Chasing the Blues

Tim Lincecum as "The Kid"

I had a flash about the Giants' Tim Lincecum; one of his gestures reminded me of that famous picture of William S. Bonney, Billy the Kid. Linceum's adolescent appearance, long hair and killer's ability definitely are in the spirit of "The Kid." 

The vaunted pitcher's duel between Linceum and the Rangers' Cliff Lee turns into a game of offensive power. After tightly pitched playoffs games so far, perhaps the Series will turn into a showcase for hitting. 

Hail to the Rangers

During my youth and early adulthood, I was a strong Yankees fan, but at some point I turned into a Yankees hater. Old man Steinbrenner grew distasteful, they kept getting who they wanted. The last straw was the demise of old Yankee Stadium. So, I'm glad that the Rangers are going to the World Series.

Memo to Joe Girardi: It's not a good idea to walk Josh Hamilton and face Vlad Guerrero. Hamilton's a great hitter, and Vlad's not the hitter he once was, but he's proven all year that he's still devastating in the clutch. It was fascinating to watch Girardi repeat the mistake. Now the plot of "Damn Yankees" has come true, if you recall that the Rangers were once the Washington Senators, at least the Senators' second incarnation. 

Now if the Giants can beat the Phils, I'll be happy. If so, I'll root for the Giants over the Rangers. In my childhood, I was a Giants fan as well, loving those great teams with Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, Juan Marichal and Tom Haller. 

Fascinating too to see the Giants and the Rangers receive delirious fan support. Even in their great days, the Giants were a tough sell in San Francisco, and Dallas has always cared more about the Cowboys. Now baseball is hot in both those towns.

 

The Braves, a Brave and Beautiful Team

With Frank Wren turning into the incarnation of John Schuerholz, the rekindling of my passion for the Atlanta Braves flames higher. With the acquisition of the Derrick Lee from the Cubs, Wren is showing Schuerholz's old knack for spinning the dice, rolling the wheel, making the deal.

Lee appears the right player to shore up the Braves' offense, although it was strange that Troy Glaus headed to the DL right after a big series against the Dodgers. I suppose Glaus  was working on fumes. I hope Troy can regain his third baseman chops when he comes of the DL and help the Braves down the stretch. Derrick Lee has been  productive in the second half of the season for those curiously woeful Cubs, but Glaus with those 16 home runs and 70 rbi made a major contribution. I hope those concerns about Lee's bad back are as minor as reported.

With the exception of Bobby Cox's inititial masterpiece, the 1991 miracle Braves, this team is the wackiest most unexpected winners in a long time. Their batting statistics aren't gaudy, but they have an uncanny ability to get the right hit at the right time. I've never seen a championship team with such a shifting lineup, but Cox's chess moves work out. The bench, led by Pete Conrad, Eric Hinske, David Ross and Melky Cabrera, is one of the best in memory: kudos to Wren for building it.

Here's a  thought: Billy Wagner for the Cy Young award. Or, a combo of Johnny Vinters and Bily Wagner to share the award. With Vinters' 1.17 era, and Wagner's now 7-2 record, 1.71 era and 29 saves, the Braves can pretty much lock down the opposing offense late in the game, setting the stage for their seemingly nightly ninth-inning heroics.

An Invisible Goal Wins the Stanley Cup

While flipping through the HD universe, I was drawn by the Chicago Blackhawks-Philadelphia Flyers Stanley Cup showdown. Watching the game, I recalled my days covering minor league hockey when the Atlanta Knights won the IHL championship.

Hockey is a basic, elemental game. The plays, the faceoffs, and the odd penalties such as icing were the same as I remembered. The play was faster, but in its essential qualities, I might have been watching a Knights-Fort Wayne Komets game from years ago.  

