I get it that Tiger's a terrible husband, maybe not so great a dad, this is all his fault, blah blah blah...
But, to hear the reaction from Tiger's withdrawal from TPC, you'd think he has a history of quitting on the golf course. This couldn't be further from the truth. He has always grinded it out, trying to make tough pars even when he didn't have his best game. The fact is, golf is hard, and no one, even Tiger, can master it.
Tiger didn't get to be the most dominant golfer of his generation by being a quitter. In fact, there aren't many quitters who are at the top of any field.
It's reasonable to believe that Tiger is distrustful of the media given his recent experiences in having his dirty laundry aired in front of the entire world. You can say it was his fault to begin with, but you can also understand why he's hesitant to share everything with them now. Not to mention there's also a culture of athletes not to disclose any injuries unless you have to. Besides, who's to say he really thought it wasn't that bad up until the last minute when it became unbearable.
For all Tiger has done wrong, he should have done enough to earn a reputation on the course that is beyond reproach.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Who's running Tiger's life?
So, Tiger posted a new blog at his website just recently. In it, he congratulates Phil on winning the Masters, and apologizes for using profanity on the course.
Who is this guy? It's obvious his handlers are trying to remake his image. Thing is, I like Tiger for who he is and who he has always been. Family issues aside of course, I'm not married to him. Sure, he's a terrible husband, but he's cold-blooded on the course, and that's what I've always liked. If he turns into the image conscious golfer who congratulates his main rival on victories and apologizes for his intensity, that might be enough for me to fall off the Tiger bandwagon.
Just stick to your guns, Tiger. Play golf, win tournaments, and screw what everyone else thinks.
Who is this guy? It's obvious his handlers are trying to remake his image. Thing is, I like Tiger for who he is and who he has always been. Family issues aside of course, I'm not married to him. Sure, he's a terrible husband, but he's cold-blooded on the course, and that's what I've always liked. If he turns into the image conscious golfer who congratulates his main rival on victories and apologizes for his intensity, that might be enough for me to fall off the Tiger bandwagon.
Just stick to your guns, Tiger. Play golf, win tournaments, and screw what everyone else thinks.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Why did Tiger choose the Masters?
Interesting to me that Tiger is choosing to come back and play the Masters instead of playing a tournament before that as a "warmup." We all know that in the past, Tiger has always made it clear that whenever he plays any tournament, he's playing it to win. But, I believe it's also true that he believes his best chance to win a major tournament requires being able to come into that tournament competition tested. For this reason, I have to question why he's not playing another tournament before the Masters.
My thoughts all along were that he would play the Bay Hill tournament, or what is commonly referred to as Arnie's tournament. I can't help but think that perhaps Palmer himself made it clear to Tiger he shouldn't play at his tournament as his first one back. On one hand, sure, there are people who would have loved to have seen him there. NBC for one, advertisers just interested in getting more viewers and certain segments of the media.
Some may even say Arnie would want him to play there. I'm not so sure. Tiger and Arnie have always seemed to have a good relationship, evidenced by Arnie's warm congratulations each time Tiger walked off the 72nd green as winner at Bay Hill. However, I thought it was notable that at no time during Tiger's exile from golf did we hear from Palmer. At least I don't remember hearing his thoughts. This always made me wonder if his true, honest thoughts about the situation would have been less than flattering for Tiger, e.g. he was disappointed in his personal lifestyle choices. I also wonder if, when Tiger started making plans to play, he initially planned on playing Bay Hill like he always had, but then Arnie gently persuaded him not to play. His tournament will have plenty of attention anyway, and Arnie probably wanted to avoid all the extra media attention. If Tiger would have played, I imagine the tournament host would have had to answer a ton of questions about Tiger. Seems a pretty logical conclusion to me that behind the scenes, Arnold Palmer could very well have let Tiger know he'd prefer he didn't play his tournament just this one time.
My thoughts all along were that he would play the Bay Hill tournament, or what is commonly referred to as Arnie's tournament. I can't help but think that perhaps Palmer himself made it clear to Tiger he shouldn't play at his tournament as his first one back. On one hand, sure, there are people who would have loved to have seen him there. NBC for one, advertisers just interested in getting more viewers and certain segments of the media.
