Getting ready for a day of discussion at the sports-blog conference in NYC. You should be able to follow it on Twitter at #blogswithballs.
Meanwhile, how about those Penguins? Go into Detroit and shock the Red Wings to win the Stanley Cup title. Totally unexpected -- and the best possible outcome for the sport.
Falcons release Mike Vick: I said this yesterday -- I'll set the over/under on 12 NFL teams that either publicly or privately look into signing him. He won't lack for offers.
Trent Green retires: Will probably be best known for getting injured in 1999, thus giving Kurt Warner his shot.
MLB Friday Stud: Tim Lincecum.
And, yes, that Yankees win over the Mets was one of the most improbable endings to a baseball game anyone has probably seen in a long time. Walk-off easy pop-up? Come on.
More later.
-- D.S.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Twitter and Sports Marketing
If Twitter can sell $3 million worth of Dell product, why wouldn't sports teams try to leverage the platform for something a lot less big-ticket, like ticket sales?
Simmons On His New Basketball Book
This is a very interesting Q&A in the New Yorker. Here's the money quote, about the new book:
words pages. And, given his passion and understanding of the subject, why shouldn't it have?
-- D.S.
I spent three years writing it and it turned out exactly the way I wanted it to turn out. It’s the best book I will ever write and it’s kind of sad to say that, because I’m not even forty yet, but I already came to grips with the fact that, yes, this is the best book I will ever write. I know more about this subject than anything else, I’m more passionate about this subject than anything else, and that’s that. So it’s all downhill from here.You can understand -- and appreciate -- why the book clocked in at 700
-- D.S.
Friday 06/12 A.M. Quickie:
Lakers, Red Sox, Alabama, NHL Game 7
So, yes, I have a spotty history with "calling" playoff series, Election Night-style. That doesn't stop me from doing it in the lead of today's SN column.
But I don't think there will be many disagreements that it is safe to say the Lakers wrapped up the NBA Finals in 4 games. Oh, sure, the Magic should win Game 5, but it seems impossible that they can win two games in L.A. -- and three straight overall.
And so the NBA Finals are, basically, over. Which is too bad, because if the Magic had won -- and maybe won Game 5 -- this series would have been amazing. Now, I wonder if folks will bother to pay attention, if they feel like it's a done-deal.
More you'll find in the column:
*Derek Fisher is so freaking money.
*Dwight Howard as Nick Anderson 2.0?
*NHL Stanley Cup Game 7: Nuff said.
*Alabama: That's no punishment.
*Donovan McNabb vs. Rex Grossman
There's a lot more. Full column here. For now, I'm preparing for tomorrow's first/only sports-blog conference, happening in NYC. I will put my MBA to good use (what's that? you say "finally?") by moderating a panel featuring some of the top leaders in content networks where bloggers and writers are making money and finding larger audiences: SB Nation, Yardbarker, Bleacher Report, Uproxx, Fansided. Should be a lot of fun. If you're going, looking forward to seeing you there. Otherwise, I'll try to provide updates via Twitter, found on the right or by following me @danshanoff, if you're on Twitter yourself.
-- D.S.
But I don't think there will be many disagreements that it is safe to say the Lakers wrapped up the NBA Finals in 4 games. Oh, sure, the Magic should win Game 5, but it seems impossible that they can win two games in L.A. -- and three straight overall.
And so the NBA Finals are, basically, over. Which is too bad, because if the Magic had won -- and maybe won Game 5 -- this series would have been amazing. Now, I wonder if folks will bother to pay attention, if they feel like it's a done-deal.
More you'll find in the column:
*Derek Fisher is so freaking money.
*Dwight Howard as Nick Anderson 2.0?
*NHL Stanley Cup Game 7: Nuff said.
*Alabama: That's no punishment.
*Donovan McNabb vs. Rex Grossman
There's a lot more. Full column here. For now, I'm preparing for tomorrow's first/only sports-blog conference, happening in NYC. I will put my MBA to good use (what's that? you say "finally?") by moderating a panel featuring some of the top leaders in content networks where bloggers and writers are making money and finding larger audiences: SB Nation, Yardbarker, Bleacher Report, Uproxx, Fansided. Should be a lot of fun. If you're going, looking forward to seeing you there. Otherwise, I'll try to provide updates via Twitter, found on the right or by following me @danshanoff, if you're on Twitter yourself.
-- D.S.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Raul Ibanez, Jerod Morris And Cynicism
I liked Joe Posnanski's take on this Raul Ibanez story. As usual, Joe is thoughtful and measured and earnest (even owning up to a bit of a bias for Ibanez).
Jerod Morris has also been somewhat unfairly turned into something bigger than the situation; aside from the statistical issues that Joe points out Jerod missed, Morris did a fair job.
What's ironic is that it is obvious that Jerod wasn't just trying to get exposure for himself or his blog -- compare this to Rick Reilly showily demanding that Sammy Sosa pee in a cup.
The larger story isn't Ibanez's justifiably strong reaction. Or the tired mainstream-vs-blogger thing.
The larger story is skepticism -- or, more accurately, cynicism -- that pervades baseball these days, from media to fans.
There is good reason for the skepticism -- or even the cynicism, as unfortunate as that is. It feels like "Hmph: Must be juicing" is attached to any player having a decent season.
It isn't limited to bloggers opining -- it happens in traditional media all the time. I am actually surprised that it doesn't happen more regularly.
The fact that people feel like it's a necessary point is pretty sad. Although I see it as a defense mechanism: Who wants to take performances at face value now and feel like a rube later?
Being cynical is easier. Pre-emptively protecting yourself from being hurt, as a fan, is easier. It is hard to know when this era will end.
But cynicism from fans and media alike is, by far, the most damaging byproduct of baseball's Steroid Era.
-- D.S.
UPDATE: Let's give AJ the final word.
No, wait: I liked Rob Neyer's take, too.
Jerod Morris has also been somewhat unfairly turned into something bigger than the situation; aside from the statistical issues that Joe points out Jerod missed, Morris did a fair job.
What's ironic is that it is obvious that Jerod wasn't just trying to get exposure for himself or his blog -- compare this to Rick Reilly showily demanding that Sammy Sosa pee in a cup.
The larger story isn't Ibanez's justifiably strong reaction. Or the tired mainstream-vs-blogger thing.
The larger story is skepticism -- or, more accurately, cynicism -- that pervades baseball these days, from media to fans.
There is good reason for the skepticism -- or even the cynicism, as unfortunate as that is. It feels like "Hmph: Must be juicing" is attached to any player having a decent season.
