Ten years of Kaepernick, ten years since "Notorious RBG" was "dumb and disrespectful"

Yes, it's that long, folks, per a new NBC piece that says Kaep has a bio coming out later this month.

 Per the story, and per my header, I still have a fair amount of loathing about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who did call his actions "dumb and disrespectful." Deal with it, left hand of the duopoly. See here and here.

Actually, especially since we've now had not only the rise of Black Lives Matter but the genocide of Gaza, we're reminded that she was a Zionist, though not the worst, and also that she had other types of baggage, per this piece, and wasn't a big friend of American Indians, per this.

That said, I have a bigger back of the hand now, than I did years ago, for Kaep. 

I first wrote about his pledge to remain seated, before he started "take a knee."  

I largely agreed with him, then agreed with the shift. 

That said, well, he, uh ... lied about the background to that. He's now come clean, but a full decade later:

Even though the story of the protest has been told countless times since 2016, Kaepernick set the record straight on one key detail: who came up with the idea to kneel in the first place. 

Before the Sept. 1 game, Kaepernick was approached by [teammate Eric] Reid, who wanted to support the protest. It was Reid who suggested the idea to kneel, Kaepernick says. Not Army veteran Nate Boyer, as was widely reported at the time and since. 

Boyer, a Green Beret and former Seattle Seahawk, had penned an open letter to Kaepernick in the Army Times, writing: “Even though my initial reaction to your protest was one of anger, I’m trying to listen to what you’re saying and why you’re doing it.”

That said, it was Reid who actually started the false claim. But Kaep was the one who ran with it:

As for why Kaepernick didn’t clear up the misconception at the time, he says he and Reid wanted to focus on their message, not get caught “in a personal back-and-forth over whose idea it was.”

Why didn't Boyer say more at the time?  That's certainly not addressed here. 

As for Kaep as a player?

I didn't think he was worth $18 million in those days, and said so, with more in-depth thoughts here. I did think his personal workout after refusal to sign an NFL waiver was at least partially a stunt. Just before that, he wanted $20 million from a minor-league pro football group. I laughed.

As for human rights issues? I still agree with Costas asking why he he (and the likes of LeBron) didn't speak out about China. We know why. 

He's still right about the NFL. He's still wrong about China by silence and his own perceived past value as a player. 

Ginsburg in her grave remains wrong about Kaep, about Israel, and about American Indians. 

Or, going outside this piece, but because he needs another good kick? Enes Kanter FreeDumb remains wrong in trying to pretend to actually care about Palestinians.

 

 

The hell with you, too, Sports Reference

Not quite two weeks ago, I wrote a post about the dangers of Russia-cancelling. I linked at the sports stats site Hockey Reference to Alex Ovechkin of the Washington Capitols, as a Russian athlete facing this danger as well as conductors, opera starts, etc. I also linked to Enes Freedom and his ongoing yuks. You'll see neither listed here. Stand by.

Well, if you're familiar with any of the Sports Reference sites, above all Baseball Reference, you know that it has a program for bloggers where if they link to players, and they're a signed-up blog, your blog post, after SR has scraped the web, will be listed below the first set of stats.

Well, mine wasn't. I had not originally signed up for Hockey Reference. Just BR, plus the pro basketball and pro football sites. 

But, about two years ago, I guess due to complaints from teh Google, they changed the program. No longer could you just link the HTML of a player's site. Instead, you had to create a reference link, using a Javascript tool, that had a "no follow" as part of the code.

I didn't know if I had to sign up for Hockey Reference or not. After a few days, I figured I did, and asked.

My bad.

Tuesday, a Sports Reference email said I was being delisted for violating terms of service.

One is profanity.

And, I guess my post from earlier this week, "Oh, hell no, the Cards just did it and signed Pujols," since it wasn't my first F- or H-bomb, was over the line.  Now, it wasn't my first, but it's not like I did it every week. Three times in the last six months, I think. (If memory serves me right, it was one F, one H and one S over about six months.)

