A Tale of Two Airports

I spent the Memorial Day weekend visiting friends and doing some sightseeing down in Los Angeles, so my sports consumption has been pretty limited over the past few days.  By the time I got home last night in time to catch the Monday night SportsCenter, I realized I had missed tons of good weekend baseball action, some intriguing pre-NBA Finals build-up, the Indianapolis 500 and a chunk of the French Open.  Despite my weekend of pleasant distractions, though, I didn't escape the holiday completely void of sports-related observations.

While walking through the Delta terminals at both LAX and SFO last night, the differences between the current states of affairs of the rival Dodgers and Giants couldn't have been more obvious.  The Dodgers' current struggles have been well documented - with the team's owners Frank and Jamie McCourt in the middle of some messy divorce litigation, the Dodgers have been in financial trouble.  As a result, there is little positive buzz around Dodgers baseball, and the scene at LAX reflected that.  Whereas a few years ago you would see dozens of Dodgers hats scattered across the terminal on Memorial Day, yesterday I only spotted a few in the hour before I boarded my flight.  The Dodgers team store in the airport was totally empty, and the one at Universal Citywalk (where I was earlier in the afternoon) wasn't any more crowded. 

On the flip side, you can spot a seemingly-endless sea of black and orange Giants caps wherever you go in San Francisco right now.  Coming off the high of their 2010 World Series victory, Giants fans are wearing their colors more than ever this year, and the scene at SFO was no exception.  Even though I landed at 10 PM and the airport was pretty quiet by then, I still passed by entire families clad in Giants gear, seemingly eager to have returned home to watch some San Francisco baseball.  Whereas LAX was a baseball apparel wasteland, SFO was overflowing with Giants hats, t-shirts and even authentic jerseys.

Giants caps were everywhere at SFO.  Dodgers caps at LAX?  Not so much.

One of the fun parts of traveling (for me, anyway), is checking out the local fan presence - not only at sporting events, but also in more "secular" locations such as airports.  Since I moved to the Bay Area, I've been impressed with the Giants fan base.  San Francisco fans have truly soaked up the defending World Series Champion experience, and are enjoying their title defense as if it might be their last for quite some time (and, with Buster Posey potentially out for the season, it might be).  While in LA for the weekend, it was clear that the current incarnation of the Dodgers is only a shell of what was recently a strong, proud franchise.  Hopefully the Los Angeles situation gets resolved soon, so that baseball fans can once again enjoy one of MLB's greatest rivalries to its fullest extent.

The Coaching Carousel Chugs Along

What's more amazing: the fact that the Los Angeles Lakers hired former Cleveland Cavaliers head coach Mike Brown to replace the legendary Phil Jackson on the bench, or the fact that some sports writers are actually praising the move?  I have absolutely nothing against Brown personally; by all accounts he's a great guy and an extremely likeable person, and he's certainly had his share of success at the NBA level.  But at this point, isn't it clear that he struggles when matched up against great coaches and players under the spotlight?  Don't the Lakers aspire to continue contending for NBA titles over the next four seasons (the length of Brown's contract) while Kobe Bryant is still around?  Assuming we take those two things as truth, how does this make sense for the Lakers?

The answer, of course, is that this is a safe move, and for some reason sports and conservativism go hand in hand.  It's the reason why NFL coaches are always punting on 4th-and-1, even though there is overwhelming statistical analysis that says they should go for it.  It's the reason why MLB managers stick with one closer (even a bad one) rather than play the matchups with their bullpens, despite the fact that the latter strategy makes a whole lot more sense.  And it's definitely the reason why teams keep hiring the same recently-fired coaches to fill their vacant positions.  Taking a chance on a new-but-enticing head coaching candidate is risky, and sports executives and coaches are unfairly punished for taking on risk.  Hiring a known quantity like Brown is safe and, even though it's highly unlikely to work out, Lakers GM Mitch Kupchak won't be punished for the mistake when it inevitably doesn't.

