Tuesday, May 19, 2009

I'm so sorry, Blake Griffin

I flip-flopped on my opinion of Griffin during the college season. I think he'll be a good, not great pro. Too bad he has to play for the worst organization in professional sports.

Ricky Rubio is going to be scary on the Grizzlies.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Thanks for the Memories, Greg?

One thing I always appreciated about the Cubs growing up was that, as an organization, they didn't shove their history down your throat. Sure, I knew about the billy goat, the sign in right field, and every year an uninspired sportswriter or two would brush off an article about curses and whatnot, but I feel like the Cubs themselves mainly focused on who was on the field.

I think one of the places where I appreciated this the most was in the fact that a 100-year old organization had only retired 2 numbers. I remember asking my dad about Ernie Banks and Billy Williams when I was young, thinking they must have been pretty special players if they were the only ones deemed worthy to have their numbers hanging from the foul poles. I also remember being confused when the Cubs were on the road and I saw other teams with upwards of a dozen numbers retired. I was kind of happy that the teams I root for (the Bulls as well, who only had 2 at the time,) were the kind of teams that don't retire numbers willy-nilly (coughMiamiHeatcough)

I was happy both times when Ron Santo and Ryne Sandberg joined them. I'm completely fine with Santo getting bonus points for his work in the booth. Both players had great careers that will forever be associated with Chicago Cubs baseball.

Which is where I have a problem with Maddux. I get that both Maddux and Fergie wore 31, which was at least part of the impetus for retiring their number at the same time. I was a little skeptical at first that 4 players from a team that pulled off one of the most notable collapses of all time needed their numbers retired (I know Ernie was on the very downside of his career then, but still.) But after checking Fergie's baseball reference page, I have to admit he has some stats that jump out at you, like a consistent ERA+ over 120 and a few years leading the league in BB/9 and WHIP.

But then you look at Maddux's page. Fergie's best year was below average for Maddux. Greg has back-to-back ERA+ years of 271 and 262! He led the majors in BB/9 pretty much every year in the 90s. You could make the argument that Greg Maddux is the best player to ever put on a Cubs uniform.

So why am I against his number being retired? 5 years from now Maddux is going into the hall of fame. It should be unanimous, or at least any writer who leaves him off should have his or her voting rights examined. But he's going in with an A on his cap, not a C. Maddux gave his best years to the Atlanta Braves because the Cubs were too stingy to pay him what he deserved (in fact, probably less than he deserved, considering his salaries in those mid-90s years were in the 6 million range.) You can't go back now and pretend those years didn't happen. Greg started just as many playoff games against the Cubs (1) as he did for them. I know Fergie pitched for other teams, too, but he will be remembered as a Cub, and for good reason. While we love Maddux, let's face it: he's a Brave.

Fergie- 167 wins as a Cub
117- other teams

Greg- 133 as a Cub
222- other teams (mostly Atlanta) (PS- did you know he was at 16 wins in 94 when the season was shut down?)

It's not quite the Heat retiring friggin Dan Marino's number, but it still didn't sit well with me.

Future posts:
1. Rick Telander, Ryan Theriot, and steroids
2. If you could go back to the last regular season Bulls game against Toronto and have them win, setting up a series with Orlando, would you?

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Miniature Yankees

The post title sums up how I feel about this year's Cubs team. I've seen about half the games this year, but then again, I got back from the gym today and realized that they were up by a ton, and shrugged. I checked the box score to see who did well, but to be honest if you get ten walks against the Padres the writing is on the wall. If you haven't had the chance to read Taibbi's takedown of Brian Cashman do yourself a favor and do it.

Besides the particulars of his argument, the general form holds. Baseball is overwhelmingly tilted toward the top teams (Yanks, Sox, Mets, Angels, Dodgers, Cubs,etc) If those teams aren't challenging for a championship year in and year out then there is something organizationally askew. And at this point, it honestly looks like the team is moving backwards.

