I was innocently reading Sports Illustrated this past weekend when I had nearly finished it and came upon the last page, which used to be Rick Reilly's domain. I tend to read this part now that Reilly has taken his lack of talents to ESPN. Phil Taylor had written about the Hall of Fame and calls himself "The Gatekeeper." Because nothing goes better with a bad idea than a bad nickname that gives the impression your consider yourself to be the final person to decide who gets into baseball's Hall of Fame and who doesn't, I thought I had to read this. And read it I did...now I am writing about it.
A few weeks ago, Dylan wrote this really good positive post about Rob Parker and the Hall of Fame and there was a great discussion about that post. I am the negative guy apparently, so I am going to focus on a negative article about a sportswriter talking about the Hall of Fame. I think every year the public should be able to choose 10 sportswriters to opine about baseball's Hall of Fame in a column. That's it. The rest can't write anything about it. How's that for a "Gatekeeper-like" idea?
The results of the Baseball Hall of Fame voting, which made members of second baseman Roberto Alomar and pitcher Bert Blyleven last week, sparked all the usual debates about snubbed players, outdated balloting procedures and methods of defining greatness. If only the Hall had a gatekeeper, like St. Peter at the pearly ones, to make a final call on who gets in and why.
I'm going to stop you right there. The Hall does have a gatekeeper to make the final call on who gets in and why. They are called the Hall of Fame voters. Instead of having one opinionated asshole who decides which players get in, there are many more opinionated assholes who gets to decide which players get in. This increases the amount of people who vote and decreases the chance one opinionated asshole may do a crappy job of choosing candidates for the Hall of Fame. I don't get why one person voting is better than many people when it comes to a vote about the Hall of Fame.
Consider this my application for the job. In a nod to baseball history, I would attempt to bring to the position the qualities of the sport's two greatest Rickeys, offering both the wisdom of Branch Rickey and the insistence on referring to myself in the third person of Rickey Henderson. Here's how the Gatekeeper would handle some of the thorniest Hall of Fame questions:
First, off I am shocked Bill Simmons didn't think of giving himself the nickname "The Gatekeeper" about five years ago in reference to the basketball Hall of Fame. I feel like his ego really dropped the ball on this one.
Q | Why hasn't [insert the name of your favorite candidate] been voted in? He has more career RBIs than 17.2% of the lefthanded hitters at his position who are already....
A | Stop right there, before you make the Gatekeeper doze off. He has nothing against numbers, either the traditional ones or the newer metrics, but he finds the endless parsing of stats to be an incredible snore.
And naturally if the Gatekeeper finds the discussion of an issue to be an incredible snore then that means that issue has absolutely no value. Right? I find science and medicine to be an incredible boring subject, and really other than the life-saving medicines that have cured diseases and innovations that make our lives easier and increase our productivity and (sometimes) our happiness...what the hell has science and medicine done for us? The answer: It doesn't matter! Who cares? It's so BORING!
So we have established (I am not calling him the Gatekeeper anymore) Phil Taylor is lazy and doesn't want to have to use anything outside of using his own biased opinion to judge players for the Hall of Fame. Not a good way to start an article.
Only in the world of sportswriting is willful ignorance in finding out new knowledge not discouraged by many editors, it actually gets a sportswriter a highlighted spot in the back of a popular sports magazine. "Hey everyone! I have no need to learn anything new! That makes me successful in my industry!"
Make the case with words. Describe the unforgettable moments your would-be Hall of Famer created.
Oh yes, indeed. Do this. That way the Hall of Fame will be consisting of players that created "memories" which naturally also mean this player was one of the greatest players of his generation. It's only logical only the greatest players in baseball history also created unforgettable moments.
Sid Bream created one of my favorite baseball memories. Knock down the walls Hall of Fame! Let Sid Bream in! Edgar Renteria has created two great postseason memories for two separate teams. Give him his own wing in the Hall of Fame!
I have never been able to fathom why "unforgettable moments" and a player who had 1-2 great memorable performances is supposed to overwhelm the entire body of work that player had over his career. As if 1-2 moments of greatness are supposed to make a player one of the greatest players in baseball history, while the rest of his baseball resume that says he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame gets ignored. Here's a great example of this...
You want to persuade the Gatekeeper that Jack Morris should be in Cooperstown? Talk more about his 1--0, 10-inning shutout for the Twins in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series and less about how his WHiP stacks up against Hall of Fame pitchers.
