Date: 5/12/10
Watching: Montreal vs. Pittsburgh, Game 7, Round 2
Why do I want the Stanley Cup to go to Canada? Because right now, in Montreal, they have sold out their stadium for people seeing a game that is being played in Pittsburgh. Now, I know, this is hardly the only time this has ever been done, but look: Pittsburgh is generally acknowledged to be a pretty good hockey town, with a dedicated, passionate, and knowledgeable fan base. But is there any chance they sell out Mellon Arena to watch a game on TV in round 2? Sure, if it was Game 7 of the Finals, I can see that.
Though of course, there's the additional factor that Montreal is one of the most underrated cities in terms of sports heartbreak. Their baseball team got taken from them. And I know that most people feel like they deserved it because nobody was showing up to the games. But listen: the strike cost them a trip to the playoffs, in what had been their best season by far in many years. They were well clear in first place, and they got nothing out of the season. The same thing happened to the Reds (it actually happened to them in the strike before that as well -- it came mid-season, and it was decided to award the playoffs based on the best records in each half of the season. The Reds had the best overall record, but were in second place in each half of the season, so they got shut out). And it sucks, big time, especially in a town that didn't have the insanely deep baseball roots that Cincinnati has. So, of course attendance dwindled, it dwindled everywhere. My dad didn't go to a game for a good ten years after the strike, and we used to go maybe 7 or 8 times a season. And the Expos' brilliant counterstrategy was to let all their best players leave, and then sell the team to a guy that then doesn't sign any broadcast deal. So that happened, and then their hockey team, which was the best FOREVER, became bad for a long time. So that's a lot of angst to deal with, but now they've snuck into the playoffs by the skin of their teeth, and knocked off the #1 seed, are carrying the weight of the entire country after Vancouver got knocked out last night (so much for my Stanley Cup prediction), and now are absolutely destroying the Penguins (the defending champions, who have the best player in the game). I'd be excited, too.
In other news, in a business-day special this morning, Homer Bailey shut out the Pirates in 90 pitches. This the day after Johnny Cueto pitched a one-hit (should have been an error), no-walk shutout. That is just... unbelievable. The Reds haven't had back-to-back shutouts since 1988! And if you had asked any Reds fan who the two least-likely pitchers in the rotation to throw back-to-back shutouts, they would have said "Bailey and Cueto." You know, I said at the beginning of the season that it was nice that there was at least a scenario that had the Reds being a real playoff contender this season. It involved a lot of people not having bad seasons, many of whom had histories of inconsistency, so it wasn't at all likely, but, fingers crossed, everything seems to be breaking in the right direction all at once. I'm actually glad to be playing the Cardinals: let's find out right now how good we are.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Steve Nash's Haircut of Destiny
Date: 5/9/2010
Watching: Spurs vs. Suns, Game 4, Round 2; Canucks vs. Blackwawks, Game 5, Round 2
Marv Albert (paraphrasing): "And so as the Suns try to close out this series, it's one-point game, going into the fourth quarter, this could not be set up any more dramatically." Um, really? What if it was, I don't know, Game 7? Heck, even this game could be set up more dramatically, if it was tied. Not a lot, but I'm just saying, you're way over-selling this game, Marv.
That said, if the Suns are really going to make a run at this, the NBA Playoffs just got a lot more interesting to me. They show Steve Nash on the sideline, and he's lying down for his bad back, and he's old, and he's got one eye half-swollen shut. And the thing about it is, he obviously doesn't care about any of that. At. All. Physical pain is really not an issue for him, as long as he has a chance to win the championship. And he honestly, truly, believes he does, and he knows he doesn't have many chances left. But there's no anxiety in that, because it's enough that he has had this one. If you think he's worried, then how can you explain his taking onthe Spurs, supposedly his arch-nemesis, and calmly demolishing them. He doesn't buy into the media narrative, because the fact is, this year's series is in no way determined by matchups of previous teams with different players. Whether he's going to be able to take down Robo-Kobe, I don't know. But HE thinks he can. He's not scared of Kobe at all. I hope he's right.
I also like Nash's low-maintenance, slightly distinctive haircut that he picked out 20 years ago so that he would never have to think about his hair again.
The Canucks win comfortably in Chicago, forcing a Game 6, in Vancouver. And here I'm going to have to point out again how I think fans are a part of the game: I really believe that a factor in the game will be whether or not the fans are afraid. If the fans are afraid, the players will know. And I don't think this team has the mental strength to ignore that. (I say authoritatively, having seen parts of 8 or 9 of their games).
Watching: Spurs vs. Suns, Game 4, Round 2; Canucks vs. Blackwawks, Game 5, Round 2
Marv Albert (paraphrasing): "And so as the Suns try to close out this series, it's one-point game, going into the fourth quarter, this could not be set up any more dramatically." Um, really? What if it was, I don't know, Game 7? Heck, even this game could be set up more dramatically, if it was tied. Not a lot, but I'm just saying, you're way over-selling this game, Marv.
That said, if the Suns are really going to make a run at this, the NBA Playoffs just got a lot more interesting to me. They show Steve Nash on the sideline, and he's lying down for his bad back, and he's old, and he's got one eye half-swollen shut. And the thing about it is, he obviously doesn't care about any of that. At. All. Physical pain is really not an issue for him, as long as he has a chance to win the championship. And he honestly, truly, believes he does, and he knows he doesn't have many chances left. But there's no anxiety in that, because it's enough that he has had this one. If you think he's worried, then how can you explain his taking onthe Spurs, supposedly his arch-nemesis, and calmly demolishing them. He doesn't buy into the media narrative, because the fact is, this year's series is in no way determined by matchups of previous teams with different players. Whether he's going to be able to take down Robo-Kobe, I don't know. But HE thinks he can. He's not scared of Kobe at all. I hope he's right.
