The Year of The Pitcher

According to the Chinese calendar, 2010 is The Year of the Tiger ... not according to Matt Garza.

The 26 year old Tampa Bay flamethrower no-hit the Detroit Tigers a few nights ago. His 120 pitch, one walk no-hitter was the fifth (should be sixth) no-hitter of a season that's not even two-thirds of the way through yet. There have now been 268 no-hitters in baseball's history since 1875, an average of about two per season. The question is now, - as it always is I guess when phenomenon in sports occur - is this just a fluke in baseball history or is this a significant signal that maybe this isn't just The Year of the Pitcher, but The Era of the Pitcher?

The five no-hitters thrown already (six if you count Armando Galaragga's "perfect game"), are as many as Major League Baseball has seen in a single season since 1991, when twelve no-nos were thrown, a few years before steroid usage started to grow amongst players. The two perfect games so far (three if you count Galaragga's) - from Dallas Braden and Roy Halladay - are the most ever in a season, since 1880, which makes sense as only 20 of them have been thrown in the history of baseball.

Then there's the average amount of runs scored per team. The past few years have seen average run production per team go down tremendously. Back in 2006, when baseball was finally starting to move away from steroids, the league average for runs in a season was 787. The following year the number fell to 777, then 753, then 747 and finally this year the number is on track to be 721. On top of that, there's the home run hitting we've seen this year, or lack thereof. Only three players in the league are on track to hit 40 home runs or more. That's a significant amount less than the five last year, the sixteen that accomplished the feat back in 2000, or the 11 to do it as recently as 2006.

So, it's pretty clear that pitchers have the leg up this year, but what is the main reason?

One popular response concerns the decline of steroid use. Many players, including former MVP and users Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco, as well as Curt Schilling put the percentage of players using steroids at the peak of the Steroid Age as 50%. After Major League Baseball began cracking down on steroids however, especially by making more severe punishments for steroid use, the percentage of users went down tremendously.

The biggest effect that steroids have are helping hitters hit the ball farther and get more home runs, as well as more quality hits. Steroids also improve the mentality of hitters. In addition to actually allowing you to become stronger, steroids give users more confidence when they step up to the plate.

Although I think that the lack of steroid usage lately may certainly be a factor in the dominance of pitching in the league, I don't think it's the main one. I've gone on the record in one of my articles published in The Hoya - titled "Pitchers With Juiced Arms Are Guilty Too" - as basically saying that steroids helped pitchers as much as it did batters. Although steroids don't necessarily improve a pitcher's performance as much as it does with hitters, they allow a pitcher to re-energize and "efficiently reload the weapons that are their pitching arms." Therefore, pitchers are suffering from the crackdown on steroids at least as much as hitters are.

The other popular opinion, the one that I believe is the main factor, is the fact that more pitchers are throwing faster than ever before. In the past, if you had two or three guys in your rotation or even your bullpen that could throw above 95 mph, you were pretty well off. Now teams have seven or eight pitchers on the roster that can throw that fast, and guys that can throw 98 mph sometimes aren't even well known any more. It seems as if every night that I watch a Yankee game, there's always some youngster on the other team coming out of the bullpen and throwing heat in the high 90s.

Now sure, modern day hitters look more like football players, than the marathon runners they used to resemble, but that doesn't make it easier to catch up to a fastball. Although I'm sure that there are a lot more different methods out there for increasing bat speed and improving reaction time than there were even a decade ago, those methods haven't helped an extreme amount, as you can only increase your reaction time and bat speed by so much.

So, with hitters not swinging the bat much faster or seeing the ball much better than they used to, it's tough to keep up with pitchers throwing the ball 3 mph faster. Plus, these hitters have to hit day in and day out against guys that can throw 95 mph plus consistently.

With all of that being considered it seems obvious that there is actually a reason behind The Year of the Pitcher. But, there's also the idea that all of this is just sheer luck, and that all of 2010's no hitters occurred just by chance. But history shows that big pitching years come in packages. For example, there was the Dead Ball Era from 1900 - 1920, where games were low-scoring and home runs were few and far between., as a result of the worn out, softer balls that were used. During that time frame, 46 no-hitters were thrown, slightly above average. After that era, the next big pitching surge came in the late 60s, when dominating pitchers started to sprout up everywhere you looked. What we're seeing now is similar to what occurred in the late 60s and early 70s when from 1967 - 1976, 45 no-hitters were thrown, way above the average. As a result, in 1969 the mound was dropped from 15 to 10 inches, and the size of the strike zone was reduced. After that only made a small dent in pitching dominance, the DH position was implemented in the American League to try to give hitters another leg up. The early 90s saw another great crop of pitchers coming up, with 20 no-hitters being thrown during the 1990 and 1991 seasons, but the Steroid Era ended up cutting into their glory during the mid 90s.

Now, it will be interesting to see whether the dominance of pitching remains intact and if it does, will Major League Baseball do anything to curtail it? Can you really make the mound any lower or farther away, or reduce the strike zone again? It's common knowledge that chicks dig the long ball (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltD21rYWVw), but who knows? Maybe sooner or later, chicks will learn to dig the fastball instead.

Not Just Yet Jet Fans

Here it is, my first NFL article in a while. With training camps heating up and no golf or tennis majors taking place I figured it was time to break my rule of no football talk in July. But, today I don't bring excitement, in fact in this article I'm looking to quell excitement, the excitement of those who have created too lofty of expectations for the Jets.

Now, hold on a second, I know as a Jets fan, that lofty expectations should be exactly what I want for my team, considering the fact that under Rex Ryan, the Jets have thrived on publicity. But I just have a tough time believing that the Jets are the best team in the NFL, as Don Banks of SI.com said by ranking them first in his pre-season rankings. I hate to be the party pooper, especially when I'd love a Jets Super Bowl victory more than almost anyone, but I just don't see it. I mean, people know that these are the Jets we're talking about here, right?

People tell me that this is the Jets' year. They say things like, "just look at what they did last year. They made the AFC Championship Game and only got better this offseason." But people forget that the Jets came into the playoffs as a wildcard team and with a 9-7 record. The only reason they really made it so far in the playoffs was because their offense stepped up. And that's where we come to our big question for the Jets: can the offense do as well all year this season as they did last postseason.

Think about it, the Jets offense really isn't dazzling. Although Mark Sanchez seems like a top quarterback because all of the publicity he receives, and all of the potential that he has, he still needs some time to develop. His 12 touchdowns and 20 interceptions certainly weren't impressive by any means. Also, with Sanchez coming off a pretty major knee surgery, it's tough seeing him as even one of the top 15 quarterbacks in the league, especially when the Jets run the ball so much. And that's when we come to the running game.

The Jets running game isn't much better than their passing. Since when did people start to think that Shonn Greene was one of the premier running backs in this league? Like Sanchez, Greene is also only going into his second year in the pros, and although the potential is there for him to be one helluva bruising back, there's still at least another year until he finally starts to tap into that potential. Although Greene averaged five yards per carry last season backing up Thomas Jones, he's moving from being the third best running back on the team to the top dog, which is a lot to ask for of a guy that still has a lot to learn. Then there's LT. People know that LT isn't the player that he used to be, but it still seems as if he's overrated. LT will be great as a mentor and teacher for Greene this year, and I'm sure will even be able to make a big impact, either as a threat to catch passes out of the backfield, or to giving Greene breaks during the game, but his performance certainly isn't that of a top running back. At 31, LT has become average, and although he's on a mission to prove the doubters wrong, it's important to remember that his yards per carry has gone down an average of .7 yards every year since 2007, a lot considering the fact that in 2007 he averaged 4.7 YPC.

Then there are the wide receivers, the top two being Braylon Edwards and Santonio Holmes, both of whom are backed up by Jericho Cotchery. The three make a solid receiving corps, but that's only if they stay out of trouble, both on and off the field. Edwards participated in a fight outside a Cleveland bar last October, and was charged with misdemeanor assault, which he pleaded no contest to. Holmes is much worse than Edwards however when it comes to getting into trouble. First there's the fact that Holmes will have to sit out the first four games of the season after violating the league's substance abuse policy. Then, on top of that there's the arrests for disorderly conduct, domestic violence and assault back in 2006, the arrest for marijuana possession in 2008, an incident at a nightclub this past March where he was accused of throwing a glass at a woman's face, and finally an incident on a plane where he refused to turn his iPod off when asked by the flight attendant. Quite the model citizen. Then there's how they play on the field. The best way to describe Edwards' game is to google his name. Behind Braylon Edwards, the second most popular suggested search is "Braylon Edwards drops." Edwards has the potential to be a great wide receiver, but he needs to start catching the ball first. Holmes, like Edwards, is mostly a deep threat, which can either be a great asset for the Jets or end up working out horribly. There's a high risk, high reward when both of your top two receivers like to go deep. It opens up the short passing game for tight ends, and guys like Jericho Cotchery, but it also doesn't guarantee that you'll get top production from the guys you actually want to catch it. Deep-threat guys tend to either have great years or awful years, and hopefully for the Jets, Edwards and Holmes, this year will be a great one.

Of course there's the defense, the best in the league. With the majority of the number one defense returning this year - Kerry Rhodes is now an Arizona Cardinal - and additions like Jason Taylor, Antonio Cromartie and first round draft pick Kyle Wilson, it'll be a miracle if anyone scores on them. Under Rex Ryan's leadership, this could become one of the more formidable defenses of the decade.

