Steve has a bracket!

I did actually fill out a bracket this year, albeit at the last minute. Unlike past years, this year I did not create a bracket group for my old buddies at The Good Five Cent Cigar, mostly because I had a fever the past two days. (Unfortunately, cowbell was no cure for it - sigh!)

You can see my full bracket by clicking above. As of right now, I'm 4-3, with Butler on the verge of winning to make me 5-3 for the first eight games. Unfortunately, Richmond couldn't prevail over a tough Saint Mary's team. I had the Spiders beating Villanova, who looks ripe for an upset after getting taken to overtime by Robert Morris, a 15-seed.

Who else does everyone like? My Final Four is Syracuse, Kansas, West Virgina and Duke, with Syracuse beating Duke in the finals. Boring, I know, but I've never been a huge upset guy. My one claim to fame was picking Hampton over Georgetown that one year.

Evaluating middle school basketball strategy

One of my other gigs, in addition to reporting, writing (this blog) and substitute teaching, is serving as an official for high school and middle school basketball games. By “official,” I don't mean one of the referees – They make a lot more than me, unfortunately. I mean one of the guys who sits at the table and either runs the scoreboard (high school) or keeps track of the book (middle school).

As such, I have plenty of time to watch basketball games, and all of the different approaches coaches take. It's odd how a team often seems to take on the demeanor of its coach. For example, one coach that constantly screamed and complained with the officials seemingly had a team full of noisy, complaining kids as well. Tall coaches who used to play in the post seemingly have better play with their centers and power forwards, and the inverse is true for guards.

However, as a usually impartial observer, it is maddening to see the focus on fundamentals over winning the game. It is a different stance to take, I know. But since I have no stake with either team usually, I just want to see some intense play and scoring, and teams trying to win. Normally, coaches are more concerned with teaching, and having their players run plays, as opposed to using strategies that would maximize the chances to win.

Case in point with middle school basketball - Realistically, you only want two to five players on a team shooting. For both of the teams I regularly watch, a couple kids are either 1) head and shoulders above the other players offensively or 2) not good, but the rest of the team is downright awful.

The tendency of both coaches is to preach patience and working the ball around for an open look, but really, this just leads to either turnovers of low percentage shots by other players. If anything, they should be preaching efficiency - Get the ball to the best player, and let them shoot almost every possession, whether it be by isolation or an actual play. This would give the best chance for the team to score.

Of course, there is the danger that the other players will get upset because there could be one to three "star" players scoring most of the points. However, here is where the strategy point comes in - You force the other team to choose a defense that will shut down the "star" player. A box-and-one and triangle-and-two are weaker defenses overall and easier for even unskilled players to exploit.

The alternative to the "feed the best player" strategy is to hope that you'll catch the lucky end of an inefficient strategy. i.e. This will be the one game in five that your two-guard will make some shots. Again, I argue that it should be the other way around - Let your point guard, the best player on the team, work a pick-and-roll game with your power forward, and if the defense throws three players to cover those two, then your shooting guard will be open for a layup each time.

The photo of Hoosiers is from here.

Storytime with Amanda Meyer: Profoundly pitching perfect proposals

[Left] This martini costs more than a year of college did for me.

There is no way to not embarrass myself in the setup of this story. All you need to know is that I enjoy wedding shows on Style Network and WEtv a lot more than I should, considering that I have no immediate plans to get married. I love the drama and the fashion and the elegance of weddings, so it’s no surprise that I absolutely love good proposal stories as well.

I have recently learned that The Oak Room at the Fairmont Copley Plaza here in Boston serves a martini that will cost some lucky lady’s future husband a whopping $12,500 for what I can only describe as the perfect proposal. But naturally for that kind of bank you’re getting more than a drink. This tasty cocktail comes complete with an overnight stay in one of their suites (which they deck out with roses, candles and of course champagne), breakfast in bed the next morning, and the most important part, a ring! This can be picked out at the upscale jeweler located in the hotel.

