Regardless of the outcome, the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500 on Sunday would've been historic. There were countless story lines going into the race; from Helio Castroneves trying to become only the fourth racer in Indy history to win four Indianapolis 500 races, to the story of Sam Schmidt, the former driver who was paralyzed in a tragic accident and now had the chance to become a winning owner at Indy. No matter what story line you were looking at, there is always one that remains, and that is the story line of whether or not Danica Patrick can become the first female driver in the history of the event to cross the finish line in first place.
Throughout the years, there have been a few women, eight total, who have attempted to become that first female driver to win the Indy 500, none as high profile as Danica Patrick. There are many people, myself included, that feel that the only reason for her status as a "high profile" driver is the fact that she is...let's just say it...hot. Not counting the 2011 Indianapolis 500, Danica has had a total of 103 professional races in the seven years she has been a professional driver. Out of those 103 races, she has only one victory, and only seven total Top Three finishes including that victory. For the math wizards out there, that's only 6.8%. Less than 7% of her races have resulted in a top three finish. To put this into perspective, each of the last three winners of the Indianapolis 500 have won no fewer than 15 races each: Dan Wheldon in 2011 (15 wins/129 races), Dario Franchitti in 2010 (17 wins/99 races), and Helio Castroneves in 2009 (19 wins/139 races) So, is Danica "high profile" because she's good, or just because she's a pretty face in an otherwise male-dominated sport?
I don't think anyone questions the fact that, in order to drive an open-wheel race car (or a stock car, for that matter) at speeds in excess of 220 miles per hour, you have to have some level of talent. With that said, there's no question Danica has talent in the field of racing cars. Her level of notoriety, however, stems more from her physical gifts than her actual driving talent. Along with those talents, she's also developed somewhat of a "diva"-like quality which has begun to overshadow her on-the-track talents. She has been known to shift blame from herself onto her crew. She's been known to call out many of her competitors during times she's crashed out. She's also been known to walk up the pit lane to physically confront a driver for a mistake she believed he caused. These types of actions have actually started to have a negative effect on the overall perception of Danica Patrick. Yet, she still remains one of the biggest story lines each time she races.
On Sunday, it was almost as if the race gods began to pay her back for some of these "sins". Twice during the race, as she was coming in to pit lane, yellow flags came out, thus altering her pit schedule, which eventually led to a lack of fuel toward the end of the Indianapolis 500. It couldn't have come at a worse time, either. Danica took the lead of the race on the 179th lap and led for the next 10 laps, until fuel, and a slower car, became an issue and she was forced to pull back. Somehow, I don't think many people were actually disappointed with that.
What's even more baffling to me is the fact that, despite the mediocre success she has actually had in the IndyCar circuit, there is almost no doubt that beginning in 2012, Danica will, in the immortal words of LeBron James, "take her talents" to NASCAR on a full time basis. But the question is...what makes her think that she's deserving of that jump? With only one victory in 103 professional races, and being overshadowed by her fellow competitors when it counts...on race day...what makes Danica believe that moving to NASCAR is the best thing? The way I look at it, she needs to actually prove herself as a driver, and not as a model or spokeswoman, before she can take on a new challenge. In a time where Danica wants to be seen as just a race car driver and not as a female race car driver, it would seem logical that proving yourself as a driver would be the utmost priority. For whatever the reason, however, it seems she's still more interested in proving herself to be the worst Go-Daddy.com spokeswoman there is, rather than the most successful race car driver she can be.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
The NBA's Landscape Is About To Change
The Rapture came and went this past Saturday, and the world is still here. For fans in about 23 NBA cities, however, the end of the world will be recognized sooner rather than later, thanks in large part to the new Eastern Conference Champions, the Miami Heat. I've lost a lot of faith in the NBA, but for those that haven't, unless you live in Miami, you all better become Dallas Mavericks fans during the NBA Finals.
What the Miami Heat may accomplish, should they win the 2011 NBA Finals, could potentially ruin the overall appeal of the NBA. Even getting as far as they have could change to overall landscape of the league for years, and not for the better. When LeBron James and Chris Bosh joined Dwyane Wade in Miami, they started a new free agency trend in the league that could be very damning for teams not in the NBA's "elite" circle. Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago, Dallas, and New Jersey...six of the league's seven premier cities (Miami being the seventh), will become the centerpieces of the NBA's free agency market over the next year or two, leaving the other 23 franchises left to wonder if they will even be able to compete in the coming years. The sad fact is, they will not.
Should the Heat win the title in the coming two weeks, you can almost be assured that superstars playing on their current teams will begin conversing with others throughout the league, persuading and pleading with each other to form similar "super teams" to the one that Miami put together this season. Sure, the NBA as a "company" makes most of its money from those seven cities, however, popularity of the sport may suffer if fans in other cities begin to feel detached from their teams. Personally, this is something true for myself, who has lost total interest in my local team here in Minnesota, because of what appears to be an unwillingness to even want to compete with the elite.
Winning a championship in any sport brings a great deal of revenue to that city and organization. The team becomes marketable to the league, resulting in more nationally televised games, higher jersey sales, and increased revenue at the opposing arenas when the champions come to town. These are all things any team and its ownership group would love to see. But unfortunately, with the precedent now set forth by the Miami Heat, there may only be a handful of "A" level talent available for those other 23 teams to pick from, leaving many of them to flounder.
Looking at the Timberwolves as an example, ownership has gone in a direction they feel is "exciting," by bringing younger, more "athletic" talent into the mix. It also happens to be an inexpensive way of forming the team. With plenty of money to spend on an "A" level player, the team is choosing not to, more than likely because there would be no point. With just one player of that caliber, the team would most certainly not win a championship. It happened here already with Kevin Garnett, who was the face of the franchise for over 10 years. Garnett had a decent cast around him, but nothing to the level of the cast LeBron has around him in Miami. It wasn't until Garnett joined Paul Pierce and Ray Allen in Boston (via a trade from Minnesota, not a free agent signing) that he won his first NBA Championship. The Timberwolves, however, have never recovered from that loss, and haven't seemed to even really try to.
The dilemma going forward for the NBA is a difficult one. On one hand, you have a league looking out for its bottom line, and on the other hand, you have the 30 owners looking out for theirs. The dilemma is that each has different agendas that don't coincide together. David Stern and the NBA as a league are perfectly fine with the revenue that will be generated by the soon-to-be seven mega teams, whereas you will see owners of the other 23 franchises be "okay with" not signing high-priced free agents because they know without two or three of them together, their team won't be able to compete for that title. At that point, those owners will be more inclined, from a business standpoint, to just hold on to the money they would've spent on a free agent, and eventually pad their bottom line that way. Great for the owners, but not great for the fans in those cities.
The best thing that could've happened for the NBA would've been to have a team like Oklahoma City find their way into the finals against a team like the Chicago Bulls. OKC, with two up-and-coming young stars, not high-priced free agents, playing for the biggest prize in the sport. Instead, the worst nightmare of fans throughout the league, other than those in Miami, is about to come to fruition.
Go Mavericks!
What the Miami Heat may accomplish, should they win the 2011 NBA Finals, could potentially ruin the overall appeal of the NBA. Even getting as far as they have could change to overall landscape of the league for years, and not for the better. When LeBron James and Chris Bosh joined Dwyane Wade in Miami, they started a new free agency trend in the league that could be very damning for teams not in the NBA's "elite" circle. Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago, Dallas, and New Jersey...six of the league's seven premier cities (Miami being the seventh), will become the centerpieces of the NBA's free agency market over the next year or two, leaving the other 23 franchises left to wonder if they will even be able to compete in the coming years. The sad fact is, they will not.
Should the Heat win the title in the coming two weeks, you can almost be assured that superstars playing on their current teams will begin conversing with others throughout the league, persuading and pleading with each other to form similar "super teams" to the one that Miami put together this season. Sure, the NBA as a "company" makes most of its money from those seven cities, however, popularity of the sport may suffer if fans in other cities begin to feel detached from their teams. Personally, this is something true for myself, who has lost total interest in my local team here in Minnesota, because of what appears to be an unwillingness to even want to compete with the elite.
Winning a championship in any sport brings a great deal of revenue to that city and organization. The team becomes marketable to the league, resulting in more nationally televised games, higher jersey sales, and increased revenue at the opposing arenas when the champions come to town. These are all things any team and its ownership group would love to see. But unfortunately, with the precedent now set forth by the Miami Heat, there may only be a handful of "A" level talent available for those other 23 teams to pick from, leaving many of them to flounder.
Looking at the Timberwolves as an example, ownership has gone in a direction they feel is "exciting," by bringing younger, more "athletic" talent into the mix. It also happens to be an inexpensive way of forming the team. With plenty of money to spend on an "A" level player, the team is choosing not to, more than likely because there would be no point. With just one player of that caliber, the team would most certainly not win a championship. It happened here already with Kevin Garnett, who was the face of the franchise for over 10 years. Garnett had a decent cast around him, but nothing to the level of the cast LeBron has around him in Miami. It wasn't until Garnett joined Paul Pierce and Ray Allen in Boston (via a trade from Minnesota, not a free agent signing) that he won his first NBA Championship. The Timberwolves, however, have never recovered from that loss, and haven't seemed to even really try to.
The dilemma going forward for the NBA is a difficult one. On one hand, you have a league looking out for its bottom line, and on the other hand, you have the 30 owners looking out for theirs. The dilemma is that each has different agendas that don't coincide together. David Stern and the NBA as a league are perfectly fine with the revenue that will be generated by the soon-to-be seven mega teams, whereas you will see owners of the other 23 franchises be "okay with" not signing high-priced free agents because they know without two or three of them together, their team won't be able to compete for that title. At that point, those owners will be more inclined, from a business standpoint, to just hold on to the money they would've spent on a free agent, and eventually pad their bottom line that way. Great for the owners, but not great for the fans in those cities.
The best thing that could've happened for the NBA would've been to have a team like Oklahoma City find their way into the finals against a team like the Chicago Bulls. OKC, with two up-and-coming young stars, not high-priced free agents, playing for the biggest prize in the sport. Instead, the worst nightmare of fans throughout the league, other than those in Miami, is about to come to fruition.
Go Mavericks!
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Is "Dancing With The Stars" A Sport?
For the first time since I began this little blog-writing venture, I'm about to delve into the world of reality television.
The hit TV show, "Dancing With The Stars," has just finished its 12th season, with Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward winning the competition on Tuesday Night. The premise for this show was to have non-dancers paired with professional dancers to compete in a competition to determine which non-dancers could improve the most over the course of the show. The idea that these "non-dancers" would be a little awkward was part of the intrigue of many that decided to tune in. That was all fine and dandy, until ABC decided to start casting athletes, most still active in their sports, in each season. I'd like to say that the game has changed, but unfortunately, it's been that way from the start.
The first season of the show debuted back in 2005 with only six pairs competing. One of those six competitors was former World Heavyweight Champion Evander Holyfield. Holyfield was eliminated after the second week, but his appearance paved the way for the future athletes that would appear. To me, bringing professional and/or amateur athletes into the mix seemed to be an unfair concept. I personally wouldn't have watched the show consistently anyway, but when I first heard about the show back in 2005, I was under the impression that the contestants would actually be those people with little to know athletic ability, in order to see what weeks of training with a professional dancer would do for them. What America has seen is slew of athletic competitors making it nearly impossible for anyone else to compete.
In the 12 seasons that "Dancing With The Stars" has been on, six of the twelve winners have been athletes, whether they be professional (Ward, Emmitt Smith, Helio Castroneves) or amateur (Apolo Anton Ohno, Krisit Yamaguchi, Shawn Johnson). That might not seem so bad, only having 50% of the winners be from the world of sports, but when you look at the top three finalists from each season, you can add another seven people from the sports landscape. Since this blog is about sports, I don't want to dive into the rest of the casts...however, of the other six winners that weren't athletes, three were performing artists in bands or groups that danced, and another starred in the movie "Dirty Dancing." Sure seems to be that the winners seem to have a distinct athletic advantage over other competitors.
I'm probably in the minority here, but for some reason, I'm irked by the fact that athletes are taking part in this competition. In a few cases such as Hines Ward's, the athlete is still competing in their sport while they are on the show. What this brings into the equation, especially for professional athletes, is the injury factor. Fortunately, there have not been any professional athletes under contract that have injured themselves as of yet. In 2008, volleyball star Misty May-Treanor ruptured her achilles tendon during practice and had to withdraw from the show, but that is the only serious injury that any athlete performing on the show has endured. The fact that it happened, however, probably has many owners and general managers concerned.
When a show such as "Dancing With The Stars" becomes as popular as it has, it brings a certain following to some that may not have much of one. In 2007, Indy Car driver Helio Castroneves won the "Dancing" crown, which brought a man, otherwise unknown outside the race world, a huge boost in popularity. The following year, in 2008, the Indianapolis 500 saw it's ratings rise. That ratings boost could almost directly be attributed to the prime-time appearance of one of IndyCar's best drivers. So, is it a bad thing that certain athletes are partaking in the show? Not always. However, being an IndyCar driver is a lot different than, say, playing wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals. Other than being an attention hog, people like Chad "Ochocinco" Johnson don't have much need at all to be on the show. He, like other professional athletes, already have plenty of notoriety from their sport that they shouldn't need the extra attention of a prime-time show like "Dancing." And really, is the prize money and the trophy worth the potential injury looming out there?
All told, the show will remain one of ABC most popular. The ratings continue to be huge and it doesn't seem to be slowing down soon. You can also be assured that athletes will continue to be featured. I guess I would just find the competition more interesting if the people dancing had almost no athletic ability whatsoever. That, to me, would be impressive. I mean, seriously, what would've been a better story for this season: Hines Ward winning the trophy, or Kirstie Alley? You could almost be assured that if Kirstie had won, she would be plastered on just about every magazine cover in the checkout line at the grocery store. Ward, though? He might be lucky to get a mere mention in Sports Illustrated for his new championship.