But, as I implied earlier, in order to win you have to score points somehow, and it's tough to tell if this offense really has what it takes to bring home a Super Bowl, as much as I'd like to say they do. There's no premier offensive player on the team. No Brees, no Peyton, no Brady. Then again the Steelers won twice without a star offensive player. Although Roethlisberger is a very clutch quarterback and one of the main stars in the league, stat-wise, he's basically just a little bit above average.

So please fans get excited, but whatever you do, don't set your aspirations too high for the Jets. Am I saying that they don't have a chance to win, let alone make the Super Bowl? No, but they certainly shouldn't be the favorites to do so. This is a team that went 9-7 last year, and although they grew up a lot, and made some key additions, they still shouldn't be favored over teams like the Colts, the Saints or even the Vikings. I'm happy to say that I believe that this team has the potential to go all the way this year, but I think it will actually be a few more years until they're on top of the world. Remember, this is the Jets we're talking about here, the team that hasn't won a Super Bowl in over 40 years and has managed to break hearts year in and year out. For the past few years they've been nothing but mediocre, and now all of a sudden they're supposed to be the best team in the league? It just doesn't add up.

The one move that really showed a lot of promise in my eyes however, was the selection of Kyle Wilson. Instead of taking a DE or and OLB, two positions they needed help with, they drafted a CB. Even though they already had the best defensive player in the league in Darrelle Revis and another solid player in Antonio Cromartie at the position, they drafted Kyle Wilson in a move mostly prompted by the loss in the AFC Championship Game to the Colts. After Peyton Manning and his receivers lit up their secondary, the Jets drafted like an elite team and got a player that would help them beat elite receiver-filled teams like the Colts and Patriots, both of whom could stand in the way of a Jets Super Bowl run. When a team starts drafting and signing players mostly to prepare for teams that they will meet in the playoffs, you know that that team is becoming an elite squad.

So Jets fans, I know it's exciting to finally have a contender for a team, but just remember to temper your excitement, and approach the season with caution. This team can win the Super Bowl, but I don't know if this year is the one. Who knows? Maybe they could have a magical run and win it all, but after watching that AFC Championship Game last year, it was obvious that the Jets aren't part of the elite just yet. We've already waited 42 years for this moment to come again, what's a few more?

Just Do It

I'm back from my vacation and I came with some beef. Today's beef is with Dallas Cowboys rookie Dez Bryant.

The other day, Dez Bryant refused to carry veteran Roy Williams' pads when asked by Williams to do so. Williams didn't mean much by it, nor did many of the other Cowboys think much of it; it was just another act of rookie hazing that occur so often in sports. Dez Bryant however, took offense to it saying "I'm not doing it. I feel like I was drafted to play football, not to carry another player's pads."

Dez Bryant is no stranger to controversy. The Oklahoma State star was suspended last season after the NCAA found out that Bryant had not disclosed all of the details concerning a meeting he had with former NFL player Deion Sanders, who is not affiliated with Oklahoma State. After sitting out the season, Bryant felt that his 2008 statistics, which were arguably the best of any wide receiver in college football, were enough to impress NFL teams, and make sure he was a first round draft pick.

Bryant ended up being selected 24th overall by the Cowboys this past NFL Draft, although many believed he would have gone higher had he played last season. He was the second wide receiver selected, but as Roy Williams said, none of that matters when you finally get to camp as a rookie.

"Everybody has to go through [hazing]," Williams said. "I had to go through it. No matter if you're a number 1 pick or the 7,000th pick, you've still got to do something when you're a rookie."

Rookie hazing is a time-honored tradition in sports, and for the most part it can't really even be called hazing, because of how simple and silly some of the activities are. MLB rookie relievers, or those with the least seniority are famous for having to carry kids' themed backpacks (for example Barbie, My Little Pony, etc.) to the bullpen containing whatever the other relievers would like including gum, sunflower seeds, etc. MLB rookies are also famous for having to get dressed up in embarrassing costumes from everything like Teletubbies (http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/sports/BO62342/) to The Wizard of Oz characters (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/galleries/rookies_in_oz/rookies_in_oz.html) to Hooters girls (http://www.gaslampball.com/2008/9/17/616757/padres-rookies-photographe). No one ever complains, because it's just tradition, it's nothing personal and nothing at all is meant by it.

Football training camp hazing however, is some of the most popular rookie hazing in sports. From carrying pads to taping players to goalposts to standing up and singing songs at meals, rookies have had to put up with hazing for decades now. Dez Bryant should just be thankful that he's not a Cowboys offensive linemen and didn't have to go through this: http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2009/8/9/983023/chiefs-have-nothing-on-the-cowboys

Some people say that the problem isn't with rookies that refuse to the hazing, but with the veterans that keep the tradition of hazing alive. Here's the thing: in sports, tradition is extremely important. Although Dez Bryant claimed that he "didn't know" about the tradition of rookie hazing, and had he known, he would have would have "took his shoulder pads, his pants, his helmet, his socks, his shoes. I would have took everything," it's tough to imagine that he hadn't heard about rookie hazing. Although based on his poor use of the English language, Bryant doesn't seem like the smartest of the bunch, everyone knows about hazing, and that this statement is just him trying to make up for his wrongdoings. Although the hazing is a bit immature, it's very rarely harmful and there's really no need to change it. If Dez Bryant's well-being was being put into danger, then I would agree with the critics, and say that hazing does need to stop, but it's all just a bunch of silly stuff that's not a big deal, so why make a big deal out of doing it? Instead of just trying to buck a tradition that doesn't hurt anyone anyway, and is just another way for the team to build camaraderie either by being hazed, or doing the hazing, just let it go.

It's not as if hazing only happens in sports either. Hazing happens everywhere we look, and as I said earlier, it's not as much hazing in the way we know the term today, as it is "rookie treatment." In any professional setting in the country, there's always a hierarchy. Those that are most senior can call on the new, young workers to do things like get them coffee, and help with paperwork. At big law firms and financial firms, guess who works the longest and the hardest and does a lot of the grunt work? The rookies do. Dez Bryant isn't expected to make anyone's coffee or help with anyone else's work, all he has and has had to do is carry someone's pads and maybe sing a song. I'd rather be taped to a goalpost than be making coffee everyday.

But here's the thing with big name rookies like Bryant that really gets to me: they've been babied their entire lives that they don't realize they're in the wrong when things like this happen. They have never really been treated like freshmen or rookies because wherever they went they were always treated like kings, whether it be on Pop Warner or high school or even college teams. Now, when they get to the professional level and they're treated just like everyone else, they can't accept the fact that they're not king of the world, and that they're just one of the guys instead of the standout player who everyone looks out for. The problem is that things like this aren't Bryant's fault, but the fault of the people that helped raise them. When you have people worshiping you throughout your life, it's tough to be modest and humble. Although Bryant should have realized his place, some of the blame has to be put on the people who treated Bryant differently than the other players.

"Rookie treatment" is a great way to form bonds between players on the team, an ice breaker of sorts for rookies and veterans. Everyone in one point in their career has done it, and sometimes even had it worse than the players do today. As long as no one is being put at risk for being injured, this type of hazing should be tolerated and even encouraged by NFL teams and certainly accepted by NFL rookies. So Dez Bryant, just grab those pads and don't ruin the fun for everyone else, because if you do, you're breaking the camaraderie that activities like these are supposed to help build.

The Year of the Pitcher

According to the Chinese calendar, 2010 is The Year of the Tiger ... not according to Matt Garza.

The 26 year old Tampa Bay flamethrower no-hit the Detroit Tigers a few nights ago. His 120 pitch, one walk no-hitter was the fifth (should be sixth) no-hitter of a season that's not even two-thirds of the way through yet. There have now been 268 no-hitters in baseball's history since 1875, an average of about two per season. The question is now, - as it always is I guess when phenomenon in sports occur - is this just a fluke in baseball history or is this a significant signal that maybe this isn't just The Year of the Pitcher, but The Era of the Pitcher?

The five no-hitters thrown already (six if you count Armando Galaragga's "perfect game"), are as many as Major League Baseball has seen in a single season since 1991, when twelve no-nos were thrown, a few years before steroid usage started to grow amongst players. The two perfect games so far (three if you count Galaragga's) - from Dallas Braden and Roy Halladay - are the most ever in a season, since 1880, which makes sense as only 20 of them have been thrown in the history of baseball.

Then there's the average amount of runs scored per team. The past few years have seen average run production per team go down tremendously. Back in 2006, when baseball was finally starting to move away from steroids, the league average for runs in a season was 787. The following year the number fell to 777, then 753, then 747 and finally this year the number is on track to be 721. On top of that, there's the home run hitting we've seen this year, or lack thereof. Only three players in the league are on track to hit 40 home runs or more. That's a significant amount less than the five last year, the sixteen that accomplished the feat back in 2000, or the 11 to do it as recently as 2006.

So, it's pretty clear that pitchers have the leg up this year, but what is the main reason?

One popular response concerns the decline of steroid use. Many players, including former MVP and users Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco, as well as Curt Schilling put the percentage of players using steroids at the peak of the Steroid Age as 50%. After Major League Baseball began cracking down on steroids however, especially by making more severe punishments for steroid use, the percentage of users went down tremendously.

