Friday, June 25, 2010

Taylor Hall

It's finally done.  Since, what, January this has been going on?  It's a case of the Oilers taking the safe pick because you can't ever be second-guessed when you take a two-time defending Memorial Cup champion and two-time tournament MVP.  It's also the risky pick because of the recklessness and higher injury factor.  If you're flipping coins and everyone says don't worry, both heads or tails wins then, well, shouldn't you be happy?

I went to the Oiler draft party and it was great, mostly because I won a Hall number 10 jersey.  I'll get to spend my remaining years explaining to strangers that yes, I know Hall isn't number 10 and yes, I realize that Shawn Horcoff will always be number 10 after turning his career around, signing another long-term deal, captaining the team to many Stanley Cups and having his number retired, and having a taller, stronger statue built, out of pure gold, right in front of Gretzky's.  I'll call it commemorative, and whenever I cross ways with one of the other 99 Edmontonians who won a Hall 10 jersey tonight we'll shake hands in a way you CANNOT BELIEVE.

Now, if only we can make some trades.

"No spot on this team is safe, I don't care if your name is Taylor Hall, Jordan Eberle or... Smithers, what's one of the bad players' names?"

"Robert Nilsson, Patrick O'Sullivan, JF Jacques, Ethan Moreau, Marc Pouliot, Liam Reddox?"

"Or... all those players!" 

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Phutebhawl


I like soccer.  It's a great sport, it's outdoors and anyone, regardless of age or physical prowess, can pick up and play it right away even if their last period of outdoor exercise occurred during the Nixon-Kennedy debate, resulting in friendly black-and-white lecture and a severe beating.  Chances are, in a group of six or more friends or family, someone has a ball and someone else lives near a park so there's always a fall-back activity if, you know, that friend who doesn't drink is hanging around.

The World Cup is different.  When you're neutral to a professional sport you'll always take the opposite of whatever opinion you're facing at the moment.  Not with much conviction, but if someone hates soccer you'll find yourself defending it and if they love it you'll complain.  That's probably a good way to determine if you're actually neutral.  I am neutral but given the way closet soccer fans are coming out of the woodworks during this and every World Cup, I'm spending a lot more time bitching about the whole production than enjoying it.  And with good reason; here's all my Reasons Why The World Cup Sucks:

-The Diving - No sense waiting with this one.  After two months of Stanley Cup playoffs where players block shots with everybody part you can nightmare about, nothing makes me want to learn how to shoot guns than watching soccer players writhing around on the ground, in tears, covering their faces and being helped off the field by three players to sell a kick to the shins.  This is almost a silly thing to complain about because nobody's going to argue against this, but that's why it's a problem.  It's so accepted in the sport, but for the occasional governing body complaint, that it becomes part of the sport's identity.  It's Okay To Dive Because You Won't Score Otherwise.  Yeah?  Fuck you soccer.

-Soccer fans - I cheer for England, I guess, or Scotland, or Ireland.  But not really, because I'm not English, Scottish, or Irish.  Know what, fair-weather soccer fans?  If you life in Canada, chances are that you aren't actually Spanish, Greek, German, Italian, or whatever.  I know, you'd cheer for Canada if they were in it and you're just supporting your heritage, but why?  Ever seen any of those countries play?  Think those players care that some people in Canada support them?  If the Oilers don't make the playoffs, I don't just pick my next favorite team because their next on the list.  I kind of hoped Chicago would win the Cup, or that the Tampa Bay Rays win the American League East and that Roy Halladay and his Phillies win the World Series.  But these teams aren't my teams and I don't pretend they are, unlike every half-assed some-time soccer fan.  It's worse when you're faking whole COUNTRY allegiances.  It's treason.  You all suck for committing treason.

-It's Boring - Baseball, at times, under very unfortunate but rare circumstances, on the wrong day, with the wrong weather, without any beer, can be a little, just a smidge now, boring.  I can see that.  It's still wrong but, like a fat woman wearing 3/4 length pants and a sweater, I can at least see it, unspeakable as it may be.  What separates baseball from soccer though is that something could happen literally anytime.  Each pitch is a homerun, great catch, double-play or hilarious error in waiting.  Soccer is a bunch of puttering around at midfield with the occasional shot that misses high and wide by 50 feet.  Sometimes, after an effective dive that punctures a lung (cured only with a split second on the bench and presumably some oranges), a goal is scored.  This is exciting but you already knew it was coming because...

-Why Are The Nets So Big And There's No Scoring - I guess the title covers this.  Keep the big net but cut the number of players and field size in half.  Also, swords.

-This:


These are not athletes.  These are cartoons from the gayest Saturday morning cartoons you've ever seen.  Athletes have scars, bruises and body hair for God's sakes. 