Read this sentence again. (waits 10 seconds)
So talk more about ONE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE that Jack Morris had that says he should be considered one of the greatest pitchers of all-time and talk less about how, you know, he actually compares to the other pitchers who are considered the greatest pitchers of all-time. This is not logical. I am not all about comparing players eligible for the Hall of Fame to pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame and denying them entry if they don't reach a certain level of production. Does it really make sense to take one great performance and say, "Jack Morris is one of the greatest pitchers of all-time because of this performance," rather than take what Jack Morris did over his entire career and compare it to what other Hall of Fame pitchers did?
The Gatekeeper is much more interested in whether a player created a lasting legacy in the sport.
A lasting legacy that 2-3 great performances can create, while a 14-15 year body of work isn't good enough?
Ozzie Smith is in the Hall because he made plays that no one dreamed a shortstop could make, not because of his fielding percentage.
Ozzie Smith is in the Hall of Fame also because he was a great hitting shortstop and a great fielder. In fact, he was one of the greatest players at his position. He also made great plays in the field no one else could make, but mostly he is in the Hall of Fame because he was one of the greatest players at his position in baseball history. So he meets the criteria to be in the Hall of Fame, so that's mostly why he was elected there. I am not sure he was elected into the Hall of Fame solely on the fact he could make plays no other shortstops could make, there were other factors as well.
Everyone who would even be considered for the Hall is impressive in some statistical area. So, enough with making a candidate's case by finding Hall of Famers with comparable stats. If the Gatekeeper wanted to discuss comps, he'd have gone into real estate.
Every player considered for the Hall is impressive in some statistical area? The 2011 ballot with Kirk Rueter, Lenny Harris, and Charles Johnson beg to differ. Bad players? Not at all. Impressive one statistical area...not exactly.
But you do have to compare a player's statistics in some fashion to other players of his generation or compare to who else is in the Hall of Fame. Why is it fine to compare Ozzie Smith's fielding plays to other shortstops, but it isn't fine to compare Smith's statistics to other shortstops?
The Gatekeeper believes the Hall of Fame has too many members as it is. In fact, don't get the Gatekeeper started, because he'll talk your ear off about how it's all part of the misguided tendency in sports to relax the standards of excellence. We don't just lock onto outdated milestones, like 500 home runs, we consider anyone who gets in the neighborhood, causing the bar to fall increasingly lower.
Phil Taylor's "created an unforgettable memory" criteria is one of the harshest set of criteria I have ever read about...in opposite world. Especially since each individual baseball fan probably has several baseball players that created unforgettable memories. Using subjective criteria based solely on the memory of how you felt during a moment would definitely cause the Hall's standards to tighten up by causing middle aged voters to recall how a player's performance perhaps over a decade ago made them feel. Nothing says, "restricted entrance" like relying on a person's memory and feelings for a player's candidacy.
The problem isn't limited to the Hall. Some people want to double the number of teams in the NCAA men's basketball tournament—or even worse, let everyone in. Loosening the definition of excellence is why we have expanded playoffs and expanded All-Star rosters. Does everything have to be devalued, diluted? The Gatekeeper wants a Hall that's harder to get into than his old high school jersey.
Let's not devalue the Hall of Fame by relying on a player's statistics over his entire career. Let's devalue the Hall of Fame by considering a player who created a special memory, as if this were also indicative that he was one of the greatest players in the Hall of Fame. Phil Taylor is loosening the definition of excellence simply by showing a disdain for statistics and basing a player's candidacy on how great of an unforgettable moment he created. It's great a player created an unforgettable memory, but if he wasn't one of the best players at his position during his career, I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame.
Q | Isn't it unfair to keep deserving players out when they don't meet subjective criteria?
A | Define deserving. The Gatekeeper believes that no one deserves enshrinement in Cooperstown.
It seems Phil Taylor is taking the JemeHill form of sportswriting where he creates a false argument and then disproves it...thereby proving his own intentionally false conclusion as indeed false and impressing the 100 readers who didn't figure out that Phil Taylor just disproved his own argument.
Noted baseball thinker Bob Costas has said that the Hall should be limited to the immortals. The Gatekeeper couldn't agree more. How do we get such a Hall? By asking questions that can't be answered with a calculator. Did the player take your breath away?
Yes, Andruw Jones took my breath away at times. Does this mean he should be in the Hall of Fame? No. John Rocker took my breath away at times (he was a pretty good closer for a short period of time). Does this mean the Hall should call him for induction? Therein lies the problem with the "took your breath away" way of evaluating players for the Hall of Fame.
