Everybody Chill

Today I went to the Washington Post's website to check out the latest news about the campaign. The first story there:

"Does Obama's exchange with autograph seeker raise broader questions about candidacy?"

Next I checked the New York Times Politics section. The first article there:

"A Tirade from Bill Clinton."

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the two most respected newspapers in the country, at least in terms of their national political coverage.

If there is one nugget of truth and reason we can glean from the ridiculous last few weeks of the never-ending race for the Democratic nomination it is this: the political correspondents and commentators covering the campaign are starting to go a little crazy. Not that I'm judging, I'd be bouncing of the walls too if I had spent the last month learning the following groundbreaking facts:

Hilary Clinton, like everyone who has ever lived, sometimes exaggerates her past experiences.

Barack Obama, like everyone who has ever lived, has associates who he respects and admires who sometimes say things that many people disagree with.

The Democratic Party's Rules for electing presidential candidates should be conservatively described as ridiculously absurd.

So, in the words of our last Democratic President, let's "chill." Both Hilary and Barack support universal health care. Both want to start pulling American troops out of Iraq. Both want to use government money to help homeowners hurt by the sub prime mortgage crisis. Both want to increase government oversight and regulation of investment banks to ensure that brokers can't invent financial instruments with names like robots from Star Wars. Both are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro gun-control. Both are raising truckloads of cash and signing up supporters and volunteers by the hundreds of thousands.

Whatever political pundits might claim about one or the other's appeal among different demographic groups, both of the Democrats are on the right side of almost every issue the American people care about. So let's just chill out until Pennsylvania votes in three weeks. Shoot some hoops, go bowling, watch some baseball...anything besides talking about the candidates as if they were characters in a youth melodrama. We'll still have six months to over-analyze everything before November.

Yet another blog shift.

Yeah, I know, I only moved to this site about a month ago, but I'm once again revamping my blogging. For now on all my sports commentary will appear on my new blog: Nickel and Dime. I want to focus a lot more on daily sports writing, and I'm going to try to post at least once every weekday about Bay Area Sports on this new blog. Playstation Numbers was just a little too crazy and lacked any sort of vision, so I had trouble coming up with any sort of disciplined posting schedule.

That being said, I'm not shutting Playstation Numbers down: I'm still going to try and post on a semi-regular basis here, just not about sports. Look for more postings along the lines of my homage to Chelada (Bud Light and Clamato Juice), plus my usual political commentary and anything else I feel like writing.

Thanks for reading, and please do continue to check back and spread the word about Playstation Numbers and Nickel and Dime.

Thanks,

AJ

The greatest beverage of all time.

While in the liquor store the other day an amazing product caught my eye. This product:



Personally I've been bemoaning the inconvenience of having to enjoy my daily clam juice and crappy light beer fixes separately for years, so I'm incredibly pleased that Anheuser Busch has answered my prayers by combining these two horrific liquids into something that looks like Sunny Delight and probably tastes like salty urine.

Clamato and Bud Light. A product that could only exist in a SNL skit...or a local Hispanic (the apparent target demographic of this beverage) friendly liquor store near you.

Youtube Link of the Day: What else but someone enjoying the wonderful taste of Clamato and Bud Light.

NL EAST Preview

Before beginning my series of MLB division previews, I'd like to highlight my incredibly bad NCAA tourney predictions (yep, no way uconn was losing, and that 13 point UNLV win was a real barnburner). Serves me right for writing about college basketball when I've been mostly following baseball and the NBA for the last few months. Anyway on to the NL East Preview:

1st Place: New York Mets.

Why? They return the same time that should have ran away with the division last year before collapsing to the Phillies, except they replaced the veteran competence of Tom Glavine (13-8, 4.44, 89K's) with the Cy Young favorite firepower of Johan Santana (15-13, 3.33, 235K's against the much better offenses of the AL) and get Pedro back for the whole season. David Wright and Jose Reyes provide the best left side of the infield in the game, the Carlos's (Delgado and Beltran) bounce back from subpar 2007 performances, and John Maine and Oliver perez shore up the back of the rotation by repeating their solid seasons from last year. And Jimmy Rollins isn't repeating the career year he had last year.

What could go wrong? Ryan Church and Endy Chavez are terrible offensive options in left and right field. The offensive firepower of Reyes and Wright should make up for them, but the Mets have to be looking to add another bat in the outfield.

2nd Place: Philadelphia Phillies

Why? Ryan Howard and Chase Utley counter the Mets by providing the Phillies with the best offensive right side of the infield in baseball. Geoff Jenkins, Shane Victorino, and Pat Burrell provide some decent punch from the outfield, and despite the presence of Pedro "the Mexican Rob Deer" Feliz at third the Phillies should have the best offense in the NL. But the Phils won't be able to match the Mets pitching: its not a good sign when your number two starter is a guy you tried to turn into a closer last year (Brett Myers) and your number three is a guy who throws up radar gun readings less than twice his age (Jamie Moyer). Cole Hamels is a stud, but he's not Santana, and even if the Phillies match last season's offensive output their pitching isn't going to be enough to repeat as division champs.

What could go wrong? If Myers can't revert to his pre-2007 form and any of the big three of Rollins, Howard, or Utley gets injured or has a down year things could go downhill in a hurry. The Phillies win games by outscoring opponents despite mediocre pitching, not because they can keep their opponents from scoring, especially in the bandbox that is Citizens Bank Ballpark.

3rd Place: Atlanta Braves

Why? Mark Teixeira is going to hit a ton of homers and Brian McCann is one of the best offensive catchers in baseball, but I don't see the Braves matching their solid offense from last year. Chipper Jones is getting old and is not repeating last year's performance in terms of raw numbers (a 1.029!!! OPS) or staying healthy (513 at bats). Edgar Renteria was overpaid by the Tigers, but he did .332 with a .860OPS last year, numbers that aren't being replicated by his replacement, Yunel Escobar.

Meanwhile the pitching staff isn't getting any younger: Tim Hudson will probably come close to last year's numbers if he stays healthy, but soon to be 41 year old John Smoltz isn't throwing 200 innings with a 3.11 era and 198 K's again. Some are pointing to a resurgance by Tom Glavine but he had an ERA over 4.40 while playing in Shea last year...I just don't see the Braves having the pitching to keep up with the Mets nor the offense to keep up with the Phillies.

What could go wrong/right? If Chipper Jones and John Smoltz continue to defy age I can see a scenario where the Braves make a run at the division: the bullpen should be solid with new closer Rafael Soriano taking over the soft-tossing Bob Wickman, and if Jeff Franceour and Brian McCann continue to develop the Braves could really have something going. By the same token, if Smoltz and Jones really start to feel the effects of age, I could see this team going the opposite direction and chasing the Nationals and Marlins towards the divisional basement.

4th Place: Florida Marlins.

Why? Yes, they traded away Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera. But Willis, despite being from my hometown, is very overrated: we're talking about a guy who put up an ERA over 5.15 and a WHIP of 1.60 while throwing in a very friendly park for pitchers. He's going to get absolutely torched in the AL this year.