At first, I thought the game was being broadcast on Chicago's WGN, but then I realized it was receiving prime time coverage on NBC. NBC has fallen on hard times, yet it was still impressive for hockey to have a major network broadcast. With its special, tribal culture, arcane rules and difficulty seeing the puck, hockey is a notoriously poor game for TV. Plus, with its continuous action, there's not a lot of time for commercial timeouts as with the NFL.

The game was exciting, with plenty of the peculiar attractions of hockey. Hockey players are truly the athletic warriors of pro sports. I shared the Philadelphia fans' disgust that the Blackhawks were able to get a shorthanded goal when Philadelphia was on a powerplay. With its manpower advantage, the Flyers didn't even get a shot at goal.

The Flyers overcame the powerplay glitch by tying it up late in regulation to send the game into overtime. Then hockey's TV problems asserted themselves; the Blackhawks won the game on a phantom goal. The Blackhawks players began celebrating, skating around, tossing off their gloves and helmets, although the goal judge hadn't blown his horn and few if any in the stands saw the winning goal. The announcers expressed confusion. Then the replays showed that the puck had defintely skittered through the goalie's skates into the net. At last, the Philadelphia fans realized that the visiting Blackhawks would be hoisting the Stanley Cup on the Philly ice. One odd bit of hockey culture: the Blackhawks pulled off their helmets and wore baseball caps for hockey's signature hand-shaking ceremony, while the Flyers kept their helmets on.

With the hidden goal, the end was anticlimatic. When controversies arise in football, such as whether a back has crossed the goal line, at least the fans are able to see the ball. The invisible puck wasn't a TV problem, though, the fans in attendance didn't see the goal either. The Blackhawks saw it though, and the Philly goalie. The play brought home the fact that hockey, for all of its charms, will likely remain a niche sport. The Olympics game between the U.S. and Canada brought the game new fans, and likely led NBC to give the Stanley Cup prime time exposure. Too bad the game remains too mystifying for a mass sports audience.

Well, on to the World Cup, which has the opposite problem. In soccer, the fans see the ball all too well, with endless passing and rare goals. I'm trying to avoid the World Cup. But say, mate, what time is that U.S.-Brits game? 

NCAA Women's Basketball Loses Its Grace

Proponents of women's basketball keep saying that the game is better than ever. Each year brings new players who take the game to a more athletic level, able to dunk, run the floor, dribble, almost as good as men.

The NCAA championship between U-Conn and Stanford raises doubts about the claims of increased excellence. The players overall might be more athletic and skilled than 20 years ago. However, the aesthetics of the women's game have eroded. Basketball purists like me first starting watching the women's game a few years ago because the "ladies" played the game with teamwork, crisp passing and pinpoint outside scoring, as it was once done in the men's games before the playground style and neanderthal defenses became the rule.

Alas, the women's game has tried to match the men's game by the coaches emphasizing brutal defense. The best two teams in women's basketball produced a 20-12 halftime score. In the second half, UConn finally found some semblance of offensive punch, pretty much blowing out Stanford before the Cardinal hit a rash of late three-pointers to make the game deceptively close.

Still, with the Bronco Nagurski of women's ball, Maya Moore at last waking up, the Uconn attack more resembled a Mack truck than a Mercedes. Meanwhile, Stanford played the whole game like Frankenstein's monster, with more shots clanging off the iron than swishing through the net, until that last flurry of threes. I felt bad for Stanford's Jane Appel, who battled gamely with a badly sprained ankle that she reinjured, yet the sight of her hook shots banging out to half court grew tedious.

During the game, frequent commercials were shown of great moments in women's ball. Just a few highlights of Sheryl Swoopes showed how much more star power and basketball grace she and other early women's players had. Sure, most players back then weren't as good as they are today. But star players like Swoopes played with the flair and excitement that few players, including Moore, show today.

It's too bad that the women's game is such an ugly affair now, just when it's receiving so much attention from ESPN. People pointed to the dominance of UConn as deadly for the game. But a team setting a high standard should not be unhealthy; more teams will seek to rise to UConn's level. What's bad for the women's game is trying to hard to match the men's game, lessening the women's grace and precision. Today's players are much more athletic. Does that mean they're better basketball players? 