Sports are filled with unknowns, and that's what makes them so great.  We watch games precisely because we don't know what's going to happen next.  When it comes to hiring coaches, however, teams love to ride the coaching carousel and select the guys with the most proven track records.  However, guys with stellar resumes like Phil Jackson and Bobby Cox are rarely, if ever, available to be signed.  Instead, available head coaching candidates fall into two categories: unproven newcomers and mediocre veterans.  While the former have all of the upside, GMs mind-bogglingly prefer the latter.  Apparently the Lakers would rather lock in four straight flameouts in the second or third round of the playoffs (the Mike Brown special) than roll the dice on someone who could potentially do something special with a talented roster.

Enjoy four years of confusion, Laker fans.  Mike Brown is coming to Los Angeles. 

It's true that Brown has experience working with top-tier talent, and that may help him coach a Kobe Bryant-led team.  It's also true that Rick Carlisle, another guy dogged by the "can't win the big one" label, led his Dallas Mavericks club to the NBA Finals earlier tonight.  It's definitely possible that Mike Brown will be successful with L.A., but I'm willing to bet that history repeats itself and he fails to get the Lakers back into the NBA Finals.  Maybe one day GMs will get bold and start taking well-calculated risks on intriguing up-and-coming coaching candidates.  Until that day comes, though, we'll just have to listen to the metaphorical Wurlitzer Organ music annoyingly blaring from the coaching carousel.

Performance Enhancing Burgers

Each week, I dedicate some time to watching TV that isn't sports-related.  After a week's worth of scores, highlights and news, it's nice to clear my head with a few hours of mindless comedy.  One of my primary go-to's is FOX's Sunday night "Animation Domination" lineup, and with the Heat game over by 8 PM PST last night, I flipped the channel just in time for one of my new favorite shows, Bob's Burgers.  Little did I know that this week's episode would not only be dedicated to sports, but would also get me thinking about a serious and extremely topical athletics-related subject.

In short, the episode asked if cheating is ever justified.  One character argued that people went to baseball games for the same reason they went to an amusement part - namely, to be entertained.  As long as people were enjoying what they were seeing, he went on, then any sort of cheating (in this case, greasing a baseball) was acceptable, and even noble.  Bob, the show's main character, disagreed, disgusted with the thought that one of his heroes was tainted.  While it's just a TV show, the ethical sports dilemma posed by Bob's Burgers is a very real one, and is especially relevant this week given the recurring press coverage around Lance Armstrong's alleged doping.

Armstrong is perhaps the best example we have of an athlete using his power and notoriety for good.  Thanks to his cycling prowess, Armstrong has been able to raise millions of dollars for cancer research, and has become a symbol of hope and a better future.  So, how does everything shift if Armstrong's success had more to do with performance enhancing drugs than hard work and sacrifice?  Does that change the fact that he entertained millions of people with his cycling and dedicated much of his life to saving lives?  In this particular case, would the ends justify the means, even if the means were unethical and / or illegal?

I spent some time thinking about how I can put a nice little bow around this issue, and I've realized that I can't.  In fact, I'm not even sure how I feel about it.  While, as a true lover of sports, I could never turn the other cheek on cheating during competition, in Armstrong's case maybe his alleged PED use was a good thing for society as a whole.  In a weird way, I almost hope we never find out about Lance Armstrong's true doping history.  That way, the believers (like myself) can claim that he was innocent, and the haters can maintain their skepticism.  It's a win-win situation; especially for all of the people helped by the Livestrong fundraising efforts. 

A Twist On Tennis

As participation sports go, tennis is near the top of my list.  It's an exhausting workout, you don't have to be great to enjoy playing and, unlike pickup basketball, it allows you to take advantage of the great weather you often get here in Northern California.  I've played tennis off and on since I was young, but my tours through Southern and now Northern California have correlated with a jump in my time on the courts.

You'll notice, however, that this is the first time I've ever covered anything tennis-related on Caught Looking, and that's because this blog is about sports viewership, not participation.  While watching tennis both in person and TV can be enjoyable, it's missing a key aspect that other popular sports such as baseball, basketball and football thrive on - a captivating team dynamic.  I find tennis fans in general to be too "classy" for my liking, and while I can appreciate the fact that they're rooting for good matches more than they are for any particular outcome, their player agnosticism damages an even big time tennis atmosphere.

