Hi, I'm Brett Fa-vra

This story is annoying. It was annoying when there were rumors of him coming back, it was annoying when I heard every 20 minutes that there were text messages, and it's annoying now, that it's taken over television. As much as it's annoying, it's also completely inevitable. Who believed for a second he wasn't going to cause a clusterfuck of controversy about playing again, when he's done the reciprocal of it every year for the last 5.

For anyone who liked Brett Favre before,it's a huge punch in the gut. I liked him as a person, I thought he was decent. But the last couple of years have turned that notion on its head. A person who cares for his teammates, and a player of Favre's seniority and standing should not be acting like this. He shouldn't have been acting like this for the past couple of years, when he held the franchise hostage for most of the summer. And he certainly shouldn't be acting like this several months after his very public, very tearful, very nauseating retirement. And to boot, I'm not even a Packers fan!

I'm so glad that the Green Bay franchise hasn't caved into his demands. Mostly because his demands are erratic and moronic. I find it humorous when I hear analysts say that Brett Favre holds all the cards. What possible cards could he hold? He's proved that he can have one good year in the last five, and he's proved that he's publicly retired. He cannot force the Packers to trade him. He cannot force the Packers to play him. And he cannot force the Packers to release him. In reality, he doesn't hold any card, except this absurd notion of public scrutiny. And it boggles the mind how anyone in the public eye can possibly agree with him. Some of these quotes are preposterous.

"Them moving on does not bother me," Favre said. "It doesn't. I totally
understand that. By me retiring March 3, I knew that could possibly
happen. All I was saying is, you know, I'm thinking about playing
again."

According to Van Susteren, who spoke to the AP by telephone Monday
afternoon, Favre said he was "never fully committed" to retiring and
felt pressured by the Packers to make a decision, a notion Packers
general manager Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy tried to dispel in
an interview with the AP on Saturday.

No Brett, you know what's a ridiculous notion? The fact that anyone could possibly believe that you were pressured into doing anything. For the last 5 years, the league and the franchise has bent over backward for you, living on your every word and pass, they let you have the latitude that no other player in the league would have in making your decision. How could they possibly force you into any kind of a life altering decision, when you've been calling the shots for the last 3 years. It's ridiculous, absurd, and insulting to everyone involved.

That Southern-good-ol'-boy farce has gotten you far enough. It's revolting that you decided to come back, and are now trying to make management seem like they're some evil organization keeping Brett Favre from being Brett Favre. Grow up, you're 38, not 18. I hope they don't trade him, they don't release him, and they don't start him. If they are stead fast in their decision making, Brett will be left alone on an island crying like a little baby with no recourse. He doesn't get a vote, he gave that up at the end of last season.

Hamilton story is perplexing

I have to admit, the only reason I was really watching the home run derby last night was to see how the only player from my team would do. I didn't expect him to win - and he didn't (Sizemore) - but he had a pretty decent showing, with some pretty solid shots. I never thought of him as a prolific home run hitter, even though he's tied for the HR lead in the AL. That being said, last night's home run derby was pretty entertaining all in all. Josh Hamilton single handedly made it that way.

The ending was proper, and you could see that after a scintillating first round he might run out of steam, just like so many big bats quiet in the final round. I think after his 28-home-run-first-round display though, people will believe that Morneau winning was just a bad dream. All in all, it doesn't really matter, because no one can remember the winner from last year, and this exhibition battle means absolutely nothing.

But as I was watching the Derby, and Hamilton's performance, one thing really amazed me - the reaction of the crowd. They took to him in almost a split second after he hit a couple of monster shots. And I'm thinking to myself, only in America could a guy, who a couple of years ago was a worthless junkie, be celebrated for doing something almost equally worthless, on one of the biggest stages in the world. That's right, he's doing something worthless. He's playing baseball, making millions of dollars hitting a ball with a bat. I love sports, but let's be honest, in the big scheme of things they are really nothing.

And Berman, Ravi, and all those guys are falling over themselves talking about how great his story is. That this one time first overall draft pick, who by his own glutenous sins ruined his life for a handful of years with drugs and alcohol. And how now it's a resurrection. A what?! Give me a break. Let's not make his story more than it should be, a lucky break that most of us normal people aren't afforded that athletes are given day in and day out. And let's not celebrate a guy who still walks around with a chaperone because he doesn't trust himself in idle times of the season. I got news for you, a majority of the people in this country have some idle time, and the first thought in our minds isn't, "let's shoot up" or "let's get hammered beyond recognition."

