Disclaimer: this post talks about economics, statistics, and football. If you are a curmudgeonly old man who thinks statistics have no place in sports, and are scared of phrases like "expected points value," don't read any further. Just go back to calling David Eckstein the best player in baseball and listening to Joe Morgan make fun of Moneyball.
Tonight, December 1, 2007, the top two college teams in the country are playing football. Missouri is number 1 (I don't mean this like their cheerleaders mean it. I only mean they are ranked number 1). West Virginia is number 2. Remarkably, they both had the same situation early in the game. Both had fourth down and goal to go from the two yard line. Both kicked field goals. Both did the wrong things, at least if you think scoring more points than your opponent is the right thing to do in football.
Here is an article by an economics professor at Berkely (or, as it's known in the college football game, Cal): http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdf
The article contains statistics showing that football teams going for it on fourth and goal from the two score a touchdown about sixty-four percent of the time (the figure in on page 16). That means, on average, the expected point value of going for it is 4.46 points, since they will get seven points if they score a touchdown, and 64 percent times seven is 4.46. If they go for the field goal, they have a nearly 100 percent chance of scoring three points, so three is their expected points value. 4.46 is more than three.
But the case for going for it gets more attractive. If you go for it and fail, your opponents will take the ball at the two yard line. If a team starts a drive at the two yard line, they average scoring -0.2 points (because of the possibility of a safety). If you kick a field goal and make it, the other team will take the ball over at around the twenty-five yard line. Teams score an average of 1.86 points from the twenty-five yard line. So the real expected value of going for it is 4.66 points--4.46 plus -0.2--and kicking the field goal drops to 1.14--three minus 1.86.
This guy gives plenty of reasons why coaches usually kick it in the situation Missouri and West Virginia found themselves. But the biggest one has to be this: coaches always go for it in that situation. Commentators call it "a smart play" to take the points you know you will get, and call it "rolling the dice" for taking a sixty-four percent chance of scoring seven points, and a far worse situation for your opponent even if you fail. Fans--even smart fans--usually don't think about these percentages. So if no one is going to call you out on making a far worse call, and they will hassle you for making the far better call, you go for the far worse call.
And, as of this writing, Missouri is losing by eight, and West Virginia only leads 4-7 Pitt by four.
--Paul
Update: Both teams lost; Missouri by a lot, West Virginia by less than a touchdown.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
I guess Kirk gets frustrated easily
Watching ESPN can be frustrating sometimes. They hire terrible commentators like Skip Bayless, John Kruk, and Lou Holtz. Their NBA shoot-around--to which they dedicate a half an hour, three times a week--features Steven A. Smith and Bill Walton.
That said, Kirk Herbstreit is great. He co-hosts College Gameday with Lee Corso (who knows nothing about college football, but who dresses up like the mascot of the team he likes to win the big game of the week.) The show airs once a week, on Saturday mornings, and reviews and previews college football. Kirk is generally well prepared and knowledgable about the subject he gets paid to be knowledgeable about: college football.
But this morning, gameday decided to veer from the game of football, and instead to talk about race; specifically race in college football coaching. The conversation went about how you'd expect. All lamented about how few black men hold the title of head coach for division I football teams. All said we should do more to fix the problem. So far, I had about the same reaction I have when Barbara Streisand endorsed Hillary Clinton. "That's great, but I pay you to sing/discuss football. Your opinion on the subject carries as much weight as do my thoughts on gardening."
Then Kirk said this: "It's not just the head coaches. There are 240 offensive and defensive coordinators [the second rung on the coaching ladder] in division I football. Of those, only 28 are black. That's whats so frustrating to me."
First, kudos on actually giving statistics, Kirk. Most discussions of race and how little progress we've made go like this:
Person: "We have made little progress on race."
Me: "Really? Richard Parsons heads the largest entertainment company in the world. Barak Obama leads polls in Iowa. Billy Martin is, if not the best private lawyer in America, at least in the top ten. They are all black. It seems to me making progress must mean seeing racial minorities in top positions in business, law, and politics."
Person: "You are a racist."
But here is the problem with what Kirk said. 28 of 240 is 11.6 percent. According to the U.S. census, African-Americans make up 13.3 percent of America's population. That is under-representation of 1.7 percent. Or, as the economists call it, statistically insignificant. Is this really enough of an under-representation to make Kirk frustrated? To be fair, I started this post by saying I get frustrated because a sports station sometimes put people on the air I don't like. But I get frustrated easily. I guess Kirk does too.
That said, Kirk Herbstreit is great. He co-hosts College Gameday with Lee Corso (who knows nothing about college football, but who dresses up like the mascot of the team he likes to win the big game of the week.) The show airs once a week, on Saturday mornings, and reviews and previews college football. Kirk is generally well prepared and knowledgable about the subject he gets paid to be knowledgeable about: college football.
But this morning, gameday decided to veer from the game of football, and instead to talk about race; specifically race in college football coaching. The conversation went about how you'd expect. All lamented about how few black men hold the title of head coach for division I football teams. All said we should do more to fix the problem. So far, I had about the same reaction I have when Barbara Streisand endorsed Hillary Clinton. "That's great, but I pay you to sing/discuss football. Your opinion on the subject carries as much weight as do my thoughts on gardening."
Then Kirk said this: "It's not just the head coaches. There are 240 offensive and defensive coordinators [the second rung on the coaching ladder] in division I football. Of those, only 28 are black. That's whats so frustrating to me."
First, kudos on actually giving statistics, Kirk. Most discussions of race and how little progress we've made go like this:
Person: "We have made little progress on race."
Me: "Really? Richard Parsons heads the largest entertainment company in the world. Barak Obama leads polls in Iowa. Billy Martin is, if not the best private lawyer in America, at least in the top ten. They are all black. It seems to me making progress must mean seeing racial minorities in top positions in business, law, and politics."
Person: "You are a racist."
But here is the problem with what Kirk said. 28 of 240 is 11.6 percent. According to the U.S. census, African-Americans make up 13.3 percent of America's population. That is under-representation of 1.7 percent. Or, as the economists call it, statistically insignificant. Is this really enough of an under-representation to make Kirk frustrated? To be fair, I started this post by saying I get frustrated because a sports station sometimes put people on the air I don't like. But I get frustrated easily. I guess Kirk does too.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Yankees fan press conference
The following is a transcript from the press release held by Yankee's fans spokesman, John Simpson, from South Bronx:
Reporter 1: John, what you think about Alex Rodriguez?
John: He's the best. He's hit a homer in each of his last five games, two of which were walk-off. Best player in the game.
Reporter 1: If I can ask a follow-up, though. Last year, in September, you said "A-Rod is a f****** jack a** who's not even good enough to s*** Derek Jeter's d***."
John: I stand by those comments. We Yankee's fans don't have the sense, understanding, or basic thinking skills to understand that player's play in peaks and valleys. Our long-term memory can only best be described as being slightly better than that guy in Memento.
Reporter 2: With your entire pitching staff injured, how do you think the team is going to fare?
John: It's no big deal. So what if our starting pitching was suspect to begin with, and now we have to start a weak version of a weak version of Roger Clemens. Don't you know that we can just buy a championship? We are just going to buy some pitchers. We will pay them a ton of money, and they will just win a world series. Haven't you been watching baseball for the last seven years?
Reporter 2: With all due respect John, and this goes for all Yankee's fans, haven't you?
Reporter 3: John, what do you think of Derek Jeter averaging 2.1 errors per game?
John: Derek Jeter is God. So what if someone replaced his hands with concrete blocks and that now, instead of his own throwing arm, he has the arm of an eleven-year-old girl? He's still the best player in the game.
Reporter 3: You just said A-Rod was the best player in the game.
John: Yep. A-Rod, Jeter, Robinson Cano; all the best player in the game.
Reporter 4: John, last year, you said "Gary Sheffield and Randy Johnson are the best player in the game".
[At this point, John screamed several obscenities and leaped at the reporter. As of press time, he is in New York Federal prison, sharing a cell with Jason Giambi.]
Reporter 1: John, what you think about Alex Rodriguez?
John: He's the best. He's hit a homer in each of his last five games, two of which were walk-off. Best player in the game.
Reporter 1: If I can ask a follow-up, though. Last year, in September, you said "A-Rod is a f****** jack a** who's not even good enough to s*** Derek Jeter's d***."
John: I stand by those comments. We Yankee's fans don't have the sense, understanding, or basic thinking skills to understand that player's play in peaks and valleys. Our long-term memory can only best be described as being slightly better than that guy in Memento.
Reporter 2: With your entire pitching staff injured, how do you think the team is going to fare?
John: It's no big deal. So what if our starting pitching was suspect to begin with, and now we have to start a weak version of a weak version of Roger Clemens. Don't you know that we can just buy a championship? We are just going to buy some pitchers. We will pay them a ton of money, and they will just win a world series. Haven't you been watching baseball for the last seven years?
Reporter 2: With all due respect John, and this goes for all Yankee's fans, haven't you?
Reporter 3: John, what do you think of Derek Jeter averaging 2.1 errors per game?
John: Derek Jeter is God. So what if someone replaced his hands with concrete blocks and that now, instead of his own throwing arm, he has the arm of an eleven-year-old girl? He's still the best player in the game.
Reporter 3: You just said A-Rod was the best player in the game.
John: Yep. A-Rod, Jeter, Robinson Cano; all the best player in the game.
Reporter 4: John, last year, you said "Gary Sheffield and Randy Johnson are the best player in the game".
[At this point, John screamed several obscenities and leaped at the reporter. As of press time, he is in New York Federal prison, sharing a cell with Jason Giambi.]
Thursday, April 19, 2007
"We are Virgnia Tech."
It’s fashionable for the sports media to mine the commonalities of public sentiment for some reason every fan should rally around a given team or player. Peyton Manning has never won a Super Bowl. Jerome Bettis is coming home to Detroit. George Mason is… well, George Mason.
In most instances, the echoes of the rally cry aren’t audible beyond the trivial realm of sports. But there are some exceptions. In 1970, 37 members of Marshall University’s football team perished in a plane crash, giving sports fans and non-sports fans alike a team to pull for in the season to follow. And even in 2002, 32 years after the Kent State shootings, people still seemed to sympathize with the Golden Flashes in their run to the Elite Eight.
