The Key Monk

Nine Years

2010-09-12T00:46:00.004-05:00

Nine years ago yesterday Islamic terrorists struck and destroyed the Twin Towers in New York City with two commercial airliners. Another plane struck the Pentagon and fourth one, United Flight 93, was forced down by heroic passengers as it was also headed for Washington D.C.

I came across the following excerpt the other day:

For many who work in the financial markets, the story of Cantor Fitzgerald has become a symbol of the tragedy that overcame the civilised world nine year's ago...........

'If they set out to bomb American capitalism - to hit at the heart of the American economy - the terrorists could not have done better than to kill off Cantor Fitzgerald. The international brokerage firm was responsible for transacting 200 billion dollars of securities a day, or 50 trillion dollars a year - more then than the American and New York Stock Exchanges and Nasdaq combined......

Its brokers and traders were, for the most part, young and extremely successful, an abundance of alpha males and females working high in the sky, a hundred floors above Wall Street. Many of them met when they were single and then passed all the milestones together. They went to each other's weddings, the christenings of their children. They rented summer houses together. They hired siblings and friends. Nepotism wasn't frowned on - it was encouraged. Brothers hired brothers and brothers-in-law, and second cousins. Friends hired friends......

At 8.46am on September 11th, American Airlines Flight 11, bound for Los Angeles from Boston's Logan Airport, tore through the clear Manhattan sky and struck the north side of Tower One of the World Trade Center. The twenty thousand gallons of fuel the Boeing 767 was carrying for the cross-country flight ignited on impact, causing fires that burned at more than two thousand degrees......

The plane...hit at the 93rd floor....Cantor Fitzgerald operated out of the 101st through 105th floors. Of the firm's 1,000 New York employees, 658 were lost.......In the coming days the number of dead and missing will be staggering. Of the wives, thirty-eight were pregnant, fourteen of them for the first time. Forty-six of the lost were engaged to be married; there were at least two weddings planned for the following weekend. Worst of all, these were young people with young families, some with three and four children. Nine hundred and fifty-five sons and daughters lost a father or a mother'.

Excerpts from 'On Top Of The World - The Remarkable Story of Howard Lutnick, Cantor Fitzgerald and The Twin Towers Attack' by Tom Barbash. Via Here is the City News

Freakish win -- does it break the Yanks' slumber?

2010-08-12T09:54:00.002-05:00

The Yanks have been sonambulating since the injury to Andy Pettitte on July 18. After running off a 7-3 stretch against the Angels, Royals and Indians, the Yanks had stunk against three division rivals and another division leader, all of whom were supra-.500 -- the Rays, Jays, RedSax and Rangers. A 4-7 record in 11 games marked by inconsistent pitching, terrible hitting (compare James Shields 7.1 IP, 11 K, no runs v. Yanks to his next start, when he allowed 6 homers to the Jays), failures on simple plays (see 10th inning v. Rangers -- infield hit by Michael Young), and bad managing (playing Teixeira as DH against Tampa in a low-scoring defensive game -- his replacement's failures led to all three Rays' runs in the 3-0 loss). So the Yanks needed to suck less last night to avoid an abominable stretch of 4-8 against three principal rivals and the 2011 dark horse playoff challenger (the Jays, who have a very good pitching rotation).

And it shouldn't have happened. The Yanks faced Cliff Lee, their bete noire who had beaten them twice in the '09 World Series, pitched a complete game victory at the Stadium earlier in the year, and should have been a Yankee but for some Mariner duplicity in early July. Lee had pitched at least 8 innings in each start for the Rangers. The Rangers knocked Javy Vazquez around for 6 runs (with no help from his defense) and took a 6-1 lead into the sixth inning. Jeter's lead off triple, and a rare wild pitch from Lee to score him, seemed harmless after Lee whiffed the side to keep a 6-2 lead. Nine outs remained, Lee on the hill, and the Yanks were about to slide to 4-8 in their 12-game stretch against real teams.

They rallied: Cano double, Kearns single, Berkman double, Gardner single and the Yanks were down 6-4 in the 7th when Lee was pulled with one out. Marcus Thames homered in the 8th, now it's 6-5. Berkman walked, Gardner singled, a wild pitch and the Yanks had second and third with none out in the 9th and the Rangers brought the infield in. A chop-and-drop single, strikeout, and clean single and the Yanks had a 7-6 lead. Rivera entered, he threw 8 pitches, four strikes -- each of which was put in play: lead-off triple, short liner to right that couldn't score the runner, bouncer to the box with infield in, and grounder to third. Ball game. And the Yanks' rally had me remembering a similar freak win.

In 1999, the Yanks had an 8.5 game lead over the RedSax in mid-August and entered their final regular season set with the Sawx -- a three-game series at home -- up 6.5. The Sux swept the Yanks and the Yanks hit road to Toronto and Cleveland (which finished with 97 wins) reeling. After losing game one in Toronto while the Indians blasted the Sawx, the Yanks trailed the Jays 6-1 in the top of the 8th, and the RedSax had won. The lead would be down to 2.5. With one out and Ricky Ledee on first, pinch-hitter Chili Davis hit a slow grounder to second. Jays' secondbaseman Homer Bush fielded the ball. Bush saw Ledee coming and was rattled, instead of throwing to the shortstop at second for the force and then to first to get the S L O W Davis, he tried to tag Ledee, who stopped dead in his tracks. Bush tried to get Ledee, gave up, and just threw to first. Ledee made it to second with two outs. A walk, RBI single, error, and grand slam later, the score was 6-6. Another grand slam in the 9th, and the Yanks won 10-6. They won the remaining game against Toronto, took three of four in Cleveland from the Indians and reestablished themselves as the top team in the League. An 11-1 run through the postseason made them World Series champs for the 25th time.

The Yanks' win last night was perhaps more improbable. First, they beat a division-leader, not a team out of the pennant race. Second, the Yanks struck out 17 times! And had 12 hits. The team was 12-for-38 batting. That means when the Yanks didn't whiff, they were 12-21, a .571 average. Third, the Yanks struck out 10 times after the fifth inning -- of the last 12 outs they made, 10 were whiffs and the other two came on a double play so they struck out at an incredible rate while they rallied to win. The Yanks had nine hits after the fifth. So they were 9-for-10 on balls in play -- an astounding number (the general average is slightly over .300; the Yanks were .900) -- and made all three outs on strikeouts in the 6th, 7th and 9th innings. And there's more: Marcus Thames, the Yankee hero last night with three hits and two RBI, hit his homer on a 1-2 pitch, and his game-winning single on an 0-2 pitch. For his career, Thames' averages with a 1-2 count is .126 and with an 0-2 count is .192. The odds of the Yanks' win last night entering the 6th inning against Lee with a 6-1 deficit were astronomical. But they won.

Now let's see what they do with that.

The Boss: resurgence, failure, scandal, renaissance

2010-07-15T09:44:00.002-05:00

Based upon the various obituaries of George M. Steinbrenner III, and my recent reading of William Manchester's brilliant Winston Spencer Churchill, The Last Lion: Alone, The Monk's failings in life stem from having a father who is not an incorrigible ass.

Steinbrenner entered [athletics, shipping, sports team ownership] in various vain attempts to placate and obtain approval from his demanding father, Henry Steinbrenner. The Boss's old man was still impossible to satisfy, even though by the late 1960s George had already bought out his old man and the rest of the family's interest in the family owned shipping business and had acquired the American Shipbuilding Company. By 1972, he was more than just rich, he was a leading industrialist based in Ohio and was looking to purchase a sports franchise. First, he started by trying to buy the local burlap-sack franchise, the Cleveland Indians. That endeavor failed. So he turned his attention to the New York Yankees.

The Yankees were the fallen star of American sports. From 1936-1964, the Yankees won 22 AL pennants in 29 years and 16 World Series -- a three-decade run of success unparalleled in North American sports. In the eight seasons since being purchased by CBS in 1965, the Yanks had not come close to the playoffs: six finishes at least 20 games behind the pennant or division winner, only once within 10 games of first place. Steinbrenner vowed to make the Yankees winners again. And he did.

The major points of The Boss's life as The Boss are well-known: his infamous declaration that he'd be a hands-off owner; how he squeezed out his limited partners; the free agent acquisitions; the revolving door managerial policy; the grooming code; the temper; the bad deals; and his renaissance as the kindly and beloved Boss after his reinstatement in 1993 and the Yankees' resurgence to prominence and, ultimately, dynasty.

But the facts are dangerous materials to work with when crafting a legacy. Without Steinbrenner's wallet and brashness, the Yankee rebirth in the 1970s would not have happened. But general manager Gabe Paul's deals are what rebuilt the team: obtaining Chambliss, Tidrow, Piniella to team with Munson and Nettles by the end of 1974; trading Bobby Murcer for Bobby Bonds, who turned into Figueroa (55-30 from 1976-78) and Rivers and Doc Medich for Ellis and Randolph. Swapping some magic beans for Bucky Dent. Without those transactions, the 1976-78 AL championship pennants would hang in Baltimore, Boston or Kansas City.

But no Yankee fan of my generation can forget the 1980s, the only decade since the Babe Ruth trade in which the Yankees did not win a World Series. It was a decade marked by stupid decisions (turning a top-of-the-rotation starter [Rightetti] into a closer) and stupid deals for retread pitchers (Rhoden, Reuschel, Dotson, Trout, Niekro, Niekro, John round 2) who could not lift the Yanks past their rivals. Willie McGee, Fred McGriff, Jay Buhner, Tim Belcher, Doug Drabek all played in the playoffs and two won World Series rings, while the Yanks were in their longest playoff drought since the Babe Ruth trade (and McGriff won a ring in 1995, the first reappearance of the Yanks in the playoffs since 1981). Even though the Yanks had the best aggregate record in the major leagues in the 80s, the only baseball champion in New York was the 1986 Mets. By the end of the decade, the Yanks were a sub-.500 team. In 1990, they were a joke.

There is no coincidence that the Yanks' return to glory was seeded during the suspension of Steinbrenner from 1990-92 for hiring Howie Spira to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield. In 1990, they drafted Posada and Pettitte, and inked a Panamanian string-bean, Mariano Rivera. In '92, they drafted some kid from Michigan who played shortstop, traded for Paul O'Neill and obtained Jimmy Key. And the development of Bernie Williams continued.

By the time Big Stein was back in command, the Yanks had the foundation for success. Some smart trades (Martinez and Nelson), and good signings (Wetteland) made up for the Boss's meddling (Kenny Rogers instead of Chuck Finley). With astute guidance (Torre) and an intelligent front office, the Yankees thrived. Only when the Boss's heavy hand began to weigh upon the decisionmaking of the team after the 2001 World Series loss did the Yanks falter again (Giambi, Sheffield, Weaver, letting Pettitte leave).

Ultimately, he was the biggest name in New York sports: loud, brash, determined, loyal, difficult, generous, stubborn. He made the Yankees great again, tore them apart, stood back and enjoyed, then meddled again. And he transformed a national team into a global brand. He was the future of media and sports ownership (YES), a brilliant businessman, and a winner, often in spite of himself.

George Michael Steinbrenner III, RIP.

Defending Goldman

2010-04-29T09:25:00.002-05:00

Tuesday's spectacle in Congress with Senator Carl Levin's (D-Mi) committee grilling executives of Goldman, Sachs over their and the firm's activities in the mortgage markets was a perfect reminder of Churchill's view that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other."

Some observations:

1. The senior executives defended themselves valiantly, the junior ones which were the four that appeared first, did less well, appearing more often than not, evasive. Now Monk should opine on this as this is his practice but certainly the entire group seemed a bit over overbriefed and instructed to be too careful by their attorneys. This was rather obvious when CFO David Viniar refused to opine on matters on which he was clearly an expert. I suppose the Goldman counsel have instructed that a battle with Congress cannot be won and therefore should not be fought and they'll try to win the case in court or settle without guilt. And I suppose a modest victory was that none of the Goldman employees or ex-employees gave the committee or Carl Levin the damning soundbite they so desperately wanted.

2. Without intimate familiarity with the details this case seems flimsy as you have sophisticated investors, an independent agency, ACA and there was give and take as to what securities should be included or excluded in the package. In any case the 3-2 decision by the commissioners suggest heavily that this charge was strongly politically motivated and came at a most fortuitous time coinciding with the financial regulation bill.

3. As having been involved intimately in the markets, barring the occurrence of actual fraud, the allegations and insinuations of Levin's committee is pure political pandering - and that goes for both sides of the aisle.

- "Betting against your clients": As Blankfein argued but to little avail since most senators and Americans have little idea what a market-maker is, if the client buys from Goldman, Goldman is necessarily short or less long in the case that they actually have the inventory. He's also absolutely right that the clients have no right to know what Goldman's overall position is or that it is relevant at all. Now Goldman employs some of the smartest folks in the room but who aren't always right. They famously called a super-spike in crude oil to $200 a barrel. It got to $147 before crashing to $32.

- "Goldman knew the market was going down and still continued to sell this crap." This is just arrant stupidity- with the benefit of hindsight Goldman was right. I am not sure why no one thought to use the following example: In 1999 and early 2000 a lot of real smart folks thought the NASDAQ was stupidly overvalued at 4,000 and that it was ready for a fall. They were entirely right. Many of them also bet that way and were carried out feet first as the NASDAQ hit 5,000 before crumbling below 2000. For those of us in the money business, you must not only have the direction right BUT YOUR TIMING HAS TO BE CORRECT. Do we propose then that everyone who sold NASDAQ stocks (check a favorite of the time called CMGI) or led an IPO when they were uncertain of the future of the market was guilty?

- What makes a market, any market, is a difference of opinion and/or the market position of the participants. Why would a seller sell any product at a given price?
a. he thinks it will go lower before it goes higher
b. he can replace the item he sold more cheaply
c. he is naturally long inventory which decays (someone who sells eggs, or options)
The buyer has the converse view. So with sophisticated investors who invest in these products not only can the view be different on direction but it can often be in timing.

Anyone who is the business of selling any financial product needs to be rooting hard for Goldman to prevail- otherwise anything that you sell that drops in value will open you to charges of fraud. And if the SEC prevails one shudders to think how many other lawsuits will hit the docket (or are already on the way).

4. Many of those emails cited were unfortunate in their use of language. But if you are a Goldman or any bank employee and you think a market is going down and there are willing buyers your fiduciary duty to the firm and your shareholders is to sell. In this regard they are not investment advisers and have no duty to the other side of the transaction.

The Monk's big a-- theory of basketball success

2010-04-05T11:12:00.002-05:00

Nineteen years ago, The Monk formulated his big a-- theory of college basketball. The theory is basically, if a skinny forward/center matches up with a heavy forward/center of equal or near-equal basketball ability (shooting, post moves, ability to create a shot), take the beef over the string bean.

The Monk formulated his theory while watching the Burge twins in the 1991 national title game have their hats handed to them by the shorter but wider frontcourt players on Tennessee. The Burges were a media sensation in Virginia because they were 6-5 and one was a legitimately good player (Heather) while the other was a decent rebounder who could use her height to advantage (Heidi). With their height, shot blocking and rebounding, Virginia now had inside players who caused matchup trouble for opponents in addition to the great Dawn Staley and her backcourt partner Tammi Reiss. The Tennessee women beat the Burges to a pulp and dominated inside to key the UT 70-67 win.

That theory works in men's college basketball too -- Len Elmore always says he hated playing against the bulky forwards who pushed into his chest to get their shots. Elmore was a beanpole power forward for Maryland in the '70s, a top shot blocker, and one of the best players in the country. More proof: watch the 2003 NCAA title game as Hakim Warrick gets pummeled by Nick Collison and Jeff Graves; watch the 2009 battles between Pitt and UConn as 6-foot-7 DeJuan Blair beats on 7-foot-2 Hasheem Thabeet. The theory does not work in the NBA because defenses are not allowed to collapse on the ball as much as in college so the skinny guy has room to maneuver in the post.

The theory proved out last night once again as Tina Charles completely outclassed 6-foot-8 twig Britney Griner in UConn's win over Baylor. Charles scored 21 points, hit 9 of 17 shots, pulled 13 rebounds and showed why she and forward Maya Moore (14-26, 34 points, 12 reb), her teammate, are sharing player of the year awards. Griner (5-13, 13 points, 6 rebounds) had no answer.

Wishful predicting? It's baseball season.

2010-04-01T14:58:00.003-05:00

Last year, before the baseball season started, Buster Olney picked the Rays and Sawx to go to the playoffs and the Yanks to sit in 3rd in the AL East again. This pick came after the Yanks signed Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira. The pick was stupid.

This year, Olney picks the Rockies over the Yanks because he says Tulowitzki will shine in the Series. That's called "projecting."

Similarly, the Great Tom Verducci thinks the Twins will win the AL and SI's official magazine pick is for the Rays to beat the Yanks in the ALCS. This is also called projecting.

Ultimately, the fact is that there are two big favorites in baseball -- the Yanks and the Phils. In the NL, only the Rocks have a chance of beating the Phils in the playoffs. In the AL, the Yanks' path is tougher because the Angels and RedSux are possible opponents. Seriously, do you think that:

(1) St. Louis has overcome its lack of offense and improved by overpaying for Brad Penny after losing Piniero to free agency;

(2) the full season upgrade of Halliday over 1/2-season of Lee won't add to the Phils' win totals and stabilize the team;

(3) the impact of Halliday (whose excellent work habits are well-known) on the Phils' pitching staff will be minimal to nonexistent;

(4) COLE HAMELS WILL BE MEDIOCRE AGAIN;

(5) J.A. Happ will fall off;

(6) the Rockies will have a bullpen that can withstand the Phillies or a rotation that can go head-to-head with a fully healthy one-two of Halliday and Hamels;

(7) the Brewers, Dodgers, and Giants will have enough pitching/starting pitching/hitting to challenge the top title contenders;

(8) the Braves will grow up instantly?

The Phils should win the NL because they have both an AL quality lineup and a top-end set of starting pitchers. If Lidge uncouples from his suck-infuser-machine, they'll have a top bullpen too.

Best of the rest: Rocks, Cards, Braves, Giants (WC), Brewhahas, Fishies, Reds.

In the AL, the Mariners were the talk of the off-season because they signed Cliff Lee and Chone Figgins and upgraded their already very good defense. They want to prevent runs and win with Lee, Felix Hernandez and a deep bullpen. Won't work. In 2008, the Yankees allowed 29 fewer runs than they did in 2009 and less than they had in any year since 2003 and finished with fewer than 90 wins for the first time in eight years. It's the AL, you need to be able to score.

And the teams to make the AL playoffs in 2010 should be nearly identical to the 2009 entrants, with the WhiteSax overtaking the Twins if Peavy can stay healthy -- that's not an "omigawsh, the Twins lost Joe Nathan and the sky is falling" reaction, it's a belief that Danks-Floyd-Buerhle-Peavy is as good a four-man crew as any in the league. The Angels will be harder pressed to win, but their manager is better than the Rangers' manager and that counts for a few games in a close race. The RedSax will lose some pop, but have good pitching and a better defense (Cameron, Beltre). The Yanks won 103 games with only three pitchers competent enough to start in the postseason, and they added innings-eater Javy Vazquez (an ace on most other staffs) and got younger and defensively better in the outfield (Granderson replacing Damon) and catcher (Cervelli to replace Jose Molina and catch 45 games, which means a better defensive catcher than Posada playing more often).

I'm still skeptical about the Rays. Last year they lost 8 of 10 to the Yanks in the middle of the season when the Rays had a chance to make a run at (a) reversing a bad start and (b) challenging for the wild card. Their top pitchers (Garza, Shields, Niemann) were all healthy and pitched full seasons. Zobrist and Bartlett had career years to help offset Upton's season of crap, and they won just 84. Can they compete? Sure. Can they compete for the next six months at the level of the Yankees and RedSawx if all three teams stay reasonably healthy? Unlikely.

AL's playoff challengers: Yanks, Sawx, Angels, Chisox, Twins, Rays, Rangers. Everyone else -- it's a year to grow on.

Political blogging -- where's ours?

2010-04-01T14:29:00.002-05:00

There have been few political posts of note here recently for various reasons.

First, Wongdoer has taken to earning every cent I pay him instead of happily being underpaid.

Second, my time to blog is limited because I have to go as full bore as possible at work to get my hours. My home time consists of chasing Monkling 1.0 around, eating dinner, some bonding with Monkling 2.0, sleep. I've been told that the woman who feeds Monkling 2.0 all the time is my wife, but I only have a vague recollection of who she is.

Third, the political situation is depressing. Obama is just as bad, if not worse, than I expected in nearly all phases of his policies (DAD -- I EFFING TOLD YOU SO). This week's Weekly Standard has covered the field on this issue, and the best summary is probably here and this post from Walter Russell Mead provides excellent details about the disaster that is Obama foreign policy. Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster from day one: insulting and belittling the Brits, supporting Chavista clones in Honduras over the country's constitutional mandates, and treating Israel like an unruly cur. And we have, at minimum, nearly three more years of this to suffer. EGADS.

NCAA Tourney notes

2010-04-01T11:14:00.002-05:00

Some quick Tournament notes as we go to the Final Four.

First, as bad as the Big East did this year, with Syracuse, Villanova, Pitt, Georgetown, Notre Dame and Marquette all underperforming their seedings by a combined nine rounds, this is just the second time since the 1985 Tournament that the Big East has had a team in the Final Four in consecutive years (2003-2004, SU and UConn won the national title).

Despite both its prominence and its proliferation of top 4 seedings since 1985, the Big East has only had 11 Final Four teams and no team from the Big East has reached consecutive Final Fours in the last 25 years. In the last 25 years, Duke has reached 11 Final Fours, North Carolina has made nine, Kansas and Michigan State have reached six.

Second, Duke's drought of five straight non-Final Four seasons was the longest since the start of Coach K's coaching stint at Duke. As I noted earlier, Duke has lost to a lower seed in each of the last five Tournaments, including a couple of real flops. In 2006, Florida had not reached a Final Four in six years, had lost to a lower seed in five consecutive Tourneys (with far worse choke jobs than Duke) and rolled to a title. That title cleared the choker label off of the Gators and a similar finish by Duke would curb Coach K's critics who say he hasn't recruited the talent level he needs to win a title (I've said that myself).

Third, I'm not cheering for the Big East entrant. I don't like Huggins, and never have. He's a class A SOB and I agree with Rick Reilly's reasoning. I'm actually cheering for a Michigan State-Duke final because the best coaches should be matching wits next Monday.

Calculating an impact

2010-03-31T10:18:00.002-05:00

The teacher whose minor miracle was documented in the movie Stand and Deliver died yesterday.

Jaime Escalante came to the US as an emigre from Bolivia, worked at the Burroughs Corporation and later became a math teacher in the LA schools. He famously taught calculus in barrio hellhole Garfield High School and inspired his students to overcome their disadvantages through hard work, discipline, and education. His success engendered disdain and jealousy, he clashed with administrators and had no support from the teachers union, and after his departure the Garfield program eventually collapsed due to lack of institutional support.

At its peak, however, Escalante's determination and hard work helped hundreds of students whose prospects for success would have been minimal without him.

Jaime Escalante, 1930-2010, RIP.

Keep this handy - Obama promises broken

2010-03-30T13:59:00.002-05:00

This is a brilliant web resource by National Review's Jim Geraghty: the complete list of Obama statement expiration dates.

Every declaration Obama makes on a political issue has an expiration date -- the date that he violates his claimed principle. Here's a small selection, the 18 promises Obama broke within the first 100 days of his presidency.

1. "As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

2. "I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA]."

3. Opposed a Colombian Free Trade Agreement because advocates ignore that "labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis."

4. "Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut."

5. "If we see money being misspent, we're going to put a stop to it, and we will call it out and we will publicize it."

6. "Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

7. "I want to go line by line through every item in the Federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work, and make sure that those that do work work better and cheaper."

8. "[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell."

9. "Instead of allowing lobbyists to slip big corporate tax breaks into bills during the dead of night, we will make sure every single tax break and earmark is available to every American online."

10. "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress's seniority, rather than the merit of the project."

11. "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."

12. "Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights."

13. "We must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights."

14. "Lobbyists won’t work in my White House!"

15. "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."

16. "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."

17. "Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." Obama is 1-for-11 on this promise so far.

18. A special one on the 100th day, "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."

NCAA Tournament -- 2010 is an aberrant year

2010-03-30T09:56:00.002-05:00

Checking the data reveals one conclusion -- the 2010 Tournament is nearly as much of an outlier as the 2006 Tourney.

As I noted, in five of the previous six Tournaments, all four Final Four teams were ranked in the Top 25 in both offensive and defensive efficiency under Ken Pomeroy's formula that accounts for field goal accuracy, turnovers, rebounding, etc. and results in a mathematical formulation of points per 100 possessions. Of the six previous years that Pomeroy charted (2004-09), only the 2006 Final Four had teams from outside the top 25 in offensive efficiency. But three of those teams were top 5 defensive teams and underdog party crasher George Mason was #18 on defense.

This year, two entrants were on The Monk's list of possible Final Four teams based on the kenpom.com top 25 rule -- West Virginia and Duke. The other half of the teams shouldn't be here: Butler is 46th in offensive efficiency (but #6 on defense) and Michigan State is 33rd in defensive efficiency (and a mildly pedestrian #25 on offense). MSU's presence is explained by its opponents -- both Northern Iowa and Tennessee are offensively deficient (#61 and 65) and Maryland's defense is substandard (#50). Butler's presence is just shocking -- even with the #6 defense, it had to beat the #8 and #13 offenses (Syracuse, K-State), both SU and K-State were top 20 defenses (#18, 19), and ultimately basketball is an OFFENSIVE game.

One more comment on the men's Tournament: CBS has to be peeved that Butler beat Syracuse and the West Virginia Inbreds beat Kentucky. This is a ratings disaster. Although sports geeks and the journalist set at ESPN and SI love the underdog/return to Final Four after 51 years nonsense, the fact is that top programs (UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA) drive ratings in college sports, just like iconic teams drive ratings in the NBA and MLB (Yanks, Redsax, Lakers, Celtics). Kentucky means basketball royalty and 55 cutaways to Ashley Judd in the stands bouncing around. Syracuse means the New York market and the East Coast from DC northward for Big East school fans to root for or against the Orange. West Virginia won't drive those eyes to the TV sets.

And three comments on the women's tournament: (1) The fact that Baylor is in the Final Four is a complete disgrace. Brittney Griner should have been suspended for the year for coldcocking an opponent who she sucker punched in the Bears' penultimate regular season game. No Griner, and Baylor has no chance of getting past the second round. Instead, coach Kim Mulkey-Robinson sat Griner for a no-purpose season finale and the first round of the Big 12 tourney (which Baylor could have won with three players).

(2) Connecticut's romp through the tournament is terrible for the game this year. No matter how much ESPN has tried to pump ratings for women's hoops by showcasing the indomitable Huskies, the team's complete destruction of every opponent is just terrible television. Each of UConn's three opponents has been held under 40 points and has scored 14 points or less in one of the two 20-minute periods.

(3) This year's tournament has demonstrated why women's basketball has such a hard time gaining viewership. The notion that women players display better fundamentals than the men because they don't jump as high or run as fast is belied by reality.

First, there have been SEVEN games in which the loser scored 30-39 points for the game. That's pre-shot clock level stuff. Ten other teams failed to get out of the 40s. In the men's tournament, only three teams scored less than 50 in any game to date. And remember, the hoop is functionally larger in the women's game -- the ball is smaller so there's more room for error in shot accuracy.

Second, the shooting is cover-your-eyes AWFUL. Georgia (12-59) and Georgetown (12-70) had sixth-grade boys' shooting nights, and they're each top 20 teams! In one game, LSU shot 32% from the floor and won by 21! Last night Duke, a top 10 team, hit 23% of its field goal attempts in a 51-48 loss, Baylor hit 34% in winning that game; Stanford and Xavier both hit less than 40% from the field. Each of these teams are top 15, Stanford is the second-best team in the country.

Third, the complete bonk factor. Right now, this tournament is encapsulated by one sequence -- the failure by Xavier's Dee Dee Jernigan. She had TWO wide open uncontested layup attempts in the last 20 seconds of the game and missed BOTH. Yuck.

NCAA Tournament Weekend 2 review -- Monk picks suck

2010-03-29T15:11:00.002-05:00

The Monk had his worst Tournament since 2006. Next year, I will suck less. Promise.

That said, I did give Wongdoer one good piece of advice: ride Duke. With its stupidly weak draw and its tremendous efficiency stats, Duke had to be favored to win its bracket. Given the lack of interest in Duke from sports bettors thanks to its recent failures (losing to lower seeds and underperforming its seeding in each of last five years), the reward from betting Duke to play in the national title game outweighed the risk of not betting Kansas.

Let's see what The Monk got wrong, and the few things I actually got right.

(1) Rematches: I said the Xavier-Pitt rematch would have the opposite result from last year. BINGO. I also said the same for Kansas-Michigan State. That prediction could have been good, or not, if they had actually played, but KU honked in round two -- the first #1 seed to lose before the Sweet 16 since 2004. I also said that the possible Duke-Villanova rematch from last year's Sweet 16 wouldn't happen because Villanova wouldn't survive the first weekend. GOOD. And Villanova wouldn't survive because it'd lose to Richmond. WRONG.

(2) Signature games: I blew the two hinge games I predicted. I said that Wisco-Kentucky would decide the East -- if Wiscaaaaansin won, WVU would win the region; if UK won, it would beat WVU in the regional final. WRONG. Wisco was walloped by Cornell so the Wisco-UK game didn't occur. And WRONG again -- UK sucked against WVU and now the corrupt, grumpy, players-never-graduate Bob Huggins is going to the Final Four instead of the corrupt, sunny, players-barely-matriculate John Calipari.

I also said the West would come down to Syracuse-KState. WRONG. It came down to the question of whether one team could beat both Syracuse and KState. And Butler did it. KState's loss was, if possible, worse than Syracuse's because KState won the turnover battle (+7 vs. SU losing -11), caused a Butler team that can hold onto the ball to nearly double its turnover average, and lost. SU threw away the game, KSU got beat.

Some more observations:

(3) Tom Izzo is the best NCAA Tournament coach working today. Since Michigan State's first appearance under Izzo in 1998, Michigan State has made 6 Final Four appearances in 14 years, won the 2000 national title and is 35-11 in NCAA Tournament games. Izzo's teams have lost in their region to a lower seeded team TWICE in 13 Tournaments (both times in the first round) and have underperformed their seeding only those two times. Sparty has outperformed its seeding in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and three of those years were Final Four appearances. Izzo is also 6-1 in the Final Eight, the loss was to Texas in 2003 and the Spartans were completely outmanned and out-talented but lost by just 9 (only Coach K is better since the seeded tournament began: 11-1).

The most impressive aspect of Izzo's teams is their ability to play at all speeds. In 2000, they won the single ugliest Final Four game since the 1960s -- the 53-41 brickfest against Wisconsin; in their next game they ran Florida out of the gym 89-76. Last year, they outpunched Louisville in the regional final (64-52) and then outran UConn (and how many teams can ever do that?) in the Final Four, 82-73. In 2005, they outjumped and outran a pretty capable Duke team that won the #1 seed in the South. Izzo's teams are not quite as good as they were in 1999-2001 when he had the "Flint"stones of Mateen Cleaves, Mo Peterson, et al., and that may be largely because the Big Ten has been down in recent years AND the style of the conference is generally thuggish. But Sparty always plays good defense, rebounds extremely well and executes. Izzo's bete noire, however, remains North Carolina -- the Spartans are 3-10 all-time against UNC, including 0-6 in the Tournament. Three of those six Tournament losses were under Izzo (2005, 2007, 2009) and three were in the Final Four (1957, 2005, 2009).

(4) Here are all the No. 5 seeds that have won the NCAA Tournament: .

