Scoop Jackson isn't the best of writers. The archive of Scoop's writing contributions to this blog is full dumb or bad ideas. Last time I wrote about him he thought that Derrick Rose needed to risk long-term injury to win the NBA title this year. He also thought Michael Jordan should have just done whatever he could to draft Anthony Davis, as if Jordan's want to draft Davis would cause the Pelicans (then the Hornets) trade the #1 overall pick to the Charlotte Hornets (then the Bobcats) out of kindess and respect. Scoop has not run out of bad ideas and he thinks the Cavaliers losing to the Golden State Warriors in the NBA Finals has saved the NBA. Because the NBA can't have players dominating or else it is bad for the sport. We all remember how the NBA was wrecked when the Chicago Bulls won six NBA titles in a span of eight years and it's not like the NBA Finals have been dominated by a subset of NBA players over the past 15 years or anything like that. Scoop thinks Cleveland, yes Cleveland, needs to be hungrier for an NBA title. This makes not of sense. It sounds more like Scoop is a Bulls fan who has to dream up ideas why it's good that LeBron didn't win another title.
Thankfully, the basketball gods looked out and did not allow the King,
aka "I'm the best player in the world," to win this chip. At least not
this year.
LeBron IS the best player in the world. And yes, thank goodness James was denied an NBA title this year. LeBron has been in the NBA for 12 years and been in six NBA Finals, we wouldn't him to just have another title handed to him. It's much better if Steph Curry appears in one NBA Finals after six years in the league and then wins the title. You know, at least he's earned it.
Nothing against what LeBron James
and the rest of his survival unit did to make the NBA Finals as
compelling and competitive as they were, but nothing good surrounding
the Cleveland Cavaliers'
epic overachievement would have come from their Dellavedovian efforts
resulting in a victory over the best team in the NBA, the Golden State Warriors.
Other than the stories about how he singlehandedly carried an inferior team to an NBA title and how this would add to LeBron James' legacy. Other than that, no good would come of this victory.
A MASH unit beating the Splash unit wouldn't have been a good look for the NBA.
Yes, the best player in the NBA winning another NBA title would have been a death knell for the NBA and the league would have been forced to immediately fold.
They can't lose to a team that, without LeBron, would have struggled to even make the playoffs.
The Warriors could have lost to the Cavs, because the Cavs did have LeBron. A victory in the Finals would have added immensely to LeBron's legacy.
And in the Cavs' case, they needed to lose. Losing breeds hunger, always
the prelude to greatness. And a team is only as great as its appetite.
Scoop Jackson is showing some great recognition of history and self awareness based on writing these two sentences. The one thing professional teams from Cleveland need to do is lose more important games so they don't feel spoiled by all the titles their professional franchises haven't won over the past few decades. The city of Cleveland just needs to lose more games, simply to get that hunger back. We wouldn't want the citizens of Cleveland to feel spoiled by a playoff appearance or anything.
Did Scoop really just write this? The Cavs need to be more hungry so they can get a bigger appetite for victory? How dumb is this?
If Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love and Anderson Varejao are all back next year, what would LeBron have had to prove? What hunger would he have had deep inside to prove anything more?
Perhaps the same thing he had to prove after winning an NBA title with the Miami Heat and then coming back the next year to see if he could do it again with much of the same supporting cast around him that contributed to the first title. LeBron would want to prove he can do it again.
This is the dumbest argument for why it's good the Cavs lost to the Warriors. What does any NBA team that tries to repeat have to prove? What did Bill Russell's Celtics teams have to prove when winning all those titles? Why did Michael Jordan come back to play again after winning three NBA titles? Why did Michael Jordan come back (again) after winning three straight more NBA titles? If Scoop thinks LeBron wouldn't have had the hunger inside to prove anything else then he doesn't understand the competitive nature of sports.
Is the Cavs' loss good for basketball?
No. It is not bad either.
Yes, you can say that when looking at the big picture and what is in the NBA's best interest.
No, you can not say that when looking at the big picture and what is in the NBA's best interest. I love how sportswriters like Scoop are so obsessed with storylines and narratives as if these are as important as the actual competition on the court. Scoop is just looking out for what is in the NBA's best interests, you know. The Cavs loss isn't necessarily better for him as a sportswriter or gives him something different to talk about other than another LeBron James title. Scoop just really cares about the NBA and it's best interest. That's all.
A Cavs title this season would have made a general public -- which
already has a love-hate relationship with LeBron -- lose interest in
this team ever winning again.
Or, as has happened many times in the history of the NBA, there will be increased interest in another team taking down the current NBA champion. Those who lose interest in the Cavs winning another title could easily become interested in seeing the Cavs not win another title. Interest is interest and a team that is hated can help the NBA as much as a team that is loved. Scoop's background prior to joining ESPN was in discussing the NBA. Did he watch any games over the past 20 years though?
How would it have helped the NBA for the Cavs to go through the East with ease (only slightly challenged by the Chicago Bulls)
minus one All-Star (Love) and then win the championship minus another
All-Star (Irving), all the while doing that without their starting
center (Varejao), who was out for almost the entire season?
I mean, it would have meant the Cavaliers had to win another title during the 2015-2016 season to show they could do it again? It meant other NBA teams would try to beat the Cavs. It would have meant NBA fans would watch the games to see the Cavs lose. The NBA doesn't lose if the Cavs had lost, just like the NBA didn't lose when Michael Jordan win six NBA titles.
It would have all seemed too easy.
Haha! This is great. Scoop Jackson spends the first part of this column talking about how it's bad for the NBA if the Cavs win a title with a depleted team. Now he calls this title run "too easy."
(Scoop earlier in this column) "Why would it be good if the Cavs are dragged to an NBA title by LeBron James? There were no good players around LeBron on the Cavs team."
(Scoop Jackson now) "It would have been bad for the NBA if LeBron had won a title so easily. What does it mean if the Cavs barely struggled without their best players? Where is the motivation to win another title next year? Please ignore that I'm while asking this question, yet automatically assuming the Cavs would have enough motivation to win next year because I've already put them down as the NBA Champions for next year if they had won the NBA title this year."
Also, I like how Scoop believes there is a correlation between the 14-15 Cavs team winning or not winning a title and how the 15-16 Cavs team performs. As if now that the Cavs lost in the Finals then the 15-16 team isn't as strong, but if the 14-15 Cavs team won the NBA title, then the 15/16 team would have run roughshod over the NBA during the 2015-2016 season...you know, even though Scoop doesn't think they would be motivated.
Yes, they would have had the
overcoming-the-odds achievement of these Finals to fall back on, but
after that, what?
Try. To. Win. Another. Title.
Trying to win another title just like Michael Jordan, Bill Russell and every other NBA champion has tried to do for the past 50 years. This is a shockingly non-persuasive opinion coming from Scoop Jackson. Why would the Cavs be motivated to win another title? The same reason every other NBA champion will be motivated and the same reason the Warriors will be motivated to win another title.
How would that have helped the NBA?
Because teams would have lined up to try and beat the Cavs just like teams are going to be lining up to beat the Warriors.
The NBA, much like MLB and the NHL, is historically a league of
dynasties. Lakers, Celtics, Yankees, Canadiens, Red Wings, you get the
pic.
Dynasties can't be easy. There has to be some sort of struggle and
adversity. An interruption of a stretch of genius. Or at least some sort
of failure in the beginning.
Okay, so Scoop does realize the Yankees' dynasty that started in 1996 didn't have a struggle or adversity, right? There was no interruption of genius or failing in the beginning. They Yankees beat the Braves 4-2 in 1996 and then lost one World Series game from 1998-2000. I am sure Scoop will say 1997 was "the interruption of a stretch of genius," but that's just not accurate. The Yankees had on a single World Series and had not yet reached their stretch of genius. The Yankees faced little adversity during that five year stretch of the dynasty run. The difficulty started AFTER the Yankees stopped winning World Series titles in 2001.
In sports, we love the players and teams that play, but what we fall in love with are the players' and teams' stories.
A happy ending to the Cavs' story this season could have ruined the rest of their story before it was even told.
This is ridiculous. A happy ending would have forced the Cavs to try and repeat. That's interesting to NBA fans. So how is the Warriors victory good for the NBA? The Warriors have their story ruined before it was ever told and they didn't struggle. I guess Scoop just assumes the Warriors aren't going to be a dynasty like the Cavs are going to be. Why are the Warriors not held to this same standard as the Cavs? The Warriors didn't struggle before winning the NBA title.
Had the Cavs won, an offseason narrative about LeBron's greatness and
place in history -- making the LeBron-Michael Jordan debate finally a
legit one -- would not have been bad for the NBA. But on the flip side,
had he won it with the depleted team around him, that narrative would
have shared space with an open-ended discussion about how weak the NBA
is.
Again, narratives and the story the media wants to tell have nothing to do with what is and is not in the best interest of the NBA.
Coming in, they were given only a 27.6 percent chance of winning it,
according to the NBA BPI Playoff Projections. After losing Game 1 (and
losing Irving), their chances dropped to 19 percent. After tying the
series 1-1, the chance jumped to 39.3 percent. When they took a 2-1 lead
and had home-court advantage, it peaked at 56.4 percent. Then, when
reality set in and the Warriors evened the series, their index sank to
29.4 percent, then to the all-time series low of 14.8 percent before
Game 6.
From a pure basketball standpoint, how good would it have been for the
future of the NBA if a depleted team that was only once given a better
than 50 percent chance of winning the Finals had walked away with a
championship only to add back two All-Stars and its starting center the
next season?
I don't know if it would have looked bad for the NBA more than it would have looked like LeBron James performed a Herculean effort to win an NBA title with an epically high usage rate and not very good teammates. I think a Cavs win makes LeBron even more of a legend and with Love (maybe) and Irving coming back next year puts the focus on "who can beat the Cavs?" Having the spotlight on the best NBA player is not bad for the NBA.
LeBron and the Cavs winning it all this time would have been as bad as
or maybe even worse than Magic Johnson winning one with the second-best
player on the Lakers being Kurt Rambis. No Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, no James
Worthy, no Michael Cooper. What if they were all injured and then they
all came back? Think the NBA would have blown up to historic heights in
the 1980s had that been the case?
Yes, the NBA would have blown up to historic heights in this situation. Kareem, Worthy and Cooper would have come back and then played the exact same NBA teams in this alternate universe as they played in the real universe. I don't think Scoop understands the concept that one NBA Finals won't have an impact on further NBA Finals. If LeBron had won a title with an inferior team, this doesn't mean next year's NBA Finals will be boring or non-competitive. Much like how if Magic had won a title without his Hall of Fame teammates then it would have had no effect on the historical heights the NBA reached in the 1980's. Just like because the Cavs lost to the Warriors it doesn't mean the Cavs are going to win the 2015-2016 NBA title.
The impact of such a scenario? No rebirth of a rivalry with the Celtics. No Sixers and Pistons challenges.
Why in the holy fuck would there have been no rivalry with the Celtics or challenges from the Sixers and Pistons? These teams would have still existed in the same way no matter who was or was not injured for the Lakers when they won an NBA title. I would like to know what Scoop thinks would have happened to the Celtics if the Lakers won a title with Kurt Rambis being the second-best player? Would the entire team have retired out of frustration? Where the hell does he think these three teams would gone or why would they just quit?
The Cavs would be too good for anyone to really care about. And that is not good for any team sport. Especially one in which a single great player can pull off a miracle by his own damn self.
They would have been too good to cheer for, but because the Cavs were so good, there would be a population of NBA fans who would watch the games to watch the Cavs lose (like how fans watched the NBA to see Kobe and Shaq lose when they played for the Lakers). This is good for the NBA.
The Cavs during this Finals proved that the field in the 2015-16 season
-- even with major free-agent signings, big-name offseason player
movement and the draft -- might not be ready.
You can't do epic s--- with basic people. That saying would have lost all credibility and substance with a Cavs victory in the Finals.
No, it would not have lost all credibility and substance with a Cavs victory. And somehow Scoop is forgetting that the Cavs struggled for a portion of the 2014-2015 season, plus Kyrie Irving is ALWAYS injured for some reason. So Scoop's assumption the Cavs will just run roughshod over the NBA during the 2015-2016 season has some holes in it based on past evidence this isn't true. Not to mention, Scoop is trying to tie all of this into how the Cavs running roughshod over the NBA during the 15-16 season is bad for the NBA, when this wouldn't necessarily be true. I hear sportswriters claim all the time that there aren't any dominant teams that polarize fans and get fans to watch the games. Now Scoop thinks a dominant team that fans can love or hate is a bad thing for the NBA.
And had he done that, just ask yourself, for the sake of parity and
competition, how thoroughly uneventful the next four or five NBA Finals
stood to be once a fully loaded Cavs squad got back together to play for
something already achieved.
Just like how uneventful the NBA Finals were in the 90's when Jordan's Bulls teams ruled the NBA. I remember how the NBA just thrived after Jordan retired. Because nobody had any interest in watching a dominant team play and the NBA struggled so badly during the time Jordan and the Bulls won six NBA titles. I don't know how the NBA ever survived the era where Bill Russell and the Celtics were winning title after title.
Scoop Jackson must remember the history of the NBA differently from me. Also, I can't figure out why the Warriors winning a title on the first try isn't bad for the NBA, but LeBron winning with the Cavs after multiple tries with the team would have not been in the best interest of the NBA.
Showing posts with label what are you talking about?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label what are you talking about?. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Saturday, July 19, 2014
3 comments The New York Media Loves Discussing Alex Rodriguez at Any Given Opportunity
You can't give the New York media any daylight to talk about Alex Rodriguez. Any conversation can suddenly take a sharp turn towards a discussion of A-Rod. It gets pageviews, comments, and a discussion going. Any conversation or topic can be taken down the A-Rod road by a New York writer.
Kate Upton is on the cover of Sports Illustrated?
"I bet A-Rod has been on the cover of Sports Illustrated more than she has!"
It's raining outside?
"A-Rod never played well in the rain because he was always worried about his appearance more than he was worried about playing well!"
Tom Hanks said 'Captain Phillips' was his all-time favorite movie to make?
"A-Rod will never be the captain of the Yankees because he isn't a selfless winner like Derek Jeter!"
Don Zimmer has died?
"A-Rod is probably too focused on himself to concern himself on whether Zimmer died or not. I bet Don Zimmer didn't even like A-Rod!"
Manny Ramirez got a player/coach position in the Cubs organization?
"I wonder if a team would give A-Rod a player/coach position in their organization?"
Well done, Joel Sherman, well done. You have managed to bring a non- Alex Rodriguez story around to another discussion about Alex Rodriguez. After all, everything has to come back to A-Rod and what a pariah he is doesn't it?
Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein had a tough sell in explaining why he hired Manny Ramirez as a player-coach for his Triple-A squad and offered this in a statement:
"I fucking wanted to do it. I'm the president of baseball operations and if I want to name Carrot Top the new head athletic trainer I can do it"?
“Manny is not only one of the best hitters of all time, he is also a dedicated student of hitting and has proven to be a gifted teacher with younger teammates who have worked with him in the batting cage. Behind the scenes he has always been a tireless worker who is very serious about the craft of hitting. Manny has made real mistakes in the past but he has owned up to them and moved his life in a positive direction the last couple of years. He is in a really great place right now and wants to share the lessons he’s learned along the way. We think he deserves another chance and that our young hitters will benefit from it.”
Now re-read that statement and replace the name “Manny” with “Alex.”
Now re-read that statement and replace the name "Manny" with "This story isn't about Alex Rodriguez and so stop making it about him." It doesn't flow as well, but it certainly makes me feel better.
Now re-read that statement and replace the name "Manny" with "Cockgoblin McShitfits." I think it gives the quote a real levity that was missing originally.
It works doesn’t it? Alex Rodriguez is one of the best hitters of all-time, a dedicated student of hitting, a tireless worker, a proven gifted teacher who loved to share his knowledge with youngsters and a player who has made real mistakes in the past.
And Joel Sherman is desperately tying these two players together as hard as possible.
