Dissecting the Tiger Woods saga

As the saying goes, “there’s always calm before the storm”. Nothing could capture the thunderstorm that has ravaged the formerly blissfully serene life of Tiger Woods ever since he crashed into a fire hydrant just outside of his home in the early morning hours of November 27. Since then, Woods- married to Elin Nordegren since 2004- has faced multiple allegations of extramarital affairs, cited as the source of tension between Woods and Nordegren that led to Woods making the fateful late-night road trip. “Shocking” is an understatement here- Woods has never found himself in a scandal of any kind, and the fact that this scandal has erupted beyond anyone’s imagination has made many wonder how many other skeletons lie in the closet of the previously uneventful private life of Woods.

Since the scandal broke out, a lot of stories have surfaced regarding the events surrounding the crash, and it’s hard to deduce the certainties of the case. Using the skills I gained examining sources needed to obtain my History Degree, this much is known:

-On November 25, MediaTakeOut.com reported that Woods was having an affair with New York nightclub hostess Rachel Uchitel, whose previous claim to fame was as David Boreanaz’s adulteress and being featured in a memorable photo in the days after September 11 where a crying Uchitel, clad in a white halter top and a sling purse, was holding a picture of her late fiancée, who had just passed away in the infamous attacks. MTO stated its source of the story was that week’s issue of the National Enquirer (which hadn’t been released at that point), a tabloid known for paying sources for their stories, and the initial reaction to the story on the blogosphere was utter disbelief.

-However, in the early morning hours of November 27 (meaning it’s still technically “Thanksgiving night”), Woods jumped into his Cadillac Escalade sport utility vehicle and, not paying attention for some reason, backed out of his driveway then drove erratically into a nearby fire hydrant and then into a tree. A neighbour (not Nordegren) would call 911, sending paramedics and police to the scene. Despite the fact the crash would be labelled as “serious” (all crashes in Florida are labelled as such if the victim requires medical attention of any kind), Woods is not seriously hurt, suffering lacerations on his lip and a concussion. Woods’ injuries do prevent him from making a statement to officials at the time, who reported that Woods was “babbling (incoherently)”, so the investigation for the crash had to continue. Nordegren would eventually arrive at the scene brandishing a golf club that broke the Escalade’s windows allowing Woods to be taken out of the car, but her whereabouts immediately after the crash are unknown.

-In the days after the incident, Woods was evasive, but left hints that something was amiss when he termed the situation a “private matter”. He turned down requests by the Florida Highway Patrol for interviews, but the FHP would eventually conclude they did not need Woods’ testimony, settling on a $164 traffic citation and four points off his drivers’ license. Questions would abound though, such as “why was Tiger driving at 2:25AM?” and “how is hitting a fire hydrant a ‘private matter’?”

-On December 2, TMZ.com released grainy pictures taken at Tao nightclub in Las Vegas, showing Woods being “cozy” with a “leggy brunette” at around 1:30AM on October 4 of this year. Picture quality is too poor to deduce who the woman is, but not Woods, who is enjoying the conversation (it seems) with the woman.

-The same day as the TMZ photos getting released, Us Weekly released a voicemail message from the phone of Jaimee Grubbs, a Los Angeles cocktail waitress, where Woods pleads with Grubbs to “take her name” off her phone because Woods feared Nordegren was getting “suspicious”. Later that day, Woods would release a statement apologizing for “transgressions”, though he wouldn’t specify which one he was referring to.

In short, what is known about Tiger’s sordid affairs is that he crashed his Escalade late on Thanksgiving night and that this is related in some way to inappropriate conduct Woods is currently having with at least one woman. After that, the details are murky. It’s likely that Woods is having an extramarital affair given the tone of Woods’ remarks and the breadth of stories coming out detailing such affairs, but I wouldn’t call it “certain”. Perhaps the extent of it is that Woods went too far with a greeting, a gesture or a remark with these women but didn’t actually have sex with any of them, because only the tabloid stories are suggesting actual adultery whereas Woods has never explicitly gone that far; though I do believe it’s just a matter of time before we can actually say with certainty that some amorous transgressions are actually occurring.

Beyond that, certainties are hard to come by. The biggest quandary involves who, exactly, Woods is having these transgressions with. Through the rough, three women have been linked as adulteresses to Woods- Uchitel, Grubbs and Las Vegas club promoter Kalika Moquin. Moquin’s story is the flimsiest, since that story is only supported by an unnamed “insider” who witnessed the affair transpire, and Moquin would later deny the report. Uchitel also issued a denial to her rumour, but she would later retract the denial- insisting she was just “protecting Tiger”- and planned a press conference to discuss her affair, a presser that was cancelled at the last minute due to “unforeseen circumstances” (widely believed to be Tiger’s people paying her off). TMZ would later report that it was Uchitel’s “sexts” (not a Grubbs voicemail message) that caused the argument that led to Woods’ fateful crash, with the vestibule area of Woods’ home being destroyed just before Tiger pulled out of the driveway. It’s a plausible story, but the fact still remains it’s only Uchitel pushing this side of the story- Woods himself has been silent on the issue and while there’s allegations of shenanigans on his part to stop Uchitel from telling her side of the story, there’s nothing from Woods’ side of the story that- as of yet- definitively links the two together.

Grubbs’ story is the one that carries the most weight. It’s reported that Grubbs left a voicemail message on Woods’ home phone imploring the golfer to change his greeting which is what caused the argument, though latest developments are casting doubt on that side of the story. What is holding up is the fact that there’s a voicemail message from someone who sounds a lot like Tiger Woods begging Grubs to remove her name from her phone number because Nordegren was getting “suspicious”. It’s clear, then, that Grubbs and Woods were engaged in something untoward, but whether or not this is actually an affair is unknown. Grubbs claims to have had 20 sexual encounters with Woods but again, like Uchitel’s case, it’s just Grubbs’ side of the story being told- Woods hasn’t specifically dealt with it. However, the fact that Woods felt compelled to apologize for “transgressions” shortly after Grubbs’ voicemail messages got released suggest that this affair is likely true, because of the timing of Woods’ statement is too close for it to be simply coincidental. Still, unless Woods addresses the rumour specifically, there’s no certainty to this story either.

However interesting the speculation over the “who’s” in the affairs might be, none of it answers the real question, and that’s “why”. At this end there are only two possible reasons- that Woods initiated the cheating on his own or his wife’s actions spurred him into cheating- and both are ultimately mixed together. The first argument is that Woods, finally realizing he’s got power from being the sporting world’s first billion-dollar athlete, decided that he’d live the life he didn’t have before he met Nordegren. Remember, Woods met Nordegren in 2001 through Jesper Parnevik (for whom Nordegren worked as a nanny), where Parnevik reports that he had to ask Nordegren out for Woods because “Tiger was too nervous to do it”. Lots of things have changed since 2001, chief of which being Woods cementing his place in golfing history. Before meeting Nordegren at the 2001 British Open, Woods had just completed golf’s Grand Slam at the Masters, marking the first time he’d be golf’s undisputed dominant player (Woods did win two other majors, the 1997 Masters and the 1999 PGA Championship, but 2000 was his real “coming out party”). In the next seven years, Woods would win eight more majors, an unprecedented streak of golfing superiority that established him as the sport’s best-ever player. It’s possible that Woods gained a new sense of self-confidence after his run, as it definitely improved his recognition to the point where his celebrity transcended golf. You’d have to think that would lead Tiger to a world of women he’s never experienced before and Woods showed he was unable to resist that temptation. Granted, this is just speculation but it’s not unfounded- Woods himself has already admitted to acting inappropriately (quite possibly in this manner) and Parnevik himself didn’t shy away from condemning Woods and his character, meaning that the possibility of this being one of Woods’ vices cannot be dismissed.

