"They said what?" - Sports quotes game (Round two)

"They said what?" - Sports quotes game (Round two)
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-17-14)

[Round one]


Its time for Round two of They said what?

The Rules:
Player one presents player two with a sports quote.

- The quote can be about sports
- The quote can be said by a famous sportsman
- The quote can be both about sports and said by a famous sportsman, but NEVER neither one

The quote is given, along with three hints as to who said it. These hints can be anything from when the quote was uttered to facts about the speaker.

Player two then responds with their guess as to who said it and a brief explanation surrounding their conclusion. A correct guess is worth one point for player two. An incorrect guess is worth one point for player one.



TODD:
I'm kicking up the difficulty level for round two.

"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be."

Hint One - This man played professional hockey.
Hint Two - After his playing career, he became part-owner of a franchise for a time.
Hint Three - He is number five all-time in career shots taken in the NHL.


DAN:
Hockey feels like a low blow, but anything about hockey immediately leads me to The Great One, Mr. Wayne Gretzky. Hint one and Hint two don't invalidate that, however, Hint three gives me pause. Gretzky is THE Great One, surely he's higher than five all-time in shots taken. Also, this stat is only cool if we are talking about a defensive player, not a man who is best known for scoring goals.

My answer is Bobby Orr. Damn I hope he owned a team for a while.


TODD:
Nailed you! My plan worked perfectly! My third hint was to throw you off the scent of Wayne Gretzky because he is indeed the correct answer.

"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be." (by Wayne Gretzky)


DAN:
Damn it! Here's your quote.

"The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break."

Hint One: This man won a Super Bowl.
Hint Two: This man is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Hint Three: This man is a legend both on and off the field.


TODD:
I don't know if this was payback or what, but yours seems especially tricky. It was said by a successful NFL head coach, so successful he's in the Hall of Fame. But the quote itself implies it was someone who wasn't a hard-ass or huge disciplinarian. I originally wanted to say Bill Parcells just because he's a good quote. But he was notoriously hard on his players I thought.

That leads me to go elsewhere for a guess, but who is a legend off the field as well? That makes me want to say Mike Ditka. That's who I'm going to go with; the coach of Daa Bears.


DAN:
Oh snap! That is an excellent guess, but fortunately for me its wrong. There are so many other hints that would have led you to our correct answer. Like this one: He has a well documented fear of flying.

Know it now? I'm sure you do. This quote was uttered by the one, the only, often imitated (mainly by Frank Caliendo) John Madden.

"The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break." (by John Madden)

That evens up the score at 2 points a piece, each of us getting one correct answer and one wrong. January is a tie, but let's carry the score into our next match in February/March and keep the competition going.

[If you missed Round one]

Sports Injuries: When stars fall - Part one

Sports Injuries: When stars fall - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-4-13)



TODD:
The Red Sox made an interesting improvement this season, going from last in their division to first and a World Series title. Remarkable? Not really. Last year's team shouldn't have been that bad; it really just came down to injuries. Injuries!

Jonah Keri did a great job of detailing this recently in a piece for Grantland. Here is his table that pushed the point home:

Player:                                                                             Games Played        WAR

Jacoby Ellsbury (2012)	74	1.4
Jacoby Ellsbury (2013)	134	5.8
David Ortiz (2012)	90	2.9
David Ortiz (2013)	137	3.8
Dustin Pedroia (2012)	141	4.4
Dustin Pedroia (2013)	160	5.4
John Lackey (2012)	0	0.0
John Lackey (2013)	29	3.2

The column on the left is Games Played and the column on the right is Wins Above Replacement (WAR). As you can see, from just four players, the Sox gained roughly 10 wins from one season to the next. This factors in none of the moves they made or improvements in other players, call-ups, whatever. A full 10 wins came from just these four guys staying healthy.

It is a rather remarkable discovery in my opinion. But what it really does is make the Red Sox story even less interesting. They were bad in 2012 because their best guys all got hurt. They were great in 2013 because their best guys all stayed healthy. As Yankee fans, we can relate.

This question goes way beyond baseball or the Red Sox. Are injuries ruining the fun of professional sports? It does not seem that concussions are lessening in the NFL; just last year, the NBA was demolished by major injuries to major stars. And we can see here what a small number of injuries in baseball can do to a contender. This has probably always been the case, but it seems much more stark these days.


