wait, i think i've seen this one already

Sadly, this UConn womens' basketball season is starting to remind me of another year. It's not a perfect match, but I'll try to explain.
I'm talking about the 2000-01 Huskies, a team coming fresh off a national championship, returning every significant player from that roster, and adding the most hyped freshman in years in Diana Taurasi to the mix. That 00-01 roster included seniors Shea Ralph, Svetlana Abrosimova and Kelly Schumacher (who was very underrated, by the way). It had juniors Sue Bird, Swin Cash, Asjha Jones and Tamika Williams (the best class in womens' hoops history), and it had Taurasi. I admit, I can't remember the specifics of who the role players were on that team. But this was a group that had at least seven potential all-American players at various points in their careers, the core of which had proven they could win it all.
Now, the obvious glaring difference, right off the bat, is that this year's group has proven nothing. None have even made the final four. But the talent level, though not nearly as good, is still through the roof, and I would estimate is the second most talented group UConn has ever had, after that group. You have the wunderkind freshman in Maya Moore, you have the savvy and tough point guard in Montgomery. You don't have the all-Americans, but you have the balance to win it all.
That 00-01 team came out of the gates firing, dominating through November and December, but eventually fate caught up to it. Shea Ralph's career ended with a second ACL tear. Eventually, Abrosimova would get hurt as well, in the final weeks of the season. The team that entered the tournament was a facsimile of the one that started it, and while Bird brought the miracle to win the Big East tournament title, in the Final Four, the team blew a huge first-half lead to Notre Dame with Taurasi, thrust into the leading role too early, shooting woefully. Every UConn fan knows that story.
Now, back to this year. Things are rolling along, the team looks unstoppable. And then....
Kalana Greene gets hurt, damaging their defensive pressure. Now, Mel Thomas is done for the season, and her career, with an ACL tear. (On a side note, did anybody notice that Thomas walked off the court on her own after that injury? Is she the toughest person ever? I have never in my life seen anybody so much as stand up after an ACL tear.)
Add to that the lingering injuries to Brittany Hunter, who is never a guarantee to play any given game. And what happens? Well, the luxury of having Charde Houston come off the bench is gone, and Moore is fast becoming the primary go-to player for scoring. She's the only reliable shooter from outside, the most likely one to be able to give Hunter and Tina Charles room to work inside. But she's still only a freshman, like Taurasi was.
If Hunter isn't on the court, UConn doesn't have much chance at winning a national title. They are still one of the top five teams in the country, if not the second best. But winning consecutive games in the tournament against top competition is asking too much. We saw against Syracuse what not having Hunter does to this team, if the opponent knows how to take advantage of it (slow it down, control the ball, eliminate turnovers). And without Thomas, UConn never would have been in that game.
It's a shame to see Thomas' career come to an end this early. I predicted she would approach 200 3-pointers made this year alone (clearly an absurd number), but we'll now just have to see if the WNBA gives her a chance.
It may be even sadder to see this team's chances at glory go up in flames due to injury. But that's part of the game. Just look around the mens' Big East.
The good news: What happened following the 2000-01 season? Bird, Cash, Jones, Williams, and Taurasi turned into the real greatest team ever, and Taurasi led the team to two more titles after that with a cast of role players alongside. With Moore, Montgomery, Charles, Swanier, Greene and the highly anticipated arrival of Elena Delle Donne, the Huskies look to be in great shape for the next two to four years at least.

a lot of stuff has happened

So, yeah, I feel like I fell asleep in blogger-land over the past two weeks (not aided by the fact that I've gotten sick for the first time in two years this week), and a lot has happened on the national sports scene since then. I'll try to write a couple more of these this week to discuss some of the big events, including the NFL playoffs, UConn stuff, and of course MLB's disaster.

But the first thing I want to mention happened a while ago. Like I said, I fell asleep in blogger-land and when I woke up I found that Goose Gossage had gone from an eight-year Hall of Fame reject, much of that time not even coming close to the required 75 percent, to a shoe-in, earning 86 percent of the vote. Somebody explain this to me without it sounding ludicrous or making the entire voting process a sham.
Are we saying that since last year, Gossage's stats and achievements were re-examined by enough of the voters, who suddenly saw the error of their ways and voted for the man after not voting for him for eight years? This isn't a small number of voters. We're talking about around 50 votes that he never got before.
All this proves is that the HOF voting is more politically charged, and based on image, than anything else. The writers did not want to have an empty class, leaving the five veterans committee picks as the only inductees, and since no clear-cut first-timer showed up on the ballot (although Tim Raines should have gotten more votes) the writers went with the guy who was closest. A lot of guys voted for him for the first time rather than leave their ballot blank or risk nobody getting in. And quite simply that makes the whole process a joke.
For what it's worth, I will never agree with the writers who choose to delineate between a "first ballot" HOFer and a "subsequent ballot" HOFer. If a guy deserves to get in, he deserves to get in. The percentage of votes he gets above 75 will delineate who were clearer choices than others. Don't decline to vote for a guy one year and then vote for him the next year just so he won't get in on the first ballot.
And the fact that some guys go from getting about 30 percent their first year and then eventually work their way up to 75 (Jim Rice, I'm talking about your fate next year) is almost laughable. Sure, some voters will rightfully re-examine a player's impact and eventually decide he merits a vote, but it shouldn't ever be over half the voters. That's just HOF voters wielding their power, saying, 'Well, I think you're a borderline HOFer, so I'm going to make you sweat a little before you get my vote.'
This all makes me sick.
But, congratulations to Gossage, who probably does deserve to be elected and should have been long ago. I just wish it didn't have to be like this.

a comment on St. Paul

I just got a post from somebody hoping to get some coverage of the St. Paul baseball team in the Herald this spring. I will first of all say that St. Paul is in the heart of the coverage area for our sister paper, the Bristol Press, and therefore we have avoided covering its teams in the past. But, if several of the players are as you say from New Britain, I will have to look into getting some info this season from the Press.
Thanks for the comment.