(5) I'm disillusioned that I again agree with Bill Simmons who said this:

Wes Johnson's "disappearance" during the Butler upset. If you studied the play-by-play sheet only, you'd say to yourself, "Wow, Johnson went MIA! No shots in the last six minutes? What a choke job!" Not exactly. He was playing for a coach who made a career out of burying his No. 1 scoring option in big games (note: Syracuse fans are nodding grimly right now), and with skittish guards who lost their minds down the stretch (Andy Rautins and Scoop Jardine combined for eight shots and three turnovers in the final six minutes). As I tweeted after the game, it was like Boeheim told his team at the five-minute mark, "Guys, I want you to go out there and take the most rushed, horrible shots you possibly can." Johnson couldn't have done anything except clothesline Rautins and Jardine to get the ball. Which, actually, might not have been a bad idea.

And as I go through some of the team's close losses in the NCAAs, I think he's right. After all, SU lost to Vermont in 2005 and Warrick barely touched the ball. SU nearly blew it against KU in '03 with Anthony a minimal factor down the stretch. SU lost to Missouri in '94 and Wallace was a nonfactor (and WALLACE was SU's best player throughout his career, regardless of Moten's presence -- when Moten left, Wallace took his Moten-less team to the Final Four). And Coleman and Owens often got lost late in games in the '89 and '90 seasons. Sometimes SU just got beat (Wallace had 29 against Kentucky in '96, Kentucky had four NBA first-rounders). But if SU's best player is a forward, the team needs to run its plays for him at the end of the game instead of relying on secondary players. Boeheim did this against Georgetown in February by running a play for Kris Joseph that iced the game when K-Jo had a good matchup. But Wes needed more touches against the Bulldogs.

Requiem for a 30-win team

2010-03-26T09:36:00.002-05:00

I've lived and died with Syracuse basketball since I was 11 and last night's bonk is one of the tougher losses to handle.

In the early 80s, Syracuse was in the shadow of Georgetown and St. John's, even after landing Pearl Washington, the most noted recruit Boeheim had landed to that point. By 1985, St. John's had made the Final Four, Villanova had won its miracle title, and Georgetown was the top team in the conference with three Final Fours and a title. SU did itself no favors in the first post-Ewing era season by choking its second round NCAA game to Navy 97-85 at the Carrier Dome -- it couldn't defend David Robinson and couldn't rattle the Navy guards even though SU had whipped the seamen by 22 earlier in the year. So SU was now a choker and, despite the run to the Final in '87 and the heartbreaking loss to Indiana, that label stuck as SU, with a hobbled Sherman Douglas bonked to Rhode Island in round two in '88.

But SU could recruit thanks to the huge Carrier Dome crowds and its run-and-gun style with fast break lobs flying in from all angles. In the 80s, Boeheim pulled in Stevie Thompson from California, Rony Seikaly from Lebanon, Derrick Coleman from Michigan, David Johnson from Louisiana, and the biggest prize, Billy Owens. The Coleman/Douglas teams made a Final Four and a Final Eight and the first post-Douglas team made a Sweet 16 only to lose to a riotously hot-shooting Minnesota (75% in second half).

Two incidents knocked Syracuse from a perennial national power and top 10 team with top recruits to a top 25 team that had to do more with less. First, the 1990-91 season. Without Coleman, Owens dominated the Big East (23 ppg, 11+ rpg) and carried the Orangemen to a 25-4 record. It was one of Boeheim's best coaching jobs and it ended in disaster -- allowing a 23-5 run by Villanova to beat SU 70-68 in the first round of the Big East tourney and then losing as a #2 seed to 15th-seeded Richmond, which loss is still one of the most famous honks in NCAA Tourney history.

Second, the Conrad McRae recruitment. Boosters tied to SU, NOT BOEHEIM, violated NCAA rules and the hint of probation scared off Donyell Marshall and Jalen Rose. SU's fall from grace (probation in '92-93) and the Richmond debacle took a toll: from 1992 until Carmelo Anthony signed his letter of intent, SU had one McDonald's All-American. That one, John Wallace, led the team on its improbable 1996 run to the national title game -- a Tournament performance that revived Boeheim's reputation as a coach, which (after the 91-92 team won 22 with smoke, mirrors, Johnson and Moten, and the '92-'93 team played hard and well despite probation) shouldn't have needed reviving.

That Tournament run also cemented The Zone. The '96 team's lack of quickness in the backcourt made it a poor man-to-man defensive team, so Boeheim used the 2-3 zone almost exclusively instead of mixing defenses as he had previously done. The Zone was a story in the Tournament. And The Zone became the SU staple thereafter.

Since the probation and 1996 renaissance, SU is a program that now levels out as a top Big East contender on a fairly regular basis (1998, 2000, 2003, 2010 -- won at least a share of regular season title; 2005, 2006 Big East tourney champs and runner-up in '98, '09), a frequent Sweet 16 team (1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2010), a frequent top 25 team (based on seedings in NCAA Tourney: 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010) and an occasional national power. But it's not North Carolina or Kentucky or Michigan State (Tom Izzo is really the best NCAA Tourney coach right now, considering relative team quality compared to results) where a Final Eight run is possible each year and a Final Four entry is just around the corner.

For that reason, yesterday's loss sucks. For the first time since '05, SU had legitimate expectations of a deep Tourney run. For the first time since '03, it had a very favorable bracket slot. And it had the players (Johnson, Rautins, Joseph) to do damage.

SU was far superior to Butler in skill and ability. But SU played awful on offense -- bad shots, mindless turnovers, sloppy passing. Give credit where due: Butler marked Johnson and Rautins closely, forced Jackson, Joseph and Triche/Jardine to beat it (they all failed), hedged hard on SU's top-of-key side-to-side offense to cut off driving lanes, played off the high-post passer to clog the lane, fought over the top of SU's ball screens out top to limit open shots for Rautins off ball reversals, and played a man-to-man defense reminiscent of the 1990s Knicks (which had to please Pat Riley, who was on hand probably to watch Wes Johnson). But SU adjusted: it moved Jackson out of the low block to the high post in the second half, it screened better for Rautins, it fought through Butler's picks against the top of The Zone, and it rebounded.

What killed SU was its turnovers. The Butler defense is designed like the Virginia defense The Monk watched in '89-'90 -- press the ballhandler, force the opponent out of its offensive set, make the opponent use clock, force bad shots. But Butler is NOT a turnover producer like Duke's overplay man-to-man. SU rushed its offense, made terrible passes, played sloppy with the ball, and coughed up 18 turnovers (Butler had 7). Thus, Butler took a 10-point halftime lead; thus, Butler never had to play from far behind. And when SU slowed the game down after taking a 54-50 lead, it helped Butler by defusing some SU momentum. After Butler regained the lead, SU devolved into the sloppy, rushed offense that started the game with one point in the first 6.5 minutes. In other words, like Kansas last weekend, the Orange panicked. K-State won't -- watch KSU beat Butler by 10-15.

Dang.

With Joseph, Jardine/Triche, Jackson coming back, the addition of McDonald's All-American Fab de Melo (who would be just the sixth to matriculate since probation -- Wallace, Anthony, Devendorf, Greene, Flynn), and hopefully improvement from Jones, Southerland and an outside shot for Joseph, SU will have talent in '10-'11. Here's hoping those who bleed Orange like me won't have a long wait for another good Tournament run.

But this ending will still suck . . . for quite a while.

Sweet 16 Preview -- a second chance for sageness

2010-03-24T15:18:00.002-05:00

First off: Congratulations to Jim Boeheim. For the first time, Boeheim has been named the winner of the Henry Iba Award by the United States Basketball Writers Association. It's Boeheim's first such award. The award has a distinguished list of winners (Wooden has 7) and an interesting list of non-winners (Krzyzewski, Calhoun, Donovan, Denny Crum, Pitino).

Iba was the legendary coach at Oklahoma A&M/Oklahoma State who won two national titles, coached two gold medal winners (1964, 1968 teams), mentored Bob Knight (not the temper), coached the 1972 Olympic team that was cheated out of a gold medal, and was named an assistant by Knight on the 1984 Olympic champions.

As for the rest of the Tournament, some observations.

(1) Don't bet Northern Iowa, St. Mary's, Washington or Cornell to win again. Cinderella can make it to the Sweet 16, but she rarely makes it to the Final Eight or beyond. When seeds outside the top 7 reach the Final Eight, it's usually major conference schools either on a good run, or with a diminished bracket. Only five teams seeded 9 or higher have made the Final Eight since 2000 (Temple in '01; Missouri, Kent St. in '02; George Mason in '06 and Davidson in '08). Northern Iowa has the diminished bracket (No. 5 Michigan State next), but St. Mary's, Washington and Cornell all play the teams that should be opposite them based on seeding

(2) Suddenly Syracuse is a favorite (with Kentucky) after being a half afterthought -- just ask Stewart Mandel and Luke Winn of SI. Mandel picked BYU to win the West; Winn picked K-State. Both said SU was hurting because of Onuaku's injury and its consecutive end-of-season losses. Now they're turning orange after the first weekend. Similarly, Kentucky was too young and inexperienced (what, like the '03 Syracuse team that won the Tournament?) to win just 10 days ago, now Calipari's one-and-done brigade is ready to cruise through to Indianapolis after resounding wins over a directional school and a weak Wake?

I'll admit that last weekend the Orange put together two beatdowns that showed why they received a #1 seed, but I have no real read on what that means for the Tourney as a whole. UNC turned the Tourney into an exhibition last year and blasted everyone, but UConn was just as impressive in the first two rounds before slowing down a bit in the regionals and then getting whacked by Michigan State. KU blew out its opponents in the first two rounds of 2008, but was the underdog of the Final Four after barely scraping by Davidson in the regional final. Thirteen minutes into its national semifinal, KU had a 40-12 lead on UNC, which had romped its way through the East that year too.

And I have no history with this. Until 1987, Syracuse hadn't won two games in any of its NCAA appearances under Boeheim -- he had a 7-8 NCAA record until SU's run to the final that year (Boeheim's now 44-26). Since then, SU has made 10 Sweet 16s but has not pasted consecutive opponents like it has this year -- not even in '94 or '96 when SU only had to beat a 13 and a 12 to make the second weekend because the #5 seed opposite it got bounced, and not even with the Douglas/Coleman/Thompson teams of the late 80s that could drub anyone on a given night. The national title team in '03? Won its opener by 11 and had to come back from 17 down to win in the second round. In '03, the Carmelo team won 14 games in the Big East, including the Big East tourney; it won 3 of them by 10+ points -- they didn't routinely dominate, they found ways to win.

Ultimately, the first two rounds should be a warm-up for the #1 seed because those teams are presumably just that good. That's why only about 14 #1 seeds have lost before the Sweet 16 since the tournament expanded to six rounds in 1985. (This site says #1 seeds have 18 combined losses to #8 and #9 seeds and four of those occurred before the expansion to six rounds for all teams). Contrast that with #3 seeds, who have 15 losses in the FIRST round or with #2 seeds, who have 19 losses to #10 seeds -- more losses than #1 seeds have to #8 and #9 seeds combined. Basically, a #1 seed is a pass to the Sweet 16, and then the real games begin.

No, I still cannot explain KU's failure.

(3) Speaking of real games, I'm sticking with my Final Four and admitting that I just plain honked with the KU pick. Me and 50% of the country. That is, I'm not revising other predictions: Kentucky, Dook and the SU/KSU winner.

And in a way, I should've known better than to pick KU. Very few overall #1 teams win the Tourney -- since seeding began in 1980 the top overall seeds that won are 1982 North Carolina, 1990 UNLV, 1992 Duke, 1994 Arkansas(?), 1995 UCLA, 2001 Duke. That's possibly six in 31 tournaments. And yes, sometimes the top overall seed isn't actually better than a different #1 seed that wins the whole thing (1984: Georgetown [won]/UNC [pre-Tourney #1]; 1996: Kentucky/UMass; 2000: Michigan State/Duke; 2002: Maryland/Duke; 2005: UNC/Illinois; 2007: Florida/Ohio State; 2009: UNC/Louisville), but the top seed of the Tournament always has won its conference tournament and lots of #1 seeds bonk in their conference tourneys before winning the top prize ('93 UNC, '94 Pigsooeys, '96 Kentucky, '02 Maryland, '05 UNC, '09 UNC).

(4) I'm also sticking with UConn to win the women's title. That team has allowed 75 points in two games, and scored at least 90 in each win. Yipes. It's called a no-brainer.

Quick personal bits and milestones

2010-03-23T16:57:00.004-05:00

In reverse chronological order:

(1) MonkSis had surgery today -- partial vivisection of some sort. MonkBroinlaw says all is well and she's resting in ICU before going to her hospital room. MonkNiece probably apoplectic with worry, even though MonkSis is nearly 80% as tough as Monkette (seriously, any tougher, and MonkBroinlaw would cower with fear -- that Monkette of mine is a butt-kicker). Here's hoping she recovers as comfortably, swiftly and completely as possible.

(2) Wongdoer is 40. That happened yesterday and his hair instantly turned gray and his a*s fell off. Actually, in some ways he and I are in as (relatively) good condition now as we were 5 and 10 years ago because he ran (trotted? cantered?) the NYC marathon last year and I take crossfit type classes and walk 1-1.5 miles with a midget on my head every day it's not rainy or frigid. It's our poor wives who feel beaten down and tired because each just gestated a small human until recently.

(3) PaMonk is 80. That happened a week ago. Given that he predates the wheel, discovery of fire and gunpowder (he used to have to hunt mammoths with small spears -- just imagine!), he's in pretty decent shape. He still walks just about every day, endeavors to hit some small pockmarked white ball into small holes from hundreds of yards away with ill-shaped tools designed by liquored-up Scotsmen, and remembers the name of his smartest son (that would be the one who blogs). Thankfully, the old man's only a bit daft (psst: he voted for Obama), but absent a fast mental decline that would cause him to befoul his ballot in 2012, he can attempt to rectify that screw-up.

So: Get Well Soon, MonkSis.

And a belated Happy Birthday to Wongdoer and PaMonk.

All you need to know about ObamaCare . . .

2010-03-22T17:10:00.002-05:00

. . . and its political meaning.

Fact 1 = 59%+ of the American people oppose the bill that passed the House yesterday and the Senate in December.

Fact 2 = Every Republican and 34 Democrats in Congress voted against it.

Our Congress is supposed to be a representative body where both major parties work together to craft legislation, not a Parliament where party discipline must hold over all bills and the ruling party wins every part of its legislative agenda.

Thus, the horror of the bill is best summed up by the great James Taranto of the WSJ:

Normally, politicians sell their programs to the public before enacting them into law. Representative democracy is premised on the consent of the governed, not the idea that it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

NCAA Tournament: Weekend 1 review

2010-03-22T09:44:00.002-05:00

The Monk had some big hits this weekend, so I can toot my own horn a bit.

First, I had Kansas bonking against Northern Iowa. Just look for the post, it's cached somewhere.

WHAT? I picked KU to win the whole thing? What was I (and just about every "expert") thinking? Just because KU was the best team in the country all year? And the fact that no #1 seed had failed to make the Sweet 16 since 2004? And the fact that KU's second round opponent lost to a putrid DePaul (1-17 in the Big East) team should have been no factor at all, right? Pure idiocy.

But I did get some calls correct. I had Villanova choking in the second round, wrong opponent, but right round of exit. I had Cornell beating Temple and Xavier beating Pitt. I had Butler, Baylor and Michigan State in the Sweet 16.

Then again, I had Tennessee losing in the first round, and both Marquette and Richmond in the Sweet 16 and picked only 10 of the teams that will play next weekend. But I told you Villanova would bonk. Yes, you, Jay Bilas, Dickie V and Digger.

More notes:

(1) The most impressive teams over the first weekend have been Kentucky, Syracuse, Cornell, Duke and K-State. Kentucky waxed an ACC team in round two, Duke and K-State controlled decent second-round opponents. But the surprise was Cornell routing Wisconsin by 18. SU coach Jim Boeheim said in November that Cornell was an NCAA Tourney team. That statement came after SU whipped Cornell 88-73 in a game decided on an SU run just after halftime. Boeheim looked prophetic after Kansas needed some heroics by Sherron Collins to barely beat Cornell 71-66 at Allen Field House, where KU hasn't lost to a non-conference opponent in years. Nice to see an Ivy League school making a real run in the Tourney (first Sweet 16 for an Ivy since 1979 -- the Penn Final Four team that lost to Magic Johnson's Michigan State).

I still say Kentucky should be a Final Four team. I don't see WVU beating the Wildcats, and no matter how many people go to Syracuse (East Regional site) from Ithaca (45 minutes away), Cornell shouldn't be able to pull off a third shocker.

I told PaMonk on Saturday that Syracuse couldn't complain about being seeded "behind" Duke if it lost to Gonzaga because the Dookies whupped the Zags by 35. Sure enough, thanks to foul trouble and non-existent post play, Syracuse played four on five on the offensive end for most of its 41-13 run that spanned halftime (15-4 to close out the first half, 26-9 to start the second). The Orange crushed the Zags by 22, scored the second-most points Gonzaga allowed all year, and basically took its collective foot off the gas with 11 minutes left and a 76-44 lead (SU began running down the clock instead of playing aggressive offense). This is the Syracuse team that rolled Cal, UNC and Florida when they were top 12 teams early in the year, and which stomped Georgetown by 17 after spotting the Hoyas a 14-point lead. Not even the Sherman Douglas SU teams, which could blow an opponent to shreds in a matter of minutes, ever rolled in its first two Tourney games like this year's team did. Wes Johnson's hand, which bothered him all February after he hurt it against Providence, is fine now and that means SU has its best player at nearly 100%.

(2) For all the talk of the suck job by the Big (L)east in the Tourney, there's been little discussion of the Big 12's bonkathon. Primarily this is because Villanova and Georgetown were top 10-15 teams all season and were swatted away by double-digit seeds in the Tourney, and they deserve the criticism -- Georgetown crushed Duke and 'Nova, beat SU, Butler, Washington, Pitt and Temple and was blown out by a 14-loss 14-seed; 'Nova's best player, Scottie Reynolds, did his Shammond Williams impression in the Tourney (Williams had consecutive AWFUL games in the '97 and '98 Final Four for top-ranked UNC). But the Big 12 lost its standard-bearer (KU), saw A&M fall to undermanned Purdue, and had both Texas and Ok. State fail to less talented teams in round one.

(3) The top conference in the Tourney right now is the Big T(elev)en. As The Monk noted, Big T(elev)en teams with talent can more easily beat equally matched ACC or Big East teams because they can actually run with those teams while their foes cannot play the brutal rugbyesque Big Ten style game that Ohio State or Michigan State plays from January to mid- March. The Big Ten has three Sweet 16 teams, the ACC has one, the Big 12 has two, the Big East has two and the sorry SEC has two. Then again, if the seeds hold on Thursday and Friday, the Big East, Big Ten and Big 12 will have two Final Eight teams each.

(4) Ohio State should be a Final Four team. It faces giant-killer/giant-choker Tennessee before playing either Northern Iowa or an enfeebled Michigan State (no Kalin Lucas). That's the impact of the KU loss -- virtually guaranteeing a Final Four spot to the Big Ten.

For Syracuse and K-State, the KU loss is a large opportunity. KU was the 800-pound gorilla of college basketball all year, had the talent and balance to riddle the SU zone, and whacked KState three times. Before they can play each other, KSU gets no picnic Thursday by playing Xavier and SU has to scratch past always-tough Butler. For SU, if it gets to the Final Four, it would likely have to beat a Big Ten team in the national semifinals. SU is 0-6 against Big Ten teams in the Tournament -- all those games were with Boeheim as coach.

NCAA Tourney day one: the Big Least

2010-03-19T10:58:00.002-05:00

Boy does that Big East stink. Or at least the four reps who played yesterday sure do, right?

Mostly.

Georgetown's loss to Ohio was simply horrible. Not only did the #14 seed beat the #3 seed, the #14 DOMINATED the #3 seed. A 97-83 win is pretty outrageous. On the rare occasions a #3 goes down in the first round, like 2006 (Iowa) and 2005 (Kansas), it should be a low-scoring close game, not a shootout rout. There is something seriously wrong in Georgetown's locker room. Wright, Monroe, Freeman and Clark are top-end talent. Add DaJuan Summers from the 08-09 team that flopped to a 16-15 record from a preseason top 10 spot, and there are unanswered questions about coaches and players on that team.

Marquette's loss is defensible: a 6 seed loss to an 11 seed isn't horrible like, say, a 3/14 loss, and Washington has been a season-long underachiever before hitting a good run in the last month. The Huskies are a major conference team (sort of, considering the 2009-10 Pac-10), beat Cal (preseason top 15 team) twice and had that conference's best interconference win (over Texas A&M). Marquette has been a team greater than the sum of its parts all year and that's a credit to coach Buzz Williams. A two-point loss is no real shame.

Notre Dame's loss is far worse even though it's another 6/11 matchup. Old Dominion is not a major conference team and ND played worse than Marquette did. Notre Dame earned its NCAA bid with big wins in February and March (Pitt twice, at Marquette, at Georgetown) and didn't show that form yesterday.

The worst performance by a Big East team yesterday should have been Villanova -- needing OVERTIME and (according to Yahoo! Sports blogger The Dagger) bad officiating against its opponent to beat the #15 seed Robert Morris. In its first game this year, Robert Morris played Syracuse -- SU won 100-60. Think that's opening game jitters? In the middle of conference season, Robert Morris lost by 24 to Pitt. But Villanova escaped infamy.

Overall, a fine first day if you like exciting tourney games. Vandy choked on its high seed again by losing to Murray State on a fine buzzer beater, Texas completed its season-long collapse by honking an 8-point lead in OT, Florida showed some character after receiving a questionable bid by playing in a 2OT loss to BYU, and the Kansans did what they're supposed to do to low seeded teams.

But that reek you smell? That's the Big East right now.

Upon Further Review: NCAA Tourney preview part 2

2010-03-17T13:54:00.003-05:00

I don't agree with everything they set out, but I tend to agree with the brackets by SI's Seth Davis and Tim Layden. George Dohrmann and Andy Staples need new meds.

That said, let's look at some trends and some actual analysis. First, here's some analysis I wrote last year, which is still good (and updated based on the '09 Tourney):

So here are some keys to consider.

(1) More than one team from the same conference will make the Final Four. This is a 72% bet -- 18 times since the field expanded to 64 teams (25 years), there have been two (or more) teams from the same conference in the Final Four. Only five times in those 18 years have two teams from the same conference played in the national semifinals: 1985, 1987, 1989, 2000, 2001. On four of those occasions, the better seeded team won. Double entries for a conference in the Final Four occurred every year from 1999-2006 and happened again last year, as the two Big East teams were churned into mud by the two finalists. In the 13 years that the two teams from the same conference made the Final Four and didn't play in the national semis, only ONCE has there been an intra-conference national title game -- 1988, when Danny and the Miracles upset Oklahoma. By contrast, on five occasions, the national champion had to beat the double entries: 1990, UNLV beat Ga. Tech and Duke; 1992, Duke beat IU and Michigan; 2003, Syracuse beat Texas and Kansas; 2004, UConn beat Duke and Ga. Tech; 2005, UNC beat Mich. State and Illinois.

So who will have two Final Four teams this year? Either the Big East or the Big 12. It all depends on the Kentucky/Wisco game in the Sweet 16 and the potential KState/Syracuse game in the Elite Eight. You heard it here first.

(2) Don't be stupid. Only three teams seeded lower than a 2 have won the Tournament since 1990 - Arizona ('97), Syracuse ('03) and Florida ('06). And I had SU winning its regional that year (in my head, not on paper because I never do that). So go with the major trends -- top schools win NCAA titles. The selection committee may screw up seedings in the middle, but rarely does so at the top (*cough*1996 Purdue*cough*).

(3) Don't ignore efficiency statistics -- teams in the top 25 in offensive and defensive efficiency (basically, points per possession) win the tournament. See previous post from Monday. The Monk will also follow the ASM stats ESPN uses -- adjusted scoring margin, which measures a team's performance relative to the average performance of its opponents. Thus, Syracuse's offensive quotient of 13.2 means it averages scoring 13.2 more ppg than its opponents allow, and its defensive quotient of 4.9 means it limits its opponents to nearly 5 points below their average.

Now some additional notes:

(a) Since it won its national title in 2001, Duke has NOT defeated a team seeded higher than #5 in the NCAAs. In the eight Tournaments from 2002-2009, Duke has been a 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 6, 2, and 2 seed. In the last eight Tournaments, Duke's elimination has come against a lower seeded team SEVEN times (exception: '03, when second-seed KU beat 3-seed Duke). A couple of the losses have been pure choke jobs where Duke should have won ('02 loss to Indiana, '04 loss to UConn), but most just occurred because Duke got beat by a team that could run, jump and defend better than it even though the opponent had a lower seed ('05 Mich. State, '06 LSU, '08 WVa, '09 'Nova).

Its preferred lineup has consistently been one power forward who can play facing the basket, not just a post player, surrounded by three wing players, and a point guard. Often, the power forward wasn't that powerful (Ferry, McRoberts, Randolph, Newton, Singler). The combination of speed, skill, Coach K's coaching and the fear factor of other ACC teams has allowed Duke to continue its conference success even as it falters in the NCAA.

Here are the reasons to pick Duke to go to the Final Four. First, Duke doesn't lose Final Eight games (Coach K's record = 10-1), if the Dookies get beat, it happens in the Sweet 16. That means it needs a challenge from the #4 and #5 seeds. The #4 is Purdue -- the WORST of the #4 seeds and a team too much like Duke to beat Duke. The #5 is Texas A&M and it can beat the Blue Devils (but likely won't) but is an even money bet to lose to any team in its quarter of the bracket -- Utah St., Siena, or Purdue.

Second, Duke has used an actual post player of some moderate ability this year -- Brian Zoubek. He has provided Duke with the rebounding and low post presence most Duke teams have lacked in recent years.

Third, Duke is highly competent on defense -- these Dookies can actually rebound, a skill set that has been lacking in Durham for about five years.

That said, Duke is still highly beatable -- it has only THREE players who score more than merely six points per game -- but with the best coach in the country, a gaggle of Parade All-Americans in its uniform and an easy draw, I wouldn't bet against the Dookies.

(b) 2009 was the third straight year that all four #1 seeds survived to the Final Eight. That also happened in 2003 and 2001. But don't bet the straight #1 seed line for the Final Four in the future. In 2001, '03, '07 and '09, only 7 of the 16 #1-seeds won their regional final and those #1 seeds are just 5-9 against teams seeded #3 or #2. Add in2008's all #1 Final Four, and the #1 seeds are 11-9 in those seasons, but 8-9 against teams seeded #3 or #2 (in '01, Mich. State beat a #11; in '03, Texas beat a #7; in '08 KU beat a #10).

The question for this season is whether the four #1 seeds are clearly better than the field, as was the case in 2008, or if there are legitimate challengers. The Monk thinks that the answer is yes -- both Kansas and Duke are clearly better than the field, SU and UK have legitimate challengers. The KState-BYU matchup in round two will likely determine half the West regional final; UK will have to beat Wisconsin (#3 in Kenpom rating) and WVU to win its region. That said, over the course of the season in college basketball, it seems clear that the four best teams were KU, UK, SU and Dook.

I think that the 8/9 winners to face Duke and Syracuse could be tougher matchups than the potential 4/5 seeds they would face in the Sweet 16.

(c) First major bonk: Villanova. In 2007, Georgetown (a #2 seed) won the Big East tourney, shocked UNC in the Final Eight and made the Final Four, losing to runner-up Ohio State. In 2008, it made the Big East tourney final, obtained a #2 seed, and honked in round two. That Georgetown team was missing something from the previous year's team. In 2009, Villanova rolled to the Final Four after whomping Duke and winning a stunner over Pitt and lost to UNC in the Final Four. This year, VU is an overseeded #2, has defensive problems, and is missing some toughness that the '09 team had. Villanova is in a weak region, but is a really weak team.

(d) Here's the Sweet 16:

Midwest = Kansas, Michigan State, Ohio State, Georgetown; with KU to beat OSU.

West = Syracuse, Butler, KState, Xavier; with the KSU/SU winner to lose to Kansas in the Final Four. Stat of the day: SU is 3-1 in regional finals under Boeheim, but 4-8 in the Sweet 16. This is the first time since the expansion to 64+ teams that SU has been a #1 seed. Also remember that NO team that lost in its conference tournament quarterfinals has ever won the NCAA.

East = Kentucky, Wisconsin, West Va., Marquette. One of two outcomes here -- Kentucky beats WVU in the regional final or WVU beats Wisco. I trend to the first. And I don't think that WVU can beat Kentucky -- lack of good point guard play, lack of shooting prowess, the UK advantage in the Huggy-Calipari matchup (Calipari can coach offense far better than Huggins). As good as WVU is, I think it is ripe for an upset, but the Selection Committee gave it a favorable half of the bracket (New Mexico as the #3).

South = Duke, TAMU, Baylor, Richmond. Whoever wins the 7/10 game will clip Villanova, I just feel it. And the A-10 likes nothing better than beating Big East teams in the Tourney, so Richmond will be well-motivated. Duke should be able to handle the two Texans even in Houston to advance. It won't handle Kentucky. That's where talent wins out.

My Final Game - Kansas over Kentucky.

Hmmm, seems like I think the 4 and 5 seeds should have been switched in nearly every region.

You heard it here first, The Monk's annual NCAA predictions

2010-03-15T15:04:00.002-05:00

This is the easiest NCAA Tournament to pick that I've ever seen. One team will win all six of its games by at least 15 points, probably 25+. That team: Connecticut. Go out and bet it in all your brackets.

Except for the one problem you have: no one runs a women's hoops bracket. So yes, there will be a repeat champion in 2010 from 2009 -- as Geno Auriemma's women storm to another victory, undefeated season, and his seventh championship. And to think, he once was an assistant to Virginia's Deb Ryan . . .

Anyway, let me burnish my credentials once again. Last year wasn't my best, but I picked UNC to win the whole thing, told Seth Davis he was a fool for putting Wake in the Final Four (lost to a #13 seed by 15 in the first round), and pumped the Kenpom.com analysis for determining Final Four teams. I also hit 5 of the eight Elite Eight teams. In '08, I picked 3 of the Final Four; in '07, I picked the whole Final Four; and in '04 and '05 I picked three of the Final Four. We don't discuss 2006.

These are the top Final Four contenders: Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas State, Ohio State, BYU, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Duke. Based on the Ken Pomeroy analysis, Duke is the best of the bunch because it is the most efficient offensive team in the country and #4 in defensive efficiency. Kansas is #2 and #5. In 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009, all four Final Four teams were ranked in the top 25 in both offensive and defensive efficiency -- points per possession for versus points per possession against. Of those 20 teams, only last year's Villanova team didn't rank in the top 10 in one of those two categories. I'm discarding 2006 because it's a freak year, but national champ Florida had the same rankings as this year's Kansas team. By Pomeroy's rankings, the best bets to make the Final Four are Duke and Kansas, and the best choices in their respective regions are Wisconsin (East) and Syracuse (West) because Wisco has a defensive efficiency in the top 10, and its rankings (Offense #13, Defense #7) are higher than Kentucky's (18, 10) and Syracuse has a top 10 offense to complement its #20 defense.

Before picking a Final Four, we need to shape the brackets. I don't have a Final Four yet (I will later this week). This year, even though there are really only about five or six teams that can win the whole thing, there are a lot who can win 1-3 games and a number of potential rematches from last year that may have opposite results. Some scouting.

South

This is easy. It should be the Duke Invitational. If Coach K cannot get his team to the Final Four from this sorry bracket, the team is either completely talent deficient or stunningly inept. The #4 seed (Purdue) lost its best player and was THUMPED 69-42 by 13-loss Minnesota and scored 11 points in the first half of that debacle. Ultimately, basketball is about who can score more points, not who defends better, because it is impossible to have a shutout in a game between two college teams. Purdue can't score, Purdue can't win.