Phil Taylor's basic argument is we shouldn't rely on the actual statistical legacy a baseball player left behind, but we should rely on exactly how he made us feel. Using this logic there is absolutely no reason Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame at some point soon. Nearly everyone remembers how they made us feel during the summer of 1998.
Is he someone to tell your grandchildren about? The Gatekeeper evaluates an artist by how a painting makes him feel, not by the number of brushstrokes per canvas.
What a beautiful analogy. I just took 15 minutes off from writing to go pick flowers and ponder my place in this world.
Q | Are the writers being fair when they refuse to vote for players they suspect have used steroids, even when there is no concrete evidence they did?
A | The Gatekeeper believes the system would be infinitely better if he alone determined a player's worthiness. But since others have been entrusted with a ballot, shouldn't they be given exactly that—trust? The Hall of Fame doesn't just yank some fans off the beer line to vote.
No, the Hall of Fame takes them out of the retirement home to vote.
I'm just kidding of course. The Hall of Fame delivers the ballot personally to the retirement home in order to avoid any would-be voters from having to drive a car.
Only journalists who have covered the game for at least 10 years are eligible. If they don't feel comfortable voting for a player because, in their opinion, he is likely to have used steroids, the Gatekeeper respects their judgment.
So basically Phil Taylor wants the Hall of Fame election process to be more subjective. He wants less of an interest in using statistics and more of an interest in using unforgettable memories of how good that player was and how he made each individual person feel. He entrusts the writers to deal fairly with players who allegedly, or not allegedly at all but that writer has a certain suspicion based purely on his lifetime of sitting in press boxes and eating free nachos, used steroids while playing baseball.
Q | Are you also going to defend writers who refuse to vote for an obvious candidate in his first year of eligibility because they have arbitrarily decided that only certain players should have the honor of being first-ballot inductees?
Phil Taylor is fine with voters suspecting a player may have used steroids without any type of proof. He is fine with completely ignoring a player's statistics and focusing more on how that player made the sportswriter voter feel, which is a half-ass way of remembering a player's legacy. He is also fine with these same people he has entrusted to essentially make baseless accusations towards a player like Jeff Bagwell about steroids with the ability to not vote for an "obvious" candidate because that voter doesn't want the player to be a first-ballot inductee. This trust ends when it comes to a Hall of Fame voter determining when a player should be in the Hall of Fame.
I don't agree with a voter doing this, but if are going to allow Hall of Fame voters to create the evidence, be the judge, and the jury on steroids...what's the problem with this same sportswriter (who Phil Taylor has given the ability to keep a player out of the Hall of Fame permanently based solely on suspicion of using steroids) from having the ability to differentiate between a first and second ballot Hall of Fame player? At least that player will most likely get in the Hall of Fame in his second year of eligibility rather than be turned away due to suspicion of steroid use.
A | That's where the Gatekeeper draws the line. The voters should not have the latitude to create a special class of Hall of Famer;
But feel free to not vote for a player based on your own baseless accusations of steroid use. In Phil Taylor's mind, and go ahead and not vote for a player if you think that player took steroids, go ahead and not vote for a player because his statistics may be good enough but he never took your breath away. Don't you dare not vote for a player because you don't want that player to be a first-ballot Hall of Fame player. Phil's advocating of subjective criteria stops when it comes a question as to WHEN to elect a player into the Hall of Fame. It is fine to have a bias against a player in not electing him to the Hall of Fame at all, but how dare you make that player wait if he is an "obvious candidate." That's just wrong.
Everything would be so much simpler if everyone would just listen to the Gatekeeper. If they did, Alomar, a maestro at second base, would still have been voted in last week. But Blyleven, who was a fine pitcher for a long time but a great one not long enough, would have been turned away.
This is not true at all. Bert Blyleven repeatedly took my breath away while watching him pitch and he even took his teammates breath away on many, many occasions in the clubhouse.
Hey, the Gatekeeper didn't say there wouldn't be tough calls. You have to bypass the very good to get to the best.
Unfortunately when it comes to reading about how a person should vote for the Hall of Fame you have to wade through a ton of unreasonable junk like this to get to someone who uses actual logic, not memory based hyperbole, on why Bert Blyleven should not be in the Hall of Fame.
Showing posts with label phil taylor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label phil taylor. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
15 comments LeBron James Is An Asshole/Competitor/Sending A Message By Not Shaking Hands With the Magic
I don't know if anyone heard but LeBron James had a handshake that did not happen heard 'round the world after the Cavs lost to the Magic. In typical mainstream media fashion many columnists took this lack of a handshake to mean many things about LeBron James. Apparently when a player is not in the mood to shake hands after losing an important game, it becomes a big, big deal. There are three different viewpoints that have been written and I think two of them are wrong and one is right. Then I have been studying up and am going to give out my list of the top 10 relievers of all time, which will undoubtedly be wrong.
