The Sports Blog

December 9, 2008: The greatest NBA Players Of All Time
October 24, 2008: Thoughts on the baseball Hall Of Fame
September 24, 2008: Greatest female tennis players of the modern era
September 10, 2008: Greatest male tennis players of the modern era
September 1, 2008: Does defense win championships?
August 22, 2008: The 2008 Summer Olympics - simply spectacular
August 20, 2008: Rating the sports commissioners
August 14, 2008: Why is ESPN Classic so awful?
August 6, 2008: Horseracing
August 3, 2008: Welcome to the sports blog (also baseball and boxing)


December 9, 2008: The greatest NBA Players Of All Time

Ranked by position since comparing point guards and centers is like comparing apples and oranges. Special thanks to my father and my Uncle David with whom I had many a discussion about this list, and who provided much needed information about some of the old timers on this list. It was fun putting this list together.

Point Guard:

1. Magic Johnson – The ultimate winner, he made everybody better. An assassin with a killer smile, he could play and dominate at any position, and he could dominate a game without scoring.
2. Oscar Robertson – The man once averaged a triple double. Averaged. ‘Nuff said.
3. Isiah Thomas – The best small guard ever to play, a team-first player who could and often did take over when the game was on the line. Too bad he was one of the worst GMs ever.
4. Bob Cousy – It’s hard for me to judge him; when I watch him on film I honestly think I could guard him (did he ever go left?), but the oldtimers swear by him, and he was the best PG of his era, so out of respect for that I’m putting him here.
5. Walt Frazier – Look at his stat line in game 7 of the 1970 NBA Finals. And the man played serious D. ‘Nuff said.

Honorable mentions:
Jason Kidd- Like Magic he could also dominate without scoring, which is a good thing ‘cause he couldn’t shoot worth a damn, not consistently, anyway. He was a tremendous full-speed-ahead player and a visionary passer whose limitations were usually exposed within the slowed down playoff format. P.S. The way he quit on New Jersey last year was a disgracefully undignified exit.
John Stockton – A legit first ballot Hall Of Famer but grossly overrated nevertheless; not a go-to guy, take over kind of player. That people actually mention him in the same sentence as Magic, Oscar, and even Isiah is mind boggling to me.
Steve Nash – Picture John Stockton with a much better offensive game, and a much worse defensive game (though Stockton often got lit up in the playoffs as well). He’d be in the top 5 if he wasn’t merely a very good All Star player with Dallas rather than the two-time MVP he later became with Phoenix (though I don’t think he deserved his second MVP over LeBron or Kobe).
Gary Payton – The Glove was a fantastic defensive player who also became a great offensive player, I just don’t think that he was much of a leader (he’s from the Charles Barkely/Stephon Marbury “I’m going to scowl at and blame my inferior teammates rather than lift their game and make them better players” school of "leadership")
Tiny Archibald – Went from being a scoring champion to simply a champion with the Celtics.
Kevin Johnson – KJ could get to the hole on anyone, at any time. Too bad he was always hurt.
Lenny Wilkens - Before my time but a great leader and defensive guard who later became a record breaking coach.
Chris Paul and Deron Williams – They're the two best point guards in the league right now, and both (especially Paul) have the potential to reach all-time status, but it’s too soon to tell where they'll end up belonging.

Shooting Guard
1. Michael Jordan - The greatest player ever. Had no weakness. The ultimate athlete and competitor who became the ultimate winner.
2. Kobe Bryant - Not quite MJ, but the closest thing I've ever seen. An assassin.
3. Jerry West - Mr. Clutch. The Logo. ‘Nuff said.
4. George Gervin - The smooth as silk Iceman was simply an unstoppable scorer and a joy to watch.
5. Clyde Drexler - A one-man fastbreak, and a supremely gifted player.

Honorable mentions:
Dwyane Wade - He's already led his team to a championship and he seems healthy again after dominating the Olympics. If he stays healthy he should eventually crack the top 5.
Earl "The Pearl" Monroe - Possessor of a dazzling array of moves and a winning personality; he subjugated his stats to co-exist with former rival Walt Frazier and win a championship for the Knicks to prove it.
Reggie Miller - One of the best shooters ever and an incredibly clutch player who was a scorer, not just a shooter.
Allen Iverson - The most prolific scoring little man in NBA history, even if he was too often a one-man show with a questionable attitude.
"Pistol" Pete Maravich - Another one-man show, but quite a show it often was.
Dave Bing - A smooth operating Hall Of Famer.
David Thompson - According to my father, who knows his hoops: "He was the second best player in the ABA, and if drugs did not get him, I think he would have been right up there at two guard. He was probably the greatest leaper I've ever seen, and if you compare him to anyone, it might be D-Wade, and in my mind he was that good."
Hal Greer - Hall Of Fame shooting guard who played with Wilt on one of the greatest teams ever, the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers.
Sam Jones - "Mr. Clutch" on the great Celtics dynasty of the '50s and '60s.
Bill Sharman - When Cousy was doing his thing in the early years on the championship Celtics teams, his running mate at the two spot was Sharman. A tremendous shooter, Sharman was probably the best foul shooter of his time.
Tracy McGrady - Hard to overlook his lack of playoff success, but he was/is an all-world talent.
Vince Carter - His style has exceed his substance at times, and his toughness has often been questioned, but there's no denying that he's a tremendous talent. His performance in the Slam Dunk Contest was electrifying.
Joe Dumars - Overshadowed by Isiah, Dumars was a complete player and a legit Hall Of Famer in his own right. He played Jordan better than anyone.
Ray Allen - One of the greatest shooters ever, and a very good athlete as well.
Calvin Murphy - Although not more than 5' 9", this lightning fast scorer was an excellent shooter and the best foul shooter of his time. ("AI without the crappy attitude" chimes in my uncle.)
Dennis Johnson - A winner, pure and simple. A great defensive player and a clutch scorer, it's criminal that he didn't get elected to the Hall Of Fame before he died.

Small Forward
1. Larry Bird - Larry Legend. ‘Nuff said.
2. Julius Erving - The man who proved that man can indeed fly. A class act too. Too bad his best years were in the ABA.
3. Elgin Baylor – What I said about Erving perhaps I should say about Baylor instead. The first high flyer and a true NBA legend despite never winning an NBA championship and being a poor GM.
4. LeBron James - If he stays healthy, he will be #2 at worst when all is said and done. But it’s too early to list him higher right now.
5. John Havlicek - A tireless worker and an underrated scorer. A relentless winner.