It's a feel good story that he was able to overcome his demons. But let's not blow it out of proportion. He came back to play baseball he didn't come back to win the Nobel Peace prize. I hope he continues to have a great career, with the obvious talent he possesses, but it makes me feel awkward when he's risen to martyrdom, just because he's only a borderline junkie instead of a full blown one.

Worst. Draft. Ever.

The jokes for this draft write themselves. I mean seriously, do I really need to try to make up something funny, when this dastardly basketball killer to your right from UIPUI was picked in the first round? It's as if roughly after the lottery, every GM had a stroke at the same time, and let their kids pick people whose "name sounded funny". It was a contest of one-uppery of retardation one pick after another well into the night. Half the people picked in the first round were second round talent.

And let me say this: for a while there I thought Darrell Arthur was going to be taught to drive a truck by his mom for the rest of his life. Ma and Son trucking would really take off then. I feel bad for the possibility of having serious health condition, but other than, it was uncomfortably entertaining to see his discomfort.

As a Cavs fan, with so many players still on the board, when they picked JJ Hickson I had no reaction. I wasn't upset. I wasn't happy. I was caught so far off guard by this ridiculous pick that I just stared at my television. No matter how you spin it, it was just not a great pick.

My favorite part had to come with the 26th pick, when Accountant/Basketball player George Hill was selected. I watch 500 college basketball games a year, and not once have I heard his name called. And I'm possitive that David Stern snickered a little when he said, "George is not here."

There's so much to talk about within these draft picks, that it would take all day to go over. But the most insteresting has to be Detroit's 2nd round draft pick Walter Sharpe. Let's get this out of the way: who the fuck is this guy. DSC's a big fan. Free Press finds some information about your local sports hero:

I'll fill you in on a few details: Yes, he really has struggled with narcolepsy. He was academically ineligible last semester, presumably for spelling "Sharp" wrong. And maybe the best sign that he is ready for pro sports is that he already has his first nightclub arrest under his belt.

You say what now? He's narcoleptic? That doesn't stop him from getting arrested apparently. This guy should love Det-riot. Yeah, I would assume that narcolepsy would make it difficult to concentrate in school. But maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, it might also make it difficult to play basketball. Undeterred Pistons. Good thing they didn't take local undefeated basketball superstar CDR. That would have been foolish, and not at all fan-friendly.

I woke up this morning, hoping that last night was a big joke. Unfortunately, I still have JJ Hickson for next year.

[FreeP] Don't assume Pistons blew the draft

Blog War. Who you got?

You know, I think that's exactly what was missing around these blog parts. Everyone's nice to each other, asking for links, sending out their posts in hopes of increased traffic (present company included). To get these favors in return, everyone treads on eggshells unless they can stand completely by themselves. The only things said on the negative is done behind closed doors. Well, I guess that's kind of over, and I find it entertaining.

It always seemed like the two big boys, TBL and Deadspin were somewhat rivals, like, are you a TBL guy, or a Deadspin guy. The distinction has been made for several prominent bloggers. Here's a timeline.

The shot heard 'round the blogging world, fired by the LA Times in an interview with Jason McIntyre and other big names names. The piece ran June 22nd. I'm not going to summarize it, because I'm not running Cliff's Notes around here, and really you should read the entire thing yourselves if you've already haven't. I guess the better question is - how could you not?!

I'm going to take a wild guess here that Jason received both supporting and flaming emails about said interview, because in a somewhat-response, he wrote this quick little aside to address it. I'm not sure why, maybe just to have his full view out there - although he made it pretty clear in the article.

But, here's where the fun started: Will Lietch, to some the Blogfather, penned a lengthy response to that whole thing, and really, if you haven't read that where have you been? His point? Well, that McIntyre didn't speak for everyone, and that blogs shouldn't change just because some crotchety man out of touch with reality doesn't like them. Which you know, is true. But I think what I most enjoyed is the somewhat-sugarcoated-but-really-not personal jabs at Jason. That kind of personal and sharpened opinion blade is most fun to read.

Ka-boom, the line was drawn.

