three sports commentaries today (and, as i finsh, three very long ones, it should be noted):

1) i'm vaguely proud of the cats performance tonight, although i wish i had been at a bar with a better angle on the tv (the hawkeyes weren't on locally tonight, for the first time in ages, so the bar was packed. i got a corner-bar spot and a tv on the opposite. from my angle, it was difficult to distinguish between big white guys [and timmy doyle], although i could tell apart mo and tj and jenkins based on their running styles). sure, i wish they had shot free throws better, but it still seemed like they were legitimately in the game at the end.

(an early aside. maurice ager and his clutch shooting - he ruined a trip to etown last year with his six first-half threes - have officially become my most hated player in the big ten. for the record, it's a brief list, replicated year-by-year here:
1999 big ten season: quincy lewis, gophers - ruined a late-season home game with hight 20's or low 30's and absolutely incredible shooting
2000-2002: cory bradford, because he got progressively worse and that streak was an annoyance, although mostly because he ruined esch's senior day with a slashing/gunning performance at welsh-ryan in early march of 99
2003: bracey wright, mostly for his awful nose. he was absolved when he stunk up the joint last year, and became a favorite because he's a certified loser
2004-05: ager, who's ruined quite a bit in only two years)

i love mo because of his energy and his athleticism and his willingness to attempt a 1-on-4 break with his team down eight with two minutes left (well, i could get by without the third part, but i still like his aggressiveness). it's a shame this attitude wasn't here a few weeks ago, or they certainly would have beaten ohio state and penn state (sigh) and ... maybe the illini at home [no].

i just with the cats had shot a bit better, both from the line and from the arc. i believe the final numbers were 3-of-16, but i remember at least three airballs from downtown. still, an effort to be vaguely proud of, but one that also leaves them in a large hole: beat indiana and then michigan/purdue/penn state in the tourney, or lose to indiana and somehow reel off three straight in the conference tourney. alas, it looks like davor won't ever have a postseason, although i'll be yelping for it a sports fans at 3:30 on saturday afternoon.

have you ever read the diary of anne frank? clearly, the best part is when this 12-year-old writes, "despite all this, i still believe that people are basically good" or something like that. well, despite the disappointment of this season, i'm still looking ahead to next year with great anticipation. i'm thinking (hoping) jenkins'll return. i'm hoping (and it seems likely) vu will return. and a mj-tj-vu-doyle-thompson starting five with a big mo-vince [five more dimes and a trey or two]-cote-blee [if still around]-tolic-glee or sterling or someone else bench group seems like it'll be pretty alright.

consider that illinois (head, deron, powell, smith gone) and michigan state (ditto anderson/hill/torbert) and perhaps wisconsin (wilkinson out...butch better...tucker healthy) and possibly the bucks (dials, fuss cheatam ? gone) will be worse. consider that indiana (older) and michigan (healthy) and probably minnesota and likely iowa (alford canned) will be better. i think the cats can find themselves in the first division, and if they don't screw up, perhaps the real postseason is not out of reach.

still, and most importantly, what the carmody era has done of late is bring basketball worth watching to evanston. and he's lucked out with vukusic and davor and jenkins and big mo, but he's still found ways to win. and it seems like, in tj and vince (not vince!? yes vince!) and doyle he's also found somewhat legit and widely known players and gotten them here.

dammit. i've been writing for a half-hour and i'm only one-third done. you're a champ if you're still reading.

2) ron santo didn't get into the hall of fame today, and i'm not sure where i stand on it. (my dad's probably disavowed me based on that comment alone.)

why he should be in:
a) he was the best NL third baseman for a solid 5-year period, at least
b) third baseman are vastly underrepresented in the hall of fame
c) he was certainly a better player than aparicio and nellie foxx and joe tinker and johnny evers and countless other hall of famers. he was a better hitter than third baseman like eddie collins.
d) better hitter, separate category: his percentage-based offensive numbers (.277/.364/.464: AVG/OBP/SLG) are significantly better those of brooks robinson (.267/.322/.401). despite the fact that robinson played 600 more career games, santo outpaced him in homers (342-268), and was right there in RBI (1331-1357).
e) 'yes, but robinson's in there because of his glove,' you say. 'hello! ronny got five of his own,' i say.
f) longevity: he's eighth all-time in games played at third base (rob neyer's stat)
g) using the 'overall contribution to the game' clause: he's certainly remained a positive influence, what with his contribution to jdrf and things like that
h) he was a pioneer, in that he played with diabetes when that was a deadly disease

why he shouldn't:
a) the late-60's/early-70's cubs already have three all-stars, and they weren't that good
b) he never did anything in the clutch - never got his team to the postseason, never did anything important on a national stage
c) according to the 'similarity scores,' stat, the most similar players are not hall of fame caliber. dale murphy (875 similarity out of 1000), is most similar, and is a fringe hall of famer who won't ever get in. the rest of the top ten - ken boyer (875), gary gaetti (875), bobby bonilla (868), brian downing (866), graig nettles (861), chili davis (856), robin ventura (854), ron cey (853), ruben sierra (849) - includes nobody who will get serious hof consideration. (i love - love - baseballreference.com)

the pros beat the cons here, so, if i had the chance, i would reluctantly cast my ballot for him. the 'four hof'ers from a team that accomplished nothing in an era where it had just gotten easier to make the playoffs is just too much' argument is a good one. but i guess the positives (particularly b and d, as well as g and h) are too much to ignore.

he's the consensus 'best player not in,' and i'm hoping that changes when the veterans committee votes in two more years. i'm also very very hopeful that he's not dead by then, because he'd appreciate it more than anyone, and he'd give a heartfelt - albeit nonsensical - acceptance speech.