-The vuvuzela.  It's an instrument that makes a culturally unique sound: whenever the instrument is played by a large number of people anyone listening will say, and ONLY say, "Man.  That sounds like a shitload of bees."  Every time.  Like they're the first person to notice this.  In other words, it's an instrument with perfect pitch.

-Ties.  Or, in soccer parlance, "0-0 For the Bad Team."  I know, lots of sports have ties in their preliminary rounds.  They're wrong too.  Overtime and shootouts!  Then only overtime in elimination rounds!  Give us Winners and Losers!  Number will tell us who is brilliant and noble and weak and cowardly!

- France.  France sucks.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Armando Galarraga and the Mostly Perfect Game

Armando Galarraga pitched a perfect game last night, the third perfect game this season.  It was a close game, some great defense by the Tigers to keep the night alive, highlighted by Austin Jackson's brilliant running catch in the ninth and a difficult 3-1 put-out at first to end the game.  Except, of course, that isn't what happened.  First base umpire Jim Joyce (man, we're really getting good at knowing the names of umpires and referees aren't we?) looked to move into a punch-out motion before changing his mind and calling the runner safe.  Replays clearly showed the runner was out and after the game, which ended after one more batter, Joyce would say that he was wrong and felt terrible for taking away Galarraga's career highlight.

First, obviously, a moment for Jim Joyce for man-ing up and admitting his mistake, not in a press release, not hiding behind Major League Baseball's official statements, not making excuses like it was a close play, coulda gone either way, I stand by my call, etc.  Nope.  He apologized, healed the situation, and certainly eased the increasingly volatile relationship that seems to have developed between managers/players and umpires.  This last week had Joe Maddon and Kevin Gregg ejected in the same Jays-Rays game two nights ago, Joe West (and his publicist) continuing to make an ass of himself, Ozzie Guillen flaming West after a game, and that other really heated argument from a few nights ago.  So it's been a tough go for the umpires lately, much of it their own doing, and it was nice to see what would've been the uber-climax of recent umpire-embattlement handled with some humility and class.

This is baseball though, and so any type of umpire mistakes become fodder for those who want to see increasing use of instant replay.  A few years ago, umpires forgot what a homerun looked like and MLB had to institute an instant replay to determine if a potential homerun was foul, off the wall, or legitimate.  Of course after last night, there's a new call for instant replay use on the bases to avoid this kind of situation.  The traditionalists, who are comprised of Old Columnists, Old Former Players Who Are Now Announcers, Anybody Directly Employed By MLB and People On TV.  That's almost everyone, isn't it?  Oh, except for fans.  The argument against more instant replay use is that it'll make the game longer than it already is.  That's valid.  You can counter that by saying that ANY FAN IN THE GODDAMN WORLD will wait an extra few minutes in a three-hour game to get the call RIGHT.  And that's the problem here, there's too much emphasis on the broad and vague idea of "maintaining tradition" and not enough on "getting the fucking call right."

I hate listening to this debate in baseball, especially when an incident like this raises the intensity and importance of the debate.  I tip my hand I suppose with my own leanings on the matter, but maybe unfairly.  I'm not sure how exactly instant replay will be used, if I want more instant replay, if I want the game to take even longer, if it should be a coach's challenge, which plays should be reviewable.  What I know for sure is that the traditionalists' argument is infuriatingly stupid.  "The games will take too long?"  Bullshit.  This sport has done NOTHING to speed itself up, priding itself on allowing players to call time between pitches, endless catcher visits to the mound, batters stepping out of the box and performing a full-body epileptic fit on their batting gloves, and on and on.  Joe West was right on this one, even if he should keep his mouth shut.  Time has never been a priority for baseball, so why pretend to make it one when changes are being proposed to get more calls right?  The other main argument is that it's important to keep something called the "human element" in the game.  Why?  Because fans like the memory of Doug Eddings and AJ Pierzynski, Don Denkinger at first base, or Phil Cuzzi missing a Joe Mauer double by five feet (from probably 20 feet away, what a shithead)?  These aren't quaint parts of a grand sport's legacy.  These are embarrassing mistakes that the system was not yet advanced enough to avoid.  MLB has the means to advance the game and will eventually implement them; every other sport has a replay and/or challenge system, it's inevitable baseball will too. 

What would be great is if baseball was willing to retroactively change the ruling on the field from last night's game.  Does it create a dangerous precedent?  Maybe, though in this case I think everyone involved can agree that the player and the team getting credit for the perfect game is the most important thing.  Would other teams attempt to have calls that went against them reversed?  Absolutely!  Every chance they got!  But couldn't baseball simply make the ruling, then say that because of the extreme and rare circumstances (it would've been the last out!) this event will not be considered precedent for future retroactive corrections.  The league will announce that it will take another look at instant replay feasibility in light of recent events, and the game would evolve without any suffering.  I'm not a lawyer, this might not be a perfect strategy and there may be issues in the future, but how could they be worse than last night?


Update: *SIGH*