The Rays and Yankees are still tied with 31 games to go; the Red Sox are 7.0 games back. The Cardinals (and pretty much the Giants) have seemingly died. The Padres have too, but they still had a huge division lead built up to eat the blow. And assuming Manny doesn’t help the White Sox all too much and Lincecum stays funky, the playoff teams are pretty much in there.

Once more, the top eight teams were in the previous rankings, and the bottom two are new appearances. The biggest move of any team was three spots, followed by four movements of two spots. And as you might expect, the top two spots were easily retained.

As usual, teams get 10 points for a first place vote, then nine points for a second, and so on. Ties are broken based on who received the most first place votes, then the most second, and so on. The second tiebreaker is position in the previous rankings.

With just a month left in the season, we’ll also be giving our thoughts on what the Red Sox need to do to get back in the playoff race.

Table Legend

• A number in parentheses before a team name indicates the number of first place votes received.
• A number in parentheses after a team name indicates total points received.

How Can the Red Sox Make the Playoffs?

John – That ship sailed a long time ago.

Obviously, the key would be to do well against the Rays (three games remaining) and Yankees (six games remaining). The Sox also face the Orioles, who have been a thorn in their side, six more times. With only Buchholz and Lester having a shred of talent amongst the starters, and the bullpen not faring better (worse even), and Buchholz throwing balls away, the Red Sox were all but mathematically eliminated months ago.

KC – Sweep the two best teams.

To get in to the playoffs, the Red Sox need to win out against the Rays and Yankees. As we saw over the weekend, it’s possible (though highly unlikely) as long as the bullpen can hold itself together. It’s unfortunate. If the Red Sox didn’t have so many injuries, this team probably would be leading the division. Yeah I said it.

© John for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | No comment
Filed under: Featured, Now!, Opinion, Red Sox.

If there is one sport that didn’t need to be kicked while it’s down its baseball. Across MLB, numbers are down ranging from butts in the seats to viewership at home. Boston is a perfect microcosm for the nationwide epidemic. Not even five years removed from their last World Series championship and, seemingly, no one in gives a crap. If you read the papers or listen to any semblance of sports radio you know attendance is down at Fenway plus NESN’s rating are in a tailspin. The pink hats got bored with the actual game and went home. Why?

Well, the laundry lists of reasons why baseball is waning is another conversation. And it’s a lengthy one. Hell, there was an article in the Globe last week about a scalper that’s complaining that he used to make six figures selling Sox tickets now he’s struggling to make $20,000. I almost threw up when I read that article. But really, the scalping system has gotten so bloated in Boston, it’s strangling the life out of the city’s once vibrant baseball fan base (and that vivid effervescence had nothing to do with the pink hats). Now this guy has the audacity to complain? Please. He’s a victim of his own doing.

The System is Broken

In my opinion all this controversy about the recently leaked financial documents brings to light three issues. Number one, this is proof positive that the system is broken. Obviously. Don’t get me wrong: I like no salary cap. It’s quintessential American. If you’ve got the money, spend it. You work your ass off, put out a quality product that people like to see, manage your business and make a boatload. Go for it, spend that dough. I even like revenue sharing. If done right it does even the playing field. But, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that there should be benchmarks set in terms of how much of the revenue sharing money teams need to sink back into the organization. How can that not be obvious? This leads me to my next point.

Selig is a Stiff

Number two. Bud Selig needs to go. If he doesn’t, he may drive the last nail in the coffin of baseball as we know it. His unwillingness to address the steroid problem over the past 12+ years is grounds for dismissal alone. But, he personifies what MLB is today: A stale, old and brittle entity resting on its laurels and showing no interest in progressing. And I’d hardly call awarding the winner of the All-Star game home field advantage in the World Series, laurels. You’d have to have a hole in your head to think that’s a good idea. To be fair, however, I’m a fan of the Wild Card structure. In my opinion, in any sport, more teams in the playoffs is a good thing.

The Dream is Dead

Lastly, the third and over-arching issue that comes to light here is that baseball is dead. It’s far from the national pastime, football is and has been for awhile. Selig and the corporate sponsors have made baseball so inaccessible to kids over the past 15 years the next generation doesn’t care about it. If your team is good (and lucky) enough to make it to the postseason (let alone the World Series), good luck watching a game if you’re a 10-year-old kid. And forget about actually going to one of those games.

So, is the release of those financial documents surprising? Not to me it’s not. Just another road sign on baseball’s road to irrelevance. However, if I lived in Pittsburgh or Miami, I’d be pissed. I hope those fans make their voices heard in the form of not going to games, not watching games or buying merchandise. Because at the end of the day, that’s the only way you can accurately articulate your outrage.  How can you get into a team that you care about more than the actual owner? Thank God football is only a few weeks away.

© Charlie Lonardo for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | One comment
Filed under: Featured, Opinion, Red Sox.

