Today, Jay Mariotti and Mike Freeman share with us what they hate, which is the fans of Major League Baseball and God, respectfully. They seem like two dumb things to really hate, but not to them and let them tell you why.
-Mike Freeman doesn't like how Dwight Howard references God in his postgame interviews. I have never even noticed because I am of the opinion that few interviews during/before/after a basketball game are worth a shit, so I don't listen and generally don't care what the player or coach says. Mike Freeman is not off that opinion. He hates God and thinks He focuses on more important things in life and not sports, so he takes his hatred out on Dwight Howard. I personally don't care what an athlete says about God, I am just here to make fun of Mike Freeman.
Dwight Howard was asked a simple question. Howard's answer shockingly veered off into some potentially highly controversial -- if not offensive -- territory.
Let me guess. The reporter asked if the Magic had to abort their early game plan when the Cavs came out hitting all their shots and Howard shared his opinion on partial birth abortion? Or was it the reporter asked Howard if trying to keep LeBron out of the lane was torture and Howard then shared his opinion on waterboarding?
Why, Howard was asked, should the Orlando Magic be picked by the media or others to defeat the Los Angeles Lakers?
The horror...
"God," was Howard's response.
I don't listen to these interviews really, so I would be waiting for the end of the sentence to end with "...I don't know" or "...well we just beat the team with the best record in the NBA and are on a roll right now, so I hope people would pick us."
Howard was given a chance to reconsider his words. He didn't hesitate. "That's the reason" the Magic would win, Howard continued, according to ESPN. "I'm telling you."
I like how Freeman writes this as of he said something really, really controversial. In fact, all Howard can really be accused of his being overly spiritual. I don't think God cares who wins the series, Dwight Howard does, he and I can agree to disagree. This should be the end of the column and that part where Mike Freeman now goes on the Internet and thinks of another contrarian point of view to get everyone riled up about.
And why exactly would God root against the Lakers? Does God hate actors? Is God not a Jack Nicholson fan? Did God disapprove of Dyan Cannon's last movie?
There comes a time in every Saturday Night Live skit where the viewing public realizes it's not getting any better than what they are seeing right now...we are at that time in Mike Freeman's "God" column. He's just killing space at this point.
According to Howard, this is how God thinks. ...
Apostles: "Who you pulling for in the championship, big fella?
"God: "Not the Lakers, that's for sure."
Apostles: "Why?"
Just a heads up to Mike Freeman, but I am pretty sure God did not have apostles, I think that may have been Jesus who had apostles. Clearly, he has not seen or read "The DaVinci Code."
Otherwise, God couldn't care less about a basketball game and God certainly doesn't care about who wins one.
I think this is pretty much understood. Carl Everett did not believe in dinosaurs and I don't think this was a major problem overall...same thing here. If Howard believes God wants the Magic to win, that's his point of view. Maybe he is right, maybe he is insane, or maybe he just said that to get Mike Freeman to angrily write a column about him.
If I were a member of the Lakers -- particularly if I was of strong religious faith -- Howard's comments would be highly offensive.
Are you freaking kidding me? Why would a Lakers player of strong religious faith be offended? Because that player thought God was on their side? So that player is deluded like Dwight Howard? If so, Howard is not the only NBA player guilty of thinking God is cheering for his team.
Is Dwight Howard now a messenger sent from God to decide the outcome of the NBA Finals? There would be no reason to get angry, sad or depressed about this. If a Lakers player has strong religious faith, he should just wonder why Dwight Howard believes God thinks the Magic will win. In reality, God made lakes and probably thinks magic is a bunch of bullshit...I am sure that revelation about each team's name origin would make a Lakers player or two would make him feel better. You know, if this hypothetical Laker is dumb enough to actually be angry about this.
(Though after last night's game, it is clear God wants Kobe to win a title without Shaq.)
In effect, Howard is saying that God favors the Magic, which ostensibly means Howard believes the Magic are somehow more worthy of God's backing than the Lakers.
Thus if God wants Orlando to win, does that mean Satan is pushing for the Lakers?
(Bengoodfella getting a headache) Yes, because Dwight Howard is an Oracle sent from Heaven, it definitely means the Lakers have Satan cheering for them. Not only is this series a fight between East and West Coast teams, it is also a fight for supremecy in Heaven and Hell.
Here's what I don't get. Mike Freeman think it is a bunch of bullshit that God is cheering for anyone in this series, he thinks God doesn't care. He thinks Howard's comments are crazy. So why would he reasonably expect a Lakers player to get offended by Howard's comments?
God has other great concerns besides Howard's scoring average, such as war, pestilence, disease, poverty and American Idol.
We all know. He is also focused on ridding the world of Jay Mariotti, but he's like a cockroach, even God has had trouble getting rid of him without arousing suspicions of foul play.
I'm simply ridiculing the notion of believing that God is on the side of the Magic.
And I am ridiculing you for the notion that anyone on the Lakers team should give a shit.
"First, I want to thank God, man, because without Him none of this would be possible," Howard said. "I told my guys before the game if we come out, we play 100 percent, play hard for 48 minutes, then God is gonna do the rest, and He did tonight. We got a good victory; man ... it's all because of Him."
It seems that God hates the Celtics, too.
God hates the Irish. That's obvious. Remember the potato famine? How about the fact that U2 has had so much success over the years? Clearly God has always hated the Irish and is using them as vessels to ruin our music on Earth.
If God really favored Howard and the Magic, God would make it so Howard connected on more free throws.
Yeah, take that God. You and your apostles can't even help Dwight Howard with his free throws. You should feel stupid...but not as stupid as Mike Freeman should feel for writing this column and I feel for dissecting it.
Also -- and this is just a guess -- there's probably a player or two on the Lakers who believe that God wants the Lakers to be victorious.
Each person has his/her own interpretation of faith, so I would imagine this would be possible. Guess what, God doesn't care about the NBA, so both Howard and the un-named hypothetical Laker would end up being wrong.
Howard's religious beliefs are important, but they are starting to cross the line into wholesale arrogance.
I will admit it is a bit arrogant to believe God wants your specific team to win. I still don't understand why anyone would care what an athlete has to say before/after/during a game. It's usually of no substance or doesn't make a whole lot of sense...just like Howard's comment about God.
It irritates me when athletes seem to think that God cares about their individual and team achievements. Every time I turn a report or file in on time, I don't start telling people around the office I didn't do it, God did. I also don't say God wanted me to turn the report in on time. If I did, then I would probably be considered the weirdest person in the office. I think this is a non-issue, but I guess Mike Freeman needed something to write about.
