NBA Owner 2.0

A number of interesting NBA-related events serve as the backdrop for this post.  Last week, ESPN's Bill Simmons dedicated an entire column to the man he (affectionately) refers to as Mutant Russian Mark Cuban (or MRMC for short), Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov.  Over the weekend, the NBA announced that it had fined Cuban himself $100,000 for comments made about free agent-to-be LeBron James that were perceived by the league as tampering.  Yesterday, after committing a hard foul on Phoenix star Steve Nash during the Western Conference Finals Game Three, Lakers guard Derek Fisher (who also happens to be the head of the NBA Players Association) engaged in a courtside conversation with Suns owner Robert Sarver while Nash shot his free throws.  These three events might be part of a much larger, and I think largely positive, trend - NBA team owners playing a larger role in the on-court / field operations of their teams.

It seems like just a few years ago, the only owners that fans ever heard about were George Steinbrenner (largely thanks to Seinfeld), Al Davis and occasionally Mark Cuban.  Now, it seems as if a larger number of owners are increasingly involved with their teams on a day-to-day basis, talking to the press and helping make decisions rather than simply writing checks and looking the other way.  Professional sports leagues (and the NBA in particular) are slowly transitioning to owners who want to be more involved and turn their franchises into winners, which has to be a good thing.  Wouldn't you rather have Michael Jordan running the Bobcats than Bob Johnson?  If Jordan couldn't stand losing as a player, he'll certainly do whatever it takes to avoid it as an owner, right?

Mark Cuban is usually regarded as a great owner because he a) wants to win, b) seems like a legitimate sports fan who happens to have enough money to own a team (and then some), and c) is willing to spend to bring a perennial championship contender to Dallas (this year's first round loss to San Antonio notwithstanding).  Contrast Cuban to Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who allows his team to be run by a floundering GM, refuses to approve transactions that would raise payroll and is generally despised by Los Angelinos.  Interestingly, Cuban's Mavs lose millions of dollars every season while Sterling's Clippers are generally profitable.  If you're an investor, maybe you'd prefer to have your money aligned with Sterling instead of Cuban.  But as a fan?  I'll saddle up alongside Cuban and stay away from Sterling.

New Yorkers and NBA fans alike are hoping that Mikhail Prokhorov's money, charismatic personality and desire to win will help bring a rapid turnaround to the Nets, a team that this past season was the worst in professional basketball.  Personally, I hope the next wave of NBA owners reach into their bank accounts in the interest of winning.  Unlike baseball, where a few deep pocketed owners have destroyed the chances of the twenty-or-so smaller market teams, leagues with salary caps like the NFL, NBA and NHL will surely benefit from the fresh money that men like Cuban and Prokhorov can provide.  Even if the Mutant Russian Mark Cuban can't turn the Nets around, we know that, based on his 60 Minutes interview (see video below), it'll be fun watching him try.

We Surrender

As I've written a lot recently, the Major League Baseball season is long.  Because few major leaguers can play all 162 games in a season and remain productive, managers tend to give even the best players periodic off days to make sure they stay fresh.  Most managers essentially keep the same lineup each game, resting one starter at a time but keeping the rest of the lineup more or less intact.  Braves manager Bobby Cox, however, usually goes with a different approach; Cox often rests many / most of his starters on the same day, essentially conceding that game to the opposition.

Today was such an afternoon for the Braves.  With the team on the road (in Pittsburgh) and playing a Sunday afternoon game following a Saturday night contest, Cox sat starting 3B Chipper Jones (Omar Infante started instead), starting C Brian McCann (for David Ross), starting RF Jason Heyward (for Melky Cabrera), and starting LF Eric Hinske (for Brent Clevlen).  As a fan, I hate when Cox does this.  For one, it puts a ton of pressure on the starting pitcher (in this case, Kris Medlen), forcing him to be near perfect to win.  Medlen was solid (only 2 earned runs through 5 2/3 innings), but couldn't get the win (and only avoided the loss when Hinske finally got in the game and belted a game-tying pinch hit homer).  Also, I feel bad for the people who paid money to see the game today and had to watch four of their favorite stars sitting in the dugout.  I know what it's like to root for an out-of-town team and have been to numerous Braves games versus the Mets at Shea Stadium or Citi Field where Cox has sat a number of the team's top players at once.  It's not fun.  Not only do you not get to see the stars play, but you're likely going to see a Braves loss, too.  Predictably, the Braves lost 3-2 in 10 innings, but given how well Medlen and the bullpen pitched it was a game they should have won.

 Fans looking to see Chipper Jones (or Jason Heyward, Brian McCann or Eric Hinske) swing the bat were disappointed on Sunday.