The biggest effect that steroids have are helping hitters hit the ball farther and get more home runs, as well as more quality hits. Steroids also improve the mentality of hitters. In addition to actually allowing you to become stronger, steroids give users more confidence when they step up to the plate.

Although I think that the lack of steroid usage lately may certainly be a factor in the dominance of pitching in the league, I don't think it's the main one. I've gone on the record in one of my articles published in The Hoya - titled "Pitchers With Juiced Arms Are Guilty Too" - as basically saying that steroids helped pitchers as much as it did batters. Although steroids don't necessarily improve a pitcher's performance as much as it does with hitters, they allow a pitcher to re-energize and "efficiently reload the weapons that are their pitching arms." Therefore, pitchers are suffering from the crackdown on steroids at least as much as hitters are.

The other popular opinion, the one that I believe is the main factor, is the fact that more pitchers are throwing faster than ever before. In the past, if you had two or three guys in your rotation or even your bullpen that could throw above 95 mph, you were pretty well off. Now teams have seven or eight pitchers on the roster that can throw that fast, and guys that can throw 98 mph sometimes aren't even well known any more. It seems as if every night that I watch a Yankee game, there's always some youngster on the other team coming out of the bullpen and throwing heat in the high 90s.

Now sure, modern day hitters look more like football players, than the marathon runners they used to resemble, but that doesn't make it easier to catch up to a fastball. Although I'm sure that there are a lot more different methods out there for increasing bat speed and improving reaction time than there were even a decade ago, those methods haven't helped an extreme amount, as you can only increase your reaction time and bat speed by so much.

So, with hitters not swinging the bat much faster or seeing the ball much better than they used to, it's tough to keep up with pitchers throwing the ball 3 mph faster. Plus, these hitters have to hit day in and day out against guys that can throw 95 mph plus consistently.

With all of that being considered it seems obvious that there is actually a reason behind The Year of the Pitcher. But, there's also the idea that all of this is just sheer luck, and that all of 2010's no hitters occurred just by chance. But history shows that big pitching years come in packages. For example, there was the Dead Ball Era from 1900 - 1920, where games were low-scoring and home runs were few and far between., as a result of the worn out, softer balls that were used. During that time frame, 46 no-hitters were thrown, slightly above average. After that era, the next big pitching surge came in the late 60s, when dominating pitchers started to sprout up everywhere you looked. What we're seeing now is similar to what occurred in the late 60s and early 70s when from 1967 - 1976, 45 no-hitters were thrown, way above the average. As a result, in 1969 the mound was dropped from 15 to 10 inches, and the size of the strike zone was reduced. After that only made a small dent in pitching dominance, the DH position was implemented in the American League to try to give hitters another leg up. The early 90s saw another great crop of pitchers coming up, with 20 no-hitters being thrown during the 1990 and 1991 seasons, but the Steroid Era ended up cutting into their glory during the mid 90s.

Now, it will be interesting to see whether the dominance of pitching remains intact and if it does, will Major League Baseball do anything to curtail it? Can you really make the mound any lower or farther away, or reduce the strike zone again? It's common knowledge that chicks dig the long ball (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltD21rYWVw), but who knows? Maybe sooner or later, chicks will learn to dig the fastball instead.

The No Names Do It Again

You don't know who Louis Oosthuizen is? How about Graeme McDowell before a month ago? Really, never heard of them? Well those two are the winners of the last two majors in golf, Oosthuizen winning The Open Championship and McDowell taking the U.S. Open.

No there's no typo there. Tiger didn't win, Phil didn't win, Westwood didn't win, Els didn't win; two youngsters named Louis Oostuizen and Graeme McDowell won the championships.

Has the Tiger Woods extravaganza affected every golf star in a negative way, or is there just no other golfer that can dominate like Tiger did? Phil won the Masters, but choked in the U.S. Open when given an opening to win and played poorly in The Open Championship.

Ernie Els had an opening to win the U.S. Open but like Mickelson failed to capitalize, and then failed to make the cut at The Open Championship.

Lee Westwood had a good showing this Open, but couldn't pull through with the win, falling short with a second place finish.

So who's taking over in Tiger's absence? A bunch of no names that's who.

First there's Graeme McDowell, who had received some buzz in the European golf world, but was basically unheard of in the States going into Pebble Beach. A 30 year old Northern Ireland native, McDowell was ranked 37th in the world before the U.S. Open, and had had his two best major performances in 2009, with a 17th place finish in the Masters and a 10th place finish in the PGA tournament.

McDowell was the first to do a lot of things with his victory in what has been an American dominated championship. He became the first Irishman to win the tournament, and the first European U.S. Open winner since 1970. He was also the first player from the UK to win a major in 11 years, and the first Northern Irishman to win a major since 1947.

Then there's the most amazing statistic in my mind: McDowell is only the second man from all of Europe to win the U.S. Open since 1925. That's 85 years, with only two winners from the whole continent of Europe.

But as impressive as McDowell's performance was - although neither Mickelson, Els nor Woods did much to take the lead away from him - 27 year old Louis Oosthuizen stole the title of Golf Upset of the Year from McDowell less than a month later in The Open Championship. Wunderkind Rory McIlroy stole the spotlight in the first round with a 63, which was the lowest first round score ever in the history of The Open, while Oosthuizen came out with a second place 65, two strokes behind McIlroy.

Although many noticed both of the new names at the top of the standings, many wrote off the 27 year old Oosthuizen's performance as a fluke. The South African native didn't have much of a track record going into the tournament, with his best performance coming in the 2008 PGA Championship when he finished 73rd. The only other six times Oosthuizen had even qualified for a major he had missed the cut.

But the doubters (probably even Oosthuizen himself) were all proved wrong, as McIlroy fell down the ladder, shooting himself out of contention with an 80 for the second round. Mark Calcavecchia, Paul Casey and Lee Westwood all worked their way up, and soon enough people were wondering which one of them would pounce on the no name Oosthuizen and take the Open. But although those three, as well as other successful golfers like Retief Goosen, Henrik Stenson, and even Rory McIlroy fought back to try and take down the South African, none succeeded, and Oosthuizen took home the title with a seven stroke victory. Seven strokes! This from a guy who wasn't even in the Official World Golf Rankings going into the tournament, a list that ranks the top 300 golfers in the world. He's playing against the best of the best and he takes them down by a full seven strokes, finishing with a -16, almost twice as low as any other golfer.

The world of golf was changed forever when the stories and literally unbelievable past of Tiger Woods was revealed to the world. Many assumed that the door would open for Mickelson to dominate the tour - naturally so considering his current domination at the second spot in the world - but it wasn't to be. Although he came away with a Masters victory, he failed to come through a door left wide open for him at the U.S. Open, and this tournament tied for 48th with a score of +1.

People are so used to seeing one man winning almost every major, that when a ton of different guys start winning, it seems strange. The thing is, that's what's supposed to happen, and at times has happened. Tiger has dominated the sport so much that it's almost become commonplace for one man to win all the time, but when he doesn't win, it's not always stars who win, but no names as well. Last year, guys like Lucas Glover and Yang Yong-eun won majors. In the preceding years, one hit wonders included Michael Campbell, Todd Hamilton, and Shaun Micheel. Little-known players have been winning majors throughout the 2000s, but Tiger has just always dwarfed their victories.

But, although there have been these little known players that have won majors, very rarely have we seen two guys as unknown as Graeme McDowell and Louis Oosthuizen win, let alone in consecutive majors. Were there any reasons that caused this, or is it just another fluke in golf's history?

The first round of play in The Open Championship at St. Andrews was one of the easiest to play in the course's history, as 73 players shot under par. The next day, Oosthuizen as well as many other top finishers had early tee times that allowed them to play in tame weather conditions. The weather didn't fare as well later in the day however, as the ferocious winds led to a suspension of play for one hour, six minutes, and some poor scores, including an 80 from the first round winner, Rory McIlroy. Top players like Tiger Woods struggled through the winds to at least stay in contention, but others like Ernie Els, Padraig Harrington and Jim Furyk missed the cut because of the terrible weather. Whether those players would have made the cut and done that much better had they played in the morning, and whether Tiger may have even won is impossible to tell, but it certainly helped Oosthuizen, as a ton of players that had been on his tail following the first round, fell apart. But although weather may have played a part in The Open Championship, Oosthuizen was still able to hold off the stars that played in the same easy conditions that he did.

The probable main reason for the no names winning is the lack of a top dog. When there's not a man on top, especially in an individual sport, everyone finally sees the chance to jump at the opportunity. It's happened numerous times before in golf as well as tennis. From 2001 to 2002, when Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras were on their last breaths and Roger Federer was still coming into his own, no names won four of the eight Grand Slam tournaments. The same thing happened in golf when Jack Nicklaus fell off in the 80s, and the world had to wait more than a decade until another player, as, if not more dominant than Nicklaus came along, in Tiger Woods.

It's an amazing phenomenon, that one man can dominate and win almost every single tournament, when there are so many contenders, but in individual sports there have always been players that consistently won majors. One man is constantly favored to win over the entire field, about one hundred of professional athletes, whether it's tennis or golf. Although the McDowells and the Oosthuizens pop up sometimes to insert their names into the record books when the opportunity is right and the scene is set for them to do so, soon enough everything goes back to normal and the players that should win go back to winning.