As for Cabrera, he will definitely be missed, but the Marlins are still going to be a very good offense team. Hanley Ramirez (.948 OPS, 51 SB's) is just as good, if not better, than Jose Reyes and Jimmy Rollins at short (it's crazy to think that the NL East teams have the three best shortstops in baseball). Cody Ross, Josh Willingham, and Jeremey Hermida give the fish the best offensive outfield in the division, and Mike Jacobs and Dan Uggla provide some power (if not much in the way of on-base skills) at first and second. The Marlins put up a team OPS of .784 in 2007, and in spite of losing Cabrera, its not hard to see them matching that this year if the young players continue to develop.

Pitching is going to make or break the Marlins in 2008: Scott Olsen has the stuff to be a number one starter, but he struggled mightily down the stretch last year and showed signs of overuse. Andrew Miller (acquired in the Willis/Cabrera trade) is supposedly one of the best prospects in baseball, but is young and unproven: he's looked good in spring training but in remains to be seen if he can get it done when games count. If Olsen, Miller, and the other young hurlers can get their stuff together, than watch out: the Marlins could surprise a lot of people and maybe even make a run at the division. But I think its far more likely that these guys have some growing pains and spend some time on the DL, as the Marlins compete but don't have enough to keep up with the Braves, Phillies, and Mets at the top of the division. But the Fish are definitely far closer to the top of the NL East than they are to the Nationals at the bottom.

Fifth Place: Washington Nationals.

Why? I really like offensive potential of the outfield with Elijah Dukes in left, Lastings Milledge in center, and Austin Kearns in right, and if Nick Johnson can come back from an injury plagued 2007 then the Nats will be solid at the infield corners with him and Ryan Zimmerman at third. But things get real ugly up the middle (Paul Loduca, Christian Guzman!!!, and Ronnie Belliard)...the 6-8 slots in this lineup are going to be downright frightening.

As for the pitching...ooof. After releasing John Patterson the Nationals have Royals reject Odalis Perez as their number one starter, and while Jason Bergmann and SHawn Hill showed some potential last year, this team is going to give up a ton of runs, and Hill is already on the shelf with elbow tendinitis this spring. Chad Cordero will be decent as always closing the ninth, but his save opportunities might be few and far between with the way the Nats' starters are going to pitch. The Nationals are without a doubt the worst team in the national league, and will be competing with the Orioles for the honor of picking first in the 2009 MLB draft. Maybe Peter Angelos was on to something when he didn't want to let the Nationals move to DC.

March Madness

Some thoughts on the upcoming NCAA tournament.

Best first round matchup:
Eight seed UNLV (27-7) vs. Nine seed Kent State (28-6), Midwest regional. Horizon League champion Kent State won the solid Horizon League and has wins over Illinois State (second highest RPI of teams that didn't make the tournament), George Mason, and St. Mary's. Mountain West champ UNLV has wins over San Diego, BYU...twice, New Mexico, and Nevada, and played Arizona tough when the Wildcats where still at full strength earlier in the season. But RPI says it all: Kent State is 21st, the Runnin' Rebels are 24th. Kansas (the one seed in that region) better watch out for its second round game.

Best first round matchup, seeds at least 5 apart edition:
11 seed Kansas State (20-11) vs. 6 seed USC (21-11). Michael Beasley vs. OJ Mayo. Two of the most highly touted freshmen in the country face off in a battle between the Trojans (red hot over the second half of the season) and the Wildcats (cold since beaten Kansas back in January). I think USC takes this game, but it should be interesting to watch these guys compete for NBA Draft position.

Most likely first round upset (11/6 minimum):
Baylor over Purdue. The Bears have a better RPI than the Boilermakers (43-45) and played in the tough Big 12, Purdue played in a weak Big 10 and has a history of mailing in games (losses to Illinois, Iowa State, and Wofford).

Most likely first round upset, greater than 6/11 edition:
Kentucky over Marquette. Kentucky has played extremely well since getting abused by Vanderbilt 93-52 back in February, only losing to Tennesse (2 seed, 2nd in RPI) by three on the road and to Georgia in the ridiculous SEC Tournament game that got delayed by over 12 hours by a tornado. Meanwhile Marquette only went 8-6 in away/neutral games this year, with only three of the wins against NCAA tournament teams.

Most likely absurd (14 or greater) first-round upset:
It probably won't happen, but if you forced me to pick a really high seed to pull a miracle upset I'd say Cornell (14) over Stanford (3). Call it a hunch and throw in a little hostility from a Cal Bears fan.

Predicted upset I'm totally not buying:
UCONN (4) is going to kill San Diego (13). The Torreos are ranked 94th in RPI...that's lower than every single 15 seed in the tournament. UCONN played in the toughest conference in the country and has an experience coach in Jim Calhoun. No way the Huskies lose this one, though I like the winner of the Drake/Western Kentucky game in the 2nd round.

5 seed or higher who has a chance to make the Final Four:
Drake Bulldogs. 10th in RPI, dominated the relatively strong Missouri Valley Conference Tournament, won over Butler on the road. They have a tough potential sweet sixteen matchup with UCLA but the Bruins have played somewhat iffy basketball down the stretch, almost blowing a couple of close ones.

First Number one seed to go down:
Kansas Jayhawks. They have an extremely tough matchup against the winner of the UNLV/Kent State game in the seocnd round, followed by a potential matchup with Clemson (on fire in the ACC tournament) or Vanderbilt (a winner over Tennessee in late February). And Wisconsin, Georgetown, or USC looming in the bottom half of the bracket. The Jayhawks' national championship drought is not ending in 2008.

Its Math, Stupid.

On March 4th Senator Hilary Clinton gained a total of 6 pledged delegates on Barack Obama despite winning the popular vote in both Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Six. Yesterday Barack Obama won the Mississippi primary, gaining a total of 5 delegates on Clinton and putting Hilary at a total of +1 in the month of March.

But wait, I'm forgetting something...what about Wyoming? Obama won 7 delegates in that state to Hilary's five, which means that Obama has currently widened his delegate lead over Hilary in the month of March. She is not turning the tide, she is not climbing back into the race, she is falling further behind Obama, despite the widespread perception to the contrary.

Clinton's campaign can spin the numbers all she wants, but she doesn't just need to win Pennsylvania to win the nomination: she needs to win in Pennsylvania by a margin large enough to justify embroiling the party in an extremely nasty fight over superdelegates and whether or not to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. No matter what Hilary says about "big states" or "ready from day one" she is not going to convince the Democrat leadership to give her the nomination if she's down by a large margin in pledged delegates. And unless Hilary wins by huge (25%+) margins in the remaining states, she's not going to narrow the lead enough to make a viable case for the nomination.

Youtube link of the day: A great Lewis Black rant about supposed liberal bias in youtube and wikipedia.

Another politician bites the dust

If you follow the news at all (or just happened to pass a TV yesterday) you've heard the news about New York governor Eliot Spitzer being implicated as a client of an extremely pricey prostitution ring that featured "7-diamond" rated hookers. The news didn't exactly surprise me, in the sense that politicians are getting caught for this type of thing relatively frequently (see Vitter, David ). It did, however, make me feel sightly depressed: what it is about politicians that makes them get caught up in things like this so frequently?