Bobby Cox is one of the best managers ever, so I'm sure he knows what he's doing with what I call this "surrender strategy."  As a fan, though, I'd much rather see the team's off days spread out, giving the Braves a realistic chance to win every game.  To have the team's five-game win streak snapped today was disappointing, but to lose it with the core of the team on the bench was especially frustrating.

Best 1-out-of-2

One of the things I love most about following baseball is the scheduling.  Each week and weekend makes up its own mini-tournament between your team and their opponent, usually involving a three game set.  Baseball has an extremely long season, and I imagine it's difficult for coaches and players to focus on each individual game; the series-style structure allows for the year to be broken down into compartmentalized three game bits.  If you come away with wins in two out of the three games, you won the series and did your job for the week or weekend.  A sweep is even better, obviously, but setting a reasonable goal of winning two out of every three games played allows a team to lose games without giving up on the larger weekly goal.

Sometimes, though, the MLB schedulers set up series of only two games, which as a fan I find extremely unsatisfying.  Take this week, for example, where all of the teams I follow religiously (the Braves) and peripherally (the Yankees and Mets) were involved in two game series; the Braves played the Mets at Turner Field in Atlanta while the Yankees played host to the Red Sox in the Bronx.  Both series perfectly illustrated why the two game series setup is so frustrating.

In Atlanta, the Braves dropped the first game 3-2, but took the second by the same score after Kris Medlen out-dueled Johan Santana and the final run came on an error in the bottom of the ninth.  I would have loved to watch a rubber match tonight between the Mets and Braves, with Kenshin Kawakami and Atlanta taking their momentum into the final contest while battling R.A. Dickey, a knuckleballer making his first start of the season for New York.  Instead, the Braves start a two game set versus Cincinnati and the Mets will play the first of two at Washington.

The Yankees example was even more extreme; the Bombers won the first game versus Boston on a Marcus Thames walkoff homerun off Jonathan Papelbon, but lost the second when Thames misplayed a fly ball in the ninth, (indirectly) leading to two runs.  Yankees vs. Red Sox is already the best rivalry in baseball (if not all of sports); it would have been great to have a third game scheduled between the two tonight, to see how each responded to its respective dramatic win.  Instead, the Yankees start another two game set against Tampa Bay while the Red Sox host Minnesota for two.  Both of these examples also illustrate the other frustrating thing about these two game sets; they're almost always followed by yet another two game series.

What can, or should, Braves fans take away from their two game series with the Mets?  Should they be happy that Atlanta salvaged the set with a Game Two win against Santana, or disappointed that they wasted a solid start by Derek Lowe in Game One?  Should the Yankees be devastated over Rivera's blown save from last night, or ecstatic about Monday's huge ninth inning comeback off of Papelbon?  Without the benefit of a third game in the series, it's very difficult to call the last two nights either a success or a failure.  Let's hope the Braves can sweep the next two against the red-hot Reds - otherwise, I'll have to go through the same mixed emotions on Thursday night.

Expect Solid

I admit it.  Make fun of me if you want.  Yes, it was a gorgeous late afternoon here in Manhattan on Saturday, so I can't even say I didn't have anything better to do.  So mark your calendars lest you forget when or if this actually happened.  On Saturday, May 15 at 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, I consciously sat down on my couch, flipped on ESPN2, and watched a large chunk of a regular season WNBA game.

Since the WNBA debuted fourteen years ago, I have mocked it for various reasons, all of them admittedly stereotypical; I knew almost nothing about the league when I first started criticizing it as a teenager and, although I've been to two New York Liberty games in person at Madison Square Garden over the last two seasons, I'm still far from knowledgeable.  I can name a handful of players and (I think) all of the teams, and was subconsciously aware that the Phoenix Mercury were the defending champions.  I also knew the league had some interesting storylines brewing heading into this season: another team (in addition to the Connecticut Sun) relocating to a non-NBA market (Tulsa, from Detroit), disgraced track star Marion Jones joining the Tulsa Shock, and probably a few that didn't involve the state of Oklahoma, too.  Given how much enjoyment I get out of watching the NBA (and, to a lesser extent, men's NCAA hoops), I figured I'd tune in to see the WNBA's top two teams duke it out for a bit. 

The first thing I noticed about the game between the Phoenix Mercury and Los Angeles Sparks was that the arena was packed.  I've grown accustomed to seeing to U.S. Airways Center overflowing with Suns fans this spring, and the Mercury crowd was similarly passionate and numerous.  Other than the fact that the cheers from the crowd were unexpectedly (and, somewhat comically) high-pitched, due to the high number of women and children in the stands as compared to the NBA, it could have been a regular season NBA game.  The fans seemed knowledgeable, and the players seemed to appreciate the attention much more than NBA players do (especially during the pregame ring ceremony).  When the game opened with Sparks star Candace Parker abusing her man (or, I guess, woman) with a sweet left-handed jump hook (which Dwight Howard could never make in a million years, by the way, though I guess that's not saying much), I had to admit that I was fairly impressed.  I even think this season's WNBA marketing campaign is pretty good (shown almost every commercial break probably signifying a lack of advertisers, but still).