It isn't limited to bloggers opining -- it happens in traditional media all the time. I am actually surprised that it doesn't happen more regularly.
The fact that people feel like it's a necessary point is pretty sad. Although I see it as a defense mechanism: Who wants to take performances at face value now and feel like a rube later?
Being cynical is easier. Pre-emptively protecting yourself from being hurt, as a fan, is easier. It is hard to know when this era will end.
But cynicism from fans and media alike is, by far, the most damaging byproduct of baseball's Steroid Era.
-- D.S.
UPDATE: Let's give AJ the final word.
No, wait: I liked Rob Neyer's take, too.
Cristiano Ronaldo: US$131 Million Transfer
Cristiano Ronaldo's record $131 million transfer fee from Man U to Real Madrid will not be covered enough in the U.S. (and I'm the last to talk about soccer, knowledgeably), but it's huge.
Thursday 06/11 A.M. Quickie:
Magic, Ibanez, Red Sox, Economy, More
I originally led today's SN column with a flip-flop:
For the last few years, I had been arguing that the NBA was no longer a "Big" (as in "Big Four") sport. That it had joined the NHL as being a "niche" sport -- albeit a large one. But still, very little mass/casual appeal -- it had avid followers, but few casual ones.
TV ratings were on my side. I also argued that rejecting my theory was a result of perception: When the country's most well-read sports columnist -- Bill Simmons -- is a die-hard fan of the NBA and makes it a huge part of his columns, it can feel like everyone loves the NBA, too. When the country's most influential sports-TV program -- PTI -- involves die-hard fans of the NBA (particularly Wilbon) and make it a huge part of their program rundown, it can make it feel like everyone loves the NBA, too. I felt like these things skewed perception a bit.
But I'm nothing if not willing to change my mind (often too quickly!) in the face of new evidence. And all evidence points to the NBA ascending back to its "Big" status, alongside the NFL, college football and MLB. People are watching; the games are compelling.
I am particularly optimistic about the idea that the Finals don't have to be Lakers-Celtics (or Kobe-LeBron) for fans to find them worth watching. As I said last year, Lakers-Celtics was a best-case scenario for the NBA; Lakers-Magic perhaps wasn't, and yet the ratings from game to game are virtually the same. In an era of increasing consumer fragmentation, this represents a huge positive step forward.
Between the way the league has dominated the last two months with its playoffs and this newly launched initiative to short up basketball player development -- which will hopefully mean increased professionalization of that development -- the NBA is in ascent, with a huge pivot point tonight's Game 4: If the Magic win, it's on. If the Lakers win -- ensuring the Finals are virtually over -- will that progress slow down?
That WAS what I led with, but I swapped in something new, hubbed off of something Kareem said about Dwight Howard, basically pointing out that Howard isn't very good...yet.
I asked if he's good enough to get his team to the Finals, how good will he be when he finally learns how to play the game. Someone made the point to me: How good would he have been if he actually went to college?
And that's where I had my usual allergic reaction. Going to college would not have helped Dwight Howard's development as much as these past 5 years of strictly professional development.
It couldn't be more clear: College coaches are not concerned with developing their players for the NBA; they are concerned with winning (ie, their job security). NBA coaches, on the other hand, are entirely concerned with developing their players into NBA-ready talents -- their jobs hinge on it.
Whether a player spends time with NBA coaches or in the D-League (or even Europe), they are getting better preparation for a pro career than if they play college basketball -- it works for both kinds of players, too: The one-and-done star clearly doesn't need college basketball; this forced year of unpaid internship is unnecessary... and probably stunts growth more than accelerates it. The four-year college player with NBA aspirations also would be better served to spend four years developing under pro tutelage than a college coach; of course, if a four-year player was any good, they would have left college for the NBA two or more years earlier.
Make no mistake: If Tyler Hansbrough would have been a Top 10 lock after his freshman or sophomore years at UNC, he would have left school early. It makes too much ecomonic sense, but strictly from a developmental perspective, it also is in his best interests to get coached to maximize his role in the NBA, not to maximize his role for UNC -- again: If his ultimate goal is to play in the NBA.
(This is related to my argument about the UFL letting in college players before the NFL would have them: How much better prepared would future NFL QBs be if, instead of playing an additional 30 games in a spread offense, they spent two years being trained to be an NFL QB, by coaches who are expert in developing NFL QBs.)
Anyway, my point is: Dwight Howard was/is way better off -- basketball skills-wise and financially -- for having skipped college and gone straight into his pro career.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Raul Ibanez: Why was it OK when Rick Reilly did the same thing?
*Jersey sponsorships: What would the Texans do for a buck?
*Knicks love Stephen Curry: Too bad the Wizards are going to yoink him.
*The Red Sox still own the Yankees.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
For the last few years, I had been arguing that the NBA was no longer a "Big" (as in "Big Four") sport. That it had joined the NHL as being a "niche" sport -- albeit a large one. But still, very little mass/casual appeal -- it had avid followers, but few casual ones.
TV ratings were on my side. I also argued that rejecting my theory was a result of perception: When the country's most well-read sports columnist -- Bill Simmons -- is a die-hard fan of the NBA and makes it a huge part of his columns, it can feel like everyone loves the NBA, too. When the country's most influential sports-TV program -- PTI -- involves die-hard fans of the NBA (particularly Wilbon) and make it a huge part of their program rundown, it can make it feel like everyone loves the NBA, too. I felt like these things skewed perception a bit.
But I'm nothing if not willing to change my mind (often too quickly!) in the face of new evidence. And all evidence points to the NBA ascending back to its "Big" status, alongside the NFL, college football and MLB. People are watching; the games are compelling.
I am particularly optimistic about the idea that the Finals don't have to be Lakers-Celtics (or Kobe-LeBron) for fans to find them worth watching. As I said last year, Lakers-Celtics was a best-case scenario for the NBA; Lakers-Magic perhaps wasn't, and yet the ratings from game to game are virtually the same. In an era of increasing consumer fragmentation, this represents a huge positive step forward.
Between the way the league has dominated the last two months with its playoffs and this newly launched initiative to short up basketball player development -- which will hopefully mean increased professionalization of that development -- the NBA is in ascent, with a huge pivot point tonight's Game 4: If the Magic win, it's on. If the Lakers win -- ensuring the Finals are virtually over -- will that progress slow down?
That WAS what I led with, but I swapped in something new, hubbed off of something Kareem said about Dwight Howard, basically pointing out that Howard isn't very good...yet.
I asked if he's good enough to get his team to the Finals, how good will he be when he finally learns how to play the game. Someone made the point to me: How good would he have been if he actually went to college?
