Author: Andrew Martin

Consider the transformation of elite quarterbacks in the league. Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady ran the table from the early to mid 2000s. While these quarterbacks are different in many respects, they’re all considered quality pocket passers. Favre is a bit of an anomaly, however, with his ability to scramble and make throws outside of the pocket. Manning famously went from under center, calling signals and audibles. Brady’s quick release and ability to read defenses made him one of the most elite quarterbacks in the league. Even though I put Manning and Brady over Favre, they all were dominant quarterbacks during that era. I still consider Brady an elite quarterback, but the new age of quarterbacks have significantly different skill sets that are indicative of the changing league.

Robert Griffin III, Johnny Manziel, and Jameis Winston were supposed to be the guys who were considered the elite quarterbacks after Favre and Manning. All three were flashy players with skills that gave adrenaline rushes to NFL fans.

Johnny Football’s speed, scrambling ability, and keeping plays alive made him comparable to Brett Favre in college. Manziel’s red flags were seemingly overlooked by the Cleveland Browns. His lack of work ethic, inability to play well with others, and size made him an NFL bust. He was supposed to be a solid NFL quarterback, but obviously his Texas A&M career never transitioned successfully to the Browns.

Robert Griffin III was supposed to the next big thing. His arm talent from the pocket was unparalleled; he could make plays with his feet, as well. His size gave him an advantage over Manziel when reading a defense from the pocket. RGIII took unnecessary hits, and the Redskins’ poor management of his injuries made his NFL career a bust.

Jameis Winston represented a sure thing on the field. A national championship and sufficient experience in a pro style offense with Jimbo Fisher at Florida State made scouts drool over his talent. The red flags were primarily off the field. Winston hasn’t really panned out in the NFL. The Bucs aren’t a great team, but he has made decisions that has kept him off the field this season. It’s clear that, the way things are going, he’s never going to be considered an elite NFL quarterback.

Enter Jared Goff and Patrick Mahomes. Mahomes wasn’t touted as an amazing NFL talent coming out of Texas Tech. He was placed into a solid NFL system with Andy Reid’s Chiefs. He sat behind Alex Smith, and when he finally got his chance, he showed that he’s going to be an elite NFL quarterback for a long time. He has an arm that will make your jaw drop. It doesn’t hurt that he has one of the fastest receiver to catch his long bombs in Tyreek Hill. Mahomes and the Chiefs definitely learned from the lessons of Manziel and RGIII. Mahomes seems like a high-character guy, and most importantly, the Chiefs won’t let him take unnecessary hits. They’ll manage his injuries correctly.

Goff didn’t start immediately. However, he was put into a Rams system similar to one he played in at Cal. Unlike Winston, the system Goff is in directly benefits his play style. The up-tempo offense of the Rams and Chiefs perfectly fits both quarterbacks, and the quality of character of both men will allow them to succeed for quite some time.

These offenses are telling of how the NFL quarterback landscape is changing in the NFL. Stars like Goff and Mahomes are a new breed of offensive production. This is easily seen after the Chiefs vs. Rams Monday Night Football game a few weeks ago in which the final score was 54-51 in favor of the Rams. Quarterbacks like these, with the help of offensive masterminds like Andy Reid and Sean McVay, are creating the new age of the NFL.

Andrew Martin can be reached at akmartin@wesleyan.edu.

Tom Brady is a system quarterback. There I said it. But how do you define a system QB? And he’s still the greatest of all time. Let me explain.

In his draft report, it said, “[Brady] is a system type player when forced to to ad lib.” Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time, in my opinion. I disagree with the system player point in the draft report, though. How many times have you seen Brady extend a play with his feet? I’m not talking about Brady bootlegging out, and making an incredible throw across his body with Ray Lewis and Terrell Suggs chasing him. Brady extends plays by staying in the pocket and moving around. He’s at his most dangerous when the edge rushers beat the tackles on the outside, and let Brady step up in the pocket. I think Brady will admit that he didn’t have that footwork coming into the league or the first dynasty run from 2001 to 2004. He acquired that as he matured through Alex Guerrero and the TB12 process. Brady came into the league as an unathletic, unproven prospect.

