Kevin Modesti's Words & Numbers

I wrote (in a column that I've attached below) that I'd need "every day until the Dec. 31 deadline" to decide whether to mark my Hall of Fame ballot for Mark McGwire. It didn't take quite that long.

My votes have been faxed in, with check marks next to Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson, Goose Gossage, Tony Gwynn, Jim Rice and Cal Ripken Jr., among this year's 32 candidates. Not McGwire.

My decision on McGwire came down to this basic principle of the Hall of Fame selection process: We wait five years after a player's retirement to vote on his Cooperstown credentials because it's important to have as much context as possible for his career before committing.

But five years after McGwire's retirement, we still don't have that vital context. His performance-enhancing drug use, and that of his contemporaries, is as much a mystery as ever.

It's pretty obvious that McGwire will fall short of the 75 percent vote threshold in this, his first time on the ballot. I hope he and baseball get the message that they must be more forthcoming about steroids.

Here's my column, from the Dec. 7 Daily News, on my confusion about McGwire.

It wasn't supposed to be this hard to mark a ballot for Mark McGwire.

Not when you were with him at the beginning, in the middle and at the end -- before the beginning, in fact.

If you covered him when he was a skinny college first baseman and part-time pitcher, watched in 1983 when he hit four home runs in a three-game series at USC's Dedeaux Field and UCLA's Jackie Robinson Stadium, and later wrote that he already was the player fans ``stopped to watch'' ...

If you predicted his Rookie of the Year season with the Oakland Athletics in 1987 ...

If you saw him hit the homer that gave Oakland its only victory against the Dodgers in the 1988 World Series ...

If you thought he and not Sammy Sosa was the Most Valuable Player in 1998, the year of the Roger Maris chase you called ``the last great drama of the sports century,'' the record duel you put at No. 5 on a list of the 100 greatest rivalries ...

And if, on the day he walked away abruptly in 2001, you called him ``the singular baseball star of his era'' and the leader among the trio of retiring greats who would be ``first-ballot Hall of Famers, deservedly so, no question'' ...

Then you were supposed to be a no-doubt, upper-deck, gone-from- the-crack-of-the-bat Mark McGwire voter for the Hall of Fame.

But now the ballot sits in front of you, McGwire and 31 other names, some big (Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gwynn) and some small (Bobby Witt?). And the only thing you're sure about is that you'll use every day until the Dec. 31 deadline to decide.

This is my first turn as a Hall of Fame voter, after finally stringing together 10years in a row of Baseball Writers' Association of America membership. It's an honor, it's a privilege, and it's a pleasant headache.

McGwire's 583 career homers, including a then-record 70 in 1998, make him a Hall of Famer. McGwire's suspected abuse of performance-enhancing drugs make him a cheater whose enshrinement, the first so-tainted slugger of the so-called Steroids Era to be honored, would set a terrible example.

Is one of those sentences true? Or both, or neither? If both are true, what then?

Every argument for draws two against, and three for, and four against. And Dec. 31 isn't far enough away.

McGwire doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, the ultimate individual honor for an athlete. McGwire has to go in the Hall of Fame, the museum of men without whose names the sport's history can't be written.

One true? Both? Neither?

And what of it?

These pages aren't big enough to address all the permutations in this debate.

The voters for whom this is an easy decision are the ones who have chosen to pretend McGwire's great career never happened (on the grounds that he wouldn't have been great without the juice) or that the steroid suspicions don't matter (because they're unproven and, besides, drugs and other forms of cheating have always been part of the game).

The rest of us suffer from too little information, knowing the mysteries of the Steroid Era won't be cleared up by New Year's Eve but hoping for clarity someday.

Every career, every stat, every record has to be viewed in the context of its era and circumstances. Still, it's one thing to weigh the incremental and measurable effects of the color line, expansion and rule changes, factors that applied to everybody in the game. It's something else to wonder about the sometimes career-altering effects of steroids, which might or might not have been used by this player or that.

