Michael Strahan - One of a Kind

Well, he finally did it. Michael Strahan retired after 15 long years of football. And he will be missed. Not only was he the best defensive end on the Giants team (and arguably the NFL) but he was the easiest to talk to (most times) and everybody liked him (well, just about). And he stopped the run too. He was truly one of a kind.

Throughout the Giants triumphant playoff run and Super Bowl, it seemed as if there were a lot of heroes. And there certainly were. Eli, Steve Smith, Amani Toomer, all those rookies.....but there was always Strahan. He always got a lot of attention. And he deserved it.

What do most people remember about him? First and foremost, unfortunately I think, is the gap-toothed smile, that gap-toothed smile that became his trademark. And, who knows, given his overall effect on the Giants football team, maybe it was one of his greatest assets.

I’ll bet it helped him be a leader. It made him approachable. Instead of the dour expression you might expect from a man who mixed it up with the biggest, meanest people on the planet, Michael would sport that gap-toothed grin. And all would seem right with the world.

That’s what the Giants will miss most - his leadership. How many people can be elected captain of a team when he’s not even there? Well, that’s what happened with the Giants last year. At the time, I viewed it as an enormous negative. What kind of mixed-up priorities did this team have?

But it turned out to be a harbinger of good things to come. The Giants were saying, “HE’S OUR LEADER” loud and clear. Not Eli, not Coughlin, not Amani. It’s Michael Strahan and we don’t care that he’s not here. Who knows? Maybe that’s what ultimately brought him back for that one last triumphant run to glory.

In preparation for this column, I looked at Strahan’s career stats, and, while laudable, primarily for their consistency, stats don’t tell his story. Stats are a more reliable indicator for a quarterback. But for a defensive end, who can be double-teamed or even triple-teamed, you would have to examine the performance of every other defensive lineman and linebacker to really gauge his overall significance.

There was one best way of gauging his importance. You just had to watch him. He had one of those classic defensive end bodies. Listed at 6’5” and 255, it’s hard to believe he carried that much bulk. He was always so fast. And quick. (There is a big difference there)..And he played with abandon.

All the great defensive linemen had speed and quickness. And power, of course. But the primary asset is speed. You can make a guy powerful, and you can even improve a guy’s speed and quickness through training, but the gift from God is really the natural speed.

Strahan always had it. In fact, sometimes I thought he tried to rely on his speed too much. There were too many games when I thought he’d just run himself out of a play, the offensive lineman would just ride him out behind the quarterback.

But, more often than not, in moments that counted, Strahan would make a play. He’d do what he had to do. And Strahan could do it all, run like a deer, stop on a dime, change directions in a heartbeat, bull his way through a block or even jump bodies to make the play.

But he was smart too. He’d study his opponent. He’d understand the defensive scheme. And certainly for the latter days of his career, in those last several years, he became a leader, and then he became THE leader.

In fact, the best indicator of his prowess on the field was what happened to the Giants when he wasn’t on the field. The best example was the 2006 season. The Giants couldn’t stop anybody. That they finished a .500 team and made the playoffs by a hair was remarkable. But, even that accomplishment may have been out of reach if not for the exhortations of Strahan.

Read Michael’s book. And then read a book called “The G.M.”. The two, taken together, give you a good idea of the power of Strahan. He endured the pain. He made Tiki a better person. He made Coughlin a better coach. I think he even made some reporters better reporters.

Just as his opponents on the line couldn’t know what to expect from Strahan, whether he would run around them, or bull through them, or whirl like a dervish, so did his personality consist of several quite different elements, some that could scare you but others that could charm.

When Strahan was going through that ugly divorce, it was easy to turn against him. You’d read some ugly things, and you’d wonder. But could any of us endure a microscopic examination of his life and emerge unsullied?

Well, Strahan is nothing if not resilient. He endured that experience just as he endured the pain of every Sunday, or the relentless questioning of those reporters. He’s just a tough guy. And maybe that’s what we should remember the most.

Not just fast or strong, but tough too. And enduring. Following his rookie year, he played 15 or more games in every year but two. In those years he played just 8 games in 2004 and 9 games in 2006. He was always tough and he was always there. If he could walk, he’d be in there.

I’ve already heard that some people think he is a big phony. That stems, I’m sure, from the times you’d see a different person from the one you thought you knew. But Strahan really is a complex individual, and I think people were just seeing the many sides of Michael.

The capacity to laugh and enjoy, but also the capacity to be very tough. All the great ones had it, certainly Ali, Marciano or even Howie Long.

And Michael Strahan too.

Great Equalizers...Clay...Distance et al.

All week I have been amazed by the French Open tennis action, and what a difference the surface has made in the outcome of matches and tournaments. Thank God for clay, I thought. There’s always a good chance of seeing a Final you could never dream of when they’re sliding around on that red stuff. It surely beats the hard courts for long rallies.