And that's where I had my usual allergic reaction. Going to college would not have helped Dwight Howard's development as much as these past 5 years of strictly professional development.
It couldn't be more clear: College coaches are not concerned with developing their players for the NBA; they are concerned with winning (ie, their job security). NBA coaches, on the other hand, are entirely concerned with developing their players into NBA-ready talents -- their jobs hinge on it.
Whether a player spends time with NBA coaches or in the D-League (or even Europe), they are getting better preparation for a pro career than if they play college basketball -- it works for both kinds of players, too: The one-and-done star clearly doesn't need college basketball; this forced year of unpaid internship is unnecessary... and probably stunts growth more than accelerates it. The four-year college player with NBA aspirations also would be better served to spend four years developing under pro tutelage than a college coach; of course, if a four-year player was any good, they would have left college for the NBA two or more years earlier.
Make no mistake: If Tyler Hansbrough would have been a Top 10 lock after his freshman or sophomore years at UNC, he would have left school early. It makes too much ecomonic sense, but strictly from a developmental perspective, it also is in his best interests to get coached to maximize his role in the NBA, not to maximize his role for UNC -- again: If his ultimate goal is to play in the NBA.
(This is related to my argument about the UFL letting in college players before the NFL would have them: How much better prepared would future NFL QBs be if, instead of playing an additional 30 games in a spread offense, they spent two years being trained to be an NFL QB, by coaches who are expert in developing NFL QBs.)
Anyway, my point is: Dwight Howard was/is way better off -- basketball skills-wise and financially -- for having skipped college and gone straight into his pro career.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Raul Ibanez: Why was it OK when Rick Reilly did the same thing?
*Jersey sponsorships: What would the Texans do for a buck?
*Knicks love Stephen Curry: Too bad the Wizards are going to yoink him.
*The Red Sox still own the Yankees.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Wednesday 06/10 A.M. Quickie:
Magic, Floyd, Strasburg, Red Sox, More
I am surely overrating (no!), but it seems like a pretty big moment in the short history of Twitter's impact on sports media that Shaq's tweet immediately after last night's game framed the story:
"By george I think we have a series."
This may seem self-serving from someone whose career hinged on the notion that you could fill a column with 30-word blurbs on lots of topics, rather than 750-word (or 2,500-word) columns on a specific topic, but columnists in Orlando and LA and online will churn out tens of thousands of words about last night's game -- but Shaq did more to make sense with his 8 words than all those other words combined. (And he did it faster.)
That said, Game 3 led today's SN column: Wow, the Magic shot the lights out. Wow, they locked down on Kobe after his 1st quarter promised a crazy epic performance from him. Wow, they seemed like a totally different -- entirely confident -- team playing at home (and the Lakers have lost 7 straight Finals games on the road). I don't think the Magic leaving Orlando up 3-2 is a crazy notion.
*Meanwhile, let's get real: Who didn't see Tim Floyd's resignation coming? Frankly, the guy probably should have been fired years ago. But beyond that, the whole "recruitment" of OJ Mayo was so sketchy -- right from its odd start! -- that you knew things were going to go badly for Floyd. That USC coaching job is toxic -- although I'm sure the NCAA won't do anything to the program...certainly now that Floyd is out.
*Don't be fooled: The Vikings "dropping" interest in Favre is complete b.s. He could show up in late July saying "I'm here," and they'd drop whatever plan they had in place to make it work.
*The Nationals finally have some cachet: Stephen Strasburg. Now, they just have to get him signed, up to the big leagues and pitching -- ideally at home, where they could use the attendance boost -- ASAP.
Lots more in today's column. See the whole thing here. More later.
-- D.S.
"By george I think we have a series."
This may seem self-serving from someone whose career hinged on the notion that you could fill a column with 30-word blurbs on lots of topics, rather than 750-word (or 2,500-word) columns on a specific topic, but columnists in Orlando and LA and online will churn out tens of thousands of words about last night's game -- but Shaq did more to make sense with his 8 words than all those other words combined. (And he did it faster.)
That said, Game 3 led today's SN column: Wow, the Magic shot the lights out. Wow, they locked down on Kobe after his 1st quarter promised a crazy epic performance from him. Wow, they seemed like a totally different -- entirely confident -- team playing at home (and the Lakers have lost 7 straight Finals games on the road). I don't think the Magic leaving Orlando up 3-2 is a crazy notion.
*Meanwhile, let's get real: Who didn't see Tim Floyd's resignation coming? Frankly, the guy probably should have been fired years ago. But beyond that, the whole "recruitment" of OJ Mayo was so sketchy -- right from its odd start! -- that you knew things were going to go badly for Floyd. That USC coaching job is toxic -- although I'm sure the NCAA won't do anything to the program...certainly now that Floyd is out.
*Don't be fooled: The Vikings "dropping" interest in Favre is complete b.s. He could show up in late July saying "I'm here," and they'd drop whatever plan they had in place to make it work.
*The Nationals finally have some cachet: Stephen Strasburg. Now, they just have to get him signed, up to the big leagues and pitching -- ideally at home, where they could use the attendance boost -- ASAP.
Lots more in today's column. See the whole thing here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
NBA, NCAA Join Forces to Launch iHoops.com
Here is the mission of the new NBA-NCAA partnership to save amateur basketball: (1) Put the fetid AAU industry out of business. (2) Ummm... call me when you've completed (1).
-- D.S.
-- D.S.
Memo to New UFL GM Rick Mueller
Rick Mueller: You're in charge of scouting and acquisitions for the entire UFL. Here is a very simple strategy that ensures the best chance of success for the league:
Convince the league to undercut the NFL age minimum by 2 years, allowing entry for players -- not just prospects, but future NFL stars -- with a little as just a single season of college experience. You will be hailed as a visionary.
Wouldn't it be more fun to "scout" and "acquire" Julio Jones than troll the NFL rejection bin for washed-up "names" or, worse, NFL-unworthy players no one has even heard of?
-- D.S.
Convince the league to undercut the NFL age minimum by 2 years, allowing entry for players -- not just prospects, but future NFL stars -- with a little as just a single season of college experience. You will be hailed as a visionary.
Wouldn't it be more fun to "scout" and "acquire" Julio Jones than troll the NFL rejection bin for washed-up "names" or, worse, NFL-unworthy players no one has even heard of?
-- D.S.
Tuesday 06/09 A.M. Quickie:
Strasburg, Magic, Cox, Curry, More
The MLB Draft lacks the heft of the NFL Draft -- which has become one of the top 5 sports events of the year -- and the cachet of the NBA Draft -- arguably the NBA's single-best day of the year.
