Tiger Tiger Woods y'all

Did Tiger Woods choke on Sunday? I know it is a question I never thought I'd ask myself. Woods has proven to be the best finisher in golf, if not all sports. He is constantly, with good reason, lauded for his mental focus and toughness and his mind, as much as his physical tools, is credited for his victories. But on Sunday, he lost the lead. He had a two stroke lead and finished three strokes down. Does this constitute a choke job? I say yes.
As much as YE Yang played well, he did not play well enough to take the victory from Tiger. If Tiger shoots just even par, they go to a playoff. Give Yang credit. He took advantage of the opportunity. But he did not go out there, play lights out, and rip the title away from Woods. Woods bogeyed 17 and 18, making what should have been a pressure-packed situation for Yang into a less tense moment.
Woods led from the beginning of the tournament. Day 1, 2 and 3 all say his name atop the leader board. I believe he was at least tied for the lead 67 out of the 72 holes. Make no mistake. This was his tournament to win, or lose. He lost.
But it is a choke job for another reason. It was Tiger Woods. A choke job is when you fail to meet the standards that are set. With Woods, be it right or wrong, the standards are higher. If Yang had played poorly on Sunday, people would have said he folded under pressure, but he is the 110th ranked golfer, so we shouldn't expect any better. But Woods, the best golfer of a generation, if not all time, has higher expectations from both the fans and of himself. He clearly did not play as well as he is capable of. He clearly choked.

Vikings pre-season

Normally, I am not a big NFL training camp guy. I find our obsession with football to me more annoying than anything else. I would prefer that the main sports story of the day be the Twins' actual game, then a Vikings' practice, but whatever. This year, though, I find myself slightly more interested in the Vikings. I'm not sure if it is because of the failed Favre saga, or the fact the Twins are in a mighty struggle, but Vikings Training camp has me mildly interested.
I really think it is because I feel like the Vikings have a chance to be good this year. They return many key parts from last year and appear to me to be a solid quarterback away from being a really good team. Adrian Peterson is absolutely amazing. Percy Harvin could be fantasic. Bernard Berrian led the league in yards per catch last year. They have weapons on offense, and still have two of the better O-lineman in the league (Steven Hutchinson and Bryant McKinnie). Really, the only thing the offense is missing is a quarterback.
However, I'm confident whoever wins the QB job will be fine. Tavaris Jackson has shown at times he can be a player, and he should continue to get better. And Sage Rosenfels is a veteran, who should be able to manage a game decently. The Vikings do not need a pro-bowl quarterback. They need somebody to complete 55-60% of his passes, minimize mistakes, and hand the ball to Peterson and Chester Taylor. It isn't that hard. I think a more seasoned Jackson, or a acclimated Rosenfals, could fill the roll.
The Vikings defense remains solid, with the Williams Wall and Jared Allen on the D-line. I read the defense doesn't have any starting position battles, which speaks to the experience and ability of the players. They are a good enough defense to carry the team in a couple of games, but not all year long.
The Minnesota Vikings are just an intriguing team this year, in part because Favre isn't here. They would have been more interesting with him, yes, but without him, their only big question mark is the most important position on the team, where a so far ineffective young quarterback and a veteran second-stringer fight for the starting spot.