McGwire's dummy-up appearance before that Capitol Hill committee isn't a reason to keep him out of Cooperstown -- I don't remember ``Quality of Congressional Testimony'' being a consideration the past 70 years. But it was a missed opportunity to shed light on what the Steroids Era did and didn't entail.

I want to vote for McGwire, I want to be persuaded. Most of the arguments for him are smarter than most of the arguments against.

I'm still ambivalent. Normally, that's not the position from which to write a column, but for somebody who enjoyed watching McGwire hit for nearly twodecades, ambivalence says something.

My pen is poised over the names McGwire, Ripken, Gwynn, Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson, Goose Gossage and Jim Rice. I might vote for them all. I might vote for none of them -- is it fair to suspect McGwire but not others? I might vote for everybody but McGwire -- and isn't this where we start to talk in circles again?

I was with him at the beginning, in the middle and at the end -- before the beginning. I'm not so sure right now.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 07:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Daily News has named Ned Colletti the Los Angeles Sports Person of the Year, recognizing the Dodgers general manager whose moves restored the confidence of the franchise and its fans in 2006. (Read about it here.)

Do you like our choice? Who would you pick?

Post your comment below.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 08:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

J.D. Drew, who has averaged 40 missed games a season in the big leagues (50 in his two years with the Dodgers), has taken infirmity a step further. Now he's got some kind of injury in the offseason.

It seems to be holding up the signing of the rich new contract that will move Drew from the Dodgers to the Boston Red Sox. He's their problem now.

Here are two articles out of Boston.

Boston Herald, Monday

Sox patient on Drew
By Michael Silverman

Some kind of issue with J.D. Drew's health appears to be delaying the final announcement of the free agent outfielder’s new deal with the Red Sox, but the ballclub does not sound overly concerned.

“We’re working with the language on the deal with (Drew’s agent Scott) Boras and we’re expecting to get it done early in the week,” said general manager Theo Epstein yesterday.

As reported in Saturday’s Herald [below], indications are that Drew’s physical with the team last week raised a red flag. Neither Epstein nor Boras would confirm a Globe report that Drew was to get a second opinion on his shoulder today.

Drew took his physical here a week ago, around the same time as free agent Julio Lugo. The shortstop’s contract was announced a couple of days later but Drew’s has been held up, with both sides consistently referring to “language” issues concerning the five-year, $70 million deal.

The Red Sox are counting on Drew playing right or center field and hitting fifth.

Boston Herald, Saturday

Drew mystery may have found answer
By Tony Massarotti

The Red Sox continued to make noise yesterday, which makes their silence all the more curious. And when it comes to outfielder J.D. Drew, the Red Sox are saying decidedly little.

The reason?

There appears to have been a problem with the player’s physical exam.

While Sox officials and Drew’s agent, Scott Boras, have been playing word games, indications are that Drew’s recent physical with the team has raised a red flag. For example, the Sox still have not announced Drew’s signing despite the fact that nearly two weeks have passed since Boras stood in a Florida hotel lobby and announced that the team and his client had agreed on a five-year, $70 million contract.

The precise hang-up is unclear. Drew has had a series of ailments and injuries during his career, from a broken wrist to a bad knee to a sore shoulder. Trying to pinpoint one problematic area is virtually impossible. Mention Drew’s health to anyone connected with the Sox these days and you get responses that are straight out of the Dan Duquette era.

For instance:

Is there a reason the Drew deal has not been announced?

We’re working on language issues in the contract.

So he passed the physical?

We’re working on language issues in the contract.

Of course, in a contract, “language issues” are critical. The wording means everything. And depending on what precise physical problem the Sox have stumbled upon, the likelihood is that the sides are “working on language” to give the Sox some recourse if and when the problem becomes serious.

Does that mean the Red Sox are backing out of this deal?

No.

It just means they are probably in the process of protecting themselves. ...