We lost Wood and DeRosa, two of our team leaders and DeRo's flexibility sure would be coming in handy right about now, hey Jim. When you have the kind of resources we do and Wrigley Field just printing money, how did we go into the season with a bullpen where Lou didn't trust anybody. How the hell did we let Bob Howry get away? Oh that's right, we declined to offer him arbitration. He signed for 2.75 mil with one of the worst teams in the league. I know San Fran is a cool place to live but look at Howry's face when he's on the mound and don't tell me that he is not one hell of a competitor. He is exactly what this team is missing, which is a major injection of intestinal fortitude. I mean for crying out loud every one of our major contributors has issues, D Lee is almost 34 and has a bad back, I hear that's a recipe for athletic excellence, Aramis usually gets hurt running the bases, this time it was a freak accident in the field, and Soriano has baseball Tourette's and can't stand the mental pressure of hitting 3rd in the lineup, so how are his teammates supposed to rely on him in the clutch/postseason.
No disrespect to guys battling injuries or physical limitations (Aaron Miles is just not a major league offensive player, or at least he hits like one of those old-school #8 in the lineup shortstops when he hits .290+ but apparently he cant do that anymore and he's only a mediocre defensive replacement. He is effectively Lindsey Hunter without the veteran leadership.) Basically though this team is battling injuries and still 5 games over even, I don't like how we got here from last year's team, which was one of my favorites ever. Howry-Marmol-Wood, Reed Johnson making crazy defensive plays. Dempster shuttin em down like he did today. I don't know hopefully Ryan Freel can show me something, and then Hendry can keep showing me something. And then since I'm in a bad mood, I thought I'd kick off the old school hip hop for the blog. WEST WEST.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

More games at the Cubs' expense

In the unlikely event you just stumbled upon this blog and didn't know anything about me, you might think from the last two posts that I hate the Cubs. I don't, but I do enjoy using small sample sizes to point out absurd things like this.

Here's the BA/OBP/SLG for two groups, the 4-5-6-7-8 hitters in the lineup (Lee, Bradley, Fontenot, Soto, Miles) and for the starting pitchers. See if you can figure out which one is which:

Group 1

.202/.280/.351
.186/.329/.371
.222/.319/.414
.175/.305/.200
.208/.265/.273

Group 2

.278/.376/.500
.231/.286/.231
.154/.213/.231
.111/.111/.111
.000/.063/.000

Okay, I guess the slugging percentages are something of a giveaway. But still, it's kind of absurd to go to a game Harden's pitching and have his be the 4th highest batting average in the lineup.

Also, come back soon, Big Z. The lineup needs you.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Let's Play- "Guess Chad Fox's ERA!"

I apologize for the fact that I still haven't gotten to the Greg Maddux discussion, but I don't have the time or energy for anything more than this little game (which hopefully will NOT become a recurring feature.)

Seriously, take a guess right now.

Then click on the link and scroll down to check it out:

http://www.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=290509108

Friday, May 8, 2009

BG

I have to say, I kind of like having BG on the team, or at least I appreciate his unique abilities to score in stretches. But its the sort of thing that I appreciate as a kind of aesthetic good, especially this past year where he has lost a little of the hitch in his movement and probably just as a result of increased fitness he has been able to mix in a little more of the Ray Allen/Rip Hamilton style which complements his ball skills well and highlights his ability, like the aforementioned All-Stars, to take and make awkward half-open shots through a combination of ridiculous body control, core strength, and some innate predisposition to remain unaffected by not really looking at the basket. So I think Gordon is an overall good for the NBA and its fans, especially since he boosts each individual game's chance of becoming compelling through a scoring spree or making seemingly impossible shots. I just think that given the obvious decision to make Rose the franchise centerpiece, it is not in the financial or managerial interests of the organization to re-sign him.
Points 1-X
BG will be overpaid because NBA GM's are stupid and he did well in the high profile playoff series.
-The Bulls are already seriously financially committed to an assortment of overpaid players (Jerome James has a 6.6 million player option for next year, and we owe Tim Thomas 6.45 to do less than nothing, Brad Miller gets 12 million and Luol gets almost twice as much as Salmons to play terrible defense and be a marginally better scorer who shows little interest or ability to improve beyond a solid role playing career.
-Defense wins championships and a Gordon-Rose backcourt is significantly limited in defensive capabilities (bigger guards and really any dynamic 2 paired with a serviceable 3 makes BG defensively a huge liability) Gordon really seems content to simply outscore his counterpart which really brings into question his commitment to team defense which has proven to be the most effective and truly determinative quality for team success in playoff competition.
-The last one is really the kicker, I just don't believe that without a drastic remake of the current Bulls lineup (ie a big name defensive minded coach like Adelman or Popovich, a defensive superstar like KG, Duncan, etc.) BG fits into any conceivable team structure that can defensively hang with the top teams in the league. One of these days a team will win the championship without a strong defense, the Suns came pretty close, but I don't think its the direction the team should be headed. Plus we need the cap space to sign D Wade next year. I think that about covers it. Oh and also his total and unrepentant gunning at the end of some of those Celtics games shows a lack of respect for Rose, which is understandable given that he's a rookie and choked a bit under pressure, but refusing to pass the ball and disrupting the offense only makes your teammates mad and sacrifices the long-term viability of what you are trying to accomplish as a unit. Basketball is still very much a team game at the NBA level and if you are convinced that your teammates suck enough to not pass it back then the team goes nowhere.