As titles go, Moneyball is a bit of a misnomer. When one thinks of the term “moneyball,” one might be inclined to think of playing baseball by spending lots of money. But the reality is that Moneyball, Michael Lewis’s 2003 bestseller, is about a general manager’s (Billy Beane if the Oakland Athletics) quest to put a winning team together by spending AS LITTLE money as possible (required because the Athletics ownership is portrayed as incredibly tightfisted). This is not in itself noteworthy, as there are plenty of sports franchises with low payrolls. What makes Beane so interesting is that he actually managed to DO it, winning more games than any team but the Atlanta Braves across the several seasons leading up the book’s publication and went to the playoffs every year from 2000 to 2003, all while dealing with one of the lowest payrolls in the MLB. All of it culminates in the 2003 season, wherein the Athletics break the AL record for most consecutive wins. The book splits its time between Lewis’s time with the Athletics management team (specifically GM Beane and his assistant Paul DePodesta) during the 2003 season and his research into the history of sabermetric analysis, which is the method by which Beane goes about trying to determine what players could be drafted, signed, or acquired via trade that would both help the team and not break the bank (or even shake it a bit).

Sabermetrics in Summary

The basic argument of sabermetrics, a statistical evaluation system more or less founded by Bill James and named after the Society of American Baseball Research, is that the offense’s job is not to hit but rather to not make an out (scoring runs is its secondary objective). Therefore, anything that increases the likelihood of making an out, such as bunting, sacrificing, and stealing bases, works against a player. Anything that gets a player on base, such as hits or walks (not considered statistically important until the emergence of sabermentrics), is valued. Older statistics such as batting average, total hits and total RBIs, are considered to be old-fashioned, giving way to more statistically indicative numbers, especially on-base percentage and slugging percentage. Statisticians such as Bill believe that these newer methods of evaluation, even when applied backwards to past teams, reveal far more accurately whether a player has contributed or will contribute to a team’s offensive success.

Criticism of Sabermetrics

Moneyball portrays other teams as either ignorant of, or at least not particularly interested in, sabermetric performance evaluation, and thus Beane seems to have an advantage over other teams, even those with much higher payrolls, such as the New York Yankees. The book is the story of one general manager using sabermetrics to try and find those players that other teams forgot about or passed over that he can get cheap. For Beane, himself a “victim” of older methods of evaluation (he was a high school phenom who was convinced not to go to college by the Mets and never learned how to deal with failure), trying to do this often causes him to take flack from those around him, both within the organization (in the form of the scouting department, longstanding proponents of the older, “five tool” style of evaluation) and without (from other managers, who consider him ruthless and conniving, and from the press, who think his strategies can’t translate to playoff success). Lewis describes the MLB front offices and scouting departments collectively forming a Club, and the press as its Women’s Auxiliary. They see sabermetrics as attacking their way of doing things, and so they lash out against it. Other general managers don’t like working with Beane, and the press constantly disparages him. Their biggest argument is always that, if sabermetrics is such a successful means of evaluation, then why haven’t the Athletics won the World Series since 1989?

To the press’s credit, Billy Beane never comes up with a satisfactory answer to that. All he can say is that with so few games, luck becomes more of a larger factor than in the regular season, and that anything is really possible. That may be true, but if sabermetrics is designed to minimize luck (as Beane says), it is reasonable to argue that it is a system that can’t bring home championships. And while from a business perspective winning regular season games might lead to economic success, repeatedly falling short of a championship will inevitably hurt ticket sales in future seasons (assuming you don’t own a franchise like the Boston Red Sox, which sells out every home game regardless of the product put on the field). Most sports franchises can be depicted as sine-waves: high periods and low periods. Teams only have so many good years before they naturally begin to decline, and it’s championships during the good years that maintain ticket sales through the bad times. Sabermetrics, if the only example is the early 21st Century Oakland Athletics, might not be such a terrific system after all.

Billy Beane: Revolutionary

Sports go through revolutions, same as political systems or religions. The first major revolution was racial integration, allowing a previously excluded group to play in the major leagues. The next was gender integration, as symbolized by IX, and the realization and acceptance that the drive for athletic success lies as much in the female psyche as it does in the male psyche. Right now, we are still dealing with the chemical revolution: the integration of chemical additives into athletic training, and the determination of what is a fair and healthy additive and what is not, and how best to police its use. For Billy Beane, Moneyball is the story of his experience with the final sports revolution: the integration of technology into athletics. Lewis finishes his book with a description of athletic organizations rejecting sabermetrics in part because they think of sabermetricians as skinny, hunched-over intellectuals typing into computer screens all day. He describes it as a classic case of jock versus nerd, and there is some truth to that. Any time a revolution happens, turmoil and upheaval follow in its wake. The same is true of Moneyball. Beane suffered incredible backlash due to its publication, but that’s because it was a new idea being introduced with force into the populace. Whenever this happens, those in power (other general managers and the press) seek to squash it before it takes permanent hold and forces them to change or die (not literally).

Beane’s personality also does not help his case. As smart as he comes off at times, he also comes off as maniacal. He tries incessantly to insert himself into the middle of an Expos-Red Sox Cliff Floyd trade so that he can force the Red Sox to give him Kevin Youkilis, whom he has coveted since Youkilis was draft-eligible. The Expos manager seems to sniff out Beane’s plan and does not push the three-way deal, and the Floyd trade goes off cleanly. More importantly, he seems to talk himself out of signing a $12.5 million, five-year deal with the Red Sox, for reasons that still make no sense, even after reading through the entire book and getting a crash course in Beane’s psychology. He had the opportunity to be paid more than any GM in history, work for an ownership that would both spend big money to sign players AND believed in the value of sabermetrics (John Henry had long been a Bill James fan and was a frequent fantasy baseball champion), and get to deal with a press “so reliably venomous that it was impossible to distinguish the poison directed at the new regime from the poison they’d aimed at every other person who had the temerity to pass through Fenway Park” (294-295), meaning that the fans would be unlikely to turn on him if his strategy did not immediately work out. This sounds like an ideal environment for a general manager, and yet Billy Beane declined it without ever giving a satisfactory answer. His character is somewhat maddening.