Twins post-trade

Well, the Twins did it. They made a trade-dealine move, akin to the days of yore. If you remember correctly, the Twins in the early part of the decade were active at the trade deadline. By my recollection, they made moves for Rick Reed, Todd Jones and Shannon Stewart within four years, if not three straight. The only trade that had a huge impact, was Stewart. Reed was decent for a year or two, not spectacular, and Jones was kind of a bust, if memory serves me.
So what will the Cabrera trade do for the Twins? I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet he will not light a fire under the team like Stewart did for a glorious two month stretch.
This weekend showed by hesitation for the Twins to make a move like this. They have multiple weaknesses, that adding one move isn't going to make a difference. Cabrera had a good weekend for the Twins - 3 for 8 with a homer and a walk. We really can't ask for much more. Yet, we were blown out badly in these games.
Thankfully, the Twins didn't give up a whole lot for him. A mid to decent level prospect, while receiving some cash as well, all and all it didn't cost them much.
And in the grand scheme of things, this move probably needed to happen to squash public clamoring and in-house pleading to make a move. If this trade helps keep Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, etc... in a Twins uniform, it was great.
But make no mistake. This move makes the Twins marginally better at best, and did not address their biggest need - pitching. Besides, Cabrera takes away at bats from Brendan Harris, who has shown to be the most professional hitter out of the Harris, Nick Punto, Alexi Casilla trifecta of mediocrity. Harris has shown his best defense, and consequently his best offense, when he plays shortstop. Now, you force him to play out of position at 2nd or 3rd.
The player the Twins should have traded for was Freddie Sanchez of Pittsburgh. He is an all-star second baseman, and former NL batting champion. Plus, he plays second base (our biggest need on the infield) and used to play third, where he could play next year when Crede leaves. Yes, the asking price for Sanchez was much higher. Reports were either the Twins AAA third baseman, who is penciled in to start 3rd next year, of their top outfield prospect. To me, I saw either would have been fine. You need to give up something to get something. Right now, you have no holes in your outfield. In fact, you have too many outfielders. And if you trade your third baseman of the future, Sanchez can play third. And with the new ballpark, the theorized new revenue could be used to keep Sanchez for anther couple of years. But I am a huge fan of trading prospects for a known quantity. You can't do it all the time, but sometimes you need to. It is quite possible neither of the two players the Pirates asked for will be as good a player is Sanchez, the former batting champion and all star.
But we should be happy the Twins made a move. At least it is a step, albeit more a ceremonial one, but a step none the less the try and improve the team. Now if only we could get ...

Twins Trade outlook

For those of you who love the Minnesota Twins as much as I do, it has been a painful year. They are a maddening team - showing flashes of brilliance, followed by stretches of incompetence. And, if you are even more like me, you hope that every year the Twins will make a trade that will help push them over the edge and either make the playoffs, or make a run in the playoffs.
But this, I have a different frame of mind. Think about this, all you devoted Twins fans. Are Twins even good enough where one trade would make a difference? The Twins have more than one hole right now. They need bullpen help, infield help at numerous positions (three, if in fact Joe Crede is seriously hurt) and their starting pitching has been very shaky. They are not a mere trade away, but rather two or three moves away from being a very good team. Now I want them to win as much as the next guy, and want these areas of weakness to be addressed. But can they all be addressed in the middle of the season? Some of this should have been done in previous years and the front office failed to step up. But that means they should not exaserbate the problem by trying a mid-season trade where they will probably over-pay for a player anyway. Nobody likes to give up on a season. Surely, I do not. But at some point in time, you've got to cut bait. The Twins have been entirely too inconsistent this year for me to believe they are one move away from being a good team. Yes, the Twins should continue to explore ways to make their team better. Trading for a player who is signed for more than this season would be a good move. But unless they can find a good reliever (which every contender is looking for) a solid right-handed bat, a quality middle infielder and a consistent starting pitcher, there is no need to trade for one of them. You only marginally make your team better and you risk losing assets to retool your team over the winter to make a run next year. And folks, next year is incredibly important. It is the new stadium, as well as Joe Mauer's final year under his current contract. The fans are going to look for an increase in payroll and are going to expect more from this team.