Clearly, there's an element of hubris involved: one can imagine Spitzer thinking to himself "sure, I busted criminals for this type of thing while I was making my name as a prosecutor in New York, but I'm smarter than those guys and won't get caught." But was this hubris a product of Spitzer's personality, or something that comes with having great political power?

I guess the question I'm generally grappling with is the following: are politicians just normal people who inevitably become corrupted by the power given them, or is the type of person who tends to succeed in politics also the type of person who is willing to believe that they can get away with blatantly illegal activities? Both are in some ways equally troubling possibilities, as one suggests that politicians will inevitably be corrupted no matter their character, and the other suggests that in order to succeed in politics you have to be somewhat corrupt from the get go. Either way we're looking at a scenario where most (or at least a large number) of politicians are corrupt and engage in these types of activities all too frequently.

Another question I've been struggling with is whether or not Spitzer's transgressions actually matter. Sure, they matter in the sense that he is probably going to have to resign for what he did. But should it really matter what Spitzer does with his personal time if he is governing New York well? I think that it does, at least when he is using his personal time to break federal laws, but one could easily make the argument that Spitzer's solicitation of seven-diamond hookers has had no effect on his ability to governor (hell, it might have allowed him to relieve some job stress and actually helped his performance). In the end I think that Spitzer should resign because a politician can't get things done when he's breaking the laws he's sworn to protect, but one could certainly make a legitimate argument that the people are making too big a deal out of this.

(A quick mini-rant: seven-diamond hookers? Reminds of the supposed seven-star hotel in Dubai. DO you really need seven different categories to rate things? Is a seven star hooker really that much better than a six star hooker? Or even a four star hooker? How does one become a seven-star hooker? But I digress).

Anyway we're left with a scenario where yet another politician has betrayed the trust the public has put in him and provided yet another example for cynics to cite when hating on American government, Washington, and the political process in general. I don't think politicians are all crooks, and I think that many people in government (both local and federal) have the legitimate interests of the nation in mind. Indeed, I even think Eliot Spitzer's heart was in the right place, at least when it came to governing, he's done a lot of progressive things for the state of New York. Its just said to think that all that work might be undone because he, like Bill Clinton, couldn't keep his pants zipped.

Youtube link of the day: Some pretty funny pranks from a Japanese TV Show (in Japanese, but you get whats going on...its worth watching the whole thing).

All hail King James, the Warriors lay an egg

I watched some of the Knicks Cavs game last night and saw Lebron absolutely SERVE New York...you know your playing well when fans in an opponent's arena start an MVP chant for you at the end of the game. I still think the Cavs will probably not get past the finals in the east, especially with Boston and Detroit looming large, but if one of the Celtics big three goes down, or the Pistons suffer from the same postseason doldrums that have doomed them the last couple years...Cleveland could sneak into the finals.

The Warriors: what happened last night? I left my computer after the first quarter to see them up 38-25 and figured they had things under control, only to check the score again this morning to find out that they had managed to lose by 9 points to one of the worst teams in the eastern conference. Yes, it was the second half of a back to back game on the road, but Charlotte? Seriously?

The worst part about this game was that Charlotte beat the Warriors at their own game, jacking up (and hitting) a ton of threes and protecting the ball well. Its one thing if the Warriors lose to a team that can bang them inside, especially with Biedrins out: its hard to play run and gun against quality big men who can hit the offensive boards hard and slow the game down. But to be outrun and outgunned by a team featuring Raymond Felton, Nazr Mohammed, and Jared Dudley (18 boards!!!!)? Unacceptable. The Warriors are only one game up on the Nuggets for the 8th spot in the west and have possibly the toughest remaining schedule of all the playoff contenders, they should of taken care of business last night.

Youtube magic of the day: One of the better pranks by professional athletes I've ever seen. Pitcher Kyle Kendrick's teammates on the Phillies convince him he's been traded to Japan.

The Real Hopemongers.

Huge day for the political campaigns, by tomorrow morning the race for both nominations could be completely wrapped up if Obama pulls out victories in both Ohio and Texas, or Hilary could have risen from the dead once again. The late polling numbers are not looking good for Obama in either state: he's still barely ahead in most polls in Texas and only a few points behind in Ohio, but the trend over the last few days has been towards Hilary. I'm hoping Obama cleans up and its all over tomorrow morning, but my gut tells me this might keep going for awhile. We'll see what happens.

In other news, Bob Herbert had a great (and incredibly depressing) opinion piece on the war in Iraq today in the NY Times. An excerpt:

"...the money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants, or pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers."

Remember this when Republicans tell you they're for "responsible government." By responsible government, they mean cutting taxes (something no other president has even done in wartime) while spending trillions of dollars to "succeed" in Iraq: with success defined as the continued presence of 140,000 foreign troops in a country with a population of only 25 million because of the vague hope that some day Iraq might become a self-sustaining liberal democracy. And John McCain has the balls to tell the American people that "To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude."

Thank you for enlightening me Senator McCain. You're absolutely right. The American people don't need money for college, they don't need cheaper health care, and they certainly don't need to own their own businesses when the Saudis and Chinese are willing to spend 50 cents on the dollars for them. After all, what are tangible things like greater opportunities for education and health care going to do for Americans if they don't have the strength and courage to continue to piss away trillions of dollars into the cesspool that is the Iraq War? Who needs jobs when you have courage? Who needs health care if you have the strength to defeat disease all by yourself, without government help? After all, Americans don't need and don't want government, which is why we can spend trillions of dollars to build an ineffective one for the Iraqis.

Barack Obama wants the American people to believe that their government might actually work to improve their lives. John McCain and the Republicans want the American people to believe that the we will "win" in Iraq (Bill Clinton famously said "it depends what the definition of is is" but the Republicans are telling us that it depends on what the definition of "win" is). They want the American people to believe that somehow the economy will turn around even while we continue to waste money that could be spent on improving infrastructure, developing green-technologies, increasing funding for job training programs, and improving health care to make for a healthier and more productive workforce. They want Americans to believe that everything is going well, and that, if we just stick to our guns, things will work themselves out over time and America will be as strong as ever.

You tell me who the real hopemongers are.

March Madness

Some random thoughts to round out the week.

Watched the Jazz Hornets game the other night, and was amazed at how good Chris Paul is. It doesn't really show up in the stat line but Paul schooled Deron Williams, especially in crunch time in the 4th quarter: he made the big plays when they really counted. There is no question that Williams is one of the top 5 point guards in the NBA, and an argument could be made to put him in the top 3, but if Paul keeps this up he has a chance to go down as one of the all time greats. I might even name him as the third most valuable player in the NBA behind Dwight Howard and Lebron (especially when factoring in age).