The hit TV show, "Dancing With The Stars," has just finished its 12th season, with Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward winning the competition on Tuesday Night. The premise for this show was to have non-dancers paired with professional dancers to compete in a competition to determine which non-dancers could improve the most over the course of the show. The idea that these "non-dancers" would be a little awkward was part of the intrigue of many that decided to tune in. That was all fine and dandy, until ABC decided to start casting athletes, most still active in their sports, in each season. I'd like to say that the game has changed, but unfortunately, it's been that way from the start.
The first season of the show debuted back in 2005 with only six pairs competing. One of those six competitors was former World Heavyweight Champion Evander Holyfield. Holyfield was eliminated after the second week, but his appearance paved the way for the future athletes that would appear. To me, bringing professional and/or amateur athletes into the mix seemed to be an unfair concept. I personally wouldn't have watched the show consistently anyway, but when I first heard about the show back in 2005, I was under the impression that the contestants would actually be those people with little to know athletic ability, in order to see what weeks of training with a professional dancer would do for them. What America has seen is slew of athletic competitors making it nearly impossible for anyone else to compete.
In the 12 seasons that "Dancing With The Stars" has been on, six of the twelve winners have been athletes, whether they be professional (Ward, Emmitt Smith, Helio Castroneves) or amateur (Apolo Anton Ohno, Krisit Yamaguchi, Shawn Johnson). That might not seem so bad, only having 50% of the winners be from the world of sports, but when you look at the top three finalists from each season, you can add another seven people from the sports landscape. Since this blog is about sports, I don't want to dive into the rest of the casts...however, of the other six winners that weren't athletes, three were performing artists in bands or groups that danced, and another starred in the movie "Dirty Dancing." Sure seems to be that the winners seem to have a distinct athletic advantage over other competitors.
I'm probably in the minority here, but for some reason, I'm irked by the fact that athletes are taking part in this competition. In a few cases such as Hines Ward's, the athlete is still competing in their sport while they are on the show. What this brings into the equation, especially for professional athletes, is the injury factor. Fortunately, there have not been any professional athletes under contract that have injured themselves as of yet. In 2008, volleyball star Misty May-Treanor ruptured her achilles tendon during practice and had to withdraw from the show, but that is the only serious injury that any athlete performing on the show has endured. The fact that it happened, however, probably has many owners and general managers concerned.
When a show such as "Dancing With The Stars" becomes as popular as it has, it brings a certain following to some that may not have much of one. In 2007, Indy Car driver Helio Castroneves won the "Dancing" crown, which brought a man, otherwise unknown outside the race world, a huge boost in popularity. The following year, in 2008, the Indianapolis 500 saw it's ratings rise. That ratings boost could almost directly be attributed to the prime-time appearance of one of IndyCar's best drivers. So, is it a bad thing that certain athletes are partaking in the show? Not always. However, being an IndyCar driver is a lot different than, say, playing wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals. Other than being an attention hog, people like Chad "Ochocinco" Johnson don't have much need at all to be on the show. He, like other professional athletes, already have plenty of notoriety from their sport that they shouldn't need the extra attention of a prime-time show like "Dancing." And really, is the prize money and the trophy worth the potential injury looming out there?
All told, the show will remain one of ABC most popular. The ratings continue to be huge and it doesn't seem to be slowing down soon. You can also be assured that athletes will continue to be featured. I guess I would just find the competition more interesting if the people dancing had almost no athletic ability whatsoever. That, to me, would be impressive. I mean, seriously, what would've been a better story for this season: Hines Ward winning the trophy, or Kirstie Alley? You could almost be assured that if Kirstie had won, she would be plastered on just about every magazine cover in the checkout line at the grocery store. Ward, though? He might be lucky to get a mere mention in Sports Illustrated for his new championship.
Baseball's Overrated Aspects
The game of baseball has some of the richest history in sports. I've talked about it before in previous posts, but that history is what makes baseball fans so passionate about the game itself. Coupled with that great history come some incredibly overrated pieces of the game. It's not so much the history, but more the day-to-day aspects of the game that tend to be read into a little too much, mostly by managers.
I know I'm not the only who believes this, but to me, the most overrated aspect of baseball is...the pitch count. The pitch count is that imaginary line that manager's have where they believe their pitchers can't pitch past. It's gotten so bad in some cases that some managers have even pulled their starting pitchers in the seventh inning of a no-hitter, all because the pitcher had already thrown 100 pitches. We have bullpens that are "spent" because they had to use a set-up man for two innings and 30 pitches. For God's sake, we have kids in Little League throwing 75 pitches in six inning games, but we can't throw a relief pitcher more than two innings before he gets tired? Seriously?
The pitch count came about some time during the '90's. I honestly don't know that anyone can really trace back it's true beginning, but I would have to believe it was first put into place to keep a pitcher recovering from injury from re-aggravating that injury. Somewhere along the line, managers began using it for every pitcher, both starters and relievers. If you were to ask any manager, they would probably tell you that they monitor the pitch count to keep their pitchers healthy and prevent stress to their arms. But, let's be realistic here. The main reason managers are monitoring the pitch count is to protect the team's investment in those pitchers, and that's the sad truth. When you look back into the history of the game, you had maybe two or three pitchers appear in any one game. Nowadays, you have the starting pitcher, the middle relief pitcher, the specialist pitchers for your late inning righty/lefty match-ups, your set-up pitcher, and your closer. Around the time you started to see this phantom pitch count number start to become more prominent, you also started to see teams paying relief pitchers more money. What this caused was a bigger market for those relief pitchers. Now, as opposed to letting a pitcher pitch himself out of a jam, the manager is almost obligated to bring in the team's $4 million "investment" to get them out of the inning. That, my friends, has degraded the quality of pitching in baseball. You now have pitchers who shouldn't be making that kind of money, making $3-$6 million a season, and pitching far more significant innings than they probably should be, all because the team has spent the money on them...you may as well use them.
Similar to the pitch count problem, another aspect of the game that has become a more annoying issue than an effective one, is the righty vs. righty/lefty vs. lefty match-up situation. Starting pitchers will go six or seven innings just fine, and the closer will pitch the ninth inning without question...but, for some reason, between the seventh and eighth innings, managers have decided that a right-handed pitcher throwing to a right-handed batter is far more effective than anything else. To me, this is the most absurd concept in baseball, and one of the most over-used and over-valued decisions a manager can make. Managers will stroll to the mound in the seventh inning to pull their starter, and bring in the left-handed "specialist" to face the left-handed hitter coming up. The hitter coming up is hitting .326 against right-handers, but only .301 against left-handers...so, based on that .025 difference, we've got a better chance of getting him out with the lefty than the right-handed starter. Really? What's worse is that when that left-handed pitcher comes in and throws one-pitch to the left-handed hitter and gets him to pop of to the shortstop...out comes the manager to take him out of the game because the guy on deck is right-handed. Are you kidding me? That left-handed pitcher you took out is making $4.6 million. For $4.6 million dollars, he should be able to strike out the left-handed hitter he just faced, the right-handed hitter on deck, and then pitch the next two innings without question!
What irritates me about the match-up situation is that, again, modern day baseball did itself a disservice by creating a market for those pitchers. Now, you can't go away from it because you have to get the value out of what you've spent. It should be embarrassing for a pitcher to come into a game, throw one pitch, and then be pulled from the game. Unfortunately for the fans, it's not embarrassing for that pitcher because he's getting paid regardless. What's worse is that when that pitcher comes into two straight games, throws a total of five pitches in that same situation, he's considered "used up" for the next game. Now, you've really got to be joking, right? He's not able to pitch a third game in a row because he threw five pitches in two games? Does anyone else find this ridiculous?
There's a reason why there are only a handful of relief pitchers or closers in the Hall of Fame. That reason is because, back when baseball was at it's peak, these positions were incredibly overrated themselves. The reason these positions have been developed is because teams have failed to develop better starting pitching. You can attribute that to what you want to, whether it be expansion and having too many teams in baseball, or whether it be because teams became so fixated on offense in the '90's that they let the pitching part just pass by the wayside. Either way, the quality of starting pitching in baseball has diminished a great deal over the last two decades. Sure, we've had the Greg Madduxes, Randy Johnsons, and Curt Schillings of the game over that time frame, but we've had far more of the mediocre, nameless pitchers than anything, and that has, in turn, led to a greater need for middle relief pitching to compensate.
Why can't we just go back to the way baseball used to be?
I know I'm not the only who believes this, but to me, the most overrated aspect of baseball is...the pitch count. The pitch count is that imaginary line that manager's have where they believe their pitchers can't pitch past. It's gotten so bad in some cases that some managers have even pulled their starting pitchers in the seventh inning of a no-hitter, all because the pitcher had already thrown 100 pitches. We have bullpens that are "spent" because they had to use a set-up man for two innings and 30 pitches. For God's sake, we have kids in Little League throwing 75 pitches in six inning games, but we can't throw a relief pitcher more than two innings before he gets tired? Seriously?
The pitch count came about some time during the '90's. I honestly don't know that anyone can really trace back it's true beginning, but I would have to believe it was first put into place to keep a pitcher recovering from injury from re-aggravating that injury. Somewhere along the line, managers began using it for every pitcher, both starters and relievers. If you were to ask any manager, they would probably tell you that they monitor the pitch count to keep their pitchers healthy and prevent stress to their arms. But, let's be realistic here. The main reason managers are monitoring the pitch count is to protect the team's investment in those pitchers, and that's the sad truth. When you look back into the history of the game, you had maybe two or three pitchers appear in any one game. Nowadays, you have the starting pitcher, the middle relief pitcher, the specialist pitchers for your late inning righty/lefty match-ups, your set-up pitcher, and your closer. Around the time you started to see this phantom pitch count number start to become more prominent, you also started to see teams paying relief pitchers more money. What this caused was a bigger market for those relief pitchers. Now, as opposed to letting a pitcher pitch himself out of a jam, the manager is almost obligated to bring in the team's $4 million "investment" to get them out of the inning. That, my friends, has degraded the quality of pitching in baseball. You now have pitchers who shouldn't be making that kind of money, making $3-$6 million a season, and pitching far more significant innings than they probably should be, all because the team has spent the money on them...you may as well use them.
Similar to the pitch count problem, another aspect of the game that has become a more annoying issue than an effective one, is the righty vs. righty/lefty vs. lefty match-up situation. Starting pitchers will go six or seven innings just fine, and the closer will pitch the ninth inning without question...but, for some reason, between the seventh and eighth innings, managers have decided that a right-handed pitcher throwing to a right-handed batter is far more effective than anything else. To me, this is the most absurd concept in baseball, and one of the most over-used and over-valued decisions a manager can make. Managers will stroll to the mound in the seventh inning to pull their starter, and bring in the left-handed "specialist" to face the left-handed hitter coming up. The hitter coming up is hitting .326 against right-handers, but only .301 against left-handers...so, based on that .025 difference, we've got a better chance of getting him out with the lefty than the right-handed starter. Really? What's worse is that when that left-handed pitcher comes in and throws one-pitch to the left-handed hitter and gets him to pop of to the shortstop...out comes the manager to take him out of the game because the guy on deck is right-handed. Are you kidding me? That left-handed pitcher you took out is making $4.6 million. For $4.6 million dollars, he should be able to strike out the left-handed hitter he just faced, the right-handed hitter on deck, and then pitch the next two innings without question!
What irritates me about the match-up situation is that, again, modern day baseball did itself a disservice by creating a market for those pitchers. Now, you can't go away from it because you have to get the value out of what you've spent. It should be embarrassing for a pitcher to come into a game, throw one pitch, and then be pulled from the game. Unfortunately for the fans, it's not embarrassing for that pitcher because he's getting paid regardless. What's worse is that when that pitcher comes into two straight games, throws a total of five pitches in that same situation, he's considered "used up" for the next game. Now, you've really got to be joking, right? He's not able to pitch a third game in a row because he threw five pitches in two games? Does anyone else find this ridiculous?
There's a reason why there are only a handful of relief pitchers or closers in the Hall of Fame. That reason is because, back when baseball was at it's peak, these positions were incredibly overrated themselves. The reason these positions have been developed is because teams have failed to develop better starting pitching. You can attribute that to what you want to, whether it be expansion and having too many teams in baseball, or whether it be because teams became so fixated on offense in the '90's that they let the pitching part just pass by the wayside. Either way, the quality of starting pitching in baseball has diminished a great deal over the last two decades. Sure, we've had the Greg Madduxes, Randy Johnsons, and Curt Schillings of the game over that time frame, but we've had far more of the mediocre, nameless pitchers than anything, and that has, in turn, led to a greater need for middle relief pitching to compensate.
Why can't we just go back to the way baseball used to be?
Monday, May 23, 2011
Twins...Enough Is Enough!
I've now decided that I will be writing one blog a week dedicated to the Minnesota Twins, so as to stay close to home with the topic.
Monday night's loss to the Seattle Mariners in 10 innings should be the final straw, but it won't. I mentioned this in my last Twins blog (When Does "It's Still Early" No Longer Apply - Friday, May 13th), but it has now reached the time where this organization needs to hold people accountable for the debacle that has been the 2011 season. After blowing yet another lead, this time a lead of three runs in the eighth inning, the Twins lose the game in the 10th inning. In any other market, you would be seeing the guys on "Baseball Tonight" discussing whether or not the manager would be on the hot seat, with the potential of losing his job. However, with this team and this organization, national media outlets know that the Twins front office wouldn't have the spine to do what needs to be done, thus not wasting energy even discussing it on air.
You can blame the players all you want to. The bullpen has been a hodgepodge of random arms all season, with no one other than Glen Perkins showing any promise of wanting to actually compete and to win. Unfortunately, Perkins went down on Saturday with a strained oblique muscle and will miss the next couple of weeks. Go figure. You can blame injuries all you want to, as well. The Twins have many key players that have missed significant time due to injuries, most notably Joe Mauer, who is on the disabled list with only God knows what now. Jim Thome, Delmon Young, Tsuyoshi Nishioka, and Mauer have all missed a number of games, some warranted in the case of Thome, Nishioka, and Mauer. Others, namely Delmon Young, have been rumored to have missed time because of the early season cold weather making it tough to loosen a tight muscle. Come on, really?
