Cards Move On

Nats I feel for you but I don't not for the fans who cheer you on.  Cards, you are the Taliban who just don't go away even if its down to the last strike in the nations capital. You fight and grind.  Still, I feel for the Nats even though there is no Indians there and the attitude is predominantly white in sponsorship, management, and coaching. However, these Cards don't believe in letting up and letting the better team win. Or in fair play that the English preachers always seem to preach on those missions. They are exception of the rule. They are the Taliban. And they will play another Taliban team in the Giants who don't let up. So, America wake up. You hate the Taliban not because of destruction of lives but because they don't have the sense of letting up or admitting defeat that you deep down admire. As long as they beat the Russians like the Rangers, Braves, Brewers but the Nats. They are America's team. They would have been okay if the Yankees. Maybe, they will lose to them if the Yanks get there.

The LPGA IS ALIVE?

 Not Mickey Wright's (left) or Kathy Whitworth's (right) LPGA Tour?

I got the bad news. They are cutting back highlights of LPGA golf.  Matter of fact,  they aren't showing any highlights of regular tournaments. The grand-slams will be only the final round highlights. The sponsors are cutting back and the tour is only playing 31 tournaments per a year compared to the PGA Tour 45 tournaments this year. Despite a 15 year old, Lydia Ko winning the Canadian Open last weekend, pessimism pervades because fan interest is just not there so they say. But I think differently. To me, a lack of respect of for the LPGA is why fan interest is declining not apathy.

The LPGA its on the back-burner of all communication means whether its newspaper, radio, television, or internet. The articles about the LPGA are written very poorly. They just put the winner and that is it. The excuse is that its boring and nobody is watching. But how can anybody watch if you are not writing articles of potential players with keen and expert analysis? On the television side, the production is very poor. Half the time, the announcers get the wrong hole or the golfer's name. The camera angles are terrible and the shots are very distant instead of being close like the PGA. Its like being at the tournament behind fans trying to see a golfer hit her shot. Finally, there is nothing leading up to the tournaments with ads, promos, or other means from television, magazines, newspaper, radio, or internet like you do with the PGA. Unless, you look up the internet schedule for the LPGA.

Not many have had the career or fanfare of Grace Park

Lot of critics as well as former and current players blame on Korean and other Asians who win tournaments but do no have sustaining power like an Annika Sorenstam or a Karrie Webb. They win that one major, go away and get married. But that is true with American and European players as well. Likewise, homosexuality in women's golf tends to be looked at  by sponsors as a deficiency. For fans like me, I don't really care. I enjoy good golf but its poor coverage, makes me want to stay from the television set. Its always in tape delay mode here in America. Which indicates to me, that television coverage is either not well-budgeted or they don't have a budget. That is too bad because golf is a great game regardless of who plays it but if you don't give it the same respect as the men even when Tiger is not winning, who is going to watch?

The Power of Righteousness

This thought came to me while I was visiting the Negro League Baseball Museum in Kansas City, Missouri USA as well as reading about Indian failures in the Olympics.  Righteousness is the theme and considered more important than winning (but you play hard to compete). To the start the tour, they featured a black & white film of a African-American boy singing the U.S National anthem in an old baseball uniform. After the film, I toured the exhibits featuring African-Americans (referred to as Negroes back then in America) playing baseball in Kansas City as well as other cities from late 19th to the mid 20th century. Finally, you come to a miniature baseball field with statues of past, great Negro League players from each position. The important thing you learned is what great men they were on and off the field.

John "Buck" O'Neil- Former player and Museum curator

The museum is located on 18th and Vine Street in a inner-city, African-American neighborhood. On that site, is where the Kansas City Monarchs used to play. The team used to play in a segregated league during the 1920's till the late 1950's. During that time, Major League Baseball (formed in 1869) in America didn't not allow African-Americans to play in their leagues. This started back in 1884 when Cap Anson, an influential white refused to play against a African-American player, Moses Fleetwood, in a National Association game. From that time onward, many white leagues barred African-Americans and African descendants from other countries like Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Dominican Republic. 

