Ten Largely Accepted Pro Sports Narratives with Which I Disagree

 

On Conference Championship Sunday, like many of you, I was watching the NFC Championship Game.  I was with my family, and, before the Packers’ 3^rd-and-goal play (down by 8 points with slightly more than 2 minutes remaining) from the Tampa 8-yard line on the Packers’ last drive, I wondered aloud, “If the Packers don’t get any yardage here, will they kick a field goal?” 

Before I had time come to my own conclusion, Aaron Rodgers threw an incomplete pass on 3^rd down, and Matt LaFleur sent out Mason Crosby (whose full-on gray hair makes him look pretty good for an old NFL guy, I must say) to kick the field goal.  If you are reading this article, I am sure you know all the details and have heard all the arguments ad infinitum about this allegedly being a terrible decision.  However, I was honestly 50/50 on what the Pack should do.

When it comes to analytics and win-probability calculations, it seems that the Packers’ decision to kick the field goal might have cost the Pack one percentage point in win probability.  It depends upon which site’s metrics you are using.  That said, I have a “5 Percentage Point” Rule when it comes to analytics.  I think that, if two choices at a given moment in a game provide win probabilities within 5 percentage points of each other, the coach should base his decision on things like: flow of the game, how his team is playing, how the other team is playing, what play calls the coach has in his pocket, and so on.  Of course, outside of this “5-percentage point” window, I say to stick with the analytics. 

Thus, in the case of the Packers on Sunday, my thoughts in favor of kicking the field goal were as follows:

1)     The Packers had already come up empty on three consecutive goal-to-go plays from the 8-yard line and had also had to settle for a FG on 4^th and Goal in the first half.  Put simply, though Aaron Rodgers should be the NFL MVP, in the moment on Sunday, I did not think that he was going to convert on 4^th and Goal from the 8.  (Note: I am usually the king of “going for it” on 4^th downs, even dating back to Belichick against the Colts in 2009, but it is a different story with 8 yards to go and minimal ground for the defense to cover.)

2)     Being down 8 is only a quasi-one-possession game.  Take this from any Giants fan, as we saw the Giants score a TD down 8 against Tampa this year, only to miss the 2-pointer and lose the game.  Anyway, the Packers were less than 50% likely to score on the 2-point conversion, so that premise makes it more enticing to play for two scores than if down 7.

3)     Yes, Tom Brady is the GOAT.  However, I figured that, with the Bucs up 5 (assuming Crosby makes the FG) AND with Brady having thrown 3 second-half interceptions, he would play much more conservatively than if he were to receive the ball in a tie game with 2 minutes left.  (That said, I didn’t bank on the Packers’ defense lying down on that drive.)

 

I am not going to bother arguing the other side, because you heard that all last week. I am also not saying that the field goal was definitely the correct decision.  I am merely saying that I would have been OK with LaFleur making either decision.  (Good luck with your losers in Losertown, LaFleur!)  Plus, this situation caused me to reminisce about other sports moments over time in which the sports-watching public has bought nearly 100% into a narrative that I either do not believe or about which I am on the fence.  I am going to list nine such moments/narratives here, ranking them in increasing degree of disparity between what I believe and what the masses believe.  It is just a coincidence that the Seahawks, Rob’s favorite team, are involved with three of the nine.  He will love some of what I have to say and hate some of what I have to say.  Nevertheless, here is the list – I will show each entry as the narrative, followed by my counterargument.

 

9)            “Bill Buckner cost the Red Sox the 1986 World Series.” – This would have likely been #1 on the list if I had written the post before 2004.  However, Red Sox fans became more rational about Buckner after Boston won the 2004 World Series.  Anyway, in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, the Mets were down by 2 with 2 outs in the Bottom of the 10^th, with nobody on base.  The Sox were one out from a championship.  Then, the Mets put together three consecutive hits, with Kevin Mitchell scoring the tying run on a wild pitch.  Only then did Buckner’s error win the game for the Mets.

 

If Buckner makes the play and beats Mookie Wilson to the bag, the Red Sox and their awful bullpen have to go to the 11^th inning demoralized by the fact that they had blown a lead with the champagne on ice.  It is likely they would have lost the game in the 11^th or another inning.  That said, even with the Red Sox losing on Buckner’s error, Boston could have won the World Series in Game 7, and the Red Sox led THAT game 3-0 in the 6^th inning before blowing the game.  It was a thrilling series for Mets fans, but it is a vast oversimplification to say that Buckner lost the series for Boston.

 

8)            “The Mets lost Game 7 of the 2006 NLCS to St. Louis because Carlos Beltran struck out.” – This one has maddened me for years.  This loss represents the only instance of which I have ever heard in which fans blame a team’s loss on a guy who made an out.  Even with a great on-base percentage, a player makes outs more often than he gets on base.  Anyway, I attended Game 7, and the Endy Chavez catch-turned-DP was one of the most thrilling moments of my life, but the 9^th inning and subsequent walk to the 7-train was one of the most depressing moments.  That said, as nearly 60,000 despondent Mets fans filtered out of Shea Stadium that night, we knew that the Mets had lost because Yadier Molina had hit a 9^th-inning homerun off Aaron Heilman.  I am not writing this to encourage Heilman to take heat.  It’s the playoffs, and someone has to win.  Someone has to lose.  However, blaming the guy (Carlos Beltran) who struck out to end the game (on a nasty curve from Adam Wainwright) will always seem short-sighted to me.

 

7)            “The Sabres were cheated out of the 1999 Stanley Cup because Brett Hull’s skate was in the crease.” – First off, the “in the crease” rules back then were ridiculous.  I still have PTSD from the 1997 Devils/Rangers series in which the Devils had goals disallowed in three consecutive games because of having an inconsequential skate barely in the crease.  Anyway, I watched the Stars/Sabres Game 6 in 1999 and saw Brett Hull score the Cup-clinching goal in triple-overtime.  Watching the goal live, it looked legit.  Watching the replay, we all saw Hull enter the crease after the puck had entered.  We saw the puck bounce briefly out of the crease, after which Hull brought it back into the crease and scored the goal.  We then heard the broadcasters say after the game that the rules (at the time) allowed a player with the puck in the crease to remain in the crease if the puck briefly exits the crease, so long as the player is bringing the puck back into the crease.  It is a reasonable rule, given that the player has not yet had time to exit the crease.  Anyway, any objective fan watching that game live felt like the goal was legit, and it was.  Thus, I feel that the Stars legitimately beat the Sabres to win the 1999 Cup.

 

6)           “The replacement refs in 2012 were terrible.  Look how they blew the Fail Mary!” – For the first three weeks of the 2012 NFL season, a contract dispute led to replacement officials refereeing NFL games.  Honestly, I did not think the games suffered as a result.  Then, on MNF in Week 3, the Seahawks won on a last-play Hail Mary from young Russell Wilson (in his third NFL game) to Golden Tate.  Never mind that some people thought that Tate should have been called for pass interference, as nobody ever calls pass interference on Hail Mary attempts.  The main issue was that the Packers’ defensive back caught the ball with his two hands and chest at the same moment that Tate caught the ball with one hand.  Yes, M.D. Jennings, the Packer, had “more possession”, I suppose, than Tate, but, for my entire life to that point (and since), we have all known that, if an offensive player and a defensive player both catch a ball, tie goes to the offense.  The receiver gets the ball.  As every talking head lost his or her mind in the days following that “Fail Mary”, I never heard a single person mention that simple “joint-possession” rule that we all know.  I do not think the rule has a clarification that two hands and a chest count as more than one hand.  Thus, I think Tate deserved the TD, as per the rule, and I think that regular NFL officials would have likely made the same call as the replacements.  Nevertheless, everyone used this moment to say that the replacement officials needed to go; the NFL quickly settled with the regular refs; and we have now been able to enjoy 9 years of ridiculing the regular refs again.

