3 comments "Slate" Has a Terrible Idea on How to Determine Which Country Will Host the Olympics

"Slate" generally has some sort of bizarre (or bad) ideas on their site. Whether it's calling Americans "hypocrites" because nobody likes the Spurs, asking why LeBron has to be so serious, or taking on the evil of youth sports, those who contribute to the site tend to take semi-bizarre stances. I guess it's supposed to be considered "out of the box" thinking that is shown in some of the articles on the site. So a "Slate" writer thinks that cities should be forced to host the Olympics. Yeah, it's an interesting point of view. That's for sure. Logistically I can't see how this makes sense, but of course sometimes I wonder if some of these "Slate" ideas are truly serious. Many times the articles are written in a manner like, "I know this is a terrible idea, so don't take it seriously, unless you think it's a good idea because this is a serious idea we have come up with, in which case this is really a serious idea." The idea of forcing a city to host the Olympics seems to fall into this category as well. Even the cities that host the Olympics can barely afford it, so why is forcing a city to host even close to a good idea? The writer does acknowledge an Olympics held in a poor country would result in terrible facilities, but that sounds like a ton of fun for the athletes who work their entire life to represent their country, doesn't it?

On Monday, the U.S. Olympic Committee announced that Boston was dropping its bid to host the 2024 Olympics following a series of protests, significant public opposition, and a loss of support from the city’s mayor.

So Boston was saying they DO or DO NOT want to host the Olympics? I wish they would be clearer about their stance. 

On Tuesday, the International Olympic Committee told other U.S. cities that might be similarly skeptical of hosting the event that the organization would not take “we don’t want your horrifically costly and burdensome boondoggle of a sporting event in our town” for an answer.

Someone has to step up and take the place of FIFA as the villainous international sports committee. The IOC has been working hard for years to achieve this goal and it's their time. 

But even before Boston was selected and then got itself unselected, both New York City and Philadelphia abandoned bids to be the U.S. candidate for the 2024 Olympics. The 2022 games, meanwhile, were beset by similar abandonments from Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and Germany.

It's not fair to characterize the Swiss as abandoning the Olympics. They simply said they were neutral on the idea of hosting them. 

For plenty of democratized countries, though, the prospect of hosting the Olympics can seem more like a curse—akin to smallpox, wildfires, and an extra-dimensional Chitauri invasion—than an honor.

I'm terrible with grammar and run-on sentences. So I am not criticizing, just noting this sentence should probably read "For plenty of democratized countries though, the prospect..."

That's how it should read, right? The commas around "though" feel weird when read aloud. But yes, no one wants to host the Olympics. The easy decision would be for the IOC to put a cap on how much can be spent on the Olympics or (gasp) cut costs by getting rid of the supremely boring Opening and Closing Ceremonies. It's like a parade, but somehow more boring. Watching people walk and wave just doesn't appeal to me, yet it takes four hours and costs God knows how much for these ceremonies. Cap how much can be spent and give the option of reducing the spectacle of the Opening and Closing ceremonies or getting rid of them entirely.

The IOC requires each host city to agree to cover excess costs or revenue shortfalls in case the games end up overspending. And practically every Olympic Games overspends. “The average cost overrun from the summer Olympics since 1976 is 252 percent, after controlling for inflation,” writes economist Andrew Zimbalist

Make it a hard cap. I know these countries like to show off (more on that later in this post, because the spectacle the host country likes to show off is why this lottery idea won't work), but don't allow countries to go over a certain cost. 

And yet somebody has to host the Olympics. Right?

Not really. If no country hosts the Olympics then there will be no Olympics. 

There are rational solutions to this problem. They involve reforming the IOC, reining in costs by using existing facilities rather than always building new ones, and changing the bidding process so that it no longer hinges on the discreet transfer of large bags of money.

FIFA, there's a new villain in town.

But the Olympics are not a rational event, and so maybe a farcical solution is in order: The IOC should host a Shirley Jackson–style “lottery” to determine which nation will host the Olympics. Every single nation that wants to have an Olympic team has to enter.

If you aren't familiar with "The Lottery" then basically it's a story where a small town draws names to see who will be stoned to death in order to ensure a good harvest. The author of this article, somewhat surprisingly given the fact his entire idea is a bad one, does not suggest any type of stoning to determine which country hosts the Olympics. Well, he does suggest stoning an IOC member, but that can be forgiven. 

If you participate in the Olympics, you have to participate in the lottery. If your name comes up, you’re stuck with hosting the games.

What could go wrong? Well, countries would opt-out of participating in the Olympics for fear they would have to host. This idea also doesn't give smaller countries any incentive to participate in the Olympics since they will only be sending a few Olympians in a few sports, so it doesn't make sense to take a chance on hosting the Olympics so 8-10 people can participate. So yeah, if the idea is to ensure small-to-medium sized countries don't participate in the Olympics then this idea is for you. 

Once that’s finished, we’ll proceed to the main event, which, like all good things, involves thousands of ping-pong balls and a gigantic air lottery machine. Every nation starts off with 25 ping-pong balls.

Why not 10 ping-pong balls? Why not 5 ping-pong balls? Why not 1 ping-pong ball? Why not 100 ping-pong balls? Who the fuck knows? This idea has all the makings of the author deciding "I just read 'The Lottery' again and have to get a column posted in the next hour so here's all I have." 

After calculating the average world GDP, we’ll add or subtract balls for each nation based on how far a nation falls above or below that average, 

(Bengoodfella falls asleep)

Not only is this idea dumb, but it's also needlessly complicated.

so that the United States would end up with far more balls than, like, Tonga. Then we pull the balls in and run the lottery.

As the NBA Draft shows, even teams with significantly more ping-pong balls in the lottery don't necessarily have the best chance of winning (in this case, losing) the lottery. 

Aside from the very simple egging-and-lottery structure, there will be a few other key points.

Nations can buy extra balls. There are some countries out there that still really, really want to host the Olympics, God bless ’em. 

But, but...if there were countries out there that still want to really, really host the Olympics then why even have this lottery? Just award the Olympics to the country that wants to host the Olympics. Isn't this lottery being suggested under the idea that no countries want to host the Olympics, to where the IOC would have to force a country to host? So if there are countries who will buy extra ping-pong balls because they want to host the Olympics so badly then what's even the purpose of this lottery? The fact nations will want extra balls contradicts the reason for the lottery, which is no countries want to host the Olympics. 

These countries can spend $5 million per ball to increase their chances, up to 40 extra balls; the money will go directly toward the cost of the Olympics, whoever gets awarded them, as a kind of tax on wealthy autocrats that really want the games.

Up to 40 balls. Because spending $200 million on additional chances to host the Olympics is reasonable, while spending $205 million on additional chances to host would be excessive. And again, if a country is willing to spend $200 million for the opportunity to host the Olympics then there is no need for a lottery. Even if the country that so badly wants to host isn't big enough to host, there is a chance the lottery would award the Olympics to this country (or an even smaller country) anyway. 

Nations can sell their balls to other nations. Same as before, $5 million a ball, with the money being split between the selling nation and the cost of the games themselves. Here’s the catch: A nation can’t do this for two lotteries in a row, and if a nation chooses this option, the next time around it will automatically be given as many balls as the nation with the highest GDP.

The author is apparently under the assumption the more complicated he makes the idea then the better that idea will appear to be. This is not true. Basically, nations that don't want to host the Olympics will be selling balls to nations that do want to host the Olympics. Again, why not just award the Olympics to the nation that wants to host? 

No nation can host twice in a row. If you’re unlucky enough to get picked for 2024, then you’re out of the running for 2028.

What happens if a warm-weather country is chosen to host the Winter Games? If it is truly incapable of hosting, then it’ll be levied a financial penalty and assigned to host the next Summer Games instead.

Right, because that warm-weather country will be able to financially afford to be able to host the next Summer Games if the financial penalty is severe. Also, this country would simply not be a part of the next Summer Games. What to do then? What if Jamaica gets the Winter Olympics, is awarded the Summer Olympics and then decides not to send a team? The IOC can't get an army together and invade Jamaica and force them to host the Summer Olympics.

This will probably lead most warm-weather countries to withdraw from the Winter Games entirely rather than risk winning the lottery—

Which apparently is the goal. It seems the goal of this lottery idea is to get fewer countries to participate in both the Summer and Winter Olympics. I think that's the brilliance behind it. The Olympics are a good chance for each country in the world to be represented and compete against each other in a show of national pride. This lottery idea decides that's stupid and would rather exclude countries from hosting the Olympics by setting up a situation where only the wealthiest countries can participate because only wealthy countries can afford to host the Olympics.

It also allows for the hilarious possibility that if a country like Mexico gets chosen to host the Winter Games, rather than pay the penalty it’ll just say, “Screw it, we’ve got mountains and snow machines, we’ll give it a go.”

Olympic games that would have terrible facilities and the athletes wouldn't enjoy participating in their chosen event? This would be hilarious! Why doesn't the NBA just play on ice for a year and the NHL can play on a basketball court? It would be HILARIOUS!

Nothing says, "Olympic spirit" like poor conditions and shitty facilities. Really, the best way to honor and celebrate the Olympians who have spent their lives perfecting their craft and finally get a chance to show their skills to the world would be to make a mockery of all they have worked for. 