I also like Nash's low-maintenance, slightly distinctive haircut that he picked out 20 years ago so that he would never have to think about his hair again.
The Canucks win comfortably in Chicago, forcing a Game 6, in Vancouver. And here I'm going to have to point out again how I think fans are a part of the game: I really believe that a factor in the game will be whether or not the fans are afraid. If the fans are afraid, the players will know. And I don't think this team has the mental strength to ignore that. (I say authoritatively, having seen parts of 8 or 9 of their games).
Thursday, May 6, 2010
SABR is for atheists
Date: 5/5/2010
Watching: Canucks vs. Blackhawks, Game 3, Round 2; Suns vs. Spurs, Game 2, Round 2
Also today I listened to the Reds take on the Mets, but business day specials kick off at 9:30 AM on a Wednesday on the West Coast, at which point I'm a.) at work, and b.) still waiting for the coffee to kick in. So I wasn't in the correct state of mind for this blog, but I do just want to update all of you (i.e., nobody) on the status of the Cordero-as-closer experiment: not good. The Reds won in extra innings, their ninth win of the season (out of 14) in their final at-bat, after Cordero blew a one-run lead in the ninth. And yes, it was a good win, in the deciding game of a must-win (by early May standards) series. But I wish I was still a kid. When I was a kid, I could know that and think, "this team is solid in the clutch, and clearly blessed in some way, they're going to ride this to the World Series!" But now, I know better. In so far as you classify people as pro- or anti-SABR, I'm in the pro- camp. And the fact is that, over the course of 162 games, you're going to win about as many extra-innings games as you lose, the same goes for 1-run games in general. So if we're winning a lot now, that means we're probably going to lose a lot later. If nothing else, we can't sustain this streak (we are undefeated in extra innings this year), and when that happens, we'll realize this is the same team we have every year: pitching that is just barely respectable, and hitting that is, not notoriously awful, but not respectable, either. They're going to score fewer runs than they allow, and that means they're going to win fewer games than they lose. It's just a fact. I guess I believe in SABR in the same way I believe in atheism: I kind of wish it wasn't the case (that there is no God, that baseball season outcomes can be predicted with reasonable precision in June), but I'm not going to ignore reality either, and there is a beauty to it, in an austere way.
Speaking of things that disappoint but don't surprise me: I wish the tasing of that kid in Philadelphia had been at least SOMEWHAT controversial in the sports-commentary world. And I'm not as in the game as I used to be, so maybe somebody on PTI or somewhere came out against it, but as far as I can tell, everybody in the sports world that talks about it thinks both a.) that was totally appropriate, that kid deserved it, and b.) tasing is hilarious! And it just isn't. I hate to be a buzzkill (really, I do, it's not a pleasant experience), but tasing is much more dangerous than people admit. And it's just not necessary. The kid didn't even have a weapon. Do what cops have always done: tackle him. I saw it at the one-game playoff the Reds lost in 1999 (Good Lord, I haven't thought of that game in a while. I think I blocked it from my memory. What an awful, awful experience.): some kid ran onto the field in like the 7th (at which point it had been clear that the Reds had no chance for approx. 5 innings), and tried to run the bases. IIRC, he nearly got to third before some cop jumped on him. And hey: don't hold back when you tackle him, and if he hits the ground hard, so be it. But that's all you gotta do. It works fine, and nobody risks heart failure.
I had to leave at the end of the second period of the Canucks game, after they'd scratched their way back to within a goal (I'm trying to be more social, to get out more. So every post on this blog is a record of my failure). And I have to say, I was really into the game, I didn't want to leave. So hockey's getting some kind of hold on me, it would seem. Although they wound up losing 5-2, so it's not like staying would have made me happy.
Watching: Canucks vs. Blackhawks, Game 3, Round 2; Suns vs. Spurs, Game 2, Round 2
Also today I listened to the Reds take on the Mets, but business day specials kick off at 9:30 AM on a Wednesday on the West Coast, at which point I'm a.) at work, and b.) still waiting for the coffee to kick in. So I wasn't in the correct state of mind for this blog, but I do just want to update all of you (i.e., nobody) on the status of the Cordero-as-closer experiment: not good. The Reds won in extra innings, their ninth win of the season (out of 14) in their final at-bat, after Cordero blew a one-run lead in the ninth. And yes, it was a good win, in the deciding game of a must-win (by early May standards) series. But I wish I was still a kid. When I was a kid, I could know that and think, "this team is solid in the clutch, and clearly blessed in some way, they're going to ride this to the World Series!" But now, I know better. In so far as you classify people as pro- or anti-SABR, I'm in the pro- camp. And the fact is that, over the course of 162 games, you're going to win about as many extra-innings games as you lose, the same goes for 1-run games in general. So if we're winning a lot now, that means we're probably going to lose a lot later. If nothing else, we can't sustain this streak (we are undefeated in extra innings this year), and when that happens, we'll realize this is the same team we have every year: pitching that is just barely respectable, and hitting that is, not notoriously awful, but not respectable, either. They're going to score fewer runs than they allow, and that means they're going to win fewer games than they lose. It's just a fact. I guess I believe in SABR in the same way I believe in atheism: I kind of wish it wasn't the case (that there is no God, that baseball season outcomes can be predicted with reasonable precision in June), but I'm not going to ignore reality either, and there is a beauty to it, in an austere way.
