Book Review: Searching for Bobby Orr by Stephen Brunt

I have read many sports biographies, "auto"biographies where the writing is undoubtedly done by a ghost writer, legit autobiographies and other non-fiction accounts of sports. I've read Leigh Montville's biography of Ted Williams, Jim Bouton's memoir Ball Four, H.G. Bissinger's Friday Night Lights and more recent releases like :07 Seconds or Less and Fantasyland.

Searching for Bobby Orr is in a league of its own.

Stephen Brunt, a regular columnist for the Globe and Mail, truly does an excellent job detailing the life of Bobby Orr, a notoriously uncooperative interview subject. Because he was denied personal access, Brunt relies on tons of background research in magazines, newspapers, and interviews of the people around him. Although he knows his subject very well, Brunt never gets too close, too admiring of Orr, providing the reader with a fairly objective account of what Bobby Orr is like.

More impressively, Brunt even makes notorious lawyer-cum-fraud artist Alan Eagleson seem sympathetic. This is no easy task, especially for an audience of hockey fans who are more likely to sympathize with their on-ice heroes who were taken gross advantage of by Mr. Eagleson. However, Brunt is able to present both sides of the argument fairly, even scoring some fair points on behalf of Eagleson.

This is one of Brunt's strengths: he really humanizes the story. He has an empathetic writing style that humanizes the subject matter. For my part, I'd always heard of Bobby Orr, but certainly never seen him play. I never understood how important he was to the sport of hockey on or off the ice. I'd always grown up idolizing Paul Coffey's offensive-defensive style, and I now appreciate that Orr is Coffey's stylistic ancestor.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who's got even a passing interest in hockey. It's a great read.

Love them or hate them - - the Leafs are important

I have many friends and family who are not fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs. My mother is from Montreal and is a die-hard Habs fan; my girlfriend is from Edmonton, a lifelong Oilers fan, even though they've had some serious struggles. I totally appreciate that - - you should cheer for your team through thick and thin. They represent you. However, many Canadians cheer for their local team, and, should their team be eliminated from the playoffs, they then cheer for other Canadian teams.

Except the Leafs.

People hate the Leafs. Loathe the Leafs. Win or lose, many Canadians despise the Leafs and want to kick them when they are down.

For those of you who are not Canadian, this is part of a bigger Canadian issue. This vitriol is actually a symptom of Canada's rampant regionalism and the somewhat justified resentment of a very decentralized nation that has much of its business and media power centralized in Toronto.

Resentment towards the Leafs stems from the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - - an institution financially supported by the federal government - - always focuses Hockey Night in Canada on the Maple Leafs. They always play in the main 7 PM time slot, and are the focus of any hot-stove conversation. Defenders of HNIC would deny this charge, but there is a more obvious reason for this, recently underscored by an article in the Globe and Mail:

The producer of "MVP" says she was recently warned by CBC programming director Kirstine Layfield that if the Leafs failed to make the Stanley Cup playoffs this year, the public broadcaster's arts and entertainment division would take a $10-million hit that would put some of the network's much-heralded new shows at risk.

There are many Leafs fans across Canada, vestiges of a time when the Leafs were English-Canada's team. This fan base is particularly rabid. Regularly watching Leafs games can be somewhat confusing because Leafs fans are as loud on the road as they are at home. Often, you need to see the logo on centre ice to tell where the Buds are playing.

You can love or hate the Maple Leafs, you can even dislike the NHL or sports in general, but if you are Canadian you can not deny this fact: the Toronto Maple Leafs are culturally significant. Even when they are struggling and not living up to the very high standards that their fans hold them to, the Toronto Maple Leafs are the most important Canadian sports franchise. I daresay they are one of the more important businesses in this nation.

So important that their on-ice struggles have cost the CBC and will apparently mean the cancellation of popular shows MVP, Intelligence and JPod. Mary Young Leckie, creator of MVP said "It's just another good reason to hate the Leafs." Can you imagine Coronation Street's success being dependent on the fortunes of Manchester United? The renewal of Seinfeld relying on the Yankees winning the pennant? Really, it's a pretty unique situation.