Obviously, this system is set up so that the countries that can afford to host the Olympics are most likely to actually get them. But it also leaves open the hilarious possibility that a country that does not want the Olympics and cannot really afford to host them will nevertheless be forced to do so.

It would bankrupt countries. More hilarity would ensue! I'm sure the entire country of Greece is in stitches right now at the idea of their bankruptcy. It's so much fun! 

But the point isn’t to bankrupt poor countries.

Except, you know, that's what it will do. Forcing countries to either choose between participating and potentially having to host the Olympics, or sitting out the Olympics entirely ruins the entire point of the Olympic competition. When the author has noted expenses for the Olympics often extend beyond the given budget and not every country can afford to host the Olympics, then the intent ends up being bankrupting or excluding poor countries.

If, say, Dominica somehow ends up with the Summer Olympics, well, then, it’ll just be a Dominica-sized Olympics.

Except, you know, these countries don't want to be seen as a laughingstock so they will spend tons of money on facilities they can't afford in order to not make their country seem like a shit hole. Even wealthy countries spend too much money trying to host the Olympics, so I don't believe Dominica would actually host a small Olympics because that's all they can afford. It's a matter of national pride (and future tourism revenue) to make it look like your country isn't a shit hole.

All you really need to host an Olympics is a gym, a track, a pool, and a field. 

Plus facilities to house the athletes, enough room for the thousands of fans that want to attend to be comfortable, and facilities for these thousands of fans to stay at while watching the Olympics. So other than needing a gym, track, pool, field and the infrastructure to house, transport and feed thousands of people in a small area, not much else would be needed.

I assume that every country, no matter how poor, has at least one gym, track, pool, and field.

And that's all you really need to host the Olympics, right? One pool, one gym, one field and one track. Sure, they need to all be Olympic-sized and the country also has to have enough seating for everyone, plus housing and food, but one gym, track, pool and field is basically all that's needed. 

Because this new system removes the various crooked bidding processes that lead to the overpromising and underbudgeting of facilities, winning cities will feel far less compelled to build extravagant and unnecessary white elephant stadiums, pay for infrastructure that they might not really need or be able to afford, and generally kowtow to the IOC in a way that damages its residents.

I disagree with this. The lottery won't stop countries that are forced to host the Olympics from making extravagant stadiums and paying for infrastructure improvements that country may not need. No country wants to be known as the country that hosted the shitty Olympics. The Olympics by definition require most countries to build infrastructure they may not need, since most countries won't ever have so many different athletic events happening at the same time, with so many spectators attending these events in such a small area ever again.

Right now, various national idiosyncrasies notwithstanding, every Olympics is pretty much the same as every other Olympics, with the same top-tier facilities and stadia and such. If we assign the Olympics via lottery, we will probably end up alternating between lavish games and homemade ones, and this would be a great way of keeping in touch with the games’ amateur origins.

The idea the Olympic athletes would participate in events that take place in sub-par facilities is a terrible idea. It's spitting in the face of Olympians who have worked their entire life only to be told, "Here run on this dirt track and try not to trip over the rocks!" 

I am absolutely sure that this system has lots of problems. But so does the existing system!

Well, then the new system of using a lottery to determine which country hosts the Olympics should be adopted, simply for the hilarity of it all. Replacing one system that has problems with a different system that also has problems is not a solution. 

If it’s a choice between two flawed systems, I think the world should always go with the one that is funnier, 

Because the Olympics are supposed to be funny, you dipshit? The Olympics aren't supposed to be funny and it's not funny to send athletes out to compete in shitty facilities. 

that results in a better deal for the local populace, 

Like bankruptcy or countries simply choosing not to participate. 

and that involves a ceremonial egging. Am I wrong?

Yes. This idea is terrible. The lottery idea is probably the worst idea ever conceived to fix the issues that have plagued determining which country will be hosting the Olympics. If there are countries that really, really want to host, then those countries will bid under the current (non-perfect) system and try to be awarded the games. Simply because no United States city wants to host the Olympics doesn't mean this is true for cities throughout the world. 

4 comments How To Fix the NBA Lottery By Making it More Non-Sensical and Absurd

Has anyone been worried about the NBA lottery and how it rewards teams for tanking? No worries from here on out! This problem has been figured out by "Slate." There is a brilliant idea posted on the site on how to fix the NBA lottery and make everything more fair. The best part is this idea takes the lottery process and turns it into a circus atmosphere, where the intention goes away from choosing lottery spots for each team and becomes more of an exercise in creating manufactured drama. Why does everything have to be dramatic and overly-difficult?

On another note, does anyone but sportswriters care that the NBA lottery is fixed to where teams have some incentive to tank? Like, is this a big deal that the normal sports fan really cares about or is the complaining about tanking simply something the media cares about more than a sports fan does? Me personally, I could care less if the 76ers tank and get a high draft pick. It doesn't bother me. The idea some teams are so terrible they get rewarded for being bad just doesn't bother me that much (as long as I'm not a fan of that team). I could be in the minority, but I feel like others in the media are more concerned about this than I am.

This is the year that NBA tanking went off the rails. 

Every year over the past few years, this has been written somewhere. 

The Philadelphia 76ers, for starters, exemplified a whole new level of basketball seppuku with a team so willfully awful that the New York Times Magazine felt compelled to publish a feature story about their willful awfulness.

The 76ers were so terrible that people in the media noticed how terrible they were.

By descending into “tank mode,” the Sixers hoped to lose enough games that they’d receive one of the valuable first picks in the upcoming NBA draft.

Oh, so THAT is how tanking works? Thanks for clearing that one up. By the way, this is the third straight season the 76ers have essentially done this. So if they were "off the rails" this year then it isn't "the year" tanking went "off the rails." There are a lot of quotes in that sentence. More quotes than good points made in this column in fact.

The New York Knicks, Los Angeles Lakers, and other teams were accused of plunging into the tank for large swaths of this season. Which is sad.

Let's be slightly fair, the Lakers stumbled on to tanking. They managed to lose their first round pick to injury, their best player to injury, and their old point guard tried to come back from injury and had to retire instead. The intention wasn't to tank, but at some point they have to throw up their hands and realize it ain't their year.

Tanking makes for ugly basketball and it throws off competitive balance.

(Bengoodfella shrugs his shoulders) As long as a large percentage of the NBA isn't tanking then I really don't feel too concerned about this problem.

Perhaps worst of all: Fans of tanking teams find themselves not only watching putrid hoops but also perversely rooting against their hometown squads

And again, this is very weird and not good for the fans of these teams. Would fixing the lottery so these teams don't get good players really help the situation? The assumption is management would stop tanking, but would it really stop this strategy? I'm not entirely sure. Lest it be forgotten that the current lottery system was put in place to prevent tanking. From the Bondy column:

The lottery was put into place by David Stern after the spring of 1984 turned into an uncomfortable tank-fest. The way it worked, teams with the very worst record in each conference flipped a coin for the first pick and then other selections were made in inverse order of won-loss records. Not surprisingly, the franchises that still owned their first-round picks hemorrhaged defeats. The Rockets dropped 14 of their last 17 games, nine of their last 10, and their final five. They were rewarded with Olajuwon as the No. 1 pick. The Bulls lost 14 of their last 15 to land Jordan at No. 3.

To quell this perception, Stern instituted the draft lottery, which gave teams far less reason to throw away games.

Sounds a lot like the strategy teams are using 30 years later. The draft lottery was supposed to stop teams from tanking. It didn't. So changes are being suggested again. And again, teams will tank anyway.

You know something has gone awry when Knicks coach Derek Fisher feels pressure to apologize to fans for winning.

In that article, Fisher seemed to say he doesn't feel pressure to apologize to fans for winning. He's not going to apologize for it, so therefore I would say he doesn't feel the pressure. OR it could be we are arguing over semantics in regard to a lottery change that won't ever change the fact NBA teams are going to tank.

The best tanking solution would be relegation, as happens in European soccer leagues. Each year, the bottom three teams in the continent’s top divisions are kicked out of the league and relegated to a lower one. Regrettably, with NBA teams currently selling for $2 billion apiece, it's unlikely we'll get owners to agree that a few of them should be banished to the D-League each year to compete against the Sioux Falls Skyforce.

Clearly the author is a fan of Bill Simmons since Bill has floated this idea jokingly (not jokingly?) in columns before. And yes, no NBA team will be relegated. I don't even know how that would work with the NBA Draft and I don't really care either.

A more likely solution would be for the NBA to flatten out the lottery odds. Right now the worst team has a 25 percent chance at the top pick while the 14^th-worst team has a 0.5 percent chance. We could switch to a true lottery, in which all 14 non-playoff teams would get an equal 7.14 percent chance at the top pick.

So basically the same lottery system the NBA used to use, then got rid of in order to discourage teams from tanking? Get rid of the currently lottery system in order to go back to the old lottery system which was changed because it encouraged teams to tank? Gotta have a sense of history. The odds are not as great now that a team would land the #1 pick (it was around 14% thirty years ago), but the system was no longer used for a reason. 

Another draft scheme that’s gotten lots of attention is “the wheel”—a system in which the draft order would be set far in advance so that a team’s draft position would have zero to do with its on-court performance.

Sounds great, but I have a feeling teams would still find a way to tank. I have no idea how, but NBA teams have tanked at times for decades and it is almost a reflex for some teams who are looking to rebuild. 