I have been blown away by the maturity displayed by every Virginia Tech student who I’ve seen interviewed on T.V. this week, and their character is only accentuated when contrasted with the embarrassing behavior of a media which has callously disregarded the wishes of VaTech students and the families of the deceased by continuing to play this shithead punk’s mindless diatribe about nothing. And I literally had to turn off CNN this morning because the reporter would not stop trying to bait a student into blaming Virginia Tech’s administration. As the student pointed out, at the convocation, VaTech’s president received a thunderous ovation, louder than the reception for both President Bush and Governor Kayne. He also repeatedly asked that CNN stop showing pictures of that shithead punk (well, he didn’t use those words) and start focusing on the surviving students, the families, and school.
I certainly don’t mean to trivialize what’s happened at Virginia Tech by discussing it in the context of sports. But I think that this is one of those unique times the importance of athletics transcends the playing field. For better or worse, Americans’ love of sports has resulted in athletic competitions serving a cathartic role in times of national strife. The sight of NFL players sprinting on to the field holding American flags on their first Sunday back after 9-11 was more uplifting for many Americans than any politician’s words of solace. The thought of it alone still gives me goose bumps. And next fall, the eyes of the nation will be on Virginia Tech’s football team as they take the field. Every year I’m excited about the start of the college football season, but this year, I’ll be even more excited. I have a new team to root for, and I’m looking forward to it. At the risk of sounding Hokie, “We are Virginia Tech.”
(And now for my own diatribe: I am so damn sick of this shithead punk being described as “troubled” and “disturbed”. I’ll send my life savings, all $58 of it, to the first media personality that gets on the hair and says, “You know what: this kid was just a shithead who’s parents should be shot for not using a rubber." Stop describing him in a manner that makes him sound less responsible for what was obviously a premeditated, carefully planned massacre. Also, why do we need to continuously see the pictures of him? First, that’s exactly what he wanted: he knew his life wasn’t going to add up to a damn thing, so he goes on a shooting rampage for posthumous attention and the media is all too happy to cooperate by showing his inane videos against the wishes of the Virginia Tech community. Second, it’s amazing how someone with two Glocks in his hands still looks like a total freakin’ nerd. Again, the media: they act like this shithead is the most intimidating thing they’ve ever seen. No, he looks like a prepubescent choir boy who can’t even look intimidating when he’s got two Glocks in his hands. He epitomizes cowardice and weakness. Stop making me look at his sorry ass and start focusing on the unbelievable acts of heroism, the recovery of those that survived, and the families of those that didn’t.)
-Ryan
In most instances, the echoes of the rally cry aren’t audible beyond the trivial realm of sports. But there are some exceptions. In 1970, 37 members of Marshall University’s football team perished in a plane crash, giving sports fans and non-sports fans alike a team to pull for in the season to follow. And even in 2002, 32 years after the Kent State shootings, people still seemed to sympathize with the Golden Flashes in their run to the Elite Eight.
I have been blown away by the maturity displayed by every Virginia Tech student who I’ve seen interviewed on T.V. this week, and their character is only accentuated when contrasted with the embarrassing behavior of a media which has callously disregarded the wishes of VaTech students and the families of the deceased by continuing to play this shithead punk’s mindless diatribe about nothing. And I literally had to turn off CNN this morning because the reporter would not stop trying to bait a student into blaming Virginia Tech’s administration. As the student pointed out, at the convocation, VaTech’s president received a thunderous ovation, louder than the reception for both President Bush and Governor Kayne. He also repeatedly asked that CNN stop showing pictures of that shithead punk (well, he didn’t use those words) and start focusing on the surviving students, the families, and school.
I certainly don’t mean to trivialize what’s happened at Virginia Tech by discussing it in the context of sports. But I think that this is one of those unique times the importance of athletics transcends the playing field. For better or worse, Americans’ love of sports has resulted in athletic competitions serving a cathartic role in times of national strife. The sight of NFL players sprinting on to the field holding American flags on their first Sunday back after 9-11 was more uplifting for many Americans than any politician’s words of solace. The thought of it alone still gives me goose bumps. And next fall, the eyes of the nation will be on Virginia Tech’s football team as they take the field. Every year I’m excited about the start of the college football season, but this year, I’ll be even more excited. I have a new team to root for, and I’m looking forward to it. At the risk of sounding Hokie, “We are Virginia Tech.”
(And now for my own diatribe: I am so damn sick of this shithead punk being described as “troubled” and “disturbed”. I’ll send my life savings, all $58 of it, to the first media personality that gets on the hair and says, “You know what: this kid was just a shithead who’s parents should be shot for not using a rubber." Stop describing him in a manner that makes him sound less responsible for what was obviously a premeditated, carefully planned massacre. Also, why do we need to continuously see the pictures of him? First, that’s exactly what he wanted: he knew his life wasn’t going to add up to a damn thing, so he goes on a shooting rampage for posthumous attention and the media is all too happy to cooperate by showing his inane videos against the wishes of the Virginia Tech community. Second, it’s amazing how someone with two Glocks in his hands still looks like a total freakin’ nerd. Again, the media: they act like this shithead is the most intimidating thing they’ve ever seen. No, he looks like a prepubescent choir boy who can’t even look intimidating when he’s got two Glocks in his hands. He epitomizes cowardice and weakness. Stop making me look at his sorry ass and start focusing on the unbelievable acts of heroism, the recovery of those that survived, and the families of those that didn’t.)
-Ryan
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Understanding Equality: Where the Sports World's Gifts to Nacho Consumption (Bowling) and the Civil Rights Movement (Jackie Robinson) Intersect
I’ve been yearning for a Vanderbilt team to finally win the university’s first national championship, and this what I get:
http://vucommodores.cstv.com/sports/w-bowl/recaps/041407aab.html
This is incredibl…….LY depressing. Vanderbilt’s first national team championship came with a 4-3 victory over Maryland Eastern Shore. Oh yes, and it’s WOMEN’S BOWLING.
Vanderbilt athletics has been steadily improving over the past half decade, and a few teams, notably the men’s tennis and women’s basketball teams, have flirted with national championships in recent years. Oh, and Vandy’s baseball team is currently ranked #1 in the country. But the WOMEN’S BOWLING team has beat them to the punch, forever enshrining themselves into the shame every Vandy alum will feel when answering the question, “Which team won your alma mater’s first national championship?”
This is beyond anticlimactic - it’s like a woman preserving her virginity until her wedding day and then sealing the deal in a bathroom stall at the reception. Add the fate-cheating element of this taking place the year the baseball team is number one in the country, and the simile’s only fitting if it’s with the best man.
But it gets better. Around the time the women’s bowling team was added at Vanderbilt, a competitive men’s soccer program was dropped. Yep, it’s another example of measuring equality purely in terms of numbers. Take one sport, soccer, in which literally hundreds of thousands of boys participate every year, and replace it with another sport, bowling (and calling bowling “a sport” is an act of Andrew Carnegie-esque charity on my part), where I’m betting you literally have the supply of quota-minded universities creating the demand of interested players, and you have “equality” as its come to be understood in American sports. Unfortunately, complete numerical parity is what counts, not actual opportunity measured against those actually seeking it. Does anyone honestly think that any of those girls started going to the bowling alley as young kids with the hopes that one day it would lead to a full ride at a top-20 university? No, they were there because they were too lame to hang out with the kids at the arcade and too heavy to play softball.
But the confusion between equality opportunity and numerical symmetry does not end with the inane manner in which Title IX has been applied. Consider the outright stupidity of how Jackie Robinson’s legacy has been treated this week. How many ESPN segments have you seen on the decline in Blacks’ participation in baseball, which almost invariably include the narrator somberly asking, “What would Jackie Robinson think about this if he were alive today?”
Seriously, how myopic can people be? Before Robinson broke the color barrier, there were no Blacks in baseball by policy; today, it’s by choice. Black athletes have entered into and excelled at other sports, and they have Robinson to thank. What says more about the progress - or lack thereof – we’ve made in opening doors for black athletes: the fact that blacks, by choice, are taking up baseball in less numbers or the fact that the best golfer in the world is not Caucasian? Tiger Woods has Robinson to thank. Meanwhile, other people of other racial minorities have thrived in Major League baseball. They, too, have Robinson to thank. Black Americans have moved away from baseball, but it’s been out of their own free will. That they have such mobility now is something to be celebrated.
To confine Robinson’s contribution to the sport of baseball is like saying Rosa Park’s enduring legacy is all about getting better seats on public buses. In terms of facilitating the Civil Right movement, the emergence of black athletes into major professional sports leagues and NCAA athletic conferences arguably comes only second in importance to the valiant contributions of Black Americans serving their country in World War II. The glass ceiling Robinson shattered had extended over all athletic opportunities in this country, but more importantly, it extended over equality in public services and facilities, educational opportunities, housing provisions, politics, the courts, and just about any other facet of life where there was an opportunity for racial oppression to manifest itself. Robinson forced America, the Land of Opportunity, to look itself in the mirror and acknowledge pervasive injustice and hypocrisy. So to answer the braindead ESPN reporter’s question on what Jackie Robinson would think about the current face of the Major League, I pose my own questions: Would Robinson be made aware that Blacks, as well as other racial minorities, can and have chosen to participate in any sport they wish, including sports such as golf where minority participation would have been unimaginable when he first walked on to Ebbets Field? Would Robinson be made aware that blacks are not only dominating in other professional sports, but they’ve transcended the courts and playing fields and are now serving as head coaches and front office personnel? Are you going to mention to him that since his death, there’s been an emergence of black CEOs, two black Secretaries of State, and there’s a very real possibility the next American president will be black? And oh yeah, are you going to mention that while yes, there’s been a decline in the number of black baseball players, it’s out of self-selection, not discrimination? Because if you did mention these things, I don’t think Jackie Robinson would share your pessimism.
Workin’ for the weekend,
Ryan
I have my own Title IX story. Ironically, it is also the story of when I knew I was not a liberal. I was nine, and I was the starting shortstop for my little league team. A girl sued our league to play and a judge agreed, forcing the league to accept her. She was put on our team. Up to this point, I did not care. If she could play, I did not care if she was man, woman, or some kind of hermaphradite like Sanjaya from American Idol.
