Benjamin Krimmel - September 12, 2016

Blair Walsh’s 27-yard field goal somehow went wide and last season ended for the Vikings.

Is there any heartbreak in sports as devastating as an easy game winning field goal going wide left? Maybe when it happens in the playoffs. And at home.

When the sure thing doesn’t happen, sports fans are reminded that having skin in the game comes at a high cost. Why are we doing this to ourselves? Does the joy of winning make up for the total emotional toil of losing? Is fandom completely detrimental to our health?

Vikings fans experienced this. Ask them about the pain that comes when hope is lost as the darkness of the bleak, bleak Minnesota winter starts to rage stronger.

But there is always light at the end of the tunnel. The first crisp day of spring yields hope as the draft approaches. “Next year” is here as sure as Walsh’s kick went wide. So, even as Teddy Bridgewater’s injury halts talk of a Super Bowl run this year, Vikings fans open their new stadium with hope, putting their emotional well-being on the line for another year. NFL football has returned to the people of Minnesota.

But there is also St. Louis, where “next year” never came after the Rams left for the eternal summer of Los Angeles.

In losing the Rams, St. Louis loses the promise of next year—the joy, exhilaration, and hope that every fan feels no matter how awful their team was the year prior. The quintessential American belief that things will soon improve, that the draft picks that showed flashes of brilliance... read more »

Samuel Chi - August 07, 2016

The year is 2016. The United States most likely will elect a female president (RCP Averages say so). But American women, apparently, cannot be trusted to watch sporting events on their own.

NBC thinks so, just ask the the poobahs that run the network's Olympic coverage, past and present.

This is why while the rest of the world watched the Opening Ceremony of the Rio Olympics live, Americans - on the East Coast - had to wait an extra hour and a half to see it, when the Twitterverse was already lit with tales of Gisele's strut, Brazil's dubious claim to be the first in flight, and the shirtless beefcake flag-bearer from Tonga. It's worse if you were on the West Coast, when your TV coverage didn't even start until the show was already over, but that's a story for another day (or blog).

NBC's tape-delayed coverage hardly is limited to the Opening Ceremony - which the network says is more pageant than sports - but throughout the fortnight. This despite the fact that Rio is only one hour ahead of the U.S. Eastern Time Zone. If you want to watch Michael Phelps swim or Usain Bolt run live on TV, move to Canada, or at least close enough where you can pick up the CBC feed.

Even though the Internet was invented sometime before Al Gore lost the 2000 election, NBC has stuck to this tape-delayed approach since it introduced the "plausibly live"... read more »

Tim Joyce - February 02, 2016

In September of 2011, just after Novak Djokovic topped off his brilliant year with his third Slam title at the US Open, the much lauded sports columnist Joe Posnanski shoved a few sentences of much needed reason into his typically overhyped pronouncements:

 I often throw around the word “ever” lightly — this player’s the best ever, that coach is the best ever, that game was the best ever — and I probably shouldn’t. In the last few years, just in tennis, we have wondered if Federer is the greatest ever, Nadal is the greatest ever, Djokovic is having the greatest ever season. Maybe this is just one of those odd and wonderful times in tennis where the top players keep pushing each other higher and higher into a stratosphere never before reached in the sport. It’s certainly seems that way. But, getting caught up in the excitement it can become too easy to forget something pretty important: There have been many great tennis players through the years.

But then in January 2014, Posnanski declared: most of us seem pretty sure that the greatest tennis player of all time is either Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal, who happen to be playing now.

And now here we are, just after Novak Djokovic’s blistering run to his record-tying sixth Australian Open title, the oft-awarded Posnanski writes: The gap between Djokovic and the rest of the world is gaping, and it’s expanding. A young player or two may yet come along to challenge him but for now, it’s clear... read more »

Sheldon Hirsch - October 27, 2015

The New York Mets put an epic whipping on the Chicago Cubs in the 2015 NLCS, sweeping the four-game series without ever trailing.

The Mets' core four star pitchers (Matt Harvey, Jacob deGrom, Noah Syndergaard and Steven Matz) dominated the Cubs stars (Anthony Rizzo, Kyle Schwarber and Kris Bryant), who hit a combined .190. Overall, Mets pitchers held the Cubs to a paltry eight runs in the four games, recalling the greatest performances in postseason history1.

Yet looking ahead to next year, I’d pick the thrashed Cubs over the dominant Mets, and the Cubs' core over the Mets' core.

How can one prefer the vanquished to the victors?

Because comparing the teams’ prospects for next year takes on a different light when we dismiss the false notion that the sweep owed to the Mets' intrinsic superiority. That notion came only from post hoc analysis and hindsight bias. One team must win in every series, and the winner almost always appears the better team in retrospect. That’s particularly true for the many people who see order in the universe and cause-and-effect all around them.

However, even a sweep does not mean that the winners were certain to win, ought to have won, or will win again in the future. In reality, best-of-seven postseason series are mostly coin flips. By the time baseball whittles down the field to the few best teams, one is rarely far superior to another. Randomness typically predominates in a short series between two reasonably competitive teams. Over the first 100 World Series in which the... read more »