Happiness For Blessing

So it's 2012 - almost 2013.  Surely racism is dead now, right?

Nope.

Supporters of Russian football (soccer) team Zenit St. Petersburg recently published an open letter of sorts where they demanded that the team not add or select players that make up racial or sexual minorities. 

Pay attention to the language and arguments used in the letter.  For starters, when you have to begin your argument with "I'm not racist, but..." you might want to back up and rethink your position.  The more important point is that the group argues that their identity is in jeopardy.  Many other teams in other nations do this, albeit with more stealth and acceptable language.  In England, for example, the FA requires that teams carry a certain amount of "homegrown" players on their active roster.  Without going into too much detail, a homegrown player is basically defined as a player who has spent a certain amount of years in the club's academy (think minor leagues, but for even younger players) before their 21st birthday.  There's no language in the rule that players have to be a certain nationality, but because of the way the system already works, the rule basically ensures that English clubs will have a certain quota of English players.  Racist?  Eh.  Xenophobic?  Oh yes.  Such is the nature of international sport. 

In both cases (that of Zenit and of England), the fear is that "others" will come along and ruin the identity of the organization.  As members of a melting pot (or is it salad bowl?) society, we Americans have certainly seen this attitude.  Perhaps we have even espoused it.  The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is inherently exclusionary.  The Zenit supporters have defined their identity using external factors, and therefore the best way to preserve it is through exclusion of people who are externally different.  Let's go back to the original point: they think they're not racist, even though it's apparent to all on the outside that that's clearly not the case.  It's very easy to convince yourself that you're not prejudiced or biased against a certain person or type of person, but that doesn't make it true.  Rather than simply shaking our heads about the state of the world in 2012 and looking down at our noses at those silly Russians, let's examine ourselves.  What excuses are we making in order to exclude others?

Every year, I do my best to present what the MLB All-Star rosters should look like. Let me know what you think in the comments.

NL

Catcher
Miguel Olivo, Rockies

Brian McCann, Braves

First Base
Albert Pujols, Cardinals

Prince Fielder, Brewers
Joey Votto, Reds
Adrian Gonzalez, Padres

Second Base
Chase Utley, Phillies

Martin Prado, Braves
Kelly Johnson, Diamondbacks

Third Base
Ryan Zimmerman, Nationals

David Wright, Mets

Shortstop
Troy Tulowitzki, Rockies

Hanley Ramirez, Marlins

Outfield
Marlon Byrd, Cubs
Andres Torres, Giants
Josh Willingham, Nationals

Andre Ethier, Dodgers
Andrew McCutchen, Pirates
Colby Rasmus, Cardinals
Ryan Ludwick, Cardinals
Michael Bourn, Astros

Starters
Roy Halladay, Phillies
Josh Johnson, Marlins
Ubaldo Jimenez, Rockies
Adam Wainwright, Cardinals
Tim Lincecum, Giants
Matt Cain, Giants

Relievers
Jonathan Broxton, Dodgers
Luke Gregerson, Padres
Sean Marshall, Cubs
Brian Wilson, Giants
Tyler Clippard, Nationals
Carlos Marmol, Cubs
Heath Bell, Padres

AL

Catcher
Joe Mauer, Twins

Victor Martinez, Red Sox

First Base
Justin Morneau, Twins

Kevin Youkilis, Red Sox
Miguel Cabrera, Tigers
Daric Barton, Athletics

Second Base
Robinson Cano, Yankees

Orlando Hudson, Twins

Third Base
Evan Longoria, Rays

Adrian Beltre, Red Sox

Shortstop
Derek Jeter, Yankees

Alex Gonzalez, Blue Jays

Outfield
Alex Rios, White Sox
Carl Crawford, Rays
Magglio Ordonez, Tigers

Shin-Soo Choo, Indians
Josh Hamilton, Rangers
Nick Markakis, Orioles
David DeJesus, Royals

Designated Hitter
Vladimir Guerrero

Starters
Francisco Liriano, Twins
Cliff Lee, Mariners
Jon Lester, Red Sox
Ricky Romero, Blue Jays
Jered Weaver, Angels
Phil Hughes, Yankees
Justin Verlander, Tigers

Relievers
Joel Zumaya, Tigers
Matt Thornton, White Sox
Darren Oliver, Rangers
Joba Chamberlain, Yankees
Grant Balfour, Rays
Frank Francisco, Rangers
Rafael Soriano, Rays

I posted this a couple of weeks ago (right before the Rangers vs. Cubs series in Arlington) on a message board where a couple of friends could see. I now offer it up to you.

