World Progress since the 1800's

Playoffs - Day 1

I didn't have any favorites (or any collateral interest) in Saturday's games, but I found it interesting that the teams that lost did so due, at least in part, to some very conservative coaching strategy --

In the NFC game, the Saints trailed by 7 points with about 9:13 left in regulation. With a 4th down at about the Seahawk's 4 yard line, they elected to go for a field goal to cut the deficit to 4 points. As it happened, a short time later the Seahawks scored a TD on Marshawn Lynch's highlight-reel run. That made it 41-30 Seahawks. The Saints were able to muster a TD late, but botched the onside kick and ended up losing 41-36.

Granted, there were 9 minutes left, but a FG does you no good in that situation. If you fail on the TD, you have your opponent deep in their own territory and an excellent chance to get the ball back with good field position.

In the AFC game, the Irsays trailed the J!E!S!T! 14-10 with 4:37 left and had 4th-and-6 from the J!E!S!T! 14 yard line. They elected to go for a FG to make it 14-13. They were lucky enough to get the ball back and kick another FG to take the lead 16-14 with 0:53 left, but some shoddy special teams and defensive play enabled the J!E!S!T! to get down the field and kick a FG to win 17-16 as time expired.

Again, the first FG (at 4:37) does the Irsays no good in that situation -- they still trail, and there's no guarantee you'll get the ball back (the J!E!S!T! had just completed a 10-minute drive on their previous possession). See Saints, above -- your opponent will have the ball deep in their own territory even if you fail at the 4th-down conversion. As it happened, they did get the ball back in time to take the lead, but only by a 2-point margin, which was easily overcome by the eventual winners. Conversely, a TD with about 4 minutes left gives the Irsays a 17-14 lead, and then the either add a FG for a 6-point lead or the J!E!S!T! tie it up with their last-second FG.

In any case, I had no stake, tangible or intangible, in either game, but I watched both of them and found it interesting that both outcomes occurred in very similar fashion. You never know what's going to happen or how the rest of the game plays out, but winners sometimes have to take risks when their season is on the line.

Long Overdue

Tim Wakefield -- who just completed his 16th season in Boston -- has won the Roberto Clemente award on his 8th attempt, in recognition of his charity work and community service. I actually thougth he had won this already, so it's about time...

He won't make it into Cooperstown without a ticket, but he will definitely be inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame when / if he retires, and with this post I'd like to officially begin the campaign that the Red Sox retire his #49 at that time.

Twenty-two years ago today...

...this happened. I was in my college dorm room, forced to listen to the broadcast on a blurry AM station because the floor TV was tied up by a bunch of muscle-heads watching professional wrestling. We didn't have ESPN, and it would be months until I saw the replay.

My favorite part is watching the brake lights flash on outside the right-field wall as the ball flies over Jose Canseco's head. Never, never, never leave a baseball game early -- even in Chavez Ravine.

BTW -- this was Gibson's only plate appearance in the Series.

Woodrow's Magic Kingdom

Disney World's Magic Kingdom includes a "Hall of Presidents," which I naturally visited on my recent trip to Orlando. The 22-minute presentation is a cross between the informative and the innocuous -- done well enough and edited strategically to avoid offending too many people. I was more struck by the lobby preceding the presentation, which contains portraits of selected chief executives and a handful of artifacts.

Some of the portraits are predictable -- the original George W., along with Honest Abe and Old Hickory are given prominent positions, and rightly so. There are two other sets of three portraits each -- on one side of the doorway you find FDR, James Monroe, and Jimmy Carter. On the other side are Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, and Woodrow Wilson. Coincidentally or otherwise, each trio contains a great president, an above-average president, and a total failure, the evaluation corresponding to the order listed above.

While presidential ranking is certainly subjective, few unbiased historians would disagree on five of the six. All had flaws, of course, but Reagan and FDR came to office in the midst of great crisis and succeeded beyond all expectations through a combination of strong leadership and firm (if controversial) policies. Jefferson had the Louisiana Purchase, but is more noted for his accomplishments outside the White House, while Monroe presided over an even-handed eight years but with few memorable successes outside of his famous Doctrine. Carter, on the other hand, inherited a tenuous situation and made it far worse (paving the way for the aforementioned Reagan), and is now regarded as little more than an interregnum during 60-plus years of otherwise competent national leadership.

Which brings us to Thomas Woodrow Wilson, perhaps the most over-rated of them all. Others, should they choose to, can give their opinion; mine should be rather clear at this point. I recently completed When the Cheering Stopped: The Last Years of Woodrow Wilson by Gene Smith (1964), which focuses on Wilson’s administration following the Armistice of 11/11/1918, and specifically his years after his unfortunate illness late in his second term.