In the other half of the bracket, the #3 team (Baylor) is an overachiever. The #2 seed (Villanova) is overseeded, slumping, and defensively challenged (#62 in Kenpom ratings). The best chances for NOTduke to win are Louisville in a second-round upset after it dispatches Cal, or Texas A&M to win in the Sweet 16 before a near-home crowd in Houston. If Villanova and Duke rematch their Sweet 16 clash from 2009, I'd be shocked if the '10 Dookies take a 23-point beating from the Wildcats again.

Possible upsets: Richmond over Villanova, Siena over Purdue, Utah State winning the Aggie Bowl against Texas A&M because those 5-12 matchups are tossups (last year the #12 seeds won three of the four). Siena is a trendy pick because the Saints only lost to overall #1 seed Louisville by 7 in the second round last year, but beware lower seed trend picks. Siena was a #9 in '09; it's a #13 this year.

East

Kentucky has a tough #2 seed in its region and a tough #4. West Virginia is the Big East Tournament champ and beat every good team in the Big East except Syracuse. Wisconsin is the ACC champ . . . or could be -- it beat both ACC regular season co-champions, Duke and Maryland. Then again, Wisconsin lost to 14-loss Illinois twice. Big T(elev)en teams with good athletes often play above their seedings in the NCAA Tournament because their opponents are unaccustomed to the brutal physical play that Big T(elev)en teams use, but the midwestern barbarians can match up with their opponents' athleticism. This is The Monk's theory for how Wisconsin ('00), Indiana ('02), and Michigan State ('05, '09) won surprise Final Four spots in the past decade. But I'm not sure Wisco can run with the 5-star talent Calipari has at Kentucky.

The Monk thinks Kentucky's path to the Sweet 16 is the easiest of the #1 seeds because #8 Texas and #9 Wake both have talent without discipline or chemistry. A second round beating should be in order. The question is whether the Temple/Wisco winner can hold UK down.

The bottom of the bracket should be the West Virginia invitational. Clemson and Missouri could give WVU trouble because they play tough defense, but neither is particularly good on offense.

As for the early round games, don't be surprised if Washington drops Marquette. That should be the biggest possible upset.

Midwest

This is supposedly the most difficult region because it has the second-best #2 seed (Big Ten champ Ohio State), an immensely talented #3 seed (Georgetown, which resided in the top 10 for much of the season), and both the ACC and Big T(elev)en regular season co-champs, Maryland and Michigan State. Supposedly, this is unfair to overall #1 seed KU. But KU only has to go through two of those teams to win the region, and shouldn't have trouble during the first weekend. Maryland is a team that has been carried primarily by Greivis Vazquez all year, and should not beat Michigan State. The Spartans are the quintessential Big T(elev)en chameleon -- they can pound a team into submission or run it off the court, just as they did last year against Louisville and UConn in consecutive games in the 2009 Tourney. But without Kalin Lucas at 100%, Sparty is very ordinary. Neither team has enough players to challenge KU. A Sweet 16 rematch of MSU-KU would reverse last season's MSU victory.

The bottom of that bracket will be decided by which Georgetown team shows up -- the one that shot 69% against Syracuse in the second half last Thursday and roasted Marquette by 23 and dumped Duke by 14 and hung 103 on Villanova, or the one that went to the Carrier Dome and got whacked by 17 after taking a 14-point lead, lost to So. Florida at home, and Rutgers. The Hoyas have a loaded lineup that could win the region, or at least get the honor of losing to Kansas in the Elite Eight. Meanwhile, Thad Motta's Ohio State team is another fake Big T(elev)en team -- too much athletic ability for that conference, much less Ivan Drago style. Ohio State can win this region -- it has the best player (Evan Turner) and that counts for a lot.

I think the first round games should essentially follow form based on seeding, with a possible bonk by Tennessee as the lone upset.

West

Dick Vitale said that even though Syracuse is getting shipped West and was seeded behind Duke for the Tournament (why? was it Duke's impressive 14-point beating from Georgetown, its narrow ACC Tourney wins over three teams that couldn't crack the top half of the Big East, or its shellacking of lost and addled North Carolina? The Monk does not recall a Duke win as good as SU's in Morgantown and DC), Coach Boeheim should not be displeased with the draw. Yes and no.

SU got the toughest #16 seed. Yeah, I know. But all three other possible #16 seeds and most of the #15 seeds are ranked lower than Vermont and don't have the very decent talent Vermont has. And SU also drew the toughest 8/9 matchup winner -- underseeded Gonzaga or Florida State (the best defensive team in the country). But if SU thinks it is better than Duke, it needs to beat both the #16 seed and either a Gonzaga team that Duke whomped by 35! or the offensively inept Seminoles (#119) who share the inept offense/stout defense profilesimilar to SU's first-round opponent in 2009, Stephen F. Austin.

The big question is whether Arinze Onuaku will be available to SU -- if his injury is like Ty Lawson's toe or Blake Griffin's concussion in 2009 or Austin Freeman's (treated) diabetes this year (e.g., all nonfactors), then SU is the best team in the region and can go to the Final Four despite bonking in the Big East quarterfinals. If AO is unable to play on Sunday (assuming SU doesn't become the first-ever #1 seed to bonk to a #16), SU could be the first #1 seed to lose in the second round since Kentucky and Stanford did in 2004. The best sign for the Orange: Big East Player of the Year Wes Johnson went 10-17 in the loss to Georgetown last week -- his first game with better than 50% shooting since he injured his hand on February 2.

The Sweet 16 opponent for Syracuse, if it survives the weekend, is difficult to predict. Any of Butler, UTEP, Vandy, Murray St. can win two games. None of them should be able to beat Syracuse if it gets that far (although Vandy's shooting could turn that game in its favor).

The K-State side of the bracket has a pile of unknowns: can Pitt regain its early January form? can Xavier continue its 2010 success (16-4) or will it revert to its early season struggles? Is BYU really the most egregiously underseeded team in the Tourney? BYU or KState should be the Final Eight representative from that side of the bracket. And again, a 2009 rematch should have a reverse result -- if Xavier plays Pitt, the Muskies should avenge their Sweet 16 defeat last year.

Belated Happy Birthday MaMonk

2010-03-04T10:04:00.002-06:00

I'm a day late for a birthday I cannot forget, the one I share with my momma. (She can blame her husband, who infected half of the Metroplex with whatever he caught from that cheap Chinese buffet he ate at last week near my house and transmitted to my whole family for the lateness of the post.)

I was her 35th birthday present and, yes, it's far too late for mom to be vain about her age. All things considered, she's doing da*n well for being, chronologically, as good as diamonds.

She can still travel with PaMonk to the far-flung corners of the Earth; she can play with her grandchildREN that her son and daughter-in-law have made; she can live happily on NY's generous union pension in an apartment that will hopefully go condo soon; she's 11.5 years (knock knock) cancer-free; and she can do most of the things she likes to do. That's dang good at 75.

Happy Birthday MaMonk, I love you and hope you got over whatever the Old Man infected us with.

Happy Birthday Monk

2010-03-03T23:20:00.002-06:00

Wishing my dear cantankerous friend a happy day on yet another anniversary of his debut and the score and eighth anniversary of our acquaintance.

Last year I wished you:

"Health, wealth, more time to write, a George RR Martin offering, and a Yankee championship for you this year."

You have maintained your health, become more wealthy with the addition Monkling 2.0 and our Yankees won that elusive championship. Three out of five makes a very good OBP.

This year I wish you and yours:
- good health
- wealth you can keep on the clutches of B.H. Obama
- more time to spend with your children
- a George RR Martin offering (can't get a yes unless you ask)
- 28!

Mazel Tov

2010-02-19T01:15:00.002-06:00

Congratulations to Monk and Monkette on the happy and healthy debut of their second child.

"A son is a son until he takes a wife but a daughter is a daughter for life."

- attributed to the Irish

From the father of three little girls, I can attest that there is something wonderful in the relationship between fathers and daughters. May you experience that in the fullest measure in the years to come.

And the one piece of advice about daughters that I will pass from a man far wiser than myself, if there is only one thing that you do for your little girl - don't let her marry a loser. Everything else is probably details.

Another good Super Bowl

2010-02-08T13:52:00.002-06:00

That's three good ones in a row: all-time best, top 5 and a top 12, respectively, Peter King's foolishness notwithstanding (he's one of the national football columnists who thinks SB 43 was better than SB 42 -- considering impact, quality of play and historical stakes, that's just dead wrong and his own employer doesn't buy it either). And it's the first Super Bowl I ever watched on partial replay -- because toddlers want dada to go carry them around the neighborhood for an evening walk, not watch a bunch of old buggers at halftime (and to be honest, from what I saw, I liked Roger Daltrey better in his excellent guest stint on CSI two or three years ago).

The Aints over the Colts isn't that much of an upset, but it shows just how important good coaching and momentum are in a one-game winner-take-all championship format. Here's the good and the bad from yesterday's game.

The Good:

Drew Brees was outstanding and deserved the MVP. And the Colts' RB Joseph Addai ran better than he had all season. But the two best plays of the game were pure coaching:

(1) The Saints knowing they could surprise the Colts with an onside kick because the right side of the frontline for the Colts' kick return team would retreat early to set up blocking on kickoffs. So the Saints topped an onside kick to their left to start the second half.

(2) Tracy Porter's game-sealing interception came from film study. He knew what routes the Colts liked to run on a big middle blitz with two receivers to Peyton's left on third down -- Manning would look to a slot receiver running a "stick route" -- squaring in at first-down yardage first. Porter saw Wayne as the slot receiver, stuck with Wayne, cut in front as the ball arrived and celebrated for the last 30 yards of his 74-yard TD return.

More good:

(3) Garrett Hartley, Saints -- first kicker in SB history to bang home three FGs over 40 yards.

(4) Sean Payton's aggressiveness -- the Saints pounded at the Colts for the whole second quarter and even bonking the 4th-and-goal at the one meant no harm because the Colts frittered away their next possession. Payton's game calling led the Saints to score 10 consecutive points on offense before Indy touched the ball -- half-ending FG drive and the TD drive after the on-side kick to open the second half. If Indy gets the second-half kick and scores a TD, the Saints would have been down 17-6.

(5) Saints timeliness -- how else can a team that's been outgained by more than 250 yards in its past two playoff games win both? Timely turnovers. The Saints are one of the WORST defensive teams to win a Super Bowl and they did it not just because of their offense, but because their high-risk high-reward defense paid out on its gambles. In a one-game series, a team just needs to make enough stops to win (ask the '06 Colts, the first SB champ that ranked DEAD LAST in rushing defense).

The Bad:

This shows serious failures by the Colts.

(1) The Drop. Here in the Dallas area, the fans of the local occasionally professional football team remember The Drop -- the third down pass that was in Patrick Crayton's hands, with nary a safety in sight in the divisional playoff game between the Giants and Cowpatties in 2007. Crayton dropped the ball and a 50+ yard gain (with his team up 17-14 and the Giants struggling on offense), the Cowdungs punted, R.W. McQuarters returned the punt to the Dallas 38 and the Giants scored a TD to turn the game around.

Yesterday, third and short, easy throw to Pierre Garcon by Manning -- right in Garcon's hands and 5 yards beyond the first-down marker with some additional room to roam. Garcon dropped the ball, the Saints then dinked, dunked and pounded for their longest drive of the game, which ended with a fourth-down failure inside the Indy 2. That mattered little because . . .

(2) The Dive. On 3rd-and-1 of their ensuing possession, the Colts ran twice for 9 yards and then tried an inside handoff against a stacked Saints line. No gain. Colts punt, Brees goes to work, Hartley bangs home a figgie and instead of Manning working his usual magic to close out a half with more points, the Saints are thisclose to the Colts at halftime.

(3) The Long Field Goal. On 4th-and-11 at the Nawlins 33, with a 17-16 lead in the fourth quarter, Jim Caldwell chose to have 42-year old kicker Matt Stovall try to nail a 50+ yard field goal. Outdoors. On grass. Here are the facts at that point: Stovall was 1/4 over 40 yards all year before his field goal on Indy's first drive; a miss meant Brees would start on the Nawlins 41 and the Colts had not stopped the Saints from getting into scoring range since the first quarter -- in their five drives since the second quarter started, the Saints had 3 FG, a TD and had pushed the ball to the Colts' 1 before getting thwarted on fourth down. Stovall missed, the Saints tossed their way to another touchdown and the Colts were nearly done.

(4) The same old thing. The Colts did almost nothing unexpected the whole game. They played slightly more man-to-man defense in the first quarter, but retreated into their cover 2 zones thereafter. They stuck with their tendencies on defense and offense to such a degree that the Saints were reading the Colts' playbook. In a Super Bowl, the teams need to prepare something extra -- a new play design, different blitzes (the Colts don't blitz much), different coverages, trending away from certain offensive tendencies. The Colts did none of this. The Saints mixed their coverage packages, changed their blitzes, pulled a nice trick play and ultimately outscored the Colts 31-7 after spotting the AFC champs a 10-0 lead.

(5) The flop factor. The largest deficit that a Super Bowl champion has overcome to win the Super Bowl is 10 points -- Washington in XXII and New Orleans last night. Both were first quarter deficits. Only Arizona has overcome a larger deficit to take a lead (from 20-7 down to 23-20 up); and only the Rams (17-3) and Titans (16-0) have even tied a game from two-plus touchdown deficits. This is a trait shared with the NCAA men's hoops final -- in a winner-take-all game, a large deficit is difficult to overcome (largest halftime deficit for an NCAA champ -- 10 points) because of momentum for the leader and emotional strain on the trailing team. Payton's on-side kick success and New Orleans' offensive success put the Colts into a position of a trailing team even though they actually led for much of the second half. The Colts became sloppy and disjointed on key plays, made a coaching and player mistake on consecutive drives, and lost.

So congrats to the Saints who are Aints no more. I'm just wondering what the Miami Dolphins fans are thinking now, four seasons after Nick Saban and the Dolphins rejected the chance to sign Drew Brees as a free agent and one day after he became an NFL champion in the 'Fins home stadium.

Elections have consequences

2010-01-21T10:36:00.002-06:00

See if you can find the inherent self-contradiction in this statement regarding the first election of a Republican Senator from Massachusetts in 38 years from today's NY Times lead editorial.

To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year.

Right. This is a classic case of delusional thinking and of a piece with the reaction of Gail Collins (the editor of the NYT editorial page) to Scott Brown's victory and America in general: ram through the most unpopular and corrupt piece of legislation that the Senate has created since the creation of C-SPAN (at least). After all, this is the same Gail Collins who last week complained that elected representatives for 10% of the country (Senators representing the least populous states) could block health care reform for the other 90% and who wondered why the other 90% weren't marching on Washington to rectify that abomination. Throw the facts in a river (the #2 most populous state has 2 Republican Senators, the health care bill opposition is well over 50%) and the policy implications (why should any Southern state have this bill imposed on it when none has two Democrat Senators?), the statement just indicates the idiocy of a Leftist.

Elections have consequences. It took a questionable recount in Minnesota and an unethical prosecution in Alaska to divest two Republican Senators of their positions, but the Democrats obtained a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Then the Democrats sought to impose laws upon the public, not govern with the consent of the governed. Americans finally figured that out last year when the far left-wing of the Democrat party took control over the health care bill and the climate change bill and the president did nothing but urge passage of both. With the opportunity to correct that mistake, the people of a state that Obama won by 26 percentage points halted some excesses of the ruling party. And that should be celebrated, not derided nor decried.

And baby makes six . . .

2010-01-21T09:40:00.002-06:00

Congratulations to Wongdoer and Wongdoerette on baby #4.

That's right, the Wongdoer family is single-handedly flipping the bird at the ChiComs' one-child policy.

On Sunday, Wongling 4.0 made her debut. As The Talmud says, "A daughter is a blessing upon your house." Wongdoer now has three such little blessings upon his Christian house. The first is a princess, the second is a vivacious little bouncy pile of energy, and the third is wondering who all these dang people are who look like mommy and daddy but don't change diapers. The baby looks great -- alert, better hair than Wongdoer, no mushy newborn head.

Unfortunately for Wongdoer Jr, he has ANOTHER sister. He's a real nice kid; but his pop and I will need to take him to monster truck rallies and UFC matches or something to dilute the effects of all that pink in the house. Massive steak dinners are probably on the call sheet too.

Unfortunately for Wongdoer Sr, his daughters will be fully Americanized and require that daddy pay for the weddings (in Chinese culture, the man's family pays). Ironically, the good money says Wongling 4.0 will be left-handed like her two sisters, her mother and her three maternal aunts; her brother is a righty. So much for the easy make-the-boy-a-pitcher retirement plan.

So congratulations to Wongdoer and Wongdoerette (who did the real work over the past 38+ weeks and looked like she normally does, not like she just delivered a halfling). Welcome to the world baby girl.

Very Bad News

2009-12-20T02:41:00.003-06:00

Not unexpectedly, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Ne.), the 60th and last vote needed by the Democratic Senate leadership to move ahead with its version of the Universal Health Care bill, was literally bought off by language that ensured any additional Medicaid costs for the state of Nebraska ONLY would be paid federally and special treatment for physician owned hospitals in Nebraska ONLY. For that Senator Nelson gave up the moral concerns he had regarding abortion.

The fight isn't over but it is going into the later rounds now and Democrats are up on all the judges' cards. The Senate actually has to vote and if they get cloture early in January a conference committee with have to hammer out a compromise bill that will need to pass both houses again, functionally, cloture again in the Senate and then it's done.

Mark Steyn makes the key point -- it is a surpassing strategic triumph for the Democrats if they can pass ANY sweeping bill even if its watered down. This legislation will force the Republic down a road from which it will not be able to come back:

As I wrote back in the summer, "Put not your trust in Blue Dog Democrats." It was folly to bet the Republic on the likes of Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and other "moderates" who are, by definition, trimmers and accommodationists.

By contrast, Barney Frank and the more ambitious Dems are thinking long-term. And, if it's a choice between getting government health care or keeping Ben Nelson, it's no contest. Not to keep quoting myself ad nauseam, but as I said to Hugh Hewitt a couple of months back:

I think the administration is willing to take the hit. In other words, to get health care, they would be willing to reduce their majority, and perhaps even lose their majority in the House and the Senate, because they know it’s a game changer. [emphasis mine] Now to sell that to individual Senators and Congressmen, you’ve got to have something up your sleeve for them... There are strange elements in play here. But they’ve factored into the whole business a potential, I think, a potential significant loss in the year 2010, in next year’s elections.

I've been saying for a year now, in NR and NRO, that the object for savvy Dems is to get this thing passed in whatever form because, once you do, there's no going back. Kim Strassel in yesterday's Journal gets it:

So why the stubborn insistence on passing health reform? Think big. The liberal wing of the party—the Barney Franks, the David Obeys—are focused beyond November 2010, to the long-term political prize. They want a health-care program that inevitably leads to a value-added tax and a permanent welfare state. Big government then becomes fact, and another Ronald Reagan becomes impossible. See Continental Europe. [emphasis mine]

Just so. And that's worth whatever hit they have to take in 2010. Every time I make the point, someone says, oh, Jim Webb this or Byron Dorgan that, or have you see Harry Reid's numbers in Nevada? Oh, please. We've just seen what happens when you make Ben Nelson your Maginot Line. The Dems are thinking strategically; the Republicans are all tactics.

Obama, Churchill, Tigger and Eeyore

2009-12-03T10:03:00.003-06:00

The reviews of Obama's West Point speech announcing the surge-and-draw down strategy for Afghanistan are basically consistent -- he's on Jimmy Carter's level of inspiring the troops and the American people.

The Monk agrees with the surge strategy and likes the accelerated timetable Obama called for (but dislikes the predetermined withdrawal date). The Monk also agrees with every commentator who criticized Obama for dithering for months about implementing it. The speech, before the Army Corps of Cadets, was far from the "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" Churchill promised as he also vowed that

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . .

As former WSJ writer Tunku Varadarajan noted (link in title), Obama's speech was more than a cut or two below Churchill's in stridency and determination. Instead, it reminded him of the dismal donkey from A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh:

What has struck me most about Obama's Afghan enterprise--and his speech did not cause me to alter my view--is how obvious it is that he doesn't really want to do it. He wants to do health care. Obama has tried every delaying trick in the book--waiting for three months after Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops, having meeting after meeting after meeting, sending Gen. Jones to tell McChrystal not to ask for more troops, having his economic team say it will cost too much, framing the venture in terms of "exit strategies" rather than victory, etc. His ambivalence was on naked display [last night]. Can you imagine Churchill delivering a speech like this, one so full of a sense of the limitation of national possibilities? No wonder Hillary [Clinton]--when the camera panned to her--looked like she needed a drink. No wonder the cadets all looked so depressed. Would you want Eeyore for commander in chief?

HT: Opinion Journal.

Looking back

2009-11-09T10:42:00.002-06:00

A short note here on Buster Olney's key matchups from the World Series and how they worked out. These are the factors Olney identified as most important in the Series (and which The Monk discussed on 10-28).

(1) The Yankees' hitters against Cliff Lee's frantic pace. Lee wins. The Yanks solved this in the 7th inning of Game 5, but Lee had a 6-1 lead then. He was the only Phils pitcher the Yanks struggled against.

(2) The Phillies' hitters versus Mariano Rivera's cutter. Rivera wins. No answer for the Phils -- Mo pitched 5.1 scoreless innings against them, with two saves, in the Series.

(3) The Phillies' pitchers versus the patience of the Yankees' hitters. The Phils actually walked more than the Yanks (26-18) and had a higher OPS, but the Yanks made their hits count -- after the split in games 1 and 2, the Yanks hit .352 with RISP (12-34) and the Phils hit .207 (6-29), and the most patient at bat of the Series -- Damon v. Lidge -- went for the Yanks.

(4) Jayson Werth and Jorge Posada versus opportunity. Push. Neither set the world aflame: Werth banged two homers in Game 3 but finished with just two homers and 3 RBI. Posada had 5 RBI. Both were 5-19.

(5)The Yankees' power pitchers against the Phillies Who Mash Fastballs. Rollins, Victorino and Werth were kept in check; Howard received a steady diet of breaking balls and set a record for whiffs in the World Series (13 in 25 AB). Utley crushed the ball. The Yanks' power pitchers (Sabathia and Burnett) were 1-2. Pettitte was 2-0.

(6) Derek Jeter versus Jimmy Rollins. Not close -- Jeter in a landslide (.407 AVG/.519 SLG/.947 OPS, 5 runs to .217/.217/.562, 3 runs). Better to walk it than talk it.

(7) Cole Hamels versus his recent past. The recent past won -- Hamels melted down in the fifth inning of game 3, the Yanks took the lead and never looked back.

(8) Damaso Marte versus the Phillies' left-handed hitters (that's you,Chase Utley and Ryan Howard). Marte wins -- he faced eight batters and retired them all, with five strikeouts. Whatever adjustment he made with Billy Connors in September on his slider was golden.

(9) The umpires versus the action. Only one umpire had a bad night (first base, game 2, two blown calls) and the rest of the Series was well-officiated.

The newest Obama disgrace

2009-11-09T09:45:00.003-06:00

Twenty years ago today, the Berlin Wall fell. Ronald Reagan's moral clarity resonated in the four words he spoke in West Berlin in 1987: "TEAR DOWN THIS WALL."

But Obama did not deem the 20th anniversary of the fall of the preeminent symbol of Communist evil significant enough as the president of the country that fought such evil for 44 years to fly to Berlin to commemorate its fall, signifying the practical end of the Soviet Union. That's a disgrace.

Or is it? The Washington Times makes the cogent case that Obama's absence is entirely appropriate:

Some have criticized President Obama for not visiting Berlin to commemorate this historic moment, but he made the right choice . . . Mr. Obama was on the other side of the policy divide during the Reagan years, and if his party had remained in power, we have no doubt the Soviet Union would have lasted longer as a going concern. Mr. Obama should not attempt to associate himself with that historic moment, when a man with vision had the ability to see the future and the courage to realize it.

From Mark Steyn's obituary of Reagan (from his book Mark Steyn's Passing Parade and currently on his website), a distillation of what matters:

. . . politics attracts its share of optimistic, likeable men, and most of them leave no trace – like Britain’s “Sunny Jim” Callaghan, a perfect example of the defeatism of western leadership in the 1970s. It was the era of “détente”, a word barely remembered now, which is just as well, as it reflects poorly on us: the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the free world had decided that the unfree world was not a prison ruled by a murderous ideology that had to be defeated but merely an alternative lifestyle that had to be accommodated. Under cover of “détente”, the Soviets gobbled up more and more real estate across the planet, from Ethiopia to Grenada. Nonetheless, it wasn’t just the usual suspects who subscribed to this feeble evasion – Helmut Schmidt, Pierre Trudeau, François Mitterand – but most of the so-called “conservatives”, too – Ted Heath, Giscard d’Estaing, Gerald Ford.

Unlike these men, unlike most other senior Republicans, Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism for what it was: a great evil. Millions of Europeans across half a continent from Poland to Bulgaria, Slovenia to Latvia live in freedom today because he acknowledged that simple truth when the rest of the political class was tying itself in knots trying to pretend otherwise. That’s what counts. He brought down the “evil empire”, and all the rest is details.

VICTORY = Yankees win #27

2009-11-05T13:35:00.002-06:00

The greatest franchise in American sports history is again the champion of baseball. The Yankees are the champions of baseball after knocking off the Phillies in the 2009 World Series, 4 games to 2. Considering the youth of the Phils' core, their ability to retain their top prospects, and the way they've manhandled their principle rival for NL supremacy in the past two years, the likelihood that they will win the NL pennant a third-straight time is pretty good. If they do, the Phils will be the first team to win three-straight NL crowns since the 1942-44 Cardinals, and the first to do so in the NL since the start of divisional play (the '69-71 Orioles, '72-74 A's, '76-78 Yanks, '88-90 A's, and '98-01 Yanks all won at least three-straight AL titles since 1969).

Notes in abundance:

(1) Kudos to Godzilla (Hideki Matsui) whose 6 RBI performance in what is likely his swansong as a Yankee keyed last night's 7-3 win. Like another Yankee who had one fantastic game that defined his World Series (Reggie Jackson, 1977), Matsui won the WS MVP award on the strength of his one great game. Monkette and I loved Japan when we went and I'm happy that so many Japanese will take joy from Matsui's performance and award.

(2) The Phils are the 11th team to repeat as NL champs after winning the World Series. Eight of those teams have faced the Yankees in the World Series: '22 Giants, '23 Giants, '43 Cards, '56 Dodgers, '58 Braves, '76 Reds, '96 Braves, '09 Phils. Only two beat the Yanks: the '22 Giants and '76 Reds. Five of those Series were rematches from the previous year (1922, 1923, 1943, 1956, 1958). There have been only two World Series in history that were rematches of the previous year's contest and did not include the Yankees -- 1908 and 1931.

The other three times the NL champ was the defending World Series champ were 1908 (Cubs), 1966 (Dodgers) and 1968 (Cards). Only the Cubs won; the Dodgers were throttled by the Orioles and the Cards bonked a 3-1 lead against the Tigers.

(3) Based on his post-game remarks yesterday, Charlie Manuel is a very gracious man. Phils' shortstop Jimmy Rollins, who is still insisting the better team lost, is not. Seriously: from the time A-Rod returned from his hip injury, the Yanks were 101-48, including playoffs -- over the course of a full season that's 109-53, which is the same record as the 1961 Yankees

(4) The Yanks' starting pitching in the postseason was generally very good: three quality starts in three games against the Twins, five in six games against the Angels, three (and 1/3 inning from a fourth) against the Phils. Considering that the Yanks had rolled up four quality starts from 2005-07 in losing consecutive ALDS, the difference between winning and losing is clear.

(5) For all the opprobrium he'll get for losing game 5 of the WS, AJ Burnett deserves a hand for winning the biggest game of the Yankees' postseason -- game 2 of the Series. Burnett's lockdown start reversed any momentum from the opener and changed the dynamic of the Series. Yeah, he sucked in game 5, but he was fantastic in game 2 when the Yanks faced a possible 0-2 Series hole and the big ones you win count more.

(6) If the Phils fail to extend Cliff Lee, they're fools. But that front office is not foolish because the pitchers who started eight of their 15 postseason games were not with the Phils at the start of the year -- the Phils traded for Lee without giving up any top prospects and obtained Pedro off the scrap heap for a pittance. Manuel did well to scratch together a 93-win team with an ailing Hamels, horrible Lidge, and no starter who won more than 12 games

(7) If Cole Hamels is fully healthy next year, the Phils can threaten the 100-win mark. Of course, winning 100 means little -- the '97-99 Braves did it, lost two NLCS and were swept in the '99 WS; the '02-04 Yanks did it and suffered two playoff humiliations and a World Series bonk. There have been about 12 teams that won 100 or more games since 1995 and only the '98 and '09 Yankees won the World Series. This season is an oddity because for only the third time in the 15 three-round postseasons since 1995, the team with the best record in the regular season won the World Series.

More later, perhaps, but I need to get Yankees 2009 World Champs gear for myself, my son and my impending infant . . . it's called good parenting.

Ignominy or victory

2009-11-04T17:16:00.002-06:00

That's the fork in the road the Yanks have reached tonight and, potentially, tomorrow. Either they'll win the World Series or fall into the same abyss of ignominy as the 1979 Orioles -- a 102-57 team that dominated the American League, ran 8 games ahead of the field and 13.5 games ahead of the three-time defending AL champion Yankees, waltzed through the ALCS and batted their way to a 3-1 lead over the Pirates in the World Series. The Bucs won game 5 in Pittsburgh and allowed only one run in Baltimore in games 6 and 7 in storming back for the World Series victory. [One day someone will examine the failed dynasty of the Orioles, who were the best overall team in baseball from 1969-1974, ran up three-straight 100+ win seasons from 1969-71 but lost two World Series to underdogs and two ALCS to the A's before falling into perennial not-good-enough status from '75-'78.]

Since 1979, six teams have come home with a 3-2 lead in the World Series and all six have won, with only one of those Series going to game 7 (1997). Nine other teams have returned home trailing 3-2 and seven of the nine have won the Series (exceptions: '92 Braves, '03 Yankees who both lost game 6). Sounds good, right? That's 15 Series, and the team coming home in game 6, whether up 3-2 or down 3-2, is 12-3.

Then again, since the ALCS and NLCS has expanded to seven games, four teams came home with 3-2 series leads and lost: '85 Jays, '91 Pirates, '03 Cubs, and '04 Yankees. Twelve others came home with 3-2 leads and won (including the '98, '00, '03 and '09 Yanks) but four of those went to a game 7 and two of the winners ('92 Braves, '03 Yanks) needed unlikely rallies to win (remember: if the '92 Pirates had a decent closer, they would have won the NL). The key fact in those four series where the leader lost -- only the '03 Cubs ever led at any point in game 6 or 7 (the Royals never trailed the Jays, the Braves blanked the Pirates twice, the Blosax never trailed the '04 Skanks). Total tally: 16 LCS where the team leading 3-2 came home for game 6 and (possibly) 7, home teams are just 8-8 in game 6, 4-4 in game 7. Crapshoot.

Hoo boy.

Baseball conventional wisdom = still just half accurate

2009-11-04T10:36:00.002-06:00

In 1965, Sandy Koufax started game 7 of the World Series. He had pitched in Game 2, not Game 1, because the opener fell on Yom Kippur and as a Jew he felt it would send a bad message to pitch on the Day of Atonement of his religion. He lost in Game 2, pitching six innings, allowing one earned run and striking out 9, then pitched a complete game shutout (4 H, 10 K) in Game 5 on three days' rest. Although Don Drysdale was on turn for game 7, Koufax was given the start on TWO days' rest. The result? Complete game, three-hit, 10 K, 132-pitch shutout on the road where the Twins' hitters swung and missed at 27 pitches(!). And Koufax did it with essentially one pitch -- his fastball, because his curve didn't work that day.

Jim "Mudcat" Grant -- one of the 13 African-American pitchers to win 20 games in a season or "Black Aces" as he calls his group on his website -- pitched game 6 of that same series. Grant started and won game 1, started and lost game 4, and then started game 6 on two days of rest. He pitched a complete game victory.

