Musings of a Sports Writer

I'm a writer by trade. As such, I've tended to write only when someone has paid me. To break that habit, this blog serves as my personal dart board. When I'm sitting around thinking sports, now and then I turn to the computer and toss a dart — just to get a thought out without trying to find someone who will buy it.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Connecticut

Friday, July 28, 2006

Flying Pointy Things

While eating breakfast and watching the World Series of Darts on ESPN2, I thought about ...

Excuse me? ... Oh, yes, I did say “World Series of Darts.” ... Well, yes, it does seem an odd thing to see on TV ....

O.K., I admit it. I was a little confounded this morning. I’d been searching the TV channels for something to melt my brain before I could start working for the day, and I’d found ... darts. Bull’s-eye! — or so I thought.

Rather than melt, the broadcast intrigued. (And gave me something to write about. Now I can expense a day’s worth of cable-bill.)

I recalled my childhood days in Scotland. I was 4 when my dad was stationed there for about half a year, and my mom and little sister and I joined him. We lived in Campbelltown, in a cozy flat on Queen Street.

Dad worked as a short-order cook at a small restaurant, and I remember the patrons were always playing darts. Dad taught me the rules of 501, and until this morning I’d forgotten the toughest: To beat your opponent, you don’t try to surpass 501 points — you need to hit 501 exactly. Darts is a race of precision.

Now ESPN is bringing the darts race to your living room. (Or your family room. Or minivan. Or TiVo ... but I doubt it.) The network wants to do for darts what it did for poker. While I don’t see the former cultivating the cult following of the latter, there are some aspects of darts that make for good television:

  • The individual games are quick. A blowout, a seesaw match or a come-from-behind victory can all be executed in just a few minutes. The highlights happen fast and often.
  • The rules are simple, yet challenging. A player may quickly score 494 points, but might need several turns to secure the last seven.
  • The play-by-play announcer is fascinating: World-class quick-math skills allow him to keep an audible tally after each throw. Doesn’t sound hard? In a quarter-second, update this score: 362 minus a triple-17.

One question remains: Are the contestants charismatic? The World Series of Poker has flourished partly because of the range of quirky characters convening behind the cards. Is the dart world inhabited by players who engender similar human interest? If not, darts won't hit the bull's-eye in the U.S.

(Also see: For a leisurely lesson on 501 rules, play this darts game. Also see: ESPN’s World Series of Darts.)

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Trade-Rumor Amusement

So ... I heard that the Yankees are trading A-Rod for the Chicago White Sox.

Each July, baseball trade chatter becomes the hobby of nearly every sports writer and fan. The trend probably results from all other fronts being quiet — hockey, basketball and football are all off-season, and baseball's pennant races are too embryonic to be exciting. Tennis and golf make some cameos in the headlines, but only for short stretches. That leaves baseball trade rumors as the sole daily fodder for news. Unfortunately, it's also fodder for fools.

(Don't be offended — I, too, feed on that fodder. So does my father feed on that fodder.)

Starting in June and escalating in July, gossip of impending deals dominates sports reports. But have you noticed that when the trades finally transpire, they rarely involve the same names and teams mentioned in the rumor-mill? The real deals usually involve players and/or teams that no one was talking about, proving that all the trade-rumor "news" comes not from reporters garnering information from general managers, but from other reporters sharing their own speculation.

Still, every year we listen to the gossipmongers as if they have some sort of bona fide inside information.

Today's water-coolers and watering holes are beseiged by talk of:

  • Alfonso Soriano to the Tigers, Angels, Dodgers, Yankees, Twins and White Sox. (Bad move — that's only six home runs for each team.)
  • Miguel Tejada moving to the Angels, and then to third base.
  • Carlos Lee to the Tigers. (Stagger Lee, on the other hand, is staying with the Colts.)
  • Jon Lieber and Pat Burrell to the Red Sox for a package including Trot Nixon.
  • Wilson Betemit from the Braves to the Yankees in exchange for Scott Proctor. (Dumb idea for the Yanks — they need more outs, not more runs.)
  • Todd Walker to Seattle.
  • Greg Maddux for someone valuable. (Unlikely.)

Let's check back next week and see if any of these trades have actually happened.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Hot-Rod Contracts Connors

Andy Roddick's camp announced today that he's hired former tennis star Jimmy Connors to be his new coach. This should be interesting.