Let's talk about Milton Bradley, shall we?

You will all remember that he spent the 2008 season in a Rangers uniform. He had a great season. He got a well-deserved invite to the All-Star Game. He was even well-behaved, something that has been attributed to Ron Washington's superior clubhouse mojo, or some other spectacular lie like that. (Separate rant: I want Wash out as manager. He has the in-game management skills of celery, to borrow a quote from Dave Barry. The thing that's got him holding on is that he is a players' manager. Players just love playing for the guy, which is worth something I guess, but not really a whole lot when he orders his leadoff man who has an OBP of .420 to sacrifice bunt IN THE FIFTH INNING. Anyway, I blame Milton Bradley that he's still around. He behaved here, then continued to act a fool when he left. So of course that's got to be Washington's influence, and so now he can do a line of coke if he wants and still hold on to his job, despite the fact that he is literally losing us games out there. Okay, separate rant over, at least for now.)

Anyway, that 2008 season was nice (at least for Bradley; it's pretty sad that the one thing people remember about the 2008 Rangers season happened during All-Star Weekend), but for whatever reason, Bradley walked. I'm not complaining about that; we got Tanner Scheppers with his compensation pick. What's important in this story is that Bradley went and signed with the team we begin a series against tonight: The Chicago Cubs.

If you know me, you know that I have a history with this team. I wrote a post last time the Cubs were in town trying to explain my sports bigamy. Well, a funny thing happened when Uncle Milton landed in Chicago: he turned back into himself. In an interview he gave after arriving in Seattle, Bradley attributed his behavior problems to the city of Chicago, which is of course laughable. Maybe, though, this is closer to the truth than it seems.

Most people who don't follow the Cubs very closely think that Bradley's problems began after that game when he threw the ball into the stands after miscounting how many outs there were. (Sorry for the crappy video quality in the link, blame MLB's outdated policies on sharing video) The fact is, his problems came long before that. You see, what I wasn't fully aware of was the reputation of the Bleacher Bums at Wrigley Field. Sure, I knew they were bad. Put a bunch of drunks out in the sun and crude stuff is going to happen. What I didn't know was all of the racist stuff that went down, even against Cubs players themselves. When I read that article (seriously, click on the link) last April, I was blindsided. It was like the air was let out of my little balloon. Do you realize that Torii Hunter has the Cubs on his no-trade list because of that nonsense? I told myself that the article referenced isolated incidences, and I moved on. However, I found myself caring a little less about the team. I probably wouldn't have even noticed, but being a fan of two teams you start to realize that one team's wins and losses mean more than the others. Not a huge deal, but I wasn't exactly switching between FSN and WGN on Sunday afternoons like I used to. Yet, I hung on to my Official Cubs Fan Card (I don't actually have one of those). Then, this happened. It probably wouldn't be a big deal in my mind, because after all, it was just one guy throwing a beer - there's an idiot in every crowd. But when I got home and watched the game back, I realized something - the rest of the fans cheered after that happened. Not cool. So I did what any good fan would do - I tried to put it out of my mind.

It's not the team, it's the fanbase. But you know what? We're all cheering for laundry out there. The second Vladimir Guerrero put a Rangers uniform on, I was in love. I hate Mark Teixeira now. It's not just about the players. Our love for team transcends players, and if the rest of the fans really really suck, I think you eventually have to give up.

Besides, isn't it true that being a fan isn't just about rationality? I mean sure, hate the Yankees and the Red Sox because of who they are, but I didn't root for the Cubs because I wanted to root for a team that hasn't won a title in 100 years, it's because there's an emotional attachment there. But that attachment for me is gone. If I flip over to WGN and see the Cubs playing, I get excited because there's Wrigley Field and the 7th inning stretch is awesome, but I don't really care that much whether or not they lose, and you can't rationalize yourself into caring.