This season, it does not lack for star wattage at the top: Stephen Strasburg, presumably headed to the Nationals with the No. pick -- and a record-breaking deal soon afterward.
Let's assume that he will be overpaid. That's a given. Let's even assume that he could end up being a bust, or merely even mediocre, or merely even great but not "best ever."
All that said, I think the Nationals -- a team of which I am a fan, if only nominally (but more than any other MLB team at this point) -- should spend whatever to get him.
Why? Relevance. Buzz. Cachet. Strasburg's early career will be in a spotlight that the otherwise irrelevant Nats simply don't have otherwise.
They may have a "Plan." They may be contenders in 5 or 10 years. In the meantime, they can at least have an attraction every 5 days that fans will pay attention to. That makes him worth it.
More you'll find in today's SN column:
*The Magic are just immature enough not to be too fazed by justmissingout on stunning the Lakers in LA in Game 2. Three games from now, they could be up 3-2. No, seriously...
*Stephen Curry is the most intriguing name in the NBA Draft. He has the most NBA-ready skill-set of any draftee: Even if it's a single dimension. Teams seem to covet him.
He will go no further than No. 5, to the Wizards. As a Wiz fan, I love this: Pair him with Arenas, and you have two combo guards who can handle/distribute the ball if necessary but also shoot the lights out. But the Wiz could also deal him to any number of teams that are going to be very keen on having him: The Knicks? The Bobcats? Just take a couple bad contracts from the Wiz.
The Knicks are taking a look at Curry today, even though they have the No. 8 pick -- he won't last until then -- and there are rumors that they are trying to shop David Lee and that they are trying to acquire Sergio Rodriguez from the Blazers (which may or may not be tied together). Maybe the Knicks are trying to trade up with the Wiz -- NY can eat DC's cap issues.
*Let's be clear: Brett Favre is coming back. To the Vikings. Maybe 6 weeks from now, but eventually. A deadline of this week seems ludicrous on its face. Throw in the circumstantial evidence that Favre's family bought a block of hotel rooms in Green Bay for the week the Packers play the Vikings. But can we please stop talking about the "if" stuff? It's "when."
*Surprise MLB player of the year and/or fantasy MVP of the year? How about Toronto's Adam Lind? 2 HR yesterday, continuing a torrid start to the season that should have him on the All-Star team as a reserve. (Speaking of All-Star voting, you know I'm a huge fan of the fan vote. But, come on, people: Jimmy Rollins over Hanley Ramirez?)
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
This season, it does not lack for star wattage at the top: Stephen Strasburg, presumably headed to the Nationals with the No. pick -- and a record-breaking deal soon afterward.
Let's assume that he will be overpaid. That's a given. Let's even assume that he could end up being a bust, or merely even mediocre, or merely even great but not "best ever."
All that said, I think the Nationals -- a team of which I am a fan, if only nominally (but more than any other MLB team at this point) -- should spend whatever to get him.
Why? Relevance. Buzz. Cachet. Strasburg's early career will be in a spotlight that the otherwise irrelevant Nats simply don't have otherwise.
They may have a "Plan." They may be contenders in 5 or 10 years. In the meantime, they can at least have an attraction every 5 days that fans will pay attention to. That makes him worth it.
More you'll find in today's SN column:
*The Magic are just immature enough not to be too fazed by justmissingout on stunning the Lakers in LA in Game 2. Three games from now, they could be up 3-2. No, seriously...
*Stephen Curry is the most intriguing name in the NBA Draft. He has the most NBA-ready skill-set of any draftee: Even if it's a single dimension. Teams seem to covet him.
He will go no further than No. 5, to the Wizards. As a Wiz fan, I love this: Pair him with Arenas, and you have two combo guards who can handle/distribute the ball if necessary but also shoot the lights out. But the Wiz could also deal him to any number of teams that are going to be very keen on having him: The Knicks? The Bobcats? Just take a couple bad contracts from the Wiz.
The Knicks are taking a look at Curry today, even though they have the No. 8 pick -- he won't last until then -- and there are rumors that they are trying to shop David Lee and that they are trying to acquire Sergio Rodriguez from the Blazers (which may or may not be tied together). Maybe the Knicks are trying to trade up with the Wiz -- NY can eat DC's cap issues.
*Let's be clear: Brett Favre is coming back. To the Vikings. Maybe 6 weeks from now, but eventually. A deadline of this week seems ludicrous on its face. Throw in the circumstantial evidence that Favre's family bought a block of hotel rooms in Green Bay for the week the Packers play the Vikings. But can we please stop talking about the "if" stuff? It's "when."
*Surprise MLB player of the year and/or fantasy MVP of the year? How about Toronto's Adam Lind? 2 HR yesterday, continuing a torrid start to the season that should have him on the All-Star team as a reserve. (Speaking of All-Star voting, you know I'm a huge fan of the fan vote. But, come on, people: Jimmy Rollins over Hanley Ramirez?)
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Monday 06/08 A.M. Quickie:
Lakers, Federer, Tiger, Halladay, More
Roger Federer may have been the best tennis player ever before he won the French Open yesterday. But in completing the Career Grand Slam AND tying Sampras with 14 major titles, it feels more official now.
But what I was struck by in thinking about Federer -- enough to lead today's SN column with it -- was that we are living through what could be an unprecedented era of Best Players Ever.
Consider:
Federer: Best tennis player ever.
Tiger: Best golfer ever.
These are (mostly) confirmed.
Then there is Peyton Manning, who is already among the Top 10 NFL QBs ever; shows no sign of slowing down; and, when it's all done, will probably own every single NFL QB record that matters -- that may qualify him as "greatest NFL player ever."
Say what you want about Tim Tebow, but if he wins another national title, it would be hard not to call him the greatest college QB -- perhaps the greatest college football player -- ever.
LeBron is not the greatest NBA player ever -- yet. But he is already the most talented, and has been the best player in the league for a few years now...arguably since he turned 20. So while he might not be the best ever at the exact moment Federer is, they will overlap.
I'm even willing to broach baseball -- which is brutal on instant historians (as it should be). But no player has ever started (and sustained) a career quite like Albert Pujols, who is doing it in an era of scrutiny so much more intense than any "legend" ever did. I think we will look back and recognize that Pujols is not just the greatest hitter of this generation, but will wind up as one of the Top 10 players of all time. For baseball, that's pretty insane.
UPDATE: Then there is Michael Phelps -- the greatest Olympic athlete ever, for whom 2012 is for pure pleasure, after doing what no one else has ever done in 2008.