"See, both athletes play baseball and were two of the best hitters in baseball, as well as have made mistakes in their life. They are pretty much the same person."
Stop there.
You can't make me. I'm down the road already. Would A-Rod be too busy prancing around and making pouty faces in the mirror while checking out his butt to show his teammates/students hitting tips? Most likely. Would A-Rod teach his teammates/students how to properly inject steroids? Very, very likely. If A-Rod became a player/coach then it would open a whole new Pandora's box of criticism for him. I mean, the New York media could then blame him for the performance of his teammates and do so with a more straight face.
Rodriguez’s latest contrition tour is certainly nearing. Will he own up to his mistakes? Will he convince people that he really has moved into a positive place?
More importantly, will he try to grow some dreadlocks to be like Manny Ramirez? Obviously the dreads were the key to Manny's redemption.
My guess is he will try.
My guess is your guess is simply a guess and therefore is just speculation. Of course if Joel Sherman's guess was that A-Rod would not try to rehab his image then there isn't much of a point in this column.
After all, he sold it once after his 2009 steroid outing and generally received the best coverage and fan support of his Yankees tenure. Of course, he ended up betraying all of that.
This may have had something to do with the Yankees having won the World Series and A-Rod actually contributing to the World Series. I also like the idea that Sherman "betrayed" the fan support and coverage provided by the reporters. The fans probably care less about A-Rod's PED use than Joel Sherman probably knows, especially Yankees fans who have seen a truckload of suspected and PED users on the roster. And if Sherman really believes the Yankees reporters were betrayed by A-Rod's PED use then he needs to realize he and his colleagues are not a part of the story. They cover the story and can not be betrayed.
Plus, when it comes to Rodriguez will anyone ever believe he is sincere — or simply putting on yet another act?
I don't really care if he's being sincere or putting on an act. Don't you like how this column started off with Manny Ramirez becoming a player/coach for the Cubs and has turned into the textbook by-the-number A-Rod bashing column? It's like these New York area writers can't help themselves.
I actually think you can make a case Ramirez is the more offensive of the two.
I think you can actually make a case neither player is really offensive. Comparing which player is more offensive is silly anyway. What's most offensive is Joel Sherman has to use any excuse possible to write about Alex Rodriguez.
But no one ever questioned if A-Rod — like with Manny — had stopped trying on the field as a protest about future salaries or treated defense as a necessary evil needed to hit. He never attacked an aged traveling secretary. Ramirez did that.
Really, who hasn't attacked an aged traveling secretary? Especially if that aged traveling secretary has a service dog she may or may not actually need who takes multiple craps while traveling on a plane.
Yet, Ramirez benefitted from a perception of zaniness rather than cruelty — “Manny being Manny” became shorthand for poor behavior. No one sees A-Rod as zany. Calculating, yes. Fraudulent, definitely. Self-absorbed, you bet.
Actually, "Manny being Manny" was shorthand for bizarre behavior more than it was shorthand for his poor behavior. If an MLB team wants to hire A-Rod as a player/coach then whether he is more offensive or fraudulent won't really matter. Mark McGwire has been a hitting coach, Barry Bonds has been a special assistant in spring training and Jason Giambi is considered a managerial candidate once he finally retires. If a team wants to hire A-Rod, no matter what Joel Sherman thinks of him, he will be hired and very well could succeed.
Because the Yankees owe him $61 million for 2015-17, they may bring A-Rod back after his yearlong suspension...But once that drama concludes, A-Rod will be a man without a team. I can’t imagine any of the three clubs that employed him — Mariners, Rangers or Yankees — wanting anything to do with a man who I believe loves baseball, hates irrelevancy and would want to stay involved in some fashion.
Joel Sherman says it could very well happen that A-Rod tries to become a player/coach, then says none of the teams that A-Rod played for will probably employ him. So will A-Rod have to go to wherever Brian Cashman may end up in the future? Most likely not given their history. Since Joel is so sure that A-Rod could take the same road as Manny Ramirez, then who the hell would hire A-Rod?
Of course, I never thought any former employer of Ramirez would dance with him again.
How shocking that Theo Epstein would hire a guy who was a fantastic hitter to teach young players how to be a fantastic hitter. Unforeseen.
Perhaps, this could happen for Rodriguez — someone such as Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria thinking there is upside PR value in employing A-Rod in his Miami hometown. But keep in mind Rodriguez disenchanted fellow players in a way Ramirez never did by essentially suing them all when he sued the players association.
I know the players don't care about this, but the way MLB went about suspending A-Rod without a positive test and after they had essentially bought the witness against A-Rod was a little shady. I'm not an A-Rod fan, but he got railroaded in some ways. MLB bent the rules a little bit to bust him. They went a little Vic Mackey on A-Rod. Sure, the guys Vic Mackey bent the rules to arrest were probably guilty in some way, but he went outside of what he should be able to do in order to get the arrest. The same thing goes for A-Rod. MLB bought the witness against A-Rod and then suspended him on potentially stolen documents.
Ramirez never publicly took on the commissioner and the whole sport in what for months was a scorched-earth legal and media assault. Finding an A-Rod ally within the confines of the game is difficult, and unearthing someone in power who will put his name to employing him (beyond the Yankees in the short-term) is akin to hunting unicorns.
But remember, this entire article is written around the premise that A-Rod could easily want to be a player/coach like Manny Ramirez. So basically Joel Sherman has written a JemeHill article. He has introduced a premise as a potential reality that others may believe to be true and then disproved that reality in his column.
My suspicion, though, is all that has led to this moment will not go away, and there will be a lifetime penalty for A-Rod being A-Rod.
So basically this whole column was just an excuse for Joel Sherman to re-hash everything A-Rod has done wrong and then state that nobody likes A-Rod so the hypothetical coach/player job that Joel Sherman thinks A-Rod will want despite A-Rod never actually saying he would want this job will not be available to him. It sounds like Sherman just wanted an excuse to write about how nobody likes Alex Rodriguez and get a few pageviews by putting "A-Rod" in the title of a column while his clickbait subject is serving his yearlong suspension.
Kate Upton is on the cover of Sports Illustrated?
"I bet A-Rod has been on the cover of Sports Illustrated more than she has!"
It's raining outside?
"A-Rod never played well in the rain because he was always worried about his appearance more than he was worried about playing well!"
Tom Hanks said 'Captain Phillips' was his all-time favorite movie to make?
"A-Rod will never be the captain of the Yankees because he isn't a selfless winner like Derek Jeter!"
Don Zimmer has died?
"A-Rod is probably too focused on himself to concern himself on whether Zimmer died or not. I bet Don Zimmer didn't even like A-Rod!"
Manny Ramirez got a player/coach position in the Cubs organization?
"I wonder if a team would give A-Rod a player/coach position in their organization?"
Well done, Joel Sherman, well done. You have managed to bring a non- Alex Rodriguez story around to another discussion about Alex Rodriguez. After all, everything has to come back to A-Rod and what a pariah he is doesn't it?
Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein had a tough sell in explaining why he hired Manny Ramirez as a player-coach for his Triple-A squad and offered this in a statement:
"I fucking wanted to do it. I'm the president of baseball operations and if I want to name Carrot Top the new head athletic trainer I can do it"?
“Manny is not only one of the best hitters of all time, he is also a dedicated student of hitting and has proven to be a gifted teacher with younger teammates who have worked with him in the batting cage. Behind the scenes he has always been a tireless worker who is very serious about the craft of hitting. Manny has made real mistakes in the past but he has owned up to them and moved his life in a positive direction the last couple of years. He is in a really great place right now and wants to share the lessons he’s learned along the way. We think he deserves another chance and that our young hitters will benefit from it.”
Now re-read that statement and replace the name “Manny” with “Alex.”
Now re-read that statement and replace the name "Manny" with "This story isn't about Alex Rodriguez and so stop making it about him." It doesn't flow as well, but it certainly makes me feel better.
Now re-read that statement and replace the name "Manny" with "Cockgoblin McShitfits." I think it gives the quote a real levity that was missing originally.
It works doesn’t it? Alex Rodriguez is one of the best hitters of all-time, a dedicated student of hitting, a tireless worker, a proven gifted teacher who loved to share his knowledge with youngsters and a player who has made real mistakes in the past.
And Joel Sherman is desperately tying these two players together as hard as possible.
"See, both athletes play baseball and were two of the best hitters in baseball, as well as have made mistakes in their life. They are pretty much the same person."
Stop there.
You can't make me. I'm down the road already. Would A-Rod be too busy prancing around and making pouty faces in the mirror while checking out his butt to show his teammates/students hitting tips? Most likely. Would A-Rod teach his teammates/students how to properly inject steroids? Very, very likely. If A-Rod became a player/coach then it would open a whole new Pandora's box of criticism for him. I mean, the New York media could then blame him for the performance of his teammates and do so with a more straight face.
Rodriguez’s latest contrition tour is certainly nearing. Will he own up to his mistakes? Will he convince people that he really has moved into a positive place?
More importantly, will he try to grow some dreadlocks to be like Manny Ramirez? Obviously the dreads were the key to Manny's redemption.
My guess is he will try.
My guess is your guess is simply a guess and therefore is just speculation. Of course if Joel Sherman's guess was that A-Rod would not try to rehab his image then there isn't much of a point in this column.
After all, he sold it once after his 2009 steroid outing and generally received the best coverage and fan support of his Yankees tenure. Of course, he ended up betraying all of that.
This may have had something to do with the Yankees having won the World Series and A-Rod actually contributing to the World Series. I also like the idea that Sherman "betrayed" the fan support and coverage provided by the reporters. The fans probably care less about A-Rod's PED use than Joel Sherman probably knows, especially Yankees fans who have seen a truckload of suspected and PED users on the roster. And if Sherman really believes the Yankees reporters were betrayed by A-Rod's PED use then he needs to realize he and his colleagues are not a part of the story. They cover the story and can not be betrayed.
Plus, when it comes to Rodriguez will anyone ever believe he is sincere — or simply putting on yet another act?
I don't really care if he's being sincere or putting on an act. Don't you like how this column started off with Manny Ramirez becoming a player/coach for the Cubs and has turned into the textbook by-the-number A-Rod bashing column? It's like these New York area writers can't help themselves.
I actually think you can make a case Ramirez is the more offensive of the two.
I think you can actually make a case neither player is really offensive. Comparing which player is more offensive is silly anyway. What's most offensive is Joel Sherman has to use any excuse possible to write about Alex Rodriguez.
But no one ever questioned if A-Rod — like with Manny — had stopped trying on the field as a protest about future salaries or treated defense as a necessary evil needed to hit. He never attacked an aged traveling secretary. Ramirez did that.
Really, who hasn't attacked an aged traveling secretary? Especially if that aged traveling secretary has a service dog she may or may not actually need who takes multiple craps while traveling on a plane.
Yet, Ramirez benefitted from a perception of zaniness rather than cruelty — “Manny being Manny” became shorthand for poor behavior. No one sees A-Rod as zany. Calculating, yes. Fraudulent, definitely. Self-absorbed, you bet.
Actually, "Manny being Manny" was shorthand for bizarre behavior more than it was shorthand for his poor behavior. If an MLB team wants to hire A-Rod as a player/coach then whether he is more offensive or fraudulent won't really matter. Mark McGwire has been a hitting coach, Barry Bonds has been a special assistant in spring training and Jason Giambi is considered a managerial candidate once he finally retires. If a team wants to hire A-Rod, no matter what Joel Sherman thinks of him, he will be hired and very well could succeed.
Because the Yankees owe him $61 million for 2015-17, they may bring A-Rod back after his yearlong suspension...But once that drama concludes, A-Rod will be a man without a team. I can’t imagine any of the three clubs that employed him — Mariners, Rangers or Yankees — wanting anything to do with a man who I believe loves baseball, hates irrelevancy and would want to stay involved in some fashion.
Joel Sherman says it could very well happen that A-Rod tries to become a player/coach, then says none of the teams that A-Rod played for will probably employ him. So will A-Rod have to go to wherever Brian Cashman may end up in the future? Most likely not given their history. Since Joel is so sure that A-Rod could take the same road as Manny Ramirez, then who the hell would hire A-Rod?
Of course, I never thought any former employer of Ramirez would dance with him again.
How shocking that Theo Epstein would hire a guy who was a fantastic hitter to teach young players how to be a fantastic hitter. Unforeseen.
Perhaps, this could happen for Rodriguez — someone such as Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria thinking there is upside PR value in employing A-Rod in his Miami hometown. But keep in mind Rodriguez disenchanted fellow players in a way Ramirez never did by essentially suing them all when he sued the players association.
I know the players don't care about this, but the way MLB went about suspending A-Rod without a positive test and after they had essentially bought the witness against A-Rod was a little shady. I'm not an A-Rod fan, but he got railroaded in some ways. MLB bent the rules a little bit to bust him. They went a little Vic Mackey on A-Rod. Sure, the guys Vic Mackey bent the rules to arrest were probably guilty in some way, but he went outside of what he should be able to do in order to get the arrest. The same thing goes for A-Rod. MLB bought the witness against A-Rod and then suspended him on potentially stolen documents.
Ramirez never publicly took on the commissioner and the whole sport in what for months was a scorched-earth legal and media assault. Finding an A-Rod ally within the confines of the game is difficult, and unearthing someone in power who will put his name to employing him (beyond the Yankees in the short-term) is akin to hunting unicorns.
But remember, this entire article is written around the premise that A-Rod could easily want to be a player/coach like Manny Ramirez. So basically Joel Sherman has written a JemeHill article. He has introduced a premise as a potential reality that others may believe to be true and then disproved that reality in his column.
My suspicion, though, is all that has led to this moment will not go away, and there will be a lifetime penalty for A-Rod being A-Rod.
So basically this whole column was just an excuse for Joel Sherman to re-hash everything A-Rod has done wrong and then state that nobody likes A-Rod so the hypothetical coach/player job that Joel Sherman thinks A-Rod will want despite A-Rod never actually saying he would want this job will not be available to him. It sounds like Sherman just wanted an excuse to write about how nobody likes Alex Rodriguez and get a few pageviews by putting "A-Rod" in the title of a column while his clickbait subject is serving his yearlong suspension.
Friday, June 6, 2014
4 comments Jay Mariotti Keeps Moving the Goalposts to Further the Same Tired LeBron James Narrative
LeBron James has two NBA Championship rings. You wouldn't know from the column that Jay Mariotti has written though. I'm sure many remember the boring, tired narrative propagated by many in the media from two years ago that if LeBron James didn't win a title then:
1. He won't ever be Michael Jordan.
2. He won't be the best player in NBA history.
3. The gathering of the Big 3 in Miami was a failure and they should all kill themselves.
4. This proves he's a choker who can't win the big game.
5. All of the above and more.
Unfortunately for the idiots who wrote columns like this about a 27-year old LeBron James it turns out he has won back-to-back NBA Championships...but only because Ray Allen bailed him out of course. Michael Jordan never had help from anyone like John Paxson when he won an NBA title. Never. So what to do now? LeBron has two NBA titles. How to criticize LeBron and make it seem like he won't ever be what "we" wanted him to be? By moving the goalposts every single time he accomplishes something of course. He and the Heat won the NBA title last year? Well this year it means MORE that they win the NBA title, so LeBron has to win the NBA title again this year or his two previous titles mean absolutely nothing. That's the Mariotti-esque point of view that Jay Mariotti has. THIS YEAR is the most important NBA Finals of LeBron's career. Just like next year will be the most important NBA Finals of his career.
In the most meaningful ways, the human ways, LeBron James has more than passed the flaw test. Since that week in 2002, when Sports Illustrated propped him on its cover as “The Chosen One,’’ not once has he failed himself or his legacy in the searing public eye.
But you know, it all goes away if he doesn't win the NBA title this year. Immediacy is king. LeBron is nothing if he can't win an NBA title every single season. All his past accomplishments are null and void if he goes 2-3 in the NBA Finals.
I like how Jay starts off a column where he states LeBron is flawed by stating that LeBron really isn't flawed. Of course a column about how LeBron isn't flawed won't get Jay the attention he so desperately requires to become relevant again, so he has to write that LeBron is flawed in some way.
