Recently in Sports Category
Apparently the person who told me that the game would be on channel 770 was wrong. The game started, and no game.
I called back, talked to someone else. He also, like the previous two, told me there was no game today.
Uh, no.
So he then tells me, well, it's not supposed to be on. How does he know? Well, he says, it's not on their schedule (he doesn't see the irony of the fact that he assumed there WAS no game JUST BECAUSE it was not on the schedule, and now he is telling me that there's no reason it should be on the schedule, just because there's a game). Yes, I know it's not on their schedule. It's a mistake. It should be on their schedule. They are supposed to show it. They have the feed; it is part of the NHL's Center Ice package; it's the playoffs; there's no blackout rules; there's no shortage of channels to show it on (as there are no other games on!): they should show it.
He assured me that the fact that it is not on the schedule means that they are not supposed to show it. He can't tell me why it is not on the schedule, and assures me that no one can fix it, because it is not supposed to be fixed: it's not on the schedule, after all.
He kept trying to tell me that they don't HAVE to show every game. I know and don't care. He kept trying to tell me it is not on the schedule. I know and assert that it is should be: this is the problem. He kept trying to tell me it cannot be fixed. I assert that he is incorrect, that it is obviously a mistake, and that someone knows how to fix it, and that it should be fixed.
I basically kept him on the phone for over a half hour. They aren't supposed to hang up on you, but try to get you to hang up first. I wouldn't budge. He finally hung up.
He kept apologizing and telling me the same things over and over, but two facts were ignored: a. this IS a mistake by DirecTV, b. it CAN be fixed by someone at DirecTV.
He got mad at me not just because I was being stubborn, but because I asserted he was wrong (apparently he can tell me I am wrong, but I can't tell him that he is), and because I didn't believe him when he said he was sorry. If he was sorry, I said, he'd find someone who actually knows what is going on (he told me no one he talked to knew WHY it was not on the schedule), and find out whether it was a mistake. He refused to do that, so therefore, no, I don't believe that he was truly sorry.
Right now I am watching it on a crummy 240x180 WMV feed from nhl.com for $15 (which I will later attempt to recoup from DirecTV). At least Boston is winning 1-0 after one period.
After hockey season, I will (again) consider switching from DirecTV to another service. They keep screwing me every several months. This is the latest in a very long line of screwups.
"DirecTV, how may I help you?"
"Hi, the Bruins and Candiens are playing today at 7 p.m. Eastern, and I have the Center Ice package, so I should be able to watch it, but it is not on the schedule. It's on NESN, but nowhere else, and I don't get NESN."
"Let me check that, sir. ... Sir, that game is on Tuesday."
"No, it's not."
"Let me send you to a specialist."
...
"DirecTV, how may I help you?"
"Hi, the Bruins and Candiens are playing today at 7 p.m. Eastern, and I have the Center Ice package, so I should be able to watch it, but it is not on the schedule. It's on NESN, but nowhere else, and I don't get NESN."
"Let me check that, sir. ... Sir, that game is on Tuesday."
"No, it's not. Really."
"Let me check again, sir. ... That game is on NESN and Center Ice channel 770."
Now, Center Ice channel 770 shows Caps and Flyers. So I am assuming that they didn't even know there was a game today -- deduced from the fact that the two people I talked to told me there was no game today -- and were not planning on making it available until I called.
I hope it's actually shown ... I'll find out in about five hours.
It has been widely reported that several months ago, the New England Patriots were heavily penalized by the NFL for, in violation of NFL rules, videotaping the New York Jets' play calling in the first half of the first game of the season.
The NFL made clear that this action did not affect the outcome of any game this season. The question is, did it affect other games in previous seasons? Or did past similar actions affect games this season?
What has gone less reported is the fact that the New York Jets also previously videotaped the Patriots, and that many other teams have also done such videotaping. And what is clear is that the same information could be acquired without violating league rules, by using binoculars and pad-and-pencil, so the advantage of using videotape is at best marginal anyway.
But this has not prevented people from wondering aloud whether the Patriots "cheated" to beat other teams in past years, including the last two teams the Patriots beat to win their last Super Bowl in early 2005 (both from Pennsylvania): the Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC Championship, and the Philadelphia Eagles in the Super Bowl.
But especially the Steelers.
It was a widely practiced activity, and it provided no significant advantage. But, a rule is a rule, and the league wanted to not only enforce the rule, but prevent it from happening again, so they fined the coach half a million dollars, the team a quarter million, and took away the team's first-round draft pick. It's the biggest penalty for a team or coach in league history.
So, most fans recognize the complaining for what it is: sour grapes. Even most Eagles fans and players just shrugged it off and joked about it.
But not the Steelers.
The coach, players, and fans of the Steelers have been very vocal in claiming that the Patriots "must have known" what plays were being called, and strongly implying that the Patriots "cheated," despite no evidence of this existing.
