Sports now and sports past

Thursday 11/12/26

Only twice in MLB history has a catcher had a season in which they hit .300 with an OBP of .400 and slugged .500 with 100 RBI and 100 runs scored: Mike Piazza in 1997 and my man Carlton Fisk in 1977.

Didn't feel like Tuesday's Celtics-Sixers game was much of a surprise. Jaylen Brown isn't really a player who can do the "I'm angry and now you're going to pay" Michael Jordan type of thing, and Jayson Tatum isn't a player to force the issue. Other players were going to be the key figures in that first contest between the two teams.

People are so quick to take one game and turn it into this indicator of EVERYTHING, which is even dumber in the sports with many games to their seasons (that is, not football). Hence, you have Celtics fans--and talking head NBA "experts"--saying the Celtics clearly won the Jaylen Brown-Paul George trade based off the results of one game, etc.

Look, the Celtics did what they do in that game: they bombed away with their three-pointers. Shots were falling. It was a regular season game in November. But if you play that way--and this team never learns--in the playoffs, in a two-week series, your luck--because luck is involved in playing like this--will run out. A three-pointer in the playoffs also isn't the same proposition as a three-pointer in the regular season in November.

I'd relax rather than be doing my victory dance on the team's behalf. Their play style is problematic and isn't conducive to winning in the postseason. The stars can align. That's what happened the year they won it all with Tatum and Mazzulla. But ordinarily? You must be able to grind out wins. Grinding out wins isn't a three-pointer thing. It's an aggressive thing, a drive-to-the-basket thing, a get-to-the-line thing.

Also, re: Paul George: it's November. The season is barely ten games old. You think he's going to be healthy in January? May? Maybe. But that'd be more surprising than if he wasn't, wouldn't it?

Brian Scalabrine is a bigger homer than Tommy Heinsohn ever was. The latter wanted the Celtics to win, but he was objective in his analysis or, if anything, harder on the Celtics than the Celtics' opposition. Scalabrine increasingly sounds like a dolt over the years. The Celtics broadcast has an exceedingly high quotient of "us" and "we" like the people involved with it are on the team and busting it hard at practice every day. That makes it impossible for me to take you seriously and it's unprofessional. It isn't how creditable or intelligent people speak.

Some of the best teams not to win a World Series: 1954 Indians, 1906 Cubs, 1995 Indians, 2004 Cardinals, 2003 Red Sox, 1953 Dodgers, 1946 Red Sox, 1975 Red Sox, 1978 Red Sox (we have a pattern here), 1983 White Sox (sleeper pick). People will say the 2001 Mariners, but I never believed in that team.

Favorite one-year wonder in baseball history? There are a lot of good ones. I'd say my pick is Matt Nokes in 1987. This doesn't mean he wasn't a capable catcher otherwise. He had a nice year, for instance, with the Yankees in 1991, but man did those numbers of 32 homers and 87 RBI from a rookie catcher look nice in 1987, regardless of the offensive explosion throughout baseball that year.

Bills essentially wrapped up the AFC East the other night in their victory over the Vikings.

The Patriots meanwhile...not so hot. There is a Mike Vrabel effect this year where players aren't buying what he's selling like they did last year, which is to be expected with that kind of coach--it's why I don't expect he'll ever have a long shelf life somewhere--who is all about the brotherhood and that kind of bullshit rather than strategic acumen and also after he got exposed as a fraud of an honorable man with deep convictions and all that. I think the guy is both a joke and scumbag.

You also have a quarterback in Drake Maye who, to date, anyway, can't excel unless he's playing a weak team as a general rule. His game tends to go way down. The sample size is big-ish. Maybe he figures it out, maximizes what others allege is his potential, and he becomes Josh Allen-like, but I don't have a deep-seated belief in that occurring. Also: is he smart enough?

