The Greatest Boston Sports Debate Ever
I think everyone in the Greater Boston Area woke up this morning with one question in mind - "Is David Ortiz the most 'clutch' player to ever wear a Boston uniform - any Boston uniform?" OK, maybe two questions ("Is the rain ever going to end...")
It's really uncanny how we all have the same train of thought after a game like yesterdays. For example - as I was driving in to work this morning, I began to formulate the basis for this post. I tried to think of the most "clutch" professional Boston athletes of my lifetime. I narrowed the list to six players, and I probably could have made it seven if I followed basketball more, or if the Bruins had been even remotely good in my 24+ years on this planet.
By the time I sat at the computer today and began typing, WEEI was already beginning the same conversation, even using most of the same players.
I'm going to turn the radio off so I don't get influenced as I write this, but I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts.
Anyway, back to the question at hand. My answer? No. No he isn't. Not yet at least.
I narrowed my list to the following six players:
David Ortiz - 2003-present
Curt Schilling - 2004-present
Pedro Martinez - 1998-2004
Tom Brady - 2001-present
Adam Vinateri - 2001-2005
Larry Bird - 1982-1990
Now, I will freely admit right off the top, that I was probably too young to fully appreciate what Bird accomplished in the 1980s. I knew he was good; I knew the Celtics were the best team in the NBA. I probably could have picked Larry out of a crowd by the time I was four years old... in 1985. But I don't think I really had any understanding of just what he was capable of doing until I watched some of the old games on ESPN Classic or Sportscentury, etc.
All that being said, I put the six players listed above to the same test: "Which of these players would I feel most comfortable putting a game on the line with?" Now I know that's not the same thing as coming through "in the clutch", but it's pretty close. So if I had one game to win, which of these players would I feel most confident would get the job done?
Here's how I see it:
Adam Vinateri: I rank him #1 for one reason - he's never disappointed. In the five years above (2001-2005), when he had a chance to tie or win a game, he didn't miss. Period. It's like he reached a new level of consciousness or something - the guy was ridiculous. Luckily, he's now kicking for the Patriots' only real threat in the AFC in 2006. Great.
Larry Bird: Even without fully understanding what the man could do, I've heard the legends. I know the tales. Larry Bird could single handedly carry a team for a quarter, a half, a game, or even a full season. The man was uniquely talented - one of the few people to ever play in the NBA who constantly made everyone around him better and knew when it was time to be selfish and simply take over a game. Magic summed it up best at "Larry Bird Night" - "There will never be another Larry Bird."
David Ortiz: Pretty impressive that most New Englanders (and New Yorkers, for that matter) would rank Ortiz ahead of a 3-time Super Bowl winning QB (and 2-time Super Bowl MVP). It's really comical at this point. And I know, this might just be an "Instant History" type of thing, since Ortiz has three walk-off hits in the Red Sox' last eight games, so he's the hottest thing in the city right now. But allow me to explain it this way - Saturday, I was so confident that Papi would come through with a walk-off home run that I recorded the entire at-bat on my DVR, just so I could watch it over and over again. Monday, in the top of the 12th inning, after the Phillies took a 7-6 lead, I immediately started thinking what it would take to get Ortiz to the plate in the bottom of the inning. I figured that it would take the Red Sox tying the game and having at least two on base for him to get up with a chance to win it. Guess I was close…
Tom Brady: The three rings and two MVP trophies should speak for themselves, but really, Brady is as much of a leader as he is an unshakeable presence in the huddle. When the Patriots need a drive, whether for a TD or a FG attempt, I have no doubt that #12 is going to at least give them an opportunity. He just doesn't make mistakes (except in Denver last January...) It will be very interesting to see how he adjusts to the relatively weaker receiving corps, and an unproven kicker when the 2006 season kicks off. But know one thing - I will never count the Pats out of a game if Brady is healthy.