-I am not personally a fan of All-Star games, I generally find them boring and no matter how much drama you throw into them they are still exhibitions. Every year we get columns that beg MLB to take the portion of the voting out of the hands of the fans, which I am against, because it is a game for the fans to see the players they want to see play together. There is a reason I think All-Star Game appearances should never be used to determine how good a player really is, and that's because the fans vote the players in. I think many of the choices for the All-Star game are dumb, but that's who the fans want to see, so I think we have to live with it. MLB has tied the World Series homefield advantage to the All-Star game, so they have added some importance to the game, but that still doesn't change too much of my opinion that the fans should be allowed to vote for the players they want in the game.
Jay Mariotti thinks the fans are morons for trying to vote Manny Ramirez in the All-Star game. I don't think Manny deserves it, but if he is the player the fans want to see, I think he should be allowed to play. Of course I also think he should decline the invitation...but my point is the fans are able to vote and have those votes count for who starts in the All-Star game, so it is their right to vote for Manny.
According to baseball's drug agreement, "A player shall be deemed to have been eligible to play in the All-Star Game if he was elected or selected to play; the commissioner's office shall not exclude a player from eligibility for election or selection because he is suspended under the program." Meaning, Manny Ramirez -- villain of the Scammywood steroids suspension that continues to rock the sport -- is eligible to play in the All-Star Game next month if enough fans vote for his inclusion in the National League starting lineup.
I don't want Manny to be able to play in the All-Star Game but if he is voted in by the fans, then he should be allowed to play. The rule probably needs to be changed, but until it is, Manny should be in if voted in.
I don't know if Jay realizes fans may have voted for Manny before he got suspended. I would be interested to see the count of votes before and after his PED suspension.
Shame on any fan who voted for Ramirez after May 7, when he was banned 50 games in another bleak episode for a sport that can't shed its attachment to the evil juice.
I am pretty sure Sammy Sosa made an All-Star Game after his bat was found corked and Alex Rodriguez is probably going to play in the game this year as a backup AND he played the years he was on steroids. Sure, he did not get caught at the time, but there is no outrage against A-Rod because many fans realize, as Jay Mariotti doesn't, it is an exhibition game. No matter how much MLB wants it to be important, it is not that important, but just pure entertainment.
But most of those 635,530 tallies came after the suspension announcement, a creepy acknowledgment that some people are starting not to care whether superstars cheat.
Here's the truth. Jay Mariotti has no idea how many votes came after the suspension, but he is just assuming many of them came after Manny was suspended. If he knew the number, he would tell us in an effort to help prove his point.
Just because folks are worn down by years of steroids coverage doesn't mean they should lower their standards and accept the cheats.
I am a little bit torn because I don't think Manny should be allowed to play in the game, but I also realize the rules say Manny is eligible and if the fans vote in a player for the All-Star Game then that is their right.
I don't think I can emphasize how useless many All-Star Games are. I think we take them a little too seriously, especially when we get many yearly columns about how fan voting ruins the game that essentially say how stupid the fans are. Many sportswriters hate the fans who read their columns.
American League fans have it right, recognizing that A-Rod should be punished for his steroids admission; he's a distant third in the third-base balloting behind an emerging superstar, Tampa Bay's Evan Longoria, who leads all AL players with 1,036,071 votes and is more than 600,000 clear of Rodriguez.
The results of the fan voting could also show that the fans think Longoria is more deserving, based on his performance, of playing in the All-Star Game. His vote tally may not be completely a statement against steroids. It doesn't seem like Jay completely grasps this concept.
The core issue here is integrity, the message a fan would send by prioritizing Ramirez's popularity over -- we warily assume -- the steroid-free results of Ibanez, NL outfield vote leader Ryan Braun, Beltran and others.
I agree. The fans would be saying they don't care about steroid suspensions all that much and they just want to see Manny playing baseball. The fans get to vote and if we took away every stupid vote in history, we would be redoing a few Presidential elections as well as some All-Star Game selections.
The All-Star Game should validate baseball's elite players in a specific year. Last July, it celebrated the return of Josh Hamilton from substance abuse when he battered old Yankee Stadium in a memorable barrage during the Home Run Derby.
The All-Star Game should do that. There is also one other problem that messes with the integrity of the All-Star Game in my opinion and that is the rule that says every team must have a representative in the All-Star Game. I would argue that rule has caused more All-Star Game injustice than Manny Ramirez being fifth in the fan poll for outfielders ever could. Sure Manny cheated, but there have been some really shitty players that have been allowed to play in the All-Star Game because of that stupid rule that says each team must have a representative.
If the All-Star Game counts, as Selig ordained when he granted home-field advantage in the World Series to the victorious team, it should adhere to the highest ethics.
I can see this reasoning but if it pertains to the highest of ethics than what would we do about previous All-Star Games where homefield advantage was decided and players involved used PED's? The game is tainted and I know that is not a reason to keep allowing the game to be tainted, but the bottom line is that the fans get to vote and some still vote for Manny Ramirez.
How is it ethical to leave off a better player who plays on a team with multiple representatives so a crappier guy for the Pirates can make the team? The problem with making the game "count" is that it is still an exhibition game, no matter how hard everyone tries to make it not be an exhibition game.
The fans will vote for the popular players who may not ultimately deserve to be in the game, so the smart idea would be to take away fan voting, but then the game is for the fans and they don't even get to vote on who plays? That doesn't make sense nor would it do much for the popularity of the game.
"The All-Star Game is for the fans and I think if he got voted in, then it would be appropriate for him to play," said Manuel, who will manage the NL team. "Once he serves his suspension, he's paid his penalty and he's just like every other player."
I am not trying to take a contrarian view at all on this situation because I think steroid users should be suspended for an entire year if they are caught. Manny will have paid his penalty and he is like every other player after he serves his suspension. I don't want him in the game, but the rules say he should be able to play.
Whether by asterisk or a different wing in Cooperstown, hopefully one with dark, sinister lighting, the cheaters must be grouped together in their infamy.
I really hope that Mariotti is not advocating a separate "steroid user" wing in the Hall of Fame. That just seems confusing and counterproductive to me. So a player cheated and his records are not considered to be "real" baseball records, but he still gets to be in the Hall of Fame, so the cheating was not considered to be bad enough to keep him out of the Hall of Fame but was severe enough to where he doesn't get included with the other Hall of Fame players? I don't know, maybe this would work. I think an asterisk in the record book would suffice personally.
LeBron James and his monster-truck body might be the subject of suspicion if he was a baseball player, but in the NBA, it's not given a second thought.
I can't believe Mariotti is going here, but yes it could be suspicious. Dwight Howard could also be suspected of using PED's...this really has nothing to do with baseball. In fact, baseball probably has the harshest drug penalties of any sport in my opinion. Not to mention the players are constantly put under a microscope after being caught. No one remembers that Merriman and Peppers got caught for using illegal drugs in football and no one is debating whether either of these players should be allowed in the Hall of Fame after they retire. If people do remember, they don't remember as well as they do for baseball players and these football players certainly don't have multiple columns written by Jay Mariotti about them.
