Archive for the ‘Sports figures’ Category
Olympic Thoughts: Dance, Ladies Short Program
Folks, the last few days have been hectic. So I’ve not had much time to discuss the latest doings in the world of Olympic figure skating.
But since I had a request from a friend to discuss a bit of the ice dancing, I thought I’d talk about that.
But wait — there’s more.
Because I managed to see every single one of the ladies perform their Olympic short programs yesterday, I thought I’d discuss a little bit about that competition as well.
First, let’s talk about the ice dancing. United States figure skaters Charlie White and Meryl Davis excelled in their short program, and skated a solid long program to a beautiful piece of music (Scheherezade by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov) with technical brilliance and a great deal of speed to win the first-ever gold medal for the U.S. in ice dance. (Note that Davis and White won silver in 2010, while Tanith Belbin and Ben Agosto also won silver in 2006.)
I enjoyed White and Davis’ skating, and felt they were worthy of a gold medal.
However, in some ways I responded a whole lot more to Canadians Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir. They, too, are excellent skaters with the whole repertoire of moves . . . they won gold in Vancouver, though, so it’s hard to feel like they’ve been cheated.
As for the women’s short program, here’s my take:
- The American women are in good shape, with Gracie Gold in fourth place, Ashley Wagner in sixth and Polina Edmunds in seventh. All skated credibly or better; Gold has a real chance to win a silver or bronze if she skates a clean long program.
- There’s no way in the world Adelina Sotnikova belongs among the top six. Her scores were wildly inflated.
- What a shame that Mao Asada wasn’t able to complete her triple axel or her combination jump. Her program was lovely except for the fall, but missing those required elements dropped her all the way to sixteenth place. She’d need several miracles to get within striking distance of the podium.
- My overall winner of the short program? Carolina Kostner of Italy. She skated beautifully to “Ave Maria,” and was every bit as good as Yuna Kim.
In case you’re wondering what I’m looking for in Friday’s long program from the ladies, here goes:
- Russian ladies’ scores will continue to be wildly inflated, but none will medal (as if they did, an international judging controversy would no doubt ensue).
- Mao Asada will land at least one triple axel and a three-jump combo (probably triple-triple-double).
- Gracie Gold will skate clean and medal.
- Podium (who I think should win): Carolina Kostner, gold; Yuna Kim, silver; Gracie Gold, bronze.
- Podium (who the judges will inexplicably pick): Yuna Kim, gold; Carolina Kostner, silver; probably still Gracie Gold, bronze, unless Mao Asada lands two triple axels cleanly (if so, she’ll win the bronze somehow, and deserve it).
NBC’s Christin Cooper Pushes Bode Miller to Tears After Bronze Medal Win
Every time I think I’ve seen it all when it comes to the Sochi Olympic Games, something happens to make me change my mind.
In Sunday’s Super-G Olympic ski race, American Bode Miller won the bronze medal (actually tying with Canadian Jan Hudec) behind fellow American Andrew Weibrecht and gold-medal winning Kjetil Jansrud of Norway. In doing so, the thirty-six-year-old Miller became the oldest Olympic medalist in skiing history, and has now won six Olympic medals — one gold, three silvers, and two bronzes.
However, NBC reporter Christin Cooper, herself a past Olympic medal winner in skiing (silver in 1984 in the Giant Slalom), pushed Miller way too far in an interview aired in prime-time television an hour or so ago. The interview has been transcribed by Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column; here’s Cooper’s first question and Miller’s first answer:
Cooper: Bode, such an extraordinary accomplishment, at your age, after a turbulent year, coming back from knee surgery, to get this medal today, put it in perspective. How much does this mean to you?
Miller: I mean it’s incredible. I always feel like I’m capable of winning medals but as we’ve seen this Olympics it’s not that easy. To be on the podium, this was a really big day for me. Emotionally, I had a lot riding on it. Even though I really didn’t ski my best, I’m just super super happy.
This is a perfectly reasonable question, and a good answer by Miller. No problems here.
Next was Cooper’s second question:
Cooper: For a guy who says that medals don’t really matter, that they aren’t the thing, you’ve amassed quite a collection. What does this one mean to you in terms of all the others.
Miller: This was a little different. You know with my brother passing away, I really wanted to come back here and race the way he sensed it. This one is different.
This, again, is a reasonable question and a good answer by Miller. He was starting to tear up at this point, though, and most interviewers would’ve backed off and thanked him for his time.