And, when they delist you, they delist you. 

All former blog post links gone.

And, not even a warning. 

Just, "bye."

Well, I'll link to Fangraphs in the future. And, Fangraphs used to have a guest blogging feature on site that I used a couple of times. That said, Fangraphs is baseball only. But, I can write a guest blog there, then post it here later, in an expanded version and link back there, if I'm still in good standing.

Scratch that, no I won't. I posted a community blog there, like not one but two different ones I did eight years ago. Two weeks later, it has yet to be approved, so the hell with you, too, Fangraphs. And, if only paying contributors can blog there now, at least tell me. (I both emailed and Tweeted Fangraphs more than a week ago, and zip on the response.) That said, both those old blog posts have an "urgent" message at the top, asking for support so that Fangraphs can cover the 2021 season. Yes, you read that boldface right. Sounds like there's maybe a fair amount of "phoning it in" there? I would try to jingle them on Hucksterman, too, but they don't even have a Facebook page. (B-Ref does.)

Update, June 11: Clicking the "one" link and loading that blog post again? The "Community Research" on the right-hand rail shows NOTHING dated after the end of March, so I guess Fangraphs killed that. And, there's still the big picture asking for "2021 (and beyond)" help. When I log in and go to my profile page, neither of the old posts, nor that "pending" one from April, show up on my "dashboard." So, fuck it, too, I guess. Dinosaur land.

==

Sidebar 1: I have been dropping a few more four-letter words on Twitter recently. So, maybe something to watch. Or maybe not.

Sidebar 2: That said, Sports Reference XXX's out an f-bomb, or maybe even an h-bomb, in the header and any body text in the first 25 words or whatever their "capture" length is. So, it's not like family bloggers saw the actual word.

Sidebar 3: A warning would have been great. A deletion of the blog posts in violation of the policy, along with the warning, would have been fine. A deletion of the offending posts without a warning would have been acceptable. A full blog deletion — and without a response indicating this was why, and this was the only reason why? Not acceptable. And, maybe it wasn't the only reason why. Maybe they run Ukraine up the flagpole and salute it, and considered my Russian cancel culture post unpatriotic spamming.

Sidebar 3: I had done a lot of sports blogging recently. And, with getting older and no longer being a Green, either, had been thinking about doing more outside of political blogging. Maybe this is a push I needed.

Quick thought hot take on Naomi Osaka

I won't say I have zero sympathy for Naomi Osaka's decision to withdraw from the French Open (hold on to that link from Red Satan) but I don't have a lot.

That's in part being a member of the media, who has at the local level, seen in person politicos and businessmen trying to stiff the media, and seeing those same folks — AND athletes and other entertainers — pull the same nationally and globally.

In general, and definitely with Osaka in person, it all boils down to communication, or apparent lack thereof on her part, AND her willing choices made in all of this.

First, let us remember that she won the Australian Open. I don't remember her expressing that much angst during or after matches in Melbourne, or after the whole open were done, about being interviewed. She did admit to being "funny" and "nervous" in the interview after winning the final there. See below.

Second, let us note that if she DID have any such problems that she kept private, she's had nearly 3 1/2 months to communicate with the folks at Roland Garros. 

She chose not to. 

Instead, just days before the start of action, she dropped a bombshell social media statement with a blanket "no interviews." Note that she wouldn't give any interviews about that statement, either.

The folks in Paris said they reached out to her and got crickets, acting on behalf of all four Grand Slams. It was only after that reach-out was snubbed that a further warning was issued saying fines could escalate and that even a disqualification was possible. Given all the above, for Red Satan's author to call this surprising is laughable, naive or worse. The statement within that link says these are normal escalating enforcement provisions within normal Code of Conduct regulations.

Her personal withdrawal statement was also? Posted on her social media. No interview afterward. No returning of questions by the Associated Press.