So, they want evidence. But how to get it? Or if you can't get it, at least imply that it might have existed at some point, but there's a coverup, in order to discredit your opponent and try to make yourself feel better about getting beat 41-27 in the title game?
Simple: have your Senator raise the issue in a congressional hearing. And do it two days before the Patriots are set to play in the Super Bowl for the title of Best Team in History, as the only team ever to go 19-0.
So that's what they did. Seantor Arlen Specter (R-Heinz Field) is trying to use whatever means at his disposal to discredit the Patriots' devastating win three years ago over the Steelers and their previously undefeated quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger (hey, I spelled that correctly from memory!).
It's really one of the more descpiable things I've seen in politics. Politics in sports is bad enough (cf. the steroids hearings), but trying to discredit one team in favor of your home team is just incredible. Is it too much to ask of our Senators to act like adults?
I have nightmares of Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) facing off against Senators Specter and Dick Lugar (R-IN) over the credibility of the Patriots' championships. Is this really what our Senate is supposed to be doing?
Granted, I am a lifelong Patriots fan. And it's not like Seahawks fans like the Steelers, either. But most people would recognize this as ridiculous no matter which team was their favorite.
My pick for tomorrow: Patriots over the Giants, 34-17. 
When last I made a Super Bowl Pick, I nailed it exactly.
My rationale at the time was basically that every Tom Brady playoff game to that point had been won, and by three points, except games against Indy and Pittsburgh; that the Pats had won every NFL game ever held in February; and that it wouldn't be very high scoring, but each team would get their knocks in.
A lot has changed since then. Brady has still never lost a Super Bowl, but he has since lost both a divisional playoff and conference championship game. They've won games against non-Colts and non-Steelers teams by more than 3 points. And they haven't lost in over a year, while racking up the most points ever scored in a season.
The first two Patriots games this season were won 38-14. Their average points for/against is 37/17 (36/17 including playoffs). While they have not been doing as well lately, having more problems than at the beginning of the season, I think the team is poised to break out the stomping boots. They'll generally control the Giants, who will have a few successful drives, but the day will belong to the Pats, 34-17.
Yesterday Brett Favre beat Tom Brady out for Fedex Air Player of the Year, an award voted on by the fans for the best quarterback of the year.
Now, I love Brett Favre. He is perhaps my favorite non-Patriots football player of all time.
So this isn't about him, specifically.
And frankly, I don't even care about these awards, no matter who votes for them. They are meaningless to me, specifically because they obviously don't mean anything.
Because no matter how you slice it, Tom Brady was the best quarterback of the year. And not even just of the year: he arguably had the best season any quarterback has ever had. More wins, more touchdowns, least interceptions versus touchdowns, in history (his TDs-over-INTs is even greater than the total TDs any other QB has ever had in a season, except for Peyton Manning and Dan Marino). Second best passer rating in history. Third most yards in history.
And oh yeah: HE NEVER LOST.
It's a similar situation for the Motorola coach of the year, which the Packers coach won. Again, fan voting. And again, I have nothing against the coach (mostly because I don't even know his name). He did a fine job.
But Bill Belichick had not only the best season this year, but arguably the best ever, for any coach. Again: HE NEVER LOST.
I am a big Pats fan, and have been all my life. But I am no fanboy. Until this season, I thought Brady was a great QB, but not necessarily The Best QB. But this year, without a doubt, he was The Best QB.
I can really see only two rational explanations for the voting.
The first is the obvious: the voters are stupid. We can beat around the bush, but I prefer to call a spade, a spade. Again, it's not personal, but the facts could not be more clear.
The second makes more sense, but is probably less likely: the fans recognized the Patriots were great, loved them for it, and wanted to give them even more motivation for Sunday's game, as if any were needed.
Yeah, it's a stretch, but at least it makes some sense, unlike Favre and Packers Coach beating out Brady and Belichick.
The last time a New York team beat a Boston team was was November 24, 2007, two months ago today. The NY Islanders beat the Boston Bruins 2-1. The Bruins are 6-1 against NY teams this season, including four in a row, and three in the last week.
The last time a NY team beat the Boston Celtics was also November 24, but in 2006. The Knicks won 101-77. That sounds like a lot, until you realize that just over a year later, the Celtics beat the Knicks 104-59. Ouch. The Knicks lost again to the Celtics a few days ago.
In baseball, the Yankees beat the Red Sox in their last meeting of 2007, on September 16th, 4-3. The Yankees even won the season series 8-10. However, the Red Sox won the division and, of course, the World Series, and the last time they faced in the playoffs, the Red Sox won 4-3, in the greatest comeback/choke in American sports history.
The Patriots last lost to a NY team last season, also in November 2006, when the Jets won in Foxboro, 17-14, though the Patriots later that year beat them in the first round of the playoffs, 37-16. It was the first NY win against the Patriots since December 2002. That win put the Jets into the playoffs instead of the Patriots. It was the only time the Patriots didn't go to the playoffs since winning the Super Bowl in 2001.