As a Patriots fan, I acknowledge we’ve been lucky in playoff games. People reference the “tuck rule” against the Raiders as the unwarranted start of our dynasty, or the Seahawks’ ill-advised pass to start the second dynasty. Every champion is lucky. Tyree’s helmet catch in 2007, the Patriots having 12 men on the field when they recovered a decisive fumble, Gronk’s inability to breathe against the Broncos in 2016, Welker’s drop against the Giants, and Brady’s drop against the Eagles. Brady and the Patriots haven’t just been lucky at times.

Consider any successful individual. Mark Zuckerberg allegedly stole a multi-billion dollar idea from Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. Whether he did it or not, Zuckerberg created a website that changed the way we act. What if Zuckerberg wasn’t at Harvard then? What if he lived a decade later? Some iteration of Facebook would exist. He was lucky.

Brady has always been put in a situation to succeed. Brady didn’t single-handedly make the Patriots win championships. If he did, banners from 2007 and 2011 would be hanging in Gillette Stadium. Put 2007 or 2011 Tom Brady on a mediocre team, hypothetically, without him ever being coached by Josh McDaniels or Bill Belichick. Would Tom Brady have won the Colts more Super Bowls in the Peyton Manning era? Definitely not. The Colts were a great offensive team with a sub-par defense. Sound familiar, 2007 Patriots?

Hypotheticals aside, it’s hard to judge accurately what Brady would’ve done if he wasn’t drafted by the Patriots. Would he have ever gotten a chance? Drew Bledsoe’s injury opened the door for Brady. What if that injury didn’t occur? Once Brady got his opportunity with Charlie Weiss and then Josh McDaniels as offensive coordinator, he gained the necessary autonomy to be the greatest of all time. He has trained in such a way that has raised eyebrows with the TB12 Method, but look at his resume. The only games he really missed were after Bernard Pollard’s cheap hit on his ACL, a freak accident, after the 18-1 season. Brady gets hit more than any other quarterback, and gets up every time. Peyton Manning would be crying for Archie; Aaron Rodgers would be down holding his clavicle; Tony Romo would be laying flat on his back. There’s no question that Brady has stayed on the field more than any other quarterback of his caliber. He rarely shows any sort of soreness from a previous hit, which contradicts quarterbacks like Brett Favre who limps after every down.

Tom Brady of the Patriots is the greatest of all time because he optimized his opportunity. Without the guidance of Belichick in the initial years, what would’ve Brady become? Peyton Manning was a great quarterback before Tony Dungy. Dungy would’ve not made Brady the GOAT. Belichick paved the way for Brady, but Tom did everything he could to turn from a nobody to the best that ever played.

Andrew Martin can be reached at akmartin@wesleyan.edu.

Well, Red Sox Nation, only a week has passed since the Red Sox stormed the field in Los Angeles to celebrate yet another World Series Championship. The days of the so-called ‘curse’ seem to have been forgotten. The ball going through Buckner’s legs, Bucky Dent and Aaron Boone’s late home runs, and Grady leaving Pedro in, are all moments of the past. This championship is, in my opinion, one of the most promising in this era. The 2004 team obviously will go down as one of the greatest Red Sox teams to ever take the field, after embarrassing the Yankees with four straight wins in the ALCS and winning the first world series for the franchise in 86 years. The one in 2013, similar to the one in 2004, was considered mostly a band of misfits with guys like Jonny Gomes and Mike Napoli. The team in 2004 had similar characters such as Kevin Millar and Mark Bellhorn. These two guys weren’t considered absolute studs on the field, but guys who do the little things to make a difference. Even though both of these teams had game changers like David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, and Jacoby Ellsbury, they weren’t far and away the most talented teams.

The 2007 and 2018 teams, in contrast, are considered to be very talented. The 2018 team’s outfield is probably one of the most talented outfields to play the game. Martinez, Betts, Bradley Jr., and Benintendi are all All-Star Game candidates, with two of them in the mix for MVP. The question is: What made the Red Sox so great this year? How did they dominate the Yankees, Astros, and then the Dodgers? Surely talent alone isn’t the answer. There have been plenty of talented teams in the history of sports to never win. I chalk up the Red Sox success this season to exceptional in-game management, on-field execution, and player acquisitions.

