I'm right. You're wrong.

Point of contention: Is NASCAR a sport?

MM: As one who used to make fun of Nascar, I can appreciate the simplistic notions of sport which require a ball and a bunch of guys running around. Nascar is for the educated masses, a higher standard of living, those with a 21st century mentality. It’s not for everybody anymore than MENSA is. If you qualify as a fan, you understand why others don’t. It’s just the way it is.

BD: That doesn't make it a sport. I'm sure NASCAR has some sort of magic, mystical quality that outsiders just don't get. To me, it looks like a bunch of people driving around at speeds illegal in every state except Montana. What have you got against MENSA?

MM: Nascar is the second most popular sport in the US by television ratings. It has 17 of the top 20 attended sporting events. The fans are the most brand-loyal and advertisers love us.

BD: People watch American Idol, too. Doesn't make it a sport.

MM: It’s common opinion by the less informed to object to the amount of physical exertion put out by the drivers… “It’s not a sport because all you have to do is turn left”. Anyone who knows the sport recognizes the drivers are in peak physical shape. Do they have the endurance of an NBA point guard? Maybe so, maybe no. But, how much physical effort is required for a first baseman or a back up power forward or full-back on a pass-happy team? Drivers have to endure 4 consecutive hours of 100+ degree conditions all the while maintaining the highest level of mental acuity. No time outs. No halftime. No free throws. No huddles. No seventh inning stretch.

BD: All qualities suburbanites can relate to, thanks to their monstrous daily commutes. Look, I can type a column of numbers into a spreadsheet faster than the eye can follow. I almost never misstype and, when I do, I immediately know it based strictly on feel. It's impressive to watch. It should be an Olympic sport. Look, I'm not saying what those drivers do isn't impressive. But let's face it, the real athletes in that venue are the cars.

MM: When the drivers make a mistake, they don’t suffer the indignity having a play called back or having to sit in the penalty box or just another personal foul. No, they risk the big penalty – death. And, it doesn’t even have to be their mistake. Nascar is exciting not only because of the extreme risks, but also the rewards. When you win, you didn’t beat one person or one team. You endured, outlasted and outsmarted the competition… all 42 of them.

BD: And your tires didn't burst or your spark plugs kept sparking or something. If they got out of their cars and RAN around those tracks, then we'd be onto something.

A Few Royal Highs

WINNING STREAKS

By winning against St. Louis today, Kansas City swept their first road interleague series in history. The were 0-34. On the flip side it was the first sweep the Cardinals have suffered this season.

The five game winning streak the Royals are in is tied with several others for their longest since their start in 2003. That's right. It was over five years ago when Kansas City last won six straight. That streak actually went to nine.

More impressive is that all five have been won on the road. The last time the Royals won as many as six consecutive games on the road was in 1999. They will have a chance to match that streak on June 30th in Baltimore.

HOME RUNS

The team has now hit 25 home runs in the last 18 games. That's 1.39 per game. In the prior 55 games, they hit only 26 (.473 per game). For the season, they have .699 home runs per game.

Shown are the best ratios of home runs per game in KC's history. FYI, the all-time record is Seattle in 1997 (1.63, 264 home runs, 162 games).

Season	HR/G
1987	1.037
2005	1.000
1997	.981
1985	.951
2001	.938
1999	.938
2000	.926
2004	.926
WORST
1976	.401

SAVES

Joakim Soria picked up his 18th save. That would project out to 40 for the season and would rank fourth all-time for the Royals. An even better stat is the ratio of saves per games-won. Soria has 18 saves. The Royals have 31 wins. Soria's save to games-won ratio is .581 (18/31). If he maintained that ratio, it would rank #1 in Kansas City history.

Player	Year	Ratio
Joakim Soria	2008	.581
Dan Quisenberry	1983	.570
Jeff Montgomery	1992	.542
Jeff Montgomery	1993	.536
Dan Quisenberry	1984	.524
Jeff Montgomery	1998	.500
NEXT CLOSEST		.443

How does Pierce compare as a Celtic

Now that Paul Pierce has been in Boston ten years, it's appropriate to evaluate him in terms of other great Celtics from the past. Of course, with only one championship, he can't begin to compare with most of them on that score - after all, Boston has won 17 NBA titles. However, purely based on stats, Pierce is among the best.

He ranks #1 in three-pointers, #3 in free throws, #4 in NBA Efficiency and #5 in defensive rebounds. A more visible stat is scoring. His scoring average as a Celtic ranks second only to Larry Bird - and even then, not by a lot. This is especially noteworthy considering the Celtics have averaged significantly less ppg during Pierce's career than during Bird's. Of course, it is important to also recognize that after 10 years, his average will almost certainly begin dropping.

Shown below are the all-time top Celtic regular season scorers per game (minimum 8 seasons).

