Great column about the 1963 NCAA tournament game between Loyola and Mississippi State and the racial controversy which surrounded it:
How a Pregame Handshake Helped Change America
How a Pregame Handshake Helped Change America
terrynever said:Been six weeks since anyone linked a Poz story. That's telling.
Dehere said:Poz has really dropped out of circulation for me. Ironically it's because he created such a good site in Sports On Earth. Poz used to be my first read on the ride into work. Now by the time I get through with this place and SOE I'm usually done.
I hope Poz is cashing some big checks because as far as readership/relevance I think he shot himself in the foot by changing jobs twice in a year.
The thing that’s strange – the thing that’s sad – is how little excitement there is now when he comes to the plate. Let’s go to a moment in Sunday’s Angels-White Sox game. The count is 3-0, and Albert Pujols has the green light. There should be an electrical charge buzzing the air. Only … really … there isn’t a buzz. There isn’t a charge. There isn’t anything at all. The thrill-o-meter is at zero.
So strange. So sad. It used to be one of baseball’s great thrills to watch Albert Pujols hit. Whether you were a Cardinals fan or not, you would find yourself marking the pace of games by Albert Pujols' at bats.
So, it was typical stuff when Campbell went to the ice to stop the puck. What wasn’t typical was that he was clearly badly hurt – it turned out that the puck had broken his leg. He stayed on one knee for a few seconds, obviously in terrible pain, obviously unable to go on, but then he did what hockey players seem to do. He did go on. He got up on both legs (putting all the pressure on good leg) and hobbled around as the power play lingered around him. He stabbed at a puck, and was able to knock it just off line. He whacked at the stick of a Penguin with the puck and tried to knock it loose. He stayed up until the whistle. It was moving in a way sports is rarely moving.
So, it was typical stuff when Campbell went to the ice to stop the puck. What wasn’t typical was that he was clearly badly hurt – it turned out that the puck had broken his leg. He stayed on one knee for a few seconds, obviously in terrible pain, obviously unable to go on, but then he did what hockey players seem to do. He did go on. He got up on both legs (putting all the pressure on good leg) and hobbled around as the power play lingered around him. He stabbed at a puck, and was able to knock it just off line. He whacked at the stick of a Penguin with the puck and tried to knock it loose. He stayed up until the whistle. It was moving in a way sports is rarely moving.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:I think this is very wrong. The point wasn't "why its essential to stay on the ice", simply that hockey players do. As far as Joe making no mention of the chanting...did you read the penultimate sentence?
JimD said:He may not have even been watching the game and merely saw the sequence on replay afterwards.
I’ve always watched hockey from close in, follow the puck, follow the action. But now, finally, I try to watch it from a distance, like a mosaic. I try to pick up the details wherever I can. And I think of how amazing it was to watch Gregory Campbell struggle. The puck danced around in that moment, but I just watched him. Of course, he didn’t make the winning play – he just kind of stabbed helplessly in an effort to help. The Bruins ended up winning the game anyway, even with Gregory Campbell out.
Phil Plantier said:He called us the best Red Sox chat board today:
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-at-bat-that-changed-chris-davis.html
gmogmo said:http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-new-browns.html
Thought this was one of his better posts in awhile because reminded me so much of how I felt as a kid (including having to listen to the Pats on the radio because of the blackout rule)
Why? Joe repeatedly says he loves Raines and a lot of the guys he lists ahead of them would get no argument from "ballwashers" but aren't eligible yet, have already fallen off the ballot, or have PED questions.sfip said:I look forward to the feedback of Raines ballwashers after reading Joe's latest article.
My gut instinct is that it will work out for the Yankees. But I say this in part because things always seem to work out for the Yankees.
DrewDawg said:In the Schilling article he discusses the Schilling/Anderson for Boddicker trade and calls it a flop and compares it to the Bagwell deal. I've never really thought of it along those lines. Schilling was dealt 2 more times before he turned his career around, and yeah we all know what Anderson did, but I just never saw that deal as a flop.
DrewDawg said:In the Schilling article he discusses the Schilling/Anderson for Boddicker trade and calls it a flop and compares it to the Bagwell deal. I've never really thought of it along those lines. Schilling was dealt 2 more times before he turned his career around, and yeah we all know what Anderson did, but I just never saw that deal as a flop.
OzSox said:Meanwhile, he has started a project where he is ranking his 100 greatest players of all time (in the lead-up to the HoF vote) and apparently writing a piece on each of them. Here is his introduction to the series. He has already posted four pieces, starting at No. 100 with Curt Schilling. This kind of stuff is, I think, Posnanski at his best. He takes a player, digs around a bit until he finds something curious, and writes about it in a wonderful way.
I agree, I am loving this. And you can tell that he is absolutely loving writing it, which is really cool.Dehere said:
Poz is absolutely killing it on his blog right now. He's top 100 project is basically the best sports book of 2013, but he's giving it away for free in daily installments. He's posting so much good stuff lately that it's actually hard to keep up.
This was a great read. I love that he comes out and backs up his votes and makes sense... and his thoughts on Mussina/Morris are excellent.DrewDawg said:Long post about the Hall of Fame: http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-massive-hall-of-fame-post/
LogansDad said:This was a great read. I love that he comes out and backs up his votes and makes sense... and his thoughts on Mussina/Morris are excellent.
The paragraphs on Clemens/Bonds sum up pretty much exactly how I feel. Yes, they used steroids and I am sure it helped them both to compete for extended periods, but I honestly believe that those two were probably the best pitcher/hitter at least of our generation (if not all time), and steroids just do not allow you to do some of the things these guys did, Bonds especially. I may be mistaken, but steroids do not help with being able to lay off of pitches just barely out o the strike zone (I swear that Bonds had the best strike zone control of anyone I have ever seen...unfortunately, BP only has PitchFX data back to 2007, so I will have a hard time backing this up with statistics), and while I agree that they likely helped his home run numbers, he seemed to hit the ball like a rocket every single time he swung the bat... that hand-eye coordination was spectacular. I suppose I understand why BBWAA members don't vote for them, but I disagree with their reasoning.
I also think that this year's ballot demonstrates even more the absurdity of nobody getting voted in last year (and really the process as a whole). A guy like Maddux should receive 100% of the vote. 355-227 record, lifetime ERA+ of 132 (including two straight years above 250, as a starting pitcher... I mean WTF), four straight CY Young Awards (two unanimously), and the list goes on. And yet somebody will keep him off their ballot for exactly the reason Joe mentions, somebody else they want to vote for next year (hooray for Jack Morris!) might fall off the ballot if they don't vote for him, so they take their vote away from a "sure thing" inductee. Just absurd. The rules were made in 1939, when there were 16 teams and filling a ballot with 10 was probably difficult at times. Teams (and players) have nearly doubled since then, so why can't they expand the ballot to 15? I just don't get it.
How do you like his Hall of Fame articles? I personally think it's some of his best writing in years. Although he is a good writer overall, it is very easy to tell that his heart and soul is in baseball. The time and effort he put into each piece clearly shows.Dehere said:He's in a rut. It's not just that his stuff us hard to find. His work is way off from where it was 3-5 years ago. I don't know if it's a hangover from the Paterno criticism or the move away from KC or that he's become rich and complacent or what.