So, I'm making it official. It's a breakup. I am renouncing my fanship of the Chicago Cubs. It's actually been this way for a while, I just haven't been able to admit it. I still think Wrigley Field is the greatest venue in all of sports. It's just the drunks in the bleachers that I'm renouncing. I'll still keep my Wrigley Field poster on my wall, and I'll still jump at every chance to go visit. If I had to do it again, I'd still name my dog Wrigley. Lots of other things will stay with me, too, like my affinity for the late, great Harry Caray and my fanship of individual players, like Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee. And you know what? If the Cubs were to go to the World Series and they played someone besides the Rangers, I'd probably still cheer for them, just not the same way. Oh, and one more thing: I'll always hate the Brewers and the Astros. That will never change.

National Championship Game. Texas is in it. So is another undefeated school, a media darling. Texas' quarterback has already had a career that few could dream of, yet he was snubbed for the Heisman again this year. This time, the winner is the running back for the team they're about to play in the title game. The teams have no common opponents, yet most of the populace and even more of the pundits are going with the traditional power. After all, the Big 12 is weak, and Texas struggled against Texas A&M of all teams, only beating them by 10 or 11 points. Don't forget that they can't run the ball.

Listen, I know it's not the 2005 Longhorns that are going to take the field tonight against Alabama, but it sure has that feel. I remember the hype surrounding the Trojans before the game was even played. Mark May, Kirk Herbstreit, and Colin Cowherd were just some ESPN employees who were crowning USC as one of the best college football teams of all time. It turns out that they weren't even the best team that year. This time around, it's not so much Alabama getting the love as it is the SEC. For the past few years, we've heard so much about how great the SEC is that people simply state as fact that they're the best conference, hands down. I don't buy it, and I really don't see how it's relevant. The Big 12 is not playing the SEC tonight. Texas is playing Alabama.

Another reason you can't just assume tonight's game will be a walkover for the Tide: you cannot use the transitive property in sports. People try to do it in college football more than any other sport because when two teams from different conferences get together, there's almost no common opponents. This doesn't happen in real leagues where the league sets the schedule. The problem is, comparing Alabama's win over Florida to Texas' win over Nebraska, for example, is insane. Just the same way, you can't go back in the season and compare Texas' 34-24 win over Texas Tech to Alabama's 34-24 win over Virginia Tech. The reason is that there are way too many variables to consider. People like to use the phrase "comparing apples to oranges" a lot, but I think that analogy was originally used about college football teams. If it wasn't, it should have been.

Finally, the coaching. Alabama folks will tell you that Nick Saban is a great football coach. They may be right. He does a great job of getting his boys ready to play from week to week. The problem is, the National Championship Game is played over a month after the last bit of action. Saban has won a title before, so he can't be terrible at this, but it's not like he's great at it either. In 10 bowl games, his record is 4-6 overall and 1-1 at Alabama, including that embarassment last year against Utah. Mack Brown is 11-5 overall and 8-3 while at Texas. The point is, Mack can coach 'em up when he has a month to prepare for a team, while Saban's ability to do so is questionable at best. Let's not forget that the players in this game are kids. That's the number one thing people overlook when talking about college football, in my opinion. Professionals don't care what the media says; they just line up and play. College kids are affected. When a team is discounted, they tend to play inspired, while teams that have already been crowned tend to play with a sense of entitlement. (By the way, I think that's what happened in the Big 12 Championship Game. Another circumstantial part of the game that people fail to consider when comparing apples and oranges) In 2006, Mack Brown said the following in his press conference the day of the game: "I would like to thank all of the members of the media. I don’t even have to make a pep talk.” He could probably say the same thing today, and I think that's reason enough for Alabama to be scared.

8 - Loyalty to conference?

The bizarre ranking system (#3) and lack of a playoff (#2) means that your chosen team looks better if the other teams in the same conference perform better. This sets up some bizarre rooting situations. Fans end up cheering for their hated rivals when they play against teams from neighboring conferences. Last week I observed two fans cheering for Oklahoma State against Georgia. One fan was dressed head to toe in Oklahoma apparel while the other sported Texas A&M gear. They weren't rooting for Oklahoma State so much as against the hated SEC. But in what sport is it okay to cheer for a conference or division rival?

7 - The NCAA's ridiculous rules

Recently my alma mater was forced to vacate its wins from the 2007 season because of recruiting and amateur status violations. The crime? Allowing a student to take an admissions test on a computer in the athletics department. Apparently not going to the library was reason enough to erase a playoff season (this is Division 2). The sad part is, you're probably reading this and saying, "That's nothing. My school wasn't allowed to go to any bowl games for 5 years because our coach spent too much time on the phone with a kid." And that's ridiculous. I understand that the amateur status of student-athletes needs to be protected, but the NCAA ends up picking on small schools and letting others get away with highway robbery. The rules are not enforced evenly because some schools have boosters and money and all kinds of influence. Which leads us to...