It’s an easy read and worth the time – even for an anti-Wilsonian as myself, and Smith clearly tries to paint an unbiased portrait of his subject. Again, others can evaluate Wilson on the totality of his record. I was struck, in this work, by a number of factors that I believe contributed to the overall failure of his administration –

- A supreme overconfidence in his own abilities
- Widespread exaltation outside the United States, with only tepid (and often orchestrated) cheering at home
- An absolute unwillingness to accommodate other points of view, specifically on the domestic front, and complete shunning of any attempts at compromise.

Per Smith, Wilson was almost totally incapacitated in his final years in office, made few decisions, signed few documents, attended few meetings and made almost no public appearances. Yet he persisted in excluding not only his political enemies – which might have been understandable – but his allies and members of his own administration, including his vice president and cabinet, in any of the operations of the executive branch. If that’s not enough, he in all seriousness considered running for a third term (not yet prohibited via the 22nd Amendment), and then gave thought to running again in 1924 (the year in which he died).

It was a combination of these factors that led to Wilson’s grandest failure, that of the US Congress refusing to ratify the Versailles Treaty. The introduction to Smith’s book, by another writer and displaying significant favorable bias in contrast to the body of the book, insinuates that the country’s refusal to follow Wilson into the League of Nation was a tragic mistake, leading naturally to World War II, and proving, he believes, that Wilson was right all along. Debatable, to say the least, but the larger point, that Smith goes on to make, is that the US could have entered the League had Wilson showed as much diplomatic skill domestically as he displayed on the international stage at Versailles.

C'Mon, Yahoo -- really!

Here's today baseball playoff schedule, including one series that wrapped up last night, and one that is 2-1.

Yahoo?

Interesting that the Giants can lead a series 1-0 after they lost a game 5-4.

And Yahoo! wonders why it can't catch up with Google...

The Colbert Democrats

The Colbert Democrats - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

Charles Krauthammer offers a clear and succinct summary of the current situation.

Inappropriate

This was disgraceful, embarassing, unbearable, and inappropriate. The aide (or, heaven forbid, elected official) who suggested and/or arranged this should be sentenced to a lifetime of writing the complete transcripts of all of Al Gore's speeches on a neverending blackboard with their fingernails.

Whatever the intent, whatever the point, it epically fails on every level -- as an exercise in citizen testimony, as a perspective on a serious public policy issue, and, perhaps most significantly, as an attempt at humor. Would you believe that the Chairman of the committee is running unopposed for re-election (the only unopposed House member in California)? Is it too late to start a write-in campaign?

File this one under "Edsel." Good grief.

30 Years Ago

Scavenging through a pile of magazines at a yard sale last week, I stumbled across the depicted, which I immediately seized for the rather fair price of $0.25.

Those of us who remember the dismal years of the 1970's will always have a special place in our memories for the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team, and their recognition as Sports Illustrated's "Sportsmen of the Year" comes complete with a 12-page (!) article on the team's selection, development, and road to success, complete with individual pictures of all 20 players and head coach Herb Brooks in their disposition as of late 1980, less than a year after Lake Placid.

A remarkable piece of nostalgia, with the "where are they now?" angle rather ironic today in light of the passage of 30 years. While the cover story was certainly worth the purchase price (to say the least), the magazine contains numerous other bits that tweak the old brain cells, including:

- A masthead featuring Robert W. Creamer, Frank Deford, Curry Kirkpatrick, and Dan Jenkins.

- Ubiquitous tobacco and alcohol ads, including the perennial "Merry Christmas from Marlboro Country."

- Other ads touting Enterprise Radio, HBO,

- An article on the Phoenix suns featuring a page-length color photograph of the late Hall-of-Famer Dennis Johnson in a Phoenix uniform.

- An article on the baseball winter meetings that mentions trade talk surrounding Fred Lynn, Bobby Bonds, Rick Burleson and Ron Guidry.

- An ad featuring the 1980 Kodak All-America Football team, which included Jim McMahon, Herschel Walker, Lawrence Taylor, Mark May, Mike Singletary, and Ron Lott.

- And, finally, on page 92, an editorial proposing a Division I-A College Football playoff system. Seriously.

The more things change...

Leadership

Conrad Black in National Review provides an excellent evaluation of FDR's strategies and tactics dealing with the crises this country faced eighty years ago, as contasted with current approaches. His point how FDR's reputation has suffered more damage at the hands of historians that supposedly shared his ideology is also worth pondering.