Some may even say Arnie would want him to play there. I'm not so sure. Tiger and Arnie have always seemed to have a good relationship, evidenced by Arnie's warm congratulations each time Tiger walked off the 72nd green as winner at Bay Hill. However, I thought it was notable that at no time during Tiger's exile from golf did we hear from Palmer. At least I don't remember hearing his thoughts. This always made me wonder if his true, honest thoughts about the situation would have been less than flattering for Tiger, e.g. he was disappointed in his personal lifestyle choices. I also wonder if, when Tiger started making plans to play, he initially planned on playing Bay Hill like he always had, but then Arnie gently persuaded him not to play. His tournament will have plenty of attention anyway, and Arnie probably wanted to avoid all the extra media attention. If Tiger would have played, I imagine the tournament host would have had to answer a ton of questions about Tiger. Seems a pretty logical conclusion to me that behind the scenes, Arnold Palmer could very well have let Tiger know he'd prefer he didn't play his tournament just this one time.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Quick hits
- Golf: so, there was the Farmers Insurance Open at Torrey Pines this past weekend. Ben Crane, most known for slow play and maybe but probably not saying something derogatory about Tiger, was the big winner. The favorite subject of writers and other media during the week, though, had to do with Phil and his non-conforming, old, Ping Eye2 wedge. Of course, some other players came out and said it was against the rules, and notably, Scott McCarron apparently called Phil a cheater.
Look, here's my take. First of all, McCarron is one of many golfers who use a long putter. There are many in the game that would say that is against the "spirit" of the game. Is he really in the best position to be criticizing others? Then, there's this thought: Essentially what the critics are saying is that even though by the letter of the law, the use of the old wedge is legal, players shouldn't use it because it just isn't right, or is against the spirit of the game. That may or may not be true, but then, when have the rules of golf had any room for a "spirit of the game" argument?
There are many examples of golfers dq'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, or penalized strokes when their ball just happens to move. Did the player gain an unfair advantage in these instances? Of course not, but by the black and white letter of the law they were penalized. It seems to me that in the case with the Ping wedges, by the strict interpretation of the rules, they are legal. And golf has always used a strict interpretation of the rules. I'd say that by the "spirit of the game," it shouldn't matter that Michelle Wei or Sergio Garcia signed an incorrect scorecard. It was an honest mistake and they didn't gain an advantage by it. So, I say let them keep using the old wedges, until the rule, (or, loophole) is actually changed. Until then, any criticism is unfair.
Look, here's my take. First of all, McCarron is one of many golfers who use a long putter. There are many in the game that would say that is against the "spirit" of the game. Is he really in the best position to be criticizing others? Then, there's this thought: Essentially what the critics are saying is that even though by the letter of the law, the use of the old wedge is legal, players shouldn't use it because it just isn't right, or is against the spirit of the game. That may or may not be true, but then, when have the rules of golf had any room for a "spirit of the game" argument?
There are many examples of golfers dq'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, or penalized strokes when their ball just happens to move. Did the player gain an unfair advantage in these instances? Of course not, but by the black and white letter of the law they were penalized. It seems to me that in the case with the Ping wedges, by the strict interpretation of the rules, they are legal. And golf has always used a strict interpretation of the rules. I'd say that by the "spirit of the game," it shouldn't matter that Michelle Wei or Sergio Garcia signed an incorrect scorecard. It was an honest mistake and they didn't gain an advantage by it. So, I say let them keep using the old wedges, until the rule, (or, loophole) is actually changed. Until then, any criticism is unfair.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Media coverage for Tiger is overblown
I was originally going to post this as a comment on another blog but decided to just post it here. It is in response to this post about the coverage of the Tiger story.
I agree with the SI editor in his criticism of TMZ and their tabloid journalism.
One of the most interesting things to recall about the story is that when TMZ published their report about the most outlandish and dramatic version of events, that's the story that everyone chose to believe. Some bigger publications even gave credit to TMZ in reporting on what actually happened.
However, if you'll go back and look, when Gloria Allred canceled her scheduled news conference, TMZ reported the reason was nothing more than Rachel Uchitel deciding not to spread her story b/c she knew it would possibly have negative consequences for those involved. Then, a report came from somewhere else that Allred's daughter said that based on her experience working with her mother in the past, she believed that her client got paid and that's why they dropped the news conference. Yet, the story that was repeated by other websites was the one stating Uchitel was paid by Tiger to not tell her story. That is an example of how this story has been skewed toward the most sensationalized version of events that could have possibly have happened, without regard to whether the reports are true or not. I recall specifically seeing the story on golf.com leading one to believe that it was fact that Uchitel was paid. Meanwhile, TMZ, who previously had everyone believing their incredible version of events,was still reporting she wasn't paid and dropped it merely b/c she wanted to avoid the publicity.
This is Exhibit #A as to why the reporting on this story is nothing more than tabloid exploitation at its worst. Thankfully Tiger, so far as we know, wasn't photographed on a yacht with four nude women, while his wife was at home in the hospital. No, that was just a highly revered former president. I bet Tiger wishes he was just a superstar in basketball like Shaq, who can be at the top of his sport, a highly paid endorser, get caught with other women and have his story ignored.
I agree with the SI editor in his criticism of TMZ and their tabloid journalism.
