Roger's Greatness

I know that I wrote a post about Roger about 2 weeks ago, but now that he's officially passed Pete's record, I need to reiterate a few things. Even though Pete Sampras, John McEnroe, and other tennis greats have said they believe Roger is the greatest player ever, there are still a number of sports analysts that aren't willing to give Roger the GOAT title.

One of the arguments used by Roger Doubters, is that Fed has a losing record to a contemporary--Rafael Nadal. Head to Head, Nadal leads Federer 13 victories to 7. That number is somewhat inflated when we look at how those victories have come. Clay has always been a surface for specialists--meaning most players that are good on clay struggle on any other surface. There have been a few exceptions--Borg, Nadal--but for the most part, clay courters are 1 surface stars. On clay, Rafa leads Roger 9 to 2 in victories; they are tied at 2-2 on hard court, and Fed leads 2-1 on grass.

Many people believe that Rafa is the best clay court player in tennis history. There are plenty of goods reasons for that belief--he holds the record for most wins in a row on clay (81, ended by Fed), he won the first 4 French Opens he played in, and his clay court record since 2005 is 150-5, and at the French Open it is 31-1--and he's only 22. Roger has had to play the majority of his matches against Rafa on clay; if they had played 11 matches on grass, the record would certainly tilt Roger's way. By making it to the semi-finals at the French this year (which he went on to win), Federer tied a Roland Garros record with 5 consecutive semi's. So even though he has only won the title once out of those 5 tries, he's proven to be remarkably good and consistent on clay. A number of respected tennis greats believe Federer is one of the top 5 clay court players in tennis history, he just isn't good enough to consistently beat Nadal on the surface.

Federer's best surface is obviously grass--he's won 68 of his last 69 matches--so Nadal's Wimbledon victory is quite impressive. It seems like it's only proper that because Fed ended Nadal's record winning streak on clay, that Nadal returned the favor ended Fed's record streak of 65 straight wins on grass. Speaking of winning streaks by surface, Fed shattered the hard court record, by winning 56 straight matches (which wasn't ended by Nadal). The point of this, is that Nadal's head to head record doesn't do enough to Fed's legacy to legitimately dent his claim as the GOAT. Nadal is a great player--6 slams by the age of 22--and the fact that he has beaten Fed 13 times is remarkable. However, sports is very much about matchups and the Fed/Nadal matchup is nearly even, minus clay & grass, leaving hard court as the most neutral surface.

Some analysts have pointed out that although Fed has won 15 majors, guys like Laver would have won more titles without forced sabbaticals because of rules about professionals. It's true that Laver would have more than 11 titles if he had been able to play a full career; it's also true that when Laver played, 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass. If 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass today, Federer & Sampras would both have over 20 majors. Playing on grass so often would be a tremendous advantage for Roger, but that isn't the case today so other stats are needed to tell the tale.

Fed has now reached 21 consecutive semi-finals at the Slams, a monstrous record that more than doubles Ivan Lendll's second place record of 10 straight. 21 straight semi's is the most impressive record of Federers, it is the stat that towers above all others. For over 5 years, he has never missed the Final Four, he has never let minor injuries or sickness keep him down, he's never lost his focus, he's never let tight matches get to him, and he's never let an opponents best beat him. He made 10 straight Slam finals--the old record was 4--then he lost in the semi's (with mono), and now he's made 6 straight finals for the 2nd longest streak. Between the semi's streak, and the Finals streak, Fed has out distanced anyone, past or present, by a mile. In the last 6 years, Roger is 115-0 in Slams vs. anyone ranked outside the top 5. Fed has reached 15 major titles in a little over 6 years--it took Sampras 12 years to win 14. Fed had a 4 year stretch where he won 11 of the 16 Slams, something that no man or woman has ever done it tennis history. These are only some of the amazing stats that, along with 15 slams and the career slam, make Fed the greatest tennis player ever.

Comparing current players with past players is always subjective and difficult. I believe that today's athletes in every sport, are better individually. That individual improvement can be detrimental in a sport like basketball, but it makes sports like golf and tennis tougher. If the top 20 tennis players were put in a time machine and placed in a tournament--in their prime's--that would have everyone play everyone on every surface, I have little doubt that Fed would end up with the best record. Many tennis pros have said they believe he has the best all-around game they have ever seen, and I would agree. He is the most versatile player, with the greatest amount of skill to choose from when playing an opponent. No offense to Laver, but he would get worked in a tournament with guys like Fed and Sampras (Laver was 5-7, 130 pounds). A realistic analysis of the stats and records shows, conclusively, that Fed has the most impressive career resume, that he is the greatest of all-time, and that he will continue to pad his stats for at least a few more years.