Fast forward to modern baseball where the complete game is a rarity. In 2001, Curt Schilling started games 4 and 7 of the World Series on three days' rest. His line for two no-decisions: 14.1 IP, 9 H, 3 ER, 1 BB, 18 K. In 2004, Derek Lowe started game 7 of the ALCS on two days' rest and pitched six innings of one-run ball for the win. Anyone remember what Pedro did in 1999? Six innings of shutout relief in an ALDS game 5 do-or-die game against the Indians

The point is simple: pitching on three days' rest is not a life-altering occurrence for a competent starting pitcher.

The belief that Joe Girardi fouled up or may foul up the Yankees' World Series by starting Burnett and Pettitte on three days' rest is flat-out stupid. You put out your best players to beat the other team in a winner-take-all series and Girardi is doing the exact right thing. Burnett didn't lose Monday because of short rest, he lost because he pitched the same way in game 5 as he did in game 2 and the Phils stopped taking the first pitch. Burnett failed to adjust, the Phils didn't, and he got whacked. His career record on short rest was outstanding before that game. Pettitte should be ready to embrace the assignment, not worry about it. If he wins tonight, his legacy grows even greater than just being the winningest pitcher in postseason history.

In other words, this is no time for whining: it's time to man up and get the f---ing ring.

Pettitte is a man, unlike the whiny and fussy baseball press that thinks a guy who can throw a ball 90+ mph on 3,500-4,000 occasions each year will be decimated by the potential of having to do that same task on one occasion without the usual rest. I'd take him over Chad Gaudin in game 5 and a flaky Burnett in game 6.

On another topic, who's the MVP? If the Phils come back to win, unless Lee plays a major role in the game 7 win, the Phils' MVP would be Utley in a walk. Remember, in '77 Jackson won the MVP even though Mike Torrez pitched two complete game victories with a 2.50 ERA -- better numbers than Lee this year.

Utley's slugging percentage in this Series is currently seventh all-time for any World Series. He has tied Jackson for most home runs (5) and has the same RBI total Jackson had (8) when Reggie won the MVP in '77 (the record is 12) and has matched Reggie's six-game totals in five games. Utley has 22 total bases, which is three off the record by Jackson ('77, six games) and Stargell ('79, seven games). Even if the Phils lose, Utley has a credible case for being the second player on a losing team to win the World Series MVP (Bobby Richardson, 1960) -- in addition to his ridiculous OPS (1.651), homers, RBI and runs scored (6), Utley hit four of his five homers in the two games the Phils have won and has hit THREE off Sabathia, who was the best AL starting pitcher to play postseason baseball.

If the Yanks win and a Yankee gets the MVP, the race is closer -- Rivera has two saves and 3.2 scoreless innings; Damon is hitting .391 with 5 runs, 4 RBI and that crucial play in game 4; A-Rod is only 4-18, but he was 4-10 in Philly and has 6 RBI, all on the road. If the Yanks bonk, Utley wins.

Ultimately, The Monk would have no problem with either of these two scenarios: (1) a Yankee wins the World Series MVP award; (2) Utley becomes the second player on a losing team to win the award.

Against the policies, not the man

2009-11-04T09:52:00.004-06:00

Last night Democrats Jon Corzine and Creigh Deeds, the incumbent governor of New Jersey and candidate for Virginia governorship, lost last night. Republican Bob McDonnell trounced Deeds, a pro-labor, pro-Keynesian, pro-Obamanomics candidate by 18 points in a state Obama won last year and in which Obama campaigned for Deeds this year.

Chris Christie beat Corzine in New Jersey despite being outspent 3-1 and running in a state that Obama carried by 15 points last year. Even with the loss of an upstate New York congressional district due primarily to its own stupidity, last night was a good one for the GOP.

Corzine is an a*s. He's a poor man's George Soros -- wealthy beyond description after a successful career on Wall Street, Corzine turned to politics as a tax-tax-tax-tax-tax-and-spend-spend-spend liberal in one of the highest tax states in the country. He's a redistributionist, pure and simple, which is fine for him now that he has more money than Croesus, but is harmful to the small businesses that form the backbone of New Jersey's economy. And he's nearly as corrupt as Tony Soprano. Christie won because he's moderate, affable and made his reputation as a corruption fighter as the United States Attorney for New Jersey.

Peter Wehner says McDonnell "ran what will become a model campaign for many other Republicans. Virginia’s governor-elect came across as conservative and practical, substantive and solution-based, disciplined and focused, calm and reassuring. He tapped into the fears and concerns of voters and seemed able to channel them in all the right ways. For Republicans to continue the restoration of public trust in their party, they must stand against Obamaism, in all its particulars, and offer compelling answers to pressing public needs."

Most importantly, McDonnell ran against Obamism, not Obama. And that's what the GOP must learn from. The American people generally like Obama personally. Running against the man is a fruitless endeavor. Running against his policies, now that we know them and can define them (unlike in the 2008 campaign), is a winning strategy because his policies are dreadfully unpopular. Lump in running against Nancy Pelosi and Congress with that strategy and the GOP has the ingredients for success. Now, it needs the candidates.

That's why they get the big bucks

2009-10-30T10:04:00.004-05:00

Kudos to AJ Burnett on his excellent performance last night -- 7 IP, 4 H, 1 R, 2 BB, 9 K. Burnett has had three very good or better starts in his four performances in the Yanks' postseason and last night's brilliance came in a crucial situation -- team down 1-0, Phillies striking first last night, first-ever WS start.

Some notes from the Yanks win:

(1) Kudos to Joey G. First, he went to Rivera for a six-out save. This should be a no-brainer, but Torre failed to do it five years ago when Francona was managing every game like it was game 7. Second, Girardi stuck with his Burnett-Molina battery even though the Yanks needed Posada's offense. Molina made the defensive play of the game picking off Jayson Werth at first after blocking a ball in the dirt. Thereafter, Burnett mowed down 11 of the final 12 hitters he faced, the crowd gained a little life and Tex banged the Yanks back into the game. Third, his intuition to play Jerry Hairston against Pedro (Hairston was 10-27 in his career against Pedro) paid off. Hairston went to the video tape in between at bats to figure out if the pitches he wasn't swinging at were actually strikes, determined they were, fought off a bunch of pitches in at bat #3 and plopped the single into right that started the Yanks' final scoring opportunity.

(2) Bad night for Charlie Manuel on a couple of questionable calls (retaining Pedro in the 7th, not sending the runners in the 8th). But Pedro's performance (6 IP, 8 H, 3 ER) was more than good enough to justify Manuel's decision to start him, especially considering that Matsui's homer in the 6th was a case of good hitting, not bad pitching.

(3) A-Rod sucks again. His swings are akin to the '05-'07 playoff A-Rod, not the '09 ALCS A-Rod. Verducci has more on this at si.com. The approach by the Yankees as a whole was wrong -- they know to look for the offspeed stuff and sit on the changeup up in the zone but largely hacked away at change-ups out of the strike zone. When they looked for the change, they did better -- like Tex's homer and Matsui's single (Matsui's homer was a good swing on a tough pitch).

(4) Welcome back Hideki Matsui. He was basically out to lunch from Game 2 of the ALDS through Wednesday, but came back last night to play a key role in the Yanks' win.

(5) Here's all you need to know about Phil Hughes right now. In the 7th, with a rested Rivera unquestionably set to pitch the 8th and 9th, Joey G. warmed up Joba in case he needed to pull Burnett.

(6) If I'm a pitcher, I don't throw Melky Cabrera anything above the knee. He's a dead high-ball hitter and quick enough to pull high outside heat. But he's clueless down in the zone.

(7) The umpires are just awful. Brian Gorman made two bad calls. One that very likely cost the Yankees, another that could have cost the Phillies. In the 7th, he ruled Damon lined out to Ryan Howard, even though Howard clearly short-hopped the ball. After Howard threw wide to second, the Yanks should have had bases loaded and one out for Tex. Instead, Damon was out and Posada was tagged out for leaving the base on a fly ball. Worse yet, the umps checked the replays after the game and still think they made the right call even though the Fox cameras show otherwise! Where was Gorman positioned? Behind Howard (who is quite large). How can Gorman make the out call like that when he can't even see the non-catch? Howard's first reaction upon getting the ball was to throw to second for a force out -- that's a dead giveaway that Howard himself didn't think he made the catch.

In the 8th, Gorman bonked the play at first on Utley's double play grounder. He was safe. This had a big impact for the Phils (it would have been first and third, two out, Howard up) but a less likely scoring chance considering that there would have been two out for Howard, as opposed to one out for Tex. Gorman later said the replays showed him a "little bit" of the ball was out of Tex's glove when Utley hit the bag. Yeah, that "little bit" would be basically the whole ball. Gorman is justifying his honks. According to this article, Gorman is "very good" on the bases, his ball/strike calls are a bit hinky and he gives make up calls. Guess who is behind the plate Saturday.

P.S. -- I like Buster Olney's insights and analysis a lot, but that Patience Index is pretty worthless. The mere fact that Brett Gardner saw six pitches in his only plate appearance is not a sign of effectiveness. The fact that he whiffed is what mattered. Ryan Howard saw 18 pitches in four at bats (4.5 per, a high total) and struck out four times. If the pitches faced can correlate to pitcher effectiveness, that's one thing (e.g., if Rivera had given up the lead in the 8th, Olney could point back to Rollins' 11-pitch walk), but just pointing out how many pitches someone faced is not particularly useful.

Empirical evidence?

2009-10-29T14:03:00.003-05:00

OK, here's something that doesn't work: playing the Imperial March from The Empire Strikes Back during pre-game introductions for the Phillies last night and the processional theme at the end of Star Wars (during the heroism medal ceremony) for the Yanks.

WHAT????

The YANKEES are the EMPIRE in baseball, the Phils are the rebels, and the Yanks should glory in it. Not only did the Yanks win 20 World Series in 42 seasons from 1923-64, since the advent of divisional play in 1969 only one franchise has even been to as many World Series (A's) as the Yanks have won (six). Why shy away from that? The Yanks should be the big, dark, intimidating bad a**es of baseball and embrace it, not the scrappy little rebels -- that's beneath them. And it's tone-deaf too. The Yanks should be telling the baseball world "we're back, now commence to trembling." (Of course, sucking demonstratively less against Cliff Lee would aid in projecting such aura.)

RedSax president Larry Lucchino dubbed the Yanks the "Evil Empire" and you know what? F--- him and his team. The Yanks, win or lose, are the only reason that Fox pulled NFL-level ratings for the World Series last night and they make the television rights worth the immense lucre that the Murdochs pay . . . and that pile of gold is split between the teams.

The Yanks draw, period. No matter how much ESPN and it's New Englander tilt (Bill Simmons, Peter Gammons) likes to prattle on about RedSawx Nation and shill for the sport's historically most racist franchise, which is centered in a backwater provincial city that reached the zenith of its global relevance 234 years ago, the fact is clear -- the Yankees are the top team in all of American sports.

So whine and cry as much as you want, the Yanks are the Empire, and it's a good thing too.

The disgusting president

2009-10-29T12:17:00.002-05:00

At some point, Charles Krauthammer will be incorrect in his assessment of Obama.

This is not that point.

Click the link and watch the video.

Turned into Philets

2009-10-29T09:43:00.002-05:00

That was the Yanks last night -- turned into witnesses to their own execution by Cliff Lee. I said the Phils have a starting staff comprised of Tom Glavines and Lee looked like either the 1995 WS Game 6 version, the 1991 Cy Young Award winner, the 1998 CYA winner or the 1992 version who led the NL in shutouts. Lee neutered everyone in the Yankees' lineup not named Jeter -- 10 Ks, three of A-Rod and two of Tex (who had hit Lee well in the past). I watched the whole game in about 45 minutes on DVR -- once I saw how Lee mowed down the Yanks in the first, I said to myself: "Self, this is going to be a long game for the Yanks."

By contrast, CC looked awful -- he struggled with location all night, walked three and rolled up a stack of 3-ball counts. It's actually a testament to his skills and pitching prowess that he only allowed two runs over seven innings -- a short homer by Utley and a bomb by Utley. But Lee made 1-0 and 2-0 leads look more like the 6-1 final than the narrow margins they were. Overall, a Yanks' loss in Game 1 of the WS that is half as bad as the beating they took from the Braves in '96 (6-1, no ER against Lee compared to 12-1, one ER off Smoltz).

Some notes:

(1) The physics conundrum of what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object is easily solved in sports: the immovable object ALWAYS wins. John Smoltz told the Great Verducci that the Phils should consider just throwing waves of pitchers at the Yanks because the Yanks work over starters so well that by the third time through the lineup, the Yanks will crush the ball off the weakened pitcher. Nice theory. But the fact remains that good pitching ALWAYS tops good hitting. The Angels were the second-highest scoring team in baseball and Sabathia turned them into AA players. The Rox are one of two NL teams with an AL-quality lineup, and Lee made them into a collection of 35th round draft picks. Remember the 2006 playoffs when the Yanks were supposed to shell the Tigers and bang their way to a title? I try not to. Remember the '95 Indians who won 100 of 144 games that season? After the Braves' pitchers throttled them in the Series, no one else does either.

This works in every major sport except basketball, which is the only sport where good offense beats good defense because, ultimately, the defender cannot prevent a shot where the ball is about to fall in the basket from scoring. In hockey, middling teams frequently make deep playoff runs thanks to a hot goaltender (Giguere for the Ducks, Brodeur for the '95 Devils). In football, there are legends told about defenses like the '85 Bears, '00 Ravens and '08 Steelers. In baseball, one man has more control over the outcome of the game than any other player -- the starting pitcher. Even in soccer, this rule works -- just ask the Italian World Cup champions who allowed NO goals by an opponent in the run of play (the team allowed two goals in the tournament -- an own goal credited to the US, and a penalty kick scored by the French).

(2) The Yanks' bullpen is awful. They have two pitchers not named Rivera who don't suck right now: Marte and Robertson. The former has set down the last six hitters he's faced (all lefties) and the latter is a rally-killer with men on base. Robertson had an outlandish strikeout rate (63 in 43 IP) and seems to thrive in dire situations; Hughes, Bruney and Aceves have only created dire situations. The key to the series for the Yanks is to preserve a lead through seven innings and have Rivera pitch two, period. The only exception -- none or one out in the eighth and Howard up, then Joey G. can use Marte.

(3) I'm already sick of hearing about the Phillies' dynasty. They won ONE f**king World Series last year and are three wins away. Until and unless they get those three wins, they're not even a burgeoning dynasty (a dynasty really requires more than just back-to-back wins -- discuss the concept when the team wins three in a row or at least three in four years, otherwise it's just defining dynasty down).

This morning, Colin Cowherd was prattling on about how the Phils are 19-5 in the last two years in the playoffs. BFD. Through game 2 of the '96 World Series, the Braves were 20-6 in the '95 and '96 playoffs and had won their last five games by a combined score of 48-2 against the next-best team in the NL and the AL champs! Four days later, the Braves were 20-10 and watching Wade Boggs ride a police horse around a celebrating Yankee Stadium. In 1998-99, the Yanks were 22-3 in the playoffs with two World Series sweeps in a row. Even with the 2000 championship run, the Yanks were 33-8 over those three years -- that's a whole lot better than 19-5. Oh yeah, the Phils won't have Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Denny Neagle (before he sucked) on the mound in the next three games like the 1996 Braves did.

(4) If momentum is only as good as tomorrow's starting pitcher, I'd feel better about the Yanks' momentum today with Pettitte than with Burnett. In 2003, the Yanks lost game 1 of each series and put Pettitte on the bump in game 2 each time. Results for Pettitte: 3-0, 22.1 IP, 3 ER, 22K in the Yanks' 4-1, 6-2 and 6-1 wins. The Phils banged around Burnett in May, but that was before AJ started pitching well in June and July. He's been on another upswing from late September to present.

From the past performance does not necessarily predict future results file: In '99, the Braves crushed Clemens and El Duque in the Bronx during the regular season (Duque gave up 4 homers in 4.1 innings!) and caused Mo's fourth blown save of the season (he then saved 28 of his next 28 opportunities, including six-for-six in the playoffs, and dropped his ERA from 3.22 to 1.83 [and 0.00 in the playoffs]); in the WS, Clemens and Duque allowed 2 ER and 5 hits combined in 14.1 IP, and Mo cut through the Braves' lineup like little leaguers in winning the MVP.

Fall Classic notes

2009-10-28T15:34:00.006-05:00

Check it out: Buster Olney eschewed the trite position by position matchup analysis for the World Series. Must be because he's one of the best baseball reporters working today.

Here are his main points (headers only, for his explanations go to the link in the title of this post):

The Yankees' hitters against Cliff Lee's frantic pace. Olney says Lee works fast -- The Monk thinks the Yanks have more trouble with Lee's ability than his pace because they've been mediocre against him recently, but the Yanks kill Mark Buerhle, who is probably the fastest working pitcher in baseball.

The Phillies' hitters versus Mariano Rivera's cutter. The only NL team to actually hit Rivera hard in the WS, ever, is the '00 Mess. And they faced the Yanks six times that year.

The Phillies' pitchers versus the patience of the Yankees' hitters. The Monk discussed this one below. This was a huge factor in the Yanks' '99 win over the Braves
Jayson Werth and Jorge Posada versus opportunity. Werth has not sucked, Posada has. Even a decent game from Posada would have meant a cakewalk win in game 6 of the ALCS.
The Yankees' power pitchers against the Phillies Who Mash Fastballs. That's most of the Phils. The Phils didn't hit Sabathia well and only hit Pettitte a little back in May, but they smacked Burnett around.
Derek Jeter versus Jimmy Rollins.
Cole Hamels versus his recent past. Hamels worked in and out of trouble against the Yanks in May in a 6 IP no-decision. He's been slightly sharper than the average bowling ball in the playoffs this year.
Damaso Marte versus the Phillies' left-handed hitters (that's you, Chase Utley and Ryan Howard). Good info from Olney here as he discusses how Marte has changed his slider grip and how that has improved the pitch. Marte is a momentum guy -- he pitches better when he has confidence that arises from his results. Howard's 2009 splits are amazing: .319 BA, .691 SLG, 1.086 OPS against righties, and just .207/.356/.653 against lefties. Utley's splits are quite different, good against righties and slightly better against lefties. For their careers, Howard's left-right splits are not far off from his 2009 numbers (BA dropoff is 81 points, SLG dropoff is 217 points, OPS dropoff is 316), Utley is slightly better against righties than lefties.
The umpires versus the action. There will be no instant replay for this World Series. Hoo boy.

Other notes: the fact that the Game 1 winner has won 11 of the last 12 Series (Verducci cited this, I think) is of minimal value. After all, most "analysts" are predicting a 6-7 game series and only four of the 12 in that selection went more than five games. Of the four, the loser BLEW each one: the '97 Indians lost a lead in the bottom of the 9th in game 7, the '01 Yanks lost games 6 and 7 in Arizona, the '02 Giants completely collapsed with a 3-2 Series lead and a 5-0 lead in game 6 just nine outs away from the ring, and the '03 Yanks bonked a 2-1 Series lead when Torre let Jeff Weaver off his leash.

Only in the '03 Series did game 1 have ramifications for the rest of the contests because the Marlins broke the Yanks' record-long 10-game home winning streak in the Series that dated back to 1996 -- a crack in the Yanks' invincibility at the Stadium -- and the Fishes clinched the Series in the Bronx, which was just the third time since 1979 that a team won a World Series on the road in a game 6 (compared to the seven teams that came from 3-2 down to win in seven at home).

I also don't understand the prediction of Phils in 7 that some have made. If you think the Phils will win a close series, then it's Phils in 6, period. That's your ONLY logical pick. If you think the Yanks will win a close series, then it's Yanks in 6 or 7. Why? Because the last time a team won a game 7 on the road in the WS was 1979 (Pirates), and the roadies are 0-8 since, no matter how agonizingly close they've come ('91 Braves, '97 Indians, '01 Yanks). Then again, the '03 Yanks were the first team to come home for game 6 and lose the series since the '92 Braves (the previous six teams had won in either six or seven games), and just the second since '81 (against 10 teams that had won in six or seven games), so this team could be the one to bear the ignominy of first one to lose a WS game 7 at home in 30 years. After all, it may have four holdovers from the '96 team that beat the Braves, but it also has five holdovers from the '04 team . . .

A Classic Fall Classic?

2009-10-28T10:16:00.004-05:00

The baseball press is almost desperate for a long and hard-fought World Series. The past five have been sweep, sweep, 4-1, sweep and 4-1. And eight of the 11 World Series since 1998 have been either sweeps (5) or over in five (3). (Those 4-1 wins for the Cards in '06 and Phils in '08 are the NL equivalent of a sweep -- no NL team has swept a World Series since 1990 and no NL team not from Cincinnati has swept a World Series since 1963.)

From Jimmy Rollins' perspective, his Phils in 5 prediction is a bit optimistic, to say the least (Benny Agbayani of the Mess made a Mess in 5 prediction in 2000 and was half right). After all, no Jeter-Rivera Yankee team has won fewer than two games in a best-of-seven. And The Monk is hoping that the Yanks double up that two win minimum in the next week or so.

So how does the Series really break down?

The Monk disdains the position-by-position analysis that so many writers use. Johnny Damon is not playing head-to-head against Raul Ibanez nor will Jimmy Rollins go toe-to-toe with Derek Jeter. It's the wrong frame of reference because it's not like Derek Jeter needs to make a play against Jimmy Rollins for his team to score. A position by position comparison of the '98 Yanks with the '86 Mets looks good for the Mets (they'd "win" the corner outfield spots, catcher and get at least a push at 3b and 1b) and that team couldn't hold the '98 Yanks collection of protective cups.

The relevant questions are entirely different.

How will the Phils fare against four starts minimum from Yankee lefties in the Series and how will the Yanks fare against the Phils' precision starters who don't have blow-by fastballs but just PITCH well? The Phils' staff is a collection of Tom Glavines, the question is what era -- Lee is the HOF-quality Glavine from the 90s and early 00s, Hamels is capable of doing the same, Blanton is a righty equivalent who has gone from innings-eating midlevel starter in the AL to a #2-3 quality starter in the NL. And Pedro will junkball the Yanks for as many pitches as he can -- he's not the 1990s-early 2000s pitcher who dominated opponents with the 96 mph fastball and the 77 mph changeup. Can the Phils make the quality pitches necessary to get the Yanks out against a team that led the AL in walks? Will the Yanks actually have some decent hitting by players who do not play on the left side of their infield? Will the Phils patchwork starting staff (Lee excepted) resemble the parade of horribles that the '04 Yanks and '09 Dudgers put out, or will it resemble the '96 Yanks, which had 5 quality starts in 15 postseason games but won the World Series?

Can the Yanks' staff, which led the AL in strikeouts, confound the Phils and their free swingers (Howard cut his strikeouts down to 186 from 199(!), Werth had 156, Ibanez 119 in 134 games, Feliz doesn't walk)? The Phils led the NL in homers and have four players who hit at least 31. Can the Yanks keep the Phils in the park in two of the most homer-friendly stadiums?

Will the starting pitching even be the key to the Series? Look at how the Braves pitched in the 1996 WS -- five good to great starts in six games but they lost three of the five and unearned runs were the difference in two of the three losses that their starters suffered.

Whose bullpen will come to the fore? Last year, the Phils won two games against the Rays' 'pen. This year they won two games against the Rockies' 'pen in the NLDS and another against the Dudgers'. The Yanks won twice against the opposing bullpens in the playoffs and their supposedly superior bullpen took both losses in the ALCS. Lidge was awful in the regular season, solid in the playoffs while Madsen has been shaky in the postseason and top-notch in the regular season; Hughes, Chamberlain and the lefties are a question mark for the Yanks after Hughes' lights-out performance as a set-up man in the regular season, but Mo is still Mo.

And one more: which manager will foul up a key situation? Manuel survived his only bad call in the NLCS because the Dudgers sucked; he survived a bad decision in game 4 of the NLDS because Huston Street imploded. The joke after five games of the ALCS was that the series stood at Yankees 3, Girardi 2. Even Mike Scioscia, who would win best manager in baseball by acclaim just about every year from the press, made a colossal bonk by yanking Lackey in game 5. No need to discuss Torre -- his pitching decisions just failed, failed and failed again in the NLCS.

These are the relevant questions. I just want the answers to add up to Yankee title #27.

Restoring partial order to the universe: the Yankees' 40th Pennant

2009-10-26T09:43:00.002-05:00

Five years after TheChokeHeardRoundTheWorld and the TorreFiringThatShouldHaveHappened, the Yankees are back in the World Series.

About time.

The why is easy to determine: (1) the Yanks had 5 quality starts in six games, including two top-notch starts from ALCS MVP CC Sabathia; (2) Jeter and A-Rod scored 11 of the team's 33 runs and A-Rod hit .429 with 3 HR and 6 RBI in the series; (3) Mark Teixeira, for all his high suck level at the plate, made about a run-saving play per game; (4) Chone Figgins (13-39, 1.025 OPS), Bobby Abreu (11-35, 8 RBI in 9 games), and Kendry Morales (12-32, 3 HR, 7 RBI, 1.147 OPS), who killed the Yanks in the regular season were 7-48 with 1 HR, 7 RBI and 5 runs combined in the ALCS, (5) the Yanks have Mariano and the Angels don't. The absence of a top-end closer in the postseason has been deadly to the Dodgers, Cards, Angels and Rockies. The presence of top-end closer who fails to pitch up to his ability killed the Twins and eliminated the RedSux (Nathan and Papelbon are two of the three best closers in the AL, the third is in the World Series).

The Monk will have some more World Series information tomorrow and Wednesday. But here are some observations from the ALCS and NFL.

(1) The Yanks need better protection for A-Rod. If I'm Charlie Manuel, I seriously think about giving him the 2002 Barry Bonds treatment. Matsui has been poor in the postseason, Cano's inability to hit with RISP is almost legendary in scope (.320 average, .520 slugging, .872 OPS overall; but .207 AVG, .332 SLG and .574 OPS with RISP), and Swish still can't hit a lick in the postseason. And Posada was absolutely AWFUL last night. Jorge made the last out of three innings. He hit into two double plays. He left 10 men on base. He was 0-5 but accounted for 7 outs. He bounced into an inning-ending DP in the fourth with bases loaded, one out and the Yanks one hit away from blowing the game open up 3-1. Posada's horrendous night came batting right behind A-Rod, who had two hits and three walks and was on base every time Posada was at bat. Matsui wasn't better (0-4), but because Posada was so bad, Matsui only had one at bat with A-Rod on base even though Matsui batted right after Posada.

(2) The relievers need to suck less. Kudos to Joba, who had been atrocious, for getting two weak grounders to end the seventh and set the stage for Rivera in the 8th.

(3) AJ needs to toughen up. The Yanks need someone other than Sabathia to be able to finish the 7th. Pettitte had his super-glare last night and pitched a fine game. I don't blame Joey G for giving Andy the hook with one out and one on in the 7th because Pettitte had a tough sixth inning and dodged trouble and rough innings cost the pitcher more energy than just a high pitch count does.

(4) Give credit to Swisher on defense last night -- he made a good running catch and throw to first to pick off Vlady (who stupidly wandered halfway to second on a short fly to right) and he made a nice sliding catch. For a guy who plays the outfield because he hits his way into the lineup, Swish has made three nice defensive plays in the last 9 innings he's been in the field.

(5) Kudos to Pettitte for setting the record for most playoff wins by a pitcher. He has 16, John Smoltz had 15. Pettitte also has more wins in the LCS and World Series (10) than Smoltz (8). And Pettitte also set the record for most playoff wins by a pitcher starting games where his team could close out the opponent. The others: '96 ALCS game 5, '98 WS game 4, '01 ALCS game 5, '09 ALDS game 3.

And on another topic -- the NFL.

First, The Monk cannot remember a year in the salary cap era where there were so many blowouts and so many suck teams. The Raiders are awful, the Browns are horrid, the Bucs are terrible, the Rams are horrendous. They lost 38-0, 31-3, 35-7 and 42-6 yesterday, respectively. But the blowouts between seemingly evenly matched teams (Bengals 45, Bears 10) are also surprising.

Second, Cris Collinsworth showed last night why he earned his post as Madden's successor. He sussed out one of Eli Manning's snap count tricks (calling "Omaha" at the line changed the snap count) and pointed out why the Giants' receivers were failing in their route-running through bad technique. Listen to the Sunday night football broadcasts and you'll learn more about the game.

Disaster or delay -- the ALCS game 5 honk

2009-10-23T12:00:00.003-05:00

The Yanks failed last night, and Joel Sherman makes the best possible case that Girardi blew yet another game in the ALCS: nine outs away from their 40th pennant with a rested bullpen and a clean slate to start the bottom of the 7th, Girardi could have gone to Hughes and Rivera for nine outs with no problem and did not. On further review, although I said last night that I thought Girardi was right to give Burnett the ball in the 7th after only 80 pitches or so, I see Sherman's point -- it was lockdown time and the Yanks failed to lock down the Angels.

Or did they? Buster Olney's blog entry on the game (behind a subscription wall) makes a credible case regarding how good Burnett was in innings 2-6 -- 20 batters, 17 retired (one DP), 70% first-pitch strikes (59% is average), and 80% of batters with two strikes made outs (72% average). Why not think he could continue that?

And Hughes has been erratic, at best, in the postseason (see below). Maybe he gives up two bloops and a blast and we're at 7-6 anyway. The only sure thing in the Yankees' 'pen is Rivera. Contrast that with the previously erratic Phillies, who have Madsen, Happ, Eyre and Park pitching well in getting 6-7 outs before the rejuvenated Lidge.

This is how teams lose pennants. Tom Verducci makes the point that of the last 12 times the Yanks have been nine outs or fewer from victory in the playoffs, they've lost four games including THREE in which they could have closed out a pennant. Not good. And if the team loses game 6, winning game 7 may prove pyrrhic. The Yanks' postseason rotation is built upon the NEED for Sabathia to pitch three times in a seven-game series and do so on short rest. If the Yanks win in 7, they start the Series in New York Wednesday. If tomorrow's game is rained out and the Yanks win in 6 or 7, they start the Series Wednesday. That means Sabathia in game 2 on short rest or Pettitte, and possibly a four-man rotation for the Series. If Pettitte pitches well in the close-out game and the Yanks win tomorrow, it's the all-Indians reunion of Lee-Sabathia on Wednesday.

Then again, as important as the rotation is to the Yanks, the matchups are not that crucial -- Lee is the Phillies' ace right now, but the other three starters (Hamels, Pedro, Blanton) are essentially interchangeable because Hamels is not his 2008 self.

Some other failures from yesterday:

(1) Nick Swisher is terrible at the plate now. He has no clue. Credit him for a great play on a potential sac fly in the 8th -- he charged the fly ball and immediately threw home with accuracy, keeping the speedy Reggie Willets at third and the game a 7-6 deficit.

(2) The first batter to face Joba in his relief appearances has doubled more often than made an out. This is relief? Joba has allowed 7 hits in 2.2 IP -- that's about 25 per 9 IP. Hughes has allowed 9 hits and 2 walks in 4.2 IP for a 2.36 WHIP. These are Tom Gordon 2004 numbers. They're also Exhibit 1 as to why Rivera must pitch the 8th AND the 9th for any saves in the rest of the playoffs. The only relievers not named Rivera doing their jobs are (shock) Damaso Marte and Dave Robertson.

(3) Mike Scioscia had a bad game. First, he yanked his ace with bases loaded and two outs and a 4-0 lead. Lackey is the best pitcher the Angels have, keep him in. First pitch from Darren Oliver to Teixeira = three-run double. A walk, single, triple followed and it's 6-4 Yankees. Second, he bunted with Figgins against Marte with runners at first and second and none out in the 7th. Figgins is too fast to get doubled up on a grounder, even as a righty. He makes decent contact. He walks alot. Why give up the out? The tactic only worked because Hughes failed.