Honorable mentions:
Rick Barry - An unstoppable shooter/scorer, even if he played no D and had a prickly personality that sometimes rubbed people the wrong way.
Bernard King - His prime was cut short due to injury, but in the mid-'80s with the Knicks he was completely unstoppable.
James Worthy - "Big Game James" was too quick for power forwards and too big for small forwards. He usually played McHale to a standstill though McHale is often accorded greater respect.
Billy Cunningham - The Kangaroo Kid!
Paul Arizin - One of the true studs in the early years of the NBA.
George Yardley - Before my time, but he was a prolific scorer and the first player to score 2,000 points.
Connie Hawkins - He was like 6` 8" and was the first guy that had huge hands a la Dr.J/Jordan, and he was a major dunker. He was a star in the ABA before Dr. J, and he was easily the best player in that league. Alas, due to gambling issues, he lost many of his prime years, and though he was also a star in the NBA, he was never the supersar he would have been since he only got to NBA late in his career. Still, this all-world, before-his-time talent is deserving of an honorable mention.
Scottie Pippen - A fantastic defensive player who was also extremely verstatile, Pippen was the ideal second banana. Alas, his limitations as the top dog were exposed whenever Jordan was not around (yes, even in his best year of 1994, when Pippen wilted in the playoffs, whining on the bench when Kukoc was given the last shot instead of him in game 3, stupidily fouling Hubert Davis at the end of game 4 (and whether it was a bad call or not, clearly there was contact on the play), and then disappearing in the second half of the decisive game 7).
Adrian Dantley - A unique player. There wasn't anything outwardly special about him, he wasn't spectacular, he just had a knack for scoring and in particular for getting to the foul line. Before you knew it, he had 30 points and you didn't quite know how. Too bad Isiah screwed him out of winning a championship with Detroit; he deserved better.
Dominique Wilkins - The "Human Highlight Film" was a gunner but also a dynamic, explosive scorer whose mano-y-mano battle with Bird in Game 7 in the 1987 playoffs was a battle for the ages.
Paul Pierce - A great scorer throughout his career who last year became simply a great all around, championship caliber player. He, not KG, is the Celtics go-to guy on offense.
Chris Mullin - I'm biased because I'm a St. Johns fan and he was my favorite player back in the day, but for about a five year period there in Golden State he really was a wonderful pro as well, sort of like a smaller, lefty Larry Bird. He wasn't nearly that good, of course, but he was a terrific shooter with a great feel for the game.
Alex English - A silky smooth scoring machine.


Power Forward:
1. Tim Duncan – A dominant player on offense and defense who doesn’t have a selfish bone in his body. Another guy who makes everyone around him better while filling up the box score in multiple categories. Has led the Spurs to 4 championships.
2. Bob Pettit – He was before my time, but everyone (special shout out to my Uncle David) vouches that this guy was the real deal as an all-time great.
3. Karl Malone – His numbers speak for themselves, even if he rarely came through at championship time and didn’t deserve either one of his two (regular season) MVP awards (Jordan and Duncan did).
4. Charles Barkley – Although perhaps a more dominant player at his best, his prime wasn’t as long as Malones, and his defense was far inferior. Plus, he was a selfish finger pointer who too often dominated the ball too much. But as a 6’4” runaway freight train of a power forward, Barkley was one of the most uniquely gifted players of all-time.
5. Kevin Garnett – Tough call between him and McHale, I’ll give it to Garnett because in reality McHale’s prime as a truly dominant first tier All NBA player was rather brief. Both are better suited for the second banana role rather than being “the man”, but both are uniquely talented players and no-brainer Hall Of Famers.

Honorable mentions:
Kevin McHale – Possessor of the most confounding array of low post moves ever, and an excellent defender as well who played big in big games. It was tough leaving him out of the top 5.
Maurice Stokes - A tragic story, this guy would possibly be in the top 5 if not for the brain injury that left him permanently paralyzed and ended his short but spectacular career after a mere 3 years.
Elvin Hayes - The Big E was an unreal talent.
Bob McAdoo - Another dominant offensive player who like Adrian Dantley and George Gervin led the league in scoring multiple times.
Dolph Schayes - Before my time but a deserving Hall Of Fame forward.
Dirk Nowitzski – Yeah he’s a bit soft but he’s also one of the greatest shooting big men ever.
Dave DeBusschere – This rugged power forward was a great defender who was the glue to the Knicks championship teams.
Jerry Lucas - Great shooting range and a great rebounder. One of the all-time great college players, he was also a great pro in his early years playing with the Big O, and he later became a major 6th man with the Knicks.
Dan Issel - This guy could flat out score, though like some of the other players on this list some of his best years were in the ABA.
Amare Stoudamire - Very explosive but he needs to become a more complete player (i.e. at least try to play defense) before even being considered for the top 5.
Dennis Rodman - He had no offense and was a total headcase who needed a different set of rules than his teammates, yet "the Worm" was one of the best defensive players and rebounders in NBA history. A uniquely athletic freak, his offensive limitations would've been a bigger detriment had he not had the good fortune to always play on loaded offensive teams (Detroit, San Antonio, Chicago), and he was too big of a selfish headcase to warrant serious consideration for the top 5, or the Hall Of Fame for that matter.

Centers:
1. Wilt Chamberlain – Russell won a lot more, but more often than not that was due to having better teammates and a genius coach, as Wilt usually dominated even in losing efforts. His numbers were beyond ridiculous, to the point where they had to actually change the rules to try to limit his effectiveness. That said, he should've won more championships than the two that he did.
2. Bill Russell – Many would argue that the ultimate winner (11 titles in 13 years!) should be #1 here, but had he been on a lesser team his offensive weaknesses would’ve been a big issue. Still, it's hard to dispute that he was the greatest defensive player in NBA history, and the single biggest reason behind the biggest pro basketball dynasty of all-time.
3. Kareem Abdul Jabaar – The “Sky Hook” was the single most unstoppable weapon in NBA history, and people forget how athletic he was in the early days as well.
4. Shaquille O'Neal - It’s hard to evaluate Shaq’s career. In his 3 title seasons with LA, when he was hungry and motivated, he was one of the most dominant players ever. But too often in his career Shaq was not the defensive force or rebounder that he should’ve been, and far too often he has been in less than tip top shape (especially later in his career). The result: A first tier Hall Of Famer but also an underachiever.
5. Hakeem Olajuwon – As a Knicks fan I appreciate his greatness more than most. In Houston’s two title seasons he was all-world, and throughout the rest of his career he was merely great.

Honorable mentions:
Moses Malone - Fo fo fo, and indeed Moses did lead the good Doctor to the Promised Land. A relentless warrior.
Bill Walton - Unfortunately injuries made his prime extremely brief, but at his best he was the total package.
David Robinson - Incredible athleticism for a man his size. Perhaps he was a bit "too nice" (i.e. soft), but that also enabled him to seamlessly transition to second banana status once Tim Duncan arrived; two titles ensued.
George Mikan - Way before my time, but obviously he belongs on this list somewhere.
Patrick Ewing - He was never the second coming of Bill Russell that he was billed as, and he was a very flawed player who didn't seem to make his teammates better. But he was a great shooting big man and a legit Hall Of Famer, even if he took far too many fadeaway jumpshots for such a supposed "warrior."
Nate Thurmond - A great center who had the misfortune of playing in the shadow of Wilt and Russell. I believe Wilt said Thurmond was the toughest on him.
Bob Lanier - He had a big game to go with his giant sized feet!
Willis Reed - The heart and soul of the great Knicks championship teams, his courageous entrance for game 7 of the 1970 NBA Finals is one of the NBA's most enduring images.
Dave Cowens - This guy would battle you all night long, and along with Hondo he was the key player on the Celtics' '70s teams.
Wes Unseld - Nobody threw a better outlet pass, and this undersized bull of a center did all the little things right in his relentless pursuit of excellence.
Robert Parish - Justifiably overshadowed by Bird and McHale, Parish's long arms and unique skills made him a force even against the game's best centers, even if he was clearly second tier when judged against Jabaar, Malone, Olajuwon, etc.
Yao Ming, Dwight Howard - Both keep getting better and better, but both need to do a lot more before even being considered for the top 5.