Nordegren’s behaviour at the time of the incident, though, raises several questions about her own commitment level to the world’s No. 1 golfer. For starters, where was Nordegren immediately following the crash? She changed her official story to police, first saying that she went to look for Woods with a golf cart but later recanted that part of the story. There were also rumblings that Nordegren was abusive to Woods, though police would conclude that Woods was not at least physically harmed by Nordegren. The couple did seem to be having an argument at the time of the crash, but the extent of Nordegren’s wrongdoing is unknown. Woods himself would state that Nordegren acted “courageously” to rescue him from the Escalade, but why didn’t Nordegren call 911? Why did her neighbours have to do it? I also wonder, if Nordegren isn’t at fault for the incident as Woods implies, why did Woods feel compelled to storm out of the house late at night? If Nordegren did nothing here, why did Woods feel compelled to leave?

Finally, you have to wonder if Nordegren herself is doing things throughout the course of the marriage that make Woods seek out other women. Not to make apologies for Tiger, but in many cases infidelity is brought about because of anger towards a spouse, either for something the spouse did or is doing to the cheater. We can’t just jump to the simple conclusion that Tiger is cheating simply because of the above-mentioned vices or that he’s not “wired” to be faithful to Nordegren (or some other reason), because when a relationship fails it’s ultimately a two-way street. There’s a lot we don’t know about Nordegren, whose life is more guarded than Tiger’s is, and, like Tiger, who knows what skeletons exist in her closet that are just now being let out. Woods definitely deserves the scorn he gets for his behaviour, but I somehow don’t think Nordegren is faultless in this episode. Eventually, when the dust settles on the ordeal, both parties are going to have their share of the blame.

What does this all eventually mean for Tiger? Personally, I don’t tend to care about these stories much because it’s not fair to marry the private life of an athlete (or any celebrity) into their work life, unless the private life actually detracts from their work- the only reason why I care about this story is that it’s not every day you get to hear “TMZ” being quoted on TSN or ESPN, and this scandal is just too bizarre for me to ignore. So from my end, Woods is still “clean”, because I don’t see how his relationship with Nordegren is going to affect his golf game- all that matters is that he nails his putts. Others won’t be as forgiving, particularly his sponsors, as his previously “squeaky clean” image has taken a huge hit, and it will be quite some time before sponsors are not going to have their misgivings over employing him. It may be true, as Woody Paige pointed out on Around The Horn, that most of Woods’ products are directed at men (such as Gillette razors), but several times consumers will stop from buying a product sponsored by someone they don’t like, and that negative association with the brand may prove too big to ignore, regardless of the product. Woods will still likely emerge without too much damage to his reputation, since his offence isn’t too major (he may have committed a “moral” crime but no actual felony), but it will all depend on how he handles the future. At the very least, he’s got to address the rumours head on and stop being evasive about it because that’s the only way he can ensure proper closure and he’ll at least look like he’s taking responsibility for his actions instead of “hiding” from the problem as he is doing now. How he handles this scandal will have a major impact on his legacy, because only he can ensure that this is a minor blemish instead of the growth of a more serious stain.

-DG

Time for video replay after refereeing blunder costs British Isles team for the second straight tournament

I know it’s sacrilege to associate the Irish with the British, but today, the Republic of Ireland’s location on the British Isles makes it a brethren to another resident of those same Isles- Scotland- after their national soccer team was robbed of a chance to play in a major soccer tournament by a refereeing mistake. Like the blunder that cost the Scots, the beneficiary were the French, only this time the tournament was the World Cup and the French were actually playing the Irish when the dubious call occurred, unlike the Scots who were playing the Italians for a chance to play at Euro 2008 and where a Scottish loss qualified the French.

For those of you who did not see the play, here’s what happened. Ireland entered the game in Paris down 1-0 in the two-game, total goals playoff. In the 31^st minute, Robbie Keane netted the game’s first goal, lifting Ireland level in the playoff. Because there were no other goals over the next 59 minutes (quelle surprise), the playoff was tied on aggregate meaning game went into extra time. Extra time in soccer is not “sudden death” as it is in hockey, but any goals scored in this period would have meant there would be no penalty shootout since the scores would be added to the aggregate score. If France scored more goals than the Irish in the period, they would advance to the World Cup, but if the Irish scored at least the same amount of goals as the French in the period, they would advance to the Cup on the “away goals” rule. France thus had more pressure, since if they conceded a goal they needed to score twice, making the defending job easier for the Irish.

It was here in this extra period where the Irish were robbed. In the 13^th minute of extra time- the 103^rd in the game- a ball was lifted over several Irish defenders into the penalty box towards French striker Thierry Henry. The ball was hit too hard for Henry’s outstretched feet to meet the ball, so Henry stuck his arm out and met the ball with his hand- twice. The ball landed to his feet where he lobbed a perfect pass to William Gallas’ head, allowing the Arsenal defender to nod the ball past helpless Irish goalkeeper Shay Given. Given and the Irish protested to referee Martin Hansson, who upheld the goal. Ireland did still have 17 minutes to secure an equalizer, but ultimately Hansson’s howler sealed their fate.

After the game, the Irish were- to a man- rightfully claiming they were jobbed, and Henry himself admitted he handled the ball, but passed the buck, stating “I am not the referee.” Hansson said he did not see the offence, and, given the fact that Hansson was standing around 30 yards away from the incident and Henry was behind several defenders, Hansson is believable, though this doesn’t make the bungling excusable. This was not the first time Ireland felt jobbed by FIFA officials- when FIFA announced they would be “seeding” teams for the European qualification playoffs, the Irish players were at the forefront of the protestations, fairly stating that the move sought to hurt “small” soccer nations like Slovenia and Ireland at the expense of the “big” nations like France and Portugal. Accusations were levelled at the time at FIFA for acquiescing to commercial interests in ensuring the “big” nations progressed to the Cup tournament in South Africa. Perhaps FIFA president Sepp Blatter is laughing at the “poetic justice” he wrought on the Irish, but the truth is that his shenanigans are sullying the prestige and even the legitimacy of his sport.

To be fair, Hansson’s mistake is different than the one Manuel Mejuto Gonzalez made against the Scots, as that was a foul Gonzalez saw but erred on the call, but it was still a refereeing error all the same. In that incident, Scotland and Italy were tied at one in a game that essentially decided which nation would qualify for Euro 2008. In the 91^st minute, Italian winger Giorgio Chellini and Scottish left back Alan Hutton raced for a loose ball near Scotland’s left corner flag. Hutton got to the ball first, but Chellini literally bodychecked him then, as if on cue, Chellini himself fell to the ground. A whistle came for the foul, so Hutton- thinking the foul was on Chellini, as it should have been- got up, brushed aside Chellini and was about to boom the ball upfield before being told the foul was actually on him. The surprised Scots protested unsuccessfully and took up defensive positions, but it was to no avail- Italy’s Andrea Pirlo curled a perfect ball into the box for Christian Panucci to nod home for a 2-1 Italian lead that was sure to stand up with just seconds to go in the game (though Scotland did manage one half chance before time expired). The loss officially eliminated a plucky Scot team similar in character to the 2009 Irish team from contention for Euro 2008 and, just like Hansson’s decision, put an undeserving French team into the prestigious tournament.

That play and this latest play bring about short-term and long-term solutions. The short-term solution and the only real answer to the problem is for soccer to adopt some kind of video replay. It’s absolutely ludicrous that the most televised sport in the world refuses to use this valuable footage to get the calls on the field right and, as we’ve seen, blown calls are costly. You’d think after embarrassments such as Henry’s hand or Rivaldo’s dive that FIFA would be more receptive to the idea of video review, but the “purists” of the game- the same lot who think that just criticizing defensive-minded managers will get them to change their ways (name me a coach who’d rather be entertaining than a winner and I might consider joining the purists) instead of considering *some* rule changes- always protest, accusing it of being an “Americanization” and that it would “slow down the game”. The “Americanization” part I won’t deal with because it’s an emotional argument with no rationale, but as to the game being “slowed down”, it is a legitimate complaint but one that ultimately holds no water. It would be an extra delay, but it wouldn’t be a costly one- video reviews can take just a minute or two, and soccer games are already held up by things like players feigning injuries and a team trying to organize its set piece “just right” (not to mention protestations to the ref...).