(4) Whoever made the call to throw Vlady Guerrero a fastball in the 7th owns the loss. Hughes threw five pitches to Torii Hunter when he came into the game -- four fastballs for balls and a slider for a 3-0 strike. Hughes missed on his first pitch (fastball) to Guerrero and got strikes on a slider and curve. With Guerrero set up at 1-2 and two on, Hughes shook off two signs and Posada set up for a high fastball. WHY? Hughes couldn't hit the target with his fastball all night, if he misses up, Guerrero could create a three-run souvenir. Hughes could spot the slider and curve and Guerrero will swing at anything. Sure enough, Hughes misses the target low, Guerrero smacks a single, tie game. And a 2-0 fastball to Morales = Angels 7-6.

And now, two more days of hearing all the 2004 ALCS nightmares revisited and the press wondering if the disaster will hit again. It's possible. In '04, Jon Leiber pitched very well except for a fluky opposite-foul-line homer by Bellhorn in game 6, and the Yanks lost. And as cliche as it seems, anything can happen in a game 7.

The Monk: an NLCS prophet

2009-10-22T17:05:00.002-05:00

Did I say five-game sweep or what?

Honestly, this year's Dudgers put on a worse performance in the NLCS than last year's Dudgers. Other than a freakishly good outing by Padilla last Friday, the Phils whacked the Duds starters and knocked the whole Western Blue pitching staff around -- a 35-16 aggregate run total in the Phils' favor after just a 25-20 total win last year.

Unlike the '08 NLCS, the Duds' lone win came from fortuity -- last year they smacked the Phils around in game 3 and were doing the same in game 4 before Torre stupidly lifted Derek Lowe, the Artfuls' bullpen crumbled and the team faced a 3-1 hole from which Cole Hamels would not let them dig out. This year, the Duds were whomped twice.

How exactly did the Duds lead the NL in wins and the majors in run differential? This is more Torre smoke and mirrors, for which he is well-known and rightly lauded and can work wonders with over the course of a long season in which each pitch and each at bat means far less than it does in the playoffs. Remember, this is the manager who coaxed a combined 25-8 record out of Aaron Small, Shawn Chacon and rookie Chien-Ming Wang in 2005.

The Duds lacked a starter with more than 12 wins and had only two pitchers with 10. They relied on scrap heap pickup Padilla to fortify the rotation at the end of the year (and stave off the Rockies). Their two best postseason starts were from Padilla -- only once in six other starts did the Duds' starter pitch into the 7th inning. These are the types of pitchers that the '05 Yankees relied upon. But if your team lacks pitchers with pure stuff and top-end ability (Kershaw has the former, not the latter), postseason success is difficult. The Phils' pitchers not named Lee were far from spectacular and the Dodgers couldn't even put a small roadblock in their season. Instead, Colorado-Philly was the de facto NLCS.

The LA of LA's biggest problem is development. The team is young, and its best pitchers are kids (Kershaw, Billingsley). Torre often has problems with pitchers -- look at how much better Jeff Weaver, Ted Lilly, Javy Vazquez, Kenny Rogers and Jose Contreras have done after they left the Bronx. Billingsley imploded this year, even though he has top of the rotation ability. Kuroda completely biffed in his NLCS cameo.

And the Phils look tough. This team failed to win 98-100 because the bullpen sucked during the year. In the playoffs, it's been a team strength. They have an AL quality lineup with four players who whacked 30+ homers and another with more than 20 (with an AL capable DH for the World Series in Matt Stairs). And they're a lot more intense than the Dudgers. Just ask Jonathan Broxton . . .

Reporters can't count

2009-10-21T17:53:00.002-05:00

Here's a classic. Can you find the problem?

Winning back-to-back pennants in the National League is a feat not easily accomplished. The last team to do so was the Atlanta Braves in 1995-96; they also did it in 1991-92. In the last half-century since the Milwaukee Braves won back-to-backers in 1957 and ’58, NL teams have reached the World Series in consecutive seasons only four times: Los Angeles (1965-66 and 1977-78), St. Louis (1967-68) and Cincinnati (1975-76). Winning the World Series twice in a row is even more rare: No NL team since the Big Red Machine in the mid-’70s has done it.

So Gordon Edes says NL teams have won consecutive pennants four times since 1958: the '65-66 Dodgers [that's 1], '67-68 Cards [that's 2], '75-76 Reds [that's 3], '77-78 Dodgers [that's four], '91-92 Braves [that's four again?] and '95-96 Braves [that's four a third time???].

OK, maybe that's 6 repeat winners of the NL pennant since the '58 Braves.

In the AL, there have not only been repeaters but multiple repeat pennant winners: six multiple repeaters -- '60-64 Yanks, '69-71 Orioles (yes, the Orioles were once a good team), the '72-74 A's, the '76-78 Yanks, the '88-90 A's and the '98-'01 Yanks all were multiple repeat pennant winners, and the '92-93 BluJs were single repeat AL champs. Unlike the NL, where only the '75-76 Reds won back-to-back titles, the AL has had five repeat World Series champs since the '58 season: '61-62 Yanks, '72-74 A's, '77-78 Yanks, '92-93 Js and '98-00 Yanks. And that seems a bit odd that the AL would have so many more repeat champions, considering that the AL edge is just 26-23 in the World Series since 1958. The NL has pulled off far more upsets in the Fall Classic ('60 Pirates, '63 Dodgers, '64 Cards, '69 Mets, '71 Pirates, '79 Pirates, '88 Dodgers, '90 Reds, '95 Braves, '03 Marlins, '06 Cards) than the AL ('66 Orioles, '85 Royals, '87 Twins, '96 Yanks).

Good thing I'm not a reporter, my ability to count would be completely shot.

Umpirical evidence of awful

2009-10-21T10:23:00.002-05:00

The umpires this year have given umpirical evidence of awful officiating. The baseball playoff officiating has been so bad, with so many obvious blown calls, that the NBA's title of worst-officiated American sport (no sport is more poorly officiated than soccer) is in serious jeopardy. Even Big T(elev)en football and basketball officiating is not this bad.

Phil Cuzzi's failure in game 2 of the ALDS will be the paradigm failure. But C.B. Bucknor's calls in the Sawx/Angels ALDS were bad and last night was just horrendous.

The Yanks-Angels game had 3 major gaffes and a minor one (Fieldin Culbreth called Juan Rivera safe on a bang-bang play at first, but Rivera was out). Worse yet, two of the three were by Tim McClellan, reputedly one of the best umpires in the game.

In the 4th inning, with one out, two on, Yanks with three runs in, Scott Kazmir thisclose to getting ripped up and the Yanks going into cruise control, and Jeter up, Nick Swisher was picked off second base. Not close -- his lead hand was more than a foot away from the bag when Erick Aybar tagged Swish ON THAT HAND. Second base ump Dale Scott was four feet away from the play and looking directly at the tag . . . and called Swish safe.

After Jeter walked, Damon whacked a fly ball to centerfield. Swisher tagged up at third base, left AFTER Hunter had caught the ball, and trotted home with a 4-0 lead . . . or not. The Angels appealed to McClellan that Swisher left early and McClellan called Swish out. Replays showed clearly that Swish left after Hunter made the catch. More importantly: McClellan was looking at Hunter catching the ball, and was positioned so that Swisher was BEHIND McClellan when Swisher left the base. McClellan had no clue when Swish left and still called him out. Swish was called out on an appeal play last month, in a similarly spurious call, so this is pure reputation.

Finally, in the 5th, after he failed to score on Cano's double, Posada was at third and Cano at second with one out. Swish hit a bouncer to the pitcher. Posada was running on contact and the Angels caught him in a rundown. In that situation, the burned runner must play for time and the trail runner must take the next base. Thus, if the burned runner cannot score, both should end up ON third base, the fielder with the ball tags both and the ump calls the lead runner out. Here, Cano stopped short of third and Posada overran the base. Angels catcher Mike Napoli tagged the both and BOTH idiots should have been out. McClellan called Cano safe and Posada out.

Awful umpiring.

Except home plate ump Jerry Layne. He's the ump who did NOT give Aybar the "area play" on a double play attempt in game two (the shortstop or secondbaseman gets credit for the out at second just by being in the area of the base). On all previous double plays, Aybar had clearly stepped on the base (the Yanks bounced into three). And we saw why Layne made the calls he did.

FOX, to its great credit, showed Layne talking with Angels manager Mike Scioscia between innings and discussing how his view of the balls and strikes was not as clear when the Yanks were batting because Mike Napoli's stance impeded his view. Layne said he didn't ask Napoli to get lower, but if he wanted to that would be up to Napoli. Scioscia told Napoli what to do, and the Angels adjusted. With a clearer view of the low strike for Layne, the Angels seemed happier with the zone. Then again, Layne's zone was so consistent that the FOX Box strike zone graphic looked like it was designed by Layne's calls.

One other note: I think Tim McCarver has cut down on the cornpone and bad punnery this year. That's good. He's easily the best color commentator in the game when he's not being a buffoon and he was sharp last night in describing why Posada failed to score on the Cano double and why McClellan so badly whiffed on the Swisher sac fly run.

Pennant #40 is just one win away . . .

2009-10-21T09:46:00.002-05:00

Even Girardi couldn't screw this up. As CC Sabathia made a mockery of the "three-days' rest" concerns and the Yankees FINALLY got some hits with runners in scoring position, the only decision Girardi had to make was whether to let CC pitch a complete game. He made the right choice, giving Chad Gaudin a taste of the playoffs and live game action, which may be beneficial in the near future. (And The Monk wonders if the Yanks will have Gaudin back next year as a fifth starter candidate -- he's earned the chance.)

For the rest of the night, the Yanks were a lineup that looked like the one that led baseball in scoring. The problems were minor: Matsui was a black hole (0-5, 3K, two bonks with RISP), Swisher hasn't had a hit since sometime in August. The biggest of the big hitters, A-Rod, was 3-4, 3 runs, 2 RBI, a stolen base and caused an Angels' error. Melky Cabrera expiated some of his previous failures with a two-run single that gave the Yanks a 3-0 early lead and two hits with RISP. Damon banged the two-run homer that iced the game.

A good night all around for the Yanks except for THREE baserunning idiocies: (1) Swisher getting picked off second in the 4th; (2) Posada getting suckered by a half-hearted decoy by Torii Hunter and failing to score on a double in the gap; (3) Cano failing to stand on third base after Posada got his own dumb a** caught in a rundown. None of this is rocket science or even advanced baseball strategy. Posada is a catcher, so he's slow. But he's been in the majors for 12+ years. There's no excuse for his horrible baserunning skills. Contrast him with Teixeira, who won't compete with Usain Bolt any time soon, but certainly runs the bases with intelligence, which means extra bases, more runs, fewer outs.

For now, the Yanks are one win away from the World Series and a date with the Phillies (who will likely win the NL pennant tonight). Hopefully Girardi won't overmanage this into a seven-game series . . .

Girardi tactics leading to Yankees' tee time

2009-10-20T09:35:00.002-05:00

That's the Yankees' situation in a nutshell. Girardi's overmanaging in the playoffs is going to lead this team, which is the best in baseball, to a failure. Girardi's attention to detail is impressive and if the Yanks do win World Series #27 this year it will be legendary. But yesterday, it helped cause a failure that pushed the Yankees from the brink of a 3-0 series lead to a 2-1 with Sabathia on three days' rest (which should not be that big of a problem) and Angel ace John Lackey looming in game 5.

Here's where the Yankees failed as a team: 0-8 with runners in scoring position, three failures by Melky Cabrera, two failures by Nick Swisher to score the runner from third base with less than two outs, Jeter 0-5 after his leadoff homer, team was 0-6 in extra innings. They were 0-8 with RISP on Saturday too. That's ok if the team hits 5 sac flies and 3 solo homers in one game, not if six of the team's last eight runs over two games have come on solo homers. Right now, the Yankees' offense has a governor on it holding the team to four runs (in five straight games). Not good.

Here are Girardi's questionable moves, in game order, and whether they were right or wrong AT THE TIME.

(1) Mound conference with Pettitte and Posada with a 2-2 count on Vlady Guerrero and a runner on base. WHY NOW? Pettitte and Posada have 27 years of Major League experience and have worked together for NINE seasons. If Joey G wanted to have a chat to reinforce the game plan, he should have done it before Vlady stepped in the batters' box. First pitch after Girardi departed = homerun, tie game. The pitch didn't seem that bad, but the result bit.

(2) Overuse of Chamberlain. Joba has been erratic at best this year. Now he's in a different pitching role as the "7th inning guy" and his stuff is off. Tim McCarver noted on Saturday that his slider was hanging up in the strike zone (that's called batting practice) and yesterday he got whacked around. Chamberlain's unwarranted ascension to 7th inning guy has pushed Aceves, the regular season's 7th inning guy, into extra inning duty only, where he has struggled. Chamberlain's only clean (no hits, walks, HBP) outing in the postseason came in game 1 against the Twins, when the Yanks had a big lead and Girardi was emptying his bullpen to give the young guys a taste of the playoffs. Yesterday, Chamberlain gave up the go-ahead run in about 5 pitches and got hammered so badly that Girardi had to yank him early for Marte.

(3) The abysmal 8th inning substitution. Girardi has two speed guys on his bench: Freddy Guzman and Brett Gardner. Guzman has one purpose -- pinch run and run fast. Gardner is a late inning defensive replacement for Damon or Swisher. So when designated hitter Matsui (who runs like a Molina brother) walked in the eighth inning, Girardi did the right thing in replacing him for a pinch runner. But HE USED THE WRONG MAN. Girardi should have used Guzman, but he used Gardner in a close game where the Yanks could need a defensive replacement in the outfield. If Girardi substituted Gardner for a fielder, the Yanks would lose the DH.

(4) Sending Gardner on an 0-1 count to Posada. With Gardner in the game, he had to steal, so that's the right call. On Saturday, Gardy did not steal and the hitter bounced into a double play on pitch number 4 or 5. But Scioscia likes to pitch out on 0-1 counts. McCarver said this on Saturday, and Girardi has to know this because the Yankees' scouts are very good and Girardi is such a stat geek he makes me look slipshod. Result, 0-1 pitchout, Gardner out at second. Two pitches later, Posada banged a homer to tie the game.

(5) Substituting Marte with Coke. The Monk is no fan of Damaso Marte, but he can often get lefties out and can terrorize switchhitters who are weak righties. He retired Chone Figgins to end the 7th and had Abreu (lefty hitter) to start the eighth . . . but Girardi replaced Marte with Coke. Coke is prone to give up homers, and his stuff is not as deceptive to lefties as Marte's. And the conventional wisdom is don't replace a lefty with another lefty. The move worked ONLY because Abreu made a baserunning mistake after whacking a double off Coke, but it needlessly burned the remaining lefty in the Yankees' 'pen.

(6) Sticking with Hughes, and yanking him. Girardi was right to both stick with Hughes through the 9th and yank him in the 10th after he allowed the leadoff double to Mathis. I'd prefer Rivera to hold the line in a playoff game, which he did thanks to Teixeira.

(7) Replacing Gardner with Hairston at DH. Girardi did this instead of having Gardy face Brian Fuentes. This had little purpose because if Girardi was going to end up blowing the DH, he should have done so with his best outfielder, not Hairston, and Hairston was not a threat to take Fuentes deep or to the gap -- the only ways the Yanks would have scored with two out and A-Rod on first.

(8) Replacing Damon with Hairston in LF in the bottom of the 10th with a runner at third and none out. This meant the Yanks lost the DH position, had a pitcher's spot after Jeter, and two light-hitting catchers on their bench (Molina, Cervelli) and the throwing arm upgrade from Damon to Hairston is far less than the upgrade from Damon to Cabrera or Gardner (Gardner usually goes to CF and pushes Melky to right or left, depending on who Girardi replaced).

(9) Replacing Robertson with Aceves. This made no sense at the time and is worse in hindsight. Robertson had cakewalked through the first two hitters in the bottom of the 11th. He's been excellent since the All-Star break (Aceves has been mediocre) and pitched out of HUGE trouble (bases loaded, none out) in game 2 against the Twins. He has better pure stuff. He can go more than one inning. Both are righties and so were the next and on-deck batters for the Angels. But Girardi liked the matchup of Aceves v. Howie Kendrick. Kendrick hit a seeing eye single, but the light-hitting Mathis whomped Aceves' offering into the gap, game over. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

If CC dominates and the Yanks win game 4, this matters less. If CC struggles or sucks and the Yanks lose, this matters a lot. And if CC pitches well but doesn't get through the 7th inning, then we go to the bullpen merry-go-round all over again. That's not good.

The Monk's call is that if the Yanks have a narrow lead and CC is running out of gas with 8 or fewer outs left for the Angels to tie it, use Hughes for four outs and Mo for four. Other than Robertson, the rest of the 'pen is not dependable or not good.

There's not much difference between these teams right now. The composite score is 12-9 Yanks. The starting pitchers are 1-0, 20.1 IP, 6 ER for the Yanks and 0-1, 17.2 IP, 7 ER for the Angels. The vaunted Yankee 'pen has allowed more earned runs (3-2) than the supposed Achilles' heel bullpen of the Angels. So managerial decisions have large consequences. To a large degree, Girardi is managing from fear, not strength. If he has the superior team, he should act like it and use its strengths effectively, not just manipulate matchups for their own sake.

* * *

P.S. -- I wonder how much Joe Torre misses Mo. For the second straight year, Torre's Dodgers were thisclose to winning game 4 of the NLCS and tying the series, and for the second straight year Jonathan Broxton lost the game. Last year, he failed to preserve an 8th inning tie by allowing Matt Stairs' bomb that went halfway to Bakersfield. Last night, he got the last out of the eighth inning and then completely bonked the ninth, giving up two runs with two out after putting one of the runners on by hitting the batter.

Joe's own worst enemy -- is he in the mirror?

2009-10-19T14:28:00.002-05:00

Here's The Monk's question of the day: Is Joe Girardi his own worst enemy?

The Yanks have a 2-0 lead in the ALCS, which they've achieved four times in 8 ALCS since 1996 (1999, 2001, 2004, 2009). In 1999 and 2001, they won in five games after losing game 3. We don't discuss 2004 here.

In the ALDS, Girardi established a pattern with his pitchers: have the starter pitch 6 or more, use Coke for the first lefty in the 7th, use Joba for righties in the 7th, use Hughes in the 8th, use Rivera in the 9th. Problems: Hughes was ineffective, so Rivera entered in the 8th; Coke and Joba were erratic even though they worked out of trouble.

In game 2 of the ALCS, Girardi reverted to that same formula. Burnett pitched 6.1 and left after Cano's error put a runner on, Coke issued a walk and got a strikeout, Joba gave up an infield single hit and struck out Guerrero in a 15-minute at bat with about 10 conferences between Joba and catcher Jose Molina. Even though it was a tie game and Joba could have pitched another inning, Girardi again used Hughes in the 8th and again for 2/3 of an inning (although Hughes would have pitched the full 8th if Jeter hadn't bonked a double play ball). Then, on came Rivera for 2.1 IP.

I'm unsure which of this is what Yahoo Sports' Jeff Passan called Girardi's misuse of the bullpen. I thought it was when Girardi actually used Damaso Marte . . . but Joey G. got away with it. Maybe Passan didn't like the use of Rivera . . . but this is the playoffs and winning managers don't leave the closer in the bullpen just because it violates a "Rule" in "The Book."

My concern going forward is what Joe is going to do if presented with the same situation he had in games 2 and 3 of the ALDS: a starter with plenty of gas left (Burnett was at 95 pitches, Pettitte at 81) and game in the 7th inning. I'll take Pettitte for another 25-30 tosses, Burnett for another 10-15 (I have no problem with Girardi giving him the hook on Saturday, Burnett was at 115). Girardi went to the 'pen early and often. I hope that doesn't turn out wrong later in this, or another, series.

P.S. -- The MLB Network's breakdown show seems pretty good. I watched for about 10-15 minutes after Saturday night's/Sunday morning's game and was impressed by Wild Thing Mitch Williams' breakdown of Burnett showing why A.J.'s balance and breaking ball is so much better when he pitches from a full wind-up than from the stretch and discussing the importance of a good balance/gather point for a tall lanky pitcher like Burnett. Williams' co-analyst (didn't get his identity) also rightly observed that when A.J. throws a wild pitch, he misses left or right, not short or high.

Quote of the day

2009-10-19T10:25:00.002-05:00

James Morrow in response to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn's citing Mao Tse-Tung as one of her favorite political philosophers:

the Obama White House is rapidly becoming a big tent for the sort of cranks who set up card tables on the fringes of growers' markets and pass out hand-xeroxed fliers.

A five-game sweep?

2009-10-19T09:34:00.002-05:00

In 2004, the Detroit Pistons whupped the Lakers in the NBA Finals 4-1. The Pistons' four wins were by an average of 13+ points; the Lakers' lone win came after a miracle game-tying shot that forced overtime. Sports journos called it a "five-game sweep" because of the Pistons' dominance.

The NLCS is shaping up to be the same. The Phillies can pound the ball, their starters have pitched 15 consecutive scoreless innings, and even the Phils' bullpen can hold an 11-0 ninth inning lead. The Dudgers won Friday thanks to some poor fielding and surprisingly decent pitching. But the Phils have four or five solid starters, the Dudgers couldn't hit Pedro Martinez (who now throws like a right-handed Jamie Moyer) and the series is out of the California sun until Friday . . . if it goes that long.

The Dudgers are fighting history. Since the advent of divisional play in 1969, the same two teams have met in the NLCS in consecutive years four times. The previous year's winner won twice, the loser gained revenge once, and the Phils are halfway to repeating. The one time since 1995 that the same two teams matched up in consecutive NLDS, the winner repeated (2004-05 Astros over Braves).

In the AL, the prior year's loser has fared worse in the rematches. When the ALCS has been a repeat of the previous year's matchup, the prior winner is 5-1. When the ALDS has been a repeat of the prior year's matchup, the prior winner is 4-2 (and the eight times the Redsax were not involved, the prior winner was 8-0). Total for the two leagues: 12-4 advantage for the prior year's winner, and we're halfway to 13-4.

Team of the Decade -- who will it be for MLB?

2009-10-15T09:45:00.002-05:00

This is a debate for every decennial -- which one is the team of the decade for the sport? The 2009 World Series will be the last of the decade and the answer is . . . still up for grabs.

The sine qua non of any "team of the decade" is championships. Championships means sport titles, not conference titles or pennants, not most times with the best record, not division titles (although these factor into ties), not best record of the 10-year period. The Lakers are the team of the '00s in the NBA because they won 4 titles, San Antonio (with a better overall record) won 3. The Stars aren't in the mix for NHL team of the decade for the '90s despite various President's Trophy wins (best record) because the Penguins and Red Wings won more Stanley Cups.

In baseball, the Team of the Decade in the World Series era has been clear cut in seven of the ten decades to date. Here's a list, along with best team (to win the WS) and honorable mentions:

1900s = the Cubs (2 titles, 3 pennants including the WS wins) of all teams. Honorable mention = Pirates (1 WS, 2 pennants), Tigers (3 pennants). Best team = 1909 Pirates (110-42) because the '06 Cubs (116-36) lost in the Series.

1910s = the Red Sawx (4 WS). Yuck. Honorable mention = Philly A's (3 WS, 4 pennants), Giants (4 pennants). Best team = 1912 Sawx (105-47), led by Tris Speaker and Joe Wood (34-5 in 43 starts!).

1920s = Yankees (3 WS, 5 pennants). Honorable mention = Giants (2 WS, 4 pennants). Best team = the 1927 Murderers' Row Yankees (110-44) that had four Hall of Famers in its starting lineup (Combs, Lazzeri, Ruth, Gehrig), two in its rotation (Hoyt, Pennock) and a third who should be in (Shocker).

1930s = Yankees (5 WS). This will become a pattern. Honorable mention = Cardinals (2 WS, 3 pennants). Best team = 1939 Yankees (106-45) who outscored their opponents by 411 runs! Compare that to the 1975 Reds (254 run differential). No contest.

1940s = Yankees (4 WS, 5 pennants). Honorable mention = Cardinals (3 WS, 4 pennants) -- this was the Cards' decade until the '47 and '49 Yanks won. Best team = '42 Cards (106-45).

1950s = Yankees (6 WS, 8 pennants). This is no contest. Honorable mention = Dodgers (2 WS, 5 pennants). Best team = '53 Yankees (99-52) by default because no WS winner won 100 games in the regular season, although a pair of WS losers ('54 Indians, '53 Dodgers) did.

1960s = Dodgers and Cardinals (2 WS, 3 pennants each). Honorable mention = Yankees (2 WS, 5 pennants). The Yanks had the longer list of accomplishment, but lost to both the Dodgers and Cards in the WS. The Dodgers had one of the most dominating WS wins ever in '63 over the Yanks, and took probably the worst beating ever in '66 from the Orioles (shut out three times). Best team = '61 Yanks (109-53).

1970s = A's (3 WS). Honorable mention = Reds (2 WS, 4 pennants, 6 division wins); Yankees (2 WS, 3 pennants); Pirates (2 WS, 6 division wins). This is why championships matter. Fans always talk about the Big Red Machine, but the A's won the most titles. Best team = '75 Reds (108-54) and '70 Orioles (108-54). Unlike the Reds, the Orioles led their league in pitching as well as hitting and the O's had some decent players (Palmer, B. Robinson, F. Robinson). The Big Red Machine is continually overrated because it had a modern AL-quality lineup in the NL, but the pitching was not notable. Think the Reds could beat the '98 Yankees? Think again -- the '75 Reds bonked 5-1 (5-2 after 6 innings) and 6-3 leads against the RedSawx in two different games of the '75 WS; the Mariano-era Yanks don't blow those leads.

1980s = Dodgers (2 WS). This is pure default and fluke. The Dodgers are the only multiple winner of the '80s. And for half the decade, the Dodgers sucked. If the Yanks had used anyone other than George Frazier in key relief situations in the '81 WS, baseball might have had 10 different winners. Honorable mention = Cards (1 WS, 3 pennants); A's, Royals and Phils (1 WS, 2 pennants each). Best team = '84 Tigers (104-58); yes, they were better than the '86 Mess (108-54).

1990s = Yankees (3 WS). This is especially great because in '95 the Braves had their WS rings engraved with "Team of the Decade" on them and the Yanks beat the Braves twice in the Series: once by grit and good fortune ('96), and once by whipping a** ('99). At the time the Braves had their rings engraved, the Blue Jays had won more titles (2-1). There's a deadly sin for that . . . Honorable mention = Toronto (2 WS); Braves (1 WS, 5 pennants). Best team = '98 Yankees (114-48). They're the best team since the end of WWII and it's really not close (Tom Verducci had a great piece on this).

2000s = currently RedSax (2 WS). And that's where the fun is. If either AL team wins the WS, there's a legitimate debate. The Yanks will have 2 WS, 4 pennants and 8 division titles; the Angels would have 2 WS and 6 division titles. The Red Sax have 2 WS and one division title. And although the Redsux would be 3-1 in playoff series against the Angels, they've split two with the Yankees. The Phils would get a close second to Bostin if they go back-to-back because they only made the playoffs three times; the Massholes have won six playoff berths ('03-05, '07-09), although their actual participation in '05 and '09 is subject to speculation as to whether it really counts as participation. Best team = '05 WhiteSax (99-63) -- they had the best playoff run (11-1) and the most impressive pitching performance in a series since the '96 Braves when their starters threw 44.1 of 45 possible innings in a 4-1 ALCS wipeout of the Angels.

Now we know the stakes.

As for predictions: the Yanks SHOULD win, but who knows what will happen. Lackey and Saunders match up well with the Yanks, the Angels 'pen is weaker than it was when the Angels beat the Yanks in '02 and '05 -- the game is longer than six innings now. And for all the chatter about how the Angels own the Yanks in the postseason -- the Angels survived in '05 by about 5-10 feet -- the distance by which Matsui's blast with two runners on in the 9th inning of a 5-3 ALDS game 5 went foul.

The Yanks need to pitch well and not fall into traps: (1) worrying too much about the Angels' running game; (2) going completely by-the-book with 7th, 8th and 9th inning roles for the relievers. Torre would use Mo to START the 8th with a day off to follow and Girardi needs to be ready, willing, and able to make that call.

The Dodgers and Phils will be interesting but I'm thinking the Dodgers win. Bullpens are crucial in the playoffs and the Dodgers' 'pen is far superior to the Phils'. Just ask the '92 and '96 Braves how much a superior bullpen can mean to the team with inferior starting pitching.

RINO stampede

2009-10-14T09:45:00.002-05:00

After Olympia Snowe fell victim to her own stupidity, Susan Collins followed and now says she will support some sort of sweeping health care overhaul. Both are Republicans (in name only) from Maine and should da*n well know better considering that Maine's highly regulated and nearly universal coverage state system is a disaster (like Massachusetts' system is, and TennCare in Tennessee was before it was discontinued).

This means that to prevent the US from becoming a European-style statist cooperative in health care, the Republicans need to pick off three Democrats in the Senate. Lieberman is one, Lincoln is being pressed into pulp to adhere to her party line even though it will cost her reelection in 2010. The next best hope may be Ron Wyden of Oregon, who actually has a plan that does not completely suck.

Elections have consequences. Minnesotans who voted for a clown, New Hampshirites who voted for a statist liberal (in the highly libertarian Live Free or Die State) and Alaskans who voted for notTedStevens will be among the 300,000,000 of us who pay the price.

Colossal playoff bonks

2009-10-13T09:52:00.002-05:00

As a modern closer in baseball, you have one job. Get the last three outs and seal the win for your team. Despite the specialization of pitching roles and the narrow task of getting those final outs delegated to the fresh-from-the-bullpen closer, the incidence of losing leads late in the game is no lower since the advent of the modern one-inning closer in the mid-80s than it was when guys like Lefty Gomez would throw 25 complete games in 34 starts in the '30s or Bob Feller would throw 370 innings.

The first time a team blew a ninth-inning lead in game 7 of the World Series and lost was 1997, when closer Jose Mesa did it. Such failures had happened in the League Championship Series -- in 1977, the Royals lost a 3-2 ninth inning lead to the Yanks but that dissipated with starters in relief; in 1992, the Pirates blew a 2-0 lead in the ninth inning of NLCS game 7 to the Braves and their starter took the loss.

So even with the closer as a specialty position, teams have not been better served with the fresh arm out of the 'pen late in playoff games. Instead, more closing opportunities has led to major failures: Rivera in the '01 WS, Mitch Williams in the '93 WS, Eckersley in the '88 and '90 WS.

But some bonks are simply bad. Those are the ones where the closer has a multi-run lead and starts the ninth. Worse than the bonk is when the stakes are high. On Sunday, Jon Papelbon gave up 3 runs in the ninth with two out to the Angels . . . and did the Angels' comeback eliminated the Redsax. It was the first time a team allowed a comeback from 2 or more runs down with two out in the last inning of an elimination game in the playoffs and lost. Yesterday, Huston Street had two out, two on, and needed only one strike against Ryan Howard to get the Rox to game 5 of the NLDS. Double, single, three runs and the Rox are setting up tee times. As the closer roles have become more specialized, so have the approaches that hitters take in the ninth inning to the closer -- more careful, more apt to battle the pitcher to force him to throw lots of pitches because the one-inning closer burns out after 18-20 tosses.

Stretching a closer to even four outs is anathema to most managers. Last year, when he set the record with 62 saves, Frankie Rodriguez had ZERO appearances all year of more than one inning. By contrast, Mariano Rivera had nine saves of 4+ outs in 2003 (out of 40), and five more in the playoffs. This year, even as the Yanks have essentially babied him, Mo had seven 4-out saves. Papelbon had six of 4+ outs.