One of the most interesting things to recall about the story is that when TMZ published their report about the most outlandish and dramatic version of events, that's the story that everyone chose to believe. Some bigger publications even gave credit to TMZ in reporting on what actually happened.
However, if you'll go back and look, when Gloria Allred canceled her scheduled news conference, TMZ reported the reason was nothing more than Rachel Uchitel deciding not to spread her story b/c she knew it would possibly have negative consequences for those involved. Then, a report came from somewhere else that Allred's daughter said that based on her experience working with her mother in the past, she believed that her client got paid and that's why they dropped the news conference. Yet, the story that was repeated by other websites was the one stating Uchitel was paid by Tiger to not tell her story. That is an example of how this story has been skewed toward the most sensationalized version of events that could have possibly have happened, without regard to whether the reports are true or not. I recall specifically seeing the story on golf.com leading one to believe that it was fact that Uchitel was paid. Meanwhile, TMZ, who previously had everyone believing their incredible version of events,was still reporting she wasn't paid and dropped it merely b/c she wanted to avoid the publicity.
This is Exhibit #A as to why the reporting on this story is nothing more than tabloid exploitation at its worst. Thankfully Tiger, so far as we know, wasn't photographed on a yacht with four nude women, while his wife was at home in the hospital. No, that was just a highly revered former president. I bet Tiger wishes he was just a superstar in basketball like Shaq, who can be at the top of his sport, a highly paid endorser, get caught with other women and have his story ignored.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Watson for President's Cup?
So there's an article, blog posting, editorial, or whatever you want to call it on golf.com in the form of a petition to Fred Couples asking him to pick Tom Watson for the President's Cup. Seriously. Even though the guy a month from 60, and is only competitive on the Champion's Tour a few times a year. Sure, he made for an entertaining British Open, but let's be honest, that was on a course he had won before and knew probably better than anyone else in the field. It was not super long, and being a links course, required a different style of game than any other tournament in the States. And, oh yeah, he didn't win. He couldn't get up and down for par from just off the green on the 72nd hole, and then got embarrassed in the playoff by Stewart Cink.
So, why in the world should he be on the President's Cup team? Are you telling me he should take the place of a much younger player who actually competes on the real tour throughout the entire year? Whoever penned that article for golf.com is taking his fanhood a bit too far in this case in thinking Watson should even be considered for the President's Cup. Let's hope Freddy is smart enough and realistic enough to know picking Tom Watson would make absolutely no sense.
So, why in the world should he be on the President's Cup team? Are you telling me he should take the place of a much younger player who actually competes on the real tour throughout the entire year? Whoever penned that article for golf.com is taking his fanhood a bit too far in this case in thinking Watson should even be considered for the President's Cup. Let's hope Freddy is smart enough and realistic enough to know picking Tom Watson would make absolutely no sense.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Libel, or Not?
Just a few thoughts on some recent blog postings I ran across. I don't intend for this to be an exhaustive article, nor have I comprehensively researched the issue. I merely want to address the posting at TheBigLead, in which the author, Jason Mcintyre stated that "[O]ur money’s on her jilted ex-boyfriend being somehow connected..." in the Steve McNair case.
I ran across this posting by Spencer Hall, of EDSBS, in his SportingNews column. In it, Hall blasts Mcintyre of TheBigLead, saying his column "totally is" libelous (according to the attorneys he "talked" to). Then, I ran across this post, at deadspin.com, which also heavily criticized TheBigLead, as well as SportsbyBrooks, for expressing their speculations and posting photos of the victims. The author of the deadspin.com post, Tommy Craggs, wrote that Mcintyre's column was "straight-up libel."
Ummm, hold on a sec. Not so sure one can say that the statement definitely was libelous. Generally speaking, for a defamation claim, you must have 1) a false statement, and 2) an injury. Obviously, the imputation of committing a crime can be defamatory if proven false. However, Mcintyre's statement was clearly not intended to be taken as fact. He's merely expressing his opinion that, based on the circumstances, the guy may be involved. Besides, where is the injury? Are you going to tell me this guy suffered public ridicule for some blog posting on the internet that only a few thousand people probably even saw? It seems to me the guy has more things to worry about than some blogger guy speculating on whether he was involved.
My question is, how do Mr. Hall and Mr. Craggs think they are exempt from the very law they accuse another of breaking? Spencer hedged his bets by relying on the advice of others, but the statement on deadspin.com that it was "straight-up libel?" Well, that is arguably false. And, it likely caused injury to Mcintyre by decreasing the readers of TheBigLead. That seems to satisfy the two components of a defamation claim. So, who should "buckle up," TBL for expressing his opinion, or other bloggers for accusing him of defamation?