Player	Seasons	PPG
Larry Bird	13	24.3
Paul Pierce	10	23.1
John Havlicek	16	20.8
Antoine Walker	8	20.6
Tommy Heinsohn	9	18.6
Bob Cousy	13	18.5
Jo Jo White	10	18.4
Dave Cowens	10	18.2
Bill Sharman	10	18.1
Kevin McHale	13	17.9
Sam Jones	12	17.7
Robert Parish	14	16.5
Bill Russell	13	15.1

How does Pierce compare in the finals?

This is a comparison between Paul Pierce and other Celtic Finals MVPs. You have to keep one thing in mind. The NBA did not begin awarding a Finals MVP until 1969. The Celtics won 10 of the 11 championships prior to that season. Who knows who would have been the MVPs and what their stats would have been? One other interesting point is that the Celtics also won the championship in 1969, however that was the one (and only) time the MVP went to a player on the losing team (Jerry West, Los Angeles).

Using the NBA Efficiency Rating, Pierce's six games were... 21, 32, 0, 21, 33 and 20. This is an average EFF of 21.17. Shown below are all Celtic MVPs and their championship series EFF. All series were either six or seven games.

Year	MVP	EFF
1984	Larry Bird	34.14
1986	Larry Bird	33.67
1974	John Havlicek	24.29
1976	Jo Jo White	21.33
2008	Paul Pierce	21.17
1981	Cedric Maxwell	19.67

Just how good is a 39 point win?

As you know, the Celtics beat the snot out of the the Lakers tonight by 39 points (131-92). The first (obvious) question is whether it is an NBA Finals record margin of victory. It isn't. The record is 42 points in 1998 when Chicago embarrassed Utah 96-54. Boston did lead by 43 for a brief moment late in the game, but couldn't quite hold it.

The 39 points is, however, the largest margin for the NBA Finals final game. Shown below are the biggest blowouts in the last game of the season. As you can see, Boston is no stranger to ending the season on the highest of high notes.

Year	Teams	Margin
2008	Boston over Los Angeles	39
1965	Boston over Los Angeles	33
1949	Minneapolis over Washington	21
1960	Boston over St. Louis	19
1986	Boston over Houston	17
1952	Minneapolis over New York	17
1980	Los Angeles over Philadelphia	16
1968	Boston over Los Angeles	15
1974	Boston over Milwaukee	15
1950	Minneapolis over Syracuse	15

The second question is much more subtle. What are the emotions that allow for a blow-out of this nature? How does the home court factor in? What affect does coming off a loss have? I decided to go searching for nearly identical situations in previous NBA Finals.

The requirements are that a team jumps out to a 3-1 lead, loses game five on the road and comes home for game six. This is what happened with Boston in 2008 and what has happened to seven other teams in NBA history. As you can see, the home team has gone 8-0 and, with only one exception, none of the game sixes were close.

Year	Teams	Margin
2008	Boston over Los Angeles	39
1986	Boston over Houston	17
1948	Baltimore over Philadelphia	15
1950	Minnesota over Syracuse	15
1987	Los Angeles over Boston	13
1996	Chicago over Seattle	12
1982	Los Angeles over Philadelphia	12
2000	Los Angeles over Indiana	5

Slip Slidn' Away

What is the single common thread between the major Kansas City professional sports teams? If you guessed they have been stinkin' up the joint, you would be right.

I'm excluding the Brigade because they stunk from beginning to end, but what is disappointingly similar is how each of them began their most recent season and what came afterwards.

Yikes. It doesn't get much worse than this.

Team	Begin	End
Chiefs	4-3	0-9
Royals	21-22	7-20
Wizards	3-1-1	0-4-2
T-Bones	12-4	3-10
TOTALS	40-30-1	10-43-2

Golf for the ages

With the victory in the U.S. Open, Tiger Woods continued his incredible streak - that being never losing a major when he led or tied for the lead going into the final round. He is 14 for 14. What is almost as amazing is that he has never won a major when trailing going into the final round. And, that's 41 out of 41.

>> Woods has five second place finishes in majors, but trailed after 54 holes.
>> Only Hagan has a better ratio of wins to runner-ups.
>> After 13.5 seasons, Nicklaus had won 11 majors - three short of Woods.

Shown are the all-time leaders for most major championships. Woods continues to close the gap on Nicklaus, but will probably never come close to Jack's combined first and second total.

Player	Firsts	Seconds	Total
Jack Nicklaus	18	19	37
Tiger Woods	14	5	19
Walter Hagen	11	2	13
Ben Hogan	9	6	15
Gary Player	9	6	15
Tom Watson	8	7	15
Bobby Jones	7	4	11
Arnold Palmer	7	9	16
Gene Sarazen	7	3	10
Sam Snead	7	5	12
Nick Faldo	6	2	8
Lee Travino	6	2	8