If nothing else, read the third paragraph from the end.

The two greatest presidents of the last century were FDR and Ronaldus Maximus (with the other Roosevelt not far behind) -- not on the bases of politics, programs, or policies, but because of consistent and strong leadership in the face of unprecedented challenges, and, in both cases, with tenures following periods of weak and/or crippled leadership in the Oval Office. Is it any wonder that the latter greatly admired the former and quoted him often, or that many fair-minded conservatives (both those who lived through the 1930's and those, like Black, who have actually studied it), rate FDR very high in spite of ideological differences? (Differences, which Black points out, were not nearly as extreme as Schlessinger et al might lead us to believe).

Leadership is not a title or an office -- it is the ability to build broad support without compromising basic principles, carry out those policies effectively, change them when necessary, and admit error if it doesn't work. Read the article.

Enemy at the Gates

King George (the Last) (1930-2010)

I have to admit I'm of mixed minds on this one -- not his death, of course, which is tragic and apparently somewhat sudden, but rather his life, specifically his life in baseball.

Owner of the NY Yankees for approximately the same time period I've been a Boston Red Sox fan, George Steinbrenner embodied everything that was despicable about the Evil Empire -- too much money, unbridled spending, unadulterated arrogance and exaggerated tiresome legends of the gloried past and amped-up tradition. You would think the Yankees invented Major League Baseball and then invited the rest of the teams to join them just so they wouldn't be stuck playing intra-squad games all season. It was once said that New Englanders saw Steinbrenner as the Darth Vader of baseball. That was probably true, up until about 15 years ago, when he began his slow devolution into Dr. Doofenshmirtz.

But credit where credit is due -- he took a tarnished baseball franchise and bankrolled 7 more championships, restoring much of the glory and fielding a contender nearly every year. After his second suspension, he finally recognized his own limitations and began to hire quality baseball people around him, culminating in Joe Torre in 1996. He was a true capitalist, a patriot, and a humanitarian, who, by all reports, never turned away those in need. This included the Red Sox charity of choice, the Jimmy Fund. His team's run of four championships from 1996-2000 was compiled by a roster that was largely home-grown, an accomplishment that even the most jaded Yankee Hater had to grudgingly admire. 2009, of course, was a different story, with the Yankees stopping just short of acquiring entire team rosters to augment their own, but the core players from the late 90's remained.

Certainly his pomposity and arrogance got him into trouble more than once -- Yogi Berra comes to mind, not to mention Richard Nixon -- and his erratic dealings with Billy Martin (who was an absolutely dreadful manager) were downright comical. I also found it odd that the Yankees trotted him out as the marquee symbol of their franchise at the 2008 All-Star Game, when it's typically a legendary player that is given this honor.

Twenty years ago, the Yankees were at their nadir, finishing dead last in the old AL East under a managerial tandem of Bucky Dent and Stump Merrill. Their only whiff of contention came in their games against the Blue Jays and Red Sox. During one such contest the announcer -- a graduate of the University of Maine and an admitted Sox fan -- conceded that "baseball needs the Yankees." It's hard to disagree -- what fun is there in hating (of beating) a team that stinks? I could have done without the obscene spending spree that they've been on the past ten years or so, but having them in contention certainly makes the season more interesting.

From Today's classifieds . . .

History

The stage was set -- the Boston Celtics had won the NBA Championship two seasons earlier; now the LA Lakers were back in the Finals, looking to repeat from their Championship of the year before. They lost a game at home early in the series, but rebounded to win one on the road and return home down 3-2 for the final two games.

Sound familiar?

That was in 1988. 22 years ago. The reason I bring this up -- as this year's Game 6 is barely underway -- is to remind myself that I was actually pulling for the Lakers that year as they squared off against the Detroit Pistons. There were reasons -- (1) I had a good friend who was a Lakers fan -- (2) They weren't playing the Celtics -- (3) They were playing the Pistons (Bill Laimbeer, Isiah Thomas, enough said) -- (4) The Pistons, in addition to their many other flaws, had just beaten the Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals -- (5) And, quite honestly, in addition to being highly talented, that was (in my view) a very likable Lakers team.