Boston: The Revolution at Work

Despite the success of the Athletics, much of it might be because they were using sabermetrics before anyone else did. Now other teams are using it, AND they have higher payrolls, meaning it is that much harder to find bargain players. The Red Sox are one such team that has both learned from Billy Beane’s example (they hired Theo Epstein, another statistics-savvy Ivy Leaguer like Paul DePodesta) and put the money into realizing the idea. To this end, they began employing Bill James as a consultant as of 2003. The combination of sabermetric evaluation and paying top-dollar for players has led to two world championships and a rebuilt farm system that has produced aces, All-Stars, rookies of the year, and MVPs. Boston might be the best example of sabermetrics being used effectively. While most fans will probably never see the stats that guide Theo Epstein’s moves, it is quite likely that the 2004 Nomar Garciaparra trade was based in a sabermetric analysis of what Nomar was bringing to the team offensively and whether that could be replaced with lesser players who could also improve the team’s defense. The move paid dividends in the postseason, and the rest is history.

This is not to say that sabermetrics is the be-all and end-all method of evaluation. There are still players out there who scouts drool over, who they see as potential superstars at a young age, and then go on to great success. Hanley Ramirez was always lauded for his “five tools” (hit for average, hit for power, field, run, throw), and he has gone on to a batting title, three All-Star selections, and a Rookie of the Year award. This is a player for whom the old methods of evaluation have proven correct. And not every draft choice of Billy Beane has been a goldmine. While Youkilis has won a Gold Glove and been named to two All-Star Games, and Nick Swisher (his first pick in the 2002 draft) has won a World Series with the Yankees and made the All-Star game, Jeremy Brown, another first-round draft pick in 2002, never had more than a cup of coffee in the majors. Like “five tool” evaluation, sabermetric evaluation is not the same as fortune-telling. Nothing will ever prove definitively whether or not a prospect will work out or a free agent will help or hurt a team. That’s the problem with analyzing humans: as much as we tend to behave in patterns, sometimes we don’t. A player who bats .333 for a year doesn’t get one hit every game. That’s never happened before, not even close (the longest hit streak ever comprised just over one third of the season, and even THAT hasn’t been managed in nearly 70 years). Hitters sometimes get a hit, sometimes they get more, sometimes they don’t hit at all. If enough players get enough hits at the same time, that team will generally win. The best recipe for success probably lies in some combination of evaluative methods.

Does Moneyball Stand the Test of Time?

The Oakland Athletics have declined mightily since Moneyball’s publication. Since 2004, they have only made the playoffs once, getting swept in the ALCS by the Detroit Tigers. Their recent seasons have been unspectacular at best, not breaking the 95-win mark at all since 2003. Since 2006, they have finished in third or fourth place in their division every single season. As of Monday, they are in third place in their division, eight games back and 14.5 out of the Wild Card. As I said before, teams go through high and low periods periodically. The Athletics are definitely in a low period now, and fans are probably wishing that those early-decade teams had brought home a ring or two to go with all their 100-win seasons.

It can be said that we are living in the post-Moneyball era of baseball. Most teams now accept sabermetrics and at least employ one sabermetric analyst. The Oakland Athletics’ decline can be as much attributed to richer franchises USING sabermetrics as it can to some kind of conceptual error IN sabermetrics. Still, Moneyball is an amazing piece of sports journalism. Lewis tells a story of a revolution in baseball and clearly sets out both how the revolutionaries succeeded and how the baseball world tried to stop them. It is a fascinating look at baseball as it was at the turn of the new millennium. It is incredibly well-researched and well-paced. You will be fascinated by characters like Billy Beane and Bill James, and you will understand their feelings of rejection by their peers. Lewis presents a strong, concise point, and he uses the 2002 Athletics as his argument. It is incredibly convincing, and I think baseball since publication has proven him right. Reading Moneyball, I could feel myself getting angry at some of its posits. That’s a sign of good writing, when it elicits an emotional reaction. As I read on, I became more and more swayed by Lewis’s and Beane’s (even though Beane is not an author, his strategy is what Lewis defends) arguments. As I watched a baseball game the night I finished it, statistics began to swim in my mind next to the players on screen. Moneyball will change the way you think about baseball. No greater accomplishment in sports writing can be achieved.

© Matt Goisman for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | No comment
Filed under: Featured, Now!, Opinion.

Roger Clemens can run but he won’t be hiding. In this case, the seven-time Cy Young Award winner is actually running toward a major league problem. Clemens, 48, was charged with three counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice in regard to  his testimony during the now notorious nationally televised hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in February of 2008. Clemens has been the most defiant of any accused MLB player, Rafael Palmeiro and Barry Bonds included. Clemens now earns the equivocal distinction of being the third celebrated athlete to be charged with lying and his on-field accomplishments have been temporarily rendered moot.