Never in a dozen years has he been scandalized, bimboized or TMZized. If LeBron’s image is fake, he has guarded his secrets well enough that Edward Snowden couldn’t expose them.
So keep that in mind when I say James, as the preeminent American athlete of the moment, has stumbled more than once professionally and dearly needs to win a third straight NBA championship to remove some lingering tarnish.
Keep this in mind as Jay writes this column so that you can be aware Jay (a) knows this column is a piece of crap and he doesn't believe a word he writes, (b) Jay knows he is wrong and doesn't give a shit because he wants attention, (c) is going to completely pretend this column doesn't exist in two years.
And you know what happened a year later — after James had made his daunting “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six …’’ declaration — when he disappeared in the clutch and generally flat-lined in an abysmal loss to Dallas in the Finals. Even if we give James a pass for his previous washout against the Spurs in the 2007 Finals — are we absolutely certain the Cavaliers ever laced up sneakers for that series? — it means he has failed more than once in history-defining arenas.
Oh, so there were more "history-defining arenas" for LeBron James during the NBA Finals. It almost seems like the "history-defining arenas" are intentionally chosen to be during the NBA Finals that LeBron has lost and not during those he has won. He took a very undermanned Cavs team to the Finals in 2007 and learned lessons from the 2011 Finals that have resulted in the Heat winning back-to-back NBA Finals.
LeBron is more Peyton Manning than Michael Jordan, OK?
I don't know what that means since LeBron has won as many NBA Finals series as he has lost, but I do know LeBron has two NBA titles at the age of 29 years old, Peyton Manning has won a single Super Bowl and Michael Jordan had three NBA titles at the age of 29. Most of the reason LeBron is more Manning than Jordan is because he is 29 years old and hasn't had a chance to win as many titles as Jordan won.
Therefore, he has more at stake than Tim Duncan and the Spurs in what should be a memorable seven-game series.
"Who has more at stake in this series? It has to be someone! There is a right answer to this unanswerable question!"
Ah yes, another lazy, tired narrative that ESPN loves to debate on their many day time sports argument shows. For a guy who claims to not like ESPN, Jay sure does think like many of the talking heads there.
If San Antonio wins a fifth title since 1999, sure, it further validates Gregg Popovich’s methodology as championship-sustainable into a third decade, which should be an impossibility amid the opt-outs, tax restrictions and dizzying business structure of the 21st century. But whether the Spurs win or fall short doesn’t impact their place in basketball lore.
So to recap:
The team who lost to the Heat in the NBA Finals last year, has their title window closing very rapidly because they are built around three 30+ stars, and has won four titles in the last 14 years have nothing to prove. The team who beat the Spurs last year in the NBA Finals, still has a very wide title window and has won the last two NBA titles (including one over the Spurs) is the team whose failure will impact their place in basketball lore?
Popovich, Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and a recently cultivated cast of snap-on parts — international in scope — really have nothing to prove except revenge for an uncharacteristically botched Finals opportunity last June against the Heat. Another loss will make them ache, but we won’t think less of them.
Well...first off, don't "we" me. Let's look at what "we" think of the Spurs based on their NBA Finals experience.
1999: They beat the #8 seed Knicks in a strike-shortened season.
2003: They beat the #2 seed Nets.
2005: They beat the #2 seed and defending champion Pistons.
2007: They beat a pathetically undermatched (I meant "overmatched" as mentioned in the comments) Cavs teams.
2013: Lost to the Miami Heat.
So, and this is just my opinion, it has been almost 10 years since the Spurs have met a quality NBA Finals Eastern Conference opponent and beaten that opponent to win the NBA title. I'm not taking the Spurs title away from them, but while I found the 2007 Cavs team exciting they weren't exactly a strong team. So the Spurs do seem to have something to prove. They need to prove they can still compete against and defeat a great Eastern Conference team in the NBA Finals. Because it's been a while since they have done that.
If James loses? That will be three Finals losses, and while his supporters will find fault with his unreliable supporting cast, the all-time greats find ways of overcoming such weaknesses — particularly when the Spurs have their own issues with age and injuries.
That's the thing though. If the Heat lose, it may not reflect on James at all. I know, it's shocking this could be possible, but perhaps if James loses another NBA Finals it just means the Spurs outplayed the Heat and deserved to win the NBA title. Why does there have to be a narrative that follows and points to a separate narrative outside of the Heat simply losing? Why does another Finals loss for LeBron HAVE to mean something?
If James is the Michael Jordan of his era and the Heat are the Jordan Bulls of their era, as Indiana coach Frank Vogel blathered in trying to justify another failure by his knuckleheads in the Eastern Conference finals, then they will find a way to win another title as they did last year.
Okay, sure. If this comparison has to be made, then a direct comparison to Jordan's Bulls would be applicable because the Heat won't win three titles in a row. But otherwise, these NBA Finals are not the fulcrum for LeBron's legacy. Stop moving the goalposts on him. It used to be that his legacy meant nothing if he didn't win an NBA title, so he won a title. Then it was, "Well he has to win back-to-back titles or his legacy is shit," so he won another title. Now it's, "He has to be like Michael Jordan and win three straight titles or his legacy is shit." It's silly. Just enjoy him for his accomplishments and stop acting like every NBA Finals is the very end-all be-all for James' legacy.
His legacy will pivot on what happens these next two weeks.
This is written every single time James' team appears in the NBA Finals. It's boring and tired.
The three-peat would set him apart. On Finals eve, James isn’t shying from the Jordan comparisons, but deep down, he knows such thoughts will end without another South Beach partner. You can’t say “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven …’’ and stop at two.
Is Jay Mariotti under the impression LeBron James is retiring after the season is over? If not, then LeBron still may not be stopping at two titles. There is a next year, another season, another chance for the 2015 NBA Finals to be THE FINALS where James' cements his legacy until the next season's NBA Finals.
I wish this type of stuff translated to other professions.
"This column is the column which defines Jay Mariotti's legacy. It's his Super Bowl column. If he wants to be considered one of the greats, he will nail this Super Bowl column. If he doesn't nail it, then he's never going to be a great writer."
"I have to turn in this TPS report and it be the best thing I ever written. If this TPS report isn't the best report I have ever turned in, my career will mean nothing."
James said. “Me and (Dwyane Wade) grew up watching the great Chicago Bulls team and the great Michael Jordan and the rest of those guys. To be able to play the game that we love at a high level for one another, for our teammates, it’s the ultimate. When you hear the comparisons, you respect it. You’re humbled by it. You just feel like while you’re in the moment hopefully, while you’re playing the game, that you can make an impact enough to where you move on and people will start comparing you to ones that’s in the game at the present time.”
What this means to Jay Mariotti:
"I'm being compared to Michael Jordan, so I have to do everything Michael Jordan did except do it better than he did and if I don't do that then I'm a complete failure and my career will be nothing but a shameful 'what could have been' when I look back on it."
Two titles don’t distinguish a team in history, despite this from Wade: “Whenever it’s all said and done, the legacy of this team, it’s going to be a great team. It’s going to go down in history as an unbelievable team not only in South Florida but in NBA history.” Winning three straight titles qualifies as greatness. Going 2 for 4 does not.
I was under the impression this column was about LeBron James' legacy, not the legacy of the Miami Heat team as a whole. Funny how Jay just mixes those two together for the hell of it. The legacy of the Heat team doesn't necessarily define the legacy of LeBron James as an individual player.
We’ve never thought of Duncan, the most private superstar of sport’s self-indulgent era, as someone who spends time on personal legacies. But he did hint at how much he has ached since last year’s Finals with his shocking, refreshing proclamation that the Spurs will win. “It’s unbelievable to regain that focus after that devastating loss that we had last year. But we’re back here. We’re excited about it. We’ve got four more to win. We’ll do it this time. We’re happy it’s the Heat again. We’ve got that bad taste in our mouths still,’’ he said, on live television no less.
I think I have figured out Jay Mariotti's problem. He is illiterate, or at the very least, remarkably stupid. I read this quote 3-4 times and at no point was it Tim Duncan spending time on his personal legacy. The entire quote is about the legacy of the Spurs as a team and how they want to beat the Heat this year, which they were not able to do last year. It in no way is Duncan commenting on his personal legacy.
James did care. “They don’t like us, they don’t. I can sense it from Timmy’s comments over the last couple of days,” he said. “They wanted this, they wanted us and we’ll be ready for the challenge.”
With a four-day lead up to the Finals, you knew someone would run those comments past Popovich. “Personally? People can say whatever they want. I like everybody,’’ he said, his annoyed shtick in full bloom. “You’re really gonna ask me that? So somebody will say, `I don’t like him.’ And then they’ll go, `So and so said they don’t like you.’ `Well, I don’t like you, either.’
Okay, great. What does this have to do with James' legacy again? Absolutely nothing? Great.
The reason James cares about Duncan’s comments is that he needs to be at his supreme best as a leader and a performer, from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7.
This is unlike Tim Duncan? Why didn't Duncan need to be at his best last year in the NBA Finals from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7? His legacy is magically cemented already, even though he didn't beat "Mr. Shaky Legacy" LeBron James and the Heat in last year's NBA Finals?
At times, he has mysteriously faded in big moments, subjecting himself to criticism for not wanting the last shot on occasion. He can’t afford fadeouts like his no-show in Game 5 against the Pacers, when he found instant foul trouble and had his worst-ever postseason game.
Even when James succeeds his failures are brought up for all of the world to contemplate and submit their own hot sports takes. LeBron has won two straight NBA titles but that's never going to be enough. He is going to have to win more titles than Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or his legacy will be shameful and incomplete. These writers have to keep raising the bar and their expectations in order to justify their writing about LeBron NEEDING to win another title, and not just another title, but the NBA title this year.
We must see the best of LeBron James for two weeks, no respites or dinner breaks allowed.
And if the Heat win, but LeBron has one bad game, then he has to prove he can play well in every NBA Finals game or else is legacy is incomplete. You would think LeBron was on the losing side of this NBA Finals rematch from last year the way Jay Mariotti is talking about him.
The Spurs want it.
But you know, they won't be defined by whether they can beat the Heat or not. That would be silly for Jay to say a team that has established itself as a consistently great team would need to win an NBA title to justify their presence as a great team. Jay would never do that. The Spurs have made six NBA Finals appearances since 1999. The Heat have made four NBA Finals appearances in the last four years. Obviously the Heat (and by extension apparently, LeBron James) are the team whose legacy should be questioned.
LeBron needs it.
Says every lazy sportswriter who writes this same type of re-treaded column every year the NBA Finals roll around with a LeBron-led team represented in those NBA Finals. Every single time LeBron appears in the NBA Finals, his legacy will be defined by those very NBA Finals...until the next year's NBA Finals when THAT NBA Finals are really what defines LeBron's legacy.
Jay Mariotti's sportswriting legacy is already defined and complete. He's not very good at writing and desperately wants as much attention as possible.
1. He won't ever be Michael Jordan.
2. He won't be the best player in NBA history.
3. The gathering of the Big 3 in Miami was a failure and they should all kill themselves.
4. This proves he's a choker who can't win the big game.
5. All of the above and more.
Unfortunately for the idiots who wrote columns like this about a 27-year old LeBron James it turns out he has won back-to-back NBA Championships...but only because Ray Allen bailed him out of course. Michael Jordan never had help from anyone like John Paxson when he won an NBA title. Never. So what to do now? LeBron has two NBA titles. How to criticize LeBron and make it seem like he won't ever be what "we" wanted him to be? By moving the goalposts every single time he accomplishes something of course. He and the Heat won the NBA title last year? Well this year it means MORE that they win the NBA title, so LeBron has to win the NBA title again this year or his two previous titles mean absolutely nothing. That's the Mariotti-esque point of view that Jay Mariotti has. THIS YEAR is the most important NBA Finals of LeBron's career. Just like next year will be the most important NBA Finals of his career.
In the most meaningful ways, the human ways, LeBron James has more than passed the flaw test. Since that week in 2002, when Sports Illustrated propped him on its cover as “The Chosen One,’’ not once has he failed himself or his legacy in the searing public eye.
But you know, it all goes away if he doesn't win the NBA title this year. Immediacy is king. LeBron is nothing if he can't win an NBA title every single season. All his past accomplishments are null and void if he goes 2-3 in the NBA Finals.
I like how Jay starts off a column where he states LeBron is flawed by stating that LeBron really isn't flawed. Of course a column about how LeBron isn't flawed won't get Jay the attention he so desperately requires to become relevant again, so he has to write that LeBron is flawed in some way.
Never in a dozen years has he been scandalized, bimboized or TMZized. If LeBron’s image is fake, he has guarded his secrets well enough that Edward Snowden couldn’t expose them.
So keep that in mind when I say James, as the preeminent American athlete of the moment, has stumbled more than once professionally and dearly needs to win a third straight NBA championship to remove some lingering tarnish.
Keep this in mind as Jay writes this column so that you can be aware Jay (a) knows this column is a piece of crap and he doesn't believe a word he writes, (b) Jay knows he is wrong and doesn't give a shit because he wants attention, (c) is going to completely pretend this column doesn't exist in two years.
And you know what happened a year later — after James had made his daunting “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six …’’ declaration — when he disappeared in the clutch and generally flat-lined in an abysmal loss to Dallas in the Finals. Even if we give James a pass for his previous washout against the Spurs in the 2007 Finals — are we absolutely certain the Cavaliers ever laced up sneakers for that series? — it means he has failed more than once in history-defining arenas.
Oh, so there were more "history-defining arenas" for LeBron James during the NBA Finals. It almost seems like the "history-defining arenas" are intentionally chosen to be during the NBA Finals that LeBron has lost and not during those he has won. He took a very undermanned Cavs team to the Finals in 2007 and learned lessons from the 2011 Finals that have resulted in the Heat winning back-to-back NBA Finals.
LeBron is more Peyton Manning than Michael Jordan, OK?
I don't know what that means since LeBron has won as many NBA Finals series as he has lost, but I do know LeBron has two NBA titles at the age of 29 years old, Peyton Manning has won a single Super Bowl and Michael Jordan had three NBA titles at the age of 29. Most of the reason LeBron is more Manning than Jordan is because he is 29 years old and hasn't had a chance to win as many titles as Jordan won.
Therefore, he has more at stake than Tim Duncan and the Spurs in what should be a memorable seven-game series.
"Who has more at stake in this series? It has to be someone! There is a right answer to this unanswerable question!"
Ah yes, another lazy, tired narrative that ESPN loves to debate on their many day time sports argument shows. For a guy who claims to not like ESPN, Jay sure does think like many of the talking heads there.
If San Antonio wins a fifth title since 1999, sure, it further validates Gregg Popovich’s methodology as championship-sustainable into a third decade, which should be an impossibility amid the opt-outs, tax restrictions and dizzying business structure of the 21st century. But whether the Spurs win or fall short doesn’t impact their place in basketball lore.
So to recap:
The team who lost to the Heat in the NBA Finals last year, has their title window closing very rapidly because they are built around three 30+ stars, and has won four titles in the last 14 years have nothing to prove. The team who beat the Spurs last year in the NBA Finals, still has a very wide title window and has won the last two NBA titles (including one over the Spurs) is the team whose failure will impact their place in basketball lore?
Popovich, Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and a recently cultivated cast of snap-on parts — international in scope — really have nothing to prove except revenge for an uncharacteristically botched Finals opportunity last June against the Heat. Another loss will make them ache, but we won’t think less of them.
Well...first off, don't "we" me. Let's look at what "we" think of the Spurs based on their NBA Finals experience.
1999: They beat the #8 seed Knicks in a strike-shortened season.
2003: They beat the #2 seed Nets.
2005: They beat the #2 seed and defending champion Pistons.
2007: They beat a pathetically undermatched (I meant "overmatched" as mentioned in the comments) Cavs teams.
2013: Lost to the Miami Heat.
