Just in case we're in need of an OT thread today, I decided to bring up an issue that needs to be discussed, in the popular "poll" format. Please consider your answer carefully. Begin by studying this picture:

I have created an option in the poll for "Other (explain in comments)," but please be advised that if you are arguing in favor of Gallo's current facial hair, you are wrong.

Please be respectful of yourself and your community, no matter how poor anybody's judgement is concerning atrocious facial hair.

Poll

What is your assessment of Danilo Gallinari's current facial hair?

13%

Worst facial hair ever

3 votes

8%

Worst facial hair of all time

2 votes

26%

Worst facial hair that could ever possibly exist

6 votes

52%

Other (explain in comments)

12 votes

23 votes | Poll has closed

I grew up in Denver and now live in the East Bay in California. Even here in Berkeley people are going pretty nuts about the World Series. It got me to thinking.

That World Series that just ended tonight makes the last major sports championship of 2010. I don't follow hockey at all, I've never been able to appreciate that sport in the least. But I do pay a bit of attention to baseball and football. Let's take stock of how the championships played out in these three sports this year:

February 2010: The Colts, making only their second appearance in the Super Bowl since moving to Indianapolis in 1984, lost in a close game to the New Orleans Saints, who prior to this year had never made it to the championship round since entering the league in 1967. What a "feel-good" Cinderella story. Wasn't it great, seeing all those long-suffering Saints fans finally celebrating in the French Quarter?

October/November 2010: The Texas Rangers made it to their first World Series in franchise history, dating all the way back to 1967. They were no match for the red-hot Giants, who moved to San Francisco in 1958, but hadn't won the World Series since 1954, when they were still in New York. Now there's going to be a World Series victory parade on Market Street, for the first time ever. I have a lot of friends around here who stuck with this team through some good times and a lot of bad ones. They're thrilled right now and I'm very happy for them. A new champion! What a great "feel-good" story.

Let's see now, what happened in the NBA Finals this year?

Oh yeah. The fucking Lakers and goddamn Celtics, who combine to own MORE THAN HALF of the NBA championships ever awarded, met in the Finals for the billionth time. I guess it slipped my mind because I didn't watch a single second of it.

Re. the question I asked a few paragraphs above about the Super Bowl, "Wasn't it great, seeing all those long-suffering Saints fans finally celebrating in the French Quarter?", I imagine David Stern's answer to that question would be "No, it was horrible, I couldn't stand it. The Super Bowl should just be the Steelers vs. the Cowboys, every single year. There should only ever be a small handful of teams in the championship round. We do it right in the NBA. The Lakers are like the Globetrotters and the rest of the Western Conference are pretty much the Washington Generals. They just exist because the Lakers need someone to beat on their way to the Finals. I want the Lakers in the Finals every single year, so that's why we do everything we can to give them as much unfair advantage as possible, and that's why we hate parity and do everything we can to avoid it."

I seem to remember late last season Nate had a post where we all worked together and made a list of NBA teams who've never made it to the Finals in their current cities. It was about 10 teams.

I believe I heard a couple of weeks ago, after the Rangers beat the Yankees (Stern must've been absolutely apoplectic over that), that there are only two MLB teams who've never made it to the World Series.

There's only one non-expansion NFL team who's never been to the Super Bowl: The Detroit Lions, and even they won several NFL championships before the Super Bowl era began.

So yeah, I love a feel-good story, a Cinderella story -- I love it when the underdog makes good and knocks down the bully. It seems I've been following the wrong sport.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163386/1/index.htm

Sorry if this has been posted already. I found it an enjoyable read.

Bryant is the figure who most clearly stands in the way of a title for Anthony. Asked to assess Anthony, Bryant says without hesitating, "I've always felt his game was sharp. Now the guys around him know how to play off him. I enjoy the competition with him. He's a tough matchup for everyone." It's generous praise, especially from a player who can be parsimonious in that regard. But when Anthony hears Bryant's assessment, he shifts uneasily and winces. It's clear: Kobe is on Mount Olympus, looking down from on high and surveying the landscape. "I don't want to compare myself to Kobe," says Anthony. "This is his 14th season. I got time. Will I win four rings? I don't know. But that's the future. I do know that I'm not even close to where I'll be. There's so much I can improve. And that's scary."

First of all, this is not about trying to find some excuse for the miserable road losses by this season's Nuggets. Their last couple of games have been embarrassing and there's nothing to blame except their own poor play.

I started off this season hoping the Nuggets would win 60 games and put up a fight for the #1 seed, and at least secure the #2 seed without needing the benefit of any tiebreakers, like last year. I figured this would probably mean winning about 35 home games and 25 road games.

Last year they went 33-8 at home, and 21-20 on the road. The year before that, they also went 33-8 at home, but were only 17-24 on the road. What's the highest number of road wins they've ever had in a season, does anybody know?

Other teams in Denver also seem to perform much better at home than on the road, which of course I know is common to most sports teams, but in Denver's case, it seems like it's often more disproportionate. In the 2007-2008 season, the Nuggets had the 4th-best home record in the league (behind Boston, Detroit, & Utah), but their road record was right in the middle of the pack.

One explanation that gets offered up ad nauseum for strong showings at home by Denver teams is the altitude. But is there perhaps a geographical consideration that would at least partially explain poor performance on the road?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that the only other NBA team that even shares a time zone with the Nuggets is the Jazz? There's not a single road game where they don't have to get on a plane. Contrast this with some of the Eastern Conference teams. How tough is it for the Knicks to play a road game against the Nets, or vice-versa? And for that matter, moving west, how hard is it for the Lakers to play a "road" game against the Clippers?

I've just started wondering if George Karl thinks it's too hard for such a geographically isolated team to win more than half of their road games. Curious to hear other thoughts on this.