Then it happened. On her second day of practice with our team, we were turning double plays. I was playing shortstop; she was at second base. The coach hit a ball to my right, and I ranged to get it. I turned and threw a perfect ball to her. Rather than gracefully catch the ball and turn the play--what our former starting second baseman, who now started on the bench, would have done--she completely missed the ball and it hit her in the face, cutting her lip. She cried and ran off the field. I did not feel one shred of regret or compassion for her. And I still don't.
--Paul
http://vucommodores.cstv.com/sports/w-bowl/recaps/041407aab.html
This is incredibl…….LY depressing. Vanderbilt’s first national team championship came with a 4-3 victory over Maryland Eastern Shore. Oh yes, and it’s WOMEN’S BOWLING.
Vanderbilt athletics has been steadily improving over the past half decade, and a few teams, notably the men’s tennis and women’s basketball teams, have flirted with national championships in recent years. Oh, and Vandy’s baseball team is currently ranked #1 in the country. But the WOMEN’S BOWLING team has beat them to the punch, forever enshrining themselves into the shame every Vandy alum will feel when answering the question, “Which team won your alma mater’s first national championship?”
This is beyond anticlimactic - it’s like a woman preserving her virginity until her wedding day and then sealing the deal in a bathroom stall at the reception. Add the fate-cheating element of this taking place the year the baseball team is number one in the country, and the simile’s only fitting if it’s with the best man.
But it gets better. Around the time the women’s bowling team was added at Vanderbilt, a competitive men’s soccer program was dropped. Yep, it’s another example of measuring equality purely in terms of numbers. Take one sport, soccer, in which literally hundreds of thousands of boys participate every year, and replace it with another sport, bowling (and calling bowling “a sport” is an act of Andrew Carnegie-esque charity on my part), where I’m betting you literally have the supply of quota-minded universities creating the demand of interested players, and you have “equality” as its come to be understood in American sports. Unfortunately, complete numerical parity is what counts, not actual opportunity measured against those actually seeking it. Does anyone honestly think that any of those girls started going to the bowling alley as young kids with the hopes that one day it would lead to a full ride at a top-20 university? No, they were there because they were too lame to hang out with the kids at the arcade and too heavy to play softball.
But the confusion between equality opportunity and numerical symmetry does not end with the inane manner in which Title IX has been applied. Consider the outright stupidity of how Jackie Robinson’s legacy has been treated this week. How many ESPN segments have you seen on the decline in Blacks’ participation in baseball, which almost invariably include the narrator somberly asking, “What would Jackie Robinson think about this if he were alive today?”
Seriously, how myopic can people be? Before Robinson broke the color barrier, there were no Blacks in baseball by policy; today, it’s by choice. Black athletes have entered into and excelled at other sports, and they have Robinson to thank. What says more about the progress - or lack thereof – we’ve made in opening doors for black athletes: the fact that blacks, by choice, are taking up baseball in less numbers or the fact that the best golfer in the world is not Caucasian? Tiger Woods has Robinson to thank. Meanwhile, other people of other racial minorities have thrived in Major League baseball. They, too, have Robinson to thank. Black Americans have moved away from baseball, but it’s been out of their own free will. That they have such mobility now is something to be celebrated.
To confine Robinson’s contribution to the sport of baseball is like saying Rosa Park’s enduring legacy is all about getting better seats on public buses. In terms of facilitating the Civil Right movement, the emergence of black athletes into major professional sports leagues and NCAA athletic conferences arguably comes only second in importance to the valiant contributions of Black Americans serving their country in World War II. The glass ceiling Robinson shattered had extended over all athletic opportunities in this country, but more importantly, it extended over equality in public services and facilities, educational opportunities, housing provisions, politics, the courts, and just about any other facet of life where there was an opportunity for racial oppression to manifest itself. Robinson forced America, the Land of Opportunity, to look itself in the mirror and acknowledge pervasive injustice and hypocrisy. So to answer the braindead ESPN reporter’s question on what Jackie Robinson would think about the current face of the Major League, I pose my own questions: Would Robinson be made aware that Blacks, as well as other racial minorities, can and have chosen to participate in any sport they wish, including sports such as golf where minority participation would have been unimaginable when he first walked on to Ebbets Field? Would Robinson be made aware that blacks are not only dominating in other professional sports, but they’ve transcended the courts and playing fields and are now serving as head coaches and front office personnel? Are you going to mention to him that since his death, there’s been an emergence of black CEOs, two black Secretaries of State, and there’s a very real possibility the next American president will be black? And oh yeah, are you going to mention that while yes, there’s been a decline in the number of black baseball players, it’s out of self-selection, not discrimination? Because if you did mention these things, I don’t think Jackie Robinson would share your pessimism.
Workin’ for the weekend,
Ryan
I have my own Title IX story. Ironically, it is also the story of when I knew I was not a liberal. I was nine, and I was the starting shortstop for my little league team. A girl sued our league to play and a judge agreed, forcing the league to accept her. She was put on our team. Up to this point, I did not care. If she could play, I did not care if she was man, woman, or some kind of hermaphradite like Sanjaya from American Idol.
Then it happened. On her second day of practice with our team, we were turning double plays. I was playing shortstop; she was at second base. The coach hit a ball to my right, and I ranged to get it. I turned and threw a perfect ball to her. Rather than gracefully catch the ball and turn the play--what our former starting second baseman, who now started on the bench, would have done--she completely missed the ball and it hit her in the face, cutting her lip. She cried and ran off the field. I did not feel one shred of regret or compassion for her. And I still don't.
--Paul
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The injustice!
I am from Seattle, and I am furious, furious, that the Seattle SuperSonics are likely to move after next season. Everyone probably wants to know, "hey Paul, where do you put the blame for this miscarriage of justice?" Well, let me tell you, the blame falls in this order:
The new owners. Obviously. These a-holes tried to buy the hornets to move them to Oklahoma, and it didn't pan out. Then, they went shopping for a franchise that has had a few rough years and a group of fair weather fans. Read: Seattle Sonics.
Howard Schultz. He is the CEO of Starbucks, a local guy, and the former owner. He sold to these slimey midwesterners knowing they would move the team. That's like selling your soul to the devil and then acting surprised when he sends you to hell. And yes, I just called Oklahoma hell. Which is where Howard Schultz can go, for all I care.
The fairweather fans. Three years ago, the Sonics were in the Western Conferece Finals, and the city loved it. The stadium was packed, people were wearing brand-new jerseys. It was great. Last year, only one year removed from that run, Seattle voters rejected paying even one dime of public money for a stadium. These are the same people who say "hey, did you hear the Seahawks are going the Super Bowl? I better go buy a hat." I wish the hatred in my thoughts could come through in my writing, because if it could, you would feel the vitriol toward fairweather fans jumping off this page.
Fairweather fan politicans. The legislature and Governor Christine 'I make them keep recounting until I win the election' Gregoire told the Sonics to leave. I am putting this out now, today, on April 17, 2007. The Sonics are going to get an amazing draft pick and will go the NBA Finals next year. At that time, the Governor and speaker of the house will be holding press conferences saying how much they love the team. And I will be in the crowd, booing them so loudly that Yankee fans will blush.
Writing with sorrow and disgust,
Paul
The new owners. Obviously. These a-holes tried to buy the hornets to move them to Oklahoma, and it didn't pan out. Then, they went shopping for a franchise that has had a few rough years and a group of fair weather fans. Read: Seattle Sonics.
Howard Schultz. He is the CEO of Starbucks, a local guy, and the former owner. He sold to these slimey midwesterners knowing they would move the team. That's like selling your soul to the devil and then acting surprised when he sends you to hell. And yes, I just called Oklahoma hell. Which is where Howard Schultz can go, for all I care.
The fairweather fans. Three years ago, the Sonics were in the Western Conferece Finals, and the city loved it. The stadium was packed, people were wearing brand-new jerseys. It was great. Last year, only one year removed from that run, Seattle voters rejected paying even one dime of public money for a stadium. These are the same people who say "hey, did you hear the Seahawks are going the Super Bowl? I better go buy a hat." I wish the hatred in my thoughts could come through in my writing, because if it could, you would feel the vitriol toward fairweather fans jumping off this page.
Fairweather fan politicans. The legislature and Governor Christine 'I make them keep recounting until I win the election' Gregoire told the Sonics to leave. I am putting this out now, today, on April 17, 2007. The Sonics are going to get an amazing draft pick and will go the NBA Finals next year. At that time, the Governor and speaker of the house will be holding press conferences saying how much they love the team. And I will be in the crowd, booing them so loudly that Yankee fans will blush.
Writing with sorrow and disgust,
Paul
Friday, April 13, 2007
A great anecdote from Jay Bilas
Jay Bilas came to speak in our class today on the portrayal of lawyers in the media/on television. I thought people may enjoy this story that he shared with us. He told it while addressing the question of whether his status as a former star athlete at Duke ever resulted in different treatment as a lawyer. Brett, feel free to post a reply with any necessary corrections to my story as my recollection conveys it. Where I quote Bilas, I'm paraphrasing.
Bilas is a Duke Law alum. Before he started his career in broadcast journalism, he actually did practice as an attorney. His stint as a lawyer afforded him the chance to argue in front of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. He was nervous and was glad to be the respondent, since arguing second would allow him to see the behavior of the judges.
{A brief aside, for the benefit of those that don't know much about legal practice (not to imply that I do): when arguing an appellate case, the petitioner (the person who filed the appeal because he/she lost on the issue at the lower court) and respondent (self-explanatory... if not, tough luck) are debating a specific legal issue. Unlike the trial court cases you often see on TV, there is no jury. The presiding judges will read both sides' briefs, listen to both sides' oral arguments, and ultimately make a decision. In court, they listen to both lawyers' legal arguments and will interrupt with questions. The amount of questions vary judge-to-judge. Some, like Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, rarely ask questions. Others are much more voluble.}
So anyway, Bilas said the first guy argued, and in Bilas's words, "He sucked. I knew then that I wasn't going to be the worst lawyer in the room." Then it was Bilas's turn.