What this team used to win with, it's now getting beat with. The term "Twins Baseball" was a phrase that gave opposing managers headaches. Now, the team that helped make "small ball" a way of life in Major League Baseball, has decided to abandon its roots. Speed, fundamental execution, and stellar defense have been the staples of this team throughout the last ten years. It would almost appear that the 2011 Twins have no one remaining from those previous teams, even though the core group of guys are still there (Cuddyer, Morneau, Mauer, Kubel, Span). None of those three mentioned factors have shown themselves this season, and quite frankly, that's on the coaching staff, not the players.
Starting with the blown rundown in the first game of the season, the Twins have shown that their fielding has become suspect this season. A basic rundown has proven to be a difficult task for this team. There have been two glaring weak spots: the middle infield and left field. With Nishioka going down early with a broken leg, and Alexi Casilla's overall incompetence both in the field and at the plate, the Twins have thrown whatever they can out there to patch up the middle infield, including putting there usual right fielder, Michael Cuddyer, at second base for a number of games. This uncertainty up the middle has been a big cause of a lot of the fielding mishaps so far this season. Although the bullpen blew the lead Monday night, you could almost attribute the loss to a poor fielding play by shortstop Trevor Plouffe, who let a soft line drive by Ichiro Suzuki drop in front of him in a poor attempt to try and turn a double play, rather than catch the ball, get the out, and prevent the runner on third from scoring.
As far as left field goes, for those of you who know me, you know how little faith or confidence I have in Delmon Young. I still believe that trade has not worked out for this team. Again, people will say that if not for Delmon, we wouldn't have won the division last year. That may be, but again, those people need to realize that it's not about winning the division any more. That is the biggest cop out in sports! The object is to win a World Series championship, plain and simple! Delmon Young is not the type of player that can help you achieve that goal! His immaturity and lack of discipline and hustle are ten times more detrimental to a ball club than his athletic talent, and it can still be debated if in fact he has much of that. He's loafed after balls in the outfield on a few occasions, and is still a major liability in the left field. When you look at what the Twins gave up, that trade as thus far worked against the them. Giving up a starting pitcher in Matt Garza, who, when you look at your current options, would be either the ace of your staff, or your number two man, has proven to be a major mistake. The other piece the Twins gave up in that trade was a proven commodity at shortstop in Jason Bartlett. Bartlett was a great fielder with Gold Glove potential, and had a solid bat, much more solid than any of the patch work shortstops in the lineup currently. And for those of you who want to use the argument of "Delmon's only 25," get over yourselves! He's been in the league now for five seasons. There are players right now, namely Jason Heyward of the Atlanta Braves, Evan Longoria of the Tampa Bay Rays, and Carlos Gonzalez of the Colorado Rockies, who are all 25 years old or younger, where you don't question their maturity. What's it going to be in two years when Delmon is doing the same stuff? Oh, he's only 27? Seriously, if he hasn't gotten it by now, five years into his major league career, he isn't going to get it!
Again, you can place blame on the players as much as you want to, but at what point do you start looking at the root cause? I'm going to throw some numbers out there, so hang in there. Answer this question for me: Through Monday, the Twins have a total of 366 hits this season, of which 257 of those are singles. Your leadoff hitter, and one of your fastest players, Denard Span, as a total of 45 of those singles, yet, he has only five (5) stolen base attempts this season. When speed is supposed to be one of your major strong suits, and your leadoff hitter is doing what he's supposed to and getting on base, why have you only let him run five times? That's not a player problem, that's a manager problem! It's things like that where I just don't feel you can pin it all on the players themselves. I'm not saying that stolen bases are the biggest thing in baseball, but when you're last in runs batted in and extra base hits, and you're hitting a lot of singles, you need to manufacture runs any way you can. Strangely enough, manufacturing runs was a Twins staple in the mid 00's. Remember the Piranhas?
The Twins' front office needs to take a long, hard look at Ron Gardenhire and his staff, namely pitching coach Rick Anderson and hitting coach Joe Vavra. When you've chosen not to pursue the best talent all the time and stuck with your own "home-grown" minor league talent, you can't always blame the talent. What the manager and coaches do to get the most out of that talent becomes a greater concern. Right now, it almost appears that Gardenhire has fallen into a weak-minded fan's approach, which is to feel sorry for himself because of all the injuries, and to just try and "weather the storm" until you get your players back. If you don't do what you can to improve what you have, they'll lack the confidence and winning attitude necessary to weather that storm. Right now, a message needs to be sent, if not by Gardenhire himself, then by the front office. This can't be tolerated any more!
Monday night's loss to the Seattle Mariners in 10 innings should be the final straw, but it won't. I mentioned this in my last Twins blog (When Does "It's Still Early" No Longer Apply - Friday, May 13th), but it has now reached the time where this organization needs to hold people accountable for the debacle that has been the 2011 season. After blowing yet another lead, this time a lead of three runs in the eighth inning, the Twins lose the game in the 10th inning. In any other market, you would be seeing the guys on "Baseball Tonight" discussing whether or not the manager would be on the hot seat, with the potential of losing his job. However, with this team and this organization, national media outlets know that the Twins front office wouldn't have the spine to do what needs to be done, thus not wasting energy even discussing it on air.
You can blame the players all you want to. The bullpen has been a hodgepodge of random arms all season, with no one other than Glen Perkins showing any promise of wanting to actually compete and to win. Unfortunately, Perkins went down on Saturday with a strained oblique muscle and will miss the next couple of weeks. Go figure. You can blame injuries all you want to, as well. The Twins have many key players that have missed significant time due to injuries, most notably Joe Mauer, who is on the disabled list with only God knows what now. Jim Thome, Delmon Young, Tsuyoshi Nishioka, and Mauer have all missed a number of games, some warranted in the case of Thome, Nishioka, and Mauer. Others, namely Delmon Young, have been rumored to have missed time because of the early season cold weather making it tough to loosen a tight muscle. Come on, really?
What this team used to win with, it's now getting beat with. The term "Twins Baseball" was a phrase that gave opposing managers headaches. Now, the team that helped make "small ball" a way of life in Major League Baseball, has decided to abandon its roots. Speed, fundamental execution, and stellar defense have been the staples of this team throughout the last ten years. It would almost appear that the 2011 Twins have no one remaining from those previous teams, even though the core group of guys are still there (Cuddyer, Morneau, Mauer, Kubel, Span). None of those three mentioned factors have shown themselves this season, and quite frankly, that's on the coaching staff, not the players.
Starting with the blown rundown in the first game of the season, the Twins have shown that their fielding has become suspect this season. A basic rundown has proven to be a difficult task for this team. There have been two glaring weak spots: the middle infield and left field. With Nishioka going down early with a broken leg, and Alexi Casilla's overall incompetence both in the field and at the plate, the Twins have thrown whatever they can out there to patch up the middle infield, including putting there usual right fielder, Michael Cuddyer, at second base for a number of games. This uncertainty up the middle has been a big cause of a lot of the fielding mishaps so far this season. Although the bullpen blew the lead Monday night, you could almost attribute the loss to a poor fielding play by shortstop Trevor Plouffe, who let a soft line drive by Ichiro Suzuki drop in front of him in a poor attempt to try and turn a double play, rather than catch the ball, get the out, and prevent the runner on third from scoring.
As far as left field goes, for those of you who know me, you know how little faith or confidence I have in Delmon Young. I still believe that trade has not worked out for this team. Again, people will say that if not for Delmon, we wouldn't have won the division last year. That may be, but again, those people need to realize that it's not about winning the division any more. That is the biggest cop out in sports! The object is to win a World Series championship, plain and simple! Delmon Young is not the type of player that can help you achieve that goal! His immaturity and lack of discipline and hustle are ten times more detrimental to a ball club than his athletic talent, and it can still be debated if in fact he has much of that. He's loafed after balls in the outfield on a few occasions, and is still a major liability in the left field. When you look at what the Twins gave up, that trade as thus far worked against the them. Giving up a starting pitcher in Matt Garza, who, when you look at your current options, would be either the ace of your staff, or your number two man, has proven to be a major mistake. The other piece the Twins gave up in that trade was a proven commodity at shortstop in Jason Bartlett. Bartlett was a great fielder with Gold Glove potential, and had a solid bat, much more solid than any of the patch work shortstops in the lineup currently. And for those of you who want to use the argument of "Delmon's only 25," get over yourselves! He's been in the league now for five seasons. There are players right now, namely Jason Heyward of the Atlanta Braves, Evan Longoria of the Tampa Bay Rays, and Carlos Gonzalez of the Colorado Rockies, who are all 25 years old or younger, where you don't question their maturity. What's it going to be in two years when Delmon is doing the same stuff? Oh, he's only 27? Seriously, if he hasn't gotten it by now, five years into his major league career, he isn't going to get it!
Again, you can place blame on the players as much as you want to, but at what point do you start looking at the root cause? I'm going to throw some numbers out there, so hang in there. Answer this question for me: Through Monday, the Twins have a total of 366 hits this season, of which 257 of those are singles. Your leadoff hitter, and one of your fastest players, Denard Span, as a total of 45 of those singles, yet, he has only five (5) stolen base attempts this season. When speed is supposed to be one of your major strong suits, and your leadoff hitter is doing what he's supposed to and getting on base, why have you only let him run five times? That's not a player problem, that's a manager problem! It's things like that where I just don't feel you can pin it all on the players themselves. I'm not saying that stolen bases are the biggest thing in baseball, but when you're last in runs batted in and extra base hits, and you're hitting a lot of singles, you need to manufacture runs any way you can. Strangely enough, manufacturing runs was a Twins staple in the mid 00's. Remember the Piranhas?
The Twins' front office needs to take a long, hard look at Ron Gardenhire and his staff, namely pitching coach Rick Anderson and hitting coach Joe Vavra. When you've chosen not to pursue the best talent all the time and stuck with your own "home-grown" minor league talent, you can't always blame the talent. What the manager and coaches do to get the most out of that talent becomes a greater concern. Right now, it almost appears that Gardenhire has fallen into a weak-minded fan's approach, which is to feel sorry for himself because of all the injuries, and to just try and "weather the storm" until you get your players back. If you don't do what you can to improve what you have, they'll lack the confidence and winning attitude necessary to weather that storm. Right now, a message needs to be sent, if not by Gardenhire himself, then by the front office. This can't be tolerated any more!
Sunday, May 22, 2011
A Sports Bucket List
So, the fact that you are reading this now was made possible by the fact that "the Rapture" on May 21st didn't actually happen. No major earthquakes, no major eruptions, and no end of the world. It did get me thinking, however, about an "end of the world" sports bucket list. If you knew the end of the world was coming, say in 2012, what sporting events would you really like to be a part of before that day came?
Everyone's list would be different, and here's where comments would be very welcome. For me, I have a couple of things in sports I have not been in attendance for that I would make a part of that sports bucket list. Fortunately, I was able to cross a couple of my list three years ago, when I visited both old Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park for games between the Yankees and Red Sox. I've had the great fortune of being to two World Series in 1987 and 1991. I attended the Super Bowl in 1992, and have also been to one Stanley Cup hockey game. I've been lucky to have a couple of things on anyone's sports bucket list crossed off early. Here are my current top three, in no particular order:
The Masters - Golf's greatest tournament, at one of it's most revered courses. There's something very majestic about Augusta National that other courses can never provide. The history of the tournament, coupled with the sheer perfection of the course itself make for a combination that would be almost a once-in-a-lifetime event. This one is definitely on the list!
The Indianapolis 500 - I've been a fan of this race from the time I was growing up. It's been a tradition in my family to sit and watch this race every Memorial weekend. The view from the couch is a nice one, getting to see all of the action as it unfolds, but there would be nothing like the feeling of being there, hearing the roar of the engines as they race past you at 227 miles per hour. The pageantry of the greatest open-wheel race of the year, the tradition of the track itself, make for great story lines every year. I've had the fortune of visiting the Indianapolis Motor Speedway a couple of years ago, and taking a tour of the track and museum, but have never been in attendance for the race. It's definitely something I would thoroughly enjoy!
North Carolina vs Duke at Cameron Indoor Stadium - The Duke Blue Devils have an amazing fan base. When you watch this game on television, you get the sense that the arena just never quiets down. The "Cameron Crazies" bounce up and down, chant loudly, and cheer every possession like it's the end of the game. That's an atmosphere I would love to experience just one time. Having attended a small, private college, I never had the fortune of having a team like this to cheer for. This is one of the greatest rivalries in sports, and would be a great game to attend.
Everyone's list would be different, and here's where comments would be very welcome. For me, I have a couple of things in sports I have not been in attendance for that I would make a part of that sports bucket list. Fortunately, I was able to cross a couple of my list three years ago, when I visited both old Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park for games between the Yankees and Red Sox. I've had the great fortune of being to two World Series in 1987 and 1991. I attended the Super Bowl in 1992, and have also been to one Stanley Cup hockey game. I've been lucky to have a couple of things on anyone's sports bucket list crossed off early. Here are my current top three, in no particular order:
The Masters - Golf's greatest tournament, at one of it's most revered courses. There's something very majestic about Augusta National that other courses can never provide. The history of the tournament, coupled with the sheer perfection of the course itself make for a combination that would be almost a once-in-a-lifetime event. This one is definitely on the list!
The Indianapolis 500 - I've been a fan of this race from the time I was growing up. It's been a tradition in my family to sit and watch this race every Memorial weekend. The view from the couch is a nice one, getting to see all of the action as it unfolds, but there would be nothing like the feeling of being there, hearing the roar of the engines as they race past you at 227 miles per hour. The pageantry of the greatest open-wheel race of the year, the tradition of the track itself, make for great story lines every year. I've had the fortune of visiting the Indianapolis Motor Speedway a couple of years ago, and taking a tour of the track and museum, but have never been in attendance for the race. It's definitely something I would thoroughly enjoy!
