American Dash

2011-12-26T23:18:00.000-08:00

Speaking of Sports, Final Edition?

Talk about storybook: Saints qback Drew Brees broke the record for most yards in single season with a touchdown pass on Monday Night Football in his home stadium, in the city with one of the closest bonds to its football team in the NFL, New Orleans.

It's been a long time since I've posted here, on what had become my sports blog in recent years, since I moved most political etc. content to Dreaming Up Daily. Partly that's because I'm less and less interested in major league and college sports. Add up all the bad behavior, the obscene paychecks and money in general, the increasing evidence of physical damage in football, and all the commercials breaking up the rhythm of the games, I'm much less regularly engaged. Then there's the absence of compelling teams, individuals and stories, at least for me at my age.

So the whole thing is getting to be a road too much travelled, or, a rut. The NBA season is starting, and I'm really not interested. The Lakers are one of the few major teams not to improve themselves with trades, and seem to have gotten worse. They traded their key sixth man and kept the guy who lost them the playoffs last year because his girlfriend left him. I don't even look for their scores anymore. I loathe Miami and although I thought I might find something in the new Bulls, I guess my era is over. Magic and Kareem. Michael Jordan. Shaq and Kobe. Now it's pale imitations at best.

It was fun when the Pirates made a little run last season, and the longsuffering hometown fans got to cheer. The Giants are worth following but not often worth watching on TV. Nothing much is worth watching on TV, and that's the problem.

The Steelers are in my genes, so I always root for them, but the truth is I can't watch their games, even the few that are available here. They are just too hard to watch. From an entertainment perspective, they are simply not fun to watch. I enjoy watching Drew Brees and the Saints, and I enjoy watching the Packers, and that's about it. I have a rooting interest in the Niners if they get past the first round of the playoffs, for they seem to have the better chance of making the Bowl. But I'm about to give up my cable, and my disenchantment with sports viewing is making it easier.

2011-05-16T22:48:00.000-07:00

NBA Degrees

In one of the most ignominious games in history, the LA Lakers defeated themselves out of the playoffs. It was Phil Jackson's likely last game as a coach, and like Michael Jordan's actual last game as a player, it was a game nobody would want to remember.

But there's this keeper of a portrait of Phil Jackson in 2011 by Bill Simmons that is the entire excuse for this post. It's one of the best pieces I've read recently on any topic.

As for the NBA, I'm interested enough to watch the scores and highlights, and I might even watch game 7 of the Bulls-Heat series if it comes to that. Before it started it seemed to me that the only chance the Bulls had was for the series to go 7, and that's still probably their best chance. But while winning the first game (as the Bulls did, decisively) is usually important this late in the playoffs, and of course winning the seventh is the decider, the crucial games in how a seven game series goes are usually games 2 and 5. If the first game winner takes game 2 as well, they will be hard to beat, especially because it means the loser's adjustments didn't work, and that could be fatal. (Usually in a tight series the loser adjusts for the next game--which is why home court is crucial, and the Bulls have it.) And especially when the series is tied, the team that wins 5 often wins 7. So there's a long way to go, and the Heat have the m.o. of looking terrible in losses and unbeatable in wins.

So just to be clear, I'm rooting for Chicago all the way. If they can beat the Heat, they can beat the Mavs or the Thunder. (But what if it's Heat v. Thunder? The All-Climate Championship?)

2011-04-05T02:44:00.000-07:00

Take That, ESPN

You picked Kentucky, which didn't make it to the finals. I picked Connecticut. Connecticut won.

A great college sports story, too: Connecticut's 11 straight post-season wins, including 5 victories in 5 days in the Big East tournament.

But turns out that following conventional wisdom on women's NCAA bball is just as dangerous. Both the prohibitive favorites, Stanford and UConn, lost in the semi-finals, on the same day. Now it's Notre Dame v. Texas A&M. I'm picking Notre Dame. Also rooting for them.

2011-03-30T03:31:00.000-07:00

Those Big Brains at ESPN

I get most of my sports news on TV and online at ESPN, which is at best a mixed blessing. These guys have so much time to fill and you have to give them their props--though they spend endless hours bloviating, they do seem to work at the details--they seem to know every player in every sport over the age of eight.

They are obsessed. March Madness is made for them. But in the end they're like the rest of the cable pack--they're baying wolves.   I happened to be watching when the last four of the 64 teams to be included in the NCAA March Madness college men's basketball tournament were announced. These guys were apoplectic about several of the choices, made by some NCAA board I don't understand, and don't have long enough to live to care about. But they were offended by some of the choices--notably a school called VCU---which I think is Virginia Commonwealth University. They couldn't understand how this team could be picked.

What was fascinating about this was that they were virtually unanimous, all those experts. At a certain point they seemed to be feeding on each other, each guy getting angrier by the second. Some questioned the integrity of the process, intimating that prejudice was involved, hinting perhaps that money changed hands. They were especially offended that not enough basketball experts were involved in the decision. You know, experts like...them.

So they were angry and offended that VCU even got into the tournament. They didn't deserve to be among the 64, and it was terrible what this choice meant for the boys who really deserved to be there.

Now those 64 teams are down to four. Gone are the top teams, the #1 seeds and the usual favorites: Ohio, Kansas, Pitt, Duke, North Carolina, Florida. So who is left? VCU. They've beat a team from just about every conference, and in most cases, beat them handily.  VCU, who the experts at ESPN said didn't even belong in the first 64, is in the Final Four.

Now Kentucky is the only big school left that's a media favorite--so naturally the ESPNers now favor Kentucky to win it all. It's VCU and another small school, Butler, a team that shocked everybody at ESPN last year. And UConn. Now you don't have to be an ESPN expert to expect the women's finals to be UConn vs. Stanford, with UConn winning by six points--although maybe not this time. If Stanford brings its A game, they could pull the upset. But nobody picked the men's Connecticut team for the Final Four, and personally I think they have a good chance to win it all.

But who am I. I'm not an expert like those guys at ESPN.

2011-03-09T00:11:00.000-08:00

RIP That Championship Season

Before any more time goes by, I wanted to say a few words about Chuck Tanner, who died a few weeks ago.

From the first time I dimly understood what baseball announcer Bob Prince was talking about on the radio, I was a Pittsburgh Pirates fan, growing up and forevermore (even if I follow the SF Giants a lot more closely these days.) Of all the managers the Pirates had since the 50s, I remember three: Danny Murtaugh, Chuck Tanner and Jim Leyland. Of those three, Chuck Tanner was the only one I met.

I interviewed him in his Pirates office for a piece I was doing for the New York Times Magazine on the relationship of Pittsburgh and its sports teams in the season after that championship year of 1979. I'd been in the clubhouse before and after a game, and it was afterwards I was finally ushered into his office. "Hello, son," Tanner said, with a smile. "What can I do for you?"

I don't remember anything else about the interview except that aura of a really, really nice guy. And so I wasn't surprised to read in Pittsburgh Post Gazette sports writer Ron Cook's memorial column that "Tanner did the right thing as much as any man I've known. He was, simply, the kindest, most decent person I've met in sports."

Tanner was manager of the 1979 "We Are Fam-a-lee" Pirates of Willie Stargell, and other players who projected a positive-feeling image, like Bill Robinson and Tim Foli. That 1979 team had a sense of possibility and even of destiny (I recall an interview on TV with Bill Robinson late in the season when the Pirates were behind Montreal and he said fans shouldn't worry, the Pirates would win the pennant, it was meant to be.) At the same time, the Pirates could be an overpowering team, especially with Stargell and the team's semi-official bad boy--Dave Parker--in the lineup. And Tanner was a wily baseball manager. All of that would come into play in the World Series when the Pirates were down 3 games to 1 to the Baltimore Orioles. They became the first team since 1906 to go on to win the Series, and they did it on the road. Bookended by the Steelers consecutive Super Bowl wins, Pittsburgh was the City of Champions.

There was a dark side to those Pirates that Tanner could be faulted for not seeing, or for overlooking. It was in later years that the players using cocaine were exposed, but the locker room on one of my visits in 1980 showed the signs--particularly (but not only) Dave Parker, who before a game manically threatened to cause me bodily harm if I quoted him, and after the game meekly apologized. But Tanner was still manager when that hit the fan in the 80s, and Cook says he always stood by his 1979 players.

Tanner was the last Pirates manager to win a World Series, and that distinction is likely to remain his. Over a beer in the press mess at Three Rivers Stadium in 1980, Harding Peterson, the Pirates General Manager, layed out for me the Pirates dim future: in a small market in the middle of other small markets, and in an area that wasn't growing in population or wealth, the Pirates ability to compete for players' payrolls with big market teams was dwindling.

The Pirates did manage one more world class team in the early 90s--the fabled Outfield of Dreams team (Bobby Bonilla, Andy Van Slyke and Barry Bonds)--but after winning the division, the Reds and the Atlanta Braves would always break our hearts in the championship series. The worst was in 1992, when the Pirates were one strike away from going to the World Series, only to lose improbably and dramatically, and for the city, tragically. Everyone knew that the team couldn't afford to keep the Outfield of Dreams together. Now the Pirates have been a losing team for 18 straight years, a record for a professional sports franchise.

Chuck Tanner managed in Atlanta for a few years after leaving the Pirates in 1985, but the Pirates were always special--he was a Pittsburgher born and bred. He remained a popular and sunny figure in Pittsburgh and in baseball, and in recent years worked for the Pirates as a consultant to the general manager. He'll always be associated with a special time in Pittsburgh, and he will be remembered as among the best that Pittsburgh had to offer. He died in February at his home in New Castle, PA. May he rest in peace.

2011-02-07T14:48:00.000-08:00

Bowled Over

The last time a Steelers quarterback threw two interceptions and lost the Super Bowl, he was gone before the next season began. That would be the still infamous Neil O'Donnell back in the 90s. That's an unlikely fate for Ben R. since this offense is built around him, but his style means that he gets beat up, and he wasn't 100%, nor was Troy P., again whose style of play invites injury.

But I can't comment much on the Super Bowl since I didn't see it. I saw moments of it, but the first few commercials were so disgusting that I just recorded it, and peeked once in awhile (when I did, something disastrous invariably happened for the Steelers, so I gave up). Now I have no plans to look at the recording. I'm observing myself moving away from the game. I didn't watch even much of the playoffs live, mostly fast-forwarding through the recordings. Part of it is the useless expenditure of emotional energy over a bunch of millionaires, whose victories or defeats affect my life very marginally if at all. Yet there is this history of that emotional identification. I remember actual sleepless nights over fumbles or dropped passes, by players whose names I can barely remember, in those long years between Bowl appearances. And I was supposedly an adult by then. The phenomenon of fan identification has fascinated me for decades, and it's been worth exploring, both within myself and especially outside. But if it leads to such a bloated tawdry spectacle as the Super Bowl, I wonder.

So at this point it's less a deliberate decision to back off than something I seem to be doing, despite my interest in the game. Same thing with basketball. They were a fun way to waste time, and learn a few things. Maybe I've learned those few things, I don't know. It's time's winged chariot, too. As I wrote to someone recently--a line I think I'll keep: there aren't too many more floats in this parade.

2011-02-05T19:22:00.000-08:00

Super Surprises

The sports pundits are reaching their consensus, which the game may well mock. It often does. What would be the surprises?

For the Packers: if they effectively run the ball.
For the Steelers: if they drop back in coverage more than they come after the quarterback.

Expectations now are for a high scoring game, despite the reputable defenses. So the surprise would be 14-10.

Expectations are that Rodgers will play well indoors. Surprise will be if he doesn't. Perhaps the concentrated Super Bowl dazzle gets in his eyes.

Of course the biggest surprise for the pundits would be: the Steelers win.

2011-02-01T22:55:00.000-08:00

Super Bowl Ahead

Judged by the team and player merchandise sold, the Steelers are the most popular NFL team in the world--one writer insists they are the real "America's Team." But a poll claims that most people are rooting for the Green Bay Packers in the Super Bowl.

That pretty much says it all about two teams that are a lot like each other, and enter this game pretty evenly matched. Even the fans and their towns are similar. The Green Bay coach has a stronger Pittsburgh accent than the Steelers.' He's from a few streets away from where I last lived in the Burgh.

Pittsburgh is relatively small and Green Bay is even smaller, and they both lost a lot of people when industries faded (Pittsburgh more I'd guess.) For this and other reasons, their fans are spread out. There are a lot of Steeler fans who've never even been to Pittsburgh, but there are a lot of ex-Pittsburghers who stay in touch to some important degree through the Steelers. Like me, or this woman.

As for the game itself: when a reporter asked Big Ben how he won the championship game he replied, "luck." He's a smart guy. Luck is going to be important on Sunday. But though the Packers are still favored and have the offense to even run away with this one, I'm still giving the edge to the Steelers because of their Super Bowl experience. You saw it this past week already--while the Packers were publicly fighting among themselves, the Steelers were talking each other up, and otherwise pretty quiet. And with a little luck...

(The photos by the way tell a lot about that Super Bowl legacy--that's Franco and Rocky presenting the league trophy after the Jets game, and the scene after the last Super Bowl win.)

Both teams have particularly devoted fans, which led the New York Times to check with mental health professionals, and found that those in Wisconsin and PA are on high alert:

Therapists in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are prepared. Most have seen plenty of people who suffer from what could be called Football Attention Neurosis (F.A.N.), in their practices, in their living rooms, and sometimes in the mirror.

“The belief that these patients have is that the world will end if the Steelers — uh, I mean, their team loses,” said Mark Hogue, a psychologist at Northshore Psychological Associates in Erie, Pa., who owns a trunkload of Pittsburgh Steelers paraphernalia, including a Snuggie. “As a therapist, you need to take that fear seriously.”

(The rest of the piece is pretty funny.)

But there is a very ugly side to Super Bowl madness. Apart from bad behavior at the games (while on average it may not be worse than before, from what I've heard the worst of it is much worse) there's the dark side of the Super Bowl as an event. And I don't just mean the maddeningly frequent and long commercials (or the fact that they are why some people watch the game at all.) There is growing awareness that trafficking in human slaves, often children, especially for sex is a growing problem, and as the San Antonio Express News put it: "As thousands of fans flock to Texas for America's biggest sporting event, human traffickers are preparing to bring in hundreds of women and children to serve as sex slaves for what is also America's biggest sex trafficking weekend." Another report says that this involves children as young as 11, and that these children have a life expectancy of seven years after they are first trafficked.

The federal government is taking this seriously, as are officials in Texas and in Dallas itself. But some charge that the NFL itself is resisting. Personally I was unaware of this, and I expect a lot of football fans are as well. The NFL and its teams need to talk about this, because theirs are likely to be the most powerful voices to shame it out of existence.

2011-01-24T00:37:00.000-08:00

Against All Odds

With the score 24-0 in the first half, it was looking like my kind of game. But of course the Steelers had to make it way too interesting, hanging on to defeat the New York Jets 24-19, aided by a gutsy goal line stand and some brilliant first downs when it counted most to end the game.

Diehard Steeler fans had to be ecstatic with that first half, especially because of all those yards on the ground, watching Rashard Mendenhall run like the reincarnation of Franco Harris (kind of hard since Harris was there, doing the ceremonial coin toss with his running mate Rocky Blier.)

So the Steelers will face the Green Bay Packers in the Super Bowl. Green Bay has already been installed as the favorite, which continues the theme--it's become a cliche, but few really counted on Pittsburgh to get to the Bowl this year, including me. Meanwhile the Packers weren't very impressive on Sunday. They beat a second and then a third string Chicago quarterback, and the third stringer almost beat them. Rodgers, like Big Ben, had a sub-par game, but both made plays when they most needed to. Even so, I'd give the edge to Ben in quarterback play on Sunday.

I'm also inclined to give the edge to the Steelers in the big game, based on their experience, their team play, and Big Ben. He threw some dumb passes on Sunday, but he never gives up, and he's been tested. Rodgers can be brilliant, but he and this Green Bay team haven't been really tested. The unknowns as usual are injuries and the flow of the game on that day. The Steelers lost their young center Maurice Pouncey, and that probably hurt them in the second half. He says he'll play but nobody will know that yet. Anyway, get ready for the hype.

Congratulations Pittsburgh. I can hear you singing: the Steelers are going to the Super Bowl!

2011-01-16T23:15:00.000-08:00

It's Why They Play the Games

So much for that Atlanta-New England Super Bowl. Both #1 teams lost this weekend, convincingly. The closest game of the weekend was the Steelers coming back to win over the Ravens. Since the Jets beat New England, the AFC championship game will be in Pittsburgh, the Steelers v. the Jets.

After a crisp early drive and a touchdown, the Steelers gift-wrapped 14 points for the Ravens and were down 21-7 at the half. But then they cashed in three Ravens turnovers in the third quarter, and drove to a touchdown to win it in the fourth, with a not-soon to be forgotten 3rd and 18 pass to young speedster Antonio Brown. Looking to the future, the Steelers may wind up with the most potent deep threats in the league, with Mike Wallace and Brown.

So it wasn't 40-31 but 31-24 was still beyond most expectations. Still it wasn't really a shootout since most of the scoring on both sides came from turnovers and a shorter field. But here's what was clearly true: Ben Roethlisberger is a better quarterback than Joe Flacco, especially under pressure.

Speaking of pressure, both the Jets and Steelers will try to make that a big factor next weekend. The Jets used coverage and pressure or blitz packages to throw Tom Brady out of rhythm. The Patriots' offense was kind of a puzzle--it was unrelentingly conservative, except for a couple of big risk plays that didn't pay off. Whatever the Jets defense did, the Steelers better understand it and counter it in prep this week. But the weekend also showed that when it comes to dealing with pressure, Big Ben is better. Specifically better than Mark Sanchez of the Jets.

The Steelers are not a lock to win this game, not against a team that have overachieved to beat two of the highest rated quarterbacks in successive weeks. But the Steelers have a very good chance to win it. In contrast to the Baltimore game this weekend, I think next week's will be a low-scoring affair, along the lines of 20-17. What could well be decisive again is Big Ben and especially his playoff and Super Bowl experience. The Steelers were only weakened by injury on special teams so far, and Troy Polamalu had a quiet game against the Ravens. He didn't play last time against the Jets. I expect he'll make his presence known next week. Tight end Heath Miller also didn't play against the Jets, and that probably cost them the winning touchdown as time expired.

The other league matchup will be Green Bay v. Chicago, one of pro football's oldest rivalries. Green Bay looks unbeatable now, but so did New England until today. What's striking is that except for Big Ben, all the surviving quarterbacks are inexperienced in playoff football. The pressure only mounts week to week. You'd have to say at this point that the Steelers have the best shot. Green Bay would be the stronger opponent for them. But they are fully capable of beating these three teams. They'll have to start though with the Jets.

2011-01-14T00:29:00.000-08:00

Steelers/Ravens...Again

Wild card weekend was wild but not wild enough: the one clear favorite that actually won was the Baltimore Ravens. Now the Steelers have to face them for the third time this year, for the privilege of being beaten by New England in the championship game, one would expect. But weird things happen.

Anyway, the Steelers at home have the edge but there's really no clear favorite. Anything can happen. The Steelers may be more rested but if they aren't up to speed right at the beginning, a Ravens score early could be the difference in a tight game, as it was with the Jets. Everyone expects a defensive battle. Which means it could wind up being a 41-30 game. Both teams have potentially potent offenses that have occasionally lived up to their potential. That the Ravens had no problem with Kansas City is a confidence boost for them, on both sides of the ball. But the Steelers have put up a lot of points in their recent games.

As for the other Wild Card games, Indianapolis and New Orleans made quick exits on Saturday though both were favored--New Orleans by a lot over the Seattle Seahawks, who still don't have a winning record. By way of explanation, no truer words were ever spoke than these by Colts Qb Payton Manning: "We would have liked to score more points than them." That way they would have won the game, see?

Commentators talk about the Steelers-Ravens game as brutal, more than hinting that the game can hinge on injuries to key players. Both teams are going into the game about as healthy as they've been all year. The question will be how they come out of it. Will the winner still be healthy enough to compete in the next round?

During the week some Steelers players have talked about how their games with the Ravens always come down to the fourth quarter. This is true, but it also may reveal a mindset. The Ravens played on Sunday, the Steelers are rested and are playing at home. They might be thinking that if they can hold off the Ravens for 3 quarters, they can wear them out in the fourth. If the Ravens are worried about their stamina as well, it's more motivation for them to take chances on offense early and try to run up the score in the first half. The Steelers of course would like to score early and often, especially since they know how to defend a lead this year. But just preventing a Ravens score in the first quarter could be a big advantage for them.

Meanwhile, the Patriots know that once they take care of the Jets, they will be facing a tested but probably very beat up opponent--and if it's the Ravens, a pretty tired one as well. But what's interesting for the Steelers and Ravens is that their game is on Saturday, and the Patriots-Jets on Sunday. So when Pittsburgh and Baltimore play, facing the Jets in the championship game is still at least a possibility, more motivation to win, because the Jets are beatable. As long as Brady is standing, it's doubtful that the Patriots are this year. (Still, the Steelers came back against them after looking completely out of their league for the first half, so...but that's really getting ahead of the game.)