She DID claim, hypocritically in my opinion, that she NOW wanted to talk with the Grand Slam organizations. Maybe this was because they'd fully indicated that a conversation, not a set of social media posts, needed to happen, that it would happen as a conversation, and not on unilateral terms.

That's probably part of what she didn't imagine a few days ago.

As for other aspects of her withdrawal statement?

First, introversion is not a mental health issue, and it's insulting of her to call it one. It's also sad if she really believes that about introversion in herself. 

And (see links below) her desire to market herself as a brand? Introversion is not shyness.

And now, to tennis as a business.

The Roland Garros statement notes contractual obligations. That's the bottom line. This is a business, and a big one.

Though, as of 2019, not as big as Osaka's endorsement money.

Someone on Twitter suggested the tradeoff of "no interviews, fewer endorsements." Sounds great in practice, but how do you enforce it in reality? In the US, it would run afoul of the First Amendment, especially on individual sports with no team owners to enforce discipline.

Next, to tie that back to her statement? I'm sure Osaka has done marketing interviews related to some of her endorsements, like this big one for Levi's.

Next, to the sports media she first complained about, but pulled in her horns on her withdrawal statement.

Yes, there's inane questions there. Anybody who's watch the full press day at the Super Bowl knows that, too.

But, there's real questions, too. Like at the PGA, to go to golf, asking Brooks Koepka after Round 4, if anybody did, if he's thought that he's lost some of his "majors aura."

OR, with the interview after the Aussie final, Osaka being asked about different court surfaces for upcoming Grand Slams and other events.

Yes, that interview was long, but normally, before the quarters level at a Slam, press availability time is 5-5 minutes, no more.

Could this be further shortened at the quarters, semis, and finals? Yes? Beyond inanity, does sports media have its version of Jim Acosta? Yes. Plenty of them.

Again, though, Osaka has had 3 1/2 months to raise this. And chose not to.

 

When she actually starts talking with the Slams, she needs to include an on-the-record explanation of why the wait. 

==

Update: Per CJR, some people are saying that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, she's owed a reasonable accommodation. 

Well, there's several things to unpack here.

The French clay of Roland Garros ain't in America, first. Neither is the grass of the All England Tennis Club nor the composite surface of Melbourne, Australia.

Second, even in the US, what would a reasonable accommodation be?

 

Third, what is the line between responsibility and obligation, Jon Allsop asks in that piece. He tangentially touches on business aspects but not too directly.

==

Update, June 7: Osaka has a funny way of wanting to talk to the Grand Slams. She's withdrawn from a "Wimbledon tune-up" tourney in Berlin and her appearance at Wimbledon is doubtful.

Update, June 13: Roland Garros makes clear how they reached out to Osaka, repeatedly, and heard nothing (and apparently continue to hear nothing, per the update above).

Black Sox at 100 part 1 — was Shoeless Joe innocent, and myths vs reality of Black Sox story

Winning a World Series is a crapshoot, at times. As a Birds fan, I'll offer up 1986 and David Eckstein's Cardinals.

Sometimes its far worse than a crapshoot, so to speak.

This is the 100th anniversary of the Chicago Black Sox, or eight members of that team, at least, reportedly throwing the 1919 World Series.

It's also the 30th anniversary of the heart-tug movie "Field of Dreams" and its effort to either set the truth straight or else whitewash it: 

And, per Kevin Costner, one person is identified with that more than anybody, even though not the ringleader and totally opposite Rose in personality. I'm talking Shoeless Joe Jackson, of course.

So, why do we still "pick on" Shoeless Joe, and even more than Pete Rose?

Jackson was proven innocent in a court of law, as his own granddaughter notes in discussing the centennial with ESPN.

Beyond whether Shoeless Joe helped do it or not, there's the question of whether MLB isn't hypocritical, on him, or on Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, as I've discussed before. And, within baseball, there's three managers named Tony La Russa, Joe Torre and Bobby Cox who likely knew some of their players, including Bonds and Clemens, plus Gary Sheffield and Mark McGwire, were "helping themselves." And, there's allegations of Ty Cobb (not a racist, as far as that part of morals, apparently, legends to the side) and Tris Speaker conspiring to fix games.