North Carolina vs Duke at Cameron Indoor Stadium - The Duke Blue Devils have an amazing fan base. When you watch this game on television, you get the sense that the arena just never quiets down. The "Cameron Crazies" bounce up and down, chant loudly, and cheer every possession like it's the end of the game. That's an atmosphere I would love to experience just one time. Having attended a small, private college, I never had the fortune of having a team like this to cheer for. This is one of the greatest rivalries in sports, and would be a great game to attend.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Isn't Guilt Just Assumed Now?
In this day and age, success comes with a certain level of scrutiny. You can never be "that good" at something that it defies logic. We used to just turn a blind eye toward what we thought was great success, even though there was part of us that figured it had to have come at a price.
Once again, we have accusations being thrown out that Lance Armstrong, the greatest cycling champion in history, had taken a performance-enhancing substance to win his seven Tour de France titles. This isn't anything new, as we've been hearing these claims for the past several years, since performance-enhancing drugs became so prevalent in the professional sports world. The unfortunate nature of the claims, however, is that now, we're skeptical of everything. There isn't a record or performance in sports that we celebrate where the question doesn't cross our minds: Was he/she on something?
Back in 2002, when San Diego Padres third baseman Ken Caminiti first admit to using steroids during his career, including during the season which he had won the National League MVP, it was thought that the use of steroids was the rare exception. During an interview with Jim Rome on his radio show, Caminiti actually threw out a number when asked how many Major League Baseball players were using steroids. That number was 75%. At the time, most people hearing this shrugged it off as a disgruntled former player making insane accusations to make a name for himself and make his "sports infidelity" look like it wasn't so bad. What that did, however, was open the flood gates to the sports world.
In 2002, there was no idea of "performance-enhancing drugs." It was just "steroids". One blanket term that everyone used to explain cheaters. If you were using something, it was steroids. HGH (human growth hormone) was a term that hadn't hit the mainstream yet. We all believed that what we were witnessing, wether it be the shattering of the single-season home run record by Mark McGuire in 1998, to Armstrong winning three consecutive Tour de France races between 1999 and 2001, was a clean performance, because we really had no grounds to think otherwise. Sure, there had been other cyclists in history that had "doped", and that seemed to be the most common sport in which that term was used, but we usually reserved the steroids discussion for the Olympics, which had seen many different athletes lose a medal for that level of cheating.
Now, many people will credit Jose Canseco for bringing steroids and performance-enhancing drugs to the forefront of everyone's minds with his first book, "Juiced", but you can't discount Caminiti's initial claim that so many professional baseball players were using a form of steroids to get ahead. What seemed insane to think back then, has now turned into common place to think now. We look at everything differently now. The fact that Armstrong has won seven Tour de France races after coming back from cancer was a great story about six years ago, but now, he had to have had help, right? The idea that baseball popularity soared as a result of the great home run chase between McGuire and Sammy Sosa during the summer of 1998 was one of the great stories in sports, but now, neither "great" player will probably end up in baseball's Hall of Fame. The thought that Tiger Woods would become the greatest golfer in the history of the game by eclipsing Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 major championships just by hard work, practice, and a dedication to his game was thought to be the surest thing in sports. Now, many people doubt that his recent decline came from the marital issues he had in 2009 as a result of his infidelities, but more of a possibility that maybe, he stopped using something to train. And the fact that anything good since that time, whether it be Tiger Woods' pursuit of golf immortality, or any Major League Baseball player reaching the 50 home run plateau again, is called into question, shows how much of a game changer that first accusation of steroid use became.
In a country where innocence was to always be proven before guilt, the sports world has unfortunately fallen into a place where the reverse is the accepted practice. If you've done something good, you obviously had help. It's up to you, the player or athlete, to prove to us, the public, that what you've accomplished was of your own accord, and that nothing along the path of your success included the words, steroids, doping, or performance-enhancement. Unfortunately, that notion has taken a lot of fun out of being a fan. We just never know what to believe anymore.
Once again, we have accusations being thrown out that Lance Armstrong, the greatest cycling champion in history, had taken a performance-enhancing substance to win his seven Tour de France titles. This isn't anything new, as we've been hearing these claims for the past several years, since performance-enhancing drugs became so prevalent in the professional sports world. The unfortunate nature of the claims, however, is that now, we're skeptical of everything. There isn't a record or performance in sports that we celebrate where the question doesn't cross our minds: Was he/she on something?
Back in 2002, when San Diego Padres third baseman Ken Caminiti first admit to using steroids during his career, including during the season which he had won the National League MVP, it was thought that the use of steroids was the rare exception. During an interview with Jim Rome on his radio show, Caminiti actually threw out a number when asked how many Major League Baseball players were using steroids. That number was 75%. At the time, most people hearing this shrugged it off as a disgruntled former player making insane accusations to make a name for himself and make his "sports infidelity" look like it wasn't so bad. What that did, however, was open the flood gates to the sports world.
In 2002, there was no idea of "performance-enhancing drugs." It was just "steroids". One blanket term that everyone used to explain cheaters. If you were using something, it was steroids. HGH (human growth hormone) was a term that hadn't hit the mainstream yet. We all believed that what we were witnessing, wether it be the shattering of the single-season home run record by Mark McGuire in 1998, to Armstrong winning three consecutive Tour de France races between 1999 and 2001, was a clean performance, because we really had no grounds to think otherwise. Sure, there had been other cyclists in history that had "doped", and that seemed to be the most common sport in which that term was used, but we usually reserved the steroids discussion for the Olympics, which had seen many different athletes lose a medal for that level of cheating.
Now, many people will credit Jose Canseco for bringing steroids and performance-enhancing drugs to the forefront of everyone's minds with his first book, "Juiced", but you can't discount Caminiti's initial claim that so many professional baseball players were using a form of steroids to get ahead. What seemed insane to think back then, has now turned into common place to think now. We look at everything differently now. The fact that Armstrong has won seven Tour de France races after coming back from cancer was a great story about six years ago, but now, he had to have had help, right? The idea that baseball popularity soared as a result of the great home run chase between McGuire and Sammy Sosa during the summer of 1998 was one of the great stories in sports, but now, neither "great" player will probably end up in baseball's Hall of Fame. The thought that Tiger Woods would become the greatest golfer in the history of the game by eclipsing Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 major championships just by hard work, practice, and a dedication to his game was thought to be the surest thing in sports. Now, many people doubt that his recent decline came from the marital issues he had in 2009 as a result of his infidelities, but more of a possibility that maybe, he stopped using something to train. And the fact that anything good since that time, whether it be Tiger Woods' pursuit of golf immortality, or any Major League Baseball player reaching the 50 home run plateau again, is called into question, shows how much of a game changer that first accusation of steroid use became.
In a country where innocence was to always be proven before guilt, the sports world has unfortunately fallen into a place where the reverse is the accepted practice. If you've done something good, you obviously had help. It's up to you, the player or athlete, to prove to us, the public, that what you've accomplished was of your own accord, and that nothing along the path of your success included the words, steroids, doping, or performance-enhancement. Unfortunately, that notion has taken a lot of fun out of being a fan. We just never know what to believe anymore.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Kareem Can't Be Serious
There are some stories you hear that make you just say..."Really?"
How full of one's self would one need to be to believe that the organization you worked for "owed" you something after your career with them was finished? That's the question I'm asking of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the former Los Angeles Laker great, and NBA's all-time leading scorer. Abdul-Jabbar very publicly criticized his former team/employer for...get this...not putting up a statue of him outside the home of the Lakers, the Staples Center in Los Angeles. Yup...you read that right.
The Staples Center has five statues outside: Jerry West, Magic Johnson, Wayne Gretzky, Chick Hearn, and Oscar De La Hoya. Although he had an incredible career, and finished as the leading scorer in NBA history, what entitles anyone to state that they deserve anything like that? Hank Aaron was one of the greatest baseball players of all time, and until a few years ago, was baseball's all-time home run king. I've never heard of Hank Aaron demanding anything similar to what Kareem is asking for. I've also never heard the great Mario Lemiuex telling the Pittsburgh Penguins that he deserves a shrine in front of the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh.
What makes great players great is the fact that many of them don't act the part. This week, baseball lost one of it's greatest players in Harmon Killebrew. What made Harmon a great player, to me, was that he never wanted to talk about Harmon. He only wanted to talk about you, or the team. Those are the types of players that deserve statues.
When you look at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, there is no doubt that, had he kept his mouth shut, the Lakers would've eventually erected a statue for him. It's hard not to do something to immortalize the greatest scorer in the game's history. For them to put one up now, it would almost appear that they would be doing it to satisfy him, as opposed to honoring him. Is that really what he's looking for? Apparently, it is. As long as there's a statue of him, he'll be happy. As far as I'm concerned though, Kareem has lost a lot of respect in my book.
How full of one's self would one need to be to believe that the organization you worked for "owed" you something after your career with them was finished? That's the question I'm asking of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the former Los Angeles Laker great, and NBA's all-time leading scorer. Abdul-Jabbar very publicly criticized his former team/employer for...get this...not putting up a statue of him outside the home of the Lakers, the Staples Center in Los Angeles. Yup...you read that right.
The Staples Center has five statues outside: Jerry West, Magic Johnson, Wayne Gretzky, Chick Hearn, and Oscar De La Hoya. Although he had an incredible career, and finished as the leading scorer in NBA history, what entitles anyone to state that they deserve anything like that? Hank Aaron was one of the greatest baseball players of all time, and until a few years ago, was baseball's all-time home run king. I've never heard of Hank Aaron demanding anything similar to what Kareem is asking for. I've also never heard the great Mario Lemiuex telling the Pittsburgh Penguins that he deserves a shrine in front of the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh.
What makes great players great is the fact that many of them don't act the part. This week, baseball lost one of it's greatest players in Harmon Killebrew. What made Harmon a great player, to me, was that he never wanted to talk about Harmon. He only wanted to talk about you, or the team. Those are the types of players that deserve statues.
When you look at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, there is no doubt that, had he kept his mouth shut, the Lakers would've eventually erected a statue for him. It's hard not to do something to immortalize the greatest scorer in the game's history. For them to put one up now, it would almost appear that they would be doing it to satisfy him, as opposed to honoring him. Is that really what he's looking for? Apparently, it is. As long as there's a statue of him, he'll be happy. As far as I'm concerned though, Kareem has lost a lot of respect in my book.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
NBA Lottery...If It Looks Like A Rat And Smells Like A Rat...
Yea...I'm going there.
I've lost a lot of interest in basketball over the last few years, and the NBA hasn't helped their cause with me at all. Granted, living here in Minnesota and having to put up with the Timberwolves may be at the heart of my disdain for the sport, but a lot of it is strictly rooted in the NBA as a business/company/product. Tuesday's Draft Lottery didn't help matters, either!
The Timberwolves have had little to no luck in the Draft Lottery, having never landed the number one overall pick in the draft, despite having the worst record in basketball two separate times, including this past season. Back in the 1993 Draft Lottery, the Wolves had the second worst record in the NBA and were given 10 ping-pong balls in the hopper, (Dallas had the worst record, and was given 11 balls). The number one overall pick that year was awarded to the Orlando Magic, a team that had only one ball in the lottery, and subsequently took that pick and drafted Shaquille O'Neal. For the Wolves, and the Mavericks alike, that was some of the worst "luck."
The issue I have with the NBA Lottery is that it's done behind closed doors. The balls are plucked from the little bingo hopper where the public can't see it, and the results are announced in a prime-time event during an NBA Playoff game. So, why is the NBA upset when people start to scream conspiracy? If you have nothing to hide, then let us see the balls get selected. Hell, that would be the whole fun of the event, wouldn't it? Waiting to see if your team's ping-pong ball came up would create incredible drama.
Instead, you have the type of controversial results you had on Tuesday night. The Cleveland Cavaliers, who just lost LeBron James to South Beach during this past off-season's free agent campaign, landed the first overall pick in the draft, causing the Timberwolves to select second. Now, Cleveland finished this season with the second worst record behind Minnesota, so for them to get the lucky #1 pick wasn't entirely unlikely. But, is it wrong to have the conspiracy thought run through your mind?
On December 2nd, 2010, when Miami traveled to Cleveland to play the Cavs, the NBA saw one of it's highest rated games in years. The LeBron drama pulled people in, but the result of the game made people yawn. The ill feelings towards James by the Cleveland fans made for very intriguing television, which is something the NBA absolutely loves! However, that was about all the game could offer. When the Cavs and Heat met for the second time, the ratings had already taken a huge dip from the first game. Couple that with the promise of Cavs' owner Dan Gilbert that his Cavaliers team would win an NBA Championship before LeBron James, and you start to see why having Cleveland "win" the first overall pick in the draft to help boost their talent becomes a little more intriguing for the league. I'm not saying...I'm just saying.
For the record, I've never been a fan of NBA Commissioner David Stern. Compared to the heads of the other three major professional sports in this country, his actions have created more conversation and skepticism than one would like. Perhaps that is what he's looking for, because it creates a "buzz" around his product. Some believe it's a good thing that only seven different teams have won NBA Championships in the last 23 years. Others, like myself, believe this is bad for the sport. Some believe it's a good thing for seven or eight teams to bring in two or three "superstar" players to create mega-teams. Others, like myself, think this isn't interesting. Some believe that the Draft Lottery is a good system to prevent teams from "throwing" their seasons in an attempt to get the first pick in the draft. Others, like myself, believe this is a way to possibly control the results when you feel you need to, because the public will never know. It's like the ace up Stern's sleeve. He doesn't always need to use it, but when the time is right, because the system is in place, it can possibly be manipulated to bring a needed result.
Not saying that's what happened...but, it's got you thinking a little bit now, doesn't it?
I've lost a lot of interest in basketball over the last few years, and the NBA hasn't helped their cause with me at all. Granted, living here in Minnesota and having to put up with the Timberwolves may be at the heart of my disdain for the sport, but a lot of it is strictly rooted in the NBA as a business/company/product. Tuesday's Draft Lottery didn't help matters, either!