Big Ben has never been beaten by the Ravens, and his record in the playoffs is 8-2. You could argue that he's due. But how he plays may be the difference. Though the same may be said of Flacco, or the corners, or... Here's the thing. In many ways, some of them a little eerie, these teams are evenly matched. But that doesn't guarantee a close game. The odds are it will be a heart attack, but a blowout is also possible. It's like very existential, dude.

How about that other league? The winner of the Green Bay-Atlanta game will be in the Super Bowl. I saw some tentativeness in Atlanta against New Orleans, so in a pretty even contest I wouldn't be surprised if Green Bay won. Seattle-Chicago may be the most fun to watch because the game is meaningless. The winner ain't going nowhere past the next round.

2010-12-30T18:24:00.000-08:00

Pope Football

Let me waste a little more time so I can pontificate on this week's football. Not the bowl games, that endless embarrassing parade of inflated excuses for commercials. I caught the end of one, when the outcome was determined by an official who penalized the scoring team 15 yards on the extra point (they needed a two point conversion to tie) because of excessive celebration in the end zone on the touchdown--the kid who caught the pass saluted the crowd. What a stupid cheat.

Oh, and one of the announcers used the word "palpable" and the other announcers made fun of him. Then he joined in and made fun of himself for using a word that nobody is supposed to understand who watches football. Stupidity enforced, one of the worst self-destructive as well as generally destructive instincts of sports.

No, the last NFL games of the regular season is my topic of the moment. After the unexpected outcome a couple of weeks ago--the Steelers losing to the Jets (predictable, but not having Troy and Heath Miller really determined it) but the Ravens winning over the Saints (not so predictable)--both the Steelers and the Ravens are in the playoffs, but the North title will be decided Sunday, and with it the by. If the Steelers beat the Browns in Cleveland, the title is theirs. But if they lose and the Ravens beat the Bengals, the Ravens win it, and the Steelers must play an extra game, on the road. Conversely (I think that's right), if the Ravens lose, the Steelers win the North no matter what the outcome with the Browns.

On paper, the Steelers are all but in. But this season especially, it's any given Sunday. The Browns can and probably will play with abandon. They can surprise the Steelers, and the way Pittsburgh has been playing, an early touchdown or two against them can be fatal. The Ravens pretty much gave them the game plan to win by what they did to beat the Browns last week--confuse the young quarterback, Colt McCoy, with deceptive defensive looks, and batter the running back early. But if they can't do both, the Steelers may not find this an easy game.

On paper the Bengals are a better team than the Browns, so they should give the Ravens more trouble. Once again, that's on paper. The Bengals are wilting, depressed at this wreck of a season for them. They might put up a fight, and they might not.

It's probably all for naught anyway. Except for that any given Sunday scenario--very important in the playoffs--the Steelers are very unlikely to get to the Super Bowl. They have to hope that somebody else knocks off the New England Patriots, because they've shown no sign that they can. I doubt that anyone will. The Steelers might not even get that deep in the playoffs. Getting Troy P. back will help. If they get the by, they could make it to the AFC championship. They can beat the Jets, if New York gets that far. They will be hard-pressed to beat the Ravens again.

The Atlanta-New Orleans game last week was interesting. They are closely matched, and it was Atlanta's mistakes that cost them the game. If they play each other again, it could again go either way, although I'm still seeing an Atlanta Falcons-New England Patriots Super Bowl, with New England the victor. I guess by now that's conventional wisdom, but it seems right to me anyway.

I'm not even sure I'm going to see it. I'm about to dump my cable TV. It costs much more than it's worth. Who knows, maybe I'll waste less time this way.

2010-12-15T22:42:00.001-08:00

Decisive Sunday

The AFC North could be decided on Sunday. Both the Steelers and the Ravens play their last opponent with a winning record, and both games are at home. But based on where teams are at the moment, the Steelers would seem to have a much better chance of beating the Jets than the Ravens do of beating the New Orleans Saints. If the Ravens lose, that pretty much makes the Steelers the AFC North champs, even if the Steelers lose Sunday. Even if they both win, the Steelers still have the edge, but if the Ravens win and the Steelers lose, the Steelers will have to win out-- two games against inferior teams, including the final game against the Browns.

But with the deck stacked like that, and too many commentators counting the Jets out, and with the Steelers at home and the Jets having never won in Pittsburgh, it's a perfect set up for the Steelers to make things difficult for themselves with a sloppy game and a loss. We'll see if this year's Steelers are that kind of team, as some Steelers teams of the recent past have been.

It could be a tricky game. If the Steelers run game isn't popping, it gets dangerous with the Jets excellent defensive secondary against the pass, and in a close game, Santonio Holmes has plenty of personal motivation to make the decisive catch for the Jets. Plus the Steelers have to shut down the Jets run game early. Jets qback Sanchez has had two poor games in a row, but he's also had games where he's made things happen under pressure.

But the flow is with the favorites so I expect the Steelers to win over the discombulated Jets and the exhausted Ravens to lose to the surging Saints on Sunday.

Update: The news that Troy Polamalu is not expected to play for the Steelers materially alters expectations for this game. Tight end Heath Miller also may not play, which really hurts the Steelers offense against the Jets specifically. The New York sports media is so down on the Jets, their coach and quarterback are under such pressure, that unless they are truly in complete disarray, they have more than enough motivation to win this game. This game could go either way now.

2010-12-12T23:15:00.000-08:00

Steelers/Lakers

The Steelers avoided a loss to the Bengals with the deceptively lopsided score of 23-7. But the Steelers offense didn't score a touchdown, and have scored only two in the past three games. Meanwhile, on a snowy windy field in Chicago, the New England Patriots offense tore apart yet another team (da Bears) 36-7. That's too many such games in a row to be a coincidence. And Brady is absolutely merciless--he never lets up. It's looking more and more like a New England-Atlanta Super Bowl--with Atlanta as the bigger question mark: New Orleans is their threat. But right now there isn't a defense in the NFL that can stop Brady.

The Steelers host the Jets next week, who lost a close game Sunday after being taken apart by the Patriots. They'll either be resurging for redemption or completely disoriented. Unless the Steelers offfense starts scoring touchdowns, none of it is going to matter. The defense can't win them all. But then Big Ben is looking like a Monty Python routine out there, getting whacked in the head, the face, the knees, the ankles, the foot--what else does he have? He's getting beat up with hits after plays that get flagged when they happen to other quarterbacks.

Meanwhile, the Lakers vulnerability looked pretty clear in their loss to the Chicago Bulls this week. When Gasol is out, they've got nobody to replace him. Bynum is due back soon, and he's not only their missing piece, he's got to stay healthy and produce in the playoffs especially, or (I believe) this could well be his last year as a Laker.

2010-12-06T23:37:00.000-08:00

About the NFL (A lot), NBA (a little)

Watching the New England Patriots dismantle the vaunted New York Jets on Monday Night football made me feel a little better about their dismantling of the Pittsburgh Steelers a few Sunday Nights ago. It also confirmed for me the impression I've had for the past several weeks--that it's New England's year. With their schoolyard victory over Baltimore Sunday, the Steelers got closer to the playoffs. But it's unlikely that they or anyone is going to defeat the Patriots this year, with the usual caveat of injury (to Tom Brady) or just a very stinking bad playoff game.

The Steelers' season is also far from over. Big Ben lurched through Sunday's game on a bad foot, and now he has a broken nose (on a play that as usual didn't even draw a penalty, though today it drew a fine. The week before, Buffalo players beat on his knee and perhaps foot after the whistle, with no penalty. The week before that, an Oakland player sucker-punched him and knocked him to the ground after the play was over, with a fine but no suspension. Moral to Steelers' opponents: Big Ben is fair game.)

The Steelers and the Ravens have pretty much the same schedules remaining. They both play Cinncy and Cleveland, and both have one game against a tough opponent: Steelers play the Jets, the Ravens play the Saints. Neither can let down against or look past the Bengals or especially the Browns, who continue to play pretty well in contrast to how they began the season.

The Steelers probably have a better chance to get past the Jets (depending on how they respond to being thoroughly thrashed by New England) while the Ravens must deal with a New Orleans team that is still getting sharper. (On the other hand, if the Jets rediscover their pass rush--which disappeared against New England--it means another harrowing ordeal for Big Ben.) But even if they both lose these games and get past weaker opponents, the Steelers would now win the division. But in a season like this, and depending on how hurt Ben is, nothing is a given, even this late.

And as goal-driven as even spectating is, getting to the Super Bowl is unlikely for either team. That leaves watching for fun. But these days watching the Steelers is not so much fun. Their defense can be smothering, but they can also look porous and bad, as they did on the Ravens' touchdown drive. While it is dramatic to watch Ben in the malestrom of opposing players, improvising pass plays, it's a far cry from watching Tom Brady dissect the defense and hit receivers with passes breath-taking in their speed and accuracy. Much artier, and more relaxing to watch.

Right now the two teams with the best records are New England and Atlanta, and that's a pretty good bet to be your Super Bowl matchup.

Meanwhile, the NBA season is taking shape. All the preseason hoohaw was about the Lakers vs. the new Miami Heat. While the Celtics and the Magic are giving the Heat the competition that many predicted in the East, I don't recall anybody much forecasting that the Lakers were going to be challenged in the West by at least three teams. Right now their perennial rivals, the San Antonio Spurs, are running away with their division, and the Dallas Mavericks are looking good as well. Some folks like Phoenix. In any case, it doesn't look like a walk in the park for the Lakers by any means, even if you discount their recent four game losing streak. At this point, it's not so certain they'll even get to the finals.

2010-11-26T00:23:00.000-08:00

Steelers Update

I watched the Steelers Sunday night game with New England while I was in Pittsburgh, with my two best friends, my two remaining friends from high school. The Steelers played a miserable game, and Clayton in particular was upset (he showed up in a Jerome Bettis Steelers shirt) but I had to confess that I was having a great time.

So it's taken a lot of years to have fun while the Steelers lose, but I've apparently achieved it under limited circumstances. But New England was so clearly dominant that it would have fueled sports talk shows for the week if Michael Vick and Philadelphia hadn't had such an amazing game on Monday night, which inspired amazing effusiveness--how he was now unstoppable, had transformed the quarterback position and NFL football, etc. Well, Philadelphia did win its next game, but Vick was relatively quiet, and non-transformational.

Then this past Sunday, the Steelers thoroughly trounced Oakland 35-3. As much as I saw of that game, I enjoyed (even by myself.) But analytically speaking, the Steelers getting into the playoffs is not assured. Their remaining schedule has but two games that on paper present real challenges, and one of them is with the Baltimore Ravens, their rivals for winning their division. They are technically tied at the moment, but if the Ravens win this upcoming early December game (in Baltimore), they will hold the tiebreaker by having defeated the Steelers twice. And the Ravens' remaining schedule is no more difficult for them than the Steelers. For both teams, their matchup is the most forseeably key game.

But it's been a weird season, with teams looking brilliant and unbeatable one week, and hopeless the next. So anything can happen really, especially with so many teams with nearly the same record. The league is divided into teams that have won a lot of games and teams that have won very few. That makes wildcard slots really unpredictable. So if the Steelers defeat the Ravens, their chances improve but are not certain. If they lose to the Ravens, their chances diminish substantially, but don't disappear.

There's another interesting factor. The two recent Steelers Super Bowl teams had one thing in common--though they had rocky periods during the season, they got healthy at the end of the season. This week a few key injured players start coming back, but the two most important injured players are not expected back this year at all. So we'll see, but they may not have enough to get deep into the playoffs.

In their games with New Orleans and New England, it was clear that the Steelers did not have the best quarterback on the field. How Big Ben plays from now on will have a lot to do with the Steelers fate this year. But with so many extraordinary quarterbacks--the proven and once again very sharp Tom Brady and Dru Brees, the younger quarterbacks like Vick and Sanchez and even Colt McCoy, not to mention the Manning brothers--it's more of a question where Ben ranks among them.

Another interesting factor though is that the Steelers are now playing with a chip on their shoulder. Before it was just James Harrison apparently being singled out for fines in the laudable quest to stop illegal helmet hits and other concussion-causing collisions. Now it's Big Ben getting slugged by an Oakland player, after the play was over, and the Oakland player not getting suspended, or much of a fine. What if somebody slugged Tom Brady? That's the question the Steelers ask, and because everyone knows the answer, they are going to be playing with an attitude.

2010-11-01T22:43:00.000-07:00

They Are Giants

--and no "might be" about it. The last time they won the World Series they were the New York Giants, and there were no major league baseball teams west of the Mississippi River town of St. Louis. In some ways things haven't changed all that much--the series between two western teams, San Francisco and Texas, couldn't draw the audience that the Yankees and Red Sox can--but this Series was classic baseball, and one for the ages.

The Giants are a baseball novelist's dream: a combination of very young players and cast-off veterans. They started the season with a core of drop-dead pitchers and added position players through the year, and it all jelled at the right moment. They led their division for only a month of the season, and won it for good on the last day. Then they defeated the favored, hitter-heavy Phillies and Rangers, shutting them down with shutouts and a total of 3 wins.

The fifth game heroes come out of central casting too. Tim Lincecum, the young long-haired pitching ace, who seemed to have lost everything in August, was utterly dominant from the first pitch. He was so deadly, and speeded up his delivery so much in the late innings that the Rangers seemed stunned and demoralized in the 8th and 9th, when ace reliever Brian Wilson just fired overwhelming strikes, for an amazingly undramatic bottom of the ninth.

The other hero was the elder, Edgar Renteria, injured most of the season and riding the bench, he wound up being the Most Valuable Player of the Series, especially for two key home runs--including the 3 run shot in the 7th inning of this game. And here's the Hollywood kicker: this is the second time in his career that Renteria supplied the hit that won a World Series. And this time, it may well have been the last major league at bat of his long career.

I came fairly late to the Giants' season, but it was a treat following the end of the season through this night, that brought San Francisco its first World Series championship. (I suffered through the terrible loss snatched from certain victory of the Bonds era.) I even learned some more baseball. I was able to watch some of the Bay Area sports channel coverage of press conferences, and noted how carefully the Giants prepared for these games. Their hitting coach worked with hitters to correct new bad habits--that has to provide some confidence, if nothing else. But what impressed me especially was the game plan for how to approach specific pitchers--which ones to be aggressive with, and which ones to wait out and make them throw strikes. This team seems to really have bought into following a game plan--another feature of a team that plays like a team, that has no stars, or players who act like stars.

And I have to think they had a pretty good game plan for their own pitchers, too. In this I suspect their rookie catcher, Buster Posey, was crucial. Pitchers kept saying how he called great games, keeping the hitters off balance. As they talk about this series more, I suspect there will be more about how they handled hitters, and who was in the mix.

So I have a new appreciation for the intelligence that goes into this, the temperament to deal with bad pitches and bad at-bats and still be ready to perform the next time, to accept the bad hop that gets you on base as well as the bad hop that gets you an error. Plus the work--these guys work on their game, their mechanics--it's not a night on the town and playing with hangovers anymore.

The Giants seem to have the perfect manager in Bruce Boche--a great temperament, and a master strategist. His moves worked, whereas a few crucial ones of his opponent didn't (notably the decision to pitch to Renteria today, with first base open and a less experienced hitter coming up.)

I don't follow many World Series anymore, but I'm glad I followed this one, not only because San Franciso is where I would go to see Major League baseball (except when I'm visiting Pittsburgh of course) but because this is one of those special teams in baseball history. I also got an education in how difficult Major League baseball had made things for itself, by extending the season into early November, competing these last two classic games with Sunday Night and Monday Night Football (suicidal for ratings) as well as the start of the NBA and NHL seasons. But then the sports world is insane and can't keep this up for many more years. It's all getting to be too much for me, but while I'm still watching, this has been fun. Congrats, Giants. This was a storybook season. One for the ages.

2010-10-31T22:33:00.000-07:00

Giant Win

So now what's up with the San Francisco Giants? Nothing, again. This time the hero has the very unsportsherolike name of Madison Bumgarner, the 21 year old pitcher who blanked the Texas Rangers for the first (or maybe second) time this year at home---and definitely for the second time in the World Series.

Texas won the game they absolutely had to win, the third. But San Francisco won the game that they probably needed to win, the fourth. They figured to have the better pitcher on the mound in that fourth game, where pitching is always a bit dicey. But even though Bumgarner has shown he's capable of a performance like this one, no one could reasonably expect it--his first World Series start, on the road, with two ex-Presidents and First Ladies in the house rooting for the home team.

But this time the Giants won it their way--getting an early lead, shutting down the opposition with stellar pitching and solid defense, then adding demoralizing runs in the late innings so the other team is looking at a few runs in the last inning or two as an insurmountable mountain.

Now the Giants have a commanding lead in the Series, needing to win just one of the next three, with two of them at home. Texas must win them all. And the next pitching match-up pits the Texas ace against the Giants', and though you have to guess that Cliff Lee is not going to have two bad outings in a row, but Lincecum is no slouch either. What did that guy on ESPN say? The Rangers could win the fifth game but they won't. I'm not sure what that means.

Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Steelers couldn't get it done at New Orleans against a Saints team that suddenly looked like last year's. Big Ben is clearly not sharp yet, but if a few key plays had gone the other way, the Steelers still could have won this game. A stripped ball late in the fourth quarter sealed the deal.

This was a big win for the Saints. As shaky as their early season was, they are now expected to win most of their remaining games against weaker opponents and get into the playoffs. The Steelers face stronger opponents and tougher road games, but while losing to this NFC team is consequential, it isn't as bad for them as it is good for New Orleans. These two teams probably suspect they may meet again in the big one.

I haven't had the opportunity to watch the Steelers on TV since the preseason, though they're coming up with several Sunday and Monday night games. This time I was switching between the Steelers game and the Giants game. Maybe that took a little sting out of it, but this was a good football game that came down to a few key plays that the Saints made and the Steelers didn't. Dru Brees was the better quarterback today, and the Saints defense was a match for the Steelers.

The Giants game was also a well-played baseball game, with terrific fielding plays by both teams, and some clutch hitting by the Giants (most of which they did while I was on the other channel, nuts!) I don't know that I'll have many more of these afternoons and evenings wasted in front of the TV watching sports, but at least this time the games were worth watching.

2010-10-28T23:19:00.000-07:00

Yes We Cain

What's up with those San Francisco Giants? Nothing. Zero.

Zero is the number of runs that pitcher Matt Cain has given up in the post-season. In the second game of the World Series he pitched brilliantly--with great stuff, but also the fortitude to get out of jams-- and left the game after 7 and 2/3 innings with the Gianst ahead 2-0.

That was enough to win the game. In fact, the solo home run hit by the Giant's #8 hitter (the magnificent veteran Edgar Renteria) was enough to win this game. A team scoring nothing in the World Series is a rarity, but it's even more astounding because Texas has come up with a gameful of zeros only five times all season.

Then in the Giants' eighth inning, the Rangers' bullpen completely imploded, walking in three runs, and allowing several hits, all with two outs in the eighth. The Giants won 9-0.

So now the Giants have won two games, and the Rangers zero. Nothing.

The Series goes to Texas for three games starting Saturday, and of course nobody knows what will happen. Will the home stadium settle their young bullpen, will their big hitters start getting big hits? The Phillies waited for that to happen, and it didn't happen. But one possibility has been erased: the Rangers won't sweep. They must win 4 of the next 5 games.

The Giants scored 11 runs in the first game, 9 in the second, both after dodging early game problems and doing most of the damage in a single late inning. None of that is actually characteristic of their season. Their winning formula is to get a couple of runs early while their pitchers hold the other team in check, and bend but not break in the late innings. The Rangers must be really confused.

If the Giants win the third game, the series is just about over. Confidence is a big part of baseball. Right now the Rangers look befuddled. If they can't channel the energy of the home crowd into effective confidence in their first game there, they're probably done. They will have left their heart in San Francisco.

On the Steelers...

The Pittsburgh Steelers' premier defensive end is out (for the season) and their other starting d.e. may not play Sunday. It's going to be very hard to stop New Orleans on a mission, primarily through the air. And if the Saints get one of their runners back, and Steelers run defense weakens to contain the pass, there could be more trouble.

On the other hand, Aaron Smith's replacement is Ziggy Hood, their #1 draft choice from last year, and this kind of a game is when stars are made. He'll probably have to be one, and the Steelers will have to do a lot of good things offensively as well as defensively.

They're capable of it, and on paper they should win this game. But it's hard to conceive of the defending champion New Orleans Saints losing at home on Halloween, which is New Orleans' signature day. My heart is with the Steelers as always, but I'm still the Big Uneasy about this game.

2010-10-25T03:51:00.001-07:00

The Big Uneasy

Talk about not making things easy--the SF Giants won the pennant over the Phillies in an excruciating sixth game. I'm sure it will be thrilling to see on replay but it was too brutal for me to watch entirely. Both teams left so many on base, so many opportunities and failures, along with a few key successes, and some luck. I guess I'm too old for this.

