now, I may disagree with the original article, especially since Moss played injured yesterday, was observed leaving the locker room limping, caught a team-high 10 passes, and played in 76 of 83 snaps (or more than any New England player but Tom Brady). Or that Moss's teammates said things like this about his performance on Sunday, "He's a great player," "[H]e always comes up big for us," "[Moss] is a great player, but he came out here and sucked it up for us." Bill Belichick said of Moss's game against the Falcons, "He sure made a lot of plays."

Nevertheless the article was written, and cited specific plays to support the author's argument. Journalists, like anyone, are allowed their opinions.

On his site Florio linked to the original story, something he likely could not have done fast enough.

But it does not end there for him, as he then wrote a piece that looks to me to be purely a work of fiction.

The original writer had an opinion and used facts to support that opinion, which is what good writers do. Bad writers do what Florio did: They write stories that appear to be made up and likely have no connection to reality.

From reading Florio, one might think that his site is the home of all the baseless rumors that would not be fit to print elsewhere. He first writes, "Indeed, rumors snaked through the league in early September of [2007] that Moss possibly was in danger of being released."

Really? September of 2007? You sure about that time line? Any detail of said rumor that Moss was "possibly" in danger? Were those rumors before or after Moss caught a pair of touchdowns and had nearly 200 yards in receiving in Week One on September 9, 2007? Or continued to do more of the same throughout the early part of the season?

Not surprisingly, Florio writes that statement without providing one shred of information to support it.

He wasn't even close to being done though because apparently for Florio a story about Moss and the Patriots wasn't enough. To ensure a strong reaction from the highest percentage of readers, he had to throw in one more ingredient, even if there was no connection.

Florio believes that Moss is now dogging it because...wait for it...his good friend Brett Favre is whispering in his ear to come to Minnesota to win a title. And Moss is listening.

Patriots plus Randy Moss plus Brett Favre equals jackpot for Florio.

Naturally it does not matter that his story makes absolutely zero sense. Moss wants out of New England, a team that, just in this decade, has won three Super Bowls, and in total has played in four, reaching the AFC title game five times; a team that has an all-time great quarterback in Tom Brady and despite what anyone may think of him, one of the league's best coaches in Bill Belichick.

So, according to Florio, Moss wants to scrap all of that to go play for the Vikings whose best season of late came 10 years ago when Moss was still with the team; and to go play with an aging QB who very well might retire after the season and possibly won't be healthy enough at the end of this year to still be throwing passes; and to play for a head coach who is playing checkers to Bill Belichick's chess.

Florio knows he has no basis for this, too, but qualifies his fiction by writing, "It's pure speculation."

That does not make it ok. Chances are if you ever have to begin a sentence by writing "it's pure speculation," then you should not be writing that sentence.

From reading Florio, it appears to me that he believes he can write whatever he wants so long as he begins the sentence with some sort of qualifying statement. It reminds me of the scene from Talladega Nights when Ricky Bobby says, "With all due respect," and then thinks there is no problem, under the protection of the Geneva Convention, insulting the person he is talking to.

Just because you write something is pure speculation, doesn't mean you have free reign to simply make up whatever you want.

There has to be some level of standards while writing under the umbrella of NBC Sports to not be allowed to make up stories at the expense of someone's reputation. Florio should take note of this line from Season Five of The Wire, "A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie."

There is no evidence anywhere that the Patriots were ever considering cutting Moss in September 2007.

There is no evidence that anyone with the Patriots has ever been unhappy with Randy Moss's effort for even one second. All I have ever heard is praise from the Patriots about Moss, including this from Belichick, "He is one of our most consistent, competitive and team-oriented players and it is undoubtedly a relationship we are excited to continue." Belichick does not exactly strike me as someone willing to heap false praise on someone.

There is no evidence that Moss wants out of New England. He did take a pay cut to get to New England and then re-signed for less money to stay a Patriot in 2008 - facts apparently that aren't relevant to Florio.

There is no evidence that Favre is talking to Moss.

There is no evidence under any conceivable theory of the Patriots trading Moss to Minnesota.

Other than all those holes in his story, I guess Florio's theory makes sense.

A good writer, columnist, reporter, is allowed to connect the dots. A bad writer, however, takes one dot, and then makes up all the rest. That is Internet journalism at its worst.

The real shame is that if Florio would quit this fiction-writing act, he otherwise does as good a job as anyone in uncovering stories from all over the NFL.

But, so long as NBC Sports does not care, I am sure he will keep at it, if for no other reason than, despite whether his reports are fact or fiction, he got a reaction from at least one reader.

It may be pure speculation, but I think that is all he really cares about anyway.

New England Patriots: Where Has the Offense Gone?

Stew Winkel — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:18:45 -0400

After only scoring nine points, and zero touchdowns yesterday against the New York Jets, there is some cause for concern this morning among New England Patriots fans.

Entering the year, even the most level-headed Pats fan could not help but dream back to the offense of 2007 and think with Tom Brady healthy and Randy Moss, offense should not be a concern for this year’s team.

As we have witnessed in the first two games, putting points on the board for this year’s team may not come as easy as most of us had hoped. What might not be so obvious is this is a trend that didn’t begin yesterday in the Meadowlands, but perhaps finds its roots in the midst of New England’s 16-0 2007 regular season.

That season, both Brady and Moss etched their names in the record books, as did the New England offense; Brady with his 50 touchdown passes, Moss with his 23 touchdown receptions, and the Patriots with 589 points. The Brady-Moss duo was nothing short of dominant.

But, it appears teams began to figure out how to at least control the Brady-Moss tandem, and stop the big play, beginning in 2007. Through the first 13 games of the Brady-Moss combination, New England averaged 38.7 points per game, with Moss averaging 97.2 receiving yards per game and catching 19 total touchdowns.

In the eight games since, including the 2007 postseason and the first two weeks this year but not week one last year, the Patriots have averaged only 23.4 points, and Moss’s numbers dip to 61.0 yards per game and five touchdowns.

In his first 13 games catching passes from Brady, Moss failed to get in the end zone just twice; in those eight games since, he hasn’t had a TD five times.

This decline with Moss’s big-play ability has coincided with the games in which New England has struggled the most to put points on the board. In the 21 games with Brady and Moss playing together for New England, again discounting week one last year when Brady was injured, the four lowest scoring games for the Patriots have all occurred within these last eight games.

Expanding that list a little, six of New England’s eight lowest point totals are within these last eight games, as are seven of ten.

To put it more simply, the explosiveness we saw out of the New England offense through the first 13 games of the 2007 season is no longer there, and began to disappear long before failing to reach the end zone against the Jets, and even before Brady went down with a knee injury against the Chiefs in ’08.

So, what does all this mean? Well for starters I think Patriots fans need to lower expectations a bit for what this team is capable of offensively. Fans need to realize that the records set by New England in 2007 did not come easy and asking for the team to duplicate its feats is likely asking far too much.

But, it also means the team itself may have to realize things have changed since those early days of ’07 and a more balanced offense may be what is called for to win.

The strength of this team on offense remains the passing game with Brady, Moss, and Wes Welker leading the way. But, over these first two weeks, the passing game has dominated the play-calling at the severe expense of the running attack, to the tune of 100 pass attempts to just 43 rushes.

Because New England hasn’t even been a threat to run the ball these first two games, teams do not even have to concern themselves with stopping the rush. This has to make New England easy to defend. Sure, some of the low-rushing totals thus far are the fault of the running backs. But, to a larger degree, the problem lies in the lack of repetitions they receive and also an offensive line that in a few key short-yardage situations thus far, has been out-muscled.

I’d like to see New England adapt in these next few weeks to what has transpired on the field in weeks one and two—maybe lineup in a few more running formations, give backs Fred Taylor and Laurence Maroney an opportunity to get into any sort of rhythm. And also, be able to attack through the air out of a running set, forcing teams to at least think for a split second about what is going on in the backfield.

A more balanced offense would no doubt help the passing game as that split second a defender may take to think about the rush may be all it takes for Moss to get downfield and deliver one of those big plays we became accustomed to in 2007.

Bad AL Pitchers Dominating the NL: What All Sports Can Do About Lopsidedness

Stew Winkel — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:27:20 -0400

Last night Brad Penny pitched eight scoreless innings in his first appearance back in the National League this season. This from a pitcher who had not sniffed the seventh inning once in his 24 starts in the American League. This also from the pitcher, who in his final five starts in the AL, gave up 27 runs in 26.2 innings pitched, for a 9.27 ERA.

Against American League teams this year, Penny has a 5.95 ERA; versus the NL (including interleague games), his ERA is 2.23.

Penny's performance in the National League is just another reminder of the dominance of the AL as compared to the NL. This isn't exactly breaking news for anyone, I hope. You have to go back to 2003 to find a season where the NL had a winning record in interleague play. And does anyone even remember when the NL last won an All-Star game? Maybe somebody should let them know "this time it counts."

Yes, there are some good teams and good players in the NL, but the two leagues, top to bottom, don't even compare.

Which, after that long introduction, brings me to my point. Maybe it is time we eliminated all leagues and division within sports. Get rid of them all. All the teams in one league are vying for one thing—the championship at the end of the year.

Not just in baseball, but in all sports. The goal should be to have the top teams and the best matchups in the postseason.

This isn't about a preference for one team, or one division or one league. And I completely acknowledge that the balance in any sport can swing very quickly, and over time, these things very well might balance out. No, this is about simply wanting to see the truly best teams, and only those teams, competing in the postsseason, and as a result, hopefully the legitimate top two teams battling in the championship game or series.

Why do we as fans have to sit through hyped-up championships that far too often have become nothing but letdowns from the earlier rounds? Why do we have to see finals where we debate and wonder if the team that won did so only because they had the significantly easier path to the title game.

I can hear it already—tradition, tradition, tradition. You know what, I don't care.

Some might also point to travel as another consideration - but that isn't really relevant. The AL and the NL span coast to coast, and same for the AFC and the NFC. Maybe a completely balanced schedule for the regular season could create a problem, but with the ease of travel for professional teams, citing travel as a reason not to do this is not a valid reason, but simply a copout.

The ultimate prize in any sport is the championship, so shouldn't the goal be to have the two best teams meet for the championship? And to reach that point, shouldn't we have the top eight or 16 teams making the playoffs to begin with, and not get stuck with a team that really isn't any good but just gets to compete all year against a lot of other teams that aren't any better.

Looking at basketball, how many years straight now has the Western Conference clearly been superior to the East? The Miami Heat won the 2006 title, but a strong case could be made that the league's top three teams that year all competed in the West (Phoenix, San Antonio and Dallas).

Does anyone really get excited about who wins a division in a sport anymore? Do the players even care? What matters is making the playoffs, getting a bye if there is one to be had, securing home-field advantage, and most of all, winning a championship. Ever hear a player talk about the great season he had where he led his team to the Atlantic Division Crown in the NBA? Oh yeah, they lost in the first round of the playoffs, but that team that won the Atlantic sure was something special.

Maybe years and years ago, those types of things mattered. But that was years and years ago—what else did they have to get excited for. We have much more to occupy our time now, and we really only care about the bottom line—winning championships.

I guess in baseball the players do still pour champagne over themselves when they clinch the division. But is that true excitement about winning the division, or is it just a release at the end of a marathon season when they know they will be one of just eight competing for the World Series? The wild card winners pour the same champagne, remember.

What would sports really lose if the format switched to one big league, everyone competing against everyone else for playoff spots. There would be a few teams cut out from the playoff hunt, but really not that many. You would have nearly as many fights for seeding and home-field.

For example, if baseball this season was just one giant league, with teams competing for eight playoff spots, the seedings would look like this:

Yankees
Angels 6.5 GB
Cardinals 6.5 GB
Dodgers 6.5 GB
Red Sox 7.5 GB
Phillies 7.5 GB
Rangers 10 GB
Rockies 11 GB

That would create some interesting races over the final month for home-field advantage and seeding. Six other teams are also all within five games of the final spot. There still would be excitement down the stretch, just as there is now.

It should be noted that those eight teams above are the same teams that would reach the playoffs under the current format. That wouldn't be the case every year, and it also might not be the case if we eliminated the leagues, forcing teams to play a more balanced schedule.

But even this year, the top two teams by record are the Yankees and Angels, but they have no chance of playing for the World Series. If they are the two best teams, let's give them a chance to prove it in a fair playing field in the postseason and then truly give baseball a Word Series featuring the game's top two teams.

Or how about a potential Red Sox-Dodgers first round matchup with the winner likely taking on the Yankees. More than a few storylines there.

I know many fans are probably sick of both teams, but don't you think the powers that be in MLB would drool over the chance for a Red Sox-Yankees World Series one of these years? Under my suggestion, it could happen.

Think about the buzz around the first sport to try something like this. Wouldn't that alone make it worth it? Someone out there, take a chance and try something new.

And while no system can guarantee that the two top teams make it to the finals in any sport, this way at least you don't end up in a championship series with one team that just does not belong. Think back just a few years in the NFL to the Colts-Bears Super Bowl. Was that really the best match-up in the league that season? No, it was Patriots-Colts, which took place the round before, and the Super Bowl was just a letdown. Pats-Colts for the AFC title was an amazing game that year.

The NFL seems to like marketing—think they could have done something with a Brady-Manning, Belichick-Dungy Super Bowl? Instead, the two top teams played in a game that wasn't the sport's marquee event.

No more seasons like the NBA seems to have every year where Western Conference teams see teams from the East with worse—and sometimes below .500 records—make the playoffs, while they start their vacations early. Or last year, in the NFL, where not only did an 11-win Patriots team not make the playoffs, but even worse, a 12-win Colts team had to travel to an 8-8 San Diego team in the opening round all because of this stubborn reliance on divisions.

It's 2009. Sports have been around for a long time. Tradition is fine for some things, but when we are talking about competition, and what might be the best way to produce real results in the playoffs, maybe it is time we think about changing some things up.

I guess there is a third option - have some convoluted computer system at the end of each season just determine who the top two teams are and let them play for the championship. On second thought.

Are the Yankees Using the Red Sox Formula to Win?

Stew Winkel — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:16:51 -0400

The Boston Globe's Tony Massarotti wrote an article today about how the Yankees have changed their ways.

Now, Mazz has been on my you-know-what list since writing a whole article earlier this week about how the Sox benefited in 2004 and 2007 from accepting the wild card and resting up for the playoffs.

Mazz even had quotes from Terry Francona that he said were from 2007 that he used to prove his point. Main problem—Sox won the division in 2007. I don't know how that mistake is made and doesn't get caught.

Anyway.

So today, Mazz writes that the Yankees aren't just spending money to win, but rather, they are trying to develop their own players. And it is the contributions of these home grown players that are making the difference this year.

The Sox have really focused on player development under Theo Epstein, and it has paid off. After producing very little from their own system, the Sox have paraded talent to the big league club from their minor league teams the last four seasons.

Now the Yankees are doing the same, and Tony thinks this is what has helped propel the Yankees to the great season they are having now.

But is he right?

First, quickly, let me say—I have no problem with the Yankees or anyone spending all the money they can if it helps them win. I'd like some sort of real salary cap in baseball, but if there isn't one, why shouldn't the Yankees or anyone else spend what they can?

I think the Sox sometimes try to pretend they don't have all this money, and attempt to nickle-and-dime free agents, when they could be a little more generous in the pocket when it comes to getting what they need (the Mark Teixeira negotiations come to mind).

Back to Massarotti—he writes that the Red Sox have Dustin Pedroia; the Yankees have Robinson Cano. For Jon Lester, there is Joba Chamberlain. For Daniel Bard, Phil Hughes. For Jacoby Ellsbury, there is Melky Cabrera.

He then stops, because if he kept comparing home-grown talent, he'd have to acknowledge that the Sox also have Jonathan Papelbon, Kevin Youkilis, and Clay Buchholz on the team now.

Not to mention that of those home-grown players for the Sox, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Papelbon and Youkilis all were key ingredients in the '07 World Series team.

But what about his argument that the Yankees aren't spending money to try to win. Let's look at some facts:

Of MLB's top four highest paid players, three are Yankees—Alex Rodriguez, Teixeira, and Derek Jeter. Two of those contracts were signed since the end of the '07 season.
Of the top 25 highest paid players, six are Yankees and none are Red Sox. Of the six Yankees, five have contracts signed since the end of 2007.
For their starting rotation to start the season plus closer, Yankees will pay $57 million; Sox under $35 million.
For their opening day lineups, Yankees will pay over $125 million this season; Sox under $70 million.
Yankees outspend the Red Sox at every single position, except right field.
As far as building from the farm system, the Yankees pay $85 million this year to four players signed as free agents the last two offseasons, or more than the total payroll of 16 other teams (A-Rod, Teixeira, C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett).
The highest paid Red Sox player is J.D. Drew at $14 million per season. Yankees have six guys who make more than that.
Yankees have nine players making over $10 million. Sox have four.

So while yes, the Yankees have had a few players chip in from their farm system, let's not go crazy here, Tony. They are still about spending money to win.

The past two years they have spent money on signing players, the same as they always have. The difference is that instead of wasting money on the Carl Pavanos of the world, like they did for a few seasons, they have spent top money on some of the game's top players.

The Sox on the other hand, when they have opened up the checkbook, have not spent wisely of late—J.D. Drew, Julio Lugo, John Smoltz, Dice-K, Brad Penny, and then not landing Teixeira.

Like I wrote earlier, I don't think there is anything wrong with the Yankees spending money under the current rules. But there is no need to try to pretend the Yankees are anything other than what they are.

The Steinbrenners certainly wouldn't apologize for it; I don't think anyone else should either.

Why the Boston Red Sox Were Right with Johnny Damon in '05

Stew Winkel — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:59:17 -0400

Right now on Boston.com, the Globe's 10.0, there is a video segment where they debate "should the Sox have re-signed Damon?"

I have been a Boston sports fan, and therefore a follower of the local sports media, long enough to understand this is almost a tradition—second-guess the local team whenever a player has left. A facetious "Why can't we get players like that?" is ingrained in every single Boston sports fan's head from hearing or reading it so often.

The ante gets upped even more when we are talking about one of our beloved going to a rival, especially the Yankees.

Now, I should point out that, because I am at work (obviously working hard), I am unable to actually listen to what they are saying.

However, this is what I hope they are saying: Absolutely not.

Damon has been a good player for the Yankees these last four seasons, joining with Derek Jeter to solidify the table-setting portion of New York's lineup. He is having a very good year this year, better than most expected. He has adapted his swing to the new stadium perfectly. So much so that what seemed unlikely a year ago very well could happen—the Yankees bring Damon back in 2010.