Now, as a disclaimer, this is not intended as an exhaustive research of the law. While I am a lawyer, I do not practice in New York, where jurisdiction would presumably lie. I am not giving legal advice to anyone, and do not claim to practice regularly in the area. I sure would like to see someone tell me why I'm wrong, though.
I ran across this posting by Spencer Hall, of EDSBS, in his SportingNews column. In it, Hall blasts Mcintyre of TheBigLead, saying his column "totally is" libelous (according to the attorneys he "talked" to). Then, I ran across this post, at deadspin.com, which also heavily criticized TheBigLead, as well as SportsbyBrooks, for expressing their speculations and posting photos of the victims. The author of the deadspin.com post, Tommy Craggs, wrote that Mcintyre's column was "straight-up libel."
Ummm, hold on a sec. Not so sure one can say that the statement definitely was libelous. Generally speaking, for a defamation claim, you must have 1) a false statement, and 2) an injury. Obviously, the imputation of committing a crime can be defamatory if proven false. However, Mcintyre's statement was clearly not intended to be taken as fact. He's merely expressing his opinion that, based on the circumstances, the guy may be involved. Besides, where is the injury? Are you going to tell me this guy suffered public ridicule for some blog posting on the internet that only a few thousand people probably even saw? It seems to me the guy has more things to worry about than some blogger guy speculating on whether he was involved.
My question is, how do Mr. Hall and Mr. Craggs think they are exempt from the very law they accuse another of breaking? Spencer hedged his bets by relying on the advice of others, but the statement on deadspin.com that it was "straight-up libel?" Well, that is arguably false. And, it likely caused injury to Mcintyre by decreasing the readers of TheBigLead. That seems to satisfy the two components of a defamation claim. So, who should "buckle up," TBL for expressing his opinion, or other bloggers for accusing him of defamation?
Now, as a disclaimer, this is not intended as an exhaustive research of the law. While I am a lawyer, I do not practice in New York, where jurisdiction would presumably lie. I am not giving legal advice to anyone, and do not claim to practice regularly in the area. I sure would like to see someone tell me why I'm wrong, though.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Glover Comes Through...
Congrats to Lucas Glover for winning the recent U.S. Open at Bethpage Black. I've always thought he had a lot of game and frankly, he would have been in maybe my top five darkhorses with a chance to win. He's not a flash in the pan, and I seriously doubt he's going to fade away and never win again. Just the opposite, I think he has more wins ahead of him, and will be a very steady player for years to come.
But seriously though, what happened to Tiger's putting? Time after time, he hit quality shots on Sunday and Monday, but kept missing the putts. More often than not, he hit a good putt that was just barely off and wouldn't go in. A few were misreads I guess but especially on Monday they all looked pretty pure. It really seems like he makes those type of putts only when he's leading a tournament as opposed to when he's trailing. Why is that I wonder? Everyone knows he has yet to win coming from behind on the last day of a major. That's quite an odd stat because it's not like he doesn't play well enough to win. It's just that, as we saw last weekend, the must-have putts drop when he's ahead, and don't when he's behind. Kind of strange...
But seriously though, what happened to Tiger's putting? Time after time, he hit quality shots on Sunday and Monday, but kept missing the putts. More often than not, he hit a good putt that was just barely off and wouldn't go in. A few were misreads I guess but especially on Monday they all looked pretty pure. It really seems like he makes those type of putts only when he's leading a tournament as opposed to when he's trailing. Why is that I wonder? Everyone knows he has yet to win coming from behind on the last day of a major. That's quite an odd stat because it's not like he doesn't play well enough to win. It's just that, as we saw last weekend, the must-have putts drop when he's ahead, and don't when he's behind. Kind of strange...
Friday, February 27, 2009
So Tiger Lost...
Well, now it's one day after Tiger lost in his return to the PGA tour after an extended period off for knee surgery. Should it be a surprise that he lost in the second round of match play to Tim Clark? Not really, in my opinion. It's not surprising that he was a little rusty, given the long layoff. The last time he had a long layoff when his father died, he came back and missed the cut in the U.S. Open at Winged Foot. It's almost to be expected that he wouldn't be as sharp as he normally is. No matter how much practice and preparation he undertakes, there is no substitute for tournament competition.
In addition, this is simply the downside to match play. Sure, if the favorites make it all the way through, you will have a fantastic final match and a great viewing audience. More often though, upsets happen along the way, and you're left with a less than riveting matchup. It's the simple evolution of the PGA tour, that they've mostly done away with match play competition, and especially in the PGA Championship, which used to be match play at one time. This particular event does usually draw a lot of attention because of the purse size and novelty of the event, but in the end it's asking a lot for it to always produce the best matchups toward the end.
Tiger will regroup after this I'm sure, and will most likely still have a very productive year. My opinion, at least two majors this year. Even given his time off, no one else has exactly stepped up to the role of consistent challenger to his #1 world ranking.