And, sure enough, there was the lovely Maria Sharapova, while not actually looking too much like a “cow on ice” (as she had once referred to herself), losing to her compatriot Dinara Safina. The really big servers, the Williams sisters for example, had already been beaten. So the Roland Garros faithful had the pleasure of watching two rather unlikely semifinals, a Russian duel between Safina and. Kuznetsova and an all-Serb matchup of the elegant Ivanovic versus the quick-as-a-snake Jelena Jankovic.

And what a semifinal was the latter. Ivanovic proved that she’s not justt a pretty face, sliding back and forth with ease and grace while slamming winners left and right to come back in the third set to prevail. Safina beat Kuznetsova a bit more easily to advance, all of which sets up a tantalizing women’s final, one unimaginable on grass or blacktop.

As much as I await the men’s results, and the fate of the Frenchman Monfils, who has the misfortune of drawing Roger Federer later today, I look forward even more to the Belmont on Saturday afternoon, and wonder about the outcome of what has set up as a classic duel between Big Brown, winner of the first two Crown jewels rather handily and the bred-for-distance Casino Drive, half-brother (through the dam amazingly enough) to the last two Belmont winners.

The great equalizer will be the distance, of course, in that affair, not that there aren’t other variables to consider; Big Brown’s cracked hoof, for example, or getting stuck on the rail. But, even these two seemingly-unrelated questions are amplified by the 1 ½ mile distance. That is to say, one factor is aggravated by the other.

A cracked hoof, although it’s been pooh-poohed by Brown’s loquacious trainer Rick Dutrow, maybe wouldn’t figure too heavily over a mile and a quarter but what will it do over those last two furlongs, especially considering the injury did necessarily affect Big Brown’s training.

And, in a shorter race, Kent Desormeaux would figure to just sprint to the lead, thus staying out of trouble while saving ground. But will Big Brown be able to overcome the energy-sapping effort it’ll take to take the lead in a potential stretch duel after 11 furlongs? After all, there is a rabbit in the race and Casino Drive has the pedigree to get the distance.

The race is setting up for a late drive, either by Casino Drive or even one of the others, for, after all, this is first and foremost a horse race, and horse races tend to propagate unusual finishes. Otherwise, there’d be happy railbirds everywhere, and that’s a prospect I can’t even imagine.

Then, there are the NBA Finals, and the home-court equalizer. The advantages of playing at home in the NBA can scarcely be over-estimated. Without going into boring statistics, the numbers favoring the team on its home court are staggering. While some of the advantage is due to a familiarity with the court, and some due to the noise of the home crowd, it’s those whistle-blowers who have the greatest affect on the outcome.

Very unfortunately, I might add. Even the most die-hard NBA fans have this year cringed at some of the calls, none more noteworthy than the no-call in Game 5 of the Lakers-Spurs game that handed the victory to the Lakers.

Given the questionable nature of the trades that made this Celtics-Lakers death match possible, the ridiculous Pau Gasol trade from Memphis to the Lakers, of course, but also the timely Boston acquisitions of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, one has to wonder whether this entire season was story-boarded back in the New York offices of NBA Commissioner David Stern.

Happily, although the Celtics have jumped out ahead in Game One at home, the whistles did not largely figure in the outcome. It was more the defense of the Celtics and the ineffectiveness of Kobe, no doubt forced by the Celtics Defense.

In any event, though, it’s a no-brainer to figure that, once this Series finds its way back to La-La Land, the odds will swing to the Lakers, no matter what should happen in Game Two in Boston. Jack Nicholson, a host of other stars and starlets, the Laker-Girls, all that gold and purple figure to sway the result, if not the officials.

A discussion of equalizers would not be complete without mentioning injuries in football. I still savor with fondness the Giants playoffs-run this past year, but it was all the more remarkable considering the injuries the G-Men withstood throughout that run.

It wasn’t just Jeremy Shockey. There were what could have been devastating injuries to the secondary, against opponents who certainly should have been able to take advantage, Giants-killer Freddy Garcia, the irrepressible Tony Romo to Terrell Owens combination, and Hall of Famer Bret Favre.

Last but not least, if certainly the sweetest, there is the lingering image of Tom Brady, with Giants seemingly draped around, under and through him, trying desperately to find Randy Moss. In retrospect, it was a lack of injuries along the defensive line that spelled defeat for the Patriots.

In baseball, of course, there is a slight advantage to playing at home, but it never really seems to be a significant determinant of a game’s outcome. The great equalizer in baseball is pitching. Or the lack thereof, as the case may be.

I was reminded of this last night as I watched the Mets lose a close one to the Padres, on bases on balls followed by a hit batsman, served up by the usually reliable Scott Schoenweiss. But it could have been worse. It could have been Heilman.