All told, since the last year a NY team won a title (the Yankees in 2000), Boston teams are a combined 113-103-10 against NY teams in the regular season, and are 8-7 against them in playoff games (2-1 in playoff series), with five titles, and they have not lost to any New York team in two months, with a combined 19-11 record over NY teams in the most recent and current seasons.
Now, don't you feel better informed?
But I really want this toy.
Today the Patriots try to become the first-ever team to go 16-0 in the regular season, and win 19 straight regular season games.
It's a very big deal. Even if they don't win the Super Bowl, it will be a very big deal.
But the Super Bowl matters a lot more. So while I want this win a lot, I won't breathe a sigh of relief or anything until they get win number 19 on the year, winning the Super Bowl.
No matter what happens, though, I remember after the Pats' second, and then third, Super Bowl win, people talking about whether this Pats team is one of the best ever. There's no more talk about that. The verdict is in. They are. The only question -- one that may never be answered -- is whether they are the best ever. But they've accomplished all these feats and Brady is just now hitting his prime. If the Pats ring off a lot more wins, including some Super Bowls, I think we may just have to call them the best ever (or at least, best since The Merger).
But that's the future. The Now is one game, and one game only. Today's game.
Go Pats.
This unprecedented game was scheduled to be seen only by about 40 percent of the normal NFL audience, because it is going to be on the NFL Network, which is only available via some satellite and cable providers. But tonight the NFL announced it would be simulcast on NBC and CBS, getting 100 percent nationwide coverage, and marking the first time since Super Bowl I that a game would be shown simultaneously on more than one U.S. network, and the first time ever to be shown on three.
Tom Brady jokingly said he wants the Giants starters to take the game off, since the game is meaningless for the playoffs. But as a longtime Patriots fan, I say no: sports is about rising to a challenge. That's why no one cared about The Dream Team after it won its first Olympics. The tougher the challenge, the greater the glory. There will be 11 other teams in the playoffs, and the Patriots will have played at least five of them (Cowboys, Colts, Steelers, Chargers, Giants; and maybe seven, if the Redskins win, and the Browns win/Titans lose).
Going 16-0 while beating a lot of top teams would be a great accomplishment, but if one of those top teams intentionally didn't play its best game, that would diminish it a bit, for many fans. Granted, it's already slightly diminished in that the combined wins by the rest of the Patriots' division is only 11, four less than the Patriots have won by themselves, and that accounts for six of the Pats' games. So the competitor in me really wants to see the Patriots play all the best teams en route to a perfect season, and, eventually, to another Super Bowl championship.
Bring it on, Coach Tom Coughlin. If the Patriots can't go 16-0 against the best you have to offer, then they don't deserve to get a perfect season.
The Patriots won 21 games straight, going back to 2003. That streak ended at the hands of the Steelers, and the then-lossless Ben Roethlisberger. The Patriots would not lose another game -- including handing Big Ben his first-ever loss -- until the 2005 season.
Except for one.
December 20, 2004, the Partriots travel to Miami, and Tom Brady gets intercepted four times (for some perspective, he has only five INTs this season so far) and A.J. Feely threw none, and Sammy Morris scored two TDs, and the Dolphins won 29-28.
The Pats ended the year 17-2, and the Dolphins 4-12.
Of course, Feely is now with the Eagles (where he just missed upsetting the Patriots a few weeks ago), and Sammy Morris now plays for the Patriots. But the Dolphins also beat the Pats in 2005 (granted, that year, the Dolphins actually had a winning record) and 2006.
In 2005, the teams were close in the standings, and the Pats had their worst season in years, and lost at home 28-26. In 2006, the Pats had a 12-4 record, the Dolphins were 6-10, and the Pats went on to just miss going to the Super Bowl. And in Week 14, the Dolphins shut the Patriots out in Miami, 21-0.
Twenty-one to nothing. Just a year ago. The only shutout the Patriots have suffered since the 31-0 shutout the Bills handed them in week 1 of 2003 (which the Patriots avenged in week 17, with a 31-0 shutout over the Bills).
Granted, this is an undefeated New England and almost-winless Miami, the by-far-best against the by-far-worst. On the other hand, the 2007 Dolphins want no win more than this one, and have beaten the Patriots in their second meeting of the season three years in a row, including a shutout last year.
I paraphrased The Simpsons, saying, "The Patriots are still winning, dominant as ever. The Celtics picked up some major stars, the Red Sox have the best record in the league, and the Bruins ... well, we love the Bruins."
Here's a song by Ryan Parker noting the same basic thing, from a different perspective: Thank Goodness for the Bruins.
Anyone who talks of an "asterisk," should the Patriots go undefeated, just ends up looking like an idiot.
And yes, that includes Marcellus Wiley and Don Shula.