My guess is that a big name wins the PGA Championship next month and then the following year Tiger will be back on top. Someone who's been on top for so long, and is still in his playing prime can't go too long without being on top of the heap. As much as people like underdogs in this country, players are underdogs and Cinderella stories because they're not extremely talented, and history shows that in an individual sport, that nine out of ten times, either the talented dominant or the elite prevail. As much as we want underdogs like McDowell and Oosthuizen to keep winning, it's important to remember, that in sports, good things don't last forever.

The Greatest Sports Story Of All Time

Sorry nothing urgent. The headline was just to make sure to catch your attention.

No beef or sports news today, partly because the only things that are going on in the sports world today are Major League Baseball and the WNBA, but mostly because I will be on vacation for the next week in Duck, North Carolina with the family. Don't fret I may be back with some articles this week, and will definitely get back to writing on a regular basis next week. In the meantime, you may want to check out another up-and-coming sports blog that just got started up by a friend of mine at Georgetown named Kevin Joseph. Kevin knows his sports and just got started in the blogosphere, so you're going to want to check out the blog, especially if you're a Mets fan, or if you're just a big sports fan in general. The site is http://ktjoseph.wordpress.com/, so make sure to check it out. I'll be back soon enough and hope that all of you find a separate source for you beef. Thanks for following and again, thanks for the 1,000 views!

Sadly Not All Fun And Games

Ever since LeBron signed with the Heat, I've been starving myself out of sadness, so I could certainly use some beef. Today, that beef is with the voting for the MLB All-Star Game, as well as the fact that the game decides home field advantage for the World Series.

The Midsummer Classic has been held annually since 1933, except in 1945 due to the then ongoing World War II. Up until 1947, the squad was picked by the manager of the All Star team, but since then, almost every year, fans have been able to vote for the eight starting position players. Fans were not allowed to vote however, from 1958 - 1969, after Cincinnati Reds fans stuffed the ballot boxes in 1957, electing a Red to every position with the exception of first base. Another big change in the All Star Game came in 2003, when MLB concluded that the winner of the All Star Game's representative in the World Series would get home-field advantage. The change came after the 2002 All Star Game which ended in a tie, and gave the league poor publicity.

Last night, the Classic was held in Anaheim, California, with the game's best pitchers started off the game, David Price going for the AL, and Ubaldo Jimenez going for the NL. From there it was a pitcher's duel, as neither of the stacked lineups going for both leagues, could come up with much of anything, reiterating the fact that this really is "The Year of the Pitcher."

After Price and Jimenez, there were a few pitchers that caught my attention, and left me wondering why home-field advantage in the World Series was left in their hands. The first of those pitchers was Hong-Chi Kuo. Kuo who had only given up one hit to a lefty in his 27.1 innings of work this year, was a replacement for Jason Heyward and was useful in the situation he was brought in to pitch for, considering his success against lefties. However, just the idea that if this guy, who's not even the closer on his own team, messes up just once, it could mean that the NL representative in the World Series doesn't get homefield advantage.

But Kuo was a great player to use in an All-Star Game compared to the AL's use of Matt Thornton. Up 1-0, Phil Hughes came on to relieve Jon Lester to start off the 7th. After getting a ground-out from Joey Votto, Hughes struggled against his next two batters, as Scott Rolen got on with a single, and moved over to third on a Matt Holliday single. Holliday's single knocked Hughes out of the game in favor of White Sox reliever Matt Thornton, who came on and immediately got Chris Young to foul out. The next batter however, was Marlon Byrd, who after going down 0-2 in the count, ended up with a walk that loaded the bases. Enter stage right, the star of the game, Brian McCann. With two outs, McCann hit a base-clearing double that put the NL up 3-1, a lead they never relinquished.

Once again my problem with giving home-field advantage to the winning team rises again. I have no problem with Hughes giving up the hits; Hughes has 11 wins this year and has been one of the more solid pitchers in the league. Even though he was partly responsible for losing the AL home-field advantage then you can't be too mad, because he deserved to and should have been out there. But when a set-up man like Matt Thornton plays a part in losing home-field advantage, that's what makes me angry.

First of all, how could Girardi put in a guy like Thornton in the seventh inning when there's men of first and third and only one out? Did he forget he had guys like Jose Valverde, Joakim Soria, Rafael Soriano and Neftali Perez left, all closers that would have been better options in such a high pressure situation?

Second of all, it bothers me that home-field advantage in a World Series can be lost on just one bad pitch by one insignificant pitcher in what feels like an insignificant exhibition game. Nothing against Matt Thornton, he's proven to be a solid reliever in Chicago and earned his spot on the roster, but why should he, and Brian McCann, be the men who decide who gets a leg up in the World Series? It doesn't make sense to have a game that decides something as important as homefield advantage but still feels like a simple, meaningless, fun exhibition game.

Then there's the voting for the game itself, that also plays a factor into why the All Star Game shouldn't decide home field advantage.

When we look back on the careers of many players from years and decades past, one of the first things we see on their metaphorical baseball resumes, is the number of All-Star teams that they were selected to. If a player is an All-Star, it is assumed that they were the best, or one of the best at their position that year, and therefore in theory, the number of All Star selections a player has is a great way to decipher the great players from the good players.

But, fans voting have always made it tough to make sure that the best players make it every year. That's because for the most part, fans are more likely to vote for players from their own teams, or players whose names they've heard, even though they might not be deserving of making the All-Star Game. Before the dawn of the internet age, the rise of fantasy baseball, and the growth of ESPN, fans knew much less about players from around the league, especially those on small-market teams, and it was therefore less likely that all of the best players would get a chance to play in the Midsummer Classic.

Up until a few years ago, fans used paper ballots to enter their votes for the All Star Game, which for the most part, was able to keep from ballot box stuffing, but now with the use of the internet to vote for the players, stuffing the virtual ballot box is as simple as pie. Fans can vote up to 25 times per e-mail address you enter.

They inflate the legacies and reputations of their favorite well-known players, while players that may be more deserving of making the team are left out. People say that it's an All-Star Game not an All-Stat Game, as well as the fact that the main reason there's a game in the first place it top appease the fans. So even though guys like Kevin Youkilis and Alex Rios are having as good of years as anyone in the league stat-wise, many argue that if the fans decide they don't want to see them, then they shouldn't have to see them. But, once again, the number of All-Star appearances a player has, has a direct correlation with legacy. It's not fair to players stuck in small markets if fans vote, because then they have a tougher time getting noticed, and therefore are more likely to move to the big markets. This contributes to the lack of competition that is mostly exacerbated by the fact that the league has no salary cap, and continues to hasten the decline in popularity of baseball.

Although some fans know which players are doing the best in the league, most fans don't, and it's easily apparent from the voting that took place this year. How can you trust a fan base who selected a guy like Yadier Molina - probably just because of his fame for being one of three Molina brothers that's an MLB catcher - as the starting catcher, despite the fact that stat-wise, he isn't even among the top 20 catchers in the league, or star rookie Jason Heyward, who despite starting off strong has cooled down mightily since the start of June, with just one homer, seven RBI and a dismal .181 average, and on top of that has been on the DL since June 27. Then there's picking Justin Morneau over Miguel Cabrera. Morneau has been one of the best players in the league this year, and ended up being replaced as a starter by Cabrera when he came down with an injury anyway, but Cabrera is a Triple Crown threat and is the best player in baseball at the moment. Decisions like these show that the fans look at the names of players rather than the performances and stats of players when voting.

The thing here is, it has to be one or the other; either the game is just played as an exhibition and therefore the fans can vote, or it's played for home-field advantage and therefore the managers and/or the players get to pick all of the players who play in the game. Major League Baseball can't have its cake and eat it too. My opinion is that, the MLB should adopt the NFL's rules, where the fans' votes count for a third, the players' vote counts for a third and the coaches' vote counts for a a third of the total vote. It allows the fans to have the fun that comes with voting, and make some impact on voting in the players that they want to play, but it also makes sure that the players that are in small markets that deserve to get in and start, also make the All Star Game.

Making the All Star Game, so that the winner has home-field advantage hasn't even helped increase the game's popularity; in fact there hasn't been a rating from 2003-2010 that's been higher than the 2002 MLB All Star Game, the last time the game wasn't played for home-field advantage. This year, the game saw its lowest rating ever, with 2.5 million fewer viewers than last year. Although that number may be attributed to baseball's plunge in popularity, especially with the free agent extravaganza and World Cup having both occurred this summer, it's also partly due to the fact that some fans just think the All Star Game has become a joke, a waste of time, and no game that's considered a joke, should be able to decide who gets home-field advantage in the World Series.

The Death of A King

I was going to start today off with some beef about the MLB All Star Game voting, but as a New York based blog, and as a sports blog in general, I thought it was necessary to talk about the death of Yankees owner George Steinbrenner today from a massive heart attack at the age of 80.

George Steinbrenner who had been having health problems during recent years and had been making fewer and fewer public appearances, was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa last night and died there this morning around 6:30 a.m. The man that had won his whole life, and once said "I will never have a heart attack, I give them," found the one thing he couldn't beat: death.