Let’s start with Dave Dombrowski in the front office. Dombrowski received a lot of heat during the trade deadline for not acquiring a “star” reliever. Boston radio commentators believed that there was a gap between a quality starter going seven innings to Kimbrel in the ninth. No one believed in Joe Kelly and Matt Barnes. Red Sox fans wanted Dombrowski to acquire a guy like Zach Britton or Sergio Romo, relievers who were proven to be shutdown. Instead, these two guys went to teams that the Red Sox handily beat. Dombrowski, meanwhile, acquired guys like Ryan Braiser and Nathan Eovaldi. These quiet acquisitions made a huge difference in games, with Eovaldi coming out of the pen and giving the Red Sox quality starts, while Braiser dominated the late innings. Even with Kimbrel blowing up in early round games, the bullpen managed to hold on to leads earned by a high-powered offense.

Next, Alex Cora’s in-game management made the difference this season. Xander Bogaerts said in a post-game press conference that Cora believed in him from the first day of spring training. They would text about possible situations and where each player would be used. Cora called Eduardo Núñez about a situation in which he would see a specific pitcher in a big at-bat. Núñez then studied that pitcher and understood what pitches he throws in different situations. Núñez went to hit one of the biggest home runs of the World Series that gave the Red Sox an early edge. Cora connects with his players, especially as a former player who was a defensive wizard. The Red Sox middle infield rarely made errors and was incredibly consistent.

It’s no secret how the Red Sox won. They dominated every team in the three main aspects that determine success: on-field play, game management, and player acquisitions. The Red Sox will be good for a long time because they have individuals in these positions that know how to win, and the bankroll to keep them there.

Andrew Martin can be reached at akmartin@wesleyan.edu.

Much to my dismay, we have approached the end of my NFL commentator rankings. Over the past two weeks, for those who aren’t avid Wesleyan Argus sports opinion readers, I’ve been ranking my favorite NFL commentators. Although my decisions haven’t provoked outrage or the discourse that I hoped would occur across the world (sarcasm), I’m happy to finally write about my favorite pair: CBS’s Jim Nantz and Tony Romo. The criteria that I judge each pair on is subjective, I admit. Some love the robotic Joe Buck, while others prefer the smoothness of Al Michaels. I didn’t make these rankings to simply state whom I like to listen to the most. Rather, I attempted to create discussion that forces individuals who sit on the fence about their favorite broadcasting pair to finally pick a side. As I close out my rankings, I want all the readers to listen to each pair on Sunday and feel lucky that we all have Joe Buck in our lives. We could do a lot worse, trust me. But here’s Tony Romo and Jim Nantz.

Similar to Al Michaels, Jim Nantz has a softness about him. It’s not soft like he’s not a tough guy, but my ears yearn to hear the sound of his voice. He begins, as he always does, with, “Hello friends, I’m Jim Nantz.” Personally whenever someone says “hello friend” to me, he or she is normally not my friend. I wouldn’t say that I’m repulsed when someone addresses me as “friend,” but none of my actual friends refer to each other as “friend.” Even though it’s a quirky introduction, I love it. When Nantz says “friends,” his silky smooth voice brings a smile to my face. I know it’s game day when I hear that phrase.

Before I go any further, I want to address the elephant in the room: CBS’s near-monolopy on broadcasting AFC games means that Nantz and Romo are normally covering the Patriots. As an avid member of Patriot Nation, I can firmly say that my connection with Nantz and Romo has nothing to do with the Patriots. With that behind us, Nantz “does his job” as University alumnus and Brother of Chi Psi Bill Belichick ’75 would say. Nantz does a great job of deferring to Romo about play calls, personnel groupings, or any football detail that the common fan doesn’t know. By doing less, Nantz does more by just calling the game.

I don’t really hear a difference between Nantz’s football and Masters commentating. That’s the mark of a great commentator: the ability to transition from a gladiatorial sport to a quiet one without skipping a beat. I pick Nantz over Buck based on the evidence I just gave. Nantz and Michaels is a toss up for me because both do such a great job at letting the game come to them and just calling the game as they see it. So what’s the difference between my pick of CBS over NBC? You guessed it. Tony Romo.

How will Tony Romo be remembered? He had quite a journey from an undrafted rookie from Eastern Illinois University to the quarterback of America’s Team to headline CBS broadcaster. What would’ve happened if the referees ruled Dez Bryant’s “drop” as a catch in that divisional game against the Packers in 2014? Tony Romo could’ve been in the Super Bowl with the way the Cowboys were playing that year.