Is basketball really basketball?  Sure it is.

I didn't watch the whole game*, but I did return in time to see the last few minutes of what ended up being a one-point Mercury win.  Overall, the game was well-played, the fans seemed into it, and the athletes were more impressive (especially shooting-wise) than you might expect.  For a 26 year-old male, is it as entertaining as the NBA or NCAA men?  No, it's not.  But as an alternative for families and young women looking for an aspirational sports activity, I think the WNBA games are worthwhile.  Combine the impressive play with the fact that the games are a comparatively cheap way to spend a few hours in an NBA-caliber (for most teams, anyway) arena, and I'm kind of looking forward to making it back to a Libery game at MSG this summer.  Now that I've watched some WNBA hoops this year, I'll be sure to Expect Solid.

*Note: I watched about 45-minutes of the game in total (the first 35 and the final 10), which is a lot longer than I can sit through most non-Knicks, non-playoff NBA games.  I can watch about eight minutes of a regular season Nets game on the YES Network before I find myself flipping over to watch Futurama or South Park reruns on Comedy Central. 

On Being LeBron James

Normally I'm not really into post game coverage.  Athletes rarely have anything interesting to say after a game (it's typically some standard combination of a) thanking God, b) praising teammates, c) complementing the opponent and d) crediting the team's "one game at a time philosophy"), and analyst commentary is similarly vapid.  Last night was different, however, as every sports fan (myself included) had his eyes glues to the television, waiting to witness the first few seconds of what might become the LeBron-after-Cleveland era.  While the game was basically decided midway through the fourth quarter of Boston's 94-85 Game Six victory over Cleveland, the real story (especially for Knicks, Bulls and Heat fans) didn't begin until after the final buzzer sounded at TD Garden.

It was nearly impossible not to scrutinize LeBron's every post game move and speculate on what each might signal about his impending free agency decision.  Did the King's "good sportsmanship" - embracing the Celtics players after the loss, as compared to last year when he stormed out of the arena following his playoff elimination at the hands of the Orlando Magic - prove that he has matured, or did it suggest that he had already mentally checked out of Cleveland before the playoffs even began?  LeBron shed his Cavaliers jersey while walking through the tunnel on the way to the visiting locker room, on camera no less; was this his way of symbolically showing his dissatisfaction with Cleveland coaches and management for failing to build a championship-caliber roster?  Or was he (perhaps more realistically) simply trying to comprehend what had gone wrong with a Cavaliers season that, just weeks ago, seemed destined to conclude with MVP LeBron James hoisting the Larry O'Brien trophy?

What does this expression tell us about LeBron's future with the Cleveland Cavaliers?

Because LeBron's free agency decision will undoubtedly alter the long term future of several NBA teams - not only Cleveland and the team LeBron ends up on (assuming he goes elsewhere), but also the other franchises who are able to / fail to land other free agents as a result of the ripple effects of King James' decision - we all must prepare for endless speculation over the next two months.  Of course, the only person who knows what LeBron James is thinking right now is LeBron James (and maybe a few members of his inner circle).  Regardless, it's fun to play the "what if" game and try to guess where LeBron might be headed come July 1st.  We all know every member of the sports media will be earning their next few paychecks by doing it.

Looking Back: 2007 Las Vegas Bowl

Periodically, I will be writing retroactive posts about sporting events I've attended in the past, before I had this blog.  This week, here are my thoughts on the 2007 Las Vegas Bowl between UCLA and BYU.

I had never been to a bowl game before (and haven't been to one since), and because I was going to be in Las Vegas for my brother's 21st birthday I decided to buy a couple tickets to the Las Vegas Bowl at UNLV's Sam Boyd Stadium.  Since I was living in Los Angeles at the time and UCLA was playing BYU, I decided to become a pseudo-Bruins fan for the evening.  What better was to spend a December evening in Vegas, taking a break from the lights and sounds of the Strip to enjoy some college football, right?