The Black Sox in general, because this was so early in organized sport, and organized sport was trying to become more professional after the Great War, were a target. That's both as in a target for the eventual Judge Landis crackdown but at the same time, with Prohibition starting and the Roaring 20s around the corner, a target for gaming and cheating. Plus, baseball was the National Pastime. City College of New York point-shaving scandals hurt that game somewhat, but everybody moved on. More on both parts of the "target" come near the end.

As for Jackson? Like his granddaughter, as I note in this long piece, I don't think he did it. Well, so I thought at the time, which was four years before this piece.

But ... but ... but ...

That said, as John Thorn notes, many myths still abound about the Black Sox. That includes that they were underpaid (actually, the highest paid team in baseball), that they were rubes taken for a ride by gambling sharks (not true in general, and note Cobb and Speaker above, representing just a tip of alleged game-fixing at this time), and that Shoeless Joe was just a country bumpkin (actually, he had good post-baseball business career). And, contra Shoeless Joe's granddaughter, Thorn says that on the legal angle, the jury basically bought the angle peddled by "Field of Dreams" and committed jury nullification. Some might argue that Thorn, as official historian of MLB, has a reason to take this angle.

And now, Don Van Natta, amplifying Thorn, says that Shoeless Joe, by being dead, is NOT on baseball's ineligible list any longer. Meaning? The Early Baseball era incarnation of the Hall of Fame's old Veterans Committee meets in December. It could vote for Jackson if it chose, despite both MLB and Cooperstown no-commenting, in essence, to Van Natta.

But?

On PBS, Jacob Pomrenke, in addition to refuting more myths, wonders if other pre-1919 WS were fixed. I'm addressing that in Part 2.) Pomremke, a member of SABR, chairs a committee it has just over the Black Sox. Here's a list of all his research.

So now, per Thorn and Pomrenke, I'm not so sure about Shoeless Joe.

As for the Black Sox in general? Per a sublink off Pomrenke's research, a few years ago, incredible and incredibly rare tape was found of selected highlights of Game 3 (first) then Game 1. And per that, it don't look good overall. Per Pomrenke, go to 3:06 in the video; note the brief GIF on the website for further looks at a blown double play started by pitcher Eddie Cicotte and ending with first baseman Chick Gandil that made many suspect the fix was in, then Cicotte getting (letting himself?) get knocked out of the box. At the end of that sequence, about 3:45, is the infamous play of Cicotte cutting off Jackson's throw to the plate. That's a play that's cited both for the other seven of the eight cheating but also, the quality of the throw plus Jackson's .375 BA for the Series, as evidence of his innocence.



IF ... he didn't do it? Jackson should be made eligible for the Hall, and then voted into Cooperstown, if there's at least the strong likelihood he didn't do it.

He's got the cred.

Despite his career being forcibly ended at age 32, he's 13 in JAWS among right fielders, as I note at that link. Give him four more years, and he's at around 90 WAR. Around 70 on JAWS. Right next to Al Kaline and Roberto Clemente, at a minimum.

But, did he or didn't he? Seems more gray than ever. Pomranke and Thorn both lean yes on Shoeless Joe and all eight, and marshal their evidence better than Keith Law.

And, even his good performance could square with cheating. Maybe the adrenaline kicked in and he performed on autopilot. Maybe he had a guilty conscience, or fear of getting caught, enough to pull back. Maybe, even, he was a designated cutout, to do better than normal while the others cheated, to try to put people off the scent.

The biggest part is that the players went looking, rather than the gamblers starting by soliciting them.

Final thought? Could such a scandal happen today? Before you say "no," read my Part 3.

RIP Dan Jenkins

Was Dan Jenkins very good?

Yes.

Was he the GOAT of sportswriters, or even of Texas sportswriters?

No.

That was his mentor, Blackie Sherrod. And, there was no comparison on them in opining about news issues.

