I know I promised an end of season wrap on the A's, and it's coming, but the numbers are taking more time than I thought, and the whole thing is so depressing that every time I sit down to write it I end up crying a eating a pint of Chubby Hubby.
Anyway, I had to weigh in on this Sox/ Yanks series as we sit here on the cusp of a game seven that simply should not be happening. So here's my thoughts, unedited, unformatted and totally stream of consciousness.
WARNING: EXTREMELY POOR SPELLING BELOW
The 2001 World Series was hailed as one of the best ever played. The Yanks, playing for all of New York, and indeed the country, representing the city after 9/11. The Diamondbacks, representing everyone who hates the Yanks. The best performance by two pitchers since Koufax and Drysdale. The 2001 series had everything including a last chance rally against the most sure thing closer in the game. If you don't believe me, if your memory has faded, run out and buy Buster Olney's "Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty," a must read for all sports fans, especially those who hate the Yanks.
Next came last year's ALCS. After another stunning collapse by the A's, the Sox and Yanks went down to the wire in a series that rivaled the 2001 WS. ESPN Classic has already done an hour-long documentary on that series and there is a book, "One Night at Fenway," about the game, the team, and the history of the Sox as played out that night. I haven't read it yet, but I will soon. The point is, that series was going to go down in history as one of the greatest ever, the epitome of the rivalry, untoppable.
Until this year. Just as it took only one night for these teams to surpass their own record for the longest playoff game ever played, it took only one year for them to supplant their own great series. This is “The Natural,” this is “Hoosiers,” this is every sports movie ever made. People write this stuff; this never happens in real life. A team left for dead after a record-setting loss rising up to force a decisive game 7. This is the absolute best story in sports. This is “Miracle;” this is Charlie Brown and that little red haired girl; this is what we fans hope for. This is “Angels in the Outfield of Dreams.”
No team has ever gone down love-3 and forced a game seven. This team has. No team has ever won a best of seven series after trailing 0-3. This team could. Why not?
Admit it, even the most die-hard Sox fan knew this series was over after game three. Then, as we sat down to snooze through game four, all of a sudden, it wasn't over. Still, game five is a no-brainer, the Sox are done, it's only a matter of time. I even felt bad for the Sox fans, I thought it would have been easier for them to get swept and get on with their lives rather than win one measly game just before elimination, their ultimate pain delayed only a few more hours. But then, they beat Rivera in game four, and again in game five.
All week Andrew Siciliano of Fox Sports Radio has been saying that the Sox would find new and interesting ways to lose this series. It happened in game one when Mussina had a perfect game going into the 7th, only to see the Sox come back to within one when Papi's triple missed being a homer by 3 inches of blue wall. They still lost. It happened in game 3 when they gave up 19 runs. It was the curse. It was Schilling's big mouth and torn tendon. It was a disaster.
And when it looked like the curse might rear its ugly head again, the umpires made the right calls. When Bellhorn's homer was almost just a double (“It's Jeffer Maier!" I yelled), the umpires, who had been for shit all series, stepped up and got it right. When A-Rod put the stiff arm on Arroyo it looked like the game would end based on momentum. Watching that play, I didn’t see A-Rod's move; all I saw was the ball rolling into right field as I thought "How very Red Sock of them, a new and interesting way to lose." It seemed as though the Yanks would get all the breaks again. But for a second improbable time, the umps huddled up and got it right. The stars were aligned!
Perhaps there was divine intervention. Perhaps God is sick of hearing the Sox fans complain to high heaven. There's no doubt that ultimately the Sox benefited most from Friday's rain out. It allowed Pedro to come back on full rest in game five. It gave Schilling one more day. It gave everyone on that staff one more day.
And Schilling. My God, Schilling! The Yankee killer. He started three games of that 2001 WS. He looked terrible in game one. But once he knew what was wrong he pulled out one of the gutsiest sports performances of all time, again rivaling Koufax for the ability to pitch through what should have been a debilitating injury. If the Sox go on to win this series, Schilling's performance will go down as one of the greatest sports achievements ever. This dwarfs Willis Reed by a long shot.
No matter how this ends, it is the best story in sports, maybe ever. I'm calling it: no matter who wins, this is the greatest playoff series ever. The story lines, the passion, the comebacks, everything. I have never been so excited about a game seven before in my life, and I'm not even a Sox fan. This game is all I've thought about since Foulke got the last out last night.
You may remember last October, I wrote a column stating that I was done with being a fan as I had been. I would no longer live and die with my team. I would no longer get so geeked up for a game, or a series. Well, at least for tonight, that's out the window. I can't wait for the game. If you are even a casual sports fan YOU MUST WATCH THIS GAME!!!! This is David and Goliath, and there's one pebble left. Sure the Sox have some high profile free-agent stars, but look at some of their other regulars:
-David Ortiz: released by Minnesota
-Kevin Millar: released by Florida
-Bill Mueller: released by SF
-Mark Bellhorn: released by Colorado
-Pokey Reese: released by Pittsburgh
-Ellis Burkes: released by Cleveland
OK, I'm done. I can't overemphasize the greatness of tonight's event. This is everything a sports fan has ever wanted. This is what baseball, what all sports is all about. You may never see anything like this again in your life! (Until next year.)
Enjoy.
-SR
Family, Sports, Politics, Random Rants: @bertoinpublic, facebook.com/interdisciplinarylife/
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Friday, October 1, 2004
Mmmmmm, plaaaaayoffffsssss....
So this is it, the final weekend of the season, for some teams everything they’ve done for the past six months comes down to what they can do in the next three days. I’m writing this from the back seat of the Rantalot mobile command center and I don’t have access to my usual research tools, but as DMJ says, “never let the facts get in the way of a good Rant.”
First, the teams that are in. The Cards look like crap. Their rotation is shaky in way that reminds me of the Yankees. In fact the Cards are the NL answer to the Evil Empire, not in payroll or evil quotient, but in make up: big sticks, poor starting staff, great closer (Izzy has the worlds quietest 30+ saves). The Braves also have issues and I have to believe they’ve done it with smoke, mirrors, and the mistakes of the rest of the division as much as brilliant management. The Yanks, as mentioned have a ton of questions. Sure they can hit, but do they have enough pitching even with a resurgent Moose? K-Brown and Vazquez haven’t shown they can pitch under pressure in NY, El Dookie has a “tired shoulder,” the pen has thrown about a million innings, and Rivera’s thrown about 500,000 of them. That leaves us with the Sux. The Sux, sadly, look like the best team in baseball right now (you’re welcome Kevin). While they have their own issues, (Pete says the Yanks are his “daddy?”) they have the scariest combo of pitching and hitting of the teams that are in right now. The Sux need to worry about Pete’s head, Lowe’s arm, and Wakfield’s age. Aside from Schilling their best pitcher has been Bronson Arroyo, but will Francona go with him in game two? Or will he cave and set up a Pete, Schill, TBD rotation. I wouldn’t start Pete in game one, but if you don’t and he feels dissed will he go into the tank?
Now the fun stuff, and I’ll save the AL West for last. First, the NL wild card, I say blame the curse of the Bartman. After all, if he hadn’t touched that foul ball in game five or whatever the Cubs wouldn’t have tanked in the last week losing 2-3 to the Mets and then getting mashed on by the Reds. SF is still alive for the both the division and the wild card and I’m hoping they get the old WC leaving the division to the Dodgers. This means I’m hoping LA can clinch today, then lose the next two (sorry Daniel), while the Astros lose three and the Cubs play like the Cubs. This is in the hopes that we see a classic and long awaited LA-SF NLCS and I can finally prove my Dodger allegiance to DMJ. That brings us to the Astros. Where the hell did they come from? A month ago they were dead. They were double-digit games out of everything and Pettite went under the knife. All of a sudden they have a share of that wild card pie.
Which brings us to this question: Is anyone still upset about baseball adding the wild card? Back in ’95 purists denounced the wild card. “After all,” they said, “why should we reward second place?” Indeed. The wild card came under fire again when baseball went to the unbalanced schedule. This time the complaint was that the now the wild card would be easier to attain for teams like the Red Sox who played in a division with Tampa Bay and Baltimore, while teams in the AL West would have a tougher road. All of these doubts should be put to bed by now. The fact is that the wild card keeps baseball exciting into the final weekend. Without the wild card there would be little drama in the NL since the Cubs and Astros are a world behind the Cards and SF needs a sweep in order to forge a tie with LA. Sure the Sux got the AL wild card again, as they have seven out of the ten possible wild card years, but at least one of the best teams in baseball is playing meaningful games in September and October rather than suffering simply because they can’t out spend the Yankees. And make no mistake; the wild card is hardly ever a slouch team. In fact , wild card teams have averaged about 90 wins/ year. As for the unbalanced schedule, well, it hasn’t helped the Cubs who just blew their shot against a weak division foe. Right now playoff hopes are alive in five cities. Last week Texas, and San Diego and Florida were alive as well. The wild card is good for baseball. It keeps more people in more places interested for a longer period of time.