DAN:
I'm deeply fascinated by the idea that a team could turn itself around so dramatically from one season to the next, simply by staying healthy. But in the grand fasion of debate, I disagree with your argument. The Red Sox may have gained ten wins this season, but they had a new manager, a new bullpen and most importantly, a killer new closer. It wasn't just the injuries. But ten wins is ten wins and as more QBs drop like flies each week in the NFL, this is a great topic to rip to shreds.

I'd be nice if life was as simple as you paint it. But I actually think there are far fewer sports injuries now than in the past. Medicine is better, training is better and players know how to care for themselves a lot better. What's caused us to be so damn aware of every little thing is three fold. First, if there are less injuries then we will know a lot more about the ones that do exist. Second, every little bump and bruise is taken way more seriously with the million dollar contracts these men hold. And third, fantasy sports makes us care a heck of a lot about the health of our star players. Now that I laid that out there, the real issue is how a single injury to your team's star can actually ruin a season.

No one really notices if your team's star stays healthy. Tom Brady is playing, dominating, and all is well in the world. But the one year he got knocked out, well damn did we take notice. The team still did well, but all the what ifs start creeping into play. This year in the NFL I can rattle off at least four or five teams that lost their QB and are worse for it. I can also name at least one, my beloved NY Jets, who are better off in the long run because they lost a QB. Sorry Mark, but better to move on now with a season of hope, then later with a season like Jacksonville is having. How are they actually that bad? I don't get it. Its like the players are afraid of crossing the end zone, much like a child who doesn't want to step on the cracks in the sidewalk.

So what are we really talking about here? Its not just injuries, but its knee and shoulder injuries. Nothing else seems to matter much. The NFL is so worried about protecting the head. Its definitely important, don't get me wrong. But this has to be evidence towards them actually caring about player safety, right? Because protecting the knees and shoulders goes much farther towards not having a star out for the season. In Sam Bradford's case, he just shouldn't have skipped out of bounds.... too soon?


TODD:
I agree with your three basic premises. We do know more about every injury because of coverage and the fantasy sports element for sure. And I think your second point was the most important. We hear about EVERYTHING; perhaps 60% of these same level injuries did not even make news 15 years ago. That is absolutely plausible and may even be a higher percentage.

The star injuries is what seems most alarming though. The 2012-2013 NBA season was a whirlwind of All-Stars going down for long stretches; Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose, Kevin Love, Rajon Rondo, etc. And already in the NFL season, just halfway through mind you, here is an incomplete list of impactful guys out:

Julio Jones, Dennis Pitta, EJ Manuel, Jay Cutler, Lance Briggs, Leon Hall, Geno Atkins, Brian Hoyer, Champ Bailey, Randall Cobb, Clay Matthews, Brian Cushing, Reggie Wayne, Ahmad Bradshaw, Jerod Mayo, Vince Wilfork, Malcom Floyd, Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, Michael Crabtree, Sam Bradford, Carl Nicks.

Not only is that list just the most famous names, it doesn't even include guys who've missed over a month and are now back, like Jake Locker, or played some and have been periodically out, like Roddy White or Mike Vick. All those guys are already out or on IR officially. And this is week 9.

It can't just be a coincidence, can it? Or just simple mathematics of playing time? I realize the better players will usually play more minutes and thus have a higher likelihood of getting hurt, but to have such a rash of severe injuries to important players seems so fluky it must mean something. I just don't know what that 'something' is.

What is definitely not a coincidence is certain teams, like the Kansas City Chiefs, have remained rather healthy thus far, leading to their unexpected success. I believe if the numbers were plotted, the amount of surprise teams has more to do with injuries, or lack thereof, than people realize. If you want to have a jump on a surprise playoff pick for next baseball season, just scour through the data and see which team lost the most games from their top level talent. That would have pointed us towards a Boston comeback this season for sure.

[Part two - NFL Upside down & Changing Expectations]

Fan Focus: Etiquette on the Road - Part one

Fan Focus: Etiquette on the Road - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-9-13)



DAN:
With the height of baseball season colliding perfectly with the start of the NFL calendar, let's take a long hard look at the fans for a moment. Fan Focus, telling you how not to be an ass for over ten years (length of time may be embellished).

Today I want to talk about stadium / ball park / arena etiquette. And not for the home crowd. They basically get to do whatever the hell they want. Its their team, their turf and their rules. I'm talking about watching your team play on the road, in the enemies backyard. Their are rules people and things to avoid so as not to get stabbed.