But just because it has worked out for one side does not necessarily mean it was a mistake for the other.

The primary reason Boston did not match the Yankees' offer for Damon in December of 2005 was out of a fear that he would break down before the end of the contract. Let's remember that, in 2007, just two years into that deal, the Red Sox' fears appeared right on the money. Now in '08 and this year, Damon has bounced back offensively, but to keep him productive, the Yankees had to move him out of center field.

New York had the luxury of being able to move Damon to a corner outfield position. Boston, over these last few years, likely could not have done the same. That alone means Boston did not make a mistake.

Damon's number slipped from 2006 to 2007—.285 average to .270, 24 HR to 12, 80 RBI to 63. The wear and tear of playing center field took its toll on him at the plate. Not surprisingly, in 2008, when Damon moved out of center for the most part, his numbers picked back up.

But, again, had he been in Boston, he likely would have remained planted in center.

This year, offensively, Damon's numbers look great: .285, 22 HR, 85 runs, 68 RBI. Manning centerfield for the Red Sox is Jacoby Ellsbury, a product of Boston's farm system.

Other than the power being heavily in favor of Damon (22 HR to six) and steals heavily in favor of Ellsbury (53 to nine), their numbers match up quite well. And when looking at the power, one has to consider that Damon has done the bulk of his damage at home this season—15 of his 22 homers have come in Yankee stadium.

His home run numbers, still likely to be more than Ellsbury's, would not be so impressive if he were playing his home games in Fenway this year.

Also weighing in the Sox' favor that they did the right thing—Ellsbury is a superior defensive player, playing center for Boston; Ellsbury is 10 years younger; and Damon makes over 26 times as much money as Ellsbury.

Two other issues.

One, Ellsbury has the potential to not only play a great center field for years to come for the Sox but also hold down the leadoff spot for the next five or more seasons. The defense is there now, and the offensive portion could happen as well. But if the Sox had resigned Damon in 2005, it is possible if not likely, that Ellsbury's growth as a major leaguer would have been severely stunted. Or he would be playing for someone else right now.

Two, Ellsbury helped the Sox win a World Series in 2007. In that postseason, Ellsbury hit over .350, had an OBP over .425 and slugged over .500. In only four games in the '07 playoffs, Damon hit just .278 with a .361 OBP. In 11 career postseason games with New York—albeit a small sample size—Damon has hit only .250, with three home runs, seven runs scored, and zero steals.

Plus, the Red Sox used the pick they received from the Yankees as compensation for the Damon signing to draft Daniel Bard in the first round of the 2006 draft.

With all of that to consider, regardless of how good a fit Damon has been for the Yankees, it can't possibly be considered a mistake for Boston to have let him go.

Sometimes decisions work out for both sides. I hope those reporters debating this issue on Boston.com said just that.

An Open Letter to the New ESPN Ombudsman

Stew Winkel — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:18:35 -0400

Today on ESPN.com appears the first article from their new ombudsman, Don Ohlmeyer. His predecessor, Le Anne Schreiber, left about six months ago.

We all know the presence ESPN has in sports. I can be very critical of the network, which is why I really look forward to seeing what their ombudsman has to say. I don't know if other people follow this as closely as I do, but here is an open letter to the new ESPN ombudsman on the day of the release of his first column.

Dear Mr. Ohlmeyer:

First, let me say I enjoyed reading you first ombudsman column. I love sports. I tune in to ESPN and log on to ESPN.com not because I love the network, but because of how I feel about sports, and you can't love sports and not connect yourself with ESPN.

I can be very critical of the network—I want ESPN to be perfect. But I also acknowledge that my view of perfect likely is very different than the next person's. And even in my nitpicking at ESPN, I must also say ESPN does a lot of things that are great, and many such things get taken for granted by me and likely many others.

But ESPN does not do everything great, or even well, and often times as a lifelong diehard sports fan, I find many things ESPN does to be insulting to fans like myself, as more and more the network appeares geared to the non-fan. And I can't help but wonder: Does ESPN even care that it angers passionate sports fans with some of the things it does?

A few months back, Bill Simmons conducted an incredibly insightful podcast with his boss, John Walsh. They joked a few times about who would listen to the 70-minute plus podcast. Well, I did, several times.

I came away from the podcast with an appreciation for some of those things ESPN does that I take for granted, and some of the challenges the network faces that I don't even think about.

But also, I couldn't help but think from listening to Walsh that ESPN confuses attention with quality. Everyone I know pays attention to ESPN—you can't help it. That attention, however, does not necessarily have any correlation with quality. That is important to remember.

Conflict of interest is at the heart of many of my complaints about the network. Sometimes the conflict is obvious, while other times it might be more attenuated. The conflict can be simply that the network isn't going to shine a bright light on a problem because the network also has a large contract with that particular sport. This type of problem only gets worse as ESPN makes deals with more and more leagues.

Also, on a small scale, there are the recent stories where ESPN refused to report for days until it could get the athletes' story out front, such as Brett Favre telling secrets to the Lions and the Ben Roethlisberger civil suit.

Showing restraint isn't always a bad thing, but the problem is: What was the real reason for the restraint in these two instances?

Favre is an ESPN favorite, and there's no doubt the network wants him on their shows when he (eventually) retires, and Big Ben was appearing on an ABC show. ESPN said in both situations they had policies, but that excuse really did not hold water.

Does anyone think that had either of those stories been about someone like Terrell Owens that the network would have showed the same restraint?

Just yesterday, Marc Schlereth adamantly defended Raiders coach Tom Cable without he or the network ever pointing out that they were college teammates. It isn't that Schlereth should have to keep silent, but their connection is important for the viewer to know.

These things matter.

Maybe the largest question for ESPN is: Does the network want to be about the news or the entertainment? You can try to do both, but these two worlds often collide, and decisions need to be made about what is more important.

The answer to this question, unfortunately, was revealed in the Simmons podcast with Walsh, when Simmons asks Walsh about the tension between being a news network and an entertainment network. Walsh responds: "Let's invent a 24-hour sports network that buys rights from leagues and teams and then does news coverage half the day that covers those leagues and teams critically and has a lot of commentators who give their opinions that the leagues and teams and players are not going to like. What a terrible business that would be. That just sounds like an awful prescription for inventing a business."

Sure, Walsh has a point—but what is the balance being struck, and with all the money ESPN makes, can't they afford to err on the side of the news more often?

ESPN, with its resources, can really hire all the top reporters from each sport, and get them all under the ESPN umbrella. Certainly, ESPN can compensate a reporter at a higher rate than a city newspaper.

But if entertainment trumps news, what are these talented reporters reporting on? What then happens to the coverage of sports in this country when the largest outlet for sports news places higher priority on the bottom line than it does on reporting? Everything ESPN does impacts the world of sports.

Personally, I'd like to see ESPN be more proactive in how it covers the world of sports.

Why not use your resources to investigate the history of steroids in baseball, how it became so widespread, the who knew what when. Instead of just always reacting to a single player being outed. Yes, that is news, but there is so much more to the story.

Similarly, how about the impact of money on college sports? I have seen the reactive stories on OJ Mayo or Reggie Bush getting paid—these are interesting and are news. But they aren't new, so let's dig deep.

Those are just two examples. Maybe I am alone, but that is what I think ESPN could be doing—using its clout, its talents, and its resources to not only report on the world of sports, but I think ultimately improve sports. That should be in ESPN's best interest as well.

Others may like ESPN how it is and just want to watch games and everything else that comes with watching ESPN these days. Others might not necessarily care for in-depth reporting, or aren't as bothered when a story gets buried, or another story gets overexposed, or celebrities appear on Sportscenter offering their opinions.

But I expect more from ESPN—I want better. Possibly I shouldn't criticize ESPN so much, and others shouldn't as well. Yes, ESPN, at times, is deserving of praise for what it does well.

Although, you have to admit the network does not really need praise from others, as it has no problem promoting itself. You can't call yourself the Worldwide Leader in Sports and then be bothered that you don't get enough respect. It isn't my job as a viewer to heap praise. The point of criticism is to hopefully improve the product.

I particularly enjoyed reading your predecessor, but I always wondered how seriously anyone who mattered cared about her critiques. I hope I was wrong about that, and I look forward to reading your columns in the future.

People V. Plaxico Burress: Where Celebrity Is Not a Good Thing

Stew Winkel — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:30:17 -0400

Most often, celebrities and athletes get away with almost anything. They come and go as they please. If a rule is going to be bent, a law overlooked, a punishment changed, almost invariably, it goes in favor of the celebrity.

Only just not this time in the case of Plaxico Burress.

Yesterday, a grand jury indicted Burress on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon and one count of reckless endangerment. By now we all know what Burress did—he thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun out with him one night.

He thought it would be a better idea to try to secure this gun in his sweatpants of all places. And then, said gun went off in the club, striking Burress in his thigh.

Now it looks like not only will Burress suffer the pain from the gun shot, the embarrassment of shooting himself in the thigh, but likely two to three years in a New York State penitentiary.

Only if Plaxico wasn’t a famous athlete, he likely would already have this case behind him.

I know there is a mandatory minimum punishment for these offense. But what does that really mean? Those punishments are only inflicted if a person goes to trial and loses. Prior to that, an assistant district attorney is free to cut any deal, including little or no jail time.

I can almost guarantee that a case involving someone like Burress, minus the fame—a similar crime committed by a person with no intent to commit a greater crime, no intent to harm, injure or threaten someone, and no past similar crimes—would conclude swiftly with a plea deal to a lesser charge.

The chance of jail time would be slight, and the chance for significant jail time (more than a year), even less.

Not this time. You knew from the outset this was going to be different. We heard from the Assistant District Attorney in the case. He wanted two years jail time. We heard from the Manhattan District Attorney. Again, there would be no breaks for Burress. And to make matters even worse for Burress, we heard from the Mayor of New York City. He weighed in that he wanted to see the book thrown at Burress.

Apparently, this case warranted such dignitaries to render a public opinion, ensuring that if the ADA was inclined to cut a deal, he would do so at the wrath of his boss and the Mayor. Feeling the pressure yet, Plaxico?

The only problem, Burress’ attorney apparently wasn’t paying attention. He sat back quietly, tried to make a deal behind the scenes, and allowed voice after voice to speak out publicly in favor of Burress receiving a heavy prison term.

The legal system isn't always about what you can and can't prove; it isn't even always about the law. Sometimes it can be about perception. Burress did not have the law on his side. He could have had perception on his side if he and his legal team had got out in front of the story.

Instead they waited. Burress’ attorney, Benjamin Brafman, did not attempt to play the public relations game until it was far too late, and he tried to do so in the wrong setting. Putting Burress in front of the grand jury not only was almost unprecedented, not only was it a major gamble, but it can almost definitely be said it was a mistake.

This is an open and shut case. It is essentially a strict liability event. Intent does not matter. There are really only three questions that must be answered in the affirmative to first indict and then convict Burress on all charges: Did he have the gun; was it registered; did it go off?

Not very complicated.

So, what could Brafman had done to save his client from jail, which is really his only responsibility. He needed to play the public relations game, only not in front of the grand jury, and he needed to do so months ago.

By putting Burress in front of the grand jury, Braffman arrogantly believed that a group of people sworn in to determine only if there was enough evidence to indict, would ignore that duty and let Burress free.

It did not work. The time to put Burress front and center, and Burress’ story front and center, was immediately after the event. When the ADA, and the DA and the Mayor were speaking out advocating holding Burress’ feet to the fire, Brafman and Burress needed to get out there.

The government was playing politics, using Burress’ predicament to show how tough on crime they were being. What Brafman and Burress needed to do was show that the government was not being tough on crime; they were not applying even-handed justice; and they were not trying to treat an athlete like everyone else.

They needed to shout to anyone who would listen, that the government was actually doing the exact opposite.

Everything Burress reportedly did in front of the grand jury, needed to be done not behind the closes curtain of the grand jury, but in the press, directly to the public. That may have put the pressure on the government to make a deal, and limit prison exposure for Burress.

They needed to talk about the specific facts of this case, in particular the gun. It was an unregistered gun, but it wasn't a stolen gun. It wasn't any type of automatic rifle that Burress should not have otherwise had. Had he not mistakenly failed to register it in New York, he would not have committed a crime. And in fact, Burress had registered the gun, just in another state. So it is not like he owned this gun and figured he didn't have to be bothered with the registration requirements at all.

They needed to say over and over again it was a mistake by Burress. But he had no intent of committing another crime with the gun, he had no intent of causing anyone any harm with that gun.

Brafman and his associates and paralegals and interns needed to pour thru recent similar cases in New York where someone was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon. Find out what type of penalties people with no prior record received.

I have not done this research, but I would assume these people received far lighter sentences than what the government offered Burress, and what Burress now faces if he loses at trial.

Now, with the indictment, and with Burress having played his hand in front of the grand jury, essentially handing the government an open and shut case at trial, Brafman is out of leverage. They tried grand-jury nullification. It failed.

All that is left is to roll the dice at trial, try again for jury nullification (to get the jury to ignore the law out of sympathy for the client’s situation). A deal has to be out of the question for the government.

Why would they now agree to anything less than two years in prison? That is a massive amount of time for someone in Burress’ shoes.

So, what is your next move counselor? Because if your high profile client winds up spending two to three years in jail for a crime of stupidity, with no victim and no intent to commit a larger crime, what is that going to do to his career, and how is that going to look on your resume?

Barry Bonds and His Real Impact on the Steroid Debate

Stew Winkel — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:49:39 -0400

It is 2009, and performance enhancing drugs remain front and center in the world of baseball. Why then do we remain unable of having an honest discussion about PED use, their impact, and why their use was so widespread.

The answer leads back to Barry Bonds, and not for the reasons you may think.

We all know Barry Bonds—he was a cheat, he was a villain. There is no need to pay any attention to his accomplishments because they do not really count.

But in the rush to label Bonds a cheat, diminish his career and keep him out of the Hall of Fame, the media- and by extension, many fans- essentially handcuffed itself to its positions.Once they so thoroughly and repeatedly demonized Bonds, all who follow must suffer the same fate.

When Bonds set the single-season home run record, and then the career mark, it didn’t matter.These marks were tainted.

With Bonds as their poster-boy, the line in the sand was drawn: use performance enhancing drugs in baseball and you are a cheat, a failure, a myth. Sure some other players may have taken something, but Bonds was the worst of the worst.

Now, as the years go by, and more and more players are connected to performance enhancing drugs, the media is faced with two choices: continue with their moral high ground stance; or perhaps reassess the situation and be forced to admit they may have overreacted in their rush to burn Bonds and all his accomplishments at the stake. It isn’t difficult to realize which choice the media made.

The problem isn't simply a matter of being stubbon, but far more importantly, the result of that stubbornness is it has inhibited all of us from really discussing perform enhancing drugs and baseball.

Think I am wrong?

Did the media react to Bonds the way it did out of a love of baseball and a commitment to uphold the game’s integrity? Was it that the media just couldn't stand to see anyone disgrace the game the way Bonds did? He flaunted his PED use in all of our faces. Look at how his numbers skyrocketed and how his size changed. He used drugs to go after the game’s most hallowed records. See, it wasn’t an anti-Bonds bias. They were just doing their job when they tore him down.

If it was really just about the drugs, then how does anyone explain the universal love the media showed for Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa only a few years before. Certainly, their bodies changed over the years and their numbers skyrocketed while they gave chase to one of the game’s most sacred records.

In the summer of 1998, when a story began to develop about McGwire’s possible use of Androstenedione, it wasn’t McGwire’s denials or refusal to talk about it that caused the story to go away. It was the media that policed itself to successfully push that story to the back of the paper and quickly out of the news cycle all together.

The media never thought to question McGwire or Sosa in the Summer of '98. Then came Bonds, who you would have thought was the first player to use PED. The media went from not being bothered with McGwire and Sosa, to throwing Bonds under the boss. No middle ground, no analysis. And once they took that step with Bonds, there has been no turning back. The media took a strong stand against Bonds, and they know to back-track at all is to expose themselves to accusations of hypocrisy.

We have watched those who vote for the Hall of Fame refuse to vote in players connected to performance enhancing drugs. Do they really mean it? Or again, does it trace back to Bonds – we have our reason to keep Bonds out, and to budge on anyone else would mean to have to budge on Bonds. Nothing would make the media happier than keeping Barry Bonds out of the Hall; and conversely, none of them want to see Bonds make that speech in Cooperstown.

If using PED is such a sin of sports, wouldn’t it then apply equally to all sports?

Why doesn't the same media that writes that baseball players are cheats and records and achievements are tainted, write the same thing about football players who get caught?

When Rodney Harrison retired from the NFL during this past offseason there were many articles discussing whether he is Hall of Fame worthy. Some said yes, some said no, most agreed it would be close. None, however, wrote that Harrison should not be allowed in because he was suspended for PED use.

And while some may believe the two Super Bowls the Patriots won with Harrison were tainted for another reason, no one has ever written that those titles are tainted due to Harrison’s PED suspension.

Every columnist in Boston was out in full force to write about David Ortiz.Even Peter King who writes about football weighed in, thinking the two World Series the Red Sox won might be tainted.I can’t remember seeing anything like that for Harrison.

Following retirement, Harrison is now an analyst for NBC. Think if Harrison were a baseball player Fox or ESPN would be having him on their broadcasts?

So, again, I ask, for all those that have climbed so high up that horse to disparage Bonds, and then maintained that position for those who have followed, what is the difference?

I am not saying what Bonds and the other baseball players did was something to be ignored. Or that you are wrong if you believe those who took PED are unworthy of praise or recognition. I am saying though that the hysteria stirred up over Bonds has stopped anyone in the media from having an honest discussion about performance enhancing drugs in baseball.

What do I mean by honest?

For starters, just because a player has not been connected with PED, does not mean anything.Yet, the media acts like it does.They will praise these players with no hint of doubt.

We can’t just demonize those unlucky enough to get caught.If Congress does not haul McGwire in to testify, don’t you believe he would have sailed into the Hall of Fame?Where is the media’s investigation into PED use to truly get to the bottom of who used what and when?

This year, we learned that David Ortiz, Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa each tested positive back in 2003.We also learned that MLB suspended Manny Ramirez for PED use this season. The media treated these stories as the same – baseball player caught cheating.

That is not having an honest debate. There is a drastic difference- PED use was not against the rules in 2003. It is now, a major difference.

Further, there is never any real discussion about what it is the player tested positive for. To say someone used PED, is like saying someone takes illegal drugs.

What does illegal drugs refer to? If I walked into a room and saw people smoking marijuana, it would mean one thing to me; and it would mean something entirely different if I walked in and saw people tying up their arms and injecting heroin.