Speaking of things that disappoint but don't surprise me: I wish the tasing of that kid in Philadelphia had been at least SOMEWHAT controversial in the sports-commentary world. And I'm not as in the game as I used to be, so maybe somebody on PTI or somewhere came out against it, but as far as I can tell, everybody in the sports world that talks about it thinks both a.) that was totally appropriate, that kid deserved it, and b.) tasing is hilarious! And it just isn't. I hate to be a buzzkill (really, I do, it's not a pleasant experience), but tasing is much more dangerous than people admit. And it's just not necessary. The kid didn't even have a weapon. Do what cops have always done: tackle him. I saw it at the one-game playoff the Reds lost in 1999 (Good Lord, I haven't thought of that game in a while. I think I blocked it from my memory. What an awful, awful experience.): some kid ran onto the field in like the 7th (at which point it had been clear that the Reds had no chance for approx. 5 innings), and tried to run the bases. IIRC, he nearly got to third before some cop jumped on him. And hey: don't hold back when you tackle him, and if he hits the ground hard, so be it. But that's all you gotta do. It works fine, and nobody risks heart failure.
I had to leave at the end of the second period of the Canucks game, after they'd scratched their way back to within a goal (I'm trying to be more social, to get out more. So every post on this blog is a record of my failure). And I have to say, I was really into the game, I didn't want to leave. So hockey's getting some kind of hold on me, it would seem. Although they wound up losing 5-2, so it's not like staying would have made me happy.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Your Own Personal Jesus
Date: 5/4/2010
Watching: LA Lakers vs. Utah Jazz, Game 2, Round 2
The TNT Studio show is a fascinating study in race relations. Charles Barkley, Kenny "The Jet" Smith, and Ernie Johnson, Jr., who is the whitest white guy in the world, doesn't appear to be that knowledgeable about basketball, and, to re-iterate, is named "Ernie".
Flipped over to the A's for a second, they were saying what you missed if you'd been watching the Sharks win in overtime (which I was, it was kind of exhilirating, they were down 3-1 in the third and came back to win it 4-3 in overtime). And that caused me to think about the fact that it seems to be the general consensus that the A's are probably going to move to San Jose. And I thought, "I wonder if they would ever move the Reds?" And you know what? My immediate reaction was NOT, "Baseball would never move the REDS, the first professional baseball team, a fanbase which has delivered consistently moderate attendance despite the fact that the team hasn't been any good for FIFTEEN YEARS, and doesn't really give any indication that it ever will be again." No, my first reaction was, "that would suck." Which is pretty shameful. Not that there's anything anybody can do about it. If they decide to move the team, they will, and that will be that. I guess sports fans aren't masochistic, necessarily, just bottoms. They like to sacrifice their pleasure to the whims of others. Because there IS a twisted pleasure in supporting a losing team, and everybody knows it. If we wanted to fool them, we'd have to not go to baseball games in August when the team's been out of it for 7 weeks already and there's still 7 to go; or selling out UD Arena to see a team that won 10 games COMBINED over two seasons, or actually voting to RAISE TAXES (in CINCINNATI!!!) in order to keep a team that was universally acknowledged as the WORST team in football from leaving town. And that's why the owners can always say to us, "What? You know you want it." And we do.
Watching: LA Lakers vs. Utah Jazz, Game 2, Round 2
The TNT Studio show is a fascinating study in race relations. Charles Barkley, Kenny "The Jet" Smith, and Ernie Johnson, Jr., who is the whitest white guy in the world, doesn't appear to be that knowledgeable about basketball, and, to re-iterate, is named "Ernie".
Flipped over to the A's for a second, they were saying what you missed if you'd been watching the Sharks win in overtime (which I was, it was kind of exhilirating, they were down 3-1 in the third and came back to win it 4-3 in overtime). And that caused me to think about the fact that it seems to be the general consensus that the A's are probably going to move to San Jose. And I thought, "I wonder if they would ever move the Reds?" And you know what? My immediate reaction was NOT, "Baseball would never move the REDS, the first professional baseball team, a fanbase which has delivered consistently moderate attendance despite the fact that the team hasn't been any good for FIFTEEN YEARS, and doesn't really give any indication that it ever will be again." No, my first reaction was, "that would suck." Which is pretty shameful. Not that there's anything anybody can do about it. If they decide to move the team, they will, and that will be that. I guess sports fans aren't masochistic, necessarily, just bottoms. They like to sacrifice their pleasure to the whims of others. Because there IS a twisted pleasure in supporting a losing team, and everybody knows it. If we wanted to fool them, we'd have to not go to baseball games in August when the team's been out of it for 7 weeks already and there's still 7 to go; or selling out UD Arena to see a team that won 10 games COMBINED over two seasons, or actually voting to RAISE TAXES (in CINCINNATI!!!) in order to keep a team that was universally acknowledged as the WORST team in football from leaving town. And that's why the owners can always say to us, "What? You know you want it." And we do.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Into the present day...
Date: 5/3/2010
Watching: Vancouver Canucks vs. Chicago Blackhawks, Game 2, Round 2
Listening to: MLB.com's broadcast of NY Mets @ CIN Reds.
Sports is an excuse to leave. My wife has some friends over, all people I like, but sometimes I want an excuse to not talk to anybody for a while. And I can use sports for that; I just have to tell people I'm keeping an eye on a sports game, and then I can leave the room any time I want. It's a sweet deal, especially when the Reds win on a walk off home run by Laynce Nix.