So, and this is just my opinion, it has been almost 10 years since the Spurs have met a quality NBA Finals Eastern Conference opponent and beaten that opponent to win the NBA title. I'm not taking the Spurs title away from them, but while I found the 2007 Cavs team exciting they weren't exactly a strong team. So the Spurs do seem to have something to prove. They need to prove they can still compete against and defeat a great Eastern Conference team in the NBA Finals. Because it's been a while since they have done that.
If James loses? That will be three Finals losses, and while his supporters will find fault with his unreliable supporting cast, the all-time greats find ways of overcoming such weaknesses — particularly when the Spurs have their own issues with age and injuries.
That's the thing though. If the Heat lose, it may not reflect on James at all. I know, it's shocking this could be possible, but perhaps if James loses another NBA Finals it just means the Spurs outplayed the Heat and deserved to win the NBA title. Why does there have to be a narrative that follows and points to a separate narrative outside of the Heat simply losing? Why does another Finals loss for LeBron HAVE to mean something?
If James is the Michael Jordan of his era and the Heat are the Jordan Bulls of their era, as Indiana coach Frank Vogel blathered in trying to justify another failure by his knuckleheads in the Eastern Conference finals, then they will find a way to win another title as they did last year.
Okay, sure. If this comparison has to be made, then a direct comparison to Jordan's Bulls would be applicable because the Heat won't win three titles in a row. But otherwise, these NBA Finals are not the fulcrum for LeBron's legacy. Stop moving the goalposts on him. It used to be that his legacy meant nothing if he didn't win an NBA title, so he won a title. Then it was, "Well he has to win back-to-back titles or his legacy is shit," so he won another title. Now it's, "He has to be like Michael Jordan and win three straight titles or his legacy is shit." It's silly. Just enjoy him for his accomplishments and stop acting like every NBA Finals is the very end-all be-all for James' legacy.
His legacy will pivot on what happens these next two weeks.
This is written every single time James' team appears in the NBA Finals. It's boring and tired.
The three-peat would set him apart. On Finals eve, James isn’t shying from the Jordan comparisons, but deep down, he knows such thoughts will end without another South Beach partner. You can’t say “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven …’’ and stop at two.
Is Jay Mariotti under the impression LeBron James is retiring after the season is over? If not, then LeBron still may not be stopping at two titles. There is a next year, another season, another chance for the 2015 NBA Finals to be THE FINALS where James' cements his legacy until the next season's NBA Finals.
I wish this type of stuff translated to other professions.
"This column is the column which defines Jay Mariotti's legacy. It's his Super Bowl column. If he wants to be considered one of the greats, he will nail this Super Bowl column. If he doesn't nail it, then he's never going to be a great writer."
"I have to turn in this TPS report and it be the best thing I ever written. If this TPS report isn't the best report I have ever turned in, my career will mean nothing."
James said. “Me and (Dwyane Wade) grew up watching the great Chicago Bulls team and the great Michael Jordan and the rest of those guys. To be able to play the game that we love at a high level for one another, for our teammates, it’s the ultimate. When you hear the comparisons, you respect it. You’re humbled by it. You just feel like while you’re in the moment hopefully, while you’re playing the game, that you can make an impact enough to where you move on and people will start comparing you to ones that’s in the game at the present time.”
What this means to Jay Mariotti:
"I'm being compared to Michael Jordan, so I have to do everything Michael Jordan did except do it better than he did and if I don't do that then I'm a complete failure and my career will be nothing but a shameful 'what could have been' when I look back on it."
Two titles don’t distinguish a team in history, despite this from Wade: “Whenever it’s all said and done, the legacy of this team, it’s going to be a great team. It’s going to go down in history as an unbelievable team not only in South Florida but in NBA history.” Winning three straight titles qualifies as greatness. Going 2 for 4 does not.
I was under the impression this column was about LeBron James' legacy, not the legacy of the Miami Heat team as a whole. Funny how Jay just mixes those two together for the hell of it. The legacy of the Heat team doesn't necessarily define the legacy of LeBron James as an individual player.
We’ve never thought of Duncan, the most private superstar of sport’s self-indulgent era, as someone who spends time on personal legacies. But he did hint at how much he has ached since last year’s Finals with his shocking, refreshing proclamation that the Spurs will win. “It’s unbelievable to regain that focus after that devastating loss that we had last year. But we’re back here. We’re excited about it. We’ve got four more to win. We’ll do it this time. We’re happy it’s the Heat again. We’ve got that bad taste in our mouths still,’’ he said, on live television no less.
I think I have figured out Jay Mariotti's problem. He is illiterate, or at the very least, remarkably stupid. I read this quote 3-4 times and at no point was it Tim Duncan spending time on his personal legacy. The entire quote is about the legacy of the Spurs as a team and how they want to beat the Heat this year, which they were not able to do last year. It in no way is Duncan commenting on his personal legacy.
James did care. “They don’t like us, they don’t. I can sense it from Timmy’s comments over the last couple of days,” he said. “They wanted this, they wanted us and we’ll be ready for the challenge.”
With a four-day lead up to the Finals, you knew someone would run those comments past Popovich. “Personally? People can say whatever they want. I like everybody,’’ he said, his annoyed shtick in full bloom. “You’re really gonna ask me that? So somebody will say, `I don’t like him.’ And then they’ll go, `So and so said they don’t like you.’ `Well, I don’t like you, either.’
Okay, great. What does this have to do with James' legacy again? Absolutely nothing? Great.
The reason James cares about Duncan’s comments is that he needs to be at his supreme best as a leader and a performer, from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7.
This is unlike Tim Duncan? Why didn't Duncan need to be at his best last year in the NBA Finals from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7? His legacy is magically cemented already, even though he didn't beat "Mr. Shaky Legacy" LeBron James and the Heat in last year's NBA Finals?
At times, he has mysteriously faded in big moments, subjecting himself to criticism for not wanting the last shot on occasion. He can’t afford fadeouts like his no-show in Game 5 against the Pacers, when he found instant foul trouble and had his worst-ever postseason game.
Even when James succeeds his failures are brought up for all of the world to contemplate and submit their own hot sports takes. LeBron has won two straight NBA titles but that's never going to be enough. He is going to have to win more titles than Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or his legacy will be shameful and incomplete. These writers have to keep raising the bar and their expectations in order to justify their writing about LeBron NEEDING to win another title, and not just another title, but the NBA title this year.
We must see the best of LeBron James for two weeks, no respites or dinner breaks allowed.
And if the Heat win, but LeBron has one bad game, then he has to prove he can play well in every NBA Finals game or else is legacy is incomplete. You would think LeBron was on the losing side of this NBA Finals rematch from last year the way Jay Mariotti is talking about him.
The Spurs want it.
But you know, they won't be defined by whether they can beat the Heat or not. That would be silly for Jay to say a team that has established itself as a consistently great team would need to win an NBA title to justify their presence as a great team. Jay would never do that. The Spurs have made six NBA Finals appearances since 1999. The Heat have made four NBA Finals appearances in the last four years. Obviously the Heat (and by extension apparently, LeBron James) are the team whose legacy should be questioned.
LeBron needs it.
Says every lazy sportswriter who writes this same type of re-treaded column every year the NBA Finals roll around with a LeBron-led team represented in those NBA Finals. Every single time LeBron appears in the NBA Finals, his legacy will be defined by those very NBA Finals...until the next year's NBA Finals when THAT NBA Finals are really what defines LeBron's legacy.
Jay Mariotti's sportswriting legacy is already defined and complete. He's not very good at writing and desperately wants as much attention as possible.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
2 comments It Turns Out the Designated Hitter Didn't Ruin the World Series After All
Bruce Jenkins seems to have been concerned the designated hitter would ruin the World Series. I have no idea why he was afraid this would happen and apparently he believes the designated hitter ruining the World Series is a fear that many people share. But it's okay, the designated hitter is flawed, but did not ruin the World Series. That's good to know, especially since I'm not sure when exactly the designated hitter has ruined any World Series. Bruce Jenkins is just relieved the World Series went off without a hitch and the DH didn't ruin it all.
Was it really so terrible? Has it ever been that bad?
Yes, this column is really that bad. It's probably terrible. It's a column that screams, "I don't like change, except I like change when it comes to changing things in baseball the way I want them. In that case I like change. Also, I make bad arguments and am generally closed-minded."
Each autumn, we hear that the designated-hitter disparity will ruin the World Series
I don't think it ruins the World Series, but generally the National League has a perceived advantage because the National League rules allow the National League World Series representative to play at normal strength, while the American League World Series representative plays a hitter down or has to put the DH in the field at a National League park. When playing a World Series game in an American League park, the National League doesn't have to adjust their normal lineup and can have the advantage of putting a good hitter at DH and not having the pitcher bat. See, the National League team has to adjust, but this adjustment doesn't change the team in a negative fashion, while the American League team has to adjust in a National League park, and the adjustment is a negative because a hitter who was in the lineup for the entire season has to play the field or be on the bench.
and the rules should be changed immediately, lest we all run for cover as the world is about to end.
I've not heard this either. I've heard someone say the designated hitter rule should be changed immediately, but again, that's about it. I've read columns that simply mention the National League might have an advantage in the World Series (though this didn't help the Cardinals), but I haven't read anything saying the world will end if the DH is used in American League parks, but not National League parks.
All too often, it's a noisy commotion over nothing. I'm still trying to figure out how this allegedly awkward situation has wrecked the Cardinals-Red Sox competition - or any other World Series, for that matter.
You know what I would like to read from Bruce Jenkins? I would like to read excerpts from columns written that claim the DH would ruin the World Series. At least that way I would know what Bruce Jenkins was talking about with this "noisy commotion" and his concerns about figuring out how this "allegedly awkward situation" wrecked the World Series. I've read articles from Scott Miller and Jon Morosi saying the National League had an advantage due to the use of the designated hitter. Logic tells me not having the DH is an advantage for the National League, but I have no idea how much of an advantage it would be. It's like if the AFC played a 10-on-10 game of football and the NFC played a 11-on-11 game of football. The NFC team would be at a disadvantage in the Super Bowl if AFC rules were used because a player that is usually on the field would not be on the field as much during the game. That's possibly a bad example, but hopefully you get my point.
The Red Sox were supposed to be in big trouble heading into St. Louis, having to bench either David Ortiz or Mike Napoli because the non-DH landscape would leave one of them without a position.
Is this an argument from 2004 or 2007? I remember there being a concern in both of those World Series that the Red Sox may have to bench Ortiz, but it turned into much ado about nothing. Jon Morosi stated the American League doesn't have a great advantage over the last 19 games during the last seven World Series in National League parks (prior to this year the AL was 5-14 in NL parks over the last seven World Series), but I'm not sure that means the Red Sox were in big trouble because that's not a huge sample size.
Ortiz did some grumbling, but he found his first baseman's glove, went out to play some authentic baseball and helped the Sox win two of the three games.
This is David Ortiz grumbling:
"I'm down to do whatever my manager wants me to do," Ortiz said. Then he added, with a smile, "Just go out there and wish me good luck."
Was it really so terrible? Has it ever been that bad?
Yes, this column is really that bad. It's probably terrible. It's a column that screams, "I don't like change, except I like change when it comes to changing things in baseball the way I want them. In that case I like change. Also, I make bad arguments and am generally closed-minded."
Each autumn, we hear that the designated-hitter disparity will ruin the World Series
I don't think it ruins the World Series, but generally the National League has a perceived advantage because the National League rules allow the National League World Series representative to play at normal strength, while the American League World Series representative plays a hitter down or has to put the DH in the field at a National League park. When playing a World Series game in an American League park, the National League doesn't have to adjust their normal lineup and can have the advantage of putting a good hitter at DH and not having the pitcher bat. See, the National League team has to adjust, but this adjustment doesn't change the team in a negative fashion, while the American League team has to adjust in a National League park, and the adjustment is a negative because a hitter who was in the lineup for the entire season has to play the field or be on the bench.
and the rules should be changed immediately, lest we all run for cover as the world is about to end.
I've not heard this either. I've heard someone say the designated hitter rule should be changed immediately, but again, that's about it. I've read columns that simply mention the National League might have an advantage in the World Series (though this didn't help the Cardinals), but I haven't read anything saying the world will end if the DH is used in American League parks, but not National League parks.
All too often, it's a noisy commotion over nothing. I'm still trying to figure out how this allegedly awkward situation has wrecked the Cardinals-Red Sox competition - or any other World Series, for that matter.
You know what I would like to read from Bruce Jenkins? I would like to read excerpts from columns written that claim the DH would ruin the World Series. At least that way I would know what Bruce Jenkins was talking about with this "noisy commotion" and his concerns about figuring out how this "allegedly awkward situation" wrecked the World Series. I've read articles from Scott Miller and Jon Morosi saying the National League had an advantage due to the use of the designated hitter. Logic tells me not having the DH is an advantage for the National League, but I have no idea how much of an advantage it would be. It's like if the AFC played a 10-on-10 game of football and the NFC played a 11-on-11 game of football. The NFC team would be at a disadvantage in the Super Bowl if AFC rules were used because a player that is usually on the field would not be on the field as much during the game. That's possibly a bad example, but hopefully you get my point.
The Red Sox were supposed to be in big trouble heading into St. Louis, having to bench either David Ortiz or Mike Napoli because the non-DH landscape would leave one of them without a position.
Is this an argument from 2004 or 2007? I remember there being a concern in both of those World Series that the Red Sox may have to bench Ortiz, but it turned into much ado about nothing. Jon Morosi stated the American League doesn't have a great advantage over the last 19 games during the last seven World Series in National League parks (prior to this year the AL was 5-14 in NL parks over the last seven World Series), but I'm not sure that means the Red Sox were in big trouble because that's not a huge sample size.
Ortiz did some grumbling, but he found his first baseman's glove, went out to play some authentic baseball and helped the Sox win two of the three games.
This is David Ortiz grumbling:
"I'm down to do whatever my manager wants me to do," Ortiz said. Then he added, with a smile, "Just go out there and wish me good luck."
Monday, July 22, 2013
8 comments Rick Reilly Says Tiger Woods' Legacy is Being Ruined by Tiger Woods' Professional Success
Rick Reilly has decided to write another one of those "Why can't Tiger win a major tournament?" columns after the US Open. Actually, Rick spends a lot of time thinking in this column thinking about Tiger's legacy and basically wondering if Tiger's success has ruined his legacy. It seems that Rick has set high expectations for Tiger based on Tiger's early-career success and because Tiger can't reach those expectations anymore then this makes Rick wonder what Tiger's legacy will be. So basically Rick is defining Tiger's legacy as being a somewhat disappointment because of how successful Tiger was early in his PGA career. Rick also manages to slip a Bruce Jenner reference in, which is always an unwelcome surprise. It is unreasonable to expect Tiger to be as great as he was early in his career and it seems he will have to be known as one of the greatest golfers ever rather than the greatest golfer ever. This type of article annoys me because Phil Mickelson is older than Tiger and he has won five majors, while Tiger has won 14 majors, but it is Tiger Woods' legacy that we are so unsure of? 14 majors, no matter when they were won, seem to speak for themselves. I am sure now that Tiger didn't win the Open Championship that Rick is going to start to double up on the "Is Tiger Woods washed up" talk.
It's crazy, but let's say Tiger Woods never wins another major.
That would be so crazy if Tiger never won another major. He would then be considered one of the greatest golfers in PGA history. That's madness! What kind of disturbed mind could ever fathom such a thing?
Let's say he is done at age 37. Let's say he stops at 14, four short of Jack Nicklaus' record.
Let's say we won't use the phrase "let's say" anymore. Let's say we do that, then I would then answer this hypothetical by saying Tiger Woods will be considered as one of the greatest golfers ever whose rise was only matched by his fall. Then I would say he had a meteoric rise and a meteoric fall. Then I would curse Rick Reilly's name.
I don't want to constantly compare Tiger to Phil Mickelson, but Tiger has nine more major wins than Mickelson and Mickelson is older than Tiger. Say Mickelson never wins another major after the Open Championship, why isn't his legacy being questioned?
Or as a colossal disappointment?