I wrote in these pages after the Super Bowl that Christian Gonzalez didn't have the great game everyone else said. He made the plays he did after he got beat and recovered, so they looked all super athletic and impressive. Kind of like an outfielder who misjudges a ball and then gets on his horse and leaps from it to make this diving grab when it never should have come to that if he read the ball correctly and took the proper route. (Jarren Duran specializes in this.)

How bad was Gonzalez the other day against the Packers? I know, I know--lot of zone coverage, and he prefers man-to-man. So what then? That means he gets burnt like toast set ablaze repeatedly? Seems like it shouldn't mean that if he's amazing, which I don't believe he is. He's doesn't enjoy sticking his nose in there either on the physical side.

Rhamondre Stevenson: I don't need to see him again in a Patriots uniform. What's this player do for you besides fumble? I'm serious. He achieves squat running the ball and more squat receiving. Is it a love of liabilities that keeps him on the roster? The Fumble King! He fumbles, and back in he goes!

Saddened to learn of the passing of Bob Boone. A fascinating player to follow. Brought a lot to the teams he was on. Had great longevity. Always excellent defensively, then won his Gold Gloves late. The best I have ever seen at pitch-framing. Soft hands, superior feel for how to receive a pitch.

Boston College blew another fourth quarter lead on Saturday in their loss to Florida State. With it went whatever chance they had to go to a bowl game. BC also relinquished fourth quarter leads to SMU and Virginia Tech.

There's your season, right? Look at that swing. You win one of those games, you have a strong chance to play in a bowl, which would be a step up for this team. You win all three, and you're looking at a really nice year.

But there's a reason you lost those games, of course. Because you're not a good team or one capable of having a really nice year. There's truth to the idea of you are what your record says you are.

This might be Notre Dame's year in college football. They'll be annihilating BC in South Bend on Saturday. I believe the line is in the thirties. Saw where a BC fan--there are a few who gather at this one online place--said words to the effect of, "Go BC! Do to Notre Dame what you did in 1993!" They knew the deal--this was a seasoned follower likely going back to the seventies or sixties--and were, I'm sure, trying to show some school spirit, but I laughed all the same.

I still wonder how that '93 BC team lost to Northwestern that year. Lot of talent on that squad and a great coach. That was a team with an identity back when schools had individual identities. BC's was toughness, strong offensive line play, a good quarterback, good tight end play, players playing for each other.

It's sad watching NBA games and seeing no contested rebounds. Someone chucks from deep, someone closest catches the rebound. They don't go up for rebounds. They don't battle for rebounds. You stick out your hands at chest level and there is your rebound. I find it a depressing game. I find all these sports depressing when I watch older versions of them.

The other day I took a break and watched some of a North Stars-Bruins tilt out in Minnesota from 2/16/86. Better game. More flow, more creativity. Hockey is played now like starting pitchers pitch in baseball and hitters swing. That is, the starting pitcher has no finesse. They rear back and throw as hard as humanly possible, then are lifted after four, five, rarely more than six innings.

The hitter, meanwhile, swings from his ass each time he does swing. He strikes out often, but every now and again he runs into one. There's no nuance. No true playing of that true game. This is what I see with present day hockey. Up and down all-out racing. One-dimensional play style.

You really want a jolt in contrast, watch a basketball game from the 1970s or 1980s. How entertaining is that? There's a lot more happening, right? We talk about the sweet science of boxing, but there was a sweet science to basketball, too, with the movement, the picks, the cutting, the backdoor plays, the big men down low playing with their back to the baskets, post-up moves, etc. The battles on the boards.

Was looking at a photo of a Ted Williams early in his career at the Louisville Slugger factory picking out some wood for his bats. Williams was always fastidious about his bats. The bat-related portions of his autobiography, My Turn at Bat, fascinated me as a kid. I took note of Williams' focus on the details. Anyway, what struck me was how thin this guy was at the time. He's a rail. Doesn't look like someone who could generate all that power. But he had no shortage of it. The swing, the swing, the swing. And his wrists. And the strength in his hands.