Wrong - at least to start.  First, Sam Boyd stadium was shockingly far from the Rio hotel where we were staying.  We eventually made it to the stadium in time for kickoff, but not before a 30+ minute cab rade in bumper-to-bumper traffic and a ~$50 fare.  When we finally made it inside the field and to our seats, I was surprised to see how low-budget the stadium was.  Unlike the PAC-10 stadiums I had grown accustomed to in L.A. (the Rose Bowl and L.A. Coliseum), Sam Boyd Stadium looked like a larger version of a Texas high school field.  Both sidelines were lined with bleacher seating, and with a capacity of under 37,000 the crowd was barely larger than a sellout at Princeton Stadium (28,000 capacity, but an average attendance of about 47 people).  My plan to be a vocal UCLA fan was also thwarted by the fact that the tickets I bought through the online secondary market happened to be smack in the middle of the BYU fan section; we were surrounded by dozens of Mormon families averaging about 14.3 children per parent.  So much for gratuitous cursing and throwing objects onto the field.  Last, the Las Vegas bowl made be realize that, because Vegas is in the desert, it can get extremely cold when the sun goes down.  While we were somewhat prepared for a chilly evening, the sweatshirts and jackets we brought were no match for a windy Nevada night.  By halftime my brother and I were both frozen to the core, enjoying a competitive football game but silently rooting for the contest to end so we could grab a ride back to our hotel.

The end of the game, however, made the whole journey worthwhile.  BYU's Eathyn Manumaleuna (awesome name) blocked UCLA's game-winning field goal attempt with no time remaining in the fourth quarter, securing the 17-16 victory.  The BYU fans stormed the field and, while my brother and I (regrettably) didn't join them, it was a spectacular sight (see the photo below).  It was the first time I had been at a football game where the fans stormed the field - definitely a memorable experience.  While I don't feel the need to make it back to another Las Vegas Bowl at Sam Boyd Stadium (or to go to any lower-level college bowl game, really), I'm glad to say that, for once, I spent a Las Vegas night watching someone else get battered and bruised.

The thrilling end to the 2007 Las Vegas Bowl made the whole experience worthwhile.

Save Some for Later

Through their first 31 games, my beloved Atlanta Braves had scored just 121 runs, averaging a paltry 3.9 runs per game.  While their pitching has been relatively solid (Derek Lowe aside), allowing just 4.2 runs per contest, the anemic offense had pushed the team to a mediocre 13-18 record through the weekend, with trips to Milwaukee and Arizona ahead.  Over the last two days, however, the Braves offense has perked up; Atlanta has won two in a row by scores of 8-2 and 11-3.  While I'm certainly glad to see this mini offensive outburst, when I follow these games I can't help but (irrationally, I admit) root for the Braves to "save" some offense for a close game (of which there have been many already this year).

In college, I majored in Operations Research and Financial Engineering, which is a fancy term for some combination of economics, statistics and not getting laid.  Therefore, I understand conceptually that each baseball game should be viewed as an independent event (more or less); the fact that the Braves have scored 19 runs over their last two games doesn't necessarily mean that they'll score by one over their next two.  That being said, it is possible to approximate the number of runs the Braves will score over the season even before the first game is played.  I know that, in sports, the law of large numbers definitely applies; over the course of a long 162-game season, each team and player will have numerous hot and cold streaks, which will average out to that team's / player's expected production (again, more or less).  So, to me, it doesn't seem that crazy to hope that the Braves avoid blowout wins, instead "saving" some excess runs for closer games.

The Braves have had numerous games this year that they've lost by scores of 2-0, 5-3 or 3-1.  If, instead of beating the Brewers 8-2 and 11-3, they had won by scores of 4-2 and 5-3, they would have had ten "extra" runs to use over the course of the season, right?.  They could have won those early season games 3-2, 5-4 and 4-3 and still had a Brooks Conrad solo homerun left over!  While as a (fairly) bright person I realize this logic makes absolutely no sense, as a lifelong baseball fan I can't help but feel like there's something to it.  Troy Glaus has homered in each of the last two games, giving him four on the year; since we know that the 57 33 year-old "first baseman" (if you've seen him out there, you'll understand why the quotes are apt) isn't hitting more than twenty bombs this season, couldn't he at least save them for the ninth inning of a tie game?  When the Braves lose 3-2 this afternoon to the Brew Crew, Atlanta fans like me will be wishing they could have saved that ninth-inning Nate McLouth RBI single.

Spring Cleaning

Both the Orlando Magic and Los Angeles Lakers brought out the brooms last night, completing four game sweeps in their respective Conference Semifinals. The Magic and Lakers joined the Phoenix Suns as series sweepers, leaving only the Boston Celtics and Cleveland Cavaliers to do second round battle for the rest of the week. I've overheard some grumbling (both in the media and on a personal level) about the perceived lack of competition in this season's second round, but I actually think these blowouts will make the NBA picture more interesting going forward, particularly out west.

First, as we all know July 1, 2010 will begin the most significant free agent signing period in NBA history; what we don't know is how all of these lopsided series will sway the free agents.  As I've hypothesized on this space before, Joe Johnson can't be pleased with getting swept by Orlando and booed by the Atlanta fans.  Though Dirk Nowitzki loves Dallas, he must be frustrated after losing to a San Antonio team that was just routed by his buddy Steve Nash and Phoenix.  Chris Bosh's Raptors couldn't even make the playoffs, but the teams that got in ahead of Toronto (like Charlotte) were similarly routed.  Only one team can win the NBA Finals, but this year an especially small number of teams will be honestly able to say they were even close.  This should only add fuel to the fire of an already-sure-to-be-dramatic free agent cycle.