The only way Tiger can be seen as a colossal disappointment is if you compare his early-career success to his late-career success. So essentially to call Tiger a disappointment a person would have to be using Tiger's success as a reason why he is so disappointing. This makes not of sense. Tiger exceeded expectations early in his career, so this doesn't mean he is a disappointment for not consistently exceeding the limits he himself has set for...himself.
As a brilliant star? Or a star that burned out halfway across the sky?
He was a brilliant star who had injuries, a scandal, and then struggled to win a major. I think we are being a bit harsh on him, because Tiger has won seven PGA tournaments since he last won a major.
Do you realize that this Tiger tailspin is older than his younger child? It's true: Sam is just about to turn 6. Charlie is 4. And Skid is 5.
Do you realize that you are cherry-picking data that has absolutely no meaning as to the legacy of Tiger Woods? It's the nature of sportswriters to overreact when Tiger wins a tournament and then overreact when Tiger has a poor showing in a tournament. It's not their fault, it's just their nature.
Sunday at the U.S. Open marked five years to the day since his last major triumph -- maybe his best -- the one-legged legend of Torrey Pines.
Five whole years. Tiger can't match up to what he did early in his career, so he is obviously a disappointment. It's just like an NFL quarterback who puts up 5-6 years of being the best quarterback in the NFL only to fade into being just one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL for the rest of his career. Would we call that quarterback a disappointment? Probably not.
He has gone through the Mount Vesuvius of sex scandals, gotten divorced, moved his home, had more surgeries than Bruce Jenner,
Not hilarious and not-timely.
Now there's this little mumbling you hear in golf circles that (pssst) Tiger might have (keep it to yourself) lost a little of his (gulp) nerve.
So Tiger is now like other golfers on the PGA Tour. How could that be?
The scandal, the surgeries, the slow sucking of time might have turned him a little (cough-cough) scared.
How else do you explain a guy who wins all kinds of minors (13 during the streak) but no majors?
You could explain it by saying his surgeries and time have caught up to him where he no longer has the physical advantage or consistent swing that he once had over his fellow PGA Tour players. You could explain that Tiger just hasn't done well in majors for whatever reason, but it's not like many of the other best PGA Tour players have won multiple majors over this same five year time period. There are other explanations other than chalking it up to Tiger having lost his nerve.
Before this year's Masters, he had won three tournaments of his past four, then he finished a quiet fourth in Augusta.
It was a "quiet" fourth place. Not one of those loud fourth places finishes, but a "quiet" fourth where Tiger had 25% of his prize money reduced for the volume of his finish not matching the decibel requirement for a fourth place finish in a major.
In the 16 majors he has played in this five-year nuclear winter, he has won his last start before a major eight times. Yet never the major itself.
Which obviously means Tiger gets a lot of nerve up the week before the major and then loses his nerve entirely the week of the major. The fact Tiger has won eight times prior to a major isn't impressive, but just a sign of how disappointing Tiger has become.
Even more telling, he's often been The Old Tiger in majors when the pressure was off (Thursday and Friday) and The New Tiger when the pressure was on.
So Tiger is a disappointment because he doesn't play well in eight rounds during the golf year? He still wins minor tournaments, still plays well on Thursday and Friday in majors, but can only "quietly" place fourth in major tournaments because he can't handle the Saturday/Sunday pressure. Maybe he cracks under the pressure now that he doesn't have multiple women on the side. It's the lack of consistent sex from multiple partners that is bringing Tiger down. Just like Aerosmith can't write a decent song now that they are clean and not using drugs.
So what about it? If he's done winning majors now, what should be his legacy?
I'm not sure this question should be asked for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, Woods is 37 years old so his legacy is far from cemented. Next most importantly, this legacy that Rick Reilly is so intent on figuring out is assuming Tiger never wins another major, which isn't a point I am ready to concede. Next to that in importance, is that Tiger's early-career success helped cement most of his legacy. He is one of the best golfers in PGA Tour history.
Well, if Tiger Woods is really done, I think he would go down as the most gifted golfer in history and the golfer who wasted the most gifts.
How can you claim he wasted his gifts if he won 14 majors? Maybe that was the extent of his ability to use his gifts. Maybe I'm wrong, but the idea Tiger Woods wasted his gifts doesn't jive with his PGA record. He has won a lot of tournaments and holding him to the standard he set in his 20's doesn't seem fair to me. He set the bar high, so it seems reasonable to expect he can't always reach this bar he has set.
To win 14 majors in only 13 years, then to never win another? That would be like swimming the English Channel and then drowning in the hotel pool.
I realize it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, but are the Patriots a disappointment because they haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004? Is Peyton Manning a disappointment as a quarterback because he has only won one Super Bowl? He starts the season off strong and then starts to fade in the playoffs, isn't that some criticism Manning receives? That makes him somewhat like Tiger, so does that mean Peyton Manning's NFL career is a disappointment?
14 majors in 13 years IS a career. It almost doesn't matter what Tiger Woods does after that, because for a decade-and-a-half he was easily the best golfer in the world. Also, Rick is still assuming Tiger will never win another major in an effort to ponder Tiger's legacy, which is not only ridiculous given Tiger's age but is also still a huge assumption in my opinion.
If Tiger Woods is really done, he'd be remembered as a strong man who wrecked his career with his own weakness. He'd be thought of as an immortal and an immoral.
If only Tiger had worn Ed Hardy shirts and spent his time taking pictures of him pretending to choke Rick Reilly then he could have avoided the women and immorality that ruined his career.
Tiger Woods was hit by an out-of-control Tiger. He'd be lumped with Mike Tyson, two men whose hunger for greatness was sunk by their hunger for lust.
Yeah, these two athletes aren't comparable at all. Mike Tyson went to jail for raping a woman and Tiger Woods had multiple affairs. I know Rick has taken on the role of the moral majority since he suggested Colin Kaepernick needs to reconnect with his birth parents because it worked out so well for a member of Rick's family, but there is a difference in going to jail for rape and having multiple affairs. A pretty big difference. Notice how far this assumption that Tiger won't win another major has taken us. Rick just compared Tiger to Mike Tyson. This is what happens when you assume.
If Tiger Woods is really done, he would be remembered among the three greatest who ever played: along with Nicklaus and Bobby Jones. All three of them owned not only golf but the entire American sports landscape for a time. All three won tournaments at a dizzying rate. Yet neither of the first two could touch Woods, who won four professional majors in a row, a feat unlikely to be topped.
So why would it even be considered that Tiger could be a disappointment? How could this even be suggested if Tiger is one of the three greatest golfers ever, except he had even more extraordinary short-term success than the other two golfers considered the best ever? If Rick believes Tiger is among the three greatest golfers ever then there's no way he can be considered to have been a star that burned out halfway across the sky, could he? If that were true, what would that make Nicklaus and Bobby Jones?
He'd be placed alongside Arnold Palmer, who brought golf to the truck drivers and the waitresses. Woods brought it to people of color.
"People of color." I didn't know it was 1980 where Rick lives.
He is Kobe Bryant in long pants: awesome and feared and perhaps best viewed from a distance.
Rick compares Tiger to another athlete who was accused of sexual assault. I'm not entirely sure Rick understands that having an extramarital affair is not considered sexual assault.
Do you realize that in the Merion media center, Tiger Woods had his own leaderboard? There was only one name on it: his. America might pull for Phil Mickelson,
I don't cheer for Phil Mickelson. For some reason he annoys me. It may be his hair or how commentators act like he is the only golfer ever to have to balance his work with his family. Did you know one time he had a pager on him during the US Open in case his wife went into labor? He attended his daughter's graduation and then flew back to play a round of golf this past weekend. Every family issue involving Mickelson is treated like the first time a professional athlete has had to balance work and life.
Lastly, and this is unfair but no less true, but if Tiger Woods never wins another major, he'll be remembered not for what was but what could have been.
Perhaps by people who insisting on writing the narrative of Tiger's career before it is truly over and in the most dramatic way possible. Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get the whole "What could have been?" narrative that Rick Reilly is furthering. We know what could have been and what was. Tiger showed us what he could do for 13 years and it was very impressive. Don't compare Tiger now to his early success as if it is reasonable to expect him to rip off winning a major every single calendar year. No other golfer in PGA history has done this, so why expect this from Tiger? He peaked and now he isn't peaking anymore.
My God, he had eight majors by the time he was 26. Even if the next 15 years of his career was going to be only half as good, he'd end up with 20, wouldn't he?
Rick needs to ask himself if these were reasonable long-term expectations for Tiger. He was going to get older, injuries would happen, and no other golfer has kept up this pace so why should he expect Tiger to keep up this pace? Tiger not living up to the unreasonable standard he set for himself does not make him a disappointment.
If Tiger Woods stopped winning majors now, it would make him a ghost walking among us, a living, breathing cautionary tale.
And the cautionary tale would be, "don't grow older and don't get injured, but also don't have success early in your career because people like Rick Reilly will always expect this from you."
He'd be trapped in a cage of his own design, living every day being compared to the incomparable -- himself.
But you, Rick Reilly, are the one who is comparing Tiger Woods to himself. You are doing this on your own accord, so couldn't you stop the cautionary tale by simply stop comparing Woods to himself and stop just assuming he won't ever win another major?
It's like the media can't stop themselves from creating narratives and then forcing themselves into the story. Rick states Tiger Woods is a cautionary tale because he will always get compared to himself earlier in his career, but Rick is the one creating this cautionary tale by comparing Tiger to his earlier self. Just stop holding Tiger to the expectations he has set for himself and the only cautionary tale about becoming worse at your job as you get older is that tale of Rick Reilly's writing career.
It's crazy, but let's say Tiger Woods never wins another major.
That would be so crazy if Tiger never won another major. He would then be considered one of the greatest golfers in PGA history. That's madness! What kind of disturbed mind could ever fathom such a thing?
Let's say he is done at age 37. Let's say he stops at 14, four short of Jack Nicklaus' record.
Let's say we won't use the phrase "let's say" anymore. Let's say we do that, then I would then answer this hypothetical by saying Tiger Woods will be considered as one of the greatest golfers ever whose rise was only matched by his fall. Then I would say he had a meteoric rise and a meteoric fall. Then I would curse Rick Reilly's name.
I don't want to constantly compare Tiger to Phil Mickelson, but Tiger has nine more major wins than Mickelson and Mickelson is older than Tiger. Say Mickelson never wins another major after the Open Championship, why isn't his legacy being questioned?
Or as a colossal disappointment?
The only way Tiger can be seen as a colossal disappointment is if you compare his early-career success to his late-career success. So essentially to call Tiger a disappointment a person would have to be using Tiger's success as a reason why he is so disappointing. This makes not of sense. Tiger exceeded expectations early in his career, so this doesn't mean he is a disappointment for not consistently exceeding the limits he himself has set for...himself.
As a brilliant star? Or a star that burned out halfway across the sky?
He was a brilliant star who had injuries, a scandal, and then struggled to win a major. I think we are being a bit harsh on him, because Tiger has won seven PGA tournaments since he last won a major.
Do you realize that this Tiger tailspin is older than his younger child? It's true: Sam is just about to turn 6. Charlie is 4. And Skid is 5.
Do you realize that you are cherry-picking data that has absolutely no meaning as to the legacy of Tiger Woods? It's the nature of sportswriters to overreact when Tiger wins a tournament and then overreact when Tiger has a poor showing in a tournament. It's not their fault, it's just their nature.
Sunday at the U.S. Open marked five years to the day since his last major triumph -- maybe his best -- the one-legged legend of Torrey Pines.
Five whole years. Tiger can't match up to what he did early in his career, so he is obviously a disappointment. It's just like an NFL quarterback who puts up 5-6 years of being the best quarterback in the NFL only to fade into being just one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL for the rest of his career. Would we call that quarterback a disappointment? Probably not.
He has gone through the Mount Vesuvius of sex scandals, gotten divorced, moved his home, had more surgeries than Bruce Jenner,
Not hilarious and not-timely.
Now there's this little mumbling you hear in golf circles that (pssst) Tiger might have (keep it to yourself) lost a little of his (gulp) nerve.
So Tiger is now like other golfers on the PGA Tour. How could that be?
The scandal, the surgeries, the slow sucking of time might have turned him a little (cough-cough) scared.
How else do you explain a guy who wins all kinds of minors (13 during the streak) but no majors?
You could explain it by saying his surgeries and time have caught up to him where he no longer has the physical advantage or consistent swing that he once had over his fellow PGA Tour players. You could explain that Tiger just hasn't done well in majors for whatever reason, but it's not like many of the other best PGA Tour players have won multiple majors over this same five year time period. There are other explanations other than chalking it up to Tiger having lost his nerve.
Before this year's Masters, he had won three tournaments of his past four, then he finished a quiet fourth in Augusta.
It was a "quiet" fourth place. Not one of those loud fourth places finishes, but a "quiet" fourth where Tiger had 25% of his prize money reduced for the volume of his finish not matching the decibel requirement for a fourth place finish in a major.
In the 16 majors he has played in this five-year nuclear winter, he has won his last start before a major eight times. Yet never the major itself.
Which obviously means Tiger gets a lot of nerve up the week before the major and then loses his nerve entirely the week of the major. The fact Tiger has won eight times prior to a major isn't impressive, but just a sign of how disappointing Tiger has become.
Even more telling, he's often been The Old Tiger in majors when the pressure was off (Thursday and Friday) and The New Tiger when the pressure was on.
So Tiger is a disappointment because he doesn't play well in eight rounds during the golf year? He still wins minor tournaments, still plays well on Thursday and Friday in majors, but can only "quietly" place fourth in major tournaments because he can't handle the Saturday/Sunday pressure. Maybe he cracks under the pressure now that he doesn't have multiple women on the side. It's the lack of consistent sex from multiple partners that is bringing Tiger down. Just like Aerosmith can't write a decent song now that they are clean and not using drugs.
So what about it? If he's done winning majors now, what should be his legacy?
I'm not sure this question should be asked for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, Woods is 37 years old so his legacy is far from cemented. Next most importantly, this legacy that Rick Reilly is so intent on figuring out is assuming Tiger never wins another major, which isn't a point I am ready to concede. Next to that in importance, is that Tiger's early-career success helped cement most of his legacy. He is one of the best golfers in PGA Tour history.
Well, if Tiger Woods is really done, I think he would go down as the most gifted golfer in history and the golfer who wasted the most gifts.
How can you claim he wasted his gifts if he won 14 majors? Maybe that was the extent of his ability to use his gifts. Maybe I'm wrong, but the idea Tiger Woods wasted his gifts doesn't jive with his PGA record. He has won a lot of tournaments and holding him to the standard he set in his 20's doesn't seem fair to me. He set the bar high, so it seems reasonable to expect he can't always reach this bar he has set.
To win 14 majors in only 13 years, then to never win another? That would be like swimming the English Channel and then drowning in the hotel pool.
I realize it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, but are the Patriots a disappointment because they haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004? Is Peyton Manning a disappointment as a quarterback because he has only won one Super Bowl? He starts the season off strong and then starts to fade in the playoffs, isn't that some criticism Manning receives? That makes him somewhat like Tiger, so does that mean Peyton Manning's NFL career is a disappointment?
14 majors in 13 years IS a career. It almost doesn't matter what Tiger Woods does after that, because for a decade-and-a-half he was easily the best golfer in the world. Also, Rick is still assuming Tiger will never win another major in an effort to ponder Tiger's legacy, which is not only ridiculous given Tiger's age but is also still a huge assumption in my opinion.
If Tiger Woods is really done, he'd be remembered as a strong man who wrecked his career with his own weakness. He'd be thought of as an immortal and an immoral.
If only Tiger had worn Ed Hardy shirts and spent his time taking pictures of him pretending to choke Rick Reilly then he could have avoided the women and immorality that ruined his career.
Tiger Woods was hit by an out-of-control Tiger. He'd be lumped with Mike Tyson, two men whose hunger for greatness was sunk by their hunger for lust.