How perfect does that sound? Pretty perfect, right? At least to me. But it got me thinking - What could Google tell me about other creative proposals? I assume guys blog about this sort of thing since you very well know they aren’t getting these ideas on their own. Unfortunately, I was hard pressed to find anything that topped the martini proposal.

What I mean by this, is that a creative and unique proposal idea seems to be one of the following:

- Using a scoreboard at a sporting event
- Playing a practical joke with a happy ending
- Placing an ad in the local paper
- Having a local radio DJ pop the question for you
- A “Marry Me” screen saver on her computer

Can I just point out how terrible each of these ideas is? I really hope that people aren’t using these tips!

I have actually seen two rejected proposals at Celtics games before. It’s awkward and you’re put on the spot in front of thousands and thousands of strangers! Ick!

A practical joke? Really? I had a boyfriend do something along these lines on a much smaller scale of course and I didn’t talk to him for a week. Girls don’t like that stuff, or at least I don’t.

As for an ad in the paper, that seems sort of creepy to me. It’s not like I read through the classifieds regularly anyway.

The DJ idea is just ridiculous, and although my old roommate actually said she likes this idea, I am really against taking the easy way out of it. Own up and ask yourself! Come on guys!

This is also the same logic I am using to ditch the screen saver idea.

So the point of my long ramble today is this: When in doubt, don’t trust Google on this one, instead trust big fancy hotels with big shiny diamonds and lots of liquor and the girls who watch wedding shows when it comes to this sort of thing. I’m a little let down that I couldn’t find any better ideas out there (easily anyway, because I am assuming a guy would not look much more extensively than I have).

And on that note, I may just start frequenting Copley and scoping out rich looking young men at the bar!

The picture from this article and more information about the $12,500 martini can be found here.

Pickin' Pigskin with Kristin: Week 2

[Left] The beautiful Kristin Hanson, on her wedding day, with some lucky dude. Every week, Kristin will be offering her counterpicks to Bob and Steve's picks.

KANSAS CITY over Oakland (3)

Kristin: Oakland (+3)

The Raiders seem meaner. I really think that in Kansas all they know about is corn, and other boring nice things, so giant people wearing eye patches should be able to come within at least three points. (Editor's note: Kansas City is in Missouri.)

TENNESSEE over Houston (6.5)

Kristin: Tennessee (-6.5)

The only way that Houston wins games is when somehow gusts of wind block Adam Vinateri's kicks in their dome. I'm not over it. And they didn't even win that game.

New England over NY JETS (3.5)

Kristin: New England (-3.5)

Go Pats! And apparently, the new Jets coach has been talking smack to try to keep up the Pats-Jets rivalry, because if the Pats-Jets rivalry went away, that many more people would not give a shit about the Jets. The Jets quarterback also looks like a 1970s porn star. And I think 1970s porn stars usually had Hep C, so they really shouldn't be athletic.

GREEN BAY over Cincinnati (9)

Kristin: Green Bay (-9)

I just really like cheeseheads, and if they're playing at home I get to see cheeseheads.

Minnesota over DETROIT (10)

Kristin: Minnesota (-9)

It's hard to have feelings about most of these games. The Lions pretty much suck. I feel kind of bad for them.

PHILADELPHIA over New Orleans (PK)

Kristin: New Orleans

They played well in their first game and didn't whose-his-face (Editor's note: Donovan McNabb) get injured again? That's part of his job. It's probably in his contract to get injured every year.

ATLANTA over Carolina (6)

Kristin: Atlanta (-6)

I'll have to leave my cell phone on during that game, because I heard I might be getting called up to QB for Carolina.

WASHINGTON over St. Louis (9.5)

Kristin: Washington (-9.5)

I have to say the 'Skins even though I don't think they're going to win. Maybe they left their offense at the home field, and it will rejoin the team for their home opener.