Is it a clean argument? Hardly. LeBron is -- absurdly -- still on the way up. Peyton is still mid-career. We have no idea yet just how far Tiger and Roger will go. Pujols could get injured and drop off next season.
But I do think that in 20 years we'll look back and this moment will register as a confluence of superlative athletes setting standards that players in the future will have a hard time topping.
Complete SN column here. Lots more to be found there. More later.
-- D.S.
But what I was struck by in thinking about Federer -- enough to lead today's SN column with it -- was that we are living through what could be an unprecedented era of Best Players Ever.
Consider:
Federer: Best tennis player ever.
Tiger: Best golfer ever.
These are (mostly) confirmed.
Then there is Peyton Manning, who is already among the Top 10 NFL QBs ever; shows no sign of slowing down; and, when it's all done, will probably own every single NFL QB record that matters -- that may qualify him as "greatest NFL player ever."
Say what you want about Tim Tebow, but if he wins another national title, it would be hard not to call him the greatest college QB -- perhaps the greatest college football player -- ever.
LeBron is not the greatest NBA player ever -- yet. But he is already the most talented, and has been the best player in the league for a few years now...arguably since he turned 20. So while he might not be the best ever at the exact moment Federer is, they will overlap.
I'm even willing to broach baseball -- which is brutal on instant historians (as it should be). But no player has ever started (and sustained) a career quite like Albert Pujols, who is doing it in an era of scrutiny so much more intense than any "legend" ever did. I think we will look back and recognize that Pujols is not just the greatest hitter of this generation, but will wind up as one of the Top 10 players of all time. For baseball, that's pretty insane.
UPDATE: Then there is Michael Phelps -- the greatest Olympic athlete ever, for whom 2012 is for pure pleasure, after doing what no one else has ever done in 2008.
Is it a clean argument? Hardly. LeBron is -- absurdly -- still on the way up. Peyton is still mid-career. We have no idea yet just how far Tiger and Roger will go. Pujols could get injured and drop off next season.
But I do think that in 20 years we'll look back and this moment will register as a confluence of superlative athletes setting standards that players in the future will have a hard time topping.
Complete SN column here. Lots more to be found there. More later.
-- D.S.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Saturday 06/06 (Very) Quickie
Lakers-Magic Game 2 tonight: More about how Magic bounce back than how Lakers press advantage.
Greinke: Is the magic over? The mean finally caught up with him, and Zack gave up 2 HR, only struck out 3 and took his 2nd loss of the season. Is Halladay suddenly the AL's best pitcher?
Carl Pavano has the last laugh.
100 wins is the new 300 wins: Zambrano hits milestone.
Ichiro hit-streak snapped (27) -- reason to follow
French Open final: Federer vs. the Guy Who Beat Nadal.
Rasheed Wallace to the Cavs? (So says Slam.)
What's that about Brett Favre? Who cares?
-- D.S.
Greinke: Is the magic over? The mean finally caught up with him, and Zack gave up 2 HR, only struck out 3 and took his 2nd loss of the season. Is Halladay suddenly the AL's best pitcher?
Carl Pavano has the last laugh.
100 wins is the new 300 wins: Zambrano hits milestone.
Ichiro hit-streak snapped (27) -- reason to follow
French Open final: Federer vs. the Guy Who Beat Nadal.
Rasheed Wallace to the Cavs? (So says Slam.)
What's that about Brett Favre? Who cares?
-- D.S.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Friday 06/05 A.M. Quickie:
Kobe, Lakers, Big Unit, Belmont, More
So perhaps my "Magic in 5" was wrong. I take comfort in the 1991 NBA Finals, when MJ and the Bulls lost Game 1 -- in Chicago, no less -- but went on to take 4 straight from the Lakers.
Couple differences: (1) Those Lakers were at the end of their run; these Lakers are mid-stride, even uber-motivated after last year, and (2) Kobe is the MJ in this scenario.
I can't help but think that the Magic can't possibly shoot as badly as they did last night (sub-30 percent) again -- progression to the mean? And don't forget nerves.
(I'm just rationalizing in the lead of today's SN column. I know it.)
Still: That was a throttling. But -- and I didn't do this research myself via Lexis-Nexis or anything -- I wonder what the newspaper columnists were saying back in '91 after Game 1 about the Bulls? Yeah, Game 1 was abdsurdly tense and could have gone either way -- unlike last night. But I'm sure there were more than a fair share of columnists ready to say "Bulls not ready."
Meanwhile:
*Randy Johnson wins No. 300. Not only will there never be another 300-game winner, I'm going to say that there won't be another 250-game winner. I look at the top contenders in the column today -- maybe Roy Halladay; he's "only" 32 and has to "only" win 15 games a season for the next 6 seasons. No sweat!
The upshot, really, is that the mythic plateau of "300" will quickly be discounted back to 250 -- good news for Mike Mussina, Bert Blyleven, Jack Morris and -- most recently -- Jamie Moyer. The bigger question is whether I am not discounting ENOUGH -- will 200 eventually become the new 300?
Lots going on in the column today. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
Couple differences: (1) Those Lakers were at the end of their run; these Lakers are mid-stride, even uber-motivated after last year, and (2) Kobe is the MJ in this scenario.
I can't help but think that the Magic can't possibly shoot as badly as they did last night (sub-30 percent) again -- progression to the mean? And don't forget nerves.
(I'm just rationalizing in the lead of today's SN column. I know it.)
Still: That was a throttling. But -- and I didn't do this research myself via Lexis-Nexis or anything -- I wonder what the newspaper columnists were saying back in '91 after Game 1 about the Bulls? Yeah, Game 1 was abdsurdly tense and could have gone either way -- unlike last night. But I'm sure there were more than a fair share of columnists ready to say "Bulls not ready."
Meanwhile:
*Randy Johnson wins No. 300. Not only will there never be another 300-game winner, I'm going to say that there won't be another 250-game winner. I look at the top contenders in the column today -- maybe Roy Halladay; he's "only" 32 and has to "only" win 15 games a season for the next 6 seasons. No sweat!
The upshot, really, is that the mythic plateau of "300" will quickly be discounted back to 250 -- good news for Mike Mussina, Bert Blyleven, Jack Morris and -- most recently -- Jamie Moyer. The bigger question is whether I am not discounting ENOUGH -- will 200 eventually become the new 300?