For whatever reason, Cooper did not do this.
Here’s Cooper’s third question and Miller’s third answer:
Cooper: Bode, you’re showing so much emotion down here, what’s going through your mind?
Miller: Um, I mean, a lot. Obviously just a long struggle coming in here. It’s just a tough year.
This wasn’t a terrible question, but it wasn’t good because Miller was already in distress. Miller again gave a credible answer, but he teared up and was having a lot of distress in the process.
Again, most interviewers would’ve backed off. But again, Cooper did not do this.
Instead, here was Cooper’s fourth question and Miller’s abortive fourth answer:
Cooper: I know you wanted to be here with Chelly, really experiencing these games. How much does this mean to you to come up with this great performance for him? And was it for him?
Miller: I don’t know if it’s really for him but I wanted to come here and, I dunno, make myself proud, but … (trails off)
Here is when Cooper made a big mistake. She mentioned Chelone Miller, Bode’s brother, by name — Chelone was only 29 when he passed away in 2013 of a seizure, and was considered a possibility to make the Sochi Olympics in snowboarding until the end of his life.
Then Cooper made an even bigger mistake — she asked a fifth and final question:
Cooper: When you’re looking up in the sky at the start, we see you there and it looks like you’re talking to somebody. What’s going on there?
Miller: (breaks down and cries, Cooper puts an arm on him)
Now, this was just way out of line. Miller had answered the question already, as best he could, at least twice, and was obviously emotional. (Cooper even said this, earlier, so she was aware of it.) His brother has been dead for less than a year, for pity’s sake (see this story about Chelone Miller’s passing if you don’t believe me). The wound is still fresh, and Miller was showing the strain after Cooper’s second question.
But she didn’t back off.
As a journalist — no matter how unemployed I may be at the moment — I can tell you right now that Cooper’s behavior was completely wrong. She should’ve backed off after the second question and not asked the third, but once she did ask the third and saw that Miller was so emotional, she should definitely have backed off then.
That she instead chose to ask the fourth and fifth questions after he was already extremely upset for a completely understandable reason made absolutely no sense.
Fortunately, I’m not the only person out there who feels this way, either, as Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column written by Mike Oz (about Olympic events) has also taken Cooper to task. Here’s a bit of that:
Reporters have to ask tough questions. It’s part of being a journalist. One of the hardest parts of the job — and one of the toughest nuances to learn — is knowing when enough is enough in an emotional situation. Cooper, it’s worth nothing, was a skier before getting a TV gig with NBC, not a lifelong journalist
Maybe when she looks back at the tape on this, she’ll realize that one question about Miller’s brother was enough — perhaps two would have been OK. But the third one, the one that broke Miller down into a ball of emotion, came off as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, cheap.
All I can say is, I sincerely hope so.
Because what Christin Cooper did wasn’t just poor journalism and wasn’t just insensitive.
It was plain, flat wrong on every level. Period.
In Olympic Long Program, U.S. Figure Skater Jeremy Abbott Silences Critics
Yesterday’s blog discussed U.S. figure skater Jeremy Abbott, who took a particularly nasty fall, laying stunned on the ice for nearly twenty seconds due to the pain, but got back up and finished his heart-felt short program to finish fifteenth.
Finishing that far back meant it would be nearly impossible for Abbott to pull up into the top ten. And indeed, he didn’t, finishing twelfth.
But what he did today was still quite impressive, as despite being in obvious pain, Abbott skated a clean long program.
After that, Abbott had a message for his critics, according to Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports:
Asked what he had to say to those who say he chokes, he first exhaled loudly, put his head back and said, “Ahhhh … I would just love…”
He turned to Barb Reichert of U.S. Figure Skating public relations.
“Sorry Barb, you’re going to kill me,” he said.
“No,” she said. “I’m not. Bring it. Bring it.”
Abbott brought it.
“I would just hold my middle finger in the air and say a big ‘F you’ to everyone who has ever said that to me because they have never stood in my shoes,” he said, the kind of direct language not commonly found in the skating hall.
Now, why did Abbott say this? Well, not every commentator is as polite as I am, not by a mile. Twitter yesterday was particularly unforgiving, and half (if not more) of the commentators never once took a look at what Abbott did after he took that hard fall.