The British Open

One putt for history. A simple 10 inches of movement of the putter and the record would be his. As he stepped up to swing his putter for a shot that would forever immortalize him, Tom Watson was surrounded by fans, well-wishers and people cheering him on, yet he probably never felt so alone.
When I think of sports, I tend to think of a team, and often times forget an individual. Maybe it's because I have played more teams sports than individual sports. I don't know what the reason, buy sports is cinanomous with team to me.
But when I saw Watson come to the tee box on the 18th green on Sunday afternoon, I can only imagine what was going through his mind. This wasn't a team game. He didn't have anybody to rely on or to blame but himself.
And with his putt for par and a place in the record books, Tom Watson stroked the ball like he was terrified of the moment. Tom Watson, with his magnitude of experience, his tens of victories, his eight majors, and his five British Open titles, fell the pressure and hit a week putt.
Maybe he was thinking too much about his previous put that he sailed well past the whole. Maybe he was thinking about the history. I don't know. But I do know if you look at Stuart Cink's birdie putt on 18 and Tom Watson's par putt on 18, you can see a stark contrast in confidence.
This got me thinking a little bit. If a guy like Tom Watson can be unnerved, that has to be just about the most difficult thing an individual can do in sports - make a clutch put.
Often times in sports, when the game is on the line, there is more than one individual who affects the outcome. It's either a teammate, a defender, maybe a referee, somebody. But not in this case. It was only Tom Watson. Nobody else.
And unlike other sports, this didn't happen in the flow of the game. There was no lead up to it where you are just playing and letting your instincts take over. He sat there for minutes with nothing else to do but think about his putt. This is the ultimate icing of the kicker.
I can't think of another situation like this. In football, a game winning field goal takes more than just the kicker. In baseball, even in the ninth inning, there is a pitcher and batter.
The closest thing I can think of is in basketball, if time is expired, a tie game, and you have one free throw to win. But that isn't exactly the same, because a free throw is the same distance no matter what court your on. It is something you've done hundreds of thousands of times before. A golfer never sees the exact same put twice.
Maybe in a field event at the Olympics. You have one throw left of the discus to win gold medal. I don't know, it still seems different to me.
So yes, Tom Watson should have one the British Open. He was 187 yards from the pin in the middle of the fairway and needed a par to win. He choked. But can you really blame him?

Fenway Park

Today I am able to cross off an item on my life's to-do list, if I indeed had a list. I took in a game at Fenway Park. The Sox lost 6-0, but that is hardly the point. Rarely do I actually remember who won or lost the game, but rather I remember the experience surrounding the game. I couldn't tell you who won or lost a single game on my baseball roadtrip a few years back, but I could tell you where our tickets were for every game and that we waited out a rain delay in Wrigley and I almost caught a foul ball at Kaufman Stadium. So the Sox losing last night takes some fun out of the game, but not the overall experience. Sure, I didn't get to high-five a stranger, or spill my drink on the person in front of me when I jumped up for the winning home run, but the atmosphere and the aura of the parm remain unblemished.
My Fenway experience began about 4:30, when I got in line for tickets. I waited with a few hundred people to buy the tickets the Sox save for two hours before game time. After purchasing your ticket, mine was $50 for lower-level behind homeplate, you're immediately ushered into the stadium in order to persever the integrity of the tickets, i.e. scalpers can't buy day of tickets just to sell them. So I get into Fenway about an 1:20 before the first pitch and the place was crowded. The Sox game isn't merely a game, but rather an evening out. And hardly anybody is sitting in their seats yet, but rather everybody is is in one of the concourses eating a hot dog or a sausage of some kind, and drinking beer. Every 10-15 feet is another sausage/beer stand. Pure awesomeness. The stadium and the concourses are an interesting mix. Fenway is nearly a century old, but the concourses are new. The concrete floor is cracked and anything but smooth and the stadium shows all 100 years of its existence, but the concourses are modern and very fan friendly. The best concourse is Yawkey way, though. They block off the entire street a couple hours before the game so fans can spend time outside. Of course, you can buy beer and sausages outside, as well as listen to live music. Souvenir shops line the adjacent building and TV sets are abound in order to watch the pre-game, or if you need a smoke break during the game.
So we finally got to our seats. Now I don't think any ballpark has incredibly comfortable seats, but these aren't even close. You sit with your knees in your chest, while bumping the row in front of you, and it is impossible to avoid rubbing shoulders/elbows with the people next to you and a pole obstructs part of the viewing, but what do you want from an old stadium? People were smaller when it was built didn't have nearly the comforts we are used to.
The stadium was packed for a Monday night game against the anemic Oakland Athletics. But it's the Red Sox and they have sold out more than 500 consecutive games. But the fact that almost every ticket holder there was what was amazing. And the excitement throughout the stadium, from the moment I walked in until the last pitch, was incredible. They love their Red Sox (now that they're winning). As I found out during the starting line-ups, the game carried a little more significance than orginally thought - Nomar was returning. It would be his first time back in Fenway since he was traded in 2004. He received a warm applause when his name was announced in the starting line-up, but nothing compared to the standing ovation he received in his first plate appearance. He led off the second inning, and the Red Sox Nation standed and applauded him for a couple of minutes. It was a truly incredible experience. Here is this visiting player, who hasn't been on the team in five years, was traded away because he wasn't getting the job done, and never led them to a World Series, receiving an incredible amount of love from the fans. He nearly broke down in tears. I stood and applauded, not because I care about Nomar or have appreciation for what he did, but because you could the fans were saying "Thank You" and it was a moving experience that you couldn't just sit idly by and watch.
Nomar grounded out and the game continued. The A's jumped out to a 5-0 lead so we decided to wonder around Fenway more and see all the stadium. We explored all of the bad angles and strange viewing positions of the stadium. And we stumbled into a bar. Up above in right field, the have the Right Field Roof, complete with a full-scale bar, with stools and TVs and the whole works. Why watch the game live when you can sit at a bar right? Well, you have the option still in Fenway. Unbelievable.
We then made our way back to our seats, at which point the crowd was feeling the maximum beer affect (the 7th inning) and I saw the wave go around the entire stadium at least 4 times. Now that was impressive. The fans were finally starting to come alive, even though the Sox weren't in the game.
We got back to our seats for the 8th inning, enough time to sing Sweet Caroline in the largest Karoake spectacle I've been a part of. We stayed until the end of the game, even though it was clear the Red Sox had no answer for the A's starting pitcher, who completed the shutout, only giving up two hits. I later found it was the first time a rookie shutout the Sox at Fenway since 1989. We walked back to the car, and my Fenway experience was complete.