Instead, football-era Romo will be remembered for that bad hold on the game-winning field goal against the Seahawks and choking in front of his girlfriend at the time, Jessica Simpson, on the world stage. Good thing Romo landed in the booth at CBS. Romo, like any good NFL quarterback, can read defenses and understand offensive play calls. He brought that skill to the booth by telling the audience the play before it’s actually run. Some people say they want to be surprised by the play and don’t want Romo’s play call. I couldn’t disagree more. He doesn’t simply say it’s a pass play. He says, “the guard’s going to pull; the defense is in man coverage; the receiver is running an option route.”

Simply put, Romo has revolutionized the commentating game by bringing his vast knowledge of the sport to the audience. He makes football fans smarter and more equipped to understand the game in a more sophisticated way. He also brings humor into the booth. If you notice on challenges and official reviews, when a replay comes on, Romo’s voice will get really high and squeaky voice of a receiver trying to drag his feet to remain in bounds. He says, “I dooon’t knoooow, it’s goinggg to beee a cloooooose one Jiiiiiiiiiim.” Some may find it annoying, but I don’t. He brings an enthusiasm to the game that Troy Aikman certainly lacks, and Cris Collinsworth can’t match. Romo’s combination of great football knowledge and enthusiasm is a pleasure to listen to. I’m sure NBC and Fox will look to replicate Romo and Nantz with their next leading pair.

It’s been fun doing analysis on these guys. Most of my analysis builds from endless messages in group chats with my high school buddies on Sundays. Even though they now live across the country in Davidson, N.C., Charlottesville, Va., and Ann Arbor, Mich., watching sports and cracking jokes at the expense of these commentators keeps us close as we make our way through the college experience.

Andrew Martin can reached at akmartin@wesleyan.edu.

To the shock and chagrin of all Joe Buck lovers, last week, I ranked him and Aikman as the bottom pair of NFL commentators. Now, this ranking doesn’t include the likes of the robotic Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts or the commentator musical chairs that’s going on at ESPN’s Monday Night Football. Buck and Aikman are solid commentators, but they don’t come close to the quality of the main NBC and CBS pairs. I bet you’re thinking to yourself, who’s next on the list? Will it be the proven, dependable Cris Collinsworth and Al Michaels? Or will it be the new kid on the block, Tony Romo, and the “hello friends” Jim Nantz? Do you believe in Miracles? Yes! My second place pair is NBC’s Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth.

Like last week, I’ll begin my analysis with Cris Collinsworth. My positives on Collinsworth shockingly outweigh the negatives. The group chat on my phone always explodes in anger when Collinsworth does something to criticize the Patriots. I personally don’t hate Cris Collinsworth. Unlike the other two former athletes in the CBS and Fox pair, Collinsworth wasn’t a quarterback; he was a wide receiver.

Quarterbacks have always been dubbed the smartest athletes on the football field. Rightfully so, they have to make pre-snap reads at all levels of the defense. They have to check the alignment of the defensive line to ensure that all gaps are properly filled; linebackers looking to blitz have to be checked to prevent a free rush; defensive backs’ shifts need to be understood to make a distinction between man or zone coverage. That’s all before the snap of the ball. The quarterback, furthermore, has to make sure that he has set up all parts of the offense in a way to make his team successful. For all those reasons, quarterbacks are normally put in the booth to accompany a man like Al Michaels.

Wide receivers don’t get the credit they deserve in regard to their intelligence. Jerry Rice and Steve Largent are two examples of incredible football knowledge, route running ability, and hands. Collinsworth, even though he’s no Largent or Rice, had to have intelligence to run his routes to perfection. If he didn’t run a great route, he wouldn’t be open. Collinsworth proved to be an effective receiver with three Pro Bowls and one All-Pro nod to his name. All in all, Collinsworth has the credentials and intelligence to be in the booth with Michaels. He also displays an excitement that Aikman can’t replicate.

When Russell Wilson was picked off by Malcolm Butler (as a Patriots fan I have to reference this) Cris Collinsworth vehemently criticized Pete Carroll and his coaching staff. Aikman would’ve probably stated, “well in this situation, you have to think about running the ball.” Collinsworth said no such thing: “I’m sorry, but I can’t believe the call. I CANNOT BELIEVE THE CALL. I can’t get over the call.” I love this about Collinsworth; he’s sometimes loud and in your face but in an intelligent way. He gets riled up, but everything he’s saying is normally accurate.

The one part about Collinsworth broadcasting ability that I don’t love is that he gets repetitive and hung up over specific details that the audience just doesn’t need to hear one more time. Of course, I’m referencing Brock Osweiler. Osweiler had a terrible run with the Broncos, but Collinsworth couldn’t get over how tall he is. He would prattle about how his height advantage would make him a great quarterback with his ability to see over the line. That annoyed me, as well as many fans across America. Collinsworth is a great commentator overall, but that one area of him not letting some ridiculous points go hurts him in my rankings.