Figure skating is one of the most difficult athletic pursuits around. Even though I can’t do it — I don’t have the balance, the strength, or the stamina, and never have — I understand skating and I understand the skater’s mentality, mostly because I’m a musician and I performed at many music competitions. And having to do your best when your reed isn’t working, or your keys are sticking, or you know you’re competing against someone who’s won the competition several times and you’re a newcomer — well, those nerves are hard to deal with.
That’s why I never faulted Abbott for having nerves, or being willing to acknowledge them. But as a commentator — even an armchair one like myself — I have to be honest about what I see.
Yesterday, I said that Abbott’s story of falling hard but getting up and finishing when he could’ve walked away without fault was inspiring. And it was.
Today, going out there when he knew he had no realistic chance for a medal and giving it his all, then skating a clean program despite being in pain from yesterday’s fall, was even more so.
Life is about how hard you try after you’ve been knocked down. It’s all about how you get up, or don’t. And that’s why I’d rather talk about Jeremy Abbott, who’s competed now in two Olympics, finishing ninth and twelfth, than talk about 2014 Olympic champion Yuzuru Hanyu, who’s only nineteen and has not faced significant adversity on the ice as of yet (off the ice, yes, due to the tsunami a few years ago). And I definitely don’t want to talk about Olympic silver medalist Patrick Chan, who apparently felt he deserved the gold medal despite taking three falls, because that young man has way too much publicity already.
For today, this Valentine’s Day, I want you to consider the courage of a young man who’s about to retire from the sport he loves — Jeremy Abbott — at the young age of twenty-eight, because the sport is so difficult, so demanding, requires so much dedication, that his legs and back and body and mind just cannot keep doing it at the high level required to attain the Olympics.
Then consider how difficult it was for him to take that fall — look at the program in context (I’m sure it’s available on YouTube by now, or at NBC.com), and see what Abbott did to get up again, then skate the rest of his program with vigor and panache.
That’s what we all need to do, in this life.
I have a lot of sympathy for Abbott. I had it in 2010 at Vancouver, when he finished ninth by skating a brilliant program to pull way up in the standings. And I have it again today.
Because what makes an Olympic champion is not the medals.
It’s the heart.
That’s why Jeremy Abbott will forever be an Olympic champion.
U.S. Figure Skater Jeremy Abbott Falls Hard, Wins Big (at Life)
Today, I witnessed something I’ve never before seen in my many years of watching figure skating. Reigning United States men’s champion Jeremy Abbott, who’s had his share of troubles in the Olympics already, took a very hard fall in the Olympic men’s short program at Sochi, lay on the ice for nearly twenty seconds . . . then got up and skated the rest of his program cleanly and with energy.
This was a big win for Abbott, even though it wasn’t reflected in the score column overmuch.
You see, Abbott, over the years, has had many problems with his nerves. They are well-documented, they are pervasive, and while they are also completely understandable (I doubt many of us would do well under so much scrutiny), they’ve kept him from attaining his immense potential — at least at the international level.
Martin Rogers of Yahoo Sports quoted Abbott afterward as saying:
“First thing, I was in a lot of pain and I was laying there kind of shocked and I didn’t know what to think,” Abbott said. “I was waiting for the music to stop. The audience was screaming, and I was, like, ‘Forget it all, I am going to finish this program.’
“As much of a disappointment as this is, I am not in the least bit ashamed. I stood up and finished this program, and I am proud of what I did in the circumstances.”
Abbott scored a 72.58, good for fifteenth place out of thirty, but what he achieved goes far beyond any scorecard.
No.
What Abbott achieved was the ultimate triumph of dedication, focus, and persistence. He refused to let a terrible fall — one that could still, potentially, knock him out of the competition — stop him from completing his short program. And in so doing, he won the respect of his competitors and the Russian crowd’s vociferous support, which wasn’t altogether easy as their lone entrant into the men’s program, Evgeny Plushenko, had abruptly retired directly before he was supposed to skate in the short.
I don’t doubt that Plushenko was injured — he clutched his back and looked like he could barely stand upright when he skated over to the judges in order to withdraw — and I also don’t doubt that Plushenko did the right thing in withdrawing, no matter how abrupt it turned out to be.
But what Abbott did in getting up from one of the worst falls I’ve ever seen and skating the rest of his program with vigor, energy, and even brilliance was as inspirational an effort as I’ve ever seen.