Tiger Woods Shows the Force

Celebrities at times unwittingly reveal the truth about themselves. Such a moment occurred during Tiger Woods' pre-Masters press conference.

At first, Woods made a statement that "it's not about the championships," that his priority is now to rebuild his marriage and family life. But then, in response to a question, Woods said that he fully intends to win the Masters, that "nothing has changed." In essence, his second statement said that it remains all about the championships. If not, why is he competing? He could have taken a year off to make a stronger commitment to his family.

His arrogant look when answering the second question showed that no matter how much remorse and  regret he suffers, the burning desire in his life remains to win golf tournaments. That same drive, the belief in his own invincibility, led to his countless affairs. Although I believe that he's learned from his transgressions and has fully immersed himself in his therapy, the core competitiveness remains. 

Woods undoubtedly sincerely wishes to put his sordid past behind him and, as he said, grow into a better father and a better man. His challenge will be to separate the desire to win, to conquer on the golf course, from having that same drive wreck his private life.

The overwhelming major figure in golf has also vowed to improve his behavior on the course, by cutting back on his club throwing and profane verbal outbursts. Following this press conference, ESPN commentor and two-time U.S. Open winner Curtis Strange said he doubted whether Woods could leave behind his fiery temperament and retain his championship edge. He doesn't believe the "New Tiger" will last more than a few months. He apparently was talking about his golf course demeanor, not his sexual conquests.

Woods' face when asserting that he still plans to win the Masters revealed that the core arrogance is still within him. Whether he can keep it from turning self-destructive and channel it to the positive side of winning golf tournaments will be a constant struggle.

Rooster in the Fox House? Obama Goes to Ailes-ville

Fox News, CNBC, ESPN and a network soap are my viewing choices when I go to the gym, so I frequently catch Fox's Megyn Kelly and Shepard Smith. Today, the bubbly blond Megyn was all aflutter that Barack Obama was being interviewed by Bret Baier, the spooky Ken doll who does the 6 p.m. news. The entire "Special Report" was to be devoted to the interview with the president, so no "Fox All-Stars" with the ghoulish Charles Krauthammer. Nothing helps my appetite for supper more than hearing the grimmacing Charlie go on one of his sardonic-humor-laced lectures.

The whole gist of the Megyn's show was why Obama would consent to an interview with Fox, often depicted by the Obama administration as an arm of the Republican Party. Analysts came on to delve deeply into Obama's motives. The answer seemed to be that Obama now needed Fox's audience to support his health care legislation, with Fox also being watched by independents as well as Republicans. Megyn toothily tootled that these folks are attracted by the "fair and balanced reporting" at the home of Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly. 

Meanwhile, the president on ESPN was filling in his NCCA tournament brackets, although the ESPN man helpfully had completed the first round outcomes, with which Obama amiably agreed. The president came up with a Final Four of Kansas, Kansas State, Villanova and Kentucky, with Kansas beating Kentucky in the final game. In the interest of "fair and balanced" bracket making, to borrow Fox News' slogan, the president will also fill out a bracket of the women's NCAA tournament. Picking UConn to win the women's championship will undoubtedly be easier than getting the health care bill through Congress.

Tomorrow, Krauthammer, Fred Barnes and Juan Williams will probably be back on Baier's show to analyze the interview with Obama. Or perhaps they'll read between the lines of his NCAA brackets. Kansas vs. Kansas State? A nod to that gray-haired woman from Kansas who's the health secretary, no doubt. Or, an obvious sign of Wizard of Oz machinations -- no, we're not in Kansas anymore -- on the health care bill.