Al Michaels, Collinsworth’s partner in crime, has the voice of an angel. I’m completely serious here; when Michaels commentates, my shoulders relax, my resting heart rate goes down, my doubts and fears subside. Michaels has been in the broadcasting game for decades, calling some incredible ones. The Miracle on Ice has to be his most famous moment. The excerpt I included above, “Do you believe in Miracles? Yes!” is one of the most quotable lines from any sports game, following closely behind by the line, “that’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it works out for him” from “Dodgeball”.

Kidding aside, Michaels is one of those announcers you want to have when your team is playing. This pair does have a slight advantage over the others in which they regularly have the Sunday night game. Even though some of the Sunday night matchups aren’t great, ending your weekend with football is something I have always loved. Through the years and many broadcasting partners, Michaels has gained an immense knowledge of football. Even though it’s not quite at the level of Aikman, Romo, or Collinsworth, it’s not his job to be the football expert. One of his defining qualities is his minimalist approach. We’re bombarded so much nowadays by commentary we don’t really need. Michaels lets the game speak for itself. I don’t really have a knock on Michaels, which goes to show you how much I enjoy Romo and Nantz. Tune in for next week’s edition of Martin’s NFL Commentator Rankings.

Andrew Martin can be reached akmartin@wesleyan.edu.

To the pleasure of my ears, I finally heard the energetic, squeaky voice of Tony Romo this past Sunday commentating the Patriots vs. Texans game. As Romo continued casually revealing plays before they were ran, I pondered which of the three NFL pairs is my favorite. CBS is headlined by Tony Romo and Jim Nantz, Fox is led by Joe Buck and Troy Aikman, and NBC has Cris Collinsworth and Al Michaels.

For the sake of analysis, I won’t include comments on the sideline reporters or expert rule specialists each network possesses. I do have a special place in my heart for kicking reporters. When Jay Feely says that kickers will have a tough time in a 15 miles per hour crosswind, I can’t help but smile. Gone are the days when it was just John Madden and Pat Summerall. Today’s game is engulfed by nonstop information from sideline reporters, constantly reiterating basic inferences that a cat could probably make. Even though I enjoy the style of Madden and Summerall letting the audience naturally watch a game without constant interruption, I feel the need to analyze and grade each network pair. The criteria for grading is broken down into two categories: intelligence and speech.

Here is the first edition of three: Fox. Troy Aikman and Joe Buck are quite the pair. Aikman, a legendary Cowboys quarterback, clearly knows the game. His football knowledge is an easy A. He’s a California kid who grew up living and breathing football. Starting at the University of Oklahoma, then transferring to UCLA, Aikman entered the NFL with a whole lot of hype. After several disappointing seasons, he started a run that made the Cowboys “America’s team” and a perennial dynasty.

After retirement, Aikman became Fox’s lead commentator in 2001. When I listen to Aikman, I’m really neither here nor there. He doesn’t have a terribly commanding voice like he did in the huddle or on the line making calls. Aikman also does not seem to possess an audible confidence or swagger. I’m not sure if this is because he isn’t exactly an alpha male or lead guy due to Joe Buck’s presence, but he doesn’t really take control. When a big play happens, he stays quiet, while Romo—who I’ll get to later—starts giggling and can’t control himself. Even though it’s Buck’s role to call most of the plays and Aikman’s role to give the analysis, I wish Aikman would interject or seem more excited.

That could just be his personality, though. On the field, he was viewed as a robot who simply did the job on a great team and didn’t offer much emotion. I give Aikman a B minus in speech because he doesn’t really get the audience excited.

And of course, there’s Joe Buck. The son of Jack Buck, a Hall of Fame commentator and the voice of Kirk Gibson’s historic home run, Joe Buck reverts to repetition, lack of analysis, and having a larger-than-life forehead. All in all, he has a good voice that’s easy to understand. He speaks slowly, uses simple words, and lets the play unfold before giving an immediate reaction (again, unlike Romo). For those who haven’t seen Randy Moss “moon” the Lambeau crowd in Green Bay, I would look it up.

“That was a disgusting act by Randy Moss,” Buck said. Even though Moss didn’t actually pull his pants down, Joe Buck clearly had an adverse reaction to the sequence of events.

