Mickey Mantle's Liver

Where will Brett Favre go? My two cents.......

I have been on vacation down in California for the past two weeks where I saw my Oakland Athletics blow a lead in the 9th against the Los Angeles/Anaheim/Orange County/Compton Angels (my wife's favorite team) and lose.  It is the first A's game I have been to this year, and probably the only game I will get to, and I really saw a stinker.

But while I was gone, a funny thing happened in Green Bay - Brett Favre has "unretired".

As I drove back to Oregon this week, listening to ESPN Radio on XM 140, all the deep thinkers on ESPN Radio could talk about was Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers.  Where is Brett going to go?  How is this going to play out?  Who is going to win?  Who is going to lose?  These were all questions the hosts would ask, and each host arrived at his own predictable answer.

Pretty much the consensus was that if Favre wants to get reinstated, he is going to have to be a backup on the Packers.  Every host concluded that the only team that needed Favre was the Vikings, and there was no way the Packers would trade Favre to the Vikings (Favre has three years left on his contract, which means the Packers hold all the cards....).

As I spent 10 hours on the road, listening to host after host talk about how the Vikings were the only team that could possibly use Favre, I found myself yelling at the radio:

WHAT ABOUT THE ATLANTA FALCONS!!!!!!

Remember, Favre has played for two NFL franchises in his lifetime: the Packers and the Falcons.  Favre was taken in the second round by the Atlanta Falcons in 1991, and actually appeared in 2 games for the Falcons that year before being traded to the Packers in 1992 for the 19th overall pick (which ended up being Tony Smith, who lasted three years in the NFL, great trade Atlanta).

The number one reason people are pooh-poohing the trade to the Vikings is the obvious reason: the Vikings are in the same division as the Packers don't want to face Favre two times a year.  Trading Favre to the Falcons would mean the Packers would face Favre this year (in week 5, at Lambeau), but they would only face Favre once, and it would be on the Packers' turf.

Atlanta just makes sense from the Falcons' perspective.  Yes, I know the Falcons drafted Matt Ryan 3rd overall, and he is penciled in as the started for the Dirty Birds.  But what better quarterback coach is there than having Brett Favre teach your future franchise QB how to play the position?

Atlanta also makes sense for the Falcons from a different perspective.  Let's face it, the quarterback position hasn't exactly put the Falcons (as a team) in the most positive light in recent times (thank you Mike Vick).  Favre adds stability, credibility, and respectability to the franchise, and gives Falcons fans a reason to be proud of their team again.

And for psychological standpoint, the trade makes sense because the one thing the talking heads said on ESPN Radio was they couldn't stand the thought of seeing Brett Favre in anything but a Packers uniform.  Well, I can understand that.  I felt the same way watching Joe Montana in that butt-ugly Chefs uniform (yeah, I know I spelled Chiefs wrong, it was intentional).

But putting Favre back into a Falcons uniform won't seem so out-of-place because that is how Favre started his career, and that is how he is going to end it....in Atlanta.

I just wonder if the Packers would be willing to take Tony Smith back.

OUCHY!!!!

Ok, this has got to be about the most painful injury one can think of - a fractured testicle.  That's right, you are reading this correctly.  Chris Snyder, catcher for the Arizona Diamondbacks, is on the 15-day DL because of a BROKEN NUT!

Read the Diamondbacks press release here.

Snyder sdfg
by bsap11

Take a look at this video and feel the pain.  I especially like Mark Grace's commentary as the video guys on the Diamondback's broadcast repeatedly show Snyder's nut get hit by a foul ball.

Wanna know how to break a nut?  Check out eMedicine for more information on nutcracking.

My groin is starting to hurt just thinking about this.  Man, that had to kill.  I know if something just grazes my tomatoes I can't talk for an hour, but breaking a nut!  Just shoot me now.

Taking a ball into the nether regions is bad enough, even if you have a cup on.  I can't imagine what breaking a nut feels like.

A moment of silence please for Chris Snyder's balls......