Wouldn't it be great if we had high-quality team-based tennis to watch?  Enter this week's Men's Team Tennis National Championships, conveniently located at Stanford through next Tuesday.  I made the short walk down to the tennis courts yesterday to catch some of the Florida Gators highly competitive match versus the Kentucky Wildcats, and really enjoyed the hour I spent in the sun.  While during play the crowd was nearly silent, each point concluded with an eruption from half of the fans and groans from the others.  The breaks between points and games were filled with "Let's Go Gators!" and "Let's Go Wildcats!" chants, and most of the crowd (present company excluded) was decked out in either Florida blue and orange or Kentucky blue and white.

The fans along the sideline brought their school spirit all the way from Lexington and Gainesville.

Given the favorable weather forecast for the rest of the South Bay Area week, I'm hoping to get back down to the courts later this weekend to catch some more men's team tennis action. If you're a Stanford fan, you can catch the Cardinal take on Virginia in the round-of-eight on Saturday at 7 PM (it's free for Stanford students, too).  Let's just hope the support for Stanford at the tennis national championships will be stronger than at football or basketball games. 

Kyrie Irving Is Doomed

Once the Knicks got knocked out of the first round of the NBA playoffs, my spring basketball priorities shifted to a) rooting for J.J. Barea to continue to destroy defenses with an array of utterly improbable moves and b) hope for the Miami Heat and LeBron James to implode.  Like many other NBA fans, I became an instant LeBron-hater after "The Decision," and even though some hoops fans have begun to praise King James's choice now that his Heat are in the Eastern Conference Finals, I'm as Anti-LeBron as ever.  Just when I thought I reached my boiling point with Miami on the verge of the NBA Finals, yesterday James had the balls to say that the he was happy with the Cleveland Cavaliers winning the NBA Draft Lottery and that it "is a good step for them."

I've tried to avoid using this space as a vehicle for some of my anger-induced rants, but hopefully you'll excuse me this one time.  Where do I even start ripping into LeBron for this one?  There are so many things to criticize that it's almost overwhelming.  Let's begin with the insightfulness of James's pre-draft analysis.  Really, LeBron?  You think that winning the lottery was a good step for the Cavs?  Are you saying that picking earlier in the draft, therefore increasing your available options, is better than picking later and have your choice restricted?  What a novel concept!  Maybe that's why the NBA gives teams with the worst records the best chance of getting the top picks - thanks for clearing that up for us!

Next, didn't LeBron forfeit his right to represent the Cavaliers and the city of Cleveland when he jumped ship last summer?  I understand that James is always getting asked about the Cavs (I'm not accusing him of offering up his analysis unprovoked), but shouldn't he be trying to deflect the Cleveland-related questions out of respect for both his former team and his current one?  Isn't a response tailored around his commitment to the Miami Heat and his focus on the Eastern Conference Finals more appropriate than his obviously-false happiness for the Cavs?  It's bad enough that we have to hear about the Heat's playoff run on SportsCenter every morning.  It would be nice if LeBron could stay out of the spotlight for a few hours while the post-James Cavaliers enjoy the glimmer of hope that accompanies having the first and fourth overall picks in the draft.

Finally, is there any NBA player less qualified at this point to talk about good roster moves than LeBron?  James says he thinks former Duke point guard Kyrie Irving will be a great fit for the Cavs.  At the same time, LeBron also thought that Mo Williams, Antawn Jamison and Shaquille O'Neal would be great fits for the Cavs, so much so that he insisted that team managament mortgage the club's future to acquire those guys.  The result?  Zero NBA Championships, several playoff disappointments and a 2010-11 Cavaliers team that, without LeBron but with both Williams (when healthy) and Jamison, was among the worst in NBA history.  Having LeBron praise Irving's game might be the kiss of death for the young point guard if The King's track record holds.  Why doesn't LeBron just appoint himself Cavs GM while he's at it?