Really real

Here is the promised anti-BG rant, which I've noticed is not as unpopular a position as I thought it would be given his play during the Celtics series. Two notes before I get into that, I think Tris's response about the Kenny Smith quote is perfectly fair, especially because it was a personal reaction and I didn't see the segment in question, I was thinking more along the lines of how to appropriately label the series or any exciting sporting event like that and how they are incredibly fun and exciting especially if your favorite team is involved but that like most of life they are best causally explained as the result of playing the same game over and over, eventually cool things will happen and in the case of average to good players are more often the result of luck instead of whatever happens to particularly gifted athletes when they "step their game up" through increased focus or will power or whatever. I think Ben Gordon and Ray Allen, Rondo, and Rose qualify as "step their game up" type players, but Brad Miller getting deadly behind the arc and Tyrus and Big Baby hitting 18-footers, anything Eddie House or Scalabrine did, falls more into the sheer random luck category and those things are often diminished or overlooked in the immediate aftermath of such an emotionally exciting event like Bulls-C's. I think the Warriors-Mavs series is a great comparison because it had many more genetically freakish talents capable of athletic feats most people sprain an ankle dreaming about and less flukish type occurances and a collaborative coaching effort seemingly dedicated to producing games with Maximal Overtimes. Ok that was more than I wanted to say about that and it's more of a separate issue so I'll leave it for now.
The second thing was about Louis' post, which was a fantastic idea btw, and all solid picks, but I think taking Goliath over Abe at the 5 was a mistake, for a few reasons. One, ignoring for a moment the inconclusive evidence about whether he actually existed, historical measurements are notoriously nonstandard (and other translations put him at a more realistic 6'9" but most biblical scholars agree the story is largely allegorical) and if he was in fact the tallest person who ever lived I think the NBA has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that as height (and weight, ie Shaq) increases after a certain threshold, the physical toll of playing 35-40 minutes of high-level basketball has a significantly limiting effect on whether a given person can even participate without serious and long-term injury risks. We know Abe was physically adept (wrestling) and there are established benefits to having ugly people on your team. Ok now I'm splitting this up and making the BG thing its own post.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

All time historical starting 5...

Sometimes, during the free time I have because I view reading assignments as optional, I have this recurring thought: what if people who lived hundreds, or maybe thousands of years ago, were really good at sports, but their skills went untapped because the sport had no been invented yet. For instance, Maybe there was someone in the Ming Dynasty who could destroy MJ in one-on-one. Or, maybe some peasant from the 1300s could have thrown a nasty slider and a mid 90s heater. Who knows?

This thought led me to another interesting train of thought. If you could pick any five historical figures to put together a starting five for a basketball game, who would you pick? Obviously, no actual athletes can be chosen, and the figures must be documented to have actually existed, (no Hercules or Paul Bunyan). After about an hour and a half (that is actually how long we discussed it) of discussion with my roommates, here is my starting 5, plus a 6th man and a coach. I like to picture them being announced like they do it at Bulls Games. So without further ado...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNDDDDDDDD NOW, THE STARTING LINEUP FOR YOUR WORLD HISTORICAL ALL STARS. AAAAT FORWARD, FROM MEXICO, MONTEZUMA THE SECOND

Montezuma is a great choice for the 3 guard here. Despite being undersized, as most people on this team are, he led the Aztec Empire at the height of its reign, and fell only to the Spaniards because he initially thought they were gods. With coaching, he could overcome issues like this. Plus, there would be no question about his heart, since Aztecs who lost sporting events were usually sacrificed to the gods. No doubt, Montezuma II play hard to avoid being sacrificed to the sun god.


FROM SIBERIA, AT FORWARD, 5'8", GRIGORI RASPUUUUUUUUTIN


Again, an undersized player, but most good historical figures were small. Rasputin comes with a great nick name, "the mad monk" and could certainly intimidate opponents. He is described as having long arms and legs, giving him great length as a defender. There are character questions (Despite being a clergyman, Rasputin was known to drink and have countless afairs with women, including one that yielded an illegitimate child) as well as questions of selfishness (many credit him with bringing down the Russian Empire). Still, the good out weighs the bad.