Now the Giants face the Texas Rangers in the World Series, another team with good pitching but better hitting, and again the Giants are the decided underdog. Anything can happen in this series--they could be swept, they could sweep, and everything in between.

Meanwhile, the Steelers won an uncomfortably tight game in Miami, as they move into the meat of the season, facing their toughest opponents and (not coincidentally) playing Sunday and Monday night games on national TV. The signs of this game weren't good. More than signs--they lost one of their key defensive players, defensive end Aaron Smith to what may be a season-ending and even career-ending injury. They simply haven't been able to win consistently without him for the past several seasons. He's a big loss, and the defense diminishes significantly.

Sunday's game wasn't a good one for the offensive line either, and that doesn't bode well. Big Ben still had some rust, and that can't become bad habits.

The Steelers play at New Orleans next Sunday night, and the Saints were embarrassed this Sunday by of all teams the Cleveland Browns. So the Saints are likely to play their best game, maybe above their best game, against the Steelers. This is going to be a tougher game for the Steelers than it might seem. The Saints must know that if they don't win it, their season is pretty much over.

Tracking the response and reaction to the blows to the head "controversy": the consensus among the TV commentators I heard was that players avoided such illegal hits without noticeably changing the game this week, and that avoiding those hits is good for the game. So after a week in which the contrary view got aired--that football can't survive this, that players can't figure out how to play without committing these hits--this seems now to be a firm consensus. And it is a good thing. Let's hope it continues. Bob Costas (I think it was) even made my point--that today's hitting is more violent and causes more injuries than in the past, in the 70s specifically of the Steelers great teams, and nobody can claim that wasn't football.

2010-10-21T00:36:00.000-07:00

On Head Hits and Big Hits

I hadn't seen the Steelers game Sunday, but I've seen the repeated clips of James Harrison's hits to the head, as well as the others singled out by the League for big fines and warnings of suspensions to come. I can understand Harrison's hurt and confusion at being singled out, and not having good alternatives--to the point where he was considering retirement today. But I for one am increasingly turned off by the sport when I see hits like that, and players carted off.

TV sports coverage bears a lot of responsibility by praising them and showing them over and over on Sportscenter, etc. through the years. I also agree with this column by Gene Collier in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that notes that those hits didn't get penalties, and it is up to officials to start enforcing those rules:

"Perhaps owing to the unrelenting cadence of high-speed collisions, perhaps in deference to marketing forces that position the game as some celebration of violent acts you'd get arrested for in any other place, the modern NFL official enforces league rules selectively, ignoring some, insisting that others receive 100 percent compliance.

So please, keep those end-zone celebrations tasteful. Catering is frowned upon, certainly.

The most ignored rule in the league's ever-fluid digest of not-terribly-well-written rules is the one about the helmet."

The truth is that football used to be played without these kinds of violent collisions and hits to the head. And if it is true that injury is inevitable whether someone is hit high or low, then it's time to end this game. I don't think it's necessary. I'm sure it's also due to players being bigger, stronger and in many cases faster than players in the past. But this can't be ignored.

Switching to baseball, the Giants started hitting just in time to go up 3 games to 1 over the Phillies. Buster Posey had a career day, with four important hits, two RBIs and a great play at the plate. The Phillies hitters are still dangerous, and the longer the series goes on, the more looks they have at Giant pitchers, but the Phillies bullpen has not served them well, and it may take more than a day off to fix that. I see this going 6, though the Giants seem incapable of making anything easy.

2010-10-18T04:21:00.000-07:00

Following Up: A Little Bit of Everything

Both elements of the Steelers-Browns game I worried about happened--but the Steelers still won handily. Big Ben was rusty, and had a shaky first half. Colt McCoy did have a pretty good game, at least statistically. (He also was sacked five times, and threw interceptions.) But by the third quarter the Steelers got tracked, and the Browns got beat.

Helping the Steelers, the Patriots beat the Ravens in overtime. Now the Steelers will really find out how good they are. So far they're certainly much better than I thought they'd be. And nobody else is quite as good as advertised.

Meanwhile in baseball, both series' are 1-1. The Yankees have their hands full with the upstart Texans, and in their second game the Phillies got the timely hits they needed and the dominant pitching they thought they'd get in the first game against the Giants. The third game is very important for the Giants. It's funny how the commentators turned on the Phillies after they lost the first game. If the Giants had taken 2 in Philly, then I'd say they were favorites. But now, they'd have to be 3-1. The Giants still haven't had a breakout hitting game in the postseason. They need one soon.

2010-10-15T00:49:00.000-07:00

Steelers Beware--and Be Good

In way too many ways, the Cleveland Browns don't have a chance when they travel to Pittsburgh Sunday to play the Steelers. Even in the Browns' good years the Steelers dominate them at home, and this isn't a good year by any stretch--they are 1-3, the mirror opposite of the Steelers. Their quarterbacks are hurt, so they are starting their rookie, who has never played an NFL game. Their star running back, pretty much their entire offense so far, is hurting.

On the Steelers side, they have won 3 games with their 3rd and 4th string quarterbacks. They are out for revenge for their poor game losing to Cleveland at home last year. And, oh yeah, they are getting their quarterback back, Ben Roethlisberger.

Expectations are high, not only for this game, but James Walker at ESPN makes the case for them as the NFL's one dominant team. Though I anticipate that possibility, this snowballing of expectations could be trouble.

Apart from the Steelers not putting out the effort--which I think is unlikely--there are two main dangers which could combine to shoot up those expectations. The first is rust: Ben hasn't played significant minutes even in exhibitions, and he's playing in his first game of the season with a team that's coming off a bye week. Rust can translate into turnovers, and that can quickly become Cleveland points, as well as missed Steelers opportunities.

The second is Colt McCoy, the rookie quarterback for the Browns. At Texas, he won more games than any NCAA college quarterback ever. With the Browns he is an unknown quantity, and the unknown is not what defenses like. He could get them off balance and out of rhythm by being better than they expect and above all, unpredictable.

So on paper the Steelers should win in a blowout. But if Ben and the Steelers offense aren't sharp early in the game and don't score much, and Colt McCoy gets hot later in the game, then things could be a little too interesting.

2010-10-15T00:33:00.000-07:00

Of Sports Past

Jeez, this is my de facto sports blog and it's just about the only one that doesn't have a post or two on the 50th anniversary of the 1960 World Series seventh game in Pittsburgh. But there are photos and words on that here, here, here (with some repetitions) and hell, here too-- just an easy click away, with links there to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette stories, including several they printed in the Oct. 14 editions of 1960, and some pretty neat video, including Mazeroski's home run.

Also in sports past, this month marked the passing of George Blanda, a professional football quarterback and kicker--for 26 years. He won a lot of games and holds all kinds of records. His last game was at Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh, when he was just shy of 49.

I remember seeing him play on TV, including some of his game-winning heroics for Oakland late in his career, but I watched him with particular interest because he was born in Youngwood, Pennsylvania, the same tiny town where my mother grew up--they went to the same high school, though at different times--and where my grandparents still lived when I was growing up. People had stories, none of which I remember, but in addition to being still remembered in Oakland, he was a hometown hero in Youngwood.

2010-10-11T23:17:00.000-07:00

Fun While It Lasts

The SF Giants escaped with a win in Atlanta to take the series and move on to face the Phillies. It's certainly sweet to defeat Atlanta, with its obnoxious and demeaning tomahawk chops, and payback for all that pain in Pittsburgh can never be enough. But the SF team nicknamed Torture should celebrate well, because they have very little chance against the Phillies. They squeaked past the depleted Atlanta team, getting few timely hits and a number of timely calls going their way. The Phillies have better pitching than Atlanta and much better hitting than Atlanta and the Giants put together. I'm sure SF will relish the underdog role and I wish them well, but I'm too old to invite the pain of watching them very closely. But if they get past five games...

2010-10-10T16:11:00.000-07:00

They Might Be Giants

The San Francisco Giants had everything going for them in the second game of their playoff series with Atlanta. They had an unaccustomed early lead of 4-0, and with Matt Cain pitching, that normally is very comfortable. Thanks to Tim Lincecum's brilliant complete game 1 after the off-days, their bullpen was rested, and they had the strongest stoppers and savers in the league. They were playing before a huge and enthusiastic home crowd, a sea of orange.

But their stoppers didn't stop and their saver didn't save. Yet in the bottom of the 10th, they still had a clear advantage: the bases loaded and one out for their clutch-hitting rookie catcher, Buster Posey. There was only one thing he could do wrong. If he got a hit or just a ball to the outfield, the Giants win. If he struck out or popped up, the Giants would still get another chance with the bases loaded. If he got a walk, as the previous batter had, the Giants win, and go up 2-0. And it did appear that the three pitches he saw were out of the strike zone. He swung at one and missed. He took the next. Then he swung at the third and did the only terrible thing it was possible for him to do, he hit into an inning ending double play. Atlanta promptly got a run in the 11th, the deflated Giants didn't answer, and the series was tied 1-1 going to Atlanta.

This is how Atlanta breaks your heart. It's how they did it to the Pirates in the 90s.

In the third game, the Giants again got a very strong pitching performance, from Jonathan Sanchez. And again, they failed time after time to get timely hits. They left tons of baserunners, and practically dared Atlanta to pull the game out in the late innings with the Giants up 1-0. And that's exactly what they did--with one swing, a pinch-hit homerun that barely got over the fence in fair territory, put Atlanta up 2-1 in the bottom of the eighth.

Fortunately the Giants did get a timely hit and a lucky bounce in the 9th, and their saver saved. Frankly I didn't expect them to win their first game in Atlanta, and they'll probably have to play better to win the series. The fact that they're in the driver's seat now--needing one more win, and with their ace Lincecum available for the fifth game if necessary--doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the Atlanta baseball club. They specialize in breaking your heart.

2010-10-04T00:45:00.001-07:00

Sort of Nice

It took three games but the Giants won the division with a 3-0 victory over San Diego. And to add to the injury, San Diego also lost the Wild Card spot to Atlanta. But even though they came to life long enough to beat the Giants in two games--most ominously by getting to their starting pitchers--the Giants fought hard in those games and forced the Padres to use a lot of their relievers, and their tired arms were a factor in Sunday's game.

Now the Giants play Atlanta, and I will take great satisfaction if they can win that series, since it was Atlanta that spoiled the postseasons for the last great Pittsburgh Pirates team, the one with Bonds, Bonilla and Van Slyke, the Outfield of Dreams. Apart for rooting against any team with a Native American mascot, I have that special animus for Atlanta. And while the Giants have the better pitchers, nobody can take this series for granted.

It was a heady, happy day in San Francisco, and the Giants fans were beautifully delirious--they packed that field-- the stands were a sea of orange. Not so much in Pittsburgh, however, where the Baltimore Ravens scored a touchdown with 32 seconds left to win in Pittsburgh. The defense took responsibility, but after the defense held inside the 5, the offense had only to get a first down to win the game. But they didn't, with some dumb penalties and conservative play calling. Also the kicker missed two forty-some yard field goals earlier, which didn't help.

So now a bye week and Big Ben is back. How much of a difference would he have made Sunday? Last year they failed to get first downs like that, too, so it's hard to say. Cleveland is his first opponent, and that game seemed like a gimme, except that the Browns beat the Bengals on Sunday, and they're not everybody's punching bag anymore. Still, it probably is going to come down to the Steelers and the Ravens (both 3-1 now.) They play once more in the regular season, and it wouldn't surprise anyone if they played once more in the post.

So a great day in SF, but not in Pittsburgh: averaging out to sort of nice.

2010-10-01T03:30:00.000-07:00

Pretty Nice

As the 50th anniversary of the 1960 World Series approaches, sports thrills are threatening to be more than memories. I recall in the mid 1990s sitting in the Three Rivers Stadium sunshine watching the Pittsburgh Pirates clinch their division championship. The crowd was pleased but underwhelmed. It was expected (as was the yearly heartbreak of losing to Atlanta in the playoffs.) But that was the last time Pittsburgh got even that far, and it's unlikely to happen again for a long while.

But I'm up in far northern California now, and now south there's the San Francisco Giants, clearly thrilling their fans in this latest homestand, as they've been suddenly winning while competitors were stumbling, and they've clinched at least a tie for the division title. They need to win just 1 of their last 3 games, all against the current second place team--and division leader just last month--the San Diego Padres. Saturday and Sunday games are already sold out.

I've only seen one Giants game in that stadium, the last year (in the Bonds era) they won their division, and lost the World Series in heartbreaking fashion. It's a fun place to see baseball, and the fans were especially great. Reminded me of Forbes Field in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Wish I was down there this weekend.

Speaking of Pittsburgh, how bout them Steelers? How do you figure this--their fourth string quarterback piles up 38 points and they are one of the last 3 undefeated teams in the NFL. The only thing giddier than that would be if they beat their most potent rival Baltimore this Sunday, before their bye week and Big Ben comes back to trounce the Browns. Good times.

2010-09-24T01:00:00.000-07:00

Third Week

Which 2-0 NFL team is the biggest surprise? Heard that on TV today, Sportscenter or somewhere, and the answer was, Tampa Bay. Not the Steelers, who played their first game with their third string quarterback, and most of their second with their fourth string quarterback, who is now their starter, because all the others are injured or disqualified. But they are 2-0. No surprise, huh? (And while Dixon didn't have a spectacular first game, he did well enough to win.)

Well, that says a lot for the Steeler defense, and from the little I've been able to actually see in highlights and such, the defense is deserving--not just sharp but exciting. So now the less surprising Steelers go to Tampa Bay. Is it the week when their ridiculous quarterback woes catch up to them, or the week that Tampa Bay's young house of cards falls into a puddle?

So far the smart money says the Steelers take this one, too. It's going to be as hot or hotter on the field than in TENN last week, and it's asking alot of the defense to count on them to shut everybody down every week. So Charlie Batch and the Steelers receivers and runners have to score some points and give the defense some breathing room. This game could go either way.

Right now the Steelers are a bit like the SF Giants in baseball, whose pitchers have been absolutely shutting teams down this month, but game by game the offense isn't scoring enough. There have been a couple of easy games, like today's 13-0 over the Cubs, but not many. And they've shown more balance than the Steelers have.

Four teams are fighting for two playoff spots in the NL, and the Giants can still lose out entirely--absent a collapse by Atlanta, their best shot is to win the division. They've got head to heads with Colorado and San Diego, on the road. Their pitching has to hold up, but they need to score runs. Same basic problem as the Steelers. Both of them can conceivably win with just defense and a little offense, but the odds don't favor that.

2010-09-11T23:12:00.000-07:00

First Sunday

The first week of the NFL season is too early for me to care about any game but the Steelers, and secondarily, the 49ers. But not enough to even know who the 9ers are playing.

I just want to record here that I've got a feeling: that Dennis Dixon is going to have a big game as Steelers quarterback on Sunday. That's all. The game starts in a little more than 12 hours, so we'll see if this feeling, which I've had for several days and is based a bit on intuitive responses to certain facts and statements, will turn out to be right.

Meanwhile, the SF baseball Giants are still in the thick of the postseason hunt but even taking two of three from San Diego, they haven't quite made it either to the top of the division, or the top of the Wild Card. They could forlornly turn out to be the best team to not make the playoffs. But they are keeping it interesting.

2010-08-03T19:12:00.000-07:00

Games

I guess this has become my sports blog, which even more than usual is me talking to myself. The spectacle of LeBron James going to Miami is over, and has generally been panned. The upshot of off-season machinations in the NBA has shaken out in a way that causes me to agree with Magic Johnson: the Lakers strengthened themselves enough to remain the favorites. The Heat have to prove that these guys can play together. Plus my caveat: Magic says that the Heat will win championships in the future, but I'm not sure that the new Big Three will even last more than one season together.

NFL football games begin soon, and things don't look that great for a Steelers fan. Even apart from the Big Ben suspensions for at least 4 games, the offseason hasn't been kind. Other teams in the AFL have strengthened themselves, including the Steelers' division rival, the Bengals. The Jets and Ravens also got stronger. New England will make some noise but not contend, Indianapolis is always a contender, and only Denver has seriously faded. But the Steelers didn't make conspicuously strong additions, and they've lost some key people on offense to trade and injury. So I doubt the Steelers will make the playoffs this year either. Of course, there are possibilities: some key defensive veterans are coming back from injuries, and some rookies and second years are having a good training camp. So maybe I'm being too pessimistic.

Baseball has gotten interesting hereabouts with the Giants making a playoff run.

But there's this: these guys in all these sports are making obscene amounts of money. There's little basis of comparison in basketball and football to pro teams of the past, but there is in baseball, and as far as I'm concerned, there are fewer good players-especially on defense--than there used to be, when players made a lot less money. And given the soap opera of bad behavior by these overpaid athletes, it's getting harder to care.

Specifically in football, the growing realization of how damaging concussion and head injuries are is having a serious effect on how people view the sport. It's another drag on my interest.

2010-06-18T00:04:00.000-07:00

Probably the most honest comment about game seven came from Kobe Bryant when he said he didn't know how they won that game. Consensus was that the Celtics' age finally got to them as the Lakers piled up 30 points in the 4th, and as well the absence of their center Kendrick Perkins because the Lakers dominated rebounds. Kobe hit a few big shots, got to the line, played defense and especially rebounded well. Derek Fisher hit the big three, and Pau Gasol finally began to dominate around the basket in the fourth quarter.

But from start to finish in this game, the difference for the Lakers was Ron Artest. He played terrific defense on Paul Pierce, he rebounded and he scored even when others weren't: he got putbacks, he got in the lane buckets, he hit jump shots and three pointers, including a crucial 3 in the fourth quarter. Artest has had the kind of career the pundits call "troubled," and he's a non-linear personality for sure. He's also the one player who wasn't here last year--and the Lakers were roundly criticized for trading for him, and giving up Trevor Ariza (by among others, me.) But as Magic Johnson said of this game, he was the difference-maker.

Now the Lakers are more likely to basically stay together, and if Phil Jackson's health checks out, he is more likely to return as coach. But it's doubtful that the Celtics will remain intact, or in any case, be back in the finals next year. But...even though I will watch these finals again as motivation while exercising, I'm looking forward to forgetting about NBA basketball for a nice long time.

2010-06-17T17:46:00.000-07:00

Game 7

It's a few minutes before tip-off. I'm going to be doing a phone interview for the first quarter probably, which is just as well, but I'll have the vcr running. What's the key? A neophyte would say: who scores the most points. And in this case, that's right on more than the smart alecky level. Whoever shoots better has the advantage, because both teams like to score in transition after missed shots, especially the Celtics. If they get easy baskets at the beginning, it could be a long night. If the Lakers come out strong, and successfully go inside, it will be a long night for the Celtics.

First quarter: With a minute left, it's the Lakers worst nightmare--they have only 14 points, and sure enough they are shooting poorly and the Celtics are scoring in transition. It looks ugly.

Second quarter: Lakers got back into it with a 9-0 run but lost the momentum. Gasol does not look good. They really need to take the lead into the locker room for halftime.

Halftime: Lakers down six. An absolute nightmare first half, shooting under 30%, with Bryant and Gasol especially shooting poorly. Ron Artest is all that kept them in the game, but at this point, even 6 points can be deceptive. The energy it takes to keep coming back tends to flag, and big leads ensue. Unless the Lakers turn this game completely around in the third quarter, they could see themselves losing by 20.

Their only consolation: they couldn't have a worse half than what they just played. But as bad as they were, they have to be proportionately as good to win this game. Even though this is a defensive struggle, they will have to shoot at least 50% in the second half to win this, while keeping Boston below 50%. A very tall order, considering their energy level in the first half.

There is a whole lot at stake in the next half of basketball, if you believe Bill Plaschke, who writes that this Lakers team will be kept together if it wins, and will be torn apart if it loses, and further, that this could be Kobe Bryant's last chance to be in contention for the NBA championship.

Third quarter: Lakers come out looking dazed, without energy. They look done. This is starting to look like game 5. I can't watch.

As the Celtics build a double digit lead, the one play I glimpsed tells me that this game could live in infamy for the Lakers, because they don't look like they're competing. Standing around and watching. Pathetic.

Monitoring rather than watching: midway in the third quarter the Lakers have made a little run, and are again down 6. Cameras sweep the stands to focus on celebrity actors--actors are paid to transmit emotion through their bodies and eyes. You can see nothing but pain and anxiety in their eyes now.

Lakers pick it up to end the third quarter down 3. They look to be outhustling the Celtics at last. The stage is set.

Fourth quarter: Both teams battling. Lakers get close but can't get over the hump. Story so far is Bryant continues to shoot poorly. Lakers down by 4 at first time-out.

The subtext here is coaching. Is Doc Rivers outcoaching Phil Jackson and the Lakers staff? In this game as in several previous, he seems to have made adjustments the Lakers didn't anticipate, or at least can't counter. If the Celtics hang on to win, there's going to be a lot of sentiment that he did in fact outcoach arguably the greatest NBA coach ever. Who is once again contemplating retirement.

Lakers tie it up with 7 minutes to go, and could take the lead but Gasol misses two free throws. Another turning point missed--the narrative so far.

