Where's the Tiger dirt?

No, not Tigers, but Tiger, as in, Woods.  A couple of months ago, you could not avoid it.  CNN, TMZ, ESPN, Univision - everyone had every detail of Tiger's fall from grace.  Now - crickets.  Could it be that people are actually giving him and his family their space and privacy?  Or is it just that there isn't anything new to report, and 24-7 coverage of Tiger-Gate 2009-2010 ran its course after 6 months or so?

I don't condone what he allegedly did.  I've known enough serial monogamists (not to be confused with CEREAL monogamists - I'LL LOVE YOU FOREVER, CHEERIOS!) to know that there is enough blame to go around, but Tiger does sound like he was the supreme dirt bag if even 5% of the rumors are true.  But still - the guy is human, and no one deserves to have their dirty laundry dragged through the streets of the world.  At least records of infidelity from 20+ years ago would require some work to find these days - now, once someone clicks "publish" or "post" or "tweet" it is there forever.  And when Tiger's kids and grandkids Google/Bing/Yahoo/Altavista (it's going to make a come back, these things are cyclical) his name, they'll find out everything they wanted to know and much much more.  So, I hope that humanity is actually giving him a break and letting him deal with his issues in private.

But all bets are off on the next slow news day...

Smoke and Mirrors

The End, for me, started when I got a Groupon deal for a month of MLB.tv for $5. Seemed innocent enough - I upgrade from the radio stream for a month for a measly $5. This came out right before the All Star break, so I waited to activate the subscription till after the break (after all, I'm getting 30 days, it would be silly to waste 4 days when the Tigers aren't even playing). The Tigers, coincidently, peaked right before the All Star break, but I wouldn't know that for another month or so. The day before the break, the (hated) White Sox won and the Tigers lost. It was only a one game swing, and the Sox went into first by a scant 1/2 game, so no big deal, right?

Then the wheels started to fall off. Inge broke his hand. Magglio broke his ankle. Guillen pulled a calf muscle. Boesch^ started reading his scouting reports from last year and regressed to being a marginal prospect. I think Leyland got EXTRA black lung. Everyone was falling apart.

^ Another bad sign - in my complicated but insanely addictive fantasy baseball keeper league, I was quick to snap up Boesch, and he helped me to get into first place. I also signed him to a two year contract extension, right in the midst of his downward spiral. ^^

^^ I probably can't steal Joe Posnanski's Posterisk so this can be...the Procaret? Work in progress.

Up until this point, I was all about following the Tigers. The soundtrack for my days at work was 97.1 FM. I was lathered up. Then the losses started coming...and kept coming...my friend and I took our annual summer baseball trip, this year to Boston, and we got to see two walk off Red Sox wins.

When I came back from Boston, Detroit sports talk radio was replaced by the iPod. Watching Tigers games on MLB.tv was replaced by catching a couple minutes of the radio broadcast, if that. Like Joe Pos (brilliantly) wrote about the Mariners, we should have seen this coming. (Easy to see it coming after the fact, but still.) The Tigers pulled this in 2007. At the All Star break, they were in 1st place. A second half fade later, and Detroit was on the outside of the playoffs, looking in. Repeat in 2009 (see: game 163). Repeat in 2010 (see: now). Even in 2006, Detroit managed to blow the division by getting swept by the (adopted home town) Royals. Why the second half swoons? Why the 'bad luck'?

The Central Division has something to do with it. Since the teams are so (polite) evenly matched, or if you prefer (harsh), crappy, every team feels like they are in it. Even KC had a brief hot streak in 2009 and led the division by 3 games! They rode that momentum of hope the whole year. Every minute bit of success in this division will bring people jumping on the bandwagon, when really, a bad (or average) week will bring any team back to the pack.

I think one downfall of the Tigers is their poor road record. Good teams win on the road, at least SOME. This year, it is also their poor intra-division record. Good teams win against there division, usually a LOT.

This year there were a couple rookies (Jackson, Boesch) playing well to start the season, a veteran (Magglio) playing way above his last dismal year, another (Damon) holding his own, and a stud (Cabrera) in the hunt for the triple crown. That masked the lack of production from SS, 2B, C, and 3B. Take away even one of these performers - let alone 3 or 4 - and it goes downhill quickly.

