The Cup

Watch Lost and go to bed early, or hold the Stanley Cup?

Why Basketball Sucks (Redux)

Three years ago I wrote why I don't like to watch the game of basketball in a provokingly titled article, Why Basketball Sucks. (This happens to be the predecessor to my more recent, exaggerated, and deliberately polarizing post, Why the NFL Sucks. Also: Why Soccer Sucks.)

Notice I said that I don't like to watch basketball—I didn't say anything about playing it, which I did up until middle school. In fact, I happen to be the 1992-93 champion of my hometown's Pass, Dribble & Shoot contest. To this day I'm still not sure how I miraculously placed first in these competitions in consecutive years, since I was just decent at basketball and ended up finishing ahead of guys who went on to play for my high school team. It's been years since I've hit the hardwood, but it was always fun to play.

Now, every sport is better to watch in person, basketball included. But there are two reasons why I dislike watching basketball in particular:

1. Too much scoring. The back-and-forth nature of the sport and the frequent amount of scoring is the big killer for me. One of the reasons that makes football or hockey more interesting to watch is that a goal or a touchdown isn't scored on every single possession. So when those things do occur, they're meaningful.
2. Survival through infractions. When your team is trailing in the final minutes of a basketball game, desperate measures sink to a new low. With a remote chance (at best) of victory, the only way to climb out of the hole is to foul the hell out of your opponent—which almost always just puts you in your grave. Not only does this disrupt the flow and make games very frustrating to watch, but it exposes an inherent flaw in the sport: survival through infractions. There should be a rule that prevents teams from doing this in the final two minutes if they're trailing by more than 10 points—something to prevent the prolonging, end the futility, and put lame-duck teams out of their misery.
   
   When it comes to last-ditch efforts, survival through infractions is easily the worst late-game strategy in all of sports, and the only one where penalty-taking is encouraged. Think about it. In football, teams have the hurry-up offense, the onside kick, and the Hail Mary at their disposal. In soccer and hockey, teams can pull their goalie for an extra attacker. In baseball, well, you just have to figure a way to actually beat your opponent without resorting to gimmicks.
   
   Toward the end of a close game in all of these sports, you won't see a defensive lineman deliberately jumping offside, a hockey forward taking an avoidable roughing penalty, or a slugger leaning into a pitch to get on first base.

My basketball article is one of a few I put on AssociatedContent.com in the hopes of making a few dollars here and there. Well, the best part about posting those in a more public forum certainly wasn't the money, but the comments (16 and counting, toward the bottom) that I continue to get to this day are just as valuable. With a title like "Why Basketball Sucks", I instantly set people up to either love or hate me, which I've found really amusing. Below are my favorite selections:

• Basketball owns all sports, man why do u diss basketball, ohh because u aint knowing shit about the sport
• BASKETBALL SUCKS YOU KNOW AMERICAS SPORT IS FOOTBALL
• Ha! this article is a joke. Hockey and soccer are snooze-fests which is why no one watches them. Considering the ball/puck size to goal/net ratio and the lack of scoring, it's hard to even call them athletes. Everyone just flails around, hardly controlling the puck/ball, like a bunch of idiot barbarians with no strategy. You couldn't pay me to sit through a boring hockey game. It may be fun for you playing since you dont have any real athletic skill, but as a spectator (girl) your sport puts me to sleep.
• Basketball does suck...nothing makes me laugh more than when ESPN or some other sports network gives a basketball score in the 1st or 2nd quarter.....Rockets are up on the Bulls "10 - 8" ......oh,like that's score's not gonna change a million times...lol Why give the damn score???? who cares!!! Hockey rules!!
• THE WORLD is watching tv during the FIFA WORLDCUP! dont be so american, it sucks as much as basketball
• Basketball offers no fun or excitement... It's like cloning sheep.

If you read my original post, you'll notice that toward the end, I do credit basketball for its skill and athleticism. And despite what my enemies at AssociatedContent.com think, I don't think it's a bad game. I just think it's got some issues.

One thing basketball's got right is March Madness, which is really a beautiful thing. In what other sport can I ignore the entire season and somehow come out near the top in office pools year after year?