A man of many talents, Buck led a successful Fox baseball commentator team with Tim McCarver as well. Like Aikman, however, Buck is somewhat robotic in his voice. He really doesn’t sound like a human at times. His monotone play calling doesn’t excite me in ways that Al Michaels’ or Jim Nantz’s do. His knowledge of the game is solid; it’s a bit subpar compared to Aikman’s, but I give it a B plus. Buck’s voice, however, forces me to give him a B minus for that category.

I give the Fox football commentators a B overall. This is unfortunate because they cover really good NFC games. You can always count on them commentating the Packers, Vikings, Panthers, or Giants due to their NFC schedule. Their voices don’t do wonders for my ears, which makes me rank this pair as my least favorite commentators.

Andrew Martin can be reached at akmartin@wesleyan.edu.

Close your eyes. Think about the most anticipated sports games of your life. Chances are you’re thinking about rivals dueling it out on the big stage. Celtics vs. Lakers, Ohio State vs. Michigan, Bruins vs. Canadians, Alabama vs. Auburn. These come to mind when I think about great rivalries in North American sports. The greatest rivalry is the Boston Red Sox vs. New York Yankees. Is this matchup my favorite rivalry because I’m from Boston, and have been a fan of Boston sports for my entire life? I can neither confirm nor deny that assertion. As the dog days of August have come to a close, and September baseball has arrived, we are inching closer and closer to the MLB playoffs.

Many questions arise when thinking about the Red Sox and Yankees’ hopes for an American League pennant: Will Aaron Judge be healthy? What’s the status on Chris Sale? Can the Yankees put quality starting pitching on the mound? Will David Price and the Red Sox bullpen finally prove themselves in clutch situations? At the end of the day, the reason why this rivalry is so powerful is because of the fans of each team. Yankees fans epitomize the obnoxious New Yorker, clamoring, “We have 27 rings, 27!” Red Sox fans have converted their image from the lovable losers to obnoxious winners as well. Boston sports have been a powerhouse this past decade with each of the four major sports teams winning their respective league’s crown. Like Maya Angelou famously stated, “We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.” Despite the fact that Boston sports fans hate New York sports fans, and New York sports fans hate Boston sports fans, they have a good reason: both are winners. Anything less than victory will have fans calling into WFAN 101.9 FM in New York or 98.5 The Sports Hub in Boston. Both channels use the same rhetoric but direct all criticism towards their respective ball club, front office, and ownership. Let’s take a journey 15 years ago to relive why this rivalry is so special. A journey that involves the current manager of the Yankees, a broadcaster for ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball, and a man they called “Papi” in Boston.

Pitcher Pedro Martinez was on the mound, baffling Yankee hitters on a cool October night in the 2003. The Red Sox built a three-run lead in the eighth inning. Little did Red Sox fans know that they were headed for disaster in the Bronx. The following innings would be discussed over and over again and critically dissected and analyzed by Red Sox fans and baseball “experts.” Red Sox manager Grady Little was in a predicament. Does he leave Martinez in, who is well over a reasonable pitch count—losing control and velocity in the process? Or does he go with a bullpen that he doesn’t believe in? As Red Sox fans know, he chose the former. The lovable losers became even more lovable as Martinez blew up, and current Yankees manager Aaron Boone smashed an extra-inning Tim Wakefield knuckleball deep into the Bronx night, sending the Yankees to the World Series. The 2003 rivalry escalated even further when Martinez literally threw down Yankees coach Don Zimmer during a brawl. Fights, walk off home runs, Yankee success and Red Sox failure opened the door to an even more contentious 2004 season.

Alex Rodriguez, regarded as the most sought after free agent in the 2004 season, chose New York over Boston in a way that infuriated Red Sox nation. With all indication he was coming to Boston, he stuck a knife into the backs of all Red Sox fans and went to the Evil Empire. Tensions rose even further when A-Rod and then-Red Sox captain Jason Varitek brawled during a mid-July game. Many know what occurred to finish out the 2004 season. The Red Sox embarrassed the Yankees by coming back from a three games to none deficit in the American League Championship Series. While Yankee fans had a postmortem after the series, the Red Sox broke their 86-year drought by winning a World Series.