Let's start first with Michael Rosenberg of FoxSports who thinks LeBron is just a total asshole for not shaking hands after the Game 6 loss.
Can somebody please tell LeBron James that "King" is not an official title?
Forget Conan O'Brien, we need Michael Rosenberg as the new host of the Tonight Show. Those one liners are pure gold.
LeBron followed up by refusing to shake hands with the Magic, storming out of Amway Arena in Orlando without answering reporters' questions and then defending himself when he was finally cornered Sunday.
Ok, now we know what this is all about. We were talking about Jim Rice yesterday and his attitude toward the media, and how the media pretty much hated him for this bad attitude he had. The media will NOT be ignored. If you don't answer their questions, they get pretty pissy. This story has nothing to do with a handshake and has more to do with the media not getting their dumb questions answered.
I'm with you on that, LeBron. Absolutely, it is hard. Not as hard as, say, putting in 12-hour days at a manufacturing plant, and certainly not as hard as getting laid off from the aforementioned manufacturing plant, but it's hard.
Oh, rim shot!
Well, that certainly came out of left field. I think LeBron was just saying after losing an important game, he was not in the mood to shake hands. I am not sure he was looking for a pissing contest on who has the hardest job.
"It's not being a poor sport or anything like that. If somebody beats you up, you're not going to congratulate them. That doesn't make sense to me."
I don't know if I agree with that statement completely...but James said "beats you up," not "beats you," so I think he was differentiating between a competition and a fight...maybe.
This is the part where Michael Rosenberg starts picking out old quotes showing what great sports other athletes are.
Well, it does make sense to me. And you know who agrees with me?
Michael Jordan!
Michael Jordan? The same guy who treated his own teammates like shit, allegedly got his father killed for his gambling debts he refused to pay due to his competitive nature, the guy who is currently running the Bobcats into the ground and yelled at my fiance for offering him Powerade over Gatorade (Gatorade was not available and he requested a drink) at a golf tournament? I am not sure I like him enough to agree with Michael.
And you know who agrees with me?
Magic Johnson!
Yes, Magic Johnson was always a great sport and he is a good businessman. He is also famous for finding the cure for AIDS, which turns out to be money (Top 20 South Park episode of all time for me).
In 1991, Jordan said the two-time defending champion Pistons had been bad for basketball with their overly physical play. The Pistons took offense, and after the Bulls swept them, several Pistons walked off the floor without shaking the Bulls' hands.
That Pistons team included Isiah Thomas, which is why Michael Rosenberg is not including him on the list of good sports, even though he was generally a good sport. If he included Isiah Thomas as someone who was a good sport, it would disprove his idea that LeBron James was completely in the wrong by allowing the Magic to celebrate on their homecourt and wait until later to congratulate them because Isiah did something similar in his career.
He wasn't being competitive. He was just being a sore loser. And nobody likes a sore loser.
I disagree for reasons I will share later. I think he was being a sort of sore loser but he had good reasoning for it.
The difference between athletes and movie stars is that athletes can't just storm off the set. They are held accountable.
Another major difference is that athletes and movie stars have completely different professions. There are also probably 1,000 other differences before you get to the fact athletes are accountable and actors are not, which I am not sure is even true. This is not a good comparison.
And you know who agrees with me?
LeBron James!
"We went up against a better team," James said in 2007, after losing to the San Antonio Spurs in his only Finals appearance so far. "We know the Spurs are definitely the better team in this series."
Clearly LeBron James did not feel the Magic were the best team in the series. He was frustrated and did not want to say something he may regret at a press conference or on the court. He did not want to act like an ass, so he gave himself time to get over it, then spoke about it. That seems sort of logical to me.
Or was that true? Phil Taylor thinks LeBron may have had ulterior motives and in that exact moment he wasn't thinking of how the Cavs had just lost the game, but how he could send a secret message to the Cavs.
There's not much debate to be had there. You're not likely to find anyone who would seriously argue that snubbing the Magic was a classy move on King James' part.
No, it was not classy at all. I will 100% agree with that idea but there was some sort of logic to LeBron's decision to act like a baby. Not to mention, it really wasn't that big of a deal. Sure, he acted like an ass but it's doubtful in that moment the Magic were incredibly angry with him.
The more interesting question is, Why did LeBron do it?
Because he was very upset what he viewed as a superior Cavs team lost to the Magic and played so poorly in doing so. That's pretty much it.