Global Warming

The House of Representatives just barely passed a new energy bill, 219-212, that will set mandates for the amount of pollution the US can emit. For the bill to become law, it still needs the Senate to pass a bill, then they need to work out the differences between the two bills so that the language is identical, and then President Obama can sign it into law. The odds of this happening--anytime soon at least--are still somewhat long, but the passage of the bill in one house, and the resulting discussion has pushed global warming to the center of the political discussion. The opponents of the bill--especially the Republicans (none voted for it)--are claiming that the bill will hurt the economy. Not only that, but it will hurt the economy during a depression, all for nothing. According to Republican Representatives, global warming is a hoax; Paul Broun, a Rep from Georgia, claimed that global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated by the science community. Really? Really!!!? Massive groups of scientists are secretly plotting to trick the world because they don't like pollution, or even better, they don't like the US and they want to see our economy fail.

They (scientists) are a group of borderline stupid people anyway, considering that all of the benefits and marvels of the modern world surrounding us are here because of science, and they aren't perfect. These scientists try and trick us in various ways, with other crazy ideas like evolution, flu vaccines, AIDS prevention, birth control, and more. We all know that when we use modern medicine, it probably won't work because it's creators are merely guessing at what they think it will do. We drive our cars and fly in airplanes because we think there might be a chance that they won't malfunction (we know that claims made by scientists in these fields are ultimately full of it, hoaxing their way to big money). We've seen the scientific community try and convince us of major hoaxes before. For a decent part of the 20th century, up to the present day, we've battled them as they try and keep intelligent design out of science class. Instead, they want evolution to be the only thing taught, as though there is any truth to this. Well, we're not going to let them do that to us with global warming; they won't dictate our way of life with crazy theories. We didn't evolve, and we sure as hell aren't damaging our planet.

Maybe that caricature is a bit of hyperbole, but in a lot of ways its not. They don't state their defenses like that, but that is what people are really saying when they claim global warming is a hoax. From a common sense standpoint, it seems obvious that pumping toxic chemicals into the air and water is going to do bad things. I don't see how that type of thinking is so outrageous, and when it is backed up by massive amounts of research, it seems like it should be treated the same way we treat scientific theories about human disease. I'm not a scientist, a climatologist, an astronomer, or any other form of expert when it comes to "knowing" anything about global warming. What I am, is someone that believes in the law of probability, someone who puts stock into science, and when large portions of the scientific community say that global warming is irrefutably taking place, I believe them. I know they could be wrong, but the odds of them being right greatly outweigh the odds of their being wrong when I factor in the evidence they sight and their track record, especially their modern track record. People like to point out really old scientific theories and show how wrong they were; that's great, because science continues to add to its database of knowledge and when they are wrong now, its a much smaller degree of wrong that it was 100 years ago.

Passing legislation to start curbing how we destroy our planet seems like a necessary and urgent thing. The Republicans repeatedly talked about the future when President Obama was passing spending legislation; they said it was immoral and unfair to saddle our future generation with the problems this debt will cause (if its debt for crazy military programs that won't ever protect our troops or be used in battle, its okay to spend trillions). We're not talking about a subjective thing when we talk about the future effects of global warming; objectively, the future generation(s) will face enormous difficulties, if not impossibilities, from the problems global warming is and will continue to cause. The problems it is causing our compounding too, getting more and more severe, and even if we stopped polluting in every way today, the effects of our pollution wouldn't stop for years to come.