And the Yanks will need more out of Mo. Phil Hughes has looked like Tom Gordon (career postseason = 21 IP, 17 ER, 6 HR, 7.06 ERA). Joba is unsteady. And Girardi, for some daft reason (overconfidence in his 'pen), has had a quick hook (Burnett = 6 IP, 3 H, 1 R, 95 pitches; Pettitte = 6.1 IP, 3 H, 1 R, 81 pitches) even though his starters allowed 3 ER in 19 innings with 22 K against the Twins. If that bites Girardi and the Yanks against the Angels, you'll have heard it here first.

Empire Disgrace

2009-10-01T21:48:00.002-05:00

The Empire State Building was lit up in garish red and yellow Wednesday night.

Ostensibly to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China.

It also celebrates two generations of the most murderous regime in the history of man.

Presumably it's ok now because China is strong and up-and-coming and we all want to do business.

Aside from the visceral disgust my first thought was this classic line from Carl Fox [Martin Sheen] from the movie "Wall Street":

"I don't go to bed with no whore, and I don't wake up with no whore. That's how I live with myself."

9-1 > 0-8? The AL East Champs again

2009-10-01T17:16:00.004-05:00

In June, following the Yanks' humiliating three-game sweep in Fenway, I said the team lacked character. Since then, I've either been proven wrong (which I hope) or the RedSawx are just terrible (which I don't believe).

Through the first half of the year, the Yanks were 51-37. That's pretty good.

They were 10-8 against the NL East, which is uninspiring.

They were 39-17 against everyone but Bahstin and the LA Angels of Knott's Berry Farm, which is very good.

They were 2-12 against the Sawx (0-8) and Angels (2-4), and that sucked.

Since the All-Star break, the '09 Yankees have played even better than the '98 Yankees did: 51-20 (compared to 53-28) and have blasted their two bitterest rivals by winning 12 of 14 against the Sax (9-1) and Angels (3-1). How?

First, the Yankees learned to pitch at the Stadium. The "bandbox in the Bronx" has been a haven for the team (57-24) and after a shaky 6-7 start in the new home, the Yanks have won 51 of 68 games there -- that's 75%.

Second, the Yankees figured out the Rays by winning 8 of 9 games against the other AL East contender since early June.

Third, the Yanks flummoxed the Sawx at the Stadium. In the seven post All-Star break games between the teams at the Stadium, the Sawx have scored 15 runs and nine in the last 60 innings. The Yanks are 7-0 and FINALLY beat Jon Lester. When the Yanks won a Friday night game 2-0 in 15 innings, it was the first time all season they'd held the redsux to less than four runs.

Fourth, warm weather means warm CC. Sabathia established himself as an ace with his effort in a loss to the Sawx in June and his attitude against the Chisax in an August game where the Yanks were trying to stave off a four-game sweep. After coughing up an early lead, Sabathia shouted "that's it, that's all they get." The Yanks won that game and all 10 CC starts since then (each a quality start, 8 wins, only once allowing even 3 ER, only once going less than 7 IP).

Fifth, the Yanks have one of the best long relievers in baseball, Alfredo Aceves, to get the team through the sixth and seventh innings before the season's best game-ending duo since perhaps the '96 Yankees take the mound -- Hughes (5-1, 1.24, opponents OPS of .430 as a reliever) and Rivera (yawn, 44 saves, 46 chances--that's three bonks in the past two years).

Yeah, the Yanks have a question mark as their No. 4 starter . . . and the 2006 Cardinals won game 1 of the World Series with Anthony Reyes (5-8, 5.06).

Sure, they're older than most teams . . . and the Rays flopped in July.

And AJ Burnett is a question mark: from iffy in April/May to Cy Young caliber in June and July to inconsistent in August, to sharp in late September . . . but he has almost the same quality start percentage as CC, and is a power/strikeout pitcher -- the type that is crucial to postseason success.

So congrats to the Yanks, who have once again assumed their proper spot atop the AL East. Joe Girardi should be AL Manager of the Year. CC Sabathia should be 3rd in the Cy Young ballot. Jeter and Teixiera should be Nos. 2 and 3 in the AL MVP ballot. And hopefully the team will win 11 games between October 5 and December 31, 2009. That's what I'm wanting.

The last roar of the "lion"

2009-09-01T11:13:00.000-05:00

The media in the United States completely loses its grip on reality when a Kennedy, any Kennedy related within a couple of degrees of sanguininity to Joe Kennedy, Sr., dies. And the media's reaction to the death of Edward M. Kennedy, the last and in many ways least of the four sons of Joe, has had truly preposterous episodes.

There's the Melissa Lafsky reaction: What would Mary Jo Kopechne "have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it."

And there's the Joyce Carol Oates nonsense.

The Monk is offended by the notion of Ted Kennedy as the "last lion" of the Senate -- THE Last Lion was Churchill and Kennedy was a far inferior man.

The brothers Kennedy included a war hero who died on a bombing run in World War II, a war hero and President who was assassinated by a Communist sympathizer, and a principled civil rights leader who was assassinated by an Arab nationalist. Joe, Jr.'s political career never became a full reality; John Kennedy was a tax-cutter and Cold Warrior (one of two the Democrats nominated as President from 1948-88); Robert Kennedy was a civil rights stalwart of the Martin Luther King, Jr. approach, not the Jesse Jackson affirmative-action-as-reparations approach that Ted Kennedy heeled toward.

As a Senator, Kennedy was what he was -- an old-line liberal of no real fixed ideology other than pro-union, pro-state, pro-liberal interest group. His best decisions included supporting deregulation of the airline industry and the phones. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which (as written) was a legislative triumph . . . but he also supported the affirmative action, quota, race-conscious accounting of its implementation that was anathema to its drafters (see Hubert H. Humphrey's defense of the bill when an opponent claimed it would begin a quota system).

The hagiography will continue apace despite the facts of Kennedy's heinous personal actions and uglier moments in public life (two words: Robert Bork). Of course, there is likely much good to balance some of the worst of the bad -- after all, the licentious Kennedy counted the upstanding Orrin Hatch as one of his best friends; and the story that Ted, Jr. recounted about his father, 12-year old Ted Jr.'s prosthetic, and their determination for Ted, Jr. to climb a snowy hill to ride his sled in the snow after Ted Jr. lost his leg to cancer is a paradigm of fatherhood.

There is also a lot to be said for the Kennedy mystique -- The Monk himself understood the Kennedy charisma when he met Rep. Joe Kennedy (RFK's eldest son) walking and shaking hands in a park outside Boston in 1993 during a services fair to help the homeless (we were there on behalf of this fine group). The fair seemed to stop as a short man with curly hair, bright eyes, and a big smile wandered the grounds chatting up the attendees.

But there is also reality. Ted Kennedy was an influential Senator in a narrow niche but his overall impact on policy, politics, and America are far less than what the eulogies in Time, Newsweek, the NY Times and other mainstream media outlets have declared. He was not the greatest or most accomplished of the Kennedy brothers. Ultimately, he probably knew that.

RIP

Two sporting dissents

2009-08-19T12:15:00.002-05:00

I dissent.

There are two lines of NFL conventional wisdom that do not work.

First, the Brett Favre signing by the Vikings has raised the team to an NFC favorite, Vegas put the odds of the Vikes winning the NFC at 6-1, down from 12-1. Brett Favre has not made the Vikes the best team in the NFC, and the Vikings will not be the conference champs for the first time since Super Bowl XI.

Here's the argument: Favre will have a great running game, and a great defense against the run, and the team only needed a new QB to become a champion.

But that combination of great running game and defense sounds just like the 2007 Steelers (3rd in rush offense, 1st in total defense), who had a QB who threw for 32 TDs with just 11 INT, had a 1300-yard runner, and lost at home in the first round of the playoffs, just like the Vikes did last year. And it sounds like the 2008 Jets, who had a top 10 running offense and a top 10 defense against the run . . . and went 9-7 and watched every playoff game.

The Vikings barely beat the Giants in the final game of the season last year. The Vikes needed to win to make the playoffs, the Giants rested their starters (no Jacobs at all, Eli sat the second half, various lower workloads for the starters on defense and offense). And the best run defense in football (Minnesota) allowed 135 yards on 30 carries to the Giants' #2 and #3 runners and won only because the Jints had missed a field goal earlier in the game. With nothing to play for, the Giants acted as if the game were a preseason matchup, and nearly won.

Minnesota just was not that good last year: the Vikes should have lost to Detroit at home and won by just four in Detroit against the worst team in the past 30 years. They were no match for the Eagles or Titans. The Jets' improvement from 2007-2008 came as much from having a healthy QB as having a healthy QB named Favre -- look at how well the Dolphins did with the 2007 Jets' QB as their signal-caller (unlike Favre, Chad Pennington has never started 75%+ of his team's games and NOT made the playoffs). The Favre factor may enable another win for the Vikes, but they're not in the top three of the conference.

The second strain of conventional wisdom is that the Giants need a #1 receiver to win the Super Bowl. That's rot. The Giants' defense wilted in the last quarter of the season last year because the team lacked defensive end depth. The Giants' offense failed against the Eagles, twice, as much through error and game-planning (Domenik Hixon's dropped TD in the regular season, Coughlin's bad wind decisions in the playoffs) as the absence of a #1 receiver. The Giants lost to the Cowpatties in Dallas because the Cowmanures were desperate for a win (the Giants knew the next weekend's game against Carolina would be for the NFC's #1 seed), and the Giants didn't have Jacobs available. The Burress mess occurred at the worst possible time because the Giants could not reconfigure their offensive game plan against the Eagles as quickly as the Eagles revamped their defense against the Giants. But the fact is that the Giants had two of their best passing days with Burress out of the lineup (against Seattle and at Washington).

The defense was spent at the end of 2008. The team blitzed on 40 of Philly's 46 passing plays in the playoff matchup but only had one sack and few hurries. The Giants had five sacks in games 12-17 of their season. They allowed 28 points to the Panthers, had the Panthers run all over them and won only because Derek Ward went off. Tom Brady won three Super Bowls without a top-end #1 receiver, so did Ben Roethlisberger, so did the Bucs under Gruden. If the defense is healthy and rested, the Giants can go far.

The stopped clock and a Monkling

2009-08-17T09:51:00.002-05:00

One of my colleagues who is basically wrong about everything political and social was right last year when he told me just how enormous a difference there is between a child at his first birthday and his second.

The Monkling turned two yesterday. He speaks in phrases and has an extensive vocabulary, not just a random word or sound (when he was 18 months, we laughed at one of the baby books that said he should have about 4-7 words he routinely sasy -- he had more than 30); he walks, instead of just stumbling around and bear-crawling; he no longer falls asleep on dada's head as we walk around the local greenbelt; he has a full little baby mop of hair . . . and he had that a year ago too. Some things don't change too quickly: mama is the greatest thing ever, Nana and Pawpaw are silly people who grab at his toes, dada is the big voiced man who sings silly songs to him and wins all the one-sided tickle-fights, he likes to pretend to be a zombie or a ghost because he knows when he attacks mama or dada he'll get hugged and kissed and tickled. And his hair is out of control.

But now, he likes specific things like Elmo, Thomas (trains, especially Toby), biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig trucks, pine cones that splash when thrown in the pond, testing what floats and what sinks, buses, Pei Wei, Propel water, raspberries, edamame, noodles, rice, almonds, bacon, peas, spicy food, sidewalk chalk, rocks, itsy-bitsy spiders crawling up water spouts, picking acorns, dada singing him to sleep, walking around the nearby greenbelt, the sticks in his aunt's backyard, rubbing his head against the cats' torsos, Boowa/Kwala, watching the garbage pickups each week, zrbrts (Cosby show reference) on his tummy, reading book after book after book with mama during the day, or dada at night.

And he has his momma's eyes.

That's the Monkling in a moment on his second birthday. What he did yesterday was play with his new train set, take two walks with dada, eat turkey and cornbread at Boston Market, have a big nap, drink his weight in Propel and chase the kitties.

The day before, when we held his party after his pregnant mama worked for hours decorating the house, he received the big train set (Imaginarium set with round house -- a good deal: tons of trains, accessories, double track layout, all for 1/2 the price of a Thomas set, and compatible with the Thomas accessories), opened his presents (lotta Thomas's friends and trucks, a backyard slide, more sidewalk chalk), ate his cake (but cried when we were about to cut the Thomas design in the frosting), had his favorite food for lunch (Pei Wei teriyaki chicken, rice, edamame) and fell asleep with dada as dada nodded off in mid-song.

That's my son.

Defiant ignorance

2009-07-27T16:28:00.002-05:00

The most disturbing thing about Obama is not his preternatural self-assuredness. That's almost acceptable on some level because he is about as charismatic as he thinks he is. Instead, The Monk is most disturbed by Obama's belief that what he says is true even if it is undeniably false, and his unshakeable belief that his policy prescriptions will work even when every shred of scientific and economic evidence (depending upon the subject) conclusively prove otherwise.

This is nothing less than defiant ignorance, or aggressive solipsism. And it's not the sign of an intellectual or a highly intelligent person, it's the sign of a doctrinaire demagogue. For all his love of Keynesian economics (most of which is bunk), Obama still hasn't taken to heart the Keynesian maxim "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Thus, Fred Barnes' column on Obamanomics is a must read. Here's the core:

. . . He wants to eliminate many deductions for upper middle class and wealthy taxpayers. He's eager to spur the growth of unions, though success here is likely to slow the rate of growth and increase the rate of unemployment. He wants government to intervene more aggressively in the economy, a reliable job killer. He's asked for authority to seize any financial institution deemed (by his administration) a "systemic risk" to the economy. He thinks government can teach the private sector lessons in efficiency. That would be an historic first. He believes his budget, which triples the national debt, "lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity."

Whew! And this is just what Obama has proposed in the first six months of his presidency. Obamanomics pays lip service to a free market economy. But Obama hasn't a clue what makes it work.

Not the only one

2009-07-27T16:14:00.002-05:00

I'm not the only contrarian who thinks the latest HP movie is a dud.

First, on second look Monkette agreed with a couple of my main complaints -- most notably how director David Yates botched the climactic scenes at the end. She just finished re-reading the book and that persuaded her I had a point. (Seriously, if this were anyone else other than my better half, I trumpet this as a mea culpa and publicize it all over the country).

Second, a friend of mine who is both Irish and a Jew (don't ask), let's call him Seamus O'Goldberg, mentioned that upon re-watching the movies for HP3 and HP4, and considering HP6 once again, he and the O'Goldberg family are a bit worried about the upcoming two-part finale film. The most redeeming feature of the finale, however, is that there's a LOT of Harry and Hermione adventure (Ron buggers off for a while) and Emma Watson is the strongest of the three young actors.

Third, the dropoff -- the HP take for weekend #2 was 61% less than for weekend #1. That's huge in Hollywood terms. Worse yet, that weekend #1 take was a bit lower than it would have been if the movie had actually opened on a Friday instead of a Wednesday. HP6 made more than 1/2 of its Wednesday-Sunday take in its opening week on its first two nights. Last year, The Dark Knight made $158M+ in its first three nights, HP6 made $159M+ in five. Then again, TDK was a fantastic movie.

See? Sooner or later there are people who come around to agree with me when I have a decent point to make. It's just a question of when they admit it . . . like PaMonk, who completely botched his most recent presidential vote.

To have come so far, with so far left to go . . .

2009-07-21T10:21:00.004-05:00

Years ago, The Monk was a sports reporter. Not a "professional" journalist, I was an associate editor and editor of the sports section of The Cavalier Daily, Virginia's college newspaper. And considering the talent I worked with (four of my six associate editors became professional journalists; the smart ones became lawyers) and the accolades the paper routinely received, we were certainly legitimate reporters.

One endeavor I attempted was to attract female reporters to my department. It was a boys' club, no question, and that was a turn-off in recruiting. And in the late '80s and early '90s, there were not many young women interested in writing about sports at Virginia generally -- football was a dating event and drunkfest, basketball games were covered by editors, and other than soccer, the other sports were uninteresting. I made little traction. My successor as editor did groom a reporter for our section and she became the first female associate sports editor at the paper in about five years and maybe the third or fourth ever. She was also too smart for the business -- she's a partner at a law firm in the Tidewater area.

Access to the players was another issue: after a game at Kansas, Virginia's strength coach barred a female reporter from the football locker room by physically blocking her path. And if a female reporter gained access, the default for jocks is to see "female" and not "reporter" -- just ask Lisa Olson or Suzy Kolber.

There are a lot of obstacles for female sports reporters to achieve success and respect, not just the old warhorse men who think women and sports reporting don't mix. Some are their own colleagues, like Carolyn Hughes who committed adultery with pitcher Derek Lowe, and Lisa Guerrero -- a pretty face with vacant space above her neck. Some are the network fools, like the ones at ABC who decided to axe pioneer Lesley Visser because they thought she was too old (after that backlash and Guerrero's incompetence, ABC has used old pro Michelle Tafoya on NBA broadcasts). Some, unfortunately, are the ones who've achieved decent positions but are not good at their jobs (Pam Ward -- seriously, why doesn't ESPN just replace her in all assignments with Beth Mowins who can actually call a game?).

And heaven forfend if: (1) you're a female sports reporter; (2) you're good at the job; (3) you're attractive. Melissa Stark had to fight for acceptance. But she never faced this: getting videotaped nude after undressing in her hotel room by a stalker.

That's what happened to Erin Andrews, the extremely popular and perpetually genial ESPN sideline reporter. Andrews is pretty good at her job, and that's not easy because sideline reporting is a job in which it is more difficult to be good than to suck. She's also off-the-charts popular because she's attractive, friendly, and covers primarily college sports.

Whoever taped and posted that video should be prosecuted criminally. Andrews has vowed to kick his a** through the legal system. Good. If so, he'll get what he deserves.

But female sports reporters will have another inconceivably heinous thing to worry about while fighting for respect in a male-dominated business.

The 66-year old overnight sensation, RIP

2009-07-20T14:08:00.002-05:00

It's a bit rare for retired New York City schoolteachers to become overnight sensations. It's a bit surprising when the sensation in question has been to your house, had a few with your dad, and you played with his daughter when you were kids. And Mom and Dad STILL had to buy my copy of his book as a Xmas present! That teacher was Frank McCourt, whose unorthodox teaching methods and overflowing classes were notorious in the City's elite Stuyvesant High School.

In 1930, Angela and Malachy McCourt had their first child, Francis. He was the product of a knee-trembler -- a drunken fit of passion that resulted in Malachy and Angela's marriage and led eventually to (at least) five more pregnancies, six more kids and a completely failed life together until the early 1940s. Their time together is aptly described in one of the most arresting passages in non-fiction literature:

When I look back on my childhood, I wonder how I survived at all. It was, of course, a miserable childhood: The happy childhood is hardly worth your while. Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood. People everywhere brag and whimper about the woes of their early years, but nothing can compare with the Irish version: the poverty; the shiftless loquacious alcoholic father; the pious defeated mother moaning by the fire; pompous priests; bullying schoolmasters; the English and all the terrible things they did to us for 800 long years.

That's the second paragraph of Angela's Ashes, the memoir that transformed an unknown retired English teacher into a media and publishing sensation around his 66th birthday. Frank McCourt was a colleague of PaMonk from 1972-1987, and was the oldest of the seven McCourt children, of whom four boys (Frank, Malachy Jr., Alfie and Michael) survived into adulthood, but his sister and a pair of twin brothers died before age 6. Angela's Ashes, McCourt's tragicomic tale of growing up in Depression-era Limerick, Ireland, is by turns sad, horrific, and hilarious.

And serendipitous. McCourt had wanted to write about his childhood for years, and when he finally found his voice and constructed his manuscript, his timing was perfect. In 1996, a tremendous international publishing convention in Germany had as its theme Irish culture. The word of mouth for McCourt's memoir was fantastic, and the momentum continued as the book became a bestseller (4,000,000 in hardback sales), Pulitzer Prize winner, and National Book Critics Circle Award recipient. Here's the rave review from Michiko Kakutani.

McCourt himself was a media darling. From Letterman to Charlie Rose to Larry King to talk shows throughout the nation, the charming, understated and slight aging gentleman with the soft Irish lilt was the perfect guest -- profound, funny and sharp-witted. And he had more reason to show his face on TV almost immediately after the initial book momentum died down -- the Alan Parker adaptation of the memoir into a movie (far inferior to the book). McCourt wrote two more memoirs, the introspective and self-pitying 'Tis and the episodic Teacher Man, neither of which attained the critical, financial or literary success of Ashes. By the publication of those books, however, McCourt was a commercial publishing hit and a millionaire.

Not bad for a retired teacher who stole apples and milk to survive childhood and help feed his family, struggled to obtain the qualifications he needed to become a teacher in New York City because he'd quit schooling at 13 to help his family, and taught in some of the best and worst schools in the City.

Yesterday he died as a result of metastatic melanoma.

Frank McCourt, RIP.

Harry Potter #6 -- that was the best they could do?

2009-07-20T10:12:00.003-05:00

The Monk and Monkette saw the HP6 movie yesterday and have a full he said/she said take -- the boss liked it, I thought it sort of sucked -- the worst one since Chris Columbus's kiddie flicks for HP1 and HP2.

Because the boss doesn't have a blog, I can have my say here.

Everyone knows the set-up: After HP5, the return of Lord Voldemort is known and irrefutable. Harry is now The Chosen One -- the wizarding world's Jesus. The best way to protect him is to keep him going to school in the exceedingly well-protected confines of Hogwarts. And as the Death Eaters perform their mischief in the wider world, and the darkness of old Snakeface begins to affect the world, Hogwarts is a safe haven. The kids go to school, become adolescents and suffer their hormonal fugue states, the professors continue their teaching . . . but all in the lee of a dark wind blowing.

The book itself is 600+ pages, but far tighter and shorter than book 5, HP and the Order of the Phoenix (800+ pages), or book 4, HP and the Goblet of Fire. Books 4 and 5 were made into far better movies.

Here is the Good, Bad and Ugly of HP6 (movie version):

The Good:

(1) Generally the kids are getting better and better as actors. Daniel Radcliffe continues to get middling reviews, but I think that's a bum rap. He's done far better as the series has progressed. Emma Watson is very good. Rupert Grint has a fine comic acting future.

(2) The reviews for Michael Gambon have been universally positive and with good reason. He plays a wistful and perhaps mildly regretful Dumbledore very well. The other old bugger of note, Jim Broadbent, is quite good too.

(3) The opening set piece with Snakeface's minions destroying the Millenium Bridge is pretty cool.

(4) The boys playing the young Tom Riddle are quite creepy, especially the teenage version.

(5) Luna Lovegood had a far larger role than in the book -- Evanna Lynch is just the perfect space case for the role and consigning her to the three lines she had in the book would have been a disappointment.

The Ugly: (we'll go out of order because the Bad may be a long list)

(1) the effects in the cave where Dumbledore and Harry fight the zombies protecting Voldemort's horcrux hiding place are weak -- too obviously effects.

(2) Helena Bonham Carter's teeth -- perfectly British, crossed with vampire.

(3) The comment by Tonks that the werewolf Lupin's agitation and irritation as the moon ascends to full are worst at the "beginning of the cycle" -- lycanthropy as the magical equivalent of the menstrual cycle. Ick.

The Bad:

First, a preliminary note. Warner Bros. pushed the release date of the movie back from Thanksgiving 2008 to mid-July 2009 to make it a summer "tent-pole" movie (supporting the company's earnings for the year). But with eight extra months to make the film better . . . the filmakers failed. There's no quality comparison between last summer's mid-July blockbuster (The Dark Knight -- an all-time great) and this mess. Specific criticisms (SPOILERS ABOUND):

(1) The Dumbledore-Harry relationship's foundations are undercooked. As compensation for avoiding Harry in book 5 (and movie 5, as the ending colloquy between them showed), Dumbledore specifically sets up a special independent study class for Harry with himself as the professor -- the life and times of Tom Riddle. This is the crux of the book and completely lost in the movie. It adds to the relationship between the two in the book, which is lost in the movie.

(2) Lost flashbacks -- there are at minimum four flashbacks of Tom Riddle and his evil foundations, only two are shown in the movie (although one isn't really about him being evil) and that's bad. The ones cut from the film show Riddle as a parricide and conniver -- making Voldy seem far more evil and adding to the dread of the book.

(3) The love-sick kids. One of the best scenes in the movie has Hermione pining for Ron and asking Harry how it feels when he sees Ginny Weasley kissing her boyfriend. As Hermione cries on Harry's shoulder, he says, "it feels like this." That's brilliant. But the ridiculous amount of screen time for Jessie Cave (Lavender Brown) and Ron's love foibles is just far too much.

(4) Quidditch. Again, a bit much. HP5 had none and the movie certainly didn't suck. There were 10-15 minutes of quidditch in HP6 and it could have been cut in half.

(5) Pacing. Good gosh this was awful: bang-up opening, interesting scenes until Hogwarts, dreary, choppy, slow, inconsistent thereafter. The two final action sequences come completely out of the blue.

(6) The finale. This was botched twice over. First, one key aspect of the battle in the cave is that Harry must get himself and Dumbledore back to Hogwarts (and I think he took Dumbledore over the latter's objections) by apparating (Rowling's equivalent of teleporting). Harry had never done any such task -- he could only do so over short distances by himself. Now he shows his courage and dedication by performing such magic over a long distance to save his professor's life -- that was completely lost in the movie both emotionally and functionally (couldn't even tell Harry performed the magic).

Second, Dumbledore's death. This was a complete failure to mark the scene. Usually in large productions the movie handles such a scene as well as the book (see, Gandalf v. Balrog in The Fellowship of the Ring). Not here. In the book, Dumbledore paralyzed Harry during the Draco-Dumbledore confrontation and Harry was hidden under his invisibility cloak. It is not believeable that Harry would just stay silent and hide when Dumbledore is in trouble, but that's what happened in the movie.

Third, the attack on Hogwarts is completely botched. This was a huge battle and action scene in the book; in the movie, the scene plays like the art museum defacing by the Joker in the original Batman movie -- a band of ne'er-do-wells committing mere mischief. But Hogwarts is the bastion of "good wizards" and the attack is a challenge to the peace and prosperity for which it stands. Good luck discerning that in the movie.

(7) The Half Blood Prince. This is one of the weaker mysteries in the series and a bit of a dud, but ultimately makes some sense. In the movie, it's barely a footnote and the revelation is a real yawner.

David Yates has the helm for the last two movies in the series (book 7 is getting split into two films). He did well with book 5, he needs to redeem himself after this adaptation of book 6.

Palin and the GOP

2009-07-10T10:26:00.002-05:00

On further review, the grand old dame of the GOP (Peggy Noonan) is dead-on in her evaluation of Sarah Palin.

Her history does not need to be rehearsed at any length. Ten months ago she was embraced with friendliness by her party. The left and the media immediately overplayed their hand, with attacks on her children. The party rallied round, as a party should. She went on the trail a sensation but demonstrated in the ensuing months that she was not ready to go national and in fact never would be. She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.

Noonan liked Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention and has not become an Obamacan like other "conservative" pundits like David Brooks, Kathleen Parker or William F. Buckley's son Christopher. In other words, she didn't lose her f*cking mind last year. So her short summary on Palin's rise, fall and failure is both credible and thoughtful.

We liked Gov. Palin when she blew away the GOP Convention. We liked her when she held her own in the VP debate. We liked how she rallied the base around a candidate that had formerly been anathema to it. She didn't lose the 2008 election, McCain's panicky response to the financial crisis did (along with his unwillingness to hammer Obama's weaknesses). But as a future standardbearer for the party and a potential candidate for 2012 or 2016, she's inadequate. There are far better possibilities. The GOP just needs to find them because there's no telling what damage Obama can do to this country if he serves two terms.

The idiocy of Obama

2009-07-06T09:40:00.002-05:00

Just 5.5 months into the Obama Administration and the following has been revealed: Obama is merely a useful idiot.

He's a useful idiot for (or of) the environmental Left, which wants high energy taxes that will have the most negligible possible effect on "climate change" even as the global warming science has become increasingly discredited and the Obama Administration has suppressed contrary viewpoints. Do you really think "renewable energy" will solve our alleged energy problems? Ask the Californians how that's working out.

He's a useful idiot for the socialization of health care, which is perfectly summed up as "We'll raise your taxes and in exchange we're going to cut your treatments."

He's a useful idiot for the unions, who even get a huge lift from the ridiculous climate change bill because government grants for projects will only go to grantees who implement union wage rules under the Davis-Bacon Act -- a guaranteed added cost to any project of about 30%.

And ultimately, he's a useful idiot for the despots of the world. Every major foreign policy decision by Obama has been wrong: pressuring Israel, calling for Zelaya's reinstatement in Honduras, silence in the face of the Iranian popular uprising (where now a major clerical group is defying the ayatollahs), betraying Poland and Czech Republic on missile defense, and prioritizing a moronically ridiculous idea of nuclear arm reduction negotiations that demonstrates only that Obama learned nothing from Reagan's triumph in the Cold War.

Oh yeah, the economy has become worse than Obama's tax-and-spend aides predicted too.

And to think, we have 3.5 to 7.5 more years of this. What a disaster.

On Liberty

2009-07-05T00:10:00.003-05:00

Something to ponder on the 233rd anniversary of the founding of the Republic:

"Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought."

- The British historian Lord Acton

Most would define freedom as the ability to do what he wants. That understanding is venal and incomplete.

A contribution from the late Henry Hyde:

Democracy is an ongoing moral experiment in a people's capacity to govern themselves. And only a certain kind of people can be self-governing: People who have been formed by a life-affirming culture; people who are not, in the depth of their souls, utter pragmatists; people who do not worship false gods; people who are inwardly self-governing in terms of their appetites and aspirations; people who cherish goods worth cherishing and honor heroes worth honoring.

When the Founders staked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the American democratic experiment, they did not think that free government was inevitable, only that it was possible. And the Founders believed that its possibility depended on a certain kind of people: a people who knew that freedom, rightly understood, is not a matter of doing whatever we like, but of having the right to do what we ought. Freedom and virtue were inseparable, in their minds, and that meant that the house of freedom must rest on the foundation of a life-affirming culture.

The Great Rivera: 3000, 500 and 1

2009-06-29T13:36:00.002-05:00

Congratulations to Mariano Rivera, The Great Rivera, for recording his 500th career regular season save last night. He also has 34 post-season saves (next best = Dennis Eckersley with 15).

The three numbers in the title have this significance:

3000 is the number of dollars in Rivera's signing bonus in 1990. He was a 20-year old beanpole from a fishing village in Panama who was expected to do very little as a starting pitcher, but the Yanks took a chance on him. Credit to scout Herb Raybourn, who signed the future Hall-of-Famer. What a bargain.

500 is obvious -- the save total he reached yesterday. Fittingly, in this age of three-out closers (*cough*Frankie Rodriguez and Eckersley*cough*), Mo came into last night's game in the eighth inning to secure the Yanks' win.

1 is his RBI total. Last night, in one of the worst pitching sequences possible, K-Rod (the aforementioned Rodriguez) walked Mo (career 0-for-5 including postseason) with the bases loaded to give the Yanks an insurance run in a 4-2 win.

In 1995, the Yanks called up Rivera to pitch in the major leagues as a starter. Other than an 8-inning, no-run, 11 K performance against the Chisax, he was an awful starter (3-3, 7.07 ERA). He fared better as a reliever -- after a rough first outing, he held down a 3.00 ERA over his final eight appearances. In the 1995 ALDS, he was a revelation: whiffing 8 Mariners in 5.1 IP and not giving up a run. As closer John Wetteland flopped, and the Yankees' staff as a whole bombed (5.94 ERA), Mo was brilliant.

In 1996, Rivera was THE bridge to the closer -- 107 IP, 130 K, 2.09 ERA and 1 HR allowed as the set-up man for Wetteland. Rivera finished third in the Cy Young Award voting as a set-up reliever, and 12th in the MVP ballot. That 2.09 ERA is great . . . but he has eight sub-2.00 ERA seasons.

The list of Mo's accomplishments as a player is long and The Monk would miss too many spots just trying to hit the highlights. The career statistical record says it all.

Congrats to Mo.

Buyer's remorse

2009-06-15T10:12:00.002-05:00

The Monk would hope that PaMonk would be feeling some, at least at the same level that Marty Peretz does.