Jenkins, IMO, had a couple of minor and a couple of larger issues against him.

On the minor side, he was such a Ben Hogan fanatic that — contretemps with "the kid" Tiger Woods and his agent Mark Steinberg aside, he couldn't give Tiger a fair shake at times. (At other times, he was awed of Woods, though.)

I wrote about some of that here. Here's an outtake:

Dan's fetishizing of Ben Hogan to the point of trying to count things like the North/South as a major is ridiculous. 

Plus, Hogan, setting aside his car accident and miracle comeback, played in a relatively barren era for golf. Sam Snead had a long career, playing at a winning level throughout the 1950s, but Byron Nelson had retired, and until Arnie and Gary at the end of the decade, when Cary Middlecoff and a young Boros are your next in line, it's not good depth. Given that the PGA banned Bobby Locke, using a face-saving excuse to cover for jealousy, that only adds to the egg on the collective golf face of the 1950s in the US.

Indeed. Hogan won six of his nine majors after his car wreck. Other than his one Open, the 50s in Britian belonged almost totally to South Africans and New Zealanders. America had a bunch of one-major winners and a couple of two major winners at the other three Slam events in the 50s. Hogan simply had weak competition.

And, as for his love of all things Hogan, as reflected in his World Golf Hall of Fame induction as well? A lot of his fellow golfers didn't like Hogan as a person that much.

And, if you're going to count alleged one-time majors, Dan? The Haig would be ahead of Hogan anyway. If Jenkins would just have admitted this was biased fandom, not objective, and at the same time belittled Woods a touch less? Different. I got no problems with admitting you're a fanboy. Trying to used Twain's lies, damned lies and statistics for a pseudo-objective sheen? Different.

On the bigger side?

Unlike Blackie, he couldn't do news commentary and analysis as well as sports. And, even to the degree he could do that, he was ... "less reconstructed" than Blackie. In other words, he was conservative beyond political correctness. I'm far from alone in that take.

Contra Ray Ratto and others in the sports column world, I never tried to imitate Dan. That's because I never thought too much about it. Also, I never thought too much about whether or not Jenkins was that imitation-worthy.

I, and many others, though, did take Blackie's "scattershooting" idea, complete the lede graf in our own way, and run with it. I otherwise imitated Art Buchwald at times — someone of whom Blackie reminded me a bit.

Beyond that, if Jenkins' invented dialogue between golfers is a good sample, his writing there — never read by me — is probably a bit turgid. (Tiger was right, I think, that his fake Tiger interview didn't come off well as parody, and I think that is part of why.) I was NOT a big Landry Cowboys fan, and besides, "North Dallas Forty" was the best on that. And, Jenkins never covered baseball in detail, let alone the NBA. (Thank doorknobs for that one, too. His non-PC rips on the NBA would have been semi-Trumpian, probably.)

But, we're going to get some good RIP, too.

I do think he was the best golf writer we've seen in half a century, bar none. And the car wrecks we call the U.S. Open brought out some of his best. His observation of majors in general is also good. And SI wraps up his best in golf and football writing from his time there.

Let's honor him for that.

And, for leaving a posthumous gift at Golf Digest.

And, his best sports coverage wasn't golf.

It was, per his memoir, "His Ownself."

Let's be honest about that.

Of course, we're all our own best subjects as authors. The key is to disguise that and make it interesting.

Thoughts on the decline and fall of the site formerly known as Hardball Talk and the blogger called Calcaterra

Over the weekend, and sneakily, a holiday weekend at that, the overlords at NBC Sports overhauled the design of the blog formerly known as Hardball Talk.

More insulting yet, they castrated some of its personality, starting by changing the URL's name from "HardballTalk" etc to "MLB," and doing the same with its name.

Proprietor and chief blogger Craig Calcaterra, unlike his Pro Football Talk compadre Jim Florio (perhaps in part, if comments are correct, due to Florio having legal rights to his blog) has been a mix of sympatico, mock sympatico, snarky and condescending, most notably, on the latter two, on his Twitter feed. (Maybe NBC castrated him, too?)