I'm just glad at the soft, steady rain Wednesday afternoon. A yardman laid down grass seed and straw the day before, and I'm hopeful of a nice lawn by summer. Maybe we'll even have health care reform by then. Either Kansas, Duke, or Kentucky will be the NCAA champions. Or Syracuse or Michigan State. Or Georgetown. It's one of their turns; the same five or six teams pass around the championship. I wouldn't be surprised if it were discovered that the basketball coaches get together to decide which of the basketball elite will win that year.  Perhaps Glen Beck should investigate for socialistic tendencies.

What's up with "Up's" Academy Awards Love?

A couple of further thoughts on the Academy Awards, before letting them pass into the forgetfulness of history.

Why was "Up" nominated in both the best animated feature and best picture categories? "Up" is reportedly a fine movie, although I'm not tempted to see it, but why did it have a chance to win double recognition? And, how did an animated film get nominated for best picture instead of "Invictus," which had two of Hollywood's most lauded actors nominated for their performances? "Invictus" would appear to be the type of lavish, inspirational, sweeping historical epic that Hollywood used to love honoring on Academy Awards night. Plus, it gives attention to Nelson Mandela, a truly great man venerated in Hollywood's ultraliberal community. "Up's" animation might have been stellar, but it apparently has that kitschy, earnest, sentimental and maudlin feel-goodism that makes my skin crawl. Why would Hollywood honor animation over a movie that has true-life actors? 

...If anyone cares, Penelope Cruz is my selection as the most gorgeous actress in Hollywood.

...The exploits of Braves phenom Jason Heyward are beginning to sound like scenes from "The Natural." Reports of his massive homerun against the Detroit Tigers reminded me of the early days of Mickey Mantle when he burst onto the scene in the mid-1950s.

...Meanwhile, what's with the Hawks? That lackluster effort against the New York Knicks hardly inspired confidence for their playoffs chances. They played as if they were thinking about their hot New York dates. Perhaps they had tickets to the theater and wanted to get the game over with? Nah, passes to the hottest hip-hop club more like it. Memo to Josh Smith: Listen to 'Nique. Play inside, and forgo those 20-foot jump shots.  

Canadians Win in Four-on-Four Hockey

I enjoyed the U.S.-Canada gold medal hockey game, but the four-on-four overtime format distorted the outcome, making it more likely that a superstar like Canada's Sidney Crosby would win the game quickly. Without the usual tandem of two defensemen, Crosby had an easier time getting to the goal, making it nearly impossible for American goalie Ryan Miller to stop his shot. Canada was probably the better team, but the Canadians' victory would have had more luster under regular rules. At least we were spared the ludicrousness of the shootout.

In a brief explanation, the commentators said that the four-on-four format was put into effect when the Olympics overtime was extended from 10 minutes to the regulation period of 20 minutes, so the change was likely done for the benefit of television, which, despite all of the hoopla, doesn't really like hockey. With the continuous play, hockey doesn't allow for commercial breaks. With the switch to 20-minute overtimes, we can assume that TV asked for some concession so that an overtime would be unlikely to stretch to the entire 20 minutes, cutting further into revenues. The four-on-four makes it more likely that the dramatic "sudden death" comes quickly, allowing for the resumption of advertising. Of course, TV also insists on the shootout after one overtime, so that the game doesn't last even further, threatening the precious closing ceremonies, which allows for plenty of commercial time.

If the game was as important as the commentators allowed, "the most important hockey game in history,"  the overtime should have been played with the same rules as the rest of the game. NBC's endless trumpeting of the greatness of the game ring hollow when the competition is not decided under regular rules. If hockey is as compelling and important as its enthusiasts claim, the regular five-man teams would provide the best competitive test. However, the NBC network wouldn't want to risk another 20 minutes going by without those all-important commercials, so the game was decided by truncated teams.

As a friend of mine pointed out, this same logic, extended to basketball, would have NBA teams playing four on four if an NBA championship went to overtime. Or, in baseball, perhaps the third baseman would be sat down in extra innings. In an NFL overtime, the defense would have to remove a cornerback, and the offense a wide receiver.

