Point/Counterpoint...

[ssigman]

jay's article

Major League Baseball needs a change. Okay, well maybe more than 'A' change, but lets focus on just one of the changes for now. Any logical person, scratch that, any person can tell you it makes no sense to have two seperate leagues have different rules. There is no reason for the American League to use a different line-up than the National League does. That change would directly affect the use of a designated hitter or not. I don't care which you prefer, a change is nessessary. To me, it makes the most sense to have a designated hitter in BOTH leagues. I know, I know, not a popular opinion... but maybe i can change your minds!

Let me ask you this, why does a pitcher need to have at-bats? Really, think about that for a minute. Why not have them stay focused on their task at hand, which oddly enough is pitching and getting opposing hitter out. Sure, some will argue their are some pitchers who can hit the ball pretty "well" (well compared to what? Certainly not compared to ANY of other positions). Most will agree that pitching is more important than hitting. Then let the pitchers pitch and let the other guys worry about the hitting. Pitchers don't hit in college or in the minor leagues, why suddenly change that because they are now professionals?

The classic argument for the DH has to do with letting the older players play alittle longer in their careers. These guys (Molitor, Thome, Thomas, Baines, etc) were/are major contributors to their teams on and off the field. Without the DH most of those players would have retired years before they did. If they had, many teams, players and fans would have missed out on what was a great ending years to their careers. Would we ever even have had the great Edgar Martinez in the biggs if not for the DH? That would have been a shame.

Now for my biggest problem with the National League not using the DH. Picture this... you are down 1-0 in the top of the seventh inning, the bases are loaded with two outs. Coming up next is your ace starter who is hitting .067 this season (i know, you are excited!). Well at this point you have to take your starter out who has been incredible, but hits like his eyes have been removed from his head. The game no longer is decided by your best players. But whats even more frustrating for fans? When its the third inning and your team works to get the bases loaded, and who steps to the plate? Yep, that same pitcher who has no eyes. The result is, inning over, no runs, momentum killed and team let down. Sure, I realize this can happen with a different number nine hitter, but the facts show its alot less likely to happen.

After really taking a look at the two leagues, I don't see how anyone would rather have the pitcher bat. Why would you want to make offense worse in any sport? You might as well reduce the size of the basket in the NBA, or make a first down 20 yards in the NFL, or make the net smaller in the NHL. Defensive players in the NFL don't have to play offense. Why is that? Because it would make the offense worse (ah, just like pitchers batting does). I say let the players do what they do best and not force teams to make decisions they shouldn't have to.

[ssigman]

diesel's article

Best NBA point guard

By dieselwk

We all know Steve Nash looks like something from the Lord of the Rings movie, rather than a basketball player. We also know that Arnold from Different Strokes is taller than Steve Nash. The real question though, why is Steve Nash the best point guard in the NBA? It is quite simple; Steve Nash makes everyone around him better. So everyone can take their precious Chauncey Billups, Jason Kidd, etc. and go crawl in a closet. They can come out of the closet when they decide they are a poofer, or when they decide to get serious about talking about the best point guard in the NBA, Steve Nash.

The first thing one must look at is that Steve Nash has won back to back MVP awards. This shows that people around the league think that Steve Nash is the “Most Valuable Player” to a team. He makes the team go. The experts agree for the last two years that this guy is the best. If Billups or Kidd were, then they would have this award two years in a row. Some people may say big deal about the MVP, it’s just an award. If you take a closer look you will see that Nash is in rare company. Since the MVP award started in 1956 only 11 players have won it more than once. Those players are Kareem with 6, Jordan and Bill Russell with 5, Wilt with 30,000 women oh and 4 MVP’s, Larry Legend, Magic, and Moses Malone with 3, Karl Malone, Bob Pettit (I don’t have a clue who this is), Tim Duncan, and Steve Nash with 2. That my friend is great company to be in. Nine of the ten players (exception of Duncan) are on the 50 greatest players of all time list. Also note that on that MVP list only Magic Johnson played point guard, and he didn’t even do that all the time.

