There are some players in sports you just want to dislike. It's easy to dislike guys like LeBron James. It's not tough to root against guys like Alex Rodriguez. Heck, some could make the argument that Michael Jordan, possibly the greatest basketball player of all time, was the most hated man in the NBA. In many cases, we dislike the successful players who play on the best teams. It's safe to say that the New York Yankees and their players could be the team in sports more hated and disliked than any other.
Try and try as you might, there is one Yankee player that is difficult to dislike. That player is Derek Jeter.
Throughout his 17-year career, Derek Jeter has been nothing but the consummate professional. He's not a trash-talker. He's not a hot dog. He is the definition of a "team leader". Within baseball, he is one of the most respected players in the game. "The Captain" is as appropriate a nickname as any in the game. On Saturday, Jeter became the 28th player in Major League history to reach the 3,000 hit milestone, going 5-5 in the game, and reaching the magical number with a solo home run in the third-inning.
Over the last 20 years, with players embracing the free agent idea more and more, it's rare to see someone of Jeter's caliber remain with the team that drafted him, but, he has. He is easily one of the greatest Yankees to ever play the game, and when you're mentioned with the likes of Mickey Mantle, Babe Rute, Joe Dimaggio, and Lou Gehrig, that is truly saying something. Of those Yankee greats, Jeter became the first of them all to reach that amazing feat. Truly a special moment in that team's rich history.
Being a Minnesota Twins fan, the Yankees have been our playoff nemesis over the last few years. We have nothing compared to the great rivalry between the Yankees and Boston Red Sox. Regardless, both Twins and Red Sox fans, as well as all baseball fans alike, have to respect what Derek Jeter has done over his career. In this day and age, it's difficult to find players like him. We've seen some fantastic shortstops come and go over the last 20 years, but Jeter stands head and shoulders above them all. His yearly numbers may not be as great as some others (Alex Rodriguez when he was with the Rangers, Hanley Ramirez of the Marlins, Jimmy Rollins of the Phillies to name a few) but there hasn't been a better leader and a more consistent guy in baseball over that time. If you're building a team from scratch, Jeter is the type of player you would want to build around.
Congratulations to Derek Jeter. Easily one of the greatest Yankees of all-time, and a sure-fire first ballot Hall of Famer!
Showing posts with label Michael Jordan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Jordan. Show all posts
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
If It's Broke, Joe, Fix It
The old saying says that, if something isn't broke, you don't try to fix it. Although that's the philosophy, it should also be allowed to work in reverse order. If something's not working, then a different tactic needs to be tried. This flip-flopped mentality should be one adopted by Mr. Joe Mauer. Just because he might be a three-time American League batting champ, doesn't mean he shouldn't need to adapt to the changing landscape.
It's hard to argue with success, but that doesn't mean you can't. As we've seen Joe struggle over the years, when he actually has, many fans tend to fall into the "look at his track record" stance. Prior to this season, Mauer has it .347, .293, .328, .365, and .327 over his last five campaigns. His career batting average is .325. So, when we see Mauer struggle, many fans just assume that he'll find his way out of it, just based on his past history. The real question should be, how long does one wait before making a change to improve? If Mauer continues on his current pace, hitting only .200 thus far during his injury plagued 2011 season, when is it time for Joe to tweak things up a bit? After the season? After he struggles in 2012? Or, should he learn to adapt immediately? In my opinion, the change needs to happen sooner, rather than later!
Watching Mauer since his return to the lineup on June 17th, his approach to the plate doesn't appear to be any different than it has been in the past. In 22 total plate appearances since his return, he has taken a total of 10 first-pitch strikes, more than likely balls right down the heart of the plate. Out of those 22 plate appearances, only twice did he not take a first strike, once resulting in a four-pitch walk and once resulting in a fly-out to center. The other 20 at-bats, the first strike thrown to Mauer, he watched go right by him. Often times, this results in him being immediately behind in the count. Not including 2011, here are Joe's stats behind, even, and ahead in the count:
It's hard to argue with success, but that doesn't mean you can't. As we've seen Joe struggle over the years, when he actually has, many fans tend to fall into the "look at his track record" stance. Prior to this season, Mauer has it .347, .293, .328, .365, and .327 over his last five campaigns. His career batting average is .325. So, when we see Mauer struggle, many fans just assume that he'll find his way out of it, just based on his past history. The real question should be, how long does one wait before making a change to improve? If Mauer continues on his current pace, hitting only .200 thus far during his injury plagued 2011 season, when is it time for Joe to tweak things up a bit? After the season? After he struggles in 2012? Or, should he learn to adapt immediately? In my opinion, the change needs to happen sooner, rather than later!