Implementation would be the only concern, though. Soccer’s clock is continuous and technically has no “timeouts”, so finding the right moment to stop play is a challenge. It’s possible just to limit video review to disputed goals (and, perhaps, by extension penalties) which have “natural” breaks, but there so many other points of dispute (like, perhaps, a missed penalty or an offside call) that could decide a match and thus would benefit from a review, so it would be pertinent to figure out how to work that kind of a review into the game. Managers should also be given the opportunity to “stop” the game to challenge a call because if we just leave that discretion to the referees, no doubt they are going to miss a contentious event (would Hansson have thought to seek out review, for instance, considering he was too far away from the play to see it clearly?). Obviously, managers would have to be restricted in this regard- I say just once per game, successful or not- because we don’t want managers to obsessively nitpick every call, but it’s clear they need to have some power in disputing a potentially game-changing call.

As for Ireland’s replay request- granting it seems fair, but I’m hesitant about it, because we don’t want to have every contentious game being replayed as that would mean hundreds of games would be redone every year. Replays should only be ordered in extreme situations, and I’m just not sure if Hansson’s error is that extreme. Sure, it cost Ireland a spot in the World Cup, but they are not the only one nor will they be the only one to have a refereeing error cost them a spot in the tournament. There is precedent for a replay- Uzbekistan and Bahrain were told to replay the first leg of their 2006 Cup qualification playoff after referee Toshimitsu Yoshida made a mistake in applying the rules dealing with penalties- but I’m not sure how the Irish game measures up in comparison. As “Pardon The Interruption” host Tony Reali pointed out (without naming names), Hansson missed a call, Yoshida erred in applying it; and even then, it’s debatable that incident was extreme enough to warrant a replay anyway. Besides, the Irish shouldn’t think a replay would send them to the World Cup- Uzbekistan requested that replay in 2005, and they lost to Bahrain in their playoff. So be careful of what you wish for.

Long-term, this may just be the straw that breaks the back of Blatter’s presidential career. In his eleven years of being FIFA president, I have a hard time coming up with positive changes he’s enacted in the game. His record is tarnished by multiple embarrassments, such as Rivaldo’s dive, inane remarks (such as calling Manchester United’s 2008 refusal to sell Cristiano Ronaldo “slavery”), botched games like the Ireland game and multiple accusations of corruption. He, like his counterpart at the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) in Michel Platini, has been the poster-boy for soccer “purism”, refusing to buck from his narrow-minded nostalgic viewpoint of the game, like when he dreamed up the “6+5” rule (where club teams would be required to start six players considered “nationals” of the country they are based in) thinking this would end the disparity of “big clubs” against “little clubs”, instead of coming up with a better distribution system for soccer’s wealth to end the big clubs’ current monopoly on it. As Blatter and his 1978 way of thinking is the roadblock to soccer’s entry into the 21^st century, it’s pertinent we get rid of the roadblock- and find someone who will take the crucial next step. We can’t have any more disputed games accruing corruption allegations and crippling the sport’s legitimacy, not if soccer wants to continue as the world’s top sport. Shay Given, the Irish and the sport’s billions of fans deserve no less.

-DG

Top 10 reasons why Bill Belichick went for it on 4th down Sunday night

Perhaps I’m late with this, but two nights after it happened, I still can’t believe New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick would think of trying to convert a fourth down with 2:08 to go where he was up by just six points, and on archrival Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts no less. Since Belichick isn’t in the habit of actually giving detailed explanations (all he had to say about the botched play- a short pass to Kevin Faulk which Faulk bobbled, resulting in a tackle a yard short of the first down marker- was that “we thought we could make it”), I figured I’d do some crack research and come up with some answers. My findings are based on responses Belichick was overheard to have given other people shortly after the game. The results may surprise you.

10. “Punt? That’s a four-letter word, you better not say that again.”

9. “We gained 477 yards in that game. What’s another 2?”

8. “Nostradamus said we would get it.”

7. “4^th and 2? Well, 4 divided by 2 is 1, so that has to mean ‘first down’.”

6. “[Detroit Lions kicker] Chris Hanson left the Lions yesterday, so Jason [Hanson, the Patriots’ punter] had to fill in for him today. Jason was too tired to take that punt.”

5. “I knew the game was on NBC, so I thought I’d make my game entertaining for once.”

4. “I wanted to make up for the fact we didn’t get that 4^th and 13 conversion in the Super Bowl a while back.”

3. “I knew Tony Dungy was watching. I wanted to remind him how I beat him all those times.”

2. “I knew Rodney Harrison was watching. I didn’t want him to see why we miss him so much.”

1. “I’m Bill Belichick B***”.

-DG

P.S. This is a joke, in case you didn’t guess it.

Let's not get blue about swine flu

I had my graduation ceremony this past Tuesday at Georgian College. You can probably guess how much fun I had at a canned ceremony full of talking heads who had absolutely nothing to do with my program (so much for the school being “student-friendly”) telling us all the same clichés about all the potential we’d achieve (including some New Age crap about how some guy felt restricted by “having a finish line”...I guess he never got anything done, did he?), as well as having some “Convocation Marshalls” who were quite snippy. The only good news was that I saw most of my old classmates, which made the pain of the ceremony a little easier to take.

That wasn’t the worst part of the ceremony- the worst part was when one of the emcees of the ceremony announced that because of “fears of H1N1” the dignitaries who’d be giving me my diploma and make me feel special to share the stage with them would refuse to shake my hand- never mind that Brian Tamblyn, the president of Georgian, got his head really close to most of us in moving our sash from our arms to our shoulders, allowing us to momentarily share the same airspace face-to-face, which would be enough time with enough proximity to transmit a flu to Mr. Tamblyn anyway, even though he didn’t touch our evil hands. I have to say, it never felt so weird- or more wrong- to get congratulatory “fist pumps” from our teachers instead of a handshake. Hey guys, I’m not Matt Stairs after he hits a home run or that guy who turns everything he touches into Skittles- my hands aren’t evil.

The embarrassing ordeal did get me thinking about this apparent “swine flu” crisis that’s apparently starting to hit our shores as we speak, a fact that was underscored by the death of a 13-year-old male hockey player to H1N1 over the weekend. The player- Evan Frustaglio- apparently came down with the flu, seemingly recovered then unexpectedly collapsed. It was reported that Frustaglio had no prior medical condition, but both a doctor and his father did cite prior respiratory problems in his life, it’s not entirely unprecedented for athletes to experience untimely deaths (look up Sergei Zholtok and Alexei Cherprenov) and one shouldn’t be surprised that a hockey player- playing and sweating in freezing conditions- could get the flu. Frustaglio’s death is unfortunate, but let’s keep it in perspective.

What is the truth regarding H1N1, the stuff the sensationalist media (one Mr. Tamblyn and his staff at Georgian take a little too literally) is not telling you? Well, to begin, we have to start with the flu that the 2009 virus is being compared to and that’s the 1918-19 “Spanish influenza”, currently the deadliest flu outbreak in human history.

First of all, it’s technically incorrect to call it the “Spanish flu”, because it did not originate in- or even hit first- the country of Spain. The reason why it’s called the “Spanish flu” is because when the flu started to hit- in early 1918- World War I was still going on, and Spain was the only country affected by it and reporting on it that was neutral, so it was thought that Spanish authorities were the most trusted sources of information and were largely seen as the only ones really “doing anything about it”. The origin of the flu is not known, but it did hit North America before it hit Europe, and it hit in two waves- first in the summer then in the fall of 1918.