{Second and final brief aside: Traditionally, a lawyer begins an argument with "May it please the court"}
Bilas told us that he barely had gotten out the word "May" before one judge began asking questions. He said the judge was unrelenting, never even allowing Bilas to get to his argument. As Bilas put it, "By the end, I felt like I had just been through a prize fight."
Now, the Fourth Circuit has this cool tradition where the judges get up from behind the bench and come down to shake the hands of the lawyers after the arguments are over.
When the judge that had drilled Bilas came down to shake his hand, he leaned in and whispered, "I went to Maryland. It's a little bit different here than it is on the basketball floor, isn't it?" Bilas said that he wanted to punch him.
If this doesn't prove that ACC fans are insane about basketball, I'm not sure what does.
Workin' for the weekend,
Ryan
Bilas is a Duke Law alum. Before he started his career in broadcast journalism, he actually did practice as an attorney. His stint as a lawyer afforded him the chance to argue in front of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. He was nervous and was glad to be the respondent, since arguing second would allow him to see the behavior of the judges.
{A brief aside, for the benefit of those that don't know much about legal practice (not to imply that I do): when arguing an appellate case, the petitioner (the person who filed the appeal because he/she lost on the issue at the lower court) and respondent (self-explanatory... if not, tough luck) are debating a specific legal issue. Unlike the trial court cases you often see on TV, there is no jury. The presiding judges will read both sides' briefs, listen to both sides' oral arguments, and ultimately make a decision. In court, they listen to both lawyers' legal arguments and will interrupt with questions. The amount of questions vary judge-to-judge. Some, like Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, rarely ask questions. Others are much more voluble.}
So anyway, Bilas said the first guy argued, and in Bilas's words, "He sucked. I knew then that I wasn't going to be the worst lawyer in the room." Then it was Bilas's turn.
{Second and final brief aside: Traditionally, a lawyer begins an argument with "May it please the court"}
Bilas told us that he barely had gotten out the word "May" before one judge began asking questions. He said the judge was unrelenting, never even allowing Bilas to get to his argument. As Bilas put it, "By the end, I felt like I had just been through a prize fight."
Now, the Fourth Circuit has this cool tradition where the judges get up from behind the bench and come down to shake the hands of the lawyers after the arguments are over.
When the judge that had drilled Bilas came down to shake his hand, he leaned in and whispered, "I went to Maryland. It's a little bit different here than it is on the basketball floor, isn't it?" Bilas said that he wanted to punch him.
If this doesn't prove that ACC fans are insane about basketball, I'm not sure what does.
Workin' for the weekend,
Ryan
Don't Want The Score Run Up -- Don't Suck / My Take on the Imus Fiasco
"I think they were definitely trying to rub it in," said Knicks center Eddy Curry after New York's loss to the Bulls on Tuesday night. The 98-69 defeat was the Knicks worst loss of the season. Knicks guard Steve Francis also echoed that sentiment, saying "As a veteran, I have been in the league long enough, and I know when people are trying to run up the score on you...And I told their players, if I was in the game, it would've been something different. If it was a threat or whatever, I'm a veteran. I won't do that to nobody, and I don't expect nobody to try to do that to younger players on my team, so that's what it was."
Give me a break. Besides the fact that the Bulls only scored 20 points in the 4th quarter, you are NBA players who deserved to be embarrassed. Quite frankly, you have given no joy to your fans this season. You fought so hard to get your coach fired last year, and got the man that you wanted on the bench. Then, once he got his contract extension, you quit on him just like you quit on Larry Brown last year.
As a Knicks fan, this makes me sick. The New York Knicks used to be one of the most elite franchises in the NBA. They would make the playoffs just about every season in the late 1980's and 1990's. Then James Dolan purchased the team and proceeded to systematically run it into the ground. He put all of his faith in a man that has ruined everything he has put his hands on since retirement -- the Toronto Raptors and the C.B.A. to name a few. He has overhauled the roster with a few has-beens (Marbury and Francis), a never-was (Crawford), a napoleonic punk who cares more about showboating and starting fights than playing basketball (Robinson) and someone who belongs in fat camp instead of on a basketball court (Curry). If the Bulls had scored 100 points on Tuesday night, all fans in attendance would have received a free Big Mac from McDonald's. I have no doubt that if Chicago reached triple digits, Curry would have stood outside the United Center trying to steal ticket stubs from members of the crowd. (In all fairness to Curry, he is having the best season of his career. The stats do not show how he is a defensive liability and gets winded in the 4th quarter).
This team is a bunch of whiny babies. You are in the NBA!!! Here's an idea...don't score 10 points the first quarter and you won't get creamed like you did on Tuesday night. If you are this bad, and show this much lack of effort, than you deserve to lose by 40 every night.
Was there complaining like this last season under Larry Brown? Of course there was. But this season, we have clearly learned that it's not the coach, it's the players. The team quit last year, and they have quit this year. Hey, whining and complaining is a lot easier than winning in the NBA. Until the Knicks can Isiah and Steve Mills (the MSG President who convinced Dolan to hire Isiah and put his unequivocal trust in the new GM), than the Knicks will continue to epitomize mediocrity in the eastern conference. I have no doubt that if Larry Brown were still the coach, and were allowed to have personnel moves, the Knicks would be getting ready for the playoffs. Unfortunately, for Knicks fans, the end is not in sight.
Yet I can't argue with CBS or MSNBC's decisions. I cannot fathom the effect that the hurtful remarks had on the women from Rutgers who Imus offended, and the effect that the comments had on the African American community as a whole. I will, however, complain that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were essentially able to decide what constitutes an indecent comment. Jackson once referred to New York City as "Hymietown." These men are hate pimps - they look to interject themselves in, and outright exploit situations like this for one reason - to get money and publicity. Their opinion is even more hypocritical since both men vilified the Duke lacrosse players in the media as soon as indictments were handed down. The Duke lacrosse players who were cleared of charges--deemed INNOCENT from the State of North Carolina--deserve an apology from Sharpton and Jackson. Until they do, we should view their opinions with a large grain of salt. To me, the calls from other African American leaders, including National Association of Black Journalists President Bryan Monroe, Presidential candidate Barack Obama, former head of the NAACP and a director of CBS Corp. Bruce Gordon, and Today Show co-host Al Roker for Imus to be fired were considerably more meaningful.
I sincerely hope that this is the last serious post that I make on this blog.
-Brett
Give me a break. Besides the fact that the Bulls only scored 20 points in the 4th quarter, you are NBA players who deserved to be embarrassed. Quite frankly, you have given no joy to your fans this season. You fought so hard to get your coach fired last year, and got the man that you wanted on the bench. Then, once he got his contract extension, you quit on him just like you quit on Larry Brown last year.
As a Knicks fan, this makes me sick. The New York Knicks used to be one of the most elite franchises in the NBA. They would make the playoffs just about every season in the late 1980's and 1990's. Then James Dolan purchased the team and proceeded to systematically run it into the ground. He put all of his faith in a man that has ruined everything he has put his hands on since retirement -- the Toronto Raptors and the C.B.A. to name a few. He has overhauled the roster with a few has-beens (Marbury and Francis), a never-was (Crawford), a napoleonic punk who cares more about showboating and starting fights than playing basketball (Robinson) and someone who belongs in fat camp instead of on a basketball court (Curry). If the Bulls had scored 100 points on Tuesday night, all fans in attendance would have received a free Big Mac from McDonald's. I have no doubt that if Chicago reached triple digits, Curry would have stood outside the United Center trying to steal ticket stubs from members of the crowd. (In all fairness to Curry, he is having the best season of his career. The stats do not show how he is a defensive liability and gets winded in the 4th quarter).
This team is a bunch of whiny babies. You are in the NBA!!! Here's an idea...don't score 10 points the first quarter and you won't get creamed like you did on Tuesday night. If you are this bad, and show this much lack of effort, than you deserve to lose by 40 every night.
Was there complaining like this last season under Larry Brown? Of course there was. But this season, we have clearly learned that it's not the coach, it's the players. The team quit last year, and they have quit this year. Hey, whining and complaining is a lot easier than winning in the NBA. Until the Knicks can Isiah and Steve Mills (the MSG President who convinced Dolan to hire Isiah and put his unequivocal trust in the new GM), than the Knicks will continue to epitomize mediocrity in the eastern conference. I have no doubt that if Larry Brown were still the coach, and were allowed to have personnel moves, the Knicks would be getting ready for the playoffs. Unfortunately, for Knicks fans, the end is not in sight.
**********
I am sorry, I have to put my two cents in about this whole Don Imus controversy (despite being even more overplayed in the media than the Anna Nicole story). Imus said a despicable thing, using racial stereotypes for a quick joke. Personally, I do not believe that he should have been fired. CBS and MSNBC have paid Imus to say outrageous things on the radio for decades. Naturally, he will occasionally cross the line, and he has several times in the past. It seems that the firings were for more than this one comment; they reflect punishment for Imus's prior comments as well. Yet, to the extent of my knowledge, he was never warned by the networks to tone down his act. As long as he brought in money, his conduct was implicitly approved by his employers. While the loss of advertisers was also a factor, Imus's program made the most money for CBS Radio -- undoubtedly he would have continued to be a profit center.Yet I can't argue with CBS or MSNBC's decisions. I cannot fathom the effect that the hurtful remarks had on the women from Rutgers who Imus offended, and the effect that the comments had on the African American community as a whole. I will, however, complain that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were essentially able to decide what constitutes an indecent comment. Jackson once referred to New York City as "Hymietown." These men are hate pimps - they look to interject themselves in, and outright exploit situations like this for one reason - to get money and publicity. Their opinion is even more hypocritical since both men vilified the Duke lacrosse players in the media as soon as indictments were handed down. The Duke lacrosse players who were cleared of charges--deemed INNOCENT from the State of North Carolina--deserve an apology from Sharpton and Jackson. Until they do, we should view their opinions with a large grain of salt. To me, the calls from other African American leaders, including National Association of Black Journalists President Bryan Monroe, Presidential candidate Barack Obama, former head of the NAACP and a director of CBS Corp. Bruce Gordon, and Today Show co-host Al Roker for Imus to be fired were considerably more meaningful.