 

5)           “Brandon Bostick shouldn’t have tried to catch the onside kick with Jordy Nelson behind him!” – Wow, back-to-back entries in which the Seahawks broke the Packers’ hearts.  This one was with even more on the line, as it was the 2014 NFC Championship Game (played in 2015).  Anyway, a basic rule of onside kicks is that teams employ players with good hands and want those players to try to catch the kick.  Well, on this onside kick, Brandon Bostick jumped to catch the kick, which ultimately bounced off his head/chest region.  Somehow though, after the game, the prevailing narrative was that Bostick should have tried not to catch the ball but instead let Jordy Nelson (who was behind him) try to catch the ball.  This is literally the only time in NFL history that I have heard people argue that someone on the “hands” team should move out of the way of the ball to let someone else on his team catch it.  Onside kicks are bouncy and random.  If you have a chance to catch the ball, you try to catch it.  You don’t dive out of the way.  You can criticize Bostick for not catching the ball (though I still chalk the result up more to a random bounce than to Bostick making an error), but the criticism that he should not have tried to catch the ball has always been silly to me.

 

4)            “The Bills lost the Super Bowl to the Giants because Scott Norwood’s kick went wide-right.” – No, the Bills lost that Super Bowl because one of the best offenses in NFL history played conservatively on the last drive, as coach Marv Levy and QB Jim Kelly settled for a 47-yard field-goal attempt by a guy who had not made a field goal of that length or longer the entire season.  Seriously.  People act like Norwood Finkled a chip shot to cost the Bills the Super Bowl, but that is not the case.  When a team loses a Super Bowl because the team asks someone to do something he has never done during the entire season, do not blame that guy for being unsuccessful.  Blame the people (Marv Levy, Jim Kelly) who put that guy in that position.

 

3)            “The Astros are horrible, horrible, evil cheaters, and they should be stripped of their World Series crown!” – Ah, the good old days of January 2020, when this was the biggest issue on all of our minds!  Seriously though, baseball players have been stealing signs for time immemorial.  When I played, we tried to steal signs.  MLB players try to do it.  It is part of the game.  Technology is part of the game now too.  Thus, when I first heard about the Astros’ scandal, I shrugged my shoulders and said, “I kinda assumed that most teams were trying to do stuff like this.”

I don’t like all of the outrage along the lines of, “Yeah, stealing signs is fine, but everyone knows that it’s too far if you are using cameras to do it!!!”  Really?  That is quite an arbitrary endpoint if you ask me.  That is like stealing beer from the liquor store and criticizing the guy who is robbing the place of liquor at the same time.  Simply put, if teams have been stealing signs forever, and there is more technology than ever, why wouldn’t players be trying to use technology to steal signs?

Moreover, to give Carlos Beltran a second shout-out in this post, am I really expected to believe that both the 2017 Astros and 2018 Red Sox used cameras to steal signs but that, when Beltran moved from the 2017 Astros to the 2018 Yankees, he did not try to input some type of sign-stealing apparatus with the Yankees too?  I certainly don’t buy it.  I believe that every team has been doing some semblance of what the Astros did but that the Astros were simply better at it.  This actually analogous to how I feel about Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, and A-Rod compared to everyone else who was taking steroids at the time.

 

2)            “Grady Little should have taken Pedro out!” – I watched pretty much every inning of the 2003 Red Sox’ playoff run.  I was a senior at Colgate, and my three roommates were all avid Red Sox fans.  Thus, I was rooting incredibly hard for Boston that year, and I knew first hand what an incredible dumpster fire the Red Sox’ bullpen was.  That is why I understood why Grady Little took the approach of pushing Pedro deeper than he usually went in games because it was Game 7 of the ALCS against the Yankees.  I understand him saying, “I’d rather go down swinging with a tired Pedro than a fresh Scott Sauerbeck.”  Similarly to the LaFleur situation, I am not saying that Little definitely made the right move; I am just saying that I think one could rationally defend Little’s move.  The sad thing though was that nobody defended Little, and it has always bothered me that Pedro didn’t defend Little.  I feel like almost every other pitcher in history would defend a manager for leaving him in for longer than he should have, but Pedro was silent. 

Anyway, as I watched Game 7 and watched Mike Mussina preside over the Yankees’ comeback, I feel confident in saying that, had Little gone to the pen a little earlier, the Yankees would have won the game anyway.

 

1)            “How do you not give the ball to Marshawn there???” – Well, if I didn’t anger Rob enough with #3, this should finish him off.  Like with the LaFleur call, I ask myself, “What was I thinking in the moment that the play happened?”  Well, in the case of Super Bowl XLIX, the Seahawks need one yard for a go-ahead touchdown, when the Pats’ Malcolm Butler pulled off the most famous interception in NFL history.  As I watched the play live though, I actually shouted, “Touchdown.”  It looked like Wilson had thrown a touchdown to a wide-open Ricardo Lockette, but my eyes deceived me into missing Malcolm Butler making a perfect break to intercept the ball.  Everyone else on the Pats’ defense thought the Seahawks were running the ball.  This is why I credit Butler for winning the game, rather than Pete Carroll and Darrell Bevell for losing the game by calling a pass.

People act like it was a given that Marshawn Lynch would have scored a TD if Seattle had run the ball on that fateful second down, but the Pats were clearly stacking the box against that possibility.  I know that some people say that Seattle should have run to try to take more time off the clock, but Seattle was down by 4.  Down 4, the Seahawks had to worry just about scoring a TD and let the clock fall as it may.  If Lynch had been stopped on second down, Seattle would have now had two chances with the pressure intensifying to score a TD.  Instead Carroll and Bevell made what I thought was a good play call, but Malcolm Butler made an even better play.

 

And there you have it.  Ten generally accepted sports narratives that I do not buy!

My Prediction: In 2020, MLB Will Return With Fans or Not at All

The way I see it, one of two things is going to happen with this year’s MLB season. Either MLB will return on approximately July 1 with an abridged but otherwise normal (fans in the crowd, minimal to no Covid-19 testing of players, etc.) situation, or there will be no 2020 MLB season at all. What do I think SHOULD happen? Option 1. What do I think WILL happen? Option 2. Please allow me to discuss…

Over the past two months, some of you might have viewed some of my five anti-lockdown blog posts/videos.  My core belief this entire time has been that we should be allowing the at-risk – the elderly and those with key pre-existing conditions – to self-quarantine while allowing the rest of us to live our lives, to develop herd immunity for Covid-19, and to keep businesses afloat. Clearly, the ship for my plan sailed away two months ago, but the logic remains for my baseball discussion here.

I can be a very long-winded person, but sometimes I hear an idea that is so far-fetched, so improbable, or so ridiculous that my answer is a simple, one-word “No”. Well, when MLB first floated the idea of playing the full season in Arizona with only the players themselves in the crowd and with massive amounts of testing, my full answer was a one-word “No”. Now, the latest proposal for MLB would have teams playing in their home stadia but with the following caveats: 1) Fans would not be in attendance. 2) Players would be tested frequently for Covid-19 (I do not have the specifics here.). 3) Players cannot use Ubers nor other ride-sharing apps. 4) Players cannot high-five. 5) Coaches have to keep 6 feet from players. There is much more on this list, but you get the idea. My answer to that proposal: “No, but with explanations.”

While I find that whole list above to be rather ridiculous, my key sticking point is #1. The MLBPA is, by most accounts, the strongest players’ union in the four major North American sports leagues, and this union is the only one that has avoided a salary cap to this point. In fact, the salary-cap issue might be the financial issue about which the MLBPA is most passionate. This issue is especially relevant now, because owners have made a proposal to players in which the two sides – owners and players – would agree to split the 2020 revenue in defined percentages. However, many players see these defined percentages as the gateway to a true a salary cap, in that a team’s salary cap would hypothetically be set as a percent of league-wide revenues. In MLB, you never hear of such percentages because teams can spend as much of their revenue for players as they want. (Granted, the luxury tax acts as a fairly strong de facto salary cap, as the Mookie Betts trade proved, but the MLBPA has nevertheless remained vehemently against a true salary cap.)