The first wave behaved like a normal flu, with extremely low mortality rates with deaths only in the so-called “expected” groups- infants, the elderly and any other kind of immunocompromised person. Then, in late August, the second wave- the one that would become the famous flu- hit, having a mortality rate between 10-20% of infected cases, with many of those deaths being young, healthy adults between the ages of 20-40. Some of the most famous deaths from the virus include Montreal Canadiens defenceman “Bad” Joe Hall (his death and the sickness of many players forced the cancellation of the 1918 Stanley Cup Final), the first South African Prime Minister Louis Botha and British diplomat and soldier Mark Sykes (whose body would be later exhumed for Spanish flu research). It’s estimated that of the population of people affected by the flu, 50% were infected, leading to the death of between 3-6% of the world’s total population, leading some historians to dub the flu as worse than the 1348 Black Death (that one got 25% of Europe (which was “the world”) which I think makes it worse than the 1918 epidemic but that’s a different debate).

The extremely high infection and death rates, not to mention the population profile of the hardest-hit victims, are the most peculiar aspects of the virus. Many theories have been postulated as to why the virus struck as it did. The cause of death in many of the victims is something called a “cytokine storm”, or basically when the immune system’s response to a pathogen is so strong it starts to hurt the body itself. It is reasoned here that naturally, the immune systems of young adults are stronger than the immune systems of others and would be more susceptible to this kind of attack. However, the reasons why a cytokine storm occurs are not yet fully understood, and there are other reasons why the 1918 flu struck as it did, without having to sensationalize it.

First of all, it was wartime, and not just that but the end of what was a brutal, uncompromising war. Let us not forget that the powers that be in 1914 went to war believing that they’d only be fighting for a few months and weren’t prepared for a five-year war- so they dug trenches and went back and forth shooting at the pathetic attempts to run to the other trench to take it over, the running soldiers mere “moving targets”. You can only imagine what the close quarters of a trench would do, combined with obviously fatigued (and somewhat immunocompromised) soldiers- it’s a perfect powder keg for the emergence of a deadly flu. The other part of the equation is that doctors at the time did not know what they were dealing with, as they would not wear their masks properly (they may cover their mouths but not their noses) and would at times misdiagnose the pathogen altogether. Obviously, now we’re more knowledgeable at handling and identifying the flu (we even have a vaccine for the swine flu) so we’re better prepared for an outbreak. It is also worth noting that sanitary conditions in 1918 were nothing like they are now, to say nothing of the medical conditions. How many of those deaths could be prevented had those other factors been taken into consideration is an open debate, but I believe if the Spanish flu hit today, it wouldn’t be as devastating.

This brings us to the current outbreak. There was an initial frenzy after the flu was first reported in Mexico in late March, providing an additional scare since several deaths fit the profile of several of the deaths from 1918, but since the Mexican outbreak, the flu hasn’t been nearly as deadly, regressing to fit the behaviour pattern of a “normal” flu- i.e., one that affects the essentially immunocompromised. Why it struck Mexico particularly hard was baffling at first, though it bears mentioning that living conditions in Mexico City- the hardest hit area in Mexico- are still quite depressed (although it is improving) and that perhaps contributed to some deaths. New details have also emerged, suggesting that Mexico vastly underreported its cases and even misidentified some of the cases as “swine flu” when the affliction was another pathogen altogether. Finally, it’s worth noting that since Mexico had its initial outbreak, nothing else has come of it, as the Mexican policy of shutting down the entirety of its capital city for a weekend at the height of the outbreak appeared to curb it, as no new serious news has arisen from Mexico since the initial outbreak.

Since the scare, further research has shown that the flu poses no threat to gain in lethality. Scientists at the University of Maryland mixed swine flu with seasonal flu and concluded that both would not combine into something more lethal. The virus also only showed increased severity in Mexico- everywhere else it has been mild, and as stated before there is reason to believe it wasn’t that dangerous in Mexico at all. Finally, while previously healthy people have come down with severe complications from H1N1, they are the exceptions rather than the rule and in some cases they even had a prior history of medical problems (the 13-year-old boy who died in Toronto did have respiratory problems earlier in his life, for example).

This isn’t to say that we should ignore H1N1- far from it; since it’s new we ought to be cognizant of it. However, overreactions such as refusing to give a graduate a handshake are unnecessary- this isn’t an overtly serious virus and besides, living in fear is no way to combat a virus. I also believe if this virus ever does become more severe- which is doubtful at this stage- we’d all be quarantined and wouldn’t be allowed to interact like we already do; plus we have the capability to fight the flu better than we did in 1918, so any fears of a repeat are unfounded. The only frustrating part about the outbreak is the fact that the vaccination is delayed, but it still doesn’t change the fact this virus isn’t that dangerous.

It doesn’t change the fact that I’m still owed a handshake, so Mr. Tamblyn and my teachers...I’m waiting. Unless you’re worried I’m going to turn you into Skittles.

-DG

Russian fan takes penalty kick into his own hands...or feet

I have a question, my fellow soccer/football fans: how many times have you seen your favourite team get a crucial penalty awarded to them only for the player who took the penalty to muck it up badly? On Saturday, during a game between Moscow sides Spartak and Saturn, a fan couldn't bear the thought of Spartak's Alex (he of the Brazilian national team) taking the penalty he had been awarded in that game, so the fan decided to run onto the field to take the penalty himself. The fan proceeded to run to the ball and stamp it home towards the left side of bemused Saturn goalkeeper Antonin Kinsky. The fan was joined on the field by his friend, who went to Alex and tried to hug him. I'm not sure what happened to the fans, but as for Alex, he would hit the penalty (in the exact same spot as the fan did) once he got a chance to actually take it. You can view the video here:



Was there a reason for the fan to worry about Alex's penalty-taking ability? The fan was likely drunk and wanted to be stupid (that being the sole motivation) but Alex hadn't taken a penalty in nearly two months (the last one being on July 26 against CSKA) and this being an important game (Spartak was six points behind leaders and defending champion Rubin Kazan entering the contest with mid-table Saturn) you could understand if the Spartak fans were a little antsy. Alex's conversion leveled the contest at 1, but to Alex's (and probably the fan's) chagrin, Spartak would lose the game on Marko Topic's 53rd minute goal, and- after Rubin's 0-0 draw with FK Tom' Tomsk- fell to seven points behind Rubin with eight games to go. Hey, maybe Spartak can coax the fan to come back...they may need him for the stretch run just so they can have a chance.

-DG

Jays need a 'Halladay' from Ricciardi

Several years ago, I was a Cub Scout leader at the local group (or “Pack” as we called them, because the organization we commonly call “Cub Scouts” are officially known as “Wolf Cubs”). We would hold several camps and at these camps there would obviously be a campfire and skits. One of these skits involved three or four people, with one of the actors playing a “used brain” salesman. One by one, the other actors would go to the salesman to buy a used brain (which were the brains of people in the group, and if the kids were the actors, the used brains were those of the leaders). The first few used brains would go for small prices, usually $10 or $20, but the final one would be much more expensive. The cost of that brain would be $1 million, to which the buyer would inquire why that person’s used brain is that expensive. Then the salesman would utter the punchline- “because it’s never been used”.

Sometimes I wonder if Toronto Blue Jays General Manager J.P. Ricciardi’s brain is one of those million-dollar brains.

During the Canada Day/Independence Day weekend, Ricciardi shocked the baseball world by saying that he would “listen” to offers made to acquire the Jays’ legendary ace Roy Halladay in a trade. Previously it was thought that Halladay would have been untouchable, being the “one-of-a-kind” generational talent that one could never expect to fully replace in a trade. Yet without actually outright declaring he would be dealt, Ricciardi opened the door for a trade, even if it is open just a crack.