For those that don't have a specific, or any, religious belief, the idea of Christ coming to save the earth offers no comfort--and this is a perfectly legitimate concern. On the other hand, religious people that are certain Christ is coming to save the earth still have a vague timeline to depend on. Religions of all persuasions have seen their time lines for the 2nd coming come and go, and I'm sure we'll see a lot more of that. Not only can we not rely on Christ coming to save us in time, but we shouldn't rely on that. With a belief that Christ created this earth for us, we should strive more than ever to take care of it while we wait for his return. If our bodies are temples to the point of limiting the number and location of piercings, and tattoos of any kind, then what is the earth? Isn't it worthy of good caretaking? No matter how you look at this scenario, there is no moral or rational argument for continuing to destroy the planet. Worrying about short-term business costs is terribly superficial. For the doubters, wake up. We are destroying our planet, and the only arguments against it our made by those that our being irrational, either because they don't trust science, or because they want to protect business as usual and avoid any short-term profit loss. Those are bad, evil, reasons to continue our destructive behavior. Instead of relying on vague, 2nd hand stories of dissenting opinion in the science community about global warming, learn 1st hand that the worlds leading scientists are in complete consensus about global warming.

Fed Express

I'm not attempting to brag in this blog...okay, I am. While most of the sports world was jumping off the Federer bandwagon like it was on fire, I stayed calm. Granted, most of the sports analysts that were ripping Fed know as much about tennis as I do calculus, but they are the analysts that people see--primarily ESPN. First Take, Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption, Mike & Mike in the Morning, and many of the radio shows produced by ESPN; these are the sources of information for most average tennis fans. Listening to this cohort led many to believe that Fed was done--he would never get 14 majors, he wouldn't win the French, he was overrated, etc, etc, etc. Yeah, most of these "experts" had a quick fact sheet in front of them and with a difficulty understanding basic tennis stats, came to crazy conclusions.

What? Wait, I'm confused? Did Federer win his 14th at the French? This caused about half of the "experts" to jump back on the bandwagon, with a few holdouts claiming that the win at the French is tainted because it wasn't against Nadal. What? Nadal lost in the 4th round to the guy Fed beat in straight sets in the Final (he also just beat Soderling in straight sets--ironically, in the 4th round--at Wimbledon). Roger is one win away from his 21st, TWENTY FIRST!!!!!!!, straight semi-final in a major. The old record was 10 by Ivan Lendl; that means that for over 5 years, for every major, Roger has gotten no worse than the Final Four. Out of those 21 semi's, he's got 13 championships, 19 Finals, and the chance to make that 14 wins in 20 tries if things go as planned over the next few days. That is the single greatest streak in all of sports, better than Dimaggio's 56, Ripkens 2000+, or any other streak that is hallowed. Making 20 straight semi's and counting is the greatest record and most impressive aspect of Federer's career; it's the stat that when factored in with everything else makes him the GOAT, hands down. With lots of sports streaks, if a player misses a game or an event, that isn't counted against the player. Roger made one of those semi's (and one of his few losses before a final) while he had Mono. That is absolutely nuts; I've had Mono, and when I did I could hardly make it up the stairs. I'm the biggest Jordan fan on the planet, but this puts the "flu game" to shame, and at least equals Tiger's US Open win on 1 leg. No excuses, no pull outs, no injuries, no ducking, Fed has played every major for over 5 years and won over half of them, made the final in most, and never missed a semi. INSANE.

During the Federer Era, Roger had a 3 year stretch where he went 317-24 and made every major final, winning 9 of 12. That stretch alone would put him in the in the discussion for GOAT. The longest streak of consecutive finals in Tennis history used to be 4; Roger made 12 in a row, lost in a semi with the help of Mono, and now he's made 5 in a row and counting. Not a bad slump--2 majors, the second longest Finals streak in history, with 2 of the 3 finals losses coming in 5 setters to Nadal. That is why I never jumped off the bandwagon. I realized that Fed was simply coming down slightly from his non-human status. He made winning majors and for that matter, every match he played, seem easy and guaranteed. He had a stretch that warped our perceptions of tennis and that warped perception affected a lot of people. When Federer started winning a the rate of say, Pete Sampras, he was considered washed up by the "experts". Nice work ESPN, with your top notch analysts crying wolf, you managed to convince a lot of people that Roger was done. Your crazy, stupid analysis should prevent you from broadcasting the major tournaments, that should go to the tennis channel. Whether Federer wins or loses this Wimbledon doesn't matter. He's still performing at a higher level than everyone else in Tennis, and he's still playing at a higher, more consistent level than anyone has in the history of the game. Wake up and realize that he will get 15 majors--FOR SURE--whether it comes Sunday or not. He's too good and too consistent to not get a couple more majors, at least. He'll probably win 3-5 more in my--and Pete Sampras'--estimation. Anyway, for those of you who don't know much about tennis, take my word for it, Roger Federer has had the most impressive career in Tennis history. That's as far as labels can really go when we're comparing generations, but with that in mind, the greatest career garners the greatest player label--even if that part of it is subjective.