The beauty of baseball is the collection of individual stories embedded in the larger story. Like, I know the story of the Reds over the last couple of years: a mediocre team that succeeds in not being awful. But in many ways I'm more invested in the players. Is Aaron Harang ever going to return to his pre-18-inning-game self? Has Bronson Arroyo figured out that early-season inconsistency that's plagued him the last few seasons? Will Joey Votto mature into the true, feared top hitter that a playoff team needs? Is the house of cards that is "Francisco Cordero is our closer" going to come tumbling down, as it did with Danny Graves a few years back? And today, a chapter in the story of Laynce Nix (every day player? solid bench presence? waste of effort?) was told, as he came on to pinch hit in the bottom of the 11th, 1 out, nobody on, 2-2 game, and hits a game-winner in a game that was crucial to the story of the Reds' next week or so. We were looking good, then we lost to in St. Louis, but on the other hand, we didn't look awful, and it is St. Louis, after all. Now, at home, against another legitimately good team, is the time for the Reds to establish, for the moment, whether or not they are a team that's worth keeping an eye on or not. Then tonight, Mike Leake continued to look like the real deal, the bullpen looked like they did in Houston, and Laynce Nix showed that even he is capable of helping this team. A good night.
As if it isn't easy enough to root for the Canucks, then I see Vince Vaughn and Kevin James, all fat and beardy in the Chicago stands, going nuts as the Hawks win it... man, I hope the Canucks win the series.
Watching: Vancouver Canucks vs. Chicago Blackhawks, Game 2, Round 2
Listening to: MLB.com's broadcast of NY Mets @ CIN Reds.
Sports is an excuse to leave. My wife has some friends over, all people I like, but sometimes I want an excuse to not talk to anybody for a while. And I can use sports for that; I just have to tell people I'm keeping an eye on a sports game, and then I can leave the room any time I want. It's a sweet deal, especially when the Reds win on a walk off home run by Laynce Nix.
The beauty of baseball is the collection of individual stories embedded in the larger story. Like, I know the story of the Reds over the last couple of years: a mediocre team that succeeds in not being awful. But in many ways I'm more invested in the players. Is Aaron Harang ever going to return to his pre-18-inning-game self? Has Bronson Arroyo figured out that early-season inconsistency that's plagued him the last few seasons? Will Joey Votto mature into the true, feared top hitter that a playoff team needs? Is the house of cards that is "Francisco Cordero is our closer" going to come tumbling down, as it did with Danny Graves a few years back? And today, a chapter in the story of Laynce Nix (every day player? solid bench presence? waste of effort?) was told, as he came on to pinch hit in the bottom of the 11th, 1 out, nobody on, 2-2 game, and hits a game-winner in a game that was crucial to the story of the Reds' next week or so. We were looking good, then we lost to in St. Louis, but on the other hand, we didn't look awful, and it is St. Louis, after all. Now, at home, against another legitimately good team, is the time for the Reds to establish, for the moment, whether or not they are a team that's worth keeping an eye on or not. Then tonight, Mike Leake continued to look like the real deal, the bullpen looked like they did in Houston, and Laynce Nix showed that even he is capable of helping this team. A good night.
As if it isn't easy enough to root for the Canucks, then I see Vince Vaughn and Kevin James, all fat and beardy in the Chicago stands, going nuts as the Hawks win it... man, I hope the Canucks win the series.
Civic Pride
Date: 5/2/2010
Watching: SportsCenter
I can't overstate how dominant ESPN is. They decided that Americans would start liking soccer, and it happened! Do you understand how impossible that once seemed? Go back and read what people wrote when MLS was founded. Heck, read anything written about it in its first five years. And now, it seems solidly established; it's never going to be a major sport but it seems to have a consistent, reasonably respected existence. And everybody is expected to care about the World Cup, and even the UEFA tournament! A tournament that doesn't take place in America, and has no Americans in it! NBC has had the Olympics forever, and refuses to even to TRY to get Americans to care about foreigners. But ESPN saw the business opportunity, and they put the word out throughout their organization: cool sports fans respect soccer. And lo and behold, it happened.
The success of sports teams has an effect on a city. Cleveland hasn't won a championship since 1960 or whatever, they had their most important team stolen from them, then restored to them as the worst team in football, a laughingstock. And now LeBron is probably leaving, without giving them a championship. The best player they have had in any sport since James Brown, and he's going to skip town for a bigger spotlight, and likely as not win multiple championships there. And it spills over into reality the real world. What do people think of Cleveland? Losers. Look at that 30 Rock episode, where they "Flee to the Cleve." That was the perfect Midwest city for that joke, because it's a natural punchline, and has been my whole life. And yet, I've spent a reasonable amount of time in Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, and Indianapolis, and a bit of time in Detroit and St. Louis, and I have to say I like Cleveland better than any of them (I do prefer Pittsburgh, however, and Chicago is obviously in a different league). But, even if you're not a sports fan, how is it going to affect you when 80% of the times that you hear something about Cleveland, it's negative? Wouldn't it make you less likely to move yourself or your business there? Not by a lot, but enough to potentially make a difference? I think it must.
Hockey fandom update: the deal-breaker for me may turn out to be its unsuitability for casual watching. If I read a book while I'm watching baseball, football, tennis, or really even basketball, I won't miss anything that crucial. There are down periods even in the run of play, which are worth watching if you're really into the game, but if you just want something on while you're reading, or cleaning, or whatever, hockey seems kind of pointless. Because you look away for five seconds and "Goal!". And, I don't know, it robs the excitement of it from me. And they show the replay, and it's always the same story: one team got a little lucky, and was fortunate enough to actually get a shot past the goalie. Foozball has more of a flow than hockey (when it's played right, and I've played with some serious players). Though I must say, both teams I was rooting for tonight won, and I did enjoy that aspect of it. So, we'll see. I mean, it helps that I don't feel that passionately about the NBA playoffs this year. It's the Robo-Lakers vs. the about-to-betray-his-city-immediately-after-disappointing-in-the-playoffs-yet-again LeBron Cavaliers. And I'd like the Suns to win, but they're not going to, they're going to steal one on the road, maybe push it to 7 (after getting screwed by the refs in Game 5), and then lose by like 8 points, never quite being out of it but never really looking convincing. And if we're really unlucky the Lakers will be up against the Magic after LeBron goes 10 for 28 in a crucial game, and we'll be treated to teams led by Kobe "I may or may not be clinically insane" Bryant and Dwight "the least charismatic man in the universe" Howard. Awesome.