The Timberwolves have had little to no luck in the Draft Lottery, having never landed the number one overall pick in the draft, despite having the worst record in basketball two separate times, including this past season. Back in the 1993 Draft Lottery, the Wolves had the second worst record in the NBA and were given 10 ping-pong balls in the hopper, (Dallas had the worst record, and was given 11 balls). The number one overall pick that year was awarded to the Orlando Magic, a team that had only one ball in the lottery, and subsequently took that pick and drafted Shaquille O'Neal. For the Wolves, and the Mavericks alike, that was some of the worst "luck."
The issue I have with the NBA Lottery is that it's done behind closed doors. The balls are plucked from the little bingo hopper where the public can't see it, and the results are announced in a prime-time event during an NBA Playoff game. So, why is the NBA upset when people start to scream conspiracy? If you have nothing to hide, then let us see the balls get selected. Hell, that would be the whole fun of the event, wouldn't it? Waiting to see if your team's ping-pong ball came up would create incredible drama.
Instead, you have the type of controversial results you had on Tuesday night. The Cleveland Cavaliers, who just lost LeBron James to South Beach during this past off-season's free agent campaign, landed the first overall pick in the draft, causing the Timberwolves to select second. Now, Cleveland finished this season with the second worst record behind Minnesota, so for them to get the lucky #1 pick wasn't entirely unlikely. But, is it wrong to have the conspiracy thought run through your mind?
On December 2nd, 2010, when Miami traveled to Cleveland to play the Cavs, the NBA saw one of it's highest rated games in years. The LeBron drama pulled people in, but the result of the game made people yawn. The ill feelings towards James by the Cleveland fans made for very intriguing television, which is something the NBA absolutely loves! However, that was about all the game could offer. When the Cavs and Heat met for the second time, the ratings had already taken a huge dip from the first game. Couple that with the promise of Cavs' owner Dan Gilbert that his Cavaliers team would win an NBA Championship before LeBron James, and you start to see why having Cleveland "win" the first overall pick in the draft to help boost their talent becomes a little more intriguing for the league. I'm not saying...I'm just saying.
For the record, I've never been a fan of NBA Commissioner David Stern. Compared to the heads of the other three major professional sports in this country, his actions have created more conversation and skepticism than one would like. Perhaps that is what he's looking for, because it creates a "buzz" around his product. Some believe it's a good thing that only seven different teams have won NBA Championships in the last 23 years. Others, like myself, believe this is bad for the sport. Some believe it's a good thing for seven or eight teams to bring in two or three "superstar" players to create mega-teams. Others, like myself, think this isn't interesting. Some believe that the Draft Lottery is a good system to prevent teams from "throwing" their seasons in an attempt to get the first pick in the draft. Others, like myself, believe this is a way to possibly control the results when you feel you need to, because the public will never know. It's like the ace up Stern's sleeve. He doesn't always need to use it, but when the time is right, because the system is in place, it can possibly be manipulated to bring a needed result.
Not saying that's what happened...but, it's got you thinking a little bit now, doesn't it?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Goodbye To A True Hero
For many people my age, all we have to go on when it comes to some of the great things and special people of the past are the stories and legends we've heard. Those stories and those legends bring us closer to a time that we never knew, but often times wish we did. Today is one of those days where the stories you hear bring you closer to those times, and more importantly, closer to one of those special people. That person is Harmon Killebrew.
When we, as sports fans, lose an icon like Harmon Killebrew, we try to reflect on the person and the life. Unfortunately, like many, I wasn't fortunate enough to be around during his playing days. If you know me, you know how much I love the game of baseball, and it's history. Whether it's taking a trip out to Cooperstown, NY to visit the National Baseball Hall of Fame, or sitting on the couch watching Ken Burns' "Baseball", the history of the game is something that keeps fans of the sport interested for hours, for days, and for lifetimes. Harmon Killebrew was as big a part of that history as many others before him, and many others after.
Harmon was one of those players who was known for playing the game "the right way." He was a humble man with a huge swing. Nicknamed "The Killer", he crushed 573 career home runs, which ranks him 11th all time. Considering that four of the players in front of him have been linked to performance enhancing substances makes his 573 homers that much more impressive. He was an idol to many, including current Minnesota Twin, Jim Thome, who passed Harmon on the all-time home run list last season. He was one of the guys many looked up to and idolized, one of those being my father.
My father, who passed away last year from pancreatic cancer, was a big fan of Harmon's. As we'd sit and watch games together over the years, and we'd see balls hit out of the ballpark, it was either Mickey Mantle or Harmon Killebrew that those shots were compared to. Living in Minnesota his whole life, my dad grew up with Harmon Killebrew and the Twins, and thus, I heard many stories of greatness from him. Without ever having met him, you almost felt like you'd known him for years. That was the type of impact he had on many.
It isn't possible to go back, other than in our minds and hearts. Often times, death makes it difficult to go back. It's really the life that we need to celebrate. That's what touched the lives of so many...the life. Harmon lived his the right way.
Thank you Harmon! You will be missed.
When we, as sports fans, lose an icon like Harmon Killebrew, we try to reflect on the person and the life. Unfortunately, like many, I wasn't fortunate enough to be around during his playing days. If you know me, you know how much I love the game of baseball, and it's history. Whether it's taking a trip out to Cooperstown, NY to visit the National Baseball Hall of Fame, or sitting on the couch watching Ken Burns' "Baseball", the history of the game is something that keeps fans of the sport interested for hours, for days, and for lifetimes. Harmon Killebrew was as big a part of that history as many others before him, and many others after.
Harmon was one of those players who was known for playing the game "the right way." He was a humble man with a huge swing. Nicknamed "The Killer", he crushed 573 career home runs, which ranks him 11th all time. Considering that four of the players in front of him have been linked to performance enhancing substances makes his 573 homers that much more impressive. He was an idol to many, including current Minnesota Twin, Jim Thome, who passed Harmon on the all-time home run list last season. He was one of the guys many looked up to and idolized, one of those being my father.
My father, who passed away last year from pancreatic cancer, was a big fan of Harmon's. As we'd sit and watch games together over the years, and we'd see balls hit out of the ballpark, it was either Mickey Mantle or Harmon Killebrew that those shots were compared to. Living in Minnesota his whole life, my dad grew up with Harmon Killebrew and the Twins, and thus, I heard many stories of greatness from him. Without ever having met him, you almost felt like you'd known him for years. That was the type of impact he had on many.
It isn't possible to go back, other than in our minds and hearts. Often times, death makes it difficult to go back. It's really the life that we need to celebrate. That's what touched the lives of so many...the life. Harmon lived his the right way.
Thank you Harmon! You will be missed.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Stick To What You Do Best...Or At Least What You Do
Why is it that professional athletes believe that, because they are paid to play a sport professionally, that means they are capable of doing EVERYTHING? Granted, some of these things are done for publicity, but there are a few instances where the athlete was delusional enough to believe they could actually pull the alternative off.
Just this past weekend, Chad Johnson-Ochocinco-Johnson decided to give bull-riding a shot, with really no good explanation as to why. He hopped on the bull, and in less time than it takes him to make a bold prediction/guarantee that he can't back up in the NFL, he was on the ground, nearly being stomped by the 1,500 pound animal. All for $10,000. Seems to be a smart idea, putting your entire career, not to mention your life, in jeopardy for $10,000. Really, he's more than likely just trying to put a couple extra bucks in his account so that when he does something outrageous during week one of the NFL season (if there is one) he'll have enough to actually pay the fine. Sad thing is...I'm actually a big Chad Johnson fan. I think he's great for the NFL.
Even if it's not a sport, but just an activity, athletes seem to feel like they're above it all. Take Ben Roethlisberger for example. No, I'm not talking about his extra-curricular "champagne room" activities, but more his propensity for riding two-wheeled recreational vehicles. He knew it was something that his team, or more importantly his employer, would be against, but there's no way he'd get hurt doing it. Until he did.
Just because you're athletic enough to be paid to play a sport, and usually play it well, doesn't mean that you can pull anything off you put your mind to. It's called being realistic...and intelligent. Give it shot sometime!
Just this past weekend, Chad Johnson-Ochocinco-Johnson decided to give bull-riding a shot, with really no good explanation as to why. He hopped on the bull, and in less time than it takes him to make a bold prediction/guarantee that he can't back up in the NFL, he was on the ground, nearly being stomped by the 1,500 pound animal. All for $10,000. Seems to be a smart idea, putting your entire career, not to mention your life, in jeopardy for $10,000. Really, he's more than likely just trying to put a couple extra bucks in his account so that when he does something outrageous during week one of the NFL season (if there is one) he'll have enough to actually pay the fine. Sad thing is...I'm actually a big Chad Johnson fan. I think he's great for the NFL.
Even if it's not a sport, but just an activity, athletes seem to feel like they're above it all. Take Ben Roethlisberger for example. No, I'm not talking about his extra-curricular "champagne room" activities, but more his propensity for riding two-wheeled recreational vehicles. He knew it was something that his team, or more importantly his employer, would be against, but there's no way he'd get hurt doing it. Until he did.
Just because you're athletic enough to be paid to play a sport, and usually play it well, doesn't mean that you can pull anything off you put your mind to. It's called being realistic...and intelligent. Give it shot sometime!
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The Hall Of Fame Debate
One of the greatest things about the sport of baseball, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is that there are countless debates that can take place. Some are team driven, some are more geared around the players themselves. There is one debate that I frequently engage in with a few different friends. I guess it's more of a conversation than a debate, but depending on the names mentioned, it could be both.
When their time comes, who will get the call from Cooperstown and be enshrined in baseball's Hall of Fame? For those of you that know, this year's induction class caused a bit of a stir amongst some, with long-time snub Bert Blyleven finally getting the nod after 14 years on the ballot. The controversy begins with a simple question: What made Bert good enough this year to be inducted, and not good enough in previous years? He hasn't pitched since 1992. What made him better now than any of the previous 13 years? Nothing. That's the answer.
The idea of a "first ballot" Hall of Famer is a novel concept, but given the way the writers actually seem to vote, just getting in, whether it be year one or year fourteen, is an honor in and of itself. So, which players still playing today (or having retired within the last five years) should be in the Hall of Fame?
Before I go through the players I believe deserve induction into Cooperstown, I first want to say that I am one that is in favor of allowing those players suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs into the Hall of Fame. Why? Regardless of whether those players either tested positive, admit to using, or have flat out denied using performance-enhancing drugs, they are all still major game-changing players in the recent era of baseball. The Hall of Fame should recognize those players, but do so with no fanfare, no ceremony, and by notating their plaques with something designating their complicity in that form of cheating. For me, whether he used or not, Barry Bonds still holds the all-time Major League Baseball home run record, and should be enshrined in Cooperstown, with a plaque that indicates that his "record" occurred during years he has been suspected of using a performance-enhancing substance.
With that all said, here are the players I believe should be inducted into the Hall of Fame when their time comes:
Players suspected of, or admitting to, using PED's:
Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Manny Ramirez, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Ivan Rodriguez
Players I would consider "First Ballot Hall of Famers":
Greg Maddox, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter, Trevor Hoffman, Albert Pujols, Roy Halladay, Ichiro Suzuki,
Players I believe will make it, but in later years on the ballot:
Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tom Glavine, Jorge Posada, Mike Piazza, Chipper Jones, Jeff Kent, John Smoltz,
Players I believe have a shot to make it, but too soon in their careers to tell:
Joe Mauer, C.C. Sabathia, Dustin Pedroia, Ryan Howard, Mark Teixeira, Miguel Cabrera, Tim Lincecum
So...here's what I'm looking for: Debate! Some of these I know you agree with...and some, I know you find probably ridiculous. There are probably a few others that I may have even left off, in your opinion. If you have issue with any, let me make my case. If you disagree, let me hear it!!
***Addition***
After consulting a good friend of mine, I realized there were a few omissions from the above list. Andy Pettitte is a player that should be included in the PED category. Under the "First Ballot" HOF'ers, Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey Jr. should be included. Also, under the "Later Years" category, Frank Thomas was left off.
When their time comes, who will get the call from Cooperstown and be enshrined in baseball's Hall of Fame? For those of you that know, this year's induction class caused a bit of a stir amongst some, with long-time snub Bert Blyleven finally getting the nod after 14 years on the ballot. The controversy begins with a simple question: What made Bert good enough this year to be inducted, and not good enough in previous years? He hasn't pitched since 1992. What made him better now than any of the previous 13 years? Nothing. That's the answer.
The idea of a "first ballot" Hall of Famer is a novel concept, but given the way the writers actually seem to vote, just getting in, whether it be year one or year fourteen, is an honor in and of itself. So, which players still playing today (or having retired within the last five years) should be in the Hall of Fame?
Before I go through the players I believe deserve induction into Cooperstown, I first want to say that I am one that is in favor of allowing those players suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs into the Hall of Fame. Why? Regardless of whether those players either tested positive, admit to using, or have flat out denied using performance-enhancing drugs, they are all still major game-changing players in the recent era of baseball. The Hall of Fame should recognize those players, but do so with no fanfare, no ceremony, and by notating their plaques with something designating their complicity in that form of cheating. For me, whether he used or not, Barry Bonds still holds the all-time Major League Baseball home run record, and should be enshrined in Cooperstown, with a plaque that indicates that his "record" occurred during years he has been suspected of using a performance-enhancing substance.
With that all said, here are the players I believe should be inducted into the Hall of Fame when their time comes:
Players suspected of, or admitting to, using PED's:
Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Manny Ramirez, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Ivan Rodriguez
Players I would consider "First Ballot Hall of Famers":
Greg Maddox, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter, Trevor Hoffman, Albert Pujols, Roy Halladay, Ichiro Suzuki,
Players I believe will make it, but in later years on the ballot:
Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tom Glavine, Jorge Posada, Mike Piazza, Chipper Jones, Jeff Kent, John Smoltz,
Players I believe have a shot to make it, but too soon in their careers to tell:
Joe Mauer, C.C. Sabathia, Dustin Pedroia, Ryan Howard, Mark Teixeira, Miguel Cabrera, Tim Lincecum
So...here's what I'm looking for: Debate! Some of these I know you agree with...and some, I know you find probably ridiculous. There are probably a few others that I may have even left off, in your opinion. If you have issue with any, let me make my case. If you disagree, let me hear it!!