Pedro Martinez: I know, it's sacrilege now to say that Petey is/was better than Schilling. But here's the thing - from 1999-2001, there was no one - no one - in the Major Leagues that was comparable to Pedro Martinez. When he took the mound, it was an event. I would skip college classes just to watch him pitch, because I knew there was always a chance that he would do something unbelievable. In the 1999 playoffs, when he came out of the bullpen in Game 5 of the ALDS against Cleveland, people in Boston knew the game was over. Right then and there, we knew that the Indians had no shot. You could see the look in Pedro's eye - I own this game. It's over, and I'm going to be the one to end it. That was his mentality for his seven years in Boston. And sure, his body started to fail him after 2001, whether it was the hip, the shoulder, or now his big toe. But a Pedro Martinez start was always an event, and probably nine times out of ten, it was almost a guaranteed W.
Curt Schilling: Look, the bloody sock games will go down as two of the gutsiest, grittiest, and most self-sacrificing performances I've ever witnessed. In 2004, he was untouchable (and probably should have won the Cy Young over Johan Santana). In 2004, if I had one game to win, I'd want Curt Schilling standing on the mound for the first pitch. But in 2005, he was still recovering from the ankle injury, and this year he's been very good, but not dominant. That's why he falls sixth (and why Pedro is fifth) - when you can only affect one of every five games, you need to be absolutely unstoppable in those games. Schilling is still a great pitcher, and would be an ace on 85-90% of the teams in the Major Leagues. But I no longer turn on a Schilling start and just expect the Sox to cruise to another win.
Honorable mentions:
Paul Pierce (2005-06): Single-handedly won the Celtics at least six games last season. That's a lot for a team that only managed 33 wins total.
Doug Flutie (1984): I didn't consider college athletes, but Flutie's Heisman Season (capped off with "The Catch") certainly would qualify. Plus, he gave us "Flutie Flakes..."
Ray Bourque (1979-2002): Listen, the guy defined the Bruins for 20 years. He was, by far, the best defenseman in the NHL for the better part of his entire career. The night he won a Stanley Cup was one of one three times I've ever teared up over a sporting event (and the only one not involving a local team - Sox' World Series, Pats' first Super Bowl). But the Bruins just weren't good enough over his time here to be put in the discussion. He was great, but I don't think he was truly "clutch".
Jonathan Papelbon (2006): Waaaaaaay too early. But give him time...
OK, I've written more in the last five days that I had written in the last month. I'll try to be on here more frequently in the next couple months, and I'll have the NFL Preview/Predictions post coming up sometime in early - to - mid-August.
Until next time - Lata.
We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ First Amendment
Personally, I'm stunned.
No, wait. Even better than that. I, for the first time in recent memory, am speechless. Though I don't believe that will keep me from ranting about it for awhile.
Ozzie Guillen just got fined and ordered to sensitivity training for speaking his mind about Chicago columnist Jay Mariotti. In a country where speaking your mind is apparently no longer allowed. Amazing.
I have the rare luxury of being able to say whatever I please at any time, since this is a blog site and not a newspaper or corporate online webspace. But I can guarantee you one thing - if Jay Mariotti had written anything even close to what Ozzie Guillen verbalized last week, the Chicago Sun Times, its editors, and everyone involved would have backed Mariotti and used the First Amendment as a shield. But because Ozzie spoke his mind, and because he has a penchant for mild outbursts and not holding anything back, he has been fined and ordered to attend sensitivity training.
[Random sidebar here - the FX TV show "Rescue Me". (Wait, it'll make sense in a second). I've tried multiple times to get involved with this show, because I like Denis Leary and Lenny Clarke. Unfortunately, I've only watched one episode start to finish, and it happened to involve sensitivity training for a squad of NYC Firefighters. Possibly the funniest hour of television I've ever seen. If you know what episode it is, please tell me so I can rent that season and watch it again. OK, back to the rant...]
Is the First Amendment dead? Has it devolved into "Freedom of Speech - as long as what you have to say doesn't offend anyone, anywhere, anytime"? Are we no longer allowed to speak our minds for fear of being labeled a sexist/racist/ageist/homophobe/xenophobe/or just plain anti-social?