"I'm a competitor," he said. "That's what I do. It doesn't make sense to me to go over and shake somebody's hand."
That's almost believable, because James has grown up in an era in which the definition of a great competitor has been badly skewed. We heap so much praise on an athlete who "hates to lose" that some players don't even recognize when that hatred goes too far.
He was actually asked the question and answered the question. His answer is 100% believable...not "almost" believable.
It's been said that Michael Jordan would have cheated his own grandmother to win at cards. That's not passion. That's unhealthy.
But Michael Rosenberg holds him up as a beacon of sportsmanship light in this dreary world of assholes. This can't be true.
It's hard to believe he was just so overcome by disappointment that he forgot his manners.
How is that hard to believe? Hasn't Phil Taylor ever been upset? I have acted like a baby before when I was disappointed playing sports, so it makes sense LeBron just left the court before he acted like a jerk. He chose the lesser of two evils because he is human after all.
By not uttering a word, he was speaking volumes to Cavs management.
This is probably 2% likely. I would imagine at that moment when LeBron James was disappointed he knew Cavs management would get his super secret message that walking off the court and not shaking hands with the opposing team would convey. If James really had a problem with Cavs management I think talking to them, which he will do, is more effective than walking off the court.
James was putting Ferry on notice that he has no intention of trying to drag this group to a championship again. More help had better be on the way next year, King James seemed to be saying, or tell the Knicks to start getting my uniform ready.
James may have been thinking this at some point during the game, but I really doubt he thought that not shaking hands with the Magic would show that he did not like his supporting cast that much. I doubt this because it really makes no sense. Maybe he is frustrated with his supporting cast, but I don't think walking off the court and being kind of classless would convey that message.
Now, James isn't ready to say all that publicly yet. That's where the public relations savvy comes in. He has another year in Cleveland, at least, and he doesn't want to spend it being portrayed as the demanding superstar threatening the franchise,
So LeBron sent a super secret warning shot across the bow of Cavs management and now he will be quiet in hopes they understood it. Cavs management probably know James needs more help already because they won 66 games in the regular season and did not even make the NBA Finals.
That's more of a Kobe way to play it.
No it isn't. Kobe would dump on his teammates in public and then demand a trade. He actually did that too.
James was telling the Cavs that if he has to walk away like this at the end of next season, he just might keep walking all the way to New York.
That super secret message of walking off the court without shaking hands also had a super secret walk that showed Cavs management not only was he going to be a free agent, but he was going to New York. It's amazing how much a walk can tell a person. It was his "I'm going to New York, not any other city, when I am a free agent" walk.
It might have seemed like James had finally made a little mistake, but don't be fooled. He knew exactly where he was going.
Sure, buddy. I find it more likely he was angry with his team's performance and did not feel like shaking hands and he will later ask for more team help in the off season...using words to express the feelings, and not hoping his walking off the court without shaking hands conveyed his displeasure.
Though I think LeBron acted like an ass, I do agree with LZ Granderson's take on this issue.
He starts with a story about his kid, which is pretty hyperbolic, but it does make sense given this situation.
Well, call me a contrarian because I don't have a problem with the way LeBron handled the situation. In fact, I thought it was rather intelligent given the circumstances.
Contrarian.
How many times have we seen quotes taken immediately after a tough loss, blown up and spiral into a greater controversy because the person talking was angry?
Now let me hedge a little bit. I think LeBron was acting like an ass by not shaking hands with the Magic, but we don't know exactly what was going through his head. Maybe at that point he was fed up with his teammates (which would be conveyed verbally, not through the magic walk off the court) or something else and he knew it wasn't the best time to speak to the media either. He possibly knew he would say something that wasn't smart, so the best thing to do is walk away and calm down.
Dwight Howard and the Magic hardly looked disappointed that LeBron didn't stick around after the horn.
I guess this is another thing that gets me. The Magic were in the middle of celebrating their victory, they probably did not even care LeBron walked off the court. They wanted to celebrate at that point, not shake everyone's hand.
A ritual of insincere gestures being sold as good sportsmanship is yet one more step in the march toward mediocrity -- like telling young players, "Good job," when actually they didn't do a very good job at all.
I feel like I am LZ's brother right now. There is such a thin line between giving people false confidence and building them up. I think even an insincere gesture is better than no gesture at all, but I do see what LZ is saying.
That's like the un-apology apology public figures are famous for giving when they're more sorry they got caught than they are for the action that got them in trouble.