***Addition***
After consulting a good friend of mine, I realized there were a few omissions from the above list. Andy Pettitte is a player that should be included in the PED category. Under the "First Ballot" HOF'ers, Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey Jr. should be included. Also, under the "Later Years" category, Frank Thomas was left off.
Friday, May 13, 2011
When Does "It's Still Early" No Longer Apply
When I started writing this blog, one thing I promised myself I would stay away from was always writing about Minnesota teams. Having lived my entire life here, I've always been a Minnesota Twins fan, even during those early years when my favorite player was Eric Davis, the center fielder for the Cincinnati Reds. Sure, I walked around with a Reds jacket and cap, and wanted any and everything that had to do with Eric Davis, but I was still a fan of the Twins. Having the fortune of being able to go to all eight World Series games played at the Metrodome in both 1987 and 1991, my sense of fandom only grew. Unfortunately, I can't hold off any longer, and I need to say something.
No matter how much you like your team, you find an equal piece of yourself that thinks that you always have the answers when they struggle. That is one of the rights we possess as "fans." Another thing we find ourselves doing is making excuses for poor play or for losing seasons. When we have high hopes and expectations for our teams, there has to be a logical explanation why they aren't playing well, right?
This can apply to any fan and any team, but for the sake of argument, I'm going to be discussing that very Minnesota Twins baseball club.
Coming out of Spring Training this season, the Twins were one of the healthiest teams in baseball. They acquired a new second baseman via the Japanese professional league, Tsuyoshi Nishioka, had a starting rotation that had grown in experience by one year, had the unusual dilemma of having two solid closers at the back end of their bullpen, and were getting back one of their star players, Justin Morneau, from a serious concussion sustained last July. All was looking very positive for the defending American League Central Champions.
Oh what a different story we have midway through May. Entering this weekend's series against the Toronto Blue Jays, the Twins sport the worst record in all of baseball, 12-23. Their star player and the face of the franchise, Joe Mauer, is out with weakness in his surgically repaired knee, their returning closer, Joe Nathan, has shown nothing but rust coming back from Tommy John surgery last season, and that promising second base acquisition hit the disabled list, along with a handful of other players. Yet, throughout the month of April, the resounding statement being made was, "it's still early."
When you look up and down the Twins' current lineup, there is still a great deal of talent. Denard Span in center field has been a very reliable bat at the top of the lineup. Michael Cuddyer had shown in previous seasons that he was able to carry the team during rough injury stretches. Delmon Young had easily his most productive season last year, and started off this season showing that the potential was still there to have another great season. Danny Valencia began his first full season at the big-league level starting at third base after a stellar rookie campaign. Jason Kubel has become the team's best hitter, showing both power and the ability to be patient at the plate. On top of that, Morneau has come back healthy, with the exception of a brief five-day stint out of the lineup in April because of the flu. Yet, they sit 12-23? What gives?
One of the key weaknesses this team has shown this year has been its pitching. The starting rotation has been consistently putting the team behind the proverbial eight ball by staking the opposing teams to early leads. The bullpen was weakened through free agency and has been giving up leads late in games more than they should. And when the Twins have carried a lead into the eighth or ninth inning, both closers (Nathan in the early part of the year, and Matt Capps towards the end of April into May) have been blowing saves. Again, I ask...What gives?
Where is the accountability? The "it's still early" philosophy has been one seemingly adopted by the manager, Ron Gardenhire, as well as the fans. However, with it now being mid-May, when does that philosophy stop applying and when does accountability begin to take effect? When you have the offense you do (last in home runs, last in RBI's, last in runs scored, 28th in hits, 27th in batting average, last in extra base hits) it's clear there is a problem with the team's approach at the plate. When will it be time to hold hitting coach Joe Vavra accountable to the lack of offense? Your "power hitting" first baseman has only one home run so far this season, primarily because he cannot stop over-striding at the plate. Isn't that a coach's job? To fix issues your players have at the plate? Something to think about, for sure.
As far as the pitching goes, you have pitchers who are fully capable of going deeper into games than they are, yet, the team struggles to get quality starts out of the starting rotation. When will accountability be placed on pitching coach Rick Anderson for the performance of his pitchers? When the starters had above average seasons last year, Anderson was praised for the development of a young staff. Now, in 2011, when the starters can't get out of the fourth inning, fans begin to say "well, they're just not that good." It's the responsibility of the coaches to prepare their players. If the players aren't understanding basic strategy, they need to be worked with. Therein lies the responsibility of the coaching staff.
As we've seen in other sports, there are times where the message just gets stale. There are times where players don't respond to what they're being told or coached to do. Is it the players' faults? Maybe. Is it the coaches' faults? Perhaps. But, regardless of which one of those questions is the right one at this point, the one question that needs to be asked is this: If "it's still early," then what are you going to do once "it's too late?"
No matter how much you like your team, you find an equal piece of yourself that thinks that you always have the answers when they struggle. That is one of the rights we possess as "fans." Another thing we find ourselves doing is making excuses for poor play or for losing seasons. When we have high hopes and expectations for our teams, there has to be a logical explanation why they aren't playing well, right?
This can apply to any fan and any team, but for the sake of argument, I'm going to be discussing that very Minnesota Twins baseball club.
Coming out of Spring Training this season, the Twins were one of the healthiest teams in baseball. They acquired a new second baseman via the Japanese professional league, Tsuyoshi Nishioka, had a starting rotation that had grown in experience by one year, had the unusual dilemma of having two solid closers at the back end of their bullpen, and were getting back one of their star players, Justin Morneau, from a serious concussion sustained last July. All was looking very positive for the defending American League Central Champions.
Oh what a different story we have midway through May. Entering this weekend's series against the Toronto Blue Jays, the Twins sport the worst record in all of baseball, 12-23. Their star player and the face of the franchise, Joe Mauer, is out with weakness in his surgically repaired knee, their returning closer, Joe Nathan, has shown nothing but rust coming back from Tommy John surgery last season, and that promising second base acquisition hit the disabled list, along with a handful of other players. Yet, throughout the month of April, the resounding statement being made was, "it's still early."
When you look up and down the Twins' current lineup, there is still a great deal of talent. Denard Span in center field has been a very reliable bat at the top of the lineup. Michael Cuddyer had shown in previous seasons that he was able to carry the team during rough injury stretches. Delmon Young had easily his most productive season last year, and started off this season showing that the potential was still there to have another great season. Danny Valencia began his first full season at the big-league level starting at third base after a stellar rookie campaign. Jason Kubel has become the team's best hitter, showing both power and the ability to be patient at the plate. On top of that, Morneau has come back healthy, with the exception of a brief five-day stint out of the lineup in April because of the flu. Yet, they sit 12-23? What gives?
One of the key weaknesses this team has shown this year has been its pitching. The starting rotation has been consistently putting the team behind the proverbial eight ball by staking the opposing teams to early leads. The bullpen was weakened through free agency and has been giving up leads late in games more than they should. And when the Twins have carried a lead into the eighth or ninth inning, both closers (Nathan in the early part of the year, and Matt Capps towards the end of April into May) have been blowing saves. Again, I ask...What gives?
Where is the accountability? The "it's still early" philosophy has been one seemingly adopted by the manager, Ron Gardenhire, as well as the fans. However, with it now being mid-May, when does that philosophy stop applying and when does accountability begin to take effect? When you have the offense you do (last in home runs, last in RBI's, last in runs scored, 28th in hits, 27th in batting average, last in extra base hits) it's clear there is a problem with the team's approach at the plate. When will it be time to hold hitting coach Joe Vavra accountable to the lack of offense? Your "power hitting" first baseman has only one home run so far this season, primarily because he cannot stop over-striding at the plate. Isn't that a coach's job? To fix issues your players have at the plate? Something to think about, for sure.
As far as the pitching goes, you have pitchers who are fully capable of going deeper into games than they are, yet, the team struggles to get quality starts out of the starting rotation. When will accountability be placed on pitching coach Rick Anderson for the performance of his pitchers? When the starters had above average seasons last year, Anderson was praised for the development of a young staff. Now, in 2011, when the starters can't get out of the fourth inning, fans begin to say "well, they're just not that good." It's the responsibility of the coaches to prepare their players. If the players aren't understanding basic strategy, they need to be worked with. Therein lies the responsibility of the coaching staff.
As we've seen in other sports, there are times where the message just gets stale. There are times where players don't respond to what they're being told or coached to do. Is it the players' faults? Maybe. Is it the coaches' faults? Perhaps. But, regardless of which one of those questions is the right one at this point, the one question that needs to be asked is this: If "it's still early," then what are you going to do once "it's too late?"
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Is Tiger Woods done?
We all know Tiger's story, so there's no reason to re-hash any of the infidelity stuff. The most dominant golfer in the world, at least through 2008, is at his lowest professional point. He won his last major championship at the 2008 U.S. Open, and has only won a total of six times since that victory. That's six tournament wins since June 16th, 2008. For a player that has averaged a shade over five victories a season since turning professional back in 1996, not winning a tournament in 21 months is a bit alarming.
Is he done? That's the question on every golf fan's mind. Can Tiger get back to where he used to be? He seemed to put himself back into the conversation with a fourth place showing at this year's Masters. But, waking up this morning, checking the scores of the first round of the Players Championship, Tiger finds himself four over par through four holes. Not a great start. Maybe he was lucky to finish fourth at the Masters. It's possible.
There are a lot of critics out there who want Tiger to be done. They want him to never win another tournament. There are still some folks out there who believe that the sport of golf is "better" when he's not winning. For me personally, golf isn't the same without that "Tiger Factor." There was a time you could turn any tournament on that Tiger was playing in, and his name would be somewhere on the first page of the leader board. He may not win the event, but there was a "buzz" you could sense. Other players felt it. Fans at the event felt it. Those watching at home could even feel it. There was always this little nervous tension wondering if Tiger would win it, or wondering how close he would get to it. Right now, even though I'm a fan of golf, both playing the game and watching it as well, it's difficult for me to be as interested in it as I once was.
What Tiger needs right now is to do what so many have done in the game of golf, and that's just swallow your pride and ask for help. Tiger's problem is that he thinks he has the answer. He fired his swing coach, Hank Haney, choosing to go with the lesser known Sean Foley. Since that change, the results have been terrible. Tiger is now struggling with the problem many of us have with the game, a little thing called "inconsistency." It would be such an easy game if we could just put the same swing on the ball every time and hit it how we want to, right? But, if you take the swing out of it, I'll tell you exactly where Tiger is losing his game, and exactly why he hasn't won. He's become mortal with a putter in his hand. You don't see the same Tiger on the greens as you used to. He's clearly not confident standing over a 10 foot putt like he used to be. Tiger has always sprayed drives all over the place. Heck, some of the best highlights we have of Tiger Woods are these miraculous shots he hits around or through trees, out of fairway bunkers, or from other holes for that matter. He's made his career out of being able to give himself a chance after those mistakes. Now, the issue is sinking the putt to make all of those great shots worth it. That's what he's not doing anymore. He's lost his concentration on the green.
I happen to be one of those people who roots for Tiger to win. I want to see Tiger take down Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 majors. Right now, Tiger stands at 14 and is within range. At the age of only 35, he's still in the prime of his career. The PGA isn't the same without a dominant Tiger Woods. Sure, it's led to a "youth movement" and given us a bunch of great, young, talented players to watch and root for, but it's still not the same. Maybe the light bulb will go on again for Tiger, and we can get that buzz back as we watch him chase down Jack's record. I, for one, hope it happens sooner rather than later.
Is he done? That's the question on every golf fan's mind. Can Tiger get back to where he used to be? He seemed to put himself back into the conversation with a fourth place showing at this year's Masters. But, waking up this morning, checking the scores of the first round of the Players Championship, Tiger finds himself four over par through four holes. Not a great start. Maybe he was lucky to finish fourth at the Masters. It's possible.
There are a lot of critics out there who want Tiger to be done. They want him to never win another tournament. There are still some folks out there who believe that the sport of golf is "better" when he's not winning. For me personally, golf isn't the same without that "Tiger Factor." There was a time you could turn any tournament on that Tiger was playing in, and his name would be somewhere on the first page of the leader board. He may not win the event, but there was a "buzz" you could sense. Other players felt it. Fans at the event felt it. Those watching at home could even feel it. There was always this little nervous tension wondering if Tiger would win it, or wondering how close he would get to it. Right now, even though I'm a fan of golf, both playing the game and watching it as well, it's difficult for me to be as interested in it as I once was.
What Tiger needs right now is to do what so many have done in the game of golf, and that's just swallow your pride and ask for help. Tiger's problem is that he thinks he has the answer. He fired his swing coach, Hank Haney, choosing to go with the lesser known Sean Foley. Since that change, the results have been terrible. Tiger is now struggling with the problem many of us have with the game, a little thing called "inconsistency." It would be such an easy game if we could just put the same swing on the ball every time and hit it how we want to, right? But, if you take the swing out of it, I'll tell you exactly where Tiger is losing his game, and exactly why he hasn't won. He's become mortal with a putter in his hand. You don't see the same Tiger on the greens as you used to. He's clearly not confident standing over a 10 foot putt like he used to be. Tiger has always sprayed drives all over the place. Heck, some of the best highlights we have of Tiger Woods are these miraculous shots he hits around or through trees, out of fairway bunkers, or from other holes for that matter. He's made his career out of being able to give himself a chance after those mistakes. Now, the issue is sinking the putt to make all of those great shots worth it. That's what he's not doing anymore. He's lost his concentration on the green.
I happen to be one of those people who roots for Tiger to win. I want to see Tiger take down Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 majors. Right now, Tiger stands at 14 and is within range. At the age of only 35, he's still in the prime of his career. The PGA isn't the same without a dominant Tiger Woods. Sure, it's led to a "youth movement" and given us a bunch of great, young, talented players to watch and root for, but it's still not the same. Maybe the light bulb will go on again for Tiger, and we can get that buzz back as we watch him chase down Jack's record. I, for one, hope it happens sooner rather than later.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
What Is The Greatest Rivalry In Sports?