The same is true for PED. We need to discuss and find out the differences between something a player buys from a guy outside a gym and injects into himself, and something bought over the counter at a nutrition store that is drank after mixing it with milk. PED run the entire gambit between those two scenarios. There is a difference and we need to know about it.

Players should not have taken PED. That is the easy thing to say. But, who among us, if given the chance to take something that would improve our careers, improve our status in life, wouldn’t take the chance if their were little to no chance of repercussions?

For an example from outside the sports arena, right now, in colleges, law schools and medical schools across the country, students stay up all night writing papers, studying for tests, bar exams, and medical boards.

Here is a little secret—many students prepare for all of those things by taking Adderall or a similar stimulant. They do this in order to improve their grades and test scores that they hope will then lead to top jobs and more money. Yes, these drugs are illegal, but it isn’t like schools administer drug tests before exams.

If an honest debate is what we are after, we need to take some time to really discuss all the factors, beyond just the players, that allowed PED use to become so rampant in baseball. Writing about a player who gets caught is fine; but we should also acknowledge that this player is one of hundreds, and that there are many who are responsible for the steroid era who never threw a pitch or took a swing.

In the legal world, it is common to hear judges talk about the slippery slope. If they rule one way for a particular case, what does it mean down the road for the next case and the case after that.

Well, when it comes to performance enhancing drugs, the media rendered its decision on Bonds and fell hard and fast down that slope. They backed themselves into a corner and are now incapable and unwilling to do anything to get out of that predicament.

Their stance, while it may achieve one goal– diminishing Barry Bonds’ accomplishments and keeping him out of the Hall of Fame- is stopping us from truly understanding the complete causes and ramifications of the steroid era in baseball. If we truly care about baseball, and sports in general, which one should be more important?

David Ortiz Among 103 Who Tested Positive: What to Make of This News

Stew Winkel — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:52:32 -0400

Wake me when you have heard this before:

Baseball player is linked to performance enhancing drugs followed by media outrage at the player accompanied by no mention of those in power that allowed PED’s to play such a role in the sport.

This time the player is David Ortiz. The news hit many Red Sox fans, like myself, hard today. We all love Ortiz and we love everything he has done for the Red Sox since arriving in 2003. The Red Sox even gave him a plaque with the accolade “greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history.”

Now, with the New York Times story that Ortiz’s name is one of the 103 on the positive list from the 2003 tests that were supposedly anonymous, some are asking if all of his accomplishments with the Sox are tainted? Are the Sox accomplishments tainted?

As more and more players become linked to PED, I find it difficult to tear down the minority who are being outed. But if that is how anyone feels, I can’t argue with them.

What I do have a problem with, and what continues to drive me crazy, is that those who cover the sport, will pull out the same old act of self righteousness, and call a player linked to PED a fraud and look at that player’s accomplishments in a completely different light. They do this while many have never acknowledged the complicit role those who run the sport played.

This has gone on for years. Bud Selig was recently on a sports radio program, and he was asked several questions about the first half of the season. Selig was allowed to tick off what it is he liked about the first half of the season, with no questions being asked about Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez or Sammy Soda all being outed as PED users. I have to admit I wasn’t particularly surprised by this; it was really just par for the course.

Earlier today, Tony Massarotti of the Boston Globe wrote an article under the headline, “’Big Papi’ revealed as a myth.” Massarotti begins his article with a quote from Selig from 2006 about Ortiz. Selig said, and Massarotti quotes:

You've often heard me say that we're in the Golden Era of baseball. David Ortiz—'Big Papi'—symbolizes that Golden Era. He's been such a great player on a grand stage, but it's his personality along with his ability that has made him an important part of this sport. I have enormous respect for David Ortiz. He's conducted himself so beautifully off the field as well as on the field. I'm very proud of David Ortiz for a myriad of reasons. It's everything about him. When you say `David Ortiz,' the first thing I think is 'Big Papi,' and that's a great compliment to him. He stands as a great symbol of the success of this sport—and a symbol for all the right reasons.

It is a telling quote from Selig, but in my opinion, not for the reasons Massarotti would go on to write about. Let’s look at the first sentence out of Selig’s mouth when he refers to the current time as the “Golden Era of baseball.”

This was said in 2006. At this point, the cover had been pulled off the steroid era, no thanks to Selig of course. Was he still so blind at that time not to realize the havoc rampant PED use had played on the sport of baseball under his watch? This was three years after 103 players, who were aware they were going to be tested, still came up positive. MLB knew this.

Selig claims he didn’t know the names, as if that should be a valid excuse for someone supposedly in charge. At the very least, he had to know the total number and anyone could then deduce that the 103 players who tested positive were merely the tip of the iceberg. His repeated attempts to play dumb about the steroid era should not hold up. And if he is really that dumb, is this then someone who should be at the helm of anything, let alone Major League Baseball?

It is 2009. How long can baseball be dragged down by past performance enhancing drug use before those with the ability to reach a wide audience take a close look at anyone other than the players?

As a baseball fan, I am angry as hell at the players. I don’t know what to think about anything I watched in the sport during the relevant time period. Watching the game now, I still don’t know what I can believe.

If a player accomplishes anything, do I allow myself to get attached and root for the player? Do I want to be let down again? I honestly don’t know.

What I do know is that those who ran the sport made a decision—to not test, to not make PED use against the rules. They chose to turn a blind eye. Absolutely the players still should not have cheated. But it strikes me as completely phony when anyone is shocked or surprised that they did.

Performance enhancing drugs did just that; they made the players better at their job. Those in charge couldn’t be bothered to care who used what.

What we have done is simply ignore those who allowed PED use to occur in baseball and take the easy route of just demonizing the players caught. It would be like the police arresting drug users and not bothering with those that allowed the drugs to be brought into our communities in the first place.

Many were responsible for allowing PED to take a hold of the sport of baseball. Yes that list includes Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and now apparently David Ortiz. It also includes many, many other players.

In my opinion, however, that list should begin with Bud Selig whose combination of ignorance and indifference allowed PED use to run wild year after year, and whose incompetent guidance of the sport has allowed this topic to remain front and center.

Selig isn’t the only one. There were others overseeing the sport, running the teams, and covering the game that turned an equally blind eye. But for today, let’s start with finally holding Selig accountable. Maybe another day we’ll get to the others.

Borrowing An Idea From CNNSI.Com: The Most Exciting Athletes

Stew Winkel — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:12:18 -0400

Today on CNNSI.com, they had a series of article ranking the most exciting athletes of all-time. A great idea, and with imitation being the highest form of flattery (or is it plagiarism), I thought I would rank my top five for MLB, NFL and the NBA. I tried to limit this to players I actually saw play and can remember on my own. The criteria was rather simple - who made me sit up straight, move to the edge of my seat, or stand up any time he had the ball or stepped up to the plate or entered the game, or someone who you knew you had to pay attention to in a game's most crucial moments.

Begin Slideshow

One More Time: Bud Selig Must Be Replaced as MLB Commissioner

Stew Winkel — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:11:11 -0400

One more time, I am going to ask the question: How is Bud Selig still the commissioner of baseball?

How much damage can one person do to the reputation and integrity of a sport he supposedly is in charge of running, yet still remain the leader of the sport?

Put as simply as I can, every day he remains in his job is a disgrace to baseball.

What has set me off this time on Selig?

It is the usual ignorance and indifference he repeatedly displays when it comes to what performance-enhancing drugs have done to the sport.

I just read this article that ran in the Chicago Tribune last week. Selig is disappointed that another player has been linked to performance-enhancing drugs. But more so, he is angry that a player’s name has been leaked.

That is what really bothers Selig. Not the cheating.

When it comes to Selig, that is just par for the course. A paragraph toward the end of the article is really what reignited my anti-Selig rage. The author writes, “The original list (of players who tested positive) was made available only to one representative from the union and one from MLB, and Selig has said that he never wanted to see it."

Are you kidding me? Selig did not want to see it.

How does a man say that and keep his job?

This was a list of who in the game he runs were cheating. Shouldn’t he have demanded to see the list?

There is only one reason for Selig to refuse to see that list—so he could continue with his head-in-the-sand charade of how he didn’t know steroids were a big problem. If he saw the list and saw the names of Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, and I am sure other top players, he would have had no choice but to acknowledge that steroids were prevalent among the game’s biggest stars.

Seeing that list would have either forced him to do something or eviscerated any later attempt to claim (as he has) that he just did not know steroids were that big of a problem.

This morning I saw a clip from when Selig and Donald Fehr went before Congress to discuss steroids. There is Selig, in 2005, whining to Congress that it isn’t his fault; it is Fehr’s.

I’m not saying Fehr doesn’t deserve his share of responsibility, and he should have been ousted a long time ago for protecting the guilty at the expense of the innocent and at the expense of the sport in general.

But what type of leadership is that from Selig?

Does anyone remember Selig or anyone from MLB arguing for tougher steroid policies in the sport prior to 2005?

He is as responsible as anyone for what has happened to baseball. Those hearings before Congress were in 2005. It is 2009, and the game is just as tarnished today as it was then.

How many seasons are we going to have to go through where steroids are a major part of the discussion?

How many future Hall of Fame votes are going to be impacted by deciding whether or not a player who cheated, or may have cheated, deserves to be selected?

These steroid debates will rage on, and at the center of any such debate is Selig, whose inaction, willful ignorance, and indifference permitted performance-enhancing drugs to tarnish so much that is important about baseball.

As fans, how are we to believe anything we see, or anything we have seen over the last 10 to 15 years?

When a player does amazing things on the field, how can we take it at face value?

The sport has been irreparably harmed, and Selig, who at the very least turned a blind eye while the damage occurred, is still allowed to cash his multimillion-dollar paycheck year after year.

Something is terribly wrong with this.

ESPN, sports radio, and sports columnists around the country will spend countless hours and column inches tearing apart the players who cheated—and rightfully so. With Fehr’s retirement as head of the MLB Players Association, these outlets will again spend time placing blame at Fehr’s feet.

But where is the outrage toward Selig?

Are we going to have to wait for when he retires to hear anything?

By then, it will be far too late. Because if you are building a Mount Rushmore for the Steroids Era in baseball and all those responsible, the first face to be carved would be Selig’s.

My Plea to the NFL and Roger Goodell: Increase Out-of-Market Offerings

Stew Winkel — Thu, 21 May 2009 10:08:06 -0400

It appears that the battle between the NFL Network and Comcast is coming to a close. With that behind us, I want to move on to another issue affecting the ability of fans to see as many NFL games as possible.

It is long past due that the NFL, the most popular sport there is, offers fans a way to watch out of market games beyond just DirecTV.

It is shameful that the NFL does not allow for this, except for the limited number of people who have DirecTV. Both MLB and the NBA offer their out of market package to a much broader group of people, and not just for those with one provider.

Also, both the NBA and MLB offer an Internet package that allows fans to watch most out of market games on their computer. The NFL does not offer this either.

At the very least, the NFL has to provide fans the option of the Internet package. There is nothing worse than being at home on a Sunday and being stuck watching crappy games, knowing that there are so many other games out there I wish I could be following.

I would gladly get DirecTV, but where I live, that is not an option. I can go to a bar to watch out of market games I really want to see, but that is not always the best option.

Why should I be forced to leave the comfort of my couch to go to a bar where I lose control of what I want to watch, just because the NFL is lagging behind the times? For the most popular sport, there is no reason for this.

I understand there is a deal in place with DirecTV—so what? Offer an Internet package. Charge as much as you want—charge more than DirecTV. But give fans some way to view more than a couple of games on a Sunday.

Back in 2007, MLB signed an exclusive deal with DirecTV, similar to the deal the NFL has. There was universal outrage and backlash, as well as antitrust concerns.

Prominent baseball writers, in particular ESPN’s Buster Olney, voiced the complaints of fans and placed pressure on MLB to adjust. By opening day, the deal had been changed, and there was no longer an exclusive deal.

Yet here we are, 2009, and the NFL chugs along only offering its out of market package via DirecTV, with no Internet option. Those who cover the sport couldn’t care less about this issue.

Football writers, such as Peter King, have written extensively on the feud between NFL Network and Comcast, yet there's not one word said about the NFL limiting its out of market package to DirecTV only, and not even offering an Internet option.

So NFL, I am asking that something be done. I love the NFL; I want to watch as many games as I can. Give me and countless others a way to do this if we are unable to get DirecTV—either making deals with other providers or, at the very least, an Internet video option.

Boston Celtics: Looking Ahead to 2009-10 and a Possible Title Run

Stew Winkel — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:53:32 -0400

In reading many of the obituaries today for the 2008-09 Boston Celtics, I was a little disappointed to see so many articles talking about the lack of Kevin Garnett.

Focussing on Garnett masks the truths about this year's Celtics team. It should be clear to Celtics fans that with or without Garnett, the 2008-09 team was not going to repeat. To think otherwise not only would disguise the flaws of this year’s team, it could stand in the way of an honest assessment and the adjustments necessary to contend next season.

Garnett’s injury and, to a lesser extent Leon Powe’s, played a role in Boston’s departure from the playoffs. With a healthy KG, Boston likely gets by Orlando. But people who think they would have beaten Cleveland are kidding themselves.

This was a flawed team.

The year began and ended with questions at backup point guard, backup center, the hole where James Posey once fit in, and lack of consistent production off the bench. That they were able to win 62 regular-season games and advance to Game Seven against the Magic is a testament to the players and coaching staff.

However, when you are the Boston Celtics and defending champions, the goal isn’t regular-season success or winning a playoff series. It is about titles, and that is why the focus needs to be on what it will take to raise banner No. 18.

Long before KG injured his knee, I began to have doubts about this team even while they were winning 19 in a row back in November and December.

Paul Pierce was playing major minutes, which underscored a fear I had entering the season: that the loss of Posey and Boston’s inability to bring in any sort of replacement would ultimately prove a major obstacle.

Pierce was repeatedly playing over 40 minutes a game in the early going. In a four-games-in-six-days stretch between November 10 and 15, Pierce played 45, 45, 41, and 41 minutes. His minutes did not decrease as the season wore on either. He averaged 40.3 minutes in February and March.

Ultimately, Pierce, at age 31 and coming off the longest season of his career, played in 81 regular season games (sitting out only the season finale) and averaged 37.5 minutes per game. This number was up from 35 minutes in 2007-08 and was his highest average since 2006.

It isn’t just the minutes, it's what those minutes represented.

There wasn’t anyone on the roster Doc Rivers felt he could rely on to give Pierce time on the bench, even during the regular season.

In terms of minutes, Pierce was far from the only Celtic logging major court time. In the postseason the Celtics' starters all averaged at least 36 minutes per game. Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen both played over 40 minutes per game, and Pierce was not far behind at 39.7

Having Garnett and Powe would have reduced the strain on Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis, and maybe some of those games against Chicago wouldn't have extended to as many overtimes. But the fact that Pierce, Rondo, and Allen needed to log that many minutes is troubling.

Where do the Celtics now turn for help?

In each of the past two seasons, Boston made in-season signings to try to shore up the bench, adding Sam Cassel and P.J. Brown in 2008 and Mikki Moore and Stephon Marbury this year. Waiting to sign free agents during the season is risky. Boston would be well advised to upgrade its roster during the offseason instead.

That search for help should begin with finding help for Pierce. Not just to give him a rest during the regular season games, but in particular, for when the Celtics meet the Cleveland Cavaliers - whether in the regular season or ultimately in a playoff series.

When Posey signed with the New Orleans Hornets, I immediately worried about Boston's ability to contend with LeBron James. Last season, after Boston defeated Cleveland in the playoffs, Pierce remarked how worn down he was from having to contend with James for an entire series. That was with Posey.

Boston has to think about the need to defend James when putting together its team. No one can stop James, but there are players out there who can at least get in his way and make James break a sweat.

Right now the only guy on Boston’s roster who can do that is Pierce, and it is asking too much of anyone to try to take on James at each end of the court by himself for an entire series.

The Celtics need to find help for Pierce and find a player who can lead the reserves on the court as well as blend in with the starters.

An underrated quality of Posey’s was that he could come off the bench for any of the starters except point guard. The championship team had a great deal of versatility in terms of the different lineups it could play at any part of a game. This year’s team sorely lacked that.

A possibility via the free agent route is Phoenix’s Matt Barnes.

The 6’7" small forward would appear to be a perfect fit for the Celtics. Two hurdles to signing Barnes will be getting him away from Phoenix and then, of course, money. What will Barnes be looking for and how much will Boston have to spend?

Boston probably should have signed Barnes a year ago, when the Celtics had the same needs but Barnes’ price tag was lower. He's coming off a career-high 10.2 points per game.

There are other free-agent small forwards who could fill the Celtics’ need: Houston’s Ron Artest, New York’s Quintin Richardson, Los Angeles’ Trevor Ariza. But they would be even more difficult for Boston to sign than Barnes.

As far as the front court, two free agents Danny Ainge should pursue are Denver’s Chris Anderson and Detroit’s Antonio McDyess.

Anderson falls into a similar category as Barnes—the time to get him might have been a year ago, as Anderson has flourished in Denver. This makes it more likely he will choose to remain there, and it would cost more to to pry him away from the Nuggets now.

The 34-year old McDyess played in 62 games a year ago and averaged nearly 10 points per game. He would represent the type of veteran big-man presence Boston could use off the bench as well as another scoring option.

The fates of Glen Davis and Leon Powe, both restricted free agents, will be critically important for the Celtics.

Davis’ postseason play upped his price tag for next season, but Boston has little choice but to re-sign him. How much the Celtics have to pay will likely dictate what else they can do in the offseason.

A debate raged among Celtics fans during the season as to whom to re-sign between Powe and Davis. That debate ended in the playoffs because of Powe’s knee injury and Davis’ play. Powe should not be forgotten though. If he can be healthy by midseason next year, Boston could likely retain him for little money, providing a nice addition to the team come January or February.

In the backcourt, the Celtics have been looking for a suitable backup point guard for two seasons. That search continues this offseason.

Eddie House will likely be back (he has a player option for 2009-10), but he has shown himself to be more of an off-guard than a point.

Would Boston consider bringing Marbury back?

I can’t really see that happening, from either the team’s or the player’s standpoint. But Marbury said and did all the right things in his time with the Celtics. His game was rusty after all his time away, but that rust should be gone come next year. If he would accept being a permanent backup, his ability to provide offense off the bench would certainly fill a need.

From within, the Celtics had three players spend time in the D-League: small forwards Bill Walker and J.R. Giddens and point guard Gabe Pruitt. Walker and Pruitt would be the most likely to provide meaningful contributions next season.