Long-time commenter Old Gator and others with nuanced insight on baseball are probably "outta there." I'll either read more at Yahoo Sports (which I semi-abandoned after its similar "ass" redesign of a few years ago, or go to a successor to Grantland, after the contracts of most the folks Bill Simmons recruited expire and they don't come back.

But, if they do a site that's long-form only, like Grantland, with no blogging and no commenting, that's not a good option either.

OG mentioned CBS. Well, yes, but Scott Boras mouthpiece Jon Heyman is there, tho I don't know if he does any blogging.

IMO, brand loyalty (and as someone in the media, I've seen plenty of this) is to authors, not sites. So, if Craig wants to continue to suck at the NBC teats, he risks ever more abandonment.

As for his comment that people like OG adjusted after a redesign of a few years ago, they eventually stopped bitching and came back?

Yes, but you hadn't built your brand up so much yet, Craigie. However, you had already built it up somewhat; that's why NBC picked up Shysterball.

You're risking the equivalent of a Tylenol scare. For yourself, not NBC. At least, if you continue being a corporate flak.

But, you don't have to be. More below the fold.

I give Deadspin some help in killing Bill Simmons

Deadspin has a great post on all the sports issues, items and people it says need to die or be killed off this year.

I especially agree that, among other things, Bill Simmons has outlived his shelf life. When Joe Boston Sports Fan was saying the things he does, it was interesting. Now that he's an often vapid, often insufferable, first person commenter, and a name dropper du jour to boot, yeah, time to get rid of him.

True, per a friend, he recruited staff that made Grantland what it is today. OK? He can manage Bill Barnwell, Zach Lowe, et al, and shut up 50 percent more himself.

That said, I'm giving Deadspin some help — killing off all of these with a quick mashup.

Col Allen of the New York Post personally goes to a military surprise reunion, asks one too many questions of a Marine with PTSD, and gets his pencil neck snapped in 3 seconds. Sports Illustrated tries to take over the remains of the Post and goes bankrupt, but not before revealing that the NFL passer formula is a secret code for Roger Goodell knowing that chronic traumatic encephalopathy from too many concussions "causes" gayness. Every homophobe in the NFL sues the league and it goes bankrupt.

We let Barack Obama kill the First Amendment, so we can jail Simmons. Gus Johnson tries to imitate him and has a massive, fatal coronary from stress.

We get Dolan to believe Trick Shot Titus is a real player and sign him, which leads to, oh, say, Spike Lee kidnapping Dolan, driving him into the hood and having him beaten to death.

There, everything on Deadspin's 2014 death list is offed, except the highlight truthers.

And, admit it, you'd like to see a few of these. Dolan getting beaten to a pulp in the South Bronx probably gives some Knicks fans a willie.

Simmons incarcerated, especially if we made him listen to piped-in Skip Bayless and Jason Whitlock would be fun.

But, the NFL one would be the best.

We'd kill off a league that, per a quote by George Will:

Football combines the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings.

And a more recent one:

In the NFL, especially, football is increasingly a spectacle, a game surrounded by manufactured frenzy, on the grass and in the increasingly unpleasant ambiance of the fans in the stands. Football on the field is a three-hour adrenaline-and-testosterone bath. For all its occasional elegance and beauty, it is basically violence for, among other purposes, inflicting intimidating pain.

Has boxed itself into a corner.

We'd see the NFL sued into oblivion, but not before the added hypocrisy of trying to legally shield itself behind its nonprofit status. We'd see a huge amount of homophobia exposed. And, we'd somehow de-emphasize this one sport, at least, down into the college and even the high school ranks, and just maybe, get some of our schools focusing a small bit more on education.

Can somebody please make this happen? Somebody start that rumor?

Oh, and force Simmons to listen to all the piped-in details while he's in prison? 