Derek Fisher--who else?-- hits a 3 and ties it again. Time out.

Kobe Bryant--who else?--hit a jumper and the Lakers are up 4, with 5:41 to go.

Lakers went up by six and looked to extend but faltered, and now are up by just 3 with under 4 minutes to go. Their defense is the best it's been but the Celtics are still getting key shots. If the Lakers had hit their normal percentage of foul shots, they'd been up comfortably. But even Bryant is off. This one's going down to the final seconds.

Gasol's shot puts the Lakers up 6 with a minute and a half to go, or, an eternity.

Game over: Lakers by 4. Defense and clutch free throws win it. In the end it was will. The Celtics were tremendous, but the Lakers are NBA champs.

2010-06-16T00:25:00.000-07:00

Energy. Between these two fairly evenly matched teams, that's been the difference in the last two games. The Lakers had it for game 6, leading by as many as 27 points in a resounding home court victory, forcing a deciding 7th game for the NBA championship.

Received wisdom is that a loud home court crowd--and LA was uncommonly loud--helps young bench players the most, and the Laker bench came through with solid and spectacular play--thunderous dunks by Shannon Brown and Jordan Farmar plus solid offense and rebounding by Lamar Odum and timely shooting by Sasha Vujacic took all the suspense out of the game early. By the end of the third quarter, the Lakers bench had outscored the Celtics bench 24-0.

But it was the energy of the Lakers starters that was so impressive. In game 5 the Celtics came out loose, crisp and energetic. In game 6 the Lakers came out energetic, determined and efficient. Pau Gasol and Ron Artest had much better games, and Kobe Bryant was immediately on target with his shots and passes.

The only bad sign was that Andrew Bynum was ineffective and by the second half couldn't run at all, and took himself out of the game. This makes him questionable for the seventh game on Thursday. The Celtics also have a big man problem, with one of their centers in rotation, Kendrick Perkins, who left the game with a knee injury, and might not be able to play Thursday.

The Lakers dominance on their home floor bodes well for Thursday, but as I pointed out last time, the Celtics haven't played with energy the first game after travel. Including the first game of the series, those were the Lakers' three wins. So it's likely to be more of a fight on Thursday. Still, the Lakers defense was impressive, and it's hard to see what other surprises the Celtics can provide for them to counter. I expect a close game (unfortunately for my nerves) but I like the Lakers chances.

2010-06-13T17:26:00.000-07:00

Live blog Game 5

I'm watching by myself so I may as well talk to myself here. The Celtics came out energetic and crisp, their stars are shooting well. The Lakers not so obviously crisp, and Kobe Bryant doesn't have a point well into the first quarter. These are not good signs for the Lakers.

The quarter ends with Celtics shooting about 60%, ahead by two. It may be a case of the Lakers weathering the early storm, but Pierce looks way too comfortable and loose, Rondo too quick.

This is the fifth game, which in most 7 game series is decisive. In this one as well. Although the Lakers finish with two games at home, this is the game they want and need.

Early second quarter, Boston up by 8. This game could quickly get away from the Lakers, who are getting rebounds and second chance points but are shooting flat, look slow and bothered. Celtic defense is smothering Kobe, Artest can't make a shot, Gasol is a nonfactor so far. Only Bynum is conspicuously battling.

--Good sequence for the Lakers. Artest finally hits a 3. He's a streak shooter. Lakers down just one. Maybe this is the way they win this--by being tough, mentally tough.

--Halftime: Lakers down by six. Celtics shooting 65%, Lakers in the 30s. Logic says the Celtics can't continue at that pace, but they have several shooters that haven't been involved so far. Paul Pierce is doing a Kobe, although it's soft defense that's allowing it as well. Further bad news: Artest, guarding him, has 3 fouls. The Lakers need a strong third quarter--which is often when they make their move--and they need to win the fourth. Right now this feels like the Celtics game to lose. If it continues this way, they go to LA up 3 games to 2.

Third quarter: Despite a dazzling individual scoring quarter by Kobe, the Lakers had to close the gap in the last few minutes to be down only by eight. Their only hope is that the Celtics have run out of gas, and they can mount their best fourth quarter of the playoffs. It's not impossible, but Kobe had almost all of the Lakers' third quarter points and the rest of the team looks slow. Plus Pierce has not faltered, and Garnett is having a good game.

End: Lakers fought back and with a few breaks and calls the other way (especially the Celtics 24 second violation that the officials got wrong) might have pulled it out, but they didn't. One way to look at this is scary enough: that it's the Celtics, not the Lakers, who have figured the other team out. Another way to see it is that the Lakers as a team played horribly, the Celtics as a team played extraordinarily well, and the Lakers were within striking distance in the last two minutes.

The sixth game is Tuesday in LA. The Celtics haven't won the first game after travel, and have been flat both times. The Lakers couldn't get any flatter. But the Celtics just have to win one out of two, and the Lakers have to win them both. Without a healthy Bynum, able to play late in the game, the Lakers have to be considered the underdogs.

2010-06-10T00:00:00.000-07:00

The NBA Finals enter the fourth game Thursday with the Lakers ahead 2-1. What's often fun about the finals is the unlikely heroes, never more clearly than in the third game, when "Big Baby" almost was the difference for Boston but Derek Fisher obviously was for the Lakers with a career fourth quarter. Fisher is not really all that unlikely--not like Trevor Ariza last year, for example. He's usually good for winning one game in a series, and he did that with a career fourth quarter on Tuesday. As for the Lakers bench as a whole, they've been a pleasant surprise. Luke Walton's defense definitely contributed Tuesday, and other bench players have made key baskets, stops, blocks and steals during the finals.

But the series will eventually come down to the stars, and so I expect Boston's stars to be firing on full throttle Thursday, and I expect they'll win game 4. After that, time favors the Lakers, mostly because of Kobe Bryant, although Gasol is likely to have a dominant game before it's over. Whether fortune favors the Lakers is another question, but I do expect the officials to not be quite the decisive factor they've been in the first three games.

As for the skeptics (like me) who didn't see why the Lakers would trade a young and valiant talent like Ariza for the volatile and older Ron Artest, the answer may be as simple as the match-up of Artest guarding Paul Pierce. Pierce can't muscle him as he could (and did) Ariza or even Kobe. Artest is keeping him at bay.

Andrew Bynum has been the most pleasant surprise, showing stamina, will against injury, and great attitude. He was a force in each game, especially Tuesday, and especially when he guarded Kevin Garnett. Lamar Odum had his best game Tuesday but not the best he is capable of. I'll even repeat the commentator mantra that when he has it going, the Lakers are almost unbeatable.

Though the Lakers sometimes sag in the middle games, they've shown in this year's playoffs that once they solve the other team, they get stronger as the series goes on. I expect them to win the fifth game in Boston and win the championship in the sixth game back in L.A.

2010-05-30T01:12:00.000-07:00

NBA: Order is Restored, and NBA and TV network execs can exhale and plan a more expensive vacation as the most fabled match-up in the league is happening after all: both the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers won their game 6 and both won their conference finals, 4 games to 2. They will face each other--and probably a huge viewing audience--for the NBA championship.

For Boston the victory came at home, after two defeats. For the Lakers, their pivotal (and way too exciting) fifth game victory at home was followed two nights later by a pretty convincing victory over the Suns on the road.

Though the historic rivalry of two solid organizations has been repeated often, there have been surprises in how the playoffs have gone so far. First, and the biggest surprise, is that Boston is even in the finals. At best, they were the experts' third choice, behind the two teams they defeated, Cleveland and Orlando. But they are healthy for the first time, peaking at the right time. Their game 5 fatigue--especially Rondo's--disappeared in the sixth game, which they dominated.

The Lakers are supposed to be here, but there were doubts about them, too, because of how poorly they finished the regular season. What may surprise some more is Kobe Bryant. Commentators suggested that he's past his prime, and that LeBron James is the best player in the league. But through the conference finals, Bryant showed that he is still the best. Different perhaps--with more assists and not quite as many points or spectacular shots--but he's running a winning team, and when he needs to, he can take over a game. He's acknowledged as the best finisher, and he has a chance at his fifth championship--no player other than Michael Jordan and a few of his Bulls teammates have that distinction.

But it's not going to be easy. Smart money is on the Celtics. However, the Lakers have home court, and if they win the first game--this Thursday--then they have to be the favorite. Everyone is gearing up for a long series. Wonder if that's another surprise in store.

2010-05-26T22:35:00.000-07:00

Suns-Magic?

A funny thing happened to the Celtics-Lakers final. First the Lakers lost to the Suns in Phoenix, but Boston bailed them out by blowing the sweep and losing their game 4 at home. Then the Lakers bailed them out by losing again, and tonight Boston lost game 5 on the road.

Now the momentum is clearly with the Suns and the Magic. The Suns beat the Lakers in pretty much the same way in game 4 as game 3--getting a lead, and winning the fourth quarter after they'd lost it, thanks especially to their bench, which finally showed up big as they did in earlier series. Now this series is tied 2-2, the Suns know they can beat the Lakers, and the Lakers are not entirely healthy.

But even though Boston has to win only one game out of the next two, they may be in even more trouble. They lost game 4 in overtime and looked tired, and they've looked tired ever since. Their key player, point guard Rondo, seems to be playing hurt, and Glen Davis and sub Marquis Daniels both suffered concussions to the point of blacking out. Age and injuries have always been the question marks for the Celtics this year.

Both Boston and LA pretty much have to win their next game. In the West series, the fifth game is usually decisive, and the Lakers are at home. In the East, the Celtics will have to hope that home court encourages the officials to give them a break, and maybe even reign in Dwight Howard's guided missile elbows, which knocked out Davis and have otherwise been conspicuous weapons.

Otherwise, the NBA may get what it really doesn't want: a Phoenix-Orlando final.

2010-05-20T01:26:00.000-07:00

You can see why the Phoenix Suns' coach wants a time out, and not only because Kobe Bryant just hit a three pointer (with Jack applauding.) The Lakers are up 2 games to none, and Laker fans were heard chanting "We Want Boston!" For in the surprise of the playoffs so far, the Boston Celtics are not only in the Eastern finals, but also up 2-0. Though it seems even more impressively, since they won both games in Orlando, where the Magic haven't lost twice in a row all season, it's only slightly more so: the Celtics have been a more impressive road team than home team this year. Still...

It seems quite likely now that the NBA finals will be Lakers-Celtics, and the NBA's wet dream. It's the most storied rivalry in pro basketball, and arguably in all sports. I remember watching their finals match-ups back in the day when the games weren't even broadcast live--they were tape-delayed for late night, since the networks weren't sure NBA basketball was going to get an audience. (And no, this wasn't in the 19th century; more like the 1970s.)

It was between those finals that I switched from being a Celtics fan (since I'd lived in Cambridge and worked in Boston) to the Lakers. I just thought Magic was magic, Kareem was incredible, and I loved watching James Worthy soar. Those were the Showtime Lakers, and though I rooted against them once more--when Michael Jordan was leading the Bulls against them--I've been a Lakers fan since.

The Lakers are motivated for this series with the Suns, and they'll be even more motivated against the Celtics (if that's what happens), since Boston humiliated them in the last finals they played. The Suns apparently can't play defense, and the Lakers are showing a previously latent ability to score a lot of points, but defense is what both Boston and L.A. are really good at. If it happens, it could be a classic series.

It might even be enough to draw attention away from speculating on where LeBron James will wind up next season. His last two games with Cleveland were humiliating; the team just flat out gave up, and I don't see him returning there. The city must be suicidal right now, and if King James leaves, they'll also lose a major force in their economy. It's amazing what one player has done there, and sad as well. The question now seems to be whether a zillionaire Russian (about whom little is known) with ambitions to make the New Jersey Nets into a global brand is going to pony up the cash to tempt LeBron. Maybe if he lands Dwayne Wade as well. The New York Knicks are literally banking on getting James, and if he doesn't go there, it's another suicidal city, or at least franchise. The other team that's mentioned is the Bulls. There are several gaudy possibilities for combinations of big name free agents, and I'm guessing that LeBron will have to be promised at least one to switch teams. And Cleveland will have to enter that sweepstakes: new big name players and a new coach. I can see why sports talkers are salivating. But Boston-L.A. might divide their attention for a few weeks.

2010-05-11T23:07:00.000-07:00

So I'm back talking to myself about sports, which tells me that I have been watching the playoffs, the Lakers, after all. I didn't see much of the first round, where Oklahoma tested them as I expected, but they rose to the occasion. I saw more of the four game sweep of the Jazz, and enough of one game won by the Phoenix Suns--their next opponent--to think this is going to be a tougher series.

In some ways the Jazz series prepared them--they have taller guys inside than the Suns as they did the Jazz, and the Suns also run the pick and roll a lot. The difference could be the bench, because the Suns' bench was really strong in their series, and the Lakers' not so much. But Phil Jackson did hit on something of a winning formula by mixing bench players with starters when he wanted to rest other starters. But the Lakers are playing with intensity and without much of the lackadaisical approach that left a sour taste to the season, and Kobe is quietly coming back to his usual form. They're more entertaining than I'd feared.

While the Lakers can't look past the Suns to the East(ern teams), I can. The big surprise is how vulnerable Cleveland is in their series with Boston. Right now they're down 3-2 with a very bad loss at home--the New York Times reported there was a lot of booing of the team and specifically of King James. If that was his last game in Cleveland this season, it's probably his last game in Cleveland as a member of that city's team. But depending on his elbow and general health, he could have a big enough game tomorrow to even the series, and then it's back to Cleveland, so you can't quite count them out yet. Still...even if they win, they look pretty vulnerable to Orlando, which is dominating. It could well be a Lakers-Orlando rematch for the Finals.

2010-04-23T23:52:00.000-07:00

Something Fishy in This Tea

The other night on Rachel Maddow, Gov. Ed Rendell of PA made an important point about media coverage of the Tea Party:

"...the conservatives have won this argument and they‘ve certainly won it over the last 16, 17 months—in the fact that the tea party gets tremendous—the tea parties get tremendous coverage. And think about it—week before the health care vote, they had a rally in Washington, got 1,000 people, maybe not even that. The tax day rally, the big rally to protest federal taxes got less than 1,500 people showing up, according to their own organizer. Other people thought it was in the 400 or 500 range.

Gosh, if I had a rally in Washington to have stronger laws to protect puppies, we‘d have 100,000 people without blinking. And yet, the media, including the so-called liberal and progressive media, have given the tea party-ites elevation in terms of the impact they‘re having on the national debate and discussion—way above what they deserve."

Earlier in the program, Rachel highlighted some other rallies, involving thousands of people protesting cuts in government services. Rendell added that it would be hard to find any coverage of those, let alone the kind of major coverage the Tea Partiers get.

It's even worse than that. There have been several major demos in Washington which involved many times the numbers the T.P.s get, that were completely ignored.

This Sunday there's going to be a major Earth Day event in Washington. There will be stars like Sting singing, so that part will probably pop up on the cable stations. But will it be taken seriously politically? As a statement about national and international priorities? Especially when there's this report that the climate and energy bill is going to drop off the Democrat's agenda.

On the other hand, if this report is true, and the Senate "bill would remove the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, and the states’ authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government," then it isn't a bill worth passing.

If this event falls flat, it's partly the fault of enviro groups, who have kept this event a virtual secret, except for the Earth Day committee that is running it. And part of it is the familiarity--nobody is really wondering, what are these people so angry about? But a lot of it is the media refusing to cover anything that is politically to the left of the Tea Party in a politically significant way. We'll see what they do with this event on Sunday.

2010-04-21T23:52:00.000-07:00

Not on any NFL draft board, this running back a few years out of Harvard may not look impressive, but has a record of winning. Known mostly as a hoopster with questionable skills in bowling and baseball, he sees the whole field, follows his blocking, and can make quick adjustments that confound opponents. A leader, with even temperament but a fighting spirit, tenacious and focused, he also doesn't get in trouble with off the field bad behavior. A smart team could go far with him, if it understands what it's got.

2010-04-21T00:23:00.000-07:00

Not Worried

I'm worried about a lot, like the future of civilization, President Obama going to West Virginia, paying the dentist. But I am not worried about the 2010 elections. Democrats will do fine.

It's not even May. Absent big surprises--and we do get those--this is apt to be the GOPers high point. The U.S. economy is improving, and unless stuff like the volcano in Iceland force the global economy into the tank, it will be better in the fall. Recovery Act funding of visible projects was backloaded--they'll be kicking in by the fall.

The last U.S. combat soldier could well be switching out the lights behind him in Iraq by summer's end. Afghanistan may even be winding down by fall.

The Rabid Right is dangerous in various ways, but not so much in major elections across the country. The Tea Party is hot media air, not enough to sway elections when other voters are paying attention (says E.J. Dionne, among others.) There are already signs that, contra opinion polls, being against health care is not going to be rewarded by voters--especially independents.

And in case anybody has forgotten 2008, we've got a pretty good campaigner now in the White House. Check out this speech for Barbara Boxer and see if President Obama isn't already sounding resonant themes.

The Democrats will likely lose some seats, especially where they have not very good candidates, and there is enough craziness out there to take away some others. But just as the death of the Republican party announced last year by the media bobbleheads proved a little premature, so today's doom and gloom over Democrats is out of proportion. Dems have a lot of work to do just to stay pretty even, but it's doable. And things for them might look a lot better by fall.

2010-04-17T00:40:00.000-07:00

No Win Situations

Update: This devastating piece in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

Sportswise, I am not a happy camper, and it doesn't look like I'm going to be one for a long time. The NBA playoffs are beginning, and what was supposed to be a title defense by a dominant Lakers team is starting to look like a slow motion train wreck. Although with all their injuries and fatigue, and the terrible play lately that has given the rest of the league multiple ways to beat them, they may not even get out of the first round. It's that bad. Even if they win against a younger, faster Oklahoma team with a dynamic superstar in the making, it's going to be a struggle and they're likely to look lousy doing it. And even if they struggle all the way through seven game playoff series, they're not likely to beat Cleveland for the championship, if it comes down to that, and it probably will.

But the Lakers prospects are nothing compared to the shocking situation of the Steelers. The last time Steeler Nation rejoiced, it was the touchdown pass from Big Ben to Santonio Holmes that won the Super Bowl. Now the Steelers have practically given away their best receiver because of one off-the-field screwup too many, and their star quarterback is getting a reputation as a star jerk, at best.

Ben's birthday (subject of a post here, I note with some chagrin) was celebrated with some apparently unsavory activity that led to an accusation of rape. Celebrity sports figures are easy targets for false accusations--some Steelers stars have been victimized that way, including (if memory serves) Jerome Betis, and Ben had a pretty good reputation. So I kept quiet until the police investigation was over. Now Ben was not charged, but he's hardly been exonerated of bad behavior. Steeler Nation is not happy with him.

How all this winds up--fall, redemption, whatever--it's going to be messy, and it ain't going to be football. If the Steelers don't trade him (unlikely they will, but possible), he faces suspension in the next few weeks--at first the bet was for a game or two to start the season, but now it may be more. With two stars returning from injury, the Steelers' defense was looking to resume its dominance, and acquisitions and signings suggested that the offense would be somewhat different, but better. Now next season looks like a bust already. The better teams in the division strengthened themselves--in fact, a lot of teams outside Philadelphia strengthened themselves in the off-season. So the Steelers can't afford to lose their star quarterback for four or more games and expect to compete. It looks like another year without a playoff run.

Maybe the Steelers will rise above it all and it will be exciting, and/or the Lakers will return to their dominant form of earlier this season, but neither is likely anymore, and in any case, the road maybe too painful to watch, at least for me and my relatively low tolerance for that kind of drama in something I know I shouldn't be wasting time on. They are all going to be multi-millionaires without me.

The bottom line is that I'm going to have to come up with another way to waste my time. Besides blogging.

2010-04-16T03:23:00.000-07:00

The morning after the April 15 Tea Party, a few facts:

Percentage of Americans whose federal taxes are lower this year: 98

Number of years out of the eight years GW Bush was President that taxes for most Americans were higher than now: 8

2010-04-13T19:09:00.000-07:00

The Stealth Public Option?

A Kos diarist examining a Kaiser Foundation summary of the health insurance reform law found a provision concerning the health insurance Exchanges that will "Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity." The "non-profit entity" suggests a kind of stealth public option, though some of the big players--and current abusers--are technically non-profits. However, it probably further ensures that the individual mandate challenge won't be found unconstitutional, if it doesn't require that citizens buy a product from a profit-making company.

Another Kos poster points to several provisions that encourage insurers and the health care system generally to lower costs, and makes health care more affordable.

At the same time, the fact that GOPers smell the possibility of gains in November, plus the one-party vote that passed the bill, is obviously encouraging a continuing opposition by means of lies and extreme rhetoric, and probably emboldens insurance companies to do what they can to subvert the law.

On the other hand, the first congressional electoral test--in which a GOPer tried to inflame and incite Florida seniors on the law, as well as generally insulting the President--didn't work: the Democrat who was supposed to win, did win, with more than 60% of the vote.