Yeah, these two athletes aren't comparable at all. Mike Tyson went to jail for raping a woman and Tiger Woods had multiple affairs. I know Rick has taken on the role of the moral majority since he suggested Colin Kaepernick needs to reconnect with his birth parents because it worked out so well for a member of Rick's family, but there is a difference in going to jail for rape and having multiple affairs. A pretty big difference. Notice how far this assumption that Tiger won't win another major has taken us. Rick just compared Tiger to Mike Tyson. This is what happens when you assume.
If Tiger Woods is really done, he would be remembered among the three greatest who ever played: along with Nicklaus and Bobby Jones. All three of them owned not only golf but the entire American sports landscape for a time. All three won tournaments at a dizzying rate. Yet neither of the first two could touch Woods, who won four professional majors in a row, a feat unlikely to be topped.
So why would it even be considered that Tiger could be a disappointment? How could this even be suggested if Tiger is one of the three greatest golfers ever, except he had even more extraordinary short-term success than the other two golfers considered the best ever? If Rick believes Tiger is among the three greatest golfers ever then there's no way he can be considered to have been a star that burned out halfway across the sky, could he? If that were true, what would that make Nicklaus and Bobby Jones?
He'd be placed alongside Arnold Palmer, who brought golf to the truck drivers and the waitresses. Woods brought it to people of color.
"People of color." I didn't know it was 1980 where Rick lives.
He is Kobe Bryant in long pants: awesome and feared and perhaps best viewed from a distance.
Rick compares Tiger to another athlete who was accused of sexual assault. I'm not entirely sure Rick understands that having an extramarital affair is not considered sexual assault.
Do you realize that in the Merion media center, Tiger Woods had his own leaderboard? There was only one name on it: his. America might pull for Phil Mickelson,
I don't cheer for Phil Mickelson. For some reason he annoys me. It may be his hair or how commentators act like he is the only golfer ever to have to balance his work with his family. Did you know one time he had a pager on him during the US Open in case his wife went into labor? He attended his daughter's graduation and then flew back to play a round of golf this past weekend. Every family issue involving Mickelson is treated like the first time a professional athlete has had to balance work and life.
Lastly, and this is unfair but no less true, but if Tiger Woods never wins another major, he'll be remembered not for what was but what could have been.
Perhaps by people who insisting on writing the narrative of Tiger's career before it is truly over and in the most dramatic way possible. Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get the whole "What could have been?" narrative that Rick Reilly is furthering. We know what could have been and what was. Tiger showed us what he could do for 13 years and it was very impressive. Don't compare Tiger now to his early success as if it is reasonable to expect him to rip off winning a major every single calendar year. No other golfer in PGA history has done this, so why expect this from Tiger? He peaked and now he isn't peaking anymore.
My God, he had eight majors by the time he was 26. Even if the next 15 years of his career was going to be only half as good, he'd end up with 20, wouldn't he?
Rick needs to ask himself if these were reasonable long-term expectations for Tiger. He was going to get older, injuries would happen, and no other golfer has kept up this pace so why should he expect Tiger to keep up this pace? Tiger not living up to the unreasonable standard he set for himself does not make him a disappointment.
If Tiger Woods stopped winning majors now, it would make him a ghost walking among us, a living, breathing cautionary tale.
And the cautionary tale would be, "don't grow older and don't get injured, but also don't have success early in your career because people like Rick Reilly will always expect this from you."
He'd be trapped in a cage of his own design, living every day being compared to the incomparable -- himself.
But you, Rick Reilly, are the one who is comparing Tiger Woods to himself. You are doing this on your own accord, so couldn't you stop the cautionary tale by simply stop comparing Woods to himself and stop just assuming he won't ever win another major?
It's like the media can't stop themselves from creating narratives and then forcing themselves into the story. Rick states Tiger Woods is a cautionary tale because he will always get compared to himself earlier in his career, but Rick is the one creating this cautionary tale by comparing Tiger to his earlier self. Just stop holding Tiger to the expectations he has set for himself and the only cautionary tale about becoming worse at your job as you get older is that tale of Rick Reilly's writing career.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
15 comments MMQB Review: Peter is Now Writing Down the Phone Conversation a Stranger Has in an Airport
Peter King imagined the Raiders team with Colin Kaepernick as their quarterback last week, mourned the Raiders firing their PR guy, and encouraged fellow NFL writers to not focus on the unimportant things during the offseason. Then Peter proceeded to write about his visit to Carmen Policy's vineyard. This week Peter writes from Salisbury, NC (I wondered why all hotels in the area were touting their "fresh tasting coffee" this past weekend), informing us about an award he isn't worthy of receiving (except he just told us he was getting the award, so he sort of had to remind us he was getting the award for us to know he isn't worthy), and says Robert Griffin is a lock to play in Week 1. This pretty much means Kirk Cousins is the Redskins Week 1 starter, right? Oh, and Peter talks about how "we" use our phones too much nowadays. This coming from a guy who just a couple of months ago wouldn't get off his phone to give a cab driver accurate directions to an airport.
A few NFL points after a few days on the road:
More like nuggets of wisdom from the road. For example, what's up with all of those cars on the road during the weekend? Peter thought he was the only one in the world who had to travel this past weekend. Did you know if douse a rental car in gasoline, set it on fire, drive it off a cliff and then drive what is left of the car back to Hertz they expect you to pay for gas if you didn't fill the car up with gas before you brought it back?
Griffin had major knee surgery 21 weeks ago. Washington's opener is 13 weeks from tonight. After watching him run sprints around the practice field Thursday, I agree with what Griffin said post-practice: "Without a doubt'' he thinks he'll be practicing with the team when it begins training camp in Richmond in late July ... and, of course, that he'll be ready to go Sept. 9 against the Eagles.
Remember a couple of weeks ago when Peter said that all the news we get from an NFL team's training camp is positive and all the news can't be this positive? Peter is reporting WITHOUT A DOUBT Robert Griffin will be ready to play the Redskins opening game. So once again, the rules Peter himself sets don't pertain to Peter.
Here's what Griffin did Thursday: He sprinted without a limp the 53-yard width of the end zone. Then, at nearly full speed, he planted his twice-surgically repaired right knee and pivoted left, up the sideline of the practice field.
But did he do jumping jacks? We all know that's the real test on whether an NFL player is ready to play at full speed or not.
Tyrann Mathieu has impressed the Cardinals at safety. In OTA practices, players don't wear pads, and they're supposed to stay on their feet with minimal contact. When I watched the other day, Mathieu, working with the first unit for part of the practice, made a diving pass break-up of a Palmer throw and was buzzing around plays all through the workout.
I'm not sure given Mathieu's drug issues in the past it is smart to characterize him as "buzzing" around plays all through the workout. I'm also not sure the big question regarding Mathieu is his ability to make plays on the field when there is minimal contact allowed. My question for him at safety is whether he is going to be able to stay disciplined enough and tackle well enough to start at the safety position. At LSU, Mathieu sort of free-lanced around the field at times and was given liberty to try and make plays. He has to be more disciplined at safety in the NFL or he will find himself out of position at times.
He's clearly at home on the practice field, pointing out coverages pre-snap and changing direction smoothly. "He reminds of Troy Polamalu with his closing speed,'' said Palmer. "He might not be the fastest guy out there, but he can change directions and get to the ball really fast, like Troy.''
And continuing with this comparison, Mathieu's biggest issue is going to be his instincts and how they can get him out of position at times on the field. Polamalu has had some issues with his free-lancing and Mathieu doesn't have nearly the experience at the safety position Polamalu had coming into the NFL.
Peter just hates it when reports from a team's training camp are all sunshine and roses. Now he's using quotes that compare Tyrann Mathieu to Troy Polamalu.
So far so good for the 69th pick in the draft, but June, obviously, isn't the time to make any judgments on rookies.
Well, obviously. When it comes to running around the field making minimal contact though, Mathieu looks great!
Think there's an SI cover jinx? What about a Bears draft pick jinx? The news that the Bears will trade 2011 first-round tackle Gabe Carimi to Tampa Bay for a sixth-round pick is just another brick in the wall of Chicago's recent disastrous high-draft experience on the offensive line. Not including this year's top pick (Kyle Long), and accounting for the fact that the Jay Cutler trade took away the first-rounders in 2009 and 2010 that may have been used on linemen,
How dare the Bears use first round picks to acquire Jay Cutler when they very easily could have used those picks to draft an offensive lineman that ends up not working out for them.
That's a six-pack of failure right there. Consider that the Bears' only first-round picks over a four-draft span (2008-'11) were Williams and Carimi, the Bears had to move them from tackle to guard to try to salvage their careers, then gave up on both. That's tough to recover from. And it's one reason there will be immense pressure on Kyle Long to be good, quickly.
One of the other reasons being that Kyle Long is a first round pick. There tends to be pressure on first round picks to be good, quickly anyway.
Remember the song "Why Can't We Be Friends?" It's by a group named War.
No, I don't remember War singing that song. I do remember Smashmouth singing "Why Can't We Be Friends?" and I always thought it was a silly question since the reason we can't be friends is because you have a shitty band that sings stupid songs about walking on the sun and being an all-star. No one likes you, that's why we can't be friends.
Finally, a note from inside the White House. "Where are your dreads?'' Barack Obama asked Torrey Smith at the White House the other day when the Ravens went to be recognized by the president. Smith, in fact, has cut his hair, and the leader of the free world is such a fan that he noticed.
This is very impressive, especially since Obama's main purpose as President is to recognize athletes no matter their current hairstyle.
What a happy birthday it is for me today (56, for those counting at home):
Humblebrag time everyone! This is the part where Peter shares information with us in an effort to appear modest, but it is clear he is just humblebragging.
It's Peter's birthday today and if there is anyone who knows Peter's birthday and is counting at home, then shame on you. If you aren't related to him, that's why we can't be friends. Nice way for Peter to slip in that it's his birthday. Real covert-like.
Oh, and you know that award Peter received from The National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association? You don't? Well let Peter ever-so-modestly fill you in on it in an effort to pretend he is being humble when he is simply reminding us he gets awards and is a big deal. It's always interesting who the sportswriting profession considers to be the best in the field. Rick Reilly has won several national sportswriting awards. It's a lot like the Oscars, Grammys, and Emmy's. It appears no one asks the general public who they feel is the best at a certain profession in a given year. Who is the general public to know excellence when they see it though? We are just a bunch of mouth droolers who wouldn't know great sportswriting if it used a dental analogy in a 500 word article on why golf is such a great sport.
The National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association is handing me the Sportswriter of the Year Award tonight. As you all know, I am not worthy,
Agreed that you aren't worthy, but yet you bring up this award to us when many of us would have no idea that you received this award unless it got mentioned in MMQB.
So the only reason Peter brought this award up was to tell us he doesn't think he is worthy of receiving the award. Sounds like a humblebrag to me.
but in the words of the great Bob Ryan: If they're going to give me such a nice award and say such nice things about me, who am I to turn it down? Who doesn't like being told how great they are?
Someone with some sense of modesty? A person who isn't impressed with their own achievements? Someone who doesn't specifically bring up that he won an award so he can say how unworthy he is of that award? Someone who is not you? A person who actually doesn't believe the great things that others say about him?
You just wrote my speech for tonight, Bob. Thanks. Looking forward to being with lots of good people from around the country. And thanks to NSSA guru Dave Goren for running such a great event.
You don't have to suck up to the NSSA anymore. You have won the award already.
Do not get your father a tie this week. Get him a book.
Now for the Father's Day book section. I've been doing this for a few years, in part because we need to find more excuses to read in our lives, and in part because your father, brother, uncle and grandfather all told me last week they were dying for a good book for Father's Day.
Apparently Peter can talk to the dead. My grandfathers and father are dead and I don't have a brother. Thanks for reminding me though, Peter. Now my feelings are hurt.
Last year in this list I gave you The Art of Fielding, and before that Unbroken ... two of my favorite books ever. I don't have one I love as much this year, but I have several I like very much. I wouldn't put one on here that I wouldn't recommend to a good friend.
I have no friends either, so thanks for reminding me that I have no one to recommend these books to.
Sutton, by J.R. Moehringer (Hyperion).
Mike O'Hara told me to read this book, and when Mike tells me to do something, I just do it.
Dear Mike, I have some things I need Peter to do. Please contact me.
The Racketeer, by John Grisham (Doubleday).
Oh, a John Grisham book. I didn't know it was 1996 again.
Usually, he's preaching about some form of the law, with the underpaid lawyer working to right one of The Man's serious wrongs. In this one, a disbarred and jailed lawyer is the protagonist, and the machinations that lead him to a new life and to run circles around the FBI to acquire that new life are told tightly. It's a page-turner.
So Grisham is basically combining parts of "The Client" and "The Firm." Okay, I'm done hating on John Grisham. I used to enjoy his books, then I realized in the late 1990's his books really weren't that good anymore, so I stopped reading them.
The National Forgotten League: Entertaining Stories and Observations from Pro Football's First Fifty Years, by Dan Daly (University of Nebraska Press).
We don't appreciate pro football history. We never have.
Yes, "we" don't Peter Bill King Simmons. "We" are just too infatuated with how the NFL is today and "we" don't care about the NFL's history.
You love pro football. You're still reading about it in June; you must love it.
No Peter, we are here to read about your personal thoughts on gun control, which award you are receiving this week and just how annoying it is to deal with the general public. Who reads MMQB to hear about football? No one does. We only care to read about Peter King's personal thoughts and which member of the general public annoyed him over the past week.
There's a hundred more where that one came from. You know how Daly finds such stories? He's curious.
He's curious, like a cat. That's why his friends call him "Whiskers."
Francona: The Red Sox Years, by Terry Francona and Dan Shaughnessy (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt).
EVERYONE SHOULD READ ABOUT THE GENIUS OF TITO FRANCONA AND HOW HE BROKEN THE BAMBINO'S CURSE! OUR MANAGER'S BOOKS ARE BETTER THAN YOUR MANAGER'S BOOKS!
For instance: I always felt Francona coddled the immature and disruptive (and, as this books shows, likely disturbed) Manny Ramirez, for instance. But Shaughnessy gives a clear picture of what happened with Ramirez, and how Francona constantly had to weigh what was best for the team winning games with keeping the team together. How do you deal with a player who, for instance, takes himself out of the lineup more than a few times, once complaining of vague knee pain, but when the team MRIs both knees not even a minor irritation shows up?
You say "that's just Manny being Manny" and then enjoy the fact he hits the shit out of the ball. Also notice how Peter seems to take Francona's version of events and it causes him to change his mind about the situation. Francona surely could be in the right, but his book is only his point of view on the events as they occurred.
Ramirez was a great talent. He knew he could get away with murder, and did. The ownership group had the attitude: Don't tell me how tough the pregnancy was, just tell me if you delivered the baby. And it was up to the manager to make it all work.
Not to take away the uniqueness of this situation, but this is how ownership usually works. They hire the manager to make the team work. If a guy has talent like Manny had then ownership probably works harder to make sure the manager doesn't alienate this player.
"She is so smart. She is so good. I can sit there and watch those cases all day. I really could. It's fun to watch just somebody who does their job well. And I could watch Judge Judy do cases all day. I could watch people play football that do their job really well. People that direct traffic. I get a real kick out of watching people that are good at directing traffic do it. I've done it for hours, watched it. I like football the most. But Judge Judy's right up there.''
-- San Francisco coach Jim Harbaugh, who took his father to a taping of the syndicated Judge Judy TV show. They had lunch together. From the sound of it, he liked what he saw.
My only question: What about Wapner?
I don't know Raymond, what about Wapner? Wapner is on in 15 minutes...
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Have you noticed we use our cell phones too much in this country?
Yes, this has been commented upon constantly by many people. It's been noticed.
This is one half of a conversation I heard (the first three or four comments are close but perhaps not exact quotes, because by the time I got my pen out to write it down, the man was about a minute into the conversation)
Wait, so Peter is now taking a pen out to write down a person's phone conversation? Peter thinks it is odd for people to be on the phone a lot, but it's perfectly fucking normal to write down a conversation he overhears. I want someone to follow Peter King around all day and write down every conversation he has and then start a blog detailing Peter's daily conversations. It could be called "Conversations with Peter King" or something even more exciting than that. Who the hell writes down a cell phone conversation?