I think baseball should be even harsher on those who get caught. A one year suspension would suffice for me on the first violation.
Dan: "If you could take a performance-enhancing drug and not get caught, would you do it if it allowed you to win Indy?"
Danica: "Well, then it's not cheating, is it? If nobody finds out?"
Dan: "So you would do it?"
Danica: "Yeah, it would be like finding a gray area. In motor sports, we work in the gray areas a lot. You're trying to find where the holes are in the rule book."
Tuesday, Danica apologized in USA Today, blaming Dan for his flippant way of conducting interviews.
This is what I was talking about during the LeBron James post the other day, when I was talking briefly about false apologies. She really would have cheated if she did not get caught. I believe this and her apology does nothing to convince me she would not. Sure it is the right thing to say, for "the kids" out there, but she made up a bullshit excuse. This has very little to do with the Mariotti post but I thought I would go off on a tangent for a second.
I'm very glad she stepped forward and apologized.
That's all the Apology Nazis like Jay Mariotti want. Manny Ramirez has not publicly apologized so they are going to hang him until he does. Should he publicly apologize? Sure, but I don't think it should be a requirement. Manny should not be allowed to play in the All-Star Game, but baseball rules say he can, and the fans want him to, so he should be allowed to.
You also need the most powerful form of public condemnation. Allowing Manny Ramirez anywhere near the All-Star Game, even with a ticket, is not our idea of an appropriate message. Vote no, America.
What about the other players who have played and will play in the All Star Game who are caught using PED's? Will A-Rod never be able to play again? Is that really fair? I don't want them to receive public condemnation, I just want them to quit cheating. Hell, the All-Star Game is almost a punishment for players voted into it. They don't get a couple of days off to rest and spend time doing what they want.
Or else we're a country without a conscience.
That's being over dramatic. I don't think Manny should be able to play in the All-Star Game, I don't think the fans should vote him in, I think if they do vote him in then he should decline, but I also know it is an exhibition game and if the fans want him to play there is no rule saying he can't.
Do you guys think Manny should be able to play? I don't personally, but if the fans want him, he should be allowed to play...which he currently can.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
16 comments NBA Finals Preview With ESPN "Experts"
I thought about live blogging or live chatting Game 2 of the NBA Finals on Saturday night but I have no idea how to do that. A running blog that I post the next day would bore me, maybe do something so I can talk about the game that constantly updates and if anyone else wants to talk we can. I don't even know if Blogger has this capability or not. If so, please email me or put it in the comments. I've always wondered if Blogger has the capacity for a Live Chat or Live Blog. Even if I am the only one talking, I think I would have fun...and it is all about me.
Bill Simmons had a NBA Finals column up yesterday and instead of making up fake emails from normal people, he decided to make up fake emails from famous people.
I tried to do something similar when I first started writing on this here blog and I have to say Bill's fake mailbag worked marginally better than mine did...though that is not saying a whole lot. He hashes a lot of the things he thinks out in answering the questions, so I don't want to waste my time too much arguing with him, like I usually do. Feel free to mention things that pissed you off or you liked in the comments though. It's like a book club for Bill Simmons. I will start. Bill was absolutely convinced if the Celtics had Garnett they would have beat the Magic. It's very possible, but like many of Bill's proclamations, we will never know. It's not that he thinks the Celtics would have won, it was the strong language he used in the fake mailbag in saying how they would beat the Magic. I am too lazy to look it up but it was strong language and I am not as sure as he is.
The Orlando Sentinal has the most embarrassing column I have seen in a while up on their site. It is a guide for bandwagon fans so they don't feel left out when cheering for their new favorite team. Here it is and feel free to feel bad for any long time Magic fans. All two of them. I don't generally like to make fun of fan bases for not being hardcore enough, but if your local paper has to write a column on the basics of the NBA so you can cheer for the local team AND they call it jumping on the bandwagon in the article, there is something wrong.
ESPN got together many of their "experts" and had a panel to answer 10 questions about the NBA Finals. I read it and noticed I did not agree with some of the answers given and also wanted to give my non-expert answers as well. Let's see how it went when you get all these geniuses in the brain together for a grand old NBA Finals preview.
1. True or false? Rafer Alston is a better point guard right now than Derek Fisher.
Is there an option C? Why yes, there is. I think Jameer Nelson is normally better than Derek Fisher but I obviously haven't seen him play in a while, so I can't speak for how good he will be if he plays in the series. I wonder if this is a fakeout the Magic are using, much like the Celtics tried to fake out the Magic by pretending Garnett may make a surprise appearance during the series? Probably not...but assuming Nelson doesn't play, I think Alston is a better point guard right now.
J.A. Adande, ESPN.com: True.
Alston had a 26-point game versus Cleveland. I don't see Fish going off like that these days.
Yes, and we all know scoring is all that a point guard is required to do for a team. Way to measure a point guard's worth J.A., which here stands for "Jack Ass."
Ric Bucher, ESPN The Magazine: False.
"Skip" is a better spot-up shooter. Right now. Fisher is still the better decision-maker, a point guard's most important job.
Well, Bucher is using better logic than Adande but if Fisher were a good decision maker, he would have convinced Phil Jackson to trade for a better point guard than him much earlier in the year. I am kidding of course...though I do think Farmar/Brown should be getting more of Fisher's minutes than they currently have been.
2. True or false? Hedo Turkoglu is a better small forward right now than Trevor Ariza.
Maybe I undervalue Ariza, and overvalue Turkoglu but this is uber-true in my book. Ariza may do more of the small things like hit wide open three point shots and not underachieve anymore, but I think Turkoglu is playing better right now.
Adande: True.
For proof, see who gets the ball in his hands more during crunch time.
Adande again decides to use a stupid statement that proves I am not 100% sure he knows how to measure a basketball player's worth. Just because Turkoglu gets the ball in crunch time more does not necessarily mean he is a better small forward right now than Ariza. Turkoglu gets the ball because the Magic are desperately afraid to get the ball in the hands of Dwight Howard with under 4 minutes left in the game.
Hollinger: False.
He's a better fit for what the Magic do, which is why Orlando traded Ariza but made Turkoglu the go-to guy for all its pick-and-roll schemes. But Ariza has outranked Turkoglu in player efficiency rating two of the past three seasons, plays better D and is quietly shooting 50 percent on 3s in the playoffs.