Why else is Steve Nash better? How about the simple fact that he makes his team better. Look at the Suns top 4 players besides Nash. They are Marion, Bell, Barbosa, and Thomas. Marion is the leading scorer at 21.8. The rest are below Nash who averages 18.8. Look at those names; they don’t exactly jump out at you. Without Nash this team does not make the playoffs. Steve Nash this year had to be even better than last year. He did not have Stoudemire to pass to. This put the burden on Nash to step up his game. He had less to work with, and the Suns still had a great year. As of right now they are two wins away from the finals.

If you look at Kidd and Billups they have more complete teams. Kidd has Carter, Jefferson, and Kristic to complement him. Billups has Hamilton, Rasheed Wallace, Prince, and Ben Wallace. That is a very complete, solid all around team if Nash had this line up he would have a ring just like Billups.

So in closing fuck all the other point guards in the NBA. They are all cock sniffers compared to Nash. Sure he is a short goblin looking, gangly, shitty hair wearing South African born point guard, but he is the best point guard in the NBA. Anyone who disputes this is a no good ASS CLOWN.

[ssigman]

nick's article


First, I’d just like to say that me writing about baseball is a lot like the President talking about politics; without the proper fact finders in the background, things can go south quickly. O.k., now that that is out of the way let’s talk DH.
The Designated Hitter is quite possibly the most ridiculous position in all of the four major sports. Wait. Lemme think. Yep, the most ridiculous. I would love for Jays to tell me one that beats it. What if the NFC decided that kickers really aren’t all that great? Tell ya what, score a touchdown and we’ll just give you the PAT. No need trot out that spare at the end of your bench. Save that money for your big free agent at the end of the year. What? The AFC doesn’t like the idea? That’s alright, we’ll do it anyway. Better yet, shaq really sucks at free throws so let’s get a DS (Designated Shooter) for when he gets fouled. We’ll just do it in the East, screw the West.
I understand the reason that the DH came to be. The league (AL) was struggling and needed something to give its popularity a boost. Apparently signing the up-and-coming Latin and Black prospects was out of the question (although the NL was having success at it). No sir, the AL needed to put more offense on the field and not have its defense exposed in the process. Voila, the DH is born.
The DH very well may have saved the game at the time it was introduced. Ladies and Gentlemen that time is gone. The league is seeing more offense now than it ever has and plenty of that is coming from the NL. As of now the NL’s albert pujols is the league leader in home runs leading the closest AL slugger by 5. He is also the RBI leader by 11 over david ortiz. Three out of the five RBI leaders are DH’s and of those only one (ortiz) would make the top five in the NL. The same holds true for the home run leaders, only jim thome would make the top five.
The MLB union would likely never relent the position. Never mind that dissolving the position could open the doors for young prospects. No sir, no way. What would we do with the overpaid relics that are skewing the salaries to such a large degree? Let them bore viewers to death with their under-analysis of the game on some local channel? That’ll come later. For now, wheel them out to the plate and let’s see what happens.

[ssigman]