Watching Mauer since his return to the lineup on June 17th, his approach to the plate doesn't appear to be any different than it has been in the past. In 22 total plate appearances since his return, he has taken a total of 10 first-pitch strikes, more than likely balls right down the heart of the plate. Out of those 22 plate appearances, only twice did he not take a first strike, once resulting in a four-pitch walk and once resulting in a fly-out to center. The other 20 at-bats, the first strike thrown to Mauer, he watched go right by him. Often times, this results in him being immediately behind in the count. Not including 2011, here are Joe's stats behind, even, and ahead in the count:
Behind In The Count: 272 for 1,000 = .272 Average
Even In The Count: 356 for 1,073 = .332 Average
Ahead In The Count: 383 for 1,019 = .376 Average
When you look at those numbers, it doesn't seem like the smartest idea to get behind in the count by taking a first-pitch strike right away. It's something many fans have even joked about during Mauer at-bats. It's common knowledge around the league that you can get ahead of Mauer right away, just by throwing a fast ball down the middle on the first pitch, because he won't swing at it. Oh, it should also be noted that, over the last three seasons, Mauer is hitting .463 with 8 doubles, 5 HR's, and 23 RBI's when swinging at the first pitch. In 2009, in 523 total at-bats, Mauer swung at a total of 19 first pitches. Of those 19 first pitches he took a whack at, Mauer had 9 hits, including one double and three HR's. When certain undisciplined hitters (i.e. Delmon Young) swing at the first pitch, it often gives the notion a bad name. But, when you're one of the most disciplined, cerebral hitters in baseball, it might not be a terrible idea.
Now that we've addressed the first strike issue with Joe, we need to discuss where he's actually hitting the ball. I joked earlier in the week about the notion of the "Mauer Shift", saying that if teams were smart, they would bring all three outfielders onto the third base side of second base. All joking aside, over his career, probably more than any other hitter in baseball, Joe Mauer has made a living hitting the ball to the opposite field. In his MVP season of 2009, Mauer had a .510 average hitting the ball to left field. It's something he's perfected from the time he came into the big leagues. However, I want you to think about something for a moment. Early in his career, Michael Jordan was one of the NBA's best at getting to the rim, finishing with acrobatic mid-air moves and even more spectacular dunks. At some point just before he led the Bulls to their first three NBA Championships, he made a decision to expand his game out to the perimeter, where he quickly became one of the best shooters in the game. Sometimes, a player just needs to make the necessary change to evolve into something greater. It appeared we started to see that evolution in 2009 with Mauer, but unlike Jordan, he's been unable to sustain that evolved state.
We all understand that Joe is coming back from an injury, which is no doubt affecting his abilities at the plate somewhat. What most people aren't realizing is that, the ability to adapt and evolve was present in 2009, and disappeared in 2010. It was almost as if Joe was saying, "See, I can hit for both average and power, so now you can leave me alone." It seems as though for one season, he proved he could do it, but has chosen not to pursue that style anymore. We've seen it done once before, now we need to start seeing Joe get back to that. As of now, it appears he's more interested in flipping the ball into left field than he does driving the ball to a gap. Because of this perception, teams are using Mauer's hitting style against him. They are getting him started with a first-pitch strike, then proceeding to pitch him inside, knowing that rather than pull the ball to right field, he will inevitably try to inside-out the ball to left. Joe needs to evolve as a great hitter and learn to adapt to this opposing strategy.
There is no doubt that Joe Mauer is one of the greatest hitters of this generation. It's probably also a safe bet that his three batting titles are great credentials for a ticket to Cooperstown when he's done playing. But what makes great players great is, not only their ability to, but their drive to evolve and adapt to the ever-changing landscape of the game. For the Twins to be successful this season, and those going forward, they'll need their All-Star catcher to find the drive to go with his unquestionable ability.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
LeBron's Legacy Can't Stack Up With Other Greats
When it comes to gut-check time in sports, there are certain superstars in history that show they want to be "the guy" (or "the girl" in ladies sports). There are names that come to mind: Michael Jordan, Curt Schilling, Derek Jeter, Kobe Bryant, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady to name a few. One name that won't appear on that list is LeBron James. His lackluster performance in the NBA Finals thus far has many asking questions about his heart and about his drive. With the Dallas Mavericks taking a 3-2 series lead on Thursday night, it appears that LeBron is exhibiting neither.