This would eliminate any reason to tank, but it would also do nothing to help bad teams get better. The worst team in the league might end up picking dead last in the draft.

And therein lies the whole problem with the media's teeth-gnashing over fixing the lottery. How can a lottery be set up for the purpose to help teams that aren't very good so they do become very good, while also not giving teams incentive to tank? The NBA can't help bad teams, while also not giving teams incentive to be bad. That is, unless some convoluted lottery set up over a several year span where to occur. Something like a team can't get a Top 5 pick for a certain amount of years if they have had one in the previous year. But again, this would work at cross purposes to help a team that's trying to get better. The Thunder never would have had the chance to draft James Harden and Russell Westbrook if this rule were in effect over the last decade.

As horrible as the status quo is, some version of reverse-order drafting—and the increased parity it helps create—is still a worthy goal. So the problem seems intractable.

It is. It's very hard to help bad teams while not incentivizing these teams to be bad.

But fear not, NBA fans! A superior answer exists, and a friend of mine has invented it. It’s fair, it’s elegant, and it’s fun. My friend calls it the “You’re the Worst!” draft.

Maybe not ironically, this draft idea is the worst draft idea. It's convoluted and turns the lottery into a drama that becomes more game show than simple lottery to determine draft position.

How would it work? On the day before the regular season began, the NBA would hold a “You’re the Worst!” draft. Selection order for the YTW draft would be determined like any standard reverse-order draft—the team that had the worst win-loss record in the previous season would pick first, the team that had the best record would pick last. But the teams wouldn’t be drafting players.

(Cue overdramatic music)

They’d be choosing the rights to another team’s position in the next NBA draft.

I see that you, as a reader, maybe confused by one part of this. You may be asking, "But, would each team point at each other and say 'you're the worst' during this process?" Fear not, that is something that would happen. Just wait for the full plan to be revealed.

So, for example, the Minnesota Timberwolves, who finished this season with the worst win-loss record, would have the first YTW pick in the fall when the 2015–16 season started. One day before opening day, all of the league’s general managers would gather together in a room. The T-Wolves would look around that room and decide which team they thought would finish worst in 2015–16.

Again, this is over complicating the entire lottery process needlessly. There is no reason to do this, other than to provide needless drama and over-complicate the process. It's a fun idea, but not something that should really happen.

Minnesota general manager Milt Newton might predict that the Knicks would be the worst team next season. In which case he would shout, “You’re the worst!” while pointing at Knicks President Phil Jackson, stealing the Knicks’ position in the 2016 NBA draft.

I wonder if it doesn't count as saying a team is the worst if a team's GM chooses to point but not shout or simply decides to shout without pointing? I would say this is all a joke, but I really don't think it is based on the columnist really defending why this is a good way to determine a team's lottery position.

If the Knicks indeed finished worst next year, the T-wolves would then receive the top pick in the 2016 draft. If the Knicks finished with the third-worst record, the T-Wolves would receive the No. 3 pick.

I'll play this game. I feel like there is some issue with this method if one team owns another team's first round pick in certain situations (if it falls out of the Top 7, etc) that could affect how this idea would work. I'm trying to think of specific examples, but can't. Perhaps this isn't an issue, but it feels to me like this lottery set up could impact draft picks that are lottery protected.

In this scenario, say the Knicks plan on tanking during the 15-16 year to get a better pick and everyone knows this. The Timberwolves know they will end up getting a high pick in the draft no matter what because they have chosen the Knicks as the team with the worst record, so it won't affect whether THEY tank or not. They are free to tank (again) because they know they will get the first (or really close to first) team choice again the next year. Alternatively in this scenario, say the Timberwolves plan on trying to win as many games as possible and they are chosen to have the sixth worst record in the NBA. If the Timberwolves know the Knicks are tanking during the 15-16 season and they are guaranteed to have a high lottery pick, then what's the point in trying to win games? They have another chance to pick early during the 16-17 lottery! Why should the T-Wolves care if another team gets a higher pick through the T-Wolves deciding to tank as long as the Knicks keep losing? At that point, the T-Wolves can continue to tank, but just as long as they know the Knicks are worse than them.

(Hopefully that made sense. Basically, the T-Wolves still have no incentive to be a good team in this lottery system.)

After the Wolves picked, Jackson and the Knicks, with their second-worst record this past season, would look around the room, predict which remaining team might perform most horribly in 2015–16, and select that team’s 2016 draft pick. Preferably while pointing and shouting, “You’re the next worst!”

Yes, preferably there would be pointing and shouting.

Let’s look at how things would have panned out if we’d held a YTW draft for the 2014–15 season. Since the Bucks accumulated the worst win-loss record last year, and the 76ers appeared to be clearly the worst team entering this season, the Bucks would've selected the 76ers first in the YTW draft. It turned out that the 76ers earned the third-worst record, so the Bucks would be getting the third pick in this June’s NBA draft. 

And the Bucks made the playoffs, so naturally they should be rewarded for making the playoffs by receiving a higher draft pick. Wait, that's not the purpose of the lottery is it?

Here’s how the 2015 NBA draft might look if there’d been a YTW draft on Oct. 27, 2014, the day before this season started (we’ll use SCHOENE projections from the start of the season as a proxy for how general managers might have projected other teams):

1. Denver Nuggets (The Nuggets had the 11^th-worst record in 2013–14, so they’d pick 11^th in the YTW draft; the Timberwolves were projected to be the 11^th-worst team this season, so the Nuggets would have stolen their pick. Since the T-Wolves finished with the league’s worst record, the Nuggets would get the first pick in June’s draft.)
2. Sacramento Kings (seventh-worst record in 2013–14, steal New York Knicks pick)
3. Milwaukee Bucks (worst record in 2013–14, steal 76ers pick)
4. Boston Celtics (fifth-worst record in 2013–14, steal Lakers pick)
5. Philadelphia 76ers (second-worst record in 2013–14, steal Orlando Magic pick)

It’s a pretty good result. 

It is a pretty good result based upon your guess on which teams other teams would choose as being the worst. It's always fun when a writer wants to prove his point as correct and then uses his assumptions as the "factual basis" that shows the underlying points as correct.

And it's not exactly pretty good. Two of these teams made the playoffs and out of the 10 worst teams in the NBA this past year only 3 will get a Top 5 pick and of the 5 worst teams in the NBA, only 1 of those teams gets a Top 5 pick. So if the purpose was to stop tanking, it would work, but if the purpose was to help teams like the Knicks, Lakers, T-Wolves, and Magic get better (and really, I would only count one of those teams as truly tanking) then this result doesn't work well at all.

Although the Bucks, last year’s worst team, wouldn't end up with the first pick in this year’s NBA draft—something that often doesn't happen anyway, due to the lottery—the new positions still would be heavily weighted toward the bottom feeders.

As long as you ignore that of the bottom 5 teams in the NBA, only 1 of them gets a Top 5 pick. As I said, it works at cross-purposes to decrease tanking while trying not to award the worst teams with the chance to draft the best players. It's very hard to do both.

Though the Timberwolves wouldn't receive the first pick in the upcoming player draft, despite finishing with the worst record, they would own the YTW No. 1 this fall, which would very likely pay off in 2016.

I like how the author tries to sell this. He sells it as "the T-Wolves didn't get the first pick in the draft, so preventing tanking works, but next year they will get the first chance to pick which NBA team will be the worst, so tanking does pay off."

Funny how that works isn't? Tanking isn't necessarily discouraged any more than a team knows the pay off for tanking will come, but maybe not immediately. The author can't have it both ways. He can't have this system as a way to prevent tanking, then point out how a team that tanks will be set up to have an early pick two drafts from now.

The obvious benefit of this system is that no team would have an incentive to tank throughout the season (barring collusion). Just think about how this season could have been different.

But a team would still have incentive to tank, because as the author just said, the Timberwolves wouldn't receive the first pick in the draft by having the worst record but they would still have the chance to pick the worst team in the NBA the next year. In fact, the author says having the worst record during the 14-15 season would "pay off" in 15-16. So there's the incentive.

If the Knicks didn’t derive a direct benefit from being so terrible, would they have shut down Carmelo? Would the 76ers dare to build a team so nakedly atrocious?

Yes, because teams that tank aren't thinking about the short-term, but only in the long-term. In the long-term, tanking will "pay off" through having the first chance to choose the worst team in the NBA for the upcoming season. There is the incentive to tank.

Another benefit to the “You’re the Worst” system: It would be exciting! 

No, this is the only benefit. Something being exciting doesn't mean that it's also a good idea. I don't think this system would prevent tanking, especially since most teams that are tanking aren't looking at the short-term view. Having to wait another year for tanking to pay off wouldn't be a big deal to an NBA team.

With YTW, we’d replace the lottery with even better drama. Wouldn’t you tune in to see Newton, or better yet Wolves president and coach Flip Saunders, walk up to the podium on national television, look Phil Jackson straight in the eye, and say, “You’re the worst!”? (OK, it would be more like, “With the first pick in the preseason selection-order draft, the Timberwolves select the Knicks.” But the implied insult would be there.)

I probably would not be more inclined to watch this than I'm inclined to watch the current lottery selection show.

Because NBA fans have long memories, animosity would instantly sprout. Consider: If the Knicks visited Philadelphia right after calling them “the worst,” the Philly crowd might get rowdy

There's nothing like trying to manufacture a rivalry AND manufacture drama.