Buckeyes, Bearcats sporting tough schedules

Two Teams equal in schedule difficulty

I never thought after coming to the University of Cincinnati at the age of 19 to study Mechanical Engineering in 2003, that the Bearcats would have a good football team.  The fact of the matter is, after hiring hard noses Mark Danantonio for two years and now Brian Kelly, the Bearcats look to be one of the better teams in the Big East and possibly the nation.  Their schedule includes all of the usual Big East opponents (WVU, Louisville, Pitt, USF, Rutgers...) but also Oklahoma AND Hawaii.  Who saw this coming?  After last year I did, but in 2003, no way.  Though the Bearcats have lost quarterback Ben Mauk, hopefully sophomore Demetrius Jones or Senior Dustin Grutza will fill the vacant spot well.  The Bearcats will need their stingy defense to return to have a chance at winning the Big East.

So maybe one day I will have gone to a "football school".  It is quite frustrating being an Ohio native and an alumnus of a university that lacks a proper football squad.  The difference on the UC gridiron between 2003 and 2008 is like red and black.  Not only are the players and coaches better, but there a lot more fans showing up (at least for home games).  The running game fits the state of Ohio (large and bruising with not much flash) and Brian Kelly, will most likely balance out that offense with an elusively aggressive pass game.  The UC Bearcats should be a formidable opponent come late summer in southern Ohio.  Now let's take a drive up I-71 to Columbus...

The Ohio State Buckeyes will most likely win the Big Ten Conference, again.  Will they get a spot in the (insert tortilla chip company name here) National Championship?  That all depends on one thing:  beating USC before their conference play starts.  Some might say the Buckeyes don't have a chance, and they might be right.  USC dominated Illinois last year (who beat the Buckeyes with their speed) and has had some incredible recruiting classes the last couple of years.  The Buckeyes also have to go to L.A. to play - neither the Buckeyes, nor the Wolverines have faired well when traveling to Pasadena for the Rose Bowl (a lopsided home-field advantage for the Trojans).  The Buckeyes, however, will be composed of an experienced and talented team, only losing starter DE Vernon Gholston to the NFL.  Will that be enough?  Maybe, but here is something some people overlook: the Buckeyes are pissed.  After being embarrassed by Florida (yes some of those players are still there) and routed by LSU, both SEC "speed" teams, the Buckeyes are sick of being burned.  Their defense has been fast and young in the past, but is a seasoned, veteran core now. And to lose to a "West Coast offense" team (basically seen as a wimpier, watered down type of vag-tastic football in Ohio) and then win the Big Ten would be like settling for a moot season.  That's not all.  Riots will break out across Ohio, cars will be flipped and burned, beer cans will be thrown in anger against TVs, God will cry, and the question will be posed: does the traditional heavy power-and-run style of football work anymore?

Not that Ohio State really uses it anymore; Tressel balanced out the Buckeyes when he arrived.  But Ohioans want it to live and breathe until the Earth is engulfed by the Sun.  To deny its style would be like Rocky never winning, or the American muscle car ceasing to exist.  More than that, it would be denying the Ohio State past, forgetting Woody Hayes, and the "three yards and a cloud of dust."  So, come September 13th, remember Trojan fans (and the rest of you anti-OSU fans) that this is where college football really came from.  The Rugby-style, brute force hits, and painful, up-the-gut runs are our history, and yours, too.  Also, don't forget that while you may have the Buckeyes in your house, the Scarlett and Gray come from the Big Ten, home to some of the craziest fans on Earth.  Think you can get inside those heads?  Doubtful.  We'll just have to see what happens.  I can sit here and type all day about the future, but it won't do any good for the Buckeyes.  One thing is for sure: whoever wins this game will probably go to the National Championship, probably to face another SEC team.  Regardless, speculation is like masturbation: it gives you something to do while you're sitting around, watching TV, thinking about your high school prom date, and drinking a beer, but come game time...
IT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT.  From one avid college football fan to another, is it game time yet?

Should Schilling be in baseball's Hall of Fame?

With the recent revelations by Curt Schilling that he is going to need season-ending, and possibly career-ending, surgery, a debate has been raised about whether or not Schilling deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.  I have enjoyed listening to the commentators articulate the reasons why Schilling should -- or should not -- make it into the Hall.

In my humble opinion, whether Schilling gets into the Hall of Fame depends on the fate of  another pitcher - Burt Blyleven.