As Rogers put it in his headline, “Jeremy Abbott Loses Marks for Ugly Fall, Wins Hearts for Finishing Short Program.”
As I’ve been critical over the years of Abbott — much though I adore his skating — I felt it imperative to point this out: Jeremy Abbott has the heart of a true champion.
Whether he can skate the long program after a night of stiffening up and soreness, and possibly some bone breaks as well (as a hairline fracture can be hard to spot, especially right after an injury due to the inflammation incurred) is immaterial.
What Abbott did today in refusing to give up on himself is far, far more important than any marks could ever be. In or out of the Olympics.
You see, Jeremy Abbott proved today why he’s as big a winner at life as anyone I’ve ever seen.
And that, my friends, is extremely impressive.
NFL Draft Hopeful Michael Sam Comes Out As Gay
Someday soon, folks, I’m not going to have to write about a story like this one. At that time — whether it’s 2016, 2020, whatever — being an openly gay athlete is not going to be big-time news.
But as it’s 2014 and the NFL still doesn’t have an openly gay player (nor does MLB, the NBA, or the NHL), what a young man from Missouri, Michael Sam, has done by announcing that he is openly gay is big news.
On Sunday evening, Missouri’s All-American defensive end Michael Sam came out, officially, as gay during ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” program. Sam is a legitimate NFL prospect, expected to be drafted anywhere from the third to fifth rounds, and is the reigning co-Defensive Player of the Year in the SEC — a very tough football conference where many of its best players often go on to illustrious NFL careers.
So you might be wondering, as I did, why Sam would choose to say this now, before any team gets a chance to draft him. The NFL seems to be homophobic (see my blog about Chris Kluwe’s experiences, and remember that Kluwe is not, himself, gay — he’s just an advocate for LGBT rights), and this may well affect Sam’s chances of getting drafted and/or signed by an NFL team.
Of course, it shouldn’t be this way.
As L.Z. Granderson points out in his article for ESPN.com, there have been gay players in the NFL at least since 1969 — Granderson quoted legendary coach Vince Lombardi as saying this: “”If I hear one of you people make reference to his manhood, you’ll be out of here before your ass hits the ground.” (Note this was referencing a story written in 2013 by Ian O’Connor about Vince Lombardi and being pro-gay rights at a time few were.) There are numerous retired NFL players, including former Packers NT Esera Tuaolo, who was quoted in today’s St. Paul Pioneer Press as saying that while he supports Sam fully, he couldn’t have done what Sam’s doing now back in the 1990s.
Sam’s openness about his sexuality has been acclaimed by former NBA player Jason Collins (who came out last year; see this blog for further details), well-known LGBT advocates and former NFL players Kluwe and Brandon Ayanbadejo, the latter writing this column for Fox Sports with a few words about Sam’s historic importance, and “You Can Play” advocate Wade Davis, himself a retired NFL player who happens to be gay.
But there’s something missing in most of the coverage about Michael Sam.
Simply put — Sam is a football player, plain and simple. More to the point, he’s a very good football player who should be drafted and can help any number of NFL teams, including the Green Bay Packers, as a defensive end — Sam’s on the small side as a DE considering he’s listed at only 255 pounds, but he’s agile, light on his feet, and a hard tackler. He’s twenty-four years of age, meaning he’s mature. He’s lived through a lot of adversity in his life (the OTL piece is a must-see, if you haven’t taken it in already). And he’d be an asset in every possible way.
Yet instead of hearing about how mature Sam is, or about how much he can help a football team, we’re hearing about how historic this achievement is with regards to gay rights. And while I agree with that — it’s obvious — I just wish we were further along in this country.
Think about it, please. Why should it matter in 2014 that Michael Sam is gay if he can play football at a high level?
And why should these various NFL general managers, who are refusing to be quoted by name (such as in this piece by the Christian Science Monitor), be afraid that Michael Sam will somehow contaminate the locker room? Especially considering, as Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC program pointed out last night, that there are guys playing the NFL right now who are wife-beaters, girlfriend-beaters, who don’t pay child support for their children, who have problems with substance abuse . . . why are those players consistently finding work with these very same NFL GMs hardly batting an eye, when Michael Sam being an articulate and open gay man may cost Sam the chance to play in the NFL?
All that being said, of course I applaud Michael Sam for coming out. His stance is principled, honest, and above-board — and I respect it highly.