Peretz is the publisher of The New Republic, a political mentor of Al Gore, Jr., and strongly pro-Israel. Even as his magazine has become intellectually more akin to extreme left-wing periodicals like Mother Jones and The Nation, thanks to John Judis, Jonathan Chait, and Michelle Cottle (to its credit, TNR has also continued to print moderate liberals like Anne Applebaum, Leon Wieseltier and even moderate conservatives like Alvaro Vargas Llosa), Peretz is at minimum a voice of reason on Israel issues.

Or so it seemed until he famously wrote that friends of Israel and Jews could trust Obama. Peretz came to that conclusion in early 2008, and campaigned for Obama. Now, after Obama's speech in Cairo last week, Peretz seems to realize he screwed up. Some of Peretz's analysis of Obama's mythmaking:

When Obama attributes the establishment of Israel, and also Israel's fear that the Iranian government and many Arabs would quite happily visit another devastation on it, to the Holocaust, he is in fact accepting [Iranian Pres.] Ahmadinejad's analysis of the Zionist triumph and also one of the tenets of Palestinian rejectionism, which is that the Palestinians are correct in their phobia that they have paid the price for what the Nazis did to the Jews.

If the president does not grasp Israel's history, he should be more modest in his judgments. Here's just one huge fact that does not fit into the president's sweeping explanation for the success of the Jewish state: Why did more than 800,000 Jews return to Zion from their thousands of years of exile in the Muslim world beginning with the very morn of independence? Surely this rupturing of communal life dating back, in some cases, three millennia was not Holocaust-related.

* * *

I, too, am for a two-state solution. I always have been. As the president said, "many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state"; he should have said "most" rather than "many." . . . Alas, Obama cannot and does not say that most or even many Palestinians recognize the need for a Jewish state or even, for that matter, the Israeli state. Here there is no symmetry, alas, that will serve. The most he can say is that, "privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away." Why does he not say "many Palestinians"? Perhaps because it would be stark deception. So which Muslims? The democratic but, alas, irrelevant and tolerant Muslims of Indonesia? Or Cairenes, especially the intellectuals, who have lived under a peace treaty with Jerusalem for all of three decades, but have not quite accommodated themselves to the existence of Israel?

* * *
So, in the end, the grand conciliator violated his own principle and spoke asymmetrically: He was very tough on Israel, but he was vague to the Palestinians and to the Arabs. The president was not at all specific about what he wished from people who are still enemies of the Jewish state. Every Israeli concession requires a reciprocal concession, and not just words. But even words are difficult to extract from the Palestinian Authority, the so-called moderates. Mahmoud Abbas said only a fortnight ago that he had only to wait on what Israel surrenders. . .

Marty, and you too Dad:

I told you so.

Snakebit? More like suck

2009-06-12T11:48:00.002-05:00

The Yanks aren't snakebit against the Red Sawx, they just suck. The problem is the Yanks like their shiny baubles -- the high-ceiling emotional flakes; the Red Sawx are tough. This has been the tale of the two teams since 2004, when the Yanks procured A-Rod, Kevin Brown, and Sheffield and let Pettitte go, while the Red Sawx obtained Schilling and dumped Nomah in mid-season. Since the 2004 ALCS, the Yanks have lost all three playoff series they've played; Bahstin has won the 2004 and 2007 World Series.

The Yanks have lost to the Sawx in nearly every way imaginable: they've blown 8th and 9th inning leads (game 1, game 8), they blew a 6-0 lead to lose a slugfest (game 2), they've been outpitched (game 3), they've been dominated (games 4, 5, 6) and from the fourth inning of game 2 until the 7th inning last night, they NEVER EVEN LED after the completion of an inning for five straight games against their biggest rival.

The Redsax toughness is now the stuff of legend: they scraped by the Yanks in games 4 and 5 of the '04 ALCS (one of which Mo blew, one of which Joe Torre blew) and never trailed in games 6 and 7; they fell behind Cleveland 3-1 in the '07 ALCS, then pounded the Indians 7-1, 12-2 and 11-2; they fell behind Tampa 3-1 in the '08 ALCS and 7-0 in the 7th inning of game 5 and extended that series to seven games. This is the toughness that the Yankees had from 1996-2001 -- the teams that were on the brink of defeat against Texas (1996, down 1-0 and trailing in the 9th in game 2 of a best-of-five series), Atlanta (1996, the '96 Yanks were the first team to win the World Series in 6 games after losing the first two at home), Oakland twice (2000 ALDS game 5 in Oakland, trailed 2-0 in ALDS in 2001), and even Arizona (ninth-inning miracles in games 4 and 5).

This is why signing AJ Burnett was a mistake (high-ceiling, Yankee-killer, injury-prone, complete flake) and the Yanks should have signed Derek Lowe (7-3, 3.44 with the Braves), who has started 32-35 games in each of his seven seasons as a full-time starter, cracked 200 IP five times, has five seasons of 14+ wins (Burnett has one) and who pitched six innings of one-hit ball in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS on TWO DAYS' REST. That's the kind of toughness the Yanks used to display.

The Yanks made two good moves this offseason by signing Teixiera (1.081 OPS, 3 HR, 7 R against the Sawx this year) and Sabathia. Tex is tough and has singlehandedly improved the Yankee defense by an order of magnitude. Sabathia pitches long, well and hard. He stayed in a batter too long last night. Burnett is going to be a 16.5M/yr bust, even if he averages 13-11, 4.60 each season. Joba has the requisite toughness to win (see his 1-0 win at Fenway last year), but the team as a whole is in a morass thanks to too many flakes (Cano, Cabrera, A-Rod) and bouts of plain stupidity (Swisher).

The Monk worried less when the Yanks fell behind Bastin in their season series 1-5 (2007), 1-4 (2006), and 1-5 (2004) because those teams tended to start slow, always played well against the Sawx the third time around (the Yanks won 9 of 10 v. Bastin at one point in 2006), had Torre at the helm (who managed every regular season game [tho' in 2004-07 not every playoff game] as if the Yanks needed the win; Girardi doesn't do that as well), and had taken their pound of flesh from the Sawx before the All-Star break. This year, the Yanks stink against Bahstin and won't get another change at redemption (the past three days were supposed to be the redemption) until August. At least in '97, when the Orioles were good and beat the Yanks like a drum, it was only 4-0 O's before the break and, even after the Orioles ran that series to 7-0, the Yanks immediately thrashed the O's four times in the final five games in the following 10 days (the one other loss was the two-game difference in the final standings).

There's no way to spin this -- the 0-8 start is a complete disaster.

Wongdoer is right about one thing, that ball two call on Pedroia last night changed the game a bit, but borderline calls are 50-50 propositions. Bad managing, bad execution, and bad character are not.

Snakebit

2009-06-11T22:03:00.002-05:00

The Yankees are snakebit against Boston in 2009.

I'll leave the hard analysis to Monk who is good at this sort of thing. A few thoughts:

1. The Yanks need to IGNORE that they've been swept in Boston. NY, with the exception of the that five game Boston massacre, has completely lost its mojo/confidence/edge against Boston since the 2004 disaster. Take 2 out of 3 or sweep the Mutts and get on with life. Unless in the unlikely event that there is a tie for a playoff spot getting to and winning in the playoffs trumps even being 0-19 v. Boston

2. If CC had gotten that inside fastball call against Dustin Pedroia, it would have been one down and man on first. That should have been a strike. Compare that with the high strike on Teixeira in the 9th. That was very, very high.

3. A gripe that I've long had about the Yanks is how they went down in the 9th: 1-2-3. No fight. Can't blame Tex for that really because that should have been a double if it was hit four feet on either side of Youkilis. The Yanks are terrible at extending at-bats...except...

4. in the top of 8th in that bloody squall when the Yanks half took FOREVER and my continuing thought was get out of there and let CC come in before he gets cold. Can't blame the guys for fighting in the 8th but it was just bad timing.

Go Hoos II!

2009-06-10T09:46:00.002-05:00

The Monk is a bit remiss (workload) and a bit late with this:

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE VIRGINIA CAVALIERS BASEBALL TEAM -- COLLEGE WORLD SERIES BOUND!

Virginia not only swept through the Irvine regional, as I discussed last Monday, it won its Super Regional and will now participate in the College World Series for the first time in school history!

Last weekend, Virginia had to travel to Oxford, Mississippi for a best of three series against the University of Mississippi. Ole Miss had received a #1 seed from the NCAA, which was appropriate (#9 or #11 ranking, top 16 RPI); Virginia had been screwed and given a #2 seed (#11 or #7 ranking, top 10 RPI). So Ole Miss hosted as the higher remaining seed.

Virginia bonked game 1, squandering a 3-2 lead entering the 9th with an error by the secondbaseman and a questionable pitching decision (not bringing in the team's lock-down quality closer to start the inning). Ole Miss won 4-3 on a leadoff homer in the bottom of the 12th.

In game 2, Ole Miss returned the favor, bonking a 3-2 lead entering the 8th with a terrible error by its secondbaseman (Chuck Knoblauch-ish throw) and the Cavs rallied for a 4-3 win.

In game 3, Ole Miss scored one in the first inning and nothing else. The Cavs' top-notch pitching carried the team; its hitters scraped together a three-run, error-aided rally in the fifth to take a 4-1 lead and Virginia coasted to the 5-1 win and a celebratory pile up in Oxford. Virginia is the only CWS team this year to lose its first game of the Super Regional.

On to Omaha, site of the College World Series and even tougher teams. The eight-team field is separated into two sub-brackets (basically teams seeded 1, 4, 5, 8 in one bracket; 2, 3, 6, 7 in the other). Virginia is essentially the #6 seed in the CWS, it faces national #3 seed LSU in its first game. The other teams in the sub-bracket are national #2 seed Cal-State Fullerton (the runner-up to UC-Irvine in the Big West Conference, but CSFU actually had a better resume because it fared better against non-Big West teams) and upstart Arkansas, which dropped Florida State in the Super Regionals.

This is the bracket of death: LSU is excellent again and is coached by Virginia coach Brian O'Connor's mentor, CSFU is a powerhouse, and Arkansas has feasted on good teams (5-0 against Florida, swept FSU, drubbed Oklahoma twice in Norman). Unlike Irvine or Ole Miss, Virginia's next opponents can BASH, which will be a big test for the Cavs' pitchers (who held UNC to 13 runs total in their four games this year -- a great total in high-scoring college baseball). Sub-bracket winner plays the survivor of Texas, North Carolina, Arizona State and darkest of dark horses Southern Miss (a #3 seed in its regional).

So this will be interesting. The semi-unknown Cavs on the biggest stage in College Baseball against two perennial powers (LSU has five titles, CSFU has four) and the "other" team from the nation's strongest conference, the SEC.

Go 'Hoos!

The Gipper

2009-06-08T12:16:00.002-05:00

The Monk hoped that Mark Steyn would post his excellent eulogy to Pres. Reagan last week, but in the absence of Steyn doing so on his own website, The Monk found the eulogy on Free Republic.

Five years and three days ago, Ronald Reagan died. His public life came to an end 11 years before that. But his legacy still endures, despite the current president's efforts to defenestrate it. Here is the importance of Reagan:

[The 1970s] was the era of “détente”, a word barely remembered now, which is just as well, as it reflects poorly on us: the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the free world had decided that the unfree world was not a prison ruled by a murderous ideology that had to be defeated but merely an alternative lifestyle that had to be accommodated. Under cover of “détente”, the Soviets gobbled up more and more real estate across the planet, from Ethiopia to Grenada. Nonetheless, it wasn’t just the usual suspects who subscribed to this grubby evasion – Helmut Schmidt, Pierre Trudeau, Francois Mitterand – but most of the so-called “conservatives”, too – Ted Heath, Giscard d’Estaing, Gerald Ford.

And Reagan confounded those, like his misbegotten "biographer" Edmund Morris, who could not understand that certain evils had to be confronted, not cozened.

“The Great Communicator” was effective because what he was communicating was self-evident to all but our dessicated elites: “We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around.” And at the end of a grim, grey decade - Vietnam, Watergate, energy crises, Iranian hostages – Americans decided they wanted a President who looked like the nation, not like its failed government. Thanks to his clarity, around the world, governments that had nations have been replaced by nations that have governments. Most of the Warsaw Pact countries are now members of Nato, with free markets and freely elected parliaments.

The paramount success for the sportscaster, actor, governor of California and President is that he succeeded in ultimately making unfree people free.

Unlike [Heath, Ford, d'Estaing, et al.], unlike most other senior Republicans, Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism for what it was: a great evil. Millions of Europeans across half a continent from Poland to Bulgaria, Slovenia to Latvia live in freedom today because he acknowledged that simple truth when the rest of the political class was tying itself in knots trying to pretend otherwise. That’s what counts. He brought down the “evil empire”, and all the rest is fine print.

65 Years

2009-06-06T21:37:00.003-05:00

Omaha Beach today.

65 years ago, on June 6, 1944, an estimated 4,500 Americans spent died here establishing the first beachhead against Hitler's 'Atlantic Wall'. A first hand account of the assault is available here.

Note the width of the beach, its about 200 yards. The fastest runner in the world trained and unencumbered can sprint that distance in about 20 seconds. American GI's had to land on a sandbar 50 to 100 yards in the surf, wade to the edge of the water and make those 200 yards again a wall of enemy fire.

20 Years

2009-06-06T21:03:00.001-05:00

20 years ago this past Thursday a student-linked insurrection against the totalitarian government in the People's Republic of China was crushed by tanks. The photo above of a student with a shopping bag standing in the way of column of tanks is perhaps the most indelible memory of June 4, 1989.

China economic progress in the past twenty years has been nothing short of stunning. In fact fears of Chinese economic power today rightfully overshadows concerns about Japan's 20 years ago. The last ten years has made China rich and a creditor to many nations most notably somewhere near a trillion dollars of the United States. Folks treat China like fine china these days and many are selectively choosing to overlook the hideous warts of the government of this country who consider liberty as anathema as it ever has.

While we admire their single minded dedication to economic superpower status and their superb management of the economy (even this author will grudgingly admit) let's not forget this government rules from the memory and stands on the shoulders of the bloodiest murderers in human history.

A highly negative comparison

2009-06-03T09:45:00.002-05:00

Losing out in a comparison of (political) courage* to former Pres. Jimmy Carter is a mark of Cain. And to Holman Jenkins, Pres. Obama is so marked.

In his column, Jenkins notes the perilous political path Carter navigated to push Congress to pass the Staggers Act, which deregulated the freight railroad industry and effectively saved it from mass bankruptcies. Compare that to Obama's sop to the UAW that constitutes his GM rescue plan:

Rail executives and economists had been arguing since the 1920s, when competition from trucks and planes began to emerge, that comprehensive federal regulation had only distorted the industry's pricing, driven away investment, and made competitive adaptation impossible. But the argument had a new ring now that Washington would have to bear the political risk of operating and subsidizing the nation's rail services.

It still took some doing on Mr. Carter's part. When the bill stalled, a hundred phone calls went from the White House to congressmen, including 10 by Mr. Carter in a single evening. The bill essentially no longer required railroads to provide services at a loss to please certain constituencies. It meant going up against farmers, labor, utilities, mining interests, and even some railroads -- whereas Mr. Obama's auto bailout tries to appease key lobbies like labor and greens, which is why it can't work.

In his message to Congress, Mr. Carter warned of a "catastrophic series of bankruptcies" and "massive federal expenditure" unless deregulation was allowed to "overhaul our nation's rail system, leading to higher labor productivity and more efficient use of plant and equipment."

* * *

In 1980, Congress passed the Staggers Act, ending a century of federal regulation and leading to the railroad industry's renaissance. Leo Mullin, then a young Conrail veep, would later look back and praise all involved for having the fortitude to recognize that salvaging the taxpayer's investment in Conrail meant more than fixing a single broken company -- it meant fixing a defective regulatory environment.

Carter also deregulated the airline industry. This is a far cry from Obama's plans to regulate the pharmaceutical (through health care reform) and automotive industries nearly to death.

* -- Despite innumerable political disagreements with the man, The Monk will not question Carter's personal courage. Carter served on submarine duty in the US Navy during World War II, and served under Adm. Hyman Rickover in the Navy's pilot nuclear submarine program.

Go Hoos!

2009-06-01T10:02:00.002-05:00

For the first time in its previously far-from-illustrious history, the Virginia baseball team has moved past the regional round. Congratulations to the Cavs.

When The Monk and his friend Luskerdu were at Virginia, the team struggled to maintain a .500 overall record and never even sniffed the NCAA Tournament, which at that time had 48 teams split into eight 6-team regionals with the regional winners advancing to the College World Series. After we graduated (and I think there's documentary proof that Luskerdu did graduate), the Cavaliers caught lightning in a bottle for a year in 1996 led by the quite mortal Seth Greisinger, who played in the majors for the Tigers, Twins, and Braves (he was a first-round pick, he flopped) before going to Japan.

In 2003, the 23-year coaching term of Dennis Womack ended and Virginia hired Brian O'Connor, a Creighton grad who played in the College World Series, coached for his alma mater, then gained national recognition as an assistant at Notre Dame. Since hiring O'Connor, Virginia has been a top-flight baseball program: five 40+ win seasons in his six years, six straight NCAA Tournament appearances (compared to three in Virginia history before O'Connor arrived), an ACC championship and constant success in the ACC -- one of the better baseball conferences in the country considering its plethora of national powers (UNC, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Florida State, Miami).

O'Connor was a pitcher and his knowledge of pitching has been the key to Virginia's baseball success. The Cavs play at the cavernous Davenport Field and consistently have one of the better pitching staffs in college baseball. And it's not just at home -- the Cavs rarely play those 17-15 aluminum bat-aided slugfests (or 37-6 slugfests -- see the beating FSU put on Ohio State) on the road either, even in Atlanta or Chapel Hill or Miami.

The NCAA Tournament now has 64 teams split into 16 regionals with teams seeded 1-4 and eight teams seeded as overall Nos. 1-8 (like seeded players in tennis). The winner of the double-elimination regional goes to a Super-Regional to play a best of three series against another regional winner. The Super-Regional winner goes to the College World Series.

Two years ago, Virginia was up 3-1 and six outs away from its first-ever trip beyond the regional round against defending champion Oregon State. The Cavs threw away that game (four errors) and lost the rematch; Oregon State didn't lose again on its way to another national title.

This year, the Cavs got a complete screw-job from the NCAA Tournament committee. After winning the ACC Tournament (beating UNC, Clemson and Florida State in the process, all of whom received #1 seeds), Virginia's RPI was #6 and its national ranking was #7 or #11 (depending upon the poll). Instead of hosting a regional as a #1 seed, the Committee sent the Cavs across the country to Irvine to the regional with the No. 6 overall seed (UC-Irvine), the best pitcher in college baseball (San Diego State's Stephen Strasburg -- the upcoming No. 1 pick in the baseball draft who throws 98-102 mph with a fantastic curve and slider), and the defending NCAA champ, Fresno State. If the NCAA does the snake-seeding method of the basketball committee, UVa was rated as the No. 27 team in the country. A ridiculous notion.

And yet . . . the team turned that chickens**t seeding into chicken salad. The Cavs took batting practice from 40 feet against pitching machines at top speed to prepare for Strasburg, flew out to Irvine without much talk of their bad draw, and performed. They touched Strasburg (ERA 1.24) for two runs and outpitched SDSU in their first game, 5-1. They shut down Irvine on Saturday 5-0. Last night, the Cavs again stifled Irvine on its home field -- a 4-1 win that sends Virginia to its first-ever Super Regional to play the winner of tonight's Mississippi-Western Kentucky game.

Congratulations to the Cavs. You're moving near the big stage now.

Sotomayor not a bipartisan pick

2009-05-26T14:37:00.004-05:00

Ed Whelan has this note regarding how Judge Sotomayor was selected by the George HW Bush White House to be a district court judge:

. . . when President Bush nominated Sotomayor to the district court in 1991, the New York senators, Moynihan and D’Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled the senator not of the president’s party to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan’s pick. I am reliably informed that Bush 41’s White House nonetheless resisted nominating her because she was so liberal and did so in the end only as part of a package to move along other nominees whom Moynihan was holding up.

So not only did Bush put Souter on the Court, he paved the way for Sotomayor. And Whelan indicates she will be a far left-wing voice.

But as I said before, her lack of intellectual firepower compared to Scalia and Roberts means she won't be an influential one (*cough*Stevens*cough*).

Easy confirmation, no superstar

2009-05-26T10:04:00.003-05:00

Pres. Obama took the quick and easy path by nominating Hon. Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court.

First, she's a two-party appointee. Pres. Bush (I) appointed her to a Federal district court bench during his sole term in office, Pres. Clinton appointed her to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which handles appeals from cases filed in district courts in New York, Connecticut and Vermont).

Second, she is female. As only the third female nominee, she'll receive great deference from the Senate (only three Senators total have voted against a female Supreme Court appointee -- the three dissenters to Justice Ginsburg).

Third, she is Latina. This is the minority category du jour that "deserves" a place on the Supreme Court. Miguel Estrada would have been the first undoubted Latino to serve on the Supreme Court if the Democrats had not filibustered his Court of Appeals nomination under Pres. Bush (II). Whether Justice Benjamin Cardozo (served 1932-38) was Hispanic is an open question.

Fourth, her paper trail, while not overwhelming the average Rhodes Scholar for its intellectual content, is not overly controversial. For a Democrat's nominee to be "controversial" to the media, the nominee would have to take opposite positions on Iraq War or War on Terror issues (Elena Kagan) or have doubts about the legality of abortion. For such a nominee to be controversial in general, the nominee would have to espouse a judicial philosophy that questions whether the law should be applied as written. Her comments that a wise Latina woman with the experiences of growing up poor, female, and Latina should reach the right conclusion in a case more often than a white male who was never poor nor Latino, is nonsense and preposterous on its face. It's the same "empathy" quality that elevates the feelings of the litigants over the rule of law. But it's less easy to challenge her dedication to the rule of law than Obama's alleged favorite.

Obama had a Supreme Court candidate whose dedication to the rule of law is highly questionable. That candidate was Diane Wood, a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She seemed to be the favorite of liberal interest groups and the professoriat because she supposedly has the intellectual candlepower to go toe-to-toe with Scalia and Roberts. That's highly unlikely. But Wood was also the most controversial candidate possible precisely because her dedication to the rule of law is more open to question than any of the other rumored candidates (Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Sotomayor). After Sen. Jon Kyl said Republicans would fight any nominee who placed empathy over analysis (a shot at Wood), Sotomayor became the most logical pick.

Possibility of her nomination passing the Senate = 100%.

Possibility of her appointment passing without dissenting votes = 45%.

Possibility of her reasoning in decisions ever being equally persuasive as Scalia's = 0%.

Why Government Can't Run A Business*

2009-05-20T23:03:00.004-05:00

John Steele Gordon's column today in the Wall Street Journal on why government cannot by its nature run businesses efficiently is the best I've ever read. The piece requires very little commentary but if there is one fact to take away it's:

Governments make political decisions whereas running a business requires sound economic decisions.

By all means read it all but here are the bullet points:

1) Governments are run by politicians, not businessmen.

2) Politicians need headlines.

3) Governments use other people's money.

4) Government does not tolerate competition.

5) Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not face competition at all.

6) Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots.

7) Government is regulated by government.

Obamessiah is Wrong

2009-05-10T01:19:00.002-05:00

Cliff Asness, founding principal of AQR Capital Management which runs $20 billion, savaged President Obama for his attack on hedge funds during the Chrysler bankruptcy process. It's exceptionally well-written. The key point:

The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

As for the arrogance of this administration I would draw attention to the comment by White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs this week: "We cannot rule out management changes after the stress-tests."

Specifically as Obamessiah executed Rick Wagoner at GM, they won't hesitate to execute bank and finance company CEOs.

Arlen Ambushed

2009-05-10T00:03:00.002-05:00

My initial reaction on learning that Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania had crossed the aisle to become a Democrat was something like "That EFFING TRAITOR!!#$" in large part as Specter would give the Democratic caucus cloture proof sixty votes in the Senate which is in reality the last real obstacle to a liberal President and liberal Congress running rampant.

For many conservatives Specter has been a RINO (Republican In Name Only) for some years now in particular on his judicially activist views specifically calling Roe v. Wade and its subsequent survival a super-precedent. There were also those rancid "Kerry/Specter" lawn signs from 2004. On the other hand he did shepherd though the not particularly easy appointment of Samuel Alito the high bench.

It was amusing and a pleasant surprise this week when it turned out that the Senate Democratic leadership led by the sanctimonious snake Harry Reid that they essentially screwed Specter. Specter, who apparently was promised that he would maintain his Senate seniority if he switched parties, found himself treated as the most junior Democrat on Senate committees. This is a deep blow to Specter who attempted to sound Reaganesque on the reasons for his switch, i.e., "I didn't leave the Republican Party, THEY left me" but admitted that the catalyst of his switch was the fact that conservative Pat Toomey would run against him in Republican primary in 2010 and that the likelihood of him prevailing in that contest was bleak.

Essentially he switched parties, a month after stating unequivocally that he would not, to save his exalted seat in the Senate.

There may a silver lining somewhere in all of this.

2010 is a long way away but assuming that Pat Toomey is the Republican candidate, Specter is more likely than not to be a Democratic candidate. A Specter left out in the political cold is likely a very disgruntled Specter (remember his nickname IS Snarlin' Arlen) who won't get many Republican votes at all and might see the most liberal Democrats too disgusted to vote for him. A well run campaign by Toomey and a dulling of the gloss of Obamessiah may be enough to put this seat back in Republican hands. Even if Specter won, he would be a moderate to conservative Democrat rather than perhaps a liberal Democrat so this switch, while not a good thing, may not be such a bad thing after all.

Reid and the Democrats despite Specter's orneriness (still supporting Norm Coleman in Minnesota) should have welcomed Arlen with open arms and just bit their tongue and make sure Specter was in the tent p*ssing out.

Just Watch

2009-05-09T23:31:00.002-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAfJyzN3ak

No idea if there is a backstory to this; e.g., perhaps Bush asked the White House press corps NOT to stand.

I am an Occam's Razor guy and seems to be me that the press has found their Messiah. Just hope it's not the false Messiah from Revelation.

Socialist Meddling

2009-04-21T09:01:00.002-05:00

Why did stocks drop sharply yesterday? A pullback after an improbable six week advance? The immediate driver was the leak over the weekend that the Treasury was considering exchanging its preferred equity in US banks into common equity AND SecTreas' Geithner's comment that health of individual banks may not be the SOLE criterion for repayment of TARP money.

Healthy banks, some of whom had TARP money forced on them for the sake of the overall financial system last fall, want to pay it back as quickly as possible to get the government of their boardrooms. Goldman, Sachs and JPMorgan are at the head of the pack.

The Obama Administration likes to meddle and would like to do indefinitely. There's been a largely unspoken fear that healthy banks would not be permitted to pay TARP back. An excuse that it would be better for the financial system was likely or perhaps even more fearfully a diktat that said no one would be allowed to pay it back until all the banks can pay it back to assure a level playing field. Citigroup and Bank of America will take YEARS to pay it back.

If the House's 90% punitive tax plan was any indication, neither the Administration or Congressional Democrats (and the 80 or so idiot Republicans who voted for this bill), government in the boardroom is a bad idea. This is why financials took a tumble yesterday with financials leading the way.

A season in an inning?

2009-04-13T10:19:00.002-05:00

That terrible ACK ACK sound you heard yesterday afternoon was the Yankees bonking an eighth inning lead by allowing three two-out runs to the woeful Royals (eight runs in previous five games). And the loss is ultimately Girardi's fault -- too much tinkering at the margins.

Girardi put Brian Bruney in for the 7th inning. Bruney is now being counted upon as a bridge to Rivera, and he responded with an easy 14-pitch inning. Then Girardi put Damaso Marte in for three lefties in the 8th. When the Royals pinch hit with two outs, Girardi lifted Marte.

And that's where the Yanks lost the game. Marte is getting serious money (> 15M/3 years) to pitch 60-70 innings a year and he has the experience and capability of getting righties out. That said, the otherwise underwhelming Billy Butler does hit lefties hard (.983 OPS v. lefty, .649 OPS v. righty). Once Girardi lifted Marte, he brought in Jose Veras. Veras walked Butler. That's inexcusable. But it's not reason to lift Veras to bring in the less experienced Phil Coke against a switch-hitter. Coke is a lefty-specialist; Veras was a general reliever who has a sufficiently effective breaking ball to get lefties out. And Veras has more experience both as a reliever and a major leaguer (Coke was primarily a starter in the minors). Bad move.

The Mess lost nearly 30 games last year that they led in the 7th and 8th innings because their bullpen stank. The Yanks cannot win the most competitive division by over-thinking the matchups against a stiff team.

Ultimately, there will be two repercussions -- more Joba-should-set-up nonsense from the fans, and more questioning of Girardi's handling of the bullpen (which had its own issues last year).

The possible solution is in Scranton -- Mark Melancon. He tore through A, AA and AAA ball last year and is a candidate to take over for Rivera in 2011. He throws hard, and is a career reliever, not a starter who can be converted like Joba. He'll be with the big club before June, especially if Veras and Coke can't find the plate.

Pres. Obama does the right thing

2009-04-13T09:34:00.002-05:00

Pres. Obama passed a major test of will -- he ordered the dispatch of the USS Bainbridge and its Navy SEALs who effected the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama after the ship had been captured by pirates, the Captain had exchanged himself for his captured crewmen, and the crew had retaken the vessel whilst Phillips remained captive of Somali pirates for more than two days.

Obama needed prodding -- the military reportedly urged Obama to act before the president did so, and only when it was apparent that the pirates would kill Phillips did the rescue occur. Indeed, Obama seems to have limited the SEALs' authority to act such that they did not initiate rescue attempts when Phillips sought to escape on Friday. And there had to be some embarrassment level within the administration as Obama dithered Thursday and Friday as the Maersk crewmen took matters into their own hands and retook their ship.

Kudos to the Navy SEALs who gunned down three pirates including the one with a rifle aimed at Phillips. And ultimately, the best outcome occurred -- Phillips was rescued, the pirates were killed and the SEALs' tremendous competence was displayed. This will be a triumph for Obama, which would become a greater one if the president took some initiative and ordered strong action against Somali pirates, who continue to hold more than 200 hostages.

Bad Journalism 101

2009-04-06T16:59:00.002-05:00

Read the story linked above and you'll think the Obama State Department is hopelessly cheap -- giving just $50,000 to Italy for relief assistance for the earthquake that hit L'Aquila.

But, as Instapundit noted thanks to one of his astute readers, the US isn't being cheap at all. The chief of mission in Rome immediately granted that 50K and that's the maximum the chief of mission may disburse without additional approval.

The Agence France Presse, which carried the story, should have made that fact apparent.

PECOTA Projections for 2009

2009-04-06T14:49:00.002-05:00

Baseball Prospectus has run its PECTOA (Player Empirical Comparison and Optimization Test Algorithm) projections for 2009 and come up with the following division winners: Yanks, Indians, A's, Mess, Cubs, Dodgers with the RedSawx and D'Backs as the wild card teams.

These projections are interesting for various reasons, not least of which are that BP has a good track record for picking sleepers (they had the Rays with 90 wins last year).

But some of the numbers they come up with are weird. They had only two AL teams hitting better than .265, which was below the league average last year (.268). They had the Yanks at .264/.337/.413 for average, OBP and SLG but the '08 Yanks were .271/.342/.427 with a weak year from A-Rod, too many at bats for Jose Molina and no Texeira. And BP predicted the Yanks would allow just 634 runs -- the last time the Yanks allowed less than 656 (the 1998 total) in a full season was 1978.

BP also predicted that the three best overall batting teams would be from the National League and even predicted the Rangers would score fewer than 800 runs, something they've never failed to do since The Ballpark in Arlington opened in 1993.

Review the numbers . . . and have some salt grains handy.