It stinks to root against your own team, but it’s hella fun to root against other teams. Players would also be eager to prove rival teams’ projections wrong. Ultimately, YTW would enhance—wait for it—competitiveness!

It would not in the same way the current lottery system was supposed to stop tanking and it did not. But it's hella fun to pretend NBA teams aren't going to just tank anyway in an effort to stop something that will happen as long as the intent of the lottery is to get the best players to the worst teams.

To be sure, this system is not perfect.

Noooooooooooooooooo. This system seems pretty perfect to me.

It might take a casual fan a few run-throughs to understand. And it puts a heavy premium on the forecasting skills of NBA front offices. Nerdy spreadsheet jockeys would become even more valuable than they already are.

Does the author really believe the Sixers would not have tanked over the past three seasons in an effort to get a good draft pick if they knew they had to wait another year for the tanking to pay off? This is a real belief the author has? A team like the Knicks or 76ers that are trying to cut salary and gather high draft picks won't be willing to wait another year for the tanking to pay off? These teams know they would get a pretty good pick if they tank, because they would get to choose which NBA team they think will be the worst during the upcoming season, and they know a 3-5 year rebuilding plan takes 3-5 years. So what's waiting another year for tanking to pay off?

But it might be better for Sam Hinkie to put his geek skills to use in the service of predictive analysis—or maybe even figuring out how to help his team win—instead of searching for the most efficient way to lose.

Because he wouldn't use that predictive analysis to find out which teams will be the worst so that once the Sixers continue to tank they can choose another team that's just as terrible as they are, all in the name of getting a higher pick. This system won't stop tanking any more than the change to the system used prior to 1985 stopped tanking. 

6 comments David Steele Wonders Why Chip Kelly Hasn't Won a Super Bowl Yet

I wrote this a few days ago and wasn't going to post it yet, but since Chip Kelly is getting rid of every offensive player on the roster, I figured I may as well post it now before the Eagles release another player who performed well this past season. My feelings haven't changed about Kelly. He's been in the NFL two seasons and if he didn't want to pay Maclin, that's his prerogative (as Bobby Brown would say). He's definitely putting his future in his own hands. If Jackson can be replaced then I don't doubt Maclin could be too. So I still think David Steele is being unfair. In unrelated news, we still have open spots in the fantasy baseball league and if anyone wants to join then send me an email to bengoodfella@yahoo.com and I will send you an invite. So, onto David Steele being unfair.

I've kidded a bit about Chip Kelly and his reputation as a football genius. Peter King had the "Wisdom of Chip Kelly" as part of MMQB this year and I generally feel that Kelly is given wide berth as a genius among sportswriters because he seems to not rely on coach-speak when talking. Kelly does use coach-speak, but it's a more honest and higher level of coach-speak. I haven't bought completely into the Great Genius of Chip Kelly quite yet, but I also haven't written him off as a bad NFL head coach. He's 20-12 with Nick Foles, Mark Sanchez and Mike Vick as his quarterbacks. That's certainly nothing to complain about. David Steele does have an issue with how Chip Kelly has all this power and why he hasn't won a Super Bowl title yet. Considering Kelly has only coached in the NFL for two years and took over a 4-12 team, this seems a bit unfair to me.

Steele even says, "The clock is ticking" on Chip Kelly winning a championship. Wow, that's not unfair, that's just dumb.

Chip Kelly is flexing his newly-grown official muscles, as proven by the upcoming trade of LeSean McCoy. There’s no question who is the boss on the Eagles, if there had been any question for at least the past year.

I recognize the running back position feels overrated and is being undervalued at the present time. Still, I'm not sure how I feel about LeSean McCoy getting traded for a linebacker, even if Kiko Alonso is a pretty good linebacker. Having said that, Chip Kelly is the boss and has been the boss in Philadelphia. The trade of McCoy isn't a sign that Kelly does/doesn't know what he is doing. It's simply a sign that he doesn't value running backs at the compensation level that McCoy receives. This trade doesn't suddenly put Kelly on the clock. McCoy is a running back, it's not like Kelly traded the franchise quarterback or anything.

There is a question, however, about what he’s done to earn all that power, the kind that gives him the benefit of the doubt when, in consecutive years this early in his tenure, he unloads players of the stature of McCoy and DeSean Jackson.

What has Kelly done to earn this power? I'll make the list...

1. The Philadelphia Eagles gave him this power.

2. He went 46-7 in Oregon with an innovative offense.

3. He has gone 20-12 in two seasons as the Eagles' head coach. That's two 10-6 seasons in a row.

So Kelly has earned the power he has through distinguishing himself as someone who sort of knows what he's doing when coaching a football team. He's not quite the genius the sports media wants him to be, but he's pretty good at his job.

One thing that’s certain that should give everybody pause: Kelly’s position on a prestigious list that everyone on it wishes he could get off of.

The fact that Kelly unloaded Jackson and still led the Eagles to a 10-6 season is a reason he gets the benefit of some doubt. The Eagles replaced Jackson's production with 192 receptions and 2577 yards from Jeremy Maclin, Darren Sproles, and Jordan Matthews. The Eagles were fine after Jackson was let go and they could very well be fine after McCoy is let go. Time will tell, but trading good players who are expensive isn't a knock against Kelly or indication he doesn't know what he's doing.

Now, as for that list everyone on it wishes they could get off of...get ready for some ridiculousness.

That’s the list of the best coaches in big-time sports who have never won a championship, like the list Sporting News put together.

But, but, but why would Chip Kelly be on this list? He has coached in the NFL for two seasons. TWO SEASONS! Why not throw Todd Bowles on that list of coaches who have never won a championship while he is at it? Jim Harbaugh hasn't won a title either. Kelly was only at Oregon for four seasons. I mean, I'm an impatient person, but it's unrealistic to throw Chip Kelly on a list of coaches who have never won a championship when he's been a head coach for a total of six seasons. Let's have some perspective here.

There’s Kelly, with a wide berth to re-make the Eagles to his liking, coincidentally with several players from his days at Oregon — despite no championships in four years at Oregon, and one playoff berth and no playoff wins in two seasons in Philadelphia.

Kelly made a national title game at Oregon, only to lose to an Auburn team that was an inexplicable juggernaut. Kelly has taken an Eagles team that was 4-12 and led them to back-to-back winning seasons. Yes, he has no playoff wins in the one try he had to win a playoff game. I think David Steele is being just a little bit hard on Kelly.

Kelly, then, had better turn this upheaval, this power play, into a title.

Immediately after listing all of the disappointment that Kelly has had in his two seasons as an NFL head coach with LeSean McCoy on the roster, David Steele acts like trading away LeSean McCoy was a dumb move that won't allow the team to reach the heights they reached previously. It's fun to knock the performance of Kelly's team with McCoy on the roster and then act like Kelly ruined a championship club by trading McCoy.

But belief in Kelly’s coaching, management and team-constructing acumen exceeds the actual results.

He was 46-7 at Oregon. He's 20-12 in the NFL. The extreme belief in Chip Kelly is probably overblown, but his actual production is really pretty good at this point. Considering how other college coaches come into the NFL and fall flat on their face, Kelly has done a great job of winning football games with three quarterbacks (four if you count Matt Barkley) who really aren't exactly the pick of the litter.

His 46-7 Oregon record and 20-12 NFL record are nothing for which he should apologize. Eventually, if more time passes without the Eagles approaching the largely-unappreciated success level of the man he replaced, Andy Reid, he won’t have to apologize, but he’ll have to explain.

Oh, okay. So Kelly's coaching, management, and team-constructing acumen exceeds his actual results if we project that Kelly won't ever achieve more than he's already achieved in the NFL. So yeah, Kelly's reputation would be overblown if the assumption is that he will continue to not win playoff games in the future.

Without question, Kelly inherited a gigantic task in 2013 from the end of the Reid regime, and that of the personnel heads he worked with (including Tom Heckart, Joe Banner and Howie Roseman). A 4-12 team leaves a mess. 

Notice how Steele is pulling the old "Give the person credit because it's nearly impossible to take credit away from this person" trick before holding Kelly to an unfair standard. Sure, Kelly took over a team that was a mess and had personnel issues, but he hasn't won a Super Bowl over the past two seasons, so what's up with that? Kelly is doing a great job, but isn't he a bit of a disappointment so far?

It’s still early in the 2015 offseason, and there likely will be more change.

It’s who and why the rest are gone — and what the end game is.

It seems the endgame is to build the Eagles team in the mold of what Chip Kelly wants his team to look like. Again, I don't get why David Steele is pointing out how that Kelly hasn't won a title yet over his two seasons in the NFL and then thinks it's odd that Kelly is turning over players on the roster. Steele wants it both ways. He wants to say Kelly has underachieved, but also criticize Kelly for trying to rectify this perceived underachievement.

For a team whose record improved as quickly as it did, the Eagles not only have major holes to fill on both sides of the ball, they have a late-season collapse to answer for, and a genuine Super Bowl contender in the Cowboys in front of them in their own division.