I sincerely hope that this is the last serious post that I make on this blog.
-Brett
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Charges Dropped on Duke Lacross Case and My Take on the "Great College Hoops Coaches Who Can't Coach" argument
Charges against Duke LAX players dropped:
Last spring, during the weekend the Duke lacrosse story had just broke, I received an email from a PhD student in the history department imploring all grad students to come bang pots and pans outside the lacrosse players' house the next morning. This was surprising: Wasn't anyone going to wait for some actual evidence before they jumped to conclusions? After all, these are graduate students in history, usually the first to cast dispersions on anything they see reported by the media; usually the first to advocate for the rights of the accused. So I send an email back to every grad student. My email can be summarized in one sentence: "If they raped the girl, drag them out into the street and shoot 'em for all I care; but even rich, white athletes are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt, right?!"
Apparently not. The girl who sent the initial email responded to myself and every other grad student. She responded (and I paraphrase): "I believe in the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt, but a girl was raped." This dizzying circularity was coming from someone that may be our child(ren)'s history professor some time in the future. Welcome to the American ivory tower, where such idiocy and blatant hypocrisy is not only tolerated, it's encouraged.
RE: "Great College Hoops Coaches Who Can't Coach":
I wish to shed the light of logic on Justin's post from last week.
Arguing that a man who has just won two straight national championships is a bad coach is kind of like saying to your friends, “Watch me sink this half court shot …” Even if you miss, you don’t look that bad because of the scale of the challenge and the bravado with which you’ve undertaken it. You don’t really risk losing face with your friends, because nobody is taking you seriously. So I disagree with you Justin, but in kind of a “Yeah, you failed, but I was impressed just to see you hit the backboard” kind of a way.
I have three issues with your argument.
First, I think your understanding of what it means to be a coach is all jacked up. When you posted your entry, I read your headline to my sister’s boyfriend. His response: “Coaching is recruiting.” He’s right. Recruiting is an art, and one that not all coaches have mastered. Urban Meyer’s relentless recruiting is going to turn UF into college football’s new juggernaut, whereas other good “Xs and Os” guys can’t get the talent they need. In NCAA basketball, given the insane talent coming out of high school, who wouldn’t prefer a good recruiter to the “Xs and Os” guy? Again, I think your idea of having two awards, one for Coach of the Year and one for Recruiter of the Year, sets up a false dichotomy. But if we’re going to do it, I hope that my alma mater can bring in “Recruiter of the Year”, because assuming as the corollary to your argument that the “Coach of the Year” can’t recruit, he’ll never win a championship, especially given the new NBA age requirement. NEVER.
Second, you give too much credit to the guys ranking incoming recruits. Why is it that in professional sports, the front offices always seem to take the blame for draft picks who flop, while in college, scouts never take the blame when a blue-chip recruit turns out to be a dud? Do you remember which NFL coach was at the helm for Ryan Leaf? Yeah, me neither, because he didn’t take the blame for Leaf’s failures. My point (which I admit I’m not articulating very well) is that just as there are players who can’t make the college-to-pro transition, the same holds true for high school-to-college. I think measuring a team’s success too strongly against their recruits’ rankings is a mistake.
But my biggest problem with talent-result comparison you and many others engage in is that it tends to set the bar so high that even a guy who has one TWO NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS IN A ROW can somehow be criticized. In this, you’ve set up a standard that inverts the one I alluded to in your engaging a far-fetched argument: if Billy Donovan makes the half-court shot (hell, twice in a row), you and others are saying, “Two in a row? Big deal. Look how expensive your basketball sneakers are… Iwon’t be impressed until you sink three in a row. And what about the one you missed last week?” Basically, by your standards, a guy that gets great players is either good or bad… there’s no middle ground. In other words, Phil Jackson was a great coach, but only after he won half-a-dozen NBA Championships. If, say, he had only won one or two, he’d be awful, because he had Jordan and Pippen, and then Shaq and Kobe. Maybe the way we should be looking at it is by acknowledging that a talented roster guarantees nothing if the players have no synergy (ie, the Lakers before Phil Jackson showed up). I can give you the finest auto parts, but they’re worthless unless the someone has the know-how to throw them together into a well-functioning machine. Billy Donovan has built a Lexus, and if he doesn’t get credit for it now, just admit that he’ll never earn your respect unless he starts recruiting girl scouts and gets them to the Final Four. Having exceptionally raw talent on your roster presents its own challenges, none the least of which is teaching your players to work together as a team. That’s hard a message to inculcate into individuals who know that their commitments to being team players come at the expense of their own individual stats.
PS – So Billy Donovan had a few bad seasons and has now figured things out to the tune of two straight championships. Couch K won two back-to-back championships 15 years ago, and this year VCU cashed in his chips for him. You’re according improvement the same degree of respect Anna Nichole Smith accorded chastity. Was that too soon?!
Workin’ for the weekend,
Ryan
Last spring, during the weekend the Duke lacrosse story had just broke, I received an email from a PhD student in the history department imploring all grad students to come bang pots and pans outside the lacrosse players' house the next morning. This was surprising: Wasn't anyone going to wait for some actual evidence before they jumped to conclusions? After all, these are graduate students in history, usually the first to cast dispersions on anything they see reported by the media; usually the first to advocate for the rights of the accused. So I send an email back to every grad student. My email can be summarized in one sentence: "If they raped the girl, drag them out into the street and shoot 'em for all I care; but even rich, white athletes are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt, right?!"
Apparently not. The girl who sent the initial email responded to myself and every other grad student. She responded (and I paraphrase): "I believe in the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt, but a girl was raped." This dizzying circularity was coming from someone that may be our child(ren)'s history professor some time in the future. Welcome to the American ivory tower, where such idiocy and blatant hypocrisy is not only tolerated, it's encouraged.
RE: "Great College Hoops Coaches Who Can't Coach":
I wish to shed the light of logic on Justin's post from last week.
Arguing that a man who has just won two straight national championships is a bad coach is kind of like saying to your friends, “Watch me sink this half court shot …” Even if you miss, you don’t look that bad because of the scale of the challenge and the bravado with which you’ve undertaken it. You don’t really risk losing face with your friends, because nobody is taking you seriously. So I disagree with you Justin, but in kind of a “Yeah, you failed, but I was impressed just to see you hit the backboard” kind of a way.
I have three issues with your argument.
First, I think your understanding of what it means to be a coach is all jacked up. When you posted your entry, I read your headline to my sister’s boyfriend. His response: “Coaching is recruiting.” He’s right. Recruiting is an art, and one that not all coaches have mastered. Urban Meyer’s relentless recruiting is going to turn UF into college football’s new juggernaut, whereas other good “Xs and Os” guys can’t get the talent they need. In NCAA basketball, given the insane talent coming out of high school, who wouldn’t prefer a good recruiter to the “Xs and Os” guy? Again, I think your idea of having two awards, one for Coach of the Year and one for Recruiter of the Year, sets up a false dichotomy. But if we’re going to do it, I hope that my alma mater can bring in “Recruiter of the Year”, because assuming as the corollary to your argument that the “Coach of the Year” can’t recruit, he’ll never win a championship, especially given the new NBA age requirement. NEVER.
Second, you give too much credit to the guys ranking incoming recruits. Why is it that in professional sports, the front offices always seem to take the blame for draft picks who flop, while in college, scouts never take the blame when a blue-chip recruit turns out to be a dud? Do you remember which NFL coach was at the helm for Ryan Leaf? Yeah, me neither, because he didn’t take the blame for Leaf’s failures. My point (which I admit I’m not articulating very well) is that just as there are players who can’t make the college-to-pro transition, the same holds true for high school-to-college. I think measuring a team’s success too strongly against their recruits’ rankings is a mistake.
But my biggest problem with talent-result comparison you and many others engage in is that it tends to set the bar so high that even a guy who has one TWO NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS IN A ROW can somehow be criticized. In this, you’ve set up a standard that inverts the one I alluded to in your engaging a far-fetched argument: if Billy Donovan makes the half-court shot (hell, twice in a row), you and others are saying, “Two in a row? Big deal. Look how expensive your basketball sneakers are… Iwon’t be impressed until you sink three in a row. And what about the one you missed last week?” Basically, by your standards, a guy that gets great players is either good or bad… there’s no middle ground. In other words, Phil Jackson was a great coach, but only after he won half-a-dozen NBA Championships. If, say, he had only won one or two, he’d be awful, because he had Jordan and Pippen, and then Shaq and Kobe. Maybe the way we should be looking at it is by acknowledging that a talented roster guarantees nothing if the players have no synergy (ie, the Lakers before Phil Jackson showed up). I can give you the finest auto parts, but they’re worthless unless the someone has the know-how to throw them together into a well-functioning machine. Billy Donovan has built a Lexus, and if he doesn’t get credit for it now, just admit that he’ll never earn your respect unless he starts recruiting girl scouts and gets them to the Final Four. Having exceptionally raw talent on your roster presents its own challenges, none the least of which is teaching your players to work together as a team. That’s hard a message to inculcate into individuals who know that their commitments to being team players come at the expense of their own individual stats.
PS – So Billy Donovan had a few bad seasons and has now figured things out to the tune of two straight championships. Couch K won two back-to-back championships 15 years ago, and this year VCU cashed in his chips for him. You’re according improvement the same degree of respect Anna Nichole Smith accorded chastity. Was that too soon?!
Workin’ for the weekend,
Ryan
Coach Uniforms
In basketball, coaches wear suits and ties. Pat Riley, for example, only wears Armani when he coaches. Unfortunatey for Armani, Riley is a jackass who finds excuses not to coach when his team is doing poorly.
In football, coaches wear some form of casual dress. For example, legend has it that Bill Belichick beats up a different homeless man for every home game, steals the indigent's sweatshirt, and wears it during the game.
In baseball, the sport where the coaches do the least amount of moving, the coaches wear the full team uniform, including stirrups and cleats.