On September 22, with a solid lead on the wild card, and having won 10 games in a row, including sweeping the Yankees at home, we lose a simulated to Tampa Bay, with Josh Beckett starting.
The computer tells me upon game completion, "Josh Beckett sustained an injury (shoulder separation) during today's game. It appears he will be out for about 2 to 3 months. What would you like to do?"
The options are Keep Active, 15-day DL, or 60-day DL. None of the options are "kill myself," so I'm stumped!
In 2004, the Patriots won the Super Bowl and the Red Sox won the World Series.
In 2007, we very well could see the Patriots and Sox pair up again, and there's a decent chance the Celtics will follow up with another World Championship of their own.
So that leaves my beloved Bruins. It reminds me of a quote from the very first Simpsons episode ever:
"The Patriots are still winning, dominant as ever. The Celtics picked up some major stars, the Red Sox won the World Series, and the Bruins ... well, we love the Bruins."
The Bs have a decent team, but it's hard to see how they could seriously challenge for the Cup without some major improvements. I'll keep watching and hoping, though.
#!/usr/bin/perlThis formula correctly "predicts" the next championship of each team:
use warnings;
use strict;
# script to predict when the next Boston team championship
# will occur after either:
#
# * winning first championship in team history, against St. Louis
#
# OR
#
# * winning first championship since St. Louis existed as a team
my %boston_team = (
# team last year won, year beat St. Louis
Celtics => [1957, 1957],
Bruins => [1941, 1970],
Patriots => [2002, 2002],
'Red Sox' => [1918, 2004],
);
for my $team (sort { $boston_team{$a}[1] <=> $boston_team{$b}[1] } keys %boston_team) {
printf "%s: %d\n", $team,
predict_year(@{$boston_team{$team}});
}
sub predict_year {
my($last_won, $beat_stl) = @_;
my $base_year = $beat_stl + 2;
$base_year += int($beat_stl/1000) - int($last_won/1000); # adjust for difference
return $base_year;
}
__END__
Celtics: 1959I CALLED IT!!!!!</colbert>
Bruins: 1972
Patriots: 2004
Red Sox: 2007
Well, I happened to remember that Games 3, 4, and 5 of the 2004 ALCS were all about 3/4-hour apart. Game 3 was about 4:15 and was 9 innings, and Game 5 was about 5:00 in extra innings, and Game 6 was about 5:45 in extra innings.
So I looked it up. They were 4:20, 5:02, and 5:49.
So no, in fact, Game 3 of the 2004 ALCS was a longer 9-inning postseason game. Maybe he meant World Series history? Whatever. He's a liar!
Anyway, this should be instructive to the Red Sox, regardless: the last time this happened -- a 4:20-ish 9-inning game on the road for a team to take a 3-0 series lead -- the team down 0-3 eneded up winning the series.
Go Sox!
And the fans either don't know the rules or don't care: they proceeded to showe the field with debris.
(Not that I can blame the fans: even D-Backs manager Bob Melvin later said the slide was not illegal, because Upton "could get the base." But that's not what the rule says. Most of the commentators are wrong too, they are saying the slide would have been legal if he didn't raise his arm, but that's not true.)
Some may say, hey Pudge, the Red Sox fans did that in the 1999 ALCS. The difference is that the umps had, in that game -- for the second time that series -- called Jose Offerman out after "Knobby" completely missed the tag. And when Nomar was incorrectly called out at first, the fans lost it.
I am not saying the fans were right to throw stuff on the field. They weren't. I am saying they were right that the umps were wrong (and horribly wrong).
And frankly, what the Sox fans did in the 1999 ALCS (against the Yankees) helped improve officiating in baseball. That was one of the events that forced the MLB to adopt various new procedures, especially the "ump huddle."
Incidentally, A-Rod earlier this year, infamously, did almost the exact same slide against Dustin Pedroia of the Red Sox. He was not called for interference. He should have been. But since A-Rod is crying at home now, it's all good.
See http://www.shutuptimmccarver.com/ and http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/label/tim%20mccarver for more information about the evil that is Tim McCarver, Color Commentator.
I really dislike listening to Tim McCarver, and as a Red Sox fan, I am excited about the ALCS, but also dreading it. AND THAT IS NOT HOW IT SHOULD BE. TIM.
For more information, see http://www.shutuptimmccarver.com and http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search?label=tim%20mccarver
This is the Longest Concert Evar, starring Pudge. Send requests to concertrequest@pudge.net, or post them here.
http://games.espn.go.com/pigskin/frontpage
After logging in (create a new login if you don't have one), create an entry.
Then for each entry, click Join a Group. Type in "Pudge's Picks" in the search field, submit the form, then click on Pudge's Picks when it shows up in the list. The password to join is "longhorn."
Invite others, if you wish.