Lots going on in the column today. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Only Sort of Sports-ish: Meeting Lu Parker
Does a state-level Miss USA pageant count as sports? During my junior year of college, I I interned for a semester at the Sun News in Myrtle Beach, S.C. As a make-up for the paper not sending me to cover some non-conference college basketball tournament in Charlotte, they let me cover the Miss South Carolina USA pageant (not to be confused with Miss South Carolina of the Miss America system), which was being held in Myrtle Beach that year.
I was given "exclusive" (meaning: no other outlets were either interested or available) access during the entire day leading up to the competition -- me, the lonely single nebbishy Jewish 20-year-old, and like 35 South Carolina pageant contestants between the ages of 18 and probably 25, all representing our nation's finest example of shiksa.
When I got to the pageant registration area in the morning, I ended up sitting next to this one woman who seemed incredibly decent and likeable. She was nice to me, in a sincere way (although me being from the newspaper probably didn't hurt). I marked her down in my program as someone with the looks, talent, charm and philanthropic angle (she came promoting an education charity she had founded) to win the whole thing. She became a big part of the piece that I filed to the paper.
She did one better. Lu Parker not only won Miss South Carolina USA, but she went on to win Miss USA outright. She is now a newscaster in LA, but better-known for shtupping the Mayor of LA on the side. But I knew her when...
-- D.S.
PS: At the time, I totally felt qualified to be a pageant judge -- apparently, it's a little enclave you can join and then they call you to all sorts of random states to judge local competitions -- and I await my chance one day to make good on that.
PPS: Banner day for filling in my mid-90s work history, no?
I was given "exclusive" (meaning: no other outlets were either interested or available) access during the entire day leading up to the competition -- me, the lonely single nebbishy Jewish 20-year-old, and like 35 South Carolina pageant contestants between the ages of 18 and probably 25, all representing our nation's finest example of shiksa.
When I got to the pageant registration area in the morning, I ended up sitting next to this one woman who seemed incredibly decent and likeable. She was nice to me, in a sincere way (although me being from the newspaper probably didn't hurt). I marked her down in my program as someone with the looks, talent, charm and philanthropic angle (she came promoting an education charity she had founded) to win the whole thing. She became a big part of the piece that I filed to the paper.
She did one better. Lu Parker not only won Miss South Carolina USA, but she went on to win Miss USA outright. She is now a newscaster in LA, but better-known for shtupping the Mayor of LA on the side. But I knew her when...
-- D.S.
PS: At the time, I totally felt qualified to be a pageant judge -- apparently, it's a little enclave you can join and then they call you to all sorts of random states to judge local competitions -- and I await my chance one day to make good on that.
PPS: Banner day for filling in my mid-90s work history, no?
Blogs With Balls Update And An Apology
So the first-ever sports-blog conference is coming up a week from Saturday (June 13) in New York City. If you live in the city or just want to be at one of the biggest gatherings ever of sports bloggers, I highly recommend it.
There are a bunch of great panels, and I'm fortunate enough to be moderating one on the quote-unquote "conflict" between sports blogs and "mainstream" media, although as I plan out the panel, I think it's clear that the notion of a schism is no longer operable, and the proper description is probably "co-opetition."
What we would call "indie" blogs are increasingly professionalized (both for content and as businesses) and mainstream media has quickly adopted the blog platform and format for information delivery and consumer engagement. Bloggers offer innovation and a new talent-development stream; mainstream media offers wider distribution, some form of additional "credibility" and the opportunity to generate revenue.
But, really, what I keep coming back to is how stale the vocabulary is: How do you define "mainstream?" I would offer one working definition as "influence"; under that definition, Deadspin or The Big Lead ARE mainstream, in the way they impact the sports-media news cycle. Arguably, they are even more "mainstream" than newspapers or talk-radio, siloed by market (exception: national shows like Dan Patrick and Mike/Mike), or magazines, limited to weekly agenda-setting.
Anyway, hopefully, we will dig into all of these issues and more, and I'm fortunate to have a great panel to work with, including guys like Dan Steinberg, John Ness, Jeff Pearlman, Bethlehem Shoals, Mike Hall and Jeff Pyatt.
The media industry -- particularly sports media -- remains a passion of mine, and I love nothing more than getting into intelligent discussions about it, in almost any setting.
On that note, I was reading a commentary about Deadspin's latest commenter evolution and the writer -- who I might not agree with but very much respect -- brought up my criticism of Jason (Big Lead) McIntyre from just about a year ago.
What I regret about that post was that I didn't stay true to my interest in clear-eyed media analysis -- I may be shallow when it comes to last night's baseball news, but I like to think that when I finally talk about stuff that I actually understand deeply, like the sports-media industry, I present thoughtful and intelligent arguments. Instead, I devolved into personal attacks -- not my m.o. at all -- that ultimately undermined the more rational points I was trying to make.
It is long overdue, but I apologize to Jason for those personal attacks. I think it is totally valid -- even constructive -- to disagree on the topic (any topic) on the merits. My personal potshots were lame and unnecessary and -- I would like to think -- out of character for me.
I am not bringing this up to try to curry some sort of favor with Jason -- I would send him the same message via email, but given the public nature of my first post about this, a public message seemed more appropriate. But in thinking about that post, I sincerely regret the tone and apologize for the too-personal vitriol. Nearly a year later, it was time to revisit and set it straight.
-- D.S.
There are a bunch of great panels, and I'm fortunate enough to be moderating one on the quote-unquote "conflict" between sports blogs and "mainstream" media, although as I plan out the panel, I think it's clear that the notion of a schism is no longer operable, and the proper description is probably "co-opetition."
What we would call "indie" blogs are increasingly professionalized (both for content and as businesses) and mainstream media has quickly adopted the blog platform and format for information delivery and consumer engagement. Bloggers offer innovation and a new talent-development stream; mainstream media offers wider distribution, some form of additional "credibility" and the opportunity to generate revenue.
But, really, what I keep coming back to is how stale the vocabulary is: How do you define "mainstream?" I would offer one working definition as "influence"; under that definition, Deadspin or The Big Lead ARE mainstream, in the way they impact the sports-media news cycle. Arguably, they are even more "mainstream" than newspapers or talk-radio, siloed by market (exception: national shows like Dan Patrick and Mike/Mike), or magazines, limited to weekly agenda-setting.
Anyway, hopefully, we will dig into all of these issues and more, and I'm fortunate to have a great panel to work with, including guys like Dan Steinberg, John Ness, Jeff Pearlman, Bethlehem Shoals, Mike Hall and Jeff Pyatt.
The media industry -- particularly sports media -- remains a passion of mine, and I love nothing more than getting into intelligent discussions about it, in almost any setting.