Using the other two athletes as a metric, the future does not look bright for The Rocket. Bonds, baseball’s all-time home run leader, is scheduled for trial in March under similar charges stemming from his involvement with the ubiquitous Bay Area Laboratory Co-op scandal. Marion Jones, also a BALCO client, won five medals over a glorified Olympic career as a sprinter. Like Clemens, Jones looked everyone in the eye while offering staunch denials. After charges rained down upon her, she wisely plead guilty in 2007. Jones served six months in federal prison for the incident.

Clemens’ troubles are mostly traced to his former trainer Brian McNamee, who alleged that his client knowingly used both steroids and human growth hormone. Their contradictory statements led to a public back-and-forth with Clemens assuming the role of schoolyard bully. The Boston Globe’s Bob Ryan has often noted that Clemens is a strange individual, capable of convincing himself of almost anything. Ryan trumpeted the same sentiment on Thursday’s edition of Pardon the Interruption on ESPN, saying that it wasn’t out of the realm of possibility that Clemens still thinks he is innocent, despite the heap of mounting evidence against him.

If convicted, Clemens could face up to 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, though legal experts forecast a 15- to 21-month sentence if convicted. Like Jones, a plea-bargain would likely lessen his sentence further. Clemens, however, has shown zero signs of backing down, and actually says he is looking forward to the legal proceedings.

“I look forward to challenging the Government’s accusations, and hope people will keep an open mind until trial,” Clemens said via Twitter. “I appreciate all the support I have been getting. I am happy to finally have my day in court.”

Unfortunately for Clemens, those open-minded people are few, considering the evidence. At this point, it’s unlikely that Clemens will ever back down in a trial that will surely grant quite a spectacle. For a while, sports fans have debated Clemens’ worthiness regarding the Hall of Fame in light of the PED accusations.

If only that were his biggest problem.

© Justin Power for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | No comment
Filed under: Featured, Now!, Opinion, Red Sox.

Yeah, Jonathan Papelbon broke a major league record the other night. Yeah, he looked better than we’ve seen him in a long time after striking out the side, hitting 97 miles per hour in the ninth inning against the Angels. And he deserves a congratulations for becoming the first player in baseball history to record at least 30 saves in each of his first five seasons.

However, although he is proud of a season in which he was able to reach 30 saves while still setting a personal record for blown saves, even he acknowledges that breaking the record doesn’t get him off the hook for his shaky season.

“It’s been tough. I’ve had to be able to withstand a lot,” Papelbon said about his season so far, according to the Boston Herald. “I’ve blown more saves than I have in any other season, but I’ve also proved to myself that no matter what is presented to me, and what situation I put myself in, I’ve always been able to come back and throw some punches back at them.”

At least he has some confidence, which is a good sign for everyone.

At this point in the season, Jonathan Papelbon has six blown saves, which equals six games the Red Sox could have potentially won.

Also, at this point in the season, the Red Sox are currently 6.5 games out of first place in the American League East.

Not to blame the underachieving Red Sox season on Jonathan Papelbon or take away any credit for his recent milestone, but his back-and-forth season has Sox fans wondering why they can’t always expect to see that 97 to 98 mile per hour, dominant pitcher we saw on Tuesday night.

The rest of the bullpen hasn’t made it any easier for the guy either, as failures from Ramon Ramirez and Hideki Okajima have put more pressure on him. After watching the rest of the bullpen disappoint so often that management is forced to put in Scott Achison for relief on a regular basis, Sox fans are putting all of their bullpen eggs in Papelbon’s basket. It’s gotten to the point where each blown save feels like three blown saves for fans who look forward to a night in which they can watch the Red Sox last dominant pitcher. As a result, the typically brutal Boston sports media has already begun buzzing about moving a relatively unproven Daniel Bard into a spot held by a 30-save closer.

So maybe Sox fans expect a little bit too much from their saver, and maybe they are justified in asking for a little bit more.

But something’s definitely wrong. All we, as fans, can do is hope Tuesday night’s record breaking save pushes him over the hill to reach 30 saves, hopefully to gain some momentum during a late playoff push that needs a reliable closer.

At least we can take some reserve in the fact that he sees it that way too.

“I think tonight, with the year I’m having, it’s a huge boost for me. Not only (mentally), but physically, everything along the line. It’s a mental grind,” he said after getting his 30th save.

 “There’s different challenges as a closer that are presented to you more than any other position. For me to be able to get back on that horse on those days that you get beat, and to be consistent, to not get in those ruts and lose all your confidence, to me that’s huge.”

© Colin Neagle for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | No comment
Filed under: Featured, Opinion, Red Sox.

When asked what he thought of the newly-extended Paul Pierce last week, former center Robert Parish spoke quickly and emphatically:

“I think Paul Pierce, the way he manufactures points is the best player the Celtics have seen thus far.”

He was absolutely certain that when Paul Pierce retires, his number will be retired to the rafters of the TD Garden (or wherever they’re playing in four years), joining the likes of Bill Russel, John Havlicek, Bob Cousy, Larry Bird, and Robert Parish himself.