Which brings us too…
A very special one time event…
The ALWS!
That’s right folks, the most exciting series of the weekend is the ALWS, or the American League West Series, a very special early addition to the regular baseball playoffs. Not since 1980 have two teams ended up going head-to-head in the final weekend in a flat footed tie for first. Among the many intriguing series this weekend only the tilt between the A’s and Angels will directly and independently determine who moves on, and who goes home. This is a three game series to see who gets to go the next five game series. Also, as if this match up needed any more subplots there is the fact that the Angels, A’s and Twins all have the same record, so a dominant performance by any of the three will determine who gets the Sux at home, and who has to travel to the Bronx.
So how’s it look for the home nine? That depends, can we get Hudson from 2000, Zito from ’02 and Mulder from before the all star break? Sure, the A’s have the Big Three going in the series, but the Big Three have been a big bust this month. Mulder pitches tonight against Bartolo the Colon. Colon has been going well recently while Mulder is 0 for September with an ERA over 8. Zito, pitching tomorrow, has been in a steady slide since the final day of the regular season back in ’02. In fact, the best A’s pitcher this month has been Rich Harden, who may be available out of the pen on short rest especially if the A’s lose tonight, or fall behind tomorrow. I’d say tonight is a must win for Oakland since, though they’ve been hitting well, don’t want to face one game winner takes all situation against a determined Angels club that has a good line up, and most importantly, a good pen.
And therein lies the crux of the situation. As bad as the rotation has been for Oakland this month, the bullpen has been abysmal all year. The A’s lead the majors in blown saves. If they had converted even a fourth of the saves they’ve blown they would have clinched the division yesterday at the latest. That said, the weakness of the pen puts even more pressure on the Big Three than in previous years because they know they have to go deep into games and leave with big leads if Oakland has a reasonable chance at winning. Gone are the days when Oakland could take in reclamation project relievers and turn them into highly coveted free agents for other teams. Gone are the days when the Big Three could win two out of any three games against any team any time. Gone is Rick Peterson. Check the archives Rant fans. I said the when RP left the A’s pitchers would start to decline. Coincidence? I think not.
So the final analysis? Either team can win this series, it’s almost a toss up, but I’d give a slight edge to the Angels based on momentum. They’ve been chasing Oakland for some time now and they feel like they have our boys in their sights. There’s always more pressure being on the side that’s trying not to crumble than on the side trying to build. Right now the A’s are trying to stave off a disastrous month and get into the playoffs once again. Check back Next week for a playoff preview, or a bitter post mortem.
6:05 pm edt
First, the teams that are in. The Cards look like crap. Their rotation is shaky in way that reminds me of the Yankees. In fact the Cards are the NL answer to the Evil Empire, not in payroll or evil quotient, but in make up: big sticks, poor starting staff, great closer (Izzy has the worlds quietest 30+ saves). The Braves also have issues and I have to believe they’ve done it with smoke, mirrors, and the mistakes of the rest of the division as much as brilliant management. The Yanks, as mentioned have a ton of questions. Sure they can hit, but do they have enough pitching even with a resurgent Moose? K-Brown and Vazquez haven’t shown they can pitch under pressure in NY, El Dookie has a “tired shoulder,” the pen has thrown about a million innings, and Rivera’s thrown about 500,000 of them. That leaves us with the Sux. The Sux, sadly, look like the best team in baseball right now (you’re welcome Kevin). While they have their own issues, (Pete says the Yanks are his “daddy?”) they have the scariest combo of pitching and hitting of the teams that are in right now. The Sux need to worry about Pete’s head, Lowe’s arm, and Wakfield’s age. Aside from Schilling their best pitcher has been Bronson Arroyo, but will Francona go with him in game two? Or will he cave and set up a Pete, Schill, TBD rotation. I wouldn’t start Pete in game one, but if you don’t and he feels dissed will he go into the tank?
Now the fun stuff, and I’ll save the AL West for last. First, the NL wild card, I say blame the curse of the Bartman. After all, if he hadn’t touched that foul ball in game five or whatever the Cubs wouldn’t have tanked in the last week losing 2-3 to the Mets and then getting mashed on by the Reds. SF is still alive for the both the division and the wild card and I’m hoping they get the old WC leaving the division to the Dodgers. This means I’m hoping LA can clinch today, then lose the next two (sorry Daniel), while the Astros lose three and the Cubs play like the Cubs. This is in the hopes that we see a classic and long awaited LA-SF NLCS and I can finally prove my Dodger allegiance to DMJ. That brings us to the Astros. Where the hell did they come from? A month ago they were dead. They were double-digit games out of everything and Pettite went under the knife. All of a sudden they have a share of that wild card pie.
Which brings us to this question: Is anyone still upset about baseball adding the wild card? Back in ’95 purists denounced the wild card. “After all,” they said, “why should we reward second place?” Indeed. The wild card came under fire again when baseball went to the unbalanced schedule. This time the complaint was that the now the wild card would be easier to attain for teams like the Red Sox who played in a division with Tampa Bay and Baltimore, while teams in the AL West would have a tougher road. All of these doubts should be put to bed by now. The fact is that the wild card keeps baseball exciting into the final weekend. Without the wild card there would be little drama in the NL since the Cubs and Astros are a world behind the Cards and SF needs a sweep in order to forge a tie with LA. Sure the Sux got the AL wild card again, as they have seven out of the ten possible wild card years, but at least one of the best teams in baseball is playing meaningful games in September and October rather than suffering simply because they can’t out spend the Yankees. And make no mistake; the wild card is hardly ever a slouch team. In fact , wild card teams have averaged about 90 wins/ year. As for the unbalanced schedule, well, it hasn’t helped the Cubs who just blew their shot against a weak division foe. Right now playoff hopes are alive in five cities. Last week Texas, and San Diego and Florida were alive as well. The wild card is good for baseball. It keeps more people in more places interested for a longer period of time.
Which brings us too…
A very special one time event…
The ALWS!
That’s right folks, the most exciting series of the weekend is the ALWS, or the American League West Series, a very special early addition to the regular baseball playoffs. Not since 1980 have two teams ended up going head-to-head in the final weekend in a flat footed tie for first. Among the many intriguing series this weekend only the tilt between the A’s and Angels will directly and independently determine who moves on, and who goes home. This is a three game series to see who gets to go the next five game series. Also, as if this match up needed any more subplots there is the fact that the Angels, A’s and Twins all have the same record, so a dominant performance by any of the three will determine who gets the Sux at home, and who has to travel to the Bronx.
So how’s it look for the home nine? That depends, can we get Hudson from 2000, Zito from ’02 and Mulder from before the all star break? Sure, the A’s have the Big Three going in the series, but the Big Three have been a big bust this month. Mulder pitches tonight against Bartolo the Colon. Colon has been going well recently while Mulder is 0 for September with an ERA over 8. Zito, pitching tomorrow, has been in a steady slide since the final day of the regular season back in ’02. In fact, the best A’s pitcher this month has been Rich Harden, who may be available out of the pen on short rest especially if the A’s lose tonight, or fall behind tomorrow. I’d say tonight is a must win for Oakland since, though they’ve been hitting well, don’t want to face one game winner takes all situation against a determined Angels club that has a good line up, and most importantly, a good pen.
And therein lies the crux of the situation. As bad as the rotation has been for Oakland this month, the bullpen has been abysmal all year. The A’s lead the majors in blown saves. If they had converted even a fourth of the saves they’ve blown they would have clinched the division yesterday at the latest. That said, the weakness of the pen puts even more pressure on the Big Three than in previous years because they know they have to go deep into games and leave with big leads if Oakland has a reasonable chance at winning. Gone are the days when Oakland could take in reclamation project relievers and turn them into highly coveted free agents for other teams. Gone are the days when the Big Three could win two out of any three games against any team any time. Gone is Rick Peterson. Check the archives Rant fans. I said the when RP left the A’s pitchers would start to decline. Coincidence? I think not.