In addition, this is simply the downside to match play. Sure, if the favorites make it all the way through, you will have a fantastic final match and a great viewing audience. More often though, upsets happen along the way, and you're left with a less than riveting matchup. It's the simple evolution of the PGA tour, that they've mostly done away with match play competition, and especially in the PGA Championship, which used to be match play at one time. This particular event does usually draw a lot of attention because of the purse size and novelty of the event, but in the end it's asking a lot for it to always produce the best matchups toward the end.
Tiger will regroup after this I'm sure, and will most likely still have a very productive year. My opinion, at least two majors this year. Even given his time off, no one else has exactly stepped up to the role of consistent challenger to his #1 world ranking.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The General at UGA?
A week or so ago, head basketball coach Dennis Felton was fired by the University of Georgia. Recent speculation, fueled by this column by Furman Bisher in the AJC, is that one Bobby Knight may be interested in the Georgia position. Would he be a good fit? My opinion: No way Georgia should even contact him. Bobby Knight has solidified his position as the biggest jerk in college basketball, maybe in all of sports. At Indiana and later at Texas Tech, he created unnecessary distractions more than a few times. However you want to characterize his dismissal from IU, his stint there involved famous temper tantrums, such as throwing chairs across the floor in a spat with an official, and allegedly even punching one of his players. The thing with Knight is, it's always about him, in that he acts like he's better than everyone else and can't stand being challenged. One of his more notable lines was directed toward a room of reporters questioning him, when Knight reportedly said "all of us learn to write in the second grade, but most of us move on to better things." Who would say that and still expect people to respect him? As a GA fan, I believe the school is too great of an institution to bring somebody like this on as head coach. We have no need for the sideshow he would create, and the embarrassment he would cause to the school. One opinion I've heard is that "the good outweighs the bad" with regard to Knight. My question is, why should GA even have to consider a coach with "bad" characteristics. There are plenty of coaches out there who could improve the program and not bring a bad attitude along with them. As for who that coach may be, I don't know, but the proven formula is to look at a coach of a mid-major conference team that goes deep into the NCAA tournament. It's as simple as that. That coach has to be out there somewhere, and I'm going on record as saying hiring Bobby Knight would be a terrible move for the University of Georgia.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Fitzgerald not deserving of praise?
Here's something interesting we haven't seen reported anywhere else for some reason. Thanks to SportsbyBrooks for reminding us of the domestic violence allegations against Larry Fitzgerald made by the mother of his child. So far as I can tell, there are no criminal charges, but she has sought and received a restraining order against Fitzgerald in the last month or so. Some of the allegations from the Petition:
"Nazario [the former gf] claims that Fitzgerald “grabbed me by my hair with both hands on the back of my head very very hard and tossed me across the room,” and that when she tried to leave he “grabbed the back of my neck and slammed me down on the marble floor.”
Wow. Sounds like pretty serious stuff to me. It is pretty interesting that it hasn't gotten more attention in the mainstream media. Of course, since it's not a criminal matter, nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, for a restraining order, it generally does have to be shown beyond a preponderance of the evidence. My guess is that Fitz likely consented to the entry of this order so as to avoid her testifying and there being a record for the media to peruse.
Makes me wonder, again, why the case involving Michael Vick and dogfighting inflamed the public so much, when a story like this gets little to no attention. True, this is just one person's version, but even before Vick plead guilty he faced enormous criticism and outrage. Does the public really think dogfighting allegations are worse than slamming a woman's face on the floor?
Also, see this PFT story from when it was first reported.
"Nazario [the former gf] claims that Fitzgerald “grabbed me by my hair with both hands on the back of my head very very hard and tossed me across the room,” and that when she tried to leave he “grabbed the back of my neck and slammed me down on the marble floor.”
Wow. Sounds like pretty serious stuff to me. It is pretty interesting that it hasn't gotten more attention in the mainstream media. Of course, since it's not a criminal matter, nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, for a restraining order, it generally does have to be shown beyond a preponderance of the evidence. My guess is that Fitz likely consented to the entry of this order so as to avoid her testifying and there being a record for the media to peruse.
Makes me wonder, again, why the case involving Michael Vick and dogfighting inflamed the public so much, when a story like this gets little to no attention. True, this is just one person's version, but even before Vick plead guilty he faced enormous criticism and outrage. Does the public really think dogfighting allegations are worse than slamming a woman's face on the floor?