LeBron James and the Miami Heat might very well win the NBA Championship this year, and if they do they will have earned it.  The NBA playoff picture was extremely competitive and crowded this season, and the team that emerges holding the Larry O'Brien trophy will have marched through a war zone to get it.  If it is indeed the Heat, LeBron will have gotten everything he ever asked for - an NBA title, additional sponsorship opportunities and a huge monkey off of his back.  There's no reason he has to take what's left of the Cleveland-related sports media coverage, too.

The Other Side of MLS

For some reason, cold weather and harsh winds seem to follow me across the world from soccer stadium to soccer stadium.  I had to bundle up many times this summer to attend World Cup games in South Africa (particularly in Johannesburg), and Saturday night's San Jose Earthquakes game versus the Columbus Crew was another windy, rainy match.  The rough weather couldn't keep me away from Buck Shaw Stadium on the campus of Santa Clara University, though; the Earthquakes game would put me 4/7 of the way towards my goal of seeing all of the Bay Area professional sports teams live and at home (I'll be at an Athletics game later this month, and will hit up the 49ers and Raiders in the fall).

In the interest of trying to be constructive and positive, let me start with the good things about the San Jose Earthquakes.  First, despite the bad weather and the fact that the Earthquakes aren't very good (they were last in the MLS's Western Conference heading into the weekend), the team has a solid and passionate (albeit small) fan base.  The supporter section behind one of the goals was loud throughout the game and sang well-orchestrated soccer chants for all ninety minutes.  In addition to the diehards, the team also had a nice mix of families and young adults in attendance, suggesting that soccer in the Bay Area is popular with a younger crowd and is poised to grow as these fans increase their disposable income levels.  Unlike most U.S. sporting events, it was a relatively no-frills atmosphere - the stadium let the fans make the noise and didn't mess up a good game by piping in a ton of music or sound effects.

On this last point, I'm not sure if the absence of music was out of respect for soccer tradition, or because Buck Shaw Stadium is too crappy to have a sound system.  While it might be satisfactory for college soccer and is certainly large enough to support a decently-sized MLS crowd, Buck Shaw stadium is, to put it mildly, a dump.  Whereas other MLS teams have built beautiful new soccer-specific stadiums in New York, Los Angeles, Toronto and Seattle (to name a few), the Earthquakes are stuck in an embarrassingly crappy venue that makes it seem as if they are a minor league soccer club.  The bathrooms were sparse and poorly-designed, the concessions were primarily provided by mobile food trucks parked in a dirt lot adjacent to the stadium, and the seats were cold, uncomfortable bleachers.  Even the pitch (or field, for you ignorant Americans out there) was pretty chewed up, with players losing their footing throughout the game.

A "new" scoreboard to the left of the goal wasn't fooling anyone.

When I focused on the soccer itself, I was pretty impressed.  The Earthquakes won 3-0 on three pretty nice goals, and it was clear that the quality of play in the MLS continues to rise with each season.  While it was far from World Cup caliber, I enjoyed watching the game and came away pleased with how far the league has come since I last attended live MLS games in Los Angeles back in 2006 and 2007.  It was only when I looked up and scanned the surroundings that I remembered how much the MLS, and the Earthquakes in particular, still have to do in order to compete with other U.S. sports and European soccer.

That being said, I would still recommend going to an Earthquakes game.  For $30 including ticket fees, I sat in literally the first row of the stadium, right behind the Columbus bench.  Even in bad weather, we got to see some pretty good soccer in a fun atmosphere, and I'm sure as the weather gets nicer and the crowds get bigger it'll be even more fun.  To top it all off, for the first time in my life I won a section giveaway.  Everyone sitting in section 102 was given a tote bag in which to dispose of used oil filters / motor oil, sponsored by the Santa Clara County "Hazardous Waste Recycling and Disposal" department and Cal Recycle (I can't make this stuff up).  Next time I have to handle some hazardous waste, I'll think back fondly on my first trip to Buck Shaw Stadium.

$30 can get you a seat directly behind the visitng team's bench.