After all, Drew’s deal has been in place even longer than that of Julio Lugo, whose arrival in Boston was formalized earlier this week.

Red Sox officials and Boras have insisted that nothing out of the ordinary has been taking place, yet neither have answered the simplest question: Did Drew pass his physical or didn’t he?

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an item here a week ago offering a sports guy's thoughts on the presidential "electability" talk, I said this about one of the early Democratic hopefuls: "On C-SPAN, I was watching Evan Bayh deliver a speech in Concord, N.H., in such a monotonous sing-song that I instantly decided the Indiana senator will be the first 2008 candidate to drop out."

Since the point of my item was that everybody who's thinking of running in 2008 should go ahead and run, I'm really sorry to be proven right about Bayh quite so soon.

This just in from the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana announced on Saturday he will not seek the presidency in 2008, saying he believes the odds of a successful run were too great to overcome.

"At the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue," Bayh said in a statement. "This path -- and these long odds -- would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation."

Zzzzzz.

I mean, Oh, that's a shame, he'd have been great.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 05:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

They ran the Hollywood Futurity on Sunday at Hollywood Park, and when it was over a colt named Stormello was the leader of Southern California's candidates for next May's Kentucky Derby.

Where does Stormello rate among the American horses aiming for the Derby?

Here's my early, casual, none-too-dogmatic ranking (it's 20 weeks until The Greatest Two Minutes in Sports) based on the results of this season's classiest races for 2-year-olds.

1. Street Sense: He won the Breeders' Cup Juvenile by 10 lengths at Churchill Downs. Enough said.
2. Tiz Wonderful: Another big-race winner at Churchill, where the Derby will be run May 5.
3. Stormello: Based at Hollywood Park, he'd be jockey Kent Desormeaux's third Derby winner.
4. Nobiz Like Showbiz: Won the Remsen as easily as expected for Funny Cide's trainer.
5. Circular Quay: At least so far, he's dominant trainer Todd Pletcher's top Derby hope.
6. Any Given Saturday: ... Unless this is Pletcher's top hope for that elusive Triple Crown win.
7. Scat Daddy: ... Unless this is the one for Pletcher, who's like Phil Mickelson a few years ago.
8. Liquidity: He pushed Stormello all the way to the wire in Sunday's race at Hollywood.
9. Great Hunter: Should trainer Doug O'Neill feel better about Liquidity or the Breeders' Cup show horse?
10. Day Pass: The gray ran away with the Nashua for the barn of 2006 Belmont winner Jazil.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 06:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Speaking of David Beckham (we were, yesterday), maybe the best thing he can do for soccer in the United States is not be to play in the MLS. Maybe it's to play in the NFL.

Beckham has essentially been a placekicker for England, Manchester United and Real Madrid the past few years. Free kicks, corner kicks and cross-passes from the wing are the only part of the game in which he remains a superstar.

So what if Beckham lined up to kick field goals for, say, the New York Jets? First, he'd be great at it, reminding American-football fans of the skill of the top soccer players, and second, the international media crush would be insane, reminding NFL fans of soccer's scope.

In the early decades of American football's soccer-style kicking era, which began when Hungary's Pete Gogolak signed with the Bills in 1964, the best kickers frequently were foreign-born ex-soccer players, including Garo Yepremian, Gary Anderson, Toni Fritsch, Rafael Septien, and one who came out of the North American Soccer League, Horst Muhlmann. Two others were U.S. natives out of the NASL, Chris and Matt Bahr. (Jan Stenerud was a Norway-born ex-skier.)

They quit soccer to play football. Beckham wouldn't have to.

The MLS's spring-to-fall season would dovetail with pro football's fall-to-winter calendar. Becks could bend it in Galaxy togs, and straighten it out in a helmet.

You know Beckham has the imagination for a stunt like this. Does the NFL?