2010-04-07T15:32:00.001-07:00

The Legal Challenge to Healthcare Reform

There are a number of challenges by politically motivated attorneys-general and governors, playing to larger reactionary forces. None of them have legal merit, let alone real Constitutional challenge. However, the "individual mandate" provision has always been troublesome. If it is the federal government directing every citizen to buy the product sold by a private sector corporation, absent a public option, then it is unprecedented. The closest to it would be state governments requiring automobile insurance, but that is for people who own cars, and citizens are not required to own cars, so they have some choice.

However, this is not how the so-called individual mandate provision was written. As explained by Lawrence O'Donnell, whose expertise is precisely in the area of financial regulations in Congressional legislation, what the mandate basically says is that if you don't buy health insurance, you won't get the tax break that people who do buy the insurance will get. That is clearly within the law and within accepted practice.

Moreover, the IRS will not investigate compliance, but respond to what is on the tax return. I imagine if non-compliance arises in a tax audit, that might be a different story. The IRS has denied the latest Rabid Right scare story, that it is hiring thousands of new agents to monitor compliance.

I still think that an option to buy public plan insurance from the government would more definitively solve this troublesome problem of people feeling they must buy insurance from the same corporate entities who inflate prices, cut coverage whenever possible, and use their money to influence politicians and advertise to drive out competition. But given the compromises in this bill overall, this is an acceptable price at this time for the reforms it includes.

Although I have to admit I say that knowing that it will never apply to me. I look forward to Medicare.

Update: Here's a more detailed explanation of both the insidious Rabid Right lies about this, and the facts.

2010-04-07T03:55:00.000-07:00

UConnection

Lesson for the Day: What do you do after you've had the worst first half of the year?

You go get the best second half of the year.

Thanks, UConn and congrats on being NCAA women hoops champs, with your second undefeated season in a row.

2010-04-05T00:48:00.001-07:00

April Madness

I spent hours of my weekend watching parts of four Final Four basketball games, so I may as well waste more time noting this fact. Although Butler is a great story, and the Butler v. Duke is the David and Goliath that has the media salivating--if only they had a week to drive it into the ground!--I must admit I enjoy watching the women's games more.

It's partly because their game is a purer style of basketball. But men's college hoops has become a tryout league for the NBA. You have a great freshman season, you're drafted. The same sort of sense of entitlement and egotism you see in the pros is infecting college. The stakes aren't as great for the women yet--the WNBA doesn't pay nearly as much, and fewer college players are likely to have pro careers. So they are playing for the now, and it shows.

The greatest players of any era show you what you've never seen before. LeBron James is doing that now in the NBA. But the Connecticut women are showing it in their NCAA tournament--they've won 74 (or something like that) games in a row, and until Sunday had defeated their opponents by 40 to 50 points. Sunday, the Oklahoma team gave them a real if brief scare at the start of the second half, but UConn took control in pretty short order. They play Stanford for the championship Tuesday, and that's the game I'm most looking forward to watching.

2010-03-28T18:35:00.000-07:00

Guess who came to dinner? President Obama's surprise visit to U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

2010-03-27T02:11:00.000-07:00

Another Major Accomplishment

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton announced a new U.S.-Russia treaty to reduce each country's nuclear weapons by nearly a third.

According to the President: "Broadly speaking, the new START treaty makes progress in several areas. It cuts -- by about a third -- the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy. It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies."

With this agreement, the United States and Russia -- the two largest nuclear powers in the world -- also send a clear signal that we intend to lead. By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities."

I can't help recalling that President Kennedy made two of his most important speeches--on the nuclear test ban treaty, the very first effort to stop the nuclear arms race--and on Civil Rights, that proposed what eventually became the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts--one day after the other. This immense and important accomplishment days after the health insurance reform law makes for a similarly momentous week for President Obama.

2010-03-25T23:14:00.000-07:00

Happy 70th birthday to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. Maybe I'm showing my age as well as my politics, but I think she's hot.

2010-03-24T00:13:00.000-07:00

One of those Hell Freezes Over moments, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gives President Obama a big hug, congratulating him for the passage of the health insurance reform bill. But props to her: she fought this fight in the early 90s as First Lady, and she came closer than anyone to pulling it off--until now.

UPDATE 3/24: TPM runs this photo with a story about how the Clintons worked behind the scenes to get health insurance reform passed. Interesting.

Also, there's this interesting observation from David Leonhardt at the New York Times:"For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago."

2010-03-22T04:37:00.000-07:00

Yes, We Did

The dimensions of the healthcare bill victory--and the dimensions of the defeat for Republicans--is just starting to be felt and evaluated. But this E. J. Dionne column is a good start:

Yes, we did.

Finally, President Obama can use those words. The passage of health-care reform provided the first piece of incontestable evidence that Washington has changed.

Congress is, indeed, capable of carrying through fundamental social reform. No longer will the United States be the outlier among wealthy nations in leaving so many of its citizens without basic health coverage.

In approving the most sweeping piece of social legislation since the mid-1960s, Democrats proved that they can govern, even under challenging circumstances and in the face of significant internal divisions. "

2010-03-20T18:06:00.000-07:00

Uglier in Our Time

With the top racial slur hurled at a Civil Rights hero and Representative, an anti-gay slur and many threats of violence, the latest Tea Party rally in Washington set a new low in ugliness, hated and incitement.

Here's one report, here's another. Clearly the health insurance reform vote tomorrow is driving the frenzy, but I've given up believing this sort of thing will die down anytime soon. It's uglier, but probably not the ugliest. What remains most alarming is the feedback system that is feeding this frenzy--the hate radio stars whipping up their listeners, the empowered bigots pushing every limit, and the connivance of GOPers in Congress, who are hitching their sinking wagons to this dark star. The question being whether this all ends in self-destruction before it destroys a lot more.

2010-03-12T00:41:00.000-08:00

Just a bunch of parents at a school basketball game, rooting for their daughters. It just happens to include the President, the First Lady, the Vice President and his wife. Something heartening about this.

2010-03-08T23:19:00.000-08:00

And the 2010 Nader Award goes to...Dennis Kucinich, who announced that he will vote against the healthcare reform bill because it's not good enough for him. If he is the deciding vote against it, he will go down in infamy along with another erstwhile force for good who let ego, image and ideological purity ruin his name forever, when he made the decisive difference in wrecking a decade and perhaps the future, Ralph Nader in 2000. Kucinich's purity will be intact, while those who will suffer and perhaps die because they can't get care due to lack of affordable insurance or who are denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition as defined by insurance companies--well, purity has its cost, as long as you don't personally have to pay it. And as long as you ignore the bill's many progressive elements.

Update: After President Obama held an enthusiastic rally in Kucinich's district, and had a one-on-one with him, Dennis the K changed his mind and his vote, and began to lobby strenuously for the President's bill with his fellow Members. Good for him.

2010-03-05T00:31:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, college students throughout California especially, but also around the U.S., protested higher tuitions and costs, and cuts in their education that are sending many institutions of higher education into crisis--including Humboldt State University here in Arcata. So it's not surprising that at least here in the Eureka demo, students were joined by faculty and staff, as departments and entire programs are being weakened and eliminated.

The politics of this is fascinating, and educational. Universities and their students are being characterized as fighting for funds that would otherwise go to the poor and sick, whereas the real priorities being served are wealthy non-taxpayers, mega-corporations and the banks, that are currently mounting a so far successful effort to prevent the U.S. Senate from passing into law what the House has already passed--reforms that would strip the banks of their profitable control of student loans, and would ease the financial burden of students and their schools.

Here's the SF Chronicle story from which this photo comes, and another at the L.A. Times. Neither talks much about the underlying issues. No one much does.

Update: We'll see if this really happens, but at the moment, the legislation to take back control of student loans from the banks is part of the Senate healthcare bill, so if it passes Sunday, this will be law as well.

2010-03-02T23:11:00.000-08:00

Happy birthday, Big Ben. Michael Wilmont on PTI said that if he had to pick one quarterback to play a game for his (Wilmont's) life, he would pick Big Ben R. How about that?

2010-03-01T22:48:00.000-08:00

How Big Is It? With Update

It's not a Leno (really, a Carson) joke line--it's a question with profound implications for the United States at this delicate moment in human history.

How big is the group of American voters who support the the reactionary-beyond-belief politics, the violently angry far far right?

We know how loud they are. We know that their most extreme views are increasingly embraced by Republican office-holders and aspirants, right up to the leadership in the U.S. Senate.

The latest manifestation is Senator Jim Bunning's ongoing filibuster which is holding up extension of unemployment benefits, affecting millions. As well as other projects that affect the poor and working people. Here's TIME's Joe Klein today:

As this comment from the Number 2 Senate Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, makes clear, the Republicans are turning toward a form of reactionary radicalism that is well to the right not only of traditional conservatism, but also of post-Victorian concepts of government and--not to put too fine a point on it--of common decency as well:

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, argued that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working." Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work,"

The idea that those who have lost their jobs in this Wall Street/mortgage-scam recession are simply deadbeats, choosing to stay on unemployment rather than look for work, seems more appropriate to Scrooge's London than the 21st century. But Kyl has spoken his version of the truth, and we should be grateful for that: this is what the Republican Party is now all about. The America they--and the Tea Partiers--want would have no Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security (just ask the rising Republican star, Paul Ryan, who would privatize them all), no social safety net, no environmental or workplace regulations, no highway or infrastructure building."

Before this spectacle, there was another, that Frank Rich wrote about over the weekend: the sudden embracing by right wing media mouths and politicians of the guy who flew his plane into a building containing IRS offices, calling him a hero. Referring to Times reporter David Barstow's investigation into the Tea Party movement, Rich writes:

Barstow confirmed what the Southern Poverty Law Center had found in its report last year: the unhinged and sometimes armed anti-government right that was thought to have vaporized after its Oklahoma apotheosis is making a comeback. And now it is finding common cause with some elements of the diverse, far-flung and still inchoate Tea Party movement. All it takes is a few self-styled “patriots” to sow havoc.

While Rich cautions that the Tea Partiers and the Republican officeholders have little in common, the officeholders are falling all over themselves to adopt extremist--and violent--rhetoric.

I've seen a lot of explanations of this "anger," not many of them very convincing. The latest is Michael Lind in Salon, who says that the movement is the last cry of a declining demographic group, the white working class, and that groups in decline tend to want to obstruct the change that is overwhelming them and their world. That's more or less been my working theory (though the rest of Lind's piece makes pretty doubtful conclusions and offers impractical solutions.) What makes absolute sense is that there is a lot of racism involved, and not just black and white, but towards everyone who isn't white. President Obama is the obvious center of projection.

Those emotions are being exploited, fueled and guided with their usual subterranean skill, by reactionary corporate interests, while shameless GOPer politicians are all too obviously trying to ride the wave.

I get all that. I still don't know though how big it is. It's a declining minority (racist whites) of a declining soon-to-be minority (whites). But if you listen to Hardball or CNN, you get the impression that this unhinged anger at Obama and Washington is very big. CNN in particular is promoting the idea, citing its poll that claims that 56% of Americans believe the federal government threatens their freedom.

Here's what I do know: an awful lot is being deduced from one election in MA, which some folks up there think was due largely to state politics. And poll questions of such a general nature bring together people who are never going to actually vote the same way. There are lots of ways to interpret "broken government." Maybe it's Obama to some, maybe it's Republican obstructionism in the Senate to others.

I do think a certain unhinged quality, a mindless lashing out, a feeling of helplessness and general anger, is probably real, and rooted in fear. But all kinds of fear, by all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons.

How big is it? is in the end a political question, that elections will settle (without necessarily addressing the question directly.) It may be that Jim Bunning is leading the political equivalent of the Terry Shiavo moment, that was followed by hefty GOPer defeats. We just don't know yet. But if healthcare doesn't pass, this is going to grow.

But there's another important question: how dangerous is it? That doesn't always depend on size. Given the right circumstances, you'd have to say that right now: dangerous. Maybe very dangerous.

Update: The Southern Poverty Law Center issued a new report on Tuesday that quantified growth of right wing extremist groups--at 244% rise in the number of these groups in 2009.

2010-02-28T18:08:00.000-08:00

O Canada! Congrats to Canada for the overtime win of their Olympic men's hockey team that won them the Gold over the Silver medalists, the U.S. Winning goal by Sidney Crosby, of the Stanley Cup champion Pittsburgh Penguins. (You know I had to get that in.)

2010-02-26T17:51:00.000-08:00

Health of the Debate

The patient is resting uncomfortably, and the patience is wearing thin. And though opinions differ on the immediate effect of the the 7 hour healthcare session of members of Congress presided by the President, my reading of the reactions suggests that the President and the Democratic plan came out healthier, though the length of the process and the number of players probably diluted the kind of clear exposure of the GOPers bad faith, hypocrisy and game-playing that happened when President Obama met with House GOPers.

Still, even the New York Times' right-of-moderate columnist David Brooks--who appears not to favor the Obama plan--gave credit to the President. After admitting that the event was more meaningful than he expected, he wrote:

Most of the credit goes to President Obama. The man really knows how to lead a discussion. He stuck to specifics and tried to rein in people who were flying off into generalities. He picked out the core point in any comment. He tried to keep things going in a coherent direction. Moreover, he seemed to be trying to get a result. Republicans had their substantive criticism of the Democratic bills, but Obama kept pressing them for areas of agreement."

For other press/blog responses (with selections towards the positive) check the beginning of this blackwaterdog diary on Kos.

On substance, objective fact-checkers supported what President Obama said, and agreed that GOPers routinely distorted numbers and facts. So did Paul Krugman in his opinion piece, and then he pointed out:

What really struck me about the meeting, however, was the inability of Republicans to explain how they propose dealing with the issue that, rightly, is at the emotional center of much health care debate: the plight of Americans who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. In other advanced countries, everyone gets essential care whatever their medical history. But in America, a bout of cancer, an inherited genetic disorder, or even, in some states, having been a victim of domestic violence can make you uninsurable, and thus make adequate health care unaffordable."

As for "the Republican plan," Krugman translates the findings of the Congressional Budget Office: But here’s the translation: While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American health care system would become even more brutal than it is now."

Once again, the differences could not be more stark, and so you have to wonder what is really going on in the Zietgeist that makes these reforms controversial. On the face of it, there should be overwhelming public support, since the vast majority of Americans are paying exorbitant amounts for weak coverage that insurance companies can disappear at their whim, and are mostly paying for mega-corporations to establish monopolies through acquisitions and lobbying.

Against this, President Obama kept coming back to the stories of real people, who aren't among the income elite. And so did Rep. Louise Slaughter, one of those admirable public servants who voters have wisely sent back time and again, so she has institutional memory and can recite history that she has seen from the inside, like what happened with the Clinton attempts, and what the price has been for that failure in the 90s--especially in an area that no one talks much about, the economic burden on companies of health insurance, which has had a hand in making exporting products so expensive that they become uncompetitive--and so the American car manufacturing business was essentially disappeared to a large extent because of health care costs.

But Slaughter also told of a woman who was using her dead sister's dentures because she couldn't afford not to. How can this happen today in America? Slaughter asked, and that's the question that is answered by the Zeitgeist and what happens to this bill.

Krugman concludes:

So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right. But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health reform. "

David Brooks doesn't think it will happen, and no one is predicting an easy road. Apparently a lot will depend on conservative Dems and whether they believe they have enough political cover, which depends in part on whether they sense the public is behind this. That's probably why the GOPers kept talking up polls which they claim say Americans aren't. We could talk about courage and doing the right thing. It's not unknown in Congress, though it's hardly the rule. But some sense of justice in health care probably will depend on it, and maybe it should.

2010-02-24T11:22:00.000-08:00

More Like It

This is more like it, and more will like it. According to Robert Reich:

Astonishingly, the health insurance industry is exempt from federal antitrust laws, which is why a handful of insurers have become so dominant in their markets that their customers simply have nowhere else to go. But that protection could soon end: President Obama on Tuesday announced his support of a House bill that would repeal health insurers’ antitrust exemption, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled that she would put it toward an immediate vote.

As Reich points out, this may well do more in one fell swoop than a lot of other more complicated reform proposals. Huge insurance companies specializing in health insurance have swallowed up so many of their previous competitors--all of them doing so using the premiums we've supposedly been paying for health insurance--that most Americans have no choice of health care insurance company.

The choice that the public option was to provide may yet be years away, if it ever happens, but subjecting this monoliths to anti-trust laws could be almost as effective--especially with consumer safeguards now proposed in the Obama reform bill.

Update: This legislation passed the House on Wednesday by a vote of 406-19. By according to TPM, its prospects in the Senate are "dim."

2010-02-23T13:25:00.000-08:00

Riddle Me This: Why is it so hard to understand that when the government spends money, it results in jobs and economic activity? Today I read somewhere about how hard it is to get the concept across, whereas the concept of cutting taxes is easy. And I heard someone on CNN explain that the money in the federal budget going to earmarks spending isn't much, but "tell that to somebody who's unemployed." What? I think most unemployed people are smart enough to wonder if they can get a job financed by that earmark, let alone discretionary spending as a whole, and especially something like the Recovery Act. The government spends the money-- so somebody gets it. Maybe it's a government employee, who buys stuff that means others are employed, and/or who performs a necessary service for society and the economy, like teachers, or maybe the money is spent directly in the private sector, employing people! Building stuff! Maintaining, staffing stuff! Why is this such a difficult concept????????

The Recovery Act creates jobs--as even the Republicans who were against it know it does, and want those jobs for their districts.

Update: The CBO now says the Recovery Act has employed up to 2.1 million workers, and added up to 3 million workers to the economy, reducing the unemployment rate by more than a point.

2010-02-23T11:36:00.000-08:00

How It All Doesn't Work

This column by Nicholas Kristof parodying health insurance chicanery is pretty funny, pretty sadly funny, especially because it is wickedly applicable to quite a lot of how business is "conducted" in private/public/every sector.

If you missed it, check it out.

2010-02-22T23:41:00.000-08:00

Footnote to Copenhagen

Bill McKibben's report on the Copenhagen conference appears in the new New York Review of Books (March 11, 2010; not free online.) It's a masterful overview with excellent reportage, and fairly restrained in its tone and conclusions, that the weak outcome was the result of political heavyweights gambling with the future.

There was enough blame for everyone, in McKibben's view, including President Obama. The last hope for Copenhagen rested with him, but according to McKibben, "And almost from the moment Obama began to speak, it was clear that there would be no dramatic surprise agreement..." His proposals for the U.S. were weak, he writes, just as Hilary Clinton's offer of financial aid to the poorest countries likely to be most damaged by climate change were vague and inadequate by orders of magnitude. McKibben notes that Obama "helped negotiate" an accord, which "some inside-the-Beltway environmental leaders hailed [it] as a 'breakthrough' because it commited China to doing something..."

At the end of his report, McKibben points readers to the online NY Review blog, and another post on the Copenhagen accord by Tim Flannery. I found it, and it offers a different emphasis on Obama's participation, including an incident I didn't see reported elsewhere. Here are the graphs(I've added the boldface):

When he spoke afterward, President Obama was clearly both frustrated and surprised at the limited progress that had been made toward a resolution. Nor did things go terribly well after that. The key objective for Obama in his meeting with Premier Wen was to secure greater transparency on Chinese emissions targets, and Wen signaled his dissatisfaction by dispatching increasingly junior emissaries to meet with Obama.

Then, much to the annoyance of the Chinese delegation, Obama burst uninvited into a meeting between Wen, Manmohan Singh, Lula da Silva of Brazil, and South African President Jacob Zuma. It was at that meeting—in which no European leaders were present—that the final touches were put on the three-page document that would become known as the Copenhagen Accord. In this agreement, despite Chinese resistance, Obama could claim to have—in principle at least—achieved his key objective of obtaining greater international transparency and accountability for emissions reduction targets;"

This tells a different story. Obama may have had too restricted a goal, and domestic politics may have weighed too heavily at that moment, but it seems that he made damn sure he got something.

2010-02-22T01:33:00.000-08:00

The Daily Trance

If following links along the Internet weren't bad enough in print, there's the truly addictive and zone-out inducing YouTube. I've just spent a couple of hours on what began as a simple search: curious to see what versions of "Kumbaya" might be preserved, in connection with a post I wrote on the subject at Daily Kos, expanded for my site, 60's Now. As I suspected nobody could really make much with that song, although Pete Seeger tried--as the crowd sang the melody he tried some lower register harmonies reminicent of black South African harmonies.

But through their fiendish links, I watched and listened to a couple of versions of "If I Had A Hammer," by the still incomparable Peter, Paul & Mary, and a great version by Pete Seeger with Arlo Guthrie (although he had little to do with it--it was the backup band and the backup singers that made it great.) And PPM singing "Blowing in the Wind" at a peace demo in Washington in 1971--I was there for some peace march that year, but I don't remember a podium and a program, although I do remember hearing them sing this song at the Civil Rights March on Washington in 1963--it was the highlight of the program for me (sorry, Dr. King--I was a white 16 year old.)