Anytime I hear about player efficiency it reminds me (as always) of when Bill Simmons said any measurement that did not have the Celtics as the #1 team in the NBA needed to be redone until that result is given. He probably still feels that way, but I still think it is a funny statement...since they are not in the NBA Finals nor were they in the Eastern Conference Finals this year. (I know, they did not have Garnett...I still think it is funny and remember, I am a closeted Celtics fan, so I am not being a hater)
3. True or false? Rashard Lewis is a better power forward right now than Pau Gasol.
Well since Lewis is probably better suited as a small forward, and even as a power forward Gasol is better than Lewis, I am going to say false.
I don't like the matchup on Lewis for Gasol, but I think Gasol will have a similar matchup advantage on the other end of the court and I think Gasol has a larger advantage because I have a feeling he may attempt to play defense. The wild card? Lamar Odom of course, because he can guard Lewis fairly well. I am not even sure he is aware the NBA Finals start tonight though.
Abbott: False.
Every time Gasol gets the ball, he's efficient with it.
There you go. No explanation needed (apparently), Gasol is efficient with the ball.
4. True or false? Mickael Pietrus is a better role player right now than Lamar Odom.
No. As much as I love Pietrus' defense, his offensive game is too limited to really be a better role player than Lamar Odom, who if he wakes up in time for the game, is an incredibly valuable weapon off the bench. Odom is a better player and a better role player. Let's face it, Pietrus is not going to get those wide open three point shots against the Lakers...at least not as often as he did against the Cavs.
Sheridan: False.
Odom will play starter's minutes and spend a lot of time defending Lewis, and he has the luxury of expending most of his energy on the defensive end. Whatever points he can produce in the flow of the triangle will be gravy.
Chris Sheridan just avoided the question. At least he did not create an entirely new question like JemeHill and Scoop Jackson did when previewing the Eastern/Western Conference Finals.
5. True or false? Dwight Howard is a better player right now than Kobe Bryant.
False. Let's recap very quickly. Dwight Howard just got done abusing Anderson Varejo, Big Z, Joe Smith, and Ben Wallace, while in the Boston series he only had a slight advantage over Kendrick Perkins. Howard played well in the Cavs series but he also played against four guys he was much, much better than. He is going to have a slightly harder time in this series against Gasol and Bynum. The Magic even won a game on the road without Howard. Could the Lakers win a game in the playoffs on the road without Kobe? I doubt it. Kobe is clearly better in my book.
My big question is who gets off the bench first? Redick or Morrison? I say Redick.
Abbott: False.
But it's closer than you think.
I don't think it is close at all, so it may actually be closer than I think.
Bucher: False.
When Howard beats double-teams, makes game winners and orchestrates his team's offense, this will become a relevant question.
I don't know if this was an insult or just a really coy way of saying they play two different positions and it is hard to compare the two...which I agree with, it is hard to compare these two, but I say Kobe.
Hollinger: False.
And I would say false if you were to ask the opposite question, too.
Yeah, because that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. One question has to be true. How hard is it to answer questions as true or false? Did John Hollinger ever attempt to take the SAT's or any other type of exam?
Truth is, they're almost perfectly equal at this point in their careers. They've played to a draw on PER during the past two seasons, and both have had huge moments in the playoffs. Howard is the more dominant defender, while Kobe is the better weapon down the stretch.
I think Kobe is not quite the player that he used to be and that he is now more of a jump shooter, but it still works well for him. I also think Howard is not quite the dominant defender one-on-one everyone thinks he is. Kendrick Perkins took it to him aggressively and that's how you play him. Gasol will do the same thing, maybe a little more passively but I still see him as being effective. Howard's is great on weak side help defense and that is why they can afford to have Lewis play PF, because Howard is there to man the middle.
Stein: False.
Howard has to do it on this stage before we believe that, unfair as it might seem after he absolutely disassembled LeBron's Cavs with never-before-seen clutch and dominance.
I really hope he means never-before-seen clutch and dominance by Dwight Howard over a team as compared to Dwight Howard, because it wasn't all-time NBA dominance by Howard compared to other dominating performances in the playoffs...at least not in my opinion.
6. True or false? Stan Van Gundy is a better coach right now than Phil Jackson.
Better coach right now? This is a tough one. I will say Van Gundy because I never thought this team would play defense well enough to be in the NBA Finals. Though his in-game management does need a little help. I don't think I have ever even evaluated Jackson's in-game management to be honest, and though I am impressed how he has managed egos in the past, I think Van Gundy is better right now...in-game problems be damned...and because I have lowered the bar for him.
Adande: False.
Jackson keeps standing tall at the end. And who would make you feel more comfortable if you were to look at the sideline in a close game?
I am continuously amazed at how J.A. Adande measures a player and a coach's worth. Who would make me feel more comfortable on the sidelines? It doesn't freaking matter. Who is the better coach is what matters. I don't even know what standing tall has to do with anything really.
7. True or false? The Magic's offense is better right now than the Lakers'.
I say false. The Magic offense is really clicking right now and they look hard to stop. Whether that is a result of playing the Cavs, who they matched up well with, I don't really know. The Lakers seemed to struggle at times against the Nuggets, though they are "improved" on defense, but I think the Lakers offense is more complex than the Magic offense, which seems to be based entirely on getting the ball to Howard and then shooting 3 point shots as much as possible.
Adande: True.
They finally found the ideal combination of inside and outside game.
Man, I am all over Adande today. Yes, the ideal combination of inside and outside being defined as "getting the ball close enough to the basket for Howard to dunk and having the three point shooters shoot shots at a rapid fire pace."
8. True or false? The Magic's defense is better right now than the Lakers'.
I say false. I think the Lakers did a great job against the Nuggets but the Rockets series did scare me for the Lakers hopes a little bit though. Actually, both of these teams scared me in the Conference Semi-Finals series and scared me enough to wonder how they got where they are now.
Abbott: True.
Howard is the best defender in the NBA, but there's plenty of length and everybody plays hard.
I still say LeBron James is better.
Ford: True.
The Magic don't look like a great defensive team at first blush, but they've really been brilliant this season. If they can figure out how to slow down Kobe the way they slowed down LeBron, the Magic can pull this one out.
The Magic actually did not slow down LeBron James. James had a very good series. James had very little help from his teammates, which is a situation that Kobe may not experience because he has several guys like Odom, Bynum, Gasol, and others who can score as well. I think the Lakers supporting cast is stronger than LeBron's supporting cast was.
9. True or false? The Magic are playing better right now than the Lakers.
Right now, I think the Magic are playing better. I don't know what that means for this series though.
Abbott: True.
Although it depends what you mean by "right now."
The only definition there is, "at present."
Abbott must be trying to do his best Bill Clinton impression and argue semantics with the questioner.
The way the Lakers played in Game 6 to eliminate Denver might be the best anybody has played all playoffs long. But they have been up and down.