The merits of such a trade have been a matter of debate since Ricciardi decided to open his mouth. On one side, Halladay is one of- if not the- best pitcher in the majors and likely a sure-fire Hall of Famer; so one wonders if the Jays can actually adequately replace him. On the other hand, the Jays have posted an abysmal 20-37 mark since an oft-mentioned 27-14 start, a .350 winning percentage. Extrapolated over the entire season, the Jays’ mark would only be better than the Washington Nationals, definitely not company Toronto had envisioned when the season began.

Thus Ricciardi probably believes the season is a wash and believes that Toronto is firmly a seller in 2009, putting Halladay at the top of the display case. Furthermore, Halladay’s contract ends in 2010, so the thinking may go that with the ship sinking and the market for a rental typical lower than a player with time left on his contract, “now” may be the best time to make a trade. However, Ricciardi also knows he can’t actively sell his franchise player, as such a move would receive the scorn of fans and lower Halladay’s trade value, since teams know they wouldn’t need much enticing to pry a Halladay they *know* is available. So in insinuating that Halladay is available, Ricciardi saves face by not appearing to actively shop his best player (making only the most gullible of Jays fans believe that Halladay is actually sticking around) and forcing teams to make quality offers for the Jays’ star pitcher, since Halladay isn’t “officially” on the market. Of course, it also means that if Ricciardi accepts a lowball offer he would receive more blame than he would if he was forced to trade Halladay, since it appeared he would only accept a “quality” offer for the player.

I need not now discuss the market for Halladay, since it’s already being hotly debated around the baseball world and, of course, there are no shortage of suitors for the Toronto ace. Instead, this is about declaring the ordeal- regardless of whether or not Halladay is actually moved- as undoubtedly Ricciardi’s lowest moment as GM, which says a lot for a GM whose reign spans almost the entirety of Halladay’s major league career. Presumably, Halladay is the kind of player teams are built around and the admission that the team wants to trade him (however slight) is the admission that, all along, the team failed to adequately support Halladay’s talents. No longer can Ricciardi argue that his moves are part of “a plan”- when you’re so much as hinting at trading away the man you’re supposed to be building around, you’re making a new plan, no matter how you swing at it.

What, then, *was* Ricciardi’s original plan, the one that did not work so well? It’s very hard to figure out, since it seemed almost on a yearly basis the team was turning over talent, rarely doing as much as keeping the core intact year to year. What is known is that since Ricciardi took over, he hasn’t groomed a single player through the Jays’ minor league ranks to an elite-level talent. The Jays’ top players- except for Alex Rios and perhaps Aaron Hill (neither being elite talents, and Hill will need more time for evaluation lest 2009 be a “flukey” year)- are all either trade or free agent acquisitions (Scott Rolen, Lyle Overbay, Marco Scutaro, Rod Barajas) or present from before Ricciardi’s tenure with the Jays (Halladay and Vernon Wells). Ricciardi’s continuing answer to all of Toronto’s problems is apparently by making a big free agent signing or trade instead of growing the player from within, a policy that makes the team look great on paper but has led to more disappointments than successes (e.g. David Eckstein, Frank Thomas). From one year to the next Toronto’s playing style differs dramatically, as the Jays’ coaching staff is continually asked to adjust to a carousel of player changes every season, which is small wonder why they ultimately fail. Ricciardi does not appear to grasp the fundamentals of team building- he needs to decide what kind of team Toronto is and acquire players that fit that mould, not constantly change the feathers because a big name is available. The success of the Rays hinges on the fact that they understand the “team” concept- the players they have are all fast and aggressive, either on the mound or offensively, and any player they acquire fit into that mould. Tampa Bay is also not afraid to develop players just so they can ensure players rising through their system are brought up learning “the Tampa Bay way of doing things”. It may have taken them a long time to accomplish that task but at least the team is patient enough to see that process through. Ricciardi, on the other hand, panics when he sees a hole in the ship, deciding a wooden plank is sufficient when he’s steering it right into the iceberg.

Thus, this is another call for the Blue Jays to make the right decision and send Ricciardi on his way. One could hope a Halladay deal could signal a change in the course of Blue Jay thinking and get Toronto to start properly developing players but with Ricciardi’s extensively poor track record, there’s hardly a reason to believe the next few years are going to play out any differently. The Jays need a GM who knows what kind of team he wants to build and is unafraid to build that kind of team, even if it means passing up on a big name acquisition. Only then will all the “hope” Ricciardi has been promising be delivered, because then there’d actually be something one could plant a realistic hope for.

-DG

Two deals that went wrong for San Jose

On May 4, 2004, the San Jose Sharks clinched their first ever trip to the Western Conference Final by defeating the Colorado Avalanche 3-1. The Sharks made it unnecessarily hard by squandering two straight overtime games to the Avs after compiling a 3-0 series lead, but they wouldn’t allow Colorado a historic comeback to make history of their own. It may be true that San Jose would go belly up against the Calgary Flames in the Conference Final, shooting only 37 times in Games 5 and 6 (scoring just once), but it appeared that San Jose had finally joined the NHL’s elite with their 2004 run.

Then, that summer, the Sharks decided that Vincent Damphousse and his declining stats were enough of a reason to let him walk as an unrestricted free agent, with Damphousse signing with Colorado that off-season. Damphousse wouldn’t play another game in the NHL as the lockout wiped out the 2004-05 season, but it still didn’t change the fact the Sharks didn’t think their scoring leader for the 2004 playoffs deserved another shot, even at just 36.

San Jose still figured to be safe with its young talent appearing to emerge in the previous season’s playoffs, but a terrible start to the 2005-06 season precipitated the need for change. On November 30, 2005, the Sharks dealt Marco Sturm, Wayne Primeau and Brad Stuart to the Boston Bruins for Bruin captain Joe Thornton, a deal which essentially meant that the Sharks made a mistake in letting Damphousse walk. Thornton would deliver initially, leading the Sharks from 13th in the West all the way to 5th by season’s end, setting up a playoff date with the Nashville Predators in Round One. San Jose would easily dispose of the Predators before falling to the Cinderella Edmonton Oilers in Round Two; and since then the Sharks have failed to reach the Conference Final despite posting good regular season totals. Now, with San Jose on the brink of yet another remarkable failure- down 3-1 in the first round to the Anaheim Ducks despite being President’s Trophy winners- an explanation is needed for the Sharks’ troubling post-season play (as it truly appears to be a team effort). I just may have the answer, even if it’s out of left field.

That answer is the Sharks made two critical inter-related mistakes in letting go of Damphousse and the triumvirate that went to Boston for Thornton. No, it’s not another edition of “Joe Thornton isn’t a great leader” argument, because Thornton isn’t a captain (Patrick Marleau is the captain of San Jose)- rather, it’s that both of those moves seemed to remove intangibles that allowed San Jose to be competitive in the post-season.

In the case of Damphousse, the case is easy because it’s clear his leadership was missed in 2005-06, which was apparent long before Thornton came around. As good as players like Marleau, Alyn McCauley (back when he actually played) and Nils Ekman were, none of them held the same leadership pedigree as Damphousse did. He was only one of three Sharks on the 2004 playoff team that had a Cup ring (Mike Ricci- also let go after 2004- and Scott Parker are the other two), he had been an elite player his whole career and the fact that he led the Sharks in playoff scoring meant that he still could play at an elite level at that stage of his career. The incoming salary cap probably meant that he was a goner anyway, but it appears that San Jose has yet to really replace his auxiliary leadership. One would think Rob Blake- who has the same credentials as Damphousse (elite player, Cup winner)- would be the perfect replacement, but with the Sharks being where they are now, it doesn’t appear that Blake’s influence is having any noticeable effect.