I defy anyone to make sense of coach clothing. Why in the world is George Karl wearing a suit he bought at Neiman Marcus while trying to explain to Allen Iverson, clad in an arm sleeve, leg sleeve, upside down headband, two finger sleeves and a holster, why he should pass? Does anyone really think that Lou "why, yes, I believe I will have three more hotdogs during the seventh inning stretch" Pinella should put on tight, short pants?
Here is my solution. Let's mix it up for a year. Baseball coaches wear casual gear, football coaches wear suits, and basketball coaches wear their full team uniform, including headbands.
--Paul
In football, coaches wear some form of casual dress. For example, legend has it that Bill Belichick beats up a different homeless man for every home game, steals the indigent's sweatshirt, and wears it during the game.
In baseball, the sport where the coaches do the least amount of moving, the coaches wear the full team uniform, including stirrups and cleats.
I defy anyone to make sense of coach clothing. Why in the world is George Karl wearing a suit he bought at Neiman Marcus while trying to explain to Allen Iverson, clad in an arm sleeve, leg sleeve, upside down headband, two finger sleeves and a holster, why he should pass? Does anyone really think that Lou "why, yes, I believe I will have three more hotdogs during the seventh inning stretch" Pinella should put on tight, short pants?
Here is my solution. Let's mix it up for a year. Baseball coaches wear casual gear, football coaches wear suits, and basketball coaches wear their full team uniform, including headbands.
--Paul
Friday, April 6, 2007
Great College Hoops Coaches Who Can't Coach
Here's one of the best-kept secrets in college basketball: some of the best "coaches" in college basketball, including those in the Hall of Fame or destined for it, can't coach. Every year, college coaches should be up for two different awards: Coach of the Year and Recruiter of the Year. That way, we wouldn't have to sit there and watch bad coaches get trophies, just because they are capable of assembling the second coming of the Fab Five.
Many coaches are genius recruiters. And that's nothing to be ashamed of -- it's a skill, just like coaching is. And Kelvin Sampson's text-messaging craziness aside, most of the great recruiters, I am convinced, recruit responsibly. But just because 17-year-olds decide you'd be a good guy to play for doesn't mean you know jack about the Xs and Os, how to manage players with foul trouble or the clock in the final minutes, or how to adjust to changing defenses.
With that in mind, here are three "great coaches" who, in my opinion, can't coach their way out of a paper bag. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Frankly, there are a lot more great recruiters out there than great coaches, and rarely can a coach do both (three that CAN do both are John Thompson III of Georgetown, Ben Howland of UCLA, and Jim Boeheim of Syracuse).
1. Roy Williams. I know, I know, he just got into the Hall of Fame, has one of the greatest winning percentages of all time, fastest to 500 wins -- whatever. I have never seen a coach so consistently underperform in the post-season (except for possibly the next guy on this list). Remember those great Kansas teams, with Paul Pierce, Jacques Vaughn, Raef LaFrentz, and Greg Ostertag (kidding about Ostertag, of course)? Way too many first- and second-round exits. Yes, Williams won a championship, but he did it with a team that would have been one of the all-time busts if they HADN'T won a championship (McCants, May, Felton, etc.). And considering they had been playing together for three years by that point, UNC looked too often like chickens without heads that year. They won ugly. And if you watched UNC this year -- maybe the most talented team in the country, except for possibly Florida and Ohio State -- they could never get into a rhythm, because Roy would take players out every five minutes so that they could have a lot of energy. Young guys in the prime of their athletic lives don't need energy -- they need rhythm. Roy's offense is run-and-gun, and I can't for the life of me see a half-court offense ever being run (that may be why his guys need so much energy). And that loss to georgetown? Disgraceful. Up by 11 with 8 minutes left, with Hansbrough being his usual monster self inside, Roy stands around watching his players jack up 15 -- 15! -- threes en route to a 2-23 shooting finish. It made me want to jump through the TV set, and yell out the maxim from Hoosiers: "How many passes are we gonna make before we shoot? 4!" Great recruiter. Lousy coach.
2. Lute Olsen. I'm not going to waste too much time on this, because it's so obvious. Suffice it to say, Arizona had the 4th most talented roster this year, and Lute couldn't get them to play two minutes of defense all season. That's bad coaching. Lute oversaw one of the biggest chokes in NCAA history (the 15-point collapse against Illinois in the 2005 Final Four). His team consistently undeperforms (remember losing to 15-seed Santa Clara in the first round?). Only one reason why a team where Gilbert Arenas was the FOURTH option should lose to Duke in the 2001 Finals -- because Coach K's a better coach than Lute. Nuff said, because my third pick will likely generate some controversy....
3. Billy Donovan. I won't say he can't coach, but I think he's gotten way way overhyped. I don't care what he's won. Florida was the best team in the country this year. Good job winning it all, but those players were so smart, they should have been able to coach themsleves. Nobody remembers all the underperforming Florida teams, the teams with absolutely no heart, between 2001 and 2006. Teams with good players like David Lee and Anthony Roberson, who kept getting knocked out in the first round. And the thing that drove me crazy this year was that every time I watched Florida, they would ballpark it the whole first half. No energy, no cohesion, no fire -- untilt he second half. To me, when that happens game after game, that's just bad preparation, and ti's the coahc's fault. Florida tried really hard to lose this year -- see the first 8 minutes against UCLA, but they just couldn't. Their players were just too good, and too smart. Maybe the coach gets to take credit for that, but not in my book. Donovan's the classic flavor of the month -- like Tubby Smith was in 1997-1998. Those days are over for Tubby, and I wouldn't be surpirsed to see Billy the Kid replacing Tubby in Minnesota, or go to South Dakota, someplace like that, in 10 years.
-- Justin
First, I wholly agree with (2) and (3) and partially agree with (1). (2) The worst piece of college basketball coaching was in Arizona's loss to Illinois, even discounting the total collapse of the more talented team. With ten seconds left, the Wildcats were down by two. Lute called a full timeout. The play he drew up DID NOT EVEN CALL FOR SALIM STODAMIRE AS AN OPTION! That's like if you were running for president and had the outgoing president, with a 70% approval rating raring to go stump for you, and you tell him no thanks. Only an idiot would do something like that.
(3) Apparantly we have all forgotten that Florida was, for five years, a consistent two or three seed which lost in the second round of the tourney. There is no doubt Billy can recruit. But when he does not have one of the best lineups in the history of college sports, he's a choker.
Finally, this category lends itself to college football coaches. Since they have to recruit seven times the amount of players basketball coaches do, one would expect a disparity between recruiting and coaching. And there can be no doubt on this count: Lloyd Carr is amazing at recruiting and horrible at coaching. Do you really beleive Ohio State has had the superior team for the last six years? Lloyd might as well cash his chips in and go coach the Raider when Lane Kiffen gets fired halfway through the season for statutory rape ("but I thought she was 18, and she thought I was 17).
--Paul
I'd like to respond to "Dook," who commented on my posting, by calling my criticism of Roy Williams "asinine." First, definitely read his comment before reading this. It was well written, and I appreciate that Dook has agreed to be my foil, making points that most of the fans in this country would make. Here's my response:
Thank you for your comment, Dook. But here's the problem with it: Roy Williams HAS underperformed in the postseason. He's a great recruiter, and in my book, that's proven by the number of top seeds he took into the tourney in his time at Kansas (9 of his 15 years, Kansas was either a 1 or 2 seed). But I'm not sure how many great coaching performances he needed to have to get those 1 or 2 seeds, given the talent level on those 1990s Kansas teams. Remember, Kansas, in the Big 12, probably has to play 6 or 7 top-25 teams a year (including conference games). Of those, the team probably needed good coaching from him in a few of them.
But no question, when it comes time to the tourney, you've got to start coaching. And look what he did in his time in Kansas:
-- in his 15 years at Kansas, he OVERachieved (i.e. got further than where his seed would dictate if there were never any upsets) 3 times (1991, 1993, 2003)
-- in those 15 years, he UNDERachieved 5 times (1990, 1992, 1997, 1998, 2002 -- yes, he made th eFinal 4 in 2002, but was a #1 seed and lost in the semis)
-- in those 15 years, he had the #1 seed 5 times. In those years, he went to the Final 4 once, and lost in the second round TWICE.
These are just a few of the stats I can throw at you. I don't deny he went to the Final 4 four times, but I think the stats can tell any story you want them to tell. And I didn't hear you explain to me what Roy Williams was doing letting his team chuck up 15 threes in the last 8 minutes of the game against Gtown.
My friend, don't let yourself be swayed by stats. Otherwise, you're just another ESPNNews Anchorman. Go with your instincts. Watch the games, and tell me if you've ever really thought that a Roy Williams team was actually disciplined in any way. I'd love to hear back from you on this, if you're still interested.
-- Justin
Many coaches are genius recruiters. And that's nothing to be ashamed of -- it's a skill, just like coaching is. And Kelvin Sampson's text-messaging craziness aside, most of the great recruiters, I am convinced, recruit responsibly. But just because 17-year-olds decide you'd be a good guy to play for doesn't mean you know jack about the Xs and Os, how to manage players with foul trouble or the clock in the final minutes, or how to adjust to changing defenses.
With that in mind, here are three "great coaches" who, in my opinion, can't coach their way out of a paper bag. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Frankly, there are a lot more great recruiters out there than great coaches, and rarely can a coach do both (three that CAN do both are John Thompson III of Georgetown, Ben Howland of UCLA, and Jim Boeheim of Syracuse).
1. Roy Williams. I know, I know, he just got into the Hall of Fame, has one of the greatest winning percentages of all time, fastest to 500 wins -- whatever. I have never seen a coach so consistently underperform in the post-season (except for possibly the next guy on this list). Remember those great Kansas teams, with Paul Pierce, Jacques Vaughn, Raef LaFrentz, and Greg Ostertag (kidding about Ostertag, of course)? Way too many first- and second-round exits. Yes, Williams won a championship, but he did it with a team that would have been one of the all-time busts if they HADN'T won a championship (McCants, May, Felton, etc.). And considering they had been playing together for three years by that point, UNC looked too often like chickens without heads that year. They won ugly. And if you watched UNC this year -- maybe the most talented team in the country, except for possibly Florida and Ohio State -- they could never get into a rhythm, because Roy would take players out every five minutes so that they could have a lot of energy. Young guys in the prime of their athletic lives don't need energy -- they need rhythm. Roy's offense is run-and-gun, and I can't for the life of me see a half-court offense ever being run (that may be why his guys need so much energy). And that loss to georgetown? Disgraceful. Up by 11 with 8 minutes left, with Hansbrough being his usual monster self inside, Roy stands around watching his players jack up 15 -- 15! -- threes en route to a 2-23 shooting finish. It made me want to jump through the TV set, and yell out the maxim from Hoosiers: "How many passes are we gonna make before we shoot? 4!" Great recruiter. Lousy coach.