The Jason Kidd trade doesn't help Dallas. It wasn't an absolutely terrible trade, especially since Mark Cuban has no problem spending more $$$ on the luxury tax if he needs too, but Dallas isn't a dramatically improved team with Kidd on the court. An interesting stat about the Mavericks: they're 25-3 at home but only 14-17 on the road. If the playoffs started today they'd be a six seed, so they better start winning games if they want to improve on last year's performance in the playoffs.

Upon further review, the Warriors would win 60 games if they played in the east. And if last night's performance doesn't convince Don Nelson to play more Brendan Wright, I'm not sure what will.

Jack Cust, starting March where he left off last year....two bombs against the Brewers. I'll keep saying it, the A's have a chance to win 75-85 games this year. And yeah, talk to me again in a month when they're 5-20 at the end of April and Harden, Crosby, and Chavez are already on the DL. But for now I'm leaving in a dreamland where Harden stays healthy and replaces Haren, Crosby finally puts it together, Chavy rebounds to hit .280 with 25 homers and a hundred RBIS, Barton wins the ROY, and Suzuki makes us forget that we felt like we were watching a "league of their own" whenever Jason Kendall hit last year.

Youtube magic of the day: In honor of spring training, one of my favorite baseball vidoes ever. Braves minor league manager Phil Wellman delievers the best coaching tirade of all time after a bad call by the ump last year.

The real million man March

Okay, I'll admit my title is cliched. But today Barack Obama announced that one million individuals had donated money to his presidential campaign. Unbelievable.

Today I had a bit of an epiphany about why exactly Obama has run such an effective campaign: his supporters directly refute Hilary's main line of attack against him.

Hilary has staked her entire campaign on the idea that she is experienced, hard-working, and committed to helping the American people. She portrays Obama as a shallow figurehead, a man who has attracted people because of who he is and what he says and not because of what he will do in office. Hilary is the one who voters can count on "to get things done," he is a "hopemonger" who has attracted college students, black people, and rural residents too stupid to see past the facade of his brilliant speeches to the empty (policy-wise) space inside.

Yet when it comes down to it, at least in terms of campaign organization, Obama is the one who "got things done." While Hilary was grabbing maxed out donations from the Democratic establishment, Obama was building a nationwide network of small time contributors that now numbers over one million. While Hilary was focusing on using that money to dominate in the big states on February 5th, Obama was building up networks in smaller states around the country that helped him win more delegates than she did on that day, despite the fact that she carried New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California by comfortable margins. The simple truth is that Obama is winning this campaign precisely because he has paid attention to the little things...Hilary thought that she could coast on her name and experience, which cost her when she ran into the organizational juggernaut that is the Obama campaign.

I remember back in September my buddy Joey was out in New York visiting me and went to the Obama rally at Washington Square Park in the Village. When I met up with him after Obama's speech he told me then that he thought Obama was the "real deal", primarily because he flat out said "I need your help, I need you to fight for me now, we can do this together." At the time that sounded like a relatively routine things to say, every politician tells you that they need your help if they're going to win. But looking back six months later, it's very clear that Obama was serious about that statement, and now over a million people (and counting) have responded to that call.

Whether or not Obama is able to live up to the promises and expectations he's creating now, his ability to inspire people to work for him and with him to get things done bodes well for both the upcoming general election and, potentially, his administration. After all, if you had told me (and every single professional political commentator out there) six months ago that on February 27th, 2008, Obama would be leading Hilary in delegates, have a donor base of over one million people, and be up by 10 points on the Republican nominee in the polls, they would have asked for some of whatever you were smoking.

Hilary's argument for her candidacy over Obama can be broken down simply as "he promises what is impossible, I deliver what is possible." Clinton ran a very solid, successful campaign for president, raising record amounts of dollars and building a very impressive organization. Unfortunately for her, Obama showed up and rewrote the textbook, blowing the old definition of "successful campaign" clear out of the water. Skeptics take note: Obama has already delivered the impossible, a viable African-American candidate for president who has shattered almost every nomination campaign record out there in terms of voter turnout, fundraising prowess, and youth participation. The Republicans would be wise to learn from her mistakes and not underestimate Obama's appeal come November.

Youtube link of the day: More proof that Gary Busey is a total All-star. Someone really needs to give him his own TV show.

An MVP candidate goes down in the west.

Various media outlets are reporting that Rockets center Yao Ming is out for the rest of the season season. This is great news for the Warriors and every other team in the western conference. I find it really hard to see how the Rockets are going to make the playoffs without the big guy...even when healthy McGrady is probably not enough to carry this team, and he's inevitably going to miss a few games here and there down the stretch. The Rockets have a bunch of great role players, but besides T-Mac and Yao they don't have anyone who can really create their own baskets, and their going to have a tough time staying afloat in the hyper-competitive western conference.

The Rockets are a team built around slowing things down and playing half court sets, which works great if you can throw the ball inside to Yao for an easy two (and have is vastly improved defense shutting down the opponents inside game on the other end). But since the Rockets backup plan at center is a 41 year old defensive specialist who has played exactly 19 minutes in 2008 (yes, Dikemebe Mutombo is still in the NBA), I don't see them making up for this huge loss and continuing the run of success they've enjoyed over the last couple of months. Its hard to play half court basketball when your best inside threat is Luis Scola.

The Yao injury also gives me the opportunity to talk about my dislike for the way the NBA MVP gets picked every year. Too often writers pick the award based on a vague determination of which player on a good team had the best statistical year or made an already good team "great." They'd much rather name an MVP who made a 45-50 win team turn into a 60-65 win team (Steve Nash) than name an MVP who made a twenty win team into a 50 win team (Lebron).

Anyway I bring this up because I think people underestimate how important Yao is to the Rockets: they are going to SUCK without him. I'll be very surprised if they even get to 45 wins this year, which sounds like a decent number but which only requires them to go 9-16 over the rest of the season. With Yao the Rockets were on pace to win 55 games, without him they'd probably win 30-35. He's certainly not the MVP, as that honor clearly goes to Lebron. But besides King James and Dwight Howard, Yao is probably one of the most valuable players in the NBA, a guy worth 20-25 wins to the Rockets. The only other players in the league who come close to that this year are Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett, and maybe Kobe. Baron Davis? The way Monta's been playing the Warriors would still win 35 games without him. Dirk? Steve Nash? Not this year. Tim Duncan? The Spurs are still winning 45 without Ginobili and Parker.

Youtube link of the day: 5'9" Nate Robinson blocking Yao (yes, I know this goes against everything I just wrote about how Yao is a top 5 MVP candidate, but its awesome enough that I have to post it anyway).

Gary Busey is the man...

For anyone who hasn't seen it already, check out this video of Gary Busey putting in a Joe Namath-esque performance in creeping the shit out of Jennifer Garner and Ryan Seacrest before the Oscars last night. I don't even want to get started on how ridiculous red carpet shows are: many other people have smugly critiqued or angrily attacked the celebrity-obsessed culture we live in with far more eloquent and funny words that I can ever hope to write here. But I will say I loved it when the overproduced crapfest that is the Oscar preshow got interrupted by some good old spontaneous weirdness.