I just hope that by doing so, Sam hasn’t cost himself any chance at a job due to the intransigence and obduracy of the various, uncredited NFL GMs, who refuse to be quoted directly but have already cast a pall over Sam’s historic announcement.
One final thought: Is it bad of me to admit that I long for the day where a player can say, “I’m gay” and the pro sports league in question says, “So what?” (May that day come soon.)
United States Wins Olympic Bronze Medal in Team Figure Skating
Well, folks, it’s official — the United States won the bronze medal in the inaugural Olympic team figure skating event.
Now that it’s all over, it’s time to reflect on the skaters from the United States, and discuss their overall impact.
Ice dance — Meryl Davis and Charlie White skated two fine routines, winning their segment of the team event handily in both cases. Davis and White are the odds-on favorites to win the gold in the individual ice dance event later this week.
Pairs — Marissa Castelli and Simon Shapnir skated two good performances, coming in fifth in the first segment (with ten teams) and fourth in the second (with five teams). They did as well as could be expected, and nearly landed their signature throw quadruple Salchow.
Men’s — What more can be said about Jeremy Abbott? I’ve watched him skate for years, he’s a great guy and a fine artistic skater who actually has a fairly solid quad, and yet his nerves continue to get the best of him. His dismal performance in the men’s short program (he finished seventh out of ten) was one reason it was iffy until the final performance of Davis and White that the United States would medal at all.
Jason Brown was substituted for Abbott in the long program, and Brown delivered a solid, fun performance of his signature “Riverdance” program. Brown wasn’t quite as good here as he was at the U.S. Nationals a month ago, but he was still good enough to hold onto fourth place and keep the U.S. in medal contention.
Women’s — Ashley Wagner came in fourth during the short program, doing exactly what she needed to do to get the U.S. into the medal round. Gracie Gold was substituted for her and delivered an excellent long program, finishing second out of the remaining five skaters to help the U.S. save their medal chances.
Overall, I liked the team figure skating event. But if I were running the International Olympic Committee or had anything whatsoever to do with figure skating, I’d try to get the scores from the first round thrown out once everyone gets into the medal round.
Why?
Well, what I saw in this team event was two teams — Russia and Canada — racking up so many points in the preliminary round that it was nearly impossible to catch them. That’s not a good thing, not for the fans — who saw excellent skaters like Carolina Kostner of Italy and Mao Asada of Japan substituted for with lesser skaters (presumably to save Kostner and Asada’s legs a bit as both are favorites to medal in the ladies individual figure skating event), not for the teams themselves (Italy and Japan had no chance for any medal except the bronze, and decided early on not to make a serious run at it, while the United States’ only realistic shot was for the bronze rather than the silver, and the gold was completely out of reach; even Canada, which did exceptionally well, didn’t have hardly any chance to catch Russia in the standings for the gold medal), and certainly not for the Olympic spirit of tough but fair competition.
In future Olympics, it would behoove them to be a little more like hockey or soccer, where points are discarded once you get to the medal round, as that would allow all five teams a realistic chance at a team medal rather than only three of them.
At any rate, hats off to Teams USA, Canada, and Russia for their medal-winning efforts . . . it was fun to watch.
United States Team Advances to Team Figure Skating Final
Folks, after a rough skate by United States men’s champion Jeremy Abbott two days ago, it was unclear whether or not the U.S. would advance in the new figure skating team event.
You see, in this event, all four types of figure skating are on display. You must field an ice dance team and a pairs team plus one female skater and one male skater. You get one point for tenth place, ten points for first, and the points aggregate. And you’re allowed two substitutions after the short program.
Anyway, in the first night of the team event, Abbott skated disastrously and landed in seventh place, gaining only four points, while the pairs team of Marissa Castelli and Simon Shapnir came in fifth — about what was expected — gaining six points. Which meant after the first two disciplines skated, the U.S. had only ten points and was tied for fifth place with two other teams.
This may sound good, but as there were only ten entries in this inaugural team event, it’s really not what was expected.
Earlier today, the dance team of Meryl Davis and Charlie White took the ice and delivered an excellent short dance (the dance version of the short program), finishing in first place and gaining all ten points. Which meant that Ashley Wagner, who was next (and last) to skate for the United States, had to finish in the top five or the United States not qualify for the final round.
Fortunately, Ashley Wagner delivered a solid performance and landed in fourth place. This allowed the United States to qualify along with Russia, Japan, Italy, and Canada for the medal round.
