As seen here:
You don't think the Argos would have preferred to face Marcus Brady than Kevin Glenn and Charles Roberts with a trip to the Grey Cup on the line? C'mon.
You write for a major newspaper and this is the best you can do? C'mon.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
This just in: playing better is good
Ignoring the non sequitor Penguins references (does the Globe and Mail believe no one will read a sports article unless it's analogized with hockey?) Larry Millson captures another Sam Mitchell gem:
"We've got to get back to play good, solid defence," Mitchell said. "And we know we've got to shoot the basketball better. Rebound the ball, better ball movement and the rest will come."
So... play better and you'll play better?
Unfortunately you can't teach that stuff, right Sammy?
"We've got to get back to play good, solid defence," Mitchell said. "And we know we've got to shoot the basketball better. Rebound the ball, better ball movement and the rest will come."
So... play better and you'll play better?
Unfortunately you can't teach that stuff, right Sammy?
The loser is actually the winner
Read the last line of this article and explain to me what the hell this man is talking about. In case the Star does a silent edit, the last line is the title of this post.
Update: It has been explained to me that in this case, the loser is ARod. Now that I know that, the line pisses me off even more. ARod might certainly be a strange guy and probably isn't someone I'd want to be friends with but you probably aren't a loser if you are the best player in your sport and will have made over $500 million playing baseball by the end of your career.
Update: It has been explained to me that in this case, the loser is ARod. Now that I know that, the line pisses me off even more. ARod might certainly be a strange guy and probably isn't someone I'd want to be friends with but you probably aren't a loser if you are the best player in your sport and will have made over $500 million playing baseball by the end of your career.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Twas the best of games, twas the worst of games
Game summary from the Beat Grunt:
As the 10th straight shot to start the night clanked off the rim, as the early deficit grew and the frustration mounted and fans got more restless, the dark cloud over the Raptors grew more foreboding.
As the beginning of a newspaper article, as the premiere basketball journalist in this fair nation, the depths of hyperbolic, descriptive language protrudes from the valley of the writer's loins, reaching the triumphant summit of overblown scene-setting with the courageous moxie of ten mighty warriors.
As the 10th straight shot to start the night clanked off the rim, as the early deficit grew and the frustration mounted and fans got more restless, the dark cloud over the Raptors grew more foreboding.
As the beginning of a newspaper article, as the premiere basketball journalist in this fair nation, the depths of hyperbolic, descriptive language protrudes from the valley of the writer's loins, reaching the triumphant summit of overblown scene-setting with the courageous moxie of ten mighty warriors.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Damien Cox - When asked why he doesn't gamble, he replied that he doesn't know the outcome in advance
Senators might be too smart for own good
Let’s start with this headline. This is going to be a difficult point for Cox to prove. People who are smart generally know what is good for them. The phrase “too smart for your own good” is what a mother says to her smartass son and is not usually used to refer to a hockey team’s management.
Hockey spirits are riding high in Ottawa these days, and so they should be.
Rather than taking a step backwards after their flaccid performance in the Stanley Cup final against Anaheim last spring, the Sens have come flying out of the gate this fall, winning 12 of 13.
As it is, who could blame the Ottawa skaters for being overconfident when the puck is dropped tonight against the Maple Leafs and their league-worst defence?
Many canny personnel moves, needless to say, have been made by a variety of people in the nation's capital in recent years and some are raving over the fact that the Sens locked up centre Jason Spezza for seven years at the princely cost of $49 million (all figures U.S.) last week as though this was a resourceful act born of divine inspiration.
I’m a Leafs fan but if I were a Sens fan, I’d be raving too since they have now locked up 2 of the best 20 players in the league as they enter their prime. In fact, they paid a very reasonable price compared to what was paid to players who are clearly not as good such as Scott Gomez and Thomas Vanek.
Also, note the last Damien Cox post where he claims that this was not necessarily a brilliant decision. Now he is making it out to be the obvious move. Which is it?
Still, Ottawa appears to have, with its core in place and locked up, years of success ahead.
The key word there, of course, is "appears."
There's no guarantee that all of this will work out. Is it possible, for example, that both Spezza and Dany Heatley (six years, $45 million) will play superbly for the duration of their contracts, never once causing fans to gripe that they're stealing money?