We as a people do love apologies, whether they are sincere or not. I don't think someone should really apologize if they are not sorry, but I know I am in the minority on that opinion.
You want to know what's poor sportsmanship?
Brett Favre cutting off all communication with his mentee and supposed friend Aaron Rogers after being traded to the Jets. Or Shaq freestyling about Kobe's Finals loss -- more than four years after being traded from L.A.
It's very hard to continue to agree with LZ's position when he goes off topic like this, but I still do agree. Though both situations are not great sportsmanship, they don't pertain that much to this situation.
Taking a day to calm down and gather your thoughts, that's a sign of maturity.
This is actually where I agree. Rather than say or do something stupid, it is more mature to just walk away from the situation...though I know people will argue walking away from the situation is immature.
That to me is much better than ripping teammates he may have to play with or a coach he may have to play under next season. I always tend to believe that teams function better when you keep unrest in the family.
So LZ seems to think that LeBron James was not happy with his supporting cast, but he doesn't believe his actual walking off the court meant anything to Cleveland management, it meant more that he was disappointed and frustrated.
Let's start first with Michael Rosenberg of FoxSports who thinks LeBron is just a total asshole for not shaking hands after the Game 6 loss.
Can somebody please tell LeBron James that "King" is not an official title?
Forget Conan O'Brien, we need Michael Rosenberg as the new host of the Tonight Show. Those one liners are pure gold.
LeBron followed up by refusing to shake hands with the Magic, storming out of Amway Arena in Orlando without answering reporters' questions and then defending himself when he was finally cornered Sunday.
Ok, now we know what this is all about. We were talking about Jim Rice yesterday and his attitude toward the media, and how the media pretty much hated him for this bad attitude he had. The media will NOT be ignored. If you don't answer their questions, they get pretty pissy. This story has nothing to do with a handshake and has more to do with the media not getting their dumb questions answered.
I'm with you on that, LeBron. Absolutely, it is hard. Not as hard as, say, putting in 12-hour days at a manufacturing plant, and certainly not as hard as getting laid off from the aforementioned manufacturing plant, but it's hard.
Oh, rim shot!
Well, that certainly came out of left field. I think LeBron was just saying after losing an important game, he was not in the mood to shake hands. I am not sure he was looking for a pissing contest on who has the hardest job.
"It's not being a poor sport or anything like that. If somebody beats you up, you're not going to congratulate them. That doesn't make sense to me."
I don't know if I agree with that statement completely...but James said "beats you up," not "beats you," so I think he was differentiating between a competition and a fight...maybe.
This is the part where Michael Rosenberg starts picking out old quotes showing what great sports other athletes are.
Well, it does make sense to me. And you know who agrees with me?
Michael Jordan!
Michael Jordan? The same guy who treated his own teammates like shit, allegedly got his father killed for his gambling debts he refused to pay due to his competitive nature, the guy who is currently running the Bobcats into the ground and yelled at my fiance for offering him Powerade over Gatorade (Gatorade was not available and he requested a drink) at a golf tournament? I am not sure I like him enough to agree with Michael.
And you know who agrees with me?
Magic Johnson!
Yes, Magic Johnson was always a great sport and he is a good businessman. He is also famous for finding the cure for AIDS, which turns out to be money (Top 20 South Park episode of all time for me).
In 1991, Jordan said the two-time defending champion Pistons had been bad for basketball with their overly physical play. The Pistons took offense, and after the Bulls swept them, several Pistons walked off the floor without shaking the Bulls' hands.
That Pistons team included Isiah Thomas, which is why Michael Rosenberg is not including him on the list of good sports, even though he was generally a good sport. If he included Isiah Thomas as someone who was a good sport, it would disprove his idea that LeBron James was completely in the wrong by allowing the Magic to celebrate on their homecourt and wait until later to congratulate them because Isiah did something similar in his career.
He wasn't being competitive. He was just being a sore loser. And nobody likes a sore loser.
I disagree for reasons I will share later. I think he was being a sort of sore loser but he had good reasoning for it.
The difference between athletes and movie stars is that athletes can't just storm off the set. They are held accountable.
Another major difference is that athletes and movie stars have completely different professions. There are also probably 1,000 other differences before you get to the fact athletes are accountable and actors are not, which I am not sure is even true. This is not a good comparison.
And you know who agrees with me?
LeBron James!
"We went up against a better team," James said in 2007, after losing to the San Antonio Spurs in his only Finals appearance so far. "We know the Spurs are definitely the better team in this series."
Clearly LeBron James did not feel the Magic were the best team in the series. He was frustrated and did not want to say something he may regret at a press conference or on the court. He did not want to act like an ass, so he gave himself time to get over it, then spoke about it. That seems sort of logical to me.