I'm sorry that these shows have been canceled, and as a fan of the Leafs I'm sorry that they're not going to make the playoffs. But I think that fans of other teams have to ease off their loathing of the Leafs, at least to the point that they can appreciate that our public broadcaster has been built upon a foundation paid for by the fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Leafs are, regrettably, a necessary evil in this country, and their success translates to the continued cultural growth of this country.

A guest blogger

My dad saw that I haven't been able to post on this blog for awhile, so he kindly offered to write a post for me. In the next few days I should be able to have some more time to dedicate to posting regularly here and will be back on track with my Monday, Wednesday and Friday schedule.


FLASH! Leaf fans not as smart as they think!

Here are some facts so that Leaf fans can legitimately restore their high opinions of themselves:

1. 1983 was the last draft year that 100% of the players drafted in the first round actually made it to the NHL. In fact, only four times before that (post-expansion), namely 1973, 1977, 1978 and 1979 did 100% of the first-round selections make the NHL.

2. In 1967 (when Canadian-born players prevailed), only 3 out of a total of 18 first rounders made the NHL. These were Serge Bernier (selected 3rd); Battleship Bob Kelly (selected 16th) and Al Karlander (selected 17th). Consider that the league doubled in size within months after this 1967 draft! Yet only these 3 made it!

3. Alexander Steen was picked by the Leafs in the first round. Last year, he had a 40 game scoreless streak. This year, he will, again, not score even 20 goals in the season.

Conclusion: Having first round draft choices does not assure success for NHL teams. It's a crap shoot. So dumping Mats Sundin for a first round draft choice and one or two 2nd stringers would have been stupid.

Conclusion: Sundin saved the Leafs from such a foolish trade - if it could even have been made - given current revulsion of GM's to rent-a-players. Leaf fans should not hang Sundin in effigy. They should show some appreciation for him (not just because he is probably the greatest player in franchise history). Particularly stupid are those who claim that Sundin should have waived the no-trade clause out of loyalty to the team. They subscribe to the Titus Oates mentality that you can save the team by abandoning it. How stupid!

Conclusion: Those idiots who say that the Leafs should deliberately tank it so that they can participate in the 5-team lottery for the top draft choice are particularly dull-witted. They are also dishonest. Firstly, the Leafs can enhance the value of their entire team by making the playoffs. Cliff Fletcher will have a hard time making successful trades if he is seen as offering a bunch of losers (who couldn't make the playoffs and who tanked it). Secondly, apart from enhancing the market-value of players who make the playoffs, the young players on the Leafs will gain valuable experience by playing in the playoffs. That kind of exciting, desperate hockey is not matched by any playoff in any sport. It is irreplaceable. Thirdly, if the Leafs tank it, they still might not win the lottery for the first draft choice.

Finally, shame on Stormin' Norman Rumack and Mike Milbury. They have encouraged frustrated Leaf fans to vent their deficient analyses of the situation. Are they idiots too? Or are they cynical members of the media who are fanning the flames for ratings? Either way, shame on them!

With my apologies...

This is reading week and I've got pressing deadlines both at work and at school, so, unfortunately, my focus is elsewhere.

But here, instead of spending about seven minutes reading my blog, you can watch seven minutes of NBA Slam Dunk contest:

The NBA's Western Conference Cold War continues

It started with the Memphis Grizzlies trade of Pau Gasol to the Lakers for spare parts to create a better low-post scoring threat to balance Kobe Bryant's perimeter and slashing game.

Then, the much discussed trade of the Miami Heat's Shaquille O'Neal to the Phoenix Suns for Shawn Marion.

And now, at long last, the New Jersey Nets have pulled the trigger and sent Jason Kidd to the Dallas Mavericks.

Only the gun misfired.