I looked at the Red Sox lineup while we were in Boston, and mentally replaced all of their injured All Stars. Even with 3 missing perennial All Stars, there were 6 legitimate major leaguers. The Tigers? Busta Rhymes at second. Batting thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiird - anyone? Hey, out there in the bleachers, you with the Tigers hat - are you wearing cleats? No? Okay, I guess Raburn will have to do.

Anyway, if the Tigers reel off 5 straight wins, 10 of 12, and are looking at a sub-3 game deficit heading into September, I'll be back on board. Until then, it's Snow Patrol and Fall Out Boy.

Pistons Preview, and WOW

For those online gamers stumbling on this post, no, I will not be discussing World of Warcraft. (Though I was a mean Warcraft II player back in the days of Prodigy Internet, that is not my thing these days.)  The WOW (with a capital W) is the trade Joe Dumars made - Chauncey Billups and Antonio McDyess for Allen Iverson.  I repeat - wow.  All this trade talk brought up the time when the Pistons almost traded for AI back in 2000 or 2002, some crazy 14 player deal, all held up because Matt Geiger (who?) refused to waive his no trade clause or something.  This year's AI is not the AI of 2002.  What he is, though, is a proven winner, tough guy, and person who commands respect.  You might ask, wasn't Chauncey all those things?  Yes, I think he was.  But my main criticism of the Pistons since their championship year - and even that year it was an issue, too - is that they blame everyone else waaaaaaay too much.  The focus is never within, it is always "they got the calls" or "we'll get them next time" or "they're nothing, just got lucky."  That "no one believes in us" mantra worked well to galvanize the team against the Lakers in 2004, leading to one of the most improbable wins in a long time.  The following year, there was definite respect from the league, but they fell short, losing in 7 after leading going into the 4th quarter of game 7 at San Antonio.  It has been all down hill from there.  The next year, they worked super hard all year to get home court advantage to avoid the road game 7, but lost to Miami in the conference finals.  The next year, it was Cleveland and LeBron's crazy game.  Last year, the Celtics.  In 2006, the Pistons were just tired, but the last two years, the Pistons had a lead in the series or won a road game, and they couldn't pull it off.  There were complaints, usually from Rasheed Wallace if they were public, about the refs, the BS calls, and a general lackadaisical attitude between games.  I am sure Flip Saunders did not help matters, as he didn't seem like someone they really listened to.  Michael Curry was brought in this year, and that should only help.  A younger former player, Curry had enough respect of his peers to become the player's representative.  That should translate well.  But even with that, a stronger player's voice was needed.  I love Chauncey, he brought the Pistons a championship and back to relevance, and that cannot be understated.  I think his jersey belongs in the rafters of The Palace one day.  He was also the leader of this team.  The players on the team are a direct reflection of the leader.  If Sheed is spouting off, it is because Chanucey can't keep him in check.  AI can keep him in check.  No one will be whining with AI around.  I think AI will bring a needed toughness and clutch scoring that we need.  He can also make his own shot, something that Rip can't do, and something that was limited to jacking up 3's or trying to draw a foul when Chauncey had the ball.  Granted, refs + stupid players made the free throw an almost certainty, but AI can make things happen.

The other side of this is the salary cap story.  With Sheed and AI coming off the books at the end of this year, that opens up the chances for the Pistons being so far under the cap it isn't funny.  Also, if they fall out of contention, those two guys (or at least one) will be great trading chips at the deadline for people looking to dump salary.  Don't expect the Pistons to take on anyone who is under contract through 2010, though, because that is when LeBron, Wade, Chris Bosh, and Carmelo all become free agents.  I wouldn't be surprised to see LeBron in Detroit - if Joe D is as much of a class act as he seems to be, I think a lot of players would love to play in his organization.  More likely, it will be Wade to Chicago, LeBron to the Knicks, and maybe Carmelo or Bosh could end up in Detroit.  (Wouldn't that be funny - Carmelo in Detroit where he should have been all along instead of Darko.)