2. Lute Olsen. I'm not going to waste too much time on this, because it's so obvious. Suffice it to say, Arizona had the 4th most talented roster this year, and Lute couldn't get them to play two minutes of defense all season. That's bad coaching. Lute oversaw one of the biggest chokes in NCAA history (the 15-point collapse against Illinois in the 2005 Final Four). His team consistently undeperforms (remember losing to 15-seed Santa Clara in the first round?). Only one reason why a team where Gilbert Arenas was the FOURTH option should lose to Duke in the 2001 Finals -- because Coach K's a better coach than Lute. Nuff said, because my third pick will likely generate some controversy....
3. Billy Donovan. I won't say he can't coach, but I think he's gotten way way overhyped. I don't care what he's won. Florida was the best team in the country this year. Good job winning it all, but those players were so smart, they should have been able to coach themsleves. Nobody remembers all the underperforming Florida teams, the teams with absolutely no heart, between 2001 and 2006. Teams with good players like David Lee and Anthony Roberson, who kept getting knocked out in the first round. And the thing that drove me crazy this year was that every time I watched Florida, they would ballpark it the whole first half. No energy, no cohesion, no fire -- untilt he second half. To me, when that happens game after game, that's just bad preparation, and ti's the coahc's fault. Florida tried really hard to lose this year -- see the first 8 minutes against UCLA, but they just couldn't. Their players were just too good, and too smart. Maybe the coach gets to take credit for that, but not in my book. Donovan's the classic flavor of the month -- like Tubby Smith was in 1997-1998. Those days are over for Tubby, and I wouldn't be surpirsed to see Billy the Kid replacing Tubby in Minnesota, or go to South Dakota, someplace like that, in 10 years.
-- Justin
First, I wholly agree with (2) and (3) and partially agree with (1). (2) The worst piece of college basketball coaching was in Arizona's loss to Illinois, even discounting the total collapse of the more talented team. With ten seconds left, the Wildcats were down by two. Lute called a full timeout. The play he drew up DID NOT EVEN CALL FOR SALIM STODAMIRE AS AN OPTION! That's like if you were running for president and had the outgoing president, with a 70% approval rating raring to go stump for you, and you tell him no thanks. Only an idiot would do something like that.
(3) Apparantly we have all forgotten that Florida was, for five years, a consistent two or three seed which lost in the second round of the tourney. There is no doubt Billy can recruit. But when he does not have one of the best lineups in the history of college sports, he's a choker.
Finally, this category lends itself to college football coaches. Since they have to recruit seven times the amount of players basketball coaches do, one would expect a disparity between recruiting and coaching. And there can be no doubt on this count: Lloyd Carr is amazing at recruiting and horrible at coaching. Do you really beleive Ohio State has had the superior team for the last six years? Lloyd might as well cash his chips in and go coach the Raider when Lane Kiffen gets fired halfway through the season for statutory rape ("but I thought she was 18, and she thought I was 17).
--Paul
I'd like to respond to "Dook," who commented on my posting, by calling my criticism of Roy Williams "asinine." First, definitely read his comment before reading this. It was well written, and I appreciate that Dook has agreed to be my foil, making points that most of the fans in this country would make. Here's my response:
Thank you for your comment, Dook. But here's the problem with it: Roy Williams HAS underperformed in the postseason. He's a great recruiter, and in my book, that's proven by the number of top seeds he took into the tourney in his time at Kansas (9 of his 15 years, Kansas was either a 1 or 2 seed). But I'm not sure how many great coaching performances he needed to have to get those 1 or 2 seeds, given the talent level on those 1990s Kansas teams. Remember, Kansas, in the Big 12, probably has to play 6 or 7 top-25 teams a year (including conference games). Of those, the team probably needed good coaching from him in a few of them.
But no question, when it comes time to the tourney, you've got to start coaching. And look what he did in his time in Kansas:
-- in his 15 years at Kansas, he OVERachieved (i.e. got further than where his seed would dictate if there were never any upsets) 3 times (1991, 1993, 2003)
-- in those 15 years, he UNDERachieved 5 times (1990, 1992, 1997, 1998, 2002 -- yes, he made th eFinal 4 in 2002, but was a #1 seed and lost in the semis)
-- in those 15 years, he had the #1 seed 5 times. In those years, he went to the Final 4 once, and lost in the second round TWICE.
These are just a few of the stats I can throw at you. I don't deny he went to the Final 4 four times, but I think the stats can tell any story you want them to tell. And I didn't hear you explain to me what Roy Williams was doing letting his team chuck up 15 threes in the last 8 minutes of the game against Gtown.
My friend, don't let yourself be swayed by stats. Otherwise, you're just another ESPNNews Anchorman. Go with your instincts. Watch the games, and tell me if you've ever really thought that a Roy Williams team was actually disciplined in any way. I'd love to hear back from you on this, if you're still interested.
-- Justin
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Commentators I hate
1. Billy Packer. I am loathe to put him first, only because I can see my own biases. I am too close to Billy right now. He has been beamed into my living room nearly every night for the past month. His same asinine comments repeated in some different itteration every few days. My favorite of the tournament came during the championship game. He suggested that the NCAA do away with the five fouls and you're out rule. Not expand it to six, not call fewer fouls, but let every player foul as many times as he wanted with no repurcussions beyond the penalty for the foul. There are only two explanations I can give for why he is allowed near a microphone. (1) CBS lost a bet to ABC and ABC got to choose one person and CBS would have to let him call the tournament until his excrutiantingly long life is over - or - (2) Billy Packer slept his way to the top. I have not seen incompotence like that since the Teapot Dome Scandal.
2. Bill Walton. I know good-hearted people who like Bill. They think he's funny and off-the-wall. But I also know some good-hearted people who drank gasoline as kids. They are usually the ones who like Bill Walton. Here are some golden oldies from Bill:
"Rasheed Wallace is like a four armed Dikembe Mutombo around the basket."
"Mick Jagger is in better shape than far too many NBA players."
"Kenyon Martin is the second best player in the Eastern Conference."
"Greg Ostertag is one of the best centers on this planet."
"Eric Piatkowski makes perhaps the gretest play in Clippers history."
Shut up, Bill. We get it, you like hyperbole and smoke weed. Every word of Bill's mouth is a slap in the face to John Wooden.
3. Brent Musburger. This one is a little personal. I am a Seattle sports fan. I love, live, and more often than not, die with the Seahawks, Mariners, and Supersonics. In 1995, the Mariners made it to the playoffs for the first time. It was an amazing season. We came back from eleven games down at the all star break to win our division. We then beat the Yankess in the DS, which was one of the best series' I have seen. It went to five games, three of which went to extra innings, and none of which was decided by more than two runs. After we won, we played the Indians, in a series broadcast on ABC. Musburger called every game, and he was rooting for the Indians like an Enron trader roots for forest fires in Southern California. It was the most biased pieces of commentating I care to remember. And for it, Brent and his stupid, whiny voice, make my list.
Paul
Leave it to Paul. Our first blog post at one of the best times of the year for a sports fan. The NCAA Tournament has just ended with Florida becoming the first team in 15 years to win back to back titles. The Masters starts tomorrow. The MLB season started on Monday, which promises to see several records fall. The NBA playoffs are starting to come to light (the NHL playoffs too, but for purposes of this blog hockey falls in the same category as curling and chess). Yet our first blog is about the 1995 Indians-Mariners ALCS. Go figure.
Also, it's important to know how this blog got started. After the Final Four game between Florida and UCLA, Ryan sent out an email trying to convince the rest of us that this Florida team was better than the 1991-92 Duke team. Trying to reason with Ryan on this issue was like teaching the concept of noise to retarded deaf children (thanks to my friend M.A. for that line). Ryan and Paul decided that our email chains needed a public forum, and our blog was born.
Paul, I'd like to comment on your list:
1. Billy Packer - this has been beaten to death. Yes, the only thing that Duke and UNC fans can agree on is that he is openly hostile to both schools. Yes, he is overly negative. But he does know basketball -- see the Sports Guy article on ESPN.com from last week for more on this topic.
2. Bill Walton - he is my brother's favorite broadcaster, and I am a huge fan. Who else could be berated by his broadcasting partner and have it go right over his head? My fondest memory - last year after Kobe dropped 81 in a game, Bill was doing a Spurs game for ESPN. Tony Parker scored 6 points in the first two minutes of the game. Bill's response "Kobe better watch out, his 81 may be in serious jeopardy." Plus, who else had a satellite radio show on the jam band network solely to play Grateful Dead songs and talk about doing acid while on tour with the band? Exactly.
3. I'm not even going to go there.
My least favorite commentator has to be Randy Cross. Every New York Jet fan cringes when he calls our games. Cross openly roots against the Jets and is the most negative announcer I can think of aside from Billy Packer. He started as the CBS number two announcing team, but luckily now his commentary is limited to Browns-Texan games.
-Brett
When the Founding Fathers wrote letters to each other, it was clear that they had the self-awareness to foresee future historians would be interested in their thoughts. Therefore, there was a lot of posturing for posterity: the gratuitous philosophizing of Jefferson and rhetorical eloquence of Adams were no accident, nor was the absence of colloquialisms (“Federal assumption of state debts? Dude, WTF?!”) Brett, I’m sure posterity will also be grateful for your less-than-subtle “Here’s how the blog came to be” discursion. Am I suggesting that the inception of this blog rivals the significance of the American Revolution, or that the five of us are destined to achieve the seminality of such figures as Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Jay or Jefferson? Yes, I am. I’ll also say that only an idiot would try to impart an understanding of noise to a retarded deaf child, just as only an idiot would try to convince people that the 1991-92 Duke team would beat the 2006-2007 Gators. So stick that in your flexible urinary catheter and smoke it, Franklin.