Finding out if any of these three can play will likely entail Rivers taking a chance during important games and letting the young players on the court. This could mean risking a win or two to see exactly what they have.

Rivers has done a great job with this team, but if there is a knock on his coaching, it is that he is slow to incorporate young players.

In 2005 Rivers had Delonte West glued to the bench and the same for Ryan Gomes the following year, until injuries left him no choice but to play them. Both immediately showed they could play in the NBA.

It is difficult to be too critical because I do not know what goes on at practice and how NBA-ready each player is. It is, however, at least possible that the Celtics would have been better served this postseason had they given Walker or Pruitt more playing time in the regular season, even if it meant sacrificing a win or two.

Regardless, Ainge and Rivers need to know what they have in these players and whether any of them are capable of stepping into a more meaningful role next season.

There is also Tony Allen, a shooting guard who has filled in at point at times.

In his five years in the league, Allen has been inconsistent and injury prone. His overall game has not really improved, and any time he has shown a flash of something it has been quickly followed by an injury setback.

Allen has proven he is a different player when he starts (averaging 10.8 ppg in 73 career starts compared with only 6.2 when he comes off the bench). With Ray Allen, though, Tony isn’t starting any time soon. He will need to adjust his game accordingly or continue to be relegated to the end of the bench.

The core of a 62-win team will be back. Considering how Davis played in the postseason (assuming Davis returns), there is no need to rush Garnett back until he is ready. There are, though, still so many questions about KG and his knee:

    * How serious is the knee injury?
    * Is he going to be ready by opening night, midseason, the playoffs?
    * Once back, should we expect Garnett to be at full strength, or are his days as an elite player coming to an end?

Pierce and Allen each had great moments in the postseason but also had long stretches during which they were non-factors. An offseason of rest and a little more support next year from the bench could go a long way to keeping those two ready to play throughout the postseason.

Kendrick Perkins has developed into a quality, legitimate NBA center, coming a long, long way from where he was his first few years in the league.

The only remaining question about the returners is how high is Rondo's ceiling.

He was at times the best player on the floor in the postseason, but he also has times when he isn’t aggressive, when he makes careless turnovers, and when his poor outside shooting hinders the entire offense.

Rondo’s points, rebounds, assists, field goal percentage, and three-point percentage have all gone up over each of his three seasons. In the open-floor and in an up-tempo game, he is as dangerous as any point guard in the game. Now he has to find a way to impose his tremendous abilities in the half-court set when the game slows down

Just two years ago, the Celtics were one of the worst teams in the league. It certainly is nice now to be dealing with one of the league’s best teams, even if they didn’t win a title this year.

But Red, Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, Bird, and the others set the bar high for the franchise—the Celtics don’t raise banners for winning the division or the conference. It is about rings.

This team doesn’t need an overhaul, but a few minor additions and improvements are critical if Boston wants to be back on top at the end of next season.

NBA Playoffs: Celtics Blow Chance to End Series, Bulls Win Epic Game Six

Stew Winkel — Fri, 01 May 2009 01:17:03 -0400

I am writing this article, because I don't know what else to do. I am exhausted from watching the game, but I know I can't sleep. I am just sick about the Celtics loss in Game Six in triple overtime to the Bulls.

Tonight was one of those games that will be replayed forever—an absolute instant classic. But right now, I couldn't care less. My team lost, and they lost because, despite playoff experience, and being defending champions, they blew it.

This game never, ever should have reached a first overtime. Ever. The Bulls looked to be pulling away in the fourth quarter, the same way that they did in Game Five. Then the Celtics went nuts, going from 12 points down (88-76) to up eight (98-91).

Then the turning point. Rajon Rondo goes to the line. I am thinking, "Just make one, keep the momentum going, and it is over." He seemingly rushes his free throws, and misses them both. Up eight, under three minutes to play, the Celtics still should have won. But the two misses left the door open just slightly and the Bulls took full advantage.

For some reason, Doc Rivers put Tony Allen in the game down the stretch. The Celtics starting five was playing great together. Doc pulls Glen Davis for Allen, who has spent most of the night and most of the series on the bench. It wasn't that Tony Allen did anything terrible, but, under these circumstances, Davis deserved to be out there, he needed to be, and he should have been.

Chicago came all the way back and tied the game.

Boston, though, would have another chance to win in regulation. Paul Pierce had the ball where he wanted, and got the shot he wanted.

With the clock running out, Pierce got about as good a look as you could possibly hope for: a shot Pierce had made hundreds of times throughout his career, and several times just in Game Five. He missed, and on to overtime No. 1 we went.

To be honest, at the moment, the overtimes are a blur. I remember Pierce missing a chance to win the game at the end of the first OT.

Ray Allen hitting big shot after big shot, including the final five in the second overtime to extend the game another period.

Those final five points included a game-tying three-pointer. Just prior to that, Allen hit a huge shot from the right corner. At first, it looked like a three to tie the game, but his toe was on the line for only a two.

Allen had 51 points, and there was a very high degree of difficulty on this shot. Allen had to step back with the taller Joakim Noah all over him. I can't be be angry at Allen for having his toe on the line under those circumstances.

I can, however, be angry at Eddie House. In the third overtime, down three, the Celtics ran a play to get House an open three in the left corner. House has one job in that situation: get to the corner; get behind the line. House does knock down the jumper, but his foot is easily over the line for just a two—leaving Boston down by one.

This was just one of four terrible plays by the Celtics down the stretch of the third overtime.

Boston had the ball with under a minute left, tie game. This is an ideal situation for the Celtics. Without having to rush, they can easily get a two for one, ensuring they have two shots at scoring, giving them a great chance to win the game, or at the very least, force another overtime.

Pierce has the ball and starts to dribble to his left. He gets a step on John Salmons. There is Noah in the way, but he jumps the passing lane instead of cutting off Pierce's path to the hoop. Pierce assumed Noah would cut the lane off, and he threw it right to Noah. This was more of a terrible play by Pierce than a great one by Noah.

Next, it would only get worse. Noah used his speed and athletic ability to race down the court. Pierce, with five fouls, decides to give chase instead of just conceding the dunk to Noah and the Bulls. Pierce commits the foul, barely causing Noah to flinch as the second-year player soars in for the go-ahead dunk, and the foul.

Pierce was now out of the game, after a bonehead turnover and an even worse foul. After Noah sinks the free throws, the Celtics are again down by three.

This was followed by the House two where he failed to get his feet behind the line. Boston would get the ball back after Kirk Hinrich missed a layup. Down one, out of timeouts, and Pierce, Davis, and Kendrick Perkins all on the bench having fouled out. About 15 seconds to play.

And Ray Allen had 51 points.

Boston had to work for one good shot, to either win or lose the game here.

The ball comes in to Rondo. Allen is in the corner with Salmons guarding him. Instead of setting a screen, or as many screens as needed to get Allen the ball, no one on the Celtics tries to get Allen free. Rondo panics and starts to dribble.

Again, Ray Allen, who has hit countless huge shots all series, and many more in this game alone, doesn't touch the ball. Rondo dribbles a few times, and takes a turnaround jumper, fading away. Derek Rose makes a great block, but even had he not blocked the shot, the chances of that shot going in were very, very low.

Ray Allen is not Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, LeBron, or Kobe, but for one game tonight, he might as well been. Those players at the end of games, always get the ball, and teams always find ways to get them the ball. That, without exception, had to be the case tonight for the Celtics with Allen. Remember, 51 points.

It would be one thing if Allen came off screens and cuts and Rondo just could not get him the ball. Fine. But you had to at least give him a chance.

Boston did not. Instead, Rondo's shot gets blocked and the Bulls win, forcing a deciding Game Seven on Saturday night back in Boston.

Right now, I just keep thinking about up eight, Rondo at the line. The game should have been over. The series should have been over.

Two missed free throws, and then three overtimes later, the Bulls emerged with a win for the ages. Chicago had player, after player step up throughout the night, getting major contributions at key moments from Noah, Salmons, Rose, and Brad Miller.

The Celtics failed to close the door on this series, and now both teams are headed back to Boston for the do-or-die Game Seven.

One team is happy to be on that flight. The other, not so much.

The NBA and Flagrant Fouls: Where No Contact Happens

Stew Winkel — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:50:02 -0400

The debate is raging: Did Rajon Rondo commit a flagrant foul last night when he hit Brad Miller in the face in the final seconds of overtime in Game Five between the Boston Celtics and Chicago Bulls?

That Rondo's play would be considered a flagrant foul is insulting to anyone who really cares about basketball.

What concerns me most is all the people screaming today that the foul should have been flagrant. Have we created a league in which that type of foul even merits consideration for a game-altering flagrant call?

If so, it is a shame.

Today, I'm listening to people who cover the NBA for a living who honestly believe the play should have been called a flagrant foul. They are quick with the hyperbole, calling it the most glaring example of a flagrant they have ever seen. They're saying that if Rondo's foul wasn't a flagrant, they don't know what is.

Really?

If what Rondo did was a flagrant, then what has basketball become? Indeed, what else should he have done?

Should Rondo not have tried to make a play and allowed Miller the easy game-tying layup? Or should he have just tapped the 7'0", 260-pound Miller nicely on the arm, allowing him to make the shot, get fouled, and then win the game at the line?

Absolutely not. In that situation, you commit the foul, and you do it any way you can. You make the player earn it from the line. That is basketball—that is how it has always been played, and that's the way it should be played.

Oh, but he hit him in the face? So what? He made a swipe for the ball, missed, and came down—albeit hard—on Miller's face.

It was a foul. Get over it and move on. He didn't throw a punch or an elbow. He didn't shove Miller from behind. He made a basketball play to send Miller to the line.

So, what then is a flagrant foul? The question to ask is, "Was the foul committed while making a basketball play? " If the answer is no, then it's a flagrant. If the answer is yes, then it's not.

What is a basketball play? I can't define it perfectly, but like the Supreme Court when it comes to obscenity, I know it when I see it. And I saw Rondo make a basketball play.

And let's stop pretending the situation should not matter. Of course it should.

Personally, I don't think Rondo's foul was anything more than a personal at any point in the game. But even if there's room for debate, are we really saying that a game should be decided based on a flagrant foul judgment call?

I would like to think the answer to that is no, unless the foul is so blatantly flagrant that every single person who sees it can't help but agree.

A game-deciding flagrant foul should not be called in the final seconds unless it is an absolute certainty. The timing matters in the same way that if the foul had occurred in the first quarter of the game, no one would be talking about it today. Situation absolutely matters.

Last night was a great, great, basketball game. The Bulls had the Celtics on the ropes, up eleven points with less than ten minutes to play. But Boston came back, led by Paul Pierce, who had been—to borrow a word commentator Doug Collins used to describe his play—lethargic all night. However, when the Celtics looked to have the game won, back came the Bulls.

Last night's game needed to be decided on the court. It had to be earned, not decided based on a flagrant foul that would have been called only because the NBA is trying to take the physical play out of the sport.

I hate what the NBA has become in terms of how it deals with hard fouls. The league has become more concerned with public relations than competition. There is a difference between a hard foul and a flagrant, but the league appears intent on blurring any such distinction.

Hard fouls are part of the game—always have been, always should be. That the NBA doesn't want dirty fouls is understandable. That the NBA doesn't want a player clotheslining an opponent on a fast break is understandable.

Even the Celtics fan in me, for instance, would admit that had Kevin McHale's clothesline of Kurt Rambis in the 1984 Finals occurred today, it likely would be a flagrant 2. McHale's play on Rambis was a dirty play.

Rondo's play on Miller was not.

Players have to be allowed to defend the rim and make the other team earn a victory. And we are not talking about protecting athletes who can't take the contact. These are some of the strongest, largest, most athletically gifted people on the planet. That they need to be babied and protected is absurd. The game does not need to be policed that way.

Even the college game is not officiated that way. When I watch the NCAA, I see plays whistled for regular fouls in almost every game that would have drawn flagrant calls in the NBA.

The NBA does not want fights. That makes sense. It is, however, a massive overreaction to decide that in order to cut down on fights, a system has to be created in which the slightest bit of contact results in technicals—and in which players, coaches, the media and fans are screaming the next day that a flagrant should have been called.

Rondo's foul isn't the only one in question here. I have watched flagrant fouls called for years now on plays that are nothing more than good, solid, clean, hard fouls. It bothers me every single time, whether my team is the beneficiary of the call or not.

I don't want to see fights in the NBA. I don't want to see players spilling into the crowd a few rows in front of where the commissioner may be sitting, and I certainly don't want to see players fighting with fans in the middle of a brawl.

I do, however, want to see the toughness of the game, and I do want to see players enforce the no-layup rule when necessary, and make the other team earn the two points at the line.

Those two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. Apparently, the NBA sees things differently, and it frightens me where this league is headed in terms of taking any sort of physical play out of the sport.

Thinking About Pedro Martinez and Why I Follow Baseball

Stew Winkel — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:26:28 -0400

You know what? I grew up in Red Sox Nation and I didn’t really like baseball. Or the Red Sox. It’s true.

Not that I rooted for another team, but in terms of my allegiances, the Sox trailed the Celtics and Patriots, and maybe even professional wrestling.

It wasn’t always that way. When I was really young, I followed the Sox just like I did the other teams. Dwight Evans was my favorite player.

But I also played little league, and I was terrible—embarrassingly bad. So bad that I was much happier on the bench than when I was playing my league-mandated two innings in the field. And even though what went on at Fenway had no correlation to my experiences on the field, being as bad as I was made me want to stay far away from nearly all aspects of the sport.

Now, however, I do love baseball. There are a few reasons for the change, but really one primary factor—a factor that now is no where to be found as the 2009 season gets under way: Pedro Martinez.

Martinez came to the Red Sox before the 1998 season. He made a name for himself pitching four seasons in baseball Siberia, Montreal. In 1995 he threw a perfect game for nine innings, only to finally give up a hit in the tenth. Then in 1997, his last in Montreal, he won the Cy Young, going 17-8 with a microscopic 1.90 ERA, 305 strikeouts, 13 complete games, and four shutouts.

The Sox began Pedro's first season with the team, 1998, on the road. In his first two starts, Martinez allowed only one earned run and struck out 20, all prior to making his Fenway debut on April 11. The home crowd was not dissapointed either - Pedro pitched a complete game, two-hit shutout with 12 K's in a 5-0 win against the Seattle Mariners.

Martinez finished that year with 19 wins, a 2.89 ERA, 251 K’s, and a second-place showing to Roger Clemens in the Cy Young voting (would any of you voters like a do-over now?).

Over seven seasons in Boston, Martinez won a pair of Cy Youngs and put together numbers that can stand side by side with the greats of all time. He pitched in 203 games, compiling a 117-37 record (.760 winning %), 2.52 ERA, 1,683 strikeouts, 22 complete games, and eight shutouts.

But with Pedro, it was about much more than simply numbers. Baseball can be slow paced, a time for a fan to sit back, relax and enjoy. Conversely, there was nothing relaxing about Pedro Martinez. He brought excitement and energy to Fenway Park that I don’t think had ever been seen in Boston, and will be difficult for one player to ever again duplicate.

When Pedro was at the top of his game, there was nothing like a Martinez start at Fenway. As game-time approached, there would be a buzz felt around the park, all along Yawkey Way and Lansdowne Street. If you had a ticket, you wouldn’t say you were going to the Sox game; you would say you were going to see Pedro.

By first pitch, the packed crowd would all be in their seats in anticipation of what would be coming. You would wonder, how many strikeouts, how few hits, how many innings? You knew anything was possible. On every single two-strike count, the fans would stand. Everyone would marvel at seeing this 5’10"/170 pound man send dejected batter after batter back to the dugout. In his Red Sox career, 800 times the Fenway fans went crazy when Pedro got that third strike.

He had a 95-plus mile per hour fastball and an array of breaking pitches that made even baseball novices say wow. In 35 of 95 home starts playing for Boston, Martinez registered double-digit strikeouts. On those occasions when Pedro really got going, you would have thought from the Fenway atmosphere that you were in the middle of Game Seven of the World Series.

It wasn’t just the strikeouts either. Although he never threw a no-hitter, fans in the park almost expected it to happen. When the opposing team got that first hit, there was a collective exhale throughout, as fans essentially said, “Ok, not today, but maybe next time.” This would happen whether the hit came from the first batter or much later in the game.

In 1999, Martinez treated Red Sox fans to a truly unforgettable season. His eye-popping numbers consisted of a 23-4 record, 2.07 ERA, 313 strikeouts and only 37 walks. He won the All-Star game MVP, the Cy Young, and if it wasn’t for two voters who should have had the privilege of voting taken away from them, he would have won the MVP, too.

The country got to see Pedro start the All-Star game at Fenway in July. In the first inning, he struck out Barry Larkin, Larry Walker, and Sammy Sosa in order. He opened the second inning by striking out Mark McGuire, who a night earlier put on a memorable display in the home run derby. Matt Williams then reached on an error, followed by Martinez striking out Jeff Bagwell with Williams being thrown out stealing after the swinging third strike.

On to September, when Martinez pitched the Sox into the postseason. In five starts, he was 4-0, with a 0.88 ERA, and 70 K’s in 41 innings, striking out at least 12 batters in each outing.

Among those games is perhaps Pedro’s finest moment on the mound, the greatest pitched game I have ever watched. In the heat of a Pennant Race, on a Friday night at Yankee Stadium, Pedro did surrender one hit and one run on a home run by Chili Davis. That, however, would be it for the Yankees that night.

In a complete-game, Martinez struck out 17 while walking none, the most ever K's against the Yankees. Pedro struck out the side in the bottom of the ninth, and recorded eight of the final nine outs of the game via the K.

That post-season delivered another great Pedro moment.

Against the Cleveland Indians in the ALDS, Martinez pitched only four innings in Game One due to a back injury. In the decisive Game Five, Cleveland scored eight runs in the first three innings off of Brett Saberhagen and Derek Lowe.

With the game tied 8-8, Pedro emerged from the bullpen to start the bottom of the fourth. The Jacobs Field crowd went silent.

Pedro proceeded to throw six hitless innings, leading the Sox to the ALCS for the first time in 13 years. The feat is even more impressive considering the Indians scored over 1000 runs that year and boasted a lineup highlighted by Manny Ramirez, Robert Alomar, and Jim Thome.

In the ALCS, Pedro took the mound in Game Three, besting former Red Sox turned Yankee, Clemens (7 IP, 2 H, 12 K in a 13-1 win).