Like I say, I joke a lot about the media perceiving Chip Kelly as a genius above all other geniuses and how they hang on every word that he speaks as if it were the greatest word ever spoken in the English language. Chip Kelly has shown himself to be a pretty good NFL head coach so far. Yeah, he hasn't won a Super Bowl yet, but he's also working on his third season as the Eagles head coach. I would also hold off on the Cowboys being "genuine" Super Bowl contender until Jason Garrett proves he can have back-to-back seasons where his team doesn't go 8-8. It's almost like with a roster full of major holes, that Chip Kelly has done a good job so far, and his attempts to fill these holes by shedding salaries isn't a terrible idea. 

Kelly, author of an offensive system praised and envied at every level of the game, needs a new running back

This supposedly is a good draft to need a running back. 

possibly a premier receiver if he can’t re-sign Jeremy Maclin, an upgraded offensive line and, apparently, a quarterback. 

The team has a lot of needs, that's for sure. There are a lot of other NFL teams that seem to have questions at multiple positions. Chip Kelly has won 20 games with Mark Sanchez, Mike Vick and Nick Foles as his quarterback. That's fairly impressive, so the Eagles' need for a quarterback shouldn't be too concerning. Supposedly working with quarterbacks and choosing the right guy for the quarterback job is a strength of Kelly's. 

The one he wants, his former Oregon star Marcus Mariota, might be out of his reach on draft day.

Do we know that Kelly wants Mariota or has this been repeated so many times now that it's almost accepted as a fact? And again, Kelly has won 20 games with a third round pick and two quarterbacks that no other team really wanted as their starter. 

Never mind Plan B if that doesn’t pan out. Plan A isn’t all that clear, except that he’s sent a message about the kind of players he likes and the financial value he puts on them.

And of course, if Plan A isn't clear to a sportswriter then that means Plan A must stink. Sportswriters are the all-knowing brilliant minds that all long and short-term plans must be run by, so because David Steele doesn't understand what Kelly's plan is then that must mean the plan stinks. 

This purge hasn’t been about being old or unproductive. Jackson was 27 and was their No. 1 receiver. McCoy was 26, a year removed from a rushing title and had gained more than 1,300 yards in an off-year.

They were both carrying big contracts, which can’t be ignored.

I don't think anybody but you is ignoring the big contracts that McCoy and Jackson had. You are the one who is confused as to what the plan is behind letting these players go, while acknowledging why the Eagles let these players go.

Their replacements may be more affordable, but last year, when Kelly said he wanted to go "in a different direction" at receiver,Jackson’s replacements didn’t compensate for him.

This is an absolute lie. Zach Ertz increased his production from his rookie year, and as I detailed earlier, three receivers who didn't play on the Eagles team during the 2013 season accounted for 192 receptions and 2577 yards during the 2014 season. Jeremy Maclin alone compensated for the loss of Jackson and the addition of Jordan Matthews and Darren Sproles more than compensated for losing Jackson. Don't just write things that aren't factual simply because you really, really want them to be factual. It's still a lie.

With the same record as the year before, the Eagles missed the playoffs.

And of course if the Eagles had DeSean Jackson they would not have missed the playoffs. Isn't the fact the Eagles had the same record in 2013 as 2014 show that the NFC East was stronger in 2014 than it was in 2013? Of course not! It shows that the Eagles should have kept DeSean Jackson and the 10-6 record is a direct result of not keeping Jackson. The Eagles' record stayed the same when DeSean Jackson was let go, so this is a regression of sorts. Of course.

Coaches aren’t handed the mantle of greatness for running in place. 

A lot of NFL teams would take back-to-back 10-6 years and accept "running in place" with this record. But sure, characterize the Eagles' record however fits your present agenda for this column. Yes, coaches who run in place aren't handed greatness, but coaches who have coached in the NFL for two years aren't expected to necessarily be great yet. 

If true contention for a championship doesn’t follow soon, then Kelly will have to justify why his way was the better way. 

That's true. Perhaps before writing the column about how the plan Kelly has is confusing and mentioning that Kelly hasn't won a Super Bowl title yet, David Steele should wonder with this criticism he has of Chip Kelly, if he is holding Kelly to the same level of genius that he claims others are absurdly expecting Kelly to achieve.

2 comments So Apparently Luther Campbell Writes a Column

Good things never last. Mitch Williams had a blog and then he got fired and his blog went bye-bye. I've lost Joe Morgan, Jay Mariotti has disappeared, and Rick Reilly stopped writing. But there is hope on the horizon. Now apparently Luther Campbell has a column he writes on a semi-regular basis. Yes, that Luther Campbell of 2 Live Crew. He writes. Hat tip to the reader who only I know by his email address, so I won't hand it out here, for alerting me to Campbell's columns and the specific column he wrote about LeBron James and Michael Jordan. So Luther has taken time away from 2 Live Crew (I'm kidding, I have no idea if he even works with them anymore) to talk about how LeBron James is already better than Michael Jordan. Why? Because. And yes, Campbell is still going by "Uncle Luke" which is starting to seem a little creepier to me as time goes by for some reason. Here is the picture that accompanies this column. 1989 Luther Campbell would not be impressed with 2014 Luther Campbell.

The slightly tilted head with the glasses pulled down with his eyes looking over the top of the lenses. It's uh, very 1990's sitcom-y. Either that or it's very "I'm middle-aged and staring at some attractive co-ed's"-y. Either way the V-neck pullover with the sly smile would probably have 1989 Luther Campbell wanting to beat this guy's ass. He's getting involved in politics in Miami, so good for him on that count. But not good for him that he thinks LeBron James is already better than Michael Jordan. This is an older article, but nonetheless still pretty not good.

Last week, in game four of the NBA Eastern Conference Finals, LeBron James broke Michael Jordan's playoff record for most games with at least 25 points, five rebounds, and five assists.

Best of all-time based on these arbitrarily picked statistics.

As the Heat heads to the NBA Finals for the fourth year in a row, it's time to admit that James has now taken Jordan's place as the greatest of all time. But you will never hear the former-players-turned-commentators admit it.

NO ONE WILL ADMIT THAT WHICH ISN'T PROVEN TO BE TRUE YET!

Guys like Steve Kerr (who recently left TV to coach Golden State), Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, and Shaquille O'Neal will never give LeBron the crown.

That's only because the crown has to be earned and LeBron hasn't earned it yet. We must protect this HOUSE!

Barkley and friends all played in the Jordan era and are endorsed by Michael. They wouldn't say anything to make him mad.

This is as opposed to Uncle Luke who is totally neutral on this subject since Campbell lives in Miami, has long been affiliated with Miami teams and LeBron played for the Heat at the time. Not that Campbell would take the opinion of a homer while calling out others for their biases. Never.

LeBron has surpassed Jordan in every facet of the game, though. Jordan had to learn to pass the ball, but finding the open man is part of LeBron's instinct since he was winning championships at the high school level.

Jordan's five highest assist totals per game came when he was 25, 26, 28, 21, and 24 years of age. His five lowest assist totals per game came when he was 22, 39, 34, 33, and 32 years of age. So the statistics don't exactly bear out that Jordan had to learn to pass. In fact, it says the opposite is true. Maybe his teammates forgot how to make shots. Out of LeBron's five highest assist totals per game, only one of those seasons was with the Miami Heat. It goes to prove LeBron did have the instincts to pass, but as his teammates got better his assists when down, which also happened with Jordan. That's pretty interesting to me.

More importantly, much of Luther Campbell's case for LeBron over Jordan is based on the fact LeBron is a better all-around player. I think that's true, but it doesn't mean LeBron is better than Jordan...yet.

Every dunk Jordan did, LeBron can do better.

Irrelevant. Though if this were relevant to this discussion, it would also be relevant to point out Jordan went up against the best dunkers of his era in the Slam Dunk Contest and beat them. LeBron has not done that.

He can cover five positions on the court, even center. Jordan couldn't do that.

Shaquille O'Neal can't play any other position but center or power forward. It doesn't mean Shawn Marion is a better player than O'Neal.

Off the court, LeBron is a better teammate than Jordan was. Michael would never have visited a teammate having a poor series to cheer him up like LeBron (and Dwyane Wade) did with Chris Bosh.

In terms of irrelevant points regarding which player was better on the court, how sweet and gentle Jordan/LeBron was to his teammates is up there in terms of irrelevancy. Notice how Uncle Luke is conspicuously leaving out the whole "6-0 in the NBA Finals versus 2-3 in the NBA Finals" thing. It's not fair to judge LeBron based on NBA Finals accomplishments only, but if Campbell is going to drag off-the-court kindness, versatility and dunking ability into the discussion, the record in NBA Finals contests becomes more relevant. 

Jordan was always flying out to the casinos or wherever he hung out on his own. 

Then coming back and winning games anyway. Carry on...

Now we get to the real reason Luther Campbell doesn't like Michael Jordan and won't consider him the best NBA player of all-time. I'll give you a hint, it has absolutely nothing to do with Jordan's performance on the court and it's personal.

Whenever the Chicago Bulls came down to play Miami during the Jordan era, all the players would come to my nightclub.

Guess who didn't show up to Uncle Luke's nightclub? GUESS WHO? It's a toughie, so I will give you three guesses. Make them NOW, then scroll down.

...

...

...

...

...

...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


The only one who didn't show up was Michael.

What? Such an unexpected turn of events this is! Michael Jordan didn't soothe Luther Campbell's ego, so that's why he isn't the best NBA player of all-time.