So the final analysis? Either team can win this series, it’s almost a toss up, but I’d give a slight edge to the Angels based on momentum. They’ve been chasing Oakland for some time now and they feel like they have our boys in their sights. There’s always more pressure being on the side that’s trying not to crumble than on the side trying to build. Right now the A’s are trying to stave off a disastrous month and get into the playoffs once again. Check back Next week for a playoff preview, or a bitter post mortem.
6:05 pm edt
Friday, September 17, 2004
Fuck You!
The FCC is cracking down on cursing. In the wake of Janet and Justin’s wardrobe malfunction the FCC has been handing out fines and tightening their previous rulings on curse words. One recent example is the FCC’s ruling regarding Bono’s call of “Fucking brilliant!” at a recent awards show. The FCC’s position is that cursing is not only offensive in that it “invariably conjures up a graphic sexual image” but that exposing children to cursing is morally detrimental. The radio program “This American Life” recently did a story on cursing in which they interviewed a psychologist who has been studying the effects of cursing on children, and a lawyer for the FCC. The psychologist concluded that cursing on TV or radio does not have a detrimental effect on children, and that most children know and repeat curse words at a very early age (as young as two) even if they do not grasp the full meaning. During my own research into idioms and the use of figurative and idiomatic language I came across studies that showed that when people encounter figurative language they usually produce the connotative meaning first and may not ever think of the denotative meaning at all. That is, when people hear the words “kick the bucket” they rarely think of a foot striking a pail. Applied to cursing, this theory is borne out during the “This American Life” story when the interviewer asks several children of various ages what they think of when they hear the phrase “Fucking brilliant” in context. Invariably the children failed to mention sex of any kind, let alone graphic sexual imagery as the FCC suggests.
All this got me thinking about the role of cursing in my own life. The curse word and I have had a long and bountiful relationship that has evolved over time. By the time I was six years old I could curse like a long shore man. I’m fairly certain that I picked up my four-letter vocabulary from peers and family rather than the media. I think I picked up on swearing because it had such a great effect, it truly expressed how I felt as a child who was by no means as smart as I thought I was, but far smarter than I felt anyone gave me credit for. I quickly learned that I could get a stronger reaction by swearing at adults than by being “good.” Telling your second grade teacher “That makes me unhappy, I don’t think that’s fair” gets a kid fairly well ignored, after all, life isn’t fair and kids don’t get what they want etc. However, telling the same teacher that, “This is some fucking bullshit and if you don’t change it I’ll sue yer sorry ass you bitch” gets a much different reaction. And, though I still didn’t always get what I wanted, at least it opened up a dialogue.
As time went on my sense of when to swear evolved, though I still gave a good fuck about where I was when I decided to let one fly. To me it was always about emphasis, if I felt that a four-letter blast best expressed my point I let fly. It was proud day for me when my friend Ben, himself an accomplished master of the four-letter tirade, said that I uttered the best “Fuck you” he had ever heard, “Dude, when you say it, people know you really mean it.” But a funny thing happened when I got to college. I started to care. I tried not to curse in front of my grandmother, or my brother’s friends, or girls I liked. It was weird, the first time I realized I was holding back, searching for a different word.
There were a few things that went into the transformation. First, my major was populated by religious types, and despite my caring fuck all about they’re perception of God, I didn’t want to offend or alienate them. This became particularly important when I ran for a small student government post representing my major. Second, as time went on I realized the benefits of appearing educated, which often meant cutting back on the casual swearing. Conjoined with this is the fact that actually being educated often results in having people be less inclined to dismiss you out of hand. As I progressed through school I no longer had to shock people in order to open up a dialogue, all I had to do was talk.
And thus I have developed a new theory, a radical new para-dig-em: children need cursing far more than adults do. By the time we reach adulthood most of us have a myriad of ways to express ourselves. Not that we need to, or should abandon “adult” vocabulary, but the fact is that if we need to curse in order to be recognized or stand out then we have far deeper problems and should probably just be ignored. (Case in point, when the reins of TV, radio, or a script are strapped on, Jay Mohr is a funny man. Left to his own devices he loses his wit to a deluge of anal sex jokes.) But kids, kids need to curse just to avoid being ignored. This is not unlike Dogbert’s strategy of corporate yelling, if you are loud and belligerent enough people will be shocked and give you whatever you want. Don’t just be the squeaky wheel; be the wheel that says, “You better grease me or I won’t just squeak, I’ll wait ‘til yer doing 90 on the interstate, then I’ll jump off, roll away, and cause you to crash into that bus full of nuns and invalids.” I say we should teach our kids how to curse strategically in order to move ahead in the world. I know I will.
All this got me thinking about the role of cursing in my own life. The curse word and I have had a long and bountiful relationship that has evolved over time. By the time I was six years old I could curse like a long shore man. I’m fairly certain that I picked up my four-letter vocabulary from peers and family rather than the media. I think I picked up on swearing because it had such a great effect, it truly expressed how I felt as a child who was by no means as smart as I thought I was, but far smarter than I felt anyone gave me credit for. I quickly learned that I could get a stronger reaction by swearing at adults than by being “good.” Telling your second grade teacher “That makes me unhappy, I don’t think that’s fair” gets a kid fairly well ignored, after all, life isn’t fair and kids don’t get what they want etc. However, telling the same teacher that, “This is some fucking bullshit and if you don’t change it I’ll sue yer sorry ass you bitch” gets a much different reaction. And, though I still didn’t always get what I wanted, at least it opened up a dialogue.
As time went on my sense of when to swear evolved, though I still gave a good fuck about where I was when I decided to let one fly. To me it was always about emphasis, if I felt that a four-letter blast best expressed my point I let fly. It was proud day for me when my friend Ben, himself an accomplished master of the four-letter tirade, said that I uttered the best “Fuck you” he had ever heard, “Dude, when you say it, people know you really mean it.” But a funny thing happened when I got to college. I started to care. I tried not to curse in front of my grandmother, or my brother’s friends, or girls I liked. It was weird, the first time I realized I was holding back, searching for a different word.
There were a few things that went into the transformation. First, my major was populated by religious types, and despite my caring fuck all about they’re perception of God, I didn’t want to offend or alienate them. This became particularly important when I ran for a small student government post representing my major. Second, as time went on I realized the benefits of appearing educated, which often meant cutting back on the casual swearing. Conjoined with this is the fact that actually being educated often results in having people be less inclined to dismiss you out of hand. As I progressed through school I no longer had to shock people in order to open up a dialogue, all I had to do was talk.
And thus I have developed a new theory, a radical new para-dig-em: children need cursing far more than adults do. By the time we reach adulthood most of us have a myriad of ways to express ourselves. Not that we need to, or should abandon “adult” vocabulary, but the fact is that if we need to curse in order to be recognized or stand out then we have far deeper problems and should probably just be ignored. (Case in point, when the reins of TV, radio, or a script are strapped on, Jay Mohr is a funny man. Left to his own devices he loses his wit to a deluge of anal sex jokes.) But kids, kids need to curse just to avoid being ignored. This is not unlike Dogbert’s strategy of corporate yelling, if you are loud and belligerent enough people will be shocked and give you whatever you want. Don’t just be the squeaky wheel; be the wheel that says, “You better grease me or I won’t just squeak, I’ll wait ‘til yer doing 90 on the interstate, then I’ll jump off, roll away, and cause you to crash into that bus full of nuns and invalids.” I say we should teach our kids how to curse strategically in order to move ahead in the world. I know I will.
Tuesday, September 7, 2004
Dot Freaking Dot
Tuesday, September 7, 2004
Well, I never thought I’d have to write a lame ass “dot dot dot” column but too much has happened in the month or so since computer went down for me to cover it all. Some things are long past resolved, others I just don’t care enough about to go back and really hash them out. Anyway, here goes, in no particular order.
The NCAA vs. money-grubbing kids:
Yeah, I’m old enough now that I call people who are still in college “kids.” Here’s the deal, mike Williams declared for the draft and took money from an agent even though the NCAA and the NFL told him that if they won their appeal he would not regain his eligibility. Now everyone seems shocked that he’s not being allowed to play. Yes, he paid back the money. Yes, he disassociated himself from the agent. Yes, he went summer school so he could be academically eligible. It doesn’t matter. Now talk show hosts and columnists are bitching about how the NCAA is abusing this kid and ruining his life. Bullshit. Mike Williams still has more opportunity in his life right now than most people in the world. Boohoo, he can’t play for USC, so let’s look at what he can do…he can play in the CFL…he can play in the AL or A2…he can play for a JC…he can get a job as an analyst or sideline reporter…he can go to school and work towards his degree…he can get an agent to give him a loan, buy an Escalade and do cameos in Snoop Dogg videos…(“My name is Willie, Willie Beeeaman”). Don’t cry for Mike Williams, he’ll be fine, and next April he’ll make more money than all of us combined.