Why are owners suddenly suggesting a revenue split? It is because players and owners are looking to agree to a deal for a situation in which there will be no fans in the seats. The entire collective bargaining agreement (CBA), I believe, assumes that fans will be in the seats for games. Thus, there is no answer in the current contractual language for how players and owners should handle revenue and salaries with no fans. As a result, these two sides, who often have a contentious relationship, have to figure out an answer on the fly. This is a rough, rough place in which the owners and players find themselves. Do not get me wrong though. I feel much worse for the tens of millions of people who have lost their jobs or businesses over the past two months than I do for these players and owners. However, this is a sports blog, and I am here to talk sports. Plus, just because someone else is in much worse pain than you are does not mean that your pain goes away.

We find ourselves in a position where players look bad if they worry about making only $3 million this year instead of $12 million. We also find ourselves in a position where owners look bad if they complain about losing out on much more than $12 million this year in profit. However, just because those optics are bad does not mean that either side – players or owners - is eager to give in to the other side. Plus, if you are expecting to earn several-million dollars more than you end up earning in a given year, it is quite possible that you could end up in rough financial shape. People make financial decisions based upon current wealth and expected income, and, with baseball having guaranteed contracts, I am sure there are plenty of players and owners who have already spent money that they figured (incorrectly) to be earning in 2020. Thus, because of that logic, I do not begrudge either side – players or owners – for trying to earn the best financial deal that they can with each other.

I do begrudge Blake Snell for complaining about the hazards of playing baseball in the Covid-19 era. I have read, at this point, probably 500 articles about Covid-19, and all data points show that, unless you are in an at-risk group (elderly, obese, of major heart condition, etc.), your hospitalization and fatality risks of Covid-19 are at or below the risks of suffering those outcomes from the flu. MLB players are not in these at-risk groups; they are some of the healthiest people in the world. If Blake Snell is risking his life by playing, then he is risking his life anywhere he goes in winter, given that he could contract the flu, which is slightly more dangerous than Covid-19 for someone of his age and health. This is why, while I have been promoting a quarantine of solely at-risk individuals, I have also been extolling the virtues of having pro sports keep playing to keep up our morale. Having an NCAA Tournament in which players honored loved ones who were quarantined and having NBA and NHL seasons and playoffs doing the same would have been a nice, logical thing to do. MLB absolutely should have also opened its season with this approach….but alas, none of these organizations actually listened to me, and here we are.

We are now at a place where MLB is trying to resuscitate a season that might be lost for dead. We are also at a place where owners are trying to persuade the players to accept a deal containing the #1 thing – revenue-sharing – that players have always resisted. I understand why the players do not want this. If you think about the #1 thing that you do not want to give up under any condition, that is what the players are being asked to do here. I understand their point. However, every day that passes without the players and owners agreeing to a plan brings us closer to completely losing the 2020 season.

Thus, what is the solution? I see only one: Fans in the seats. As I have been saying all along, rather than locking down the world, we should be allowing people to assess their own risk and decide where to go. Let people decide on their own if they should go to baseball games. Many of the people who would be at a health risk attending games this season ALREADY choose not to go to games…..because of those very same risk factors! Sure, there would be some at-risk people who would have gone to games in the past but would not anymore. However, that is probably not a huge group. Sure, there would also be some people who are not in at-risk groups who would fear going to games. That is fine; nobody is forcing those people to go to games. However, regardless of the sizes of the 2020 crowds, having fans in the seats would presumably allow the owners and players to play more or less by their standard CBA, albeit with some type of prorating of salaries to account for the abridged schedule.  Plus, with fans in the seats, the amount of revenue (which could become owners' profits and parts of players' salaries) would be much greater than in a scenario without fans.  That would obviously be good for both players and owners.  Of course, I should add that, from a fan's perspective, pro sports are much more enjoyable to watch - even on TV - if there are fans in the seats.

Let us now move on to another issue that I have with the owners' proposal. I do not believe that this testing thing is going to fly. Far more people who test positive for Covid-19 are asymptomatic than are symptomatic. We know that; that was the premise behind the lockdown in the first place. Thus, what happens if a seemingly healthy Aaron Judge, Gary Sanchez, and Gleyber Torres all asymptomatically test positive for Covid-19 at the same time? Are we really going to expect them to quarantine for 14 days? Yankees fans, you can tell me right now, “Of course we should expect that!”, but I would believe it when I hear it out of your mouth in July or August, and you are left watching Tyler Wade bat cleanup.

Of course, I would not be making this point if I felt that these asymptomatic people were of danger to those around them. To the contrary, the players are going to be around only others who are not at risk of a serious bout with Covid-19. Thus, these players are not of danger to others, as long as the at-risk people are self-quarantining. (Yes, this does mean that some managers and clubhouse staff would have to work remotely, but I would rather handle that issue than try to handle all of the other issues that MLB is proposing) Thus, as long as the players are not visibly sick, let them play. Moreover, unless a Covid vaccine is developed (not a guarantee), herd immunity is the way to handle Covid-19. Allowing healthy players and fans in stadiums can contribute to this herd immunity. I should add though that, if a player WANTS to be tested and quarantined (if he has Covid-19), that would be fine. I am thinking here of a hypothetical case in which a player has an at-risk family member and would not be able to have that family member quarantine away from the player.

Moving on, another reason why I do not foresee the players collectively agreeing to Covid testing is that all steroid testing is collectively bargained. I do not buy that players will so easily agree to additional testing, especially when it could lead to a situation in which they feel healthy but have to self-quarantine. Additional testing also gives owners more control over players, and that is not something that sits well with players.

Thus, to me, the answer is simple. MLB should go back to normal, albeit with an abridged schedule. All arguments to the contrary are made out of panic, not logic, which is ironically how we ended up here to begin. One has to remember why pro sports shut down in the first place. The NBA, NHL, MLB, and NCAA panicked and shut down because of the Rudy Gobert incident, when I feel that these leagues should have instead advocated the “at-risk self-quarantine” and continued operations. Instead, the pro leagues backed themselves into a corner, because they did not give great indicators for why they shut down nor when they would restart. They did not shut down “for two weeks to flatten the curve”. They shut down out of panic and a strong risk aversion, and, since they did not give metrics on why they shut down, they also did not give any metrics for when they would restart. I believe that this is why the league is now afraid to restart.

If MLB is afraid to return to business as usual, what metric would change the opinions of baseball’s leaders? Two months of data points all show the same thing; players and young-to-middle-aged healthy fans bear infinitesimal risk with Covid-19. Thus, the leagues should be playing, and fans should be at the games. If instead fans are not now allowed at games, and players have to do massive testing now; when will these practices change? When nobody has Covid anymore? When we have a vaccine? Those things might never happen.

That is why we have to start baseball (and the other sports) up again. I have stressed baseball here, because that league is in the most dire situation. The NHL and NBA could theoretically start their playoffs in August, crown champions at the end of September, and back up the starts (in staggered fashion) to their next few seasons (possibly shortening some of those seasons, which the NBA, NHL, and MLB should have done years ago anyway). Because weather is not a factor for those sports, those leagues have flexibility. However, if baseball does not figure out a solution soon, we will wave bye-bye to the 2020 season.

A lost season would be catastrophic. It would stink for us as fans, but the economic impact would be monumental. Actually, losing half a season already has monumental impact, but losing a full season would obviously be worse. Many, many people’s lives depend upon having fans at games. Think about ushers, concession-stand workers, parking-lot attendants, bartenders and waiters at near-ballpark restaurants, and so on. When one factors in the multiplier effect involved when those people spend their money, one can see how much the lack of sports hurts our economy, on top of the massive wreck that is the rest of the economy right now.