The following season, Pedro would again get the better of Clemens in a memorable duel on May 28 at Yankee Stadium. Both pitchers threw eight shutout innings before the Sox scored two in the top of the ninth off Clemens. Pedro would then escape a bases loaded jam in the bottom of the inning to polish off the complete-game shutout.

Remarkably, Pedro’s 2000 nearly matched his ’99 performance. He lowered his ERA to 1.74, to go with 18 wins, and 284 strikeouts, winning his third Cy Young.

On May 6, 2000, Pedro pitched against the Tampa Bay Devil Rays on a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon. Despite the weather, the park was filled to see Pedro. The Red Sox lost, but that didn’t take away from Pedro’s brilliance—nine innings, one earned run, and his personal Fenway-best 17 strikeouts.

His next outing was at Baltimore, a two-hit shutout with 15 strikeouts. Later in the year, Pedro would take a no-hitter into the ninth against the Rays, striking out 13.

Another game in 2000 that really exemplifies Martinez’s skills may not stand out when just looking back at the box score—nine innings pitched, five hits, two runs and seven strikeouts in a Red Sox win.

Why is this game so memorable?

It is because of what happened the night before—the Red Sox lost in 19 innings to Seattle. The team was on fumes, the entire bullpen likely unavailable. Pedro did what had to be done, knowing the team needed him to go the full nine.

After an injury-shortened 2001, Pedro put together a 20-win season in ’02, with a 2.26 ERA and 239 K’s. Good for a second-place showing in the Cy Young voting, behind Barry Zito.

While Pedro’s fastball began to slow down towards the end of his time in Boston, the excitement around getting to see him pitch never did. He would win the decisive game five against the A’s in the 2003 ALDS, and if it wasn’t for Grady Little, he likely would have won Game Seven of the ALCS that year as well.

A year later, Martinez would make what would turn out to be his final start as a Red Sox in Game Three of the World Series against the Cardinals. I actually remember reading an article that said St. Louis had the pitching advantage that night with Jeff Suppan. Pedro would have none of that—throwing seven shutout innings in a Sox victory on their way to the series sweep.

After ’04, Pedro inked a four-year deal with the Mets. Just like he did when he came to Boston, Pedro brought an excitement to Shea Stadium that had been lacking. But after making 31 starts—with four complete games—in his first year for the Mets, Pedro would fail to pitch a complete season again. He made only five starts in 2007 and a career-low 5.61 ERA in an injury-riddled 2008.

With his Mets contract having run out, the 2009 season is underway and Pedro sits at home. Perhaps he catches on with a team at some point. But if he doesn’t, he will retire with a Hall of Fame career in the rearview mirror—214 wins to only 99 losses, a 2.91 ERA, 46 complete games, and 17 shutouts.

In 2,782 innings, he struck out 3,117 batters (tied with Bob Gibson for 13th all-time) to only 752 walks.

Regardless if Pedro ever pitches again, No. 45 will always be remembered for being a once-in-a-lifetime athlete. In the way Bruins fans of the '70s think about Bobby Orr, Celtics fans of the '80s think about Larry Bird, Pedro Martinez occupies a similar place in the minds of many, many Red Sox fans.

He will be remembered not just because of his numbers, but for his brilliance on the mound, and the personality he brought to the team, the city, and the sport. Throughout his career, Pedro provided fans with the types of moments and memories that only he was capable of delivering.

And along the way, he, as much as anyone, was responsible for bringing a fan back to the game of baseball.

Bud Selig: When Will He Finally Be Held Accountable for the Steroid Era?

Stew Winkel — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:55:35 -0500

At a time when thousands of people are losing their jobs through no fault of their own, an utter failure continues at his occupation, leading me to ask, "What will it take for Bud Selig to lose his job?"

Considering the current sate of Major League Baseball and the continued steroid controversy, how much damage does he have to do, how much harm has to occur to the sport on his watch, before he is finally and appropriately held accountable?

With the news about Alex Rodriguez taking steroids, that makes it arguably the three greatest players during the Selig era—Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens—who are now caught up in the controversy.

The allegations around all three are that they were taking steroids for years, going back as far as the late 1990s. Yet Selig, the man in charge of the sport, wants us to believe that he had no idea that steroids might be a problem during this time.

In February 2005 Selig said (with a straight face) about steroids, "I never heard about it." I would compare that to a parent who walks into the kitchen, sees paint all over the refrigerator, sees a child covered in paint, but believes it when the child says, “It wasn’t me.”

Selig’s failure to act for years, until forced to, means one of three things—either he is too stupid to notice what was going on in the sport he was trying to run, he knew and just didn’t care, or he knew, cared, but decided not to act because more home runs and more strikeouts meant more money. All are unacceptable.

The unquestioned primary reason Selig maintains his position as commissioner is that he makes money for the owners of baseball. They like him for that. Also, Selig's lack of a backbone, a trait that makes me dislike him, is possibly appealing to the owners.

A powerful person running the sport might not always side with what the owners want to do, but put the incompetent Selig in charge, and the owners can essentially run the sport. They let Selig stay out front to take any criticism, while they retain the real power and authority over what happens.

When it comes to steroids, the owners deserve their share of the blame for letting it happen. They know this, but so long as Selig remains in charge they remain relatively shielded from criticism for their role.

Selig may have done some things that deserve credit, that is if you like inter-league play and the wild card. But coming up with those ideas didn’t exactly require the splitting of the atom. And let’s also be honest, inter-league play and the wild card are in place for no other reason than they make money for the league.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. But when it comes to Selig, if it isn’t something that is going to line his pockets as well as those of the owners’, then it isn’t something he will concern himself with.

The steroid era has cast a dark cloud over the game that will remain for a long, long time. The 2009 season will now mark, at a minimum, the fifth consecutive year where the primary topic surrounding the sport entering the season has been steroids. It could take decades before there is a Hall of Fame vote where steroids are not a factor in the selection process and in the press coverage.

The man in charge of the sport did nothing to stop steroids and did nothing to control it until any such action was long past due. And the only reason he did anything at all was because he was shamed into acting by Congress.

He waited to respond until it had become beyond preposterous that no action had been taken, and he waited until any belief that baseball didn't have a steroid problem was as incomprehensible as J. Edgar Hoover's belief that there wasn't a mafia.

As steroids became more and more prevalent in the sport, baseball needed a strong commissioner to step forward and prevent the problem from growing out of control. Unfortunately for baseball, at this most crucial time in the sport's history, it was being led by a man who proved not up to the task. Bud Selig is not what Michael Corelone would call "a war-time consigliere."

To say the prevalence of steroids in baseball grew out of control is a major understatement. All statistics, all records, and really everything from the last 15 years or so, has been rendered meaningless due to Selig’s inactions.

Without question, the players are responsible. But so, too, is Selig. If a team fails, you look to the manager. If a child fails, you look to the parents. And if a school fails, you look to the principal. Well, baseball has failed in a most astounding fashion due to steroids, so we must look to Selig.

The steroid question has brought to the forefront Selig's shortcomings as a leader. He is not someone who has ever shown the ability to stand up and solve a problem.

Even when Selig decides to act, he does so tentatively. He always does it in a way where he isn’t the one responsible, but can point to someone else, or something else, as cover if anyone were to disagree or challenge him on the action. This isn't leadership.

Think about how A-Rod’s steroid use became known—because the results of what were to be anonymous tests turned out to be not so anonymous.

It is an article for another day whether names ever should have been put with those results. My question here, though, is why were the tests anonymous in the first place? In 2003, did Selig really need test results to tell him his sport needed to take action against steroids?

The commissioner was afraid to do anything. He chose to hide behind an anonymous test. This way, if not many players tested positive, he could justify his continued inaction. And if the results came back as they did, he could say to the Players’ Association, "It isn’t me who is asking for the drug tests."

A competent commissioner would have put a real testing procedure into place in 2003, instead of this anonymous-test charade. By then he would have only been a few years late.

A strong commissioner would have demanded decisive action. A strong commissioner would have stood up and said, “I am the commissioner, I am in charge of the sport, the integrity of our game is at stake, and we must do everything we can to rid our game of performance-enhancing drugs.”

Anyone who argued with Selig, had he done this, would have found themselves on the opposite end of not just public opinion, but what happened to be the right thing to do.

Instead, however, Selig said nothing of the sort, and really to this day has never made such a strong statement about steroids.

In 2003 he, as he always is, was tentative to act. He stuck his toe in the water instead of diving in.

Being cautious may have its time and place. This was not one of them. The steroid problem demanded swift, strong action, and those are two words that will never be mentioned in any profile of Selig.

Fast forward to the Mitchell Report, which is just another example of how Bud Selig can never take the needed decisive action.

By 2006, no one, let alone the commissioner of the sport, should have needed a report to recommend what needed to be done. Everyone knew what needed to be done. Just take the action. Selig, however, needed someone to tell him what to do.

Selig never acts, but always reacts. This is not something one would highlight when interviewing for any position of leadership.

The players are responsible for their own actions, and they are being held accountable. It may not be everyone, and it may be taking a while, but one by one, players who cheated are facing the music.

But so, too, must Selig. Steroids and performance-enhancing drugs invaded the sport and spread like a virus. This virus infected the whole sport, and it did so, while Selig sat on the sidelines.

For years, he paid it no attention; he couldn't be bothered. And when he couldn’t do that anymore, he still was incapable of taking the type of action that was needed—the type of action that, had it been taken, may have prevented us from heading into another baseball season talking about steroids.

If Selig had fought the good fight to keep steroids out, and we still found ourselves in the same spot in terms of its impact on the game, then possibly Selig would deserve a break. But he didn’t fight the good fight. He never even put on the gloves.

His failure to fight is what matters. Any other possible accomplishment by Selig does not. If the roof of a recently-built house collapsed, I imagine the builder wouldn’t be let off the hook by pointing to the pretty lawn in the front yard. During Selig's tenure, everything else is minor compared to the disaster of wide-spread, unchecked use of steroids in baseball.

Selig’s incompetence, indifference, and inaction are as responsible for steroids' impact on baseball as anything else. It is well past time he is held accountable.

Alex Rodriguez and Steroids: What the MLB Players' Association Should Do

Stew Winkel — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:56:43 -0500

I turned on my computer this morning and found the breaking, yet not really all that shocking, news that Alex Rodriguez reportedly tested positive for steroids in 2003. This made me think of The West Wing.

Yes, the TV show that went off the air in 2006.

Here is why.

In the final season of the show, there is an issue that is hurting one of the presidential candidates’ campaign, and he can’t get past it. After days of his aides telling him to side-step any question in the hope of the story going away, the candidate decides to ignore all this advice and moves in the complete opposite direction—he holds an “until they drop” press conference.

He answers every single question any reporter may have. He answers them fully and honestly. He answers them all. At the end of the press conference, the reporters are worn out. In this way, and only in this way, is he able to put the issue behind him and move on.

This is what the Major League Baseball Players Association needs to do when it comes to steroids and performance-enhancing drugs, hold their own “until they drop” press conference.

The MLBPA needs to get past this—tell all players to admit completely any performance enhancing drug they may have used prior to the league instituting its drug testing policy. Not each player admit it individually, but do it together, as a union, in one concerted effort.

The sheer number of players could be staggering. Numbers aside though, wouldn't this answer the major questions now being pursued by the press and fans—who did what and when?

The Players Association then could publish this list of players—this is all the players that used something, this is what they used. And then answer any and all questions about why they used—it helped them player better, it helped them play 162 games a year, it helped them earn more money and secure contracts.

I’m not saying any of this should create sympathy for the players. It shouldn’t and it likely would not. But these are the same questions that are addressed and answered now, but in one player at a time when new revelations are revealed.

This duck-and-cover approach, where players are just sitting at home, hoping their names are not mentioned, is not working.

The steroid story is not going away any time soon—not with arguably the three greatest players of this generation—Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and now Rodriguez—currently all making front-page news for their reported steroid use.

But if the Players' Association was to take this action, and once it is all out there, what else is there to do? The PA should adopt a completely open and honest policy for all past steroid use, and a zero tolerance policy for any current or future use.

Up until now, the strategy for the players has been to deny, deny, deny. Stonewall and then deny some more. What this has led to is players being picked off one by one. And just when you think the tip of the iceberg was Bonds, here comes Clemens. And when you thought Clemens was the tip, here comes the news about A-Rod.

Does the MLBPA believe it will end with A-Rod? Will he be the last star to have his name dragged through the headlines? Absolutely not. Now with A-Rod caught, reporters will set their sight on finding out the dirt on another star.

And it is not just the stars who are getting caught. Will there be another Mitchell Investigation-type report where players are named, stars and non-stars? MLB itself likely would not do such a thing again, but it is not out of the question that some other outlet, maybe even the federal government, would take such action.

So why, then, is the Players Association continuing to keep up with this same failed strategy. Why not hold their own version of an “until they drop” press conference? It would give people the answers they want—who used what.

It would be embarrassing, it would be painful, and it could get ugly. But when it was over, what next?

Investigative reporters would need to find something else to look into. Full disclosure would mean no more breaking stories of yet another baseball player who used steroids in the past. If reporters still wanted to stick to the steroid-story, they would have to move past the individual players and on to the larger picture of how it was allowed to happen, and how it can be prevented.

Admitting everything would allow the clean players to stop being guilty by association, and it would also stop a few players from being singled out for something many others did as well.

From the perspective of the Players Association, whose ultimate job is to protect the players, I don’t really see an alternative.

The L.A. Lakers and NBA Officials: Tag-Team Champions

Stew Winkel — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:46:39 -0500

I tuned in to watch last night's Celtics-Lakers game thinking it should be a battle between two of the top teams in the league—a rematch of last year's NBA Finals, and a possible preview of this year's championship series.

With both teams having nearly identical records, I also thought this one game might matter down the line when it comes to deciding homecourt advantage.

Who knew I was seeing another command performance by one of the most formidable tag-teams since the "Road Warriors".

This isn't about the outcome of last night's game - even the most loyal Celtics fan will admit the Celtics blew it all on their own. Boston turned the ball over too many times, mostly in careless fashion, which led to easy points for the Lakers.

Against better teams, Boston has shown a problem closing out games, and last night was another example. The C's had the ball with a chance to win at the end of regulation, and came up with nothing; had the ball with under 30-seconds to play in overtime, up one point, and came up with nothing; they had two cracks at winning the game, down by one at the end of OT, and came up empty both times.

Nope, this is about a Lakers team that, through their nightly antics, has joined forces with the NBA officials to try to rule the league.

The Lakers—from their head coach right down to the last player on the roster—whine, complain, and protest to virtually every call during a game. They act the same way for every non-call. They want, and expect, whistles to be blown in their favor. No exceptions. If they feel that every single call didn't go their way, they have no problem saying so afterwards.

Sure all teams protest calls, and some players are worse than others. So what makes the Lakers different - it is both the frequency of their acts and the level of their theatrics in protesting every call. It isn't just Kobe Bryant, who may have earned a measure of leeway, but every player on the roster.

Watch the Lakers play. They have a Blagojevch-like quality when it comes to accepting responsibility for their actions. Not once in a while, not occasionally, but every single time a foul is called on that team, they all act totally innocent.

They can't believe an official would dare call a foul on the mighty Lakers.

When I say "they all", I don't mean they will all do it individually when a foul is called on them personally. I mean they will all do it in unison when a foul is called on any teammate.

They have their act down—whistle blows, foul on the Lakers. OK, everyone, throw your arms out to the side and make a pouting face. That is the bare minimum. Then it is up to the individual player to improvise.

L.A. also expects to get every call. If a Laker drives to the hoop, and an official forgets to blow the whistle, while the ball is going back up court, there will be the player turning to the official, arms raised out to the side, making the patented, "Don't you know I'm a Laker? I get every call!" face.

Don't believe me. Watch a tape of any Lakers game. Don't worry about the game, just watch the Lakers' antics.

Last night was no exception. Here are some of my favorite examples from the game.

Pau Gasol drives to the hoop, throws up a shot that, without question, misses the rim. He gets the ball back, but the 24-second clock goes off. Gasol can't believe it. It is a pretty clear-cut rule, but Gasol still complains. He is a Laker—there should be no 24-second violations.

Let's look at this incident involving Laker Lamar Odom. A Laker takes a shot that misses. This occurs at one of those rare points in a game where Odom has decided to show some effort. He crashes into the Celtic who was trying to get the rebound. The ball goes out of bounds. Odom starts to complain that he didn't foul anyone.

Again, he is a Laker, which is what they do. But of course, there was no foul call. It was only out of bounds, Celtics ball. Odom must have been just arguing for practice.

And, maybe my favorite play from last night's game—with under a minute to play in the third quarter, Leon Powe once again outworks the Lakers to grab an offensive rebound off an Eddie House jumper. He gets hammered by a Laker, and the ball comes loose.

I wouldn't possibly expect a call there on the Lakers. I mean Phil Jackson pretended he didn't know how to pronounce Leon's last name, so obviously a referee can't send Powe to the line. The ball is then on the ground, and a group of Lakers stare at it. Ray Allen comes in, dives on the ground, and gets to the ball. The Lakers, knowing they have their tag-team partner, just bend over and whack away at Allen until again the ball comes loose.

A foul is out of the question.

Jordan Farmar picks up the ball, takes two dribbles and stops. A complete stop. He then sees his team fast-breaking up the court. He wants to join them. So, he starts up again. He goes behind his back and begins to dribble. Again. Two dribbles.

In youth basketball that is what would universally be called a double-dribble. But when you are a Laker, it is play-on. The refs could see the fast-break opportunity for L.A. and did not want to interrupt.

All this whining, all this complaining, all this flopping has helped put the officials in the Lakers' pocket. For this, watch the play where Kevin Garnett fouled out with over four minutes to play.

That is right, Kevin Garnett, perennial All-Star, lock for the Hall of Fame, fouled out of a crucial game with over four minutes to play. Well he must have really earned that sixth foul, right? Not exactly. He was outnumbered two-to-one—Lakers and officials v. KG.

Garnett had the ball out on the wing, and he was attempting to turn to face the hoop, while being guarded by that defensive legend Gasol. Gasol takes a swing at the ball but hitting all arm—Foul No. 1. No call. Knowing he can get away with it, Gasol takes another swipe—Foul No. 2. Again, no call. This time the ball is jarred free.

As Garnett tries to recover the ball, here comes the mightiest of mighty mice—King Flopper himself—Derek Fisher.

Fisher does what he does best, what he has made a career out of while being a Laker —he flopped. And the official did his part, rewarding Gasol for reaching in and Fisher for yet another flop in a long-storied career of flopping. He called the foul on Garnett.

