A Tale of Two Players

One is a ten-year veteran who is vying for baseball's first Triple Crown since 1967 while simultaneously leading his team to a playoff berth.  The other is a rookie phenom whose unique combination of speed, power and defense make him arguably the most unique player in the Major Leagues.  In addition to fighting for their playoff lives during this last week of Major League Baseball's regular season, these two players will be using the season's final three contests to bolster their candidacies for the American League Most Valuable Player award.  Virtually everyone has a strong opinion on which of these two stars deserves the most coveted recognition a position player can receive, and which way you lean in the debate says as much about you as it does the players themselves.

The first player is, of course, Detroit slugger Miguel Cabrera.  While his Tigers have underachieved for much of the year - many had them as the American League favorites during Spring Training - Cabrera has lead the team on a late charge and on the brink of the AL Central title.  Cabrera is an old-school kind of player, compiling mind-blowing statistics over the course of the season while only rarely doing something that makes you say "wow."  He's rarely featured on Web Gems (he's an average fielder at best), and hits the same homeruns and line drives as everyone else in the big leagues does.  The difference between Cabrera and everyone else?  He hits those homeruns and liners so consistently that he's almost impossible to keep down for more than an at-bat or two.  His run at the first Triple Crown in 45 years has captivated baseball fans who remember and revere the likes of Carl Yastrzemski, Ted Williams and Jimmie Foxx - he is, in short, the poster child for old school greatness.

The second, Los Angeles Angels outfielder Mike Trout, is a hero for the modern baseball fan.  Advanced statistics like Wins Above Replacement, or WAR, would lead you to believe that Trout has had a vastly superior year to Cabrera (10.4 to 6.6), largely because the former is such a dominant center fielder and the league's biggest stolen base threat.  In addition to sabermetrics, Trout's traditional numbers are stellar - he doesn't have Cabrera's power (though he's still hit 30 homers), but he has a similarly high average to go with 125 runs and 47 steals, both tops in the American League.  Fans of Trout point out that he's unlike anyone else in baseball today, and the advanced stats suggest that he adds more value to his Angels than Cabrera does to his Tigers.  Then again, Cabrera's Tigers are headed to the ALDC, while Trout's Angels are likely going home for all but the first three days of October.

Who will be smiling when the AL MVP is announced next month?

If the debate revolving around the AL MVP race can help define you as a baseball fan, what does it say about me if I can't make up my mind?  I've always considered myself to straddle the line between modern and classic.  On one hand, I'm the guy who spent last summer working in Major League Baseball's Labor Relations department and once had (semi-serious) dreams of riding the Moneyball wave straight into a General Manager position.  On the other, I'm consistently arguing against some of baseball's (now not so) recent changes, including the Wild Cards, Interleague Play and the Designated Hitter.  Every day that I think about this MVP race, I flip-flop on my opinion.  Last week I was strongly pro-Cabrera as I contemplated the significance of the first Triple Crown of my lifetime.  Today I'm wondering what the Triple Crown matters if it all adds up to fewer wins than what Trout's doing.  No matter what happens over the next three days, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to make up my mind.  How would you vote?

Admitting When You're Wrong

It's not very often that I write about the same topic twice in one week, but the NFL referee issue has reached the point where I feel that I owe my readers some sort of apology.  Earlier this week, I posted about how I felt all of the complaining about football's replacement referees was overblown, accusing the media and fans of "[building] up the issue so much that there was no way the replacement officials could succeed, even though if the story wasn't so overblown the majority of NFL fans probably wouldn't have known anything was different."  While many agreed with my point of view, others (including friend and fellow blogger The Backup QB) insisted that the replacement officials had lost control of the games.  After watching Week 3 of NFL football from a sports bar (where I could follow every game at once) and then tuning in to the end of Monday Night Football's disasterous conclusion last night, it might be time to admit that I was wrong.