And then somehow I happened on Paul McCartney singing "Back in the USSR" in the USSR (Red Square) and some obscure Beatles performances and studio tapes....I know I shouldn't have even started, but I let my guard down because last night I found the 1948 Superman serial I don't remember ever seeing, and which I just read about in a new book about the Superman phenomenon. I did that for an hour, but that's all, I stopped. So this time I thought I could control it.

And now I'm wasting even more time writing about it! This is the Internet!!!

Speaking of which, there is this strange thing on Kos. There's an entire underground of "trusted users" who can carry on dialogues through the comments that no one else can see. This happened on my post--there are at least 17 comments hidden to, among others, me--the person whose post it is.
Surreal.

But I think I know what it's about. I posted this "diary" early Saturday evening, then went out for awhile. Just before I left I saw a comment that was no longer there when I got back. It was from somebody who felt threatened by young men "of color" in his neighborhood, hanging around his car. His opinion was that his Louisville Slugger was more useful than singing Kumbaya. So my guess is there was or is a discussion about the appropriateness of this comment.

Well, gotta go--check my spam filter, run a couple of virus programs--one of which purports to erase at least 13 viruses a day. And if you care to comment here--though no one does--it won't appear right away, because my comments have been spammed (I know because the comments are in Chinese) and I have to approve them before they appear. When I get the time. Off of YouTube. Fortunately, I don't much care for today's TV shows on Hulu. I don't think.

2010-02-20T23:25:00.000-08:00

The Daily Scan

My daily scan of Internet sites has changed over the past year or so, since the election and Inauguration. I had a list of news and political gossip sites I hit one after the other obsessively during the campaign. I know I wasn't alone in that because the habit was satirized in Doonesbury.

But some sites were slow to make the transition between political gossip and news applicable to governing, which I thought was the point of winning the election. Without the frenzied need for every scrap of electoral info, no matter how dubious, I could afford to dump other sites that always had a questionable political pov, and as I watched the identity of other sites either come clearer or change (notably the Huffington Post), I eliminated them as well.

So off my list entirely are: Politico, Huffington Post, Firedog Lake, the Field and some others I don't even remember. I consult the NY Times and Time Magazine blogs much less frequently, the Boston Globe's and Sf Chronicle's hardly at all, Andrew Sullivan every few days, 538 maybe once a week. I have gone back to NBC's First Read recently, hungry for something a bit more than squibs.

I still start with Political Wire, and the only one I consult more often than I used to is TPM. I check in with Kos, and if I still have an appetite, I check Think Progress. Climate Progress is also in my daily scan, and I've got a start page of selected headline links, with a number of enviro sites on it, which I go to according to the story. I have another list of non-political sites I visit pretty much everyday as well, which includes Bruce Sterling's blog at Wired, but also the Post Gazette Steelers page, and the LA Times Lakers.

I've included one special site on my start page list of headlines, just to keep something of a reality check. Because the news is often so outrageous that these headlines fit in...almost. For example:

Obama's Embarrassing Ska Album Resurfaces
Tiger Woods Announces Return to Sex

These gotchas are from The Onion, and are hilarious once you realize that they aren't real after all. I don't think.

2010-02-19T00:03:00.000-08:00

Despite attempted political blackmail by a "childish" China (D.L.'s word), President Obama met with the Dalai Lama in the White House on Thursday. Reuters: "Raising issues that quickly stoked China's ire, Obama used his first presidential meeting with the Dalai Lama to press Beijing, under international criticism for its Tibet policies, to preserve Tibetan identity and respect human rights there."

President Obama also went to Denver Thursday in support of Democratic Senator Michael Bennet, sounding like candidate Obama. If you've missed those days, check out this transcript--it's still happening. But with the benefit of experience: "Look, something you got to understand — for those who don't believe in government, those who don't believe that we have obligations to each other, it's a lot easier task. If you can gum up the works, if you make things broken, if the Senate doesn't get anything done, well, that's consistent with their philosophy. It's a whole lot easier to say no to everything. It's a whole lot easier to blame somebody else. That politics that feeds on peoples' insecurities, especially during tough political times — that's the easiest kind of politics."

So what's the solution? "And so Michael is running in a very tough environment, but he's got one very powerful advantage. He's got you. (Applause.) He's been fighting for each and every one of you in Washington. He needs you to fight for him now."

2010-02-16T02:40:00.001-08:00

This is Why Popular Opposition to Healthcare Reform Never Made Sense

I can understand why health insurers don't want reform. They don't want to be forced to like actually insure anything, which involves paying out money as well as raking it in. They seem to regard premiums as poker chips to use in their acquisitions games. The only folks they don't resent paying are lobbyists.

But how can ordinary premium-paying people, let alone businesses dying under the weight of premiums, possibly be against reform? When those premiums continue to cost more money, take an outrageous proportion of income, while insurers do their damndest to pay as little as possible, and let the patients die where they may.

Then along comes the company that used to call itself California Blue Cross when I was paying them, and now is Anthem Blue Cross. Excuse me if I don't stand at attention and pledge allegiance. They announced a 39% rate hike for individuals, effective in March. Not all that different really from what they had been doing, though maybe more incrementally. They raised their rates by about the same percentage last year. I can't even imagine what it is now. They priced me out years ago.

However, this time there's a storm abrewing. Like JFK jumping on steel price hikes, and surprising the hell out of the steel magnates, the Obama administration is jumping all over this one, demanding justification, holding congressional hearings. Blue Cross has responded in its typical shrewd way--they've humbly agreed to recind the increase. Until May, presumably when the kerfluffle is over and people are paying attention to something new.

Meanwhile, AP reports that individual premiums are going up by at least 15% in four states. A family of four in Maine can expect to pay $22,500 a year in premiums (which if memory serves, was the yearly salary for a member of Congress in 1960.) And this is just the beginning of the latest wave:
"You're going to see rate increases of 20, 25, 30 percent" for individual health policies in the near term, Sandy Praeger, chairwoman of the health insurance and managed care committee for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, predicted Friday.

All of this should help a health insurance reform law get passed, but I'm not holding my breath. Because that would only make sense. And nothing about politics makes sense anymore.

People die because they aren't insured or otherwise are denied care. I may yet become one of them, and I long ago accepted that possibility. I'm not too surprised anymore that people could let this happen. But why people who are paying these horrendous premiums aren't demanding reform, is more of a mystery. Could it be that racism trumps all? I mean, is it just because it's being proposed by a black President? Or what?

2010-02-12T15:29:00.000-08:00

Still Early, But...

We turn from sports to the sporting news on the 2010 congressional elections. About a year ago, the media drone was about the deep hole GOPers were digging for themselves after devastating election losses in 2008. This year the drone is about how Democrats are facing disaster, even loss of both houses. Which tells you, first of all that the media drones a lot and amplifies and inflates the same message, and second, that things change.

But given the endless campaign I suppose it's getting to be time to get serious about November. You'd have to think that there are several factors at work. One is the number and identity of incumbents "retiring." Right now, for all the publicity some Dems have gotten (including Patrick Kennedy in Rhode Island today), there are still more GOPers retiring than Dems. Which are from safe districts is another question, and the last time I looked, Nate Silver was suggesting a net loss for Dems.

Two is the quality of candidates, and neither side has a lot going for it. Those are the structural considerations.

In terms of political issues, there is of course the economy. At the moment, things are looking up. The unemployment rate dropped a little, jobless claims just dropped considerably, and today it was announced that retail sales are up. Plus, a new poll shows that voters still blame the Bushies (31%) and not Obama (7%) for the crappy economy.

If there is noticeable recovery by the time voters start paying attention to the election, the Dems won't be hurt. If the Dems have passed health care and a jobs bill, they will quell the current state of grumbling among Dem voters.

But the wild card is the extent of voter anger at all incumbents, which is partly because of the perceived inability of Congress to get anything done (not entirely true, especially comparatively), partly to generalized fear which verges on the apocalyptic, partly to the spoiled "independence" of voters who want instant solutions and fall for the latest new face.

How strong will the "throw the bums out" sentiment be come November? We won't really know until the day after the election. It's been a big factor in recent elections but hasn't yet dominated. It's certainly an understandable feeling, but it usually leads to stupid choices. It's so easy to exploit. And with more corporate money likely to be in play, we could see a lot more new faces--promising to solve problems and cut taxes-- sold like beer.

2010-02-10T00:05:00.000-08:00

Don't Give Up

Here is a potent article about President Obama's influence on children, particularly black children. For instance, some DC schoolkids:

They say they saw Obama's taped speech to students. Jean felt that he was speaking to the kids directly. Like he understood them. Like no other president. Like he cared about them: "He said, 'Don't give up.' "

One kid is inspired to run for school office, and he wins.

A few weeks later, Khalil wins the school election. During his acceptance speech, he tells his classmates: "Just because I'm president doesn't mean that I can change everything, such as changing the water fountains to soda fountains, but we can try to find ways to have more after-school clubs and sports teams. I will do my best."

Sounds like he's been listening to President Obama more recently.

But the most potent message seems to be the first one:

Jean watched Obama's education speech in September. And those words stayed with her. "At times, I was really stressed out" about school, she says. "I would want to leave school badly. Then it did hit me. He said, 'Don't give up.' It was in my head after hearing the speech."

By the way, this was the speech that the Rabid Right tried to stop, because the President was going to indoctrinate children.

2010-02-07T19:02:00.000-08:00

The Saints Go Marching In! The most exciting Super Bowl I can remember (that the Steelers didn't win, that is) and very well played--few penalties and I believe only one turnover--and that was a doozy, a perfectly timed Saints interception and 75 yd. run for the TD that sealed it. Lots of dramatic moments, several surprising running plays and of course lots and lots of passing. That New Orleans won it--and deserved to win it, with skill, grit and fearlessness--makes this one to remember. Probably no city outside of Pittsburgh has a closer identification with its team, and the Saints identify with their city more than anybody. So a great win for a beleaguered city with an amazing history.

The Who rocked halftime--not as great as the Boss, but fun anyway. Great music--from what's turned out to be the high times of rock.

The commercials were appalling, in their confusion, violence, and what they say about American culture. The one with Jay Leno and David Letterman, with Oprah between them, was funny, and Hundyai had some good ones, scoring with a funny Brett Favre bit and voiceovers from the likely Best Actor winner this year, Jeff Bridges. Otherwise, more efforts to turn women as well as men into beer-sucking infants. Ugly, ugly, ugly. But everything else was fun.

Update: Ratings say that this Super Bowl was the most watched TV show in history.

2010-02-05T01:43:00.000-08:00

The Politics of Health Care

President Obama outlined the process for health insurance reform at a Democratic National Committee function on Thursday, and it's pretty interesting, pretty shrewd. It also illuminates for me what conclusions he's drawn from the debacle in MA.

Immediately after the unthinkable (and unthinkably embarrassing) loss of the 60th Senate seat in a solidly Democratic state--the seat held by John and Edward Kennedy for a half century--Obama announced that he wasn't going to try to rush the healthcare bill out of conference and through the House and Senate before the Dems lost their filibuster-proof 60 (which coincidentally happened officially on Thursday.) This upset some people, because it seemed a kind of surrender. He also seemed to step back from the process, letting congressional leaders hash out how to accomplish the final bill, and some feared he was abandoning health care completely.

But in his State of the Union and in every forum since, he's made clear that he's still committed to healthcare reform. But why he backed off a bit became
clearer today. Apart from the complacency that allowed the Senate seat to slip away (and Obama addressed that immediately by bringing David Plouffe back to ride herd over all the congressional races this year), Obama clearly saw that the GOPers had succeeded in distorting the healthcare package enough so it didn't have the support it should. And the lack of public support was showing up in declining support among Democrats in Congress.

So his plan is to organize a meeting of legislators--Dems and GOPers--along with the relevant experts, make it public--televise it--and hash out the plans that were passed, and what should go into the final bill. Then put it to a vote. The process, he indicated, should take only a few weeks, and might be the next order of business after the jobs bill he says is his first priority right now.

“What I’d like to do is have a meeting whereby I am sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts and let’s just go through these bills,” Mr. Obama said. “Their ideas, our ideas. Let’s walk through them in a methodical way, so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense. And then I think that we have got to move forward on a vote. We have got to move forward on a vote.”

Part of what Obama clearly wants to do is clear the air of distortions, and focus public attention on what the bill will really do, and what it won't.

Mr. Obama said that Americans were apprehensive about the health care legislation because there was too much misinformation that he would now work to clear up.
“They are certain that they would have to go onto a government plan, which isn’t true,” the president said. “But that’s still a perception a lot of people have. They are still pretty sure that they would have to give up their doctor. They are still pretty sure that if they are happy with their health care plan, that it’s bad for them. They are still positive that this is going to add to the deficit. So there is a lot of information out there that people understandably are concerned about.”

He presented the rest of the process in a matter-of-fact manner: He continued, “That’s why I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks and then let’s go ahead and make a decision. And it may be that if Congress decides, if Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. And that’s how democracy works, and there will be elections coming up and they will be able to make a determination and register their concerns one way or another during election time.”

But there was a more aggressive message under the calm. Because clearly he believes this is an argument he can win, and once the actual undistorted plan is clarified for the public, there will be a political price to pay for not passing it.

It's a gamble, but you have to like his chances. GOPers are still reeling from his dismantling of them and their arguments at the Republican House caucus. The other very powerful element in his favor is the fact that both the House and Senate have already passed comprehensive health care bills, 90% of them (the President says) the same. So all the painful months of this process so far may not have been wasted. It still will take some heavy lifting, but the process that Obama outlined is both rational and politically shrewd. GOPers have been crying that nobody is listening to their ideas, and they've criticized Obama for not conducting a more public--and televised--process. After the televised caucus Q&A, they may not be as eager for that--but if it's handled right, they're going to get it.

If it works, the process will be persuasive, polls will reflect increasing public support for reform, and legislators will have to decide which side of history to be on, and what they want to face the voters having done or not done.

At one point, as the president insisted that he would continue to fight for the health care bill, the crowd chanted, “Yes, we can! Yes, we can!”

2010-02-03T15:34:00.000-08:00

Play The Damn Game

Since I stopped watching political shows, I tend to eat breakfast with sports shows washing over me like water warmed by hot air. I don't expect much of them. I like PTI--I met Tony Kornheiser once when he was a young wolf, and we were both circling around the same foxy lady. Only I was invited, Tony--you weren't!

Anyway.

It's Wednesday and I'm sick to death of the Super Bowl, which isn't until Sunday. Two weeks of chatter is a week too much. And there really isn't much to say. You can't root against New Orleans, but Indianapolis has the edge, because once Payton Manning figures out the defense--and sooner or later that usually happens--he can carve it up. That's what it all comes down to.

Besides, these teams are so evenly matched that it all comes down to game day. Which defense clicks, and which quarterback. Which receivers make the catches they should, and which backs have a good running day, without fumbles. Nobody can predict any of that.

And only the teams themselves know what their coaches have up their sleeves. Maybe a new blocking scheme to unleash New Orleans' formidable runners, taking the pressure off the passing game. Here, the Saints have the edge. If Reggie Bush has a great game, they have the edge.

It could be a sloppy game, even a grinding game, but chances are it will be an exciting game. I'm just tired of hearing about it. Play the damn game and talk about something else, please.

2010-01-24T22:35:00.000-08:00

League Championship Thoughts

So I picked them both (Indy-30 Jets 17, New Orleans 31 MN 28) but I don't feel good about it--at least, not about the second game. The Saints-Vikings game started out great, a lot of fun to watch. But it got ugly. It isn't fun, at least for me, seeing a quarterback get beat up like Brett Favre did. The Vikings basically outplayed the Saints, Favre outplayed Brees, but some pretty bad calls by the officials and some unforced errors set them back. Still, Favre had them in position to win the game, but at the end of regulation, beaten up physically and mentally exhausted, he made a fatal mistake. He had to get ten yards or so, and though he had a running lane he probably didn't feel he could make it. He threw an interception, and his truly courageous game ended with a bitter taste.

The Saints offense did basically nothing the second half. They got a few breaks in overtime, and their kicker did his job. It's great that New Orleans is in their first Super Bowl ever, but they got in ugly.

I also have to say that based on this game I'm withdrawing my SB pick. The Saints were almost rudderless in the second half--they couldn't run, they couldn't throw. Now Indy has two weeks to study what the Vikings defense did to stymie the Saints. The Saints looked lethargic, they were out of rhythm. It may have been that they were beat up, too, and two weeks to heal up should help their energy level. But if the Colts defense can replicate what the Vikings did, the edge goes to them.

As happened all season, the Colts did just enough to win. That's usually dangerous, but the Colts play with such confidence, and Payton Manning deals with pressure and defenses so well, that they are hardly ever out of the game. They basically studied what the Jets did in the first half, didn't panic when they were behind, and carved up the Jets defense and stifled their offense in the second half. The Saints will need to reenergize, and they'll need Indy mistakes and the kind of breaks they got today.

On the other hand, there is still the question mark about the relative strengths of the conferences--it looked to me that the NFC teams were stronger. New Orleans dismantled the Patriots, but then it turns out that the Patriots weren't so good even relative to the AFC. The Saints OL and DL could overpower Indy. Although I don't relish seeing another quarterback beaten into the ground. I guess that's why some people watch football. Not me.

2010-01-23T01:52:00.000-08:00

NFL: Final Four Picks

Due to popular demand from a breathless public, I'm issuing my picks for the playoff games this weekend--because there just isn't enough about them available on TV and in print. (Seriously, I didn't think it was possible to talk so much about the same four teams every day for a week, but hey, that's why I'm not on ESPN.)

Indianapolis Colts v. New York Jets: On offense, the Jets run and the Colts pass. The Jets defense can cover and also blitz, and so, to a lesser extent, can the Colts. If the Jets control the tempo by running effectively, and their defense smothers Payton Manning, they win. But if they fall behind, they have a harder time catching up by scoring points quickly. If the game is close, Manning is better at manufacturing points, and except in a real blowout, the Colts can never be counted out until the game is over. I expect Manning to do a lot of short passes, to try to counter the Jets ability to dominate the clock. But Manning can also get points on the board. If the Colts can't stop the run, they're pretty close to cooked. If the Jets can't stop the pass, they are cooked.

So when you're looking at this by considering various scenarios, the Colts have to be the favorites--they have more ways to win. Also on average, this looks to be a close game. Still, this game could be a blowout either way, depending on whose specific game plan works, plus the breaks of the game. Both teams are capable of having a great game, and both are capable of having a bad game. How's that for temporizing? So I have to pick the Colts, but a Jets victory would not surprise me.

New Orleans Saints v. Minneapolis Vikings: A pair of well-matched teams, with high powered offenses and defenses that can be stifling, but can also be breached. I expected to be picking MN because of their defense and the wily ways of Brett Favre. But then I saw New Orleans last week, and if they play like that, no one can beat them. I haven't seen a more balanced offense since the 70s Steelers, and their defense was pretty impressive.

Both of these offenses can be so efficient that they're scary. Still, I don't think this is going to be as high-scoring as the Arizona-San Diego game. This one is less likely to be a blowout either way than the AFC final. So... with the Saints at home, a possible key injury to the MN offense, I have to give the edge to New Orleans. But again, a Vikings victory wouldn't surprise me.

But if that's not definite enough for you, here's this: the winner of the Saints-Viking game beats the winner of the Colts-Jets game in the Super Bowl.

2010-01-17T23:23:00.000-08:00

NFL: Now There Are Four

I'm three for four this weekend on playoff games, including the Dallas meltdown I predicted would happen. But how about those Jets? That was the big surprise--San Diego was a frequent favorite to get to the Bowl, especially on the basis of momentum. But for San Diego (and Dallas) the momentum stopped cold on Sunday, and partly for the same reasons: the other team's defense getting to the Qback, turnovers, an unaccountably erratic kicker, and a certain loss of composure. I expected that from Dallas, but not San Diego.

I have to laugh at all the Dallas hype--and that's another commonality. I think both Dallas and San Diego believed their hype. Minnesota showed some character. So did the Jets, though they got some breaks and hung on. Minnesota just kept coming, taking every opportunity.

Saturday's story was the return of the winning moxie for New Orleans and Indianapolis, both undefeated until late in the season, both throttled back towards the end and lost several games. But they were vindicated about rest--both very energetic and, contrary to expectations, sharp. Especially New Orleans. That was the most fun to watch of any of the playoff games I've seen this year. I watched Reggie Bush at USC (all their games are broadcast here) so it was fun watching him do similarly flashy running (contrary to what the announcers were saying, he ran over people at USC too.)

So now that I'm on a roll, what are my picks for next week? I don't know if I will make any, certainly not now. I know the sportswriters have to be salivating for a Minnesota-New York Bowl: the wily 40 year old veteran Qback vs the rookie Qback half his age. And it could happen. Right now I'd have to give MN an edge for defense vs. New Orleans, but the Saints get a big home field advantage. New Orleans can be dominant, but Minnesota can be wily and if the game is close you can't ever count them out. So right now I'd say that one is even.

The Colts have the early edge v. the Jets, but the Colts have won so many games by getting breaks late that their luck has to run out some time. (They won by 17 over the Ravens, but the Ravens aren't that impressive.) How much pressure can the Jets get on Manning? Which team makes the fewer mistakes? I don't think anyone can confidently make the Jets the favorite. But you can't count them out.