As for the Oscars themselves, I thought they were pretty underwhelming overall: would it have killed them to throw Eddie Vedder up there with a guitar to perform a couple songs from the awesome soundtrack he wrote for Into the Wild? We really needed three terrible songs from Enchanted? I won't say it was an awful show, John Stewart had a few good lines (I thought the Yom Kippur/Atonement joke was funny at least), but overall I think underwhelming is the best way to describe the night, Gary Buscey aside.

And yeah, I know this is supposed to be a sports blog, and I've kind of been slacking on that lately, but I think that's largely because we're caught in the February doldrums right now. February really is the worst month on the sprots calendar: the NBA and NHL are months away from the playoffs, football is done, we're still a month from anyone really starting to pay attention to baseball, and the Big Dance is still a few weeks away. Its looking more and more like the presidential nomination will be wrapped up int he next couple weeks, so look for more sports stuff going forward, but for now I might keep throwing up Gary Busey videos until we start seeing something interesting in the sports world.

Important/Current event/serious link of the day: great piece about the war in Afghanistan in this week's NY Times Sunday Magazine. My buddy Rob forwarded me this article, it really is one of the better (and more depressing) pieces I've read about what it's like to be an American soldier fighting in the Middle East. We need to be reading more concrete examples like this and less rhetorical bullshit spewed out by pundits and politicians (on both sides of the aisle) thousands of miles away from the front lines. Wherever your views might fall on the political spectrum, I think its hard to argue with the fact that, in recent history, America's foreign policy has been shaped and influenced far too strongly by ideological dogma than by the actual situation on the ground.

Light-hearted link of the day: Manatees have to be the stupidest animals in the world. Kudos to my little bro for this one.

Playstation Numbers

"Playstation Numbers"

I had never seen this phrase until BP (that's Baseball Prospectus for those of you aren't huge baseball dorks) writer Kevin Goldstein used it to describe a Padres prospect in his column today.

Anyway I instantly took a liking to the phrase, because I get tired of using the same few adjectives to describe an athlete putting up great stats: my go-to is usually ridiculous, though I'll occasionally throw in an amazing, outstanding, mind-boggling, or outrageous if I'm feeling it. So, whether or not Goldstein came up with it originally, its nice to have a new phrase to describe someone putting up outrageous/amazing/mind-bogglingly good stats. A few athletes who I think fit the bill: Barry Bonds 2001-2004 (steroid aided or not), Alex Rodriguez last year, Lebron James this year, and Wayne Gretzsky throughout the 1980s. This might turn into a full column with definitions later, but for now I'll stick to the obvious ones.

I also like the video game tie-in because it reminded me of my initial reaction upon seeing Baron Davis hit yet another game winning shot for the W's against the Celtics last night: he's on fire when it comes to last second shots. Not sportscaster talking about someone going 6-8 from downtown on fire, not John Kruk talking about the Yankees winning 10 of 11 on fire, legit, old-school, NBA Jam you literally are not going to miss a shot on fire. Is there anyone else in the NBA you would rather have taking a shot with the game on the line right now? Kobe and Lebron are good, Agent Zero had some success over the last couple of years, but right now Baron Davis is the most clutch player in the NBA, no questions asked. Baron isn't on fire with making last-second shots, he's OOOOONNNNN FIIIRRRREEE (in the NBA Jam crazy announcer voice) when it comes to game-winners.

Note: after watching this clip from youtube I decided that the announcer's voice was nowhere near as loud or awesome as I remembered it. Amazing how our perception of video games changes so quickly, I remember being amazed at the original Playstation's graphics, which look atrociously bad compared with the stuff on the newest systems. But the point still stands...Robert Horry doesn't have shit on Boom-Dizzle, the most clutch player in the NBA right now.

Also one more thing I noticed about the NBA Standings this morning. At 33-22 the Warriors would have the 3rd best record in the Eastern conference. Right now they have the ninth best record in the west and would not make the playoffs if the season ended today. Exactly two teams in the eastern conference have a winning record against the west: the Celtics (who the Warriors beat last night) and the Pistons. I legitimately believe the Warriors would be a 55-60 win team if they played in the Eastern conference right now.

Youtube clip of the day: something I found while searching "nba jam on fire" on youtube. And further proof that my generation is absolutely retarded when it comes to coming up with drinking games.

Election catch-up and random thoughts

Spin it however you will, but Obama just drained that killer three. Hilary needs a miracle to get back in the race...not only does she need to win both Ohio and Texas, but she needs to win them by relatively large (we're talking at least 10%) margins, and even doing that she will probably still be behind Obama in delegates. Barring a huge scandal or some other sort of catastrophic collapse on Obama's part he should get the nomination.

Hilary has staked her campaign on the idea that she is the candidate best prepared to resist the republican attack machine, but look at the latest general election matchup poll put out by Reuters/Zogby:

McCain 50% Clinton 38%
Obama 47% McCain 40%

Hilary talks about how change doesn't really mean anything unless you can actually get stuff done while you're in office, but you have to get elected to office in order to bring about any change at all. If Hilary can't defeat a junior senator from Illinois with four years of experience in Washington how is she going to defeat a war-hero with over 20 years of experience in the senate and a reputation for reaching across party lines? Hilary once whined about being the victim of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy", and the truth is American voters from both parties want somebody who is willing to compromise to get stuff done, not rehash the old fights from the 1990s. This is why Mitt Romney Version 2.0 (Conservative Avenger Edition) got his ass kicked by John McCain, and this is why Obama is all but assured of being the Democratic nominee.

Switching gears, a few other random thoughts on the sports world:

The Chris Webber signing is not looking good for the W's. He's old, decrepit, and only put up 9 points against the Jazz last night. In my take on the signing I mentioned that I didn't think Webber would help against the big guns in the west, making him a non-factor in the playoff run since the W's were only going to beat quality teams by playing their own run and gun style. which Webber can't keep up with. So far Webber has sat out a game against the Suns and been a non-factor against the Jazz....he might just be getting into playing shape still but I think its time to start the Brendan Wright movement. If Nellie wants to give playing time to a big man he might as well give a young kid the chance to show what he can do.

Great dunk contest this year.

I'll talk about this more in my baseball preview, but the A's are not going to be as bad as a lot of people think they are this year. By getting rid of Kotsay and Kendall they've jettisoned a good chunk of ridiculously bad offense, and there is no way they suffer from the same injury problems they did last year. They're not making the playoffs, but they could win 75-80 games.

Roger Clemens: who cares. Lets play ball. Though he does give me my youtube clip of the day, check out this awesome NESN commercial from the 80s features the rocket when he wasn't trying so hard to keep his distance from the long arm of the law.

Race for the Dem. Nomination: the basketball analogy

There can be no mistaking the fact that Obama laid an absolute smackdown on Hilary last night. He certainly does not have the nomination wrapped up, but for him to win Virginia and Maryland by the margins he did (and do as well as he did among women, whites, older people, stoned hippies, independent business owners making between 50,000 and 52,000 dollars a year, and just about every other group the political pundits care to come up with) is a very good sign for the Obama campaign. He is definitely in the driver's seat right now.