JACKSONVILLE over Arizona (3)

Kristin: Jacksonville (-3)

Jaguars are cooler than Cardinals, if you had to pick one for a pet.

SAN FRANCISCO over Seattle (1.5)

Kristin: Seattle (+1.5)

I know San Francisco did well last week, but now they're not really the underdogs anymore because they're favored to win. If they were feeding off being the underdogs, they have nothing left to eat.

BUFFALO over Tampa Bay (5)

Kristin: Buffalo (-5)

Either they're super mad and come out with something to prove after getting their asses handed to them by Tommy McBrady, or they return to the doldrums at the bottom of our conference. The second one is probably more likely because TO is too busy with his reality show to make any big catches, or at least he was last week. Either way, they'll probably still beat Tampa Bay.

DENVER over Cleveland (3)

Kristin: Denver (-3)

If they're at home, they might get lucky again. Also, the Browns? Really? Why not the Pinks, or the Sky Blues? Who wants to be a Browns fan?

SAN DIEGO over Baltimore (3)

Kristin: Baltimore (+3)

Baltimore has always been known for their defense, but they put up a lot of points last week. If they're not jetlagged, I think they have a shot.

Pittsburgh over CHICAGO (3)

Kristin: Pittsburgh (-3)

I know both teams had injuries. I think that the Steelers are starting from a better place, and maybe they'll be able to concentrate better without Hairy-Mr. Stupid-I-Want-to-Attack-You-with-Scissors-Face (editors note: Troy Polamalu). I know I'd be able to play a lot better if he got a haircut, or at least got relegated to the sidelines and wasn't able to look at me.

DALLAS over NY Giants (3)

Kristin: Dallas (-3)

As much as I don't want to pick either team, one of them has to win. And, I was reading that Dallas has a shiny new stadium, so if they don't win they should be really ashamed. Like a lot.

Indianapolis over MIAMI (3)

Kristin: Miami (+3)

I know this is a very foolish pick but Chad Pennington is good for nothing but upsets, or at least upsetting me. Yeah, they really probably won't win, because don't they really not have much of a run game, or defense? I know they don't have Mr. Magic Dreadlocks Man (Editor's note: Ricky Williams) tearing it up anymore and they don't have the Other No. 54 (Editor's note: Zach Thomas). I think all the pot finally made Mr. Magic Dreadlocks Man lazy and he doesn't want to run fast anymore. BUT THE COLTS STILL SUCK! HAHAHAHAHA!

Bag of baseballs > .265 average

The Red Sox parade of mediocrity from my youth: Jack Clark,
Jose Offerman, Tom Brunansky and Troy O'Leary.

I realize that a lot of people reading my blog are sports fans, because I mostly follow sports bloggers, writers and columnists on Twitter, yet I haven't written any posts on sports lately. From reading my last 10 entries or so, you'd think I was obsessed with television commercials, 1990s movies and providing flip remarks to music that randomly appears on my iTunes playlist. (For the record, you wouldn't be wrong if you assumed “yes” to any of the three.)

Therefore, let me debate an issue that comes up around the trade deadline every year – The idea that some teams are “giving up” by trading veteran players. It is almost always hogwash, and a claim made by lazy sportswriters, radio show hosts and the general public.

The outcry seemed most intense this year toward Pittsburgh Pirates GM Neil Huntington. For some reason, the maddening crowds (thanks Thomas Hardy!) screamed that he should have kept Freddy Sanchez and Jack Wilson, even though both have, you know, been on the team for the half-dozen or so years it has really sucked. Without Sanchez and Wilson, you might go 70-92 instead of 65-97, and even this might be an overstatement.

The perception of them as above-average players seems to exist solely because of counting stats – i.e. at-bat dependent stats like home runs, RBI and hits.

Freddy Sanchez's combined line between Pittsburgh and San Fran is .299, but his OBP is only .338, and he doesn't hit for enough power or play a great 2B, SS or 3B. At "just" $4 million, I suppose he's priced-appropriately for his price tag, except that you can find some minor league guys to play as well as he does, and pool the savings at that position and somewhere else to get a marquee player.