Roddick's game hasn't been the same since he fired Brad Gilbert as coach. Gilbert guided Roddick to the 2003 US Open title, and Roddick hasn't won a Grand Slam event since. I don't know why Roddick fired Gilbert, but barring any truly severe conflicts of personality, it was a mistake. Gilbert's forte is maximizing a player's unfulfilled potential; it's what he did for himself on tour, and as coach for Roddick and Andre Agassi. And it's what he should still be doing for Roddick, who may have more unfulfilled potential than any other player on the ATP Tour.

Instead, Roddick has hired Connors.

Connors is a tennis genius, at least as a player. Whether he can transfer that knowledge and knack to another, I don't know — he's never coached before. But my primary concern is that he has a fiery, paranoid personality that I can't envision will mesh well with Roddick's laid-back demeanor. If Roddick didn't get along with Gilbert, how will he remain amiable with Connors? It's like saying jalapenos are too hot, so you'll try a habanero instead.

The only hint that the couple might not be so odd is that they've already been consulting since early June, after Roddick lost in the first round of Roland Garros. Does six weeks of getting along indicate potential for a few years of professional chemistry?

One sign for optimism is that Connors' words indicate he's attacking the proper problem: Getting Roddick to use his head to maximize his skills.

"It's not always in the game," Connors says. "It's the intangibles that could make the difference, along with a few tweaks here and there. I'm not breaking down and criticizing everything. I'm just trying to make him the best that he can be."

(Incidentally, this is pretty much what Gilbert did for Roddick, too.)

Monday, July 24, 2006

A-Rod and Jeter

I was struck by an interesting stat this weekend: On Friday, July 21, Alex Rodriguez notched his 2,000th hit.

Derek Jeter reached that hitting milestone on May 26, almost two months earlier. I was surprised that Jeter reached 2,000 hits so much sooner ... in fewer at-bats ... and in fewer games. Why? Because A-Rod is generally considered the more effective player.

Let's count some numbers.

Jeter has accomplished four 200-hit seasons; A-Rod, just three. Jeter has eight .300-hitting seasons; A-Rod, just five.

On the other hand, Jeter has one 100-RBI season; A-Rod, nine. Jeter has three 20-home run seasons; A-Rod, 11.

The difference in their stats illustrates the difference in their responsibilities: Jeter is a table-setter, A-Rod a table-cleaner.

Of course, their roles aren't happenstance — the cause and effect are clear: A-Rod cleans tables because he can. He has a baseball skill that separates him from Jeter: He hits a lot more home runs (at the moment, 450 to Jeter's 175).

So how does one judge the true effectiveness of a player? By raw talent? Or by how well he uses his particular skills to help his team win? I'd argue the latter. We can't all be the fastest runner, the most powerful hitter, the guy with the strongest arm. People are different, and in a team game, the sum of those differences is the most important element to winning.

By that definition of effectiveness, Jeter and A-Rod are equally valuable to the New York Yankees because they both (slumps aside) fulfill their roles well. Jeter is consistent and clutch, A-Rod powerful and productive.

One can view RBIs as a team stat. In the case of this pair, Jeter is more often the "R," A-Rod more often the "BI."

Sunday, July 23, 2006

What I'm Doing and Why I'm Doing It

I've decided to launch this blog after thinking about it for a good three days.

I usually ponder longer and harder about such mental transactions, but figured that this time I'll go with the impulse buy — especially because it's free.

Anyway, I'm a writer by trade. What's more, I've been mostly a sports writer by trade. I've worked for national sports magazines that will, at least for the moment, remain nameless. (Well ... they do have names. Not having a name for a magazine would be silly. I'm just not going to mention their names here, because I haven't decided how anonymous I want this blog to be. Just as it's easier to apologize than ask permission, it's easier to ask you not to know me than to ask you to forget who I am.)

For the past couple years I've worked as a freelance writer. As such, I tend to write only when someone pays me to. Therefore, I have lots of thoughts on sports that never "get out there." And "getting my ideas out" is why I started taking writing seriously way back when I was 19 years old.

Therefore, this space serves as my personal dart board, if you will. When I'm sitting around thinking sports in my home office, now and then I may turn to the computer and toss a dart — just to get a thought out without trying to find someone who will buy it. I trust it will be good exercise. Hopefully it will also (at least now and then) be a good read.

I'll warn you now: Much of my professional writing involves pro tennis. Much of my sports watching involves the New York Yankees. Much of my sports playing involves softball. So I'm likely to mention those three subjects more than others. But rest assured (because I'm sure you're quite worried) that I'll cover plenty of other topics, too.