The last piece of the puzzle is Rodney Stuckey.  I have been reading some good things about him.  I don't know that much about him, except that I liked what I saw last year in the playoffs.  Between him and the guys filling McDyess's minutes not named Kwame Brown, a lot should be learned about the younger, next generation Pistons.  Rumor has it that McDyess will be back in Detroit, but that could fall through.  Even if he stays in Denver, I like the Pistons to get back to the conference finals this year.  I would probably like to see Sheed traded at the deadline for a good pick or a 1st or 2nd year player (read, someone cheap and not on a long term deal).  We'll see where this season goes, but regardless, there is some excitement for the future.

Winner for hire...

You've heard of the hired gun - the guy who comes in and is supposed to give the team whatever it lacks, hopefully leading to a championship.  You've seen it work - Rasheed Wallace in '04, Dominick Hasek in '02 - and you've seen it fail - Todd Bertuzzi in '07, CC Sabathia for the Brewers this year - but that is the team going out to find that one last puzzle piece.  What Marian Hossa did this last off-season flipped the tables a bit.

Hossa, a free agent and hot commodity after helping lead the Penguins to the Stanley Cup Finals, was ready to cash in on a long term deal.  (Side note - why are all the hockey contracts these days so long?  Like Rick DiPietro's contract with the Islanders a couple years ago, something like 11 years?  Maybe there is some nuance in their collective bargaining agreement they are leveraging, but it just seems like that is way too long a time period to guarantee someone money for playing such a violent sport.)  Instead he called up the Wings, who had given up on him since they couldn't afford to spend money on him and sign all of the internal free agents.  Hossa was fine with that - he'd take less.  Ken Holland told him that he couldn't make more than Nick Lindstrom, the team's Captain and leader.  Hossa was fine with that too.  So the Wings signed him to a one year deal, and Hossa can cash in next year - hopefully after hoisting the Cup.

The question is - will this be a new trend?  Athletes SAY they want to win, but the money is what tips the scales time and again.  A-Rod couldn't have expected to win in Texas, but that $252 million sure looked nice on the bank ledger.  Jose Guillen couldn't think the Royals were contenders, but as long as the checks didn't bounce, he was fine.  Some players give home town discounts when they re-sign with teams, but I don't really remember a player in his prime, with many teams ready to offer long term deals, eschewing that and going somewhere that truly gives him the best chance of winning.  Will Detroit in hockey be a destination for Stanley Cup seeking free agents?  A one-stop-shop for people trying to complete their trophy case?  And is that a good thing or a bad thing?

What about other sports?  Will there ever be a prime time free agent who decides purely based on the chance to win?  And which teams would be the most likely destinations?  I guess Randy Moss did that a little this past year when he re-signed in New England, but with his checkered past, who knows what money and how many years other teams would have given him.

I wish Hossa the best, and of course hope he succeeds in his quest in Detroit, but it is just one more thing that makes it hard to root for your team in sports these days.  The turnover is so high, you have a hard time keeping track of the guys on your team...but that is for another day.

Hey, Hey, Hockey Town!

Your Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings are back!  (That was almost an entire sentence with justifiable caps.)  Tonight the Wings lost a close one to the Leafs, 3-2.  Actually, I didn't see the game.  I don't have Versus, and until I hook one of my parents up with Slingbox, I am out of luck in Kansas City.  Some observations courtesy of the box score:

- glad to see Osgood back again

- Holmstrom's two goals are the only offense

- the standard: outshoot the opponent (37-29), still a close game

- Lindstrom led the team in ice time

- Hossa had an assist and plenty of shifts

I am eager to see Hossa work with the other talent on this team.  My next post will be about him, as I concentrate on hockey for a couple weeks.  I'll still comment on the baseball playoffs when I think about it, but hockey probably won't pique my interest as much as it does now until after the New Year, so better get it while it's hot...

Batting 6th, your Left Fielder...