J.J. Barea, the Anti-Flopper

Tomorrow evening I'll be heading down to Santa Clara to attend my first San Jose Earthquakes game (and my first soccer game of any kind since the World Cup this past summer), and I'm looking forward to checking in on the growth of professional soccer in the U.S.  Among all of the challenges associated with converting Americans into soccer fans, one of the most difficult will be convincing viewers to embrace a sport where flopping plays a major role.  While I don't see a need for sports to be overly ruthless, it may be hard for MLS to attract the same people who are used to watching running backs take punishing hits and baseball players get beaned by 100 mph fastballs.

Soccer isn't the only sport that's been plagued by the evils of the flop.  Basketball, too, has seen a dramatic increase in on-court acting, lead in large part by an inflow of undoubtedly-soccer-influenced European players.  A 2007 article in the Orlando Sentinel noted that "the recent flood of foreign-born players has increased this distraction to the game," a trend that has only increased over the last four years.  When the article speaks of "foreign-born players," though, it's referring to Europeans.  Puerto Rican native J.J. Barea, on the other hand, is the anti-flopper.

Barea is now most famous for the vicious hit he took from Los Angeles center Andrew Bynum during the fourth quarter of Game Four of the Mavericks' second round sweep over the Lakers.  Even before this, though, Barea had taken a ton of hard fouls and, given that he's (maybe) 6-feet tall and weighs just 175 lbs., I'm sure they all hurt a lot.  Despite his size, Barea goes right at the rim constantly, with utter disregard for the seven-footers standing in his way.  And while a Sports Illustrated player poll had Barea rated as the ninth worst (or best?) flopper in the NBA, I think the reputation is completely unwarranted.  Just because the guy is short, white and has a foreign name doesn't mean he's flopping when he hits the deck.  Instead, the hits Barea takes are very much real, and his moxie has played a large role in Dallas' run to the Western Conference Finals.

When Barea's lying in a heap, you know it was a dirty foul.

As my (sixth ever) post on Lou Amundson suggests, I have a soft spot in my heart for under-athletic NBA players who get by on hustle, energy and toughness.  After watching a lot of the 2011 NBA playoffs, J.J. Barea just might be my new favorite non-Knick NBA player.  In a country that values aggressive and tough athletes, it's a Puerto Rican who's showing the league how to play hard.  Plus, the guy is dating a former Miss Universe, so he must be doing something right.

What's In A Name?

The complaint I hear most often about my blog has nothing to do with the subject matter, the quality of the writing or the frequency of the posts.  Instead, the only thing readers ever question is the name. Caught Looking.  When I came up with it, I thought it was incredibly clever.  It's a common baseball term for taking a called third strike, but also refers to the fact that I'm always watching or reading about (in other words, looking at) sports.  Perfect.

Never once did I think about a possible association between Caught Looking and anything risque; at least not until some of my loyal readers suggested it.  Sometimes people forget the blog's URL, type "caught looking" into the Google search bar, and are less than thrilled by the results they get.  It appears that the general internet-using  public more commonly associates the phrase with smut than with sports, too.

The icing on the name-controversy cake came earlier this week, when a loyal Caught Looking reader told me that while she was browsing in her local Victoria's Secret she came across a display of Major League Baseball / PINK-branded apparel and found the following product:

The first thought that went through my mind when I heard about these was "Do they make them with the Braves logo?" (They don't.)  Next, I wondered "Can I sue Victoria's Secret for stealing my blog title?" ( I can't, and I'm already stealing my logo from MLB, so I'd be wise to keep my mouth shut.)  Finally, I came to terms with the fact that the readers linking the blog title to adult subject matter were right all along, and Victoria's Secret has the panties to prove it.

That being said, the blog name is obviously here to stay.  We all know that sex sells, so maybe the new Victoria's Secret line will generate some incremental readership and one day I'll have my very own line of underwear.  Until then, just save the URL in your favorites and think innocent thoughts.  

The Most Advertised Two Minutes In Sports

I'll admit upfront that I don't know much about horse racing or the Kentucky Derby.  I've been to Saratoga and Belmont a couple times each and once took a trip out to Santa Anita, always placing no more than a couple bucks on random horses and usually coming out about even.  I like the idea of horse racing more than I enjoy the "sport" itself - more than anything, a day at the track can be a good excuse to get outside for a few hours and do something different.  Accordingly, I don't really understand the appeal of watching a horse race on TV.  Without the fresh air and the roaring sound of the horses sprinting around the track, what's there to see?