Kobe or LeBron? Who's the better Closer?

I've heard a lot of talk these playoffs about closing. Analysts and fans are highly fickle; when Kobe's Lakers were struggling through a 7 game series with the highly undermanned Rockets, they were being counted out. When LeBron's Cavs were cake-walking through the first 2 rounds without a loss, they were unbeatable. Enter the Conference Finals. Kobe helped the Lakers finish off the Nuggets tonight, sending the Lakers to the NBA Finals with a 4-2 series win. LeBron has a game 6 tomorrow--considering his buzzer shot in game 2 they are lucky to have a game 6--and he is constantly being measured up to Kobe. Is there substance to this argument? Have the analysts actually looked beyond hype? I'm going to say no, they haven't. Kobe has been given the status of closer and that means LeBron has to climb some sort of fictional ladder to get the title. Why is Kobe considered a closer?

Kobe Bryant has 3 NBA titles--all won with Shaquille O'Neal, all where Shaq was the leading scorer and Finals MVP. Kobe has been on 2 teams that have lost in the NBA Finals--in both of those series, the final loss for the Lakers came in blowout fashion. 8 Teams in NBA history have come back to win a series after trailing 3-1; the last time it happened was a few years ago when the Suns came back to beat...the Lakers. In game 7 of that series, Kobe was nowhere to be found while his team got pummelled. Let's go the present day. The Lakers struggled to knock out the Rockets--not exactly closing--but they did step it up a notch to beat the Nuggets in 6. Most would consider the 4th quarter to be a major aspect of closer/clutch status. Let's compare Kobe to LeBron for this season.

In the regular season, LeBron was significantly better than Kobe according to stats compiled by 82games.com, making LeBron the most clutch in the regular season. How about the playoffs? Because Kobe is already in the Finals, while LeBron is down 3-2, people are saying LeBron isn't as clutch as Kobe. In the Conference Finals, LeBron is averaging 41 points, 8 rebounds, & 8 assists per game--something that has never been accomplished in league history. Is he being a ball hog to get these stats? It's tough to say that when he is averaging 8 assists a game to go with his points. Anyway, let's compare Kobe & LeBron's 4th quarter stats in the Conference Finals.

Field Goal %: Kobe 51.6%, LeBron 51.2%

Points Per 4th Quarter: Kobe 10.83, LeBron 13.6

Assists per 4th Quarter: Kobe .5, LeBron 2.4

Rebounds per 4th Quarter: Kobe 1.16, LeBron 2.8

LeBron is outdoing Kobe in every way--minus the .4% difference in Field Goal %--with more responsibility. Kenny Smith, Charles Barkley, & Reggie Miller said after LeBron's game 5 performance that if LeBron switched Kobe places, the Lakers would win 75-80 games--something I agree with. The Cavs have one good player besides LeBron--Mo Williams--and Mo has been playing terribly in the Conference Finals. LeBron has the weakest supporting cast of any 66 win team in NBA history. His team is completely over matched against the Magic; their match-ups are horrible, and the Cavs are still in the series. ESPN did a statistical analysis of "clutch" stats and LeBron was 1st by a long shot; Kobe came in 9th. Kobe has some memorable game winning shots--as does LeBron--and Kobe has championships on his resume, but that doesn't mean anything when the whole picture is analyzed. I can't say whether LeBron is the most clutch player in the league, but comparing Kobe and LeBron gives us a clear cut answer: LeBron plays far more impressively in the 4th quarter; he plays with way more pressure because of a weaker supporting cast; statistically, LeBron is more superior in every way. Kobe may win his first Shaqless title this year, but that doesn't say anything about him being better than LeBron. Numbers don't lie--LeBron is better, more clutch, and ultimately, his team is over performing, while Kobe's team has underperformed through most of the playoffs. For any of you who disagree, show me the stats to back it up, otherwise, deal with the fact that LeBron is more clutch and a better closer. 