The more football I watch this season, the more questionable calls I see.  I still believe that fans are more cognizant of officiating screw ups this year - with the replacement refs on the field and everyone looking for something to go wrong, inevitably something will - but I have to admit that I can't imagine that some of the more aggregious officiating blunders would have occured had the real refs been officiating the games.  Where I think I really went wrong, however, was in failing to acknowledge that the fact that the replacement refs have completely lost control of the games has become a serious issue.  I can't ignore it any longer: in every game the refs seem to have no confidence in their calls (even the correct ones), which has lead to constant chatter between the players / coaches and the officials.  As a result, you never know whether a given call was unbiased or whether it was dictated by a previous comment.  Now that the players and coaches have zero respect for the officials, you can't help but make the refereeing the focal point of every single game.  We've reached the point that the majority of mainstream media stories about the NFL are focusing on the refs, and that's not good.

At the beginning of the referee labor dispute, everyone acknowledged that the NFL had the upper hand because the officials had no leverage - as I said myself earlier this week, "I don't tune in on Sunday afternoons to see them call penalties or flip the coin."  Now?  I think you can argue that the refs aren't the only ones who have lost control of the NFL games.  The National Football League itself must acknowledge that having the majority of its media coverage revolving around how much its replacement officials are messing up is a serious problem.  The NFL has been a marketing juggernaut because it has been so successful in keeping people focused on its strengths - loyal fan bases, a constant influx of young talent and competitive balance - and away from it's flaws - concussions, periodic labor disputes and off-field player issues.  While at first the referee lockout might have been a welcome diversion from the bad PR the NFL had been getting around concussions, now the replacement officials have taken over the entire sport.  Things have gone too far.

Even if getting the regular refs back on the field won't have a profound impact on the outcomes of the games (and I'm not sure if they will or won't at this point), the NFL needs to resolve the referee lockout before the issue threatens to seriously and permanently damage the league's reputation.  I have to image that the heads of the referees union are thrilled right now - from their points of view, things have gone perfectly.  Whether or not you think the replacement refs are making the right calls, you have to recognize that they are by far the biggest story in the NFL right now, and that is a terrible outcome for professional football.  After this past weekend, I'm joining the majority of people calling for the NFL to do whatever it takes to end this labor dispute.  I'm man enough to admit that I was wrong.  Now it's time for the NFL to do the same.

NFL Network Fumbles

In addition to criticizing officials, fans love to mock TV announcers and analysts.  Having very little sports media experience (I dabbled with a little sports radio in college and, at one point, co-hosted a weekly Pardon The Interruption-style show called Time Out), I try not to give TV personalities an overly tough time.  After all, I'm sure their jobs are harder than they look, and live TV is very unforgiving.  That being said, these people are supposed to be professionals, so I expect some reasonable quality standards from them.  This is particularly true in football, where announcers have an entire week to prepare for a game and plenty of down time to get their acts together.  After that lengthy preamble, let me get to my point - last nights Giants vs. Panthers broadcast on NFL Network was one of the least professional televised sporting events I've ever seen.

Now, I'm not really talking about the quality of the analysis, so I'll cut the broadcast team of  Brad Nessler and Mike Mayock some slack even though they a) praised Cam Newton after everything he did, despite the fact that he played pretty terribly and helped put his team in a massive first half whole, b) seemingly went out of their way to continuously note what a great job the officiating crew was doing (they were admittedly solid), as if the league office was demanding that they do so and c) confidently picked the Panthers to win the game during the pre-game show.  After all, these things happen, and it's not like I tune in to a Thursday night Giants game to hear what the NFL Network crew has to say.  All I ask is that information about the game is presented clearly and accurately.  This, sadly, did not come even close to happening.

First of all, I lost track of the graphics errors midway through the second quarter.  Luckily, I was texting back and forth with my brother throughout the game, so I have a written record of some of NFL Network's many screwups.  At one point during a Giants drive, after New York RB Andre Brown finished a great run, a graphic came up on the bottom of the screen announcing that Mike Tolbert had 1 carry for 16 yards.  Not only are Andre Brown and Mike Tolbert not the same person, they're not even on the same team.  When the Giants kicked a field goal in the second quarter to go up 20-0, NFL Network went to commercial with the score listed as 17-3.  Throughout the broadcast, the announcers would use the yellow pen function to draw on the field - unfortunately, most of the time the broadcast switched camera angles while they were drawing, rendering the arrows and circles they sketched completely incomprehensible and sometimes hilarious.