Remember back in this column when Campbell said guys like Barkley, Kerr, and Shaq are friends with Michael Jordan, so that's why they claim he's the best NBA player ever? Isn't it possible Campbell is saying Jordan isn't the best NBA player ever because Jordan didn't come to Campbell's nightclub when the Bulls were in town and Campbell is a Heat fan? Maybe? Just a little?

See, Michael Jordan wasn't a good teammate because he wouldn't come to Luther Campbell's nightclub. Only good teammates show up at Uncle Luke's place. Therefore, Jordan isn't a team player.

Jordan never faced the criticism and opinions of ex-players as LeBron has either.

Really? Jordan didn't face the criticism through the many outlets that fans and players have now to express their criticisms and opinions, but he faced criticism. Jordan had an entire book written about what an asshole he could be. Sam Smith wrote that book. Scott Raab wrote "The Whore of Akron" about LeBron. I vividly remember when Jordan wasn't considered good enough to carry a team to the NBA Finals and he wasn't considered enough of an unselfish passer and teammate to make the players around him better. Phil Jackson turned up, Scottie Pippen was drafted, the Bulls surrounded Jordan with good role players and six NBA Finals victories later nobody remembers the negative shit said about Jordan.

Jordan never had to worry about someone like Barkley saying Wilt Chamberlain was the best because he's the only player to score 100 points in one game. 

No, Jordan had to worry about everyone saying Magic, Kareem, Larry Bird, Thomas, and other players from his era who had won NBA titles were better than him because they had won multiple NBA titles while Jordan couldn't even get his team to the NBA Finals. But no, I enjoy a little revisionist history where it's pretended that Michael Jordan didn't face criticism about the achievements of other players during his era and their accomplishments compared to his own accomplishments.

Hell, Barkley is the biggest hypocrite. He says LeBron should go back to Cleveland, yet Barkley bounced around teams like a groupie chasing a ring throughout his career.

Barkley played for three teams in his career. Three teams. That's not exactly bouncing around like a groupie throughout his career. But again, Luther Campbell apparently doesn't deal in facts, he deals in hot sports takes.

It's time these hall-of-fame pundits acknowledge LeBron's place in history.

Yes, it's time to induct LeBron into the Basketball Hall of Fame now!

Wait, what? What the hell does the Hall of Fame have to do with whether LeBron is a better NBA player than Michael Jordan? Does Luther Campbell believe Shaq, Barkley, and Steve Kerr are saying LeBron James won't be in the Hall of Fame after he retires? "LeBron's place in history" will probably include induction into the Hall of Fame, who is denying this? I'm very confused, but I'm not as confused as Luther Campbell seems to be.

6 comments Bill Madden Hates Free Baseball, Likes Steroids, and Just Kicked a Baby Panda in the Teeth

Bill Madden is frustrated with these low-scoring baseball games and he misses the days when baseball players used amphetamines and the game action was more exciting. This is the big secret among sportswriters, that many of them take every chance they can get to crucify PED users and rail angrily about any PED user being in the Hall of Fame, but yet these sportswriters are bored by baseball games that don't feature guys slugging the ball out of the park at an alarming rate. One minute these sportswriters are writing 1000 words about how A-Rod/Bonds/Sosa should not make it into the Hall of Fame, the next minute they are writing 500 words about how low-scoring and boring the game has become. Bill Madden specifically longs for the days of amphetamines (even if jokingly, I don't believe he is completely joking) and hates all of this good baseball that leads to extra inning games. This is typical modern sportswriting. One minute the sportswriter is eviscerating cheaters who ruin the purity of the game of baseball and the next minute the sportswriter is complaining the game of baseball is too low-scoring.

Honey, are you still awake?”

“Of course, I am. It’s only the 14th inning!”

Extra inning games are SO boring aren't they? Who likes the idea of free baseball? Not Bill Madden, that's for sure.

So are you loving all this or not? All this extra-inning baseball we’re being treated to this season? Eighteen bonus frames alone by the Mets and Marlins (Ugggh!).

It's one game between two not very good teams that went into extra innings. It's free baseball, how can you hate free baseball? 

The Yankees had to play a whole ’nother nine innings on getaway day in Oakland before losing, 3-2, to the A’s Thursday, and from the looks of their pathetic offense (0-for-28 with 12 strikeouts from their 4-7 hitters, Mark Teixeira, Travis Hafner, Vernon Wells and Kevin Youkilis), they could’ve easily gone another nine without scoring a run.

Two teams from New York played extra inning games that weren't very exciting, so all extra inning games are now seen as boring by Bill Madden. He misses those days when baseball players used PED's and then he could write about how exciting the games were AND later write about how these PED-using players should never make it into the Hall of Fame. And yes, Madden has a history of moral grandstanding when it comes to steroids and a history of criticizing MLB players who have been caught using PED's. It's all about the story to Bill Madden. He wants more offense in the game of baseball, but also wants to remove steroids from the game entirely. I don't think it would be a lie if I said he probably misses the Steroid Era in some ways.

While you were sleeping, there had been 110 extra-inning games played this season through Thursday which, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, puts baseball on pace for a total of 272, which would shatter the previous record of 237 in 2011.

Oh sure, NOW Bill Madden embraces statistics when they help him prove a point, but when anyone else uses statistics Madden gets his panties in a wad.

Now it would be one thing if these games were replete with suspense, dramatic home runs and occasional great plays, like in, say, Mets-Astros, 16 innings, Game 6 of the 1986 NLCS, or Yankees-Red Sox, 11 innings, Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS.

Basically if it were an exciting extra innings game that involved a New York team then Bill Madden would have no problems, but since these were boring extra inning games that involved a New York team then this must mean all extra inning games are boring. 

Also, to compare a regular season extra inning game to three of the most exciting extra inning games in MLB history is a bit unfair. This is like saying if every regular season game can't be as exciting as Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, Game 7 of the 2001 World Series or contain as much excitement as the 1951 National League pennant race then what's the point in playing these regular season games? It's not fair to expect every extra innings game to be among the most exciting extra inning games in the history of baseball. 

But for the most part, this year’s version of Extra Innings Theatre has been an exercise in futility, boredom and, in the case of Mets-Marlins, been downright unwatchable.

ONE EXTRA INNINGS GAME WAS BORING, SO ALL EXTRA INNINGS GAMES MUST BE BORING!

So why is this? Why have extra innings, which used to be looked upon with great anticipation, instead been replaced by a sense of dread?

Perhaps because you are using the example of two games to serve as an example for all extra inning games. This sense of dread could very easily be your conscience telling you that your moral grandstanding and super-secret love for players who used PED's has led to games that features less offense and you feeling like the non-Steroid Era has become offensive to your delicate senses. 

According to scouts and baseball execs I talked to, it starts with the gradual decrease of runs and homers since baseball instituted its ban of amphetamines in 2006.

I'm not entirely sure this is an accurate statement, but when have baseball execs and scouts ever been wrong? NEVER. That's the answer. Baseball execs and scouts are never wrong.

This is a lesson in being careful what you wish for. In Bill Madden's mind fewer PED's mean fewer runs, so if Bill wants to criticize PED users that is perfectly fine, but he needs to reduce his whining about lower scoring games in that case. He can't necessarily have it both ways.

“There’s less power in the game,” said one exec, “less examples of one swing of the bat ending the game.”

When compared to the Steroid Era, this probably makes sense. Again, this is what happens when MLB has a steroid policy. In fact, this is the entire point of a steroid policy. The point is to make sure players aren't using artificial means to power their swing. 

The Elias Bureau reports there are 2.01 homers per game this season and 15.15 strikeouts per game. In 2006, there were 2.22 homers and only 13.03 strikeouts per game.

That means every fifth game teams hit a home run in 2006 they won't hit in 2013. Over an entire season that is 34 additional home runs (162 games times 0.21) that are hit in a certain team's slate of 162 games. I don't feel like doing regression analysis and I'm sure 34 fewer home runs in a team's season is a statistically significant number, but it doesn't seem like the fact teams hit one fewer home run every fifth game in 2013 could be attributed to the boringness of the next inning games being played. This seems like a simplistic kind of answer. As far as the strikeouts go, each team is striking out one more time in 2013 as they were in 2006. I can't see how this can be the reason there are more extra innings games. But don't worry, Bill Madden has anecdotal evidence of his being correct that he will share with us in a moment.

(I'm pretty sure all my math is right. I would love to do a regression analysis, but I'm very lazy.) 

My point, and I do have one, is that while Bill Madden, scouts and baseball execs are talking about the reduction in home runs (which there does seem to be one) as the reason for more extra inning games, I'm not entirely persuaded. It's very possible the reduction in runs can be attributed to the amount of extra inning games, but teams can score runs by other means than hitting a home run. Plus, Bill Madden needs to decide if he likes baseball with less offense or baseball players using PED's. 

“But that hasn’t stopped guys from swinging from their heels,” the same exec said. “The problem is, you get into extra innings, and guys who can’t hit home runs are swinging from their heels anyway and striking out.

Gosh, this doesn't read like anecdotal evidence at all. Players try to hit home runs in extra innings and are striking out all over the place. It seems like an epidemic doesn't it?

At the same time you get into the sixth or seventh inning of a tie game, with runners at first and second and nobody out, and nobody seems to bunt anymore.