Thus, it is important for baseball (and other sports) to return. However, I do not foresee a situation in which players and owners can agree to terms if there is going to be massive Covid-19 testing but no fans in the seats. The fans are a huge reason why players are paid so handsomely, and, without the fans, I believe the financial gap between players’ and owners’ demands is far too large to bridge. Thus, I implore MLB and all involved governments to allow the stadiums to open to fans. Unfortunately, I expect MLB and governments to be too afraid to have fans come to the parks. Thus, I fear that we are going to end up with no season. Deep down, that is what I think will happen. However, I maintain hope that MLB does instead follow my suggestions and gives us an abridged season with fans. It is time for us to return to normalcy.

Summary of My Thoughts on the Lockdown

Let me pose a hypothetical scenario.


It is mid-February 2020, and 10,000 random Americans are asked the question, “If epidemiologists determine that the coronavirus is life-threatening to the very elderly and others with pre-existing conditions as is the case with the flu but spreads at a factor several times greater than that of the flu, what should the government do?”


My guess is that roughly 98% of people would respond along the lines of, “Let’s isolate those with risk factors until we know it is safe for them to come out of isolation.”  That “we know it is safe” would presumably be the time when we have either reached herd immunity in society (which is created when enough relatively healthy people have had and moved on from the virus) or developed a vaccine.  My guess is that the remaining 2% would say that the government should not be involved.  I cannot imagine that anyone would say, unprompted, “Let’s have everyone, save for a few essential workers, self-quarantine.”  There are several reasons why nobody would say that.  1) Why would we destroy our economy when we can simply have those at risk self-quarantine?  2) Why would we close schools and have kids stay at home all day for a virus that is not dangerous for children?   3) Are we going to tell kids that they can’t play with their friends or do most things that kids usually do for fun?  That would all be extreme.


Of course, in the second week of March, we arrived at the afore-mentioned lockdown scenario, a scenario at which I feel that nobody would have arrived in February.  This lockdown approach has been bothersome to me since the moment that we went into lockdown mode, and I am one of the only people I know who seems to be bothered by it.  Thus, it is entirely possible that I am crazy, but I am going to keep writing this blog entry anyway.  After all, Candace Owens and Thomas Sowell agree with me, and they are two of the most brilliant minds on the planet.  Simply put, the approach we have taken to fighting the virus would be valid if the virus was indiscriminately life-threatening to the population.  That is not the case here.  I would have instead taken the approach of having the United States federal government urge people in the at-risk categories to self-quarantine while allowing the rest of the country and economy to continue as usual.


This all begs an important question: If nobody in mid-February would have suggested on his/her own to quarantine everyone, why was everyone OK with it less than a month later?  Sure, we knew more information about the dangers of corona after three or four additional weeks of its existence, but that is not the main reason for people’s mindset change.  The big change is a matter of social media.  People spend so much time on social media that corona discussion on social-media platforms ramped up greatly over those three or four weeks.  Thus, by the second week of March, people were more and more panicked that we needed to “shut everything down”.  If we did not have social media, I do not think we would have had the lockdown.  (Furthermore, had this virus happened before the Internet, there is no way a lockdown would have ever happened.  People back then would have had too minimal connection with those outside their homes.)


Anyway, as people became more and more panicked about the virus, I did not.  Before the state governments started to “shut everything down”, I kept saying that it was ridiculous that we should quarantine everyone and destroy the economy.  Again, I felt that option should be reserved only for a hypothetical virus that is equally deadly to all people.  In that second week of March, many people (and many very intelligent people) debated the accuracy of various corona models, debated how much a quarantine would work, debated how well social distancing would work, debated how shutting down a multitude of events would work, etc.  All the while, I kept saying that the one thing that we know for certain is that shutting down the economy will absolutely positively unequivocally “beyond a shadow of doubt” kill many people and ruin the lives of many more in the long run.  That was a guarantee.


Therefore, for me, “quarantining everyone and destroying the economy” was never a viable option.  In recent days, I have seen people debating on social media about how much the quarantine has worked, how much social distancing has worked, etc.  This argument purportedly is to determine whether or not the shutdown was warranted.  However, I find this to be a completely foolish debate.  As Matt Walsh, of The Daily Wire, has often covered, it is silly when people debate “full lockdown vs. no action at all”.  The question should be and always should have been, “Is the difference between the number of lives saved between full quarantine and at-risk self-quarantine greater than or less than the number of lives we will lose from destroying the economy?” I have not seen a model that measures this, but I have never wavered in my thought that the latter number is much, much greater.

How many lives would we have lost by doing an at-risk quarantine instead of a full one?  We would have presumably had a few people who were unaware that they had risk factors who would have lost their lives.  However, it is entirely possible that we have actually killed more people with the full quarantine than the partial one in this way: We did not yet develop herd immunity, and we have now sent kids to spend 24 hours a day at home.  That might not be a big deal in a big house with healthy people; however, in places like New York City, where there is a likely a positive correlation between size of one’s dwelling and quality of one’s health, we could be creating many deaths by having kids bond so much with at-risk family members.  I am not guaranteeing that we are going to lose more lives from full quarantine than we would have from quarantining solely the at-risk individuals (though it is a realistic possibility).  However, I do feel safe saying that wrecking the economy will take more lives from us than the net (whether positive or negative) of doing an at-risk instead of partial quarantine.


Of course, we know that the government has tried to “fix” the economic issues by giving people (who qualify) $1200 payments, and, of course, this does not help a whole lot.  The $1200 does not bring back lost businesses or cover much of people’s lost wages.  However, I don’t understand how so many Republicans were OK with the lockdown but have an issue with this $2-trillion stimulus package.  I am a Republican too, and one of the core Republican beliefs is that individuals know better what decisions to make for their own lives than the government does.  There is no feasible way to distribute $2 trillion, so that it perfectly makes up for all different variations of economic, emotional, and psychological ruin that the shutdown has caused people.  Each person’s situation is different, so there is no government stimulus plan that can perfectly fix each situation.  That said, I am astounded by the fact that so many Republicans (and almost everyone) have been perfectly fine with the shutdown but are choosing instead to nitpick the ins and outs of the stimulus package.

Seriously, behind Door #1 was the self-quarantine policy.  In this case, the government could have told us the risk factors that cause corona to be life-threatening.  The bulk of people with those risk factors would have listened and self-quarantined.  While plenty of people often like to disobey authority, the threat of “if you do not _____, your life could be in danger” usually causes people to listen to authority.  Under the at-risk self-quarantine, the government would have been responsible for two main things: 1) Easing sick-day policies on individuals who are self-quarantining and having companies/workers affected apply for government compensation.  2) It is unclear whether or not this policy would have caused more or fewer people to need major medical care in the near term.  Thus, in the case of “more”, the government might have had to provide additional mobile-care units as it has done in New York City.  However, as I mentioned earlier, it is entirely possible that, by having fewer young people quarantined with older people, the number of mobile-care units needed (behind Door #1) would be less than it has been behind Door #2.


Behind Door #2 was the policy of full lockdown.  With that one, not only has the government chosen the path of more deaths and harming more lives, but the government has also chosen the path of drastically increasing the national debt.  The government is going to have additional stimulus packages that could add to $6 trillion.  Throw in the fact that most companies are shuddered, and we have a recipe for not only large debt but also massive inflation (and thus further economic turmoil).  Also, while I have never cared too much whether I shop “big” or shop “small”, the fact that the government is forcing many small businesses to stay closed while bigger ones stay open feels bad to me too.  Most importantly, Door #2 requires the government to rebuild the entire economy and to try to fix the lives of tens of millions of lives, while Door #1 would have required the government to handle the financial situations of the self-quarantined and possibly to jump-start a larger increase in mobile medical units. (I say “possibly” again because of what I said earlier about the possibility that an at-risk quarantine would have actually rendered fewer people with life-threatening corona cases.)