Favre

I know I am late coming into the game, but since the saga doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I figure I might as well weigh in on the Brett Favre and the Minnesota Vikings.
First, if Brett Favre wants to play, who are we to tell him no. All this talk of tarnishing legacies for aging superstars is ridiculous. Michael Jordan went through the same thing, or George Foreman, or any athlete who has stuck around well past their prime. If an athlete wants to keep competing and somebody is willing to pay for their services, great. Go ahead and do it. It isn't my legacy that is possibly being tarnished, so really, why doesn't it matter to me. If anything, I should be glad that I get to see an all-time great play another year, even if he isn't at is peak.
The story of will he or won't he get's old, yes. That is true. However, that isn't necessarily Favre's (or any other athlete's) fault. They aren't the ones putting it front and center on Sportscenter, or in the paper every day. That is the media responding to what people want to read about. Don't blame the subject of the story. Blame our insationable appetite for football or for celebrity news.
So if Favre wants to play, let him play. It does't affect any of us in our day-to-day lives.
With that being said, I think the Vikings should sign him if he wants to play. Is he as good as he was five years ago? No. But is he better than any of the other quarterbacks on the Vikings? Probably. I'm not sure, but I do know that he isn't worse. The worse thing that could happen if Favre comes to the Vikings is they become a pass first team, and make Favre the center piece of the offense instead of Adrian Peterson. I don't think it'll happen, but it is a concern. When you look at Favre's best years, it was when he had a solid running back and wasn't asked to be the entire offense. Well, that is the situation he would have in Minnesota. The Vikings already have a lot of pieces, they are just missing a quarterback. An aging Favre can provide them with the needed balance on offense they have been lacking. He won't be throwing into double coverage very often because the opposing defense can't double team because of Peterson. Favre can do well here, if healthy.
So Favre probably makes the team better, but even if he doesn't, he is still worth a signing. With him on the team, the Vikings will no have no problem selling out every game of the upcoming season. Last season, they struggled to sell out the games, with blackout threats numerous times last season. Favre on the Vikings is a HUGE marketing too for Minnesota. Ticket sales are a gimme. The merchandise sales would be huge. A purple 4 jersey would be an instant seller. The Vikings instantly become incredibly interesting. All six games against the NFC North become must see TV, plus they will be favored to win the Central and probably to go to the Super Bowl. They become a fascinating team, no matter if they win or lose.
And from a Vikings fan who doesn't live in the area, if Favre is on the team, Minnesota becomes a national story. They will be on Sportscenter, featured more in Sports Illustrated or on ESPN.com. They immediately become a national story, which is great for me. But it should be exciting for all Vikings fans. I know I always get excited when any of the Minnesota sports team are prominently featured on national TV or in national magazines.
And finally, so see Brett Favre run out onto Labeau Field wearing the Purple and be booed without mercy is something that would be incredible, proving that fans are loyal to a bunch of colors, not players.
Minnesota Vikings, please sign Brett Favre. He won't hurt your team, he markets himself and it personally helps me. Get 'er done.