Since sports and politics are my two favorite things to write about these days, I think using a sports metaphor here is appropriate:

Obama is the NCAA tournament underdog taking a six point lead and possession into a timeout with around two minutes left to play against a top-seeded squad that plays some of the best defense in the country. Obama fills the role of team leader: everyone knew he was good, but nobody thought he could explode for 34 points and several clutch threes against this fundamentally sound favorite who has shut down every other opponent they've played so far this season. Sure, he might give them a run, but everyone just knew this favorite was going to go all the way and had filled out their brackets accordingly.

But now the underdog has the favorite on the ropes, the student section (Obama's longtime supporters) are going absolutely batshit crazy, the neutral crowd who just want to see some basketball (the Democratic establishment) are jumping on the bandwagon because they love seeing an underdog win and are tired of the same old boring basketball powers winning the title every year, the arena is rocking at a million decibles and Gus Johnson's head is about to explode he's getting so excited about the possibility of this upset.

Meanwhile the favored opponent, which got to the tournament on the strength of their fundamentals and defense (they don't do anything flashy but inevitably wear teams down over time with their general competence and solid play) is in all kinds of trouble. Their hardcore fans (people like Charles Schumer, Ted Strickland, Tom Vilsack, etc) have that "I can't believe this is happening, we were supposed to be a lock for the Final Four, we have three seniors who are guaranteed NBA first rounders starting!!!" look on their faces. The coach is desperately subbing in guys of the bench (Hilary firing her campaign manager) to try and light a fire under the team. Their game all year has been playing fundamentally sound ball and forcing other teams to make mistakes, but now they need fire and creative energy, someone to step up and start making plays to get them back in the game.

So coming out of this timeout (the break between yesterday's Potomac primaries and the upcoming contests in Wisconsin and Hawaii) Obama is dribbling down the court with the ball with an six point lead and just under two minutes left in the game. This possession (the Wisconsin and Hawaii primaries next Tuesday) isn't do or die for him: after all, he's up by six. But a couple things can happen during this trip down the court.

1. Obama turns the ball over and Hilary takes it coast to coast for a quick dunk to cut the lead to four. Real world equivlent: Obama losing in Wisconsin. He still is up by four, but the crowd has been temporarily silenced and Hilary's team is up off the bench and shouting again. Its very much still a game and the underdog needs to respond.

2. Obama runs down the clock but bricks the shot, giving Hilary the ball back still down by six. She needs to make some baskets, but the crowd has quieted down a little bit and she still has some hope. Real world equivlent: Obama winning Wisconsin by a narrow margin, giving Hilary some hope. She still needs to make baskets quickly (win in Ohio and Texas) to catch up, and with good defense and a made shot or two Obama still should win, but things are certainly not over.

3. Obama runs the clock down to about 1:30 left, then drains a three Boom-Dizzle style in Hilary's eye to make it a nine point game. The crowd goes absolutely insane, Hilary's coach disgustedly calls another time out, and things are looking very, very dire in Clinton-land. Real world equivlent: Obama cleaning up in Wisconsin like he did in Virginia and Maryland. This scenario makes things very tough for Hilary: now down by 9, she needs to both start making threes (winning in Ohio, Texas, and probably Pennsylvania) and start fouling Obama (going negative) if she has any chance of winning now. At this point the only way the underog (Obama) is losing is if they cant make their free throws (winning in the remaining states that favor him and staying on message) and Clinton's desperation threes start falling: if he stays on his game it should be all over.

So there you have it: Obama (a huge basketball fan, for those of you who don't know), is walking the ball up the court, up by six, with a chance to all but put the game away. Does he have the killer instinct to drain that three? We'll find out next Tuesday.

The Internet and the Death of Sportscenter

Sportscenter sucks. So does Baseball Tonight. These things should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has watched either show for more than the past couple of years: they used to give you highlights with occasionally funny and insightful commentary. Now both shows give you the occasional highlight with a heaping serving of crappy features, retarded running segments that serve only to give the announcers another avenue to repeat the same crappy, shallow analysis they give out during the rest of the show, and a gigantic shitstorm of stories involving involving steroids, scandals, athletes getting arrested, or even which celebrity Tom Brady happened to bang last week. If I want to watch Sportscenter I want to see sports, not hear Scott Van Pelt breaking down an NFL quarterback's sex life.

ANyway I go on this rant not to state an obvious point (otherwise how would i be any different than every anchor/analyst currently on the show), but to make a prediction: Sportscenter, Baseball Tonight, and every similar highlight show will be off the air within 5 years.

Why? The answer, of course, lies with the internet: when Sportscenter was in its heyday in the mid-90s the internet was just getting going, and while you might be lucky enough to find box scores or game summaries online you sure as hell weren't finding streaming video highlights (can you imagine how long it would take one 30 second youtube clip to load on a 28K dial-up) online. Sportscenter and Baseball Tonight used to be awesome because they were the only place to go to see a genuine wrap-up of the day in sports besides the next mornings paper or the 6 minute segment on the local news.

Now, however, you can find almost any highlight you want within hours (if not minutes) of a game ending, negating the need to check out sportscenter if you wanted to actually wanted to see what happened outside of your local teams. This is one of the reasons theyve moved towards the vapid crap that now characterizes each show: the hardcore fans left a long time ago, so they need to appeal to the casual sports fans who might actually want updates on Tony Romo's lovelife. The hardcore fan who cares about how Romo performs against different defensive packages left a longtime ago to go read Football Outsiders.

The same thing holds true for in-depth analysis by experts: it used to be that Peter Gammons was the end all and be all of baseball reporters, with the occasional yearly statistical summary book produced by someone like Bill James or Ron Shandler. You watched Baseball Tonight because it was one of the only places to get analysis of your team beyond the local newscaster making bullshit small talk with the anchor about how excited people are for another Barry Bonds home run (and yes, I'm talking to your A's hating, biased ass Gary Radnich: I hope you enjoy KRON getting railed by every other tv station in the bay).

Now, however, with the rise of Rotoworld, Baseball Prospectus, Hoopsworld, and, yes, espn.com (which has smartly hired some of the best analysts, bloggers, and writers in the world), you can get in-depth coverage on any important (or not so important) development within hours of whatever happens without having to wade through loads of crap you don't care about. With sportscenter I had to watch an hours worth of highlights to get 30 seconds about one of my teams, so whatever was said was inevitably simple, shallow, and something I already knew because its hard to really say something when you've only got 30 seconds. Now, I can just go to athleticsnation or Golden State of Mind and find instant links to every story about the team and every expert opinion about what how the team is doing and where it needs to go from here.

So farewell to Sportscenter and Baseball Tonight, you guys gave it a good run while it lasted, and I'm sure Chris Berman can still find someone to pay him to come up with godawful nicknames for sports figures. Enjoy the twilight years, I'll be on Fire Joe MOrgan, where Ken Tremendous skewers columnists with posts 50 times funnier than anything that ever left the mouth of John Kruk.