Other active players on the last Hartford team, 10 years ago: Ducks' 2003 Stanley Cup MVP (and 2007 Stanley Cup winner) Jean-Sebastien Giguere (he was 19, and played 8 games); Rangers' Brenadan Shanahan and Marek Malik; Kings' Sean Burke; Lightning's Nolan Pratt; Flyers' Sami Kapanen and Geoff Sanderson; and Leafs' Jeff O'Neill.
Not sure why anyone should care, but I find it marginally interesting.
A few minutes later, someone through a computer at Clark U in Worcester, MA vandalized Coco's Wikipedia page.
Teh funny.
I don't think a single Red Sox, Bruins, or Celtics game goes untelevised in the Boston area.
Oh well, I can listen to the game on the radio. And Wednesday's game I'll see in HD on ESPN(2?). Thursday's game should be on the local TV.
When he played ball for the Patriots, he was critically injured by Oakland Raiders player Jack Tatum. The play was both dirty and illegal, although more generally accepted at the time (Dr. Z has a good summary of the issue). Stingley's neck was broken, and he was paralyzed for life, a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic. Tatum never attempted to contact Stingley. Ever.
ESPN mentioned Stingley's passing on SportsCenter tonight, and showed his picture. They did not show the actual play that put him in a wheelchair for half his life and eventually resulted in his death, and the only reason I can think to not show the play -- this is SportsCenter after all, they always show the play -- is because they are afraid of bringing up the old debate about whether the play was dirty. Wankers.
So Patriots over the Colts, by three TDs. I know that seems like a lot, but what else could it be? I suppose I could be reading the pattern incorrectly. Maybe two FGs? That would fit the drama of the occasion. Could also be one TD and two FGs.
And then, of course, Patriots over the Bears/Saints (probably Bears) by three in the Super Bowl.
Backstory: Rory Fitzpatrick is a somewhat sub-par, but not terrible, defenseman who plays for the Vancouver Canucks. For whatever reason, there has been a massive write-in campaign to get him elected to the All-Star game, and he is second in voting for the Western Conference.
I've heard lots of people complain about it, trying to find out what can be done about it. But the answer about what can be done is simple: improve the All-Star voting so it is not stupid.
The reason I screwed around with MLB All-Star voting a bunch of years ago is because the system was so flawed. It lacked integrity. You could submit hundreds of paper ballots, but only a couple dozen online? And with no good security measures to prevent it (they've since improved)? It was lame, so I showed it to be lame.
NHL voting is far worse. First, they have some of the same problems, but to compound the problem, only a handful of players are even on the ballot in the first place. The Boston Bruins have only two players on the entire ballot, and one of them is not even Glen Murray, one of the top goal-scorers in the league over the past several years.
The problem is respect. No one respects the NHL All-Star voting process. It's stupid, and no one cares, so they screw with it. That is a fixable problem, of course, but it is not about changing the process to try to prevent this, or trying to market the thing to change attitudes, it's about making it so the All-Star voting is actually a good process that gets a result people can respect.
Red Auerbach (1917-2006) was the most successful coach in American pro sports history. He retired in 1966, having won the last eight straight league championships, and nine of the last ten (including all ten conference titles). They lost the next year, but won the two after that, bringing the total to 11 out of 13.
Red died soon after the last Red Sox World Series championship in 2004, and was born shortly before the previous one in 1918.
C Jason Varitek (injured)
1B Kevin Youkilis (playing [poorly] in left field)
2B Mark Loretta (batting DH)
SS Alex Gonzalez (injured)
3B Mike Lowell
LF Manny Ramirez (injured)
CF Coco Crisp (injured)
RF Trot Nixon (injured)
DH David Ortiz (injured)
SP Curt Schilling (injured)
SP Josh Beckett
SP Jon Lester (cancer)
SP Matt Clement (injured)
SP Tim Wakefield (injured)
RP Jonathan Papelbon (injured)
Also, our two best backup outfielders, Adam Stern and Wily Mo Pena, are injured.
I've never seen anything like this. And most of the injuries have happened just in August. It's incredible. It's bizarre. The Sox basically just have Mike Lowell and Josh Beckett, some half-decent middle relief, Kyle Snyder starting pretty well, and ... well, and nothing.
And for some reason I've still not lost hope. There's a decent chance Varitek, Gonzalez, Nixon, Ortiz, Schilling, Manny, Pena, and Papelbon injuries might be over soon. But maybe not. And apparently Loretta is not playing second just to give a rookie (Dustin Pedroia) a chance to show what he can do, and David Wells (our best pitcher the last few weeks) was traded, so management has apparently a lot less hope than I do.
Which situation is more dire? Being down 5.5 games with 40 games to play, or being down three games in a seven-game series?
And recall, pitching was our problem in the 2004 ALCS, too. Schilling was DOA, Arroyo was terrible, and Lowe had been so bad he'd been bumped from the rotation. Pedro was the only one who pitched well (as Schilling's been the only one pitching well now).
The Sox pitching has sucked. And when it hasn't, other problems have arisen (passed ball by Mirabelli, followed by bloop RBI single by Jeter).