Seasons change in early April

2009-04-06T11:35:00.003-05:00

College basketball season ends tonight (men's) and tomorrow (women's [yawn, another UConn rout]) and baseball season is underway. And for the first time in about five years, the Yanks are built for more than just the regular season -- they have the starting pitching depth to win a post-season series.

First, the end of the college basketball season. Even though my prediction of where it would finish was wrong, my comment about Michigan State was right -- it's the only Big T(elev)en team capable of succeeding in a non-Big T(elev)en style game against top teams. Big Ten basketball is dreadful: the game resembles a rugby scrum -- low scoring, jaw-smashingly physical, slow paced. Three teams play a style that resembles decent basketball: Minnesota, Ohio State and Michigan State. On Saturday, Michigan State did the same thing to UConn that it did to Duke in reaching the 2005 Final Four -- outran the opponent in the full court and outbanged it in the half court. UConn made the fatal mistake of continually pounding the ball inside and seeking no offensive balance. Michigan State had breakouts with the four players who had jammed the middle of the defense turning and running full court the other way for transition baskets. And Izzo just outcoached Calhoun.

Ultimately, MSU's win is a good for college hoops as a whole -- UConn is in line for some severe sanctions from the NCAA and the worst outcome would have been for a UConn title to be vacated by the NCAA. Other Final Four teams have had their appearances vacated by the NCAA -- officially removed from the records -- but not a champion. The roll of dishonor: runner-ups Villanova ('71), UCLA ('80), Michigan ('92, '93) and semifinalists Memphis State ('85), UMass ('96) and Ohio State ('99).

As for the other national semifinal -- UNC has shown throughout the Tournament that its pre-season #1 ranking is well-deserved. UNC has faced two mild tests in five games -- from LSU in the second round before Ty Lawson took over, and early in the second half Saturday, before the team regrouped and throttled overmatched Villanova. UNC whupped Michigan State 98-63 at Ford Field earlier this year and no matter what other extenuating circumstances existed (tired MSU team after early-season tournaments, center didn't play), it's hard to envision MSU reversing that result. If Carolina rolls again by 10+, it will be the first team since 2001 Duke to roll all six Tournament opponents by double digits -- and with a 21-point win over Gonzaga, not-that-close 12-point win over OU and yawner of a 14-point win over 'Nova, ROLL is definitely a proper term.

Second: it's time for some baseball. The Monk likes three decisions the Yankees made in the offseason: (1) sign Sabathia; (2) sign Texeira; (3) move Gardner into centerfield. The Monk is completely neutral to displeased about the signing of Burnett -- a prima donna who is prone to getting hammered and who performs best in his walk years. The Yanks are old with some rare spots of youth (Gardner, Joba, Hughes, Cano), have solid overall talent, and have the other two best teams in baseball in their division. Yipes.

Think about it: the Rays, RedSawx and Yankees are the three best teams in baseball. The Mess? Starting rotation is too weak. The Phillies? Same issue. Cubs? Same issue. Dodgers? Hitting is weak. D'Backs? Also weak hitting. Twins? Lack of hitting, lack of pitching depth. Angels? Bullpen now worse, getting old, lost Texeira, play in crappy division (just ask how that helped them prepare for another beating from the RedSawx). This makes the road to the World Series easier for every team in the playoffs because one of the three best teams in baseball will be eliminated by October 4 -- the last day of the season. Think 1978, when the second-best team in baseball didn't make the playoffs.

Predictions? Yanks, RedSox and Rays will finish within 5 games of each other and I think the Rays will be the odd one out -- the Yanks won 89 after losing Wang before the 1/2 way point, lacking #4 and #5 starters, and with weak hitting years from their regulars and a loss of Posada. Think about all that went wrong for the Yanks and realize this: they would have won the AL Central with their record. Add CC and Burnett and a full season from Wang and Pettitte as a No. 4 starter instead of an overworked No. 2, and the team should be in the 95+ win range. The RedSawx have the top 1-3 rotation in baseball and added depth in the off-season (Smoltz, Penny). I don't think they need Manny to compete, especially because his absence in left field constitutes a defensive upgrade.

Twins should win the Central. They have good defense as always and four young starters who are capable. The ChiSox go three deep in the rotation and fall off. The Tigers are a dumpster fire, mentally, but may have added character to the clubhouse by dumping Sheffield. The Indians' No. 3 starter is Carl Pavano.

The Angels have enough ability and talent and managerial skill to win the West, but the Rangers and A's will improve a lot. And the Mariners will still stink.

In the NL, the Mess and Phils should take two playoff spots. The Marlins have the capacity to do more than just beat the Mess in September and allow the Phils to take the NL East crown; ditto the Braves (added Lowe and Vasquez -- and the AL to NL switch for Vazquez should cut his ERA from 4.67 to the 3.80-3.90 range, especially with those spacious NL East yards).

The Cards are the best challengers for the Cubs, but the Broohas have two solid young pitchers in Gallardo (the next Lester/Beckett?) and Bush and decent vets like Suppan and Looper -- they could challenge and pull in 85-90 wins. The Reds are improving; the Astros and Pirates stink.

The one team I'd like to see do well is the Giants: they're in a socialist country (California) but privately financed their own stadium. They have good young starters (Lincecum, Cain), a veteran retread (Johnson), a refurbishment project that may work out (Zito -- from 3-12, 5.99 on June 30, 2008 to 10-17, 5.15 overall), and Sanchez could be serviceable if he finds the strike zone. The Dodgers have Manny -- a reason to root against them. But they have Torre, who is a master of getting as much as he can from questionable players even if they're not his "guys". The D'Backs have serviceable No.3 and 4 starters after a dynamic top two, and good young talent.

Divisions: RedSawx/Yanks, Twins, Angels; Phils, Cubs, DBacks
Wild Cards: RedSawx/Yanks, Mess

Just beautiful -- Obama's fascism with a friendly face

2009-04-01T17:21:00.002-05:00

Because in reality, that's all Obama is: a genial, pleasant-looking, young, liberal fascist. He is so far to the left of any other President we've had that it is actually frightening.

Today's editorial from the New Hampshire Union Leader says it about right:

For months, this newspaper has opposed President Obama's bold, forward-thinking agenda. What a colossal mistake.

We realize now that we were merely clinging to the discredited ideas of the past. Holding on to disposable relics like tradition, religion and the Constitution only delays the glorious new world that awaits us all.

President Obama has shown America a bright, glimmering future full of widely shared prosperity and national nice-to-each-otherness. Only by universally embracing the President's vision can this nation succeed and prosper. Resistance will bring nothing but social distortion, widespread panic and madness.

President Obama has shown us all that to achieve the unrealized promise of this great nation, we must transcend outdated values such as public thrift, individual liberty and restrained government. All power must be shifted to Washington and deposited in the hands of a wise and benevolent ruler whose will is never questioned . . . To do anything less is to guarantee disaster.

The road to prosperity, President Obama has shown, is traveled by high-speed rail and government-mandated hybrid automobiles, powered by wind, water and air, subsidized by gargantuan energy taxes and paid for by borrowing trillions that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will never be able to repay. It is a road that can be constructed only by an energetic national government unconstrained by law, tradition or actual cash reserves.

* * *

So let us all stand idly by, mouths shut in obedience to our new rulers, and watch the traditions that hold up our society, like pillars of a great temple, crumble and collapse from the force of great, howling winds that sing hauntingly of a future filled with consequences none of us understands.

Let's all do this until at least midnight tonight. Then April Fool's Day will be over.

P.S. -- He brought the Queen of England an iPod as a gift. Seriously. And Bush was a doofus? Get real.

Don't blame them a bit

2009-04-01T10:14:00.002-05:00

White House staffers park on West Executive Drive next to the White House. In the parking lot, Politico found 23 cars recently; only FIVE were American nameplates.

The Monk has owned four cars in his life (technically five, because I'm the listed owner of Monkette's car) and all four (five) have the same common trait -- I did NOT buy American.

Car 1 = used '88 Nissan Sentra. That was the college car and the only American car that was competitive with the Corolla/Sentra/Civic class was a Ford Escort . . . which looked terrible. The Monk's progenitors extolled the virtues of Japanese compacts and, in the '80s, the Japanese compacts far outperformed American cars in quality.

Car 2 = new '96 Passat. The Monk didn't even consider an American car -- I looked at cars for about 12 months before purchasing and each of the relevant Consumer Reports car issues had nasty black marks for the reliability ratings of American cars in the Passat's category with one exception, the Ford Taurus. The Taurus' handling (I rented plenty of the dang things on trips) was too loose for my taste and I wanted a little sexiness in the vehicle. The Taurus was Madeleine Albright on the sexy scale. I checked out the Accord, Camry, Maxima, Taurus, 3-Series, 5-Series (boy, those Beamers are overpriced!), Acura TSX, and wound up with the Passat due to price and handling -- it handled like a German car and was priced less than similarly loaded Hondas, Toyotas or Nissans.

Car 3 = barely used (< 14K miles) Saab 9-5 Aero. I'd liked Saabs since riding in my college roommate's duckmobile (the old Saab 900) and the Aero got better mileage than comparable cars because of its Turbo engine. Got it at Carmax while there to look at a 9-5 SE. There was no American car that could compete in that class -- Lincoln is for old people; Ford has no high-end sporty sedans; and I wouldn't be caught dead buying a Cadillac because the fecking things are wholly unreliable and fugly. And all that conventional wisdom about how a turbo is good only until the warranty runs out is rubbish: I never had an engine problem with the Saab; it was a pretty reliable machine and it kept my family safe during the crash that totalled it. The worst injuries we suffered in a bad wreck were burns from the airbags and an impact injury to Monkette from the airbag whacking her arm. The baby was unscathed (and a nod to Chicco baby seats too).

Loved that car.

Car 4 = even less used than the Saab -- a Volvo S80. No turbo, so the mileage isn't good. But it's steady and has both the 5-star safety ratings from NHTSA and top ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (whose tests are probably better than NHTSA's). Again, why even look at an American car? The Caddies are ugly and unreliable, Lincolns are still for oldies and concentrating on their gargantuan SUVs, the high-end Chryslers are thuggish (and sluggish). The competition was Acura, Infiniti and Lexus but none had the right combo of same size as the Saab and unbeatable safety ratings. No repeat on the 9-5 because its safety rating was lower than the Volvo by a lot (the Saab 9-3 safety ratings are excellent across the board, but that car is too small for me, wife, small man, and hopefully additional critter).

Car 3a = Monkette's VW Jetta TDI. No vehicular problems in the 3 years she's had it. She wanted a top car for fuel efficiency and manual shift. This thing gets 35-40 mpg in the city and is more fun for her (TURBO) than the poncy Prius or some Fusion like vehicle that takes 10 minutes to reach highway speed. And the safety ratings are top-notch.

So, The Monk bought non-American cars for their looks, cache, performance, and safety. Seems like a lot of people have made the same calculus as The Monk. And at least 18 of them work at the White House.

NCAA Tourney Weekend 2 = what we learned

2009-03-30T13:55:00.002-05:00

For the first time since 1987, the Big East has two Final Four teams. It was favored to have three -- but Louisville lost to Michigan State with an awful performance. Since the last time the Big East actually had two Final Four entrants, the Big Eight/12 has turned the trick three times, the SEC three, the ACC four, and the Big T(elev)en five times. So now, we can welcome the Big East back to the group of MAJOR major conferences and raise it from the second tier major status it had held with the Pac-10 and the C-USA (before Louisville, et al. left for the Big East).

As for the stat geeking -- a neutral result this year. The offensive efficiency ratings for UNC, UCon, Villanova and MSU are 1, 12, 19 and 23; their defensive efficiency ratings are 18, 3, 15 and 9. That's a slight edge for defense, but not much because once again all the Final Four teams are Top 25 offenses. Contrast that with the fluke year of 2006 when three of the Final Four teams were outside the Top 25 in offensive efficiency.

As for The Monk: any year whose final two digits are divisible by 3 is just a disaster. In '03, I went 1-for-4 (Texas, although I got 6 of the Final Eight), in '06 I went 0-for-4 (no mitigating factors) and this year I hit just 1 of 4 Final Four teams (UNC, but I hit five of the Final Eight). Yeesh.

Some quick hits for the coming weekend.

(1) Carolina should win. It has the best team and the most talent. Oklahoma was a #1 seed threat all year, and the Tar Heels dismantled the Sooners just as much with Tyler Hansborough on the bench as it did with Psycho T on the court, and also stretched its lead from 19-12 to 61-40 while Blake Griffin took over for OU and scored 23 points in the last 28 minutes of the game. BTW, Carolina shelled Michigan State 98-63 at Ford Field, the Final Four site, earlier this year. And no, you should definitely not expect Villanova to come out and run UNC off the floor like KU did last year.

(2) I'm officially tired of UCon -- that's one "n" not two. If the Huskies don't get a year in the NCAA brig for their recruitment of Nate Miles, I'd be very displeased considering that the hands of their coaching staff are dirtier than Syracuse's when the Orange went in the dock for 1993 for recruiting violations relating to the recruitment of (the late) Conrad McRae. Unlike SU, a UCon (former) assistant coach (Tom Moore, now Quinnipiac's coach) has not only been caught with recruiting violations, but admitted them. And I'm tired of Jim Calhoun being a perpetual grump.

(3) This is the third straight year that all four #1 seeds survived to the Final Eight. That also happened in 2003 and 2001. But don't bet the straight #1 seed line for the Final Four in the future. In 2001, '03, '07 and '09, only 7 of the 16 #1-seeds won their regional final and those #1 seeds are just 5-9 against teams seeded #3 or #2. Add in last year's all #1 Final Four, and the #1 seeds are 11-9 in those seasons, but 8-9 against teams seeded #3 or #2 (in '01, Mich. State beat a #11; in '03, Texas beat a #7; in '08 KU beat a #10).

(4) If you needed any reinforcement even after UNC's Tourney title in 2005, the top team in the ACC is North Carolina. Not Duke. This reality had been in the works from the day Roy Williams took over at UNC, but the turnaround is complete. Carolina is a choked lead in the 2007 regional final away from this season's appearance being its third-straight in the Final Four. Duke hasn't escaped the third round since Williams' first year at UNC. And next year, Duke's main recruits are . . . a big white beanpole center and a face-up power forward, the exact type of players that the Blue Devils have not won with for five years running.

Ron Silver, 1946-2009, RIP

2009-03-29T01:11:00.002-05:00

Hollywood character actor Ron Silver died on the ides of March at age 62 from esophageal cancer. I remember Silver from his role on Blue Steel opposite Jamie Lee Curtis. A talented character actor, Silver was one of the very, very few in Hollywood for whom September 2001 was a life changing event.

A liberal Democrat for many years, his vocal support of the struggle against Islamofascism won him the admiration of many Americans including the President but cost him jobs and friends in Hollywood.

Requiescat in pace.

Orange crushed

2009-03-28T11:00:00.003-05:00

As I said yesterday, if you're gonna go down, might as well be in flames.

Exhibit 2: SU's loss to Oklahoma. SU knew OU wanted to get its top shooter to hit 3-pointers and have Blake Griffin dominate inside. And sure enough, Tony Crocker shot like a top marksman after about 9 games where he'd been slightly better than Betty Crocker. Griffin had a 12-15 shooting night on layups and dunks. Overall, the best laid plans of the Orange disintegrated as OU rolled off a 20-2 run spanning the half that blasted a 28-24 lead into 48-26 with SU bricking three-pointers (0-10, first half) and Jonny Flynn hampered by an injury.

It really sucks to watch when you know exactly what the opponent wants to do and your team can't prevent it from executing its game plan.

Overall, however, it was a nice season for the Orange: 28 wins, a return to prominence, victories over KU, Memphis, UConn, Marquette and a Sweet Sixteen berth. Hopefully, they can improve their defense (40th in defensive efficiency = not a Final Four quality team) and build on this season. The biggest offseason question: will Flynn be back?

As for the other games: UNC and Louisville look like title contenders, don't they? Especially the Heels after a rout of the perennially overrated Zags. And that KU-MSU game reminded me why I hate the brutal bloodsport that is Big T(elev)en basketball.

Downgrading Duke and Tourney notes

2009-03-27T10:18:00.004-05:00

The Monk's bracket went down last night. And as long as you're going down . . . FLAMES it is!

My two semi-upset picks for the Final Four got whacked. Memphis lost its defense somewhere between the C-USA tourney and last weekend, and allowed Mizzou to hang 100 on it. And Duke looked like crap. The Monk thought that Villanova would be the biggest hurdle for Duke in the region, and Duke didn't even compete. That game may have been just a 26-23 'Nova lead at the half, but it felt like all one team needed to do was start hitting some shots and it would become a blowout. And, while watching that game, The Monk thought 'Nova would be that team.

For all The Monk's NCAA Tourney stat-geeking, the one that got past me was this: since it won its national title in 2001, Duke has NOT defeated a team seeded higher than #5 in the NCAAs. In the eight Tournaments from 2002-2009, Duke has been a 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 6, 2, and 2 seed. In the last eight Tournaments, Duke's elimination has come against a lower seeded team SEVEN times (exception: '03, when second-seed KU beat 3-seed Duke). A couple of the losses have been pure choke jobs where Duke should have won ('02 loss to Indiana, '04 loss to UConn), but most just occurred because Duke got beat by a team that could run, jump and defend better than it even though the opponent had a lower seed ('05 Mich. State, '06 LSU, '08 WVa, '09 'Nova).

Colin Cowherd called Duke the Notre Dame of college basketball (gaudy record against familiar competition, getting beat by the big boys) and there is now truth to that. In 2001, Duke had five SOLID NBA players starting for its national title winner: Battier (top defender), Boozer (all-star), Dunleavy (11-14 ppg in NBA), Williams (a star to be until he crashed his motorcycle) and Duhon (starting pg). In 2004, its Final Four team (the only Duke team to even beat a team seeded as high as a #5 since 2001) was led by JJ Redick and Shelden Williams (combined ppg in NBA = < 11). The talent dropoff had begun.

Duke's biggest problem has been recruiting players for today's game -- bigger, stronger, heavier. Duke has always been a finesse team that relies upon speed and skill. It still recruits the quintessential BigWhiteStiff -- the overrated white power forward or center who gets his lunch handed to him by more athletic African-American players (Bryan, Bilas, Palmer, Newton, Beard, Meek, Domzalski, Burgess, Randolph, McRoberts, Singler). There was only one Christian Laettner among that dross. And those stiffs have hurt Duke's recruiting because it gets labeled as a program that cannot develop these players -- all of whom were highly rated (and usually McDonald's All-Americans) coming out of high school. Notably, since 1995, Duke's three Final Four teams have all featured a large, powerful, African-American back-to-the-basket post player (Brand, Boozer, Williams).

Its preferred lineup has consistently been one power forward who can play facing the basket, not just a post player, surrounded by three wing players, and a point guard. Often, the power forward wasn't that powerful (Ferry, McRoberts, Randolph, Newton, Singler). The combination of speed, skill, Coach K's coaching and the fear factor of other ACC teams has allowed Duke to continue its conference success (but notably, not against UNC since Roy Williams' arrival) even as it falters in the NCAA.

Today's top teams have more bulk, more length and more athletic ability than Duke. Villanova is smaller than the other top Big East clubs (Louisville, UConn, Pitt), but still had a size advantage over the Dookies last night. Big guys who can run and jump will beat on skill guys who cannot.

The Duke for the Final Four pick was the one I doubted the most. And with good reason. Should've listened to my doubts over my hopes for a UNC whupping of Duke in the Final Four.

Some quick notes:

(1) Memphis' defense crumbled in the Tournament. Coach Calipari will have to figure out why, but 70, 70 and 102 are not the points allowed levels that team is accustomed to.

(2) Oklahoma's top three-point shooters are better than Syracuse's, the Sooners shoot over 35% as a team from 3-point range, and Blake Griffin is the best player in the country. But in 2003, Oklahoma shot 39% from 3-point range, and both its top guards -- Hollis Price and Quannas White -- shot better than 43% from 3-point range. In the East Regional Final, SU held OU to 5-for-28 from 3-point range and won by 16. Then again, OU didn't have a Blake Griffin.

(3) Syracuse has caused 15 turnovers total in the NCAA. A good turnover rate for a defense is about 15 per game.

(4) The Big East is guaranteed to have a Final Four team for the second time in three years and the fourth time in the past seven years. Other than 1982-87 and 1984-89, the Big East has not had at least four Final Four teams in seven Tournaments. Remember, but for Syracuse's breakthough in 1996, which broke a six-year Final Four drought for the conference, UConn's 1999 title would have been the first time in 10 years that a Big East team had reached the Final Four. And this will also change: since 1990, Big East teams other than UConn and Syracuse are 1-9 in the Final Eight; including UConn and SU raises the record to 5-14 (UConn 2-5, SU, 2-0). Pitt/Villanova will give the Big East a 2-10 record in the Final Eight for non-UConn/SU Final Eight games, which will improve to 3-10 or drop to 2-11 depending on what Louisville does to Mich. State/KU.

(5) If the seeds hold, the Big East will have one-half of the Final Eight. If SU upsets OU, it will have five of the Final Eight (Louisville is going to beat Arizona -- bet your mortgage on it). I don't care if UNC runs through three Big East teams to win the title, the Big East is still the best conference in the country and there's no arguing otherwise.

(6) UNC's biggest question: can Ty Lawson handle two games in 1.5 days on his bad toe? UNC has the late game tonight and an afternoon game on Sunday (if it wins).

(7) The Monk frequently prefers the Final Eight to the Final Four. The Final Four has been accorded such a mythic quality that reaching it seems to be more important to some teams than winning the title. We heard a week's worth of hype when Marquette made the Final Four in 2003, only to see the Warriors flop miserably and lose in the first ten minutes. Last year, it was all about UNC/UCLA or UNC/Memphis . . . until KU ran out to a 40-12 lead against the Heels. And no matter how pretty Cinderella looked at the ball, George Mason got wiped out early by Florida in '06. In '05 and '06, the Final Four matches were dreadful, but in '05 three Regional Finals were classics and the fourth merely a great game. And the Final Eight consumes a whole weekend, the Final Four is just one night.

Clean-up items

2009-03-25T11:21:00.002-05:00

Some items on various topics.

First, the famile du monq went to New York last weekend and The Monk saw the three sides of his family -- the Jews, the Chinese and the Italians. The Jews are MaMonk's side, the Chinese are Wongdoer & brood (the kids call me "uncle" so he's my brother from another mother), and the Italians are PaMonk's group (my sibs, niece and bro-in-law).

The big news is a new addition: MonkCuz1 is pregnant. Actually, she's been for a few months and the debut of the new one is set for late June/early July. Evidently 'e (sex unknown, so not he, not she) has great antioxidant qualities because MonkCuz1 calls h(im/er) the Blueberry. Monk et al. expect to see smallish nonblue human when next we go to the sizeable apple. [Funny thing that -- Monk has neighbor who used to be colleague of Monkette, live down the street, have son three weeks younger than Monkling and never seen the kid even though Monk walks around neighborhood with Monkling on his shoulders about 3-5 times per week and they're on Monk's most common route. Monk famous in neighborhood for that -- neighbors say "oooooooooooh, I've seen you lots of times with Monkling on your shoulders. So, Monk sees cousinish child before neighborish child in all likelihood.]

More interestingish is that Blueberry will surpass Monkling in German blood level in family. MonkCuz1hubby is German (yeah, like you're perfect) and looks it. Monkette is about 1/2 German (see? that's love -- Monk marrying Monkette despite definite personal flaw). So that's two Jews marrying 1.5 Germans. Only in America.

Second, The Monk hit 14 of 16 Sweet Sixteen teams in his pool. I went more conservative in my pool picks than in my pre-Tourney post because I only submit one bracket and there's STUFF at stake. The misses = Arizona (had Utarr) and KU (had West Va.). So the two I whiffed on gave two of the WORST performances in the Tourney to date. And yes, I did have the stones to pick Cleveland St. over Wake in my pool (Western Ky. over Illinois was a given -- Illins had no point guard).

Third, how would it feel to be a boy completely eclipsed by your younger brother's abilities? The Monk had a friend in elementary school whose younger brother was usually viewed as much brighter. The younger one got into Monk and Wongdoer's high school (must pass admissions test), the older wasn't close. Think about David Cone (borderline Hall of Famer) and his older brother, or Cooper Manning and his two younger siblings (names are Peyton and Eli, at last check). Or worse: have an identical twin who is a star while you struggle, even as you take the same steroids (Ozzie and Jose Canseco).

The Monk asks because it must have been an interesting life in the Griffin family. Both sons play for Oklahoma, but older brother Taylor is a support player (9.8 ppg, 6.0 rpg, season high = 22 points), while younger brother Blake is the best player in college hoops (22.4 ppg, 14.4 rpg, .646 FG rate). The Monk reviewed Blake's game-by-game stats and said to himself "self, that Griffin kid doesn't seem to shoot the ball very often." And he doesn't -- no 30 shot chuck-and-duck Allen Iverson specials for this kid. So he's as efficient as he is proficient as a scorer. Plus, his field goal rate is astounding -- 64.6% when Griffin is the focus of every defense he faces.

Finally, The Monk is quite glad that the Monkling is so dang cute. He will personally restore UK-US relations in the wake of Pres. Obama's disdainful treatment of Gordon Brown. Monkette said today that Obama looks positively disinterested and dismayed to be present when dealing with foreign dignitaries -- the complete opposite of how he is around sycophants like the women on The View. The Monk is convinced that Pres. Obama is ultimately an arrogant and self-righteous person who presents himself exceedingly well because he is tall, thin, and superficially engaging.

Wongdoer = 39

2009-03-25T11:13:00.002-05:00

Happy belated birthday to Wongdoer, who turned 30 for the tenth and final time on Sunday.

All this remains true (and no, he didn't produce new issue before his 39th birthday, there are just three Wongdoerlings to date), so why not re-run what I continually re-run -- previous birthday salutes:

Wongdoer
turns 38 today. My birthday salute from last year worked so well, I
should re-run it. Unlike last year, Wongdoer had no happy additions to
the Wongfamily, but thankfully no unhappy losses either. Perhaps he'll
announce before his 39th birthday that Wongling 4.0 is on its way . . .
Here's last year's entry:

Today is Wongdoer's 37th birthday. That means he caught up to both me and his cradle-robbing wife (who's 47 days older than him). It's also the Silver Anniversary of the day both he and I received our admission
letters to our magnet high school in NYC. Here's what I wrote last year and it holds true today, nearly 25 years after I met the little bugger who would greet his classmates in 7th grade with the salutation "Vote Republican!"

Today is Wongdoer's 36th birthday, so he's now caught up to me (3-3-70) and his wife (2-3-70). Twenty-four
years ago today, Wongdoer received a letter from the admissions department at our magnet high school informing him that he had passed the admissions test and could matriculate in the Fall of '82. Imagine:
a 12-year old child who hadn't even learned English until six years before had passed the most difficult test in the City -- the admissions test for our high school, a one-time opportunity for sixth-graders to
gain admission to the most exclusive magnet high school, which ONLY allowed matriculation into the seventh grade, no transfers in at any other time. It was just what his parents had worked for: toiling at
various jobs in the Chinese community of NYC to ensure that their lone son would have great educational opportunities. They succeeded: he did. More importantly, he took advantage of it: best high school in NYC,
ridiculously high grades, SAT scores that qualified him for MENSA, Harvard grad, then legal money-launderer (currency trader) for various major banking institutions. And a good son: he takes care of his ma and
pa, and they take care of his kids during the day -- a level of access to grandkids that makes other retirees (or general oldies) weep in jealousy. So here's to Wongdoer, whom I've known for nearly 24 years, on his 36th birthday. Happy Birthday.

Last year I also noted "the rich life of Wongdoer (college sweetheart wife, three Wonglings, six built-in babysitters between his mom, her parents and her sisters, numerous friends -- all he needs is henchmen and
sycophants and he'll take over the world soon). And as always, there's our good friend and basically our brother, Wongdoer."

And it remains true.

Happy Birthday.

NCAA Tournament Weekend #1 -- no spoilers need apply

2009-03-23T12:29:00.002-05:00

Unless you're a dope like Seth Davis (WAKE for the Final Four? Seriously?), all your Final Four teams should be alive and kicking today after the most upset-free NCAAs in recent memory. Only two of the top 16 seeds (the 1-4 slots) are out (the dishonor roll = Wake, Washington, both of whom The Monk said would bonk early). And the Thursday/Friday games this week have many top-notch matchups: UNC-Gonzaga, Villanova-Duke, Michigan State-Kansas, Syracuse-Oklahoma, Pitt-Xavier.

Some quick notes:

(1) The best team over the weekend was Connecticut, and it's not close. UConn drubbed the obligatory first-round fodder and then crushed Texas A&M by 26. Compare that with Pitt (combined margin of victory, 18 points) and Louisville (27). Even North Carolina needed Ty Lawson to take control to overcome LSU, the regular season champ of the worst major conference. Such first weekend dominance doesn't necessarily translate to ultimate success. After all, UNC averaged winning its four East Regional games by 22.8 points last year, and Kansas killed it quick in the Final Four. (Even harder fall from grace: 1993 Kentucky rampaged through the Southeast Regional by 31 ppg and lost in OT to Michigan in the Final Four.)

(2) The worst team to survive the weekend, or more appropriately, the biggest underperformer, was Pitt. Villanova won its two games by 33 points, including a 20-point thumping of UCLA; Syracuse won its two games by 26. Those are 3-seeds. Pitt was neck-and-neck with 16-seed ETSU in round one and barely beat mid-Big 12 entry Oklahoma State in round two.

(3) The best performance to save a team's collective season: Robert Sallie. He had never topped 13 points in a game before, but in Memphis' first-round game against Cal State Northridge, he hit for 35. That's ridiculous. And the only reason Memphis won.

(4) Worst performance of the weekend: Wake. Bad enough that it was the only 1-4 seed not to win a game, the Deacons got whupped by Cleveland State by 15. Honorable mention to Utah (blown up by 12-seeded Arizona) and West Virginia (only Big East team to lose in round one, and to a lower-seeded stiff from the A-10).

(5) Best conference: Big East. After all the hype, the Big East performed. The three #1 seeds did what they're supposed to do, Villanova regained its footing against American then waxed Maryland, and Syracuse had only a minor challenge from ASU. The Selection Committee could have come under some fire for seeding Syracuse with a 3 (SU's RPI was 12, its ranking was lower), but SU performed well.

(6) Most overrated conference: ACC. Four first-round losers among its seven entrants and then Maryland was done by the end of the first half in its second round game against Memphis. That's the same Memphis that would've lost to a 15-seed. Worse yet, all four first-round losers were higher seeds. Two were blown out (BC, Wake) and two lost to lower-seeded Big T(elev)en teams (FSU, Clemson) and the Big T(elev)en is supposed to suck worse than the ACC. If Duke and Carolina do make the Final Four, that means nothing about the strength of the ACC -- this year, they're just two good teams who happen to play in that conference.

(7) Team I'd least like to be in the next round: Purdue. That flat-footed Big T(elev)en style is no way to prepare for a team with the speed and strength of Connecticut.

(8) Intriguing matchups: (a) Duke/'Nova -- they're similar outside-oriented teams with similar styles; (b) UNC-Gonzaga -- put up or shut up time for the Zags after surviving Western Kentucky in a near-home game (Portland, Oregon); (c) Michigan State-Kansas -- MSU is one of the few Big T(elev)en teams that can run to any degree; (d) Oklahoma-Syracuse -- a rematch of the '03 East Regional Final when SU thumped the Sooners by 16 (and SU could have won by 25 if it hadn't been sloppy -- 24 turnovers); this OU team has the best forward in the country and a much better coach than its '03 counterpart (Jeff Capel, whose dad was a coach and who played for the nation's best coach, Coach K; versus Kelvin Sampson who left sh-tstorms in his wake at OU and once-proud Indiana), and SU doesn't have Carmelo Anthony . . . but Jonny Flynn doesn't stink.