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Freddy Adu, the former D.C. United player traded Monday to Real Salt Lake, might be on his way to Manchester United or another European club. David Beckham, the former Manchester United star now with Real Madrid, might be on his way to the Los Angeles Galaxy or another American club.

Got that straight?

Somehow, if Adu moves to a higher league and Beckham joins the MLS, promoters of soccer in the United States will claim it's double good news for the sport here: Adu gets world-class experience he'll be able to use with the U.S. national team, and Beckham delivers star power and technique to our domestic game.

But what happens after the initial intrigue of watching a young U.S. player test himself in the Premiership passes? And after the thrill of watching Beckham play for L.A. -- as an England fan, I'll be among the first 10,000 in line -- wears off?

Then we've lost a home-grown teenage prodigy who decided the MLS no longer is good enough for him. And we've taken on a thirtysomething who found he's no longer good enough the globe's top competition.

That's a good trade? That's the MLS's big PR push?

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 08:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The “electability” argument officially reached the lowest common denominator this week when America Online’s dimwitted homepage polled users on whether Hillary Clinton can win the White House, and Parade magazine’s celebrity gossip column weighed in on how Democratic gains in Congress affect the senator’s shot at the presidential nomination.

Worse than the thought of citizens counting on AOL and Walter Scott’s Personality Parade for political wisdom is the spread of “electability” talk whoever’s doing it.

In sports, after an unpredictable result, we like to remind ourselves, “That’s why they play the game” (or “run the race”). UCLA stops USC in football. That’s why they play the game.

Not that political types and voters need a sportswriter to tell them. Campaign history is full of surprises. Pretty much any president you can name was unelectable until … he got elected (see: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan). Pretty much every four years there’s a white-knight candidate who can’t miss until … he puts the entire populations of Iowa and New Hampshire to sleep (John Glenn, Bill Bradley). Scouting a senator’s or governor’s potential at the presidential-campaign level turns out to be tougher than pegging a Lancaster JetHawk’s chances of hitting .300 in the major leagues.

On C-SPAN, I was watching Evan Bayh deliver a speech in Concord, N.H., in such a monotonous sing-song that I instantly decided the Indiana senator will be the first 2008 candidate to drop out. Then I remembered, the first balloting of the primary and caucus season is 400 days away. As a fellow sportswriter put it to me, Bayh is in the spring training phase, breaking the rhetorical adhesions. Until a decade or two ago, before cameras followed candidates everywhere, appearances like Bayh’s would have amounted to closed practices. You don’t cut a player because of an 0-for-4 in an intra-squad game at Vero Beach.

Yet all over America these days, people are playing the parlor game of “Is Hillary Electable?” “Can She Win?” “Should She Run?” – even in places, like AOL and Parade, that have no parlors. Before most people have ever heard her deliver a speech on her own behalf, or debate an opponent, or respond to a setback. Before most people even know where exactly she stands on Iraq.

Whether these people are rank-and-file voters or professional political journalists, all they’re proving is that they know the word “electable.”

Political talk is so dominated by who-will-win (the so-called horse race, a phrase often insulting to racehorses) instead of who-should-win (oh yeah, we’re not picking a Super Bowl winner, we’re electing a Leader of the Free World) that you wonder if this nation of 300 million political analysts has room left for actual voters.

Here’s a suggestion from the bleachers: Play the game. Run the race. Hold the election.

Some people who love Clinton will end up hating what they see and hear. Some people who hate her will end up liking her. Same for Bayh, John McCain, Barack Obama, whoever you want – or think you want.

Should Hillary run? Of course she should. They all should run. Who can win? Who knows?

That’s why they play the campaign.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 11:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Though Dwyane Wade's selection as Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year is understandable, the choice is unusual.

The magazine notes that Wade "pulled the (Miami) Heat out of a deep playoff hole, helped put the shine back on a tarnished league and lifted his mom out of her own personal hell."

All of that helped the 24-year-old join only a handful of athletes in a particular subcategory of Sportsmen of the Year.