The Argument for Paul Pierce

Statistically, Paul Pierce is in the top-five of all offensive players for the Celtics. He ranks third in points (19,899, behind Bird and Havlicek), second in points-per-game (22.51, behind just Bird), first in free-throws made (5,422), first in attempts (6,763), and first in three-pointers (1,467). He also ranks in the top ten in several other key offensive categories, including offensive rebounds (8th, 892), field goals (5th, 6,505), and assists (7th, 3,402). This level of production on so many different offensive fronts could easily justify Parish’s placing him as the best offensive player the Celtics have ever seen.

I think that Robert Parish also considers basketball now to be the best its ever been. Looking at the way offenses run today, especially for players who work primarily out of the small forward position, it is fair to say that the goal is to drive to the basket and get fouled. Ideally, you score a basket, but getting to the line is seen as just as valuable. If that’s the case, and if that’s the best basketball has ever been, then the Celtic with the most made free-throws could be considered the best Celtic there’s ever been. And no one has ever produced free-throws for the Celtics (what Parish calls “manufacturing points”) like “The Truth.” However, if you don’t believe that basketball is better now than its been at any previous point, then Pierce’s contributions as a free-throw shooter are not so spectacular.

The Argument Against Paul Pierce

The biggest argument against Paul Pierce as the best offensive player ever comes down to numbers. Specifically, the number of championships and the number of MVPs won. Paul Pierce has one of each: one NBA title, one Finals MVP. No league MVP awards. Compare that with any number of former Celtics and it becomes clear that Paul Pierce just hasn’t performed at the same level. Bill Russell, for example,won eleven championships and five MVP awards (to be fair, Russell was known for his defense rather than his offense). John Havlicek, meanwhile, despite only one MVP (Finals MVP, 1974), boasts eight championship rings. Larry Bird had a more balanced career, winning only three rings, while picking up three season MVPs and two Finals MVPs. While Paul Pierce may have some individual statistical achievements, it can’t be argued that he was ever good enough to carry his team to a title. It was only in 2007, when the Celtics finally brought in some help, that he was able to put together a championship. So while he was the best player of the Finals in 2008, it can be argued that he might not even have been the best player on the team that year. If that’s the case, and that was his best year, how can he be considered the greatest offensive player in Celtics history?

Additionally, Paul Pierce is only first in free-throws made, attempted, and three-pointers made. These are all important offensive categories, but frankly I think they’re all secondary to the big stats: total points and points-per-game. Free-throws have only become important since the general offensive strategy of the NBA shifted to place more importance on fouls and getting to the line than passing and finding the open shots.

I attribute a lot of this to the influx of soccer-influenced European and South American players into the NBA in the last 15 years (basically, I blame it all on Manu Ginobili). With them came the practice of “flopping:” aggrandizing every contact to the point that you appear to be in so much pain and distress that the referee has essentially no choice but to call a foul. Once flopping came to the NBA, every player started doing it. And Paul Pierce is one of the worst floppers there’s ever been. It gets him to the line, allowing him to “manufacture points,” but I think it brings down the overall game.

Constant fouling diminishes the quality of the game. It slows things down, disrupts both sides from finding offensive rhythm, and makes everything more about the individual than the team. Watching games from the era of the first Big Three (in my opinion, Boston’s best period), you don’t see this. What you see is what soccer fans call “the beautiful game:” continuous passing, constant moving, gorgeous shots coming from all angles. And defensively you see real battles and tests of physical strength. The threat of the foul has kept modern NBA teams from really committing to the rebound, leading to more scrambles and a general sense of anarchy and uncertainty after the shot.

Paul Pierce’s three-point numbers are interesting, but the three-point shot has always had a curious place in the NBA. Purists despise it and conspirators think it was invented to given certain players (mainly white ones) an advantage. In any event, its importance has only grown because the paint game has gone down the tubes because everyone is scared of getting called for the foul. Without the inside game, teams go more to beyond the arc, in part because there’s no point in taking a shot from 21 feet when taking a few steps back will give you an extra point with little added difficulty. So once again we have one of Paul Pierce’s top stats diminished if we accept the notion that NBA offense now is not as good as it used to be.

So If It’s Not Pierce, Who’s the Best?

The only way we can accept Paul Pierce as the best offensive Celtic ever is if we accept that the NBA’s current offensive strategy is the best ever. If it’s not, then Paul Pierce drops a few pegs, back into the top five. Which I think is where he belongs. He’s an amazing player, dynamic and captivating. He’s tough as nails and an incredible captain. And his willingness and desire to stay with the same team for his entire career, especially with free agency the way it is, speaks to his character as a person. There’s no doubt in my mind that his number will be retired by the franchise the moment he does. After all, who else could wear number 34?

But if the Truth is not the best, who is? I think we have to turn first and foremost to John Havlicek. His eight championships ties him for third all-time behind Russell and Sam Jones. He leads the franchise in career points and is third in points-per-game. He also leads the franchise in games and minutes, meaning his contributions to the team lasted the longest. And his epic steal in the 1965 Eastern Conference Championship will live forever in Celtics lore as one of the great plays in playoff history.

Paul Pierce boasts neither the career numbers, rings, awards, nor magical moments (the closest may be his game-winner against the Miami Heat in the first round of the 2010 playoffs, but that play neither clinched the series nor led to a title) to be considered the best offensive player in Celtics history. Havlicek was probably the best, Bird the most versatile and clutch, and Cousy the most innovative. Paul Pierce probably stands at 4th behind them. And considering the talent and gravitas of the above-mentioned players, that should be enough for anyone.