Jack Wilson's line is even more hack-tastic, as his OBP doesn't break .300. Even if he is a SS, that's unacceptable. He can defend really well, but he's not Ozzie Smith, which he has to be to justify his sub-par production at the plate and $6.65 million salary.

Getting anything for them, even if it's just salary relief, is better than holding on to them and seeing what little value they have crater when they finally do put up a .200 average.

To dip into baseball history a bit here, I've always been a fan of the Branch Rickey philosophy of dealing a player a year too early as opposed to a year too late. For example, even though this is sacrilegious for a Red Sox fan to say, I would have loved to see them trade David Ortiz to a stupid GM after his big year in 2007. Since he was a big, fat 1B / DH, like Mo Vaughn and Boog Powell and Mark McGwire and Travis Hafner and Cecil Fielder, there was a really good chance that his production was going to crater, which it has so far this year. Therefore, if I wouldn't have a problem with the Red Sox dealing Ortiz, I feel even less remorse for the idea of the Pirates dealing (overvalued) veterans for any sort of prospects with a pulse.

Of course, the Red Sox want to hold on to Ortiz for reasons other than his ability to hit a baseball. While they wouldn't have to worry about attendance falling off without him there, I'm sure the merchandise sales on a guy like Ortiz are in the millions of dollars, so there is an ancillary benefit that can't really be replaced, sort of somehow managing to trade Ortiz for Albert Pujols. For example, Ortiz straight-up for Adrian Gonzalez would have been a win on the field for the Red Sox, but I imagine it would actually hurt revenue.

As is, the Red Sox have probably maximized their “on-field performance” revenue – They've won consistently for the past six years, with playoff appearances in five and two World Series championships, and they recently set the record for straight home sell-outs. Because they have capped their performance-based revenue, it does make sense that they use their large financial cushion to hold on to fan favorites (Ortiz, Lowell, Manny Ramirez and his drama as long as they did) in order to maximize non-performance revenue.

However, I think this only applies to perennial contenders who can rely on strong gates despite week-to-week and month-to-month dips in team quality – Red Sox, Yankees, maybe the Mets, Angels and Dodgers. If you are a small to mid-market team, and your attendance and revenue is going to more strongly tied to this current season's record, then you want to do your best to maximize your record, or failing that, to maximize future records (trade veterans for prospects).

The death of USA tennis and crazy parents

I always hype up Slate.com on here, and it is articles like this by Huan Hsu that keep me coming back. I find his analysis of the problems of USA Tennis right on, and it ties in with others theories like the 10,000 hours principle extolled by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers (highly recommended by me) and the dip of Seth Godin. If you just follow the established training regimens for tennis, you probably won't be a Grand Slam tournament winner, even though you'll surely be psychologically broken if you do have a nutty parent. (Example: The father of Jelena Dokic [left] claimed that her boyfriend had kidnapped her, and was so abusive he was banned from courtside at pretty much every tournament.)

It is kind of a logical supposition to make, although one that isn't always apparent. Professional athletes largely come from broken or nutty homes. How else do you practice basketball eight hours a day unless the parents are a bit absentee and you let your homework effort slide? Natural ability and aptitude do come into play, but they are only part of the equation. Insane devotion spurred by parents helps.

I imagine this is an even greater issue in individual sports like tennis, boxing and swimming. At any given time, I'll guess that only 100 to 500 adult boxers, tennis players and swimmers are good enough in the world to make their primary living from the sport. Since all of them are individual sports, there is far less opportunity to earn a living. Contrast this with baseball - Even AA and AAA players often make as much as they would in jobs they could use their degrees (assuming they have one) on, and there are hundreds of teams, plus thriving Asian and Latino leagues, all of which need roughly 20 to 30-man rosters. A rough estimate of that gets me to 3,000 players. More players means a greater opportunity for different personalities.