Favre-Watch 09 Hits ESPN, And MLB Blows Its Awards Season

Well, you can write it down. Week 11 was the first time that ESPN mentioned Brett Favre's future in the NFL and also the week that Mercury Morris was first mentioned in relation to the undefeated Titans. November 19 was the date of the Favre article and November 17th for the Morris article. Let the hype begin.

Sports Illustrated took a different tact in hyping the World Series champions. To be honest, I didn't really notice this when it happened because I was a little bitter that the freaking Phillies won the Series, but yesterday I got the NFL's official catalogue (35 shopping days till Christmas) and in it were quite a few Super Bowl items for the Giants. After subtly circling about 30 items in it and "accidentally" leaving it open on my wife's nightstand, it occurred to me that SI never did a "Phillies Win!" World Series edition.

I went back through the magazines from this month and found that I was only sorta wrong. The November 3rd edition features Rocco Baldelli colliding at home plate with a catcher with red protectors on - I assume that was the Phillies catcher. The headline is "The World Series" - not "The Phillies Win!" The article inside was a tribute to a well played series that no one watched, not to the champs' season. No where in the entire magazine was there a sentence that actually said that the Phillies had won the World Series - the assumption being that you already knew that. If I was a Phillies fan, I would be freaking pissed about all of this! But I would probably also be illiterate, so I wouldn't get SI and it wouldn't matter.

The November 10 edition kinda made up for this oversight. It did say "Phillies Win!" on the cover, but that article wasn't really about the team either. Rather it was about how to fix the Series, not a glorifying recap.

When did the World Series Champ start getting second-billing to the NFL's Midseason Report on fat guys getting paid more than they used to? If baseball is slipping into the background of the major American sports consciousness, the way they announce their awards doesn't help. They announce the managers of the years, Golden Glovers, Silver Sluggers, Rookies of the Year and MVPs weeks after the season ends. By this time, the NFL has taken complete control of ESPN, the NBA is in full swing, college basketball is already started and baseball fans have already put last year behind them and are already bitching about next year's roster.

And they don't even have press conferences where the winners are given trophies and get to thank their dads and high school coaches! They get interviewed over the phone most of the time. Clearly the intent is for baseball to stay in our collective consciousness between the Series ending and free agency beginning, but it doesn't work. It trivializes the importance of these mens' accomplishments, and being that these are the most accomplished men in the Game, it trivializes the Game.

As does the fact that most of the time, the MVP award is give to the best player, but not necessarily the Most Valuable one. I would pick Albert Pujols to start my fantasy team, or my real franchise, over anyone else in the National League, but how valuable was he to the Cardinals this year? They took 4th. I don't think he should have been eligible because he didn't play enough games, but Manny Ramirez was eligible and was third in the voting - how did he not win? The guy joined a team struggling to play .500 that was slowly withering and never going to put it all together and carried them to the NLCS. And keep in mind as you read the following argument that I hate the Dodgers and think Manny is overrated.

So the Dodgers only finished a few games over .500 - the moment he arrived in L.A., the West was won and everyone knew it. Then he went out and hit .400 for two months just to make sure. He made you think James Loney, Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier could be All Stars. Sure, Pujols carried the Cardinals, but he carried them to a crappy finish. The measuring stick for MVP is this: if you took the guy in question out and replaced him with any other above-average player of the same position, what is the difference?

Put Conor Jackson, Joey Votto, Loney, Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder, Carlos Delgado, Lance Berkman or Derek Lee in St. Louis, and they still finish fourth. But put any left fielder from any team in baseball in L.A., and the Dodgers miss the playoffs and possibly wind up behind Colorado.

My Wardrobe Keeps Malfunctioning

On Monday I wore an orange Mets t-shirt, a white Mets jersey, a blue Mets cap and my new birthday Mets jacket. They stunk it up and left men on base in almost every inning. 5-2 loss.

On Tuesday I wore a black Mets jersey, a black Mets cap and my Mets jacket. They choked away a 4-1 lead and lost 5-4.

Today I will wear a Mets t-shirt and Mets visor. We'll see how it plays out.

But I am starting to think that what I wear to the games might not have any bearing on the outcome, and frankly that is not a world I want to live in.

---

I think Dirk Nowitski winning the MVP last year was a bigger crock, but I am disappointed in the NBA for choosing Kobe Bryant. He had another terrific year. He played through injury. The team wound up finishing first. He was probably the best player in the league. But if you replaced him with any of probably 5 guys, they result would have been similar. Interchange Kobe and LeBron and you'd have had the same results.

Put someone else in Boston to fill Garnett's shoes and see where they'd have finished. His presence on the team was worth about 10 wins, let alone his actual play. Garnett got robbed because he'd won it already and Kobe hadn't, just like Nash got robbed last year because he'd won it already and Dirk hadn't.

They should take all of the names out of the equation and have the voters look at the stats and the overall team performances. The Lakers won the West after making the playoffs last year with the addition of some all-stars. The Celtics tripled their win total and won the East after nearly imploding last year with the addition of two guys (and really only one was a really significant impact player.

Does this make the Laker fans look like brainless sheep or what? Remember that loud, boisterous "boo" for the man who wanted out on Opening Night? Pathetic. So Kobe won a lifetime achievement award and hopefully he'll stop being such an ass all the time (I won't hold my breath).

NBA Season End Awards

This week Sports Illustrated gave out their choices for the NBA's big awards.

Executive of the Year went to Danny Ainge of the Celtics for pulling off the greatest off-season in sports history. I am OK with that choice. Although Elgin Baylor would be a close second for not making really any useful moves. A lot of G.M.'s would have tried to find players to replace the injured Elton Brand and Sean Livingston, but Baylor did the brave thing and brought in chumps, writing off the season.

SI's Coach of the Year is Byron Scott, which I also cannot argue with. And at this point, I would like to point out that Jason Kidd is a huge ass.

Most Improved goes to Hedo Turkoglu, but really who cares?

Sixth Man goes to Manu Ginobili, which is not fair since he would start on every team (including his own) if the coaches wanted him to. Actually, he would start on every National Team.

As I write all this and consider the remaining awards, I realize how truly little I care about the NBA and will skip the other awards except the following point:

SI gives the MVP to Kobe Bryant. I could not agree less. The writer writes, "Bryant gets the nod for being the league's top two-way player." But I always thought "MVP" stood for "Most Valuable Player," not "Top Two-Way Player." The guy is a basketball freak. He is incredible and besides his inability to dribble properly or complete a layup or dunk without traveling there is nothing he cannot do on a basketball court.

Actually there is. Bryant can't win without a big man. In game 1 this year, they were basically the same team that they were in game 82 last year - although they added Derrick Fisher. They came out strong with Andrew Bynum suddenly reborn thanks to Fisher's play. This created more openings for Bryant, since Bynum drew so much attention. The team was winning and suddenly Bryant had matured and was a team player.

Then Bynum went down and by absolutely everyone's account, the season was lost until management yanked Pau Gasol out of Memphis. The season was thus saved and Lakers raced to the top of the Conference. When Gasol got hurt, they slipped and regained ground after he came back.

Bryant is the best player in the league, but he is not the most valuable player on his team. In fact I think it could easily be argued that this year Kevin Garnett was the most valuable player in the history of the league. Possibly in the history of all of the Big Three sports (though I am not one for hyperbole)...has any other team ever won nearly 3 times their total from the previous season?

Finally, the fact that Selena Roberts' column now resides on Rick Reilly's hallowed back page every two weeks may be the greatest tragedy in the history of the written English language (no hyperbole here either).