Also, I cannot understate the fact that the government, by choosing Door #2, is choosing to take youth away from our youth, if you will.  I give a lot of credit to today’s youth, because they are saying all the right things.  However, it does not sit great with me that, to deal with a virus that is not dangerous to young people (barring those with major pre-existing conditions); we have taken these kids out of school, eliminated their sports seasons, proms, playdates, and so much more.  That stuff all matters.  As adults, our greatest joy should be in seeing joy in our children, and we are robbing our children from a whole lot of joy these days.  Again, this all matters. The only argument against that stuff mattering would be that we are cancelling young people’s joys in order to save lives, which brings me to my next big point.


What is the bar here?  Nobody would ever dream of cancelling children’s activities to keep people from dying of the flu.  Similarly, nobody would dream of shutting down the whole economy because of the flu.  Therefore, where is the line of demarcation?  Yes, corona is more contagious than the flu, and people can be asymptomatic for longer with corona.  However, the groups of people to whom the viruses are life-threatening are essentially the same, and the symptoms for those are not in the life-threatening category are roughly the same.  It is funny how so many people seem to forget that, when one has the flu (the legit flu, not a cold), it is an absolutely miserable experience and one that can last a week or two.  Therefore, if we experience another virus – one with similar symptoms and life-threatening profiles as those of the flu and corona but with a spread rate between that of the flu and that of corona – what do we do?  Do we shut everything down (like with corona), or is it business as usual (like with the flu)?


There is not really much of a happy medium here.  We saw the slippery slope this go-round with corona.  The first big domino to fall was the NHL and NBA suspending their seasons alongside the NCAA cancelling the basketball tournaments.  (And yes, I do feel terrible for kids on teams like Dayton who were having their best seasons, only to have the tournament taken away at the last second.  We would not have done that for the flu, so where is the line?)  Then governors presumably decided, “If we can’t have people packing 18,000-seat arenas, then we can’t have 1000 people in schools”.  Thus, governors shut down schools, which led to shutting down 65-person restaurants, which led to preventing any two people who do not live together from being within 6 feet of each other.  It is a slippery slope.


Of course, I would have been fine going to packed arenas this whole time.  After all, I was at the Prudential Center on March 9, four days before schools were shut down.  I was at The Rock for the New Jersey high-school hockey championships, and I had no fear being packed with a bunch of people.  As per my herd-immunity approach, I would also be fine going to concerts, hockey games, baseball games, etc. right now because I do not have risk factors. That said, not having those big-venue events (sports, concerts, big religious gatherings, etc.) is devastating on its own when one considers how many people work the events and the spillover venues (neighboring bars, restaurants, parking garages, etc.), as well as the multiplier effect from that spending.  Plus, it would definitely boost the morale of those quarantined to be able to watch sports on TV.  


I would hope that for future viruses, the powers that be would thinking about the panic that shutting down sports creates.  The NHL and NBA suspensions kicked off the panic increase for corona, and this panic can manifest itself in many ways.  I have already mentioned that the panic is at least partially responsible for the fact that most people ended up on board with shutting down the economy.  Additionally, the ramped-up panic has made some people go to the hospital for minor issues but fearing the worst (using resources that could be better used for people with major issues), while it makes others with other major health issues avoid hospitals for fear of infection. 

Returning to an earlier point, I have not understood the people who were OK with shutting down the economy at first but, a week later, were clamoring for us to reopen the economy.  If those people simply changed their minds about what was best for the country, I respect that.  We are all able to change our views over time.  However, I do not understand the people who genuinely thought that we could shut down the country and open it up again two weeks later like nothing had happened.  That type of logic (or lack thereof) displays a complete misunderstanding of how people think.  By going into shutdown mode, something that we have never seen in the history of this country; the government essentially told people, “This pandemic is horrific, and your lives are in great danger.”  How then would one expect the masses to be OK a few weeks later with the government saying, “OK, we are ready to open things up again.  Yes, more people now have the virus, but you will be fine.”? While I would welcome the reopening, I have been analyzing the costs and benefits here from Day 1.  Most people do not do that.  Most people are simply following the government’s lead, and this makes it impossible to do a 180 from “shut it all down” to “open it all up again” so quickly without causing a complete mess.


This leads me to some political criticisms.  I am sick of Republicans applauding President Trump every time he talks about wanting to reopen the economy in the future.  First off, he said three weeks ago that he wanted to reopen the economy by Easter, which has arrived.  Clearly that is not happening.  Thus, why should I applaud him now when he talks about reopening the economy?  Plus, he talks about how we had the greatest economy in the world, and we will rebuild to be the greatest again.  That is the most backhanded self-compliment I have ever heard.  We went from having the greatest economy in the world a month ago to having potentially the biggest depression this country has ever seen, and we are supposed to applaud him for simply saying that we will become the best again?  I find it hard to believe that all of the newly unemployed people find much comfort in those speeches.


Furthermore, there are two ironies with my criticism of the president.  The first is that I have spent President Trump’s entire presidency saying more or less, “No, I don’t like a lot of what he says and tweets, but I like things that he does….and that matters.”  On the other hand, he has now taken what I feel to be the worst action of his presidency, but he is saying good things.  Go figure.  As far as the other irony, we have heard countless leftists call President Trump a “fascist”.  Now, we see governor after governor (many who are democrat) implement Draconian measure after Draconian measure while (along with Nancy Pelosi) criticizing the president for not issuing a national lockdown.  In other words, Dems are now criticizing President Trump for not being a fascist, while I sit here wishing he would act like a fascist and tell governors not to lock down their entire states.  Politics make strange bedfellows, as they say.  


Lastly, let me just speak of what will age well from this whole experience and what will age badly.  I am really glad to see the outpouring of support for medical personnel and other essential workers.  Hopefully, this sticks with us over time.  It likely won’t, but it is nice to see people applauding nurses, doctors, EMTs, police officers, firefighters, etc.  Meanwhile, anyone who has been calling the cops on kids who have been riding bikes or playing basketball probably won’t feel great about that choice in the years to come.


Anyway, as I wrap up this post, allow me to say that I hope that I am wrong about all of my predictions.  I hope that the economic mess ends up being less severe than I have feared.  I hope that the difference between numbers of lives saved between the two different quarantine policies is greater than I predicted.  I hope that our leaders have done what is best for the United States.  Right now, I feel that my beliefs are correct, but I do hope that, in time, I am proven wrong.

Decade Recap of the Sports World

With the 2010s coming to a close, I thought it would be fun to recap the decade in sports.  As years go by, when we look back on who “owned” this decade, we will remember the New England Patriots, Lebron James, the Chicago Blackhawks, the San Francisco Giants, Alabama football, and the United States Women’s National Soccer team.  That said, I have decided to dig deeper to provide a) my favorite sports moments of the decade, b) what I consider to be the biggest sports moments nationally this decade, and c) various decade playoff stats from MLB, the NFL, and the NHL.  I know that your time is precious, so feel free to skip to the sections that most interest you.  


When it comes to my favorite moments, they all involve my three favorite teams – the Mets, Giants, and Devils.  Yes, I was close to putting the Yankees’ 2010, 2012, 2017, and 2019 LCS losses and the Rangers’ 2014 Stanley Cup Final and 2015 Eastern Conference Final losses on the list, but I had enough good moments from my teams to avoid those.  Thus, without further ado, here is the list:


10)         Johan Santana’s No-Hitter: I wrote about this on the old “Below the Belt” blog, so I will not go into great detail here.  I will summarize that, because I missed this game while driving to Virginia, I have bittersweet feelings about the Mets’ only no-hitter.  However, I did enjoy watching the replay of the game and knowing what a great moment it was for fellow Mets fans to watch live.