The mistakes weren't limited to the visuals, however.  At one point, Giants TE Bear Pascoe caught a pass, but Nessler claimed that Martellus Bennett made the grab.  This mix-up might be understandable if not for the fact that Bennett is black and Pascoe is super-pale; no one who had ever watched the Giants play before could possible confuse these two guys, and the shot of the play was a nice closeup where you couldn't miss Pascoe's bare, white arms.  After one of Cam Newton's few decent passes, the announcers praised the nice throw . . . by Eli Manning.  Again, Eli Manning and Cam Newton don't often get confused for one another - and after praising Newton the entire game for doing basically nothing, Mayock ironically messed up his name the one time he threw a half-decent ball.

In a game where the halftime report was taken over by a tribute to NFL Films President Steve Sabol, who passed away earlier this week, NFL Network did absolutely nothing to honor his legacy (as my brother accurately, and somewhat hilariously at the time, pointed out via text).  As I mentioned earlier this week, I'm not in love with the Thursday Night Football concept in general - I like having games concentrated on Sunday afternoons as much as possible, not to mention the fact that the quick turnaround prevents injured players from healing in time for the game.  But if the NFL is going to insist on hosting a mid-week game on its network, they have to improve the quality of the broadcasts.  If not for the presence of the HD cameras everywhere (one of which was too close to the field and as a result lacerated Antrel Rolle's knee), I would have thought I was watched a high school game on puclic access. 

Overblown Call

Today's ESPN.com homepage is covered in stories about the NFL's replacement referees, and the general consensus seems to be that they're doing a pretty terrible job.  Ashley Fox has written an article about how the refs ruined Monday night's contest between Denver and Atlanta.  Tim Keown claims that the replacement officials are endangering players by failing to call enough late hits and head shots.  Chris Mortensen reports that the players and coaches are fed up with the current set of refs, and are desperate for the NFL to settle its dispute with the regular officials and restore order to National Football League officiating.  My question: When was the last time any journalist, player or coach said that the officials were doing anything other than a horrible job?

 The NFL replacement referees have become an easy target for media outlets like ESPN.com.

I'm not arguing that there haven't been some blown calls through the first two weeks of the NFL season, and Monday night's debacle might have been the worst of all.  But if I think back on the last few football seasons, I recall constant bitching from pretty much everyone about the officials.  Either they're calling too many personal fouls and ruining the integrity of the sport, or they're not calling enough late hits and helmet-to-helmet contact and putting player safety at risk.  I can remember numerous times when the permanent referees blew judgement calls, failed to properly enforce the rules or mismanaged the clock.  Ripping apart the refs is a big part of sports - not just football - and until we have an entirely automated officiating system that removes human error from the equation, that isn't going to change.

In my opinion, the replacement referees had giant bullseyes on their backs from the day the officials lockout commenced.  Players, coaches, journalists and fans alike treat the NFL as if it's life or death, and any change to their beloved professional football is sure to be criticized.  From the day the NFL announced that the regular refs wouldn't be on the field for Week 1, every football-loving person in America was looking to tear the replacements apart.  The media built up the issue so much that there was no way the replacement officials could succeed, even though if the story wasn't so overblown the majority of NFL fans probably wouldn't have known anything was different.  Sure, people would complain about the refs - and the familiarity of those complaints would only serve to reinforce the (incorrect) belief that nothing had changed.

Like any other NFL fan, I want the officials to impact the game as little as possible and believe that the game should be left in the hands of the players and coaches.  I've watched enough football (and sports in general), though, to acknowledge that officiating controversies are a huge part of the game (just ask Armando Galarraga).  I have nothing against the NFL's regular referees, but I don't tune in on Sunday afternoons to see them call penalties or flip the coin.  Overall, I think the replacement refs have done an adequate job so far, and I don't really think having the old officials back will materially change the NFL fan experience at all.  Once the referee lockout ends, NFL fans and media pundits will just have to find someone else to complain about.