Personally, I'm behind Ozzie Guillen here. And not just because I don't particularily care for Jay Mariotti. I believe that Ozzie Guillen, as a US Citizen, has the right to say whatever the hell he wants, and not be forced to apologize if someone takes offense at it. That's what made this country great in the past - the free exchange of ideas. The ability to criticize without fear of retribution. The right to say whatever the hell you want to say about anyone or anything without having to ask permission first.
Listen, I understand that Mariotti & Guillen aren't exactly good buddies. For that matter, after watching Mariotti on "Around the Horn" for a few years, I doubt he has any good buddies. Mariotti's probably the second most abrasive man in Chicago sports, right behind Ozzie himself. And when two personalities like that clash, it can get ugly.
Well, it just got ugly. Mariotti has no problem taking shots at players, coaches, owners, GM's, ball-boys, fans, and anyone else that might fall onto his radar screen. But the minute he is the target, he crawls under the table, and immediately calls for Guillen's suspension (and my guess is he originally wrote "firing" before toning it down, seeing as how Guillen won the World Series last year and all.)
And that's what it's going to come down to. Ten-plus years ago, John Rocker went absolutely berserk in a limousine while being interviewed by Sports Illustrated. He insulted every group of people in New York City that wasn't a Straight White American Republican Male (also known as SWARM, and yes I just made that up). He not only made the comments, but afterwards, when he had to pitch in New York, he seemed to almost relish the attention and the absolute vitriol that spewed from the stands. He had to be surrounded by NYC cops at all times in the stadium (most of whom, I'm sure, wouldn't have minded if a few fans managed to peg Rocker with a battery or a beer). But Rocker eventually flamed out - he lost command of his pitches, he lost his spot in the Braves bullpen (and every bullpen thereafter), and eventually became nothing more than a minor-league sideshow. He is a pariah in every sense of the word.
And that's the difference. Guillen is a World Series winning manager. He is the manager of the best team in baseball right now. And winning has a way of glossing over things like this. He will continue to speak his mind, and probably continue to be suspended, fined, and ordered to undergo electric shock treatment until he admits that Freedom of Speech is only applicable as long as what you say doesn't offend anyone, anywhere, at anytime.
Of course, if he keeps adding rings to each of his fingers, maybe people will start calling him names instead
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few random thoughts about the season and the impending trade deadline to throw out there for your reading pleasure...
-- Where the hell did the Twins come from? I know Santana is among the elite pitchers in the game, but this Liriano kid, I mean, wow. If Brad Radke can find anything left in the tank, they've got a nasty, nasty rotation to contend with any in the game. Reminiscent of Pedro/Schilling in '04 or Johnson/Schilling in '01. Look out for them in the AL Wild Card chase (sorry, I believe in the White Sox, and they've almost got the division wrapped up already)
-- I'm still high on the Mets, and my Preseason Prediction of a White Sox / Mets World Series is looking pretty good halfway through the season... I can't wait for the game on June 28th - Petey back in Fenway. Something tells me he'll get a little better reception than Johnny Damon.
-- Good chance I was wrong about the Texas Rangers this year (just like the Tigers). Texas has a pretty nice record (39-34), all while playing the hardest schedule in the entire major leagues. Just imagine where they'd be if Mark Teixiera could remember how to hit! Scary - for a team supposedly built around offense, only two players have an OBP over .370 (DeRosa & Matthews)
-- I wasn't very high on the Reds before the season started (I believe I predicted 72-90... oops.) I don't believe they'll be there in the end, either for the division title or the Wild Card. But I do believe they've got something nice to build on for next season and beyond.
-- This hurts me to say, but the Braves are D-U-N done. I picked them to win 88 - I'd be happy to see them win 68 the way they look right now. Time to ship off Smoltz and the Jones', and start looking ahead to 2008 for another division title. 14 years - nice run fellas, but it had to end sometime.
-- I'm sure we all know, somewhere in the back of our minds, that the Royals are terrible. I just didn't really understand how terrible they are until I looked at the standings - they just passed the 20-win mark on the season this week. Mid June! They're on pace for about 50-55 wins, and all it would take is one more 15+ game losing streak to propel them back into the discussion about the worst teams ever. At least they made a nice pickup by trading for Joey Gathright this week.