If the pitching can turn around, the Sox can make the playoffs. If it doesn't, they can't. I wouldn't place a bet either way.
All of these games are against the Yankees, in Boston. The Yankees lead the division by 1.5 games (assuming they can't come back from a 12-2 deficit here in the bottom of the 7th).
Go Sox!
But tonight, he had his best start so far, giving up only one hit in eight innings (fellow rookie phenom Jon, this one Papelbon, got his 28th save of the year by setting down the side in order in the ninth, combining for the one-hitter).
Lester is also a native of Tacoma, WA, and is scheduled to start Sunday afternoon in Seattle. I hope they give him a nice homecoming; it should be a great game. I'm going to be there with fellow Perl Mongers brian d foy, jmcadams, and cxreg. I'll be at Saturday's game, too.
The formula is there. It is undeniable. A Boston team beats St. Louis to break a very long championship drought, then does not win the championship the following year, and then wins again in the year after that. Celtics in 57/59 (St. Louis Hawks), Bruins in 70/72 (St. Louis Blues), Patriots in 02/04 (St. Louis Rams), Red Sox in 04/06 (St. Louis Cardinals).
The offensive pass interference was clearly correct. He changed directions, straightened out his arm on the defensive player, and gave himself some momentum while taking away same from the other player. No question, correct call.
The hold on the lineman, same thing: the defensive player got past him, and he grabbed the guy's shoulder pad from behind. Absolutely no question, correct call.
Big Ben's touchdown, I am not entirely convinced was the right intial call, but I am 75 percent sure he got it across. But everyone seems to be telling me the video was not conclusive, so how can they be mad at the initial call, if you can't even tell from the video? Judgment call, can't tell from the video, so I have no problem with it.
And how come the Seahawks fans aren't talking about the interception and two missed field goals, without which they would have won regardless of these supposed "bad" calls?
Look, I complained about the bad call against the Patriots in the divisional playoff game, where the fumble clearly went through the end zone. However, I was quick to point out that Brady through an interception to put them in that situation, and their three other turnovers are what killed them.
The best team always wins, even with bad calls, because that's part of the game too. But in this case, the calls weren't bad anyway.
Stop your genuflecting.
I had the advantage of knowing the Patriots team extremely well. This year, well, not so much. I know the Steelers pretty well, though not nearly as well as I know the Pats, and despite living in the Seattle region, I don't know the Seahawks well at all.
But there are a few things I know. I know the Steelers have a slightly better passing game. I know the Seahawks have the decided edge in running. I know I fear the Steelers defense more, but on the other hand, they tend to give up some big plays.
Big Ben is prone to some error, but on the other hand, he's only lost to three teams, and two of those he ended up coming back to beat in the playoffs, the Colts and Bengals. (He remains 0-2 against the Pats.)
In the end, I think the Seahawks won't be able to contain the many Steelers weapons. So I am picking the Steelers to win, 28 to 24.
Ben's got only four career losses in his two seasons: his first loss was to the defending (and future) Super Bowl champion Patriots in the playoffs last year. His second was to the Patriots this year.
Then he lost to the as-yet-undefeated Colts in week 12, and a close one to the Bengals the following week. And then he beat them in back-to-back weeks in the playoffs.
Not that Seattle can't beat Pittsburgh, but it takes a lot to knock off the Steelers with Roethlisberger at the helm.
I don't really care who wins. My family is all from Pittsburgh originally, but they are too much a rival of the Pats for me to like them. I live in Washington, near Seattle, and my only reason for not wanting the Seahawks to win have nothing to do with the team itself: I don't want the fans who barely know the names of five Seahawks -- which covers most of the fans I've met -- to talk smack for the next year.
Even Phil Simms demonstrated the proof that it was a touchback, at the time, using the same replay footage the refs had access to: just draw a straight line from where the ball landed to where it left his hand on the rear overhead shot. Now, it is possible the ball curved, and plus it is difficult to take into account the fact that the ball is a couple of feet of the ground when it leaves his hand, but those factors only matter if the line is close, and it's not. It was about 20 yards further downfield than would have been possible if it did not go over the goal line in bounds. Also, you must take into account the width of the football, because if any part goes over the pylon, it is in bounds, so the ball's trajectory would have had to have been at a very sharp angle for it to not have gone through the end zone, and it's just not possible given where it landed.
It really tainted the game (which, granted, was already well-tainted by the turnovers). I wonder if the head of NFL officiating will cop to the mistake this week; he usually does.
It's not that the refs lost the game. It's like the USC/UT game (the OTHER Patriots head coach going for his third straight championship): USC screwed up and lost the game, but that doesn't give a pass to the officials who simply blew the call. Except there, they didn't have replay access, and here they did.
This just in: a zebra just now threw another flag on Asante Samuel, from his home in Detroit. He wasn't at the game, but he says he is absolutely sure Samuel committed pass interference on that interception.