Do you have much experience with seeing your teams on the road? I've been watching the Yankees play the Angels out here in Anaheim for eight years running. Its an incredibly delightful experience and nothing like when I went to watch my New York Jets play the Patriots in Foxboro. I've seen the Celtics here in Los Angeles play the Clippers as well. Each sport is slightly different, but the rules don't change.

I'll start with rule number one and you can call me an idiot for bringing this up and give me rule number two.

First rule of fandom on the road; sit on the visiting side of the field. For baseball this is pretty easy to do, but with football its much greyer. My experience watching the Jets in New England brought me face to face with the roudy drunk Masshole Pats fan. I was in the upper deck, around plenty of Jets fans, but far outnumbered none the less. I wore a Jets hat, but nothing else. I felt that was respectful. Gotta show team spirit, but no need to rub it in on the road. But when I cheered on my team I found myself all too close to several fights, with beer thrown in my general direction. It was cold outside, bitter cold, too cold to tell if the beer actually hit me. Stupid bleeping Patriots fans.


TODD:
Road fan etiquette, as you hinted at, has almost nothing to do with the actions of the specific road fan. It has everything to do with the home environment the actions are taking place in. As you said, you got heckled and harassed just for wearing a Jets hat in Gillette Stadium. We hear stories of fans getting beaten up and sent to the hospital seemingly every season just for being fans of the opposing team. Perhaps those certain people were rowdy and inciting anger from the home crowd, but that is still no reason to cripple someone. I think no matter the actions, it is dangerous to be an opposing fan in certain locales. That is just the sad state of present sports fandom.

So first rule of road fan etiquette altered: only be an opposing fan in weak home parks, i.e. Atlanta basketball, Jacksonville football, etc. This way, not only will the crowd as a whole be sparse, but the likelihood of home fans rallying up enough to cause you fear or harm is limited.

The ironic part is these types of crowds are considered bad fan bases. You glossed over home crowd responsibility, but I want to go back to that. Home crowds have some etiquette of their own. The obvious ones exist:

- Don't cheer loudly at a home football game when your team is on offense
- Don't start a wave at a baseball game; it makes your fans look disinterested and childish
- Don't yell randomly when your basketball team is shooting free throws

These are the easy ones. The grey area that most often comes up for home crowds though, for collegiate sports at least, is when to charge the field/court. When is it okay to leap from the stands onto the playing field after a victory? If you topple the number one team in the country, this seems warranted. But what if you are the number eight team in the country? Does it not then seem a bit silly?

This has been dissected before on other platforms, but I am never quite content with the results. What should be the requirements for when a home, collegiate crowd can rush the court?


DAN:
Way to skip rule number two and jump right on the home team. But I LOVE that you brought up the wave as a major red flag for home teams. This ties nicely into my second rule.

The second rule for road fans; go watch your team in a fan friendly venue. One of my absolute favorite spots to go watch the Yankees is at Angels' Stadium in Anaheim. Angels' fans are really great, nice, inviting and just positive all around. They have the Rally Monkey and home run fireworks, but aren't dicks about you cheering for the opposition. Plus, when the Yankees are in town the stadium is at least 1/3 full of Yankees fans. Win!

But guess what else happens ALL the TIME in Angels' stadium? The wave! They do the wave a ton in that ballpark. Granted its practically at Disney Land so being childish is not unexpected. But they love the wave and I love visiting that ballpark.

Now to the hard question. What are the rules for rushing the court, storming the field, rushing the mound? I have only two.

[Part two - Storming the Court]

NHL Playoff Hockey: Nonstop Action, Crazy Fun - Part two

NHL Playoff Hockey: Nonstop Action, Crazy Fun - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (5-31-13)

[Part One - 'Now with Real Value']



TODD:
The NHL now rewards a point for overtime losses, so each individual regular season game's effect on the end is so minuscule it is comical. Albeit a lockout-shortened year, in 2013 the New York Islanders lost 24 of their 48 games. In the West, Detroit also came up short in 24 of their 48 games. Both of these teams comfortably made the playoffs. In fact, Detroit was on the brink of making the Stanley Cup Finals. The Islanders and Red Wings each lost half of their respective regular season games, either in regulation or in overtime...and it really didn't mean squat.

No matter how hard guys are playing or how into it the crowd is, the ultimate test of a game is still going to be the game's worth. If you're attending a sporting event, ask yourself how much this specific win matters to the two teams. A playoff hockey win is up near the very top; a game seven victory is the pinnacle. A regular season hockey game is whatever the opposite of pinnacle is: the nadir, AKA rock bottom.