karasz's article

BEST SPORTS FRANCHISE

According to Dictionary.com, a franchise is ‘a professional sports team.’ I have to say, the definition doesn’t go far enough. If this question was which sports team is the best it would not be an open-ended question. The answer would be the Yankees; they have more championships then any other team in any sport. But, the franchise is more then just the guys going out to compete, it has to include the fans and the franchises’ history. Off the bat you hear best franchise you think, Cowboys, 49ers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Celtics, Lakers, and the Canadiens. Sadly, all of those teams are wrong.
Every team listed above has a key flaw or two. The Cowboys fans are mostly a-holes that only show up when team is good. The 49ers won their 5 Super Bowls in a span of 14 seasons, where’s the history and tradition the best franchise needs to be in the running? The Yankees have the history, they have the 26 Championships, the numerous amounts of Hall of Famers, but the fans kill this franchise. There are few things worse then Yankee fans. Which brings me to the Red Sox, and their fans, the biggest bunch of whiners in history I can not allow them to have the title of Best Franchise. The Celtics fall into this category also. Prior to 2004, their fans would have traded all 16 Celtic Championships AND mom for the Red Sox to win one. The Cubs lose way too much to even consider. The Lakers have the pedigree, the tradition the Championships, the problem—fans. The Lakers really don’t have any other then Jack; nobody really cares about the Lakers, including Kobe. If you don’t believe me, watch the 2nd half of game 7 and tell me he cares. And the Canadiens? They have everything you are looking for in a Best Sports Franchise, but I give the edge to the Packers because over the past 15 years they have missed the playoffs only 3 times in that span.
The Best Sports Franchise is the GREEN BAY PACKERS. The fans aren’t arrogant, watching or talking about the team doesn’t make you want to gouge your eyes out, (unless you are a Bears fan) the stadium is sold out. Not just usually or anything, but ALL THE TIME. The town of Green Bay loves it Packers and as long as you don’t include that asinine ‘cheesehead’ hat or the recent Brett Favre flip-flopping as to whether or not he would play this upcoming season, there really isn’t any reason to not give this team the BEST FRANCHISE title. With 640 wins ever and a 55.7% win percentage the Green Bay Packers are the team that signifies its sport, have more wins then anyone in football, (The throwing kind not the kicking kind, sorry Gunner) the most loyal and faithful fans in any sport and are the only publicly owned team in all of professional sports.
Not only does this team have more Championships then any other in its sport the people and fans of Green Bay own it. Imagine being able to control a portion of your favorite team, no other pro team is that fan friendly, which is why the Green Bay Packers deserve the title of BEST SPORTS FRANCHISE.

[ssigman]

shane's article

When asked if professional athletes should be allowed to participate in
the Olympic games, I respond with a resounding NO. I have virtually
given
up on watching the Olympic games since they have allowed professional
athletes to participate in them, simply because they are not as fun to
watch. They have lost my interest, and ruined the most exciting
international activity in the history of the world.
Amateur and collegiate athletes perform harder because they have
something to prove. They are not earning multi-million dollar contract
salaries. They are TRYING to earn them. They give 110% every night,
because they WANT the multi-million dollar contract salaries. They
play
with heart. They are willing to do whatever it takes to get the job
done. I will use hockey as an example, because it is the sport I know
best. If you talk to a true hockey fan, they will say that they prefer
to attend minor league or college level games over NHL games, because
they are more exciting. The players perform harder, giving a more
action
packed game, and creating a better spectator experience. That is not my
opinion, it is fact. It is a much more entertaining environment to be
in.
Professional athletes do play with heart, don’t get me wrong, but they
rely too much on talent, and expect to just coast through.
Professional
athletes don’t have anything to lose. No one is getting paid to be an
Olympian, but the amateur and collegiate athletes are hoping to get
paid
because they were Olympians, while the professional athletes will get
paid
when the get home. Win or lose.
Sending professional athletes to the Olympic games also disrupts the
schedule of the season they are being paid to perform in. If it is
hockey, baseball, basketball, whatever, the season is placed on hold
while
the “elite” few are playing in the Olympic games. The players who were
not invited sit at home and get rusty, while the players who were
invited
are over seas, subjecting themselves to fatigue and injury. They lose
team chemistry. Historically speaking, the more athletes a
professional
team has that are participating in the Olympic games, the sooner they
get
eliminated once the playoff season rolls around. It doesn’t make sound
financial sense to send a bunch of your team to the Olympics.
Simply put, dream teams do not work. Sure there have been a few
success
stories, but those are few and far between. You have to have the best
players for the job, not the best players period, if you wish to
succeed.
If you disagree with me, then look at the 2006 hockey teams from team
USA
and team Canada. Shouldn’t they have been sure things? What about the
team USA basketball team that got eliminated by Argentina? Argentina
played the game like a bunch of middle school American kids, and still
beat “the greatest team in the world”. Why? Because they had heart.
They didn’t expect to win. They knew that talent alone was not enough.

And they proved it.
Coach Brooks told the 1980 USA hockey team that they did not have
enough
talent, to win on talent alone. He was right. They had enough heart
though. A team that wins in an Olympic competition is the best-coached
team with the most chemistry and hunger for a win. Show me a game in
any
sport where the competitors are working as one unit, and they are out
to
prove something, and I will watch it. If you put a bunch of guys out
there that are just going through the motions until they get back to
their
regular “jobs”, then you lost a viewer here.