Bendtner's Strike.

I have a soft spot for Arsenal. If I've picked a club side in any league, they're the team.

This affinity dates back just a few years (doing the math, I think it was about 2003). This coincided with their record-setting unbeaten run, but at the time I knew nothing about this. In fact, had I known, I probably would've deliberated longer and eventually would've picked a different team, because there's really nothing quite as distasteful as a front-runner (not extortion, rape, genocide, not anything) and I think at the time, if I knew anyone that cared about soccer, I probably would have been called that.

Getting back to giving background on my glory hunting: that Thanksgiving, my family invited me to go along with them as they visited my step-sister who was in the middle of a semester abroad in London. The few minutes I saw of English television, and the slightly fewer that were devoted to soccer, intrigued me. Fans in stands were celebrating draws, Euro 2004 was already being hyped seven months before kick-off. When I got back, I bought one of those cheap EA Sports computer game bundles that feature four games made years before --and due to personnel moves, promotions, relegations, expansion, etc. are generally considered out-of-date (in this case: 2001 versions of Madden, NHL, FIFA, and Tiger Woods)-- specifically for FIFA, riding a wave of new-found Anglophilia and wanting to play the game I couldn't find on television here (not having an expanded-beyond-my-means-cable-package or satellite dish).

I scrolled through the English sides, and chose my team quickly, knowing only enough not to pick Manchester United (the comparisons to the Yankees had made it to my shores), and went largely on name and ability rating; ability being important because I didn't --and still don't, sadly-- understand soccer and wanted to have at least a puncher's chance when going against the computer. I chose Arsenal because, frankly, it was a cool name and I liked the crest.

It's embarrassing to admit that I would initially choose a team to follow for reasons as simplistic (read: "simpleminded") as those. It'd be cooler if I said something about their "attacking, free flowing style," or appreciating the mastery of Arsene Wenger, keeping his side on pace with the other teams in the Big Four despite his fewer resources, this season that skill in developing a team on a budget best being exemplified by their greatly improved form after selling Thierry Henry to Barcelona. As it turns out, none of that is true, I just think the color red is pretty. In the ensuing years I have come to appreciate all of that, I've downloaded and watched multiple times Arsenal 49, I've spent hours watching youtube highlight compilations of Henry, Wright, and Pires, but until discovering online streaming of soccer, I wasn't able to do much more than follow their results after the fact.

Despite being tipped by many to drop out of Champions League contention this season (and don't discount the effect prognostication has, bad juju adds up), has been atop the Premier League most of the season, but with their lead dropping to three after last week's Matthew-Taylor-wrecked match against Birmingham. At home, against Villa, despite their opponent's quality, one would hope for a win rebounding from results --in some cases disappointing and against Man U, deserved-- over the past two weeks. From the 27th minute to well after the 90th, largely thanks to Senderos clearing the ball into the back of his own net, Arsenal trailed despite a 58% possession mark, with more shots on target, 7-4.

Bendtner's strike two and a half minutes into stoppage time was remarkable. (I said it. You're likely hearing it here first. It's insightful comments like these that are largely attributable to my high readership. I have this counter when I log in that tells me how many viewers I have, and while my writing doesn't inspire a great many comments, I can tell you, thousands of people are checking this page daily for information that they know they can't get anywhere else.) Not only that, but it came from a pass from Adebayor and they hate each other, reportedly. In a perfect world that would have included a hyperlink to a report, but I don't feel like researching it at the moment. Know that I once heard on a soccer podcast that might be reputable that Adebayor came on as a sub for Bendtner recently, with the Gunners trailing, and said to Bendtner something along the lines of, "we're (other players were coming in as well) only playing because you're shit." Whether or not that's true, I'll be telling it to everyone I meet no matter the context: weddings, funerals, making small talk at the register of a convenience store picking up a 99 cent 2-liter of Pepsi, you're going to be hearing about it.

To be honest, I really didn't see it coming (my blog's popularity or the goal), and had been fighting off the doze for the last five or six minutes, just wanting distress that comes with watching the side I was born into rooting for held scoreless. Again. Despite this, I was able to manage a yelp loud enough to frighten the dog, and concern the people that were in the bed with me that someone was going to kill them.

I don't know what this "draw that feels like a win" that comes off of the "draw that feels like a lose" means for the rest of the season. I'd thought, after the Man U drubbing, that the team could go either way, use it as motivation or see it completely kill their confidence. After the Eduardo injury, it's impossible really to say, as that likely has had a greater impact on their performance since, rather than what they gleaned from the FA Cup tie (they're actually going to have to cover opposing strikers if they hope not to lose 4-0 again in the near future). The strike does save the lead, which has dropped with successive draws to 1. What's disappointing is that these were two matches that should have been wins (I mean, really, Arsenal did outscore Aston Villa 2-0 this morning). Still having to go through a four game stretch of Chelsea, Bolton, Man U, and Liverpool, I'm not optimistic about their chances unless Bendtner can continue not playing like shit.