Rube Foster, Founder

To counter this, independent teams formed to showcase African-American talent but folded due to lack organization and money. In 1920, Rube Foster, a former a Negro league pitcher, who owned a team called the Chicago American Giants started a a league with teams including his own Chicago team, St. Louis, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Kansas City. The idea was not only to play competitive baseball but to showcase player discipline, intelligence, morality, and team fundamentals in hope for MLB inclusion as all African-American team.  He helped other teams in his league who suffered financial hardships. But he kicked out many players who didn't follow his rules of righteousness. Unfortunately for Rube, he suffered mental illness from a gas leak in a hotel room in 1925 and died in a asylum in 1930.


With his death, the league suffered and league fell apart but the Kansas City Monarchs continued as an independent team owned by a white man named J.L. Wilkinson that barnstormed the Midwest and Western part of United States as well as Western Canada with a House of David Team (a Christian society team that wore their hair long and grew beards). They played local teams in those areas and introduced night baseball games before the Major Leagues did so. MLB didn't invite them despite their financial issues during the economic depression of the 1930's. Therefore in 1937, Kansas City joined the Negro American League with teams in the Midwest as well as teams in the south like Atlanta, Birmingham, and Memphis. Despite the changes and financial struggles, the Monarchs maintained the Rube Foster tradition of  high moral, player conduct (they wore suits before and after games).  Likewise, drinking and carousing after games was frowned upon as well as gambling. 


Finally in 1946, Major League Baseball decided to integrate black players instead of bringing a whole team like the Kansas City Monarchs. MLB teams bought players from the Monarchs but many of them failed due to the pressures of integration baseball. Only Jackie Robinson used his righteousness to win baseball games in a white league as well as overcome racial adversities brought upon media, opponents, and fans. He is considered a champion in integrating baseball. A great man. The question is: whether its important to win or be righteous? Only India knows.

Kevin Brown

During my college years at Reinhardt and UNC-Charlotte, I watched a lot of baseball on ESPN as well as Baseball Tonight (shoot, I remember Bill Robinson, why he was replaced by Ray Knight, hell if I know?). This is from the 90's decade where fundamental baseball didn't exist according to Dave "Soup" Campbell. Geez, I remember Gary Thorne harping on Mel Hall's slow trot after hitting a homer against the Twins. I graduated in 1996, the year after Cal Ripken broke the consecutive game streak (could he have done it without having to worry about no DH). When I moved into an apartment after graduation, I didn't have a TV but I had a library with internet and a TV in the laundry room that had ESPN.

I have to say that year, Kevin Brown was most dominating pitcher. Sorry,  J.Smoltz, he was better. Yeah, he only had 17 wins but man, he shut down everybody. The team didn't produce any runs for him, though. I remember he wore 41 for the Rangers and Orioles but with the Marlins, he wore No. 27. He had a delivery that would cause him to turn his back and then fall towards the first base line. I was thinking he was going to get hurt and but he never did until he got to L.A. and then with New York when his body broke down. With the Marlins and Padres, he never got tired and threw harder in later innings.  I didn't see that in Texas or in Baltimore *"the acuity" of the pitches from inning one to the last all the way from April to October.  I was suspicious of his dominance with Florida. Lets go back and find why?

I saw him pitch in 1993. He threw hard and pitched a lot of innings. But he always got tired toward the end of the season and his pitches weren't that sharp in later innings. I remember when he won 21 games but he had support from Juan Gonzalez, Dean Palmer, Ivan Rodriguez, Julio Franco, and a traded Jose Canseco as well as Tom Henke. But in 1994, he stunk and in 1995 with the Orioles, he really stunk (he and Phil Regan).  So, he comes to the Marlins and just dominates? Now, the Marlins who had decent players in Gary Sheffield (break out), Jeff Conine, Charles Johnson (can catch but hitting?), Devon White, and Rob Nen. Young players in Quilvio Veras, Kurt Abbott and Edgar Renteria. But the Marlins never seem to respond to Rene Lachemann's managerial style. Despite all those issues, Kevin Brown's fast ball and the fork ball was something else in Florida and in San Diego. In short, he didn't need support.