-- And finally, the Cubs. I thought they would reach about 77 wins - They're on pace for just over 60 (28-43 as of today). Wood is done for the year, and probably for his Cubs' career (I can't see how they would pick up his option). Prior got shelled in his first start of the season this week. Lee is coming back, but I doubt he can carry them back into anything even resembling contention. Time to cut bait - trade Maddux, Pierre & Jones, if you can find takers (rumor has it that George Steinbrenner is enamored with Jacque Jones, following in the long line of lousy mid-season outfield additions for the Yankees; names like Matt Lawton, Shane Spencer, and Ricky Ledee). Build for about 2009, because nothing's going to happen until then.
Lata.
An open letter to NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman
Dear Mr. Commissioner,
I am your target audience. I am a fan of the sport of hockey, and I have lost my way. I am an 18-40 year old, college educated white American male with a good job and enough disposable income to attend many sporting events every year.
This is not a lecture on the loss of faith in a league recovering from a work stoppage. I do not profess to know anything of labor disputes, and I hope that I never will. I do profess to know something of the world of sports, and more importantly, I would like to think that I am fairly representative of the "average American sports fan".
In the past, I have enjoyed following the NHL season from both my living room and from my home team's arena, the Boston Garden/FleetCenter/T.D. BankNorth Garden. I have stayed current with league standings, player transactions, and general news of the world of professional hockey. I even attended multiple minor league games both for entertainment and to see the next wave of talent that I would be able to enjoy watching on the big stage.
For the most part, I enjoyed watching hockey from the comfort of my living room or local neighborhood bar. For the life of me, I could not understand why the NHL would choose to broadcast their product on a third rate network such as OLN (or "Vs.", or whatever they decide to call themselves in the coming years - I really couldn't care less). ESPN provided the NHL with a good home for years, and provided fans with a first class viewing experience. OLN has provided fans with little more than a flashback to the type of production values that we would expect from a 1984 broadcast of a Jets/Whalers tilt. You might as well just tape delay the games and let fans settle for nothing more than the box scores.
If ever there was a sport made for high definition television, hockey is it. Not only is it easier for the casual fan to follow the action, but the clarity of picture that HD can provide would be enough to hold their interest and keep them coming back. Last time I checked, OLN doesn't offer HD programming (or else they reserve it for their non-stop coverage of such riveting events as the Tour de France, or yet another program about the joys of fishing and hunting with Tred Barta).
More importantly than all of this though, is the product on the ice. I have been told that this season was one of the most entertaining in recent memory; that the new rules changes and the salary cap would provide every team with a realistic opportunity to compete for a playoff berth and a chance to claim The Greatest Trophy in All of Sports. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry - when you have such a small pool of legitimate professional talent as the NHL has, and as many teams that need full rosters, the quality of play will suffer. Just the fact that a #8 seed is about to begin play in the Stanley Cup finals should speak volumes about the quality of teams in the league.
Since contraction of teams is clearly not an option for any American professional league in today's sports climate of "high profit first, quality product later", I understand that this is not an issue that is likely to go away. But when more than 50% of the teams in a league are playoff eligible at the end of the season, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate the format. This is not Little League baseball. These are full grown men playing a brutally tough sport. They do not need to be coddled. They do not need a consolation prize. They do not need to be told that they were good enough to be average, at best, and therefore deserve a chance to compete for a title.
They deserve to be told that they need to try harder next year. They need to be motivated to finish in the upper echelon of competition. A six team playoff system with two first round byes worked nicely for the NFL for many seasons – far and away the most successful professional American sports league - there's no reason to think that it wouldn't work just as well in your sport (not to mention the added bonus of offering top teams a week to rest and recuperate).
This will be the first year that I have not only failed to attend a professional hockey game, but as of this moment, I have yet to watch more than one period of any single game for the entire season. You have lost me, but I am not gone forever. Fix the mistakes, and I will come back with a clean slate, and pretend that the last two years never happened.