So the Lakers are better right now?
The Magic won an elimination game on the road without Howard in Philly.
That was literally a month ago, which is not even closely defined as "right now."
They were down 3-2 to the defending champs and got the big victory in Boston freaking Garden. Then they made short work of the best team in the NBA.
So the Magic are better right now? We actually get no answer from Mr. Abbott. He has the understanding that if he writes a whole lot maybe no one will notice he never actually answered the question.
10. True or false? The Magic can and will beat the Lakers in the NBA Finals.
I have thought about this a lot and I really don't have a lot of faith in either of these teams. If the 3 point shots stop falling for the Magic, they are screwed. If Odom doesn't show up and the role players for the Lakers don't do their thing, they are screwed as well because then Kobe starts taking 40 shots per game and that is not the way for them to win.
For me, a lot of the series comes down to whether Andrew Bynum can be a big boy and handle Dwight Howard one-on-one even for a short period of time. I realize he is getting help from Gasol and others, but really if Bynum and company can get him under control without the Lakers having to double team him, it should help in shutting down the 3 point shooters for the Magic. I would personally not double team Howard and rely on my inside guys to be able to stop him one-on-one and I may be in the minority on this one. The Magic were down 20+ points to the Cavs three times in that series and came back during the game. I don't think the Lakers will allow them to come back. Lakers in 6 games. I want to say 5 games, but will go with them in 6.
Broussard: False.
The Magic can beat the Lakers, but I believe that the Lakers will win in seven.
Ok smartass. Any team CAN beat another team, but will they is really what the question meant.
Hollinger: Half-false.
They absolutely can beat the Lakers, but I don't think they will.
Ford: False.
Yes, the Magic can beat the Lakers, and I expect the series to be very competitive. But, false, I believe that the Lakers will win the series in six games.
They all answered that way. "Well they can win, but they won't." That annoys me.
Adande: True and false.
They can beat the Lakers but won't without home-court advantage and Finals experience.
More brilliance by Adande. He gives two factors that have nothing to do with basketball ability from players on either team that will decide the series.
The consensus is that the Magic are going to lose to the Lakers. I really want to pick the Magic but I think the Lakers will get it done because they will do a great job of controlling Howard and the 3 point shooters for Orlando...easier said than done, but I think they will do an adequate enough job to beat Orlando in 6 games.
Bill Simmons had a NBA Finals column up yesterday and instead of making up fake emails from normal people, he decided to make up fake emails from famous people.
I tried to do something similar when I first started writing on this here blog and I have to say Bill's fake mailbag worked marginally better than mine did...though that is not saying a whole lot. He hashes a lot of the things he thinks out in answering the questions, so I don't want to waste my time too much arguing with him, like I usually do. Feel free to mention things that pissed you off or you liked in the comments though. It's like a book club for Bill Simmons. I will start. Bill was absolutely convinced if the Celtics had Garnett they would have beat the Magic. It's very possible, but like many of Bill's proclamations, we will never know. It's not that he thinks the Celtics would have won, it was the strong language he used in the fake mailbag in saying how they would beat the Magic. I am too lazy to look it up but it was strong language and I am not as sure as he is.
The Orlando Sentinal has the most embarrassing column I have seen in a while up on their site. It is a guide for bandwagon fans so they don't feel left out when cheering for their new favorite team. Here it is and feel free to feel bad for any long time Magic fans. All two of them. I don't generally like to make fun of fan bases for not being hardcore enough, but if your local paper has to write a column on the basics of the NBA so you can cheer for the local team AND they call it jumping on the bandwagon in the article, there is something wrong.
ESPN got together many of their "experts" and had a panel to answer 10 questions about the NBA Finals. I read it and noticed I did not agree with some of the answers given and also wanted to give my non-expert answers as well. Let's see how it went when you get all these geniuses in the brain together for a grand old NBA Finals preview.
1. True or false? Rafer Alston is a better point guard right now than Derek Fisher.
Is there an option C? Why yes, there is. I think Jameer Nelson is normally better than Derek Fisher but I obviously haven't seen him play in a while, so I can't speak for how good he will be if he plays in the series. I wonder if this is a fakeout the Magic are using, much like the Celtics tried to fake out the Magic by pretending Garnett may make a surprise appearance during the series? Probably not...but assuming Nelson doesn't play, I think Alston is a better point guard right now.
J.A. Adande, ESPN.com: True.
Alston had a 26-point game versus Cleveland. I don't see Fish going off like that these days.
Yes, and we all know scoring is all that a point guard is required to do for a team. Way to measure a point guard's worth J.A., which here stands for "Jack Ass."
Ric Bucher, ESPN The Magazine: False.
"Skip" is a better spot-up shooter. Right now. Fisher is still the better decision-maker, a point guard's most important job.
Well, Bucher is using better logic than Adande but if Fisher were a good decision maker, he would have convinced Phil Jackson to trade for a better point guard than him much earlier in the year. I am kidding of course...though I do think Farmar/Brown should be getting more of Fisher's minutes than they currently have been.
2. True or false? Hedo Turkoglu is a better small forward right now than Trevor Ariza.
Maybe I undervalue Ariza, and overvalue Turkoglu but this is uber-true in my book. Ariza may do more of the small things like hit wide open three point shots and not underachieve anymore, but I think Turkoglu is playing better right now.
Adande: True.
For proof, see who gets the ball in his hands more during crunch time.
Adande again decides to use a stupid statement that proves I am not 100% sure he knows how to measure a basketball player's worth. Just because Turkoglu gets the ball in crunch time more does not necessarily mean he is a better small forward right now than Ariza. Turkoglu gets the ball because the Magic are desperately afraid to get the ball in the hands of Dwight Howard with under 4 minutes left in the game.
Hollinger: False.
He's a better fit for what the Magic do, which is why Orlando traded Ariza but made Turkoglu the go-to guy for all its pick-and-roll schemes. But Ariza has outranked Turkoglu in player efficiency rating two of the past three seasons, plays better D and is quietly shooting 50 percent on 3s in the playoffs.
Anytime I hear about player efficiency it reminds me (as always) of when Bill Simmons said any measurement that did not have the Celtics as the #1 team in the NBA needed to be redone until that result is given. He probably still feels that way, but I still think it is a funny statement...since they are not in the NBA Finals nor were they in the Eastern Conference Finals this year. (I know, they did not have Garnett...I still think it is funny and remember, I am a closeted Celtics fan, so I am not being a hater)
3. True or false? Rashard Lewis is a better power forward right now than Pau Gasol.
Well since Lewis is probably better suited as a small forward, and even as a power forward Gasol is better than Lewis, I am going to say false.