Insularity.

I was just reading a three day old report in the New York Daily News that the Yankees were backing off in their pursuit of Johan Santana. This is all well and good, I don't root for them and so it doesn't effect me negatively if they don't end up with, possibly, the best pitcher in baseball. I'm fine with that, trust me. What does seem odd, though, is the reaction this news garnered in the comments section. Posters named bronxbomber, edman2222, and QNSFDGUY718 rejoiced hearing that their team wouldn't be mortgaging their future for the the likes of Santana, writing things like, "Santana is hittable.. Hes no sandy koufax in his prime and fast approaching 30," and, "Check his lifetime stats...not that impressive" (not my ellipsis), as well as, "We have an arsenal of pitchers! All though they aren't all proven 100% who cares?" Not to spend too much time belaboring an obvious point, namely that Johan Santana is really good, but it might be worthwhile (it probably isn't) to examine the truth behind these statements.

First, while it's true that his numbers aren't on the level of Sandy Koufax in his prime (should be noted that pitching today might be significantly more difficult than it was in the 1960's), it might be important to remember that Koufax's prime was a little bit better than phenomenal. During his last four seasons, from 1963-1966, he posted ERA+ numbers of 159, 187, 160, and 190 and posted a cumulative K to BB ratio of 1228-259 (in those seasons he averaged 307 strikeouts a year despite missing a decent amount of 1964). At a time when the Cy Young award was given to who was believed the best pitcher in the Majors, rather than handing out one award in both the American and National Leagues, he won the three times, only losing deservedly to Dean Chance in 1964. That's an incredibly difficult bar to match, and Santana hasn't done that, but in addressing the second point, that his lifetime stats aren't that impressive, it should be noted that in his last six seasons, he has posted an ERA+ of 149, 148, 182, 155, 161, and 130. He was a part-time starter in those first two seasons, starting roughly 44% of the games he appeared in, so if one chose to throw them out, I'd understand. Limiting ourselves to his four seasons as a full-time starter, that leaves us with two seasons in which he received the Cy Young deservedly, one in which he was jobbed (he threw 9 more innings, posted an ERA .61 lower, and struck out 81 more batters than the winner, Colon, whose primary credential was that he was on a better team that allowed him to be credited with more wins), and one merely very good year, his most recent, which is likely the reason his abilities are being discounted. I think the fact that he is 28 and has managed to string together, already, three Cy Young worthy seasons consecutively would suggest that, indeed, his lifetime stats are really, actually, kind of, sort of, impressive, especially if we assume he's not going to have to retire prematurely due to arthritis, which is reasonable because not a lot of pitchers do (as far as I know).

As for the current state of the Yankees pitching staff, at the moment it looks like they're going to be throwing out Wang, Pettitte, Hughes, Mussina, and Chamberlain and barring injury that could be solid. I'd certainly feel better about my team if we had that rotation and not, you know, Hernandez, Washburn, Batista, Silva, and Ramirez (Horacio is the Josh Barfield of pitching), but that's for another blog entry. After the two known quantities, the Yankees are counting a great deal on a second year starter who was simply league average last year (he had an ERA+ of 100), a former ace who is making, according to the unreliable source that is baseball-reference.com, 11 million dollars and has pitched exactly one good season in his last four, and a second year pitcher that excelled in relief, but hasn't started at this level. No, this staff is not 100% proven, and considering that this team, like every Yankee team I'm able to remember, is constructed to win this year, I'm not sure I understand how any fan of the team could not care --go Yankees!-- that they essentially know what they're going to get from 40% of their rotation, and even that's assuming both Wang and Pettitte stay healthy.

Understanding how good Santana is, and how willing they've been to throw money around in the past (according, again, to baseball-reference, their top five highest paid starting pitchers --who I believe were Clemens, Pettitte, Mussina, Pavano, and Igawa-- made nearly 60 million for 92 starts last year) to shore up pitching, unless the Yankees are positive that Hughes and Kennedy are going to be very good at the major league level, I don't understand why anyone would rejoice hearing their team won't be adding someone who could easily be the best pitcher in the league (an opinion on track record, not just potential) this coming year.

So, in conclusion, yeah, Johan Santana's good and can help a team. If you're reading this, you're likely my girlfriend, and in that case, you're hearing it here first.