Steinbrenner bought the Yankees in 1973 for just $8.7 million, after close to 10 years of struggles under the ownership of CBS. No one knew it at the time, but professional sports would never be the same.

He didn't wait very long to establish himself as "The Boss." He hired Gabe Paul as a senior Yankee executive, taking power away from team president E. Michael Burke, who soon after resigned from the team. Burke wasn't the only one who didn't want to serve under King George; Manager Ralph Houk left the team after just one year under Steinbrenner.

Steinbrenner had as much trouble on the field as he did off of it, during his first few years as owner. In April 1974, he pleaded guilty to making illegal donations to Richard Nixon's presidential campaign and later that year, pleaded guilty for obstruction of justice. Commissioner Bowie Kuhn suspended Steinbrenner from the game for two years, a sentence which was later reduced to 15 months.

Amidst all of the controversy, Steinbrenner immediately turned the poorly performing franchise around thanks to the help of free agency in 1974. Steinbrenner took advantage, offering Catfish Hunter $700,000 a year in 1975, and $3 million to Reggie Jackson in a five year deal starting in 1977. The influx of stars brought the Yanks two titles back-to-back in 1977 and 1978.

Although, the 10 year, $275 million contract that Alex Rodriguez has, makes Hunter's and Jackson's deals look like they were signing for what A-Rod leaves for a tip, it's important to remember, that back in the 70s, free agency was a brand new, revolutionary idea. Up to that point, athletes made very little, with the average salary of a baseball player in 1970 being a mere $20,000. Also, many players had to stay with the same team throughout their career, as under the reserve clause, teams had the right to retain players for a year after their contracts were up; players did not have the right to enter into another contract with a different team during that year. Even though players didn't have to play for that year, the owner also didn't have to pay the player, and therefore baseball players constantly renewed contracts with their team, trying to remain employed, as if they didn't go along with what their team wanted, they'd most likely be released and no other team would go through the trouble of signing them. But, thanks to the help of MLBPA's former executive director Marvin Miller, free agency got its start with its first participants being Catfish Hunter and Steinbrenner. With Hunter's signing, George started a trend of signing big name players for big bucks, that would last for three decades, and showed the world that he was going to win, no matter what the cost.

Despite the team's success in the late 70s, the 80s were a turbulent, tumultuous time for the Yanks. Steinbrenner was still signing players for unheard of sums of money, including Dave Winfield who became the highest paid player in baseball in 1980, when he signed a 10 year deal worth $23 million, but nothing came of it. Although the big deals paid off during the regular season, and made the Yankees the best team in baseball, winning percentage-wise during the decade, it didn't pay off in titles nor playoff appearances. Following the 1981 World Series loss to the Dodgers, the Yanks failed to win an AL pennant for 15 years, and missed the playoffs for 13 straight years.

The thing that the Yankees were probably known most for wasn't their performance on the field, but the ongoing feud between Steinbrenner and manager Billy Martin. A former Yankee second baseman, Martin took over the team towards the end of the 1975 season. He had immediate success, but in 1978 after telling reporters "[Jackson and Steinbrenner] deserve each other. One's a born liar, and the other's convicted," Martin resigned under pressure from Steinbrenner. It would be the first of five firings in the wild relationship between Steinbrenner and Martin. Martin started his second stint with the team a little less than halfway through the 1979 season, but was fired again after a fight with a salesman. Martin came back to coach the team for the full 1983 season, most of the 1985 season and half of the 1988 season, being replaced by Lou Piniella, whom he had replaced when he came on to manage. Martin was planning on coming back for a sixth time, before he died in a one car crash on Christmas Day 1989. The duo even did a commercial for Miller Lite that mocked their inability to get along and agree on anything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_zDcQV6_6k.

Even though Steinbrenner made 22 managerial changes with 15 different managers, (20 of which came in his first 23 years as owner) he had trouble with more of his employees than just managers. He signed players to huge deals that didn't pan out, and essentially ruined the Yankee farm system by trading many young players for veterans. In addition to running through players in the blink of an eye, Steinbrenner also had trouble with workers off the field. Everyone from general managers (which he had 13 of) all the way down to assistants was spurned by "The Boss" at one point or another, as Steinbrenner created an unworkable, high-pressure environment that fewer and fewer people wanted to work in as time went on. He made almost everyone associated with the Yankees, including their fans, miserable with his antics, until finally he was taught a lesson that made him turn over a new leaf.

In 1990, Steinbrenner paid gambler Howard Spira $40,000 to try and find dirt on Dave Winfield, when Winfield sued Steinbrenner for failing to pay the $300,000 he had agreed to pay to Winfield's foundation under his contract. Commissioner Fay Vincent banned Steinbrenner from the game of baseball for life when he heard the news. When Yankee fans got word of Vincent's actions against Steinbrenner at the game that night, instead of launching boos, the stadium echoed with cheers and roars, showing how disliked the tyrant had become amongst the fans.

Steinbrenner was reinstated in 1993, and he came back with a new attitude and outlook on how he should go about running his team. Instead of having a huge part in every single move that the Yankees made, he began to trust his staff more than ever before, and it paid off. Gene Michael, then the General Manager of the Yankees, revived the farm system, bringing up players like Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada that would help bring the Yankees four titles within five years. It was from this success, that the Yankees were revived and became the goldmine that they are today.

From 2001 until 2008, the Yankees made the playoffs every single year, as they had since 1995, but failed to bring home a title, despite the absurd amounts of money that Steinbrenner continued to pour into the team. Guys like Carl Pavano, Kevin Brown and Randy Johnson donned the pinstripes without winning a World Series ring, and the Yanks began to move back to the dark place they had been two decades ago, depleting their farm system to get big name players that couldn't handle playing in New York.

Steinbrenner relinquished control of the team to his sons Hank and Hal in 2007, and the following year, the Yankees missed the playoffs for the first time in more than a decade. But, the Yanks came back as favorites to win the title in 2009, and followed through, with big free agent additions like C.C. Sabathia, Mark Teixeira and A.J. Burnett, as well as a little help from many of the youngsters that had come up through the minors with the Yanks, like Robinson Cano, Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, and Melky Cabrera - the things the Yanks had been missing for nearly a decade - to give The Boss his final World Series ring.

Many people despised George Steinbrenner, but quite frankly, most people hated him because he wasn't their team's owner. After returning to baseball in 1993, he quickly became the ultimate fan's owner. He made it known amongst the fans that he was going to spend all the money and make all the moves that were needed to win the World Series, and he was going to do it every single year. Rebuilding and losing weren't part of his vocabulary.

Since 1990, the Yankees have spent more than $1.8 billion, more than double what any other team has spent in that time span. Steinbrenner took capitalism and brought it to baseball. All of the money that he put into building championship teams, into rebuilding the Yankees, came back to him in team revenue with high attendance, high television revenue from the network he created (YES), etc. The team that was worth just $8.7 million back in 1973, today is estimated to be worth about $1.6 billion, and with the YES network, more than $2 billion. Through hard work, and lots of check signing, Steinbrenner created an empire that is unmatched in all of sports.

He created big-market baseball, and although many people, especially baseball purists, may not like the idea of "buying championships," that's the way baseball is run today, and that's mostly due in part to George Steinbrenner. No one likes a bully, no one likes a favorite, and therefore the Yankees became America's most hated team under Steinbrenner.

But just because he tried to win year after year, and made a few mistakes along the way, doesn't mean he wasn't a man with a big heart. Steinbrenner helped revitalize the Bronx, as well as contributed so much to the city of Tampa, where a high school is named in his honor. He's also responsible, according to reports, for providing numerous college scholarships to kids, and doing small acts of kindness for people in whatever neighborhood he was living in. He once said "I'm really 95 percent Mr. Rogers, and only 5 percent Oscar the Grouch."

Tonight at the All-Star Game and the next Yankee game this Friday, there will most certainly be some type of tribute for Steinbrenner, and he will most certainly get the same cheers he received when he was banned from the game in 1990. This time however, it won't be for Steinbrenner's missteps, or his poor temper; the ovation will be for continuing the Yankee legacy as the greatest franchise in sports history, revolutionizing the sport through free agency, doing so much for the communities he has been a part of, and always, unlike so many owners who own teams just as a hobby, making sure that he put the best team out on the field every single day, no matter what he had to do. There's two quotes which sum up The Boss best, the first being, "They always say, 'what would you like to be on your tombstone? I'd just like it to say 'He never stopped trying,' that would be good enough for me," and the second being, "Winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing. Breathing first, winning next." One thing's for sure, never in the history of sports, has there been a winner quite like George Steinbrenner.

The King Dethrones Himself

LeBron James, with his decision to play for the Heat, has just tarnished his NBA career, his NBA legacy, and has made sure that he will never, no matter what he does, be the best player of all time.

LeBron James is a smart guy, or at least I thought he was. He should know that he has the talent, the skills, and the statistics to become the best player of all time. If he knew this, if he really knew this, why sign with Miami?

Signing with Miami, shows his desperation, his worry that he'll never get the title that he's been looking for, for seven years. Playing for and suffering with the Cavaliers must have made him question his talent, made him think that he couldn't secure that legacy as the best ever without an overload of support. For some reason, he feels he needs to win a title right now, when he still has at least six dominant, and I mean dominant, years in him.