Also, why did the Canadians win with one loss, while the Americans finished second with one loss? I know nothing about how the tournament format is set up, but it's puzzling why it wouldn't be organized so that a best two-out-of three between the top two teams would decide the championship. Again, it's all probably for the greater good of NBC.   

Another observation: the commentators kept calling the USA team "the Americans." This has become the popular designation for citizens of the USA, yet Canadians are Americans too. Upholding such distinctions is increasingly a losing game, so I suppose it would have been too much to ask for a major television network to do so.

Too bad Miller and the rest of the U.S. team had such long faces after the game. It's probably a hockey thing about defeat being so bitter, but lighten up, guys. It might be the most important thing in the world for Canadians, but for most U.S. fans, it was just an entertaining competition, a glorified all-star game, nothing as serious as the Super Bowl or NCAA football championship or the World Series. You USA guys did well, and should hold your head high. Now you can go back to the NHL and try for the Stanley Cup, which no doubt will be the most important hockey competition ever when it is played.

...What is it about baseball that turns good writers gooey? New York writer Pete Hamill's review in the Sunday New York Times Book Review of a new biography of Willie Mays ("Willie Mays, The Life, the Legend," by James S. Hirsch) displays the run-away lyrical excess of much writing on baseball.

In the first paragraph, Hamill cites all of the ills of the game, including "AstroTurf on baseball fields" and that supposedly bucolic time "long, long before the innocence of the game was permanently stained by the filthy deception of steroids." Hey, Pete, AstroTurf has been largely removed from baseball stadiums, most of which in recent years have reverted back to the small dimensions and classical structures that baseball nostalgia pushers like you so love. And, at the end of the steroid era, we can ask when was the game innocent? When the spitball was legal and guys like Ty Cobb broke any rule to win? When the ball was souped up for Babe Ruth to hit 60 home runs, and in later eras? When the pitching mound was lowered for the benefit of hitters? Or in the '30s when black players were not allowed? Or in the 1950s when the Yankees were allowed to dominate competition, or later when amphetamines were the drug of choice? The game was never "innocent."

Hamill  drifts further into the clouds later in the piece. "Within a few months, he showed that he had the potential to become one of the greatest players ever to walk on the green grass of the major leagues." Gee, thanks, Pete for telling us that grass is green. Well, some of the AstroTurf, which Willie played on, was a bit blue. Hamill closes this smarmy paragraph: "And he brought to the playing of baseball a mysterious, almost magical quality that has disappeared from the professional game. Willie Mays brought us joy. All of us." So, players like Albert Pujols don't bring us joy? Derek Jeter? What was so mysterious about Mays' play? He could hit, run and catch, as Hamill says elsewhere. He was great to watch, but there was no mystery to it. Why "almost magical?" I guess Willie's play didn't reach fully magical, despite all of Hamill's flights. And, did Mays really bring joy to "all of us?" A lot of Yankees fans who liked Mickey Mantle and Dodgers fans who loved Duke Snider might disagree.

Hamill is one of those guys always mourning the move of the Dodgers from Brooklyn to L.A. and the Giants to San Francisco. Hey, Pete, get over it, and use the same exacting standards when writing about baseball as you do in the rest of your work.

Speaking of the Sunday New York Times, Times bossman Bill Keller recently shook up the management staff with some of those mysterious (sorry, Pete) moves reminiscent of the old Soviet Union. Times watchers, like old Kreminolgists, try to read the signs for meanings.

We can hope that the changes bring new energy to the Sunday Arts and Leisure section, which increasingly suffers from an exhaustion of ideas and creativity. Only week after the umpteenth profile of Meryl Streep, the Times ran the umpteenth profile of Jeff Bridges, recycling all of the cliches about him that the Times loves. (See James Wolcott's Vanity Fair blog).  Bridges is a fine actor, a favorite to win the Oscar, but the Times is stuck on the same groove when writing about him. And the Arts and Leisure section, once a jewel of the Times, is losing its shine.