Tom Brady has never lost a playoff game.
The Patriots will play in the Wild Card round this year. Tom Brady has never played in the Wild Card round.
The Patriots have won five of the nine playoff game they've played in their three Super Bowl runs by exactly three points. The two games each against Pittsburgh and Indianapolis were all won by more than three points.
No team has ever won three Super Bowls in a row. Seven have won two in a row, and Pittsburgh did it twice. Only Pittsburgh has won four in six years, and only New England and Dallas have won three in four years. No team has ever won four in five years.
Bonus stat: Mike Vrabel tonight became the first player in NFL history to score a TD on each of his first six career receptions. Coming into this season, he had three career receptions, two of which were in the Super Bowl.
Let's not lose our heads here: Damon played for only four years in Boston. Perspective, people.
But, I'd personally rather have the Red Sox left field: Williams, Yaz, Rice, Ramirez.
What is the best position on a team? Is there a better one? In other sports?
What's the difference? Well, you don't actually lose anything with an overtime loss. You get one point. Your record -- as a percentage -- remains what it was. You don't sink, you don't swim: you tread water. It is exactly like what used to be a tie, in all respects. They call it an "overtime loss," but they treat it like a tie.
You'd think ESPN would get that sort of thing correct, since they are supposedly experts on sports.
It's like if you are watching Star Wars, and right after Leia gives the medals to Han and Luke, Chewie took out a sword and cut her head off.
Tonight I saw my first regular season NHL shootout, and before it even started, I was thinking, "65 minutes of hard-fought hockey, and it comes down to this?" Six guys and two goalies isn't hockey. It's a sideshow.
Hockey is teamwork, offense and defense. If one team plays better as a team than the other, but the other has a better goalie or a better shooter, then the latter team has the advantage in the shootout.
People say they needed to get rid of ties. Maybe for marketing reasons, but I don't get it. They say people left unsatisfied when ties result. Good, they should, because it's a lame ending. But I don't feel satsified after a shootout, either. And not just because my team lost; if the Bruins had won, I'd have feel like we'd stolen a free point. Which is better I suppose, but not enough that it warrants screwing up the game.
Of course, it's not about the game. It's about marketing the game to people who don't already like it. And those people love shootouts, unfortunately.
Update: The CSV file has incorrect dates for when the time is past midnight, so it has games going from 10 p.m. on the 4th to 1 a.m. on the 4th. Oops. Also added quick DST calculation.
#!/usr/bin/perl
### first make empty "Bruins" calendar in iCal!
use strict;
use warnings;
use Date::Parse;
use Mac::Glue ':all';
my $ical = new Mac::Glue 'iCal';
my $bcal = $ical->obj(calendar => whose(title => equals => 'Bruins'));
my $bloc = location(end => $bcal);
my($dsts) = str2time('April 2 2006');
my($dste) = str2time('October 30 2005');
while (<DATA>) {
next unless m{^(Boston Bruins (at|vs\.) ([^,]+)),((\d+)/(\d+)/(\d+),(\d+):(\d+):00 ([AP]M)),((\d+)/(\d+)/(\d+),(\d+):(\d+):00 ([AP]M)),};
my($summ, $start, $end) = ($1, $4, $11);
$start = str2time($start);
$end = str2time($end);
$end += 86400 if $start > $end;
my $adj = 3600 * ( ($start < $dsts && $start > $dste) ? 4 : 3 );
$_ -= $adj for ($start, $end);
# printf "%d : %s : %s : %s\n", $adj, $summ, scalar(localtime $start), scalar(localtime $end);
# next;
$ical->make(
new => 'event',
at => $bloc,
with_properties => {
summary => $summ,
start_date => $start,
end_date => $end,
}
);
}
#Subject,StartDate,StartTime,EndDate,EndT ime,Alldayevent,Reminderonoff,ReminderDate,Reminde rTime,Description,Location,Priority,Private,Sensit ivity,Showtimeas
__END__
Boston Bruins vs. Montreal,10/5/2005,7:00:00 PM,10/5/2005,10:00:00 PM,FALSE,TRUE,10/5/2005,12:00:00 PM,,TD Banknorth Garden,Normal,TRUE,Normal,0
Boston Bruins at Buffalo,10/7/2005,8:00:00 PM,10/7/2005,11:00:00 PM,FALSE,TRUE,10/7/2005,4:00:00 PM,,Away,Normal,TRUE,Normal,0
Last year, the Boston Red Sox ended one of the longest championshipless streaks in sports history at 86 years. The next greater streak at the time was 87, by the Chicago White Sox. Do you see where I am going with this?
Also: the Red Sox -- who have won six World Series -- have never won the World Series in a year when the Boston Bruins were playing (as the Bruins did not exist until about 10 years after the 1918 win, and were not playing in 2004-2005, due to the lockout). If I were not such a huge hockey fan, I would call for the team's elimination.