I don't like the matchup on Lewis for Gasol, but I think Gasol will have a similar matchup advantage on the other end of the court and I think Gasol has a larger advantage because I have a feeling he may attempt to play defense. The wild card? Lamar Odom of course, because he can guard Lewis fairly well. I am not even sure he is aware the NBA Finals start tonight though.
Abbott: False.
Every time Gasol gets the ball, he's efficient with it.
There you go. No explanation needed (apparently), Gasol is efficient with the ball.
4. True or false? Mickael Pietrus is a better role player right now than Lamar Odom.
No. As much as I love Pietrus' defense, his offensive game is too limited to really be a better role player than Lamar Odom, who if he wakes up in time for the game, is an incredibly valuable weapon off the bench. Odom is a better player and a better role player. Let's face it, Pietrus is not going to get those wide open three point shots against the Lakers...at least not as often as he did against the Cavs.
Sheridan: False.
Odom will play starter's minutes and spend a lot of time defending Lewis, and he has the luxury of expending most of his energy on the defensive end. Whatever points he can produce in the flow of the triangle will be gravy.
Chris Sheridan just avoided the question. At least he did not create an entirely new question like JemeHill and Scoop Jackson did when previewing the Eastern/Western Conference Finals.
5. True or false? Dwight Howard is a better player right now than Kobe Bryant.
False. Let's recap very quickly. Dwight Howard just got done abusing Anderson Varejo, Big Z, Joe Smith, and Ben Wallace, while in the Boston series he only had a slight advantage over Kendrick Perkins. Howard played well in the Cavs series but he also played against four guys he was much, much better than. He is going to have a slightly harder time in this series against Gasol and Bynum. The Magic even won a game on the road without Howard. Could the Lakers win a game in the playoffs on the road without Kobe? I doubt it. Kobe is clearly better in my book.
My big question is who gets off the bench first? Redick or Morrison? I say Redick.
Abbott: False.
But it's closer than you think.
I don't think it is close at all, so it may actually be closer than I think.
Bucher: False.
When Howard beats double-teams, makes game winners and orchestrates his team's offense, this will become a relevant question.
I don't know if this was an insult or just a really coy way of saying they play two different positions and it is hard to compare the two...which I agree with, it is hard to compare these two, but I say Kobe.
Hollinger: False.
And I would say false if you were to ask the opposite question, too.
Yeah, because that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. One question has to be true. How hard is it to answer questions as true or false? Did John Hollinger ever attempt to take the SAT's or any other type of exam?
Truth is, they're almost perfectly equal at this point in their careers. They've played to a draw on PER during the past two seasons, and both have had huge moments in the playoffs. Howard is the more dominant defender, while Kobe is the better weapon down the stretch.
I think Kobe is not quite the player that he used to be and that he is now more of a jump shooter, but it still works well for him. I also think Howard is not quite the dominant defender one-on-one everyone thinks he is. Kendrick Perkins took it to him aggressively and that's how you play him. Gasol will do the same thing, maybe a little more passively but I still see him as being effective. Howard's is great on weak side help defense and that is why they can afford to have Lewis play PF, because Howard is there to man the middle.
Stein: False.
Howard has to do it on this stage before we believe that, unfair as it might seem after he absolutely disassembled LeBron's Cavs with never-before-seen clutch and dominance.
I really hope he means never-before-seen clutch and dominance by Dwight Howard over a team as compared to Dwight Howard, because it wasn't all-time NBA dominance by Howard compared to other dominating performances in the playoffs...at least not in my opinion.
6. True or false? Stan Van Gundy is a better coach right now than Phil Jackson.
Better coach right now? This is a tough one. I will say Van Gundy because I never thought this team would play defense well enough to be in the NBA Finals. Though his in-game management does need a little help. I don't think I have ever even evaluated Jackson's in-game management to be honest, and though I am impressed how he has managed egos in the past, I think Van Gundy is better right now...in-game problems be damned...and because I have lowered the bar for him.
Adande: False.
Jackson keeps standing tall at the end. And who would make you feel more comfortable if you were to look at the sideline in a close game?
I am continuously amazed at how J.A. Adande measures a player and a coach's worth. Who would make me feel more comfortable on the sidelines? It doesn't freaking matter. Who is the better coach is what matters. I don't even know what standing tall has to do with anything really.
7. True or false? The Magic's offense is better right now than the Lakers'.
I say false. The Magic offense is really clicking right now and they look hard to stop. Whether that is a result of playing the Cavs, who they matched up well with, I don't really know. The Lakers seemed to struggle at times against the Nuggets, though they are "improved" on defense, but I think the Lakers offense is more complex than the Magic offense, which seems to be based entirely on getting the ball to Howard and then shooting 3 point shots as much as possible.
Adande: True.
They finally found the ideal combination of inside and outside game.
Man, I am all over Adande today. Yes, the ideal combination of inside and outside being defined as "getting the ball close enough to the basket for Howard to dunk and having the three point shooters shoot shots at a rapid fire pace."
8. True or false? The Magic's defense is better right now than the Lakers'.
I say false. I think the Lakers did a great job against the Nuggets but the Rockets series did scare me for the Lakers hopes a little bit though. Actually, both of these teams scared me in the Conference Semi-Finals series and scared me enough to wonder how they got where they are now.
Abbott: True.
Howard is the best defender in the NBA, but there's plenty of length and everybody plays hard.
I still say LeBron James is better.
Ford: True.
The Magic don't look like a great defensive team at first blush, but they've really been brilliant this season. If they can figure out how to slow down Kobe the way they slowed down LeBron, the Magic can pull this one out.
The Magic actually did not slow down LeBron James. James had a very good series. James had very little help from his teammates, which is a situation that Kobe may not experience because he has several guys like Odom, Bynum, Gasol, and others who can score as well. I think the Lakers supporting cast is stronger than LeBron's supporting cast was.
9. True or false? The Magic are playing better right now than the Lakers.
Right now, I think the Magic are playing better. I don't know what that means for this series though.
Abbott: True.
Although it depends what you mean by "right now."
The only definition there is, "at present."
Abbott must be trying to do his best Bill Clinton impression and argue semantics with the questioner.
The way the Lakers played in Game 6 to eliminate Denver might be the best anybody has played all playoffs long. But they have been up and down.
So the Lakers are better right now?
The Magic won an elimination game on the road without Howard in Philly.
That was literally a month ago, which is not even closely defined as "right now."
They were down 3-2 to the defending champs and got the big victory in Boston freaking Garden. Then they made short work of the best team in the NBA.
So the Magic are better right now? We actually get no answer from Mr. Abbott. He has the understanding that if he writes a whole lot maybe no one will notice he never actually answered the question.