Also, see this PFT story from when it was first reported.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Roger Clemens' interesting pregame ritual
Here's a story that was too good not to share. If you're looking for another reason to dislike Roger Clemens, here it is. Apparently, in the new book by Joe Torre, there is a story from one of the Yankee trainers revealing that before important playoff starts, Clemens would have the trainer rub liniment on his balls before the game. Ummm, I know the locker room is supposedly a pretty weird place that's different from the real world, but that's got to be the weirdest thing I've ever heard about. The simple question is, why couldn't he just do it himself, rather than getting the trainer to do it?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Andruw Jones slides even further toward irrelevancy
Latest news on Andruw Jones I found is this nugget that he quit the winter ball team he was playing for. Believe it or not, he was apparently hitting only a woeful .148 during his time there. Of course, this comes after the recent announcement from the Dodgers that they had agreed to release him in exchange for Andruw agreeing to defer a portion of his salary. Now, I don't have the time nor energy to do a lot of digging into this, but it seems to me that was basically the Dodgers cutting a player for poor performance. Where is the benefit to Andruw? He still had (I think) around $12 million left on his contract. He's not going to that anywhere else next year for sure. The only reason I could see is that he really didn't want to be playing in Los Angeles. I don't believe that either though, because there is no way he'd give up $10 million dollars just to try to sign with another team.
Of course, one option for Andruw may be re-signing with the Braves. Not really sure what to think of this one. On one hand, Andruw has just shown nothing over the past two years to even resemble a major league player. Two years ago for the Braves he was automatic out in the middle of the lineup, which of course was impossible to get around. On the other hand, the drop in his production has been so precipitous it makes you wonder if there's any fix out there. I mean, we all know he was productive at one point. What's to say he can't be productive again? He's only 31 yrs old at this point and hit 51 HR's in 2005. Was it just the pressure of the free agent year in 2007 that led to the dropoff? Was it just poor conditioning? Those are things that can be fixed if he puts his mind to it. My guess, which I haven't read anywhere else, is that maybe Andruw has some serious mental issues going on, like depression or related illness. There doesn't appear to be any physical reason, and I can't believe that he's not a competitive enough person to put 100% effort into his career at this point.
I tend to agree with Dave O'Brien writing for the AJC who believes re-signing Andruw to a small deal with incentives would be a good idea. Give him another chance and let's see how it works out. If he truly wants to keep playing of course. It wouldn't surprise me at this point if he considered early retirement.
Of course, one option for Andruw may be re-signing with the Braves. Not really sure what to think of this one. On one hand, Andruw has just shown nothing over the past two years to even resemble a major league player. Two years ago for the Braves he was automatic out in the middle of the lineup, which of course was impossible to get around. On the other hand, the drop in his production has been so precipitous it makes you wonder if there's any fix out there. I mean, we all know he was productive at one point. What's to say he can't be productive again? He's only 31 yrs old at this point and hit 51 HR's in 2005. Was it just the pressure of the free agent year in 2007 that led to the dropoff? Was it just poor conditioning? Those are things that can be fixed if he puts his mind to it. My guess, which I haven't read anywhere else, is that maybe Andruw has some serious mental issues going on, like depression or related illness. There doesn't appear to be any physical reason, and I can't believe that he's not a competitive enough person to put 100% effort into his career at this point.
I tend to agree with Dave O'Brien writing for the AJC who believes re-signing Andruw to a small deal with incentives would be a good idea. Give him another chance and let's see how it works out. If he truly wants to keep playing of course. It wouldn't surprise me at this point if he considered early retirement.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Highlight Reel
Here's another link I had to post. This may be the most gruesome injury of all I've seen. Strangely though, the guy didn't seem to react that much, just kind of held his leg dangling around for all to see.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Furcal back with the Braves?
As reported nearly everywhere else, Rafael Furcal is close to signing with the Braves as a free agent. The offer is reportedly lower than one made by the A's and perhaps other teams. Assuming it happens, I definitely think it's a good move by the Braves. Of course, only if there are other moves coming as I assume there must be. It seems to me they must now move Yunel Escobar, who would likely have more trade value but who never really seemed to fit in with the Braves. Maybe I 'm wrong, but my guess is Escobar wasn't quite the same teammate that Furcal was. He always appeared to be a little aloof and maybe too flashy. That doesn't fit with the Braves style under Bobby Cox. There's really not much evidence to support this, other than the Braves not making the playoffs the last two years.
In any event, I can't see Furcal and Escobar both remaining on the team. They still need another starting pitcher and more power in the outfield. Maybe there's a deal for Grienke from KC, Ryan Ludwick from the Cardinals, or some surprise deal no one has thought about. Escobar would probably be the centerpiece of either one of those deals. Plus, the contemplated trade with San Diego probably gave Escobar the impression the Braves wanted to move him. He's definitely talented, and will probably have a long career, but I think right now he's most valuable to the Braves as trade bait.