I don't remember too much about 1998 except for the Yankees (ESPN kisses up them, thank you MLB Network) but Brown was definitely better than Tom Glavine or Greg Maddux. Soon afterwards, he moved to L.A. and got that big contract as well as the rumors and nagging injuries. Now, the question becomes of why those pitchers  that he beat out don't speak out against him but will against batters who were rumored to have taken steroids. I have heard Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddux have talked about their win totals without steroid era of batters. But this man took away your era title and wins.  He won two games in the 1997 NLCS with the Marlins and one with the Padres in 1998 against the Braves.What about middle-inning relief pitchers who were on the juice? You "pitches" need to start fessing up or does that mean, you have to tell the truth about yourselves? I guess there is a code of silence, here.

Former catcher, Carlton Fisk on Roger Clemens: *"The reason he got let go from the Red Sox [after the 1996 season] was because he was starting to break down," Fisk told the Tribune (Chicago Tribune). "His last couple of years in Boston just weren't very productive, a la 'The Rocket.' Then all of a sudden he goes to Toronto and he wants to show somebody something. Then he gets two consecutive Cy Young Awards [in '97 and '98]. Come on, give me a bucket."



*-- Carlton Fisk (ESPNBoston.com article, Jan. 20, 2010)

Jeremy Lin, The AAT-Sensation

I followed Jeremy Lin a bit. But I don't try to watch him because he seems to mess up. LOL. Kidding aside, he is a sensation. I watched basketball since 1982 (thanks Carolyn Rowland) so I missed Billy Ray Bates and his short run in Portland.  I have to say in looking at Jeremy, he always looks like he is going to get injured when he drives to the basket. There is nothing that really stands out about him accept his height of 6'3?  He knows how to play 5 on 5 basketball. But he couldn't play 3 on 3, 2 on 2, and 1 one 1 like they do in those in those pre-draft drills or summer camps in the NBA. Hence, him not being drafted. In short, he is a talent evaluator on the floor. He knows what he can do and what the guys on the floor can do. Everyone talks about what will happen when Melo comes back. I say just watch.

He really reminds of those willowy figured players from the 70's players like Westphal and Dandridge (Please put him in the Hall of Fame).  I'm sure Roy Williams is mad at himself for that one as well as the ACC. I think its good though that he went to Harvard not because of lack of talent but that he learned to score within the offense and the teams that surrounded him. Dean Smith said that any player can score 30 points by himself but can he score 30 through five guys. He can.

His problem is that he didn't create his own scoring. He was too unselfish. I think unlike the 70's skinny guys of Walker, LaGarde, Lamp, Dunleavy, and others before him, he has minor leagues in mid-season like the D-League to develop his one on one, two on two, and 3 on 3 game. Likewise, with dedicated coaches like Eric Musselman who are concerned about player development, he has gotten physically stronger and willing to attack the inside paint more with attitude. Keith Smart too when he was with the Warriors with the no-foul rule.

I think what will make him a great player in the NBA, however, is that he doesn't blame other minorities for his problems and troubles.  Regardless of his religion and belief, Jeremy is a not a pagan convert that puts down others. A true follower of God.

Let that be a lesson to all.

Boosters Pansies

That is what I think about all them folks who cover college sports. Whenever there is a scandal involving illegal payments between athletes, coaches or administrators by boosters, the media always blames the players, coaches, or administrators. Never the boosters even if he is a convicted felon. Why? Because they pay the bills to ESPN guys like Mark May even if he doesn't want to admit or Mike Golic. I'm so tired them talking about morality about student-athlete conduct and death penalty on the program. But no death penalty on the boosters. Man, oh, man.