Or was that true? Phil Taylor thinks LeBron may have had ulterior motives and in that exact moment he wasn't thinking of how the Cavs had just lost the game, but how he could send a secret message to the Cavs.
There's not much debate to be had there. You're not likely to find anyone who would seriously argue that snubbing the Magic was a classy move on King James' part.
No, it was not classy at all. I will 100% agree with that idea but there was some sort of logic to LeBron's decision to act like a baby. Not to mention, it really wasn't that big of a deal. Sure, he acted like an ass but it's doubtful in that moment the Magic were incredibly angry with him.
The more interesting question is, Why did LeBron do it?
Because he was very upset what he viewed as a superior Cavs team lost to the Magic and played so poorly in doing so. That's pretty much it.
"I'm a competitor," he said. "That's what I do. It doesn't make sense to me to go over and shake somebody's hand."
That's almost believable, because James has grown up in an era in which the definition of a great competitor has been badly skewed. We heap so much praise on an athlete who "hates to lose" that some players don't even recognize when that hatred goes too far.
He was actually asked the question and answered the question. His answer is 100% believable...not "almost" believable.
It's been said that Michael Jordan would have cheated his own grandmother to win at cards. That's not passion. That's unhealthy.
But Michael Rosenberg holds him up as a beacon of sportsmanship light in this dreary world of assholes. This can't be true.
It's hard to believe he was just so overcome by disappointment that he forgot his manners.
How is that hard to believe? Hasn't Phil Taylor ever been upset? I have acted like a baby before when I was disappointed playing sports, so it makes sense LeBron just left the court before he acted like a jerk. He chose the lesser of two evils because he is human after all.
By not uttering a word, he was speaking volumes to Cavs management.
This is probably 2% likely. I would imagine at that moment when LeBron James was disappointed he knew Cavs management would get his super secret message that walking off the court and not shaking hands with the opposing team would convey. If James really had a problem with Cavs management I think talking to them, which he will do, is more effective than walking off the court.
James was putting Ferry on notice that he has no intention of trying to drag this group to a championship again. More help had better be on the way next year, King James seemed to be saying, or tell the Knicks to start getting my uniform ready.
James may have been thinking this at some point during the game, but I really doubt he thought that not shaking hands with the Magic would show that he did not like his supporting cast that much. I doubt this because it really makes no sense. Maybe he is frustrated with his supporting cast, but I don't think walking off the court and being kind of classless would convey that message.
Now, James isn't ready to say all that publicly yet. That's where the public relations savvy comes in. He has another year in Cleveland, at least, and he doesn't want to spend it being portrayed as the demanding superstar threatening the franchise,
So LeBron sent a super secret warning shot across the bow of Cavs management and now he will be quiet in hopes they understood it. Cavs management probably know James needs more help already because they won 66 games in the regular season and did not even make the NBA Finals.
That's more of a Kobe way to play it.
No it isn't. Kobe would dump on his teammates in public and then demand a trade. He actually did that too.
James was telling the Cavs that if he has to walk away like this at the end of next season, he just might keep walking all the way to New York.
That super secret message of walking off the court without shaking hands also had a super secret walk that showed Cavs management not only was he going to be a free agent, but he was going to New York. It's amazing how much a walk can tell a person. It was his "I'm going to New York, not any other city, when I am a free agent" walk.
It might have seemed like James had finally made a little mistake, but don't be fooled. He knew exactly where he was going.
Sure, buddy. I find it more likely he was angry with his team's performance and did not feel like shaking hands and he will later ask for more team help in the off season...using words to express the feelings, and not hoping his walking off the court without shaking hands conveyed his displeasure.
Though I think LeBron acted like an ass, I do agree with LZ Granderson's take on this issue.
He starts with a story about his kid, which is pretty hyperbolic, but it does make sense given this situation.
Well, call me a contrarian because I don't have a problem with the way LeBron handled the situation. In fact, I thought it was rather intelligent given the circumstances.
Contrarian.
How many times have we seen quotes taken immediately after a tough loss, blown up and spiral into a greater controversy because the person talking was angry?
Now let me hedge a little bit. I think LeBron was acting like an ass by not shaking hands with the Magic, but we don't know exactly what was going through his head. Maybe at that point he was fed up with his teammates (which would be conveyed verbally, not through the magic walk off the court) or something else and he knew it wasn't the best time to speak to the media either. He possibly knew he would say something that wasn't smart, so the best thing to do is walk away and calm down.