On the other hand, maybe the Sox only won because God knew without hockey, we would be terribly depressed unless something big happened.
Game 2 of the 2005-2006 season begins in 15 minutes. Go Bruins!
* OK, I know that doesn't sound all that impressive, since it is hockey, where even teams with losing records can make the playoffs, but they also had a winning record each of those seasons. So nyah.
There's one exception though, instituted in the mid-90s. If the two teams have a better record than any second-place team in any other division, then the team with the better head-to-head record wins the division title.
The logic is simple: in this case, both teams are going to the playoffs, since the Wild Card will be won by the other team. So why play a playoff game -- wasting valuable energy for the pitchers -- to merely determine seeding?
But it's not merely seeding, it's also the division championship on the line, and to declare one team the winner of a championship based an arbitrary tiebreaker, especially when it had not been done that way ever before, is ridiculous.
Of course, this happens in other sports. But baseball is not other sports. It has more history and the division title holds more significance.
The Red Sox are not the only team in baseball history to have the best record in the division and not be declared the division champs. The 2001 St. Louis Cardinals, like the Red Sox, had the second best record in the league, and tied for the best in the division, but lost the head-to-head tiebreaker: their fans call that year's team the "co-division champs."
So screw it, I am declaring the Sox the champs, and hopefully the Sox management has the cajones to assert the Sox as the champs, too.
First: I know this comes a surprise to the people who keep hiring her, and the people who keep watching her, but Drew Barrymore cannot act. She automatically brings down every movie she is in with her terribly wooden attempts at it.
Second: romantic comedies are generally dumb, with dumb lines, dumb characters, and dumb plots. This one was no exception. Barrymore's friends made no sense on any level. And her transition from "I will accept your craziness" to "no I won't" was not in the least bit believable: any real human being in her situation would not have dumped him just because he was initially depressed for missing what turned out to be a great game.
Third: the aformentioned great game never happened. That annoys me.
Fourth: the cops would not have stood by while Barrymore and Fallon talked about their relationship. They'd have carried her off right away, and I wished they would have in the movie, too.
Fifth: did I mention Drew Barrymore can't act?
Sixth: Fallon wasn't very funny. A couple good lines. And some of those were ruined by Barrymore.
Basically, when Barrymore wasn't in the movie, it was pretty good. I recognized a lot of the cameos (not just players etc., but some of the actual fans), and while the fans' devotion to the Sox was an exagerrated caricature, it was a wholly recognizable one. Some people have criticized it for being a caricature, but that's like criticizing Dana Carvey for not sounding exactly like Bush 41. It's funny and hits home because it is a caricature, and a damned good one.
I'd have liked to see even more of the Red Sox stuff, but oh well. If you really want to see some real Red Sox fans in action, rent "Still We Believe." It's an absolutely fantastic documentary following the 2003 season (and stars some of the fans who were featured in Fever Pitch).
I bought the documentary, so I can show my children someday just what it is like to be a Sox fan in Massachusetts, and what it is like to not win a World Series for 86 years, as I hope they have little firsthand knowledge of such things. And so I don't forget myself.
So if you're a Sox fan and love dumb romantic comedies and Drew Barrymore, "Fever Pitch" is the best movie evah. If you're only the latter, it is pretty good. If you're only the former, it's still worth watching.
I hear the original "Fever Pitch" is good, that's next in my Netflix Queue.
ESPN is showing Red Sox @ Yankees, and Sci-Fi Friday is on, so my plate is full. I only have two tuners, so I can't even TiVo it. Shucks! If Kanye West says something funny again, please let me know.
And on some of the DVDs, there's a "Fox 5 NY" logo in the bottom right.
The quality is basically about as good as if someone gave you a videotape with the commercials cut out. The audio (with no surround sound) and video (with significant compression artifacts) quality both are worse than what I recorded off DirecTV onto my DirecTiVo.
The menus are also kinda crummy, with even worse compression on the video. But crummy DVD menus are common: I just got Alison Krauss + Union Station Live, and while the quality of the audio* and video of the program are some of the best I've seen, the menus are nauseatingly bad.
This should be Dolby Digital 5.1, anamorphic widescreen, with a very crisp picture. Is that asking too much for something that I want to last a long time, watch over and over, and that costs this much?
Oh, and the bonus DVD is just the World Series film I already bought, plus some extra stuff like press conferences and celebrations (different from the extras on the one I already bought).
*The audio sounds great, and comes in three formats: stereo PCM (i.e., WAV), and multichannel Dolby Digital and DTS. I use all three: PCM for ripping to my music collection, DTS for normal use, and Dolby Digital if I want to listen at night, so I can use the dynamic compression on my amp and not wake anyone up.
However, I was pleased to see the picture on the MLB web site, because I was thinking, "I should print up box scores for when I watch the games," but I saw each DVD has the complete box score on the back of its individual case. Smarties!