Next, does anyone doubt that this year's Western Conference Finals will feature the top two teams out West?  As compared to recent years, where early round "upsets" have prevented the fans from seeing the best teams go head-to-head, the results of this year's first two rounds should have everyone extremely excited about a Lakers-Suns series.  Both Phoenix and L.A. looked very impressive in blowing out San Antonio and Utah, respectively, and both will be well rested heading into the Conference Finals (which starts Monday).  The same goes for seeing Orlando in the East Finals - no one has looked better than the undefeated Magic.

Third, based on the early playoff results, it looks like Oklahoma City and Portland are ready to make a big leap next year, which I'm very excited about.  While the Spurs and Jazz were clearly overmatched by the Suns and Lakers, the Trail Blazers and Thunder made the West finalists work hard in the opening round.  While Phoenix and Los Angeles are clearly the West's two top teams right now, I'd have to say that Oklahoma City and Portland (even without Greg Oden and Joel Przybilla) look like numbers three and four.  In 2010-11, I'd rather see Kevin Durant's Thunder and Brandon Roy's Blazers toward the top of the Western Conference standings than the aging Spurs and Jazz, and I think most NBA fans would agree.

Finally, the less I have to hear about the Denver Nuggets as a championship contender, the better.  I don't know why, but I don't like Denver.  Chauncey Billups is definitely overrated (I refer you to Bill Simmons's commentary on the matter; see Number 3 here).  Carmelo Anthony is a great scorer, but lacks the competitive drive that make Kobe and LeBron so dangerous.  J.R. Smith has to be the most selfish offensive player in the NBA.  Nene has a name better suited for a soccer player.  There's a long list of reasons to dislike the Nuggets; hopefully their dismantling by a Spurs team that was swept by Phoenix will stop people from gushing over them for at least a few months.

While the Western Conference sweeps mean we have to wait a week before getting to watch another playoff game that doesn't feature Kendrick Perkins sumo wrestling Shaquille O'Neal (which admittedly sucks), I think the anticipation that will build between now and Monday night will make it worth it.  This will be the most excited I've been about the Western Conference Finals match-up in years.  This time, it looks like the NBA got it right.  Oh, and go Suns.

Get ready for another week of Perkins and Shaq manhandling each other.

Standing Up to the Evil Empire

As a fan of dominant pitching performances, I always find myself rooting for pitchers to complete near no-hitters and perfect games.  Even in 2004 when, at the age of 40, Randy Johnson was mowing down the Braves en route to perfection, I found myself conflicted.  While I wanted the Braves to win the game (they ended up losing just 2-0, so a victory was certainly within reach), at the same time I wanted to witness the Big Unit do what, at that time, had only been done sixteen other times in Major League Baseball history.  So, if I was (sort-of) rooting for Johnson, it goes without saying that I was rooting for Dallas Braden to throw his perfect game versus Tampa Bay on Sunday.

The fact that Braden was the same pitcher who stood up to Alex Rodriguez regarding the Yankees slugger's waltz across the pitchers mound during a game in late April is, in my opinion, no coincidence.  In baseball and other professional sports, karma plays a large role.  When you do good, you are rewarded by the baseball gods; when you do wrong, those same forces punish you.  When Braden called out the mighty A-Rod for jogging over the mound after making an out on April 22, there was much debate about who was the guilty party.  Had an ignorant Rodriguez violated an unwritten baseball rule, or had an unpolished Braden overstepped his bounds by lashing out at the superstar?  While baseball's talking heads debated the conflict endlessly, it was clear that this was one for the gods to decide.

After Braden completed his perfect game yesterday, it's clear that the young hurler was rewarded for standing up for himself.  While essentially every other baseball player, coach and media personality is terrified to say anything negative about the Yankees (even when the Mitchell Report was practically printed on pinstriped paper), the brash Braden wasn't afraid to speak up and defend his turf.  As a result, he was rewarded with Sunday's perfect game, prompting his own grandmother to jump on the bandwagon and give Rodriquez some advice via a local news reporter: "Stick it, A-Rod."  For those of us who are not Yankee sympathizers, witnessing Dallas Braden's perfect game was a small victory for the players and fans who don't enjoy watching the Yankees outspend every other team by eighty percent, receive national television coverage every week and make the playoffs every season.