...Carlos Guillen?!  Does not really inspire confidence, I must say.  First off, I don't know why we jacked around so much with positions this year.  Maybe having Grandy hurt to start the year just threw everything out the window from Day 1, with Inge starting some games at CF even.  Then the old "who's on first, I don't know's on third, and old man Renteria is at short."  Guillen from SS to 1B to 3B.  Cabrera from 3B to 1B.  Renteria from SS to...aw crap, he stayed there the whole year?  Well that explains some things.  I think Cabrera would have had more long term value as a 3B, just because that position is more difficult to play.  You can get any scrub (Thames, Marcus) to play 1B.  But I can't really complain about Cabrera - leading the league in homers, top 5 in RBI, and .300+ BA is a great year.  Guillen was not BAD at third.  He may be even worse in left, but you can at least hide him more easily (only a couple of chances per game versus potentially a couple per inning at third).  I think the move is a wash overall - Inge's bat is still in the lineup, Guillen's is there too, along with a as-yet-unnamed catcher.  The saving grace might be if Sheffield can play the outfield when he comes back.  He will whine less, Guillen can DH, and all will be right with the world.

Of course, none of that answers any questions about the pitching...

Tigers done, Lions on their way...bah

What a completely disappointing season.  The one highlight - Miguel Cabrera turning into the $100+ million dollar man he is being paid to be - is slightly ominous to me because he completely killed the ball while Detroit was pretty much out of it, but choked A-Rod style when the Tigers were in the race and trying to claw their way back in.  Of course in Florida, he never had much to play for or any expectations of the team either, so...does that mean he is someone who can't step it up in crunch time?  Clutch hitting is somewhat overrated, in my opinion - I think all hitting will average out, clutch or otherwise - but I am hoping this isn't a bad trend.  It feels like the Tigers - especially Cabrera but ESPECIALLY Thames - hit a disproportionate number of solo home runs.  Not sure what it all means, but I'm just saying it doesn't add up to a winning team (not this year at least).

Oh yeah, and the Lions started playing.  Then stopped.  Too bad the season has 13 more games.  At least Millen is gone.  I wonder how long it will be before a Lions GM will draft a WR in the first round for fear of ridicule.  5 years?  10 years?  Wake me up when they win a game.

So my friend Andy brought up a good point about sports a few weeks ago, and I am just now getting around to writing about it.  Basically, the question is:

Why is there seemingly so much parity in baseball - a sport with no salary cap - while capped sports have great disparities in records?

So, from the surface, you might say, there is no parity in baseball at all!  The Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Mets - they all always win, always go to the playoffs...and the Pirates and Royals will always suck.  To see the parity, you have to realize that the worst team this year - Seattle (and they were AWful) - won 37.7% of their games.  (The Angels had the best record and won 61.7% of the time.) During the season, it is notable for a team to sweep another team in a three game series.  Usually the better team wins 2 out of the 3 games.  That means the top teams will win around 67% of the time, and the absolute worst 33% of the time.  That sounds pretty bad, till you look at football (Miami last year - 6.25% - and New England - 100%), basketball (Miami - 18.5% [bad year for that city] - and Boston - 80.5%), and hockey (Tampa Bay and L.A. - 43.3% - and Detroit - 71.1%).  And these are not outliers - the most wins in baseball history is 116, 71.6%, which just barely approaches what those other sports see every year.  So why is it, when you have the big, bad, all powerful, all spending teams in baseball and you have an even playing field, salary capped, parity filled group of leagues, the capped teams are more disparate in their records?  A couple ideas...

• The season is just waaaaaaaaaaay too long to be successful at that high rate

That is probably the best reason, but I'll lead with it anyway.  Even looking at 3 game subsets of the season, one team doesn't always sweep those subsets.  2-1 is still a series win, but keep doing that, and all you'll get is the best record in the league - just not domination Patriots style.  Playing together with the long season is the way players are rested in baseball.  On day games following night games (probably happens once a week or so), you'll notice the starting catcher sitting out and maybe one or two other regulars on the bench, just to give them a break.  Also in play is the amount of travel.  Baseball teams will go on the road for weeks at a time as a regular occurrence, and play for 2 weeks straight at times.  Unless you're the San Antonio Spurs trying to avoid the annual rodeo in your arena or the Boston Bruins avoiding the circus, basketball and hockey teams play maybe 3 or 4 straight road games at a time.  Football teams might play 2-3 straight road games, but they're at home for the week in between, so that hardly counts.  Finally, with a season twice as long as basketball and hockey, the sample size is just too large to have any one team win almost all their games or any team lose theirs.

