2nd Down and 2…

I've mentioned before that I love a good trivia question. There's something else to which I'm always a captive audience and that is a good story about old-time ball players. Undoubtedly these stories are given a little extra flair by the story teller, particularly when that person also happens to be an old ball player himself (like the time an old baseball player told my brother he saw Lefty Grove throw a baseball through a brick wall). Regardless, there is a certain charm and fascination with old-timers and their stories that captivate me.

One of my favorite such stories is one I heard a few years ago about Bronko Nagurski of the Chicago Bears. A charter member of the pro football Hall of Fame, Nagurski was also a world champion wrestler. At 6' 2'' and 235 pounds, he was a man among boys in the world of professional football in the 1930s and was nearly unstoppable as a ball carrier. A big, physical, and bruising runner, it was once said the he accidentally knocked down a police officer's horse after finally being run out of bounds.

Well as the story goes, there was an equally daunting and fearsome linebacker (whose name I no longer remember) that was getting tired of hearing about Nagurski's toughness and was anxious to lay a few hits on him. His chance came on a cold afternoon at Wrigley Field (where the Bears used to play their home games). The Bears opened the game on offense, and the linebacker knew Nagurski was going to get the ball on an up-the-middle play to start the game. As the linebacker recalled, "I came up and hit him with everything I had right at the line of scrimmage. I don't know if I ever hit anyone that hard in my life and thought I dropped him right on the spot. As we were getting up from the pile, I looked down and said, 'Take that Bronko'. About the same time, as the referee was spotting the ball, I heard the call 'Second down and two…'".

Should Dom DiMaggio Be In the Hall of Fame?

I read "The Teammates" by David Halberstam for the second time recently, and again I was surprised by some of the player's comments in the book that Dom DiMaggio should be in the Hall of Fame. If you're not familiar with the book, it chronicles the life-long friendship between Dom DiMaggio, Johnny Pesky, Ted Williams, and Bobby Doerr. It's a great read, particularly if you happen to be a Red Sox fan.

From a baseball perspective Dom has the unfortunate circumstance of having the last name "DiMaggio". Overshadowed by his brother Joe, Dom played 11 seasons in the big leagues from 1940-1953 for the Red Sox. He completely missed the 1943, 1944, and 1945 seasons due to military service in WWII. It's made evident in "The Teammates" that Dom had the respect from his peers as a ball player, but is he Hall of Fame worthy as some players in the book suggest?

The recent passing of Phil Rizzuto prompted me to take a look back at his statistics as a player. Now, I bet you can see where I'm going with this and before you Yankee fans get all bent out of shape, I realize that Rizzuto was also a great announcer for the Yankees for many years, as well as a great shortstop. For many New Yorkers, Phil Rizzuto is the voice of baseball, period. I understand that. But there was a strong push to get Rizzuto into the Hall based on his statistics, particularly after PeeWee Reese of the Brooklyn Dodgers was voted into the Hall in 1984 with similar stats.

Neither Rizzuto nor Dom DiMaggio was a power hitter, and neither had much speed on the base paths. Both made a living getting on base any way they could and playing solid defense. Below is a look at the lifetime stats of each player:

	Dom DiMaggio	Phil Rizzuto
Seasons	11	13
BA	.298	.273
H	1680	1588
R	1046	877
HR	87	38
RBI	618	563
OBP	.383	.351
SLG	.419	.355
SB	100	149
Fielding %	.978	.968
All-Star	5	5
MVP	0	1

• DiMaggio scored over 100 runs 6 times. Rizzuto twice.
  

• DiMaggio was in the top 10 for hits 7 times. Rizzuto once.
  

Looking strictly at the numbers, DiMaggio seems to have been the better player. The thing that really stood out to me was the MVP award Rizzuto won in 1950. Let's just look at the stats of the two players for that season:

	Dom DiMaggio	Phil Rizzuto
BA	.328	.324
H	193	200
R	131	125
2B	30	36
3B	11	7
HR	7	7
RBI	70	66
OBP	.414	.418
SLG	.452	.439
SB	15	12
Fielding %	.979	.982

OK - take your pick here. Both players had a good season, and either one seems to be deserving of the award. While Rizzuto won the MVP, what is surprising is that DiMaggio finished 14^th. Fourteenth! Billy Goodman, also from the Red Sox, finished 2^nd in MVP voting that year, so it can be argued that he took votes away from DiMaggio. Well, Yogi Berra finished 3^rd and that did not seem to hurt Rizzuto.

Do I think that Dom DiMaggio should be in the Hall of Fame? Probably not. And I would say the same thing for Rizzuto. However, the results of the 1950 MVP voting seem to give some credibility to the theory from the players in "The Teammates" that Dom DiMaggio was never recognized for being a great baseball player. Maybe things would be different if he had another last name.

Hit Vick Where It Hurts

As each week passes the outlook for Michael Vick is becoming more and more bleak. Two more co-defendants are set to agree to plea agreements with federal prosecutors, leaving Vick the odd man out. He is clearly becoming the target of this investigation as rumors swirl that the dog-fighting ring was financed by Vick himself. Vick reportedly has until Friday to plead guilty and agree to a deal or he will stand alone in this trial with his former co-defendants as the prosecution's best witnesses. That spells trouble.