It's clear that Braden's feud with A-Rod earned the A's starter some major points with the men upstairs.  The question is: if talking back to A-Rod got Braden a perfect game, what can other players expect to receive in exchange for similar anti-Yankee sentiment?  If Shin-Soo Choo gives Mark Teixeira a Wet Willie the next time he reaches first base at Yankee Stadium, will he have a three homer game later in the season?  Maybe if Martin Prado knees Robinson Cano in the groin he'll hit for the cycle a month later?  Could Dontrelle Willis win the Cy Young by urinating into the Yankees Gatorade cooler?  There's only one way to find out.

In Play, Run(s)

Baseball is a funny game.  Take last night, for example, where the Braves had been no hit (again) through seven innings, this time by Washington lefty Scott Olsen.  While Atlanta couldn't buy a hit for the first seven innings of play, David Ross finally lined a one out single to left to end the no-hit bid.  Before Olsen could even catch his breath, Melky Cabrera reached on an error and Nate McLouth hit a single to right, loading the bases.  All of a sudden, the Braves had the bases loaded and one out, with Jason Heyward coming in to pinch hit off of reliever Tyler Clippard.  On a 1-2 count, Heyward put the ball into play.  At this point in the game, my heart was beating as I inched toward the edge of my seat.

No, I wasn't sitting in an uncomfortable plastic stadium seat; unfortunately I couldn't make it down to DC for the game.  Nor was I sitting in my living room on the edge of my couch or leather La-Z-Boy recliner with built in cup holders (no, I don't actually own one of these, though sometimes I wish I did); the game wasn't televised here in New York last night.  Instead, I was sitting in front of my computer screen, watching MLB.com's Gameday application update me on every pitch.  While they're not nearly as exciting as watching baseball in person or on television, the technology (particularly the PITCHf/x data) and statistics involved in the Gameday "broadcast" are interesting in their own right.

By far the best part about Gameday, though, is when your team is batting and you see "In play, run(s)" pop up on the bottom of the screen.  The time between the appearance of "In play, run(s)" and when the result of the at bat is revealed usually lasts about twenty to thirty seconds, and it is surprisingly (and, perhaps, pathetically) riveting.  In last night's game, for example (Heyward batting with the bases loaded and one out), there were several different outcomes that could have followed "In play, run(s)" that ranged from fantastic to devastating.  Perhaps Heyward hit a pinch hit grand slam, giving Atlanta a 4-2 lead and tremendous momentum heading into a big weeked series with Philadelphia?  Maybe he hit a sacrifice fly to right field, but Melky Cabrera got tagged out trying to advance to third base, resulting in an inning-ending double play with the Braves still behind 2-1?  Or perhaps something in between?  In reality, Heyward hit a two run single to left, temporarily tying the game 2-2.

You rarely know what to expect when "In play, run(s)" appears at the bottom of the screen.

As a Braves fan living in New York, where Atlanta games are rarely televised, I've learned to love MLB.com's Gameday application.  While sometimes you know what will follow "In play, run(s)" (with no one on base, you know the batter hit a solo homer), other times it's a complete mystery.  And waiting those thirty seconds to find out how your team scored is pretty much as exciting as staring at a data-driven sports scoring application gets.

Cross-Sport Power Rankings

People love ranking stuff.  I'm not sure why, but there's something about seeing a list of nouns scored on a completely arbitrary scale that drive people nuts.  David Letterman has made a career out of his "Top Ten" lists.  U.S. News & World Report has become better known for its annual college and graduate school rankings than for its legitimate news coverage.  For the media covering professional athletics, essentially every sports website has its own set of Power Rankings for every sport.  Even though all sports leagues have a playoff system specifically designed to tell us who the best team is, websites like ESPN.com feel the need to proclaim the Tampa Bays Rays baseball's best team through twenty-five games.  ESPN's Power Rankings have become so popular, in fact, that a "Rankings" button now appears in the menu bar on the top of each sport's homepage, alongside seemingly more important topics such as "Scores," "Schedules" and "Standings."

Starting this summer, though, ESPN has taken the rankings phenomenon one giant step further with it's Cross-Sport Power Rankings, which is now in it's second week.  Here's the mission of the new weekly feature, according to ESPN:

Twenty spots. Each week we have only 20 spots to fill with the most intriguing, exciting and "on fire" players across all sports. Sounds fairly easy, right? Well, not exactly. Remember, we're not just ranking the best NBA players or the top MLB players. We're ranking the top 20 athletes in all of sports. And we're basing where they stand on their performance right now . . . That means surging athletes from the NHL, NBA, MLB, PGA, NASCAR, tennis, boxing, soccer, etc., must all be thrown into the discussion. And they all were, along with a few wild cards.

Now, let's put aside the fact that traditional Power Rankings columns, even those that only focus on one sport, are pointless.  At least those columns are dealing with things that are, on some level, directly comparable.  It's fairly obvious that there's no good way to compare athletes from different sports, nor does ESPN's new feature make any attempt to explain what the athletes will be ranked on, short of the line referring to "where [the athletes] stand on their performance right now."  We'll just have to acknowledge that these rankings are not based on any mathematical formula (think John Hollinger's PER rating system) and move on.