Rasputin's toughness is beyond question. During an assasination attempt, Rasputin was fed food and wine laced with enoguh cyanide to kill five men. When he was unaffected, one of his assasins shot him in the back and left him, only to return and discover that he was alive when Rasputin, who was pretending to be dead, jumped on him and tried to strangle him. During the struggle, Rasputin is alleged to have whispered "you bad boy" into the ear of his assasin. Finally, the assasins co-conspirators arrived and shot Rasputin three more times before dumping his body in the Neva river. When the body was discovered three days later in the river, an autopsy showed that Raputin had died not of his gunshot wounds or from the poision, but from drowning.

Would you try and post up on this guy? No way. I want him on my team.


THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE, FROM THE HOLY LAND, 9'6", GOLIAAAAAATH

I was hesitant about this pick, since Goliath is well documented as a soft player, (got killed when King David threw a rock at him). Still, anyone listed at six cubits and a span (which comes out to 9-foot-6) gets a spot in my starting five. Even Abraham Lincoln, my backup 5, has no chance of getting a board over Big G, and he would quite literally play above the rim, since he would be only four inches from it. I'm not in love with the pick, but I think his size alone makes him the obvious choice.


A GUARD, FROM EGYPT, MOOOOOOSESSSSSSS

Out of all of my picks, I'm most confident in this one, Moses as my point guard. Is there a better leader in history than Moses? He led the Jews out of Egypt and pretty much got them to the promised land, (he died on a hill overlooking it before he could get there). He'd make a great floor general, and he could part defenders like the Red Sea. No health issues either, since he is said to have lived to be 120. This is a slam dunk pick.


FROM NAZARTH, AT GUARD, JESUS CHRIST


I would feel silly if Jesus didn't make the starting five. Is there a better pure scorer in history? I mean, he took the sins of humanity on his back, he could easily carry a team. Again, there are questions about his competitive fire, since he is all about forgiveness, but still, if there's a final shot to win a game, I'm putting ball in the hands of the only son of God. No comeback is impossible, no deficet too great. A miracle comeback is always possible.


6th man and head coach...

First man off the bench would have to be Genghis Kahn, a tenacouis defender with a lot of energy and a merciless will to win. I see him as a forward, maybe a 2 guard. I'd start him, but I see him as being almost too high energy for his own good. I think he would get too fired up, make mistakes, and ultimately cost his team games. Better to let him watch for a couple minutes to keep his emotions in check.

Head Coach is Sun Tzu, a Chinese military commander and author of "The Art of War." I'm fudging a little, since there is debate on whether or not he is real, but I can't think of anyone better to lead a team, especially with some softness concerns.


So that's my team. Feel free to post your own five, or to debate mine, (although I see no possible weakness).

I also see this premise as being ripe for a video game. If any of you have connections with EA, hook me up.


Monday, May 4, 2009

Joakim Noah, Kenny Smith, and Greg Maddux walk into a bar...

Just some random thoughts today:

1. My objection to Kenny's parity comment was more that it came off as "Rawr, you young whippersnappers think this is a good series? Why, back in my day we played our first round series barefoot in the snow! And every game went to quintuple overtime! And the series were best of 14! Don't ask how that works, it just does!"

Then he presents the Warriors-Mavericks as the best like anyone with half a brain would agree with him. I just hate it when analysts feel the need to have contradictory opinions just to seem like a connoisseur.

And I probably would feel a little ripped off about this series, too, if the only game I got to go to was game 3 (I lucked out and went to game 4 and game 6 as well.)

2. I think Joakim Noah is really somewhere in between the "poor-man's Dennis Rodman" as I believe Sir Charles described him as, and the bumbling, spaced out pothead we saw his rookie year. Yes, his interior defense looked really good against some inferior big man (although you can make a case for Kendrick Perkins being in the top 10 of offensive big men in the NBA right now,) but what encouraged me more was his great defensive rotation and ability to protect the basket against penetration from the guards. When VDN went with the incredibly stupid "4 guards plus Miller" lineup, the Celtics were getting to the rim at will (and that goes for the entire series, not just game 7.) And because on many possessions there were matchups like BG on Scalabrine, Noah was often asked to guard both Celtic big men near the basket, and did a tremendous job with it. If he keeps this improvement up, I'll be happy with Noah getting an extension at the end of next season.