But I'm not sure this bothers Vick all that much. In some twisted, backward thinking there may be some element of "street cred" (whatever the hell that is, and why it seems to be important I'll never understand) that he gains as a result of this. And while I'm sure his defense team isn't cheap, he has already made more money than most people see in a lifetime.

What is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to Vick is for him to become irrelevant. A great big blow to the ego. The latest comments from Warrick Dunn are the first step in that direction. If you missed it, Dunn basically said that there is nobody on the Falcons who is hoping Vick comes back. Ouch.

For three years in a row the Falcons have declined in the numbers of wins, from a high of 11 in 2004 to just 7 last year. Incidentally, Vick's completion percentage has dropped each of those years. His ability to become a successful, winning quarterback in the NFL has been questioned as a result. If Joey Harrington (whose completion percentage has increased three years in a row) can take this team to a 9+ win season and a shot at the NFC wildcard, Vick becomes irrelevant in Atlanta -his critics justified and his reputation has a quarterback who can't lead a team to the promise land solidified. And could you imaging he public relations nightmare for the team that may try to pick him up after that? He would be forgiven quicker if he was caught funneling money to Al-Qaeda than for dog-fighting, and any team that would try to acquire him would feel the wrath of every animal lover in the country.

So whatever happens as a result of the legal proceedings, and I hope the judge rules with an iron fist, he can do nothing that would hurt Vick as bad as Joey Harrington leading the Falcons to the playoffs. So for this year, I'm the Atlanta Falcons biggest fan.

UFC vs Boxing – Part IV

This is the fourth and final post in the series detailing why I think the UFC is a better sport right now than boxing. Part I talks about the mess that is the various ranking systems and title belts in boxing. Part II looks at the better marketing efforts by the UFC, and part III claims the UFC has better pay-per-view events.

Reason #4 – Better Fighters

The topic of who would win in a fight, great boxer X vs great MMA fighter Y, has been an often discussed topic among fight fans. Recently, however, the argument has been given a unique twist in that the fighters themselves have begun to weigh in on the issue. For whatever reason, it seems the more vociferous arguments have come from boxing world with Bernard Hopkins and Floyd Mayweather Jr. being the most publicly opinionated on the matter. Mayweather Jr. claims the UFC fighters are lesser athletes and that any boxer could easily transition to MMA and be dominant. Hopkins equates the UFC with unskilled, drunken thugs slugging it out at the local bar.

Not surprisingly, Hopkins and Mayweather Jr. have made no attempt to back up their claims with any type of action whatsoever. A lot of words but no action, despite the promise from Dana White (UFC President) that he would make it financially worth their time. I'm not surprised by this, and you shouldn't be either. Why? Because the UFC guys are better fighters, and Mayweather and Hopkins know it.

It may seem strange to bring up Lance Armstrong in a discussion about fighters, but there is a point to be made here. Armstrong is probably the best cyclist in the history of the sport. He dominated cycling biggest stage, the Tour de France, like nobody in history. But other than riding a bike and having incredible endurance, what particular skills does this require? Would you think he is a better athlete than Kobe Bryant? Roger Federer? How about LaDainian Tomlinson or Derek Jeter? The range of skills required by these others athletes to excel in their respective sport is far greater than that required of Armstrong. I contend that with the proper training, any of these other athletes I just mentioned would have a greater chance at succeeding in cycling than Armstrong would in any of their sports. Why? Because they are better athletes.

It is for these same reasons that I think the UFC guys are better fighters than boxers. I would not go as far as to say Chuck Liddell could beat Bernard Hopkins in a boxing match. Hopkins is too good of a boxer. The same reason I would not predict Derek Jeter to beat Lance Armstrong in a cycling race. But when we talk about MMA, we are talking about a fight, which can (and will) require a larger set of skills than a boxing match. And who would you put your money on in a fight – a one trick poney or somebody who knows boxing, muay thai, wrestling, and jujutsu? I'll take the more skilled fighter, and my guess is that deep down inside Hopkins and Mayweather know where the smart money would be too.

UFC vs Boxing, Part III

This is part III in a series detailing why I think the UFC is a better sport right now than boxing. Part I talks about the mess that is the various ranking systems and title belts in boxing. Part II talks about the better marketing efforts by the UFC.

Reason #3 – Better Pay-Per-View Events

The biggest PPV event boxing has offered so far this year is the Oscar De La Hoya vs Floyd Mayweather Jr fight. Held at the Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas and heavily promoted by HBO with their mini-series chronicling the fighters in the weeks leading up to the fight, it was billed as the event that was going to save boxing, to put boxing back on the map and rejuvenate interest. After all, it was the current WBC junior middleweight champion and six-division champion De La Hoya against what some people believed to be the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world in Mayweather Jr. The publicity worked – the fight set the all-time record for PPV buys for a boxing match with 2.15 million households tuning in.