He could have had it all. The Knicks could have been his team, the Bulls could have been his team, the Nets, the Cavs, the Clippers (like that was ever an option), could have all been his team, and he could have won multiple titles with them. LeBron took a team with the Cavaliers' relatively crappy supporting cast and for two years straight made them the best team in the league; imagine what he can do with a halfway decent, and even solid, group of teammates. Instead he'll go to a team that is undoubtedly under the ownership of Dwyane Wade - and will continue to be Wade's team no matter what James does - in order to win the championships he almost surely could have won with any of the other teams that were pursuing him. How can he be the best ever, if he's on a team that's not even his?

As a Knicks fan, if he had gone anywhere else but South Beach, I would have been mourning the fact that the Knicks had missed out on him, but now I'm just mourning for LeBron more than anything. If he went to say New York, or New Jersey or even Chicago, he would have the opportunity to become the best ever because he would be the main reason above all, why those teams would be winning. Any one of those three teams with LeBron could take down a Wade-Bosh Heat team that had few supporting players in a heartbeat. LeBron would be able to prove to the world that he is a true leader, and above all a winner.

I have gone on the record as saying that the Heat with James, Wade and Bosh can win up to eight titles. If you have the best player, the 3rd best player (the 2nd best player when Kobe retires) and one of the best young big men in the game, that you can't lose no matter who you surround yourself with. Everyone says you need role players to win titles. They talk about the Jordan years with guys like John Paxson, Toni Kukoc and so many more. Sure, Paxson and Kukoc played a nice role in the Bulls dynasty, but you don't think the Bulls would have been even better if you added a guy like Karl Malone to the mix? We only say you need role players, because first of all, we've never had a chance to see a team with the number of stars the Heat will have, and second because role players are always glorified because of the stars. Sure the Robert Horrys of the world may win you a few games in the playoffs with a clutch three, but had guys like himself, Rick Fox, and Devean George been replaced with Dirk Nowitzki, you're going to tell me that the Lakers would be worse off? Besides, it's not like these guys will have a bunch of nobodies surrounding them. Ring-less veterans will flock to this team in order to get what looks like a sure-fire title. They'll be able to get the role players, but I truly believe they don't need them.

With so many superstars and much less competition, the titles this Heat team wins will mean less than if they had done it with a regular supporting cast. It certainly won't mean less to their fans, but if will mean less for the Super Trio, James and Wade especially. Once the 31 year old Kobe starts to lose his talents, there will be no competition for this team. That's because you can make the argument that there's never been a team with three players as great as this. The 60s Celtics had Bill Russell, but Bob Cousy was on his way out, and the rest of the Celtics were great, including guys like John Havlicek and Tommy Heinsohn, but most of the team was made up of role players, and neither Havlicek nor Heinsohn were the third best player in the league like Wade was. The 80s Lakers had Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and James Worthy, which right now - may and that's a big may - top this trio. LeBron James and Dwyane Wade are two of the three best in the league at the same time, and are coming off arguably their best seasons, making this type of team truly unprecedented. If Bosh can play up to the standard many have set for him and continue to improve, there's no telling how good this team can be.

But, in the end, even if this team wins 8 titles, which certainly isn't extremely likely, is it really a big deal? By signing together, they took away from the competitiveness of the rest of the league. That's part of what really made Jordan the best ever, the fact that he was able to win multiple titles and perform at the highest level despite the competition he faced. Every year he had to go up against a Jazz team that had Malone and Stockton, a Magic team with Shaq and Hardaway, a Knicks team that had Ewing and Starks and Oakley. By teaming up with the best players in the league, it'll be tough to find a rival that can really compare to the talent the Heat now have.

LeBron first of all won't be able to have the ridiculous stats that he did in Cleveland, as there's only one ball to split between he, Wade and Bosh. Second of all, he copped out by signing with the Heat; instead of being a true competitor, and accepting the challenge of having to take down Bosh and Wade to get to the Finals by signing with another team, LeBron backed down and took the safe way out; Jordan never would have backed down, Jordan would have signed with the Knicks or Cavs or Nets, and made sure the world knew, that he was going to take every single team in the league down, because he knew in his heart that with his talent he could take on the Boshs and Wades of the world. That's why if you want to be the best, you have to have swagger, and attitude, and fearlessness, and not only do you have to make everyone know that you're the best, but you, yourself, have to know that you're the best. If LeBron truly believed he could be the best ever, there's no reason to have signed with the Heat.

The next decade in the NBA in my opinion, will be like baseball's Steroid Era: phony. The multiple titles that LeBron may win, will be exactly like the 762 homers that Barry Bonds hit during his career. Sure on paper Bonds may be the home run king, and possibly the best baseball player of all time, but we know it was all just because of steroids. Same thing with LeBron; when it's all said and done, he may have the titles to be the best, and even the numbers to be the best, but we'll know it was just because of the Super Trio he had. All of the championships he would win, the stats he would put up, would always have an asterisk next to it because of the players he played with.

For a guy with LeBron's talent, championships are only part of the road to becoming the best ever. A good amount of players have won a lot of championships, but only one man can be considered the best ever, and LeBron sacrificed the chance of being one of a kind for the easy road to winning championships, something he could have done without Bosh and Wade.

The sad part of this whole thing is that he has the potential to be as good if not better than Jordan. LeBron, at such a young age, and with so much fanfare showed us all how good he was and unlimited potential that he had. He is the youngest player ever to reach every point-based milestone that he has gotten to so far, the last being 15,000 points. He is the youngest player to have a triple double in one game, accomplishing the feat at the young age of 20 years and 20 days old. He is an unstoppable 6'8", 260 pound behemoth that could have ruled the game of basketball and been the true King. Instead he listened to the critics, listened to the fans, the people whispering in his ear, wondering when LeBron was going to get that first title, if he ever was going to get it. Instead of puffing out his chest and sticking it to everyone, showing people around the world, that he was the boss and that they better get used to it, he ran away from the challenge, chickened out from the expectations that he had been living up to so far throughout his career.

He's not a quitter for quitting on the Cavaliers. He tried to stay in Cleveland, held on for as long as he could; you don't think LeBron would love to win a title for his hometown more than anything in the world? But there was no hope there anymore, not even a bright spot on the horizon. The Cavaliers did all they could and LeBron did all he could and it was never enough. What is he supposed to do? You want him to wait for old age to set in and look on, while Wade and Bosh are winning the titles he could have won? LeBron doesn't owe anyone anything. Not the Knicks, not the Bulls, not the Nets and especially not the Cavaliers. In a recent article, ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski compared LeBron's free agency to the Brett Favre circus, calling him out for "jacking around" the other teams he was thinking about signing with. Gene couldn't be more wrong. LeBron never made any promises like Brett Favre, didn't keep us waiting for months on end like Brett Favre, didn't even have a Twitter until during this whole masquerade He kept his mouth shut until his decision was made, didn't decide on one team then change his mind, like Brett Favre did going back and forth on retirement. Sure the special may have been a bit too much, but anything else wouldn't have sufficed as a finale to the media, fan-frenzy monster, that the fans and media have made out of this. I don't blame people for going crazy over free agency, and making it the soap opera it's become, but I also don't blame LeBron, for giving people what they truly wanted. If people really didn't want this, they would have just checked for the breaking news on ESPN.com instead of being one of the millions that watched the special. They still would have found out immediately. But, here's the thing, whether we like to admit it or not: we like excitement and we love drama in this country, especially in soap-opera form, and LeBron, no matter how self-centered he may seem, had the right to have his own special with all of the attention that WE have given HIM and this process over the past two years.

And while we're at it, above all, I have a bone to pick with Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert. In a letter to Cavs fans, Gilbert went off on LeBron, using words like "cowardly betrayal, selfishness, [another] betrayal." Woah woah woah, hold up a second. LeBron didn't choose the Cavs, they chose him. He gave every ounce of heart he had to Cleveland, while he could have complained and whined about never having enough support, never getting enough help from management, etc. etc. Then I would certainly call him a diva, but he never did any of that. Every year he went about his business and did more than anyone else could have done with that team, and Dan Gilbert is a fool for disparaging LeBron after all he did for that city and team and all the money he made for Gilbert. Without James, the Cavaliers and Cleveland would have been nothing, and they should be damn grateful, that he even gave them a chance to re-sign him, that he even gave them the time of day, after they never gave him a chance to win. If the city of Cleveland doesn't appreciate what LeBron did for their entire city, then you can be sure I'll be smiling while the sports of Cleveland and the city of Cleveland bite the dust for the next few decades.

So LeBron James didn't fake anyone out, didn't quit on Cleveland or New York or any other city or team. LeBron James did something much worse than that though, by quitting on himself, on the expectations that he set for himself and that he could have achieved had he signed with a team that could have been his and his only, and that he could lead to greatness.

So sure, LeBron may be happy for now, winning titles with ease, destroying teams like no other team has done before, but if he doesn't leave Miami, when it's all said and done, he, as well as many others, will look back and wonder what could have been had he accepted the challenge, had he taken the leap of faith that he needed to in order to reach basketball immortality. The man that may have been basketball's best chance of ever matching His Airness gave up just like that, and now we'll never know what could have been.