3. Crap, out of time to talk about my mixed feelings on Maddux's retirement ceremony yesterday. Got a rec league championship to win tonight. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

I thought it might be appropriate for me to title my first entry after my favorite Charles Barkley-ism because well, even though Chuck is annoying and sometimes incoherent, he is damn entertaining and I also really just like saying "Winner winner chicken dinner," and you should too. I will use this also to do my own little introduction, because even though I have been developing a detailed and comprehensive argument for the Bulls to not re-sign BG, I am technically supposed to be working on something else right now and we can always come back to that later now that the season is officially over. Oh ok and I guess I'll do some quick thoughts on the Bulls-Celtics series.

I'm a lifelong Cubs, Bulls, and Bears fan. In that order. I spent my college days out in California, without cable TV, so for four of the last six years I have been further away from the everyday ins-and-outs of the Chicago sports scene than ever before, but I think that gives me a better perspective, because I am now less satisfied with teams that are "competitive" or entertaining on a daily basis. I am currently not actually employed, though if you click around on my profile (I think) you'll maybe end up at the blog of WeFarm America, where I am currently working on an internship of sorts doing grant writing, marketing, etc. I am starting law school in the fall, so like Tris I aim to get my money's worth this summer. After that, who knows. Now, for the actual sports.

I umm, hate to start off by being a little disagreeable. Oh wait, nevermind, I don't. I am a little bit mystified by the hype over this series, despite how incredible and fun each game has been. (I want my money back for Game 3, seriously, I spent $45 on a ticket and it was the worst sporting event I have been to in my lifetime.) I think Tristan getting upset over Kenny Smith's one word summary of "parity," was a little misplaced. First of all, you can't summarize anything in one word, that is stupid stuff they make you do when you agree to accept buckets of money to make an ass of yourself on TV every night. This series was incredible, but it was incredible and amazing because of a combination of parity and sheer luck. I mean, if you made the Bulls and Celtics (in their current decrepit, injury-riddled, stat) play a 100 times, I think 10 games would look like game 3, 55 would look like game 7, and you would never ever get anything like game 6 ever again. That is what makes the whole thing unforgettable and made it so much fun to watch, but honestly, like most things in life, everyone is downplaying how much sheer random probability played a major role. The teams fit together well, their styles match, and without KG they both are totally reliant on outside shooting (well except when Rondo plays like he did in 1-5, something I am totally unconvinced he can do consistently) which is not a recipe for consistent success in the NBA. I would love to be wrong but I don't see the Bulls as a top 4 team in the East next year, and I am predicting the Magic to win in 5 in the next round.

Last thing, Joakim is definitely a great guy to have on your team, he has a lot of heart and I love him, but don't you think part of the reason he (and Tyrus and Brad) looked so good is because the Celtics backup big men are freakin' Mikki Moore and Scalabrine. I watched this Bulls team all year, even though it almost killed me, because I don't know if you remember this at all, but they were god awful for most of the year, and I haven't heard anyone come up with a reason why their post-trade success was a result of anything other than most NBA guys quit playing very hard toward the end of the season and as Scott Skiles continues to prove, if you run around a lot and hustle you can win a lot of games against teams that you have no business beating.

That was fun. Thanks to Tris for setting this up and inviting me to contribute. That background is killer.

Belated thoughts on Game 6


Here are those thoughts I mentioned in a previous post. Is it stupid to put these thoughts up after game 7? Maybe the first one, but the second I think is relevant.


1. You could see Derrick visibly shaking in his Adidas from about the last 5 minutes of regulation through each overtime. Don't get me wrong, the block on Rondo was a great play, but on offense every play it seemed like he was thinking to himself "please don't fuck up, please don't fuck up..."
And it's not so much his fault. We have huge expectations for the kid, but when it comes down to it, he is a rookie playing in his first playoff series. If it happens next year (when, Vinny or no Vinny, I expect a much longer playoff run,) then we'll have a problem.
And the reason it is stupid to post this now, he had a much better Game 7. Not great, still a few bad passes/decisions in the 4th quarter, but he didn't wilt under the pressure so much.
2. At the end of the first overtime, when we had 4 seconds left to get off a last shot, I turned to the people with me and said "I want any shot here but an off-balance, BG 20 footer." Because everyone and their grandma knew that was what was coming. I know it goes in every once in a while. I also have a friend who wins money on scratch-off lotto tickets a disproportionate amount of the time. Does that mean he should always play the lotto?
The most worrisome thing to me is the fact that BG fouling out of the game filled me with more confidence in our chance to win. Is that really what you want out of your franchise player? Fans to be relieved when he fouls out? Please, GM-wannabe Simmons, take BG on your team, give him 10 million per, and watch him throw up a shot every time the ball comes within 10 feet of him.
BG reminds me a of a certain person who shall remain nameless that plays pickup basketball with us some time (Will knows who I'm talking about, but I'm sure anyone reading this that plays pickup basketball knows someone like him.) He jacks up a shot on 70% of his team's trips downcourt. He can get hot and carry you for 4 or 5 straight games, but it's not even fun. Why should I run around all these screens and get open for a good shot when you're just going to jack up a running 18-footer over 2 guys? I bet there are Bulls players thinking the same thing today.