Youtube magic of the day: How much would you give for your team to win a championship?

Diesel to the Valley of the Sun

I would give analysis of the Shaq-Marion trade, but i think my buddy Aaron summed it up best when I was talking to him earlier today: the Suns gave every basketball writer in the country the opportunity to write their easiest story of the year. As the AP story proclaimed:

Phoenix, the NBA's fastest team, acquires slow, once-mighty giant -- Shaquille O'Neal

You know this trade is terrible when even the always sure to be neutral AP refers to Shaq as "slow" and "once-mighty."

This evens things out for the Warriors in the Pacific division. The Lakers' trade for Gasol makes them the prohibitive favorite, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Warriors pass the Diesel powered Suns (don't the Suns know their offense runs best on high-octane? Sorry, that was atrociously corny). Though i will say I'm somewhat excited for a Shaq C-Dubb matchup so we can pretend its 1995 again.

Your youtube magic of the day: Shaq welcoming Yao to the NBA

And in all fairness I love Shaq and his sense of humor, I just think its riduculous the Suns are trading Marion for him.

Election Wrap-Up

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Super Tuesday

I'm taking a day off from sports to talk about Super Tuesday and the presidential primaries. In the interest of disclosure I'm an Obama supporter, so my already dubious predictions are going to be that much more skewed, but here's a shot at what I think is going to happen today.

General Storyline: Obama surpasses expectations, especially in the west, Clinton wins enough states to fight on.

Obama wins:
Alabama 55-42
Alaska 55-40
California 47-46
Colorado 49-46
Connecticut 47-46
Deleware 48-44
Georgia 54-39
Idaho 48-40
Illinois 65-30
Kansas 46-43
Minnesota 47-45
North Dakota 48-44
Utah 54-40

Clinton wins
Arizona 49-46
Arkansas 62-35
Massachusetts 51-47
Missouri 46-45
New Mexico 44-42
New Jersey 50-44
New York 56-41
Oklahoma 58-35
Tennessee 54-41


I would put the delegate counts here but with the way the Democrats assign delegates its a pointless exercise because its going to depend on individual congressional districts, etc. This result would provide huge momentum for Obama but wouldn't be enough to knock Clinton out yet, especially because a number of Obama's states don't have many delegates.

And for the Republicans, McCain knocks Romney out in a landslide. West Virginia already went against him, if Romney takes much beyond Massachusetts, Utah, and maybe a couple of the other small states in the west (Idaho is a definitely possibility since its 23% Mormon) I'll be shocked. Anyone thinking California is going for Romney is smoking a little too much of Cali's finest.

Funny link of the day (we'll switch away from youtube for a second): Hip-Hop Graphs.

Biggest Upset Ever?

Some general thoughts on Super Bowl 42, the Santana trade, the Gasol trade

Point differential and why this is the biggest upset in NFL History:

Everyone is (correctly) highlighting the fact that it seems incredible that the 16-0 Patriots could lose to a 10-6 Giants team that most people didn't expect to get past the first round of the playoffs. But I like to look at point differential as a true measure of a teams greatness, and doing this makes the Patriots loss even more ridiculous than it does when looking at records alone.

For an example of why point differential is a better measure of dominance than wins and losses alone, take two hypothetical teams: both play the same schedule, one goes 14-2, one goes 16-0. The 16-0 team wins every game by a score of 23-20, the 14-2 team outscores its opponents 56-0 in every win while only losing by a score of 14-13 in its two losses. Its pretty clear that the 16-0 team got lucky in winning all of its game by close margins and probably isn't as good as its record indicates, while the 14-2 team, despite its inferior record, is probably the better team, as it absolutely dominated all season outside of those two close losses. Obviously there are other variables that need to be considered (injuries, style of play, ability to close teams out), but usually teams that win games by a lot are better than teams that squeak out a lot of close wins.

Anyway this hypothetical scenario is obviously a little extreme compared to what happens in an actual season, but the general point is that point differntial provides a better measure of a team's quality than win-loss record does. This matters for Super Bowl 42 because the Patriots had the biggest point differential in the history of the NFL (589-274), making their 16-0 season that much more ridiculous, while the Giants (373-351) had the worst point differential of any playoff team from the NFC. The Giants may of had a better record than the Redskins and Bucs, but according to point differential the Giants were the second worst team in the playoffs, and one of the worst teams to ever make the Super Bowl (much less win it) in the first place. So when Brady threw that incompletion on 4th down last night, you weren't just witnessing the end of the Patriots quest for an undefeated season, you were witnessing the greatest upset in the history of the NFL.

So congrats to the Giants for their incredible win, and thanks for saving the sports world from the potential Boston three-peat where the Red Sox, Pats, and Celtics could have all been the reigning world champions come this spring. The cockiness coming out of New England was going far beyond that of New York fans after the Yankees late 90s series runs, and I'd rather put up with more crap coming out of ESPN about the New YOrk-Boston rivalry than have to listen to my Boston friends tell me about their more than slightly homoerotic man-crushes on Tom Brady any longer.


The Santana trade, the short version of the analysis: Great trade for the Mets, the Twins got shafted (especially when compared to what the A's got for Danny Haren), I'm not entirely sold on the contract but considering it isn't that much more ridiculous than what the Giants gave Zito in terms of the raw figures I have to say its not too terible. If Zito can get 18 million a year for throwing up an ERA over 4.50 in the NATIONAL LEAGUE last year you have to figure Santana is worth 22-23 million a year for being the best pitcher in baseball over the last three seasons. If Santana stays healthy the contract looks golden, if he gets into trouble (a possibility with any pitcher) than the contract looks a little overpriced but the Mets are one of the few teams in baseball (the Red Sox, Yankees, and maybe Angels and Cubs) that can afford to eat big contracts while still staying competitive. Finally, the Mets are now far and away the favorites to win the National League, despite the fact that you could make the argument that the three best teams in the National League all play in the NL East (Mets, Phillies, and Braves).

Gasol trade: Awesome, awesome trade for the Lakers, if Bynum comes back healthy you have to figure that they're now the favorites to win the West. Obviously I'm pissed about this as a Warriors fan, since it makes the W's road to the playoffs that much harder, but it should provide for me great basketball for the second half of the season. I still think the Warriors have a great shot at getting the 7 or 8 seed because I don't think the Rockets are that good and the Blazers can't keep up their hot pace, but I wouldn't be surprised if it takes 47-48 wins to make the playoffs in the west and the Warriors find themselves on the outside looking in. Also, check out the first round matchups in the West if the playoffs started today:

Golden State (8) vs. Phoenix (1)
Denver (7) v. New Orleans (2)
San Antonio (6!!!!???) v. Dallas (3)
Lakers (5) v. Utah (4).

Every single one of those series looks incredible, especially when compared with the utter crapfest that is the Eastern Conference this year besides the Celtics and Pistons. After actually watching the Wizards and Cavs play recently I'm convinced that not one of the Eastern conference teams would make the playoffs in the west besides Detroit and Boston. Not one.

Your youtube magic of the day: Regis farting live on tv. The look on his face before he lets it out by itself makes it worth checking this out.