On that note, I was reading a commentary about Deadspin's latest commenter evolution and the writer -- who I might not agree with but very much respect -- brought up my criticism of Jason (Big Lead) McIntyre from just about a year ago.
What I regret about that post was that I didn't stay true to my interest in clear-eyed media analysis -- I may be shallow when it comes to last night's baseball news, but I like to think that when I finally talk about stuff that I actually understand deeply, like the sports-media industry, I present thoughtful and intelligent arguments. Instead, I devolved into personal attacks -- not my m.o. at all -- that ultimately undermined the more rational points I was trying to make.
It is long overdue, but I apologize to Jason for those personal attacks. I think it is totally valid -- even constructive -- to disagree on the topic (any topic) on the merits. My personal potshots were lame and unnecessary and -- I would like to think -- out of character for me.
I am not bringing this up to try to curry some sort of favor with Jason -- I would send him the same message via email, but given the public nature of my first post about this, a public message seemed more appropriate. But in thinking about that post, I sincerely regret the tone and apologize for the too-personal vitriol. Nearly a year later, it was time to revisit and set it straight.
-- D.S.
Finals Flashback: How I Almost Came To Work For The Orlando Magic
In the summer of 1995, I had just graduated from Northwestern with my journalism degree. I was living back at home in D.C., trying to figure out what my (first) career move would be.
I applied for a training program with the Orlando Magic. I even flew down to Orlando -- on my own dime (foreshadowing) -- to interview.
I was given an offer in their P.R. department... as an unpaid intern. Intern? OK. Unpaid? Saywhat? So I would not only have to relocate myself down there, but then work 40+ hours a week...for free.
My other standing option was to move back to Chicago and live with my best friends in Wrigleyville. I even had a competing unpaid internship offer in pro basketball, working for the PR guy of the Chicago Rockers of the CBA.
At the time, I agonized over the decision. Although equally unpaid, the Magic job seemed more respectable -- like I was on a career path. The Rockers "job" felt more like an excuse to get back to Chicago and basically have a 5th year of college with my friends.
I moved to Chicago -- best decision I ever could have made. Not only did I have a near-perfect year, living near Wrigley and following Northwestern football on its Rose Bowl run, but about 6 weeks after getting to Chicago (which felt endless at the time), I landed a job with a start-up company backed by AOL, to create original sports content for AOL.
I had no previous experience -- or basically any knowledge at all -- about the internet (after all, it was only 1995), but I quickly learned. Mostly, I loved the fact that we were getting to make up the rules of online content as we went along, and I had a big hand in that. And I was getting paid -- not much, but compared to the Magic, a LOT more) to write about sports I loved.
With the Magic back in the most intense spotlight the team has seen since the spring of 1995* made me think about my earliest career moment/decision, when I nearly worked for them.
-- D.S.
* - In '95, I actually rooted against them; I really liked those two Rockets teams, particularly the second one, which went through the toughest playoff road since...well, since this Magic team, actually.
I applied for a training program with the Orlando Magic. I even flew down to Orlando -- on my own dime (foreshadowing) -- to interview.
I was given an offer in their P.R. department... as an unpaid intern. Intern? OK. Unpaid? Saywhat? So I would not only have to relocate myself down there, but then work 40+ hours a week...for free.
My other standing option was to move back to Chicago and live with my best friends in Wrigleyville. I even had a competing unpaid internship offer in pro basketball, working for the PR guy of the Chicago Rockers of the CBA.
At the time, I agonized over the decision. Although equally unpaid, the Magic job seemed more respectable -- like I was on a career path. The Rockers "job" felt more like an excuse to get back to Chicago and basically have a 5th year of college with my friends.
I moved to Chicago -- best decision I ever could have made. Not only did I have a near-perfect year, living near Wrigley and following Northwestern football on its Rose Bowl run, but about 6 weeks after getting to Chicago (which felt endless at the time), I landed a job with a start-up company backed by AOL, to create original sports content for AOL.
I had no previous experience -- or basically any knowledge at all -- about the internet (after all, it was only 1995), but I quickly learned. Mostly, I loved the fact that we were getting to make up the rules of online content as we went along, and I had a big hand in that. And I was getting paid -- not much, but compared to the Magic, a LOT more) to write about sports I loved.
With the Magic back in the most intense spotlight the team has seen since the spring of 1995* made me think about my earliest career moment/decision, when I nearly worked for them.
-- D.S.
* - In '95, I actually rooted against them; I really liked those two Rockets teams, particularly the second one, which went through the toughest playoff road since...well, since this Magic team, actually.
Thursday 06/04 A.M. Quickie:
Finals, Braves, Westbrook, More
So you've probably seen all the different NBA Finals storylines floating around throughout the week. I have simply collected them all into a handy one-stop-shop guide to them as the lead of today's SN column.
My favorite? Probably reflects Shoals' take: If the Magic win -- perhaps even if they don't -- has Orlando created a new template for success in the NBA, geared around tall versatile players? Does everyone need to find their own Turkoglu?
Let's be honest: It helps the Magic's plan that they have the best big man in the sport, but while the team revolves around him, it doesn't depend on him for everything. There is a distributed-network element to the Magic -- Howard won't kill you by scoring 40 (um, except Game 6), but because you have to nudge toward him, Lewis and Turkoglu kill you from the outside.
So: The premium is on the 6-10 "power forward" whose main game is shooting 3s -- making Rashard Lewis basically a better Matt Bullard. Or a 6-10 "point forward" whose main game is bringing the ball up and shooting 3s -- making Hedo a Eurofied version of Scottie Pippen.
I had a couple of reasons for picking the Magic to win the series -- but how can you not like the matchups? Who guards Howard? Who guards Lewis? Who guards Hedo? Who cares if Kobe scores 40 a game -- so did LeBron.
So in today's column, you get 9 other major storylines, plus a bunch about the Braves, Westbrook, Memphis hoops and more.
Complete column here. Two more posts (at least) coming at noon-ish and 3-ish.
-- D.S.
My favorite? Probably reflects Shoals' take: If the Magic win -- perhaps even if they don't -- has Orlando created a new template for success in the NBA, geared around tall versatile players? Does everyone need to find their own Turkoglu?
Let's be honest: It helps the Magic's plan that they have the best big man in the sport, but while the team revolves around him, it doesn't depend on him for everything. There is a distributed-network element to the Magic -- Howard won't kill you by scoring 40 (um, except Game 6), but because you have to nudge toward him, Lewis and Turkoglu kill you from the outside.