Nobody expected three not very close games this weekend (New Orleans was a blowout, and though MN won by a big margin, it wasn't really over until the 4th quarter.) But I'm sure the conventional wisdom will be for a high scoring MN/N.O game and a low scoring Indy/Jets. We'll see.

2010-01-14T23:17:00.000-08:00

I used to be a big fan of late night talk shows. I cut my teeth on the great Steve Allen show on Westinghouse in the early 60s, and being a night owl anyway, I watched far too much of Johnny Carson, Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show, Arsenio Hall, David Letterman's NBC show and God help me Joey Bishop, Merv Griffin, and even Regis Philbin's brief late night foray. I remember as a child listening to the adults talking in hushed tones about the original Steve Allen Tonight Show and did bluff my way into seeing a little Jack Paar.

But I haven't watched any of it for years (even though I was present backstage with Steve Allen at the Tonight Show anniversary during Jay Leno's first year), until one night this week, when the Conan O'Brien-Jay Leno kerfluffle at NBC hit high gear. If you haven't followed it, basically: Jay Leno left the Tonight Show 8 months ago and began a 10 pm show several nights a week, while Conan ( who previously followed Tonight in Letterman's old spot) took over Tonight, as his contract stipulated. But Leno's show bombed and Conan lost the Tonight Show's ratings over Letterman (now on CBS.) So NBC wanted to put Leno back on at 11:35, with Conan still doing Tonight, but at 12:05. Conan refused, in an open letter professing devotion to the Tonight Show tradition.

I tuned in that night to see him, switching back and forth to Letterman, and later also Jimmy Fallon and a touch of Carson Daly on NBC, Jimmy Kimmel on ABC and Craig Ferguson following Letterman on CBS. Not only did Conan have a lot to say about the NBC situation--they all did. Major dollops of their humor were about it, and almost all of it was hostile to Leno and NBC. There was less of it with Jimmy Fallon, who was clearly more taken with fulfilling a widely shared fantasy of singing a Beatles tune with a real Beatle (Ringo Starr.) But Jimmy Kimmel did his whole show as Jay Leno--though it was described as "unflattering," it got him an invitation to appear on Leno's prime time show. (It's also possible that I've confused the two Jimmy's.)

I dipped back into it last night, and the Leno/NBC/ insecure talk show host jibes continued, falling flat to me--I mean, poor poor pitiful Conan, who is likely to come out of this at worst with a settlement worth $10 million a year. My other takeaway, and this probably says more about me than about them, but I don't find late night interesting or funny anymore. And I haven't for years--clearly why I stopped watching. The guests are comparatively boring and almost exclusively show biz, and the humor isn't worth the increased commercials time. Though Jimmy Fallon is a nice enough, the only new guy who makes me laugh is Craig Ferguson. As for the kerfluffle, well, I don't think Conan is that good. Letterman's show is better. This may be an age thing (mine I mean) but Letterman's is better paced.

The other element in all this is Comedy Central's dynamic duo of Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report. So I suppose if I got back into the bad late night TV habit I'd start by switching around from Stewart-Colbert/Charlie Rose/Sports Center and Star Trek: The Next Generation reruns from 11 to 12, then check out Craig Ferguson's monologue. I don't know, maybe it is a better use of my time than blogging.

2010-01-10T22:54:00.000-08:00

Wild Wild Card Weekend

The New England Patriots and Philadelphia Eagles destroyed themselves instead of the Dallas Cowboys doing so, and Green Bay's vaunted defense disappeared, leading to some wild Wild Card outcomes. For the Eagles and maybe especially the Patriots, there will be questions that some fans are asking about the Steelers--are they suddenly too old? Or is this a Lost Season for Brady coming back from injury, just as Big Ben's first year back was for him?

I watched little or none of three of the Wild Card games, which probably should disqualify me from commenting, but it's my blog and I'll cry if I want to. Frankly I don't like either Dallas or Philly so almost anything was more important than watching that game, and maybe I should have paid more attention to match-up problems Philly had vs. Dallas, so I'll listen more closely to match-ups next time. But I don't buy into Dallas as a team of destiny just yet. They still seem fundamentally able to crack up at any time.

I did watch a lot of that touch football game between Green Bay and Arizona. Maybe that's how the game should be played--it was fun and nobody got killed. It seems evident that neither team could defend and both quarterbacks had a brilliant day, but I'd point out something else: the receivers on both teams had a brilliant day. They were catching everything. Talk about age--can Kurt Warner's arm recover in time to challenge New Orleans? That's a big question in my mind.

It's possible that the winner of the Dallas-Minnesota game next weekend will have played their toughest game of the playoffs. I'm rooting for Minnesota, and I expect the Saints, Colts and Chargers to advance, but what do I know? I'm 1-3. At least I was right about the Bungles.

2010-01-08T00:35:00.000-08:00

Wild Picks

For Wild Card weekend, I'm picking New England, New York, Philadelphia and Green Bay. Though the Bungles are favored over the Jets, they've been moving in the wrong direction for much of the second half of the season, and the Jets have the mo. The same might be said of Dallas vs. Philly, but I don't think the result will be the same this time. Dallas is going to self-destruct at some point in the playoffs, and this game is as good as any.

Meanwhile, the Steelers have axed their offensive line and special teams coaches, and re-hired their offensive coordinator. Though their defensive coordinator told somebody that he wasn't retiring, there's nothing official yet. The official word on Big Ben's shoulder is that he's okay, but I wouldn't take that to the bank just yet.

As for the national college championship game, it pretty much ceased to be that in the first few minutes when quarterback Colt McCoy, the entire Texas offense, left the game hurt. After days of hype, I wonder how many millions turned it off after ten minutes. Fortunately for the sports channels, next year's quarterback for Texas brought them back, before the crucial turnover--where have I seen this script before? Oh yeah, the first Steelers vs. Ravens.

Now that the Browns new g. m. has rehired their coach, who was 1-11 before ending the season with four straight wins, maybe Pittsburgh can feel a little better about being the first in that streak--victimized by low expectations as well as a suddenly energized and effective running game by the Browns. It looks like the AFC North next season is going to be a lot more competitive.

2010-01-04T02:46:00.001-08:00

The Irregular Season

The NFL regular season is over, and it was weird. Denver began it by winning six straight games, and lost so often afterwards that they didn't make the playoffs. Indianapolis and New Orleans came into the last weeks within striking distance of a perfect season: now Indy has lost two in a row, and New Orleans three.

No team looked good for the whole season. The hot teams right now--San Diego and Dallas--were pathetic early on. Not to mention the New York Jets. Some of the league's worst teams for much of the season--Cleveland, Kansas City, Oakland, San Francisco--went on winning streaks and scored a lot of points. Except for Oakland, with another injury to another quarterback, they ended the season strong.

Within that irregular context, the Steelers strange season doesn't seem so strange. At one time poised to make a run for the division championship on their way to the playoffs and the Super Bowl, after winning big games and entering the soft part of their schedule facing weaker opponents, they lost five games in a row, including three inexplicable ones. Then facing quality opponents, they won three in a row to end the season, including Sunday's victory over Miami. For a few hours afterwards, their slim playoff hopes were alive. But as predicted, Baltimore and the New York Jets won their games, and the Steelers season was over.

But within the strange scheme of wins and losses, there were meaningful patterns. The Steelers won or lost by not many points. Sometimes their offense sputtered, but more often their defense couldn't stop the other team, particularly late in the game. Sunday was no different. The offense scored early and often, but the defense gave up points. Then a key injury to Miami--their second-string quarterback went out--allowed them to pile up a lead. But Miami's third string quarterback scored two quick touchdowns on the defense, and was poised to score another when he made a fatal mistake. And that was the game.

That's how the Steelers won and lost this year. They won when the other team made more mistakes, and they got lucky. They lost when they made more mistakes, and the other team got lucky. Nobody overpowered them. And they couldn't overpower anyone.

And all through the league, injuries to key personnel made a big difference. For the Steelers, it was Troy P. What was different for the Steelers was that without Troy and another key defender, the defense showed vulnerabilities that maybe even the team didn't understand were there. And now they know.

Sunday's Steelers game was bracing in several ways. Fans had to be excited seeing the running game return, and especially Willie Parker show some spark. Special teams performed well, and Stefan Logan may have saved his job with several skillful returns. (Parker may have as well, assuming he wants to stay in Pittsburgh and will accept a lesser role and contract.) And Big Ben--well, when the extent of his arm or shoulder injury is known, we'll know if not getting into the playoffs may be a blessing. But he played so valiantly and so well, taking the Steelers on their final drive to seal what had suddenly become a close game, throwing accurate passes in obvious pain...it was the most courageous performance I've seen since the famous Michael Jordan playoff game when he was so weak from flu he could hardly walk onto the floor.

Going out with these three victories, and with some great highlights, helps the fans keep the faith, and helps the players restore some self-respect. But it doesn't change the likelihood that there are going to be changes.

As for the rest of the day, the Jets blew out Cincy, and play them again in the first round. I don't see the Bengals or the Ravens getting very far. New England played Brady on Sunday, and they still lost--but more to the point for their chances, they lost their top wide receiver. Indy may have run out of luck. San Diego looks like the AFC favorite.

Dallas blew out Philadelphia in a game that both teams wanted, and they play each other again next week in the first round. Despite the score, Philly is capable of turning the tables on Dallas. Minnesota won big, so they go into the playoffs with some confidence. New Orleans lost again, and their confidence must be pretty low. Green Bay finished strong, too, but Minnesota beat them twice. I'm thinking Minnesota.

But if the playoffs are as irregular as the season, all bets are off.

2010-01-02T00:48:00.000-08:00

Sports Talkers

I give credit to sports reporters and commentators. Sure, they're cliche-ridden. In addition to the usual nomenclature, this year's flavor of the tongue in football includes "makes plays" as in this player/offense/defense not only does this and that, but most importantly, they "make plays." Another favorite concerns players who are good "in space." They don't mean outer space, but in what used to be called the "open field." Or sometimes, just when not in direct contact with other bodies. And therefore the cliche of the year has to do with players capable of "making plays in space." That's good, you see.

So plenty of cliches old and new, but at the end of the day---hah, an old favorite--I give credit to sports talkers (particularly on ESPN) who still know, understand and employ the distinction between "fewer" and "less." So they describe a team as having "fewer points," or a defense that is making "fewer interceptions" this year, etc. And I also note that Keith Olbermann, sportscaster as well as political talker, observes the classical definition of "presently," meaning "soon," not "currently."

It's not just a case of proper use of English, but of having something interesting to say. (Though they often go together.) Certain commentators, like Merle Hodge, are especially knowledgeable and informative. And I've watched Sunday Night Football on NBC even when I didn't care much about the teams playing, just for the coverage by Al Michaels and Cris Collingsworth.

Of course, there are plenty of sports talkers who talk blather, and do so incoherently. I heard one guy trying to fill time in a dull game today praise a coach for transforming a college program "singlehandedly, with a lot of help from other people." I turned him off.

2009-12-30T23:48:00.000-08:00

NFL Preview

The final weekend of the season will determine the Wild Card teams in the AFC. The Steelers are technically still in contention, if they win their game with Miami (in Miami) and several combinations of other teams lose. It's not something I'd bet on happening.

Regardless of whether the Steelers win, if Baltimore and the New York Jets win, they take the Wild Card spots in the playoffs. It's very likely both these teams will win. Baltimore is unlikely to have two bad games in a row, and the Jets are playing the Bengals, who not only are likely to rest their starters for the playoffs (they've won the division) but very probably don't want the Steelers in the playoffs enough to do as little as possible to win their game. (That's if the Steelers win over Miami earlier in the day.)

Contrary to the oddsmakers and the Steelers' LaMarr Woodley , I don't think New England cares that much about the Steelers to take a dive, and I expect them to win their game. I think they have a particular incentive to be sharp going into the playoffs, since they have been out of synch for much of the season.

All of this is academic if the Steelers don't win, and they might not. They're pretty banged up, Troy P. is unlikely to play, they haven't done well on the road this year. Yet it is important for the team--and for many of the players individually--that they play well.

Even if they do, there are changes coming, perhaps within weeks. I still expect their revered defensive coordinator to retire, and there might be players on the defense who make that choice as well. The offensive coordinator may have saved his job with the last two wins. But all of this depends on the internal assessment of what went wrong this season, and there's evidence suggesting coaches as well as players. Whether the Steelers can do much with trades, free agents or in the draft is an open question, and will be for awhile. But in any case, I expect "next year" to start for them Monday.

If it doesn't? It looks as if Troy P. could play in the playoffs. He could make the difference for the defense. And with Big Ben, anything is possible on offense, although it would help if they were healthier. That's really been the one common element their last two Super Bowls: everyone was healthy. That's not going to be the case this year--they're still missing starters on defense. The Steelers are good enough and experienced enough to play at a high level, but past the first round, they'd have to hope that their opponent comes out flat, and makes lots of mistakes. Yes, anything can happen. And that's the beauty of this week, preceding the last game of the regular season.

2009-12-27T22:14:00.000-08:00

Like I Said

So why aren't I getting the big bucks for sports prognostication, or at least scads of readers hanging on my every wise word? Don't know, but I do know that the Steelers-Ravens game went pretty much as I felt it would. As this report as well as this one confirm, the Steelers won when Baltimore had a bad game--lots of penalties in ridiculously crucial situations, turnovers and a spectacular muff of a pass in the end zone.

Plus, as I suggested, the Steeler defense confounded expectations by shutting down the Ravens in the fourth quarter. Not that they dominated--they lost a 10 point lead in the third quarter, and allowed a big rushing game--first back over a hundred yards in a couple of years--but they came up big on the Ravens' last drive especially.

So now the Steelers and a half dozen other teams are 8-7. The Eagles helped their playoff chances by beating Denver, the Titans lost Thursday, but the Jets unexpectedly ended Indy's undefeated season (and the decision to bench the Indy starters in the 3rd quarter to save them for the playoffs was discussed endlessly on TV), which gets them back in the wild card race. It will all be decided next weekend, the final weekend of the regular season. The Steelers have to win in Miami and hope that several other contending teams (the right ones, like the Ravens) lose.

And now that Indy and New Orleans have joined the teams that look vulnerable, a playoff spot might even be worth having. Still, San Diego and New England are finishing strong, and they're the favorites. I still don't think Indy is as good as its record. In the NFC, Philly is for real, Dallas is not. It should be interesting to see if Minneapolis can play a strong game Monday night against Chicago--not just win, but dominate. Green Bay bounced back well from the loss to the Steelers. Which, by the way, I expect Baltimore to do.

We'll have to see how banged up the Steelers are, going into the Miami game. It's going to be tough--tougher than Miami was today in losing to Houston--but if Troy comes back, that's a big boost. One other good thing about the Steelers game today was the emergence of two young players--an impressive 4th quarter for Ziggy Hood on defense, and a heady start for the recently signed wide receiver, Tyler Grisham, who caught his first NFL pass in a crucial situation. The Steelers have their problems that will have to be addressed after the season, but one good sign of a strong organization is when new players and seldom used players can step into crucial situations and not only do well but make a difference.

2009-12-27T05:13:00.001-08:00

Pre-Game

The Steelers-Ravens game is just hours from starting. I won't see it--it's not broadcast here, as usual. But I've got a feeling about it. At this time of year, it seems teams are having inexplicable bad games. The question is whether Baltimore is due for one. For it seems to me that it will take an extraordinarily good game by Pittsburgh or a bad game, a flat game at least, by Baltimore, for the Steelers to win. And it seems more likely that Baltimore will have a flat or a bad game. It's hard to see the Steelers playing with the same intensity they did against Green Bay. Of course, if they do, then they may deserve to get a playoff game--which is still pretty unlikely, even if they win this one.

The conventional wisdom among Pittsburgh sportswriters seems to be that to have a chance, the Steelers will have to score a lot of points, because their defense can't stop anybody anymore. That seems to be the emphasis the Steelers coaches are making, at least in public. Given how well conventional wisdom has done this year, maybe we should expect a low scoring game that the Steeler defense wins.

But if both teams play their "normal" game, it's even, with a slight edge to Baltimore. If Troy P. were playing, it might be a different story. But he's not. The Steelers can win this, but as far as I'm concerned, they are the underdog, even playing at home.

A few weeks ago, when the Steelers were getting beat in very close games, the Pitt Panthers also lost two very close games. Saturday, Pitt won their bowl game by a couple of points. Omen?

The game that will be broadcast here is Oakland-Cleveland. Funny thing about that game is that both teams, bad teams most of the year, are playing above their record. Cleveland has the edge since they're at home, but this could be an interesting game, which is pretty odd.

The other NFL stories this week are whether New Orleans and Minnesota can go back to winning, playing weaker opponents, and whether Indy is going to expend much effort trying to remain undefeated.

2009-12-22T00:17:00.000-08:00

So here's how it happened around here: the Steelers-Packers game was not broadcast locally, but the score was flashed occasionally. I was pleasantly surprised to see the Steelers ahead. But then the fourth quarter began, and they were ahead by six points, and we all know what has usually happened: the Steelers give up points and lose narrowly--maybe by one point. And for awhile--as I watched the ESPN gamecast on the computer, and then just refreshed the score and time left on my homepage--it was happening again, sort of. The Packers kept scoring, but so did the Steelers. And then the Packers had a six point lead with a minute left. Then with 30 seconds. Then with 18 seconds, where the clock stopped. A time out I figured. Refresh: 3 seconds. Another pause. Then I got up. Instead of impatiently waiting for them to lose, I walked around the kitchen envisioning a last second touchdown, reasoning as well that the Steelers were due for some good, rather than bad, luck. Then I returned and refreshed again: Steelers 37, Packers 36, game over.

I had missed one of the great finishes and one of Big Ben's greatest games, one of the great performances in Steelers history and in the NFL this year. It was the game the Steelers needed. While conventional wisdom has switched because of it, giving them the edge over Baltimore next week, I think it brings them even, and the game is a tossup. But this weekend in the rest of the NFL was topsy-turvy, including victories by two of the "terrible teams" the Steelers lost to,and with dramatic swings in the narrative: now New Orleans and Minnesota are "vulnerable," Tennessee and Dallas are surging, San Diego is the new team of destiny. It goes to show that with two weeks left, the narrative is still uncertain. There are even a couple of fairly plausible ways that the Steelers get into the playoffs if they win their final two games, both now against wild card contenders.

2009-12-13T23:33:00.000-08:00

NFL Countdown

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette sportswriter Ed Bouchette echoed and amplified my last judgment on the Steelers (previous post.) He points out in particular the ages of the starters on defense, and their equally aged backups (meaning they are all in their ancient 30s.) He says there are few young prospects to replace them, and notes the large sums spent on an offensive line that isn't getting the job done. Both present future difficulties, and suggest that improvement isn't going to be easy. So he says that the Steelers of the past decade are over.

He's followed up with a column about the challenge facing head coach Mike Tomlin in "salvaging the season." But objectively it looks pretty bleak. The Steelers' next game is with Green Bay, which earlier in the season didn't seem like a big deal, but now the Packers are on a winning streak, one of the hottest teams in the NFL. The Steelers have already lost to Baltimore, who they play again, and Miami is hardly a pushover, especially for a team that fell to Cleveland.

But here's what can be said on the positive side. These losses started after a trip to the thin air of Denver, the loss of a quarterback, and then two games in about ten days. With age a factor in a depleted defense, that all probably contributed, although it's hardly an excuse, especially for lack of coaching preparation. Still, the coaches prepared well for Minnesota and Denver, and maybe they lost their concentration for lesser teams.

So while this is a dangerous time for the Steelers, they are still on paper the team that won the Super Bowl in February. They have a long week to prepare for Green Bay. They are capable of winning this game. If they do--or even if they acquit themselves well--they can face the inevitable changes to come with some dignity, and some order. If they don't, if they give up or play as poorly as they did in Cleveland, then their immediate future is likely to be chaotic.

Though a playoff spot is still mathematically possible, even if they win out it is unlikely. They shouldn't even be thinking about it. They need to concentrate on winning this game. They need an offensive explosion and a defensive shutdown. As unlikely as that is, it is possible.

In any case, they've exposed enough weaknesses that they would be unlikely to get deep into the playoffs. New England is another AFC team that's underperforming, but nobody can count them out for a playoff run to the Super Bowl. Right now the favorites have to be Indianapolis or San Diego vs. New Orleans or Minnesota, with Arizona as the spoiler. In a single game anything can happen, but it does appear that the NFC is a lot stronger this year and should be favored.

2009-12-10T22:40:00.000-08:00

Steelers Hit Bottom

If it wasn't for Tiger Woods, the complete collapse of the Pittsburgh Steelers over the past month would be the most extreme and inexplicable story of failure of the sports year.

After ending Minnesota's perfect season, and beating the one-loss Broncos in their home stadium, the Steelers have gradually fallen apart until they hit bottom tonight--because after losing in humiliating fashion to the previously one-victory Cleveland Browns, there's nowhere deeper to fall.