NOBODY bunts anymore. Again, more anecdotal evidence. Why wouldn't you bunt in a situation where you have gotten two runners on base and nobody out? Clearly the pitcher isn't (a) tiring or (b) struggling to get batters out, so the best move is to give the other team a free out. There is a time and a place for bunting and if it is a tie game in the sixth or seventh inning with runners on first and second, I'm not sure this is the time or place. It depends on the status of the pitcher and other factors, but simply saying "nobody" bunts in this situation is just dumb. Not to mention, were teams bunting a lot in this situation during the Steroid Era or something? Or could teams in 2006 just hit that extra home run every fifth game that is the reason so few games went to extra innings in 2006?

It’s like managers are being disrespectful to the batters to ask them to bunt.”

Or managers are realizing that asking a player to bunt in a situation where there are no outs means that manager is giving up an out in an inning where the opposing pitcher seems to be struggling. 

“There’s far less power and far more hard-throwing relievers,” said one scout.

The relief pitchers are becoming more talented? Whatever can be done about the increased skill level of relief pitchers? Maybe the hitters should be allowed to use PED's, just to keep up with the hard-throwing relievers. 

“You get in these low-scoring games, and now it seems almost every team in baseball has two-three relief pitchers who can come into a game and throw 100 mph gas for an inning and it’s a mismatch. Then, by the time you get into extra innings, look at these guys the way they’re dragging!”

So are the relief pitchers dragging or are the batters dragging? There's a disconnect here. Bill Madden has stated that these extra inning games are boring, so does he want a reduction in the pitching talent in baseball or what exactly is his solution for these boring extra inning games? What's the complaint, that pitchers are pitching too well and this is making baseball boring? Isn't the exclusion of PED's from the game of baseball and the increased skill set of pitchers a good thing?

Any way you look at it, the common denominator in most of these extra-inning games is a dearth of runs —

This makes sense considering when a game goes to extra innings if one team scores more runs than another team then the game is over. So games that last for 14 innings tend to have fewer runs scored after the ninth inning is over, because if a lot of runs were scored then the game would be over when one team outscored the other in a certain inning.

I would also enjoy seeing the data that makes Bill Madden believe the dearth of runs is the reason for most of these extra inning games. I'm not sure he has supporting data and is probably basing this conclusion on the viewing of two extra inning games during the 2013 season.

which suggests that maybe baseball needs to do something drastic to rouse its fans and players out of their slumber.

Bill Madden thinks extra inning games are boring. He has anecdotal evidence of why baseball games are boring and that's because the hitters are not hitting as many home runs as they did during the Steroid Era. Plus, it doesn't help the pitchers are so talented they can overmatch the hitters. So in summary, Bill doesn't like competitive baseball games that go to extra innings, he thinks there is too much talent among MLB pitchers, and he wishes there was a way to make a drastic change to improve the hitting. So what's his solution? 

Yo, Bud — call off your amphetamines police!

There we go. The solution is to call off the amphetamines police. This is Bill Madden's solution even though he has repeatedly written about PED users (like A-Rod) and how he wouldn't vote a player like A-Rod into the Hall of Fame because he doesn't have the integrity required to be there. It seems Bill Madden wants every MLB player to lack integrity and use PED's to make the game more exciting. Even if this is a joke, it's a bad one. 

This is typical modern sportswriting though. Just typical. Madden rails on and on about PED's and the lack of integrity among PED users, but then when baseball takes a harsh stance against PED's he complains the game of baseball isn't exciting enough. All those extra inning games cut into his sleep time and all of these talented relievers make the game boring for him. Some people just feel the need to complain about baseball  no matter what.

3 comments MMQB Review: Jabari Greer Tells an Inspiring Story, But Doesn't Understand the Story of David and Goliath

Chris Kluwe wrote MMQB last week and regaled us all with stories of what it is like to be an NFL player who gets released, encouraged us all to take a cross-country trip at some point so that we may have the perspective on the world he now has, and described the changes he would make in the Pro Football Hall of Fame voting process to allow a specific spot for a specialist like a punter or kicker. I'm not entirely sure putting aside a certain spot where Hall of Fame voters can vote in a kicker or punter separate from offensive/defensive players would result in more specialists being elected into the Hall of Fame. It still comes down to voters believing a kicker or punter is as worthy as an offensive/defensive player for the Hall of Fame honor. This week in MMQB, Jabari Greer desperately tries to get an "A" in creative writing by telling an allegorical tale, as well as informs us about the state of mind in the New Orleans Saints locker room after being wrongfully persecuted for the bounty scandal. When Greer starts telling a story about two seeds it starts to make me miss Peter King a little bit.

Each summer in the searing sun of southern Louisiana, 90 men leave their individual life behind and dream of becoming one.

So the Saints are going to use 90 players on defense this year to try and stop the opposing team from accumulating over 6000 yards of offense on them? I'm not sure the NFL will allow this, but the Saints haven't ever really cared about the rules anyway, so why stop now?

The goal is simple:

Find someone, anyone, who can tackle the opposing team's ball carrier. I'm just kidding of course. The goal is to injure the quarterback for the opposing team using money as an incentive and then act like they are wrongfully being persecuted when they are caught doing this. But Drew Brees knows NOTHING about this I tell you. NOTHING! It's news to him.

forsake yourself for the fortune of group,

Incur a penalty for roughing the passer, but make sure the opposing team's quarterback is out of the game. That's all that matters. Forsake yourself, but get Brett Favre out of the NFC Championship Game.

rise above the immediate trials of the time, and become timeless. 

Which is what the Saints defense was able to do last season. They became timeless and historical. They gave up the most yards in a single season in NFL history. Hey, it's hard to play defense when you don't have a few hundred bucks motivating you to injure opposing players. Tackling gets boring and old, but the 2012 Saints team WAS timeless. So mission accomplished.

The summer progresses, the heat intensifies and the number of men sacrificing together dwindle;

Players start dwindling? You can't turn on yourselves like that! Just because you can't intentionally injure opposing players doesn't mean you should cannibalize your own team by injuring your teammates. Stop the madness.

This is the life of a New Orleans Saint preparing for the season, and if you are one of the 53 few chosen, this is the place you want to be.

Especially if you are an offensive player and the Saints are the next team on your schedule.

Coming into this season, like every season before, there is a sense of promise.

I have no promise for my favorite team. I know they will go 8-8 and I'm fine with that. I just miss football.

If you take a poll of all 32 teams, 32 of them will believe that there is something different about this year's chances; the offseason breeds hope, but only when hope is challenged, does resolve flourish.

What the hell are you talking about? Only when hope is challenged, does resolve flourish? Does Jabari Greer write taglines for bad science-fiction movies? I feel like this is the tagline for "Starship Troopers 7." Resolve can flourish even when hope isn't challenged. I think some people like to put a bunch of words together that sound deep, but they don't entirely think about what they are saying or writing and whether what they are saying or writing makes complete sense.

The 2012 New Orleans Saints season was well documented, from the loss of Sean Payton, our coach; to the rest of the sanctions dealt to our program in the alleged bounty case;

The NFL found the Saints guilty of placing bounties on opposing players and all of the actors have already been punished. There's nothing "alleged" about it at this point. It's thought to have happened and those responsible have been punished. The bounty case is no more "alleged" at this point than Bernie Madoff was alleged to have run a Ponzi Scheme. If you don't agree with the bounty decision just say "in the bounty case," but there's nothing "alleged" about now. It happened and it isn't alleged by those who have the authority to consider it fact, instead the Saints culpability in a bounty program is considered fact.

What was not told in the headlines or on the news, however, was the spirit of our men in the locker room. Experiencing an unprecedented ordeal in the history of the NFL, our men never wavered. Although our spirit wasn't reflected in the final score of nine of our games, we endured Goliath's wrath last season, and now Goliath has to pay.

Oh my God, what an attitude of victimization Jabari Greer has. Right, the Saints are David, not Goliath. The Saints, a team coming off a Super Bowl win in 2009 and has made the playoffs three out of the last four seasons are the underdog team who is trying to come back from Goliath's wrath. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...sounds like someone can't take responsibility for his actions. The team that intentionally tried to injure other NFL players and has recently won a Super Bowl, this team is the underdog David. The teams that amassed over 6000 yards on the Saints defense and were on the receiving end of the Saints bounty program, now those teams are the big bad Goliath who forced the Saints to endure their wrath. Of course. It doesn't sound like Jabari Greer has a victim mentality at all, does it? Oh, you were the wronged one Jabari Greer. How dare the other NFL teams abuse such a pitiful little helpless Saints defense last year by playing football and not just laying down late in the game so the Saints don't get their feelings hurt by how they can't stop the opposing team.

I understand athletes aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, but this bullshit victimization isn't even about intelligence. It's about willfully ignoring the actions of the Saints team and trying to make the Saints seem like victims. I'm not even talking about the bounty scandal, but I'm simply talking about all the times the Saints have run up the score on opposing teams to attain personal records. You know, how Sean Payton had Drew Brees continue to throw the football on Monday Night Football two years ago against the Falcons, after the game was in hand, so Brees could achieve a personal record on national television. Payton did this despite the fact the Saints had a home game the very next week and Brees could have broken this personal record at home then. But no, Sean Payton had to allow Brees to run up the score on the Falcons on national television and break the record. Then, the next week Payton kept Darren Sproles in the game long enough to break a record and continued to run up the score in that game against Carolina. I have no problems with teams running up the score, but I don't feel bad for the Saints and only the most dimwitted of idiots could even pretend the Saints haven't been an NFL Goliath over the past five years. What's good for the Saints to do is good for the Saints to have done to them. Sorry Jabari Greer, if there was a team that deserved to have 6000 yards of offense put on them it was the New Orleans Saints. They Saints have put up some big offensive numbers on opposing teams over the last five years. It's not like the Saints have ever tried to spare the feelings of others teams when putting up points. Stop the victimization bullshit and own up to what you are.