9)            2016 Giants Beat Dallas and Detroit to Earn Playoff Spot: Sure, many Giants fans now like to act retroactively like the whole Ben McAdoo era was a disaster.  However, I should note the technicality that the team did go 11-5 during McAdoo’s one full season as coach.  Of course, McAdoo was ultimately fired for violating the “You are not allowed to bench a future Hall of Fame quarterback even if his season record is 2-9” rule that nobody had previously known….because future HOFers do not usually find themselves at 2-9.  That said, Eli absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, and I absolutely enjoyed his last solid season (2016).  Eli also played well in the playoff game in Green Bay that year, only to have his WRs, still regaining their legs after their boat trip, drop many passes.


8)            2019 Mets Improve from 11 Games Under to 8 Games Over .500: A Mets season left for dead at the All-Star Break (due primarily to the bullpen’s epically terrible performance) turned into one with the Mets challenging for a Wild Card into September.  The Mets ultimately fell short, but it was fun to watch Pete Alonso, Jeff McNeil, J.D. Davis, Jacob deGrom, Seth Lugo and more win a whole bunch of games this past summer.


7)            2010-11 Devils’ 23-3-2 Run: The Devils were actually worse in the first half of that season (9-30-2) than they have been this season, which is saying something.  At the end of that half, the Devils found themselves 27 points out of a playoff spot.  However, the Devils’ 23-3-2 run thereafter under new/returning coach Jacques Lemaire brought the Devils to within 6 points of a playoff spot.  The Devils ultimately missed the playoffs, but it was fun ride while it lasted.


6)            Alexei Ponikarovsky’s OT Goal: It was Game 3 of the 2012 Eastern Conference Semis, Devils vs. Flyers at The Rock.  I was in attendance and watched as “Poni” scored the OT winner.  Few things in life are more euphoric than witnessing a playoff OT goal for your favorite team.


5)            Mets Win 2015 NLDS Against Dodgers: On the heels of a thrilling 38-22 finish to the season, the Mets rode this wave through their first playoff series since 2006.  The Mets, having to face both Clayton Kershaw (who has not been as terrible in the playoffs as he is perceived to be) and Zack Greinke twice, won the series in 5 games.  Daniel Murphy, Jacob deGrom, and Jeurys Familia led the way for the Mets.


4)            “Henrique It’s Over”: The More Clutch and More Forgotten One: The great Doc Emrick provided the great line, “Henrique, It’s Over”, for a moment about which you will read shortly.  However, that moment was in a Game 6 with the Devils leading 3 games to 2.  Therefore, Adam Henrique’s most clutch NHL moment was winning Game 7 of the 2012 Eastern Conference Quarterfinals with a double-overtime goal.  The Devils’ rookie took a puck in the high slot and sent it through veteran Florida goalie Jose Theodore’s legs to send me dancing about my then-Saddle Brook apartment.  After multiple OTs in Game 7, I was able to breathe again.


3)            Mets Sweep 2015 NLCS: I was torn on whether to put this above or below the previous entry, as the two are completely different.  While #4 was a pressure-packed, winner-take-all moment in the conference quarterfinals, this was complete domination in the NLCS.  I decided that the magnitude of the NLCS puts this on top.  The Mets’ four-game sweep of the Cubs was essentially a five-day party with the Mets never falling behind in any game.  By the fifth inning of each game, the Mets were in control, riding dominant starting pitching, Jeurys Familia, and Daniel Murphy yet again.


2)            Giants’ 2011 Championship Run: The Giants entered Week 16 needing to beat the Jets and Cowboys to win the division and make the playoffs.  The Giants took care of that before steamrolling the Falcons and 15-1 Packers in the playoffs.  The Giants then won a physical OT thriller, one of the greatest games I have ever watched, in San Francisco before beating the Patriots again in the Super Bowl.  I could have broken this moment into multiple parts; including the Victor Cruz 99-yard reception against the Jets, the Hakeem Nicks Hail Mary in Green Bay, and the second Kyle Williams fumble in S.F., but I decided to group this all as one.  Four years after the Giants rode a #5 seed to win a Super Bowl against the Pats, they did the same thing as a #4 seed.  When the Giants held off the Pats’ Hail Mary attempt at the end of the Super Bowl, I was completely euphoric, as I had been four years prior.


1)            “Henrique It’s Over!!!!!”: The afore-mentioned Giants’ championship was the only title for one of my teams this decade, so it might seem like sacrilege for something to be above that one the list.  However, the most incredible sports feeling of the decade was to be at The Rock watching Adam Henrique score in overtime in Game 6 to give the Devils a series win over the hated Rangers.  I, along with many of an 18,000-person crowd, did a whole lot of jumping, hugging, and shouting.  Much of what happened after that goal is a blur to me.  The Devils lost the Stanley Cup Final to the Kings, but that Henrique goal felt like a Cup winner, even though I have been fortunate enough to attend two Devils’ Cup victories (and watch the other occur in OT on TV).



Now that you know my favorite sports moments of the decade, I will list what I consider to be the biggest U.S. sports moments of the 2010s.  I am going to go through these more quickly, as they are not quite as personal to me as the previous list.


10)         Villanova Wins: Villanova wins its first men’s basketball title in the Jay Wright era, as a buzzer-beating three-pointer against UNC sends the Wildcat faithful, and Charles Barkley, into jubilation.


9)            Bumgarner’s Exclamation Point: Three days after pitching a complete-game shutout in Game 5 of the 2014 World Series, the Giants’ Madison Bumgarner pitches five shutout innings in Game 7 to earn the save in Kansas City.  This was the Giants’ third championship in five seasons, with Bumgarner coming up huge in all three postseasons.


8)            Caps Win First Stanley Cup: I love watching any Stanley Cup celebration that does not involve the Rangers or Flyers (which are moot points anyway).  It is especially sweet to watch teams win their first in a generation, as was the case with the St. Louis Blues in 2019.  However, it is rare for a Stanley Cup celebration to receive too much national sports-media attention, but such was the case with the 2018 Capitals.  It was wonderful to watch Alexander Ovechkin skate around the Vegas ice after finally winning the Caps a Cup.  Plus, Panic! at the Disco played my favorite 2010s song, “High Hopes”, my first time hearing the song, before the final game.


7)            UVA Rebounds to Win Championship: The 2018 Virginia Cavaliers (men’s bball) became the first team to lose to a #16 seed (UMBC).  The following season, Virginia found itself down 10 to Gardner-Webb in that year’s #1-16 matchup.  Well, Virginia righted the ship and then pulled off three incredibly dramatic wins – over Purdue, Auburn, and Texas Tech – to win a championship.  In each game, there was at least one moment in the last minute or OT when it looked like UVA was done, yet the Cavs miraculously won all three games.


6)            Philly Finally Wins the Super Bowl: As much as I wanted the Giants to be the only team to beat Brady/Belichick in the Super Bowl, and as much as I do not like the Eagles; it was a great story to watch Nick Foles lead the Eagles on the Super Bowl run.


5)            U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Wins 2015 World Cup: I am old enough to have enjoyed the 1999 championship, but a whole generation of Americans did not experience that title.  Plus, the new generation dealt with the pain of the 2011 championship-game loss.  Thus, it was extra-sweet when New Jersey’s Carli Lloyd led the U.S. women to the 2015 crown.


4)            Malcolm Butler’s Interception: It might seem hard to believe now, but the Pats were on the verge of going more than a full decade without a Super Bowl Championship.  I, and most viewers, thought that Russell Wilson had thrown a game-winning touchdown, but the Pats’ Malcolm Butler read the play perfectly.  This interception kept the Seahawks from repeating as champs and gave the Pats their first of three titles in five seasons.