You will recall this article that appeared last year on The Liver that talked about retired players who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.  One of those players is, in my opinion, Bert Blyleven.  The article also mentions current players who I think are locks for the Hall of Fame.  Not included in my list was Curt Schilling.

Consider this:  Blyleven has 287 wins to Schilling's 216.  But Schilling's winning percentage is .596, while Blyleven's is .534.  Blyleven's ERA is 3.31, Schilling's is 3.46.  Blyleven has 3701 career strikeouts, while Schilling has 3116.  Schilling appeared in four World Series, Blyleven appeared in two.  Schilling has three World Series Championships (Diamondbacks and Red Sox (twice)), Blyleven has two (Pirates and Twins).

Schilling is a 6-time All-Star, and three times finished second in the Cy Young Voting.  Blyleven, on the other hand, was a two-time All-Star and finished 3rd in Cy Young voting twice.

Blyleven is 5-1 all-time in the post season with a 2.47 ERA.  Schilling is 11-2 in the post season, with a 2.23 ERA.  Schilling was theMVP of the 1993 National League Championship Series and co-MVP of the 2001 World Series.

The point is: if Blyleven isn't a Hall of Famer, then there is no way Schilling is a Hall of Famer.  Blyleven's career numbers are better than Schilling's.  The reason most people think of Schilling as a Hall of Famer before Blyleven is because of Schilling's post season exploits: the two post season MVPs and of course the infamous Bloody Sock.

To the extent baseball is about statistics, then the statistics bear out that Blyleven's  statistics are far more Hall of Fame worthy than Schilling's.  But baseball isn't about just statistics, it is about the lore of the game as well.  How else can one explain Bill Mazeroski's induction into the Hall of Fame except by Mazeroski's home run in the bottom of the 9th in the 1960 World Series.

On that basis I think Schilling will be elected into the Hall of Fame.  He is not a first ballot hall fo famer by any means, but I suspect it will take Schilling less time to get into the Hall of Famer than it has taken (or will take) Blyleven.  What would be a real shame is to have Schilling get into the Hall of Fame before Blyleven.

Is Tiger Woods the Greatest Ever?

After Young Eldrich's impressive win at the U.S. Open this past weekend, many commentators are asking the obvious question: Does Tiger's win at Torrey Pines make him the greatest golfer to ever play the sport?

Of course the answer to this question is subjective, kinda like asking  "which quarterback is the greatest of all time."  Answer: Joe Montana - not even a debate......Of course, old geezers will tell you the Johnny Unitas or Otto Graham were the greatest ever.  New geezers will say Brett Favre or John Elway were the greatest ever.  Those geezers would be wrong (but I digress).

The point is: whether or not someone is the greatest is all subjective.  The only comparison we can make is between the records a certain player has set.  Even though the records may have been set in a different era, those records provide a somewhat objective comparison between players.  Which then begs the question: Who is better, Tiger or Jack?

There are three things I want you to think about, generally:

1. NBC had a stat yesterday that shows Nicklaus' dominance during his time.  Nicklaus finished in the top 10 in a major a record 73 times over a 25 year professional playing career.  Tiger has finished in the top 10 in a major 28 times, in a 12 year playing career.  In order for Tiger to catch Nicklaus, Tiger would have to finished in the top 10 in every major from now until 2019.  That is pretty amazing, but consider that would put Tiger at 43 years of age, and only a 23 year playing career.  My point is that Tiger's career by this measure is on pace to better the Golden Bear's.

2.  Tiger is third on the all-time wins list with 65 wins.  He is 8 behind Nicklaus and 17 behind the great Sam Snead.  To put Tiger's career into perspective, consider that Tiger has played in 222 events, and won 65 of those events, giving him a "winning percentage" of 29%, roughly.

Nicklaus won 73 times over his 24 year playing career, but played in 480 events, for a "winning percentage" of 15% (I didn't count the PGA events Nicklaus played in after 1986, otherwise Jack's winning percentage would be much lower).

Snead won 82 times over a 29-year playing career in which he played in well over 500 events, which puts Snead's "winning percentage" at best 16%.

And with Tiger, you cannot assume that he is going to slow down.  If this past week's performance is any indicator, Tiger at 75% is better than every other golfer on the Tour at 100%.  There is no reason to believe that Tiger isn't going to blow past Snead's all-time wins record.