For Whom The Bell Tolls

For whom the bell tolls. The famous saying originates from English poet's John Donne in his poem For Whom The Bell Tolls and couldn't work any better with the situation LeBron is finding himself in right now. I'm sorry if you weren't expecting a poetry lesson during the summer, neither was I, but how can you not be intrigued at the chance of having poetry be made relevant to you sports fans out there?

The poem reads, "No man is an island, entire of itself. Each is a piece of a continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thine own or if thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. Therefore send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

The first part is easy to understand. LeBron is not an island, he can't win a title alone, because nobody can, it's impossible, even in the NBA, a league where if you have talent, things seem to pan out. That's because in basketball, players play both offense and defense. You need more than a good pitcher in baseball, because you also have to hit; you need more than a good offense in football, because you also have to defend; you need more than a good goalie in hockey and soccer, because you have to score. Basketball is the only team game where players are responsible for every aspect of the game, yet, no man can do it alone. LeBron needs the pieces to be put together for him to succeed, because he is not bigger than any team, and he needs a supporting cast to help him.

LeBron realizes he needs a sidekick, an assistant, but he also feels that he can't leave Cleveland, and if he stays, LeBron will need to serve as an island, even though he can't be one. LeBron isn't Cleveland, but Cleveland is LeBron. The superstar outgrew his hometown from the moment he put on a Cavaliers jersey, and now he's only outgrown it more. Without Cleveland, LeBron loses a major part of himself, but he can move on, start anew; there is a little bit of sentiment and sadness that goes into a decision in which he leaves Cleveland, but it's certainly not as much of a "clod washed away by sea" as opposed to Cleveland losing LeBron. The team is nothing without him, and the city is nothing without him. If he leaves there are no good sports left, no big attractions to see, nothing but another Midwestern city facing hard times.

The middle part relates more to free agency than it does to LeBron. Coming into this period, many felt that LeBron would be the first to sign and that the pieces would just fall into place after. Instead, everything is falling into place for LeBron. Every move from Chris Duhon going to the Magic to Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade going to the Heat, has had some type of impact on LeBron's decision. Just as "every death diminishes me," every decision, every loss of a free agent to a certain team, played a role in which team LeBron will end up with. Just think of how much has changed over the past week, even before Bosh or Wade agreed to deals yesterday and most importantly, even before LeBron agrees to or signs one today. So much has happened just as a result of where lowly-touted free agents have gone, showing that everyone makes a difference.

The last part is what's most important. "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." The bells Donne speaks of, are of course funeral bells, and therefore means, never tell the man who is about to die, that the time has come. LeBron is the last one that wants to hear the bells ringing not only on the end of his free agency and the Summer of LeBron, but on his time in Cleveland. This is the town where he's grown up, where he's played basketball, where he's gone to school, where he has raised his family, and has so many friends. He never went to college, and so he's never known anything other than Cleveland in his 25 years on this earth. Now, his time in the only city he's ever lived in, might be finally be up, the clock may have struck midnight, and the last person that probably wants to come to that realization is LeBron James, hence the connection, "never send to know for whom the bell tolls."

But, will he leave Cleveland? It's now certain, with Bosh going to Miami, Stoudemire going to the Knicks and Boozer going to the Bulls that Cleveland can't improve. David Lee's a big name free agent, but I doubt the Knicks would be willing to sign-and-trade him to the Cavs if LeBron doesn't sign with them. So, it would take a lot of heart and loyalty for him to stay with the Cavs, almost too much, as in my opinion, he'll grow old without a title if he stays. That leaves the Heat and Knicks, and possibly the Bulls, who have basically been thrown out to the curb, despite being the favorites just a few days ago. Joining the Heat would be the worst decision LeBron could make, with Wade and Bosh already there. I've told you all my belief that talent wins championships in the NBA, in my article "Talent's All You Need," and I think if LeBron were to join the Heat that they would win around eight NBA championships. Not too shabby. But, LeBron would never, ever, be known as the best player of all time, no matter how many he won, because he'd always go down as the superstar that couldn't win it without an overload of help. It wouldn't be LeBron's team; LeBron would have to split the credit with Wade and even Bosh. So, even though Miami is the place to go to win championships, those titles would all be meaningless, because his legacy would be for needing stars to win, not leading a team to titles.

This is why the place to go is New York. The stage is set there. The Knicks are a team that haven't had success in years, but they now have Amar'e Stoudemire, and next year have $11.4 million for a big-name free agent if Carmelo Anthony doesn't sign an extension with the Nuggets and tries to become a Knick. A Tony Parker/Carmelo Anthony, Amar'e Stoudemire, LeBron James combo, I'm convinced, would beat a Wade-Bosh duo in Miami almost every year, and win around six to seven titles. The best thing is, LeBron would get the credit for every single one of those titles, and for turning around a team that was a laughing stock before he came. Chicago also wouldn't be a bad option, as Derrick Rose, Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah would be a great supporting cast, but he would still be in the shadow of Jordan no matter what.

My final prediction is that he goes to the Knicks. I'm considering the possibility of the conspiracy that Bill Simmons has thought up, and that all of this has been an act, and that all three have known they were going to team up together if they had the chance, for years now, but I really think LeBron is too great and too competitive to sell out to playing with two of the best players in the league. It would be like rigging the game of basketball, and I truly think there would be no competition. With the Knicks, he has the chance to prove himself, be the hero, save a city, and beat the Heat, the Thunder, the Lakers, the Celtics, and every other team out there and be the unquestionable leader.

With Carlos Boozer having signed with the Bulls, Amar'e Stoudemire having signed with the Knicks, Joe Johnson having signed with the Hawks, Dirk Nowitzki having signed with the Mavericks, Paul Pierce having signed with the Celtics, Chris Bosh having signed with the Heat, and Dwyane Wade having also signed with the heat, there aren't any other potential max free agents available for the Cavaliers to do a sign-and-trade for, no hope of a Robin to LeBron's Batman (see there's a cool reference). The time has come for LeBron to make his decision, the moment everyone has been waiting for, and few sweet words that everyone has been waiting for, for years and years, the decision that so many teams have sacrificed so much for just for the chance to be a part of. That's why at 9 PM tonight, the city of Cleveland, the free agency bonanza, and LeBron Raymone James, if he chooses any other team besides the Knicks, Nets or Bulls, I believe, your time is up, the bell tolls for thee.

The King In Primetime

Today, free agency saw it's biggest moment so far, with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh headed down to South Beach. We all knew it was a possibility, but now that it's actually happened, the last major question is: what will happen to the prized jewel, The King, LeBron James?

James has announced that he'll be announcing his decision live on ESPN in a one hour special in primetime tomorrow, July 8, 2010. Don't just save the date, remember it; it could be the biggest day in the NBA this decade.

I couldn't be more excited about this announcement, as I've been waiting for LeBron to decide how he'll tell the world the answer to the multi-million dollar question ($16.6 million a year to be exact). But, people say it's too dramatic, that this is becoming more of a soap opera with all its twists and turns than about actual sports. To the haters like these, I say: don't you realize the magnitude of this decision? The shock waves that it could send through not only the league but sports? What do you want, a written statement from LeBron to be broadcast at 10 AM on public television? If I'm LeBron, I'm milking every last drop out of this free agency process. I'm doing what recruits do and laying hats on a table, putting on the hat of the team that I've chosen; I'm having the press conference and then leaving midway, hopping on a plane, and whatever city I fly to, means that's the one I choose; I'm standing up, throwing the chalk up in the air, and then having a sign put up behind the chalk, so that when the chalk finally dissipates, everyone can see what team I'm going to; I'm making this a pay-per-view event.

I'd have to laugh at anyone who didn't do the same thing. Imagine you're getting all of this attention, from media, from fans, from people who haven't even watched a whole basketball game in their entire lives, and you've been getting that attention for the past few years. You have an urge a need to impress these people, and that's what LeBron is doing. This is the man that people have waited for, fans have waited for, teams have waited for, the NBA has waited for, and the world of sports has waited for to make up his mind; not Dwyane Wade, not Chris Bosh, LeBron James. People have some undeserved view of LeBron as one of the most egotistical guys out there, but I really don't think he is. Up until this free agency bonanza, he didn't even have a Twitter account, and up until he had that Twitter account he had been silent throughout this whole process. He didn't pull a Chris Bosh, bringing cameras into the room with him during his meetings with teams in order to make a documentary, nor did he tweet about how the meetings were going. He's never done anything to call out for attention, we've just given it to him, pushed it on him. I'm not saying he doesn't want it, but he doesn't necessarily seek it, doesn't cry out for it like so many other star athletes do. People just think he's self-absorbed because of all the attention he gets from Nike, from being the only good player on his team, from all the credit the media gives him; yet he's composed, has a steady girlfriend, kids, and has remained loyal to his hometown even though he could have complained and complained as so many do about the lack of support he had. This isn't LeBron trying to steal the spotlight as much as realizing that everyone would watch him make his decision. So why not have it, and give the proceeds to a good cause in the process?