The only good thing about this game was that I couldn't see it. I can only imagine what's going on in Pittsburgh tonight. But what I saw on SportsCenter was amazing--the team that won the Super Bowl in January, couldn't play football: they couldn't tackle, they couldn't block (Big Ben was sacked eight times), they couldn't catch the football. Cleveland scored its first rushing touchdown of the year. The Steelers barely tried to run against a porous run defense.

The defense failed (again), the offense failed, the special teams failed (again) and the coaching failed, big time.

It's been a blur of a fall. Five losses in a row, three of them to some of the worst teams in the NFL, the last one to the absolute worst team. After four consecutive losses, there was only one way to save the season: a 44-0 pasting of the Browns. Instead the Steelers didn't score a touchdown.

After last week's loss to Oakland--a team admittedly on the rise, as I suggested here--I thought it was all but certain that next year would see an all-new coaching staff under head coach Mike Tomlin. The revered defensive coordinator will retire, and the rest will be fired. Now some of those coaches may not make it through this season, and Tomlin's job is in jeopardy for next year. One of the Post-Gazette stories blames the team for lack of effort, for letting Tomlin down. But Tomlin may not escape so easily. Missed tackles, dropped passes, and a loss to the Browns--especially to the Browns--is not going to be overlooked or forgotten.

This isn't going to be an easy fix. Before tonight, the return of a couple of key starters to the defense conceivably could have turned things around. But not anymore. Once things start to unravel like this, all bets are off. It may be years before the Steelers become a good team again. Having lived through the Bubby Brister years, the Cordell Stewart years, the Neil O'Donnell throwing two interceptions to throw the Super Bowl and then leave town years, I'm not looking forward to it. Although the explanations of why all this happened might be interesting.

2009-12-05T23:41:00.000-08:00

Central Catholic

I've got a tip for the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security --if you want to track somebody wherever they go, employ a company that works for colleges and high schools, tracking their graduates so fundraising appeals can reach them wherever they are. Truly, no one has been able to follow me from place to place over the years like Knox College and Greensburg Central Catholic High School.

So even now I get "The Centurion" newsletter, which tells me that Central Catholic celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. Which means that it's been 49 years since I started there, thanks so much for reminding me.

I was in the second graduating class. The school started with just one class, and added a new freshman class each year, so it wasn't until I was a junior that the building had its full complement. However, my eighth grade was held in a couple of rooms that weren't being used by the high school, way down at the end of a first floor corridor.

Yes, the school left me with a lifetime of memories, though not all of them the kind that alumni funds would wish. Some of those memories include nightmares, though after four decades, they aren't quite so sharp or scary as they once were. As to their nature, see the collected works of Christopher Durang for a few hints.

But in this newsletter I was struck by a quote from the Bishop at the time of the school's founding, Bishop Lamb (no, I'm not making that up), who apparently said the intention of Central was to be "a shrine of religion and a nursery of patriotism." This actually sounds about right. Back in those days, there was little overt clash between religion class and civics. (Though let's face it, every class was religion class to some greater rather than lesser degree.) I may have been a little more enthusiastic than I was expected to be over Thomas Jefferson and Freedom of Speech, etc. but there was a pretty healthy respect for democracy (though not in the Church, and certainly not in school), due process and political rights.

Some of the nuns were more enthusiastic than others about the New Deal when that bit of fairly recent history came up, or the contemporary beginnings of Civil Rights, though the fact that the President was a Catholic did go a long way. Also, many of us were third or even second generation children of immigrants, and from ethnicities--Italian, Irish and Polish or Slovak--that were then heavily Democratic and felt a great debt to FDR. Not every teacher was all that enthusiastic about the liberal Pope John XXIII and the Vatican Council either, but all they could do was mutter and punish people for no good reason.

But there was a coexistence, a separation of Church and state, and a sense that freedom of religion protected Catholics, and that the primacy of conscience really needed Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to operate in a normal life. Similarly, the feeling about Darwinian evolution was that it generally did not contradict the doctrine of God as the Creator. It was accepted that the Bible was at times metaphorical, so the "days" of Genesis weren't to be taken literally. (Then again, the Bible was secondary in Catholicism to the teachings of the Church.)

Of course, abortion wasn't an issue then. Abortion was illegal, and it was not even to be spoken of, especially as it apparently had something to do with sex, which as a general topic was not to be spoken of, except when necessary in confession. It, like a lot of other stuff, was a Sin. Period.

So we didn't have that issue blurring the lines. Yet when I see Catholic clergy denying sacraments to elected officials because of their political positions, I do wonder what happened to the Church where the Constitution and conscience were respected even if certain positions or laws were deemed immoral according to Church doctrine, which has changed significantly on issues over the many years.

But the Catholic Church is no longer my concern. I see in the Central newsletter many familiar surnames of students who are probably the grandchildren or grand-whatevers of students I knew in my time there. I don't envy them the battles I had within myself and with the nuns and priests. ( as to their nature, see James Joyce The Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man for some hints-- a book I first read, incidentally, after one of the nuns at Central Catholic slipped it to me covertly.) But I hope enough lip service and especially access is given to the foundation documents of the U.S., and the "profiles in courage" of those who fought for and defended our rights, and at least the ideals of our government. There was a lot of toxicity at Central Catholic in my day, but at least there was some recognition that religion and patriotism aren't identical concepts.

2009-12-01T00:45:00.000-08:00

Unfantasy Football

After it was announced just a day before the game that Big Ben wouldn't play due to lingering effects of his concussion, nobody thought the Steelers would win in Baltimore. But they almost did--and the operative and familiar word is almost. Virgin quarterback Dennis Dixon played well and had the Steelers ahead with five minutes left in the game. But the defense failed to hold the Ravens on a third and 23, they tied the game and won in overtime.

The schzoid Steelers emerged again in the past three games, especially in this one. While Hines Ward made big media waves with his confusing comments on Big Ben, implying that he should have played, on the field Ward and the rest of the Steelers worked hard to give Dixon every chance to be successful. But the defense returned to its earlier ways, and failed to hold a lead. Both the Ward comments and the defense are getting a lot of attention in Pittsburgh.

The Post-Gazette writers apparently think their next game with Oakland should be a laugher, but Oakland may surprise them. Once again, everyone is saying that the Steelers have to win out, but they'll have to be a better team than they've been since they beat Minnesota and Denver just to make the playoffs.

One consolation may be that the AFC team that gets into the Super Bowl looks like a sacrificial lamb to the New Orleans Saints or the Minnesota Vikings. Both looked superb this weekend. The Saints destroyed New England completely, and looked exciting doing it. The Vikings were methodical and lethal. I don't think any AFC team is going to beat either one of them, not even Indianapolis, the most likely to get to the Bowl.

The concussion thing... I have to say that watching football, even college football, is getting harder because of the vicious hits and injuries. It's a violent sport but it's getting more violent, as the players are bigger and faster, and they're under pressure to hit harder. Apart from the new concussion policies underway in the NFL, I hope football on all levels is looking at rule changes and at new equipment, particularly better helmets. Meanwhile, it's probably too much to ask but at least it's worth suggesting that television stop valorizing vicious hits, showing them repeatedly in replay and making them top plays.

2009-11-25T22:58:00.000-08:00

Win Out

The good news is that the entire AFL North lost on Sunday, including the Cincinatti Bengals. The bad news is that this included the Steelers.

Barring a Bengals collapse, the Steelers' best shot at the playoffs is still a Wild Card, and though nobody can predict the wins and losses, ups and downs of the remainder of this season, for the Steelers to even be in a position to control their own destiny, they probably need to win out.

They are limping into Baltimore, where it's always been tough, after two losses and with important injuries. Big Ben had a "mild concussion" and so has to be considered iffy, though he's practiced and expects to play. His veteran backup, Charlie Batch, is definitely out, with a broken wrist. His backup for this game is Dennis Dixon, untried at the position. But then, so was Ben when he had to come in for an injured starter. Maybe even worse, Troy Polamalu is out. The defense has won without him, but they are so much better and less predictable with him on the field. It's going to be a tough, tense game, and unfortunately it's on Sunday night, so I've got no excuse not to watch it. This is the kind of game they win in a championship season, or even a playoff year.

The big game that they've already talked to death on the sports shows is New England v. New Orleans, the 10-0 Saints' real test. Monday night to boot.

2009-11-18T03:17:00.001-08:00

The War of 18-12

The Pittsburgh area is where a lot of the action of the War of 1812 took place, when Cincinnati didn't even exist. But after the Steelers lost to the Bengals by the score of 18-12 on Sunday, overlooking Cincy is no longer possible.

Cincy has been a middling to terrible team for years now, and it got no respect from Pittsburgh sportswriters even this year, but the facts are the facts: with this victory, Cincy is well placed to win the AFC North, the Steelers division, and so the Steelers will probably need a wild card berth to even get into the playoffs.

That isn't much of a stretch, as Ron Cook of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette figures it. It does mean there's little room for error, especially in a schedule heavy on bad to middling teams, with only two games with Baltimore, maybe Green Bay and the final game with Miami as apparently much of a challenge. The Steelers could lose one of the Baltimore games and one more, and still probably be in good shape. But there's really no telling--it's an especially dangerous year, with the difference between very bad teams and very good teams so striking. A lot of 1 and 2 victory teams means a lot more teams with just a few loses. There's no room really for a surprise loss to a bad team, as there was early in the season.

As for Sunday's loss, Coach Tomlin already is addressing the most conspicuous deficiency- special team coverage of kicks. Cinncy became the third team in the past four games to run a kick off back for a TD--the only TD in the entire game. Otherwise, though no one is saying it, Big Ben's off-game, along with his receivers, may well be a consequence of the Denver game the previous Monday, acclimating to that stadium, then reacclimating during the short week. That was about all that really went wrong--the defense was pretty stout, especially since Troy Polamalu left the game in the first quarter with a knee injury. That injury may turn out to be not as serious as first thought, though he's expected to miss the next game at Kansas City.

The Steelers-Bengals might have been the game of the week--though it must have been torture to watch (wasn't broadcast here)--except for the New England-Indianapolis slugfest Sunday night. Two teams without much of a running game but two superb quarterbacks. I saw some of this game, when New England was dominating. But Indianapolis pulled out a one point win to remain undefeated. They may well be a team of destiny this year, but I wouldn't bet against New England. The playoffs are going to be pretty interesting, and the season is barely half over.

As for college, I had to root for Pitt against my mother's team, Notre Dame, and Pitt almost blew it. Although I like USC, how about that Stanford? They are something--I watched Oregon's offense run over USC, then get run over by Stanford, and then this Saturday Stanford ran over USC. 55 points! I wish I'd seen more of that game.

2009-11-09T22:49:00.000-08:00

Steelers Crush Orange: The sweetest part of the game was in the fourth quarter, when it became clear the Steelers would win, the Denver fans began abandoning their Mile High Stadium, leaving much of it to the thousands of Steeler fans waving their black and gold. They took away home advantage, big time.

After an uncertain first quarter, a back and forth second, the Steelers began to slowly dominate, until a last drive when a desperate Denver defense couldn't stop the Pittsburgh running game, and Hines Ward literally danced into the end zone for a statement touchdown, and it was 28-10. Perhaps most surprising was the love the ESPNers finally gave the Steelers, with Trent Dilford and his postgame gang admitting that they've overlooked the Steelers all year, glomming onto the flavor of the week instead.

This game sets up the next to a T. Sunday's surprise was Cinncy beating up on the Baltimore Ravens, and taking the division lead--now in a tie with the Steelers, but with two tiebreakers. Next weekend Cinncy comes to Pittsburgh in the game of the year so far. After that, there's only the two games with Baltimore, and the rest is trying not to lose to very inferior teams before ending the regular season at Miami.

This was a great win, on the road in the thin air of Denver, missing 3 starters on defense, and with every aspects of the game contributing: the passing and the running games (Rashard Mendenhall ran for 155 yds), defense against the run and pass, even special teams. Well, I'm going to enjoy watching this one again on tape. It's a keeper.

2009-11-04T18:16:00.001-08:00

Predictions After the Fact

I had my election and World Series predictions, which I never got around to posting. I was two of three on elections--I had the Dem in NY 23 but also Corzine in a New Jersey squeaker. Virginia was a gimme.

World Series: obviously if the other team has three wins, you have to win every game, but I felt that if Philly could get through game 6, they had a good chance of winning it all. But I didn't really think Pedro was going to do it, and so far he hasn't--it's still early innings, but Pedro was knocked around for 4 runs. The Phillies have to score in the middle innings before they get to the Yankees short relievers, and even then, with their short relievers it's a drama. So my prediction was either Yankees in 6 or tossup in 7.

As for the NFL, there were more interesting games this week than last, with the Baltimore Ravens dismantling of the Denver Broncos the most interesting. Pittsburgh sportswriters are crowing about the Denver weaknesses it exposed, but it's also possible it was just an off week, a bad game. I still think the Steelers have their hands full Monday night at Denver, though I'm a bit more optimistic about a victory there. Denver is going to be determined, and the Steelers should also feel they need this game, because if the Ravens catch fire, they'll have to worry about getting into the playoffs.

The only games I saw much of were the Saints v. Atlanta (I have to say the Saints look like they're for real) and Minnesota v. Green Bay. I came away from that one with more admiration for the Vikings--I expect them to be in the title game.

2009-10-28T01:29:00.000-07:00

NFL's 7th Week was probably the most extreme so far, with Winners running up huge scores over the league's Losers. I can't remember a wider gap between good and bad teams, though there are always a few surprises. One of the closer games was the Steelers victory over Minnesota, 27-17. I had that very score in my head the night before, although I confess I didn't know which team would be on top. I did think that the Steelers' winning strategy might be to bend but not break--to lose time of possession but score more points. That's how it turned out, although never in my wildest could I have seen the defense scoring two touchdowns in the fourth quarter. The fourth quarter! Amazing. But a very welcome win, because next they face probably their toughest game of the regular season: Denver, in Denver, after a bye week which is great for rest and getting over injuries, but usually leaves you less than sharp for a quarter or more. But winning over previously undefeated Minnesota, with the most touted quarterback (even in losing, Brett Farve got all the air time on ESPN etc., while winning qback Big Ben got zilch) and the most productive running back in the league (who the Steelers held to 69 yards--once again, nobody has run 100 yards on them.) The Steelers showed that they belong among the elite teams, though the level of competition is so distorted that it's hard to know who is as good as they seem. Some sports writers seem to feel Baltimore is better than their record, and nobody seems to know what to make of Cinncy. One of the undefeateds, New Orleans, has yet to play a really good defense. Dallas seems to be getting better, and you know Indy and New England are going to be there at season's end.

2009-10-20T01:19:00.000-07:00

NFL 6th with pre-7th Update

Though not reflected in the score so much, Big Ben and the Steelers offense came up big against the Browns. Ben threw for 417 yards--more than anyone else this week--and the Steelers have the top passing game in the league, although this is probably all news to you if you get your sports news from ESPN or NBC. Once again, the Steelers were ignored. Not even Brady threw for more yards in the Patriots impressive high scoring day in the snow against the Titans.

Ben and the Steelers aren't getting credit, but all the overcompensation in Pittsburgh media, while understandable, may be temporary. The week ended with the Steelers in first place in their division, but both Denver and Minnesota remain undefeated--their next two opponents. If the Steelers can win one of those games they'll be doing well. They could easily lose both, and be back even. But if they win both...well, I'm not sure than even then they'll get respect and airtime from SportsCenter.

Update: A little more respect from Madden 10, which predicts the Steelers defeat Minnesota, and hand them their first loss.

2009-10-15T16:21:00.000-07:00

Crunch Time

It really does seem like crunch time on healthcare reform. President Obama's strategy so far seems to have worked--he let the opposition huff and puff themselves out, and the insurance companies expose their own greed. He got bills out of all the committees, including Senate Finance. Now reportedly for the first time, White House reps are working directly with Senators and their staff to craft the final Senate bill, that combines the two that Health and Finance passed.

The crucial element remains the public option, and most especially whether the individual mandate and the public option are linked. TPM reports that Speaker Pelosi, getting the House together for a strong public option in their bill, Pelosi came closer than any member of the Democratic leadership has thusfar to suggesting that the individual mandate should be conditional on the inclusion of a public option.

It's a very dicey situation. The Obama campaign machinery is gearing up to get Congress to pass stuff, but nobody quite knows the White House position on public option and individual mandate. Personally, that constrains me from participating. I'm more likely to work with the groups pressing that linkage between public option and individual mandate. I just don't see forcing people to pay for profit-making health care.

Reports have it that the White House is being sympathetic to the Olympia Snowe proposal for a public option trigger (Kos frontpagers refer to her as President Snowe because she seems to be dictating the final bill.) For awhile I've suspected that some sort of opt-out public option would be what comes out of this--some mechanism for a kind of reverse trigger. The proposal that states could opt out of a public option seemed to get general approval last week, but it doesn't seem many are talking about it now.

Of course the option means that the individual can choose a non-public plan. An opt-out is built in. Not so the individual mandate. It's the smell of forcing everyone to buy insurance that's got the insurance companies so excited, and their greed is such that they are working hard to make sure there is no public plan choice. Not unexpected from a business that considers it an affront when they have to do anything but take in money.

TPM also reports that progressive sources are saying that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is "playing an inside game" to get a strong public option. That's contrary to a lot of earlier stories, but if it's true, it may also indicate that the White House--or at least the President--is pushing it, though at the moment behind the scenes. If Reid decides to include the public option into the final Senate bill, its chances increase dramatically, because he probably won't do it unless he's pretty sure it will pass, and because once it's in, it's very hard to get it out. But the drama could be extended if he doesn't, because then it will be up to the conference committee reconciling the House and Senate bills--and Pelosi is said to be positioning to make sure the option gets into the bill then.

So this is crunch time, but not the final crunch time. Still a ways to go.

Update: Krugman on why insurance company greed may have backfired, and Nancy Pelosi saying pretty much what I've been saying about the public option and individual mandate.

2009-10-12T23:28:00.000-07:00

NFL 5th

Okay, so it is turning into a sports blog. Who cares? The NFL season is shaping up in a predictable way, with big winners and big losers and a few in betweens. But the names of the big winning teams were totally unpredicted: for among the unbeaten teams are Denver, New Orleans and Minnesota. With the Bengals close behind, and at the top of its division. The pre-season favorites (New England, San Diego) are struggling, and last year's almost undefeated team, the Titans, is winless so far this year.

The Steelers meanwhile are in between. They survived their game in Detroit with the one-win Lions, but until the last stand the defense made, the fourth quarter collapse continued. At least their loss to Cinncy wasn't totally flukish--the Bengals are beating everybody. But their last minute win over the Titans looks troubling.

They play the hapless Browns next week. But their three games after that will tell the season: Minnesota, and after the bye week, Denver on Monday night, followed by the Bengals. The toughest will be at Denver, partly because it's at Denver, and partly because Denver's strength (fourth quarter finishes) is so far the Steelers' weakness. The return of Troy Polamalu (by Minnesota, looks like) should help a lot, but it doesn't necessarily solve the problems--they had a fourth quarter collapse in the Super Bowl as well, with the defense giving up big plays and points, and the offense unable to sustain drives or score. But they won it, of course. You can't ever count them out. This team is even more mercurial than last year's.

Well, I learned a lot about the NFL watching the postgame shows Sunday. I heard a lot about Dallas, etc. Long analyzes of every game, almost. In the almost category as usual: the Steelers. Barely a mention. The P-G's Ron Cook may compare Big Ben to John Elway, but to the TV talkers, he barely exists. Meanwhile, half the fans in the Detroit stadium were Steelers fans. Steeler Nation. But not worth talking about.

Update: Things got bleaker for the Steelers with a season-ending injury to defensive end Aaron Smith, a key player to run defense. Minnesota in particular must be salivating.

2009-10-08T22:36:00.000-07:00

City of Champions Redux

Not that this is going to be a sports, Steelers or Pittsburgh blog, but it seems the right place to say congratulations to Pittsburgh for winning the Sports Illustrated title as best sports city in America. It comes with a magazine cover featuring the Steelers Big Ben with the Penguins Sidney Crosby, in a repeat of the Terry Bradshaw and Willie Stargell cover of 1979, the original City of Champions year.

But I probably wouldn't be blogging about this except for one observation in the Post-Gazette story: Penguins spokesman Tom McMillan -- wearing a giant Stanley Cup championship ring on his right hand -- noted that Penguins, Steelers and Pirates players routinely attend each other's games. "That is really unique. That doesn't happen in most cities," he said.

I think that's correct, unless it's a new thing elsewhere as it is in Pittsburgh: I'm not sure Stargell and Bradshaw had even met before that photo session. But it does sound like Pittsburgh, especially now that the ordinary guy ethos has extended to the upper income precincts. It's interesting but it does seem to be true. There are downsides to a middle class and now upper middle class, largely white collar income level with a working class culture, but this is a good thing, if indeed it's evidence of that and not just that these guys are celebrities, and they don't have much in common with anyone else but other celebrities. No, I think it's more the informality of the town, the easy if not always meaningful sense of community.