I have to admit that much of the reason I like the Sharks is because I think San Jose is so cute with its hockey team. It thinks it's a real city!
Watching: SportsCenter
I can't overstate how dominant ESPN is. They decided that Americans would start liking soccer, and it happened! Do you understand how impossible that once seemed? Go back and read what people wrote when MLS was founded. Heck, read anything written about it in its first five years. And now, it seems solidly established; it's never going to be a major sport but it seems to have a consistent, reasonably respected existence. And everybody is expected to care about the World Cup, and even the UEFA tournament! A tournament that doesn't take place in America, and has no Americans in it! NBC has had the Olympics forever, and refuses to even to TRY to get Americans to care about foreigners. But ESPN saw the business opportunity, and they put the word out throughout their organization: cool sports fans respect soccer. And lo and behold, it happened.
The success of sports teams has an effect on a city. Cleveland hasn't won a championship since 1960 or whatever, they had their most important team stolen from them, then restored to them as the worst team in football, a laughingstock. And now LeBron is probably leaving, without giving them a championship. The best player they have had in any sport since James Brown, and he's going to skip town for a bigger spotlight, and likely as not win multiple championships there. And it spills over into reality the real world. What do people think of Cleveland? Losers. Look at that 30 Rock episode, where they "Flee to the Cleve." That was the perfect Midwest city for that joke, because it's a natural punchline, and has been my whole life. And yet, I've spent a reasonable amount of time in Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, and Indianapolis, and a bit of time in Detroit and St. Louis, and I have to say I like Cleveland better than any of them (I do prefer Pittsburgh, however, and Chicago is obviously in a different league). But, even if you're not a sports fan, how is it going to affect you when 80% of the times that you hear something about Cleveland, it's negative? Wouldn't it make you less likely to move yourself or your business there? Not by a lot, but enough to potentially make a difference? I think it must.
Hockey fandom update: the deal-breaker for me may turn out to be its unsuitability for casual watching. If I read a book while I'm watching baseball, football, tennis, or really even basketball, I won't miss anything that crucial. There are down periods even in the run of play, which are worth watching if you're really into the game, but if you just want something on while you're reading, or cleaning, or whatever, hockey seems kind of pointless. Because you look away for five seconds and "Goal!". And, I don't know, it robs the excitement of it from me. And they show the replay, and it's always the same story: one team got a little lucky, and was fortunate enough to actually get a shot past the goalie. Foozball has more of a flow than hockey (when it's played right, and I've played with some serious players). Though I must say, both teams I was rooting for tonight won, and I did enjoy that aspect of it. So, we'll see. I mean, it helps that I don't feel that passionately about the NBA playoffs this year. It's the Robo-Lakers vs. the about-to-betray-his-city-immediately-after-disappointing-in-the-playoffs-yet-again LeBron Cavaliers. And I'd like the Suns to win, but they're not going to, they're going to steal one on the road, maybe push it to 7 (after getting screwed by the refs in Game 5), and then lose by like 8 points, never quite being out of it but never really looking convincing. And if we're really unlucky the Lakers will be up against the Magic after LeBron goes 10 for 28 in a crucial game, and we'll be treated to teams led by Kobe "I may or may not be clinically insane" Bryant and Dwight "the least charismatic man in the universe" Howard. Awesome.
I have to admit that much of the reason I like the Sharks is because I think San Jose is so cute with its hockey team. It thinks it's a real city!
A long night of hockey
Date: 4/21/2010
Watching: Vancouver Canucks vs. LA Kings, Game 4, Round 1
Surely, there has to come a time when men will get sick of being bullied by their commercials, right? I'm referring to the commercial where a guy says he doesn't care which light beer he drinks, and the hot bartender says "Well, when you start to care, take your skirt off, and get a Miller Lite." Which, first of all, I know that the audience is mostly men, but still, don't you NOT want to tell 51% of the population that you don't want their business? Women drink beer, too. And second of all, are there really fewer men with my reaction (namely, "Hey, Miller Lite! Fuck you, I'm not going to by your beer just to keep you from making fun of me, asshole!"), than with the presumably intended reaction of "Oh, shit, I better buy that beer, otherwise they'll keep making fun of me." Like, can I just make an announcement to the people of this country: the people in commercials CAN'T SEE YOU. They don't know what you do, or what you buy. They've never met you, they never will meet you, and so whatever judgments they're making about your life are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. You know what it takes to be a man? Just saying you're a man. That's it. It's not even about having a penis, there are men without penises and women with them. But if I say I'm a man, then that's it, I am one. And I can order whatever brand of beer I like, or a sweet mixed drink if that's what I prefer, or nothing at all, and I can disapprove of objectifying women, and I can watch chick flicks (COMCAST!), or I could fucking knit, and read romance novels, and eat chocolate, and be really fucking sensitive and emotional all the time, and you know what? I'd STILL be a man. Because, really, what does it matter? The only reasons it matters are dating, medicine, and because the English language requires gender to be specified. Other than that, it's as irrelevant as skin color.
The neutral zone in hockey always reminds me of the Neutral Planet from Futurama.