Don't Dilute Sunday

Sundays in the fall are a special weekly tradition, much like the sabbath for sports worshippers like me. The ability to find a TV equipped with the Sunday Ticket package (any sports bar or DirecTV-subscribing household should do) and watch more than a half a dozen NFL football games at once is unlike any other professional sports-watching experience, and is rivaled only by the NCAA basketball tournament (and that's only a few weekends a year). While I'm not really a sports bar kind of guy, I still loving sitting at home on Sunday afternoon and watching the Giants on FOX, some of the Jets on CBS and whatever other game the networks might be showing, all while getting in-game updates from the studio. Sunday is a day for football, and I love the way so much action is concentrated into one six or seven hour span.

I'm guessing that most NFL fans view Monday Night Football (MNF) and the newly-added Thursday Night Football (TNF) as fantastic additions to the weekly football schedule. After all, spreading games out across the days of the week gives fans more opportunties to watch football. Now fans don't have to wait an entire week to see NFL teams in action - no longer do we have more than a three-day span without an NFL game. Rather than pretending that we're interested in the NHL because there's nothing else to do, now we can spend Sunday watching football, Monday watching MNF, Tuesday dissecting MNF, Wednesday previewing TNF, Thursday watching TNF, Friday dissecting TNF, and Saturday previewing the Sunday games while watching college football. This has to be viewed as a good thing for football-loving fans, right?

I don't agree. Sure, it's nice having a mid-week game to watch, especially if it's a good one like tonight's Chicago vs. Green Bay matchup. But I see a number of problems with this revised scheduling. One, it asks a lot of the NFL players to play on a Thursday after a Sunday, and also creates a lot of long layoffs for teams that play on Thursday and then don't have another game until the following Sunday. Similarly, it wreaks havoc on fantasy football - it's much harder to set lineups efficiently when you have to make key decisions on Thursday afternoon, and forces diehard players like me to spend Friday and Saturday agonizing over scores that never used to exist. It's bad enough that many games are decided on Monday night - the addition of Thursday night games effectively quadruples the length of each weekly fantasy game from one night to four.

Most significantly, though, I'm worried that the Thursday night game might set a precedent that could, over time, erode the specialness of Sunday afternoon football. What's to stop the NFL from breaking up its schedule and having games during each night of the week, selling a nightly package to the highest bidder ("It's Tuesday Night Football, only on FX!") and rendering the Sunday afternoon sports bar experience a thing of the past?  While Thursday Night Football might be a big revenue opportunity for the NFL and it's NFL Network, the league should be careful and avoid spoiling a large part of what has made football the nation's most popular sport.

Enough Is Enough

Largely to the conference's benefit, Ivy League basketball has made some tremendous strides over the past few seasons.  In 2010, a gritty Cornell team upset Temple and Wisconsin to reach the Sweet 16.  The following season, Princeton edged Harvard on a nationally-televised buzzer beater to win the league's one-game playoff and capture an automatic berth to the NCAAs.  Last season, Harvard spent much of the year ranked in the Top 25 and won the Battle 4 Atlantis, a pre-season tournament that also featured UConn and Florida State.  This week, the conference took another step towards mirroring major conference schools when it was reported that Harvard's senior co-captains might withdraw from the university amidst a cheating scandal that could get the players suspended.

While, as a Princeton hoops fan, the thought of playing against a Harvard team missing its two best players admittedly has me a little excited, more than anything I'm disappointed.  I spend a lot of time on Caught Looking - probably more than most of you want to read - talking about the merits of Ivy League basketball.  What I don't think I've properly articulated before, however, is the way I appreciate that the Ivy's basketball players are, more than anything, real students.  Sure, they might be a foot taller than the average Dartmouth or Columbia undergrad, but the kids suiting up for Ivy League basketball teams are enrolled in school for the education first, and for the chance to play basketball at a high level second.