My 2013 predictions in sports

For any international readers I have, these predictions are largely, but not entirely, US based.

1. The St. Louis Cardinals will win the World Series. (Hey, I always predict that.)

2. Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell will get in the baseball Hall of Fame. None of the roiders will; even the two kings, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, will fail to pass 50 percent, though at least two other candidates will. (One, I've already reviewed, another, days ahead.) Jack Morris will fall just short  of 75 percent, leaving one more year to fight against his candidacy. (Read through recent blog posts of mine for detailed assessments of several candidates, or visit this blog post for an overview of all.

3. The Denver Broncos will win the Super Bowl. Peyton Manning will NOT retire afterward.

4. Jason Garrett will remain the Dallas Cowboys head coach.

5. The Miami Heat will repeat as NBA champs, defeating the Los Angeles Clippers in the finals.

6. The NHL will officially cancel its season, some time around Jan. 15. It will not settle the current impasse until late enough into 2013 to cause an abbreviated 2013-14 season.

7. Tiger Woods will not win a major championship in golf this year. Rory McElroy will win the Masters, post one other top 5, one top 10 and one top 20 in the other three majors. He will win four tournaments overall, maybe more, and repeat as player of the year. Two of the other three majors will have first-time winners. Tiger will win three times overall, but miss at least one cut. He will remain ranked No. 2, but at least as far behind Rory as he is ahead of No. 3.

Instant sports bets - next Net addiction?

Given that gambling in general can become, if not addictive, a clearly compulsive behavior, the possible future of sports betting sounds .... interesting.

Instant betting on sports? During the game? Yes, Les Carpenter is surely right -- it could be addictive indeed.

Beer here! could be poured a new way at stadiums

In case you haven't heard about it, "Bottom's Up" does exactly that ... fills a beer cup from the bottom, with a brilliantly simple idea, in about one-quarter the time of a traditional pour at a ballpark concession stand.

Check it out in brief:


Or watch how it speeds up concession lines:

Federer joins Woods in ‘huh’ territory

Roger Federer, tennis’ answer to Tiger Woods, joined Tiger in the unbelievable today: A come from ahead loss of a major championship, and like Tiger in the PGA, to a relatively unheralded foe.

THIS golf club goes to 11

And, if it does, that Spinal Tap-style titanium drive could damage your hearing, including tinnitus and reduced hearing. Ping's new G10 tops out at 130 decibels at contact, well above doctors' recommended 110dB limit for close sounds.

Jackie Robinson and Barack Obama

Without dissing Robinson’s groundbreaking presence, King Kaufman does a good job of putting black sports pioneers in proper perspective to President-elect Obama.

It’s not momemtum in sports unless …

Both teams psychologically agree a momentum shift has occurred.

THIS is why the Bulls won six titles — and USSR Olympics?

It wasn’t Michael Jordan, it was the red unis. Joking aside, a new study claims that refs favor teams with red uniforms.

And, it was actually based on studies of athletes in individual “combat” sports such as wrestling at the 2004 Athens Olympics.

OK, so, let’s try this from the top.

THIS is why the Commies won so many gold medals.

It wasn’t the steroids, it was the red unis and red flags!

Tiger and U.S. Open get overhyped

First, contrary to an e-mailer to Jason Sobel’s ESPN blog, it was NOT the greatest U.S. Open in 43 years.

Second, Pat Forde, you’re wrong on this, too, especially when you say this was “arguably the greatest golf tournament ever.”

Did you forget about the 1986 Masters? Or the 1997 Masters, arguably? Or the 1999 U.S. Open. Or the 1975 Masters? That's just in 10 seconds thought off the top of my head.

Beyond the sentimentality of Jack’s rally in 1986, the 1975 Masters is NON-arguably the greatest golf tournament of the last 50 years, if not longer.

(And, for all the drama, Jack earned a “measly” $40K for his win. I loved the NBC graphic Sunday saying Tiger had made $82 million on his career. With all of his majors top-10s, Jack would have earned well over $100 million, maybe $150 million.)