Comparing winning percentages, in my opinion, is a more relevant statistic than merely comparing the number of wins each player has, because it may very well be that there are more events now than there were 50 years ago, which means Tiger has more opportunities to win.  Winning percentage, on the other hand, is compares how each player did in relation to the number of events he entered, which I think is more statistically relevant.

3.  There is no question that Tiger is one of the greats of all-time.  But whether he is the greatest -- at least in the world of golf -- depends as much on the records he sets as it does on the legend Tiger creates and the reputation he earns.  Sam Snead, Bobby Jones, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus won on the golf course and won off the golf course by becoming part of social lore.  In other words, the greatness of Jack Nicklaus came from his popularity off the course among non-golfers as it came from his popularity on the course.

There can be no question that Tiger has set a new bar by this measure, and Tiger is a part of the non-golfing culture.

I admit it, I probably have a man-crush on Tiger Woods.  He is awesome, dominant and whatever other adjective I cannot conjure up right now.  If he isn't the greatest ever, it would definitely be safe to say that he is well on his way to being considered the greatest golfer ever.

Jay Bruce: A New Hope

Reds' future looking brighter?

Ever since the days of the 1990 World Champion Reds, composing players like Barry Larkin, Chris Sabo, Paul O'Neil, The Nasty Boys, with Lou Piniella directing, etc. etc., Reds fans haven't had a whole lot to look hopeful about.  I still remember watching that foul ball being caught to win the series when I was six years old.  And then we just steadily declined.  Don't believe me?  After the Reds won the World Series in 1990, the one and only time they won a playoff series again was in 1995 over the Dodgers.  In fact, the Reds have not had a winning season since 2000.  That's right.  Every season since 2000 has been under .500.  The Reds have also hired great players since then.  Griffey, Dunn, Freel, Harang, Kearns, Arroyo, the list goes on.  None of the teams have been able to culminate in a playoff birth or even a winning season.  Yes, they had those couple of seasons where they had a run at the playoffs, but to no avail.

This season will probably be no different.  Trips to the Rock Bottom Brewery after games will still be in order.  Tough losses will still occur.  But what is different is the young talent that the Reds have recruited.  Jay Bruce has been called the next A-Rod/Jeter and he has stats to back it up.  A .342 batting average along with excellent fielding skills put him in the future superstar category.  Along wit Bruce, the Reds are sporting two great new and young pitchers in Volquez and Cueto.  While Volquez is clearly winning the match up with 1.62 ERA and 102 SO on the season, Cueto can still bring fastballs in the upper 90s and a nasty breaking ball.  With some experience and refinement, Cueto looks to be just as good as Volquez in the future.  Younger players like Keppinger, Votto, Bailey, and Phillips also look outstanding on the field.  Combine this young/younger talent with older veterans such as Harang, Griffey, Dunn, Cabrera, and Patterson - and you've got a team of older talent teaching younger potential, a recipe for a World Series Champion in a few years.

Me Thinks David Stern Doth Protest Too Much

One of NBA Commissioner David Stern's worst nightmares probably  came true yesterday when Tim Donaghy, the official who admitted to throwing NBA basketball games, publicly released allegations that the NBA itself may have been involved in the "fixing" of at least two playoff series in the 2000's.

Not surprisingly, Stern issued an immediate response denouncing these latest allegations as nothing more than a last ditch, hail-mary, buzzer-beater attempt by Donaghy to have his jail sentence reduced by the federal court (Donaghy is scheduled to be sentenced on July 14th).  A classic case of Stern trying to kill the messenger while not addressing the message.

The fact that Stern responded immediately, and the manner in which Stern reacted, should not come as a surprise to anyone, even Tim Donaghy.  Crisis managers are taught to immediately respond to any allegations levied against their client even if they do not know all the facts at the time.

However, most crisis managers will tell you to admit to everything, and if the allegations are later proved to be untrue, well, the American public is much more willing to forgive and forget.  But if you continually deny, deny, deny........not only does it irritate the public, but it also backs people like Stern into a corner.  In other words, Stern had better be right, or he can kiss the Association goodbye.