A More Official Introduction

Hi.

Time to stop giving out sneak-previews and deem this blog open for business. I'll start with our background information, then move on to our goals/manifesto:

We love the Bears and Bulls. Most of us love the Cubs, some the White Sox (It's a 3 to 1 ratio so far, but I'm trying to even that out a little.) A decade or so of mismanagement means that, unless I'm mistaken, none of us have more than a mild attraction for the Blackhawks, although it's been increasing as of late. But more importantly, we love talking about sports. And one day it occurred to me that if morons like Skip Bayless and Jay Mariotti are allowed to spout their half-assed opinions to the masses, why can't we get in on the action? Even if that action is just a long string of curse words directed at BG, or Kevin Gregg, or Jay Cutler (if he underperforms.) We'll try to keep it more intelligent than that, but sometimes you just gotta vent.

The inspiration for this site is more along the lines of a FreeDarko or FJM than the more informational blogs you'll find out there. None of us are quitting our day job or dropping out of college to pursue full-time blogging. The reason I never got around to expressing my 2 thoughts on Game 6 is because I didn't have 10 minutes to sit in front of the computer and put those thoughts down until now (I'll put that post up in a few minutes.) However, hopefully between the 4 (and growing) of us, we'll be able to keep you, most likely our friends and family, up to date on whatever Chicago-sports-related thoughts pop into our heads. And maybe one day someone with absolutely no connection to any of us will stumble in here by accident and be mildly amused enough to bookmark us.

As for me personally, I'm a middle-school math teacher on the South Side of the city. I don't remember a moment of not following the Cubs, Bears, and Bulls, even during the down years. Consider this my apology for not knowing more about hockey, but I think part of my love for those other three sports is the fact that I grew up playing them, and still do regularly (well, softball at least. Is there a way to play in an adult rec baseball league? I need to look into that.) So, back to my original point, From September-May I won't have a whole ton of time to write. Over the summer, however, I may have nothing else to do but ramble (kind of like I am now.)

I'll let the other bloggers introduce themselves at their convenience.

The goal of this site is to be a place where you can go to read a reasonable debate about the important debates/events/games in Chicago, and maybe add your own 2 cents as well. We won't limit it strictly to Chicago, but since that's what most of us live and die with, I'm guessing that's mostly where our focus will be. While we're not designed to be a news site, but I would like to have recurring features that you can count on seeing regularly (the moron one and the blame game are 2, but there are more I'll introduce as we roll them out.)

We also might talk about old-school hip-hop. Or comic book movies. Whatever. This is a labor of love, after all.

PS- How does the spell-check feature for blogspot.com not recognize the word "bloggers?"

Edit- Just fixed a typo my intelligent (and beautiful) wife pointed out.

First Ever Blog Post

So for my first ever blog post, I figured I would write about the Blackhawks second round playoff series with Vancouver, and then maybe some NASCAR analysis. That Talladega sure is something, huh?

Don't worry, that was a joke. Lets talk about the Bulls. As if there's anything else to talk about. 

As a person who admittedly doesn't watch a ton of NBA basketball, watching the Bulls in the playoffs makes me remember that even though the season is too long and regular season games are pretty frequently boring, professional basketball at its highest level is some of the best . This series may have turned me back into a full-time NBA fan. I won't rehash all the amazing things about this series. You watched it, you know what happened. Instead, you can read what I think about this series, since I know you were curious. Lets start with the negative stuff