The Lakers are a good team, no question. Bryant, from an opposing fan’s perspective, is one of the scariest players on the planet. He can be 0-20, and take over a game at a moment's notice. Gasol is a very good player. Odom, when he feels like it, is one of the most gifted and multi-talented players in the league.

They would be a good team without this cry-baby act they have perfected and taken to a level beyond anything you see with other teams.

L.A. is led by Phil Jackson. He is a legendary coach but he is also a coach who isn't talking if he isn't complaining about something. The players take their cues from him. Bryant, in addition to his world-class talent is a world-class whiner, and feels the need to cry and complain after every call. Again, the team follows his example.

Gasol is no better, although I don't remember him acting like this when he was with the Grizzlies.

They trot Fisher out there, a guy who should be embarrassed by how he flops around on a basketball court. Having grown up with 1980s NBA, I have to believe, if he pulled these types of stunts years ago, he would have wound up with an elbow to the chest, giving him something to actually cry about.

Sasha Vujacic is straight out of central casting for "annoying player with limited skill who somehow doesn't get punched every single game."

And right on down the line, the entire team knows the drill.

Therein lies the problem, because the NBA officials are an incompetent bunch. They can't just call a game based on what actually happens. They are always influenced by which team cries the loudest, cries the most, flops the most, dives the most.

For the most part, people don't pay very close attention to the NBA regular season, especially when it comes to the poor level of officiating. This leads to outcries of cheating and games being fixed when they tune in to the playoffs and see how poorly refereed these games are.

I am here to say though, it isn't a fix, and it isn't some backroom deal. It is just talentless officials who bend over backwards to reward the squeaky wheel. No team does it better than this Lakers team, and officials fall for it on a nightly basis.

Talent may only be able to get teams so far in this league. However, if you combine an all-time cry baby at head coach, an all-time cry baby in one of the most talented athletes in NBA history and a group of role players who all know their primary function is to complain about every call, maybe someday your team can be NBA tag-team champions, too.

For now, though, your team will just have to strive to be a contender, as the Lakers and officialls walk out of the arena with their tag-team championship belt held high.

My First Visit To Penn State's Beaver Stadium

Stew Winkel — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:00:37 -0500

This past Saturday I was one of 108,445 people in attendance at the Penn State-Indiana game, my first ever visit to Beaver Stadium.

To put that number into some sort of perspective, I compared it to the types of crowds I was accustomed to from my college's football team. One would have to add up the attendnace figures of my alama mater's last 32 home football games to top the figure from Penn State on Saturday.

And that number was from a game in the rain against Indiana.

If you are someone who went to or currently attends a college with a major football program, what I witnessed this past weekend probably is nothing new to you, and this article likely is not worth your time.

But I am sure there are tons of sports fans out there like me—fans who grew up in an area where pro sports dominated and when it came time to choose what college to go to, made the decision to attend a school where the question during football season of “what are you doing on a Saturday” was likely met with a number of different answers.

I have always been a college football fan, but I was a fan of the sport in general. I had some teams (Notre Dame) and coaches (Steve Spurrier) that I would root against. But I never attached myself to any particular school.

I would watch games on Saturdays from all across the country, and while sometimes I wondered what it was like to be a student or alumni from one of those schools, I really had no idea what I was missing.

Until this past weekend.

I should point out that I am not a Penn State fan, never have been, and before a few years ago, I don’t think I even knew someone who went to the school. But when I moved from Boston to Washington, D.C. in 2002, without a doubt the most common alma mater of people I have met has been Penn State. Included in that group is my girlfriend who for years has asked me if I wanted to go to a game, and finally this year I agreed to go.

Going to a game at Penn State isn’t quite like what I was used to. The game was played on Saturday at 12:00. My girlfriend and I, along with five friends who are all Penn State grads, drove up to State College together. On Friday. In an RV.

At one point during the drive from Rockville, Maryland, we stopped for gas and I asked how close we were and was told we were in State College. Suddenly I began to get very excited because I really had no idea what to expect.

We pulled into the RV only parking lot around 11:00 p.m. on Friday. Just that there is a need for an RV only parking lot was staggering to me. But that would only be the beginning.

I looked out the window and saw row after row of other RVs, most with Penn State flags flying high above, and people walking all over the place, all wearing Blue and White. And just past the lot I could see Beaver Stadium.

The sight of Beaver Stadium was beyond impressive, especially to someone who during college went to football games at a field (not even a stadium) with 7,000 seating capacity, and who has only attended pro football games at the not-in-existence anymore Foxboro Stadium.

Once everything was set up—our own flags, chairs, grill, cooler stocked with beer, soda and water, satellite dish, and wide screen HD TV, we began tailgating. And just like I had observed at NFL games I had attended, people would walk by and we would say hello and talk. Because even though we didn’t know each other, we were all there for the same reason—to see Penn State.

The friends who we went to the game with and who own the RV, have season tickets and make it to every game, so of course there were also several other RVs filled with people that they knew, including the family of one of the Penn State players.

The main difference for me about this tailgate was when it was happening—a good 12 hours before kickoff.

After staying up until 5:30 in the morning, drinking an adult beverage or two, watching various highlights and then a few movies (Die Hard and The Departed), it was time to try to catch some sleep. But before I did, I took a quick walk around to just look at everything one more time—the sheer number of RVs already there, all filled with Penn State fans, and of course the stadium where I would be sitting in less than seven hours.

About two and a half hours later, I was up again. With the anticipation of a sports fan who knew he was about to experience something new, I got down off my bunk, quickly put on clothes, and raced outside. To no one’s surprise, I was far from the first person outside.

Following the morning tailgating portion, it was soon time to actually go to the game. Because of the rain, I was deprived of a few things, such as getting to see the band on the field prior to the game.

But once inside, my girlfriend and I made our way through the tunnel in the end zone. She was a few steps ahead and showed the usher our tickets to make sure we were moving in the right direction. While she did that, I took a second to take it all in.

There was not much time to stare as there were hundreds of people all around me, all going in different directions. But for a few quick seconds, I did not care about stopping traffic.

Taking our seats, I continued to look around, trying to make sure to not miss anything. There were some people in Indiana colors, but for the most part, it was a partisan crowd, and seemingly they all wore their jerseys and hats.

This isn’t exactly surprising, but the shear number of blue or white jerseys stands out. This is particularly true for Penn State I would think because of the simplicity of their jerseys, and that the jersey hasn’t changed. There is no throwback or alternate jersey or anything like that. If you want to wear a Penn State jersey, you have two choices—blue or white.

Due to the weather, the game was rather sloppy for the first half, and I think because of that I was not getting the full effect of what it was like to be among 100,000 fans.

But Penn State scored 17-unanswered third-quarter points, and suddenly I knew I was getting the entire experience. The highlight for me came in the fourth quarter when senior wide receiver Derrick Williams took the ball on an end-around, and rushed 36-yards for a touchdown into the end zone right in front of where we were seated.

The game soon ended, and we filed out of the stadium, and as has been the case since we arrived, we were surrounded by people in Penn State colors for our walk back to the RV. The post-game tailgate soon commenced, complete with hot dogs, chili and fried anything you can possibly think of.

Later in the evening, I saw more of the whole Penn State atmosphere, heading downtown to several local bars. People in Penn State jerseys, sweatshirts, etc continued to be everwhere, and even though the game was now a few hours in the past, I still heard the familiar "We Are...Penn State" chant.

As I have met more and more Penn State fans, I have heard that chant all the time—on the street, in bars, while watching games at someone’s apartment, even at weddings. And each time, I know I probably rolled my eyes and mocked it for not exactly being the most clever chant I have ever heard.

But hearing it on Saturday at the stadium, and 100,000 people yelling, “We Are,” and then “Penn State,” I have to admit was pretty cool.

All of these years, I definitely knew that it must be unbelievable to go to these games, whether it is Penn State or any of the other top programs. But thinking it, and seeing it first hand are two completely different things.

I would advise anyone who considers themselves a football fan, to find a way if possible at some point, to get to a big time college football game, and make sure to take in as much as possible, up to and including the two-night stay in the RV.

Now that I have been once, I want to go all the time. And maybe now too I will be on the lookout for friends from SEC or Big 12 Schools to have a chance to make a few comparisons.

ESPN Once Again Disgraces Itself With Its Coverage of Brett Favre Story

Stew Winkel — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:00:58 -0400

It only took three days (information travels slow these days), but finally, the Worldwide Leader ran a story on its Web site about the report of Brett Favre providing the Detroit Lions with information about the Green Bay Packers just prior to the two teams playing this season.

Under the link off the main page, “Favre denies report he helped Lions,” the story ran with the headline, “Favre says he didn’t give Millen, Lions any inside info about Packers.”

It even has the nice block quote, “I didn't give [Matt Millen] any game-planning. I haven't been in that offense in over a year. I don't know what else to tell you."

Great, end of story.

To quote Lee Corso, from one of the few quality shows left on ESPN, "Not so fast."

Turns out, if you actually listen to Favre, he absolutely did admit to helping the Lions, he just chose to call it by another name.

From using Favre's actual words, and not coming to your conclusion regardless of what he said, like ESPN obviously did, he admits to having a seven to 10-minute conversation with Matt Millen. He admits that Millen asked him about the Packers, and he admits to answering those questions. Sounds to me like Favre tried to help the Lions, and contrary to Favre, the report was not, “Total B.S."

Favre tries to defend himself by saying other players do the same thing, but then, of course, Favre points to players on a current team talking about a team they used to play for. A significant difference. Also, if Brett didn't do anything, as ESPN wants people to believe, what could he be talking about when he says everyone does it. It can't be both ways.

Favre also tries to make it seem like it had been so long ago that he played for Green Bay that he couldn’t possibly have anything relevant to say. Then why say anything? And obviously, it wasn’t that long ago, and other than the QB Green Bay replaced Favre with, the rest of the offense, including coaches, is pretty much the same.

What Favre did, and it is clear he did it, was not against the rules. It just makes Favre look vindictive, childish, and really, it just makes him look bad, which is the complete opposite of the image he tries to portray—an image that ESPN has gone to great lengths to cultivate. But regardless, it isn’t the worst thing and really is not that big of a deal.

What should be a big deal is ESPN’s handling of the situation, as once again, the Worldwide Leader has embarrassed itself with how it has handled a story.

This story broke on Sunday with a report from FoxSports.com's Jay Glazer. Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday went by without anything on ESPN.com about the situation.

Thanks to Profootballtalk.com, we know why. ESPN issued an internal memo instructing its employees to “Do Not Report” on the Favre talking to the Lions story. ESPN tried to hide behind their claim that they had been told the story was not true.

So what? The story is out there. ESPN needed to report on it, even if just to include the denials that it was not true.

Does someone need to remind ESPN that reporting isn’t just spitting back what someone says in a press conference, or reprinting some press release. You are allowed to do actual reporting and provide actual analysis.

If there is a story that is out there that is not true, the story can still be printed and you add in the analysis explaining why it is not true. You would think ESPN's crack investigative reporter Mike Fish would be able to teach his colleagues at the network this bit of basic journalism.

But clearly something else is going on here.

Back in January, the Boston Herald printed what turned out to be a false story about the New England Patriots. According to Chris Mortensen, speaking on Mike & Mike in the Morning on Apr. 17, 2008, ESPN and several other outlets had the same story but would not run it because it was not credible.

Once the Herald printed it, however, ESPN ran wild. And of course, not once in any of the stories it printed did ESPN note the reservations it had about the story. So obviously, ESPN has shown in the past they have no trouble running a story they themselves could not verify.

Finally today, ESPN does run the story, and again, as Profootballtalk.com points out, they completely butchered it. ESPN waited until Favre spoke so the story could be Favre’s words and not the allegations that Glazer has said he stands behind completely.

Again, to me, the question is why is ESPN doing this?

Can you imagine how fast ESPN would have ran a story on this had it been T.O. talking to someone about playing the Eagles? Or maybe Adam Jones talking to a team playing the Titans? Do you think, had it been T.O., ESPN would have waited three days to run anything, allowing Owens a chance to speak first and get his side of the story out there.

Also, who cares that Favre issued a denial. The man isn’t exactly known for telling the truth. There is the whole retire, unretired situation. He told Peter King the story was “Total B.S.” And now we find out that isn’t exactly true.

I don’t know why ESPN felt the need to bury this story. But they did.

Was it to protect Favre because they like him so much?

Maybe it was to curry favor with Favre. At some point, let’s hope Favre will actually retire and stay that way. And at that time, I imagine, ESPN will line up with the other networks to try to get him to join their already bloated pregame shows.

Don’t you think ESPN would like to be able to say to Favre, "Remember that story about you trying to sabotage the Packers—well Fox ran with it, we defended you. Remember that Brett?"

Hasn't ESPN missed out on luring recent big name ex-NFL players like Michael Strahan, Tiki Barber, and Warren Sapp?

In addition to selectively choosing what quotes to run, ESPN also tossed in the score of the game, as if to say—look the Packers won easily, clearly then Favre is still a great guy. That Green Bay won is really not the point, and also, Detroit led the game 25-24 in the fourth quarter before a series of turnovers produced the final lopsided score.

That Favre did this is not the end of the world. My question though is from a journalistic standpoint: If ESPN would go to these lengths to try to protect the image of Brett Favre and bury a story that again isn’t that important, what are they doing with important issues they come across?

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. ESPN shamed themselves with their coverage of Favre during this past offseason. They shamed themselves with their coverage of Spygate. They shamed themselves with their story on Miguel Tejada’s age.

They shamed themselves by printing a Jemelle Hill article with a hateful and hurtful comparison. They shamed themselves with the drunken roast they threw for Mike & Mike (another story the network quickly swept under the rug—what if that was an athlete and not an ESPN employee?). All of this within the last year.

ESPN loves to force coverage down fans' throats. Except with the Olympics, where their coverage was surprisingly measured. But of course, ESPN did not broadcast the Olympics, so maybe their lack of coverage wasn’t really all that surprising.

It has been pointed out to me that ESPN always tends to find stories to run on the breaking news scroll of ESPN News that just happen to relate to games they (or ABC) will be broadcasting. This week, shockingly there is "breaking news" on the scroll about Ohio State-Penn State, yet nearly nothing for LSU-Georgia.

When I saw the reports on Profootballtalk.com about ESPN’s refusal to cover this story, and then when I finally did see ESPN’s attempt to protect Favre, I was angered at the complete lack of standards the network exhibits.

But, I was not surprised for one second. The only difference this time was that I saw an actual ESPN memo trying to rationalize their indefensible actions.

The really sad thing though is as much as ESPN angered me with this latest example of letting ulterior motives get in their way of properly covering a story, I know I have no choice but to continue to rely on ESPN. I may not watch SportsCenter anymore, haven’t in years, but there is no way to care about sports and completely cut the network out.

ESPN knows that. And instead of using that as motivation to live up to the highest possible standard, ESPN has gone the complete opposite way. They don’t care. They know they can do things like parade entertainers in and out of the Monday Night Football booth, put Rush Limbaugh on NFL GameDay, get rid of maybe the show they did best, ESPN PrimeTime, tell everyone Favre didn’t help the Lions when Favre admitted he did—and people will have no choice.

I guess that is what bothers me the most: that feeling of helplessness. You can get angry with ESPN all you want, but if you love sports, you are stuck. That alone should matter to those who run ESPN. It doesn’t.

Sometimes when I write these articles, the most difficult part is trying to come up with a headline. This time, I didn’t have such a problem.

Author's Note: It did not take long. ESPN.com today has an article with the headline, "Brady has more procedures for infection; Pats upset with situation." The article then details the repeated surgeries Brady has undergone and that he used his own doctor. It then asserts, like the headline indicates, that the Patriots are upset with Brady because he used his own surgeon. Only problem, where is the quote from anyone associated with the Patriots that would indicate they are upset? There is not even a quote attributed to a source. So again, I ask, according to who the Patriots are upset?

Maybe they are upset. But you cannot write this article, with that headline, and then produce for print an article that provides no support for its conclusion. There has to be some quote, anything, from someone within the Patriots, whether for attribution or not, that indicates they are upset with Brady. This is a major accusation to make about a team and its star, and once again, ESPN has lowered the bar for its journalistic standards.

The Patriots issued a statement completely supporting Brady and categorically denying the ESPN report. To no ones surprise, ESPN as of 8:00 EST has failed to include the statement in their story.

Boston Red Sox Fall Short in Bid for Another Comeback ALCS Victory

Stew Winkel — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:03:14 -0400

What would you rather have happen as a sports fan? Seeing your team lose in a close, competitive game (or series), or watching them lose easily, even in blowout fashion?

I imagine all Red Sox fans today found their answer to that question. Trailing 7-0 in the seventh inning of Game Five of the ALCS, it looked like the Sox were about to go down without putting up much of a fight against the Rays, losing four straight including three in a row at Fenway.

As the end of that game grew near, I began to move on from the season. I was at peace with that too. This year’s team was a flawed team from the start, and it was really a testament to the depth of the organization that they were able to win 95 games.

Then of course Boston stormed back, won Game Five, won Game Six and found themselves with yet another chance to pull off an amazing postseason comeback.

The result we all know now is that the Red Sox came up short, losing 3-1, mustering only three hits off of Matt Garza and the Rays' pen.

So I ask, knowing what we know now, what would you have preferred? The comeback falling short in Game Five, and the season ending there? Or Boston putting up a great fight and just not finishing the job in Game Seven?

Game Seven was not a heartbreaking loss like the end of the 2003 ALCS. But it was frustrating nonetheless. It began well, with Dustin Pedroia smacking a Garza change-up into the stands for an early 1-0 lead. But Garza learned from his mistake, and fed Boston virtually all fastballs the rest of the game.

The Sox still had their chances. In the sixth, as Garza started to show his first signs of possible fatigue, Pedroia walked with one out. Up came Ortiz, and everyone had to be wondering if Papi have another October miracle in him?

The answer we all got was no, as he struck out. And instead of Kevin Youkilis coming to the plate, and a chance to at the least add pitches to a growing pitch count, it was a strike him out, throw him out inning-ending double play, as Francona decided to start Pedroia on the 3-2 count. (An outcome I have to give my brother credit for, as he predicted it when the count was 2-1 on Ortiz).

On to the seventh inning. The normally patient Youkilis pops out on a 1-0 pitch. The Sox though then put the next two on after a walk to J.D. Drew and a single by Jason Bay. After a Mark Kotsay fly out advanced Drew to third, up came Jason Varitek in maybe the key at bat of the game.

The Sox carried three catchers this postseason for one reason—because they knew they had to be able to pinch hit for Varitek in certain situations. This certainly seemed like one of those situations.

