Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Freddie
Published Letters: 207 Editor's Choice: 48
I live in Wrigleyville, in Chicago. Wrigley field is one of those very rare major league sports venues that really is right in the middle of a residential neighborhood; you can throw a stone from my back door and hit the stadium.
As you might imagine it was pretty dead up here last night, so I went south to the Loop, the downtown center of Chicago. It was a lot more alive than my neighborhood had been, but compared to Boston last year (where I was lucky enough to be the night the Red Sox won the series) it was pretty subdued. I myself wasn't much for celebrating. I don't begrudge the White Sox fans' their happiness, but I myself am not a fan of the White Sox (or American League baseball in general).
Today on ESPN.com, Scoop Jackson, a Chicago area sports columnist, blasted Cubs fans for not supporting the White Sox win. He said that not celebrating the victory was not being "real". Well, I certainly think that any Cubs fans who are downplaying the victory are being silly; schadenfreud is a poor reason to be divided from other people in your own city. But am I really being a poor person for not going crazy? Believe me, there are enough fair-weather fans in the city right now as it is. As my friend said yesterday, "There's a lot of brand-new White Sox jerseys out there." I'm happy for the city, but I don't feel obligated to act happier than I am.
And I have to ask, where were these people in June? In July? The White Sox were a first place team all year. Why were they always playing to a half-empty stadium?
-Freddie
Sorry this is off-topic, but I just felt compelled.
I will never understand why, in the sports media, some players simply cannot catch a break, and some will always have a free pass. I understand when a guy like Barry Bonds or Ryan Leaf gets blackballed; you have to play ball a little bit with the reporters, even if I feel the vitriol for Bonds can be a little over the top. But a guy like Brett Favre is simply invincible in the eyes of the media.
Yesterday he threw five interceptions. FIVE. And you know what every story about the game said? "Brett Favre can't quite pull one out. Despite another gritty performance [and if I hear one more Brett Favre game described as gritty, I'll shoot my TV], Brett couldn't quite complete another amazing comeback."
What? The man threw five interceptions! His team wouldn't have had to "pull one out" if he could have limited turnovers. He's always talked about as this "gunslinger", never mind the fact that he's as likely to shoot his own team in the foot.
Favre has had some great games, of course. He won a championship. He's done some spectacular things with a football. He's also done some spectacularly stupid things with a football. The playoff game with the Eagles from awhile back is the perfect example. Everyone remembers 4th and 27, or whatever it was. What they don't remember is that the Packers had an excellent opportunity to win the game, and it was killed when Favre threw one of the worst passes I've ever seen in my life. And that isn't the only time Favre has ruined playoff games with bad throws.
I just don't get it. No matter what he does, the guy's a saint in the eyes of the media.
Just wanted to point out that the Colt's schedule is softer than a Krispy Kreme: Baltimore, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Tennessee, San Francisco, St. Louis, Houston. The fact that people are picking them to go march unopposed to the title despite having played one quality opponent boggles the mind.
It's interesting that you point that out, Jack, because it speaks to the dirty little secret of that undefeated Dolphins team: in terms of opponents combined winning percentage, they still hold the record for the easiest schedule in history since the NFL/AFL merger. But you never hear about it.
Why did the Dolphins go undefeated? As I've pointed out in this space before, King, it's because they played the easiest schedule, in terms of opponents combined season win percentage, that's ever been played since the NFL/AFL merger. What was that winning percentage? .396! It's incredible! Their opponents won less than 40% of all their games that year, which is difficult to do, especially considering that they would have been playing each other at some point (and so would have to rack up at least a couple dozen wins simply by beating up on each other.
.396!
I don't think the Colts have any right to complain about poor sportsmanship after they went for two in the waning minutes of the fourth quarter when they had a twenty point lead. That's the opposite of class.
Science IS a dogma. The only proof you need is to read the other letters posted on this page. I defy anyone to find anything resembling an open mind in these letters. I don't know if science will ever stop producing more science; but a quick survey of the attitudes of the critics writing here makes it clear that science has a lot to learn.
It's funny, but King seems to have missed the most important sentence in his own analysis about the Pats game this weekend: "giving Dolphins quarterback Gus Frerotte a chance to make the highlights".
Sorry, but as banged up as the Patriots are, I could play corner against Gus Frerotte and Marty Booker.
Guess I better start doing tip drills...
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