This NBA Finals was supposed to be LeBron's coming-out party. He made his bed by "taking his talents to South Beach," and this was the time he was supposed to sleep in that bed. Unfortunately for Heat fans, LeBron is showing why his Cavaliers teams of the past always came up short at the end. When you look back at championship teams led by Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, what you saw was an unwillingness to accept defeat. Their drive and their heart carried their teams to multiple championships, not just one. And, aside from Kobe's first three titles with the help of Shaquille O'Neal at his side, neither Jordan or Kobe had multiple superstars to play with. LeBron has two in Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. And what we're seeing from LeBron is more of a stance of "I'll take a back seat to let you two be the stars." That's not the attitude of a champion.
Yes, champions are unselfish. Champions know when to delegate. But champions also know when it's time to take over and ensure victory. With all the scrutiny placed on LeBron this season, this was his time to squash all of his "haters" and critics. Instead, he's gained more of each, and in some cases, deservedly so. Scoring 8 points in Game Four showed a complete lack of heart. That performance was his first single-digit scoring performance in over four years, and it came at a time when he should've been having his best performance in four years. When questioned after both Game Three and Game Four, LeBron insinuated that he was allowing Dwyane Wade to be "the guy." This was a convenient reason given the results of each game. But, had that game plan been one that was discussed before the series started, it's probably one that we all could've bought as legit. Instead, we got the performances, followed by the "reason" for the performances. Put two and two together here.
Thursday morning, a rumor began circulating that LeBron's Game Four performance came because of a lack of focus. That lack of focus was apparently caused by something off the court. Regardless of what this may have been, it shows his inability to compartmentalize outside situations and take control of things on the court, as a true leader would do. Instead, he decided to defer to the other stars on his team...not in the way of delegation, but moreso in the way of pacification. He chose to take himself out of the mix, and it cost his team a game. After the game, as a result of his passive approach, he chose to put much more undue pressure on himself for Game Five, tweeting that "It's now or never." What the Heat got was a slightly better version than the Game Four LeBron, but still a shell of what a leader should be.
And the result? A long flight back to Miami with the likelihood of being sent home as the 2011 NBA Finals Runners-Up after Game 6, and an off-season to contemplate what you actually want your legacy to be. The question is whether or not LeBron has the heart to change that legacy. At this point, that doesn't appear likely.
This NBA Finals was supposed to be LeBron's coming-out party. He made his bed by "taking his talents to South Beach," and this was the time he was supposed to sleep in that bed. Unfortunately for Heat fans, LeBron is showing why his Cavaliers teams of the past always came up short at the end. When you look back at championship teams led by Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, what you saw was an unwillingness to accept defeat. Their drive and their heart carried their teams to multiple championships, not just one. And, aside from Kobe's first three titles with the help of Shaquille O'Neal at his side, neither Jordan or Kobe had multiple superstars to play with. LeBron has two in Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. And what we're seeing from LeBron is more of a stance of "I'll take a back seat to let you two be the stars." That's not the attitude of a champion.
Yes, champions are unselfish. Champions know when to delegate. But champions also know when it's time to take over and ensure victory. With all the scrutiny placed on LeBron this season, this was his time to squash all of his "haters" and critics. Instead, he's gained more of each, and in some cases, deservedly so. Scoring 8 points in Game Four showed a complete lack of heart. That performance was his first single-digit scoring performance in over four years, and it came at a time when he should've been having his best performance in four years. When questioned after both Game Three and Game Four, LeBron insinuated that he was allowing Dwyane Wade to be "the guy." This was a convenient reason given the results of each game. But, had that game plan been one that was discussed before the series started, it's probably one that we all could've bought as legit. Instead, we got the performances, followed by the "reason" for the performances. Put two and two together here.
Thursday morning, a rumor began circulating that LeBron's Game Four performance came because of a lack of focus. That lack of focus was apparently caused by something off the court. Regardless of what this may have been, it shows his inability to compartmentalize outside situations and take control of things on the court, as a true leader would do. Instead, he decided to defer to the other stars on his team...not in the way of delegation, but moreso in the way of pacification. He chose to take himself out of the mix, and it cost his team a game. After the game, as a result of his passive approach, he chose to put much more undue pressure on himself for Game Five, tweeting that "It's now or never." What the Heat got was a slightly better version than the Game Four LeBron, but still a shell of what a leader should be.
And the result? A long flight back to Miami with the likelihood of being sent home as the 2011 NBA Finals Runners-Up after Game 6, and an off-season to contemplate what you actually want your legacy to be. The question is whether or not LeBron has the heart to change that legacy. At this point, that doesn't appear likely.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)