At least, that's how it used to be.  While the Harvard cheating scandal doesn't change anything by itself, it is a very clear and obvious reminder that Ivy League basketball - as well as basketball in other similar conferences like the Patriot League - has changed over the past decade.  Yes, the ability to lure big name coaches like Tommy Amaker and out-manuever larger universities for coveted recruits will undoubtedly help the league's eight schools compete on a national level, which might translate to more recruiting power, more national media exposure and more dollars.  At the same time, however, it increases the likelihood that the players will arrive unprepared for life as a serious college student, potentially forcing them to make mistakes like the ones we see at other, more sports-centric colleges.  Though these mistakes might fly under the radar at a larger, less academically-focused school, at a place like Harvard they threaten to undo much of what the school is known and respected for.  While the two Harvard co-captains might not be guilty, even their implication in a cheating scandal should be viewed as too much.

Before you say that this is an elitist rant meant to distinguish the eight Ivy League schools from the rules and expectations that apply to the rest of the nation - it's not.  Part of what makes college basketball and the NCAA tournament so great is the existence of the sport's haves and have nots.  Whereas parity makes NFL football exciting, part of what makes the NCAA Tournament one of the best sporting events of the year is that a school like Cornell - with no athletic scholarships or NBA-bound players - can upset two major college basketball programs over one March weekend.  If Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League start to adopt a win-at-all-costs mentality that has plagued a number of Division I's athletic programs, that absolutely would take away from the specialness of such a moment.  I can't see how it's in Harvard's best interest to sacrifice it's normally stellar academic reputation for the chance at a few more victories - and I'd say the same exact thing if the school in question was Lehigh, Rice or Boston University.

If Harvard is forced to play the 2012-13 season without its two senior co-captains and, as a result, Princeton earns a trip to the NCAAs, I won't lie and say I'll be overly upset.  But I'd like to think that, in the back of my mind, I'll always view this Ivy League season as slightly tainted.  Without a doubt, I can honestly say that I'd rather see Princeton lose with a team full of honest, hard-working student athletes than win with a roster full of morally-questionable ones.

The U.S. Open

Because I'm not really a professional tennis buff, this post might lack the usual key takeaways that Caught Looking fans have come to expect.  In the recent past I've been to some professional tennis tournaments - the most memorable of which was the second-tier Bank of the West Classic at the Home Depot Center (home of MLS's Los Angeles Galaxy) in Carson, CA - but I hadn't been to the U.S. Open since I was a kid and had really no idea what to expect.  With little to compare my experience to, here are the random obsevations I took away from my first trip to a tennis Grand Slam event in well over a decade.

• I loved how the entire tennis complex is so much more than a tennis stadium (or even two).  The two main stadiums and all of the other courts surround a larger area that includes a bunch of decent food options, a number of fun sponsor activation areas and large video screens to watch the live action.  I've never been to the Olympics, but I kept thinking that the outdoor area was what I'd expect a mini version of an Olympic Village to look like.  We ate at a umbrella-covered table outside before heading into Arthur Ashe Stadium, and it was a really nice way to start the evening.

• When I go to a new baseball stadium, I never cease to be blown away by how perfect and large the playing field and the grass really is.  Similarly, I love stepping into an arena and taking that first look at the spotless NBA hardwood or perfectly smooth NHL ice.  I definitely didn't get that same feeling when I looked down at the Arthur Ashe court for the first time.  Sure, it's a beautiful court, but the difference between it and the one at my high school is way smaller than the difference between Madison Square Garden's hardwood and our school's gynmasium floor.

It's a nice court - it just didn't blow me away.

• I was admittedly predisposed to hate them going in, but I really didn't click with what I perceived as the average U.S. Open fan.  Not surprisingly, the stadium was filled with weathly socialites more concerned with people-watching than tennis-watching.  To me, going to the U.S. Open is something that weathly New York-area residents do during the summer because it's what "people do," much like going to the Hamptons for the Fourth of July.  I like my sports fans to be more concerned with seeing something cool than with being seen by someone cool.