No Stuff Is No Stuff

Andy Pettite said it best, I think. When asked about Joba Chamberlain and his thoughts regarding Joba's start tonight, Andy said "...But stuff is stuff, and he's got great stuff. So he should be successful." Now turn that around for a second and you get "no stuff is no stuff and he's got bad stuff. So he should fall on his face."

All of which brings me around to the case of the Yankees Kyle Farnsworth . He is a perfect example of a pitcher with no stuff. Farnsworth is fast. He's been as fast for the Yankees as he was for Atlanta, Detroit and the Cubs before that. He's got a career ERA of 4.47 with a 1.40 WHIP, certainly nothing to write home about. The only things that come home are opposing batters, who seem to do it with alarming regularity, and very frequently at the worst possible moments.

Farnsworth's career won-loss record may characterize his career a little better. He's 28-47. While a won-loss record for a reliever is usually not indicative of a reliever's performance, in Farnsworth's case, I think it is. He has 26 career saves in 11 seasons. He's surrendered 105 home runs in 701 career innings. It seems to me I've seen at least half of them.

Farnsworth throws hard. When in trouble, he tries to throw even harder. His temperament's not really suited to that of a reliever either. He can't seem to maintain an even enough temperament to simply answer a question. When asked about Chamberlain and possible added pressure, he snapped "It hasn't done anything to me like that."

All this comes to mind as Joba prepares for his first major league start. It bothers me that the man is being held accountable for relinquishing his 8th-inning assignment to pitchers such as Farnsworth. How long will it take the Yankees to realize what any baseball fan could have told them a long time ago? Farnsworth is not a closer, he's not a holder, at best he's a guy to throw in there with an eight or nine run lead.

It's not as if there's nobody else. Without going into specifics, there's Hawkins who's been in similar roles and well, I just can't imagine anyone else being a worse choice. Why does it take so long for the Yankees to realize it?

Slow to change....the Yankees certainly aren't the only team in New York about which the same thing could be said. The Mets have a similar problem but one with entirely different characteristics. They have an eighth-inning guy they'll only use once in a while. His name is Duaner Sanchez. But the Mets choose to keep throwing Aaron Heilman in there.

Heilman's career numbers as a reliever aren't bad, especially if one chooses to ignore the fact that it was Heilman who lost that 7th game in 2006 to the Cardinals. But a 4.21 ERA and a 1.30 WHIP compare favorably with Farnsworth's career numbers. For example, Heilman's given up only 41 home runs in 404 innings pitched, about a 1 in 10 compared to Farnsworth's 1 in 7.

But Heilman's numbers this year are horrible. His ERA is 6.37 with a WHIP of 1.58. Without a big story, the Mets have lost 16 of the 26 games in which Heilman has appeared. Heilman is 0-2 with just two blown saves but also has only 5 "holds" in those same 26 appearances. And, while he may not have blown the rest of his opportunities, he has sure come close to it.

Slow to change...Willie Randolph is probably the best example of this in the entire league. Even more so than Brian Cashman and Joe Girardi because Willie exhibits that same ridiculous persistence with Delgado and Castillo, and seemingly any and every veteran player on the roster.

That persistence, some would say stubbornness (I certainly would), is the reason the Mets are looking up at the rest of the division. Is it surprising to anyone that Delgado and Castillo began to turn things around after riding the pine for a little while? Or that Heilman did enjoy a couple of good outings after being taken out of the relieving rotation for a spell?

Supposedly, Heilman’s problem is one of location. And, while that is undoubtedly partly true, I doubt that a pitch of Joba’s, in precisely the same location, would travel quite as far into the stands. Because the pitch would have either arrived in that spot a lot sooner, or would have dived into that spot, or backed up into that spot.

You get the picture. Joba has stuff. He doesn’t always have to hit the perfect spot. The only things that Joba has not been able to overcome have been Cleveland bugs, about 20 million of them, most of which seemed to favor Joba’s face for “location.”

Yes, stuff is stuff and vice-versa. Some have it and some don’t. And, especially with relievers, there is one other crucial ingredient required to be truly successful. And that is confidence or temperament.

Joe Borowski is usually named as the quintessential example of a reliever who, inexplicably, gets batters out in the ninth inning with amazing frequency, and yet has no stuff. What Borowski does have, beyond shoulder problems this year, is guile and moxie, and maybe the confidence of having been there, done that.

But, when Borowski experienced trouble this year, Cleveland got him on the disabled list where he belonged. And, their closer by committee approach, while not 100%, worked better than would have a Borowski with just one good wing.

Slow to change…we see way too much of that in New York. That’s why we are seeing such consternation that Joba will be changing roles. He was great in that eighth inning role. Why change?

A legitimate starter is harder to find than an eighth-inning guy. The Yanks just need to find one. His name isn’t Farnsworth. But there are probably hundreds of them. The Joba’s can be counted on one hand.