I'm also not going to say that LeBron's ego is nonexistent. Every star of his caliber, and there are very few of them, has to have a little bit of an ego, to be successful at least. I mean to suggest having a television special for yourself to the biggest sports television station around certainly isn't modest, but, it's not overdoing it either. Sure, this NBA Free Agency has been a soap opera so far, and this only makes it worse, but what's the problem with enjoying such an unprecedented moment, with an unprecedented event? As long as other athletes aren't convinced that they can do the same when their free agency comes around, and this never happens again, what's the harm of having a little fun, and lots of excitement with this decision? It only comes around, well, never.

Tomorrow night is the night that the free agency bonanza ends, and a new era possibly begins. The Heat may have a Super Trio lined up, which could create an unprecedented dynasty, or it could have Bosh and Wade alone, and still become one of the elite teams in the league, and an immediate championship contender. Any other new team that LeBron goes to, whether it's the Bulls, the Knicks or the Nets, becomes an immediate championship contender. If he can make the Cavs the best regular season team in the league, imagine what he can do with guys like Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah and now Carlos Boozer on the Bulls; Brook Lopez, Devin Harris, Derrick Favors, and possibly soon, David Lee with the Nets; and Amar'e Stoudemire, Danilo Gallinari and a big time free agent next summer with the Knicks?

But then again, he can return to the Cavaliers, what I call, biting the bullet, and save his hometown from going off into irrelevancy, while all the other free agents surround themselves with solid supporting casts. It's like in my favorite movie, It's A Wonderful Life, where the main character George Bailey stays at home to help run the family business, while his brother and friends go off and make millions, become famous and do great things, while he's stuck in crummy, old Bedford Falls. Sure it's noble for James to do what Bailey did, sticking around, and serving as the hero in his hometown, even though he could have gone on to bigger and better things, but this isn't a fell good movie; there's no way of knowing there will be a happy ending to this story if LeBron stays in Cleveland. There's the major possibility that his prime could pass him by, surrounded by an awful supporting cast incapable of helping him win a title, while his buddies Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh win the championships and secure the legacy that LeBron passed on by sticking around in his hometown. LeBron could become the biggest wasted talent in the history of sports, instead of the best basketball player to ever live.

If inconsequential shows like Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives (sorry for alienating any readers) are good enough for primetime, then an event that has huge effects on both the future of LeBron, several NBA teams, and even American cities, is certainly good enough to be broadcast in the primetime slot, and I'm sure will be a moment to remember.

Europe Still The King of Soccer

Coming into this World Cup, two of the favorite teams to be lifting the trophy were Brazil and Argentina. But, recent developments have put the kibosh on those plans. Yesterday, Brazil, the favorite to win the whole thing going in, fell to the Netherlands, who were ranked fourth in the FIFA rankings coming into the Cup. Today, Argentina was straight up embarrassed by a German team who has been shredding through their opponents, outscoring the opposing teams 13-2. The Germans beat the Argentinians 4-0, and keeping the world from seeing Argentinian coach Diego Maradona from running through the streets of Buenos Aires in his birthday suit (here's the story if you haven't seen it: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/790643/ce/uk/?cc=5901&ver=us).

Even though when we think about soccer, we think South America, it's still clear that Europe is still first and foremost when it comes to actually winning. For the first time in Cup history, four South American teams appeared in the quarterfinals. Although, South America is the only other continent besides Europe with World Cup winners, and it's won an equal amount of World Cups as Europe (9 apiece), Europe has had 50 semi-finalists in World Cup history, as opposed to South America. Europe also has more elite teams than South America; only four South American teams have made the semis, as opposed to 16 different European countries. While Brazil and Argentina have always been at the head of the class, European soccer's balance of power has varied over time, showing the competition of all the continent's countries.

Coming into last Friday, it looked like South America would finally have the upper hand over Europe, having four of their continent's teams in the quarters, as opposed to just three European teams. Brazil looked like it would have an easy time with the Netherlands, Argentina who was yet to not win a game in the Cup, were the favorites to beat Germany, and Uruguay were favored against Ghana; Paraguay was the only South American team that wasn't favored in their match-up, as they had to go up against Spain.

Well, South American dominance lasted about 24 hours, as the Europeans reasserted themselves in the semis this past Friday and Saturday.

The first game of the quarters saw the Netherlands take on Brazil. If you looked at history this match-up appeared lopsided, but the Dutch are no scrubs; they came into this Cup ranked fourth in the FIFA World Rankings, but it would still take a big effort to take down the top dog and favorite, Brazil. The Brazilian attack started early, as Robinho scored in just 10 minutes, making it seem like it would be another game that Brazil would dominate. Throughout the first half, Brazil still looked strong, but after halftime, it was all Dutch. The Netherlands came out strong in the second half, forcing the Brazilians back on their heels and taking the game under the guidance of balding midfielder Wesley Sniejder and of course a little help from Brazilian midfielder Felipe Melo. Melo was responsible for an own goal in the 53rd minute off of a cross from Sniedjer; the goal that got it all started for the Dutch. Sniejder got the winning goal in the 68th minute, as the Dutch held on in an upset, for their 24th international unbeaten match in a row.

The following game, featured lesser known teams in Uruguay and Ghana. Neither had to take down a giant to get to the quarters, with Uruguay beating South Korea in the first round, and Ghana having beaten the U.S., but they still were able to provide one of the most exhilarating games of the Cup. In the final minutes of the game, tied 1-1, Ghana, with the weight of all of Africa on its back, looked like it would become the first African country ever, to reach the semi-finals of the World Cup. With time winding down, Ghana's Dominic Adiyiah's header looked like the shot that would put Ghana into the next round, but Urugay's star striker Luis Suarez had other thoughts, as he put his hand up to block Adiyiah's shot in a move of desperation. Since the shot was clearly going in, Suarez was issued a red card, which seemed meaningless, as Ghana was about to take a penalty kick that most sixth graders could make. But, Asamoah Gyan couldn't. The kick that was supposed to send shock waves throughout Africa and even the world sailed high above the crossbar, as Gyan looked on in confusion and heartbreak. With no goals being scored in extra time, the two teams went to penalty kicks, with Ghana's Gyan being brave enough to go first. Although he made his kick, it wasn't enough for redemption, as Uruguay won 4-2 in one of the more lamentable losses of the Cup.

The next day's first game was Germany versus Argentina, in what was widely regarded, going into the day, as what would be the most exciting, star studded match of the semis. But, Germany stole the show from the usually exciting Argentinian team, serving up a 4-0 beat down. The trouble for Argentina started early as with a Thomas Muller header off of a Bastian Schweinsteiger pass just two minutes into the game. After that it, it only got worse, as Lionel Messi couldn't find a hole in the German defense, leaving Argentina's Carlos Tevez to do all of the work. Going into halftime, there was still some hope for Argentina, only down 1-0, but Miroslav Klose closed the door on that with his goal in the 67th minute. From there, it was just pouring salt on the wound, with a goal from Arne Friedrich in the 73rd minute and then another from Miroslav Klose in the 88th minute. The second goal for Klose, put him into second place on the all-time World Cup goal scorers list, tied with Germany's Gerd Muller and one behind Ronaldo, a record he has a chance to eclipse with two games left. The Argentinians played as if all they wanted to do was just get off of the pitch for the last quarter of the game. But it wasn't all good news for the Germans, as 20 year old phenom Thomas Muller was issued a red card and will have to miss the upcoming match against Spain.

The last game of the quarters was Spain against Paraguay, about the only World Cup quarterfinals match that didn't end in a surprise. The whole game, Paraguay was able to keep up with Spain, possibly doing so because of the six roster changes their coach made for the game. They stuck around and stuck around and stuck around until they couldn't stick around any longer. In the 83rd minute, Spain finally got the goal it needed to squeeze by, when a shot from Spain's Pedro ricocheted off of the post and right into the foot of superstar David Villa who bounced one off of the post as well, but this time into the goal. The Spanish looked like they had the game in hand, ready to go into cruise control, but in the closing minutes of Paraguay showed it wasn't going to give up, taking a great shot that Spanish goalkeeper Iker Casillas blocked and then another great shot off of the bounce, that Casillas was able to deflect with his foot. The sound of the whistle could not have been any sweeter for the Spanish team, avoiding an upset, and putting them into the semis against Germany.

The European-South American rivalry goes back all the way to colonial times, when South American countries were trying to assert their independence from their father European countries. The game of soccer, seems a bit behind the trend as European countries are still dominating when it comes to taking on South American teams. They are the only two continents to have even made it to a World Cup final, but throughout history, Europe has delivered. Despite the fact that Brazil has won more Cups (five) than anyone else, they haven't gotten much help from the rest of the continent, as Uruguay's two Cups are ancient history, and Argentina's Cups are from 1978 and 1986, and this year being one of their best shots at the Cup.

Today, Uruguay meets the Netherlands, in a match that all are expecting the Dutch to take. Tomorrow Spain takes on Germany, in what should be an intense, high octane game. It's shaping up to be an all-Europe final, which would be the eighth time out of nineteen Cups that, that had occured. South America is certainly moving up on the list, although the only dominant teams from the continent are still Brazil and Argentina. If Uruguay can reassert its dominance and make its first Cup final since 1950, and if teams like Chile and Paraguay can continue to grow, then it could be possible for South America to have another chance in the next Cup. Whether or not the world and its fans are ready to move the headquarters of soccer from old world Europe to new world South America is irrelevant, as the European teams of this Cup have shown us that no matter what anyone says, Europe is still the king of soccer.