Which brings us to Jeremy Bloom. Bloom is…was…a WR for the University of Colorado. He’s also an Olympic skier. He wanted to take endorsement money to pay for his ski training, which is against NCAA rules. NCAA rules state that you can take a salary in another sport and still play football, but you cannot take endorsement money. That’s why guys like Ricky Williams and Chris Wienke could play in the minors and then come back and play football. Bloom took the money, then lost his appeal for reinstatement for football. Again, the anti-NCAA media has been crowing about how unfair that is. Again, they’re wrong. Bloom made a choice, the options were: be an Olympic skier, or be a college football player. He wanted both, he got skiing. He chose to take the money. Fuck him. Again, there is no law or amendment, commandment that says you get to have everything you want just because you’re good at stuff.
Otra:
The 49ers will not be the worst team in football this year; no matter what ESPN says…TO will rip Philly up, can they even make the playoffs?…Dorsey Levens again benefits from another guy’s injury…As much as I hate to say it, Barry’s the MVP…Didn’t The Governator learn from the last time he used the “girly man” line?…How bad were the Bush twins at the RNC? The blonde one’s cute though right? Like a poor man’s Kirsten Dunst…I don’t know if he did it or not, my guess is the truth lies somewhere in between, still Kobe’s case does bring up issues about the rights of the accused…just for fun, Misty May, Amanda Bush, Kerry Walsh, and Jenny Finch…Why is it always us and South Korea having controversy in the Olympics?…I am not a rube. I have heard the church bells at Notre Dame. I have climbed the towers of the Sagrada Familia. I believe that Fenway Park is the most beautiful building I have ever seen….Fenway also has the best hot dogs, perhaps the best food, in all of baseball. My friends were shocked when I threw down three Fenway Franks in four innings…The last four sentences include the word “Fenway”…
Well, I never thought I’d have to write a lame ass “dot dot dot” column but too much has happened in the month or so since computer went down for me to cover it all. Some things are long past resolved, others I just don’t care enough about to go back and really hash them out. Anyway, here goes, in no particular order.
The NCAA vs. money-grubbing kids:
Yeah, I’m old enough now that I call people who are still in college “kids.” Here’s the deal, mike Williams declared for the draft and took money from an agent even though the NCAA and the NFL told him that if they won their appeal he would not regain his eligibility. Now everyone seems shocked that he’s not being allowed to play. Yes, he paid back the money. Yes, he disassociated himself from the agent. Yes, he went summer school so he could be academically eligible. It doesn’t matter. Now talk show hosts and columnists are bitching about how the NCAA is abusing this kid and ruining his life. Bullshit. Mike Williams still has more opportunity in his life right now than most people in the world. Boohoo, he can’t play for USC, so let’s look at what he can do…he can play in the CFL…he can play in the AL or A2…he can play for a JC…he can get a job as an analyst or sideline reporter…he can go to school and work towards his degree…he can get an agent to give him a loan, buy an Escalade and do cameos in Snoop Dogg videos…(“My name is Willie, Willie Beeeaman”). Don’t cry for Mike Williams, he’ll be fine, and next April he’ll make more money than all of us combined.
Which brings us to Jeremy Bloom. Bloom is…was…a WR for the University of Colorado. He’s also an Olympic skier. He wanted to take endorsement money to pay for his ski training, which is against NCAA rules. NCAA rules state that you can take a salary in another sport and still play football, but you cannot take endorsement money. That’s why guys like Ricky Williams and Chris Wienke could play in the minors and then come back and play football. Bloom took the money, then lost his appeal for reinstatement for football. Again, the anti-NCAA media has been crowing about how unfair that is. Again, they’re wrong. Bloom made a choice, the options were: be an Olympic skier, or be a college football player. He wanted both, he got skiing. He chose to take the money. Fuck him. Again, there is no law or amendment, commandment that says you get to have everything you want just because you’re good at stuff.
Otra:
The 49ers will not be the worst team in football this year; no matter what ESPN says…TO will rip Philly up, can they even make the playoffs?…Dorsey Levens again benefits from another guy’s injury…As much as I hate to say it, Barry’s the MVP…Didn’t The Governator learn from the last time he used the “girly man” line?…How bad were the Bush twins at the RNC? The blonde one’s cute though right? Like a poor man’s Kirsten Dunst…I don’t know if he did it or not, my guess is the truth lies somewhere in between, still Kobe’s case does bring up issues about the rights of the accused…just for fun, Misty May, Amanda Bush, Kerry Walsh, and Jenny Finch…Why is it always us and South Korea having controversy in the Olympics?…I am not a rube. I have heard the church bells at Notre Dame. I have climbed the towers of the Sagrada Familia. I believe that Fenway Park is the most beautiful building I have ever seen….Fenway also has the best hot dogs, perhaps the best food, in all of baseball. My friends were shocked when I threw down three Fenway Franks in four innings…The last four sentences include the word “Fenway”…
Saturday, September 4, 2004
It's an Outrage!
Wrap your mind around this foolishness:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview04/news/story?id=1868175# (SR sez: Those who can, do. Those who could, but can’t anymore make lists about those who did it better than them.)
If you ever wanted proof that NFL analysts are almost all blowhards, this is it. Who the fuck cares what Sean Salsibury has to say about Jerry Rice when he ranked Rice 6th?
If Jim Brown is so great for having compiled huge numbers for so short a career, why isn't Jerry Rice acknowledged as better for having shattered all meaningful records for receiving in a career that has lasted twice as long? Why is career longevity penalized, but walking away from the game at an early age is rewarded? Why is it assumed that Brown would have automatically had better stats if he had continued his career? Let's face it, if you come down on Jim's side of the debate, you should admit to yourself that it's at least partially based on the assumption that Brown's numbers would have been even gaudier if he had a longer career. If that's possible, what's stopping me from using Ricky Williams' college career stats to claim that he was capable of a career comeback that would have catapulted him past Brown if he hadn't retired? (SR sez: Ricky could come back. Right? Please say yes.)
If Jim Brown is so great, why did Barry Sanders get only 5 points, collectively, from these knuckleheads? I'm not saying that Sanders should have been voted #1 over Brown, but if we're accepting the "what a career he could have had if he hadn't walked away" argument is fair game, why the disparity between the two? Let's see--Barry had 3,000 more career yards, was All-NFL all 10 years of his career, missed leading the league in rushing his rookie year by only 10 yards, led it two other times, and gained 2,058 yards in the 1997 season. And again, before you bring your tired generational arguments, let's remember that Barry played in the era of 350-pound defensive tackles who could run a sub-5 second 40 and bench press 450 pounds.
I'm tired of hearing arguments about older players playing in a 12-game season. As far as I'm concerned, the shortening of the average players' productive years caused by the wear and tear of four extra weeks of play, coupled with the huge gap in athleticism between the "old" game and today's, are more than enough to make up for the career difference in stats.
(SR sez: Not only that, but no one seems to factor injuries or bad teams into the equation. A lot is made of the fact that Brown never missed game. Brown played for nine years at a time when a season lasted 12 games. That’s 108 games without getting hurt. Yahoo. Rice didn’t miss a game until 1997 at a time when the season was expanded to 16 games. Rice was drafted in 1985, which means he played 209 games without missing one. Rice beat Brown in that regard by 101 games. This may seem to hurt my argument but here’s the point, Rice got hurt, twice. He missed time, it could happen to anyone at any time (ask Gayle Sayers). Brown may have come back the next year and tore an ACL, which was a career ending injury back then. If that had happened would he still be surrounded by the same aura? I doubt it. Also, what if the Browns had started to suck like the post Young pre mature-Garcia 49ers did? How many more catches would Rice have had if he didn’t go through the Garcia-learning-on-the-job years? Brown was a great player, but the fact that he quit on his own has inflated his legend. Jerry beats Brown across the board in terms of career achievement.)
Joe Theismann's ballot should have been thrown out--he didn't even vote for LT, fer chrissake. Joe--in addition to totally redefining his position and being the best ever at it, he KNOCKED YOUR ASS OUT OF THE GAME FOREVER! You don't have to like it, you pussy, but you have to respect it!
Mark Schlereth made Elway #1 and didn't include Montana! Uh--Montana led 3 different groups of men to 4 Super Bowls and won them all, taking two MVPs in the process, whereas Elway, after a career of getting close but never there, rode Terrell Davis all the way to the Big Game (and an MVP trophy that will always look to me like a sympathy vote) and got his vibrating musical lollipop and heartburn medication ad deals. (SR sez: I’m also sick of hearing about Unitas. How many titles did he win? Was he really better than Jim Otto or Sammy Baugh? Yeah? Prove it! Well he has more passing yards than yer mom too!)