That’s really the last we heard from the rivalry. Sure, there have been flashes, like when Ryan Dempster plunked A-Rod and Joe Kelly brawled with Tyler Austin. Baseball hit its peak with the Sox and Yanks in the mid-2000s. The Mitchell Report shortly followed, implicating players who used performance-enhancing drugs. Baseball stars all across the country were labeled as frauds. The youthful fun of watching baseball, and living and dying with these rivalries were put on hold. The Mitchell Report was a long time ago. Teams such as the Cardinals, Astros, and Giants have dominated baseball. The Red Sox and Yankees have won it all but were never really two dominant clubs at the same time. That could change this season. The clubs have finally put together rosters and are performing at elite levels at the same time. It’s my dream for the Red Sox to once again to travel to the Bronx to play in late October. It’s my dream for Craig Kimbrel to stare down at Giancarlo Stanton or Aaron Judge in the ninth inning of a game seven, for the youthful exuberance this rivalry used to make me feel is close to starting to die.

The only thing we as baseball fans can do is hold out hope that Boston plays New York in October baseball this year. Why? Because it’s good for sports.

Andrew Martin can be reached at akmartin@wesleyan.edu.

You hear the characterization all the time, but what is a “good locker room guy?” Are these athletes in the twilight of their careers whose value is solely based on facilitating sound chemistry on the team? Why do teams need athletes like this? Surely, a professional sports team can acquire athletes for the equivalent or lower salary to fill the roster spot. Are general managers in professional sports, scouts at all levels, and college programs actively seeking to draw athletes that possess the talent of fostering a sound locker room? No, of course not. All athletes are on a roster because the coach believes that the athlete can help the team win. Character, however, is one of the prime characteristics that coaches look for in all athletes. For example, let’s use the Chicago Cubs’ acquisition of Jason Heyward.

Before we look at what most perceive as the most important aspect of an athlete—their statistics—it’s important to understand Heyward’s background. He comes from one of those great athletic and successful families: a family like the Mannings, the Williams, and the Griffeys. Both of his parents attended Dartmouth. Comes from a well-educated family: check. Jason’s father, Eugene, studied engineering and played varsity basketball, while his uncle played for legendary coach John Wooden at UCLA. Comes from an athletically gifted family: check.

In a world of increased scrutiny and pressure for youth athletes to perform exceedingly well in order to receive scholarship offers, the Heyward’s lived in a culture that put the love of the game before anything else. As Heyward began to rise up in Georgia’s youth sports scene, his talent shined. He became one of the most sought after college baseball recruits in 2007. Scouts labeled him as a can’t-miss prospect; a five tool player. All the talent in the world and a bright future in professional baseball: check. Before Heyward graduated high school, Andrew Wilmot, a personal friend and teammate of Heyward’s, died in a car accident. Heyward would wear Wilmot’s number, twenty-two, for the rest of his career. A love and dedication to his teammates: check.

Jason Heyward, the 14th pick in the 2007 MLB first year player draft, has been a solid starter in the major leagues. He has a good mitt in the field, accumulating five Gold Gloves in the process. The problem for Heyward is consistency at the plate. There’s no question Heyward can hit for power. Heyward mashed twenty-seven home runs in 2012 with the Braves, but he hasn’t hit over .300 in any of his eight big league seasons or even topped eighty-two RBI’s.

Statistically, he hasn’t lived up to the expectations coming out of high school in Georgia. After five years with the Braves and a brief layover with the Cardinals in 2015, Heyward signed a whopping eight-year, one hundred and eighty-four million dollar contract before the 2016 season. Skeptics believed that the Cubs greatly overpaid market price for an outfielder that never completely met lofty expectations. The Cubs internally, however, were almost complete in the rebuilding process to end a 108 year World Series drought. Who were the architects employed to end such this long standing misery for Cubs fans all around the world? Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer ’96, two individuals who never played pro ball.

Flash forward to the World Series November 2016. Cubs closer and stud Aroldis Chapman, who regularly throws his fastball in the low 100’s, just gave up a game tying homer to Rajai Davis. Yes, that Rajai Davis. The guy whose career high in home runs is a mere 12. The Indians seemed to snatch all the momentum from the Cubs’ historic season, while heavy rain stalled the game for 17 minutes. As Theo Epstein walked past the weight room in the bowels of Progressive Field to confer with Indians’ officials regarding the forecast, he witnessed something out of the ordinary: Jason Heyward commanded the respect and attention of his fellow teammates in that weight room like Al “Any Given Sunday” or Tim Tebow’s speech during halftime of the 2008 BCS National Championship game against Oklahoma.