The Canucks, with their entire season on the line, face a power play, already down a goal, and 2-1 in the series. They haven't stopped a power play in their last 6 chances. The sideline reporter says that they did not practice on the off day, even though they knew they had work to do, because they felt that they would be better off with the rest, and had just had a video review session, and said that there was "some question" whether that would be enough (in Wikipedia, somebody would have slapped a citation needed on that "some question", but sports commentary gets away with it). And what do they do? They kill the power play, including a solid save by Luongo, then IMMEDIATELY go on the attack and score on an absolutely clinical goal. And as soon as I finished typing that, LA scores again. I'm beginning to see the appeal of hockey, perhaps. It's like any sport, it's all about knowing the story being told.
My favorite part of every Buffy the Vampire Slayer program description on my digital cable, is the part at the end where it says "(Drama)". I'm like, yeah, I kind of got that from the part where Buffy's brain tumor was affecting her personality, or from the part where Buffy's post-Riley emotional turmoil was interrupted by a malevolent troll. There's definitely drama.
And fuck you, Miller Lite, why is it so important to you that men have no convenient way of carrying around anything bulky. Like, I travel light myself, so it's fine, but why does it upset you, a multi-national alcoholic beverage conglomerate, whether or not a man carries a bag?
Canucks take the lead! And I have to say, I actually kind of saw how that goal came together, I saw the buildup a little bit. Maybe I'm coming around on hockey?
Watching: Vancouver Canucks vs. LA Kings, Game 4, Round 1
Surely, there has to come a time when men will get sick of being bullied by their commercials, right? I'm referring to the commercial where a guy says he doesn't care which light beer he drinks, and the hot bartender says "Well, when you start to care, take your skirt off, and get a Miller Lite." Which, first of all, I know that the audience is mostly men, but still, don't you NOT want to tell 51% of the population that you don't want their business? Women drink beer, too. And second of all, are there really fewer men with my reaction (namely, "Hey, Miller Lite! Fuck you, I'm not going to by your beer just to keep you from making fun of me, asshole!"), than with the presumably intended reaction of "Oh, shit, I better buy that beer, otherwise they'll keep making fun of me." Like, can I just make an announcement to the people of this country: the people in commercials CAN'T SEE YOU. They don't know what you do, or what you buy. They've never met you, they never will meet you, and so whatever judgments they're making about your life are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. You know what it takes to be a man? Just saying you're a man. That's it. It's not even about having a penis, there are men without penises and women with them. But if I say I'm a man, then that's it, I am one. And I can order whatever brand of beer I like, or a sweet mixed drink if that's what I prefer, or nothing at all, and I can disapprove of objectifying women, and I can watch chick flicks (COMCAST!), or I could fucking knit, and read romance novels, and eat chocolate, and be really fucking sensitive and emotional all the time, and you know what? I'd STILL be a man. Because, really, what does it matter? The only reasons it matters are dating, medicine, and because the English language requires gender to be specified. Other than that, it's as irrelevant as skin color.
The neutral zone in hockey always reminds me of the Neutral Planet from Futurama.
The Canucks, with their entire season on the line, face a power play, already down a goal, and 2-1 in the series. They haven't stopped a power play in their last 6 chances. The sideline reporter says that they did not practice on the off day, even though they knew they had work to do, because they felt that they would be better off with the rest, and had just had a video review session, and said that there was "some question" whether that would be enough (in Wikipedia, somebody would have slapped a citation needed on that "some question", but sports commentary gets away with it). And what do they do? They kill the power play, including a solid save by Luongo, then IMMEDIATELY go on the attack and score on an absolutely clinical goal. And as soon as I finished typing that, LA scores again. I'm beginning to see the appeal of hockey, perhaps. It's like any sport, it's all about knowing the story being told.
My favorite part of every Buffy the Vampire Slayer program description on my digital cable, is the part at the end where it says "(Drama)". I'm like, yeah, I kind of got that from the part where Buffy's brain tumor was affecting her personality, or from the part where Buffy's post-Riley emotional turmoil was interrupted by a malevolent troll. There's definitely drama.
And fuck you, Miller Lite, why is it so important to you that men have no convenient way of carrying around anything bulky. Like, I travel light myself, so it's fine, but why does it upset you, a multi-national alcoholic beverage conglomerate, whether or not a man carries a bag?
Canucks take the lead! And I have to say, I actually kind of saw how that goal came together, I saw the buildup a little bit. Maybe I'm coming around on hockey?
Bring The Cup home!
Date: 4/15/2010
Watching: Vancouver Canucks vs. LA Kings, Game 1, Round 1
The Canucks are going to win the Stanley Cup. A ludicrous thing to say, I know, after the first game of the first round of the interminably long NHL playoffs. But if you'd seen that game, and in particular, the audience, you'd feel the same way. The Cup hasn't been in Canada for far too long, and to see and hear the crowd's reaction to the OT winner, with the "It's Our Time" signs, it just seems like destiny. Not only that, but the Olympic gold actually takes a bit of the pressure off the Canadian teams. The pressure's still there, I'm sure, but maybe not the crushing pressure that, say, the Cubs feel if they are in the playoffs (remind me to tell you THAT story sometime). So, since sports commentary is predicated on nothing if not ludicrously uninformed opinions, I'll re-iterate: the Canucks will win the Cup this year. Count on it.
(I'm aware that this throws a wrench in my becoming-a-fan-of-the-Sharks thing. But you can't force these things, and I'm sure I'll retroactively justify whatever decision I end up making).
Another thing I realized, watching this game, was that I had somehow never really reflected upon the fact that the one thing that unites and defines all sports, is that there are no examples of a competition being regarded as truly valid if it is not held in front of a live audience. Anything else would be considered practice. Even if it was televised live, it would be, at best, an "exhibition." The live, in-person audience is simply not optional. And that doesn't seem like much, until you stop, and try to think WHY that should be. After all, it's not stated in any rulebook. Nothing about the points or scoring or eventual result is dependent on an audience being there to see it. And yet it is a truth so fundamental that it never even needs to be stated: if there's no audience, there's no game. It's no accident that sports, like theater, started out as religion.