(one hall of fame-related aside that i didn't get to in january: it's extremely interesting, and a bit satisfying, to see what little respect closers have gotten. jeff reardon - currently fifth on the all-time saves list, and higher when he retired - dropped off the ballot after getting only 24 votes in 2000, his first eligible year. lee smith, the all-time leader, faces an uphill battle. personally, i don't think most of that 'three-out save' generation should get in. i think rivera should and will, without a problem. personally, i do think that the original era of closers deserves recognition. sutter should be in, as much for the introduction of the splitter as for the domination in the 70's. gossage should be in, although i only remember him as over the hill and awful. i wish a case could be made for mike marshall, who worked 106 games and more than 200 innings - all out of the pen - while winning the cy young in 1974. sadly, it's a bad case.)

3) finally, on that age limit thing in the nba. apparently 670 the score is the only place to have picked up the story, because it's not on espn. if others had corroborated, i'd think that it'd be larger news. but, perhaps, with no agreement even close, nobody's found out or bothered to report it. however, the score's reporter said that both the union and the owners had agreed on it, which means that it'll be a non-factor when real negotiations start in june.

for starters, i feel bad for the current crop of high school seniors if it gets done and renders them ineligible for the draft, because i'm pretty sure that guys who are considering the nba haven't taken the sat or anything. they'd be ncaa ineligible as well, and stuck in purgatory for three years.

the case against the age limit is pretty simple to make: lebron, 'melo, jermaine o'neal, kobe bryant, garnett, marbury, to an extent guys like al harrington, jonathan bender, eddy curry, tyson chandler, luol deng...all current (or future) stars or at least contributors that wouldn't have been eligible. in the past, magic never would have played center in the 1980 finals, because he would have been at michigan state still.

of course, the case in favor of the age limit is also an easy one: ndubi ebi (who?), korleone young (who?), leon smith (who?), dontonio wingfield (who?), desagana diop (who?), others like that.

the thing i hate about the current nba is the preponderance of players in the league who flat-out shouldn't be playing at the world's highest level. four years ago, curry was stealing a roster spot from a guy like mark bryant or andrew lang or people like that, roster fillers who could have been legitimately valuable to a team, but were squeezed out by the high schoolers in the league. there is far too much 'rawness' in the nba today, and far too many guys who don't know the fundamentals. the quality of play has suffered, it can be accurately argued.

for this reason, these young guys don't belong in the nba. because those guys don't belong in the nba, the age limit makes a whole lot of sense.

however, most of these young guys also don't belong in college, and they shouldn't be forced to go. the fact is, sebastian telfair and kevin garnett and lebron james never had any desire to play at the collegiate level (garnett did, but was too test-dumb, of course). send those guys to college, and the quality of college basketball certainly improves. at the same time, the concept of the 'student-athlete' suffers greatly. a major university's duty is, for starters, to promote the value of an education. forcing these kids to play major college basketball is a farce and a disservice to this concept.

'well, mr. halos,' you're saying, 'it sounds like your both in favor of and against the age limit.'

i guess i am, but i also have a solution. and a simple one: make the freakin' nba actually pay for its own development of players, dammit.

as an employee of an affiliated minor league team, i see firsthand how successful the multi-tiered farm system is. the solution, and i've stated it before: every high school player is draft-eligible. every college player is draft-eligible. (i've never understood mlb's freshman, junior, senior draft system) if drafted, they can sign for any size signing bonus, or they can return/go to college. if signing, they can be assigned to either the nba club, or the minor league (an expanded - to 15 teams, 1 per each 2 nba team - national basketball developmental league) team. nbdl players get paid some sort of relatively small amount...perhaps 2k/month. this number increases based on experience in the league (not a feature of the minor league baseball system). players that got 'em live off their bonus. players that didn't still do fine. promoted players get the prorated nba minimum. nba rosters will be expanded to only 13...one spot on the injury list, for legitimate injuries, and the rest taxi between the nba and the nbdl team.

this reduces the amount of not-ready players in the nba, while also maintaining some level of integrity in the collegiate game. the goal of the nba is not to help the college game be more aesthetically pleasing. the goal of the nba, rather, is to create the best possible professional level of play.

now, the nba has proven time and time again that it is not committed to a true developmental system, because they don't want to deal with the costs. however, the minor league system - independent ownership, only minimal player costs - is extremely cost-effective. however, this obvious solution is quite unlikely.

finally (finally!), if the age limit is imminent, i think the nba has set it at the wrong level. in the nfl, the three years out rule makes a lot of sense, because the game requires much more pure size. in the nba, where players that consider the jump are much closer to having the proper build already (you don't grow from 6-5 to 6-9 in college), two years would suffice. (and think, if the two year limit would be in effect, lebron would be stuck in college somewhere and the nba would be robbed of its top talent.)

the biggest loser in this is probably craig oden, the high school junior from indiana who will be the number one pick in the 2006 draft but, if this passes, now won't be eligible until 2009.

there may be holes in my logic - college basketball has never been about serving the purpose of higher education - but i think that the pure developmental system would be far better for the nba. college basketball will always be interesting and exciting, regardless of the talent level.

i'm sorry for this. time to sleep.