There are a lot of bad offensive numbers for Varitek this season, and they got worse in the postseason. But the ones that jump out to me and point towards Francona needing to pinch hit here were that he hit just .175 with runners in scoring position, and was an even worse .157 with two outs and runners in scoring position (8-51).

But Francona let Varitek hit. Francona may have been influenced by Varitek’s homerun the night before. Or maybe it was just that Francona didn’t really like any of his other options. The Sox bench was definitely limited.

Sean Casey hit just .213 after the All-Star break and struck out in his only two post-season at bats. Jacoby Ellsbury was likely being saved for a pinch running situation, leaving only rookie Jed Lowrie. Lowrie did have the series-winning hit in the ALDS, but after a fast-start to his career, hit just .213 in September and .207 in the playoffs.

Needing just a hit, maybe Francona should have gone with Lowrie, but none of those options made a decision a no-brainer.

Regardless, Varitek struck out on four pitches. End of that chance.

The frustration continued when the Rays immediately answered with a home run off the bat of Willie Aybar. But back came Boston in the eighth.

The man the Sox wanted at the plate, Pedroia, came up with two on and no out representing the potential go-ahead run. He got a pitch to hit too from Dan Wheeler, but just missed it. Instead of his typical line drives for base hits, Pedroia harmlessly flied out to right.

When Pedroia didn’t get on base, I for the first time last night, began to really think it was not going to happen.

But the Red Sox never make it that easy. Following the out by Pedroia, they loaded the bases. J.D. Drew, who was the hero of Game Five, hit the game-winning home run in Game Two of the Division Series and of course had the huge grand slam in Game Six last year against the Indians, came up to face Rays’ rookie David Price. Drew would not be the hero again, striking out to end the possible Boston comeback.

The Sox would have one more chance in the ninth. Bay led off with a walk which brought the tying run to the plate. But he would be the last Sox to reach base in 2008, as Price retired Mark Kotsay, Varitek and Lowrie to end the game, sending Tampa to the World Series.

As those last several paragraphs point out, it was an extremely frustrating loss.

Had Boston just lost in Game Five, it would have saved me some heartache, and I definitely wouldn’t be playing the what-if game in my head all day long like I am today.

But I think if I could do it all over again, I would want to see my team fight to the absolute final at-bat, even despite the heartache and the frustration, as compared to going down in a series where the outcome was never really in doubt..

Of course if I had the power to actually do it all over again, I’d probably tell Sox pitchers not to wait until Game Seven to stop challenging B.J. Upton on the inside portion of the plate.

New England Patriots Are Back to Basics without Tom Brady

Stew Winkel — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:33:08 -0400

So this is how it feels to be a fan of most NFL teams?

Being a New England Patriots fan last season instilled a feeling about being a fan that was really different than anything I had ever experienced. Even when the Pats put together back-to-back 14-2 regular seasons, capped off with Super Bowl wins, they, for the most part, always won in workmanlike fashion.

It was always about great defense, smart offense, and doing whatever it took to win a game.

Then came last year. With a good defense, the Patriots threw out a dynamic offense that, week after week, rolled through the league. As a fan, you went into every week expecting them to win. You weren't thinking about if they would, but rather by how much.

It was fun to watch, but as the season went on, some of that joy went away. Thinking back on the nail-biting wins late in the season over the Eagles, the Ravens, the Giants; I can’t honestly say I enjoyed watching those games.

Between weekly point spreads tipped heavily in New England’s favor, and the pressure even a fan felt of wanting to see the team go undefeated, winning games became more of a relief than something to enjoy.

The expectations were so high that anything but a decisive win almost felt like a loss. I remember the game against the Ravens—the Patriots were cruising through the season, 11-0. They had already clinched the AFC East the week before and had all but clinched home-field advantage.

You would think because of all of that I would have been able to sit back and just enjoy the game. That, however, was far from the case.

The game remained close, and I watched every single play the way you would expect someone to react while watching a tightly-contested Super Bowl. It was because of the expectations; it was because of the pressure of going undefeated. When the game ended, with New England pulling out a 27-24 win, I wasn’t happy or excited. I was drained.

Watching the rest of the season felt the same exact way. You can imagine what it was like watching the Super Bowl. When that game ended, I had nothing left as a football fan. I shut the TV off and remained seated on the floor, completely numb.

As opening day of the 2008 season grew close, I became increasingly excited. Could the team repeat the success it had last year? Could the offense be as dominant? Could a healthy Richard Seymour and the additions of draft picks Jerod Mayo, Shawn Crable, and Terrence Wheatley provide the needed youth for an aging defense?

Then Tom Brady got hurt, and at first nothing else mattered. The win over the Chiefs was completely secondary. All the high expectations I had quickly disappeared. With Brady, you expected to win, and against most teams, you expected to win easily. Without Brady, who knew what to expect?

Early in the week, I was down. Losing the Super Bowl still hurts, but all offseason the one thought that helped at all was thinking that maybe they can come back and win the Super Bowl this year.

I didn’t care about an undefeated season; that was too much to think about. But remembering how the 2004 Red Sox World Series win took the pain away from the 2003 ALCS, I thought the only thing that could make up at all from losing Super Bowl XLII would be a win in XLIII.

Losing Brady also hurt because it deprived fans for an entire season of the chance to see a once-in-a-lifetime player, and seeing him and Moss and the rest of this offense. You take things for granted as fans. No matter how many times you remind yourself nothing in sports is guaranteed and things can come to an end quickly, you never really think that will happen.

But as we got closer to game time yesterday, I started getting excited, in a way I can honestly say I have not been in years as a football fan. It was the excitement that comes from the unknown.

It was back to basics. Winning became all that mattered. It didn’t have to be pretty; it didn’t have to be by three touchdowns. It just had to be a win.

A year ago, the Patriots hosted the Jets late in the season and won. But because the score was only 20-10, it almost felt like a loss. I wanted to see a blowout, and I took for granted how difficult it is to just win games in the NFL.

As a fan, I had become arrogant. Maybe not outwardly (you would have to ask those around me if that is the case), but at the very least, I was arrogant on the inside. I didn’t just want wins, but I wanted easy wins, multiple touchdown-passes, and a ton of receiving yards, as if winning games and putting up stats could be achieved in reality as easily as it can be when playing Madden.

Then the injury to Brady humbled me as a fan.

Yesterday, I didn’t care that the Patriots only scored 19 points, or that Randy Moss only caught two passes. The offense did enough to win, didn’t turn the ball over, and the defense made the plays they needed to make.

I am not comparing Matt Cassel to Brady. But when Brady first took over as QB for the Patriots, he was far from the Brady we saw last season. He did enough to win games, limited mistakes, and the defense led the way. That is what I saw yesterday from the Patriots.

The Patriots became known for simply finding ways to win and for not making crucial mistakes, even if the other team might have superior talent on paper.

The Patriots of a year ago got away from that a little, and instead relied on Brady and the offense to make up for mistakes in other areas of the game. And it worked for 18 games. With Brady, and only a few other quarterbacks, you come to believe that scoring touchdowns is easy.

Going forward, I don’t know what to expect from the Patriots. They played well yesterday, but it was just one game. I would like to see Moss more involved in the offense and want to see what Cassel can do when he has to score a touchdown in a game.

I will miss No. 12 all season and can’t wait to see him back under center in Week One next year. This season though, the Patriots are just like a number of teams in the NFL: a good team that has a chance to win every week, but can easily lose to any team.

Maybe that isn’t what I envisioned for the 2008 season. But for now, I am alright with that, and I am excited for what the possibilities could be for the remainder of the season.

Now they just have to beat the Dolphins on Sunday.

Thoughts On Manny Ramirez and Trades Helping the Yankees

Stew Winkel — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 10:39:01 -0400

It has been a strange weekend in sports, especially seeing Manny Ramirez in a Dodger uniform wearing the No. 99 playing for ex-Yankee manager Joe Torre.

I definitely understand why the Red Sox made the move they did, but there is part of me that wishes there was some other way the Manny era could have ended in Boston.

Here are some final thoughts of mine on the trade, as well as a few other random thoughts:

While Manny’s actions may be the primary reason he no longer is a Red Sox, I think there was some validity to his point that when the Red Sox decide they no longer want a star player, they have a habit of allowing information to leak to the press (typically the Boston Globe) that paints this player in a negative light. Now, maybe that information is true, but the Sox run a very tight ship and do a good job of keeping matters in-house, except when they want to have information become public. I am not defending the incident between Manny and the Red Sox traveling secretary, but I have no doubt the Sox leaked that story on purpose in order to lay the groundwork for any needed P.R. to support their decision.
A perfect example of this is the story in the Boston Globe yesterday, that at the last minute, Ramirez told the Red Sox he did not want to be traded, and would come back to the team. He would be on his best behavior and play hard for the remainder of the season if the team agreed not to pick up Ramirez’s option at the end of the season. This story not only showed Ramirez (once again) to be someone who can’t make up his mind, but by leaking that Ramirez allegedly offered to play hard and be on his best behavior, one can assume that means Ramirez knew he had not been giving it his best effort. Ramirez’s agent Scott Boras denied the story today.
Watching the Sox play the Oakland Athletics today, I was reminded of another situation where a team painted a star player in a negative light (again, perhaps correctly) when they decided they no longer wanted that player—Frank Thomas and the Chicago White Sox.
I should be clear, no matter if the Sox did act like that, it still does not forgive the type of effort Ramirez repeatedly showed over his last few weeks here in Boston.
I will admit to being slightly concerned with David Ortiz’s comments the day after the Ramirez trade. Big Papi did not speak like someone who was on board with the team trading his hitting partner. Ortiz and Ramirez were close friends, but Ortiz also has to be worried about his production. Teams now won't have to think twice before pitching around Ortiz. Whether it is Mike Lowell, Jason Bay or anyone else batting behind Ortiz, teams will take their chances rather than pitch to Ortiz in key situations. It will be up to whomever occupies the fourth spot in the Sox lineup to make opposing managers pay if they do pitch around Ortiz.
The entire situation with Ramirez has Scott Boras written all over it. Last offseason, Ramirez switched agents, hiring Boras, and Boras explained to Ramirez the power the Red Sox had over him for the next two seasons (Ramirez’s contract gave the Red Sox options for the 2009 and 2010 seasons). Now these options were likely put into place so that Manny’s agent, when he signed the contract could boast that he put together a $200 million deal. But Boras, I am sure, explained to Ramirez that at age 36, this coming offseason is likely his last chance to secure a lucrative multi-year contract, thus making Ramirez very much aware that the Red Sox picking up his option might not be a good thing. Also, Ramirez spoke often about signing a four-year, $100 million contract. That sounds to me like something an agent would tell a player.
I also saw the story that Ramirez has said he wants to finish his career playing for the Dodgers. With Manny’s track record of repeatedly changing his mind about how he feels about a situation, I don’t really know why the time is wasted to write a story about Manny's future wishes. Now that Manny has Boras as an agent, it is safe to assume Manny will be playing next season for the team that offers him the most money, and nothing else will really matter.
The most frustrating part of Manny Ramirez's final few months in Boston, was that even with the (at least) handful of situations where he wasn't playing hard, not even counting the games where he refused to play, Manny was having a very good season. Not just numbers, he had many big hits for the Sox: a game-winning home run in the ninth inning at Cleveland in April; a two home run game in a 7-5 win over the Yankees, also in April; a game-winning home run to break a 3-3 tie in the eighth inning at Texas. After Ramirez infamously struck out on three pitches without once swinging the bat against Mariano Rivera in a crucial situation, Manny came back the next night to deliver a walk-off hit in a 1-0 win over the Twins, and then the following night, he hit a game-tying home run in the eighth inning in an eventual Red Sox win.
I did notice that Manny went 4-5 today for the Dodgers, with a home run and three RBI. But more surprisingly, he also had an infield hit. I am going to have to see the replay of that.
In his first weekend in L.A., Manny helped the Dodgers to two wins over Arizona, to climb within a game of the N.L. West lead. Manny went 8-13 (.615), with a pair of home runs, 5 RBI and four runs scored.
Not to be forgotten, Jason Bay had an impressive debut series for the Red Sox, as the Sox swept the Oakland Athletics. Bay went 4-11 (.364) scoring six runs (including the game-winning run in extra innings on Friday), with a home run and 3 RBI.
So let me get this straight, the Red Sox gave up Manny Ramirez, $7 million, Brandon Moss and Craig Hansen just to get back Jason Bay from the Pirates, while the Yankees only gave up Jose Tabata, Dan McCuthen, Jeff Karstens and Ross Ohlendorf to the Pirates to get back Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte.
Speaking of teams making head scratching trades in order to give the Yankees exactly what they need, Kyle Farnsworth had a good showing today against the Tampa Rays. He entered the game with his team ahead 3-1 and left with his team behind 4-3. His line, 1 IP, 3 H, 3 R, 2 HR.
Nice to see the Angels, after playing nearly perfect baseball against the Red Sox in a pair of sweeps since the All-Star break, commit four errors today, including three in the eighth inning alone, in a 14-9 loss to the Yankees.
Julio Lugo, it's been nice knowing you.
Is it really possible that Jacoby Ellsbury has not stolen a base since July 1, yet still leads the American League in steals? That speaks to how great he was playing and how far he has fallen offensively. The Sox offense has been stagnant at times the last month or so, and a main reason has been the drop-off in Ellsbury's production.
If the Sox do make the post-season, your Game Two starter has to be Jon Lester (Josh Beckett, no matter his final numbers, gets the ball to begin the playoffs).
With Pedro Martinez long gone, Manny now gone, and Curt Schilling going, who is Dan Shaughnessy going to focus his patented negativity on now?
A few non-baseball thoughts: I found it rather comical to see NFL commissioner Roger Goodell intervene in the Favre situation and say that he did not want the matter to linger on. This coming from the commissioner who has shown no ability to properly and quickly deal with a number of important situations that have crossed his desk. Whether someone is a Patriot fan or not, I would like to think everyone can agree that the commish handled the whole Spygate story extremely poorly, and his mistakes and indecisiveness allowed the matter to linger on for over nine months. Same for the Pacman Jones situation: the commish relied on this open-ended punishment that keeps the story alive, instead of handing down a one-time punishment that would have closed the book on the story when he issued it.
I don’t really have much to say on the Favre situation, other than to say it was entirely predictable. I don’t really understand people who blame the Packers. Favre has pulled this same act now for three straight years (which happens to coincide with Aaron Rodgers’ arrival in Green Bay). If Green Bay caved to Favre, they no doubt would find themselves in this same situation next offseason. If Favre played for Green Bay in 2008, even if Favre said he was retiring after the season, who could possibly believe him?
Also, if Green Bay doesn’t give Rodgers a shot now, they risk losing him completely, and having wasted a first-round pick.
And lastly, I can’t think of any player (non-Patriot, that is) I will be rooting for to play well this year more than I will be for Aaron Rodgers.

Manny Ramirez and Boston Red Sox Star in Baseball's Version of The Break-Up

Stew Winkel — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:10:40 -0400

For anyone that watched The Break-Up with Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Anniston (yes, I watched it, and no, it was not very good), you saw the opening credits with photos of the happy couple.

Then you watched the rest of the movie, filled with uncomfortable scenes of the two fighting, until finally they reached the point of no return and had no choice but to end their relationship.

That is Manny Ramirez and the Boston Red Sox. Pictures of Manny and the 2004 and 2007 Word Series celebrations, Manny slugging a game-winning home run against the Angles in last year's playoffs, Manny hitting his 500th home run this year in Baltimore, and many others, show this relationship at its best.

The last month or so, however, has just been filled with bitterness between the two, and it has become clear to all involved that the time to end this relationship is now.

A few days ago, I actually thought about writing an article about how the Red Sox should think twice before they either trade Manny Ramirez or even decline his option at the end of the season, allowing him to take his production and walk away from the team.

But just like that, I have completely changed my mind. It is time for Manny to go, and it has to be done now.

So, what has happened in these past few days to cause me to do a complete 180?

Irreconcilable differences.

The entire Red Sox organization, from the owners, to Theo Epstein, to Terry Francona, and the other players, all parties involved seem sick of the Manny Ramirez saga. In prior dust-ups between Manny and the Red Sox, the media and the fans may have gotten into a frenzy over it, but the players did not seem effected one way or the other. That is clearly no longer the case.

If Manny is not traded, I do not have the sense that he and the team will put the events of the last few weeks behind them and unite for one last run at a World Series.

Manny pulling himself from the game against the Yankees last Friday when he was apparently healthy may have been the last straw for the team (the Sox forced him to get an MRI after the game which showed no problem with his knee).

The normally tight-lipped Theo Epstein said very publicly on Saturday that they would trade Manny if they could. Francona, while not going as far as to say he has had it with Ramirez, appeared over the weekend to just be sick of the situation. Even Jerry Remy, the former player who provides color commentary on the Sox broadcasts, has been extremely clear the last few nights that he thinks Ramirez needs to go.

Also, the Red Sox are now 4-8 since the All-Star break, including 1-8 in games not played against the hapless Seattle Mariners. Boston has gone from a one-half-game lead in the A.L. East at the break to three games back (and only a one-game lead over the Yankees and Twins in the Wild Card).

The Red Sox are 11-13 in July, and after going 34-24 through the end of May, are just 27-24 since.

I am not giving up on them yet, but this season suddenly feels very much like the 2005 and ’06 campaigns—seasons that saw the Sox get swept out of the playoffs and miss the postseason entirely, respectively.

I’m not blaming the sluggish Red Sox play of the last few weeks entirely on Ramirez. All of Manny’s problems do not having anything to do with Josh Beckett not being the ace he was a year ago, the struggles of the bullpen, and the painful-to-watch batting of Jason Varitek, Coco Crisp, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Julio Lugo.

But his situation cannot be helping.

The Sox players appear lifeless, and part of that has to do with the fact that every day they have to come to the park and have the Ramirez situation front and center in their faces.

Right now, I don’t see this Sox team winning the World Series, and I am having trouble seeing them even making the playoffs. It will be difficult to replace Ramirez’s presence in the lineup, but if they are not going to win a World Series, it might as well be without Ramirez. They can lose as easily without Manny as they can with him.

And maybe, just maybe, trading Manny will lift a weight off this entire organization, and help the team finish the final 52 games of the season on a positive note.

It is too bad that Manny's era in Boston has to come to such an ugly end. He has been here eight years, played in 1,084 of 1,243 regular season games (87%), hit .312 with 274 home runs, 868 RBI, and slugged .588.

The Sox, since bringing Ramirez to town, have won two World Series. A knock on Manny from his Cleveland days was that he did not produce in the postseason, batting only .223 and slugging just .473 in 52 playoff games with the Indians.