Finally, if I had to pick the best of the best, here would be my all-time NBA team (cheating slightly and using a 15 rather than a 12 player roster):

First team:
C: Wilt
PF: Duncan
SF: Bird
SG: Jordan
PG: Magic

Second team:
C: Russell
PF: Pettit
SF: Erving
SG: Kobe
PG: Oscar

Alternates:
Jabaar, West, Baylor, Shaq, Olajuwon


October 24, 2008: Thoughts on the baseball Hall Of Fame

As of today, these are my thoughts about current players and whether they should be inducted into the baseball Hall Of Fame. Players are listed randomly.

David Ortiz – Needs a few more big years and I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Curt Schilling – Maybe his numbers aren’t spectacular to the often misguided stat geeks who seem to be taking over baseball, and he has a big mouth, but at his best he was a legit, dominating ace who was at his best in the post-season, where he was 3 times crowned World Series champ. He gets my vote because to me the HOF should be reserved for truly great players, not very good players who accumulate stats over a period of time. Like another deserving player, Jack Morris, I think he'll ultimately come up short though.
Manny Ramirez – A no brainer because he’s arguably the best righthanded hitter of this era, which enables me to overlook his "Manny being Manny" behavior, which took a disgraceful turn for the worse this year, no doubt spurred in part by the loathsome presence of agent Scott Boras. Because of his complete disgregard for his teammates and utter lack of professionalism, however, I would not vote him in on the first ballot.
Jim Thome – His numbers can’t be denied as one of the pre-eminent HR hitters of his era. That sure was some batting order the Indians had in the mid to late '90s.
Gary Sheffield – He will hit the magic 500 HR number (which I think should be raised to 600 in the post steroid era), and he was a great hitter. But he was also a one-dimensional player who was a perennial malcontent and poor teammate. As someone who admitted to dogging it in Milwaukee and who got busted for ‘roids (despite the typical pleas of innocence), he would never get the hallowed check mark if I was given a HOF ballot.
Vladmir Guerrero – He’s right up there with Manny in the great right handed hitters of his era department. Unfortunately for Angels fans, he’s also right up there with ARod in the perennial playoff choker department, but he’s still HOF-worthy, or at least he will be with a few more good years.
ARod – A no-brainer, despite being a me-first diva (like many of Scott Boras’ clients) and perennial playoff choker. His numbers are off the charts so I gotta vote him in without so much as a second thought.
Derek Jeter – Overrated my ass. Jeter is the type of player who the stat geeks would underrate; you have to see this guy every day to realize how good he is (or at least was), how he does all the little things that add up to winning, and how for many years he was money in the bank in the clutch. 3,000 hits seems a given which will be his ticket in along with his 4 World Series titles.
Mariano Rivera – He has 3 huge negatives on his ledger; if you’re a Yankees fan I don’t need to tell you what they are (walking Kevin Millar and giving a dead team life in 2004 was his biggest gaffe). But he’s still the greatest closer of all-time, and for several years was simply unhittable, especially in the playoffs where he was the single most important player of the last great Yankees dynasty.
Roger Clemens – If I was a voter, I wouldn't even consider inducting him until he admits that he’s a cheater whose late career resurgence was the fraudulent result of better chemistry. And I don’t totally buy the “but he was a Hall Of Famer before he started cheating” argument because we don’t really know when he started using. And please, don’t ever call him the greatest pitcher ever – more often than not, despite many chances, he was a post-season flop.
Jason Giambi – Yeah, tell me another good one. Without the juice he's just a one-dimensional slugger. I think we can discount his MVP caliber years, no? The stat geeks love his on base percentage but what good is getting on base if you can't run and you're just clogging up the basepaths? His fielding is beyond a joke. One of the all-time free agent busts, the Yanks are crazy if they resign him. Still awaiting a legitimate apology.
Johnny Damon – My 7 year old son throws better than him. Very good, not great. No chance.
Ichiro Suzuki - He has a .331 lifetime average, has great speed, plays outstanding D, has a Rookie of the Year/MVP season, and the single season hits record; he's looking really good if he does it for a few more years.
Randy Johnson - A no-brainer, the best lefthanded pitcher of his era.
Pedro Martinez - A no-brainer, the best righthanded pitcher of his era. Mets overpaid big time though, despite the ridiculous assertion that he was worth the money because he brought them "credibility" (as if Carlos Beltran and the others came because Pedro was there, not becaue the Mets offered them the most money).
Ken Griffey Jr. - An obvious shoo-in, his ridiculous stats would be totally through the roof if he hadn't gotten hurt so often. One of the most naturally gifted players ever.
Frank Thomas - He had some up and downs and was a terrible fielder with a rep as a selfish teammate, but he was simply one of the best hitters of his era. Plus, he gets extra points as one of the few players with the guts to speak out against the 'roiders without whom his stats would be even more impressive than they are.
Sammy Sosa - No speak English? No entrée Hall Of Fame, Senor Fraud.
Ivan Rodriguez - Wonder why "Pudge" isn't so muscular anymore...Another fraud, even his defense was overrated.
Andy Pettite - Hard to overlook the drug thing but he falls short anyway. A very nice career though and a big game pitcher more often than not.
Mike Mussina - More in the "very good" rather than "great" category, I think he falls short though he certainly bolstered his case this year with his first 20-win season.
John Smoltz - Include only his career as a starter or his career as a reliever and he falls short, but add them together and throw in his outstanding post-season numbers and you have a first ballot lock. If Bobby Cox had left him in Game 7 in 1991 him and Jack Morris might still be throwing zeros.
Greg Maddux - What I said about Pedro could also be said about him (minus the part about the Mets), though I would give Pedro the nod.
Tom Glavine - Part of me puts him in the "very good" rather than "great" category, but hey he did win 300+ games and two Cy Young Awards so he was REALLY GOOD if not quite dominant. So yes, he belongs, even though I personally dislike the guy for all his whining as the player's union rep in 1994.
KRod - He is certainly on his way, but he's only had 4 HOF caliber years thus far.
Trevor Hoffman - The all-time saves leader is a deserved lock despite that fact that saves is a pretty useless stat and he's blown the biggest games he's ever been involved with ('98 Series and last year's playoff with Colorado).
Jeff Kent - I personally think he's borderline, but his 8 100 RBI seasons and the fact that he was an offensive stud at a non-offensive position certainly bolsters his case. No doubt he benefitted greatly from the presence of Barry Bonds during his best years, and he himself isn't exactly Mr. Warm and Fuzzy, but he's certainly had an impressive career when one considers that he was once considered a Mets bust who they rued trading David Cone for.
Lance Berkman - He may be on his way if he can keep this level up for several more years, though his power numbers should be discounted somewhat since the ballpark he plays in is a joke. I think he'll ultimately come up short.
Albert Pujols - Probably already a lock, he has been baseball's best hitter this decade.
Jim Edmonds - A very good player and a nice (albeit injury prone) career, but not a Hall Of Famer.
Nomar Garciaparra - Damn, he looked like he was going to be a lock, but his performance really dropped, and his attitude wasn't so hot either (Boston winning only after sending his pout elsewhere in 2004). Nope.
Miguel Tejada- Another guy who looked to be on his way, and another guy (like Garciaparra) who I have strong suspicions about, Tejada is just an average player these days. No chance.
Chipper Jones - Sometimes you don't need to look at stats. If you watched Chipper Jones play, when he was healthy, he was a Hall Of Famer, period. Besides, his stats are HOF-worthy anyway.
Todd Helton - Another guy who has had a mysterious power dropoff in recent years, his stats are hard to take seriously anyway, as are anybodys who plays for Colorado (see the career stats of Vinny Castilla, Ellis Burks, and Andres Gallaraga as to why). He was a premiere hitter, just not a Hall Of Famer.
Carlos Beltran - Contrary to Chipper, sometimes you don't need to look at stats to know when a guy is not a Hall Of Famer. Carlos is yet another guy who wants superstar money without the actual responsibility of being "the man;" he's a very good player but no superstar (except for that one October free agent push with the Astros), who until proven otherwise will be best known for inexcusably striking out looking with the World Series on the line.
Garret Anderson - I think people tend to overlook what a good player this guy was, which is why I'm mentioning him, but he falls far short of being a Hall Of Famer.
Andruw Jones - He looked to be on his way, despite a low batting average, due to his power totals and wonderful fielding. But his lack of dedication and conditioning has caught up to him and he's no longer even a major league caliber player, let alone a Hall Of Famer.
Johan Santana - Needs a few more years at peak efficiency and he'll be in the discussion, but not yet. I like his chances though.
CC Sabbathia - Needs several more years at peak efficiency and he'll be in the discussion, but not yet.
Roy Halladay - Needs several more years at peak efficiency and he'll be in the discussion, but not yet.
Roy Oswalt - Needs several more years at peak efficiency and he'll be in the discussion, but not yet.
Brandon Webb - Needs several more years at peak efficiency and he'll be in the discussion, but not yet.
Magglio Ordonez - My guess is he will fall short due to time lost due to injuries.
Miguel Cabrera - Can he stay healthy and stay in shape long enough to put up the necessary numbers? Time will tell, but like Ordonez he's a great hitter.
Omar Vizquel - Ozzie Smith got elected so I don't see why he shouldn't as well, though he lacks Ozzie's talent for self-promotion.
Michael Young - 5 seasons of 200+ hits, a batting title, .303 lifetime average. He's putting up some nice numbers but it's way too soon to tell.
Luis Gonzalez - A very good player who accumulated over 2,500 hits, 350+ HRs, almost 1,500 RBIs, and a .285 avg. Quite frankly I find his 2001 season to be more than a little suspicous, and he falls short anyway.
Ryan Howard - He's likely to win his second MVP award this year, so he's well on his way, but it's simply too soon to tell.
Carlos Delgado - He seemed finished this year before magically learning how to hit again once Willie Randolph was fired (yes that's sarcasm you detect). You can`t dismiss his numbers, but if you let him in you really need to open the floodgates for superior players such as Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, and Andre Dawson, as well as comparable players such as Fred McGriff.