So: The premium is on the 6-10 "power forward" whose main game is shooting 3s -- making Rashard Lewis basically a better Matt Bullard. Or a 6-10 "point forward" whose main game is bringing the ball up and shooting 3s -- making Hedo a Eurofied version of Scottie Pippen.
I had a couple of reasons for picking the Magic to win the series -- but how can you not like the matchups? Who guards Howard? Who guards Lewis? Who guards Hedo? Who cares if Kobe scores 40 a game -- so did LeBron.
So in today's column, you get 9 other major storylines, plus a bunch about the Braves, Westbrook, Memphis hoops and more.
Complete column here. Two more posts (at least) coming at noon-ish and 3-ish.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Who Is The Worst Owner in Baseball?
SI ranks Jeffrey Loria at No. 4 on the Worst Owner in Baseball list. If having a "worst owner" meant my team won a freaking World Series -- like the Marlins did in Loria's second year -- I'd take it. (We have this debate all the time: Would you rather win 2 titles in 10 years but suck the other 8 -- like the Marlins -- or win zero titles in 10 years, but make the playoffs a bunch?)
As for the best owner, let's normalize the rankings so we can compare them dollar-for-dollar. How much of John Henry or George Steinbrenner's "best" come from merely spending $200 million a year? (Granted, I'll credit them for the willingness to spend it, even if they are starting from revenue platforms that allow them to spend that much without going broke.)
Give me Stuart Sternberg in Tampa, who does it on a fraction of the budget. I'd love to see what would happen to the Red Sox or Yankees if they could only spend $35 million a year.
As for the best owner, let's normalize the rankings so we can compare them dollar-for-dollar. How much of John Henry or George Steinbrenner's "best" come from merely spending $200 million a year? (Granted, I'll credit them for the willingness to spend it, even if they are starting from revenue platforms that allow them to spend that much without going broke.)
Give me Stuart Sternberg in Tampa, who does it on a fraction of the budget. I'd love to see what would happen to the Red Sox or Yankees if they could only spend $35 million a year.
Wednesday 06/03 A.M. Quickie:
Magic, Obama, Halladay, Big Unit, More
So last week I mentioned that it was the 5-year anniversary of my first appearance on Around the Horn. A few episodes later, the group was predicting the 2004 NBA Finals -- Lakers vs. Pistons.
No one gave the Pistons a chance. One guy said "Lakers in 7." One said "Lakers in 6." One said "Lakers in 5." That left me with a nice bold claim: "Lakers in 4." The Pistons didn't have a chance.
Until they did, clobbering the Lakers in 5 games.
That was what I was thinking about as I made my official prediction in today's SN column of the Magic winning in 5. No one is giving Orlando a chance. The entire ESPN panel -- except Abbott -- picked the Lakers. (This is the same group that uniformly picked the Cavs to beat the Magic, so there you go.)
The only thing that's throwing me off is the 2-3-2 format. But I think the Magic can win a game in L.A. -- maybe even tomorrow night's Game 1, then sweep all 3 games in Orlando.
The matchups favor the Magic, as they have all playoffs long -- even if the experts didn't recognize it. Who will guard Howard -- Andrew Bynum? And I keep hearing that Pau Gasol will guard Rashard Lewis -- where, by the 3-point line? Perhaps Ariza is the long athletic player to guard Hedo Turkoglu - then again, maybe he'll foul out trying to guard him.
Will Kobe get his? Of course. But we just saw LeBron dominate the Magic -- right up until his team was bounced out of the playoffs by them. The Lakers are a better team than the Cavs, but not that much better. And the Magic are playing out of their minds right now.
Obama picks the Lakers in 6, and he has been on a hot streak lately, in terms of sports predictions. But I remember the lessons of 2004, the last time "everyone" thought the Lakers would roll to a title past an overmatched team from the East. We know how that turned out.
Maybe my judgment is clouded by my enthusiasm over picking the Magic over the Cavs in 6 -- my best (perhaps only correct) prediction of the year. After all, I picked the Lakers to lose to the Nuggets in 6. But I think folks are sleeping on Orlando -- still, after the way they have dispatched both the defending champs and the team with the best record in the league. Still?
Magic in 5.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Jameer Nelson is Willis Reed 2.0
*Roy Halladay is the new Zack Greinke
*Big Unit goes for 300 -- last 300-winner ever?
*Memphis says: NO EVIDENCE, NCAA!
Plus a lot more. Complete column here. More later. Your Finals picks in the Comments.
-- D.S.
No one gave the Pistons a chance. One guy said "Lakers in 7." One said "Lakers in 6." One said "Lakers in 5." That left me with a nice bold claim: "Lakers in 4." The Pistons didn't have a chance.
Until they did, clobbering the Lakers in 5 games.
That was what I was thinking about as I made my official prediction in today's SN column of the Magic winning in 5. No one is giving Orlando a chance. The entire ESPN panel -- except Abbott -- picked the Lakers. (This is the same group that uniformly picked the Cavs to beat the Magic, so there you go.)
The only thing that's throwing me off is the 2-3-2 format. But I think the Magic can win a game in L.A. -- maybe even tomorrow night's Game 1, then sweep all 3 games in Orlando.
The matchups favor the Magic, as they have all playoffs long -- even if the experts didn't recognize it. Who will guard Howard -- Andrew Bynum? And I keep hearing that Pau Gasol will guard Rashard Lewis -- where, by the 3-point line? Perhaps Ariza is the long athletic player to guard Hedo Turkoglu - then again, maybe he'll foul out trying to guard him.
Will Kobe get his? Of course. But we just saw LeBron dominate the Magic -- right up until his team was bounced out of the playoffs by them. The Lakers are a better team than the Cavs, but not that much better. And the Magic are playing out of their minds right now.
Obama picks the Lakers in 6, and he has been on a hot streak lately, in terms of sports predictions. But I remember the lessons of 2004, the last time "everyone" thought the Lakers would roll to a title past an overmatched team from the East. We know how that turned out.
Maybe my judgment is clouded by my enthusiasm over picking the Magic over the Cavs in 6 -- my best (perhaps only correct) prediction of the year. After all, I picked the Lakers to lose to the Nuggets in 6. But I think folks are sleeping on Orlando -- still, after the way they have dispatched both the defending champs and the team with the best record in the league. Still?
Magic in 5.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Jameer Nelson is Willis Reed 2.0
*Roy Halladay is the new Zack Greinke
*Big Unit goes for 300 -- last 300-winner ever?
*Memphis says: NO EVIDENCE, NCAA!
Plus a lot more. Complete column here. More later. Your Finals picks in the Comments.
-- D.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
