Monday (buzzkill) edition: Wha’ Happened?
Posted on June 9th, 2008 – 8:28 AMBy Michael Rand
There are three different types of games on TV, in our mind: 1) The contests you know are on, and you have a moderate level of interest in, but that you could really care less if you miss. Best example: The Sunday night NFL game. 2) The ones you wouldn’t normally care about and really have no interest in, but stumble onto while flipping through channels and end up watching by default. Best examples: regular-season NBA games, MLS games or World Series of Poker. 3) The events that are so big and/or intriguing that you specifically carve out time to make sure you do not miss them. For us, Saturday and Sunday presented four Category 3 viewing opportunities, which is quite a few: the Belmont Stakes (obviously), the Sunday Twins game (morbid curiosity), Nadal vs. Federer in the French Open final (Sisyphus factor) and Game 2 of the NBA finals (obviously). And, as it turned out, it was a total buzzkill of a weekend.
Belmont: The odds flashed on the screen. Big Brown 1-4. No other horse better than 7-1. Maybe it was too much of a foregone conclusion. But we just didn’t see any way that horse was going to lose. When Big Brown was in prime position on the outside, just like always, we were just expecting the explosive breakaway and coronation of a Crown winner. Instead, it seemed like a new version of the commercial where famous moments in sports history are altered (Jordan’s big shot vs. the Cavs rims out, Jeter’s flip to get Giambi is too late, etc.). We’ll likely never know what happened because, with the exception of Mr. Ed, horses cannot talk. What we do know: not a great start to the weekend.
French Open: We turned it on around 10:30 (8 a.m. Sunday? Sorry, but no.) expecting to join things maybe early in the fourth set with an epic five-setter in the works. Instead, we saw Nadal vs. Federer … on grass. We don’t follow tennis closely, but we’re quite sure the French is played on clay. So we checked the interwebs to see if it the match was in a rain delay. Nope, Nadal had already routed poor Roger, giving up just four games in the process. They were showing a 2007 Wimbledon replay as a time-filler. So much for that.
Twins: The starting pitching was wafer-thin at the start of the year, overachieved for two months, and now is starting to crack. The bullpen, without Neshek, is square pegs in round holes except for Nathan. And we were a day late with the Delmon Young home run prediction. And on the pitch where Slowey should have thrown one of those comeback fastballs on the inside corner to Nick Swisher for strike three, he instead left one over the plate that was mashed for a three-run homer that got Sunday’s rout going. Ick.
NBA finals: We’re wondering the same thing Phil Jackson is wondering: how does Leon Powe shoot more free throws than the entire L.A. squad? The Paul Pierce “miracle” continued, and except for the final minute there was barely any tension. The Lakers can wake up for, say, 48 minutes of basketball anytime. The C’s were ripe to be beaten in both games. And they let them off the hook!
So we ask you: What was the most disappointing of the four things we just mentioned: Big Brown, French rout, Twins or NBA finals? Our money’s on Big Brown. Just not literally, thankfully.
Fasola-link! Hurling. In Minnesota.
12 Responses to "Monday (buzzkill) edition: Wha’ Happened?"
Big Brown definitely lived up to his name on Sunday.
But enough about the Twins starting pitching. Let’s talk about Rincon.
Is anyone, besides intemperate bloggers, mentioning the “S” word when discussing Rincon’s descent into crapitude?
Big Brown’s no-show reminded me entirely too much of 18*-1*. In both cases I wasn’t watching because of any love for the participants, I was watching *to see history*. In both cases there was so much hype, it was such a foregone conclusion. In both cases things started slow … and somewhere in the middle I realized it was too slow, and that big push just wasn’t going to come, and it was sad / painful to watch the historic potential just fizzle away. In fact, with Tiger taking 2nd in the Masters, the Celtics fizzling in the playoffs (although they might eke through courtesy of bad officiating) … is this the theme of ‘08? So much potential/expectation, and just … fizzling? If so, I think I’d rather watch the T-pups. Consistency feels relatively grand.
Most disappointing was the Twins, since it was the only one I cared about. By Sunday, I was tired of seeing the Twins get rocked all weekend. Maybe we should start thinking about walking Crede every time.
I’m sure Big Brown will now become a millionaire stud. How much would a bottle of Big Brown glue go for though?
Big Brown Glue: Goes on Brown, Dries Clear. Will fail you if your expectations of its holding power are too high
Jon’s absolutely right. He ain’t the same post-roids.
Between Rondell White and Juan Rincon, I think Minnesotans have now seen two pretty great examples of the downhill side of the steroid-using career.
If only Mike Lamb had a similar excuse…
Closest I ever came to caring about horses was arguing with my girlfriend about how much I hate Sex and the City.
don’t forget Bret Boone. +1, Brandon, by the way.
How does tennis even make it on that list? Unless it’s Anna Kournikova bending over to tie her shoe, I’ll probably just skip right by it.
I’m going to go the other way, no not what you think. I’m saying the Pummeling in Paris is the biggest disappointment.
For one I was up at 8am on a Sunday and was intrigued to see if Roger would finally get his grand slam. By about 8:20 I knew he had no chance. So basically I woke up a little earlier than usual for 15 minutes of suspense, if it even lasted that long. I have probably watched more tennis than the rest of the Randballers combined and that was the most disappointed I have ever been with a match.
P.S. The Twins are still going to win 72 games as I predicted.
Lattewarrior’s Top Five Sports Betting Moments from this past weekend’s Vegas trip:
5) Taking the Cubs and Dodgers to score more than 7.5 runs on Saturday.
This was the first game on the day’s schedule and I generally bet this type of game just to get my day going. Sort of like having a beer with tomato juice. Anyway, after grabbing the MLB sheet and looking at the lines that game was the only one to stand out (LA is given too much credit as a pitchers’ park and I had a sneaking suspicion that Carlos Zambrano would melt down, just as he did last year at this time –in a Tale of Irony we were in Vegas watching at the same sports book when he and Michael Barrett exchanged wild, girlish haymakers in the dugout, and I made money on that game, too). Anyhoo, I made the bet and the teams covered. It was glorious.
4) Nearly hitting a six-team MLB parlay Thursday night.
I was five-for-five, with only a Johan Santana win over the Padres separating me from a payday that would have essentially paid for the entire trip. The Pads won 2-1. Johan leaves a Minnesotan feeling jilted once more.
3) Winning $40 when one of my buddies ate an entire 18-inch two-topping pizza in under 30 minutes.
He buzzed through everything but the crusts in the first 15 minutes, allowing him to coast to victory. The performance reminded me of the Vikings/Cowboys Thanksgiving game in 1998 with my buddy playing the role of Randy Moss.
2) Taking Boston -3 and KG to top 21 points in Thursday’s Game 1 one of the NBA Finals.
Raging Violet owed me and, unlike No. 57, was happy to oblige.
1) Taking the field against Big Brown in Saturday’s Belmont. Six of the seven dudes in our group took this bet, which paid +300. We walked away with more than $1000 in profits and went on to drink our faces off the rest of the evening in celebration. Unfortunately, the member of our delegation who didn’t play the field, lost $120 taking Big Brown and wheeling his trifecta with many of the other horses.
It was a great trip and if not for some horrible late night (read: high B.A.C) stints at the craps and Pai Gow tables, I would have come back with more money than I left with. Still, that much fun and that many beers should cost a fella more than $160.