And I think this is really what fans are trying to say when they say something like "I'm the one who pays his salary!" Which is true, as far as it goes, but kind of silly; after all, you can quit paying their salary any time.. But what we really mean is, "I am a fundamental part of what you do. What you do would not be what you do, without me." And it's true. The fan IS a part of the event, and when athletes act otherwise, we're not wrong to be insulted.
Watching: Vancouver Canucks vs. LA Kings, Game 1, Round 1
The Canucks are going to win the Stanley Cup. A ludicrous thing to say, I know, after the first game of the first round of the interminably long NHL playoffs. But if you'd seen that game, and in particular, the audience, you'd feel the same way. The Cup hasn't been in Canada for far too long, and to see and hear the crowd's reaction to the OT winner, with the "It's Our Time" signs, it just seems like destiny. Not only that, but the Olympic gold actually takes a bit of the pressure off the Canadian teams. The pressure's still there, I'm sure, but maybe not the crushing pressure that, say, the Cubs feel if they are in the playoffs (remind me to tell you THAT story sometime). So, since sports commentary is predicated on nothing if not ludicrously uninformed opinions, I'll re-iterate: the Canucks will win the Cup this year. Count on it.
(I'm aware that this throws a wrench in my becoming-a-fan-of-the-Sharks thing. But you can't force these things, and I'm sure I'll retroactively justify whatever decision I end up making).
Another thing I realized, watching this game, was that I had somehow never really reflected upon the fact that the one thing that unites and defines all sports, is that there are no examples of a competition being regarded as truly valid if it is not held in front of a live audience. Anything else would be considered practice. Even if it was televised live, it would be, at best, an "exhibition." The live, in-person audience is simply not optional. And that doesn't seem like much, until you stop, and try to think WHY that should be. After all, it's not stated in any rulebook. Nothing about the points or scoring or eventual result is dependent on an audience being there to see it. And yet it is a truth so fundamental that it never even needs to be stated: if there's no audience, there's no game. It's no accident that sports, like theater, started out as religion.
And I think this is really what fans are trying to say when they say something like "I'm the one who pays his salary!" Which is true, as far as it goes, but kind of silly; after all, you can quit paying their salary any time.. But what we really mean is, "I am a fundamental part of what you do. What you do would not be what you do, without me." And it's true. The fan IS a part of the event, and when athletes act otherwise, we're not wrong to be insulted.
Hockey...?
Date: 4/14/2010
Watching: San Jose V. Col, Game 1, Round 1:
So I'm watching the Stanley Cup playoffs, because it occurred to me: all I have to do is start following hockey, and I could totally be the fan of a winning team. I'm totally covered by sports fan rules, because I've never really followed hockey, or been the fan of a particular team, AND I just moved to the home town of said team. It's not bandwagon jumping. And I know all the Sharks fans are like, "whatever, they're going down in the first round anyway," (that is a direct quote from multiple sources). But still, just to be the fan of a team that was a contender! Like, and taken seriously by other teams in the league! Do you know how long it's been since that happened to me? TWENTY YEARS! (Specifically, since the 1990 World Series).
So, anyway, it's a commercial break, and naturally they run an A's spot, and I love that their advertising slogan is "Green Collar Baseball." I'm like, oh, I recognize this campaign. This is the "our team kind of sucks this year, so come out and see some likeable, hard-working kids give it their best shot out there. They might even win the day you're there! Who can say?" The A's are really the American League Reds. They haven't been that good since the early 90's, though they've each had brief flirtations with relevance. Any decent players they develop (and the A's have had a few more than the Reds) will move on to a bigger market team. They're not great, and never will be, what else is there to sell? But then, baseball can get away with it. The beauty of baseball is the fact that the season has a million games in it. So any particular game, you hope they win, but if they don't, you know, you can live with it. And maybe your guy hit a home run, or had a good start before the bullpen blew it. Their motto should be "come to the ballpark, and at least you won't be miserable." Which is why ESPN hasn't been good for it. ESPN needs to hype up everything, that's its whole business model (though you have to admire their tone control, they do keep a clear separation between their "news" shows and their "opinion" shows, thus making the hyping in the news shows that much more insidious). But baseball pre-dates hype, and doesn't really benefit from it.
It's hard to get into hockey, though. It's like basketball, if teams only made 2 or 3 shots a game.
Watching: San Jose V. Col, Game 1, Round 1:
So I'm watching the Stanley Cup playoffs, because it occurred to me: all I have to do is start following hockey, and I could totally be the fan of a winning team. I'm totally covered by sports fan rules, because I've never really followed hockey, or been the fan of a particular team, AND I just moved to the home town of said team. It's not bandwagon jumping. And I know all the Sharks fans are like, "whatever, they're going down in the first round anyway," (that is a direct quote from multiple sources). But still, just to be the fan of a team that was a contender! Like, and taken seriously by other teams in the league! Do you know how long it's been since that happened to me? TWENTY YEARS! (Specifically, since the 1990 World Series).
So, anyway, it's a commercial break, and naturally they run an A's spot, and I love that their advertising slogan is "Green Collar Baseball." I'm like, oh, I recognize this campaign. This is the "our team kind of sucks this year, so come out and see some likeable, hard-working kids give it their best shot out there. They might even win the day you're there! Who can say?" The A's are really the American League Reds. They haven't been that good since the early 90's, though they've each had brief flirtations with relevance. Any decent players they develop (and the A's have had a few more than the Reds) will move on to a bigger market team. They're not great, and never will be, what else is there to sell? But then, baseball can get away with it. The beauty of baseball is the fact that the season has a million games in it. So any particular game, you hope they win, but if they don't, you know, you can live with it. And maybe your guy hit a home run, or had a good start before the bullpen blew it. Their motto should be "come to the ballpark, and at least you won't be miserable." Which is why ESPN hasn't been good for it. ESPN needs to hype up everything, that's its whole business model (though you have to admire their tone control, they do keep a clear separation between their "news" shows and their "opinion" shows, thus making the hyping in the news shows that much more insidious). But baseball pre-dates hype, and doesn't really benefit from it.