Fast-forward to 2010 -- Led by Kobe "Not Guilty" Bryant, Pau "buy a consonant" Gasol and Phil "X-Man" Jackson -- I cannot help but absolutely loathe this crowd. Talented, yes, but over-rated. I guess what bothers me the most is how Phil Jackson is being called the greatest coach of all time -- okay, his ten rings might get him into the top ten, but not any higher. See here for my thoughts on that a year ago. The Lakers showed their true colors as they became unravelled in Game 5, pointing and sniping and blaming each other for their collective incompetence and inferiority, while the Celtics did what all good teams do -- pass, take good shots, stick with what works and don't care who's playing or who gets the credit.

Here's hoping for #18. Good luck catching that, Phil.

Every Moment

Dana Key, 56, passed away on Sunday apparently due to a ruptured blood clot. No longer active in his music ministry apart from occasional appearances, he and his partner Eddie DeGarmo created much of the soundtrack to my late teen years and on into college. You may know them better as "DeGarmo & Key."

When developing my list of the top Christian albums of the 1980's last year (see here and elsewhere), the duo was unable to crack the top ten, as I noted in my honorable mentions. Nonetheless, they were both prolific (ten albums from 1980-1989) and consistent, and thus a constant presence in my cassette deck, car stereo, and in various compilations I developed with the help of my Sharp QT-77. Their evolution in that decade -- from heavy blues, to synth-rock, to hard rock, and back to the blues influence but with an updated sound -- mirrored the decade and reflected, I am sure, their evolution as writers and performers.

There were, of course, some pitfalls, and their final few albums in the 90's seemed to reflect something of an identity crisis. They probably picked the right time to into semi-retirement, but nobody could ever question their sincerity or the commitment. Nor, for that matter, their innovation -- no other artist I know of has ever sold two albums for the price of one so that the second may be given to a friend; they were the first Christian artist to have a video in regular rotation on MTV (when MTV was actually showing music videos), they produced a live album with no studio enhancements, and they were one of the first contemporary artists to openly challenge Jimmy Swaggart, whose preference was that people spend their money on his music instead.

So etched were they in my consciousness, I would often make obscure references to their songs and titles, such as in this political commentary I posted in January. Dana Key is gone but not forgotten; his music and its message -- and the memories -- will live on. RIP.

Back to Lebanon

Jonah Goldberg -- who is a better writer than me and who actually gets paid for expressing his opinion -- articulates his (and my) thoughts on the Helen Thomas fiasco here.

In short -- did it really take a remark as despicable and outrageous (beyond just a "slur" as the great VDH points out) as this to get people to stop coddling Helen Thomas, who has been a left-wing racist anti-semite for her entire career? So painfully obvious to so many of us, yet she was tolerated, accommodated, and even honored, by presidential administrations of both parties, and venerated by her colleagues to the highest seat in the pressroom. There is Something. Wrong. Somewhere.

Greatness

That John Wooden was a great coach and a terrific human being is not open to discussion; to say that anyone is the greatest coach ever of their or any other sport is always an invitation to debate. With Wooden, again, the debate would probably be rather short, as nobody else ever has -- or ever will -- win 10 championships in 12 seasons. But from a purely philosophical perspective, one could allege that the Krzyzewskis, Dean Smiths, Boeheims or Knights of more recent years (not to mention the Summits and Auriemmas), are equal coaching talents who are succeeding consistently in spite of increased parity combined with increased governance, reforms which diminished the natural advantages that helped propel UCLA to unmatched success in the 60's and 70's.

Those other names may or may not deserve to be compared to John Wooden, or even be mentioned in the same paragraph. But the point can be made -- where Wooden is unquestionably in elite company is not necessarily his record as a coach, or even his record as a person, but as an inventor, innovator and developer of a sport. Yes, Dr. Naismith invented basketball, but John Wooden made the college game an entertainment and revenue-generating powerhouse (akin to Red Auerbach in the pro game, as discussed here). Thus, the comparison is not between Wooden, Krzyzewski, and Summit, but between Wooden, Auerbach, Paul Brown, George Halas, Rod Dedeaux, Knute Rockne, Harry Wright, Toe Blake, and Herb Brooks -- all highly successful coaches who took both their teams and their entire sport to a higher level.

In other words (and fewer words), remembering John Wooden as a great coach and great person is only part of the story. Renaming the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament in his honor might be a good place to start -- after all, when his team was winning all those banners, it was known unofficially as the "UCLA Invitational."

9 days apart in western Pennsylvania

Memo to Jim Joyce

The first thing they teach you in Umpire School -- all those close plays are OUTS. You get paid by the game, not by the hour.

(The second thing they teach you, by the way, is that every pitch is a STRIKE unless it convinces you that it is a BALL).

cc: D. Denkinger
Commissioner's Office (currently vacant)