What to watch in the finals? Well, the top Russian team of Tatiana Volosozhar and Maxim Trankov have dropped out of the team event, allowing the second Russian pairs team to take over (probably Ksenia Stolbova and Fedor Klimov, the current Russian champions, will be substituted in their place). And Patrick Chan, the reigning World Champion (despite last year’s disastrous free skate), has also dropped out, allowing Kevin Reynolds to skate in his place.
This makes it a little easier for the United States to perhaps move up and take a silver, depending on how well they do from here on out.
A few more things to keep an eye on:
Japan does not have much help coming from their ice dance and pairs skaters, and will no doubt finish fifth in both of those (the pairs team is particularly weak). Their male and female skaters must finish either first or second in order for them to make up for this weakness.
Italy also has a weak pairs team, but a decent-to-better ice dance team that’s actually in contention for a bronze individual medal by most accounts. Their strength is in the women’s competition, where Carolina Kostner has medaled at Worlds several times, winning a gold, two silvers and two bronzes over the years; their male skaters are not among the top twenty in the world, and may not even be in the top fifty.
Canada has an excellent pairs team, an excellent dance team, a decent-to-better female skater in Kaetlyn Osmond and their second-best man, Kevin Reynolds. Hard to say how well they can do overall, but I’d be shocked if they didn’t win a silver.
Russia is the odds-on favorite to win the gold, as they have strong competitors in all four disciplines and a huge lead going into the finals (as the points apparently carry over).
The final round starts off with the pairs again, and will take place later this evening in Sochi. (It may be underway as we speak, in fact.) I plan to come back later and discuss this here at my blog, and give you my own assessment.
All I know right now is this: It’s good the United States made it this far. But the U.S. team had best replace Abbott with Jason Brown — I’ve heard it’s likely they’ll do this (Abbott himself surely seemed to think so, at any rate, from the interviews I’ve seen on NBC and its related networks) — if it wants any chance at a medal.
Friday Free-for-All
Folks, it’s been a long week. And as you’ve seen, I haven’t exactly blogged . . . but as always, there’s a reason for that.
You see, I’ve been editing. I’ve also been writing, as I’m working on a new story I hope to submit it to Lightspeed Magazine for their “Women Destroy SF” issue. It’s not ready yet, but I have fourteen days to get it in . . . and I will.
(Again, like the F&SF submission earlier this year, I cannot guarantee anything. But I know I have to try.)
And I sent out a submission of a literary fantasy short story to the online magazine Wisdom Crieth Without, which is heavier on poetry than fiction. But they do take some short stories, and as my poetry is too far afield of what they want (their preference is for traditional rhyme and meter; there’s nothing wrong with that, but that usually isn’t what I write, and my few attempts at such have been miserable failures), I thought I’d try a story instead.
And, as if all that wasn’t enough, I’ve been keeping the first half of ELFY on the front burner also, as I’m about to send it to my publisher (later today, in fact, after I’ve done one last read-through to make sure I haven’t missed anything). I’ll let you all know if and when the first half of ELFY gets retitled; one of my good friends suggested AN ELFY ON THE LOOSE, which sounds at least as good as the only title that’s come to mind whenever I’ve thought about it — AN ELFY ALONE. And the benefits of the former title would be that people would know right away that my book is a comic urban fantasy, so maybe my publisher will go for it?
(I know that AN ELFY ALONE sounds more formal than I intend. And yes, authors do think about things at just this micro-level, sometimes . . . why do you ask?)
Everything else I’ve wanted to blog about, including a nice article by Peter Jackel of the Racine Journal-Times about Vinny Rottino’s continued progress in baseball (giving far more information about just what happened to Rottino last year in Japan, though it oddly didn’t discuss the injury Rottino suffered that required surgery on his shoulder — the last is the best I could figure out, mind you, as the Japanese Web sites’ translations can be really dicey), the interesting story about Northwestern University’s football players wanting to unionize as they’re beyond tired of losing scholarships after getting injured — something that is one of the great shames of college sports, I might add — and also want to have some long-term medical help available due to concussions suffered during on-field performance, as well as goodly number of others things, has gone completely by the boards.
In addition, I’m awaiting word on when a second guest blog, based off my December 18, 2013 post about writing and cross-promotion, will be published over at the prestigious writing Web site Murder By Four. This could be as soon as later today, or it could be sometime next week . . . all I know is, whenever it goes up I’ll be coming here to let y’all know all about it.