"Hi! Just waitin' to board here. What are you doing?"
...
"Well, went to the Burger King. Got a burger, some fries ... Yeah, pretty good, okay, you know. A burger ... Now just sittin' here, people-watchin.' You know.
...
"A little warm in here, you know. Better than that oven out there!!! ... Yeah, checked in. Got 7A. Window seat ... Yep. Like those window seats, you know.
...
"No, no, not that crowded. Guess people flew early today. Hardly had any wait at security. Maybe five, 10 minutes.
...
"Yeah, got some M&Ms at the little shop. Bag of chips. It's like, four hours or so. Was thinkin' of gettin' a sandwich, but I think that burger will hold me. Not too hungry now. I can get something when we land ... Yeah, yeah ... Well, yeah, don't think so.
...
"Okay, what else you got goin'? ... Yeah? Any good? Yeah, always liked that show ... Nope. Just sittin' here. Yeah, not much else up.
...
"Yeah, it'll be past dark when we get there ... I don't know, just go to sleep I guess. Maybe watch some TV at the hotel. I'll see what's on ...
...
"They're millin' around. Looks like we're gonna board here ... Yeah, no, no, I ain't in any hurry. What else you got goin'?''
On it went, until the guy, about 55, had to hang up to board.
This seems like a normal conversation from one spouse to another or one family member to another. It's a boring, typical conversation that one person is having with another. I have conversations like this with my mother, who sometimes just likes to hear from me. Why is this even noteworthy? Stop paying attention to other people's conversations you freak.
I just wanted to yell: "THEY GOT NOTHIN' GOIN' ON! OR THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING BY NOW!''
It's fucking semi-private conversation. Someone should yell back at your fat ass, "STOP WRITING DOWN WHAT PEOPLE SAY IN PUBLIC AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CONVERSATION THEN IGNORE IT!"
Who does this? Who not only writes down a phone conversation between two strangers but then has the audacity to actually get annoyed at the boring nature of the conversation? It's a simple fix. Mind your own business or think about what a great sportswriter you are. Why does Peter King get annoyed at people in public like this? If I saw him writing down my phone conversation I would walk up to him, grab his notepad, shove his pen into his belly, and then not-so-politely tell him to mind his own business.
I don't know. Maybe it's nice to keep in touch when you're apart from someone you like. But these phones. They severely reduce silence and thought. Both of those things are still legal in America, I hear.
Not everyone has the ability to communicate with others through a national football column. Quit writing people's conversations down, you freak. Who cares if someone is having a boring conversation? Why should that matter to you in your life? Mind your own fucking business and worry about yourself as opposed to worrying about what everyone else is doing.
"Dear person in front of me on plane: If you move your seat back just a little more I could probably remove that molar for you.''
-- @JPosnanski, NBCSports.com national sports columnist Joe Posnanski.
Feel your pain, Joe. Feel your pain. Assuming that was USAirways.
The constant bitching about traveling. What a hard life these sportswriters lead. People dare to have phone conversations and people lean too far back in plane seats. I have an idea. Rather than needlessly bitch to the general public about this person, why not tap the person on the shoulder and politely ask them to move their seat up? That's right, Joe Posnanski doesn't have the balls to talk to the person about the problem they are causing him, so he Tweets about it. If you aren't going to have the guts to fix your problem and you have the capability to immediately fix your problem, don't bitch. Grow some balls or live with it.
Ten Things I Think I Think
I think that Peter King needs more things to do if he has time to write down a stranger's conversation at an airport.
1. I think we all have our opinions, and they're all fine, and I haven't given one about the NFL players' top 100 list because I don't think the players take it seriously, and so I don't value it at all. But I saw that ESPN just named Paul Brown the sixth-best coach of all time. To me, that's like naming Bill Russell the sixth-best basketball player of all time,
Yeah, Bill Russell may very well be the sixth-best basketball player of all-time. I probably would rank him right around that spot.
3. I think I love how Kellen Winslow announced his upcoming tryout with the New York Jets. Did it on Twitter thusly: "J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS!!!"
It's so creative, which I found odd. We all know Winslow is a soldier, but I thought creativity wasn't encouraged in soldiers like Winslow?
6. I think, and always have thought, that a team with a mobile or very smart quarterback and a good spread attack should just go for two after every touchdown, except when one point is needed late in a game.
I think saying words like "every" and using a blanket statement like this is NEVER a good idea.
The logic is simple.
Peter King thinks the logic he is using is simple. It's good to hear he doesn't confuse himself when using his own logic.
Say your team scores 40 touchdowns in a season. If you practice your top, say, five plays weekly during a short-yardage period (which all teams have on their weekly practice list), and you've got a smart quarterback who you trust to make good decisions, the likelihood is that you'll be able to convert from the two-yard line more than 50 percent of the time.
Why is this 50% the likelihood? What sort of data is Peter using to confirm this is a correct figure? The answer: He's making it up.
I think teams should never go for a two-point conversion. If teams have a smart and mobile quarterback then they will only convert 25% of the time. There you go, I also created a number that supports my position.
Much more, in my opinion.
We did learn two weeks ago that Peter thinks a "factoid" is the same thing as him giving an opinion. It seems Peter does truly believe his opinion is fact.
Of those 40 touchdowns, let's say five are scored late, and a certain one point is more advantageous strategically than a risky two. Now we're down to 35 touchdowns. If you go for two every time, let's say you make 23. That's 46 points you'd score instead of 35.
I'm supposed to have a summer break from Gregg Easterbrook. You see the issue with this example, right? Peter is setting up a scenario, based entirely on speculation, which not-so-coincidentally helps to prove his point. He's making up situations and facts. My head hurts.
9. I think my guess is 2014 for the renewal of the Favre-Packers wedding vows.
I don't care, though I know Peter is salivating at the thought about being able to discuss Brett Favre again in MMQB. He's tried several times to shoehorn a Favre mention into MMQB, but the idea of real Favre-NFL content probably causes Peter to wet his pants.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
c. Pete Abraham is the best. The Boston Globe Red Sox beat man is a great Twitter follow (@PeteAbe) and good nicknamer. Dustin Pedroia is "Scrappy McScraperson.''
Absolutely hilarious. I will immediately follow Abraham.
e. David Ortiz (413 homers) catches Mike Piazza on the all-time homer list with 14 more, Cal Ripken with 18, Carl Yastrzemski with 39.
Where does he catch Ronde Barber on that list? Barber is the Carl Yastrzemski of the NFL.
f. Looked up at one point Saturday and Josh Hamilton was batting .217 and Albert Pujols .241. Combined on-base percentage: .296.
g. For $15.5 million a year, free agent C.J. Wilson has given the Angels a 17-15 record since arriving at the beginning of the 2012 season.
Using wins and losses only to evaluate a pitcher is dumb. Perhaps Wilson is 17-15 partly because the Angels two best hitters aren't hitting well? Maybe?
h. Anaheim: Where free agents go to cash checks.
Now that's hilarious and rich coming from a Red Sox fan. All I hear from Red Sox writers (and Peter King) over the past year has been how much wasted money has been spent on free agents like Carl Crawford, J.D. Drew, John Lackey, and (though he was acquired through trade) Adrian Gonzalez.
o. I don't mean me, personally, because I don't talk much about the NBA. But why don't we as a sporting nation talk about Tony Parker more? Shouldn't we think of him more as a great basketball player than as the former Mr. Eva Longoria?
Sometimes we reach a point where a person's cluelessness doesn't even merit a response. This comment has helped us to reach that point.
p. Coffeenerdness: I know I'm tough on Amtrak coffee, because it is swill.
I know I'm tough on you because you come off as an entitled tool.
r. I am a week late with this, but happy Bar Mitzvah, Devon Schefter. Not sure if you thought this was as cool as the rest of the partiers did, but the video someone verrrrrry close to you put together just might be the best Bar Mitzvah advice video in the history of Judaism. Everyone from Peyton Manning to the energetic Harbaugh brothers to Adam Sandler with words of wisdom for young Devon. My favorite was Sandler's, seated alongside his young daughter in their car: "Everyone in the family thinks you're a man now. One thing I ask of you: Don't touch this kid. You leave her alone. Don't touch her when you get older or you get this.'' [Clenched fist gesture].
I thought instead of a clenched fist Adam Sandler was going to threaten to make "Grownups 3." That would threat enough for anyone to take Sandler's advice.
s. You go, Emily Kaplan! Good luck at the Globe this summer.
t. You too, Tess Quinlan! Good luck at Yahoo! in New York.
u. And you, Evan King ... a published writer! Congrats to you.
The same guy who gets annoyed at a person's semi-public conversation on the cell phone insists on congratulating people in MMQB. I guess Peter doesn't understand that while he doesn't want to hear one side of a conversation, his readers don't want to read one side of his conversation/congratulations either. Peter has never been overly self-aware.
w. We still haven't forgotten, and never, ever, ever will I stop being ticked off at the chicken politicians -- I'd say something worse, but this is a family website -- in this country who refuse to vote for common-sense gun responsibility. Please read that story and tell me that we, as citizens, should sit idle while the country does nothing to prevent future massacres. And current ones.
It's so annoying to Peter when his opinion isn't everyone else's opinion. No gun laws will prevent future massacres. So using the word "prevent" isn't very realistic, but Peter is too far into his lecture to us about gun responsibility to care whether the prevention he seems to believe can exist really can exist or not.
y. I'll be away from this space for the next four Mondays, and, as I've done for the last five years, I have replacements to write the column. They are: June 17, Former Saints safety Steve Gleason; June 24, Oakland punter Chris Kluwe; July 1, New Orleans cornerback Jabari Greer; and July 8, TBA.
Of course Chris Kluwe is writing for Peter. Peter has already advocated for Kluwe to have an NFL punting job by cherry-picking statistics to make Kluwe look better, so Kluwe should pay him back by taking over MMQB for a week while Peter is on vacation. Friends have to look out for each other you know.
See you back here on July 15, when we'll be one week from debuting our new football-centric site, The MMQB.
Wait, that's the title of the new football-centric site? "The MMQB." Not a very inspired site name. Not to mention, if someone does a search for "MMQB" they may not find the site initially, but find backlogs of Peter's MMQB column.
The Adieu Haiku
RGIII looks good.
Saw him sprinting on Thursday.
Opener? A lock.
The good news about Peter taking a month off is that we don't have to read his horrendous haikus for a month.
A few NFL points after a few days on the road:
More like nuggets of wisdom from the road. For example, what's up with all of those cars on the road during the weekend? Peter thought he was the only one in the world who had to travel this past weekend. Did you know if douse a rental car in gasoline, set it on fire, drive it off a cliff and then drive what is left of the car back to Hertz they expect you to pay for gas if you didn't fill the car up with gas before you brought it back?
Griffin had major knee surgery 21 weeks ago. Washington's opener is 13 weeks from tonight. After watching him run sprints around the practice field Thursday, I agree with what Griffin said post-practice: "Without a doubt'' he thinks he'll be practicing with the team when it begins training camp in Richmond in late July ... and, of course, that he'll be ready to go Sept. 9 against the Eagles.
Remember a couple of weeks ago when Peter said that all the news we get from an NFL team's training camp is positive and all the news can't be this positive? Peter is reporting WITHOUT A DOUBT Robert Griffin will be ready to play the Redskins opening game. So once again, the rules Peter himself sets don't pertain to Peter.
Here's what Griffin did Thursday: He sprinted without a limp the 53-yard width of the end zone. Then, at nearly full speed, he planted his twice-surgically repaired right knee and pivoted left, up the sideline of the practice field.
But did he do jumping jacks? We all know that's the real test on whether an NFL player is ready to play at full speed or not.
Tyrann Mathieu has impressed the Cardinals at safety. In OTA practices, players don't wear pads, and they're supposed to stay on their feet with minimal contact. When I watched the other day, Mathieu, working with the first unit for part of the practice, made a diving pass break-up of a Palmer throw and was buzzing around plays all through the workout.
I'm not sure given Mathieu's drug issues in the past it is smart to characterize him as "buzzing" around plays all through the workout. I'm also not sure the big question regarding Mathieu is his ability to make plays on the field when there is minimal contact allowed. My question for him at safety is whether he is going to be able to stay disciplined enough and tackle well enough to start at the safety position. At LSU, Mathieu sort of free-lanced around the field at times and was given liberty to try and make plays. He has to be more disciplined at safety in the NFL or he will find himself out of position at times.
He's clearly at home on the practice field, pointing out coverages pre-snap and changing direction smoothly. "He reminds of Troy Polamalu with his closing speed,'' said Palmer. "He might not be the fastest guy out there, but he can change directions and get to the ball really fast, like Troy.''
And continuing with this comparison, Mathieu's biggest issue is going to be his instincts and how they can get him out of position at times on the field. Polamalu has had some issues with his free-lancing and Mathieu doesn't have nearly the experience at the safety position Polamalu had coming into the NFL.
Peter just hates it when reports from a team's training camp are all sunshine and roses. Now he's using quotes that compare Tyrann Mathieu to Troy Polamalu.
So far so good for the 69th pick in the draft, but June, obviously, isn't the time to make any judgments on rookies.
Well, obviously. When it comes to running around the field making minimal contact though, Mathieu looks great!
Think there's an SI cover jinx? What about a Bears draft pick jinx? The news that the Bears will trade 2011 first-round tackle Gabe Carimi to Tampa Bay for a sixth-round pick is just another brick in the wall of Chicago's recent disastrous high-draft experience on the offensive line. Not including this year's top pick (Kyle Long), and accounting for the fact that the Jay Cutler trade took away the first-rounders in 2009 and 2010 that may have been used on linemen,
How dare the Bears use first round picks to acquire Jay Cutler when they very easily could have used those picks to draft an offensive lineman that ends up not working out for them.
That's a six-pack of failure right there. Consider that the Bears' only first-round picks over a four-draft span (2008-'11) were Williams and Carimi, the Bears had to move them from tackle to guard to try to salvage their careers, then gave up on both. That's tough to recover from. And it's one reason there will be immense pressure on Kyle Long to be good, quickly.
One of the other reasons being that Kyle Long is a first round pick. There tends to be pressure on first round picks to be good, quickly anyway.
Remember the song "Why Can't We Be Friends?" It's by a group named War.
No, I don't remember War singing that song. I do remember Smashmouth singing "Why Can't We Be Friends?" and I always thought it was a silly question since the reason we can't be friends is because you have a shitty band that sings stupid songs about walking on the sun and being an all-star. No one likes you, that's why we can't be friends.
Finally, a note from inside the White House. "Where are your dreads?'' Barack Obama asked Torrey Smith at the White House the other day when the Ravens went to be recognized by the president. Smith, in fact, has cut his hair, and the leader of the free world is such a fan that he noticed.
This is very impressive, especially since Obama's main purpose as President is to recognize athletes no matter their current hairstyle.
What a happy birthday it is for me today (56, for those counting at home):
Humblebrag time everyone! This is the part where Peter shares information with us in an effort to appear modest, but it is clear he is just humblebragging.
It's Peter's birthday today and if there is anyone who knows Peter's birthday and is counting at home, then shame on you. If you aren't related to him, that's why we can't be friends. Nice way for Peter to slip in that it's his birthday. Real covert-like.
Oh, and you know that award Peter received from The National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association? You don't? Well let Peter ever-so-modestly fill you in on it in an effort to pretend he is being humble when he is simply reminding us he gets awards and is a big deal. It's always interesting who the sportswriting profession considers to be the best in the field. Rick Reilly has won several national sportswriting awards. It's a lot like the Oscars, Grammys, and Emmy's. It appears no one asks the general public who they feel is the best at a certain profession in a given year. Who is the general public to know excellence when they see it though? We are just a bunch of mouth droolers who wouldn't know great sportswriting if it used a dental analogy in a 500 word article on why golf is such a great sport.
The National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association is handing me the Sportswriter of the Year Award tonight. As you all know, I am not worthy,
Agreed that you aren't worthy, but yet you bring up this award to us when many of us would have no idea that you received this award unless it got mentioned in MMQB.