The losses of Stuart, Sturm and Primeau most likely did not cause a drop-off in leadership but perhaps created a void in chemistry. This argument is pure speculation, because statistically, the Sharks are better without the trio and- even combined- there are few who would think they’re equal in value to Thornton (tellingly, the Bruins have only stuck with Sturm- Primeau and Stuart are both gone). There’s also reason to believe that the Sharks are deeper without the trio than they were with them, especially considering that the forward corps (at least) remains consistent with the 2003-04 version- a skilled bunch with a workmanlike mentality. However, when you look at the type of player that each of them were, you’ll start to see their possible value, especially in the playoffs.

Sturm is often compared to Thornton, not just because he was traded for him- he is essentially the “poor man’s Thornton”, in that he is big and skilled (perfect for the playoffs) but nets half the production. He did appear to have remarkable chemistry with Marleau, perhaps because on that line he would not be the focal point of the attack- Marleau would be. With Sturm, the Sharks would have a clear No. 1 centre (Marleau) instead of duelling centres competing for ice time and the switch to this dynamic may be affecting the play of both Marleau and Thornton, who now need to share ice time whereas in San Jose and Boston (respectively) they did not have to.

Primeau’s role on the team encapsulates many of the responsibilities that players like Joe Pavelski and Ryane Clowe fit into now- checking. Clowe and Pavelski are more of two way players than Primeau is, but by 2004, Primeau would be recognized as one of the better checking line centres in the league. Not only that, but Primeau had experience in the playoffs, being the Buffalo Sabres’ third-line centre when the Sabres went on their run to the Cup Final in 1999. He provided stability and leadership to the lower part of the depth chart, an ingredient that appears to be solely lacking on the current team given that the Ducks are just outworking the Sharks in every capacity. If there ever was a spot where veteran leadership is needed, it is on the third lines, because checking one of the most valuable parts of the game. Claude Lemieux and Jeremy Roenick were signed to provide that stability, but it appears that neither are doing their job (at least on a grander scale- individually Roenick has worked hard, at least).

Lastly, losing Stuart changed the dynamics of the defence. It was a long process that started with Stuart that led to this year but no longer is San Jose’s blueline one that is dominated by big men- it’s dominated by finesse types like Dan Boyle and Marc-Edward Vlasic. Douglas Murray has the size capable of replicating the success of Stuart and Kyle McLaren, but so far has failed to live up to that billing. It`s this lack of size on the blueline that is most hurting San Jose in the series, as the Sharks seem to be having difficulty containing the likes of Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf, not to mention their own inability to match up well against Chris Pronger. It is also imperative that an element of size is present along the blueline to win- witness Stuart and his own contributions to Detroit’s Cup win in 2008.

Would the Sharks be better if they kept Damphousse and those three players and not traded for Thornton? Probably not, especially considering that on paper at least the moves the Sharks did make are considerable upgrades and would be moves any hockey GM is likely to make. However, one has to wonder why the supposedly-weaker 2004 playoff team can achieve the heights the current team is incapable of reaching, and one can only conclude that it had to have been the personnel, even if that personnel looks weaker than the current version. Of course, the possibility remains that San Jose’s 2004 adventure might have been a fluke, but we can never know if that is truly the case since we never got to see that team make another run. It is also true that this year’s team can go on a remarkable run and render all this speculation moot, but until that happens, the Sharks’ fanbase is going to demand an answer for all their woes, because the team has unfairly teased them for far too long.

-DG

Into The Crystal Ball 2009 Playoff Edition

What a season that was. Playoff hockey comes to Ohio for the first time in history while it won’t be played in Ontario for the first time since 1992. The Montreal Canadiens celebrated their centenary this season with players who’d rather party than play. The Tampa Bay Lightning go from looking like the league’s darlings to a perennial bad joke, while the Pittsburgh Penguins go from laughingstock to saying “look who’s laughing now”. The Calgary Flames win the trade deadline but it’s the Vancouver Canucks who win the division right from under their noses. Oh, and the Chicago Blackhawks finally make the playoffs after what seemed like an eternity. With that all said, it’s time to look into the orb and reveal who will win the Stanley Cup:

Into The Crystal Ball

(special note: it's too long for the blog so I threw it up as a Web Site)

The best shootout move ever

It may have only been a friendly, but Swedish forward Linus Omark left fans gasping after his amazing shootout goal playing won the game against Switzerland on March 31. Omark- currently on Eliteserien side Lulea HF but also an Edmonton Oilers draft pick- made a long arc from the faceoff circle and skated full speed on Swiss goaltender Marco Bührer. Bührer saw Omark skating across the slot and went down to the ice to attempt a poke check, but Omark proceeded to deftly and softly chip the puck over the helpless goaltender. You can see the move here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_X5FdpsWpg

It was the perfect cap to a thrilling game. The Swiss lead 3-2 with 14 seconds to go before Sweden tied the game on a power play, and Omark's shootout winner was the only goal in a six-round shootout.

If Omark's move looks familiar, that may be because he drew inspiration from Italian soccer star Francesco Totti, whose "cucchiaio" penalty kick style became legendary after using it successfully during Italy's Euro 2000 semifinal penalty shootout win over Holland:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGgOIl7ei3Y&NR=1

The stakes may not have been as high for Omark, but it was still just as impressive nonetheless.

Would you eat this burger?

The West Michigan Whitecaps minor league baseball team has introduced a new menu item this season- a five patty burger with five slices of cheese offered on a 20cm bun with (according to the Associated Press) "liberal" amounts of salsa and corn chips as well as a cup of chili, bringing the total calorie count to 4800 (more than double the recommended daily intake of calories). A Washington dietitian has asked the Whitecaps to call it a "dietary disaster". Meanwhile, Whitecaps spokesman Mickey Graham labelled it a gimmick. Read the AP release here:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090331/koddities/bbl_ballpark_burger

It sounds tempting, but it's sure not something I'd want to eat every day. Makes me wonder if anyone's tried eating the world's largest burger (http://www.supersizedmeals.com/food/article.php/20060530193308305).

-DG

Rationalizing The Irrational: Why Personality Tests Don't Work

I have a confession to make. To those of you that know me, you already know what it is- I’m socially awkward. I could cite several reasons, most of them being too personal to get into here, but I think the main reason is that I think too much. Yeah, stop me if you’ve heard that one before. See, I’m of the mindset that if something happens, there’s a corresponding reaction- like how 1 plus 1 always equals 2 (unless we’re dealing with binary in which case it’s 10). Everything I do has a reason, and it’s always thought out through- even if, looking back, I probably did over-think it.

Which is why I was never good socially- I’ve spent most of my life trying to figure out “what works” when dealing with people and I just get nowhere. I mean, think about it- aside from physical harm, what can you do to someone where you’re *always* going to have the same reaction? People are so different that unless you *really* know who they are, it’s impossible to know if you’ve really gone over the line. So I’ve personally decided to stop trying to figure it out- might help the sanity, if just a little bit.

Reflecting on this, it makes me think of those people who have made it an industry of doing just that- “figuring people out”. If you don’t know who you are, there’s a multitude of personality tests that you can take, from the straight-forward (Myers-Briggs) to the bizarre (enneagram). Based on your answers to the test, you’ll receive what purports to be your own “personality profile” accurately depicted, and from there you can see what that profile will lead you to- for example, a job or a relationship with a client. The most popular one is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) developed by Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers in the 1950s, and is based on the teachings of Carl Jung. The MBTI test follows a simple format- you are given a situation and two possible responses to the situation. You then pick the response that most applies to what you would do in that moment, with your answers being compiled to form a four-letter sequence indicating your “personality”. The letters are based on four pairs of inter-related “preferences” ((E)xtroversion vs. (I)ntroversion, (S)ensing vs. I(N)tuition, (T)hinking vs. (F)eeling, (J)udgement vs. (P)erception) of which everyone is one or the other, ultimately producing 16 personality types (2x2x2x2=16).