Anatomy of a conversation

Every stop and analyze what kind of conversations you have with people? What is the ebb and flow? Is it dominated by one person or does everybody contribute equally? Is it a true give and take, or does each person just wait until the other person stops talking in order to jump in? How much of the conversation is discussing ideas/events or just swapping stories? Do the stories relate and enhance each other, or are they just one-uppers? Is the focus primarily on you, the other person or what? Does the other person seem to genuinely pay attention and care?

Recently, I have started to take note of the type of conversations I have with people. I haven't done it very much, but it intrigues me and is something I am going to continue to examine. I would encourage all of you to do that as well. My first thought is that the type of conversation you have with a person and how that conversation runs its course can actually be valuable insight into that person. In no way do I feel like I am qualified to judge what insight means, but I feel like it can be a window into said person.

I encourage you all to let me know what you find out, andI will keep you posted with my findings as well.

Good luck and happy talks.

A new direction

Life is nothing of not ever-changing. Our thoughts from yesterday fade before we realize we miss them. Tomorrow's ideas form before we realize we need them. To forget is common. To be surprised is normal. It is who we are and how we operate.

We leave who we were an become somebody new without realization. The changes might be so gradual that they escape notice. Or happen with such speed as we cannot keep up. This is life.

Our task is not to be stationary. Change is inevitable. Change is good. Growth leads to new ideas, experiences and understanding. Our task is awareness. To be cognizant of change and ensure positive growth is our goal.

This is not the only undertaking in life. It might not even be high up on the list. But right now, this is my mission. This is what I need to do.

Hall of Fame madness

I’m a few days behind the curve on this, but oh well. The new inductees into the baseball Hall of Fame were recently announced, and there was only two of them: Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice. For Henderson, this was his first time on the ballot, and for Rice, it was his 15th and final time on the ballot. I am not going to discuss the merits of either because they both belong. But what I will touch on his how Rickey Henderson only got 94.8 percent of the votes and how no player in MLB history has ever been inducted to the hall of fame with a unanimous ballot.
Think about that. Nobody, not Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, anybody. How can that be? If anybody belongs in the HOF, it is Willie Mays. Many consider him the greatest player of all time. Yet he didn’t get a unanimous ballot. Now, some voters are under the impression that because Mays didn’t get a unanimous ballot that nobody should get one. If the greatest player, or players, didn’t go in uncontested, how can anybody? I guess I understand that thinking, but it is idiotic. If Rickey Henderson received a unanimous ballot, that doesn’t make him better than Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle. It just means that Henderson is, without a doubt, a bonafide Hall of Famer.
Henderson is the all-time leader in numerous categories, including stolen bases and runs scored. In one amazing hear, he had more runs scored than games played. Sure, runs scored is a product of who is behind him, but he has to get on base and put himself in a position to score. And the batters behind him got better pitches to hit because the pitcher was concerned with Henderson stealing a base. He was the greatest lead-off hitter of all time. Anybody who is the greatest anything of all time deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Yet, he received less than 95% of the vote. Ridiculous.
This obsession with keeping a ballot from being perfect is insane. The sports writers who didn’t vote for Henderson, or who won’t vote for Greg Maddox in the future, are crazy. All they are doing is perpetuating an ill-conceived idea and continuously thinking that hundreds of wrongs make a right. It was wrong for Mays to not receive a perfect ballot, but that doesn’t mean Rickey Henderson should not have.
If enough writers buy into this twisted logic, it is possible that somebody like Henderson or Maddox, might not make the HOF. If enough voters are determined not to have a perfect ballot and feel safe not voting for a person because they assume that everybody else will vote for him, he could get left off the ballot. Think about that. With this current mindset, it is possible that Maddox, the greatest pitcher of the last 40 years, could conceivably not be voted in his first year.
The sports writers who elect the Hall of Fame members wasted an opportunity to begin to correct decades worth of mistakes and set the platform to allow future unanimous votes. Instead, they clung to their stubborn, ill-conceived ideas and kept one of the greatest of all-time, a sure fire hall of famer, from receiving his due, perpetuated an antiquated idea and made it more difficult for any player to receive a perfect ballot. Is it any wonder people don’t like the media?