Matt Ufford joined in with maybe the most brilliant title of this entire ordeal. As he tends to do, Ufford minced no words in how he felt about both McIntyre's opinion, and him in general. Now, maybe I'm just not up on my blog drama ,but I didn't know there was a personal angle to this Ufford-McIntyre thing - but it made it all the better.

Shortly after, the Bandwogoneer joined the only bandwagon he's ever been on, defending Will, and equally offending McIntyre. Maybe more. And since I'm just plain not a huge fan of his writing (maybe because I'm just not the biggest Florida fan), this was the best piece he ever wrote.

If it ended here, it just wouldn't be as fun. McIntyre had someone in his corner, the blog celebrity Dave Lozo. His work has never been confused with a Hallmark card, and certainly this was no exception. He dissected Will's post every which way and it made for a humorous read.

So, I guess the next question is, whose side am I on? Honestly, no one's. I don't read either Deadspin or TBL with any less regularity (more to be honest). They're both right in different ways in this argument. Am I pussying out not burying TBL for his own view on blogs? I don't know, maybe. But more than that, I just don't care either way. I don't run this place [very well] for money anyway, so what's it to me.

Update: Got an email about another post, I believe my by count that makes the score 2-2. SML takes a look at the response to the interview, as opposed to the interview itself. And it's not that McIntyre speaks for everyone, but that he's knocked Will off the Blogfather chair. The oldest motive in the book, jealousy.

I just hope this isn't the end. And of course, let me know if I missed any creatively insulting article about this thing.

[LA Times] Wild times for sports blogs may be nearing an end
[TBL] OMG, Sports Blogs Are No Longer Edgy and Risky!
[KSK] Jason McIntyre, Tell Me How My Ass Tastes
[Dan Shanoff]On McIntyre and the Future of Sports Blogs
[Dave Lozo] Awww, Screw It. It’s Will Leitch’s Last Week.
[SML] The Big Lead Is The New Big Boss?

Rose v Beasley

This NBA draft is centered around two players that have switched more places than there have been Mock Drafts. Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley have generated more fanfare than even Oden-Durant debates a mere year ago. So, who's better? Who's got more upside? Which team will choose who?

Derrick Rose - The quintessential offensive minded, yet mentally collaborative and athletic point guard needed for today's NBA. To say that he led his team to the NBA finals would be a bit of a stretch, seeing how that team had other extremely good players, but when a basket needed to be made it was CDR only marginally ahead of Rose in line to get the ball. Athletically, he's as gifted as any guard that's ever entered the NBA. He has tremendous size for a point guard, incredible jumping ability, and an even more amazing amount of body control to contort himself for baskets in traffic. I can go on and on about his abilities, but I think the best example was his extremely efficient carving session of Michigan State in the NCAA tournament. He does a great job handling the ball, and there's no limit for how fast he can force the game at.

Michael Beasley - What's not to like about his floor game? Nearly nothing. His athleticism pushed KSU to something they haven't done in some 20 years. But it's not just that, it's the total package of his inside-out game, and his aggressive yet feathery touch around the basket. He wants the ball, he demands the ball when his team needs it, but seemingly does not force something that isn't there, and passes well out of double teams. He can move all the way to the three-point line, and he has a variety of post moves under the basket. Here's a guy you can build around, even if he's got the Tracy-McGrady-I'm-high stare.

The order of these two was relatively known until the NCAA tournament, where Derrick Rose was able to lengthen his audition all the way to the title game. The unanomous #1 pick was now split into two camps. But anyone who believes it wasn't cemented on Lottery Night is a fool. Chicago is picking Rose. It's not like they have to take a longshot and be nice to a homegrown kid. You've got a future star right there for you - and not like they need to put asses into seats - but he's also got great PR written all over him. In that sense, he's in the mold of LBJ.

It's a mystery to me why Miami is so in love with Rose that they reportedly want to trade out of the #2 spot because they aren't going to get him. Beasley fits flawlessly into the front-court. Moreover, Wade is a point guard; sure you can shift him over to the 2, but why get another player who does exactly the same thing. Even if they were first, conventional wisdom would have Beasley as their pick.