While Cubs fans were having nightmares of the Curse of the Billy Goat, and the 2003 NLCS collapse against the Marlins with Steve Bartman at the helm, Heyward was showing Epstein that he was worth 184 million dollars. Heyward was hitting a pathetic 0.099 that postseason. He was in an all-time slump. As the rain in Cleveland subsided that night, the Indians took the field with confidence that they would be crowned champions, for the momentum was on their side. The Cubs, however, stepped into the box with a swagger that conveyed they weren’t going to lose the ballgame. A base knock by Kyle Schwarber and an game-winning RBI double by Ben Zobrist finally clinched the elusive title.

Epstein and Hoyer, individuals who rose up the ranks of front offices during the Moneyball era, gave an enormous contract to a player that defied the Moneyball ethos. Heyward looks like an athlete in batting practice, but his numbers contradicted his enormous contract. Epstein said in a postgame interview that Heyward, again hitting only 0.099 in the postseason, was one of the most crucial members of the team. Epstein emphasized that building a successful team isn’t all about numbers.

A great player isn’t necessarily one that scores the most touchdowns or hits the most homeruns. A great player is defined on how much he or she positively impacts the team. With the momentum gone and the guilt of not ending a legendary curse on the franchise, all of the Cubs’ players would have remained in their lockers silent. One stood up, however, and told his teammates, “let’s go win.” A great locker room guy was the paramount factor in snapping the greatest losing streak in sports history.

Andrew Martin can be reached at akmartin@wesleyan.edu.

The men’s and women’s golf teams concluded their seasons this past weekend at the Middlebury Invitational and the Williams Women’s Invitational, respectively. The short spring season kicked off a week prior at the Williams Spring Invitational on Saturday, April 21. It was there that Zachary Lambros B.A. ’17 M.A. ’18 led the Cardinals’ shooting with a 177 two day total, finishing 39th out of 50 overall. Andrew Rachlin ’18 followed closely behind Lambros, shooting a 179 as he went on to finish 42nd overall. Rachlin was exactly 30 strokes from the competition’s two-day champion, Middlebury’s Jeffrey Giguere. Unfortunately, Lambros’ and Rachlin’s efforts could not bring the team up the ranks, and Wesleyan finished in last place.

The Red and Black followed up the Williams Spring Invitational with an appearance in the Little Three Championship. Again, the outcome didn’t go Wesleyan’s way as the Dirty Birds finished third out of three in the tournament. Wesleyan hosted the tournament at TPC River Highlands in nearby Cromwell, a course that annually hosts a PGA Tour event in June.

The Little Three Tournament is unique in structure, as the morning competition divides the eight-person team into four pairs. Each two-person team then competes against another through alternating shots. Whichever team wins the match gets a point. After this pair play, the afternoon brings individual competition, in which the winner is determined by head-to-head scores against the other two schools.

Amherst took the win overall as the Mammoths defeated Wesleyan 11.5-0.5 and the Ephs of Williams by a narrow margin, 6.5-5.5. Wesleyan also lost to Williams 12-0. Notable performances came from Saadia Naeem ’20 and Elliot Witdorchic ’20, the Cardinals’ fourth group of the morning competition. They were the only Red Bird pair to record points.

Naeem also competed in the prestigious Women’s Williams Spring Invitational this past weekend. She finished with a 103 on day one and a 102 on day two. While Naeem was competing at the tourney, other members of the team were competing at an exhibition match at Middlebury. The Middlebury Invitational rounded out the 2018 spring season, with the Red and Black finishing fourth out of five teams.

After his final week of collegiate golf, Brian Gerner ’18 reflected on a spring that held little success for the team.

“The season went solid.” Gerner said. “I shot 85, 89, and 81 which was decent for me, and low for the team. The team did much better in the second tournament and our scores all improved. I think I’ll definitely remember the overnights we did, they’re always a great time.”

Coach Gilarde also gave some input on the season and added his hopes about the future of the program.

“We had three events that took place in the worst weather conditions known,” Gilarde noted. “But the team played through the conditions which made me proud of them. Next year we have two new recruits so the team will be half new, half returning. I am excited about the possibilities next year and look forward to a great season.”

The Cardinals will hit the range and the putting green this summer in hopes of catching their fellow NESCAC foes on the course next year.

Andrew Martin can be reached at akmartin@wesleyan.edu.