A pro-BCS opinion

With the end of the college football season, I have had my fill of debate/griping about the current BCS bowl system. It wasn’t that long ago that I was a proponent of changing the BCS system for a playoff, or at least an and-1 game for the national title (where everybody plays in a bowl game and then you re-do the BCS system to take the then no. 1 and 2 teams). In fact, I am pretty sure I wrote a column as sports editor railing on the current system. Maybe I should go back and read the column to see if I can convince myself to not write this next sentence. Nah. College football is great the way it is and it should not change. We do not need, and should not have a playoff system for college football. There, I said it. I just went against almost every college football pundit and fan. Whew, I feel liberated.
College football is, without a doubt, the most exciting season of any sport. Period. Every other sport, including the heralded NFL, has a boring regular season compared to college football. In the current system, almost every week is a playoff game for the top teams. Lose and you might not play for the national title. That is a lot of playoff games, don’t you think?
Let’s examine the NFL for a minute. This season, the New York Giants lost to the Cleveland Browns. Yet, nobody is saying the Browns are a better team or should be in the playoffs instead of the Giants because lost to them. Nor are people clamoring for the Houston Texans to be in the playoffs over the Tennesee Titans, who they beat in week 15. The season is a body of work, not just one game. In any given college season, the top-flight teams probably have eight or nine gimme games, while only being truly tested in three or four, about the same number as a playoff.
What is it about a playoff system that automatically gives credit to a national champion? As a fan, I want to see the two best teams play against each other for the title. With the BCS, we get pretty darn close to that compared to other sports, like NCAA basketball for one.
Everybody loves the NCAA tournament and it is probably sacrilegious for me to say anything bad about it, but since I’ve gone this far, I might as well punch my express ticket to sports hell. Often times in the NCAA tournament, we don’t see the best teams make it to the championship. Often times, a number two or three seed, or the occasional eight seed makes the championship. Yet nobody cries out foul when we, as fans, are robbed of seeing the two best (or at least two of the best) teams play for the title.
Also, look at last year’s NFL season. I think almost anybody will tell you that the New England Patriots were clearly the best team. Yet, nobody seems upset that they weren’t the champions. Or go back a few years to the 1998 NFL season (as a Minnesota Vikings fan, this is especially painful). The Vikings were the best team in the NFC, better than the eventual NFC champion Atlanta Falcons, but because Gary Anderson missed a field goal, we the fans were robbed of seeing the two best teams play for the Super Bowl.
And finally, I am going to stand up on my soap box and preach. Why do you need a supposed, true, non-debatable national champion? What is it about our society, our culture, ourselves, that we must have supposed closure. Why can’t we have an ambiguous national champion, or no national champion at all? Colleges are first and foremost a place of academics. Athletics are meant to spur school spirit and pride, as well as provide for social settings and entertainment for the university. Universities are not sports teams, rather educational entities.
We view playoffs as a way of determining who the best team for the season is. But they don’t. All they do is determine who the best team on that given day is. The BCS for all its failures, tries to give us something that no other sports entity, college or professional due, the two best teams playing for the national championship, while providing for the most exciting regular season of anything else. So for me, I’ve come around and I love the BCS and think it should continue just the way it is.
Congratulations Florida on your National Championship.