3)            2016 NBA Finals: Lebron’s third championship of the decade was his most surprising.  With the Cavs down 3-games-to-1 to the greatest regular season team of all time (Golden State Warriors), Lebron lead the Cavs to three-consecutive wins and the first Cleveland championship since the pre-Super Bowl era.  


2)            28-3:  If you are a football fan, and you see the score “28-3”, you now think of one thing, the Pats’ comeback win over the Falcons in Super Bowl LII.  This one game Brady and Belichick their record-breaking fifth rings.  Interestingly, entries #1-3 on this list occurred during one eight-month stretch.


1)            Cubs Finally Win the World Series: Of course, this has to be #1 on the list.  This was one of those rare sports moments that has cultural significance for even those who hate sports.  The Cubs had gone 108 years without winning the World Series, and then it finally happened.  Poor Cleveland though.  The Indians had the second-longest WS-Title drought (1948) at that point, and few people were rooting for them.  Moreover, Cleveland gave back a 3-games-to-1 lead, just as the Cavs had erased months earlier.  Interestingly, my picks for sports moment of the decade (Cubs’ win) and news moment of the decade (President Trump wins the election) occurred six days apart from each other.



Now, for some of the decade stats.  Since it is football season, let us start with the NFL.  Here is the list of # of playoff appearances for each team in the 2010s.  (Note that these NFL stats cover the 2010-2019 seasons, though those seasons’ playoffs actually take place from 2011-2020.)

10 appearances: New England

8: Green Bay, Seattle

7: Kansas City

6: Houston, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New Orleans

5: Cincinnati, Denver, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Atlanta

4: Minnesota, Carolina, San Francisco

3: Dallas, Detroit

2: Buffalo, Tennessee, San Diego/Los Angeles, NY Giants, Washington, Chicago, Arizona, L.A. Rams

1: NY Jets, Miami, Jacksonville, Oakland

0: Tampa Bay


Here is the list of # of first-round byes this decade.  New England not only is the only NFL team to make the playoffs all 10 years of this decade but also found itself less than one minute away from having 10 byes.  Ryan Fitzpatrick put an end to that, but 9 remains incredible.  The next-highest total is 4, by Peyton Manning’s Broncos.  Here is the list.

9: New England

4: Denver

3: Kansas City, Green Bay, Atlanta, San Francisco

2: Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Carolina, Seattle

1: Philadelphia, Dallas, Chicago, Minnesota, New Orleans, Arizona, LA Rams


I will now show how many Conference Championship games teams have reached this decade.  Naturally, this year’s entrants are not yet known.  Will the Pats make it to a 9^th-straight AFC Championship Game?  We shall see.  I have actually gotten married twice since the last Pats-less AFC Championship Game, and that game featured Mark Sanchez!  Anyway, here is the list:

8: New England

3: Green Bay, San Francisco

2: Baltimore, Denver, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Seattle

1: NY Jets, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Kansas City, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Chicago, Minnesota, New Orleans, Carolina, Arizona, LA Rams


New England was at the top of those five lists, and, lo and behold, it also leads the league in Super Bowl appearances this decade.  Only two other teams have appeared in multiple SBs this decade.

5: New England

2: Seattle, Denver

1: Baltimore, Pittsburgh, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Green Bay, Atlanta, Carolina, San Francisco, LA Rams


Of course, New England is also the only team to win multiple Super Bowls (3) this decade.  The other six teams who have won Super Bowls are Baltimore, Denver, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Green Bay, and Seattle.


Let us now move on to baseball.  The two teams with the most playoff appearances (Yankees and Dodgers) did not win any championships this decade.  How sad!  Anyway, the list of # of playoff appearances also includes in parentheses the number of Division Series appearances, since it does not feel like a real playoff appearance if a team loses the Wild-Card Game.

7: LA Dodgers, NY Yankees (6)

6: St. Louis

5: Washington, Atlanta (4), Texas (4)

4: San Francisco, Tampa Bay, Detroit, Houston, Chi. Cubs (3), Cleveland (3)

3: Boston, Milwaukee (2), Cincinnati (2), Baltimore (2), Minnesota (2), Pittsburgh (1), Oakland (0: Ouch!)

2: Philadelphia, Arizona, Toronto, Kansas City, NY Mets (1), Colorado (1)

1: LA Angels

0: Miami, Chi. White Sox


Once we look at LCS appearances, the Cardinals ascend to the top of the list.  Take a look:

5: St. Louis

4: LA Dodgers, NY Yankees

3: Chi Cubs, San Francisco, Detroit, Houston

2: Milwaukee, Boston, Toronto, Kansas City, Texas

1: NY Mets, Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Cleveland


As for World Series appearances, the Giants take the top spot, with the states of Texas and Missouri holding their own:

3: San Francisco

2: St. Louis, LA Dodgers, Kansas City, Boston, Houston, Texas

1: NY Mets, Washington, Chi Cubs, Cleveland, Detroit


Lastly, when it comes to World Championships, the Giants, winners of all three of their WS this decade, stay at the top:

3: San Francisco

2: Boston

1: Washington, Chi. Cubs, St. Louis, Kansas City, Houston


In case any of you have not yet stopped reading, it is time for me to recap the NHL.  Because the 2009-2010 regular season covers more of 2010 than 2009, that season counts for this decade.  You will read about the 2020 playoffs when I recap the decade of the 2020s.  Set the alarm on your phone.  I did not have the energy to go through playoff appearances, because more than half the league makes the playoffs every year.  Unfortunately, the Devils managed all of three playoff appearances in the 10 seasons, but I digress.  Let us skip to the Conference Finals and see how many appearances each team made to that round:

4: Tampa Bay, Chicago, San Jose

3: NY Rangers, Pittsburgh, Boston, Los Angeles

2: Montreal, St. Louis, Anaheim

1: New Jersey, Carolina, Washington, Philadelphia, Ottawa, Nashville, Winnipeg, Vegas, Vancouver, Arizona


Once we look at Stanley Cup Final appearances, we get a clear look at the four most dominant NHL teams of the decade.

3: Boston, Chicago

2: Pittsburgh, Los Angeles

1: New Jersey, NY Rangers, Washington, Tampa Bay, Nashville, St. Louis, Vegas, San Jose, Vancouver


As for teams hoisting the Stanley Cup, the decade belonged most to Chicago (3) with Pittsburgh (2) and Los Angeles (2) also showing dominance.  The other three Cups were the two most recent (St. Louis, Washington) and Boston’s in 2011.



I am almost six pages deep into a Microsoft Word document, so I think that sufficiently sums up the decade in sports.  Happy New Year!

My 100 Favorite Songs of the 2010s

Yes, I know that, because there was no Year 0, 2020 is technically the end of the current decade; but I do not know anyone who was around 2019 years ago.  Therefore, I like to think of 2010-2019 as one decade.  I started the decade by watching my new The Hangover DVD in my old apartment.  I think I bought that DVD at the Ramsey Borders.  I did not have a SmartPhone, or even a dog, back then. Much has happened and changed over the past 10 years, and we have had many, many great songs take us along that journey.  

Therefore, during the last school day before Christmas Break, I gave my students a fill-in-the-blank list of my 100 favorite songs of the 2010s. It was fun for me to reminisce on the ups and downs of the decade through music, and I would like to give you the opportunity to take that same ride.  If you are interested, please feel free to enjoy this same "fill-in-the-blank" list.  It provides a great trip down memory lane through the decade that gave us the terms, "GTL", "hashtag", "I can't even", "fake news", and "woke".  

The guidelines of the list are as follows: 

1) I provide the first letter of each word in the song title and do the same for the artist.  You must fill in the blanks.

2)  I use only songs that have received at least a modicum of radio airplay.  Thus, a song like Fall Out Boy's "The Phoenix" would be in the Top 5 if I allowed album tracks but does not appear on my actual list.  