6 - Student-athletes at big-time football schools are not really amateurs

This is the biggest open secret in college football. Once in a while, somebody like Rhett Bomar or Reggie Bush gets caught. The NCAA was forced to act on Bomar because he still had time to play, but in Bush's case, they basically left well enough alone. Meanwhile, small schools like mine (#10) are punished for minor violations. Neither USC nor Oklahoma had to vacate wins. The fact is, football factories use boosters like politicians do PACs - funnel the money somewhere else, and if something goes wrong, there's no accountability to the parties that are actually responsible.

5 - 1 foot vs. 2 foot, down when touched

Let's get to some on-the-field stuff. Some of the rules that make college football "distinctive" from the pros are simply ridiculous. Exhibit A is the rule that once your knee hits the ground, you are down. It doesn't matter if you were tackled or if there's nobody within 20 yards. If this is the case, why not call an incomplete pass if you bobble the ball before securing it? Exhibit B is the one foot inbounds for a completed catch rule. You cannot argue that this makes the college game more exciting. Inaccurate passes and lazy receiving is rewarded in this system.

4 - Parity

As I type this, I have a choice of watching 4 football games. Not one of them holds any interest to me, because the teams are so unevenly matched. I flipped to the Florida-Troy game to see how it was going, and Florida was winning by 32 points in the second quarter. You don't attend or watch that game expecting to see an actual competition. You watch it because (1) You went to one of the two schools, (2) You want to be watching in case Troy pulls off the impossible, or (3) You have money on the game. The gambling line for this game was -37. The biggest line in the NFL this week? -13.5, a game that involves the only winless team in NFL history, the Detroit Lions. The worst team in the NFL has a legit shot at winning every week. You cannot say the same for many teams in college football. Another way to say that is you can turn into any pro game and expect a fairly evenly-matched game. Of the 4 games I mentioned earlier, only 1 is what you might call competitive.

3 - Rankings & Schedule

It's hard to separate this from the lack of a playoff system (#2), but let me try with a hypothetical.

Let's say Prestigious Team A is ranked #8 in the preseason poll. Less Prestigious Team B is ranked #19 in the same poll. In Week 1, Prestigious Team A loses to Very Prestigious Team C (#5) by a small margin while Less Prestigious Team B beats Less Prestigious Team D (unranked) comfortably, but not in a blowout. In the Week 1 poll, Prestigious Team A drops to #13, while Less Prestigious Team B jumps up to #14. Both teams win out, and at the end of the year, Prestigious Team A remains ranked above Less Prestigious Team B, despite Team B having a better record. The reason? The teams never played each other, nor did they have any common opponents, meaning even computer formulas were useless and relied on things like margin of victory, which is code for running up the score. The entire season for both of these teams hinged how they were ranked in the preseason, before anybody settled anything on the field.

2 - Playoffs

I realize this is a contentious subject, but let me say this: I cannot respect college football as a viable competitive sport until it finds a better way to determine its champion. I probably don't need to make the case for a playoff system - that's been done numerous times. If you believe that the BCS is the best system for postseason play, you are either (A) a college president, (B) a retard, or (C) both.

I will say this: Less prestigious schools that continue to be forced out of the national championship discussion should form their own league or division.

1 - Logic

If I had only argument for the superiority of the pro game to the college game, it's this simple point: the pro game features the best athletes playing against the best athletes. Not many people argue that minor league baseball is better than the major leagues, and that's essentially what college football is: a glorified minor league system. At least in minor league baseball, the teams are fairly evenly matched!

4 Reasons I can see the other point of view:

4 - Overtime

Pro overtime is flawed. Each offense should get a shot at scoring. I like college overtime a lot, but there is one change I would make: move the starting position back from the 25 yard line. I think teams ought to have to work to get into field goal territory.

3 - The option

This is one of the most exciting plays in football, in my opinion, and you rarely see it in the pro game. The reason points back to my earlier point (pro players aren't fooled by the option), but I would like to see more innovation in the pro game like we see in college.

2 - Greed of the Shield

It is well documented that the NFL is a greedy league. Proponents of college football can point to NFL blackout restrictions, and I have no answer for that.

1 - Fans/Atmosphere at games

This is the number 1 argument I hear from people who "don't know anything about the NFL because I don't watch it." Seriously, is there anything more annoying than that? Except for Apple fanboys, of course.

Anyway, it's hard to argue against a college atmosphere, especially when some NFL teams have lame, gimmicky fanbases. I'm looking at you, Oakland, Washington, and New York (Jets). I suppose my response is that the product on the field is inferior.

I posted this on Odd Man Rush as well.

Opening Day is here!

Predicted Standings for 2009

First number in parentheses is predicted # of wins, following number is differential from 2008.

AL East
New York (98, +8)
Tampa Bay (Wild Card) (94, –3)
Boston (90, –5)
Toronto (84, –2)
Baltimore (67, –1)

AL Central
Chicago (91, +2)
Minnesota (89, +1)
Kansas City (80, +5)
Cleveland (77, –4)
Detroit (76, +2)

AL West
Los Angeles of Anaheim (91, –9)
Texas (83, +4)
Oakland (79, +4)
Seattle (66, +5)


NL East
New York (94, +5)
Philadelphia (Wild Card) (92, +/-0)
Florida (81, –3)
Atlanta (75, +3)
Washington (58, –1)

NL Central
Chicago (95, –2)
Cincinnati (88, +14)
St. Louis (84, –2)
Milwaukee (80, –10)
Houston (73, –13)
Pittsburgh (66, –1)

NL West
Los Angeles (95, +11)
Arizona (86, +4)
San Francisco (78, +6)
Colorado (62, –12)
San Diego (60, –3)


Preseason Power Rankings

1. Tampa Bay Rays
2. Boston Red Sox
3. Chicago Cubs
4. New York Yankees
5. New York Mets
6. Philadelphia Phillies
7. Los Angeles Dodgers
8. Chicago White Sox
9. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
10. Minnesota Twins
11. St. Louis Cardinals
12. Toronto Blue Jays
13. Cincinnati Reds
14. Arizona Diamondbacks
15. Texas Rangers
16. Oakland Athletics
17. Florida Marlins
18. Milwaukee Brewers
19. Cleveland Indians
20. San Francisco Giants
21. Atlanta Braves
22. Kansas City Royals
23. Detroit Tigers
24. Colorado Rockies
25. Houston Astros
26. Baltimore Orioles
27. Seattle Mariners
28. Pittsburgh Pirates
29. San Diego Padres
30. Washington Nationals

Individual Awards – American League

The top vote-getters are listed in order for voting awards, and in statistical order for other awards.

MVP: Mark Teixeira, Grady Sizemore, Josh Hamilton
Cy Young: Roy Halladay, Jon Lester, Joe Nathan
Rookie of the Year: Matt LaPorta, Matt Wieters, David Price
Comeback Player of the Year: Francisco Liriano, David Ortiz, Andruw Jones
Batting Champ: Ian Kinsler, Nick Markakis, Dustin Pedroia
Home Run Champ: Grady Sizemore, Evan Longoria, Jermaine Dye
RBI Champ: Josh Hamilton, Mark Teixeira, Kevin Youkilis
ERA Champ: Roy Halladay, Jon Lester, CC Sabathia
Wins Champ: Roy Halladay, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Andy Sonnanstine
Strikeout Champ: CC Sabathia, Roy Halladay, Zack Greinke
Saves Champ: Joe Nathan, Jonathan Papelbon, David Price


Individual Awards – National League

The top vote-getters are listed in order for voting awards, and in statistical order for other awards.

MVP: Albert Pujols, David Wright, Aramis Ramirez
Cy Young: Tim Lincecum, Cole Hamels, Brandon Webb
Rookie of the Year: Cameron Maybin, Andrew McCutchen, Jason Motte
Comeback Player of the Year: Aaron Harang, Troy Tulowitzki, Chris Carpenter
Batting Champ: Albert Pujols, Lance Berkman, Ryan Theriot
Home Run Champ: Ryan Braun, Albert Pujols, David Wright
RBI Champ: David Wright, Aramis Ramirez, Albert Pujols
ERA Champ: Tim Lincecum, Rich Harden, Johan Santana
Wins Champ: Brandon Webb, Cole Hamels, Chad Billingsley
Strikeout Champ: Tim Lincecum, Cole Hamels, Dan Haren
Saves Champ: Brad Lidge, Francisco Rodriguez, Jonathan Broxton