Beginning this Friday night, the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox will meet for the second time this season. One of the greatest rivalries in sports will be the focus of national television broadcasts for three straight days. Many people seem to be upset or annoyed with this, but I'm not one of those people. New York leads the American League East by only one game, but stand ahead of the Red Sox by four and a half games. Even if Boston were 10 games behind the Yankees, this series carries more weight than a lot of people realize.
Having been fortunate enough to attend a Red Sox/Yankees game in both Fenway Park and (old) Yankee Stadium, I can tell you this: There is a completely different atmosphere to these games than anything you've ever experienced. Once the game begins, you would think that a game in late April were an October playoff game. The fans remain on edge throughout, and are heartbroken when they lose. In some cases, it's more important to beat that rival than it is to successfully navigate yourself to the playoffs.
So, what is the greatest rivalry in sports? I've had a chance to witness the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry, but can honestly say I've never been to any others like it. I guess, in order to answer the question, I need to figure out what they are.
One rivalry that has been around for many, many years is that of the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers. This is a rivalry that, upon being hired by the Chicago Bears as Head Coach, Lovie Smith addressed immediately, saying that his number one goal was to beat Green Bay. For a team with Super Bowl aspirations, having your number one goal be to beat your biggest rival tells you how important this rivalry actually is to the sports landscape.
Another rivalry I would love to be in attendance for is to see the North Carolina Tar Heels take on the Duke Blue Devils in Cameron Indoor Stadium. Duke's home court of Cameron Indoor offers a buzz like no other, an impression I can only gather by watching these games on TV. There is something about this rivalry between collegiate counterparts that makes this non-professional rivalry as great, if not greater, than most at the professional level. The "Cameron Crazies" bouncing and chanting throughout the game keep the excitement level high, and the play between both powerhouse programs is at a season high. It never seems to matter what the records are here. When these two teams play, you'd think they were playing for the NCAA Championship.
There is also another collegiate rivalry that could easily get confused with a professional sports rivalry. That rivalry is between the Ohio State Buckeyes and the Michigan Wolverines. More so than any other rivalry mentioned thus far, there is a legitimate hatred between these two schools. The professional nature of both programs makes this game seem more like an NFL contest than a Big Ten contest. The rivalry often extends to the NFL draft, as both schools seem to compete to see who can send the most top-notch talent to the next level. Sometimes, it just doesn't stop on the field.
So, what is the greatest rivalry in sports? Let me hear from some of you and get the debate going.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Phil Jackson - Legit or Lucky?
It's really difficult to call anyone who wins 11 Championships lucky, but there are some that can argue it. With the Los Angeles Lakers being swept from the NBA Playoffs on Sunday night, it's likely that we've now seen the last of Phil Jackson, the head coach of the Lakers. Throughout his 20 year head coaching career, Jackson won 11 NBA Championships. Six of those championships were won with the Chicago Bulls, which included two separate "three-peats." The other five championships came during Jackson's time as the head coach of the Lakers. That's 11 titles in 20 seasons. That is incredibly impressive!
The argument forms around "how" Jackson was able to win those 11 titles. During his stint with the Bulls in the early '90's, Jackson was the beneficiary of having Michael Jordan, the man widely considered by many to be the greatest player of all time. Along with Jordan, the Bulls had the likes of Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman (Rodman for the last three of Jackson's titles with the Bulls.) Leaving the Bulls after the 1998 season, Jackson "retired" from coaching, which didn't last but one year. He decided to give coaching another shot, this time with the Lakers in 1999. In 2000, he won the first of three more championships, this time with both Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal as the leaders of his team. After the Lakers decided to go forward with Kobe Bryant as the focal point of their team, sending O'Neal away, Jackson won two more titles with just Kobe. Not necessarily your average "stars".
With the superstars he had, there are many that say it would've been difficult NOT to win the championships he did. That's where the "legit vs. lucky" debate comes in. Was it Phil's coaching that led those teams to become NBA Champions, or was it the fact that he was coaching the best players in the game in their primes?
Let's take a look at a couple of things. For starters, since 1989 (the year Jackson took over the head coaching job for the Bulls), there have been only seven (7) different teams to win NBA Titles: Chicago Bulls (6), Los Angeles Lakers (5), San Antonio Spurs (4), Detroit Pistons (3), Houston Rockets (2), Miami Heat (1), and Boston Celtics (1). Of those 22 Championships, it could be argued that each of them had at least one "superstar" to lead the team, with the possible exception of one. That one exception could be the 2004 Detroit Pistons. That team had a great collection of players, but none that would be considered "superstars" by the normal standard. At that time, Chauncey Billups was just coming into his own, and Rasheed Wallace was a proven big man, but not someone you would build a team around if you were a general manager.
With that being said, every team in the NBA that wins an NBA Championship has a superstar player or two, or in some cases, even three. It might be Tim Duncan, it might be Hakeem Olajuwon, or it might be Kevin Garnett. Regardless, there have been superstars to win titles. So, does that make Greg Popovich, the coach of the San Antonio Spurs, "lucky" because he won four titles with Tim Duncan (two of those coming with the help of David Robinson, one of the greatest centers to ever play the game)? There are some that would say yes. Those people need to re-evaluate whether or not they actually understand sports, in general.
I am definitely not a fan of Phil Jackson's. To me, he's been a very arrogant, very smug coach. Some used to complain about the "Jordan Rules" when Michael Jordan played during those championship runs with the Bulls, but I'm one who believes in the "Jackson Rules." Jackson played the media to his advantage, making statements during interviews and press conferences that would seemingly change the officiating of the next game. His smug looks sitting on the bench would often silently scream "are you really making that call against MY team? Do you know who I am?" I've never been a fan, and that hasn't changed over the last 20 years.
Regardless of what you think of Jackson's attitude or personality, his coaching prowess can't be questioned. To win 11 championships in 20 seasons is something you haven't seen in any other sport from a coach/manager. To be able to harness the explosive personalities of Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, Kobe Bryant, and Shaquille O'Neal is something that not just any coach would be able to do. Jackson garnered respect from his players, regardless of what any may think of him. It's that respect that led him to those 11 championships, not the "superstars" he coached.
The argument forms around "how" Jackson was able to win those 11 titles. During his stint with the Bulls in the early '90's, Jackson was the beneficiary of having Michael Jordan, the man widely considered by many to be the greatest player of all time. Along with Jordan, the Bulls had the likes of Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman (Rodman for the last three of Jackson's titles with the Bulls.) Leaving the Bulls after the 1998 season, Jackson "retired" from coaching, which didn't last but one year. He decided to give coaching another shot, this time with the Lakers in 1999. In 2000, he won the first of three more championships, this time with both Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal as the leaders of his team. After the Lakers decided to go forward with Kobe Bryant as the focal point of their team, sending O'Neal away, Jackson won two more titles with just Kobe. Not necessarily your average "stars".
With the superstars he had, there are many that say it would've been difficult NOT to win the championships he did. That's where the "legit vs. lucky" debate comes in. Was it Phil's coaching that led those teams to become NBA Champions, or was it the fact that he was coaching the best players in the game in their primes?
Let's take a look at a couple of things. For starters, since 1989 (the year Jackson took over the head coaching job for the Bulls), there have been only seven (7) different teams to win NBA Titles: Chicago Bulls (6), Los Angeles Lakers (5), San Antonio Spurs (4), Detroit Pistons (3), Houston Rockets (2), Miami Heat (1), and Boston Celtics (1). Of those 22 Championships, it could be argued that each of them had at least one "superstar" to lead the team, with the possible exception of one. That one exception could be the 2004 Detroit Pistons. That team had a great collection of players, but none that would be considered "superstars" by the normal standard. At that time, Chauncey Billups was just coming into his own, and Rasheed Wallace was a proven big man, but not someone you would build a team around if you were a general manager.
With that being said, every team in the NBA that wins an NBA Championship has a superstar player or two, or in some cases, even three. It might be Tim Duncan, it might be Hakeem Olajuwon, or it might be Kevin Garnett. Regardless, there have been superstars to win titles. So, does that make Greg Popovich, the coach of the San Antonio Spurs, "lucky" because he won four titles with Tim Duncan (two of those coming with the help of David Robinson, one of the greatest centers to ever play the game)? There are some that would say yes. Those people need to re-evaluate whether or not they actually understand sports, in general.
I am definitely not a fan of Phil Jackson's. To me, he's been a very arrogant, very smug coach. Some used to complain about the "Jordan Rules" when Michael Jordan played during those championship runs with the Bulls, but I'm one who believes in the "Jackson Rules." Jackson played the media to his advantage, making statements during interviews and press conferences that would seemingly change the officiating of the next game. His smug looks sitting on the bench would often silently scream "are you really making that call against MY team? Do you know who I am?" I've never been a fan, and that hasn't changed over the last 20 years.
Regardless of what you think of Jackson's attitude or personality, his coaching prowess can't be questioned. To win 11 championships in 20 seasons is something you haven't seen in any other sport from a coach/manager. To be able to harness the explosive personalities of Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, Kobe Bryant, and Shaquille O'Neal is something that not just any coach would be able to do. Jackson garnered respect from his players, regardless of what any may think of him. It's that respect that led him to those 11 championships, not the "superstars" he coached.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Boxing's Dark Days
For those of you who know me, you know that I'm a boxing fan. Something I always enjoyed doing was sitting around with my dad and a few other guys watching the big fight. There is something about the sport that intrigues me. A great, well-fought fight is like a work of art, and unfortunately, the artists are becoming few and far between.
Having been at a bachelor party this weekend, I was unable to see the Manny Pacquiao/Shane Mosley fight Saturday night, but I read about it here while I'm sitting at the airport waiting for my flight back home. From the sounds of it, the fight was the definition of one-sided. It's a widely shared opinion that Manny Pacquiao is the pound-for-pound best fighter in the world currently. Everyone is still dying to see what would be considered the "Fight of the Century" between Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. Unfortunately, even if that fight does take place, I'm not sure it would be enough to save the sport of boxing.
With MMA soaring in popularity over the last few years, boxing has lost quite a bit of luster, and it's really a shame. There are so many good, young fighters out there right now that are fighting a lot of tremendous fights, but for some reason, no one seems to care. The fact that you probably wouldn't be able to find someone that could name three heavyweight fighters right now is sad. The fact that there hasn't been a truly meaningful heavyweight fight in almost 10 years is even sadder.
Like all sports have done over the course of time, sometimes rules need to be changed or modified a bit for the betterment of the sport. I don't think boxing should be an exception to that. Maybe something along the lines of penalties for clinching would be something that could possibly speed up the sport a bit, especially at the heavyweight level. Or, better than even a rule change, perhaps televising a big time boxing match on network television might do the trick to help build a little steam around it. Let's be honest, at $64.99 for an HD pay-per-view, you're not going to get many of the average sports fans to pony up the money, even for a superstar like Manny Pacquiao.
The truly sad thing is that with the popularity of MMA now, many athletes are preferring to go that route than to lace up a pair of boxing gloves. You can go into bars now and see huge signs for the MMA fight coming up, but see very few for any boxing bout taking place. Aside from DirecTV and Xfinity, there didn't seem to be a lot of talk about the Pacquiao/Mosley fight at all, and obviously after the result, for good reason. But, when the mainstream media is giving more publicity to the MMA fighters and the UFC PPV events than they are boxing, why wouldn't a heavyweight athlete decide to steer toward mixed martial arts?
I will always be a fan of boxing, and still find it hard to get really into MMA. I continue to hope for the day where boxing finds its way back to mainstream status, and not just an afterthought.
Thoughts?
Having been at a bachelor party this weekend, I was unable to see the Manny Pacquiao/Shane Mosley fight Saturday night, but I read about it here while I'm sitting at the airport waiting for my flight back home. From the sounds of it, the fight was the definition of one-sided. It's a widely shared opinion that Manny Pacquiao is the pound-for-pound best fighter in the world currently. Everyone is still dying to see what would be considered the "Fight of the Century" between Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. Unfortunately, even if that fight does take place, I'm not sure it would be enough to save the sport of boxing.
With MMA soaring in popularity over the last few years, boxing has lost quite a bit of luster, and it's really a shame. There are so many good, young fighters out there right now that are fighting a lot of tremendous fights, but for some reason, no one seems to care. The fact that you probably wouldn't be able to find someone that could name three heavyweight fighters right now is sad. The fact that there hasn't been a truly meaningful heavyweight fight in almost 10 years is even sadder.
Like all sports have done over the course of time, sometimes rules need to be changed or modified a bit for the betterment of the sport. I don't think boxing should be an exception to that. Maybe something along the lines of penalties for clinching would be something that could possibly speed up the sport a bit, especially at the heavyweight level. Or, better than even a rule change, perhaps televising a big time boxing match on network television might do the trick to help build a little steam around it. Let's be honest, at $64.99 for an HD pay-per-view, you're not going to get many of the average sports fans to pony up the money, even for a superstar like Manny Pacquiao.
The truly sad thing is that with the popularity of MMA now, many athletes are preferring to go that route than to lace up a pair of boxing gloves. You can go into bars now and see huge signs for the MMA fight coming up, but see very few for any boxing bout taking place. Aside from DirecTV and Xfinity, there didn't seem to be a lot of talk about the Pacquiao/Mosley fight at all, and obviously after the result, for good reason. But, when the mainstream media is giving more publicity to the MMA fighters and the UFC PPV events than they are boxing, why wouldn't a heavyweight athlete decide to steer toward mixed martial arts?
I will always be a fan of boxing, and still find it hard to get really into MMA. I continue to hope for the day where boxing finds its way back to mainstream status, and not just an afterthought.
Thoughts?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
What's The Key To Starting An NFL Team?
If I asked ten different people what position they would build their NFL franchise around, I would probably get ten different answers. What makes sports so fun to me is that EVERYTHING can be debated. Who's the greatest quarterback of all time? That questions alone could call for hours of debate.