More and more history tells us that in the NBA draft, you get the best player available, because when you draft for need you get Bowie over Michael Jordan, and Darko over 'Melo. Chicago has some three point guards on the roster right now, and none of them can hold Rose's jock strap and he hasn't even played an NBA game yet. I still think that Beasley is the better overall player, but much like his end to the season, we're left with that as the lasting memory of him not being able to get over the hump.

But, who can pass up on a young athletic point guard? Just Atlanta.

Please, not Roy Hibbert

As a fervent fan of my almost-home town NBA franchise, I often check what other people think is going to happen in the upcoming draft. Speaking of which, is it just me, or has this draft been the most unpredictable in recent memory? It went from knowing the first pick, to knowing the first 2 picks, to not knowing what the hell is going to happen 1-10. There are just so many options, it's like a carnival game of popping balloons with darts. We'll look over the top 10 picks later, but I want to speak specifically of the 19th pick in Chad Ford's Mock Draft 6.0. Cleveland picks... Roy Hibbert. Uh, what? For the life of me, I can't understand why the Cavs - or anyone - would pick Roy Hibbert to play for them.

I guess, he's tall. And you can't teach tall!

First of all, from the Cavaliers side, they don't need some sluggish clone of Zydrunas Ilgauskas. I thought the whole idea, was to get an athletic scoring center. Okay, even a slightly unathletic one, I said scoring, right?

Second of all, from a league perspective, this guy is a terrible prospect. He's got tall, and he's somewhat efficient, and unspectacular, on both the defensive and offensive ends of the floor. But here's my biggest issues with him: 6.4 rebounds a game. That's right, this guy is seven feet tall and he's only managed to average 6.4 rebounds per game. I can't even understand how that works. How can he not average nearly 10 rebounds per game. I mean, he's taller than everyone on the floor. He's also bigger, so they can't get around him. I'm puzzled, perplexed, and confused.

That really has to be disconcerting for teams. That the one thing he should be able to do because of his unteachable quality he can't do all that well. In fact, what's really scary is that he only got double-figured rebounds five times all year, against such stalwarts as ODU (10), Depaul (11), Pittsburgh (10), and West Virginia twice (10, 13). What's more? He got 3 or less rebounds seven (!!) times. That's inexcusable no matter how you slice it.

Alright, so his rebounding is apparently not that great, but apparently neither is his work ethic, and personal basketball growth:

SEASON	MIN	PTS	REB	STL	BLK	PF	FG%	FT%
2004-2005	15.8	5.1	3.5	.3	1.3	2.3	.469	.662
2005-2006	24.0	11.6	6.9	.2	1.6	2.1	.590	.723
2006-2007	26.4	12.9	6.9	.5	2.4	2.8	.671	.686
2007-2008	26.3	13.4	6.4	.5	2.2	2.7	.609	.646

Throughout his career, Roy Hibbert has clearly been an average player at best, but why did he not get more than marginally better in his last 3 years? The jump from his freshman to his sophomore season is encouraging, he doubled just about every significant category; increased his free-throw and field-goal percentage, as well as points, and rebounds. But from then on he managed just under 2 points a game more and half a rebound less. His senior campaign by far was the most discouraging because his shooting, blocks, and rebounds all suffered while his offensive output was microscopically larger with nearly identical playing time.

I don't think he was any good at Georgetown. I don't think he'll be any good in the Pros, and I don't want him on my team.

Let's rehash golf

This always happens in the summer after the NBA finals are over. There's nothing to talk about, so we start turning our attention to boring things like baseball, racing, and golf. And every year, it comes down to two factions going over the same argument, is or is not a sport. This time the lobs have come from - gasp - actual writers.

I'm not bringing them up because I agree with them (but I do) but because of what MDS said about it. Look, I'm not going to go over why I think it's not a sport. You may have your own views on it, and truthfully, you have a case either way, whether you support me or not. But what you can't do, is this:

But at least Lewis is, as usual, funny and entertaining as he makes this silly claim.

But to suggest that golf is therefore not a sport is dumb, and it's bizarre how many sports writers like to make that suggestion. If you don't like golf, fine. But it is a physical competition with a set of rules, and thus it is a sport.