Because these ESPN cross-sport rankings are based on absolutely nothing it should be fairly hard to call them "wrong," but a quick glance at the second week's results leaves me scratching my head in disbelief.  Though he wasn't ranked at all in Week One, Tiger Woods climbed to number fifteen in the rankings after failing to make the cut at Quail hollow last weekend because "the panel still thinks Tiger has what it takes when it counts."  So much for basing the rankings on current performance.  The number one slot is held, for the second straight week, by LeBron James, even though the King was coming off a disappointing performance in a Game Two loss to Boston.  Why?  Because LBJ "won his second straight MVP" for a regular season that concluded weeks ago.  At the same time, Kobe Bryant came in at number four after leading the Lakers to a 2-0 series lead versus Utah.  Somehow George Hill (George Hill!) comes in one spot ahead of Deron Williams, and Roy Halladay is ranked six slots ahead of Ubaldo Jimenez even though Jimenez, not Halladay, was named NL Pitcher of the Month for April (as ESPN notes, "0.87 ERA, 6-0, 44 K's, one no-hitter").

A quick suggestion for ESPN.com: If you're going to introduce a pointless set of cross-sport rankings based only on current performance, at least do a good job with the relative rankings on players in the same sport.  While it might be hard to argue with Floyd Mayweather Jr. (for some reason) being ahead of Jaroslav Halak, at least get your George Hill vs. Deron Williams and Roy Halladay vs. Ubaldo Jimenez straight.  I should boycott these lists altogether but, like every other sports fan, the pull of another arbitrary list is just too strong.

Nice Night for a Stroll

On March 11, 2004, an al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist cell organized a series of coordinated bombings against the commuter train system of Madrid.  The very next morning, I was scheduled to fly to Madrid from Newark Airport to begin a week-long Spring Break trip to Spain; my first four nights would be spent at a hotel within walking distance from Atocha Station, in which three of the bombs exploded.  Understandably shaken after learning of the attacks, I asked my Dad whether or not he thought I should cancel the trip or go ahead as planned.  He wisely responded that, if ever there was a safe time to visit Madrid, this was it - security would be on high alert and people would be on their toes.  I decided to stick with the itinerary (which included a Real Madrid game, one of my most memorable sports experiences to date), had a fantastic time, and got to see Madrid at a very unique time in its history.

What does any of this have to do with sports, you ask?  By now you've undoubtedly heard about the Phillies fan who was tasered (Or is it tased?  No one seems to be sure.  Where can we go to get a definitive answer on this?  Maybe the dictionary?  I'm too lazy to look it up . . .) after running onto the field during Monday night's game against the Cardinals at Citizens Bank Park.  I'm sure you've seen the video, too, since it was plastered all over the Internet, including on ESPN.com.  What you might not know, though, is that last night yet another Phillies fan ran onto the field.  This time it was a 34 year-old man who, according to NBC affiliate WHEC, was "taken into custody without incident."

At first blush, it might seem like this second fan is just another drunken, Philadelphia-based moron; yes, there are a lot of them.  At the same time, though, if you're ever going to run onto the field at a Major League Baseball game, wouldn't you want to do it on the day after security and police forces had been heavily criticized for tasering someone?  After all the backlash the Philadelphia police department took for tasering a 17 year-old (according to ESPN, the police department is "now reviewing whether its officers should be on the field wrangling runaway fans who aren't threatening anyone"), wasn't it safe to assume that the next runaway fan would receive far better treatment?

 Madrid's Atocha Station and Citizens Bank Park's outfield have some things in common.

I'm disappointed that I can't find more details on this second fan's apprehension and arrest.  How lenient were the cops this time around, knowing that another episode of police brutality would cause irrevocable damage to the police department's reputation?  Did they open the centerfield wall for the guy and let him escape through the bullpens?  Did a member of security come out of the dugout with an air mattress, inflate it, and place it on the grass in the outfield while police officers gently guided the fan onto it and slapped the handcuffs on?  Perhaps the Phillies let the fan play a half-inning at second base before politely asking him to leave?

Either way, last night was a perfect night for a jog around the outfield.

Taking Turns

One of the best parts of NBA playoff games is when the home crowd all wears matching, team-provided t-shirts.  You can't tell me that a sea of raucous fans wearing the yellow "We Believe" shirts didn't help propel the Golden State Warriors to a momentous first round upset over the top-seeded Dallas Mavericks in 2007.  Earlier in this year's playoffs, Oklahoma City was led to a Game Three victory over the Lakers by its own lively home crowd decked out in blue "Rise Together" shirts.