It's hard to get into hockey, though. It's like basketball, if teams only made 2 or 3 shots a game.
SportsCenter
Date: approx. 4/12/2010
Watching: SportsCenter
I get all contemptuous of SportsCenter when they come up with some ridiculous statistic. Like, "That's the first time all three of a team's outfielders have homered in the team's home opener since the 1987 Padres!" And I'm like, "What? That has no meaning." And yet, really, that applies to basically every statistic. Like, Jorge Cantu has an RBI in every game this season, and I'm wondering how long it will last. What possible reason is there for me to care? They're not even winning.
And now ESPN is giving Tim Tebow a softball interview with Jon Gruden, in order to boost his draft position, in order to maximize their ratings! We think they don't affect what they observe? Haven't you heard of Heisenberg?
Watching: SportsCenter
I get all contemptuous of SportsCenter when they come up with some ridiculous statistic. Like, "That's the first time all three of a team's outfielders have homered in the team's home opener since the 1987 Padres!" And I'm like, "What? That has no meaning." And yet, really, that applies to basically every statistic. Like, Jorge Cantu has an RBI in every game this season, and I'm wondering how long it will last. What possible reason is there for me to care? They're not even winning.
And now ESPN is giving Tim Tebow a softball interview with Jon Gruden, in order to boost his draft position, in order to maximize their ratings! We think they don't affect what they observe? Haven't you heard of Heisenberg?
Welcome, nobody!
So, I'm starting a blog, for whatever bizarre reason it is that people start blogs. Basically, in my case, I like to indulge in a little medicinal activity (it's totes legal where I am) and watch sports. While doing so, I often find myself possessed of fascinating insights, which are lost on my wife, who has developed a moderate interest in tennis, but who otherwise has no interest in sports whatsoever. Thus, this blog. I still won't be telling anybody my fascinating sports insights, but I can pretend that I am. Apparently that will make me feel better.
So, I started this by just keeping a notepad file of my thoughts for the last couple of weeks, to see if my thoughts were really as interesting as they seem in the moment. The answer, of course, was no, but I was reasonably pleased that there did seem to be scraps of value in there. In so far as I have a dominant theme (I don't), it's what I think of as "The Quantum Theory of Sports." The scientifically literate among you will know that it's a basic principle of quantum theory that you can't observe an event without changing it. The same principle applies to sports. The concept of home field advantage rests on that principle, and on a very fundamental level, sports only exists insofar as its observed, both in the crass financial sense and in a deeper, almost religious way, ESPN is far more insidiously influential than is generally acknowledged, etc. But as I am currently neither intoxicated, nor watching sports, I won't get into it any farther, I'll let you discover my genius for yourself! If you exist. Which you don't.
Just to give a quick sports background: I am a lifelong fan of the Cincinnati Bengals and Reds, the University of Dayton men's college basketball team. I've been a fan of the US Men's Soccer Team since the 1994 World Cup, and I am a big tennis fan, my current favorite players being Federer (though I really want to see Roddick win another major) and Justine Henin, who won my heart first by being part of a riveting semi-final in the Australian Open against Jennifer Capriati (which marks the beginning of my serious tennis fandom), and then a few months later blatantly cheating against Serena Williams at the French.
I'll start off by posting the thoughts I collected in the last couple of weeks, in the order I had them. They're not that good, but I like to imagine that I'll get better. In the best blogging tradition, I expect to then continue posting somewhat regularly for the next few weeks, not post for a couple months, post an apology for not posting, post three more times, then abandon the blog forever. Let's take this journey together!
So, I started this by just keeping a notepad file of my thoughts for the last couple of weeks, to see if my thoughts were really as interesting as they seem in the moment. The answer, of course, was no, but I was reasonably pleased that there did seem to be scraps of value in there. In so far as I have a dominant theme (I don't), it's what I think of as "The Quantum Theory of Sports." The scientifically literate among you will know that it's a basic principle of quantum theory that you can't observe an event without changing it. The same principle applies to sports. The concept of home field advantage rests on that principle, and on a very fundamental level, sports only exists insofar as its observed, both in the crass financial sense and in a deeper, almost religious way, ESPN is far more insidiously influential than is generally acknowledged, etc. But as I am currently neither intoxicated, nor watching sports, I won't get into it any farther, I'll let you discover my genius for yourself! If you exist. Which you don't.
Just to give a quick sports background: I am a lifelong fan of the Cincinnati Bengals and Reds, the University of Dayton men's college basketball team. I've been a fan of the US Men's Soccer Team since the 1994 World Cup, and I am a big tennis fan, my current favorite players being Federer (though I really want to see Roddick win another major) and Justine Henin, who won my heart first by being part of a riveting semi-final in the Australian Open against Jennifer Capriati (which marks the beginning of my serious tennis fandom), and then a few months later blatantly cheating against Serena Williams at the French.
I'll start off by posting the thoughts I collected in the last couple of weeks, in the order I had them. They're not that good, but I like to imagine that I'll get better. In the best blogging tradition, I expect to then continue posting somewhat regularly for the next few weeks, not post for a couple months, post an apology for not posting, post three more times, then abandon the blog forever. Let's take this journey together!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)