Arguing that golf is a sport is just the opposite side of the same coin when arguing it's not. Neither have any proof either way, and no matter how much arguing goes on about it, the change of mind will never happen. So you can't go about saying that this is a "silly claim" when all it does is differ from your opinion. Suggesting that golf isn't a sport is not dumb, and it isn't bizarre that people feel that way. What is dumb is suggesting that your point of view is completely right on the subject while dismissing the opposite argument on a non factual idea. When you do that, you lose all credibility for your own opinions.

Go ahead, write that golf is a sport. I personally think you're wrong, because you can eat an apple, and smoke a cigarette while playing, and still do it well. You can also do it well when you're 80 years old. To me, that's just not enough arbitrarily designated physical activity to classify it as a sport. But don't tell me that my claim is silly when yours is equally silly, but in the other direction.

[Fanhouse] Dan LeBatard doesn't think golf is a sport
[Fanhouse] Michael Lewis doesn't think golf is a sport

It was over before they got up this morning

The Lakers are being humiliated on national television. And what's more? They deserve it. I have no desire to watch the rest of this game, the NBA is just lucky that there's nothing else on TV tonight, that casual fans can have this disaster on.

Can we stop comparing this epic battle to those that happened in the 80s? This is nothing close to compelling basketball, and only approximately five minutes of this series have been. The NBA got what it wanted, and that's a revival of love for the playoffs, but what's been shown on TV is a snoozer, except for Boston fans, and I can understand that.

The Lakers are down nearly 30 points, and they don't look like they care all that much, so add me to that. This has been nearly as boring as the Cleveland-San Antonio series last year, except I care even less. Kobe Bryant looks asleep in an elimination game, and while a lot of that falls on the Celtics defense (and rebounding!) the fact that he's jacking up shots, and doesn't have one layup or dunk speak volumes about his "closer" abilities. Maybe too much hubris about not being desparate bit them in the ass.

Robbing Petr to pay Hedo

Of all the sport events this weekend, the Lakers' staving off elimination, the Tiger comeback, it was a soccer game that I found the most compelling. Now, to be fair, I love soccer to begin with, and a sprained knee keeping me working from home last week was a blessing in disguise, because the Euro 2008 championship have been amazing to watch.

How incredible was it that Turkey won? With 28 minutes to go in the game, the Czech Republic had just cleeted a ball into the back of the Turkish net, taking advantage of a 10 player defense, and not letting a substitute come in for an injured player. It gave the Czechs a 2-0 lead, and that late in the second half, it's as good as winning the game. The irony of that goal is the fact that Turkey was once again dominating its opponent in the second half after giving up an early goal. It wasn't until the 75th minute that Turkey netted its first goal of the game to even give it a lifeline of success. Surely this would have to go to penalty kicks at worse, because one of the top netminders in the world Petr Cech was patrolling the goal, already being instrumental in a handful of saves against the aggressive Turks.

It wasn't to be. Just like the first goal, which slid in near post from nearly 30 yards out, the second goal was purely Cech's fault. An overplay of a slick ball on a cross gave Nihat Kahveci an open net to tie the game in the 87th minute. This is the second time in as many shots that Petr had a mental lapse. The first goal should have never gone in, a goal tender of Cech's caliber (and height) shouldn't have any issues corralling a ball shot with little vigor to the near post. But even more inexcusable was the sloppy play on the cross, which merely slipped out of his hands. The third goal however, was hardly his fault, his defense gave a defender a free run not 2 minutes later, and he buried it in the far corner, there was only so much Petr could do then.

It's misleading to believe that Turkey didn't deserve the win, as they are the only team in the tournament to win a game they didn't score first in (twice). The were the obvious aggressor in the second half, keeping the Czech (and Cech) on their heels, continually creating scoring opportunities that went just a little wide of the goal. The difference in the goals in the 75', 87', and 89' minute is that their hard work came to fruition. At the same time, the two tying goals were more a product of Petr Choke than of magnificent offensive plays. Either way, it provided for the most compelling sports even of an already loaded weekend

[SI] Lakers send series back to Boston
[SI] Tiger Woods forces playoff
[ESPN] Turkey rallies for win

Game 5 is just a rubber stamp

It's nice for the ratings that the NBA Finals are going to have a 6th game so that they can rake in some more advertising dollars from a prime time slot. But even the most enthusiastically blinded fanatics can't believe in the Lakers' chances of doing something that's never been done before: come back from a 3-1 deficit to win the Finals.