© Matt Goisman for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | One comment
Filed under: Celtics, Featured, Opinion.

The races are starting to open up. Minnesota is 3.0 games ahead of their competition, and the Cardinals and Reds are a vast, vast 1.0 games apart. The NL Wildcard is now in a tie, while it’s still easily the Rays and Yankees in the American counterpart. San Diego did well against San Fran to boost their lead and eliminate the Giants’ lead in the Wildcard hunt.

After an absence of just one edition, the Yankees are back. The top eight teams were all present on the previous list, with only the bottom two slots being new teams. The Twins, moving five spots, were the biggest change this time, which is quite impressive considering no team kept their ranking from the previous time.

As usual, teams get 10 points for a first place vote, then nine points for a second, and so on. Ties are broken based on who received the most first place votes, then the most second, and so on. The second tiebreaker is position in the previous rankings.

And as we’re nearing the end of the season, we’ve also provided our thoughts as to how the Red Sox will finish the season. And we’ve got a brand new contributor for this week, and he’s keeping the Red Sox afloat. And helping Texas while he’s at it.

Table Legend

• A number in parentheses before a team name indicates the number of first place votes received.
• A number in parentheses after a team name indicates total points received.

What will the Red Sox’ final record be?

John – 89-73

I keep trying to be pessimistic about the Red Sox, but then they keep having a good game. Then they keep following it up with a bad one. Pedroia will be back on Tuesday, but Ellsbury is back out. Essentially flipping a coin the rest of the way, I don’t see the Red Sox as much different than a .500 team from here on out.

KC – 93-69

Why? Because the Red Sox are definitely good enough to make the playoffs, but will probably have too much trouble getting by the Rays and Yankees in the best division in baseball. Dustin Pedroia’s return should help an already strong lineup (second in the majors in runs scored), but the team’s Achilles heel is pitching, which should have been their strength.

Leo – 93-69

The Sox are on pace for 91 wins; but I’d project the number at around 93. The higher win total I’m prediciting is based off the assumption that Pedroia and Co. come back and stay healthy for the remainder of the season. Of course, they’ll need more from Josh Beckett and the bullpen to make the playoffs, since the Yankees look like a 100-win team, and the Rays won’t be far behind.

© John for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | No comment
Filed under: Featured, Now!, Opinion, Red Sox.

I had my article outline set and ready to go. I would write a nostalgic article on Chipper’s career, filled with complementary statistics and personality praises. I envisioned the piece having a strong resemblance to the one I wrote after Ken Griffey Jr’s announced retirement from baseball earlier this the season.

By Friday night though, I had to completely scratch that idea and start anew. Chipper Jones was planning a rehab stint, in order to allow him to return to the Braves for the 2011 Spring Training and end his career on his own terms.

I am a lifelong Mets fan and I could not be happier.

Jones has spent the last 17 years making my team miserable, piling up over 40 home runs and dominating them for much of his career.

I used to be proud to say that throughout the second half of the1990’s and earlier 2000’s, I was one of the many New York Mets fans to take part in the taunting “Laaaarrryy, Laaaarrryy” chant that would rock Shea Stadium every time Chipper would come up to bat.

In retrospect, I’ve realized that we were hazing not only one of the best players of our generation, but also one of the most professional and admirable. If the only bad thing us Mets fans could find to make fun of Jones about was the fact that his first name is Larry, then there must not be many bad things about him at all.

In an era where players’ celebrity overrides the purity of the team-first mentality in sports, there are only a handful of players that separate themselves from the pack and conduct themselves in a manner to earn the respect of everyone they come in contact with.

Chipper Jones was and still is one of those players.

He has been the image of consistency over nearly the last two decades, playing in at least 150 games for eight straight seasons from 1996-2003 and only missed significant time to injuries twice before in his career.

Because of his lengthy career, Jones’ legacy has not yet been decided, but when all is said and done, an argument can be made for him to be mentioned in the same breath as the Tony Gwynn’s and Cal Ripken Jr’s of our generation.

Not only has Jones spent his entire professional career on the same team, a rarity in today’s sports world, like Gwynn and Ripken, but also like them he has left his mark on baseball history. If Chipper’s career ended today, he would finish with a 1995 World Series Championship. a career .306 batting average, a Gold Glove and would rank third all-time in home runs hit by a switch hitter, behind Hall of Famers Mickey Mantle and Eddie Murray.

Jones’ clean image is just as impressive as his talents. He represents blue-collar America, working hard day in-day out, never stepping out of line and balancing his competitive nature with respectful sportsmanship.

Hopefully Chipper will have a successful rehab and be able to return to his rightful place in 2011, playing third base for the Atlanta Braves.

If he does not though, I’m glad I can say I got to see Chipper Jones play.

© Binyamin Cooper for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | No comment
Filed under: News, Opinion, Red Sox.

One year ago Friday, Boston’s sports radio landscape changed as we know it.

For years, airwaves juggernaut WEEI dominated the sports radio scene. They were the only game in town, and when they weren’t, they squashed all challengers in a matter of months. Down went 1510 The Sports Zone. Down went 890 ESPN Boston. And down went 790 The Score in Providence. But back on Aug. 13, 2009, the “On Air” light went out at long time rock station WBCN in favor of a brand new sports radio station, WBZ-FM, otherwise known as 98.5 The Sports Hub.