And here are my thoughts on some recent retirees:
Mike Piazza - As the best hitting catcher of his generation, maybe ever, he's a first ballot lock.
Barry Bonds- If you let in one roider you have to let 'em all in, so I say keep 'em all out instead.
Craig Biggio - 3000 hits or not, I vote "very good" rather than "great," so I'd say no, though most of the voters will certainly say yes.
Jeff Bagwell - This is where people's preoccupation with numbers gets me a bit annoyed. Everyone thinks Biggo is a lock HOFer because he got 3000 hits, but during both of their primes Bagwell was clearly the better player of the two. So why does Bagwell only have an outside chance while Biggio is considered a mortal lock? Because he hung around longer? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Roberto Alomar - Man he really lost it in a hurry with the Mets, but he was the best second baseman of his era, and truly a great player, so I would vote him in.
Rickey Henderson - A shoo-in, but like Manny I would make him wait a year for his perpetual selfishness. When Rickey wasn't happy, he could be a real dog. When motivated, however, he was one of the best players ever.
Larry Walker - My comments for Todd Helton apply to Walker as well.
Mark McGwire - When he's ready to talk about the past and tell the truth, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'm firm in my belief that his career numbers are not legitimate. Rafael Palmeiro - So close to getting away with it. Glad he didn't. Nope.


September 24, 2008: Greatest female tennis players of the modern era

OK, I promised I'd do a top 10 female tennis players of the modern era (from the late '70s, when I started watching tennis, to the present), so here it is:

1. Martina Navratilova - Easily my #1 pick, at her best she was simply the most dominant player I've ever seen, and she's won an astounding 59 Grand Slam titles, many in doubles and mixed doubles (she won 18 singles titles, 31 doubles titles, and 10 mixed doubles titles); like John McEnroe, another superior lefty, Martina is almost unquestionably the greatest doubles player ever. It took her a few years to really find her killer instinct, but once she became obsessive about fitness her superior athleticism and shot making ability simply overwhelmed her opponents, even the great Chris Evert. A ridiculously good net player, Martina was the one female player who you legitimately thought could compete on the men's tour, and amazingly enough she is still playing doubles competitively in her 50s!

2. Steffi Graf - Graf is the only serious competitor for the #1 slot. She actually won more singles majors than Martina (22 to 18), but in her case I always have to qualify it with a "what if," as in "what if Monica Seles hadn't gotten stabbed?" Given that Seles was clearly the #1 player at the time, and given that she was never even close to the same player upon her comeback, you have to assume that several (let's say 5) of Graf's major titles likely would've went to Seles instead. Regardless, before and after Monica's dominance Steffi was certainly a dominant figure herself, winning the Grand Slam plus the Olympic Gold Medal in 1988, and always conducting herself with an elegant grace. In fact, there was a certain cold bloodedness to her relentless attack, which was highlighted by the most devastating forehand in women's tennis history, and helped by an underrated backhanded slice shot that was also hard to handle.

3. Chris Evert - Superior groundstrokes and a steely determination were Evert's calling cards. Similar to former boyfriend Jimmy Connors, Evert lacked the power and athleticism of her superiors, but she got the most out of her ability (18 Grand Slam singles titles) and for many years before Martina's rise to eminence she was always the one to beat.

4. Monica Seles - As I already mentioned in my Graf comments, it's really hard to judge her career. Her rise was meteoric, her prime brief and cut short for reasons beyond her control (some psycho Graf literally stabbed her in the back during a match). In her prime her main weapons were devastating two-handed groundstrokes (often accompanied by annoying squeals) from both sides, and a clutch determination that usually enabled her to come out on top, even against Graf. Unfortunately, when she came back she seemed to have lost the mental edge that was her calling card, and she also never quite got back into tip top playing shape.

5. (tie) Venus and Serena Williams - It's hard to say who was better; Serena at her best was probably more dominant, and both of them have had their ups and downs, as tennis has not always been their #1 priority, but both have had similarly magnificent careers that are far from over (perhaps in a few years one or both will rank higher). Serena has more power from the baseline, Venus has a faster first serve (though not necessarily a better overall serve in general), better court coverage, and a better net game (which I've always felt she should've used more than she does). Both are aggressive players whose go for broke style sometimes leads to sloppy play, and neither lack for confidence, always feeling like they are the one to beat. (This isn't always a positive attribute as Serena in particular never seems to give any opponents credit upon being defeated.)

7. Justine Hennin - Like they say, good things come in small packages, and for the past few years the best player on the women's tour has been Ms. Hennin. Like many of the players on this list, mental toughness is seen as one of her greatest attributes, and she is also arguably the owner of the greatest backhand in women's tennis history. Had she not retired suddenly this past year while seemingly still in her prime she might've ended up higher on this list.