Previously on Lost...

Before i get to the ridiculous highway robbery that was the Johan Santana Trade (no one offered the Twins anything better than that? Really???) I need to put in a word about the only tv show I've ever watched religiously: Lost.

I know its a show that really divides people, most viewers either cant get enough of it or think the ridiculous plot twists are retarded and that investing anytime at all in the show is worthless because you're inevitably going to have more questions coming out of season than you did going in at the beginning. I fall firmly in the former of these two categories: at times (especially during Season 2 and the first half of last season) it does move way too slowly and the writers get a little too cute but the intricate interweaving story lines and various plot twists are what make the show great and separate it from all the other standard crap on TV. Plus to me a show like 24 was always just as ridiculous as Lost, just in a different way. Whereas 24 always has the same things happening to the same character (Jack Bauer is the fucking man and saves the country from one ridiculous situatiuon after another), Lost throws in way more variety, better character development, and more complex and interesting storylines. And since Elisha Cuthbert left the show, way more hot girls.

Anyway after seeing the extended trailer for the new season I was already beyond excited for it to get started, and then I read SF Chronicle TV critic Tim Goodman's enthusiastic review of the new season. For those of you who don't know Goodman he is definitely one of the best, if not the best, tv critic currently writing, and I don't just say that because I'm ridiculously prejudiced towards all things coming from the Bay Area (my love of a number of East Bay rappers is not an argument in my favor here, but that's another post). Anyway the article is linked too above, but I just have to throw in a couple excerpts to get the juices flowing:

"At first, ABC said it wasn't going to send out screeners of the Season 4 premiere of "Lost." Too many spoilers, the network said. Can't trust the critics.
Then, over the weekend, ABC sent an e-mail to critics saying, yes, they could watch the first two episodes online. A DVD appeared on Monday.
Three words for Thursday's first episode: Oh. My. God.
ABC kindly sent the second episode as well. Three more words: Oh. My. God."

To that I can only respond with three words: Oh. My. God.
The world could end on Thursday night between 8-10 PM eastern time and i probably won't realize it.

I'll be back with a post on the Johan trade later today.

Looks like its official...

Looks like Warriors fans are going a chance to see Webber back in the bay by the end of the week: possibly for Friday's home game in Oakland against the Charlotte Bobcats (already an interesting matchup because J-Rich returns to Oakland for the first time).

From ESPN: "I'll be there tomorrow," Webber said via email. "It's a done deal."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3219421

As mentioned yesterday, I don't think this helps the Warriors in the long run, and might be a risky move...but lets sit back and see what happens. At the very least the the '07-'08 version of the Warriors (Stephen Jackson's adventures with firearms outside nightclubs aside) has legit team leadership and hopefully will be handle any problems better than Latrell "I'm probably the only professional athlete whose famous for being a choker in the literal sense of the word" Spreewell and the rest of the '93-'94 Warriors could.

Finally, courtesy of my little bro, the youtube clip of the day: if you're a dude you'll might feel a little queasy after this one (lets just say pole vaulter serves the shit out of himself and leave at that for now).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F3-Q7VB_C4

Webber to the W's

Various sources are reporting that the Warriors (or at least Don Nelson) are pushing hard to try and sign Chris Webber for the remainder of the season. Reaction to this possibility from local sports columnists seems to range from cautiously enthusiastic (hey, the Warriors need front-court depth and who wouldn't want to join one of the feel-good stories of the NBA right now) to the overwhelmingly negative (that clubhouse cancer? On the W's? with Don Nelson? Are you fucking kidding me?).

For an example of the cautious optimist see Warrior fan Adam Laurisden's blog on the SJ Mercury News website, for the generally negative view see SJ Mercury News Warriors beat writer Tim Kawakami's take here.

My first instinct was to go with the cautiously optimistic pundits on this one, because the W's do legitimately need some front-court depth and it really does seem like Nellie has the team completely behind him and will be able to overcome any C-Dubb grumblings that might (probably will?) come up. But Kawakami is a don (the don) when it comes to covering the Warriors; there's a reason I'm linking to his column when the Chronicle usually provides by far the best local sports coverage for the bay. And after reading his take I have to agree with him: the Warriors do need to add front court depth, but it needs to be with someone who fits in with the overall system and who definitely won't screw up the team's chemistry. Webber might provide a badly needed inside offensive presence for Golden State's half-court sets, but is that worth the risk of messing up the team unity that has carried the Warriors since last April?

The way the Warriors are currently built they are only going to make the playoffs (and advance in the playoffs) if they play active defense and get hot shooting the ball. The argument for Webber relies on the idea that he will help the W's if they get into a slowdown half court game by giving them a legit inside threat offensively, but the truth is Webber is going to get DESTROYED against any legit competition like Boozer, Amare, a healthy Bynum, Duncan, Dwight Howard, etc. Adding Webber might give them some decent offensive firepower inside against the dregs of the NBA (e.g. every eastern conference team besides the Celtics, Pistons, Cavs, and Wizards), but the Warriors are going to need to compete against the best if they're going to remain in the playoff picture, and Webber is not going to help them do that. The Warriors inside defense is actually better than most people give them credit for (especially when Biedrins does his best Dennis Rodman impression and picks up 26!!! boards), and Webber has never been a great defender anyway. Barring a ridiculous trade that lands them someone like Rasheed Wallace they're never going to be able to match-up offensively down low: whether or not they sign Webber the W's are only going to win if they make other teams play their game.

All that having been said, the way the W's magic has been going over the last 8-9 months it wouldn't surprise me if Webber signs, starts averaging 17-8 and powers the W's to a 50 win season. I still think their front-court problems would be better addressed by signing Rod Benson (not really, but this needs to happen if only because his already awesome blog will instantly become legendary if he signs in Oakland) but for now we'll just have to sit back and see what happens.

Your youtube video of the day: Webber during his original stint on the W's with a pretty ridiculous dunk on Charles Barkley.

Welcome and an explanation.

For those of you who knew me in college, this blog is sort of a continuation of the sports column I was writing for the Echo, except it gives me more space and a greater ability to write about whatever the fuck I feel like (see, already busting out from the oppressive bonds of college journalism). If you don't know me and somehow stumbled onto this blog, then awesome, I'm probably doing something right (or terribly wrong), hopefully you'll enjoy some of what I write and spread the word.

Most of my posts will focus on some aspect of American sports, with some sidetracks into the world of European soccer and the occasional rant about politics or life in general. Since this blog is primarily a way for me to let off some creative steam I'm not really focusing on a coherent overall theme for now, so expect me to jump around depending on my mood and what I feel like writing about. But hopefully things will come together over time.

Also I'm going to try to include some sort of ridiculously hilarious/inappropriate link with every post so to kick things off here's one of the better newscaster screw-up videos I've seen in awhile. I especially enjoyed the look on the co-anchors face, be sure to watch it twice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Y6PchDYfw


Anyway enjoy the blog, feel free to send any and all feedback, especially if its constructive or at least creatively delivered.


-AJ