Cox really is struggling in this mixed-up world of “uncertainty” and “risk”. Who knew that players do not always live up to expectations? However, barring the invention of time travel, we are going to have to go with what we call projections. Crazy, I know.
Right now, of course, everything looks just gorgeous. Even signing Martin Gerber last year now looks brilliant, and other than Spezza's balky groin, there seems not to be a cloud in the sunny, blue skies over Ottawa's red-hot hockey team.
Can someone please tell me why he keeps using words like “appear” and “seems”? Am I missing something? As far as I can tell, there isn’t much to be worried about if you are an Ottawa fan unless you are the type who also worries about when they are going to be a victim of the next terrorist attack.
But while everything Eugene Melnyk touches turns to gold, the Leafs are portrayed as the daft uncle down the road who can't read or write, the idiot team that can't skate straight.
I don’t think we need the word “portrayed” in there.
Now, we media types in the GTA have hammered the locals early and often this season, but at a certain point the burgeoning arrogance of the hockey faithful in Bytown – many of whom have clearly mastered email – starts to grate.
One might think they'd wait until the first Stanley Cup banner goes up at the place-your-corporate-name-here rink before losing their humble demeanour, but that's not the case.
First, great joke Damien. I’ve never heard anyone riff on the fact that arena names change constantly these days. Second, Ottawa is awesome. What is wrong with you? Yes, they didn’t win the Stanley Cup because short series are often decided by luck but they made it to the final four the year before that and I’d say the few years prior to the last two were pretty good for them as well.
Moreover, if the Sens are Mensa-smart for building slowly, drafting well and developing effectively, perhaps a look at the Leafs in that regard is instructive.
Ottawa, depending on its roster alignment tonight, will likely dress 12 or 13 drafted players. The Leafs, if Kyle Wellwood returns, may dress nine such players, unofficially the highest total for a Leaf team in a decade, possibly two.
Look back to the 2001-02 season, for example, and only one player who had been drafted by the Leafs and had played only for the Leafs skated in more than 25 games that season. The '93 Western Conference finalists had seven players of that description.
Six of the Leaf draftees in the lineup tonight, meanwhile, will be 24 years of age or younger, and John Ferguson's group believes that it has two 21-year-old stars of the future in Marlie goalie Justin Pogge and Nikolai Kulemin, a 12-goal shooter in 24 Russian league games this season.
All in all, that's progress, or at the very least, an intelligent change of approach for the Leaf hockey department despite all ownership has done to undermine those hired to make hockey decisions in order to find a shortcut to even two or three games of playoff revenue and feed the 22 per cent profit margin monster.
Ottawa, clearly, has used a logical draft-and-develop blueprint to build the terrific team it now ices on a nightly basis.
So maybe, to be fair, if they're geniuses in Ottawa – after all, they've got one Stanley Cup final victory now to lord over all – they can't be total dummies down south here in Ontario's second city of hockey.
I’m all for grand pronouncements in the concluding paragraph if you have actually proved something in the article. But this time, I’ll say no, you haven’t. Even if the Leafs have some decent young players, they have virtually nobody who is projected to be a star (let alone a superstar) and are also hamstrung by some lengthy, high-value contracts given to players who had one good season (or in McCabe’s case, half of a good season). The Leafs management is actually quite dumb. What team says that they are going to find a supervisor for their GM (strange enough to begin with) and then just gives up when the better candidates are smart enough to see what a terrible position they would be put in if they were to accept such a job? You didn’t prove anything, especially the headline. Let’s just hope you didn’t write that piece of trash. In fact, blame your editor for this whole debacle.
Let’s start with this headline. This is going to be a difficult point for Cox to prove. People who are smart generally know what is good for them. The phrase “too smart for your own good” is what a mother says to her smartass son and is not usually used to refer to a hockey team’s management.
Hockey spirits are riding high in Ottawa these days, and so they should be.
Rather than taking a step backwards after their flaccid performance in the Stanley Cup final against Anaheim last spring, the Sens have come flying out of the gate this fall, winning 12 of 13.
As it is, who could blame the Ottawa skaters for being overconfident when the puck is dropped tonight against the Maple Leafs and their league-worst defence?
Many canny personnel moves, needless to say, have been made by a variety of people in the nation's capital in recent years and some are raving over the fact that the Sens locked up centre Jason Spezza for seven years at the princely cost of $49 million (all figures U.S.) last week as though this was a resourceful act born of divine inspiration.