But it's more than that. Actually, it's kind of like the Olympics—it doesn't matter if you've never followed international snowboarding—you want to see what happens because it's the Olympics. March Madness has that same kind of magnetism that pulls you in, even just casually, because you know everyone's attention is on it. SI.com's Michael Rosenberg is with me in his most recent article, Why the NCAA tournament is best sporting event in America:

"The NCAA tournament starts around St. Patrick's Day and encourages you to watch a different TV with each eyeball while taking no-look sips from your pint...wait, that's not what I meant to say. What I meant is that if you're old enough to drink, you have sat through enough lousy Super Bowls and boring World Series games and monotonous NBA Finals to appreciate how reliably awesome the NCAA tournament is. There are two reasons for this:

1. It's never overhyped.
2. It never disappoints.

This is the rare sporting event that is riveting if you know everything there is to know about it or nothing at all... Thanks to its universal gambling appeal, the NCAA tournament brings people together."

The Big Leagues

First it was Electronic Gaming Monthly. Then it was Stuff. Now, years later, it's Rolling Stone:


I wrote this letter to the editor in response to writer Rob Sheffield's commentary on Lost from two issues prior. What appears in print is a condensed version of what I originally submitted, but I'll be sure to express the omitted thoughts when the series concludes in a few months.

An added bonus: having my name grace the same space as journalist Matt Taibbi, a fearless political writer who delivers hard-hitting analyses "written as if during the middle of a bar fight."

Blame Canada

I knew the USA-Canada hockey game on Sunday night would be big. I just didn't know how big a U.S victory would be.

For obvious reasons, this was Canada's game to win. And after watching both teams play their first few games, I figured the Canadians, with the clear advantage in star power, wouldn't have trouble disposing of a much younger, inexperienced American team by 2-3 goals.

But in my mind there was only one handicap Canada could have given Team USA: Marty Brodeur. They played him in goal, and it cost them big-time.

Don't get me wrong—there's no doubt that Brodeur is one of the best goaltenders to have ever played the game. Here's a brief glimpse of his killer resume:

• The NHL's all-time leader in regular season wins, shutouts, and games played
  
• More than 30 franchise records, including most all-time regular season and playoff wins, shutouts, games, and lowest goals-against average
  
• Three Stanley Cup championships
  
• Four-time Vezina Trophy winner, four-time Jennings Trophy winner, 10-time NHL All Star, and a Calder Memorial Trophy winner
  
• One of only two NHL goaltenders to have scored goals in both the regular season and the playoffs; the only NHL goalie to score a game-winning goal.

Brodeur is known for his hybrid goaltending style by standing up more than butterfly goalies, who drop to their knees often. It's gotten him this far, and even at his veteran age of 38, I'd still take him over half the goalies in the NHL.

But when I've watched Brodeur play periodically in the past few years, he's given up questionable goals, mostly as a result of his unconventional style of play. During this relatively new generation of super-athletic, butterfly-sliding goalies, Brodeur has become outdated. But don't take that as an insult, Marty—you've been incredibly successful as New Jersey's starting netminder for the past 19 seasons.

Canada started Roberto Luongo in net for their opening Olympic game against Norway. Apparently coach Mike Babcock planned on going with the more-experienced Brodeur as his No. 1 for the tournament, but wanted to get Luongo's skates wet in case he needed to call on him later. But instead of anticipating sub-par play from his starting goalie, Babcock should have stuck with Luongo (an All Star in his own right, playing on his home ice), similar to how the Team USA coach Ron Wilson preselected Ryan Miller to play the entire way. Babcock handed the reins over to Brodeur against Switzerland in the second game.

Had Luongo played against Team USA on Sunday night, I'm not so sure so many Americans would have been celebrating. I say this chiefly because the 6'3" butterflyer would have stopped the goals that Brodeur let in. And this goes back to what I was saying before: Brodeur may have been a better goalie five years ago, but Luongo is now.

Brodeur's biggest issue was the same one I've seen in the past few seasons: save selection. Consider the evidence:

1. Even though the first goal was deflected in by his own teammate, a standard butterfly would have prevented the goal, instead of Brodeur going going paddle-down with his stick.
   
2. On the second goal, the butterfly would have been more effective than hesitantly stacking the pads on a low shot through traffic.
   