8. Evonne Goolagong Cawley - I barely remember her, but she did win 7 Slams and I remember her being a great player, albeit a clear notch below Martina and Chrissie.

9. Martina Hingis - Briefly a dominant player (she won 3 out of 4 Grand Slams in 1997) before the rise of the Williams sisters, Lindsay Davenport, and the power game in general, this finesse player had a superior tennis mind and tremendous shot making ability from the baseline. She was also a tremendous doubles player, winning 9 Grand Slam women's doubles titles, but her career was also littered with controversy (mostly caused by immature comments and behavior on her part), and she lost 7 Grand Slam finals to go along with her 5 finals wins. Perhaps had she won more she would be higher on this list, and injuries and burnout also curtailed her career, which perhaps was not what it should've been after such a torrid start.

10. Lindsay Davenport - Really this spot could go to a few players, such as Tracy Austin, Hana Mandlikova, or Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, and possibly Maria Sharapova or others in a few years, but I'll go with Lindsay, who got the most out of her ability and who made up for a lack of mobility by being a tremendously heavy hitter. I don't think I've ever seen any other woman consistently hit such deep shots with such pace; it's too bad she lost the 2005 Wimbledon Final against Venus when she had match point; had she nailed down that fourth major title I'd be more convinced that this is the right choice for the last spot on this list.

September 10, 2008: Greatest male tennis players of the modern era

As usual, I've enjoyed watching the U.S. Open tennis tournament the past two weeks (even though some of the matches end way too late). Wimbledon may be the most prestigious tournament, but I think that the U.S. Open is the most fun, what with the raucous New York crowds and the more neutral surface that allows for longer rallies. Anyway, here is my list of the 10 greatest male tennis players of the modern era (from the late '70s, when I started watching tennis, to the present).

1. Roger Federer – The Swiss maestro makes it all seem easy. He has all the shots, from anywhere on the court (especially his forehand which is probably the best in tennis history), and he rarely fails in the clutch. If he has any weakness at all it is a backhand that every once in a blue moon (like in the Wimbledon Finals this year) is a bit erratic. He has slipped slightly this year and no longer seems like a complete lock to break Pete Sampras' grand slam record, but I think he will eclipse it and even if he doesn't his unmatched dominance the past few years ensures that any argument about the #1 player of all-time must include Roger Federer.

2. Pete Sampras - Federer is so great that I think people tend to forget just how great Pete Sampras was. We're talking about a guy who had the greatest serve ever (a fantastic 2nd serve as well as a ridiculous first serve), had one of the best forehands ever, was a great net player, and was a guy who NEVER missed an overhead. His lone weakness, like Federer, was a backhand that was at times inconsistent, plus his conditioning, or lack thereof, was sometimes a problem, especially later in his career. But when his serve was on, he was almost impossible to break (even Andre Agassi, the greatest serve returner of all time, was helpless against him). At his best on grass or hard courts I think that even Federer would have a very hard time beating him, and he played in an era when there were more truly great players than today and he completely dominated it.

3. Bjorn Borg - The always-calm Swede was a phenomenal player with great groundstrokes (with a heavy use of topspin), a very good serve, a solid net game when necessary, and incredible court coverage. He won 6 consecutive French Opens and 5 consecutive Wimbledon's at the same time, a feat that may never be duplicated given how different those court surfaces are (in fact it wasn't until Rafael Nadal this year that it was even accomplished once since then). Mystifyingly, he never won the U.S. Open despite making 4 Finals, and only that major blight on his resume prevents me from putting him #1 (yes Federer and Sampras never won the French, but the U.S. Open is the second most important major). Plus he retired prematurely, citing burnout.

4. John McEnroe - Simply a genius with a tennis racquet, McEnroe was easily the greatest net player, with the surest touch, that I've ever seen. He had an excellent lefty serve too, often spinning the ball out ridiculously wide to set up easy volleys. Perhaps his groundstrokes weren't as great as some other players, but they were more than solid, and at his best few players have ever been more impressive than McEnroe. Of course, he never won the French (once blowing a 2-set lead to Ivan Lendl in the final) or Australian (the fourth most important major), and he was a total jerk on the court, both negatives on his ledger. He also took a 6 month break and when he came back he was never really the same player, in part because the power game had become more prominent and McEnroe was more of a finesse player. P.S. He was also the greatest doubles player of all-time and a terrific Davis Cup player.

5. Jimmy Connors - He had his weaknesses, namely an unimpressive serve and forehand, but he was an incredible serve returner, had a wonderful backhand, and nobody played with more guts or determination. It was always a dogfight against Connors, who won more tournaments (not majors) than anybody, was #1 for a long period of time (even if Borg was better during much of that period), and had some amazing runs at the U.S. Open (where he was always a crowd favorite and which he won 5 times) at an advanced age, in part because he became a more active and better net player as he got older. His run to the U.S. Open semifinals at 39 years of age was magical.

6. Ivan Lendl - He wasn't charismatic, and he was somewhat mechanical, but a strong serve (I always remember his super high tosses), deadly forehand, and superb conditioning made this incredibly consistent player an all-time great. Totally dominating the mid-to-late '80s when he was #1 for several years running, his negatives are simply that he lost too many finals, which is why I rank him a notch below the all-time, all-time greats. He also did not have the game to win Wimbledon, though he did admirably make 2 finals. He also made an incredible 8 consecutive U.S. Open Finals in a row, but he lost 5 of them, and frankly I think that he got intimidated by Connors in two of them. Still, he had a winning record against most of the players on this list, including McEnroe and Connors, and he got the most out of his ability.

7. Andre Agassi - Agassi had a strange career of highs and lows. At his best he was still a notch below the very best (out of his 8 Grand Slams, 4 were Australian Opens and the 2nd time he won the U.S. Open it was partially because Sampras and Patrick Rafter were injured), and not once but twice his lack of dedication made him slip badly in the rankings. Still, he always came back, and later in his career he was a model of dedication and conditioning. He had some of the most wicked groundstrokes ever and in my opinion the greatest serve return of all time (even better than Connors). Agassi became one of a very select few players to win all 4 Grand Slam tournaments, ultimately proving that substance, not image, is everything.

8. Stefan Edberg - The second best net player I've ever seen after McEnroe (Rafter would be third), this calm Swede proved his greatness by winning several Grand Slam titles, including back to back U.S. Open championships. He had a good serve and decent groundstrokes, but everything about his game was geared, like McEnroe, towards setting up his net play. At times (like McEnroe) he could be overpowered, but he was a terrific, athletic player and a second tier all-time great.

9. Boris Becker - Edberg vs. Becker was one of the hardest matchups to decide upon. Becker really ushered in the power game when he stormed Wimbledon as a 17 year old, and he went on to win the biggest tournament three times (pity about those four losses in the finals, two to Edberg), as well as an Australian and U.S. Open. His groundstrokes could be a bit erratic at times, but he was a big server and a strong net player whose go for broke style always made him a fan favorite.

10. Mats Wilander - People forget about Mats Wilander, whose 1988 season, when he won 3 out of 4 majors, was one of the best in tennis history. Seemingly satisfied with finally gaining the number one ranking after many years of trying, Wilander seemed to fade from view overnight, another victim of burnout I suppose. Aside from 1988 he was never a dominant player, but he sure was consistent, and he amassed 7 Grand Slams (never winning Wimbledon and only one U.S. Open) while compiling an impressive career that's worthy of a top 10 placing in the modern era.