3)  I have ranked the songs by how much I generally like them.  At any given moment, songs can fluctuate up and down.  That said, there might be moments when I might enjoy Song #49 more than Song #47, but it is unlikely that I would ever feel better about Song #49 than Song #19.  

4)  I am human and make mistakes.  After I first released the list, I realized that I had forgotten "One Foot", by Walk the Moon.  That song would certainly make my Top 40 if not for my error. Similarly, Panic! at the Disco's "Death of a Bachelor" would have made the Top 20, but I have never heard it on the radio.  On the other hand, some of my students say that the song has received some radio airplay and thus warrants being on the list.  Oh well.

Anyway, below is the sheet with the blank spaces (hint, hint) and an answer key.  Have fun!

MR. WALKER’S 100 FAVORITE SONGS OF THE 2010s:

100) R___________ B____________, by C_________ B__________ (ft. J_________ G_________) (2014)

99) W________ A_________ N___________ G__________ B___________ T___________, by T____________ S_____________ (2012)

98) C______________, by Z___________ (ft. F___________) (2013)

97) F___________, by C___________ W__________ K____________ (2014)

96) I W____________ G___________ B___________, by B____________ (2014)

95) S____________ of U__________, by T____________ S____________ (2010)

94) P____________, by E_____________ S_____________ (2017)

93) W______________ B______________, by M___________ C____________ (2013)

92) T__________ B___________ the N___________, by J_________ T___________ (2013)

91) F_______________, by K____________ P____________ (2010)

90) S____________ G____________, by B. o. B. (2012)

89) B_______________, by K______________ (2012)

88) B_________ T________ W_________, by L__________ G__________ (2011)

87) E_____________ T___________ is a W______________, by C____________ (2011)

86) B_________ T__________ I N___________ H__________, by B___________ (2011)

85) L_____________ H____________ G____________, by P____________ (2013)

84) W_________ W__________ from M________, by A___________ L__________ (2010)

83) J___________ G__________ M______ a R__________, by P_______ (ft. N_______ R________) (2013)

82) Y_________ and I, by L_______________ G______________ (2011)

81) S____________ N_____________, by F_______________. (2012)

80) P_________________, by M______________ 5 (ft. W______ K_________) (2012)

79) O__________ T_________ G_______ A_________, by K_______ P_________ (2011)

78) H________ of M__________ H_________, by J_________ M___________ (ft. T_________ S________) (2010)

77) T____________ a W___________, by P_____________ P_______ (2012)

76) B____________ G___________, by B___________ E_____________ (2019)

75) If I C___________ H___________ Y___________, by S________ M_________ (2019)

74) L____________ on T_____________, by B_____________ (2012)

73) A____________, by L____________ G_____________ (2010)

72) N____________ on Y___________, by B. o. B. (ft. B________ M________ ) (2010)

71) B_____________ S_______________, by T______________ S______________ (2014)

70) W______ F_________ L_________, by R_________ (ft. C_______ H______) (2011)

69) W_______ M________ Y________ B_________, by O_____ D_________ (2012)

68) D________ - B_______, by T_____________ (2012)

67) M________ M_________ L_________ Y_________, by G______ S_________ (2016)

66) M____________ R_____________, by L___________ G____________ (2017)

65) O___________ N___________ O___________, by The S_________ (2017)

64) M_________!, by T___________ S____________ (ft. B_________ U_______) (2019)

63) A – T____________, by E_________ S________________ (2013)

62) The M_____________, by A____________ B__________ (2014)

61) C_________ R___________ to F__________ Y__________, by S___________ (ft. R__________) (2014)

60) C______________ O_________, by F_________. (2012)

59) N_____________ to M____________, by E___________ S___________ (2013)

58) G_________, G_________, G__________; by P____________ P___________ (2013)

57) B__________________, by T_____________ M_____________ (ft. B__________ M_________) (2010)

56) N_____________ T_____________ L___________, by E________ J_________ (2019)

55) C_________ S__________ the F__________, by J__________ T____________ (2016)

54) H__________ M________ Y_______ Y________, by M_________ B_________ (2010)

53) T_______________, by D__________ G_____________ (ft. S______) (2012)

52) I C_____________, by F_________ R__________ (2012)

51) L_____________ O___________ of H___________, by B_________ M______ (2012)

50) G_______________, by B______________ M_____________ (2010)

49) P______________ L_____________, by J____________ B____________ (2018)

48) M__________ the N___________, by L__________ G____________ (2011)

47) U_____________ T____________, by F_________ O_________ B_________ (2015)

46) G__________ M_______ E____________, by P__________ (ft. N___-Y____, A_________, and N_____________) (2011)

45) S________ T____ I U________ to K________, by G______ (ft. K_________) (2012)

44) M___________ L___________ J__________, by M_________ 5 (ft. C__________ A___________) (2011)

43) L______________ T______________, by Of M_________ and M__________ (2012)

42) B__________________, by La R______________ (2010)

41) I L__________ I________, by E___________ I____________ (ft. P_________) (2010)

40) M________________, by U________________ (2011)

39) P________________, by B________________ (2014)

38) C______________, by F____________ O____________ B___________ (2014)

37) L______________, by T______________ S______________ (2019)

36) I M_____________ T___________ D___________, by B__________ (2017)

35) A___________ I_________ F___________, by P______________ (2014)

34) B___________ Y__________ H__________, by T________ C__________ (ft. L__________) (2010)

33) O__________ of the W___________, by T__________ S___________ (2016)

32) V________________, by P________! at the D_____________ (2016)

31) Q_______________ P___________ M____________, by B_____________ (2018)

30) L___________ N__________ F_____ S_____ G__________, by J___________ T_________ (ft. M___________ J____________) (2014)

29) L__________ the W__________ Y____________ L__________, by E_____________ (ft. R______________) (2010)

28) R______________ in the D______________, by A____________ (2011)

27) 7 Y_____________, by L______________ G_______________ (2016)

26) E___________ of G_____________, by L___________ G____________ (2011)

25) S____________ to W___________, by F________ + the M____________ (2015)

24) B___________ I E__________ H_________, by G_________ D___________ (2013)

23) B_______________, by T_____________ (ft. A___________ M___________) (2013)

22) I___________ a B___________ D___________, by M__________ B_________ (2013)

21) M___________, by M_____________ 5 (2014)

20) S_______ M______ M_________ H__________, by R______ S________ (2013)

19) I__________ W___________ R_________, by B__________ M_________ (2011)

18) J_____________, by L_____________ G_____________ (2011)

17) 50 W__________ to S___________ G_____________, by T_________ (2012)

16) P____________ L____________ U___________, by K________ C_________ (2013)

15) B__________________ T______________, by P_______________ (2018)

14) W___________ W__________ W__________ Y__________ , by A________ (2015)

13) S___________ U______ and D________, by W_________ the M_________ (2015)

12) A__________ T_________ W__________, by T_________ S__________ (2014)

11) I________________, by F___________ O____________ B____________ (2015)

10) A___________ T________, by F___________ O____________ B__________ (2014)

9) (I’m G__________) L________ M_______ A__________, by E__________ J__________ and T_______ E_________ (2019)

8) K___________ of A______________, by S____________ B____________ (2010)

7) F___________, by K__________ U__________ (ft. C__________ U_______) (2017)

6) S_____________, by L___________ G___________ (2010)

5) M______ S________ K________ W________ Y_________ D_____ in the D________ (L_________ ‘Em U_________), by F___________ O__________ B__________ (2013)

4) S_________ F_____________, by The M____________ (2012)

3) J_________ S____________, by The L_________ I_________ (ft. M_________ B________) (2011)

2) S__________ I_________ Y_________, by P____________ (2013)

1) H____________ H_____________, by P_________! at the D___________ (2018)

Answers: