- 05:04 AM
- 11/23/24
| Member since: | March 28, 2002 |
|---|---|
| Last visit: | January 18, 2004 |
spork65 has posted 0 links and 4 comments to SportsFilter and 0 links and 0 comments to the Locker Room.
A pox on both their houses. Strahan's demands are a little high, and his distrust of the front office is misplaced, given their history. But for Pasquerelli to imply that Strahan is the reason for the Giants curernt cap mess is absurd. There are at least 3 other more cap-killing contracts on that team: 1) Making Sehorn one of the highest-paid CBs in the game based on one good year. 2) Giving Kerry Collins upper-tier QB jack. 3) Giving Tiki Barber feature-back money although he's too frail to endure more than the 15 touches a game he averaged last year. None of these guys have ever made the Pro Bowl, let alone set an all-time record in a major category. This is why I hate the NFL hard cap. It makes it impossible to keep a team together, and dissention is inevitable.
posted by spork65 at 01:43 PM on March 30, 2002
I can see objecting to some technological advances that actually effect the way a game proceeds, like instant replay in the NFL which actually necessitated a new set up procedures and added time to games. But according to this article, this technology could be used on the fly in a way that wouldn't disrupt the flow of the game. What's going to make you enjoy the game less? The knowledge that the umpire is receiving technological help? I don't go to games to watch skillful umps, I go to watch skillful players. I'm sick of watching incredibly accurate flame-throwers get robbed of strike calls because of an understandably human failure of perception. I say bring it on!
posted by spork65 at 06:04 PM on March 28, 2002
I really like articles like this... Shaq is one of those sports figures who's so good that his domination seems effortless, and he ends up getting taken for granted - to me he's extremely underrated. It's always hard to compare players across generations in any sport. There are really two questions: (1) where does the player rank in terms of relative domination olf their era, and (2) who would be the best if you could use a time machine and have them compete against each other in their prime. Shaq is ranking himself 4th in the first (relative) sense, and I agree with him - although at the age of 30 he still has time to move up. Later in the article Shaq also says that he would kick Kareem's ass in a time-machine enabled game, which is probably true but not exactly fair. Jabbar would have no idea how to deal with a player like Shaq, simply because he missed out on about 20 years of basketball evolution (compared to Shaq) through an accident of history. The author also tries to "defend" the old guys by playing up their contemporary competition and denigrating Shaq's. But the current dearth of quality centers is a fairly recent phenomenon. For the bulk of Shaq's career he had to go up against probable future hall-of-famers like Olajuwan, Mutombo, Robinson, Ewing and Mourning - not to mention quality players like Smits, Sabonis and Divac - on a regular basis. Wheras Russell's nemeses were Bellamy, Thurmond and um... Zelmo Beaty(?). The old players don't need defending. They were great. So is Shaq. It will probably be 20 years before people realize it.
posted by spork65 at 05:48 PM on March 28, 2002
It seems increasingly clear that Rickey Henderson is going to be the first active player in baseball history to die of old age.
Up until yesterday, this article about Rickey's last minute holdout also said that the holdout was because the front office forgot to include certain performance-based bonus clauses - including making the all-star team and finishing in the top 3 for MVP voting - that Rickey had insisted on. I don't know why they removed that info, but it's hilarious if true. Oh Rickey, you're so fine. You're so fine you blow my mind.