The Lakers stand a slim chance of winning Game 6 in Boston, and even a more minuscule one of winning two in a row in the Boston TD Banknorth Garden. It's not because they supposedly have the best player on the planet, the ultimate closer, but it's because their defense is flat out atrocious. The fact that they've won two games with such a lax defensive effort is amazing, and even at that pace they needed a huge stroke of luck - non call on the wrap-around foul, and two intense Garnett free throw clanks - to pull out an elimination game at home. With everything riding on the line, the Lakers couldn't come up with a pitiful excuse for a defensive possession late in the game. And Paul Pierce, as unbelievable as he's been in the Finals looked effortless in getting to the rim time after time. It was constantly the path of least resistance.

But I think the real story has to be the ineffectiveness of Kobe Bryant in this series. He's looked magnificent and masterful in stretches, at times when the Lakers were up by double digits. He found open players, hit tough shots, all the things that a player of his caliber has to do. But when the Boston defense tightens up, he's been unable for the most part to get a basket when it counts. It isn't the first time that the Celtics have handcuffed a one-man show, but the worrysome part has to be that Bryant has still not solved the puzzle. LeBron James, for all his struggles shooting in the first couple of games progressively got better against that defense. His final shooting percentage is nothing to gloat about, but after shooting in the teens the first two games, he shot nearly 50% over the next 5. Kobe hasn't done that. He hasn't adjusted his game, he hasn't been aggressive; and while a lot of the credit has to go to the Boston defense, not enough scrutiny falls on the Black Mamba.

As if his offensive possessions of the 2nd half weren't disappointment enough, his defense has been incredibly porous. This is the guy that used to be on the All-Defensive first team right? All those skills, and all that tenacity seems to have gone the way of his rings. He couldn't stop Paul Pierce when it counted, he couldn't stay in front of him, and most of the time, never even tried. All those comparisons to Michael Jordan have fallen apart, because for all his offensive talents MJ consistently worked on both sides of the floor.

The Celtics are the more poised team both physically and mentally, and it's become blatantly clear that they're the better one. What was originally billed as clash of the Titans, has turned out to be a colossal mismatch.

When did Doc Rivers become a good coach?

Oh yeah. He didn't.

It pains me to no end that Boston might win the title this year with completely inept Doc Rivers at the helm. It may be one of the reasons why I'm forced to want LA to win, although even saying that makes me feel dirty. Look, I like KG a lot, I enjoy his, uh, ferocity. Ray Allen is one of the sweetest shooters, and that's nice. I hate Paul Pierce, but I'm quite certain I'm not the only one. But Doc Rivers is the part that annoys me the most, everything is coming up aces for him, and he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

I think one of the most telling parts of his lack of basketball coaching acumen came with a side-interview, one where I can't find quotes from. He was asked how it's different coaching last year and coaching this year. His response? No difference, he coaches exactly the same way last year as he does this year. What a completely moronic response showing your utter ineptitude. You didn't have a KG, Ray Allen, or PJ Brown last year, savvy veterans, so you can't possibly believe that coaching the same way could work with a bunch of guys aged 20. That's idiotic and it's pathetic. Why not put a puppet out there?

What drives the point home though, is those Wired-In spots that they have in the huddle. And all I hear from Doc Rivers is "Hey guys, let's play some great defense. Don't let them score. Let's build the lead!" Yeah, you think?! Thanks for the great help, coach, I thought by not building the lead, or letting them score at will we could win. That is brilliant coaching. You never here anything about strategic mismatches, offensive or defensive plans, or attacking style. It's basically cheer leading styles of a 5 year old John Madden. "Let's outscore them guys, then we can." Just because he has a team that knows how to run itself, he's going to get the accolades, just like Larry Coker did with his '01 Miami team. They don't need a coach - they're that good. What this reminds me of is Homer from You Only Move Twice, an episode where the Simpsons move to Cypress Creek, a company town for Globex. He's put in charge of people, and this is what happens:

Homer: [to staff] Are you guys working?
Man 1: Yes, sir, Mr. Simpson.
Homer: Could you, um... work any harder than this?
Man 2: Sure thing, boss.
[they do]
Homer: Hey, call me Homer.

You guys playing defense hard? Yes sir, coach. Can you... play it harder? Sure thing, Doc.

[SNNP] You Only Move twice