In fact, as someone trained in what is called "issues management", I can tell you that Stern is doing exactly the wrong thing by calling out anyone who dare challenge Stern's veracity on this subject.  I have now heard at least three interviews of David Stern where he openly criticizes the questioner for even considering the allegations made by Donaghy might be true.

There are several angles to this story, and much to Stern's chagrin, I don't think this story is going away anytime soon.  Stern claims that the Association and the federal government have "fully investigated" Donaghy's claims, but Stern does not ever tell us the conclusion either the federal government and/or the Association has reached.

And in fact it appears now that the feds and/or the Association have not fully investigated Donaghy's allegations.  Stern's indignant denials are beginning to fall apart.

Listen carefully to the words Stern uses in response to these recent allegations.  Stern immediately attacks the messenger, and dismisses the allegations out-of-hand without ever addressing any specific charge.  This is called "white-washing" in the world of politics, and is used to blow over allegations by never addressing the specific allegations.  Usually one white-washes when there is some truth to the explosive allegations.

And I think that is what is going on now.  I think there is some truth to what Donaghy is saying.  Why?  Well, who has more reason to lie?  Donaghy or Stern?

Stern points the finger at Donaghy, saying Donaghy has tremendous motivation to lie in order to get his jail sentence reduced.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  Donaghy's jail sentence is already set.  The only way the sentence will be reduced is if the federal government asks the judge for what is called a "downward departure" from the current sentence.  The only way Donaghy gets a downward departure is if Donaghy tells the feds the truth.  Lying right now is definitely not in Donaghy's best interests.

I think, for obvious reasons, Stern has a bigger reason to lie.  The very integrity and future of the Association is at risk.  Stern isn't going to admit that some of the series over the last several years (hey Blazer fans, remember the 2000 Western Conference Finals....), because if he did, well, the Association would be no better than pro wrestling.  Stern has to lie, and lying has no consequence for him, because he is not making these denials under oath like Donaghy.

Finally, I can't help but come back to Jose Canseco and the steroids scandal in baseball.  Canseco made some pretty wild accusations in his book, all of which were initially denied, most ( if not all) have since been proved true.

Stern makes a point of  the fact that Donaghy is a dirty ref who broke the law.  Well, as the Canseco situation regarding steroids demonstrates, the dirty guys are the ones with the most credibility because, well, they are dirty.  I think this is about to be a long summer fr David Stern.

Mickey Mantle's Liver is about to get a facelift....

OK, I know some of you are wondering where in the hell I have been for the last couple of months.  I know, I know, you need your fix of the Liver.  Well, have I got good news for you.  I have been working for YOU!  The avid reader of the Liver, to deliver you unique content you won't find anywhere else.

I am wrangling up a stable of contributors from all over the country who will provide the readers of the Liver with information about the goings on in the world of sports from all over our great nation.  Not just scores, but what the buzz around town is about the local teams - college or pro.

This is going to be a big change, and a lot of fun, so stay tuned.

Please excuse my absences and intermittent posts......

When I first started Mickey Mantle's Liver I intended this site to be a place where pithy observations about the world of sports would dominate the discussion.  I lined up a stable of contributors who committed to posting relevant articles on a regular basis.  Unfortunately, those folks never panned out, and the entirety of the Liver was left to my two hands.

Not that I am bellyaching, but maintaining a blog on a daily basis is tough work, but I really enjoyed it.  But as the sole contributor to the Liver, it makes it tough to keep this site up-to-date when my "real" life gets as busy as it has been over the last several months.

So, I am going to get back to work on the Liver, only this time I am going to refocus the Liver by having regional contributors and authors who focus on specific subject areas within the world of sports.  I am going to personally focus on sports and the law.

So stay tuned and don't go anywhere......

Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace Are the Sports(WO)men of the Year

There is no question in my mind, and there should be no question in the minds of the folks over at Sports Illustrated, that Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace should be named SI's Sportspersons of the Year.

This video from ESPN should be submitted as Exhibit 1 for their case:

I don't care who you are, but this is the most impressive act of sportsmanship I have ever seen, and these two women must be congratulated, and it is about time the sports industry recognized sportsmanship, and not just spoiled-brat millionaires.

Let's start the campaign now to make sure these women get the recognition they deserve.