He's one of five to win the prize without ever having won his sport's Player of the Year or Most Valuable Player award -- or, in the case of pitchers, the Cy Young Award. Of the four others, one was Sportsman of the Year after his playing career (Arthur Ashe, 1992), and two were honored in partnerships (Mark McGwire, with Sammy Sosa, 1998, and Curt Schilling, with Randy Johnson, 2001). Another, like Wade, is young enough that he still could win that MVP (Tom Brady, 2005).

Which brings us to the past SOTY winner who, in a strange way, is the most like Wade.

In 1955, the second year of the award, SI honored Brooklyn Dodgers pitcher Johnny Podres. Like Wade, he was a third-year player who led his team to its first championship. And as Wade rose from one of the Chicago South Side's rough neighborhoods to stardom, Podres was hailed by SI as a "country boy from the small mining village" who went on to heroism.

This is from Robert Creamer's story on Podres in the SI edition of Jan. 2, 1956. (I've picked it up from si.com's Sportsman of the Year archives.)

And so, when the country boy from the small mining village stands alone on the mound in Yankee Stadium in the most demanding moment of one of the world's few truly epic sports events, and courageously, skillfully pitches his way to a success as complete, melodramatic and extravagant as that ever dreamed by any boy, the American chapter of the International Order of Frustrated Dreamers rises as one man and roars its recognition.

Edit what was said about Johnny Podres -- the kid who led those great old Brooklyn stars to the title -- and 50 years later you're talking about Dwyane Wade -- the kid who helped Shaquille O'Neal back to the top. When it comes to sports' transcendent themes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 06:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Are the Dodgers the John Kerry of the National League? Are the Angels the Al Gore of the American League?

As baseball clubs build their 2007 rosters and candidates launch their 2008 campaigns, meaningful odds on the next World Series and the next presidential election are being posted. Line up the contenders side by side, and you notice some interesting coincidences.

Unless, in some cosmic way, they aren't coincidences.

Conveniently, America's Line lists odds for 30 declared, potential and imaginary presidential candidates, which matches the number of major-league teams. Here are the odds, from shortest to longest, as of Nov. 20.

The candidates: 1. John McCain, 9-2; 2. Hillary Clinton, 5-1; 3. Rudy Giuliani, 10-1; 4. Mitt Romney, 12-1; 5. Barack Obama, 15-1; 6-8. Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Al Gore 20-1; 9-12. Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Mike Huckabee, John Kerry, 25-1; 13-14. Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, 30-1; 15-16. Chuck Hagel, Sam Brownback, 35-1; 17-23. Jeb Bush, Chris Dodd, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, George Pataki, Rick Perry, Tom Ridge, 40-1; 24-26. George Allen, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, 50-1; 27-28. Michael Bloomberg, Colin Powell, 100-1; 29. Ralph Nader, 5,000-1; 30. Michael Moore, 10,000-1.

The ballclubs: 1. New York Yankees, 3-1; 2. New York Mets, 5-1; 3. Detroit, 6-1; 4. Boston, 7-1; 5. St. Louis, 10-1; 6-7. Minnesota, Oakland; 8-13. Angels, Dodgers, Atlanta, Chicago White Sox, Houston, Philadelphia, 15-1; 14. San Diego, 20-1; 15. Cleveland, San Francisco, 25-1; 17. Florida, 30-1; 18. Cincinnati, 35-1; 19-21. Arizona, Texas, Toronto, 50-1; 22. Milwaukee, 60-1, 23-27. Baltimore, Chicago Cubs, Colorado, Seattle, Washington, 75-1; 28-29. Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, 100-1; 30. Kansas City, 400-1.

I don't know how the self-styled maverick McCain would feel about being aligned with the establishment Yankees as No. 1 in their respective races.