So do we congratulate the NHL for getting the more important half of their sport right or shouldn't we be striving to legitimize the other half, the longer half, the larger than 50% half?


DAN:
I have to congratulate the NHL on nailing their post season. Hockey is the least popular of the major American sports and yet its post season is probably the most thrilling, for those that actually tune in. I'd argue that if the NHL could do what you're asking, increase and legitimize the regular season to any degree, the sport would sky rocket in popularity and potentially over take the other sports in time. Stay with me. I don't watch hockey, but I think hockey is awesome to watch. This is a fixable problem for the NHL.

Hockey combines the nonstop action of basketball, the difficulty in scoring of baseball and the aggressiveness and hitting of football into one. And then everyone wears skates. How awesome! I love seeing the Yankees play in person, but nothing has topped a hockey game for all around fun and excitement in the arena. Take all of that into the playoffs and the NHL has got it down. Except America only sort of cares for two reasons. First is what you mentioned about the insignificant regular season. The other reason is the absurdly poor manor in which the league has dragged its fans through multiple lockouts in recent memory. Bad management will sink a ship every single time. But we can set that aside and tackle the regular season which no one cares about. The NFL is currently immune to this, having a small number of games in total. The MLB and NBA both deal with this, however, to varying degrees of success.

What the NHL is missing are stars. Star players keep the NBA relevant throughout the regular season even when the games mean little to nothing. And star players have always driven baseball. But the NHL lacks cache and star power. Its made strides in recent years, don't get me wrong, but the Boston Bruins and Los Angeles Kings won the last two Stanley Cups and those victories barely resonated outside the cities themselves. When the Lakers or Celtics win the title, the entire country takes notice. Same goes for the Red Sox and Dodgers. Something is missing.


TODD:
I agree something is missing, but you missed what it is. A lack of stars is not the problem. Sidney Crosby is one of the most famous hockey players of the past few decades. Alex Ovechkin is a famous man; so are Evgeni Malkin and Henrik Lundqvist. Perhaps the problem is a lack of American stars; that argument I'd buy. I don't even know who the most famous American in the NHL is...

By the way, I absolutely nailed the spelling of all those names. I only looked them up afterwards to make sure they were correct and BAM, zero mistakes! That might have something to do with this problem as well; if you can't spell someone's name or pronounce it correctly, doesn't it make you less likely to talk about them?

You also are off-base about the lockouts hurting the league. That is only the case if the fans weren't that interested to begin with. Has a single person not returned to the NFL or NBA after their lockouts? Lockouts do not turn fans away if the product is still desirable. And that is a fact that has played itself out in front of our very eyes.

You did get one thing right though: the NHL hits a lot of the desirable qualities a sport should have. Unless they revamp the entire system of how many regular season games, how many teams make the playoffs, how points are awarded, etc. I don't think this problem is going away though.

I don't want to sound naive or misinformed here but, watching these past few playoff rounds, I noticed another problem that is ingrained in my mind now. Don't all hockey games look and feel the same?

Every scoring chance is either an odd-man break or a power play. I don't know enough about the sport to notice nuances of offensive game plans. And the same thing could be argued about the NBA if you replace odd-man breaks and power plays with pick and rolls and isolations. BUT STILL! The NHL has a fun product but, to the casual fan, a lot of it looks the same and gets repetitive.

Sitting in front of my television during the game sevens of the Western Conference semi-finals, a sudden realization hit me. I was enthralled not by the play but really only by the stakes. It was game seven! Winner goes to the conference finals! And the Wings-Blackhawks went to OT! Sudden death! It was exciting only because of what was at stake; I could take or leave what was actually happening on the ice...which seems like a whole other problem that could only be solved by becoming an informed, die-hard fan. No thank you.

[If you missed Part One - 'Now with Real Value']

NHL Playoff Hockey: Now with Real Value - Part one

NHL Playoff Hockey: Now with Real Value - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (5-27-13)



TODD:
Admittedly, neither of us are the biggest hockey fans. I play fantasy hockey and do wondrously well for some reason. But that is about the extent of my hockey fandom. Nevertheless, the NHL Playoffs are spectacular. Everyone always says this, but that's mainly because it's true. I caught that Bruins-Maple Leafs game seven from round one...there are no words to properly describe the game. Wow!

Up three goals mid-way through the final period of game seven...still up two with two minutes remaining...Boston pulls their goalie and scores once...after the ensuing face-off, Boston pulls their goalie again and scores again within 30 seconds. After that, we knew Toronto had absolutely no shot at winning in overtime.