Near misses: Jim Courier, Guillermo Vilas, Patrick Rafter. Also Rafael Nadal; it's only a matter of time before he surpasses several players on this list.

Next blog entry: Greatest female tennis players of the modern era.

September 1, 2008: Does defense win championships?

You hear it all the time, especially in the NFL: "defense wins championships." But is this true? Let's take a look at the past 20 Super Bowl winners (this is strictly by memory, with no stat checking, and the year is based on the regular season, not the month during which the Super Bowl was played):

1989 Super Bowl champion: San Francisco 49ers (great defense, even better offense)
1990 Super Bowl champion: New York Giants (great defense, solid ball control offense that wasn't explosive but did manage to physically dominate the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl)
1991 Super Bowl champion: Washington Redskins (great defense, even better offense)
1992 Super Bowl champion: Dallas Cowboys (great defense and offense)
1993 Super Bowl champion: Dallas Cowboys (great defense and offense)
1994 Super Bowl champion: San Francisco 49ers (great defense, even better offense)
1995 Super Bowl champion: Dallas Cowboys (great defense and merely a very good offense this time due to the loss of guys like Alvin Harper)
1996 Super Bowl champion: Green Bay Packers (great defense and a very good offense)
1997 Super Bowl champion: Denver Broncos (very good defense and a great offense)
1998 Super Bowl champion: Denver Broncos (very good defense and a great offense)
1999 Super Bowl champion: St. Louis Rams (good defense and a great, truly prolific offense)
2000 Super Bowl champion: Baltimore Ravens (record breaking defense, barely average offense that could at least run the ball and had a great playmaker in TE Shannon Sharpe. Plus they made quite a few big plays on special teams in the playoffs that year. Nevertheless, this team stands out as the LONE case in the past 20 years where a defense truly carried its offense to a championship)
2001 Super Bowl champion: New England Patriots (great defense and an opportunistic offense. Still, I think Tom Brady and Adam Vinateri had something to do with that SB win, don't you?)
2002 Super Bowl champion: Tampa Bay Buccaneers (great defense but also a much improved, very good offense that year, which was the biggest difference between them and years past, though their D also went to another level unlike in previous years where they underperformed in big spots)
2003 Super Bowl champion: New England Patriots (great defense and a very good offense. They outscored the Panthers in the Super Bowl, simple as that, as Jake Delhomme lit up the Pats D).
2004 Super Bowl champion: New England Patriots (great defense and offense. The addition of Corey Dillon makes this probably the best Pats SB winner, though again their D was more bend but not break than dominant against the Eagles).
2005 Super Bowl champion: Pittsburgh Steelers (great defense and a very solid, opportunistic offense)
2006 Super Bowl champion: Indianapolis Colts (very good defense and a great offense)
2007 Super Bowl champion: New York Giants (great defense and a very solid, opportunistic offense. Again, without Eli Manning, Plaxico Burress, and David Tyree, does NY pull off the giant upset? Was NE heavily favored because of their great defense or their record breaking offense? Hmmm)

So, in looking at the past 20 Super Bowl winners, it seems to me that the vast majority of these teams had very good or great defenses and offenses, with neither really carrying more weight than the other. But say something enough times, like "defense wins championships," and it's eventually taken as the truth and repeated as gospel. So, the next time you hear some announcer say "defense wins championships," be sure to add "yeah, if you have a good offense..."

August 22, 2008: The 2008 Summer Olympics - simply spectacular

I gotta admit, the Olympics snuck up on me this year. I wasn't especially looking forward to it, only mildly so, but for the past two weeks I've been glued to my TV set for several hours nearly every night. Obviously the main selling point early on was Michael Phelps' incredible achievements, with that amazing relay finish by Jason Lezak and Phelps own "how did he win that?" 7th gold in the 100 meter butterfly being especially notable. The final relay race, completely owned by Phelps, was a coronation for a new Olympic king, and throughout the two weeks Phelps wore his crown well, and Mark Spitz was equally gracious in congratulating Phelps for breaking his old standard of 7 gold medals.

But the Olympics has offered far more than Michael Phelps, and I've been surprised at how even sports I never previously cared about, like beach volleyball and diving, have kept me interested. There was impossibly elegant Nastia Lukin and adorable little Shawn Johnson battling the Chinese for gold medals in gymnastics, but also Alicia Sacramone falling apart in the team competition and then gathering herself for what should've been a bronze medal winning performance on the vault. In track and field, there was plenty of drama and spectacular performances, particularly from Usain Bolt, who not only achieved the rare 100m/200m sprint double, but broke world records both times, including Michael Johnson's seemingly unattainable record set in the 200 meters twelve years ago in Atlanta.

The coverage has been good too, unlike in previous years where I found NBC's coverage to be severely lacking, what with all the sappily implausible features instead of live action, taped events being dishonestly passed as live action (there is still room for improvement but in most cases NBC was much more honest in their reporting this year), and strict focus on American jingoism at the expense of everything and everybody else. This year the coverage was far more inclusive, and many of the visuals, such as the underwater views of the swimming, were simply spectacular. The announcing, from Tom Hammond and Ato Boldin in track, Chris Marlowe and Karch Kiraly in beach volleyball, and Ted Robinson and Cynthia Potter in swimming, was very solid for the most part. Again, the coverage wasn't perfect; I could've certainly lived without Bela Karolyi's incomprehensible "commentary," and somebody needs to calm Rowdy Gaines down a bit. I also have my suspicions that some of the top sprinters were probably too good to be true, if you know what I mean (I hope I'm wrong here, and since they are drug tested I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now), and some of the gymnastics judging was downright incompetent if not outright criminal. But on the whole the Olympics have been a terrific watch and provided great theater. It helped my own enjoyment that for the first time I was able to watch the Summer Olympics with my two sons, ages 7 and 5, who were really into it (especially my older one), as was my wife, so it was a family affair, one that we'll fondly remember for a long time.

August 20, 2008: Rating the sports commissioners

This blog entry is devoted to rating the commissioners of the four so-called "major" American team sports (sorry, that does not include soccer). So, without further adieu...

Bud Selig (MLB): It's always hard for me to forget that this man made his fortune selling used cars, and that this so-called commissioner who is entrusted in protecting the "integrity of the game" was long a walking conflict of interest due to his ties with the Milwaukee Brewers. On the plus side, most people would agree that introducing the wild card has made the regular season more interesting (though I would argue that it has also deprived fans of true winner take all pennant races), especially for small market teams who can stay in the hunt longer than they otherwise would. Interleague play has also been a popular marketing tool, even if it seems somewhat played out a mere 10 years after it was introduced, and at least Bud has tried to make the all-star game relevant again by giving the winning side the homefield advantage in the World Series (a more sensible thing would be to give it to the team with the best overall record, no?). Baseball is flourishing, that can't be denied, and I guess Selig deserves some credit for that, though the cynic in me is far more apt to credit the greatness of the game itself and the suckers, 'er, fans who continue to fork over ridiculous sums of money only to be treated like crap time and time again (rather than list repeated examples of this, I suggest you start reading the brilliantly incisive columns of Phil Mushnick of the New York Post, my favorite sportwriter who lambastes Selig on a regular basis). Ultimately, I feel that Selig is a terrible commissioner who was simply in the right place at the right time, and whose negatives will define his term above all else. The first strike against him is the unforgivable strike that cancelled the 1994 World Series, even if equal blame, perhaps more, belongs with Donald Fehr's detestable player's union. Of course, Selig's biggest stain, the one that he will never be able to outlast, is that he presided over "The Steroid Era." Yes, baseball is prospering, it makes a lot of money, but because all Selig cares about is making money, baseball under his watch also completely lost its soul. Under his watch, yours truly who loves baseball and used to follow it religiously, has lost interest to a large degree, and for his significant role in that I can only give him a richly deserved F rating.