But it's fitting that New York's Sen. Clinton lines up with the New York Mets at No. 2, Massachusetts Gov. Romney with the Boston Red Sox at No. 4, Florida Gov. Bush (tied for No. 17-23) with the Florida Marlins (No. 17), and Texas Gov. Perry (tied for No. 17-23) with the Texas Rangers (tied for No. 19-21).

Also, Edwards (tied for No. 6-8), who based his 2004 presidential campaign on a pledge to reunite the "two Americas," finds himself even with Minnesota, the team from the Twin Cities (tied for No. 6-7). And Virginia Sen. George Allen (tied for No. 24-26), stacks up next to nearby Washington (tied for No. 23-27), the town his father George Allen coached to the Super Bowl -- turns out the future isn't now for George Jr. or the Nationals.

The Dodgers and Angels, among clubs tied for No. 8-13, have their choice of political parallels: Bayh, Edwards, Gore, Biden, Clark, Huckabee (lone Republican in this group), Kerry, Richardson and Vilsack.

I guess the question is whose chances you like better: Dodgers and Angels in October, or Democrats in November?

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 04:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It was a big weekend for the men who put the foot in football, and for a reminder of what a rare skill they have.

While I jogged a few laps at Pierce College in Woodland Hills on Sunday, a man and a boy about 10 years old were practicing field-goal kicking on the field. That is, the man was holding 20 yards from the goalposts and his son was applying his right instep to the ball. The kid must have knocked a few over the bar and between the uprights, but the attempts I saw died in the wind and spun dead in the grass.

For a natural human act, kicking is surprisingly hard.

That was me as a kid, practicing field goals by teeing the ball up on the sidewalk and aiming north between our shrubs and the neighbors' ivy. In those days "soccer-style" kicking hadn't entirely taken over, and I couldn't decide if I was Jim Bakken or Jan Stenerud. Usually I was Bakken until my toes got sore.

Usually the football wound up under a car.

Some people would like to eliminate place kicking -- and, presumably, punting as well -- from American football rules. Words & Numbers would like to see more of it, and not only to justify the sport's name.

There's nothing in football that's as hard to do under game-deciding pressure as kicking a ball straight and far.

Hats off (hats with single-bar facemasks) to the four NFL kickers who won games with playoff implications on Sunday: Cleveland's Phil Dawson, beating Kansas City from 33 yards in overtime; Seattle's Josh Brown, beating Denver from 50 with :05 on the clock (Brown's fourth last-minute game-winner of the season); Dallas' Martin Gramatica, beating the New York Giants from 46 at :01 (his third go-ahead kick in his first game for the Cowboys), and Tennessee's Rob Bironas, stunning Indianapolis from 60 at :07 (the sixth 60-yard-plus field goal in NFL history).

Saturday's UCLA upset of USC turned on kicks, too: Justin Medlock's third- and fourth-quarter field goals gave the Bruins their 13-9 margin, and Aaron Perez's spiraling 63-yard punt in the final seconds ended the Trojans' hope of a miracle.

Delivering the punt of your life when a dropped snap, a block or a shank could give the game away? That was the underrated gutsy play of a true football weekend.

Update: David Akers kicks a 25-yard field goal with 3:13 left and Philadelphia beats Carolina 27-24 in the Monday night game.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 06:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Saturday's Bruins must think so.

Jim Colletto chugged all over the Rose Bowl field on the thick legs of a 62-year-old ex-football warrior late Saturday afternoon having no trouble finding people to hug, the UCLA assistant coach’s face a mask of sweat and -- I’m pretty sure -- manly tears.

“This as almost as good as winning the Super Bowl,” Colletto shouted. “It takes you back to when I played against Michigan State in the Rose Bowl – nobody gave us a chance …!”

As the Baltimore Ravens’ offensive-line coach in Super Bowl XXXV and as a UCLA all-league defensive end in the 1966 Rose Bowl, Colletto won perhaps the two biggest events in the sport.

And now this: UCLA 13, USC 9.