In any event, I can't see Furcal and Escobar both remaining on the team. They still need another starting pitcher and more power in the outfield. Maybe there's a deal for Grienke from KC, Ryan Ludwick from the Cardinals, or some surprise deal no one has thought about. Escobar would probably be the centerpiece of either one of those deals. Plus, the contemplated trade with San Diego probably gave Escobar the impression the Braves wanted to move him. He's definitely talented, and will probably have a long career, but I think right now he's most valuable to the Braves as trade bait.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Highlight Reel
And, for those who passed on watching the unwatchable Heisman Trophy presentation, we all apparently missed Billy Sims being a little too loud upon Sam Bradford's introduction. Wonder if it had anything to do with imbibing a bit beforehand? According to Wikipedia, he did the same thing for Jason White in '03. There's reason enough to root for another OU winner. Link
Highlight Reel
If you haven't seen it yet, you've got check out this video of "Cowboy Chris" heckling Ed Werder of ESPN while he's preparing to go on air. Apparently, some in Big D don't believe Werder has accurately reported the story regarding any dissension among the team. Link
Monday, October 13, 2008
Why the hate for Lou Holtz?
For some reason, a lot of bloggers out there criticize Lou Holtz and attack him personally at times. I actually like watching the guy and think he's pretty entertaining. Sure, he's a little crazy at times, but he's also an old school college football coach and I think they're probably all going to be crazy. And sure, he's a homer for Notre Dame and South Carolina, but can you blame the guy for pulling for his old teams and hoping they do well? Anyway, here's a vid from over the weekend that is pretty funny. It provides a good chance for some to mock ol' Lou but personally I think it's great to see a TV analyst being honest about how he feels.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Judging the Ryder Cup picks.
Paul Azinger just announced his four Ryder Cup picks for this year. His selections were Hunter Mahan, Steve Stricker, Chad Campbell, and J.B. Holmes. Overall, no big surprises since there really just wasn't anybody else that really made a strong case to be on the team. My thoughts on each of the players:
Stricker - Hard to pass on Steve Stricker, he was ninth in final standings, just one spot away from making it on points. He was the most obvious pick, and probably would have been seen as a slight if he hadn't been picked. He's generally known as a solid ball striker and very good putter. No part of his game really stands out as spectacular, and really hasn't done anything great lately to show he's got a lot of momentum. In addition, he's always been known as a guy who doesn't like the spotlight and naturally a pretty quiet person. While this normally may be just fine for a golfer, it is the one thing that suggests he's not cut out to be a great Ryder Cupper.
Mahan - For the last couple of years, seen as a great young talent who has perhaps underachieved. He may actually be great for this format, as his game is a little rough around the edges when it comes to scoring in tournaments, but there is no doubt he can make birdies and will not back down from the challenge. He just recently gave an interview in which he came across as less than enamored with the event, due to all it's obligations and time required. So long as he doesn't actually let his feelings about the event affect his play, he should be a good addition to the team.
J.B. Holmes - Again, not really a surprise, he had a pretty good showing at the PGA Championship that likely impressed Captain Azinger. He's a super long hitter and should be able to make a lot of birdies. Kenny Perry has already expressed a desire to play with him, and others likely will as well, since playing a drive 50 yards ahead of what you're used to would be fun.
Chad Campbell - He's been on the last two teams, so Azinger was probably glad to have the chance to get a little more experience on the team. He has fallen off a bit in his results the last two years, but every now and then he pops on the radar to show his game hasn't completely gone away. I expect a guy like this to do well. He may have been the one surprise in the selections, but it's hard to say it's not deserved. He's a well-liked, easy-going guy who should contribute to the team.
Overall, Azinger did the best he could with these picks. There just hasn't been anyone who really jumped out and made a great case for being on the team. The other players I thought had a chance were Bubba Watson, Sean O'hair, and D.J. Trahan, who didn't help his case by shooting an 80 in the final round this past weekend. The other two guys just hadn't shown enough results either, although a pick wouldn't have been totally undeserved.
In the end, I believe the leadership of Azinger helps these guys upset Captain Faldo's team. For some reason, Faldo seems to be a little more detached from his team. Maybe he's such a big name that there team gets away from the underdog role that has done them well in the past.
Stricker - Hard to pass on Steve Stricker, he was ninth in final standings, just one spot away from making it on points. He was the most obvious pick, and probably would have been seen as a slight if he hadn't been picked. He's generally known as a solid ball striker and very good putter. No part of his game really stands out as spectacular, and really hasn't done anything great lately to show he's got a lot of momentum. In addition, he's always been known as a guy who doesn't like the spotlight and naturally a pretty quiet person. While this normally may be just fine for a golfer, it is the one thing that suggests he's not cut out to be a great Ryder Cupper.
