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.

Reason #146 Why Soccer Is Stupid

Today's reason why soccer is stupid: Here is a quote from Sports Illustrated; see if you can find out what's wrong with this:

"The Revolution tied Chivas USA to advance to the SuperLiga semis."

They tied...they tied, and advanced in the tournament! How is this conceivable!? Not only that, but the MLS championship series is two games. Not best of three, not best of seven. It is like the people who are in charge of soccer leagues around the world are consciously trying to piss me off.

To be 100% honest, soccer itself is not that bad. I used to love watching the kids play at the high school I taught at. I enjoy the U.S. national team when they play in the World Cup, Olympic or against Mexico. But there is so much around the game, not to mention the chronic flopping and the possibility that a championship game can end in a tie, that makes me hate the sport. Follow the link there for a flop that would make Sasha Vujacic weep in envy... the best part is when the announcer says it "fully deserved censure, if not ridicule." Perfect.

Plus, every field in Los Angeles is occupied by fat, ugly people playing "the beautiful game" badly. Shouldn't they all be attractive and talented if they're gonna dare call it that? It is like those "Beer Heaven" commercials. If it was really "beer heaven," would there really be other men there? Or clothing?

---

Saturday should be the last meaningful stage of the Tour de France and will no doubt be spectacular. On Wednesday's epic Stage 17, Carlos Sastre made an uncharacteristically bold move and blew the field away up Alpe d'Huez. He now clings to a lead of about a minute-and-a-half over four guys who are all better than him at individual time trials. Guess what Saturday's stage is?

The individual time trial is when the riders leave at set intervals from one another, with the last place guy going first and the clubhouse leader starting last (just like golf). So there is no peloton. There are 158 riders against the clock. Pre-tour favorite Cadel Evans is very good at this skill and has, in the past, made up over two minutes on Sastre in time trials of the same approximate distance.

There is also the possibility that Sunday's 21st stage into Paris will actually see some racing. Typically this is a parade for the guy who has already wrapped the thing up. But with six riders (including American Christian Vandevelde) in position to get onto the podium in one spot or another, the time trial may not be decisive enough, and the heavy hitters may be sprinting those laps on the Champs Elysees, not sipping champagne and mugging for the cameras. Cross your fingers!

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).