I’m a Leafs fan but if I were a Sens fan, I’d be raving too since they have now locked up 2 of the best 20 players in the league as they enter their prime. In fact, they paid a very reasonable price compared to what was paid to players who are clearly not as good such as Scott Gomez and Thomas Vanek.
Also, note the last Damien Cox post where he claims that this was not necessarily a brilliant decision. Now he is making it out to be the obvious move. Which is it?
Still, Ottawa appears to have, with its core in place and locked up, years of success ahead.
The key word there, of course, is "appears."
There's no guarantee that all of this will work out. Is it possible, for example, that both Spezza and Dany Heatley (six years, $45 million) will play superbly for the duration of their contracts, never once causing fans to gripe that they're stealing money?
Cox really is struggling in this mixed-up world of “uncertainty” and “risk”. Who knew that players do not always live up to expectations? However, barring the invention of time travel, we are going to have to go with what we call projections. Crazy, I know.
Right now, of course, everything looks just gorgeous. Even signing Martin Gerber last year now looks brilliant, and other than Spezza's balky groin, there seems not to be a cloud in the sunny, blue skies over Ottawa's red-hot hockey team.
Can someone please tell me why he keeps using words like “appear” and “seems”? Am I missing something? As far as I can tell, there isn’t much to be worried about if you are an Ottawa fan unless you are the type who also worries about when they are going to be a victim of the next terrorist attack.
But while everything Eugene Melnyk touches turns to gold, the Leafs are portrayed as the daft uncle down the road who can't read or write, the idiot team that can't skate straight.
I don’t think we need the word “portrayed” in there.
Now, we media types in the GTA have hammered the locals early and often this season, but at a certain point the burgeoning arrogance of the hockey faithful in Bytown – many of whom have clearly mastered email – starts to grate.
One might think they'd wait until the first Stanley Cup banner goes up at the place-your-corporate-name-here rink before losing their humble demeanour, but that's not the case.
First, great joke Damien. I’ve never heard anyone riff on the fact that arena names change constantly these days. Second, Ottawa is awesome. What is wrong with you? Yes, they didn’t win the Stanley Cup because short series are often decided by luck but they made it to the final four the year before that and I’d say the few years prior to the last two were pretty good for them as well.
Moreover, if the Sens are Mensa-smart for building slowly, drafting well and developing effectively, perhaps a look at the Leafs in that regard is instructive.
Ottawa, depending on its roster alignment tonight, will likely dress 12 or 13 drafted players. The Leafs, if Kyle Wellwood returns, may dress nine such players, unofficially the highest total for a Leaf team in a decade, possibly two.
Look back to the 2001-02 season, for example, and only one player who had been drafted by the Leafs and had played only for the Leafs skated in more than 25 games that season. The '93 Western Conference finalists had seven players of that description.
Six of the Leaf draftees in the lineup tonight, meanwhile, will be 24 years of age or younger, and John Ferguson's group believes that it has two 21-year-old stars of the future in Marlie goalie Justin Pogge and Nikolai Kulemin, a 12-goal shooter in 24 Russian league games this season.
All in all, that's progress, or at the very least, an intelligent change of approach for the Leaf hockey department despite all ownership has done to undermine those hired to make hockey decisions in order to find a shortcut to even two or three games of playoff revenue and feed the 22 per cent profit margin monster.
Ottawa, clearly, has used a logical draft-and-develop blueprint to build the terrific team it now ices on a nightly basis.
So maybe, to be fair, if they're geniuses in Ottawa – after all, they've got one Stanley Cup final victory now to lord over all – they can't be total dummies down south here in Ontario's second city of hockey.
I’m all for grand pronouncements in the concluding paragraph if you have actually proved something in the article. But this time, I’ll say no, you haven’t. Even if the Leafs have some decent young players, they have virtually nobody who is projected to be a star (let alone a superstar) and are also hamstrung by some lengthy, high-value contracts given to players who had one good season (or in McCabe’s case, half of a good season). The Leafs management is actually quite dumb. What team says that they are going to find a supervisor for their GM (strange enough to begin with) and then just gives up when the better candidates are smart enough to see what a terrible position they would be put in if they were to accept such a job? You didn’t prove anything, especially the headline. Let’s just hope you didn’t write that piece of trash. In fact, blame your editor for this whole debacle.