I can't stand it when someone acts like a victim and that person has no cause to act that way. The Saints are the Goliath much more than they can be considered David.

So forgive me if I sound the trumpet of preseason enthusiasm.

You sound like you don't have a ton of perspective on the situation. That's all.

This year holds no promise of a better timbre for the orchestra that is the Saints; but now, in our coach, we have our first chair back, and he has brought in a badass sax player in defensive coordinator Rob Ryan, some new songs and some new steps.

Rob Ryan the noted defensive fixer. He has fixed the defense for the...umm...well, one season with the Raiders in 2006 his defense did well. But his last name is "Ryan" that has to count for something doesn't it? Even some Saints fans appear to see Ryan's hire is based more on his name than his actual production as a defensive coordinator. That article was written before Ryan was hired by the Saints and the author's opinion seems pretty accurate. The Saints went after a "name" coordinator and Rob Ryan is excellent at talking and promising results that sometimes never come. Fortunately, the Saints still have a fantastic quarterback in Drew Brees. Hopefully he won't have to carry the team again this year.

although the goal is simple, and hope profuse, becoming timeless is going to take a lot of work.

I get the feeling Jabari Greer is trying to use big words. I'm sure he is a smart guy, but don't try to show off your vocabulary.
 
And now for a story ...

Is everyone ready for a parable? Good, you better be. I feel like Jabari Greer should just write in MMQB,

"Listen everyone, I'm really not the stereotype of a stupid athlete. I promise I'm not,"

as opposed to trying to use big words and using an allegorical story to convey a message he wants to send.

I'll wrap the story up pretty quick for you and I apologize for leaving out much of the imagery. I know most of you read MMQB to hear parables and life lessons so I apologize for skipping over most of it.

My friend and I cared deeply for our two seeds, and out of exhilaration decided to return home as champions.

As I entered the house, my father greeted me. I opened my hand slowly, revealing my seed, and at once my father's face beamed with joy. "My son, this is the Seed of Destiny," he said, "given as a gift by the Gardener to one chosen for the task." I was given precise instructions to wash it off and place it under my pillow. As I prepared for bed, after thanking the Gardener for this gift, I blew out my light. The luminescence from my seed filled my room, creating amazement in my mind and peace of purpose in my soul; I closed my eyes, and at once I was asleep.

The seed I loved, once smooth and manageable, over time had become jagged and course, almost unbearable to carry. Content with my effort, I put my seed down and walked away. My father, returning home to see my seed jagged and alone, summoned me to the table. "Son, although our destinies can sometimes become rough and seemingly unmanageable, we must strengthen our grip. Although painful at first, our hands callous and contour into a strong support, giving a firm foundation for something so special." He asked me to hold my hand out across the table, placed the jagged seed in my palm, and used his callous hands to close mine. Applying tremendous pressure to my grip, he assured me of my own strength; the excruciating pain drew blood from my hands, tears from my eyes, and a smile from my heart.

After many years passed, I returned to the land of my youth. Although I had left a young man, inexperienced, and oft naïve; I returned inspired, while once my seed was thought to be the solution to life's problems, it had become weathered, beaten and almost broken by the torrential winds of life. I had to become firmly rooted in the lessons I had learned, and truths I had found.

My seed continues to comfort me with a patience that only a few understand. I reminisce on my father's wisdom, not fully understood until now: "Son, our trees must be strong, with roots locking our foundation securely in love, and we must provide not only home for fowl but a place of respite to the weary. It is in your shade that your children will find their seeds, and they will climb your sturdy branches and tell you secrets in a time you will never visit. And when the wind blows ... we can tell them stories of a place they've never known."

So there's the story. See? Jabari Greer has proven he isn't the typical stupid, uneducated athlete. He still uses "alleged" when discussing the Saints bounty program, so maybe he is willfully stupid when it's convenient for him.

Although I use allegory in explaining the story of the two seeds, the principles I wanted to express in this Monday Morning Quarterback are in harmony with the task set before us this day. Monday is a day in which we start new, and we often compound the expectations and tasks facing us, even before realizing that our own seeds still scream to be cultivated.

Stop smoking pot, man. It's making you write and think funny.

We must be the shade to the oppressed, the Fatherless and the poor. We must be the encouraging catalyst to the young who come after us, seeds in hand and full of promise. With their seed, we must cup their hand and apply great force.

See, if someone said this all to me it would sound like they were asking for money. Is Jabari Greer asking for money? I ain't giving him no tree-fiddy.

For out a river of pain,
Their passions shall flow.
no one understands me.

I mean this in the nicest possible way without the snark I've used the rest of this post. This doesn't make sense to me. So "out of a river of pain, their passions shall flow" and then it ends with "no one understands me"? Is this a Fall Out Boy lyric or something? Perhaps I'm just not smart enough to understand, but I can't see how we go from "their passions shall flow" to "no one understands me."

Great, thanks Jabari Greer. Now I have "No One Understands" by Bayside in my head. Thanks, you have me singing emo songs. 

Ten Things I Think I Think

This is as opposed to the rest of this MMQB, which also consisted of Jabari Greer relaying what he thinks. 

1. I think that you guys will read the Two Seeds story, and get to the tagline of "no one understands me," and some of you will invariably reply, "I don't get it?"

The fact that some people may not get it doesn't mean there is anything to be gotten. It's not necessarily deep nor does it have more meaning because some people don't get it. In fact, it very well could mean the tagline of "no one understands me" is just pure gibberish. I could write a incoherent poem and then say "I bet no one gets this" and it doesn't mean my poem is too smart or meaningful for some people. There's a chance my poem just may not make sense.

2. I think that the nation's sidewalk-sign-twirlers should look into getting a union. I consider that a high risk, low reward gig. Nobody should tear a rotator cuff flipping a sign promoting ½ price off haircuts for kids*.

I know Greer is trying to be funny, but that's a little rude, no? Sidewalk-sign-twirlers do have a low reward gig, but I sort of feel like Greer is making fun of these people a little bit when talking about them tearing a rotator cuff flipping the sign. How about writing an allegorical story about not being a dick?

4. I think one of the most confusing comments I sometimes hear when I'm with my children in a restaurant is, "Oh, you're such a good daddy, I wish there were more like you."

Really? More what? More men who realized that they are too lazy to make pancakes on Saturday, so instead pay twice the market value to have someone else make them?

Or they could be talking about men who take the time to treat their children to breakfast out at a restaurant. Going out to a restaurant isn't about trying to have someone else make you food at below the market value at which you could make that food. Nobody goes out to eat to try and beat the market. Going out to eat is nice because you don't have to cook the food and usually the food tastes better than the food you cook. These people who say this wish there were more parents who took the time to treat their children out to a nice breakfast. Don't be so touchy.

Another comment I often hear is, "Your children are so well-behaved."

I wonder how Greer is going to be offended by people who try to give his family this compliment?

"Why wouldn't my kids be well-behaved? Just because I'm a pro athlete it means my children should be terrible and unruly in public?"

5. I think, when writing comedy, the best place to look for conflict is the waffle house during the morning rush. There should be a reality show called Hot off the Grill: Drama in the Waffle House.

Absolutely hilarious.

6. I think the worst place to rush to the restroom is at a Cracker Barrel. If you're trying to picture what it's like, think less NASCAR, more bumper cars.

For someone who doesn't like the idea of going out to eat and paying twice the market value for breakfast that someone else is making, it sure seems like Jabari Greer visits a hell of a lot of breakfast restaurants doesn't it? It seems he is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" type people. It's no big deal to go out to eat for breakfast, but don't get all indignant and pissy when someone says they wish there were more fathers like you who take their children out to eat for breakfast. It seems like Greer likes to take his family out to breakfast, because he has a lot of thoughts on the atmosphere at breakfast restaurants.

8. I think no matter how insightful, inspirational or moving my writing may be, I'll always hear it from Falcons fans:

"Loved the article, but I hope that Roddy White 'drops his seed' on ya'll Week 1! Rise Up!"

Trying not to be mean...but this column is supposed to be inspirational and moving? This is MMQB. I'm not trying to be motivated. I'm trying to talk about the NFL.

9. I think I have been truly blessed to know Steve Gleason.

Man, Peter King does like to have New Orleans Saints players and coaches guest write his MMQB doesn't he? He had Jabari Greer and Steve Gleason guest write this year and Sean Payton guest wrote MMQB a few years ago. It's good thing Peter has tried hard not to piss off the Saints organization, because otherwise he would have no one to guest write MMQB.

10. I think if you met me for coffee, the last thing you would think I did professionally was play football.

I would actually think the last thing you did was be a poet, but I would also be sure not to comment on you being a good father for taking your kids out to get breakfast and coffee. I wouldn't want you to jump down my throat and try to hurt me for being a good dad when we are both paying above market value for coffee and hash browns. Not that Jabari Greer would ever hurt anyone, but we "allegedly" know how those New Orleans Saints defenders can be when it comes to money.