David Stern (NBA): Another right place, right time guy, I find David Stern, the so-called "Marketing Genius," to be competent but hideously overrated. That he is incredibly arrogant and condescending is perhaps why I don't hold him in higher regard, but he's just another guy who chases the big T.V. bucks at the expense of having a long term vision (yeah let's put all our games on cable so that we have a much smaller audience! And then let's put them on at, say 9 PM, really 9:30, so that children can't possibly stay up and watch even the second half let alone the entire game, so that 15-20 years from now they'll care less about the NBA! Let's stretch out very the first round of the playoffs so long that even hardcore fans get bored silly! Marketing Genius! Let's also expand the teams so that the talent level is so diluted that half the games each night are damn near unwatchable, and while we're at it let's make the games so expensive that your Average Joe can't possibly afford them…) I could go on, and there are certain things, such as the insane loudness and overall cheesiness of most arena soundsystems, and the increasing thuggery of the NBA, that aren't his fault and which he's tried to address. Getting an age limit was also a victory on his part, as is having a salary cap. His efforts towards globalizing the game have been very successful, and I like that he supports the WNBA; though I've never actually watched a WNBA game, I do like that a pro women's league exists. Still, the recent Tim Donahy scandal and his allowing the new Seattle Supersonics owners to heist the team over to Oklahoma City are other major negatives on his ledger. Ultimately, there's no question in my mind that in the NBA's '80s/'90s heyday he rode the coattails of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and especially Michael Jordan (whose on-court genius made Stern a "genius"), and that his league hasn't been nearly as popular since they left. Grade: B-

Roger Goddell (NFL) - Goddell is new to the job so this rating could easily change. And I will say that right from the start I really liked his no nonsense stance in cracking down on the ridiculously high amount of criminal activity present in his league; if you ended up on the wrong side of the law, Goddell was going to be on your case and a suspension was likely to ensue, and that's a good thing. However, there have since been some serious negatives on his ledger, the most obvious one being how he completely botched "Spygate;" it's hard to imagine that he could've handled that whole sorry episode any worse. Also, the NFL Network is a money grubbing disgrace that Bud Selig would be proud of, and that's nothing compared to the new PSL ticketing scams (basically legalized extortion where season ticket holders now have to pay teams in order to be able to buy season tickets! I swear, you couldn't even make this stuff up other than in the fantasy world that is major league sports) which obviously have his full blessing (his silence on the matter is deafening). And he's another guy who whores his league for TV money (again, read Mushnick for details), but they all do I guess, it's just that he had gotten off to such a promising start that I actually expected better from the guy. Rating: C

Gary Bettman (NHL) - As someone who is only a casual hockey fan I'm really not qualified to comment on him as much as the others. He's a former NBA guy who worked under Stern, his mentor, so we're talking about a guy with similar philosophies. Like Selig, the work stoppage a few years back was inexcusable (and this time an entire season was lost), and his league has expanded beyond what was reasonable. They all have, but it's worse in his case because he sent teams to warm weather places that didn't even want hockey, which made absolutely no sense. Throw in the lost contract with ABC/ESPN, and the fact that he has been a total failure in his attempts to lift the sport beyond being a niche sport beloved by a select few but ignored by most, and Bettman joins Selig in the incompetent F club...

August 14, 2008: Why is ESPN Classic so awful?

I can't tell you how many times I have put on ESPN Classic hoping for some, you know, classic sports event to watch, only to be disappointed. I should know better by now, but you would think that the self-proclaimed "World Wide Leader In Sports," with all their pull and (you would think) an incredible library of amazing sports games and events at their disposal, wouldn't be so awful. On the plus side, they've come up with some interesting original shows, such as "Who's Number 1" and "Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame" (they seriously need to produce new episodes of each, though) and they occasionally have other good features such as "Game Of The Week" during college football season where they replay that week's best game. Still, far often than not ESPN Classic is not only unfulfilling, it's downright maddening. For example, I'm a huge boxing fan, and they do show some old fights, but often it is the same Mike Tyson or Muhammed Ali fights over and over again, or fights that originally appeared on ESPN, many of which weren't so hot in the first place (do I really need to see a 40+ year old Hector "Macho" Camacho fight some bum in a 10-year old fight?). Where are all the great fights? Where's Arguello-Pryor, Hearns-Leonard, Hearns-Hagler, Barrera-Morales, Gatti-Ward, Coralles-Castillo; I could go on and on...Where are the classic baseball, basketball, and football games that all too infrequently appear? How about some old classic tennis matches (Borg-McEnroe, Connors-Krickstein, Sampras-Corretja, etc)? Why is the channel devoted to American Gladiators, rodeo, World's Strongest Men, and poker (which is NOT a sport) competitions instead? Who the heck is the target audience for this channel??? It's certainly not fans of classic sports events, otherwise they would air more such events, but as it currently stands ESPN Classic is about as accurately named as MTV these days...

August 6, 2008: Horseracing

The other day was the return of Big Brown, and I'm glad that he won the Haskell Invitational, despite my distaste for his gasbag trainer Rick Dutrow. It wasn't an overpowering performance by any means, certainly not like his already legendary Kentucky Derby or Preakness performances, but it was a very gutty performance and an exciting race. Here a link to it: Big Brown wins the 2008 Haskell Invitational. Here's hoping that him and Curlin get it on at the Breeders Cup Classic.

Anyway, I've become quite the horseracing fan in recent years, and here's my quite unofficial, subject to change at any moment, top 10 U.S. racehorses of all time:

1. Secretariat
2. Man O' War
3. Citation
4. Count Fleet
5. Seattle Slew
6. Kelso
7. Dr. Fager
8. Native Dancer
9. Affirmed
10. Spectacular Bid

Secretariat is my personal favorite. I read William Nack's excellent biography of him and I often view his races on youtube, especially his three phenomenal Triple Crown performances (see below). I believe that his performance in the Belmont Stakes is the greatest single performance by any athlete ever. I'm also partial to horses I remember racing such as Seattle Slew, Affirmed, and the Bid, and I'm only going by old clips of some of the others (many can be found on youtube) and what I've read about the legendary Man O' War. Among the other horses I considered was Forego, Ruffian, and Swaps. You can read about these horses and others on the wikipedia site devoted to the Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century.