The matching shirts look just as great on TV as they do in person.  It's a great effect that simultaneously pumps up the crowd and intimidates the road team, so I'm not at all surprised that Phoenix tried it for their Game One showdown with San Antonio last night.  The Suns gave their fans orange t-shirts sponsored by Fry's Electronics that read "IT'S R TURN" and, below that, "Beat The Spurs."  Aside from the usual problem of some fans not wearing the shirts - it seemed like an unusually high percentage of fans choose to wear purple or white instead of the orange - I had a number of issues with Phoenix's shirt giveaway.

T

The Suns failed to pull off an intimidating "Orange-Out" against the Spurs in Game One.

What is it with the Suns and unnecessary abbreviations?  I've always disliked the way the Suns write "PHX" on the front of their orange alternate jerseys instead of "Phoenix" (which the "ATL" Hawks have now started doing, too, on their red alternates), and the "IT'S R TURN" shirts are similarly annoying.  Based on the slogan, I'm forced to assume that the team's Head of Game Operations is a 15 year-old girl from suburban Scottsdale who sent the t-shirt order to the Fruit of the Loom factory via text message, which doesn't give me a ton of confidence.  I've learned that the playoff shirts were a follow up to the team's season-long "R U Orange?" marketing campaign (more abbreviations!), which begs the question: Is the "R" shorthand for the word "are" or the word "our?"  I'm not an SMS or IM expert, but I have seen Billy Madison numerous times and, based on that, I'm pretty sure "R" is a replacement for "are."  The fact that the Suns screwed this up is extremely surprising and mildly alarming.

Also, even without the bad abbreviation, the slogan really bothers me.  Sports are meant to be competitive; the phrase "it's our turn" conjures up images of little children begging their older siblings for a few minutes on the playground swings.  Basketball fans are well aware of San Antonio's recent playoff dominance over Phoenix, and the orange t-shirts only seemed to rekindle those bad memories for Suns fans.  Unlike the Thunder's far more positive "rise together" catchphrase, the timid "it's our turn" slogan reads like a cry for help and mercy.  I know Phoenix is a fairly laid-back city, but I think a more cutthroat attitude would serve their team, and their fans, well.

That being said, the crowd did seem energized in helping the Suns to the Game 1 victory, so maybe the shirts were more effective than I thought; after all, I was home watching on TV.  I guess we'll have to wait and "c wat happens 2morrow."

Bigger (Strike Zone) Is Better

There's been a lot of grumbling about the speed of Major League Baseball games recently, and with good reason; even for the most dedicated baseball fan, the games can often be slow and drawn out.  Just last week, it was announced that MLB Commissioner Bud Selig would instruct his recently-formed committee on Improving Baseball on the Field to look into how to speed up the pace of games.  A number of preliminary suggestions have already been thrown around, from limiting catcher mound visits to implementing a pitch clock (much like basketball's shot clock).

While some of these suggestions would undoubtedly help (I especially think MLB should eliminate the warm-up pitches that relief pitchers take on the mound when they enter the game, after getting nearly infinite time to warm-up on the mound in the bullpen), I think the best solution would be to increase the size of the strike zone.  While this isn't an original idea (experts have called for strike zone expansion as a way to speed up games for years), I personally think it represents the best alternative for reducing game times while simultaneously preserving baseball's tradition / limiting the number of radical changes.

A larger strike zone shouldn't be seen as a drastic change for MLB, since the "new" strike zone would simply be the strike zone as defined in the MLB rulebook (as opposed to the watered down strike zone currently enforced by MLB umpires).  In 2001 baseball vowed to enforce a larger zone (see the diagram below, originally published by the St. Petersburg Times in 2001, regarding enforcement of the high strike call), but anyone watching MLB games in 2010 can tell you that pitches above the belt rarely, if ever, get called strikes.

MLB's previous efforts to expand the size of the strike zone have proven unsuccessful. 

A larger strike zone would have numerous ripple effects throughout the game of baseball - some obvious, others subtle - that would result in a faster paced game.  Of course, a larger strike zone would lead to fewer walks and more strikeouts, which would speed things up substantially.  Calling fewer balls would enable pitchers to get through each inning with a lower pitch count, hopefully reducing the need for as many late game pitching changes.  Batters, knowing that borderline pitches are more likely to be called strikes, would begin swinging at pitches earlier in the count and putting more balls in play, the majority of which would be converted into outs (it seems like many batters today go up looking to walk, knowing that the odds of a pitcher throwing three well-placed "strikes" before four balls are comparatively slim).  The list goes on.

We don't need a rule change to speed up games, but we do need the current rules to be enforced (and maybe need to retrain the umpires; this article shows that not only are umpires not perfect, they're actually quite flawed).  Hopefully Major League Baseball's new committee will avoid any drastic changes to America's Pastime and realize that the best way to make the game more exciting is by undoing previous (inadvertent) changes to the strike zone.