That is all.
(Unforgettable…)
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview04/news/story?id=1868175# (SR sez: Those who can, do. Those who could, but can’t anymore make lists about those who did it better than them.)
If you ever wanted proof that NFL analysts are almost all blowhards, this is it. Who the fuck cares what Sean Salsibury has to say about Jerry Rice when he ranked Rice 6th?
If Jim Brown is so great for having compiled huge numbers for so short a career, why isn't Jerry Rice acknowledged as better for having shattered all meaningful records for receiving in a career that has lasted twice as long? Why is career longevity penalized, but walking away from the game at an early age is rewarded? Why is it assumed that Brown would have automatically had better stats if he had continued his career? Let's face it, if you come down on Jim's side of the debate, you should admit to yourself that it's at least partially based on the assumption that Brown's numbers would have been even gaudier if he had a longer career. If that's possible, what's stopping me from using Ricky Williams' college career stats to claim that he was capable of a career comeback that would have catapulted him past Brown if he hadn't retired? (SR sez: Ricky could come back. Right? Please say yes.)
If Jim Brown is so great, why did Barry Sanders get only 5 points, collectively, from these knuckleheads? I'm not saying that Sanders should have been voted #1 over Brown, but if we're accepting the "what a career he could have had if he hadn't walked away" argument is fair game, why the disparity between the two? Let's see--Barry had 3,000 more career yards, was All-NFL all 10 years of his career, missed leading the league in rushing his rookie year by only 10 yards, led it two other times, and gained 2,058 yards in the 1997 season. And again, before you bring your tired generational arguments, let's remember that Barry played in the era of 350-pound defensive tackles who could run a sub-5 second 40 and bench press 450 pounds.
I'm tired of hearing arguments about older players playing in a 12-game season. As far as I'm concerned, the shortening of the average players' productive years caused by the wear and tear of four extra weeks of play, coupled with the huge gap in athleticism between the "old" game and today's, are more than enough to make up for the career difference in stats.
(SR sez: Not only that, but no one seems to factor injuries or bad teams into the equation. A lot is made of the fact that Brown never missed game. Brown played for nine years at a time when a season lasted 12 games. That’s 108 games without getting hurt. Yahoo. Rice didn’t miss a game until 1997 at a time when the season was expanded to 16 games. Rice was drafted in 1985, which means he played 209 games without missing one. Rice beat Brown in that regard by 101 games. This may seem to hurt my argument but here’s the point, Rice got hurt, twice. He missed time, it could happen to anyone at any time (ask Gayle Sayers). Brown may have come back the next year and tore an ACL, which was a career ending injury back then. If that had happened would he still be surrounded by the same aura? I doubt it. Also, what if the Browns had started to suck like the post Young pre mature-Garcia 49ers did? How many more catches would Rice have had if he didn’t go through the Garcia-learning-on-the-job years? Brown was a great player, but the fact that he quit on his own has inflated his legend. Jerry beats Brown across the board in terms of career achievement.)
Joe Theismann's ballot should have been thrown out--he didn't even vote for LT, fer chrissake. Joe--in addition to totally redefining his position and being the best ever at it, he KNOCKED YOUR ASS OUT OF THE GAME FOREVER! You don't have to like it, you pussy, but you have to respect it!
Mark Schlereth made Elway #1 and didn't include Montana! Uh--Montana led 3 different groups of men to 4 Super Bowls and won them all, taking two MVPs in the process, whereas Elway, after a career of getting close but never there, rode Terrell Davis all the way to the Big Game (and an MVP trophy that will always look to me like a sympathy vote) and got his vibrating musical lollipop and heartburn medication ad deals. (SR sez: I’m also sick of hearing about Unitas. How many titles did he win? Was he really better than Jim Otto or Sammy Baugh? Yeah? Prove it! Well he has more passing yards than yer mom too!)
That is all.
(Unforgettable…)
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Holy Prosperous Pairings!
Dynamic duos, pairings of people who, together, accomplish more than they could as individuals. But it's more than that. Dynamic duos often accomplish more together than many more people could accomplish. Abbot and Costello, Bausch and Lomb, And of course, the original dynamic duo, Batman and Robin, have become cultural icons, recognizable to anyone who has they're contacts in. But what happens when these duos split up? How much success can one member have without the other?
Before meeting up and establishing a peroxide empire Bausch was a failed chemist best known for developing an unpopular brand of edible silly putty, while Lomb was trying to sell people on the idea of cleaning they're glasses with steel wool. Most people would rather forget the films that Abbott and Costello released as individuals, after they're messy break up in which Abbott said he didn't appreciate Costello coming in to each scheduled shooting fat and out of shape, unable to fulfill the rigorous duties required of slapstick comedy, while Costello claimed that Abbott was a "gag hog." Occasionally, one partner goes on to continued success while the other fades away to less embellished glory. Thus was the case of Batman and the original Robin, Dick Grayson. Grayson, for reasons of his own decided to leave Wayne Manner for a crime fighting life of his own, first as Robin, and later as Nightwing. After his own comic book venture failed he was forced to join the moderately successful New Teen Titans, once again forced into an ensemble role. Meanwhile Batman enjoyed continued success, proving that he had in fact been the main draw and the pillar behind the dynamic duo's longevity. Of course this success was not without its difficulties. Batman went through three more Robins and became a darker and darker Knight as time went on.
With all of these examples close at hand it is surprising that the lessons they teach us are so often ignored by professional basketball players. Recent NBA history is full of examples of successful dynamic duos and the results of they're parting. Yet, as the break up of the Lakers shows, players are still more concerned with proving that they are The Man, than with putting themselves in position to win championships. Shaq didn't like "the direction the team was headed" and "didn't want to be a part of it." Meanwhile, common opinion holds that Doc Buss fired Phil and traded The Diesel in order to appease Kobe. All of this a result of two star players wanting to be acknowledged as The Man, rather than admit how much of they're success depended on each other. By doing so they ignored recent history that shows how a team with two superstars can dominate the league, while a team with one is usually bounced early in the playoffs.
Exhibit One: Kevin Garnett and Stephon Marbury.
Teammates from 1996 to 1999 (3 seasons) Garnett and Starbury were being hailed as the duo that could make the T-Wolves a force in the West. This was before Kobe blossomed and while the Lakers were going through Del Harris, Magic and Kurt Rambis on the bench. While together Garnett averaged 18.8 PPG while Star averaged 17.0 PPG and 8.6 APG. Star left because he didn't feel that he and Garnett could coexist, saying that he had to be able to score more and have the offense run not just through him, but to him. Since then Star has improved his scoring average by about 3.5 PPG but has never again met the career high 9.3 APG he had his last year in Minnesota. Garnett has also raised his PPG by about 3.5. Neither player has been to the finals, '04 was the first time Garnett had been passed the first round, and Star has been traded twice. Garnett's recent success didn't come until the emergence of Wally Sczerbiak, another good young scorer with whom Garnett has had a rocky relationship.
Exhibit Two: Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady
Two more guys who couldn't agree on who was The Man. T-Mac and VC were in Toronto together from 98-00 (2 seasons) and were on they're way to challenging the Knicks and Heat for dominance in the East. Again, McGrady left because he couldn't share the spotlight with VC, he wanted go out and be the guy who got the credit. Of course at the time T-Mac was a guy who averaged 7.0 PPG as rookie before VC arrived, and then 9.3, and 15.4 PPG while VC came in as a rookie and hit for 18.3, and then 25.7 PPG. T-Mac felt like he was being overshadowed so he left for Orlando where his PPG average shot up more than 11 points. During that same stretch VC's PPG average dropped as knee injuries and media controversies robbed him of his explosiveness and sunny demeanor. As with the Garnett and Marbury neither player has been to the finals and T-Mac's Magic were dismal last season.
It should be noted that T-Mac thought he was going south to pair up with Grant Hill, and at a time when The Magic felt like they were on the verge of signing Tim Duncan. Things didn't work out as Duncan stayed in San Antonio (where he won another title as part of the "Twin Towers" dynamic duo) and Hill never played more than a few unproductive games per year due to an ankle injury similar to the one suffered by Garrison Hearst.
Exhibit Three: MJ and Pippen
No one needs to mention what these two accomplished together. Also, there was never any doubt about who was The Man on this team. Mike was the boss. Always. But the fact remains that Mike never won without Scotty and Scotty never won without Mike. Not even when Scotty went to Houston with Hakeem, Sir Charles, and The Glide.