I have taken three personality tests in my life- the MBTI test (twice) and a newcomer called “4Di” from Collingwood, Ontario based One Smart World. My experiences with each have been rather different. In regards to the MBTI, the first time I took the test (for career counselling), my test results handed me the “INTJ” personality type, indicating a person who has a preference for using logic and reason as well as one who prefers to work alone. The second time I took the test (for school), I came out as a “ENTJ”, meaning that I still used logic and reason but now I preferred to work in groups.

That should be a red flag right there- according to the theory of MBTI, a person’s test score should not change, but mine did. Thinking of that, there were several reasons why my test score did change- the first time I took the test, I was fresh out of University and needed help finding employment, so I was on my own quite a bit. The second time I took the test I went back to school and in my current program, I’ve had to do a lot of group work, meaning that I’ve had to develop an extroverted side. Perhaps my personality changed, but I doubt it- knowing myself, I’ve always thought I was an “introvert-extrovert” that leaned a little towards the “introvert”, so perhaps my reality is that I’m somewhere in between the INTJ and ENTJ. Unfortunately, the MBTI test is far too rigid to take a subtlety like that into consideration, although I did think it did have a small degree of accuracy (though, looking back, there are several reasons for this, which I’ll expand on later).

4Di, on the other hand, was completely off the mark when I took it. That test- for those who are unfamiliar with it- is essentially a poor rip-off of MBTI, as the format is exactly the same yet it produces a different “score”- you are given a colour meaning you’re a “green”, “red”, or “yellow” type. The only difference is that it recognizes subtleties in that you can be a “cool” or a “warm” version of your colour based on how highly you rated in each of the colours. The fourth dimension is “white” or your own “personal spirit” that gets tagged onto your profile even though it doesn’t change your colour. So you essentially could become a “warm red with very little white”, indicating a logical thinker with low personal spirit (which was me, by the way). Technically speaking, it’s not a personality test- the colours represent your “strategies” or how you tackle tasks- but, for all intents and purposes, it is a map of a person and can be considered a personality test for practical purposes.

In any case, my problems with my 4Di score weren’t with its high scores but rather with its low scores. I somehow managed to score poorly in terms of “using past experiences” and in terms of “envisioning”, skills that I know I am good at. The problem was faulty test design, since in many cases I was required to pick between two choices for a situation where I could respond both ways. Several times, for example, “experience” was paired against “logic” and, of course, every time I’d go logical. The creators of 4Di failed to realize that experiences can definitely be “logical”, as there is no better problem-solving skill than knowing what did or didn’t work in the past- and if anyone should know that it should be the owner of a History Degree, wouldn’t you agree?

Therein lies the problem with personality tests approved for popular consumption (there are more complex psychological tests but they are tailored for specific instances and never used)- despite being touted as remarkably accurate, these tests are so watered-down for the populace that by default they cannot recognize the diverse milieu of personalities that truly exist. We all know that there’s no way only eight, 16 or even 132 different kinds of people exist in this world (there’s enough gene combinations to make at least 300 billion different people), so for a personality test to purport any kind of accuracy is misleading. People more or less always display characteristics congruent to both sets of viewpoints (for example, an introvert-extrovert) even if they may appear to tend towards one (if they even tend towards one). Everyone is truly a mixture of the different types a personality test can produce, so for a test to pigeonhole people is simply disingenuous.

Furthermore, because the tests are so vague someone taking the test again even as short as five weeks (http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf ) would produce a different result. This is because the personality test is really asking about a person’s thoughts, and those change over time. Aside from my own MBTI experience, this couldn’t be better pictured than when a lady who was the co-ordinator of 4Di (and a self-confessed “green” or spunky extrovert) came to our class to talk about our results. The co-ordinator noted that, as a group, we mostly scored low in “personal spirit”. She was flabbergasted but I was not. At the time most of us were taking the test, we were all stressing about having to find internships that fulfill the program’s co-op requirement as well as working on a major assignment at the same time, so our “low” personal spirit made a lot of sense. If we had taken the 4Di test in June, when we’re all firmly entrenched in our internships and not stressing that much, our personal spirit scores would have been higher- guaranteed. Thus, the best any test can hope for is a small degree of accuracy and that’s it, meaning it just falls into the category of “nice to know”- as far as using it for any kind of serious task (such as counselling) it falls incredibly short.

So why are personality tests perceived as accurate? The reason is due to something called the “Forer effect”, named after psychologist Bertram Forer. In 1948, Forer made his students take a “personality test” and when he received his students’ tests back, he just ignored them and handed each of his students this single reading:

“You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.” (http://skepdic.com/forer.html )

Forer then asked his students to rate the above evaluation out of 5 (with “5” being considered the highest accuracy level), and the average score was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test is still conducted today with similar results. Where did Forer receive the above statement? From a newspaper astrology column earlier that day. Why did it work? The reason is because the statement is vague enough that it could really apply to anyone despite having an authoritative tone and seemingly personalized bent, and the positive sentiment of the piece made it easier to take (make it too critical and people tend to get defensive and will more likely reject an evaluation even if it’s true). The perceived accuracy level of such a statement goes up when someone tells you that is specifically “for you” even if it truly isn’t. Furthermore, people have a general tendency to “want” something like Forer’s statement or a personality test to be true (a process called “subjective validation”), because they most likely took the test with positive intentions (such as trying to understand what career is best suited for them) and thus they want the test to be true because otherwise it’d be a worthless endeavour.

So what do you do if you find yourself wanting to know what “personality type” you are for whatever reason? Well, the first task would be to stop thinking you have a “personality type” and understand that you truly are unique- remember, there’s 300 *billion* different genetic combinations, so there’s no reason to think you need to be pigeonholed. The second task would be to do your own personal reflection by thinking about it on your own or consulting with friends and family, the ones who *truly* know you. You can also consult professional help but make sure that involves more than just giving you a personality test- you want someone to help identify your unique traits, not classify you into one of “16 cliques” that you probably don’t fit into anyway. Finally, if that all fails, follow your heart- oftentimes, you’re already going in a direction because your previous likes and dislikes got you there, and that could lead you along the path you want to go to. Yes, it’s a long and arduous process, but nothing in life is supposed to be easy. Thinking a personality test will guide you is just being lazy and will lead to even more confusion- confusion you don’t need. Remember, if nothing else, you know yourself best, so there’s no reason to ultimately look elsewhere other than the mirror, because the solution will be staring right back at you, even if it will take some time to eventually see it.

-DG

Rating The Trade Deadline

Here it is- an evaluation of the craziest day in the hockey universe. Since it is quite long, I shall leave it here as a link for all of you to enjoy:

Click here

-DG

Senators' play no surprise

The stats are hard to ignore- following today’s 5-3 loss to the Montreal Canadiens on “Hockey Day In Canada”, the Ottawa Senators had a 22-27-4-5 record, good for 53 points and 11th place in the Eastern Conference and, despite a season-high five-game winning streak, the Senators remain 13 points behind the Buffalo Sabres for the eighth and final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference. With 24 games to play, Ottawa essentially needs 41 points (the equivalent of 20 wins and one overtime loss) to reach 93 points (the amount the Boston Bruins needed to nail the eighth playoff spot last season), meaning that playoff participation for a 13th consecutive season is highly unlikely. Many across the hockey universe- who, like The Score in their “Hockey Forecaster” (my favourite hockey preview book) predicted a return to prominence after the ’07-’08 disaster- were surprised at the Senators’ play this season, wondering how a team that displayed remarkably consistent excellence could bottom out so quickly.

Well, I was not one of those who were surprised.