The Sports Hub made their splash onto radios across the area the day of the Pats’ preseason opener, when Tom Brady made his return to the field after missing almost all of the 2008 season with a catastrophic knee injury. From there, the Hub took us through a very entertaining Patriots season and into the playoffs, where New England sadly fell on its face against Baltimore. 98.5 also was there to broadcast every Bruins game this past season, from the opener against Ovechkin and the Capitals to the bitter playoff defeat at the hands of the Flyers.

Beyond their broadcast rights to the Patriots and Bruins, The Sports Hub has provided sports-crazed radio listeners with a quality alternative for those that have grown tired of WEEI’s same old routine. 98.5 seems to cater to the younger side of the key “males 18 to 54″ demographic that every station covets, while WEEI’s hosts keep doing what they’re doing, which seems to hold the attention of the baby boomer generation and right-wing conservatives everywhere.

When you look at the ratings books for the area each month, you still see ‘EEI with a solid advantage in terms of numbers. But there’s no doubt that 98.5 The Sports Hub has made a significant dent into the WEEI powerhouse, more significantly than any other past challenger. With a bit more tinkering, it might not be long before the younger, more energetic Sports Hub reigns supreme in this town, over the old regime at WEEI.

And so now, with a full year under its belt, I would like to break down the Boston sports radio battle with a “Tale of the Tape,” pitting the two stations up against each other on a show by show basis. I’m going to share my opinions, and I encourage you to formulate and share your own as well.

Morning Drive Time: WEEI’s “Dennis & Callahan” vs. The Sports Hub’s “Toucher & Rich”

Advantage: The Sports Hub

Now I’ll start off by saying that when “Toucher & Rich” were on in the afternoons on WBCN, I actually listened to both of these shows… “D&C” in the morning and “T&R” in the afternoon. But now that they’re battling each other for a.m. supremacy, I lean towards Toucher & Rich. I think Dennis & Callahan do what they do well. But unfortunately, what they do is rant and rave about topics that seemingly have little to do with sports, more often than not. They are by all means opinionated, but they never seem to have an opinion that matches mine.

T&R on the other hand, while they admittedly don’t have as passionate a Boston sports feel as other shows (both T&R are not from the Boston area), what they lack in local sports fandom, they make up for in comedy and overall entertainment. Now do I expect Joe 50-Year-Old to be amused by “drunken Red Sox recaps,” “dating on demand,” “ask a pink hat,” or any of the other T&R routines? Mostly, no. But for the up-and-coming twenty-something sports fan, T&R is a slam dunk over D&C. The ratings may show D&C with still a comfortable advantage, but look for that to change as more and more young sports fans find their way to T&R in the morning.

Mid-Days: WEEI’s “Dale & Holley” vs. The Sports Hub’s “Gresh & Zolak”

Advantage: WEEI

How Andy Gresh and Scott Zolak still have jobs in radio is beyond me. They flopped as a pairing in Providence, yet The Sports Hub decides to bring them back, and into a bigger market, no less? Sorry, but you won’t find me in the “Gresh & Zo” corner at all. WEEI’s “Dale & Holley” is arguably the most intelligent sports talk show that WEEI has to offer. As an avid hockey fan, Dale Arnold’s expertise with all things Bruins is refreshing to listen to on a station that has long ignored the local hockey team, while Michael Holley is really the only youthful, modern flavor that WEEI has to offer in its stable of hosts. Granted, Gresh & Zo are above average when it comes to covering the Pats, but listening to Zolak talk about anything else is painful, and listening to Gresh’s voice at all is downright hazardous to your health.

Afternoon Rush Hour: WEEI’s “The Big Show” vs. The Sports Hub’s “Felger & Massarotti”

Advantage: The Sports Hub

No one’s act is more tired than “The Big Show’s” Glenn Ordway. Afternoons from 2-6pm, he moderates the daily shouting match that is “The Big Show,” where blowhards yell over each other, all while insulting callers who might have a different viewpoint than theirs. For a while, “The Whiner Line,” where callers leave what they hope to be comedic messages aimed at throwing digs at players or show hosts, was a new, fresh, entertaining idea. The gimmick is well past its prime though, as it trots out the same tired hacks who fail at bringing the laughs on a consistent basis. Couple all of that with the recent departure of “Big Show” favorite Pete “The Meat” Sheppard, and all signs point to “The Big Show”’s time to shine coming to a quick end.

On the FM side of the dial, tuning into “Felger & Mazz” weekdays is a breath of fresh air I really didn’t think would go as well as it has. Sure, Michael Felger’s constant contrarianism can be tiresome at times. And sure, Mazz’s high-pitched voice will never compare to the sweet sounds of Bedtime Magic’s David Allen Boucher. But their show’s content blows “The Big Show” out of the water more often than not, with maybe the one exception being the Monday interviews with Bill Belichick on ‘EEI during football season. To add to that, 98.5’s “The Baseball Reporters,” hosted by Massarotti from 6-7pm, is far and away superior to the pregame festivities that WEEI trots out… no doubt about it.