I’m not sure that I can name three commentators I really hate, but I do want to address Bill Walton. I don’t care for NBA basketball. So, I always APPRECIATED Bill Walton’s ridiculous hyperbole, because like a 98-year-old woman getting the Heimlich to dislodge a wafer during Communion, it livens things up.
My problem with Walton is that he’s figured out we’re all laughing at him, and rather than tone it down, he’s began a self-caricature. He knows that he’s being over-the-top now, he in fact is trying to be over-the-top, and this totally ruins the novelty. I want to laugh at Bill Walton, not with him. The last time I saw him on TV, it was clear that he was no longer oblivious to his own stupidity and was now doing a parody of himself. We all laugh at the kid that eats his own boogers, but when he starts eating his own boogers because he knows we all laugh at him, it becomes depressing. If, at her last press conference, Janet Reno declared it to be “Reno Time” and started dancing, with the whole thing culminating in her falling through the brick wall behind her, we’d all feel awkward, not amused. Wait, I take that back. That would be freakin’ hilarious.
This may be blasphemous, but one commentator that’s always really gotten on my nerves is John Madden. Why, when he’s calling the game, do I always have to listen to Madden commentate on some guy outside the stadium smoking kielbasa? I remember Madden once actually employed the electronic chalk, normally used to draw the patterns being run by a team’s receivers, to explain what a guy at his grill was doing with the sausage. I like grilling and I like (good) football commentary, but sometimes, one pleasantry can take away from another. I think this is why they don’t build roller coasters in movie theaters. Is Madden that excited about his post-game picnic that he has to salivate all over the microphone during the broadcast? And has there ever been a less telegenic person on the tube? Maybe Madden should ease up on the pork products and grab a salad. It looks like he ate Frank Gifford.
PS – Apropos of Bill Walden, for an interesting look at how Vietnam-era cross-generational tensions played themselves out in the world of sports, read the chapter on John Wooden in John McCain’s “Character is Destiny.”
Workin' for the weekend,
Ryan
Paul,
I'm going to have to defend Bill Walton here, because that was a terrible post, terrible! That might have been the worst post in all of Blogger franchise history. The fundamentals, the creativity, both entirely lacking. But seriously, I think your and Ryan's comments on the man show a lack of perspective. Until he was 28 years old, Walton suffered from a severe stuttering problem. He has a short discussion about overcoming this problem on his webpage here: http://www.billwalton.com/stuttering.html. Despite living for a quarter century with a speech problem (which accounts for his slow, deliberate speech pattern), Walton chose to pursue a career in broadcasting, which in my opinion demands some serious respect. So all told, both of you are assholes.
As far as his over-the-top manner, I think that can only be attributed to his passion for the game (he calls basketball his religion, afterall). His passion in the booth reminds me of another great broadcaster, Ron Santo, who broadcasts Cubs games on WGN radio. Perhaps in your next posts you could both make fun of him for being diabetic.
xoxo,
Jim
2. Bill Walton. I know good-hearted people who like Bill. They think he's funny and off-the-wall. But I also know some good-hearted people who drank gasoline as kids. They are usually the ones who like Bill Walton. Here are some golden oldies from Bill:
"Rasheed Wallace is like a four armed Dikembe Mutombo around the basket."
"Mick Jagger is in better shape than far too many NBA players."
"Kenyon Martin is the second best player in the Eastern Conference."
"Greg Ostertag is one of the best centers on this planet."
"Eric Piatkowski makes perhaps the gretest play in Clippers history."
Shut up, Bill. We get it, you like hyperbole and smoke weed. Every word of Bill's mouth is a slap in the face to John Wooden.
3. Brent Musburger. This one is a little personal. I am a Seattle sports fan. I love, live, and more often than not, die with the Seahawks, Mariners, and Supersonics. In 1995, the Mariners made it to the playoffs for the first time. It was an amazing season. We came back from eleven games down at the all star break to win our division. We then beat the Yankess in the DS, which was one of the best series' I have seen. It went to five games, three of which went to extra innings, and none of which was decided by more than two runs. After we won, we played the Indians, in a series broadcast on ABC. Musburger called every game, and he was rooting for the Indians like an Enron trader roots for forest fires in Southern California. It was the most biased pieces of commentating I care to remember. And for it, Brent and his stupid, whiny voice, make my list.
Paul
Leave it to Paul. Our first blog post at one of the best times of the year for a sports fan. The NCAA Tournament has just ended with Florida becoming the first team in 15 years to win back to back titles. The Masters starts tomorrow. The MLB season started on Monday, which promises to see several records fall. The NBA playoffs are starting to come to light (the NHL playoffs too, but for purposes of this blog hockey falls in the same category as curling and chess). Yet our first blog is about the 1995 Indians-Mariners ALCS. Go figure.
Also, it's important to know how this blog got started. After the Final Four game between Florida and UCLA, Ryan sent out an email trying to convince the rest of us that this Florida team was better than the 1991-92 Duke team. Trying to reason with Ryan on this issue was like teaching the concept of noise to retarded deaf children (thanks to my friend M.A. for that line). Ryan and Paul decided that our email chains needed a public forum, and our blog was born.
Paul, I'd like to comment on your list:
1. Billy Packer - this has been beaten to death. Yes, the only thing that Duke and UNC fans can agree on is that he is openly hostile to both schools. Yes, he is overly negative. But he does know basketball -- see the Sports Guy article on ESPN.com from last week for more on this topic.
2. Bill Walton - he is my brother's favorite broadcaster, and I am a huge fan. Who else could be berated by his broadcasting partner and have it go right over his head? My fondest memory - last year after Kobe dropped 81 in a game, Bill was doing a Spurs game for ESPN. Tony Parker scored 6 points in the first two minutes of the game. Bill's response "Kobe better watch out, his 81 may be in serious jeopardy." Plus, who else had a satellite radio show on the jam band network solely to play Grateful Dead songs and talk about doing acid while on tour with the band? Exactly.
3. I'm not even going to go there.
My least favorite commentator has to be Randy Cross. Every New York Jet fan cringes when he calls our games. Cross openly roots against the Jets and is the most negative announcer I can think of aside from Billy Packer. He started as the CBS number two announcing team, but luckily now his commentary is limited to Browns-Texan games.
-Brett
When the Founding Fathers wrote letters to each other, it was clear that they had the self-awareness to foresee future historians would be interested in their thoughts. Therefore, there was a lot of posturing for posterity: the gratuitous philosophizing of Jefferson and rhetorical eloquence of Adams were no accident, nor was the absence of colloquialisms (“Federal assumption of state debts? Dude, WTF?!”) Brett, I’m sure posterity will also be grateful for your less-than-subtle “Here’s how the blog came to be” discursion. Am I suggesting that the inception of this blog rivals the significance of the American Revolution, or that the five of us are destined to achieve the seminality of such figures as Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Jay or Jefferson? Yes, I am. I’ll also say that only an idiot would try to impart an understanding of noise to a retarded deaf child, just as only an idiot would try to convince people that the 1991-92 Duke team would beat the 2006-2007 Gators. So stick that in your flexible urinary catheter and smoke it, Franklin.
I’m not sure that I can name three commentators I really hate, but I do want to address Bill Walton. I don’t care for NBA basketball. So, I always APPRECIATED Bill Walton’s ridiculous hyperbole, because like a 98-year-old woman getting the Heimlich to dislodge a wafer during Communion, it livens things up.
My problem with Walton is that he’s figured out we’re all laughing at him, and rather than tone it down, he’s began a self-caricature. He knows that he’s being over-the-top now, he in fact is trying to be over-the-top, and this totally ruins the novelty. I want to laugh at Bill Walton, not with him. The last time I saw him on TV, it was clear that he was no longer oblivious to his own stupidity and was now doing a parody of himself. We all laugh at the kid that eats his own boogers, but when he starts eating his own boogers because he knows we all laugh at him, it becomes depressing. If, at her last press conference, Janet Reno declared it to be “Reno Time” and started dancing, with the whole thing culminating in her falling through the brick wall behind her, we’d all feel awkward, not amused. Wait, I take that back. That would be freakin’ hilarious.
This may be blasphemous, but one commentator that’s always really gotten on my nerves is John Madden. Why, when he’s calling the game, do I always have to listen to Madden commentate on some guy outside the stadium smoking kielbasa? I remember Madden once actually employed the electronic chalk, normally used to draw the patterns being run by a team’s receivers, to explain what a guy at his grill was doing with the sausage. I like grilling and I like (good) football commentary, but sometimes, one pleasantry can take away from another. I think this is why they don’t build roller coasters in movie theaters. Is Madden that excited about his post-game picnic that he has to salivate all over the microphone during the broadcast? And has there ever been a less telegenic person on the tube? Maybe Madden should ease up on the pork products and grab a salad. It looks like he ate Frank Gifford.
PS – Apropos of Bill Walden, for an interesting look at how Vietnam-era cross-generational tensions played themselves out in the world of sports, read the chapter on John Wooden in John McCain’s “Character is Destiny.”
Workin' for the weekend,
Ryan
Paul,
I'm going to have to defend Bill Walton here, because that was a terrible post, terrible! That might have been the worst post in all of Blogger franchise history. The fundamentals, the creativity, both entirely lacking. But seriously, I think your and Ryan's comments on the man show a lack of perspective. Until he was 28 years old, Walton suffered from a severe stuttering problem. He has a short discussion about overcoming this problem on his webpage here: http://www.billwalton.com/stuttering.html. Despite living for a quarter century with a speech problem (which accounts for his slow, deliberate speech pattern), Walton chose to pursue a career in broadcasting, which in my opinion demands some serious respect. So all told, both of you are assholes.
As far as his over-the-top manner, I think that can only be attributed to his passion for the game (he calls basketball his religion, afterall). His passion in the booth reminds me of another great broadcaster, Ron Santo, who broadcasts Cubs games on WGN radio. Perhaps in your next posts you could both make fun of him for being diabetic.
xoxo,
Jim
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)