The answer, based on Saturday's Kentucky Derby, is a whole lot of ads plastered absolutely everywhere.  Most people associate the Derby with high society and class - women in their oversized hats and men in searsucker suits drinking mint juleps and talking politics.  Having never been to Churchill Downs, I can't say if this is what the Kentucky Derby is really like in person, but I can tell you that the TV coverage was almost the exact opposite of what I would have expected it to be.

Yum! Brands (the publicly-traded holding company that owns KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell) had ads everywhere, from logos painted on the starting gate to commercial spots at nearly every break in the coverage (and, given that the race lasts two minutes but the TV coverage lasts hours, there were a lot of them).  Dodge had a giant logo painted on the roof of the main building at Churchill Downs, and all of the horse handlers wore green jackets bearing the Dodge Ram logo.  The jockeys sold space on their pants to a variety of different advertisers, just like NASCAR drivers sell space on their cars and suits.  Not only were there ads everywhere, but they weren't even for luxury brands.  At least Wimbeldon is sponsored by Rolex, Ralph Lauren and Evian . . .

Just like at Citi Field, the advertisements were all I could help but notice while watching the TV coverage of the Kentucky Derby.  The event's website claims that "the Kentucky Derby is America's original, extravagant springtime sports party. While a horse race is at the heart of the spectacle, there are many intriguing aspects of the Derby Experience . . ."  Unfortunately for fans tuning in to see something special, the most intriguing aspect of the race was how much signage the event organizers could cram around one 1.25 mile-long track. 

No Hitters Are Overrated

Yesterday, Francisco Liriano of the Minnesota Twins threw a no hitter against the struggling Chicago White Sox.  Today, Tim Hudson of the Atlanta Braves pitched a one-hit complete game shutout to complete a doubleheader sweep over the potent Milwaukee Brewers.  Sports media covered Liriano's no-no extensively, and he's received tons of recognition (deservedly so) for his accomplishment over the past 24 hours.  Hudson, on the other hand, will get a few compliments from Buster Olney on Baseball Tonight before his gem gets lost in a sea of other complete game shutouts. 

But which game was more impressive?  I'm not trying to take anything away from Liriano - he held a major league baseball team without a hit for nine innings and single-handedly gave his team a 1-0 intra-division win.  But other than the big ole' zero under "hits" in the box score, Liriano's game paled in comparison to Hudson's.  Liriano scattered six walks over his nine innings, and allowed several hard hit balls that the Twins defense turned into outs thanks to a number of impressive plays.  He only struck out two batters (not that strikeouts are a great measure of pitching dominance, either), labored through 123 pitches (and only 66 strikes) and had a 9:5 groundout to flyout ratio.  In short, it was an "ugly" and improbable no hitter, but a no hitter nonetheless.

Contrast this with Hudson who, despite allowing one hit (a solid double by Rickie Weeks), struck out six and walked only one.  He threw only 102 pitches (74 for strikes) and induced 15 groundouts versus only 4 flyouts.  In short, he was completely in control of the entire game, forcing the Brewer batters to put the ball in play and hit weak ground balls to the infielders.  There was no luck involved in his masterpiece - Hudson owned Milwaukee today.  Can Liriano say the same about his game versus the South Siders?

You can (and I will) argue that Hudson's shutout was more impressive than Lirano's.

Some of the most impressive games I can recall watching in my lifetime weren't perfect games or even no hitters (though I will admit that Randy Johnson's perfect game against Atlanta was the best I've ever seen).  Greg Maddux needed only 76 pitches to get through a complete game over the Chicago Cubs on July 22, 1997; he did allow five hits and a run, but threw only 13 balls the entire game.  A 20-year-old Kerry Wood allowed one single to the Astros on May 6, 1998 - he also struck out 20 batters in that game and walked zero (you should check out the box score for that one because it's amazing to look at).  The point?  While we shouldn't discredit no hitters, we have to realize that starts that do involve hits (and even runs) allowed can be just as, if not more, impressive.