Mahan - For the last couple of years, seen as a great young talent who has perhaps underachieved. He may actually be great for this format, as his game is a little rough around the edges when it comes to scoring in tournaments, but there is no doubt he can make birdies and will not back down from the challenge. He just recently gave an interview in which he came across as less than enamored with the event, due to all it's obligations and time required. So long as he doesn't actually let his feelings about the event affect his play, he should be a good addition to the team.
J.B. Holmes - Again, not really a surprise, he had a pretty good showing at the PGA Championship that likely impressed Captain Azinger. He's a super long hitter and should be able to make a lot of birdies. Kenny Perry has already expressed a desire to play with him, and others likely will as well, since playing a drive 50 yards ahead of what you're used to would be fun.
Chad Campbell - He's been on the last two teams, so Azinger was probably glad to have the chance to get a little more experience on the team. He has fallen off a bit in his results the last two years, but every now and then he pops on the radar to show his game hasn't completely gone away. I expect a guy like this to do well. He may have been the one surprise in the selections, but it's hard to say it's not deserved. He's a well-liked, easy-going guy who should contribute to the team.
Overall, Azinger did the best he could with these picks. There just hasn't been anyone who really jumped out and made a great case for being on the team. The other players I thought had a chance were Bubba Watson, Sean O'hair, and D.J. Trahan, who didn't help his case by shooting an 80 in the final round this past weekend. The other two guys just hadn't shown enough results either, although a pick wouldn't have been totally undeserved.
In the end, I believe the leadership of Azinger helps these guys upset Captain Faldo's team. For some reason, Faldo seems to be a little more detached from his team. Maybe he's such a big name that there team gets away from the underdog role that has done them well in the past.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Why the LPGA language requirement makes sense.
By now, we've all heard about the LPGA announcing a new rule requiring all its players to become fluent, or at least attempt to, in English. The reasoning behind the move is simply a financial one. The LPGA is an American tour. Prize money comes primarily from U.S. based businesses and other various sponsors. In exchange for the money put into the tournaments, of course the sponsors seek something in return. Usually, this is the cooperation of players in playing in pro-ams with the sponsors and their guests, and often actual marketing efforts by the players. Seems reasonable, right? Just a simple matter of marketing, where all those involved see a benefit.
Now, as those who follow the sport closely probably already know, the LPGA has recently seen a huge increase in foreign players, and in particular South Koreans. This is perfectly fine and good for the game on an international basis. What isn't good for the game is when so many foreigners bring down the tour because they don't do enough or aren't able to promote it due to their inability to speak English.
A quick check of the LPGA website shows that there are 121 active International LPGA players from 26 different countries, and of those, 45 are from South Korea. Of course, not all of the South Koreans can't speak English, but many don't, or at least not well enough to use it in interviews and speaking with pro-am partners. A closer look at money list shows that, by my calculations, there are 9 U.S. players, and 11 South Korean players, in the top 30 on the LPGA tour. Obviously, this is a tour that is heavily International in its makeup.
All the stats aside, it is apparent that the new rule being instituted by the LPGA is for the good of the game. The sport is dependent on its sponsors, and the sponsors in turn expect a return on their investment. While it's not a reflection on the South Koreans as individuals, reality is they can't effectively market the tour since many of them cannot speak English fluently. The LPGA has a responsibility, not only to the decision-makers, but to its players as well, to ensure the purses offered at the tournaments are as high as possible. There's a reason the foreign players come to the U.S. to play, the money. But in exchange for the chance to play for the big prize money offered here, it's only fair to expect the players to cooperate and just learn the language.
Now, as those who follow the sport closely probably already know, the LPGA has recently seen a huge increase in foreign players, and in particular South Koreans. This is perfectly fine and good for the game on an international basis. What isn't good for the game is when so many foreigners bring down the tour because they don't do enough or aren't able to promote it due to their inability to speak English.
A quick check of the LPGA website shows that there are 121 active International LPGA players from 26 different countries, and of those, 45 are from South Korea. Of course, not all of the South Koreans can't speak English, but many don't, or at least not well enough to use it in interviews and speaking with pro-am partners. A closer look at money list shows that, by my calculations, there are 9 U.S. players, and 11 South Korean players, in the top 30 on the LPGA tour. Obviously, this is a tour that is heavily International in its makeup.
All the stats aside, it is apparent that the new rule being instituted by the LPGA is for the good of the game. The sport is dependent on its sponsors, and the sponsors in turn expect a return on their investment. While it's not a reflection on the South Koreans as individuals, reality is they can't effectively market the tour since many of them cannot speak English fluently. The LPGA has a responsibility, not only to the decision-makers, but to its players as well, to ensure the purses offered at the tournaments are as high as possible. There's a reason the foreign players come to the U.S. to play, the money. But in exchange for the chance to play for the big prize money offered here, it's only fair to expect the players to cooperate and just learn the language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)