I’ve watched teams celebrate big victories before. I’m including several of the copycat, staged-for-TV, beer-and-champagne-spraying parties that baseball teams throw after clinching the wild card. I’ve seen few expressions of genuine joy like the Bruins’ on-the-field display after shutting down the second-ranked Trojans this weekend.

A USC beat writer said that for all of that team’s huge victories in the Pete Carroll era, he never saw the Trojans as happy as the Bruins were Saturday.

The question is whether this was not only UCLA’s biggest football victory under Karl Dorrell (well, obviously) or over USC but its biggest football victory period.

Before saying yes, let’s consider some other obvious candidates (I hope you’ll have more suggestions).

Nov. 20, 1954: UCLA 34, USC 0. The victory that gave Red Sanders’ Bruins the UPI half of the national championship. The Bruins had been No. 2 (in the AP rankings), the Trojans No. 7.

Nov. 21, 1959: UCLA 10, USC 3. The Trojans were No. 4 and unbeaten, making that the highest-ranked Trojans team to lose to the Bruins before Saturday. The Trojans were ineligible for a bowl because of an NCAA penalty.

Nov. 20, 1965, and Nov. 19, 1966: UCLA 20, USC 16, and UCLA 14, USC 7. Twice in a row, Tommy Prothro’s top-10 and once-beaten Bruins beat John McKay’s higher-ranked and once-beaten Trojans. The Bruins finished those years at No. 4 and No. 5.

Jan. 1, 1966: UCLA 14, Michigan State 12. The Bruins’ first Rose Bowl victory came at the expense of the No. 1 Spartans, an upset they wouldn’t match until their very next Rose Bowl appearance.

Jan. 1, 1976: UCLA 23, Ohio State 10. Wendell Tyler out-gained Archie Griffin and Dick Vermeil’s Bruins knocked off Woody Hayes’ top-ranked Buckeyes in Pasadena.

Jan. 2, 1984: UCLA 45, Illinois 9. With a future coaching hero named Dorrell catching a touchdown pass from somebody named Rick Neuheisel, the Bruins stunned the No. 4 Illini. The win gave them an unusual bump in the polls, from unranked to No. 13 (coaches) and No. 17 (writers).

Nov. 21, 1998: UCLA 34, USC 17. The Bruins’ eighth straight victory in the series and the program’s post-1954 high point. Ranked No. 3 and on track for the national title, Bob Toledo’s Bruins lost their next game to Miami.

Where does the Bruins’ win Saturday rate? Right at the top, I’d say.

In no particular order, they achieved the following: knocked USC out of the national-championship game against Ohio State; snapped USC’s seven-game winning streak, keeping UCLA’s eight-gamer as the series record; narrowed the widest gap between L.A.’s major-college football programs in the history of the rivalry; gave Dorrell job security and credibility, and made the Rose Bowl their own again.

Throw in the drama of Eric McNeal’s game-saving interception, and you have an insuperable combination of circumstances.

I was standing next to Zev Yaroslavsky on the Rose Bowl’s west sideline when McNeal picked off John David Booty with 1:10 to play. Yaroslavsky went into a fist-pumping dance, and for a second I honestly feared the county supervisor and Bruins superfan would run onto the field.

Before their bowl games, the Bruins are 7-5, the Trojans 10-2. Going by that three-game difference in regular-season records, there has been only one bigger upset in the rivalry.

In 1960, 4-6 USC beat 7-2-1 and 11th-ranked UCLA by a 17-6 score in McKay’s first season. Two years later, the Trojans won their first national title in three decades.

Bruins fans shouldn’t expect Saturday’s win to change the course of the program quite that sharply. But it’s big, and I’d call it the biggest.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On the Oscars red carpet, the question is about fashion designers. On the USC-UCLA cardinal-and-blue carpet, it's about fashionable jersey numbers.