For those of you wondering if I’m going to review any books this week, I hope to review at least one book, possibly two. The book I know I can review is L.E. Modesitt, Jr.’s THE ONE-EYED MAN, a far-future political science fiction thriller. There is some romance involved, so it could even go on Saturday . . . but probably, if I can get everything I need to done by this evening, I’ll write the review then. The second book is a straight-up Regency romance by talented newcomer Giselle Marks; it’s a bit more period in its descriptions than most Regencies written in the past forty-five to fifty years, which can be startling at times, and I’m still trying to figure out how to render all that.
At any rate, the weather remains cold, there’s way too much snow on the ground, Milwaukee Brewers announcer Bob Uecker has said he plans to cut back on some of his announcing this year, pitchers and catchers report for the Brewers in a few weeks, the Milwaukee Bucks are still awful, I don’t particularly care about the Super Bowl but probably will watch it anyway . . . hope I covered all the bases.
Stay warm, folks.
Bucks Beat Pistons, Break 9-Game Losing Streak
The 2013-2014 Milwaukee Bucks have not been a good team, to put it mildly. Going into tonight’s game against the Detroit Pistons, they were by far the worst team in the league with a record of 7-33, and had lost nine games in a row.
Because the Bucks hadn’t won any games in 2014, the team has been in an ugly mood.
So have the fans, who’ve taken to booing home players after they’ve missed free throws. Which is very bad behavior on the part of the fans, of course, but can you blame them? It’s no fun to go cheer on your favorite team, only to watch them creatively find yet another way to lose.
The Bucks, in short, have been pathetic.
But tonight’s game against the Pistons was a bit different from the start. The Bucks actually made their first basket, a nice change. They were competitive at halftime, losing by only six points, 56-50. And they were actually ahead for much of the fourth quarter, where they outscored Detroit, 23-16.
Even with all that, the Bucks barely squeaked out a win against the Pistons, 104-101. The game was in doubt until the final 1.4 seconds of the game, though to be fair to the Bucks, there were some extremely debatable calls by the referees — the worst of the lot being a no-call after Brandon Knight was actually thrown out of bounds by a Piston player, yet the ball somehow went back to Detroit. Had those calls been more understandable, the Bucks would’ve taken a comfortable five-point lead with thirty seconds to play . . . instead, there were multiple opportunities for the Pistons to win.
Instead, the Pistons fell to 17-25. (Check out the Bucks’ Tumblr page if you don’t believe me.)
This was an interesting game for many reasons besides the odd decisions from the referees. First, it was Caron Butler bobble head night — as Butler is a native of Racine, and as this is his first season with the Bucks, he had many friends and family in the stands to cheer him on. This may have been one reason why Butler played exceptionally well this evening with 30 points, seven rebounds and a season-high five assists.
Second, Milwaukee’s PG Knight used to play for the Pistons, while PG Brandon Jennings, of course, used to play for the Bucks. So there was a lot of hard-fought action on both sides from those two men, because they were playing for pride. Jennings finished with 30 points, four rebounds and four assists, while Knight countered with 16 points, seven rebounds and nine assists.
Third, there were two Bucks players out with illness, C Larry Sanders and SG O.J. Mayo — both are normally in the starting lineup — while a third ill player, PG Luke Ridnour, did well off the bench, hitting two of his four three-point attempts and finishing with eight points in 19 minutes.
Any way you slice it, the 2013-2014 Milwaukee Bucks have been dreadful. But it’s nice to see them scratch and claw their way to an unexpected win for a change, rather than lose, fight with each other in the locker room, lose some more, fight in bars and get injured, and, of course, lose.
It’s hard to know what to expect on Friday, when the Bucks will take on the Cavaliers (15-27) in Cleveland. Will Milwaukee show some moxie again, as they did this evening? Or will they go out and lose yet again?
The smart money is probably going to be on the Bucks losing as many games as they can, as they seem more interested in getting a high draft choice than showing their fans that they actually care about winning games. But I have a funny feeling that the Bucks might actually beat Cleveland, just to be contrary.
If they do, I’ll be glad to write about them again on Friday . . . because if the Bucks can win two games in a row, that’ll be a verifiable hot streak, thus a story, thus something I can blog about without wanting to fall asleep.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 