I Hate Basketball

I haven't blogged in about 6 months, so my 3 or 4 readers probably won't read this, but I've decided to break my silence. Since Michael Jordan retired, NBA basketball has been less than exciting to me. LeBron James has changed that; I love watching him play. I've been banking on King James playing all the way through the Finals, giving me basketball satisfaction through mid June. My dreams were all but crushed tonight when the Cavs lost 116-114 in overtime to go down 3-1 in their series with the Magic. When the Cavs started blowing their small lead in the 4th quarter, I had to turn the TV off and go shoot hoops outside to prevent a heart attack or an aneurysm. Through 4 games, LeBron James has the most points in the history of the Conference Finals, yet his team is losing. He's shooting nearly 60% from the field but the rest of his team blows. It really is a testament to LeBrons greatness that he took a team of nobodies and won 66 games. There lack of depth is being severely exposed by Orlando, showing how average Mo Williams is compared to great side kicks like Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, James Worthy, McHale & Parrish...the list goes on, but LeBron doesn't have one. I really thought the Cavs would at least make the Finals, and if they lost, only the Lakers would be the team to do it. Oh well, maybe if the Cavs lose their series, LeBron will realize the Cavs don't have the money to build a championship team and he'll go elsewhere--preferably Chicago--possibly teaming up with Dwayne Wade in 2010. In the meantime, I have to suffer while the Magic slowly kill my dream. 

Salt Lake City Delusion

Utah fans have lost their minds. A decent regular season--plenty of close games--was followed by a solid bowl victory. That is it. Nothing more. Anyone who actually thinks Utah would beat Florida, Oklahoma, USC, or that Utah would run the table in a "real" conference is sadly losing their mind. Utah's season is exactly why a playoff is needed--they earned the right to lose on the field (they certainly would)--with Texas and USC both having some legitimate complaints. Utah's undefeated season was possible because they play in a weak conference, and because they step up in bowl games, but to really try and claim they are the "best" team in College Football is just stupid. TCU gave the Utes the game; Michigan nearly beat them and Michigan was as good as my high school team that won 1 game in 3 years; BYU was driving, down 27-24, even though Max Hall had already gifted 3 interceptions and a fumble at that point...BYU was not that good this year; New Mexico nearly beat them, and Weber State hung tough. That is not a National Championship caliber season--Alabama was overrated, something most people forgot when they played Florida tough, and beating them was impressive, but not more impressive than the way USC thumped Penn State, or the way Florida capped off it's season by holding the best offense in college football history to 14 points. 

Realistically, Utah is probably about the 10th to 15th best team in the country, and if they lined up the top 10 teams in the country and let Utah join in, Utah would be lucky to win more than 2 games; Utah beat 4 ranked teams, while Florida beat 7--all by double digits, while Utah barely won a couple of their games. The injustice is that there was no playoff, not that Utah wasn't crowned National Champs, and if Utah fans direct their anger in the direction of a playoff, they'll possibly make a difference, but whining about how they are the National Champions will legitimately fall on deaf ears. So for all of you delusional Ute fans, check out reality, and be happy that controversy around your team could be the breaking point in creating a playoff.

In Need of Lobotomy

After watching Utah beat Alabama; BYU choke down the stretch against Wake Forest; and seeing the Colts hand the Chargers another game, I have decided I want to stop liking sports. I really mean that; I want to stop caring, stop watching, stop paying attention, and put things like scrabble and poker on the top of my fun list. Big problem though--I don't have a chance in hell of giving up sports; I can try all I want, but it isn't possible. What I need is a lobotomy; I need to have part of my brain removed so that I don't remember anything about sports. I'd seriously go under the knife if there was an insurance company that would cover a lobotomy for a depressed sports fan (unfortunately, my insurance doesn't cover this procedure). 

I took Sammy to the BYU/WF game, expecting the Cougs to make it 54 in a row. For most of the game, things were going as planned, and then BYU did what BYU always does--they choked. If a game is close, count on BYU to start playing worse than me in a church ball game; its guaranteed that they will do this and lose because of it. 

As for Peyton Manning, he should have a career ending injury so I can stop hoping for a Peyton - Eli Super Bowl; it won't happen, and I still don't know how Peyton won a Super Bowl when he has the luck of Job in the playoffs. 

Anyway, I hate sports and beating my head against the wall hasn't erased my memory of them, so if any of you know a good sports lobotomist, please let me know.