Dwight Howard and the Magic hardly looked disappointed that LeBron didn't stick around after the horn.
I guess this is another thing that gets me. The Magic were in the middle of celebrating their victory, they probably did not even care LeBron walked off the court. They wanted to celebrate at that point, not shake everyone's hand.
A ritual of insincere gestures being sold as good sportsmanship is yet one more step in the march toward mediocrity -- like telling young players, "Good job," when actually they didn't do a very good job at all.
I feel like I am LZ's brother right now. There is such a thin line between giving people false confidence and building them up. I think even an insincere gesture is better than no gesture at all, but I do see what LZ is saying.
That's like the un-apology apology public figures are famous for giving when they're more sorry they got caught than they are for the action that got them in trouble.
We as a people do love apologies, whether they are sincere or not. I don't think someone should really apologize if they are not sorry, but I know I am in the minority on that opinion.
You want to know what's poor sportsmanship?
Brett Favre cutting off all communication with his mentee and supposed friend Aaron Rogers after being traded to the Jets. Or Shaq freestyling about Kobe's Finals loss -- more than four years after being traded from L.A.
It's very hard to continue to agree with LZ's position when he goes off topic like this, but I still do agree. Though both situations are not great sportsmanship, they don't pertain that much to this situation.
Taking a day to calm down and gather your thoughts, that's a sign of maturity.
This is actually where I agree. Rather than say or do something stupid, it is more mature to just walk away from the situation...though I know people will argue walking away from the situation is immature.
That to me is much better than ripping teammates he may have to play with or a coach he may have to play under next season. I always tend to believe that teams function better when you keep unrest in the family.
So LZ seems to think that LeBron James was not happy with his supporting cast, but he doesn't believe his actual walking off the court meant anything to Cleveland management, it meant more that he was disappointed and frustrated.
You catch an irate LeBron James talking after a series in which he literally had to carry his teammates in the fourth quarter each game, then you're likely to get him saying some things that could interrupt the chemistry that got them to 66 wins.
LeBron was one of the few Cleveland players that showed up in the series and I think he really struggled with that. I think it is better to walk off the floor, not fake congratulate someone or do a press conference after the game angrily, and give yourself time to gather your thoughts before you start bitching.
Besides, I tend to think good sportsmanship isn't just about what you do in the heat of battle but what you premeditate and what you do afterward.
An interesting way to look at it. He separates sportsmanship in the heat of battle, or immediately after the heat of battle, from sportsmanship at a press conference afterwards and during the days after the game.
As he said, he's a competitor and like him, I believe competition isn't always nice.
Though I think LeBron James should have shaken hands with the Magic, I do think he is a jerk for not doing this but don't have a problem with him not speaking to the media after the game. He did not want to say something he would later regret and he probably wanted to take out any problem he had in private...which is what should happen. I also think James was frustrated with his supporting cast but his walking off the court was not a show for Cavs management to see, he was truly upset.
It is hard to make a list of the top 10 relievers of all time, especially since the role has changed so much over the past several years. Here's my list:
1. Mariano Rivera- I don't see how this can be argued and he is even better when you throw in the postseason numbers.
2. Dennis Eckersley- He did it for a shorter amount of time because he was a starter for a while but was incredibly dominant.
3. Hoyt Wilhelm- He was a different kind of reliever from today but he was incredibly successful with just a knuckleball.
4. Rollie Fingers- He was pretty consistent his whole career and is one of the first famous closers.
5. Rich Gossage- He stayed around a little too long but he pitched longer innings and had great numbers in his prime.
6. Trevor Hoffman- He averaged just over an inning per appearance in his career, so he is the poster boy for the new reliever/closer. I don't know where to rank him really, cwhen compared to the other relievers who pitched 1-2+ innings so I put him here. It's hard to balance the innings pitched with the numbers he has put up.
7. Bruce Sutter- I may have ranked him above Trevor Hoffman if I did this tomorrow or any other day. His career was a little shorter than I would like to be in the top 10, but he was money in his prime in the late 70's/early 80's.
8. Dan Quisenberry- Great career in the 80's and he even pitched more than one inning per outing and still got saves.
9. Lee Smith- I am not as high on Smith as other people are. He appeared dominant and intimidating on the mound and he could be at times.
10. Jeff Reardon- He had success no matter where he went. John Wetteland almost made this spot but did not because he did not pitch as long and well as Hoffman and rarely pitched more than an inning, so I rank the other relievers over him.
Go ahead and tear me apart or disagree if you like. This was very hard, so I know I was wrong on something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)