So, here goes nothing. First off, I want to thank John Kincade of ESPN Radio for asking this question last week before the NFL draft began. It really got me thinking. If the NFL were to wipe the slate clean for your favorite team, and were to turn the reins of building that team over to you as the new General Manager...how would you build your team? Are you a "defense wins championships" kinda person, or do you think the key to the Lombardi Trophy is through a Payton-esque running back? It's your team...tell me what you'd do?
Here's my philosophy...
For me, when I hear the phrase "defense wins championships," I cringe. Defense is no doubt one of the most important facets of the game. If you're team is giving up 40 points a game, odds aren't gonna be on your side to put up more W's than L's. Over the last few years, there have been a few instances of championship teams that relied heavily on their defense to help them win the Super Bowl. Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, and even last year's champions, the Green Bay Packers come to mind. In only one of those instances, however, do I believe defense was the reason the team was named Super Bowl Champions, and that team was the 2000-01 Baltimore Ravens.
When you look at the last six teams to win the Super Bowl, they all have one common factor that I believe gets overlooked by some. That common factor is what I would build my NFL franchise around.
An intelligent quarterback.
The last six Super Bowl winning quarterbacks all have that "something" that not all quarterbacks have, and that is the ability to break down the game as it happens. The mistakes they make are few and far between. Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, Roethlisberger again, and Tom Brady twice are the six quarterbacks that have combined to win the last eight Super Bowls.
Some may argue that Eli Manning makes far too many mistakes at times, but if you've watched any New York Giants games over the last two seasons, many of the mistakes made by Eli could very easily be placed on the shoulders of his receivers. That being said, Eli took a very average receiving corps to the Super Bowl and knocked off the undefeated New England Patriots back in 2008.
So, for me...that's the key factor I would look for when building my NFL franchise. If you don't have an intelligent quarterback leading your offense, it will be very difficult for your defense to do what it's truly supposed to do, and that's defend a lead. If your quarterback isn't able to keep his offense from going three and out consistently, your defense will be an awfully tired unit, unable to catch it's collective breath.
Let me have it. Tell me what you would do if you were starting your own NFL team.
So, here goes nothing. First off, I want to thank John Kincade of ESPN Radio for asking this question last week before the NFL draft began. It really got me thinking. If the NFL were to wipe the slate clean for your favorite team, and were to turn the reins of building that team over to you as the new General Manager...how would you build your team? Are you a "defense wins championships" kinda person, or do you think the key to the Lombardi Trophy is through a Payton-esque running back? It's your team...tell me what you'd do?
Here's my philosophy...
For me, when I hear the phrase "defense wins championships," I cringe. Defense is no doubt one of the most important facets of the game. If you're team is giving up 40 points a game, odds aren't gonna be on your side to put up more W's than L's. Over the last few years, there have been a few instances of championship teams that relied heavily on their defense to help them win the Super Bowl. Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, and even last year's champions, the Green Bay Packers come to mind. In only one of those instances, however, do I believe defense was the reason the team was named Super Bowl Champions, and that team was the 2000-01 Baltimore Ravens.
When you look at the last six teams to win the Super Bowl, they all have one common factor that I believe gets overlooked by some. That common factor is what I would build my NFL franchise around.
An intelligent quarterback.
The last six Super Bowl winning quarterbacks all have that "something" that not all quarterbacks have, and that is the ability to break down the game as it happens. The mistakes they make are few and far between. Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, Roethlisberger again, and Tom Brady twice are the six quarterbacks that have combined to win the last eight Super Bowls.
Some may argue that Eli Manning makes far too many mistakes at times, but if you've watched any New York Giants games over the last two seasons, many of the mistakes made by Eli could very easily be placed on the shoulders of his receivers. That being said, Eli took a very average receiving corps to the Super Bowl and knocked off the undefeated New England Patriots back in 2008.
So, for me...that's the key factor I would look for when building my NFL franchise. If you don't have an intelligent quarterback leading your offense, it will be very difficult for your defense to do what it's truly supposed to do, and that's defend a lead. If your quarterback isn't able to keep his offense from going three and out consistently, your defense will be an awfully tired unit, unable to catch it's collective breath.
Let me have it. Tell me what you would do if you were starting your own NFL team.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Did I Hear What I Thought I "Herd"
We all have options in life, whether we believe it or not. Those options lead us to decisions. For the average person...these decisions can be as basic as what to have for lunch, McDonald's or Subway. They can also be as intense as which job offer to take.
You didn't even have to be a sports fan to understand the "decision" that polarized the country last year. When LeBron James sat in front of a camera with Jim Gray last fall and announced "I'm going to take my talents to South Beach and join the Miami Heat," it wasn't just the city of Cleveland that collectively hung their heads. For those of us that had hoped LeBron was "something different" and wanted to truly become the greatest player of all time, we were right there with Cleveland raising our fists in frustration.
Some people believe that LeBron did nothing wrong...and in fact, what he did wasn't wrong. I don't think anyone really disputes that. Listening to Colin Cowherd, host of "The Herd" on ESPN Radio, you'd think that the ONLY choice LeBron had was to do what he did, and join Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami. Cowherd spent many mornings on his show over the previous two years tearing LeBron up for "choking" during playoff time each year. Now, suddenly, LeBron is someone he "roots" for.
His reason for being a big LeBron supporter now: You all would've done the same thing.
Listen...coming from someone I consider to be the prototypical "front-runner", it's now convenient to back LeBron and the Heat. They're leading their best-of-seven playoff series against the Boston Celtics 2-0, and looked rather impressive in each of those first two games. However, to say that, if given the chance, everyone else would've done what LeBron did is going a little far. Cowherd compared LeBron's decision to that of a lawyer going to a better law firm, or a nurse choosing to transfer to a better hospital. Same thing? It's not even really the same league.
Let's say, for arguments sake, this fictitious lawyer worked at a law firm that defended people who were wrongfully terminated from their place of employment. No, this doesn't have anything to do with my own current situation...thank you very much. Anyway...he defended employees who were taken advantage of, and then just let go, without cause. In each of these cases, our fictitious lawyer seemed to have the upper hand...until the very end. At that point, the high-powered attorneys for the companies he fought against wielded their high-powered hammers...and when the dust settles, his case is lost. Imagine this happening for three or four cases in a row. Frustrating, right?
Now...imagine our fictitious lawyer getting so tired of always losing these cases he was so close to winning, that he decides to head to the law firm that has defended the companies he's been losing his cases to. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? He was tired of losing, so why not join the team of winners. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Note to Colin Cowherd: the NBA and real-life are NOT the same thing! LeBron may not have been "wrong" from the standpoint that, as a free agent, he can choose whatever team he wants to once his contract is up. That doesn't mean that his "decision" was a good one. He had taken his team in Cleveland to the best record in the NBA the previous season, but couldn't close the deal. Personally...I think it would be far more impressive if the lawyer won his first case with the law firm he started with, rather than heading over to a bigger, better law firm because they give him a better chance to win, even if it's for the wrong cause.
So...what would you do?
You didn't even have to be a sports fan to understand the "decision" that polarized the country last year. When LeBron James sat in front of a camera with Jim Gray last fall and announced "I'm going to take my talents to South Beach and join the Miami Heat," it wasn't just the city of Cleveland that collectively hung their heads. For those of us that had hoped LeBron was "something different" and wanted to truly become the greatest player of all time, we were right there with Cleveland raising our fists in frustration.
Some people believe that LeBron did nothing wrong...and in fact, what he did wasn't wrong. I don't think anyone really disputes that. Listening to Colin Cowherd, host of "The Herd" on ESPN Radio, you'd think that the ONLY choice LeBron had was to do what he did, and join Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami. Cowherd spent many mornings on his show over the previous two years tearing LeBron up for "choking" during playoff time each year. Now, suddenly, LeBron is someone he "roots" for.
His reason for being a big LeBron supporter now: You all would've done the same thing.
Listen...coming from someone I consider to be the prototypical "front-runner", it's now convenient to back LeBron and the Heat. They're leading their best-of-seven playoff series against the Boston Celtics 2-0, and looked rather impressive in each of those first two games. However, to say that, if given the chance, everyone else would've done what LeBron did is going a little far. Cowherd compared LeBron's decision to that of a lawyer going to a better law firm, or a nurse choosing to transfer to a better hospital. Same thing? It's not even really the same league.
Let's say, for arguments sake, this fictitious lawyer worked at a law firm that defended people who were wrongfully terminated from their place of employment. No, this doesn't have anything to do with my own current situation...thank you very much. Anyway...he defended employees who were taken advantage of, and then just let go, without cause. In each of these cases, our fictitious lawyer seemed to have the upper hand...until the very end. At that point, the high-powered attorneys for the companies he fought against wielded their high-powered hammers...and when the dust settles, his case is lost. Imagine this happening for three or four cases in a row. Frustrating, right?
Now...imagine our fictitious lawyer getting so tired of always losing these cases he was so close to winning, that he decides to head to the law firm that has defended the companies he's been losing his cases to. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? He was tired of losing, so why not join the team of winners. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Note to Colin Cowherd: the NBA and real-life are NOT the same thing! LeBron may not have been "wrong" from the standpoint that, as a free agent, he can choose whatever team he wants to once his contract is up. That doesn't mean that his "decision" was a good one. He had taken his team in Cleveland to the best record in the NBA the previous season, but couldn't close the deal. Personally...I think it would be far more impressive if the lawyer won his first case with the law firm he started with, rather than heading over to a bigger, better law firm because they give him a better chance to win, even if it's for the wrong cause.
So...what would you do?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The LiriaNo-No
After Game 1 of the 2010 National League Division Series between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Cincinnati Reds, in which Roy Halladay no-hit the Reds...I began to debate with myself. The question I posed to myself was: What was more impressive...Halladay's Division Series no-no, Don Larson's perfect game back in Game 5 of the 1956 World Series, or Jack Morris's 10-inning Game 7 clinching performance in the 1991 World Series? I think it's safe to say that anyone can make a legitimate case for each of those three, (with my personal opinion being Morris's Game 7 performance, just based on the situation and all that was riding on it.)
After watching the first no-hitter of the 2011 season, thrown by Minnesota Twins left-hander Francisco Liriano...I began another debate with myself.
Does it ever matter how pretty a no-hitter is?
Liriano entered the game with a 9.13 ERA, and had just come off a start against the Tampa Bay Rays six days earlier in which he allowed five consecutive hits to start the game, leading to four quick runs. He seemingly couldn't throw anything WOULDN'T get hit. After 123 pitches on Tuesday night against the Chicago White Sox, Liriano had thrown his first career shut-out, his first career complete game, and his first career no-hitter. During his post-game interview, he was asked when he started to think about it. Liriano said it wasn't until the eighth inning that he realized it because...and I'm paraphrasing here..."there were so many guys on base all night that I didn't realize I hadn't given up any hits."
So, again I ask...Does it matter how pretty it is?
On the surface, if I were to tell you that only one White Sox hitter reach second base, and that was via a walk and a stolen base...you'd probably be pretty darn impressed. But...of the 123 pitches Liriano threw Tuesday night...only 66 were strikes. That's only He walked six White Sox hitters in what was, in all reality, a somewhat sloppy pitching performance. Some might say that Liriano was just being "careful" or was "staying away" from certain hitters. If that were the case...then why were three of those six walks issued to the lead-off hitter, Juan Pierre...easily the fastest player on Chicago's roster. In a 1-0 ball game...probably not the smartest idea. And, given Liriano's 2011 season thus far, control doesn't seem to be a strong suit...so the idea that those walks may have been by design...not very likely.
All things considered, I think any pitcher would take a no-hitter while walking six batters...opposed to a 1-0 victory while allowing six hits. That's a no-brainer. Any no-hitter on the winning side is great, pretty or not. But, if you're a Twins fan and are a little bothered by the "ugliness" of Francisco Liriano's performance...it could've been a worse, just talk to Andy Hawkins Back in 1990, Hawkins threw a no-hitter for New York Yankees against those same White Sox...but ended up losing the game, 4-0...the result of four errors by his defense. I think I'll take the six walks.
After watching the first no-hitter of the 2011 season, thrown by Minnesota Twins left-hander Francisco Liriano...I began another debate with myself.
Does it ever matter how pretty a no-hitter is?
Liriano entered the game with a 9.13 ERA, and had just come off a start against the Tampa Bay Rays six days earlier in which he allowed five consecutive hits to start the game, leading to four quick runs. He seemingly couldn't throw anything WOULDN'T get hit. After 123 pitches on Tuesday night against the Chicago White Sox, Liriano had thrown his first career shut-out, his first career complete game, and his first career no-hitter. During his post-game interview, he was asked when he started to think about it. Liriano said it wasn't until the eighth inning that he realized it because...and I'm paraphrasing here..."there were so many guys on base all night that I didn't realize I hadn't given up any hits."
So, again I ask...Does it matter how pretty it is?
On the surface, if I were to tell you that only one White Sox hitter reach second base, and that was via a walk and a stolen base...you'd probably be pretty darn impressed. But...of the 123 pitches Liriano threw Tuesday night...only 66 were strikes. That's only He walked six White Sox hitters in what was, in all reality, a somewhat sloppy pitching performance. Some might say that Liriano was just being "careful" or was "staying away" from certain hitters. If that were the case...then why were three of those six walks issued to the lead-off hitter, Juan Pierre...easily the fastest player on Chicago's roster. In a 1-0 ball game...probably not the smartest idea. And, given Liriano's 2011 season thus far, control doesn't seem to be a strong suit...so the idea that those walks may have been by design...not very likely.
All things considered, I think any pitcher would take a no-hitter while walking six batters...opposed to a 1-0 victory while allowing six hits. That's a no-brainer. Any no-hitter on the winning side is great, pretty or not. But, if you're a Twins fan and are a little bothered by the "ugliness" of Francisco Liriano's performance...it could've been a worse, just talk to Andy Hawkins Back in 1990, Hawkins threw a no-hitter for New York Yankees against those same White Sox...but ended up losing the game, 4-0...the result of four errors by his defense. I think I'll take the six walks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)