It's a good list on the whole despite being tainted by the idiot who voted Secretariat 14th on his ballot so that Man O' War would win. I have other quibbles about it as well, such as Swaps and Ruffian being way too low and the exclusion of near Triple Crown winner Bet Twice (beaten in a photo finish at the Belmont) and Sham, Secretariat's great rival and a likely Triple Crown winner had he been born another year. I have to admit I'm not that familiar with about half the horses on the list, but I aim to read up on them as well. As for horses that might be worthy of inclusion since this list was published in 1999, I'd say that Point Given, Ghostzapper, and Curlin would probably stand the best chance, followed by Barbaro (a great horse who I feel would have won the Triple Crown had he not tragically broken down), Afleet Alex, Smarty Jones, Invasor, Rags To Riches, Bernardini, and possibly Big Brown depending on how he finishes this year up. Unfortunately, most of the horses today simply don't last; they're generally retired to stud very young, either for the money or due to injury, and we don't get to see how great they really can be because they are retired prematurely. Not that I blame these owners given the outlandish stud fees, but it certainly has hurt the Sport Of Kings, as has the high-profile breakdowns of Barbaro, Eight Belles, and others; banning drugs and revisiting the topic of track surfaces is a start in the right direction on that front. Still, it's hard not to think about the races that could've been: Cigar vs. Holy Bull (which actually was developing into quite a race until Holy Bull got hurt), Ghostzapper vs. Afleet Alex, Barbaro vs. Bernardini, Invasor vs. Curlin, and so on; what great races those would've been had injuries not prevented them!

Here are some of my favorite races:

Secretariat in the 1973 Kentucky Derby - Secretariat sets a record that still stands, incredibly coming from last place and running each split faster than the one before it.

Secretariat in the 1973 Preakness Stakes - Showing his versatility, Big Red again starts out last before surging to the front with an incredible, almost unheard of burst around the very first turn. This would've been another record but for a clock malfunction that has foolishly never been corrected.

Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont Stakes - I get chills every time I watch this. Perfection is so rare and special, and it is achieved here. Big Red's damn near supernatural 31-length victory was clocked in a record 2:24 that still stands 'till this day, has never been approached, and quite frankly probably never will be.

Personal Ensign vs. Winning Colors in the 1988 Breeders Cup Distaff - Personal Ensign, in her last race, aims to retire undefeated, but she's matched up against Kentucky Derby winner Winning Colors who is determined to give her all she can handle. An incredibly exciting race.

Sunday Silence vs. Easy Goer in the 1989 Preakness Stakes - They raced four times but this was the best one, a nose-to-nose down the stretch humdinger that's easily the most exciting Preakness ever. I always felt that Easy Goer would've won had he not been squeezed on the rail and had jockey Pat Day not turned his head as they neared the finish line, but Sunday Silence won 3 out of 4 so you have to give him his due and say that maybe he was just a little bit better, though Easy Goer was a brilliant colt himself.

Forego in the 1976 Marlboro Cup - Carrying a lot of weight, as was often the case, the great Forego makes a memorable stretch run.

Exceller vs. Seattle Slew in the 1978 Jockey Club Gold Cup - Those were the days, when giants of the sport raced each other regularly. Affirmed was also in this race but had problems with his saddle (he was in trouble anyway), and it came down to the above two horses, with both giving arguably their best efforts ever, as Slew fought back when it looked like he was toast after blazing through super-fast early fractions (courtesy of a rabbit who was entered in the race for just that purpose). Read the reader comments below, which shed some light on this fascinating, controversial race, and on the sad, disgusting fate that later befell Exceller.

Rags To Riches vs. Curlin in the 2007 Belmont Stakes - This victory is even more impressive given how great Curlin has turned out to be. I love the call too, "these two, in a battle of the sexes in the Belmont Stakes!" This race will be legendary for many years to come.

Affirmed vs. Alydar in the 1978 Belmont Stakes - Saving the best for last, this is simply the greatest, most fiercely contested extended stretch duel in the history of the sport, especially given how high the stakes were. Alydar, like Sham before him, was simply born in the wrong year, but I'm sure glad he was as he and his great rival (they raced 10 times!) Affirmed gave us many unforgettable moments, none more so than here.



August 3, 2008: Welcome to the sports blog (also baseball and boxing)

We're trying a new feature here at Scott's Rock and Soul Album Reviews: The Sports Blog. I'm not sure how often I'll update it, or if I'll even continue it, but what the heck, I think it might be fun. I fancy myself to be pretty knowledgeable about many different kinds of sports, so I'm just going to spout off on any range of topics as I see fit. Unlike with my music reviews, which on occasion have been criticized for being too positive, I seriously doubt that will be the case regardinging this blog. For, although I love sports, I have largely come to despise what big time sports have become. As for why, I suppose you'll just have to read on...

OK, the first topics we'll address are the recent trades in Major League Baseball (MLB). Props to the Red Sox for finally unloading Manny Ramirez. Although a fantastic hitter when he wants to be, Manny's behavior throughout the years, but especially this year, is simply deplorable and I consider both him and his amoral agent Scott Boras to be complete disgraces as human beings who represent everything that is wrong about sports today. Then again, let's not give too much credit to the Sox who induldged his "Manny being Manny" BS too many times to mention; for his assault on a 64-year-old traveling secretary to not warrant any suspension was beyond cowardly both by the Sox organization and MLB, the latter of whom I suppose didn't do anything to avoid a confrontation with the useless player's union. One last word on Manny: If I was a Hall Of Fame voter I would vote him in but I would wait a year before doing so; he does not deserve to go on in the first ballot, period. The same goes for Rickey Henderson, who was another all-world talent who far too often was also a completely selfish, me-first mutt.

As for the Yankees, I suppose getting "Not So Pudgy Anymore" Rodriguez was a no-brainer, but as a Yankees fan I find it troubling that several months after the Mitchell Report exposed several former and current Yankees as 'roiders, they obtained another OBVIOUS former 'roider in Pudge. Just look at his body transformation over the past few years! Why nobody seems to mention this is beyond me, and maybe I'm an old fuddyduddy, but I'd rather have a lesser team with guys who I can legitimately root for without such baggage than morally questionable characters such as Pudge, who I would not vote for the Hall Of Fame because I don't trust his numbers as being legitimate. Ditto Bonds, Sosa, McGwire - the list goes on. And if any player wants to blame me for being so cynical and distrustful of their accomplishments, I'll simply tell them to blame their union, not me, since it was they who repeatedly abandoned the innocent in order to protect the guilty.

The Angels made a great pickup in Mark Teixeira, and I would make them the favorites to win it all. Just a first-class organization who have been successful for some time now. Speaking of another great organization, or at least a formerly great one, the Braves sure didn't get much back for Teixeira one year after renting him, did they? As for the Dodgers, well, I suppose they got a great hitter in Ramirez, who I would assume will be on his best behavior now that he is presumably "happy" (really, how much money does one man need?), but eventually he will pull his "Manny being Manny" stunts and he will wear out his welcome there as well.

Great boxing match last week; Antonio Margarito vs. Miguel Cotto. I'm a huge boxing fan and along with my father-in law I watch all the big fights, and many of the lesser ones as well. Sure, boxing is corrupt and is often frustrating as a result, but nothing beats the tension of a high energy boxing match, IMO, because in a split second a seemingly beaten foe can turn the tide with one punch. MMA simply does not have the sustained action that boxing does, and at its highest level I believe that boxers are more skilled in the sweet science than MMA practitioners. That said, I do like MMA as well and feel that there's room for both forms of brutal entertainment to prosper. But back to the fight, you really should try to see this somewhere if you can, it was the superior technician (Cotto) fighting a very good fight but ultimately wilting under the relentless assault of the taller Margararito, who I think could take a punch from King Kong and come back smiling. Margarito's relentless assault finally took the will of a mentally and physically drained Cotto, but Cotto fought very well himself and it was a terrific, exciting fight throughout.



send me an email

Back To Artist Index Home Page