10. True or false? The Magic can and will beat the Lakers in the NBA Finals.
I have thought about this a lot and I really don't have a lot of faith in either of these teams. If the 3 point shots stop falling for the Magic, they are screwed. If Odom doesn't show up and the role players for the Lakers don't do their thing, they are screwed as well because then Kobe starts taking 40 shots per game and that is not the way for them to win.
For me, a lot of the series comes down to whether Andrew Bynum can be a big boy and handle Dwight Howard one-on-one even for a short period of time. I realize he is getting help from Gasol and others, but really if Bynum and company can get him under control without the Lakers having to double team him, it should help in shutting down the 3 point shooters for the Magic. I would personally not double team Howard and rely on my inside guys to be able to stop him one-on-one and I may be in the minority on this one. The Magic were down 20+ points to the Cavs three times in that series and came back during the game. I don't think the Lakers will allow them to come back. Lakers in 6 games. I want to say 5 games, but will go with them in 6.
Broussard: False.
The Magic can beat the Lakers, but I believe that the Lakers will win in seven.
Ok smartass. Any team CAN beat another team, but will they is really what the question meant.
Hollinger: Half-false.
They absolutely can beat the Lakers, but I don't think they will.
Ford: False.
Yes, the Magic can beat the Lakers, and I expect the series to be very competitive. But, false, I believe that the Lakers will win the series in six games.
They all answered that way. "Well they can win, but they won't." That annoys me.
Adande: True and false.
They can beat the Lakers but won't without home-court advantage and Finals experience.
More brilliance by Adande. He gives two factors that have nothing to do with basketball ability from players on either team that will decide the series.
The consensus is that the Magic are going to lose to the Lakers. I really want to pick the Magic but I think the Lakers will get it done because they will do a great job of controlling Howard and the 3 point shooters for Orlando...easier said than done, but I think they will do an adequate enough job to beat Orlando in 6 games.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
15 comments LeBron James Is An Asshole/Competitor/Sending A Message By Not Shaking Hands With the Magic
I don't know if anyone heard but LeBron James had a handshake that did not happen heard 'round the world after the Cavs lost to the Magic. In typical mainstream media fashion many columnists took this lack of a handshake to mean many things about LeBron James. Apparently when a player is not in the mood to shake hands after losing an important game, it becomes a big, big deal. There are three different viewpoints that have been written and I think two of them are wrong and one is right. Then I have been studying up and am going to give out my list of the top 10 relievers of all time, which will undoubtedly be wrong.
Let's start first with Michael Rosenberg of FoxSports who thinks LeBron is just a total asshole for not shaking hands after the Game 6 loss.
Can somebody please tell LeBron James that "King" is not an official title?
Forget Conan O'Brien, we need Michael Rosenberg as the new host of the Tonight Show. Those one liners are pure gold.
LeBron followed up by refusing to shake hands with the Magic, storming out of Amway Arena in Orlando without answering reporters' questions and then defending himself when he was finally cornered Sunday.
Ok, now we know what this is all about. We were talking about Jim Rice yesterday and his attitude toward the media, and how the media pretty much hated him for this bad attitude he had. The media will NOT be ignored. If you don't answer their questions, they get pretty pissy. This story has nothing to do with a handshake and has more to do with the media not getting their dumb questions answered.
I'm with you on that, LeBron. Absolutely, it is hard. Not as hard as, say, putting in 12-hour days at a manufacturing plant, and certainly not as hard as getting laid off from the aforementioned manufacturing plant, but it's hard.
Oh, rim shot!
Well, that certainly came out of left field. I think LeBron was just saying after losing an important game, he was not in the mood to shake hands. I am not sure he was looking for a pissing contest on who has the hardest job.
"It's not being a poor sport or anything like that. If somebody beats you up, you're not going to congratulate them. That doesn't make sense to me."
I don't know if I agree with that statement completely...but James said "beats you up," not "beats you," so I think he was differentiating between a competition and a fight...maybe.
This is the part where Michael Rosenberg starts picking out old quotes showing what great sports other athletes are.
Well, it does make sense to me. And you know who agrees with me?
Michael Jordan!
Michael Jordan? The same guy who treated his own teammates like shit, allegedly got his father killed for his gambling debts he refused to pay due to his competitive nature, the guy who is currently running the Bobcats into the ground and yelled at my fiance for offering him Powerade over Gatorade (Gatorade was not available and he requested a drink) at a golf tournament? I am not sure I like him enough to agree with Michael.
And you know who agrees with me?
Magic Johnson!
Yes, Magic Johnson was always a great sport and he is a good businessman. He is also famous for finding the cure for AIDS, which turns out to be money (Top 20 South Park episode of all time for me).
In 1991, Jordan said the two-time defending champion Pistons had been bad for basketball with their overly physical play. The Pistons took offense, and after the Bulls swept them, several Pistons walked off the floor without shaking the Bulls' hands.
That Pistons team included Isiah Thomas, which is why Michael Rosenberg is not including him on the list of good sports, even though he was generally a good sport. If he included Isiah Thomas as someone who was a good sport, it would disprove his idea that LeBron James was completely in the wrong by allowing the Magic to celebrate on their homecourt and wait until later to congratulate them because Isiah did something similar in his career.
He wasn't being competitive. He was just being a sore loser. And nobody likes a sore loser.
I disagree for reasons I will share later. I think he was being a sort of sore loser but he had good reasoning for it.
The difference between athletes and movie stars is that athletes can't just storm off the set. They are held accountable.
Another major difference is that athletes and movie stars have completely different professions. There are also probably 1,000 other differences before you get to the fact athletes are accountable and actors are not, which I am not sure is even true. This is not a good comparison.
And you know who agrees with me?
LeBron James!
"We went up against a better team," James said in 2007, after losing to the San Antonio Spurs in his only Finals appearance so far. "We know the Spurs are definitely the better team in this series."
Clearly LeBron James did not feel the Magic were the best team in the series. He was frustrated and did not want to say something he may regret at a press conference or on the court. He did not want to act like an ass, so he gave himself time to get over it, then spoke about it. That seems sort of logical to me.
Or was that true? Phil Taylor thinks LeBron may have had ulterior motives and in that exact moment he wasn't thinking of how the Cavs had just lost the game, but how he could send a secret message to the Cavs.
There's not much debate to be had there. You're not likely to find anyone who would seriously argue that snubbing the Magic was a classy move on King James' part.
No, it was not classy at all. I will 100% agree with that idea but there was some sort of logic to LeBron's decision to act like a baby. Not to mention, it really wasn't that big of a deal. Sure, he acted like an ass but it's doubtful in that moment the Magic were incredibly angry with him.
The more interesting question is, Why did LeBron do it?