Damien Cox might be missing something here
From Mr. Cox's most recent blog
...What's amazing is that the Sens and owner Eugene Melnyk have committed those dollars to Heatley and now to Spezza without really being certain they can be the players who will deliver the Cup.
I hear you, Damien. How could you possibly be 100% certain that these guys are any good? I have a much better strategy for the Senators. First, you let these guys go and see how their careers play out. Then, in about 10-15 years time, you will have the full body of statistical evidence you need in order to know whether they are any good. At that point, you can probably sign them up for a bargain-basement price.
Neither performed particularly well in the one-sided loss to Anaheim in last spring's Stanley Cup final, but that was their first visit to that stage. Only the passage of time will tell if the Sens have bet on the right athletes.
They had a had a medicore stretch of five games against a very impressive Ducks team. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that isn't a good enough reason to not re-sign them.
...What's amazing is that the Sens and owner Eugene Melnyk have committed those dollars to Heatley and now to Spezza without really being certain they can be the players who will deliver the Cup.
I hear you, Damien. How could you possibly be 100% certain that these guys are any good? I have a much better strategy for the Senators. First, you let these guys go and see how their careers play out. Then, in about 10-15 years time, you will have the full body of statistical evidence you need in order to know whether they are any good. At that point, you can probably sign them up for a bargain-basement price.
Neither performed particularly well in the one-sided loss to Anaheim in last spring's Stanley Cup final, but that was their first visit to that stage. Only the passage of time will tell if the Sens have bet on the right athletes.
They had a had a medicore stretch of five games against a very impressive Ducks team. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that isn't a good enough reason to not re-sign them.
You know, the comments thingy
From the fertile valley of basketball journalism known as Doug Smith's blog:
And another comment worth noting, this one from Blake Kennedy on yesterday’s item on Three Things I Learned:
I put very little trust in such esoteric individual stats in a free-flowing team game like basketball, which, as I’ve mentioned before, is a game far too dependent on what other players – teammates and opponents – do.
It's true. Those pesky esoteric, ivory tower number thingies are just hogwash's alchemy. To evaluate Jason Kapono's defensive performances, one must only measure "flow" with a little hint of "sass" and "togetherness."
The truth, according to Raptors coaches: Kapono's D okay, could be better. Thanks for clearing that up, oligarchs of basketball knowledge.
And another comment worth noting, this one from Blake Kennedy on yesterday’s item on Three Things I Learned:
"I disagree entirely on your assertion about Jason Kapono's defence.
"JK currently has a stop percentage of .524 _ which means 52.4% of the individual defensive possessions he's faced with, he provides a defensive stop. His defensive rating (points allowed per 100 possessions) is 97.7, and the team's is 95.9. So he's barely above the team average in this case, and since 8.8 points per 100 possessions better than the league average of last year.
Stop percentages are a Dean Oliver/Hollinger stat, based on floor percentages. Aggregate defensive stats in basketball are not even close to perfect, but using a few metrics like d-ratings, defensive win scores and the d stats in PER help paint a better picture.
"He guarded Paul Pierce straight up most of the night, and did a fine job. He got beat off the bounce maybe once or twice, but that happens to the best defenders in the NBA by Paul Pierce.
"Bottom line is, Kapono has been giving the effort and intensity and playing smart team defence, just like the entire unit. I understand you have deadlines and you're a busy guy, but a little research would have given you the truth on this matter."
I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Kennedy on Kapono's defence (so far this season) It's been more than adequate.
I'll just say this about that: Stop percentage? Defensive rating? When did basketball become baseball? Have we got seamheads in this game?
Statistics? Witch! WITCH! Baseball nerrrrrrrrrrds!!!!! This is Dougie Smith, the people's beat grunt saying 'go back to your geek dugout you mathematrixter!'I put very little trust in such esoteric individual stats in a free-flowing team game like basketball, which, as I’ve mentioned before, is a game far too dependent on what other players – teammates and opponents – do.
It's true. Those pesky esoteric, ivory tower number thingies are just hogwash's alchemy. To evaluate Jason Kapono's defensive performances, one must only measure "flow" with a little hint of "sass" and "togetherness."
The truth is, Kapono’s an okay defender. Not a great one; and he’s probably got a step or two to go to be even good. And that comes from the people who count – his coaches.
The truth, according to Raptors coaches: Kapono's D okay, could be better. Thanks for clearing that up, oligarchs of basketball knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)