What is about these boosters that they get a free pass? I heard the same thing on the show First Take by Jemele Hill and Michael Smith. Some may side with the athletes or coaches but they all agree on the boosters. Sam Gilbert. The man was involved with drugs before his death and yet, he was more powerful than John Wooden. I hope we hear more about Mr. Gilbert now that the Wizard of Westwood has passed on. UCLA players, Larry Farmer, "I have seen him move mountains" and Lucious Allen said "Coach Wooden as long as we were between the lines. Outside the court — Sam Gilbert" (LA Times, Jun. 8, 2010 by Chris Dufresne).


These dudes strong and tough as they are nothing but jock pansies to boosters whether they are for them or against them. For instance, Wooden by all accounts knew about Mr. Gilbert but was intimidated by his presence and business. He looked the other way concerning cash, cars, women, clothing, and housing. Likewise, Sam negotiated contracts for top UCLA players when they got to the pros for only a dollar. He was involved as a contractor who did things on the "side." Kentucky basketball did the same thing. Players, coaches, and administrators got punished but never the boosters. Now for football, Notre Dame. No good unless they cheat.  This is where former ND alum, Mike Golic, annoys the crap out of me.
 
Dude, okay, you didn't cheat and athletes shouldn't cheat. You paid the price and you did it fair and square.  Athletes don't deserve to be paid because they are students. But why do you look away when boosters give money? How come they don't get to be punished? Why do you hold them to a higher standard then a priest? Likewise, you always talk like a hidden, but bitter sexual abuse victim when you put down these athletes who take the money. "Well, circumstances have happened to me (what?) where I could have given up but I still played clean and you should too because you didn't go through what I went through. So, I'm more holier than you" attitude. Fine, but be honest about. Mark May, you played for Jackie Sherrill, enough said.
 
My biggest wrath is definitely the writers concerning boosters. This goes back to the 30's. Many of the writers are and were friends of these boosters some of them with shady connections with the Mafia, Ku Klux Klan and other "devil's advocate" groups.  Yet, they go on blaming the shiftless athletes who don't know nothing. Maybe, you got a concerned reporter who will blame the university or the coaches, get his Pulitzer's, and his payday. But the news dies down but the scandal continues because they always "thanks" the boosters of getting them there.
 
In short, college sports hypocrisy at its finest with these media folks.
 
 
 

Run and Jump, THe Carolina Way

Japan beating U.S. in the women's World Cup is amazing enough since the average height of each Japanese player is 5'4 while the U.S. is 5'7.  But, they beat Germany in the quarters, and Sweden in the semi's. Both defeated teams had the same height average as the U.S. I'm reminded of a Billy Packer story about Dean Smith when he was a player for the Kansas Jayhawks. Dean's coach, Phogg Allen, would show a film of a snake and a rodent fighting. The snake would always win because it always got down lower. That is what the Japanese women did to all three teams to win the World Cup.

Likewise, it looked like the Japanese took a page out of Dean Smith's jump switch defense with them traps. They always pinned them in a corner by using two or three players and forced them to kick from the weak side. The U.S. players didn't have enough ball-handling skills from their big strikers to be patient. Because after about two dribbles, they would kick it away or the Japanese would steal the ball or force turnovers. Maybe a 2-3 zone every time they got toward the goal with a "set piece." It seemed the Japanese just swarmed Abby Wambach with 2 or 3 players on defense.

Mostly though, it reminded me of Larry Brown's transition to defense to offense. One of Japan's goals was when the U.S. was attacking them but Japan got the ball back and scored off that transition. In Larry's teams, specifically with the Cougars and Nuggets, he had great defenders who were small and quick but great dribblers with speed who could push the ball, score if need to or pass to the weak side for the open man. Japan didn't quiet have those skills on offense but they pushed the ball up field from those take aways and wore down the U.S.

I think this year's U.S. team was better than the team in 1999 which I think was overrated compared to Germany in 2003 and 2007. The 1999 team had great players but the competition wasn't that good. Their finals opponent, China wasn't great in terms of offense but good on defense. However, China couldn't   switch like Japan did with the same quickness and tenacity on defense to create transitions. In short, Germany, Sweden, and the U.S. were the rodents that got snakebitten by Japan. The Carolina way.