Here, the circumstances of their parting was due to more than just ego or a failure to coexist. The first time they split it was because Mike thought he could play baseball. The second time it was because the Jerries thought they could win without anyone ("organizations win championships").
Which brings us to Shaq and Kobe. When the Diesel went to LA as a free agent it was on the heels of first losing to Houston in the finals and then watching MJ return to begin a second run at the top of the heap. Shaq was coming out of a dynamic duo situation in Orlando where he was teamed with a rising star in Penny Hardaway. The year they went to the finals Shaq averaged 29.3 PPG and 11.5 RPG, Penny averaged 20.9 PPG and a career high 7.2 APG. The year before Shaq left his PPG slid to 26.6, while Hardaway's rose to 21.7 with his APG fell to 7.1. The difference was enough to send The Daddy to Los Angeles.
Shaq’s first year So-Cal the Lakers drafted a high school kid from Philly named Kobe Bryant who averaged 7.1 PPG and did nothing to threaten Shaq's standing as The Man. This was the case, by and large, through the first championship year of 99-00. That year Shaq hit a career high 29.7 PPG while Kobe contributed a then career high 22.5PPG to with 4.9 APG. That off season things began to go down hill. The rift between Kobe and Shaq, and Kobe and Phil, and Kobe and the rest of the team, came light and began to take over as The Story surrounding the Lakers. The rumors flew, Kobe for J-Kidd and Shawn Marion, Kobe staying, Shaq wanting out etc. Shaq complained about Kobe being selfish, Kobe complained about Shaq being fat. Shaq responding with is famous "If you don't feed the big dog, the big dog won't guard the yard." Yet through it all they managed to win two more titles while Kobe's APG actually rose each year until this recent season.
This recent season, the one that ended it all. The Lakers brought in two aging former stars who were supposed to return the Lakers to their perch atop the NBA world. It didn't happen. Instead The Glove looked old and confused, the Mailman got hurt, and the Shaq/ Kobe/ Phil feud blew up. Now, the Lakers are back to square one and I don't see a title in the near future for either Shaq or Kobe. I've seen analysis that says the Heat got a great deal, that they become the favorites in the East, that the Lakers could end up as a lottery team, that Kobe made a mistake by alienating Shaq and Phil, that the basketball world is now up for grabs.
So, will Shaq/ Kobe be another Abbott and Costello? Or will one be Batman while the other goes on as a moderately successful Nightwing?
A lot of folks seem to think that the Heat will run away with the East based on the idea that Shaq will be angry and motivated to come to Miami in shape, that Pat Riley will be able to get out of Shaq what he got out of Kareem, and that, as the only truly big center in the conference, that The Daddy will be able to dominate the paint as he had in the past. I disagree.
First off the people who say that the Heat are now the favorites in the East seem to be forgetting how the smaller but quicker and more motivated Wallace and Wallace held Shaq in check during the finals, how Shaq has been slower and less dominate in each season since 99-00 when he went 29.7 PPG, 13.7 RPG, and 3.0 BPG. Shaq's numbers since 99-00:
PPG: 28.7, 27.2, 27.5, 21.5
RPG: 12.7, 10.7, 11.1, 11.5
BPG: 2.8, 2.0, 2.4, 2.5
Shaq has also hinted at retiring to become either a cop or a fireman, and got off his "company time" line when asked why he waited until training camp to have surgery. Also, while Dwayne Wade is a nice player, he's no Kobe. Time will tell whether he and Shaq will become a dynamic duo. One thing's for sure, Shaq and Eddie Jones couldn't do it in 96 and they won't do it alone now. Also, people seem to be banking on the idea that a healthy motivated Shaq is the same as 28 year old Shaq. It's not. Shaq, at 32 is beat up more than he was five years ago when the Lakers began their run. While Shaq may get the Heat to the Eastern Conference Finals, and possibly the NBA Finals, I can't see them beating the Rockets, Mavs, Kings, or T-wolves in a seven game series.
As for Kobe, well, now is the time to make good on all the MJ comparisons. The one thing that MJ had, which Kobe has yet to show, is an ability to be a respected leader. Everyone fell in line with MJ because they knew he made them better. They knew that even though the plays at the end of the game were drawn up for MJ, even though MJ carried the team, he trusted his teammates (Steve Kerr, John Paxon etc.) enough to go to them and help them succeed. Look at all the big contracts signed by former Bulls after the team was blown up (Luc Longley, _____) simply because Mike made these guys play better than they actually were. Kobe has shown brief flashes of that (hitting Big Shot Rob in the corner to beat the Blazers) but not enough. Also, Kobe has yet to win the respect of his teammates in a way that allows him to be a leader because people want to follow him.
One positive for Kobe, and another MJ comparison, is that the current wisdom that you need a dominant center in order to win, is belied by the fact that MJ never played with a dominant big man. MJ had a great second banana in SF Pippen, and Kobe has a good second option in SF Lamar Odom. MJ had a good PF in Horace Grant, Kobe could have something similar if Malone returns. (Of course if Malone comes back why not join Shaq in Miami?) If Payton can be as good as BJ Armstrong (not a lofty goal, but questionable based on GP's performance last year), and Slava, or Divac can be as good as Bill Wennington then the blueprint is set provided that Kobe can be as good as MJ. All long shots, but the precedent is set for a team to win with a great 2 guard and no center to speak of.
That said, I don't think Kobe will lead the Lakers to the finals any time soon. Of course it depends on how Rudy T can bring along guys like Luke Walton and Kareem Rush. The rest of the West was already catching up with LA and I don't see the current team beating Minnesota, Sacramento, San Antonio, Dallas or Houston in a seven game series. Also, Houston has a potential dynamic duo in T-Mac and Yao, and another in Minnesota with the afore mentioned Garnett and Sczerbiak.
What should have happened? If I were Mitch Kupchak, or Doc Buss I would have traded Shaq for T-Mac straight up, let Kobe walk and go after a center next year. After all, if you're going to blow it up, blow the roof off and get rid of all the residual bad karma. T-Mac would have had a fresh start on a big stage, which might have energized him and the franchise. The Lakers could have had a fresh start and some cap room to go after a big man later on, after all if they make the playoffs this year it'll be a miracle.
So there it is. T-Mac and Yao should see this before McGrady goes into free agency next year. Rasheed Wallace should see this before deciding to leave Detroit. But if we diverge from NBA logic and decide to use history as our guide, we shouldn't expect them to. Instead players will keep chasing money and cred rather than rings.
Before meeting up and establishing a peroxide empire Bausch was a failed chemist best known for developing an unpopular brand of edible silly putty, while Lomb was trying to sell people on the idea of cleaning they're glasses with steel wool. Most people would rather forget the films that Abbott and Costello released as individuals, after they're messy break up in which Abbott said he didn't appreciate Costello coming in to each scheduled shooting fat and out of shape, unable to fulfill the rigorous duties required of slapstick comedy, while Costello claimed that Abbott was a "gag hog." Occasionally, one partner goes on to continued success while the other fades away to less embellished glory. Thus was the case of Batman and the original Robin, Dick Grayson. Grayson, for reasons of his own decided to leave Wayne Manner for a crime fighting life of his own, first as Robin, and later as Nightwing. After his own comic book venture failed he was forced to join the moderately successful New Teen Titans, once again forced into an ensemble role. Meanwhile Batman enjoyed continued success, proving that he had in fact been the main draw and the pillar behind the dynamic duo's longevity. Of course this success was not without its difficulties. Batman went through three more Robins and became a darker and darker Knight as time went on.
With all of these examples close at hand it is surprising that the lessons they teach us are so often ignored by professional basketball players. Recent NBA history is full of examples of successful dynamic duos and the results of they're parting. Yet, as the break up of the Lakers shows, players are still more concerned with proving that they are The Man, than with putting themselves in position to win championships. Shaq didn't like "the direction the team was headed" and "didn't want to be a part of it." Meanwhile, common opinion holds that Doc Buss fired Phil and traded The Diesel in order to appease Kobe. All of this a result of two star players wanting to be acknowledged as The Man, rather than admit how much of they're success depended on each other. By doing so they ignored recent history that shows how a team with two superstars can dominate the league, while a team with one is usually bounced early in the playoffs.
Exhibit One: Kevin Garnett and Stephon Marbury.