Also, Woods’ was not the best injury-ridden performance of all time.

But, in my estimation, neither was Willis Reed’s or Kirk Gibson’s. Reed played half of the game 7 of the 1970 Finals, if that much. Gibby’s pinch-hit homer was his only at-bat in the 1988 Series.

The Injury Ironman? No competition, it’s Jack Youngblood.

Sports-newspapers conflict of interest: the bottom line

How can newspapers truly claim to cover sports impartially, when you have a media-sports team ownership conflict of interest lie this:

(Being a director of the Boston Red Sox) was not the first time (former Senate Majority Leader George) Mitchell would have a financial stake in a baseball team. At the same time he joined the Red Sox, Mitchell was a member of the board of directors of the Walt Disney Co., the parent company of the Anaheim Angels and eventual 2002 World Series champions. He has been on the Disney board since 1994, and was chairman at Disney from 2004-06.

But from the beginning, the Red Sox sale was a particularly sensitive issue for Selig. The commissioner was accused of engineering the $660 million Red Sox transaction to the Henry group, while various other competitors to buy the Red Sox, such as HBO and CableVision founder Charles Dolan, believed the Henry group's bid had not been the highest. Dolan reportedly believed he had outbid Henry by nearly $100 million, and a bid by Miles Prentice was said to be the highest, at $755 million. Selig denied any involvement in managing the sale of the team or that he favored Henry, who had owned the Florida Marlins, or Werner, who endured a turbulent experience as owner of the San Diego Padres during the early 1990s when baseball was embroiled in a rift between large- and small-market franchises. Selig, who was fond of Werner, watched the bitterly divided owners push Werner out of the game in 1993 and told him he would run a team again one day.

In the days following the sale, Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly announced an investigation of the transaction on the grounds that the Yawkey Trust, the charitable foundation that held the team following the 1992 death of Jean Yawkey, was entitled to the highest bid. Reilly threatened a lawsuit against the Red Sox and Major League Baseball, depending on his findings. The Boston Globe, which holds a 17-percent stake in the Red Sox through its ownership by the New York Times Company, referred to Henry's purchase as "a bag job." The Boston Herald called the sale, "the fix." Ultimately, Reilly did not take legal action after the Henry ownership group agreed to increase its charitable contribution to the Yawkey Trust.

So, you have Disney, with multiple media ownerships, above all, ESPN, controlling the Angels. You then have the Boston Globe, via the New York Times Company, with an interest in the Red Sox, which not only raises Red Sox conflicts of interest, but, given the Times is in New York, Yankees conflicts of interest as well.

But, it’s not just MLB. The Dallas Morning News at one time owned a share of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks.

If major professional sports leagues, above all MLB, had any guts at all, they would ban media ownership of sports teams, period.

Steroids DO make that much a difference for baseball batters

A physicist’s study says a 10 percent increase in muscle mass can help increase home runs as much as 50 percent.

Calculations show that, by putting on 10 percent more muscle mass, a batter can swing about 5 percent faster, increasing the ball's speed by 4 percent as it leaves the bat.

Depending on the ball’s trajectory, this added speed could take it into home run territory 50 percent more often, said Roger Tobin of Tufts University in Boston.

“A 4 percent increase in ball speed, which can reasonably be expected from steroid use, can increase home run production by anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent,” said Tobin, whose study will be published in an upcoming issue of the American Journal of Physics.

So, let’s have baseball realize how serious the problem is.

At the same time, let’s remember it’s not just a hitter’s problem. I’d like to see a similar study for how many mph a 10 percent muscle mass increase can put on a pitcher’s fastball.

And, let’s remember this isn’t just a baseball problem.

How much extra yardage would a 10 percent muscle mass potentially put on a quarterback’s long bomb max? Or on a PGA golfer’s driving range?

That said, this is a good first study, in that, for at least one sports game action, it quantifies just what steroids can do.