Nights: WEEI’s “Planet Mikey” vs. The Sports Hub’s “D.A. Show”

Advantage: The Sports Hub

This one really was very close to call, as I do see pros and cons for both shows. I don’t doubt that WEEI’s Mike Adams is wacky enough to entertain most middle-aged men. But as someone who happily hasn’t reached “middle-aged” status yet, give me a more energetic, younger, albeit geekier Damon Amendolara any night of the week. Now I will say that out of all the time slots that sports radio has to offer, I probably listen to the evening shows the least. What little I do hear during the week however, I usually give the nod to D.A. All that being said, I secretly pray every night before I go to bed that Damon Amendolara gets fired, and somehow, some way, 98.5’s hiring manager finds me and gives me the job. That really would be the dream job, at least in my mind. But for now, D.A. can keep my seat warm for me.

Live Game Action: WEEI’s Red Sox & Celtics vs. The Sports Hub’s Patriots & Bruins

Advantage: WEEI

Even though I’m a bigger fan of the Pats & B’s than I am of the Sox or Celts, I have to tip my cap to the broadcast teams of WEEI over The Sports Hub. C’s play-by-play man Sean Grande could be the best radio man in the NBA. Basketball is a tough game to translate to radio, but he does it effortlessly, painting a clear picture of what’s happening on the court. Cedric Maxwell’s color commentary is an acquired taste that doesn’t appeal to everyone, but no one can say he doesn’t bring a high level of enthusiasm and his very own unique style to broadcasts. For the Sox, I’ve grown up a huge Joe Castiglione fan for years, and Dave O’Brien, like Grande, has to be regarded as one of the best in the sport.

Over on the Sports Hub, I have all the respect in the world for the solid job that Bruins broadcasters Dave Goucher and Bob Beers do, night in and night out. Unfortunately, and this might be a minority opinion, I can’t give the nod to 98.5 because of Patriots broadcasting “legends” Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti. Back in their primes, this duo hit the mark. But that “prime” was years ago. To me, they are unlistenable now. But, if them leaving means that the likes of Gary Tanguay, Andy Gresh, and/or Scott Zolak are next in line, Gil and Gino can take all the time they want before they retire.

So whether it be WEEI or The Sports Hub that tickles your fancy, listen on sports fans… this battle is only beginning to heat up.

© Brian Kintz for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | No comment
Filed under: Featured, Now!, Opinion.

“To be or not to be; that is the question.” – Hamlet

“To retire or not to retire; that is the question.” – Brett Favre

For the third consecutive year, Old Man Favre is at it again. Two years ago, he retired from the Packers after they didn’t want to put up with this from him. Last year, he did the same thing with the Jets. Now, it’s Minnesota’s turn. Tuesday, text messages went around declaring Brett Favre’s intention to retire. Now, on Wednesday, Favre said that he said no such thing. Now the indication is that Favre will return, assuming his ankle is okay to play on. That’s why he’s playing high school football in Mississippi again.

Favre said that amidst reports that the Vikings were giving him a $7 million raise from last season, with $20 million in salary ($16 million guaranteed) plus another $4 million in incentives. According to Favre’s agent Bus Cook,

“As far as Brett is concerned, in spite of reports to the contrary, Brett’s situation has nothing to do with his contract, but everything to do with his health and ability to contribute to that team and play at a level that he has been accustomed to playing over the years.”

SportsCenter’s discussions of the moods around the league suggest that Favre should continue to work on his ankle (he has a checkup with Dr. James Andrews in Birmingham next week) and return to the Vikings during Week 3 of the Preseason, and their poll shows that 64% of us regular folk (and majorities in D.C, all 50 states, and the world [including 100% of Hawaiins]) think Favre will be back in time for the season as well.

My Favre Theory

Clearly, Favre needs to feel healthy to play, and his ankle may not be as good as it is now that Grandpa is 40, but he’ll be back. First of all, as we’ve seen, Favre loves to play, but he’s to cowardly (in mind and body) to use his ankle in workouts at training camp with the team. He wants to only play in games, and not do the work the rest of his teammates have to do.

In previous years, few thought Favre would play again, so he didn’t have to make such a big deal of the situation personally. This year, everyone started thinking he would play again. With that, too many people would also expect him to show up at training camp and actually do work. And of course, Favre doesn’t want to do it. Not even any special program for his health situation worked out with Vikings’ management.

Therefore, Favre had to reiterate retirement intentions so he wouldn’t have to “decide” anything immediately. Now, no more training camp for Favre. And after last year, Favre saw how he has more power over the Vikings than even the team’s owners. Now, Favre realizes he can string the Vikings along even more with that power, and he doesn’t even have to show up for the Preseason, and can just play in games that count.

So Favre is (proably) really stringing us all along, and his ankle will definitely be ready in time for the season, if it isn’t really feeling good already. So he’ll keep the retirement rumors going, then “suddenly” feel better, change his mind, and return in time for the season. Who in their right mind would turn down $24 million?

It’s a good thing Favre is rich, because his contract runs out after this upcoming season. After that happens, he’ll be forced into the retirement, because neither the Falcons, nor the Packers, nor the Jets, nor the Vikings, nor anyone else will want to put up with Favre Watch: 2011.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

© John for Sports of Boston, 2010. | Permalink | No comment
Filed under: Featured, Opinion, Patriots.