3. On the third goal, Brodeur's lack of stick pressure allowed the puck to seep through the five-hole with his stick between his legs in a rare sideways position only seen from Squirt- and Mite-level goalies.
   
4. On the fourth goal (which proved to be the game-winner), Brodeur gambled and dove with a poke check, but didn't connect. Way out of position, he frantically tried to recover, but not before Chris Drury capitalized on a mostly open net.

Overall, Brodeur didn't have a horrible game—he made some big stops at key times. But for Team Canada in the Olympics in Vancouver against the USA, it wasn't acceptable. Babcock later agreed, giving the nod to Luongo for as many more games Canada can play as they head down the path of most resistance to the gold medal.

"We're in the winning business. And to win in any game you need big saves. You need momentum-changing saves, and we're looking at Lou to do that for us. He's a great big butterfly goaltender. If you look at the way pucks went in our net last night with traffic, which is the way the game is now [emphasis added], sometimes just being down in that big butterfly, things hit you and just bump into you. We believe Lou gives us a real good opportunity to win, and so that's why we're going with him."

I don't blame Canada so much for their loss as I do Babcock. His realization about playing the right goalie came a few games too late.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the ice was Ryan Miller, winning goaltender and instant American hero. Even with Brodeur's unsatisfactory performance, the Americans would have lost without Miller, who played the game of his life in stopping 42 of 45 shots and holding the Canadians off until the very end.

But when asked about winning the goaltending battle, he couldn't shake the the impression still held by so many—an impression that may begin to fade in the near future:

"I'm just trying to build my resume. Marty's the best."

Related: Olympic hockey is best showcase for the sport; don't ruin it, Gary

Area man able to get on pec-fly machine for first time

By Ken Devine

NEW YORK—Manhattan resident Craig Sullivan reported that he used the pec-fly machine at Frank's Fitness on Friday for the first time ever.

Sullivan, 38, said that he'd been trying to get on the popular pectoral machine ever since he joined the Midtown gym almost eight months ago.

"It's been beyond frustrating," admitted the wiry, flat-chested real estate manager. "The 'fly' is the best for building up your chest, but I guess every guy in here knows that. Even when I'm working out during off-hours, some buff jackass is always monopolizing it."

Sullivan said that despite the virtual impossibility of using the LifeFitness-brand machine and his zero-percent success rate, he always held out hope for the off-chance that he'd one day enter the alcove next to the free weights to find the machine unattended.

But after continually being denied and forced to use the standard chest-press machine instead, Sullivan's patience finally paid off. After finishing his workout around 8:50 p.m. on Friday, Sullivan said he was about to hit the showers when he was struck by one of those rare "what if?" moments shortly before Frank's was set to close.

"I walked past the free weights on my way out and then just sort of stopped and turned my head," he recounted. "I can't explain it, but I just had this feeling that for once, the machine might be open. When I rounded the corner and didn't see anyone there, I almost crapped my pants."

Unfortunately, by the time Sullivan overcame his excitement, adjusted the seat, and set the proper weight at 20 pounds, he was only able to squeeze in a few reps before an announcement was made over the loudspeaker that the gym was about to close.

"I stayed on it as long as I could, but eventually one of the trainers came up and told me I had to leave so that the last few employees could go home. Almost got almost a full set in, though."

According to Sullivan, getting on the pec-fly machine this one time is really the only plus in a long list of grievances he’s had with Frank’s Fitness. Among them: perpetually malfunctioning treadmills, tip-hungry locker room attendants, and dripping-wet bathrooms and showers that constantly reek of a distinctive mildewy funk.

But none aggravated him more than the general invasion of personal space in the locker room.

"There's no space in the locker room, or anywhere in this city, really," said the St. Louis native. "Someone is always bumping into you, and there's always naked man ass in my face."

Sullivan elaborated with something he calls "The Law of Locker Room Proximity"—a so-called truth he coined after many locker room tribulations.

"You could be one of two people in the entire gym—the entire gym—and you'll end up picking the locker next to the one other guy who will come in as soon as you sit down," he explained. "Never fails."

"I'm cursed," he muttered with utter defeat.

In describing his overwhelmingly negative experience at Frank's, Sullivan mentioned that he once thought of ending his membership, but hesitated after learning of the hefty early-termination fee.

Plus, he thinks he may be able to get another crack at the pec fly someday.