Back in September, I wrote a preview for the NHL season, just like the rest of the hockey writers. Then, The Score thought Ottawa would finish third in the East, thinking that Ottawa’s signings of Jason Smith and Alex Auld would address their defensive and goaltending issues respectively. I, however, predicted that Ottawa would finish 11th in the East, exactly where they are now (that position is fluid- from 11th down I figured those teams are essentially interchangeable and they are). Then, I saw that the Senators ended the 2007-08 season playing like an expansion team and that was with their two offensive defencemen in Wade Redden and Andrei Meszaros. The Senators would lose both, Redden to free agency to the New York Rangers and Meszaros in a trade to the Tampa Bay Lightning), replacing them with Jason Smith (free agency from the Philadelphia Flyers) and Filip Kuba (from Tampa Bay for Meszaros). The rest of the team was essentially and the same and, considering that Smith doesn’t have an offensive pedigree and Kuba- despite having talent- has never been much of an offensive force- it meant that Ottawa’s sole offensive threats would be the “Big Three”, Dany Heatley, Jason Spezza and Daniel Alfredsson, displaying an eerie resemblance to the post-lockout Lightning (who only had Vincent Lecavalier, Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis as offensive threats). Not only that, but I saw that Auld, who, at best, could only be described as “above average” (like his tandem-mate Martin Gerber and the goaltender he replaced, Ray Emery), so Ottawa really wasn’t getting any better in net. So, if Ottawa could play like an expansion team with Redden and Meszaros and no elite goaltender, how would they play without him? Back in September, that was a no-brainer- out of the playoffs after 12 seasons, and with barely a whimper.

I hate to say “I told you so”, but, “I told you so.” I’m beginning to like the sound of my own horn.

So how has my prediction played out? Let’s see, looking at the two keys to that prediction- a compressed offence and a lack of game-stealing goaltending.

OFFENCE

Back when I wrote my preview, my assessment of Ottawa’s season was that they would feature a “compressed” offence, meaning that all their offence would come from its forward corps with nothing coming from the defence. This means that teams defending the Senators need to just collapse in front of the net, because they know that the Sens’ meagre defence corps won’t be a threat all night. Watching the Canadiens against the Senators, Montreal did precisely that, daring the Sens’ defencemen to beat them and they couldn’t. The only goal Ottawa managed in the third (down 5-2) was on a power play when the Canadiens’ defence was lazy and allowed a cross-crease pass- other than that, Montreal stayed in front of the net, preventing the Big Three from receiving any dangerous passes down low and allowing the Sens’ defencemen to simply miss the net. The loss against the Avalanche followed a similar refrain.

Of course, those are just two games and two games do not a season make. Looking at the statistics and you’ll see that is precisely how it is playing out. Of Ottawa’s 144 goals for following the game against Montreal, only 22 (15.3%) came from their defencemen. To put that in perspective, Washington Capitals defenceman Mike Green (who leads all NHL defencemen in goals) has that many all by himself. The closest player to Green on the Senators is youngster Alexandre Picard with six, followed by Chris Phillips with five. Chris Campoli, furthermore, comes from the inept New York Islanders with six goals of his own, automatically tying him for the lead in goals on the Senators. The story isn’t all terrible- Kuba has 27 assists and 28 points- but Kuba’s single goal means that he’s just been great at passing the puck, easy to do when you’re playing with the Big Three. Until Ottawa’s defencemen learn to score with greater consistency, teams are not going to respect the shot from the point.

This wouldn’t be all bad if the Sens’ forwards picked up the slack but they haven’t. Of the 122 goals the Senators’ forwards have scored, 54.9% have been scored by the Big Three- 29 by Heatley, 21 by Spezza and 17 by Alfredsson. The closest forward to them is Nick Foligno with 10, followed by Antoine Vermette with nine and Mike Fisher with eight. Those are great totals for a third line, but the fact that they’re second-liners indicates that Ottawa is a one-line team; and we all know how easy to defend one-line teams are. Of course, the Senators wouldn’t be alone as a one-line team- outside of a handful of teams, every team in the NHL has just one line (or, in some cases, just one player)- but the successful teams have goaltending success, which Ottawa doesn’t have.

GOALTENDING & DEFENCE

For all intents and purposes, the defensive problems the Senators had late in 2007-08 are largely gone. Following Saturday’s game with Montreal, Ottawa ranked 8th in the NHL in defence with 168 goals against. So it’s safe to say that team defence isn’t the source of the Senators’ problems- the problem is a lack of decidedly “game-winning” goaltending. Following Saturday, the Senators have a dismal 9-16 record in one-goal games (nine of those losses coming in overtime or the shootout), meaning that in games where the winner is decided by which goaltender flinches first, it’s almost always the Senators’ goaltender who does.

The main culprit in this category is Auld. Despite boasting decent numbers (2.47 GAA and a .911 save percentage), Auld is 4-10 in one-goal games, which is likely why he’s lately fallen out of favour as the Senators’ starter after winning the job from the horrendous Gerber early in October. If you look at Auld’s career, this kind of play isn’t unprecedented. Vancouver Canuck fans remember him best as a former can’t-miss prospect they realized they could miss, being dealt after a decent (but playoff-less) season as a starter to the Florida Panthers in the package of players that brought Roberto Luongo to Vancouver. In Florida, he formed part of a decent tandem with Ed Belfour before losing his starting job when the Panthers decided they needed Tomas Vokoun. He would then sign with the Boston Bruins where he’d eventually become the third-stringer behind Manny Fernandez and Tim Thomas, leading to his signing with the Senators. Now, after 31 appearances, Auld has lost the trust of the Senators’ brass, as youngster Brian Elliott has started 14 of the last 19 games (counting the game against Montreal that Elliott started). In The Score’s preview, Auld was hailed as dependable and thus the answer to Ottawa’s goaltending issues. The evidence clearly suggests otherwise, as he is a goaltender who may consistently display skill but also consistently never plays well enough to earn his coach’s trust. At this stage of his career, he seems more likely to become a career backup than a starter because he simply allows too many goals for anyone other than the highest scoring teams to win.

Elliott, for his part, does appear to be the goaltender capable of eventually becoming Ottawa’s starter. His winning percentage- both overall (7-4) and in one-goal games (3-3) suggests that he at least has the mentality to be a starter. The only problem is that he still giving up too many goals. Elliott is currently posting a 2.76 GAA, so if the Senators are not scoring then Elliott isn’t winning. Hopefully as he learns the NHL game he’ll better anticipate shots and cut down on his GAA, but for now he is just allowing too many goals to be the game-winner the offensively-challenged Senators desperately need. As for Gerber- formerly hailed as an elite goaltender after his ’05-’06 season with the Carolina Hurricanes- there’s not much to be said except that he looks firmly over the hill, with a dismal 4-9 record and an equally unimpressive 2.86 GAA. No doubt the Senators’ off-season priority will be finding a goaltender (again) although Ottawa will have to make sure they don’t make any rash decisions lest they end up with a Gerber again.

THE FUTURE

Being 13 points out of the playoffs with 24 games to play, it’s not likely Ottawa is going to make the playoffs. This means it’s probably the end of the road for Alfredsson, since the Senators are better served rebuilding and going with younger options; and with the trade deadline coming up, teams are definitely going to overpay there to obtain a player of Alfredsson’s calibre. The Senators should also take March 4 to stockpile draft picks, because their cupboard is bare after so many years near the top. It should also be noted that the rebuilding process isn’t going to be quick, so Sens fans shouldn’t be impatient and demand quick fixes that are just going to hurt their hockey team even more.

Lastly, while the fall from grace is surely not a sight Sens fans are warmly accepting (especially after coming so close to the Cup in 2007), it should be noted that Ottawa’s 12-season run in the post-season is unparalleled and impressive. Say what you want about how the Senators didn’t do enough with those opportunities, but with parity in a 30-team league, there’s rarely a team that can string two straight seasons in the playoffs, let alone 12. The team was due for a letdown and this was it- now, it’s important that the Senators and their fans realize that and just be patient, because that is the only way Ottawa can reclaim its status as an elite team in the NHL.

-DG