There have been other great games and other great series as well. So many contests go to overtime it's uncanny. So what is hockey doing to make the playoffs so much better than the regular season? Or, perhaps more importantly, what is hockey doing wrong during the regular season that makes casual observers not care a lick until playoff time? I have my theories.


DAN:
The NHL playoffs make for pretty amazing drama. Unlike the NHL regular season which is significantly less interesting that college hockey, the NHL playoffs nearly top the collegiate hockey experience. I'm a Boston University alumni, so I know great college hockey. What made hockey great at BU was two fold. An enthusiastic and energized fan base that went balls crazy at every game and rivalry. We hate Boston College, would chant "BC sucks" at every game regardless of the opponent, and it was awesome. Most college sports have these things going for it, but with college hockey you get extra crazy fans in a small space. Ice rinks are often intimate, with the fans smushed against the glass at ice level.

Playoff hockey in the NHL is amazing for a different reason, however. Hockey is a tough sport and hard on a player's body. Its a close second to football for brutality and bodily injury. Yet the NFL season is sixteen games and the NHL season is much, much, much longer. If I was a professional hockey player I think I might just play at 85 to 90% some nights. Not always intentionally, but always knowing I have to save my best stuff for the playoffs. I have to be healthy, I have to have energy left in the tank. I can't go balls out on a random Tuesday unless it has playoff implications. So now its the actual playoffs. Woo! I'm kicking things into high gear, giving 120% every night because now I'm playing for a chance to win the Stanley Cup, the coolest, most awesome trophy in sports. If my team wins this trophy, I personally get to carry it around for a week and do whatever my sick and dirty mind desires with it.

How can you top this? You can't and every hockey player is doubling their efforts in the playoffs. Add to that the insanity of hockey fans and their increased enthusiasm at a playoff game, and you have an incredible game and experience night in and night out throughout the playoffs. I don't think you can hope to get this level of play into the regular season. Overtime during a regular season game is a chore. No one wants that as a player. But in the playoffs? Bring it baby, bring it!


TODD:
I think you touched on the answer a bit. Obviously the crowd is more into playoff games because of the stakes. A better crowd means a more exciting contest, almost regardless of how the players are feeling. But the players are also giving a tad more in these games. How can you possibly give 100% effort on a Wednesday night in mid-January and expect to have anything left come June? It's not feasible.

But crowds wax and wane; players still try very hard during the regular season because this is their passion and they are paid professionals. The real difference between playoff hockey and regular season hockey has nothing to do with either group. The reason regular season hockey is not entertaining is because the system is designed against it's excitement. Even if said player DOES decide to give 100% effort on that Wednesdaynight in mid-January, it doesn't effect the standings to a larger degree. With the NHL now rewarding a point for overtime losses, each individual regular season game's effect on the end is so minuscule it is comical.

[Part two - Nonstop Action, Crazy Fun]

More "What ha... happened?" - Hockey style

More "What ha... happened?" - Hockey style

by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-15-13)

[Monday's wacky photo and explanation]

TODD:

I get it that football referees are tough but hockey players would never stand for that shit. Hatred of the officials can bring even the most bitter rivals together for a common cause.

Photo: Two hockey players, opponents, absolutely destroy the referee.

Title:  It's cold. Ice cold.

Description: "Penalty. I'll show you an f***ing penalty!"


What ha... happened?
 

DAN:

Oh snap! You followed up a football one on one with a hockey two on one. The referee has no shot now. Since you went all logical for the football picture, let me tell you what "Really" happened. We always wax poetic about how professional athletes cheat on their wives/girlfriends etc. But what about the referees? My best guess is that the unnamed player of the St. Louis Rams and the NFL referee just found out they are sharing a mistress. I think we both know who won this fight.

As for the NHL photo, the two players vs. one referee beat down is comically unfair. At least in the football case the player and the referee are on equal ground when it comes to weaponry. Sure, the player has body armor on, but both men will be punching. The hockey players have freaking five foot long wooden clubs to fight with AND its two on one. Its no coincidence that the advertising behind this melee is for health insurance.

So what happened? Referee infidelity of course. This is actually a three on one, as honor is paramount in hockey. The hockey player on the left (we only see his head) bumped the referee hard along the lines of the old 'oops I've fallen' into the ref gag. Now he's down and the two main guys rush in to pummel him with their sticks.

Hockey justice is served. Served cold.

[Monday's photo and explanation]