The result? A match in which neither fighter was ever in command of the other, with Mayweather Jr. clearly avoiding a brawl with De La Hoya by moving around and throwing a quick flurry of punches whenever De La Hoya was able to catch up to him. Mayweather Jr. was declared the winner in a loudly booed split decision that even had Mayweather Jr's own father questioning the judges.

Who actually won the fight, however, is not the issue. What is more important is whether or not the fans got what they paid for. At best, the fight was uneventful. At worst, outright boring. If only there were some other fights on the card that could also have provided some entertainment to supplement the main event. Oh, yeah, there was. But can you name who the fighters were and who won? I would bet that 95% of the PPV subscribers can't. Why? It was unimportant and worse yet, uninteresting.

Is the UFC immune from bad decisions and boring fights? Of course not. But just take a look at the fight card of a typical PPV event. A glance at the fight card for the upcoming UFC 74 to be held at Mandalay Bay, Las Vegas on August 25 shows that there are 5 fights guaranteed to be broadcast on PPV. There are 4 other fights that are held in the same evening that could also be broadcast should one of the other fights end quickly. It's a virtual guarantee that PPV viewers are going to see at least one great fight, most likely more than one. Boxing can't say that.

But are the other fighters any good or are they no-name fighters like the undercard of boxing events? You can see that for yourself. Just look at the packed arena for all of these fights, not just the main event. It will stand in stark contrast to the rows of empty seats during boxing PPV events. That will speak for itself.

Home Run Leaders – By Decade

I'm a sucker for a good trivia question – especially baseball trivia. A friend of mine posed a good question to me the other day I thought I would share.

Who are the home run leaders broken down by decade? For example, for the 1920's its Babe Ruth. Can you name the others since then? I had to think about it for a while and was unable to come up with all of them. I've had to do some research and listed below are the correct answers.

Decade	Player	Total HR
1920's	Babe Ruth	467
1930's	Jimmie Foxx	415
1940's	Ted Williams	234
1950's	Duke Snyder	326
1960's	Harmon Killebrew	393
1970's	Willie Stargell	296
1980's	Mike Schmidt	313
1990's	Mark McGwire	405

 

A few of these were particularly troublesome to me. The 1940's are tricky because so many players missed time due to World War II. I said that if he did not miss 3 seasons due to the war, I would have guessed Ted Williams. Well, despite missing those seasons he is still the leader. The 1980s were also a problem. Schmidt had a lot of homers in the 1970's too, and I thought that since he spanned both decades he would not have enough in either decade to be the leader. Killebrew completely escaped my mind for the 1960s – my guess was Hank Aaron, who hit 375. Even if I had thought of Killebrew, I probably still would have guessed Aaron.

The End of a Journey – Gwynn and Ripken

With Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame this Sunday, I thought I would take a quick glance at the careers of both players.

	Tony Gwynn	Cal Ripken
Seasons	20	21
Hits	3,141	3,184
HR	135	431
RBI	1,138	1,695
BA	.338	.276

 

Gwynn's lifetime batting average of .338 is good for 17^th all-time and his 3,141 hits also ranks him 17^th. He led the National League in batting 8 times (tied with Honus Wagner for most ever in the NL) and was a 15-time All-Star. Known more for his hitting, Gwynn is also a 5-time Gold Glove winner and was a fine base stealer in his early years (stealing a career high 56 bases in 1987) before knee problems began to take a toll on his speed. Gwinn played in 2 World Series, but was unable to capture a championship ring despite hitting .500 in the 1998 series against the Yankees.

Many people thought Gwynn could have been the next person to hit .400 in a season. In 1994 Gwynn was making a legitimate run at .400, but with the season shortened due to the strike it was not to be. He finished 1994 with a .394 average – the closest anyone has come to hitting .400 since Ted Williams actually reached that plateau in 1941.

Ripken was a 19-time All-Star – most ever by an American League player, and a 2-time winner of the AL MVP. His 3,184 hits is good for 13^th all-time, 431 HR ranks him 30^th and 1,695 RBI is good for 20^th. He is one of 7 players in history to reach 400 home run and 3,000 hit totals (Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Eddie Murray, Stan Musial, Dave Winfield, and Carl Yastrzemski are the others). Ripken only reached the World Series one time but he got his ring as the Orioles defeated the Phillies.

Ripken is perhaps best known for breaking Lou Gehrig's consecutive games played record. Gehrig's mark of 2130 consecutive games played was a record many thought would never be broken, particularly by a player in a more demanding position such as shortstop. His 2131^st game played was voted by baseball fans as the most memorable moment in MLB history.

Ripken's legacy extends beyond the "Iron Horse" persona, however. At 6' 4'' he was once thought too big to play shortstop. Never before had a shortstop come along with his size and still be as agile and graceful in the field as was Ripken - Cal won 2 Gold Gloves at the position.

Both players played their entire careers for the same teams, something that is becoming increasingly rare in professional sports. Their on the field accomplished leave no doubts regarding with Hall-of-Fame status, but it should also be noted both players epitomized good character, sportsmanship, and class. They were, and continue to be great ambassadors for MLB.