The Nets and Mavs agreed to exchange Jason Kidd for Devin Harris, Jerry Stackhouse, DeSagana Diop, Devean George and others. The trade was all but done. On Wednesday night the Nets didn't play Kidd against the Toronto Raptors (and paid for it by losing 109-91 ) and the Mavericks didn't play Harris or Stackhouse. Everything was going smoothly.

Except Devean George refused to waive his no trade clause.

And now, while he is being persuaded to agree to spend some time in the Swamp, Jerry Stackhouse might be ruining the deal by implying that he and the Mavericks worked out a deal where he would get waived by the Nets and then return immediately to the Mavericks.

This situation has become a laughable mess.

But that's what happens in Cold Wars, isn't it? As tension builds, as sides begin to arm themselves and increasingly ridiculous and desperate moves are made, things get out of hand.

At this rate, I'd be surprised if there were any superstars left in the Eastern Conference by the end of the season!

Breaking the back of steroids

For those of you who live in a cave, but, oddly, have an internet connection that allows you to view this blog exclusively, earlier this week surefire Hall of Famer Roger Clemens appeared before a Congressional hearing investigating the Mitchell Report and his claims that he did not, in fact, use Human Growth Hormones or any other banned substances.

I think we can now call him simply "Roger Clemens" and drop the "surefire Hall of Famer" bit.

Mr. Clemens, as the Congressmen who were questioning him called him, has made himself look very very bad. So bad that I think he's done playing baseball and has hurt his chances at entering the Hall of Fame.

His former trainer, Brian McNamee, was the main source of the controversial Mitchell Report's list of steroid users. Of those accused in the Report, most admitted that they had, indeed, used steroids, HGH, or other performance enhancing drugs. Although many relied on the "I only tried it once" line of defense, practically everyone acknowledged that yes, they took drugs.

Andy Pettitte was one such player who owned up (manned up?) and admitted to his steroid use. So did Chuck Knoblauch. Both men have much in common. Both were former teammates of Roger Clemens. Both testified against him in sworn affadavits last Wednesday.

As Tom Verducci said shortly after Wednesday's hearing: "Two months later and even after nearly five hours of testimony Wednesday in front of Congress, the issue of whether or not Roger Clemens used steroids is left in a suspended state of dilemma: it's Clemens' word vs. Brian McNamee's word. Still."

I agree, by and large. But there is growing circumstantial evidence building against Clemens. McNamee was right in over fifty other cases. Two of the men who have admitted to steroid use have also backed up McNamee. This isn't hard evidence, but there's no evidence to support Clemens' claim of innocence.

I'll say this. I do think that Major League Baseball and its comissioner Bud Selig have turned a corner: I think they're now ready to really start laying some heavy lumber on the issue of steroids in baseball, and I think that starting with the 2008 season they'll be able to start re-building the public's trust.

The NCAA is dropping the ball

I was watching Pardon the Interruption yesterday afternoon, when Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon read out an email asking what they thought of this play from the UCLA Bruins/Washington Huskies basketball game this past weekend.



For those of you who don't watch that clip (and really, you should), the play that unfolds is this: Tim Morris of the Washington Huskies has to inbound the ball. However, the UCLA Bruins defense is tight enough that he can't find anyone open. His five seconds almost up, Morris pulls a school yard trick and bounces the ball off of UCLA's Alfred Aboya. But instead of a quick bounce off Aboya's feet or knee or something equally inoffensive, Morris throws the ball as hard as he can off Aboya's face.

There was no call made by the referees. To Aboya's credit, he did not retaliate beyond giving Morris a few choice words.

On PTI both Kornheiser and Wilbon agreed that the refs should have given Morris a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. I agree with them completely.

However, since the on-court officials made no call, I think it is up to the NCAA disciplinary committee to suspend Tim Morris for at least a game. That kind of behavior cannot be tolerated. Even if the NCAA chooses to let Tim Morris to play, Washington's coach Lorenzo Romar should bench Morris for a game.

In any event, disciplinary action must be taken.