• But what about the money?  Wouldn't an uncapped team salary lead to some team being really dominant?

The Yankees tried that, and others (Red Sox, Mets, Tigers) have thrown money at players to get a winner, but that doesn't always work.  In fact, since the Yankees have started to just pay dumb amounts of money for their players, they haven't won a World Series.  Sure they made the playoffs all the time (before this year - side note, the fact that the Yankees missed the playoffs should be enough for any atheist to admit there is a God) but they haven't won the whole thing since 2000.  That is a nice problem to have, true, but it remains that the Marlins have won since then.  Money doesn't buy baseball championships.  And those other leagues...I can't speak as much for hockey since their cap is new and I still don't really get it all the way, but football and basketball have weird cap situations.  Basketball is not a hard cap, so teams can spend as much as they want, but they have to pay a dollar-for-dollar penalty for going over.  Teams with lots of extra money lying around - like the Knicks - can spend over the cap, pay the fee, and still...suck.  And teams that are below the cap can win big.  My theory with basketball is that, since they have so few players (12/team), the mistakes are magnified and the good decisions have a bigger impact.  Overpaying for a guy will really hurt your team because a lot of money is tied up in 1/12th of your team.  So the value of scouting, drafting well, and picking the right people to keep on your team is very high.  One good thing is that the NBA has a solid draft slotting system for payment, so the #1 pick gets $X and that is all - there is no negotiating.  That is different from football, where draft picks money is sky high.  A guy gets $30 million guaranteed before he's ever played in the NFL?  Good for him, but come on, that is just bad business.  And the NFL salary cap is inflexible compared to the NBA.  Sure, you can pro-rate the bonus over 6 years and only take a $5 million/year hit on the cap, and do some other creative things with roster bonuses vs performance clauses, etc, but the number at the end of the year has to be under the cap or else.  The better teams - the New Englands, the Denvers - have great salary cap guys that know how to work the system.  They also value those cheap players at the end of the draft and don't overspend on those highly slotted rookies that are unproven.  Since teams CAN pay big bucks, they do.  Michael Vick has millions from his signing bonus, and that seems like a waste right now.  Don't even mention all those Detroit draft busts...that goes without saying.  In baseball things are changing a little with regard to the draft.  It used to be some players were avoided because they would cost a lot, but then teams willing to pay (Detroit) would get them later in the draft and pay more, but get a better player than the ones that should have been available at that draft spot.  That is a smart move because you can pay that young guy very little compared to the veterans and even get something in a trade later on.  But other teams are catching on, and the KC's and Pittsburgh's of the world will now sign the best player.  Anyway, point being, salary cap is not the end-all, be-all of success.

• The number of important movable parts is too high on a baseball team

This might be as important as the length of the season.  Baseball teams have 9-10 (with the DH) players in any given game at any given time that all need to contribute in order to be successful.  The other sports can have 1-2 dominant players at key positions and be hugely successful.  QB + RB.  Goalie + Center.  Michael Jordan + anyone else.  Baseball is the opposite - you can hide maybe 1-2 scrubs in your daily lineup, but everyone else better be Major League quality if you want to win.  Good example: Angel Berroa.  He won Rookie of the Year for the Royals when they were almost good a couple years ago, but he faultered in games that mattered and pretty soon got demoted to AAA.  This year he's traded to the Dodgers and they are in the playoffs right now.  Berroa hasn't changed - hits every once in a while, pretty decent fielder - but the Dodgers have enough other good-to-great players that they can take the hit of having Berroa play and still be successful.  The Royals couldn't overcome that.  How does a team go from too many scrubs to becoming successful?  Luck.  Overpaying (the right) free agents.  More luck.  Minor leaguers coming up and succeeding at the same time.  And a little more luck.

This is all a long answer to get to the point that I don't know exactly for sure.  The long season is an easy enough answer to explain it all away, but I hope I have added enough other insight to some other key points that this exercise wasn't a complete waste of time.