  1. I don't care what Doug Collins says, the Bulls deserve no credit for their performance last night. At least three or four times, Collins said that the Bulls had shown heart by coming back from 14 down to make it a game, but I don't really see it. That game was 100% there for the taking in the fourth quarter, and nobody on the Bulls stepped up to take it. The only reason Game Seven was within reach at all was that as soon as the Celtics got their big point lead, they started playing just as terrible as the Bulls were. Yesterday wasn't a case of who wanted it more, it was a case of who didn't want it the least. Boston missed free throws, got careless with the ball, and got into foul trouble. It should have been a recipe for a W. Instead, Chicago stopped passing, dribbled too much, and missed the open shots they managed to get.
  2. Ben Gordon is the most over-valued player in the NBA. He never passes the ball, takes almost exclusively contested shots, and continues to take those shots even if he hasn't made one all night, yet every analyst seems to think that Ben Gordon is where amazing happens. My friend Azim, who watches way more basketball than I do, often refers to him as "the black hole" because the ball never comes out of him. Everyone in Chicago pretty much knows and understands  this about Ben, but somehow Gordon has tricked everyone else in the universe into thinking he is a great shooter. For example, in his April 28th column for ESPN.com's page 2, Bill Simmons wrote a column where he (correctly) detailed after game 2 why the Bulls-Celtics series has the potential to be one of the greatest of all time. While I usually agree with Simmons, he had this little tidbit of information to share with everyone: "All I know is this: Only a few current players can win two games per playoff series by themselves, and he's one of them. If the goal is to win the title and not just compete for one, then I want Ben Gordon on my team. It's as simple as that." I didn't agree with that statement after Ben's huge game 2, and I don't agree with it now. The Bulls will lose just as many games because of Ben Gordon than they will because of him. If he could, he would take every shot in every game, even if he knew he would miss 90% of them. He is too streaky, too selfish, and too terrible at defense. Addition by subtraction: Lose BG.
  3. I am tired of Ray Allen. He seems like a nice guy, and I think he does a lot of charity stuff, but I am still tired of him. I'm tired of his shiny head, of his silly arm sleeves, and of his ability to knock down clutch threes.
Now for some good stuff...
  1. Everyone talked all series long about the emergence of Derrick Rose, and deservedly so. He played great. Not enough people talked about Joakim Noah, and they should have. Unlike Ben, I want players like Joakim on my team if I'm competing for a championship. Sure, he doesn't have a ton of offensive skills, but he hustles, gets rebounds, scores on tip-ins and gets blocks. Most of all, every one else hates him, which makes me love him. Any player who can make everyone else hate him must be doing something right. Nothing made me happier than hearing Celtics fans chant, "Noah sucks" and as far as I'm concerned his dunk in game 6 was the best play of the series.
  2. As evidenced by T's posts, a lot of people think Vinny Del Negro made a lot of stupid decisions in the series, but Doc Rivers made just as many, and he won a championship last year. How many times can Doc bring in Tony Allen for crucial minutes at the end of a game when he hadn't played at all. Rivers has to be the only person in the world who thinks Tony Allen has skills. Tony Allen's mom thinks he should have stayed on the bench.
That's it for this series. It was a nice distraction from the Cubs being terrible and getting hurt, and a great way for me to vent some of my anti-boston feelings. The Cubs have started to turn it around, which is nice. Maybe they'll trade Kevin Gregg soon.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Why I Won't be Mad if Ben Isn't on the Bulls Next Year

7 for fucking 23. 2 stupid ass shots in the last 2 minutes where all he had to do was pull the ball out and get a decent look. He must be the least efficient offensive player on the Bulls this year (I'm in no mood to look that up and be contradicted, maybe I'll look it up later.) And to top it all off, he was mostly assigned to guard House and Scalabrine when they were in the game, and they lit him up. I'm not doing the blame game tonight, because I don't have the time or emotional energy for it, but there would be a VERY large amount assigned to Ben (and a little to Vinny for not doing anything about it.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Kenny Smith is a ginormous buzzkill

Ernie Johnson begins TNT tonight by asking "What words can you use to describe this series?" in a rhetorical manner. Kenny's response?

"Parity."

Ernie, speaking for everyone with a brain: "I was thinking 'incredible,' 'extraordinary,' (a few other adjectives I can't remember)"

Kenny insists this can't be a good series because it's the first round, and that the freakin' MAVERICKS-WARRIORS from a few years ago was better.

Anyway, I have a lot to say about this game, but it's 11:30 and I have to work tomorrow.