Teammates from 1996 to 1999 (3 seasons) Garnett and Starbury were being hailed as the duo that could make the T-Wolves a force in the West. This was before Kobe blossomed and while the Lakers were going through Del Harris, Magic and Kurt Rambis on the bench. While together Garnett averaged 18.8 PPG while Star averaged 17.0 PPG and 8.6 APG. Star left because he didn't feel that he and Garnett could coexist, saying that he had to be able to score more and have the offense run not just through him, but to him. Since then Star has improved his scoring average by about 3.5 PPG but has never again met the career high 9.3 APG he had his last year in Minnesota. Garnett has also raised his PPG by about 3.5. Neither player has been to the finals, '04 was the first time Garnett had been passed the first round, and Star has been traded twice. Garnett's recent success didn't come until the emergence of Wally Sczerbiak, another good young scorer with whom Garnett has had a rocky relationship.
Exhibit Two: Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady
Two more guys who couldn't agree on who was The Man. T-Mac and VC were in Toronto together from 98-00 (2 seasons) and were on they're way to challenging the Knicks and Heat for dominance in the East. Again, McGrady left because he couldn't share the spotlight with VC, he wanted go out and be the guy who got the credit. Of course at the time T-Mac was a guy who averaged 7.0 PPG as rookie before VC arrived, and then 9.3, and 15.4 PPG while VC came in as a rookie and hit for 18.3, and then 25.7 PPG. T-Mac felt like he was being overshadowed so he left for Orlando where his PPG average shot up more than 11 points. During that same stretch VC's PPG average dropped as knee injuries and media controversies robbed him of his explosiveness and sunny demeanor. As with the Garnett and Marbury neither player has been to the finals and T-Mac's Magic were dismal last season.
It should be noted that T-Mac thought he was going south to pair up with Grant Hill, and at a time when The Magic felt like they were on the verge of signing Tim Duncan. Things didn't work out as Duncan stayed in San Antonio (where he won another title as part of the "Twin Towers" dynamic duo) and Hill never played more than a few unproductive games per year due to an ankle injury similar to the one suffered by Garrison Hearst.
Exhibit Three: MJ and Pippen
No one needs to mention what these two accomplished together. Also, there was never any doubt about who was The Man on this team. Mike was the boss. Always. But the fact remains that Mike never won without Scotty and Scotty never won without Mike. Not even when Scotty went to Houston with Hakeem, Sir Charles, and The Glide.
Here, the circumstances of their parting was due to more than just ego or a failure to coexist. The first time they split it was because Mike thought he could play baseball. The second time it was because the Jerries thought they could win without anyone ("organizations win championships").
Which brings us to Shaq and Kobe. When the Diesel went to LA as a free agent it was on the heels of first losing to Houston in the finals and then watching MJ return to begin a second run at the top of the heap. Shaq was coming out of a dynamic duo situation in Orlando where he was teamed with a rising star in Penny Hardaway. The year they went to the finals Shaq averaged 29.3 PPG and 11.5 RPG, Penny averaged 20.9 PPG and a career high 7.2 APG. The year before Shaq left his PPG slid to 26.6, while Hardaway's rose to 21.7 with his APG fell to 7.1. The difference was enough to send The Daddy to Los Angeles.
Shaq’s first year So-Cal the Lakers drafted a high school kid from Philly named Kobe Bryant who averaged 7.1 PPG and did nothing to threaten Shaq's standing as The Man. This was the case, by and large, through the first championship year of 99-00. That year Shaq hit a career high 29.7 PPG while Kobe contributed a then career high 22.5PPG to with 4.9 APG. That off season things began to go down hill. The rift between Kobe and Shaq, and Kobe and Phil, and Kobe and the rest of the team, came light and began to take over as The Story surrounding the Lakers. The rumors flew, Kobe for J-Kidd and Shawn Marion, Kobe staying, Shaq wanting out etc. Shaq complained about Kobe being selfish, Kobe complained about Shaq being fat. Shaq responding with is famous "If you don't feed the big dog, the big dog won't guard the yard." Yet through it all they managed to win two more titles while Kobe's APG actually rose each year until this recent season.
This recent season, the one that ended it all. The Lakers brought in two aging former stars who were supposed to return the Lakers to their perch atop the NBA world. It didn't happen. Instead The Glove looked old and confused, the Mailman got hurt, and the Shaq/ Kobe/ Phil feud blew up. Now, the Lakers are back to square one and I don't see a title in the near future for either Shaq or Kobe. I've seen analysis that says the Heat got a great deal, that they become the favorites in the East, that the Lakers could end up as a lottery team, that Kobe made a mistake by alienating Shaq and Phil, that the basketball world is now up for grabs.
So, will Shaq/ Kobe be another Abbott and Costello? Or will one be Batman while the other goes on as a moderately successful Nightwing?
A lot of folks seem to think that the Heat will run away with the East based on the idea that Shaq will be angry and motivated to come to Miami in shape, that Pat Riley will be able to get out of Shaq what he got out of Kareem, and that, as the only truly big center in the conference, that The Daddy will be able to dominate the paint as he had in the past. I disagree.
First off the people who say that the Heat are now the favorites in the East seem to be forgetting how the smaller but quicker and more motivated Wallace and Wallace held Shaq in check during the finals, how Shaq has been slower and less dominate in each season since 99-00 when he went 29.7 PPG, 13.7 RPG, and 3.0 BPG. Shaq's numbers since 99-00:
PPG: 28.7, 27.2, 27.5, 21.5
RPG: 12.7, 10.7, 11.1, 11.5
BPG: 2.8, 2.0, 2.4, 2.5
Shaq has also hinted at retiring to become either a cop or a fireman, and got off his "company time" line when asked why he waited until training camp to have surgery. Also, while Dwayne Wade is a nice player, he's no Kobe. Time will tell whether he and Shaq will become a dynamic duo. One thing's for sure, Shaq and Eddie Jones couldn't do it in 96 and they won't do it alone now. Also, people seem to be banking on the idea that a healthy motivated Shaq is the same as 28 year old Shaq. It's not. Shaq, at 32 is beat up more than he was five years ago when the Lakers began their run. While Shaq may get the Heat to the Eastern Conference Finals, and possibly the NBA Finals, I can't see them beating the Rockets, Mavs, Kings, or T-wolves in a seven game series.
As for Kobe, well, now is the time to make good on all the MJ comparisons. The one thing that MJ had, which Kobe has yet to show, is an ability to be a respected leader. Everyone fell in line with MJ because they knew he made them better. They knew that even though the plays at the end of the game were drawn up for MJ, even though MJ carried the team, he trusted his teammates (Steve Kerr, John Paxon etc.) enough to go to them and help them succeed. Look at all the big contracts signed by former Bulls after the team was blown up (Luc Longley, _____) simply because Mike made these guys play better than they actually were. Kobe has shown brief flashes of that (hitting Big Shot Rob in the corner to beat the Blazers) but not enough. Also, Kobe has yet to win the respect of his teammates in a way that allows him to be a leader because people want to follow him.
One positive for Kobe, and another MJ comparison, is that the current wisdom that you need a dominant center in order to win, is belied by the fact that MJ never played with a dominant big man. MJ had a great second banana in SF Pippen, and Kobe has a good second option in SF Lamar Odom. MJ had a good PF in Horace Grant, Kobe could have something similar if Malone returns. (Of course if Malone comes back why not join Shaq in Miami?) If Payton can be as good as BJ Armstrong (not a lofty goal, but questionable based on GP's performance last year), and Slava, or Divac can be as good as Bill Wennington then the blueprint is set provided that Kobe can be as good as MJ. All long shots, but the precedent is set for a team to win with a great 2 guard and no center to speak of.
That said, I don't think Kobe will lead the Lakers to the finals any time soon. Of course it depends on how Rudy T can bring along guys like Luke Walton and Kareem Rush. The rest of the West was already catching up with LA and I don't see the current team beating Minnesota, Sacramento, San Antonio, Dallas or Houston in a seven game series. Also, Houston has a potential dynamic duo in T-Mac and Yao, and another in Minnesota with the afore mentioned Garnett and Sczerbiak.
What should have happened? If I were Mitch Kupchak, or Doc Buss I would have traded Shaq for T-Mac straight up, let Kobe walk and go after a center next year. After all, if you're going to blow it up, blow the roof off and get rid of all the residual bad karma. T-Mac would have had a fresh start on a big stage, which might have energized him and the franchise. The Lakers could have had a fresh start and some cap room to go after a big man later on, after all if they make the playoffs this year it'll be a miracle.