But with the Sox, Ramirez was the MVP of the 2004 World Series, and he has hit .321 in 42 playoff games with 11 home runs and a .558 slugging percentage.

Ramirez signed a huge eight-year, $160 million contract, and while that is an awful lot of money, if I could go back in time, I would still want the Sox to make the signing.

With all that history, it would have been preferable for Ramirez to play out this final season with minimal distraction. But that has not happened. There's an old saying, "If things didn’t end ugly, then they wouldn’t end." That might never have been truer than in this situation.

Manny's production may have slipped slightly the last few years, but he is still one of the most feared hitters in baseball, and his presence alone in the lineup can impact a game, not to mention the protection he provides David Ortiz.

Considering all of this, if the situation had not turned ugly, picking up Ramirez's option would have been a no brainer for the Red Sox.

But it is ugly. I am sick of reading about it. I am sick of wondering if Ramirez will run hard to first base, if he is really hurt when he sits out a game (Peter Gammons pointed out this week that Ramirez’s knee seems to act up this season when the Sox are facing hard-throwing pitchers), and if he is giving his best effort each time he is in the batter’s box. And it appears everyone with the Red Sox is sick of all of this, too.

It is time for the Ramirez era in Boston to end, for his sake, for the sake of this year’s team, and for the sake of the fans that are ready to move on.

Let’s thank Manny for his time here, for all the great memories, for all he accomplished, and for the major role he played in helping the team win a pair of championships. But then it is time to say goodbye.

Reggie Lewis: Remembering the Boston Celtics' Star 15 Years After His Death

Stew Winkel — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:51:36 -0400

Earlier today, I went to one of my favorite web sites, Celticsblog.com, and saw a subject on the message boards, “15 years ago today / R.I.P. Reggie.” I was taken aback for a second, and could not believe it has really been 15 years since Reggie Lewis collapsed and died while shooting around at Brandeis University during the summer of 1993.

I was 16-years-old at the time. The Celtics had just finished their first season without Larry Bird since 1979. Kevin McHale retired after the ’93 season, a season that came to an end with a first round playoff loss to Alonzo Mourning, Larry Johnson, and the Charlotte Hornets.

While that series will be remembered as McHale’s final games, it is remembered more so because during Game One, Lewis collapsed on the court and would never play in another game in the NBA.

From the start of the 1988-'89 season through the end of ’92-'93, Lewis played in 401 of a possible 410 Celtics’ games. He had just completed a season where he averaged 20.8 points per game for the second year in a row, to go with 4.3 rebounds, and 3.7 assists. In that final season for Lewis, he played nearly 40 minutes per game, playing in 80 of 82 contests.

That someone at the age of 27 could seem so healthy one minute and then be lying flat on the court the next, was difficult enough to understand. That three months later, he would collapse again and pass away, was simply beyond comprehension to me.

I will never forget where I was when I heard the news. I was playing with my high school team in a summer league game in Walpole, Massachusetts. My team was trailing by three points with about a minute left in regulation. Then in a very rare moment in my basketball career, I actually hit a three-pointer that tied the game and we played overtime.

As we walked to the bench at the end of regulation, the guy who was sitting at the scorer’s table, said to the other person at the table that he just heard about Lewis collapsing. He did not have any other information.

We then played the five-minute overtime and my team won the game. A number of us would pile into a car for the 25-minute ride back to our town. When we got into the car, we immediately heard the news over the radio that Reggie had died.

I sat in the backseat, silent, for the entire car ride. When I walked into my home, the feeling in my house was almost as if a family member had died. My mother was waiting at the door to tell me the news. My older brother was upstairs in his room in shock. At 16, I just could not fathom what could possibly have happened. Even today at 31, it still does not make sense.

Lewis was a star for the Celtics. He had taken over the team captaincy after Bird retired. He had a great story—going from not even being a starter on his high school team, to a brilliant collegiate career playing for Jim Calhoun at Northeastern University in Boston, to being a first round draft pick of the Celtics.

In four years at Northeastern, Lewis led the Huskies to four NCAA Tournament appearances and an amazing 102-26 record. When Lewis left Northeastern, he did so as the school’s all-time leading scorer and ninth all-time in Division I history with 2,709 points. The highlight of his career may have been an 88-84 win over Pervis Ellison and the defending National Champion Louisville Cardinals at the Great Alaskan Shootout to open the 1986-'87 season.

Once in the NBA, Lewis did not play much his first season with Boston. But in his second season, Bird missed most of the year due to injury, and it was Lewis who took full advantage. He went from per game averages of 8.3 minutes and 4.5 points as a rookie, to 32.3 minutes and 18.5 points in his second season.

Lewis had become a great player at the NBA level, and at the time of his passing, he was arguably the third-best shooting guard in the NBA, behind only Michael Jordan and Mitch Richmond. A great scorer, Lewis was equally adept as a defender.

But what Lewis accomplished on the court does not come close to telling his complete story.

This is from Reggie Lewis’ Hall of Fame induction page from the Northeastern University web site, “Reggie Lewis left fans around the nation with memories of his basketball accomplishments. But also memorable was his demeanor off the hardwood. His contributions to the community were just as consistent as his jump shots.”

He was beloved by the city of Boston, especially those growing up in the inner city. For a few summers, I had played in the Boston Neighborhood Basketball League (BNBL) at Peter’s Park in Dorchester. Other than myself and a friend of mine who also played on the team, everyone else on my team, and virtually everyone else in the league I was in, was from the inner city. They all worshiped Lewis.

Yes, part of it was what he did on the court. But there were many great players in the NBA. These kids loved Reggie not only for who he was when he was playing for the Celtics, but for the time he put in to helping the community. It seemed as if everyone on my team had a story about meeting Reggie.

It was common to hear someone talk about the time they were at the playground and Lewis just showed up to sign autographs or take a few jump shots with the neighborhood kids.

Lewis died on a Tuesday. On Wednesday, I had a BNBL game. I thought Lewis’s death hit my brother and me hard. It was nothing compared to how the kids from the city were dealing with it.

These games were always on the informal side. But before our game began that night, everyone got organized, and there was a moment of silence. Everyone had some type of tribute to Reggie. His uniform number, 35, was on their sneakers, his initials were on their jerseys, anything that would show their respect and admiration for Lewis was on display. Someone even had painted a large No. 35 on the court.

I tried to do my part. I wrote 35 on my sneakers. I kept the 35 there all summer. When I returned to my high school in the fall, I wrote “R.L.” and 35 on my football cleats and selected 35 for the number of my jersey. Basketball season came, and I again made sure to put his initials and number on the back of my sneakers—which were a black pair of Reebok Reverse Jams, the sneakers Lewis endorsed.

About a month after Lewis died, I played in a basketball tournament that was held at Brandeis University. For most of the games, we did not play on the main court. But my team made it to the finals, and for that game, we found ourselves on the same court where a month earlier Lewis had collapsed.

I don’t know about my teammates, but I recall having trouble concentrating during pre-game layup lines. I knew I was on the court where Reggie had died.

Years later, I would attend Northeastern University. And although my days of playing were left behind in high school, I became very active in the school’s athletics department. It had been years since Lewis had died, and even longer since he starred at Northeastern. Even still, Lewis was still spoken of admiringly often.

Of all of Lewis’ charity work, the event he may have been most known for was for giving away turkeys to needy people before Thanksgiving each year. He did this in Boston and in his hometown of Baltimore. His wife kept alive the tradition after his passing, working with the athletics department at Northeastern and the Boston Celtics to conduct the event.

In the years I worked at Northeastern, I was able to assist with the Reggie Lewis Turkey Give-a-way. It was an honor and something I will never forget. Not only because I was able in a small part to help someone and some family enjoy Thanksgiving when otherwise they might not have, but because I was able to again do a small part to make sure people remember Reggie Lewis for all of his wonderful qualities.

It has been 15 years since Reggie passed away. I have stopped trying to find answers to the unexplainable questions of how and why. I choose to remember Reggie for his game, for his smile, and for his contributions to everyone he came in contact with. He is missed today as much for what he did as a member of the Boston Celtics as he is for the countless lives he touched away from the bright lights of the NBA.

MLB All-Star Game: Why I Won't Be Watching Tonight

Stew Winkel — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:29:19 -0400

I used to anticipate that Tuesday night in July when the Major League Baseball All-Star Game would be played all Spring and Summer. But changes in how the game is played and how it is covered have diminished my interest in the game, probably irreversibly so.

I can’t help but laugh any time I hear someone talk about how great the MLB All-Star Game is, or refer to it as the Midsummer Classic. Maybe once, the game meant something important. Not anymore.

Years ago, American League against the National League only occurred twice all season: the World Series and the All-Star game. There were legitimate bragging rights on the line. Now baseball is inundated with inter-league play and each team plays a team from the other league 18 times a year. The rarity of AL vs. NL is gone.

Also, years ago, players rarely switched teams, so in addition to having an allegiance to their own team, players also developed pride in their league. Now it is common to see players switch leagues from year to year and for a player like Dan Haren this year and last, to represent each league in consecutive seasons.

In addition to the game meaning more to the players years ago, it also meant more to the fans. The All-Star game represented a chance for fans to see the players from the other league who you otherwise likely would not see very much of unless that player's team made the post-season.

Living in an American League city when I was younger, I looked forward to the All-Star game as a chance to see Tony Gwynn and Barry Larkin and the other National League stars.

But today, there is SportsCenter, ESPN News, the internet, games on ESPN on Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday, Sunday Afternoon baseball on TBS, and Saturday on Fox. Fans can purchase the MLB Extra Innings package and watch nearly every game being played or go to a local bar on any given night and see games from around the country.

If you are a fan near an American League city, you no longer look forward to the All-Star game as your best chance all year to see the stars from the other league. The game now is just an exhibition featuring the league’s best players (and Jason Varitek), and it is no different than the NBA All-Star Game or the Pro Bowl. It is just another game on the calendar.

A measuring stick I rely on to determine whether a sporting event means something special is how much talk do I hear the next day while at work or on the street on my way to or from work. Not since the game wound up being cancelled after 11 innings in 2002 can I recall hearing anyone talk about the All-Star game.

Where as once I tried to punch as many All-Star ballots as I could hoping to do my part for the players from my home-town team, now I don't even particularly care if a player from my favorite team makes the All-Star game. If they do, I am happy for the player, but in actuality, I would rather the player not make the team and take advantage of the three days off.

And despite the All-Star game counting this time, it still has not peaked my interest in watching. It is simply beyond absurd that the spineless incompetent Bud Selig and MLB decided to determine something as important as home field advantage from something as insignificant as the winner of the All-Star game.

Why would the game determining home field make me more inclined to watch? If I knew for certain that my favorite team would make the World Series, maybe. But obviously no one knows that.

At one point in time, the MLB All-Star game was a night where I would make sure I was parked in front of the television watching the entire game because I didn’t want to miss seeing something special or see a favorite player from the other league get an at bat or throw a pitch. Now, will I watch? Maybe, but only if there is nothing else to do tonight.

Boston Celtics: A Few Ramblings While Cleaning Out My Desk Drawer

Stew Winkel — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:20:15 -0400

It has been a week, and I am still smiling over the Celtics winning Title 17.

Between enjoying everything that comes with winning and catching up on missed work due to watching all the games—and then discussing them the next day when I should have been working—I have slept very little the past 10 days or so. As such, I probably am unable of putting together a coherent article.

But years of reading sports journalists has taught me when you can’t think of one idea to write an article about, just throw together a bunch of random thoughts to make it look like you are actually working hard. Mostly this is just an excuse so I can put another picture of the Celtics celebrating on one more article.

Paul Pierce, who will be 31 in October, will enter his 11th NBA season next year with the following rankings in Celtics’ history: 10th in games played (732), sixth in points (16,945), second in scoring average (23.1), second in free throw attempts (5,777), third in free throws made (4594), and eighth in assists (2889). When it comes to scoring, by the end of next season, Pierce should pass Bob Cousy (16,955), Kevin McHale (17,355) and Robert Parish (18,245), which would leave him behind only Larry Bird (21,791) and John Havlicek (26,395).

From the Red Sox celebration and parade last Fall, Jonathan Papelbon revealed himself to the public as the team goof/clown. The Celtics' version? Glen Davis.

Tonight is the NBA draft. Boston won’t pick until 30 (it's been a long time since the C’s were not in the upper half of the draft). If Danny Ainge has had a strength since taking over the Celtics, it has been the draft, in particular finding talent in later picks. These have been Ainge’s finds in the draft: 2003, Kendrick Perkins (27th overall); 2004, Al Jefferson (15th), Delonte West (24th), and Tony Allen (25th); 2005, Ryan Gomes (50th); 2006, Rajon Rondo (21st) and Leon Powe (49th); and 2007, Glen Davis (35th). You could make strong arguments that if their respective drafts were held today, both Jefferson and Rondo would be top five picks, and that second rounders Gomes, Powe and Davis would all be first round picks at least in the top 20.

Of the players Ainge wound up with after the draft, the only selections he would likely want to do over would probably be Marcus Banks with the 13th pick in 2003, and Gerald Green with the 18th pick in 2005. In Aing’e defense, both picks appeared to be the right choice at the time. And while I do not expect much out of Marcus Banks the rest of his career, it is still far too early to give up on someone as athletic and young (22) as Green.

There are many reasons why Boston fell so far for so long between 1986 and 2008. Poor drafting absolutely ranks right up there in any explanation. Some examples: 1989, Michael Smith (13th overall); 1992, Jon Barry (21st); 1993, Acie Earl (19th); 1994, Eric Montross (9th); 1997, Ron Mercer (6th); 2000, Jerome Moiso (11th); 2001, Kedrick Brown (11th) and Joe Forte (21st). Thankfully in 2002, Boston didn’t have a first round pick to use on the wrong guy, and then Ainge showed up in ’03.

Now that Boston has the championship, I can actually look back at some of the players the C’s passed up on and not want to jam a pen in my eye: 1989: Tim Hardaway, Dana Baros, Shawn Kemp, Vlade Divac, Cliff Robinson; 1992, Latrell Sprewell; 1993, Sam Cassell, Nick Van Exel; 1994, Eddie Jones, Jalen Rose; 1997, Tracy McGrady, Bobby Jackson, and God Shamgod (just kidding, just wanted to type that name); 2000, Michael Redd, Eddie House, Hedo Turkoglu; 2001, Vladimir Radmanovic, Richard Jefferson, Tony Parker. Drafting is an imperfect science, but that sure does appear to be an awful lot of regrets.

It seems Chicago will take Derrick Rose at number one. If Miami is really that unhappy with Michael Beasley, all the other teams in the lottery should be on the phone constantly trying to move up for that pick to grab Beasley. I am not the biggest college basketball fan, but I don’t recall seeing much of Kansas State on national TV and advancing in the NCAA Tournament before Beasley’s arrival. It has been 10 years since Paul Pierce slipped in the NBA draft, and it still motivates him. Slipping to two isn’t quite the same as Pierce falling to 10, but I think whatever team winds up with Beasley, they are going to get the most talented player in the draft with a chip on his shoulder. The chip will be there if he winds up in Miami, and the chip will be huge if it is anywhere else—which is why Minnesota has to be praying Miami keeps the pick and takes someone else, leaving Beasley for the Wolves at three.

A player I think could add value to a team from later in the draft—along the lines of Ryan Gomes, Leon Powe, and Craig Smith—is Indiana's D.J. White. He won't be a star, but I think White can be a consistent contributor and the type of player all teams would love to have coming off their bench.

The Detroit Pistons right now remind me of a little kid who sees a fire engine and declares he wants to be a fireman, then sees a police car and wants to be a policeman, then sees a cookie and wants a cookie. They just want everything they see. In the last few weeks, we have read stories about the Pistons being interested in Carmelo Anthony, Josh Smith, Baron Davis. Every time a big name is rumored to possibly be leaving his current team, the next day there is a story the Pistons might be interested.

It has been written all over the place about how ESPN’s so-called experts all picked against the Celtics (except for Tim Legler). People make mistakes, predictions are not easy. But maybe ESPN shouldn't be calling these people "experts." And if I remember correctly, not one of ESPN's experts picked either the Red Sox or the Rockies to reach the World Series at the start of the 2007 MLB postseason.

Marc Stein, one of those experts who picked the Lakers (in five), wrote a column last week that in part discussed whether the Celtics can repeat. In it he wrote it will be easier for Boston to do it than it was for the Spurs because the Celtics are in the East. Can’t any of these guys spare a second to do any research or actual thought? We all know the West top to bottom is better than the East. Nothing new there. It's like when Stephen A. Smith used to repeatedly yell about Rasho Nesterovic (when he was with the Spurs) not being as good as Shaq—thanks Stephen, we get it.

But more importantly, once the playoffs start, top to bottom doesn’t matter as much. Focusing on the West being better top to bottom is the underlying reason why so many people wrongly picked the Lakers—L.A. won the tough West easier than Boston won the weak East, therefore, L.A. should win. This of course ignored the facts that Boston dominated the Lakers in two regular-season games, dominated the West all regular season, beat the Cavs, who reached the Finals the year before, and then beat the Pistons, the second-best team in the league. Meanwhile, L.A. beat a Denver team that didn’t play any defense, a good Utah team, and a tired Spurs team with a hurting Manu Ginolbi. Boston and Detroit had the two best records in the league. Boston was 23-5 against the West, Detroit 20-8 (15-3 in their last 18). Against the four finalists in the West (Lakers, Spurs, Hornets, Jazz), during the regular season, Boston was 6-2, Detroit 5-3.

And, the East should be much improved next year, making the road to the Finals out of the East anything but easy. Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen have at least one more run in them. Joe Dumars has vowed change in Detroit, and I don’t think that means starting over. Any team LeBron James is on is going to be an extremely difficult out in the playoffs. The Magic should only get better, same for the Sixers and the Hawks. If Washington holds on to Gilbert Arenas and Antawn Jamison, they are a very good team. Toronto just acquired Jermaine O’Neal to play with Chris Bosh, and the Heat are a few hours away from adding the No. 2 pick in the draft to play with Dwayne Wade and Shawn Marion. Not to mention Chicago—the team many experts thought would play in this year’s finals—are adding the No. 1 pick in the draft to their squad. On the other hand, the West will still be tough, with the Lakers, Hornets, Jazz, and Blazers potentially much improved next season. But Dallas, Phoenix and San Antonio should all take a step back. If Denver returns the same nucleus, I don’t see that team being any better. Same for Houston, a team that played better without Yao than with him.

Final thought: The Boston Celtics won the championship, and yet I still hate Rick Pitino.