I'm going to play NBA Jam tomorrow, play against the Rockets, and just smack Kenny Smith every time he gets the ball.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

The Blame Game- Bulls-Celtics Game 5

Another recurring feature: the blame game/credit where credit is due. They'll both come after important wins/losses (usually sooner than this one, but I'll get to the reasons for that in the official introduction post.) Anyway, the idea is to assign percent values to the players/coaches/officials/supernatural forces responsible for losing/winning. These numbers are scientific, ironclad, and not-to-be-debated.

Brad Miller- 25%

Part of it is the free throws, but not as much as you might think (I missed the front end of a one-and-one, up 2 with 30 seconds left in our playoff game Monday night, so I sympathize.) It's also the matter of the stupid turnovers (3 this game) and lack of defensive rotation. The only reason Miller is in there is for his offense, if he's not helping on that end, why not give more minutes to Tyrus?

VDN- 25%

I'm a Vinny hater. But I have to give him credit for the play he drew up at the end of the game. I mean, maybe it was Vinny's strategy to constantly draw up off-balance 3s for Ben all year, just so when he really needed to the Celtics would triple-team BG coming off the screen, just because Vinny can't come up with anything else. So there's that, but I'm still mad at Vinny for these 2 things:

1. It's the coaches job to keep his players egos in check. And I know BG needs his shots. But at some point, can't VDN tell BG to pass the damn ball and run the offense every once in a while?

2. Salmons isn't long enough to keep Pierce from getting his shot off whenever he wants to. But when it comes to the end of the game, and you have the ability to use offense-defense substitutions, and Salmons has been burnt twice, how about using Tyrus on Pierce?

Derrick- 25%

If we're winning this series, Derrick needs to start looking for his shot earlier. You don't have to just take it to the hole every time (where you are getting murdered, but I'll get to that in a second,) stop and take the pull-up j every once in awhile (it's been conspicuously absent the last few games.) Stop worrying about Salmons' and BG's egos and take over.

Also, stop with the stupid turnovers. We're holding you above rookie standards, whether that's fair or not.

BG- 15%

Did you see the look in Ben's eye after Miller missed the first free throw? His inner monologue was I don't care if all 5 Celtics were on me and I was falling out of bounds from 40 feet, I was hitting the game winning 3 if you passed me the ball. At some point the gun-slinger mentality you want in a shooter is a detriment to the team, and I think Ben crosses the line a lot (like in the 2nd overtime on Sunday, when he didn't pass the ball the first 4 possessions.) You have teammates, Ben, and just because your weird, off-balance shots fall in sometimes does not mean any shot they might take is a bad one.

Referees- 10%

The flagrant foul issue is story for another day. And I understand Celtics fans are just as mad as Bulls fans. But just once I want to see Derrick get the respect Rondo is getting when he goes strong to the hole.

Absolved:
Tyrus (didn't play enough down the stretch, took less bad shots this game.)
Kirk (kept us in it in the first half.)
Salmons (nothing great, nothing terrible. Played good D on Pierce, just nothing more he could have done.)
Joakim (been an absolute beast this series.)

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

A Moron Says What?

So this blog isn't really supposed to launch yet, and would like to start it with a more formal introduction than the first part of a recurring feature, but I just heard something too stupid to let slide. Anyways, A Moron Says What? is going to be our FJM-style post where we call out idiots who are paid to write or talk about sports for imbecelic, indefensible opinions. There's no shortage of these out there to be found, but this is the worst I've heard in some time:

Petros Papadakis (introduced as a "TV and radio personality") on LeBron James:

You know me, I don't show up a sporting event, unless I'm being paid to be there.

Who the hell is paying you to be at sporting events?

Unless, LeBron James is in town, because I want to watch him! Because he's so big, he's so physical, he's like Natrone Means!

He just compared LeBron James to Natrone Means in a way that is supposed to be flattering to LeBron. Even Jim Rome (who I forsee becoming a regular part of this feature,) clowned him a minute later by asking "What, Marion Butts didn't want a piece that action?" Petros, however, was oblivious to the ridiculousness of his comparison.

In case you didn't grow up a Chargers fan in the mid-90s, here are Natrone Means' career numbers (all-time ranks in parentheses):

Yards: 5,215 (95, one behind Willis McGahee)
Rushing TDs: 45 (T-72)
Yards per Attempt: 3.7 (the list on pro-football reference stops after 4.0)

Yeah, that sounds like an apt comparison for a man with the potential to go down as the best player ever in his sport.

So, anyway, I apologize that the first post ever for this blog has nothing whatsoever to do with Chicago, and without other writers (some of whom don't even know they're writing for this blog yet.) I'm still aiming for a mid-May launch.