• As soon as you enter Arthur Ashe stadium, you know it's a premium event.  Every sponsor, by design, is a luxury company - Mercedes-Benz, J.P. Morgan and Emirates Airlines, all of which you can see featured in the photo above, are just a few of the premium brands with prominant signage in and around the stadium.  What's more, all of the signage is in white writing on the same blue background, adding a classy feel that you definitely don't get in other sports, where billboards are often plastered all over the place.  I liked it. 

• I really enjoy how someone interviews the winner at the end of each match, and the interview is broadcast over the PA system.  I also loved how, after he won his match, Andy Murray hit autographed tennis balls into the stands.  There seems to be a very friendly relationship between the players and the fans that I'm not really used to, but which I really appreciated.  Perhaps it has something to do with tennis being an individual sport, so people are much more attached to specific players (as opposed to teams).  I would love to see more player / fan interaction in baseball, basketball or football.

I definitely enjoyed my trip to the U.S. Open, but to me it was less of a sporting event than it was a New York City cultural experience.  I'd almost compare it more to a Broadway show or a concert than to a Yankees or Knicks game.  While you're sure to enjoy the actual event, many people seem to go to the U.S. Open just to say that they went to the U.S. Open.  If you're interested in people-watching and feeling like part of the "in crowd," then Arthur Ashe stadium is the place for you.  For me, however, I'd prefer a good ole' fashioned baseball game in the cheap seats any day.

Caught Looking On Caught Looking

Last year, I noted that Victoria's Secret stole my Caught Looking name for their line of baseball-themed women's clothing and underwear.  That injustice, however, doesn't hold a candle to the crimes recently committed by NBC Sports Network and its new show entitled - you guessed it - Caught Looking.  If NBC Sports wanted to steal my blog's name for the title of its new, Hard Knocks-style weekly baseball documentary, the show's creators could have at least worked a little harder on their logo and done something more original than simply de-italicize my font - compare the show's image (below) to my page header (above) and see what I mean.  Obvious intellectual property theft aside, I'm somewhat flattered that the good people at NBC Sports chose my (admittedly brilliant) name and logo for their program, and I would definitely recommend the show to anyone who enjoys baseball, documentaries or well-crafted ideograms.

Obvious name and logo theft aside, NBC Sports' Caught Looking is worth watching.

Anyone who played baseball at any semi-serious level growing up knows that the sport is as much about surviving a long season as it is about winning individual games.  Most of us, however, follow Major League Baseball by watching live contests and recorded highlights, putting all of our emphasis as fans on the three-hour-long games and ignoring the other 21 hours in the day.  Even though we (especially us Braves fans) understand that the key to a championship is reaching the playoffs healthy and motivated, very little televised baseball content covers this facet of the sport (unless it's about shutting down Stephen Strasburg, of course).  Caught Looking does a great job trying to change that, covering in detail the behind-the-scenes aspects of baseball that we rarely see.

This week's episode covered a series between the Cardinals and the Reds at Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati.  Much like Buzz Bissinger's excellent work of non-fiction Three Nights in August, the show provides an insider's perspective to the traditionally closed-door nature of a Major League Baseball series.  While still taking its viewers through the series' highlights and top plays, Caught Looking focuses more on what the players and coaches are thinking, seeing and saying while standing on the field or sitting in the dugouts.  The show lets you feel like you're part of the organization by granting access to conversations between opposing players, teammates, managers and umpires, and more. This show might be the closest I ever get to a MLB clubhouse or dugout, and I'm really enjoying the opportunity to better understand the conversations that drive a 162-game season.

Caught Looking isn't perfect, however.  The show seems to drag at times, and in an effort to add a cohesive story to each episode the content often focuses on one or two players that you may or may not really care about.  The Cardinals and Reds series coverage, for example, centered around Reds rookie Todd Frazier, who has done a great job this year playing third and first while filling in for Scott Rolen and Joey Votto.  While Frazier is a legitimate Rookie of the Year candidate who deserves more national attention than he gets, after half an hour I was ready to move on to another "character."  Given that the show is new, however, I'm happy to overlook this one minor criticism and continue to watch Caught Looking.  With a name and a logo this great, how can NBC Sports' new show not be a success?