So there it is. T-Mac and Yao should see this before McGrady goes into free agency next year. Rasheed Wallace should see this before deciding to leave Detroit. But if we diverge from NBA logic and decide to use history as our guide, we shouldn't expect them to. Instead players will keep chasing money and cred rather than rings.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Dem Bums
Pessimism. It's a disease, an affliction of the soul. It rears it's ugly head for countless people, in countless places across the country, many of them in Boston between the months of April and October. Sports pessimism was large part of my later childhood. My stepfather is the ultimate sports pessimist. During tight games he would mime throwing heavy objects at the television, every once in a while he would launch a baby toy or a balled up sock. Though I will not discount his influence on me, by the time I was 18 I had surpassed him in both rabid fandom and sports knowledge on every aspect of the game save whether to take the Knicks and the over parlayed to Tampa Bay-Baltimore with teased to the final goals against average between Chris Osgood and Dominik Hasek, I did become a sports pessimist, primarily on my own. Ever since the Niners refused to resign Ricky Watters and Eric Davis, ever since Don Bebee jumped up and ran for a score on a muddy Candlestick Monday, ever since I saw Big Mac traded for Blake Stein and TJ Matthews, I have been a sports pessimist.
It used to kill my friend, the estimable DMJ, who was, at the time, the ultimate sports optimist. I tried to teach sports optimism in my brother, hoping that if I taught him well my own dogma would rub off on me. "Never leave before the final out. Especially in baseball, because you never know when you'll see something amazing." I told my brother this many times. Then, one night, we went to see the A's play the Giants in Oakland. Down two runs, with two on and one out, Tony Phillips was thrown out on the back end of a 6-5-3 double play. As Phillips got up to argue we started packing up. The scoreboard showed three outs in the ninth inning, game over. We paused and watched Phillips argue with the ump when the he got the thumb, PA announcer, "Tony Phillips has been ejected from the ballgame." "That's odd," I said, "why eject a guy when the game's over?" We were standing on the BART platform when we heard a cheer rise from the stadium. Then the station agent made the following announcement, "Ladies and gentlemen, Olmedo Saenz has just hit a three run homer to win the ball game." And we missed it. All because I lost track of what inning it was (and the scoreboard operator changed the inning graphic before the outs graphic). The point being, I've never left a game early since. You never know when Cleveland will come back from 20 some runs down to win in the ninth, when Buckner will let one slip through, when Kirk Freaking Gibson will hobble off the trainers table with no knees and one elbow to hit a game winning jack off the Eck. You never give up, you never leave early, especially in baseball where there is no clock, but even in football, because Garcia to Streets became the second biggest comeback in playoff history and I've met people who left in the third quarter.
Things have changed somewhat in the past couple years. DMJ has now become a sports pessimist while I have renewed faith. It started with "The Redemption Reception" (ridiculous name), and was bolstered by the "Botched snap, pass interference that wasn't." It was rooted in "90-O," and sprang eternal when Olmedo Saenz sent a Clemens slider deep into the Bronx October night.
Still, I will say that in May of 2002 I called for the A's to "trade everyone." The shake up that came in June did turn the team around. Strangely enough, the most optimistic sports fan I know is from Boston. I get to hear all about it when his Bo-Sux beat my beloved A-mazing-'s. Boston's sux-sess in the recent series against Oakland has not been at all tempered by the fact that his team is 6 games out of first. Still, despite the sweep, despite the fact that the A's are behind Boston for the wild card, despite Barry Zito's 4-6 record and 4+ ERA, despite Chavey's injury, despite the low OBP being masked by a higher-than-recent-years team BA, despite all this, I believe the A's can make the playoffs. I do not believe Texas can do it for an whole year (see KC 2003), I do not believe the collection of mercenaries in Anaheim can come close to the magic of 2002. I believe the West is there for us to win. Sure, Hudson, Chavez, and Harden have to get healthy. Mulder has to stay healthy. Zito needs more scented candles or pink pillowcases or teddy bears or whatever it takes to get him going again. Scoot needs to stay in the nine-hole, Karros needs to figure out what's wrong, Rhodes needs to dominate as a set up man as he has in the past. But I still believe the A's can make the playoffs. I say this despite the fact that I predicted early on that this would be the A's team to finally not make the playoffs after four consecutive trips.
Sure, my new found optimism has taken some hits. Jeter's shovel pass to nail a (still, no matter how many times I watch the replay) not sliding Jeremy Giambi, the inability of a pinch hitter to swing the bat, bottom nine, down one, with the bases loaded, the 49ers constant cap woes, the hiring of Dennis Erickson, all of these have dampened my enthusiasm at times. But I still have Josh Beckett in 2003*, Ramon Hernandez's surprise bunt, Billy Beane's constant genius. I still have the knowledge that there's 80 some odd games left, that the Sux will eventually Buckner their way out of the hunt, and the knowledge that there's always, always, next year.
* See the archives, I predicted Beckett would be the MVP of that series and that the Marlins would win in seven. I was close, they won in six.
It used to kill my friend, the estimable DMJ, who was, at the time, the ultimate sports optimist. I tried to teach sports optimism in my brother, hoping that if I taught him well my own dogma would rub off on me. "Never leave before the final out. Especially in baseball, because you never know when you'll see something amazing." I told my brother this many times. Then, one night, we went to see the A's play the Giants in Oakland. Down two runs, with two on and one out, Tony Phillips was thrown out on the back end of a 6-5-3 double play. As Phillips got up to argue we started packing up. The scoreboard showed three outs in the ninth inning, game over. We paused and watched Phillips argue with the ump when the he got the thumb, PA announcer, "Tony Phillips has been ejected from the ballgame." "That's odd," I said, "why eject a guy when the game's over?" We were standing on the BART platform when we heard a cheer rise from the stadium. Then the station agent made the following announcement, "Ladies and gentlemen, Olmedo Saenz has just hit a three run homer to win the ball game." And we missed it. All because I lost track of what inning it was (and the scoreboard operator changed the inning graphic before the outs graphic). The point being, I've never left a game early since. You never know when Cleveland will come back from 20 some runs down to win in the ninth, when Buckner will let one slip through, when Kirk Freaking Gibson will hobble off the trainers table with no knees and one elbow to hit a game winning jack off the Eck. You never give up, you never leave early, especially in baseball where there is no clock, but even in football, because Garcia to Streets became the second biggest comeback in playoff history and I've met people who left in the third quarter.
Things have changed somewhat in the past couple years. DMJ has now become a sports pessimist while I have renewed faith. It started with "The Redemption Reception" (ridiculous name), and was bolstered by the "Botched snap, pass interference that wasn't." It was rooted in "90-O," and sprang eternal when Olmedo Saenz sent a Clemens slider deep into the Bronx October night.
Still, I will say that in May of 2002 I called for the A's to "trade everyone." The shake up that came in June did turn the team around. Strangely enough, the most optimistic sports fan I know is from Boston. I get to hear all about it when his Bo-Sux beat my beloved A-mazing-'s. Boston's sux-sess in the recent series against Oakland has not been at all tempered by the fact that his team is 6 games out of first. Still, despite the sweep, despite the fact that the A's are behind Boston for the wild card, despite Barry Zito's 4-6 record and 4+ ERA, despite Chavey's injury, despite the low OBP being masked by a higher-than-recent-years team BA, despite all this, I believe the A's can make the playoffs. I do not believe Texas can do it for an whole year (see KC 2003), I do not believe the collection of mercenaries in Anaheim can come close to the magic of 2002. I believe the West is there for us to win. Sure, Hudson, Chavez, and Harden have to get healthy. Mulder has to stay healthy. Zito needs more scented candles or pink pillowcases or teddy bears or whatever it takes to get him going again. Scoot needs to stay in the nine-hole, Karros needs to figure out what's wrong, Rhodes needs to dominate as a set up man as he has in the past. But I still believe the A's can make the playoffs. I say this despite the fact that I predicted early on that this would be the A's team to finally not make the playoffs after four consecutive trips.
Sure, my new found optimism has taken some hits. Jeter's shovel pass to nail a (still, no matter how many times I watch the replay) not sliding Jeremy Giambi, the inability of a pinch hitter to swing the bat, bottom nine, down one, with the bases loaded, the 49ers constant cap woes, the hiring of Dennis Erickson, all of these have dampened my enthusiasm at times. But I still have Josh Beckett in 2003*, Ramon Hernandez's surprise bunt, Billy Beane's constant genius. I still have the knowledge that there's 80 some odd games left, that the Sux will eventually Buckner their way out of the hunt, and the knowledge that there's always, always, next year.
* See the archives, I predicted Beckett would be the MVP of that series and that the Marlins would win in seven. I was close, they won in six.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)