A couple of hours before Saturday's game, I walked a lap around the Rose Bowl to see which Bruins and Trojans replica jerseys are the most popular among the fans barbecuing and throwing footballs around. First observation: Trojans fans are more eager to fly the colors these days (among the first 100 jerseys I saw, 57 were Trojans shirts, 39 were Bruins shirts and four were assorted others). Second observation: None of the current players on either side has eclipsed last season's stars.

Here are the most popular numbers among the first 100 jersey-wearing fans I spotted, along with the most famous player associated with the number (and how many times I saw it):

No. 5 -- Reggie Bush, USC (17 times); No. 11 -- Matt Leinart, USC (11); No. 8 -- Dwayne Jarrett, USC (10); No. 21 -- Maurice Drew, UCLA (10); No. 3 -- Carson Palmer, USC (or is it Keyshawn Johnson?) (6); No. 8 -- Troy Aikman, UCLA (or Junior Taylor?) (6); No. 10 -- John David Booty, USC (6); No. 7 -- Ben Olson, UCLA (5); No. 55 -- Junior Seau, USC (4); No. 9 -- Marcus Everett, UCLA (2); No. 26 -- Joe Cowan, UCLA (2); No. 41 -- Ken Norton, UCLA (2)

So, four Ben Olsons and no Patrick Cowan (No. 12), the UCLA quarterback starting over Olson. No USC No. 32s

Also: one Ohio State No. 7 (Joey Galloway?). Obviously scouting the USC jerseys in case they meet again in the national-title game.

And: one New Orleans Saints No. 25. More Reggie Bush -- still the most popular football player in town.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Sports fans are lucky that twice in a row, when Laffit Pincay and now Russell Baze broke the lifetime-wins world record for jockeys, Michael Wrona was there to narrate the historic race.

Wrona was the track announcer at Hollywood Park when Pincay’s 8,834th victory sent him past Bill Shoemaker on Dec. 10, 1999, and the Australian was at the microphone at Bay Meadows in San Mateo when Baze’s 9,531st put him ahead of Pincay on Friday.

“And a sterling career becomes gilt-edged!” Wrona said as Baze won aboard Butterfly Belle.

Listening to -- or reading -- the whole stretch call (below), you can see the race with your eyes closed.

Wrona -- whom Hollywood Park stupidly allowed to get away after that 1999 season -- is my pick for the nation’s best race-caller. Trevor Denman revolutionized the craft in America when the South African joined Santa Anita in the 1980s and broke the mold of the robotic place-and-lengths callers. But Wrona has leaped over Denman with a witty style marked by agility more readily associated with, say, basketball play-by-play.

In 1999, Wrona called, “It’s history at Hollywood Park as Laffit Pincay Jr. becomes the world's all-time winningest jockey.”

Here’s Wrona’s call Friday from the turn for home in Bay Meadows’ fourth race, when Baze and Butterfly Belle were near the back of the eight fillies and mares in a turf sprint.

They’re at the three-eighths pole, and Empress Justice and Out of Sugar are the joint leaders. A length and a half to Fired and Inspired. A similar margin to Normandy Princess, finding the fence from the outside alley. And a gap of two lengths then to Butterfly Belle, starting to work into the race, although still hemmed in to some extent by She Made It Happen. Baze is down toward the inside in the white sleeves and cap, he’s got to try and pick his way through the field. Now he switches towards the inside. There’s an opening, too! A wall of them lining up here, and Baze sends Butterfly Belle through! She Made It Happen comes flying down the outside. But this is the race! Russell Baze and Butterfly Belle winning two and a half lengths. And a sterling career becomes gilt-edged! She Made It Happen ran second, and Normandy Princess has finished third. ...

"Gilt-edged" is the perfect phrase. Gilt (says Webster's) is "a thin layer of gold or a simulation of it ..."

For Baze, a very good but not great jockey who has dominated the second-rate Bay Area circuit, the record is precisely that. A thin layer, but gold all the same.

Posted by Kevin Modesti at 03:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)