So the only reason Peter brought this award up was to tell us he doesn't think he is worthy of receiving the award. Sounds like a humblebrag to me.
but in the words of the great Bob Ryan: If they're going to give me such a nice award and say such nice things about me, who am I to turn it down? Who doesn't like being told how great they are?
Someone with some sense of modesty? A person who isn't impressed with their own achievements? Someone who doesn't specifically bring up that he won an award so he can say how unworthy he is of that award? Someone who is not you? A person who actually doesn't believe the great things that others say about him?
You just wrote my speech for tonight, Bob. Thanks. Looking forward to being with lots of good people from around the country. And thanks to NSSA guru Dave Goren for running such a great event.
You don't have to suck up to the NSSA anymore. You have won the award already.
Do not get your father a tie this week. Get him a book.
Now for the Father's Day book section. I've been doing this for a few years, in part because we need to find more excuses to read in our lives, and in part because your father, brother, uncle and grandfather all told me last week they were dying for a good book for Father's Day.
Apparently Peter can talk to the dead. My grandfathers and father are dead and I don't have a brother. Thanks for reminding me though, Peter. Now my feelings are hurt.
Last year in this list I gave you The Art of Fielding, and before that Unbroken ... two of my favorite books ever. I don't have one I love as much this year, but I have several I like very much. I wouldn't put one on here that I wouldn't recommend to a good friend.
I have no friends either, so thanks for reminding me that I have no one to recommend these books to.
Sutton, by J.R. Moehringer (Hyperion).
Mike O'Hara told me to read this book, and when Mike tells me to do something, I just do it.
Dear Mike, I have some things I need Peter to do. Please contact me.
The Racketeer, by John Grisham (Doubleday).
Oh, a John Grisham book. I didn't know it was 1996 again.
Usually, he's preaching about some form of the law, with the underpaid lawyer working to right one of The Man's serious wrongs. In this one, a disbarred and jailed lawyer is the protagonist, and the machinations that lead him to a new life and to run circles around the FBI to acquire that new life are told tightly. It's a page-turner.
So Grisham is basically combining parts of "The Client" and "The Firm." Okay, I'm done hating on John Grisham. I used to enjoy his books, then I realized in the late 1990's his books really weren't that good anymore, so I stopped reading them.
The National Forgotten League: Entertaining Stories and Observations from Pro Football's First Fifty Years, by Dan Daly (University of Nebraska Press).
We don't appreciate pro football history. We never have.
Yes, "we" don't Peter Bill King Simmons. "We" are just too infatuated with how the NFL is today and "we" don't care about the NFL's history.
You love pro football. You're still reading about it in June; you must love it.
No Peter, we are here to read about your personal thoughts on gun control, which award you are receiving this week and just how annoying it is to deal with the general public. Who reads MMQB to hear about football? No one does. We only care to read about Peter King's personal thoughts and which member of the general public annoyed him over the past week.
There's a hundred more where that one came from. You know how Daly finds such stories? He's curious.
He's curious, like a cat. That's why his friends call him "Whiskers."
Francona: The Red Sox Years, by Terry Francona and Dan Shaughnessy (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt).
EVERYONE SHOULD READ ABOUT THE GENIUS OF TITO FRANCONA AND HOW HE BROKEN THE BAMBINO'S CURSE! OUR MANAGER'S BOOKS ARE BETTER THAN YOUR MANAGER'S BOOKS!
For instance: I always felt Francona coddled the immature and disruptive (and, as this books shows, likely disturbed) Manny Ramirez, for instance. But Shaughnessy gives a clear picture of what happened with Ramirez, and how Francona constantly had to weigh what was best for the team winning games with keeping the team together. How do you deal with a player who, for instance, takes himself out of the lineup more than a few times, once complaining of vague knee pain, but when the team MRIs both knees not even a minor irritation shows up?
You say "that's just Manny being Manny" and then enjoy the fact he hits the shit out of the ball. Also notice how Peter seems to take Francona's version of events and it causes him to change his mind about the situation. Francona surely could be in the right, but his book is only his point of view on the events as they occurred.
Ramirez was a great talent. He knew he could get away with murder, and did. The ownership group had the attitude: Don't tell me how tough the pregnancy was, just tell me if you delivered the baby. And it was up to the manager to make it all work.
Not to take away the uniqueness of this situation, but this is how ownership usually works. They hire the manager to make the team work. If a guy has talent like Manny had then ownership probably works harder to make sure the manager doesn't alienate this player.
"She is so smart. She is so good. I can sit there and watch those cases all day. I really could. It's fun to watch just somebody who does their job well. And I could watch Judge Judy do cases all day. I could watch people play football that do their job really well. People that direct traffic. I get a real kick out of watching people that are good at directing traffic do it. I've done it for hours, watched it. I like football the most. But Judge Judy's right up there.''
-- San Francisco coach Jim Harbaugh, who took his father to a taping of the syndicated Judge Judy TV show. They had lunch together. From the sound of it, he liked what he saw.
My only question: What about Wapner?
I don't know Raymond, what about Wapner? Wapner is on in 15 minutes...
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Have you noticed we use our cell phones too much in this country?
Yes, this has been commented upon constantly by many people. It's been noticed.
This is one half of a conversation I heard (the first three or four comments are close but perhaps not exact quotes, because by the time I got my pen out to write it down, the man was about a minute into the conversation)
Wait, so Peter is now taking a pen out to write down a person's phone conversation? Peter thinks it is odd for people to be on the phone a lot, but it's perfectly fucking normal to write down a conversation he overhears. I want someone to follow Peter King around all day and write down every conversation he has and then start a blog detailing Peter's daily conversations. It could be called "Conversations with Peter King" or something even more exciting than that. Who the hell writes down a cell phone conversation?
"Hi! Just waitin' to board here. What are you doing?"
...
"Well, went to the Burger King. Got a burger, some fries ... Yeah, pretty good, okay, you know. A burger ... Now just sittin' here, people-watchin.' You know.
...
"A little warm in here, you know. Better than that oven out there!!! ... Yeah, checked in. Got 7A. Window seat ... Yep. Like those window seats, you know.
...
"No, no, not that crowded. Guess people flew early today. Hardly had any wait at security. Maybe five, 10 minutes.
...
"Yeah, got some M&Ms at the little shop. Bag of chips. It's like, four hours or so. Was thinkin' of gettin' a sandwich, but I think that burger will hold me. Not too hungry now. I can get something when we land ... Yeah, yeah ... Well, yeah, don't think so.
...
"Okay, what else you got goin'? ... Yeah? Any good? Yeah, always liked that show ... Nope. Just sittin' here. Yeah, not much else up.
...
"Yeah, it'll be past dark when we get there ... I don't know, just go to sleep I guess. Maybe watch some TV at the hotel. I'll see what's on ...
...
"They're millin' around. Looks like we're gonna board here ... Yeah, no, no, I ain't in any hurry. What else you got goin'?''
On it went, until the guy, about 55, had to hang up to board.
This seems like a normal conversation from one spouse to another or one family member to another. It's a boring, typical conversation that one person is having with another. I have conversations like this with my mother, who sometimes just likes to hear from me. Why is this even noteworthy? Stop paying attention to other people's conversations you freak.
I just wanted to yell: "THEY GOT NOTHIN' GOIN' ON! OR THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING BY NOW!''
It's fucking semi-private conversation. Someone should yell back at your fat ass, "STOP WRITING DOWN WHAT PEOPLE SAY IN PUBLIC AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CONVERSATION THEN IGNORE IT!"
Who does this? Who not only writes down a phone conversation between two strangers but then has the audacity to actually get annoyed at the boring nature of the conversation? It's a simple fix. Mind your own business or think about what a great sportswriter you are. Why does Peter King get annoyed at people in public like this? If I saw him writing down my phone conversation I would walk up to him, grab his notepad, shove his pen into his belly, and then not-so-politely tell him to mind his own business.
I don't know. Maybe it's nice to keep in touch when you're apart from someone you like. But these phones. They severely reduce silence and thought. Both of those things are still legal in America, I hear.
Not everyone has the ability to communicate with others through a national football column. Quit writing people's conversations down, you freak. Who cares if someone is having a boring conversation? Why should that matter to you in your life? Mind your own fucking business and worry about yourself as opposed to worrying about what everyone else is doing.
"Dear person in front of me on plane: If you move your seat back just a little more I could probably remove that molar for you.''
-- @JPosnanski, NBCSports.com national sports columnist Joe Posnanski.
Feel your pain, Joe. Feel your pain. Assuming that was USAirways.
The constant bitching about traveling. What a hard life these sportswriters lead. People dare to have phone conversations and people lean too far back in plane seats. I have an idea. Rather than needlessly bitch to the general public about this person, why not tap the person on the shoulder and politely ask them to move their seat up? That's right, Joe Posnanski doesn't have the balls to talk to the person about the problem they are causing him, so he Tweets about it. If you aren't going to have the guts to fix your problem and you have the capability to immediately fix your problem, don't bitch. Grow some balls or live with it.
Ten Things I Think I Think
I think that Peter King needs more things to do if he has time to write down a stranger's conversation at an airport.
1. I think we all have our opinions, and they're all fine, and I haven't given one about the NFL players' top 100 list because I don't think the players take it seriously, and so I don't value it at all. But I saw that ESPN just named Paul Brown the sixth-best coach of all time. To me, that's like naming Bill Russell the sixth-best basketball player of all time,
Yeah, Bill Russell may very well be the sixth-best basketball player of all-time. I probably would rank him right around that spot.
3. I think I love how Kellen Winslow announced his upcoming tryout with the New York Jets. Did it on Twitter thusly: "J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS!!!"
It's so creative, which I found odd. We all know Winslow is a soldier, but I thought creativity wasn't encouraged in soldiers like Winslow?
6. I think, and always have thought, that a team with a mobile or very smart quarterback and a good spread attack should just go for two after every touchdown, except when one point is needed late in a game.
I think saying words like "every" and using a blanket statement like this is NEVER a good idea.
The logic is simple.
Peter King thinks the logic he is using is simple. It's good to hear he doesn't confuse himself when using his own logic.
Say your team scores 40 touchdowns in a season. If you practice your top, say, five plays weekly during a short-yardage period (which all teams have on their weekly practice list), and you've got a smart quarterback who you trust to make good decisions, the likelihood is that you'll be able to convert from the two-yard line more than 50 percent of the time.
Why is this 50% the likelihood? What sort of data is Peter using to confirm this is a correct figure? The answer: He's making it up.
I think teams should never go for a two-point conversion. If teams have a smart and mobile quarterback then they will only convert 25% of the time. There you go, I also created a number that supports my position.
Much more, in my opinion.
We did learn two weeks ago that Peter thinks a "factoid" is the same thing as him giving an opinion. It seems Peter does truly believe his opinion is fact.
Of those 40 touchdowns, let's say five are scored late, and a certain one point is more advantageous strategically than a risky two. Now we're down to 35 touchdowns. If you go for two every time, let's say you make 23. That's 46 points you'd score instead of 35.
I'm supposed to have a summer break from Gregg Easterbrook. You see the issue with this example, right? Peter is setting up a scenario, based entirely on speculation, which not-so-coincidentally helps to prove his point. He's making up situations and facts. My head hurts.
9. I think my guess is 2014 for the renewal of the Favre-Packers wedding vows.
I don't care, though I know Peter is salivating at the thought about being able to discuss Brett Favre again in MMQB. He's tried several times to shoehorn a Favre mention into MMQB, but the idea of real Favre-NFL content probably causes Peter to wet his pants.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
c. Pete Abraham is the best. The Boston Globe Red Sox beat man is a great Twitter follow (@PeteAbe) and good nicknamer. Dustin Pedroia is "Scrappy McScraperson.''
Absolutely hilarious. I will immediately follow Abraham.
e. David Ortiz (413 homers) catches Mike Piazza on the all-time homer list with 14 more, Cal Ripken with 18, Carl Yastrzemski with 39.
Where does he catch Ronde Barber on that list? Barber is the Carl Yastrzemski of the NFL.
f. Looked up at one point Saturday and Josh Hamilton was batting .217 and Albert Pujols .241. Combined on-base percentage: .296.
g. For $15.5 million a year, free agent C.J. Wilson has given the Angels a 17-15 record since arriving at the beginning of the 2012 season.
Using wins and losses only to evaluate a pitcher is dumb. Perhaps Wilson is 17-15 partly because the Angels two best hitters aren't hitting well? Maybe?
h. Anaheim: Where free agents go to cash checks.
Now that's hilarious and rich coming from a Red Sox fan. All I hear from Red Sox writers (and Peter King) over the past year has been how much wasted money has been spent on free agents like Carl Crawford, J.D. Drew, John Lackey, and (though he was acquired through trade) Adrian Gonzalez.
o. I don't mean me, personally, because I don't talk much about the NBA. But why don't we as a sporting nation talk about Tony Parker more? Shouldn't we think of him more as a great basketball player than as the former Mr. Eva Longoria?
Sometimes we reach a point where a person's cluelessness doesn't even merit a response. This comment has helped us to reach that point.
p. Coffeenerdness: I know I'm tough on Amtrak coffee, because it is swill.
I know I'm tough on you because you come off as an entitled tool.
r. I am a week late with this, but happy Bar Mitzvah, Devon Schefter. Not sure if you thought this was as cool as the rest of the partiers did, but the video someone verrrrrry close to you put together just might be the best Bar Mitzvah advice video in the history of Judaism. Everyone from Peyton Manning to the energetic Harbaugh brothers to Adam Sandler with words of wisdom for young Devon. My favorite was Sandler's, seated alongside his young daughter in their car: "Everyone in the family thinks you're a man now. One thing I ask of you: Don't touch this kid. You leave her alone. Don't touch her when you get older or you get this.'' [Clenched fist gesture].
I thought instead of a clenched fist Adam Sandler was going to threaten to make "Grownups 3." That would threat enough for anyone to take Sandler's advice.
s. You go, Emily Kaplan! Good luck at the Globe this summer.
t. You too, Tess Quinlan! Good luck at Yahoo! in New York.
u. And you, Evan King ... a published writer! Congrats to you.
The same guy who gets annoyed at a person's semi-public conversation on the cell phone insists on congratulating people in MMQB. I guess Peter doesn't understand that while he doesn't want to hear one side of a conversation, his readers don't want to read one side of his conversation/congratulations either. Peter has never been overly self-aware.
w. We still haven't forgotten, and never, ever, ever will I stop being ticked off at the chicken politicians -- I'd say something worse, but this is a family website -- in this country who refuse to vote for common-sense gun responsibility. Please read that story and tell me that we, as citizens, should sit idle while the country does nothing to prevent future massacres. And current ones.
It's so annoying to Peter when his opinion isn't everyone else's opinion. No gun laws will prevent future massacres. So using the word "prevent" isn't very realistic, but Peter is too far into his lecture to us about gun responsibility to care whether the prevention he seems to believe can exist really can exist or not.
y. I'll be away from this space for the next four Mondays, and, as I've done for the last five years, I have replacements to write the column. They are: June 17, Former Saints safety Steve Gleason; June 24, Oakland punter Chris Kluwe; July 1, New Orleans cornerback Jabari Greer; and July 8, TBA.
Of course Chris Kluwe is writing for Peter. Peter has already advocated for Kluwe to have an NFL punting job by cherry-picking statistics to make Kluwe look better, so Kluwe should pay him back by taking over MMQB for a week while Peter is on vacation. Friends have to look out for each other you know.
See you back here on July 15, when we'll be one week from debuting our new football-centric site, The MMQB.
Wait, that's the title of the new football-centric site? "The MMQB." Not a very inspired site name. Not to mention, if someone does a search for "MMQB" they may not find the site initially, but find backlogs of Peter's MMQB column.
The Adieu Haiku
RGIII looks good.
Saw him sprinting on Thursday.
Opener? A lock.
The good news about Peter taking a month off is that we don't have to read his horrendous haikus for a month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)