Because he was very upset what he viewed as a superior Cavs team lost to the Magic and played so poorly in doing so. That's pretty much it.
"I'm a competitor," he said. "That's what I do. It doesn't make sense to me to go over and shake somebody's hand."
That's almost believable, because James has grown up in an era in which the definition of a great competitor has been badly skewed. We heap so much praise on an athlete who "hates to lose" that some players don't even recognize when that hatred goes too far.
He was actually asked the question and answered the question. His answer is 100% believable...not "almost" believable.
It's been said that Michael Jordan would have cheated his own grandmother to win at cards. That's not passion. That's unhealthy.
But Michael Rosenberg holds him up as a beacon of sportsmanship light in this dreary world of assholes. This can't be true.
It's hard to believe he was just so overcome by disappointment that he forgot his manners.
How is that hard to believe? Hasn't Phil Taylor ever been upset? I have acted like a baby before when I was disappointed playing sports, so it makes sense LeBron just left the court before he acted like a jerk. He chose the lesser of two evils because he is human after all.
By not uttering a word, he was speaking volumes to Cavs management.
This is probably 2% likely. I would imagine at that moment when LeBron James was disappointed he knew Cavs management would get his super secret message that walking off the court and not shaking hands with the opposing team would convey. If James really had a problem with Cavs management I think talking to them, which he will do, is more effective than walking off the court.
James was putting Ferry on notice that he has no intention of trying to drag this group to a championship again. More help had better be on the way next year, King James seemed to be saying, or tell the Knicks to start getting my uniform ready.
James may have been thinking this at some point during the game, but I really doubt he thought that not shaking hands with the Magic would show that he did not like his supporting cast that much. I doubt this because it really makes no sense. Maybe he is frustrated with his supporting cast, but I don't think walking off the court and being kind of classless would convey that message.
Now, James isn't ready to say all that publicly yet. That's where the public relations savvy comes in. He has another year in Cleveland, at least, and he doesn't want to spend it being portrayed as the demanding superstar threatening the franchise,
So LeBron sent a super secret warning shot across the bow of Cavs management and now he will be quiet in hopes they understood it. Cavs management probably know James needs more help already because they won 66 games in the regular season and did not even make the NBA Finals.
That's more of a Kobe way to play it.
No it isn't. Kobe would dump on his teammates in public and then demand a trade. He actually did that too.
James was telling the Cavs that if he has to walk away like this at the end of next season, he just might keep walking all the way to New York.
That super secret message of walking off the court without shaking hands also had a super secret walk that showed Cavs management not only was he going to be a free agent, but he was going to New York. It's amazing how much a walk can tell a person. It was his "I'm going to New York, not any other city, when I am a free agent" walk.
It might have seemed like James had finally made a little mistake, but don't be fooled. He knew exactly where he was going.
Sure, buddy. I find it more likely he was angry with his team's performance and did not feel like shaking hands and he will later ask for more team help in the off season...using words to express the feelings, and not hoping his walking off the court without shaking hands conveyed his displeasure.
Though I think LeBron acted like an ass, I do agree with LZ Granderson's take on this issue.
He starts with a story about his kid, which is pretty hyperbolic, but it does make sense given this situation.
Well, call me a contrarian because I don't have a problem with the way LeBron handled the situation. In fact, I thought it was rather intelligent given the circumstances.
Contrarian.
How many times have we seen quotes taken immediately after a tough loss, blown up and spiral into a greater controversy because the person talking was angry?
Now let me hedge a little bit. I think LeBron was acting like an ass by not shaking hands with the Magic, but we don't know exactly what was going through his head. Maybe at that point he was fed up with his teammates (which would be conveyed verbally, not through the magic walk off the court) or something else and he knew it wasn't the best time to speak to the media either. He possibly knew he would say something that wasn't smart, so the best thing to do is walk away and calm down.
Dwight Howard and the Magic hardly looked disappointed that LeBron didn't stick around after the horn.
I guess this is another thing that gets me. The Magic were in the middle of celebrating their victory, they probably did not even care LeBron walked off the court. They wanted to celebrate at that point, not shake everyone's hand.
A ritual of insincere gestures being sold as good sportsmanship is yet one more step in the march toward mediocrity -- like telling young players, "Good job," when actually they didn't do a very good job at all.
I feel like I am LZ's brother right now. There is such a thin line between giving people false confidence and building them up. I think even an insincere gesture is better than no gesture at all, but I do see what LZ is saying.
That's like the un-apology apology public figures are famous for giving when they're more sorry they got caught than they are for the action that got them in trouble.
We as a people do love apologies, whether they are sincere or not. I don't think someone should really apologize if they are not sorry, but I know I am in the minority on that opinion.
You want to know what's poor sportsmanship?
Brett Favre cutting off all communication with his mentee and supposed friend Aaron Rogers after being traded to the Jets. Or Shaq freestyling about Kobe's Finals loss -- more than four years after being traded from L.A.
It's very hard to continue to agree with LZ's position when he goes off topic like this, but I still do agree. Though both situations are not great sportsmanship, they don't pertain that much to this situation.
Taking a day to calm down and gather your thoughts, that's a sign of maturity.
This is actually where I agree. Rather than say or do something stupid, it is more mature to just walk away from the situation...though I know people will argue walking away from the situation is immature.
That to me is much better than ripping teammates he may have to play with or a coach he may have to play under next season. I always tend to believe that teams function better when you keep unrest in the family.
So LZ seems to think that LeBron James was not happy with his supporting cast, but he doesn't believe his actual walking off the court meant anything to Cleveland management, it meant more that he was disappointed and frustrated.
Let's start first with Michael Rosenberg of FoxSports who thinks LeBron is just a total asshole for not shaking hands after the Game 6 loss.
Can somebody please tell LeBron James that "King" is not an official title?
Forget Conan O'Brien, we need Michael Rosenberg as the new host of the Tonight Show. Those one liners are pure gold.
LeBron followed up by refusing to shake hands with the Magic, storming out of Amway Arena in Orlando without answering reporters' questions and then defending himself when he was finally cornered Sunday.
Ok, now we know what this is all about. We were talking about Jim Rice yesterday and his attitude toward the media, and how the media pretty much hated him for this bad attitude he had. The media will NOT be ignored. If you don't answer their questions, they get pretty pissy. This story has nothing to do with a handshake and has more to do with the media not getting their dumb questions answered.
I'm with you on that, LeBron. Absolutely, it is hard. Not as hard as, say, putting in 12-hour days at a manufacturing plant, and certainly not as hard as getting laid off from the aforementioned manufacturing plant, but it's hard.
Oh, rim shot!
Well, that certainly came out of left field. I think LeBron was just saying after losing an important game, he was not in the mood to shake hands. I am not sure he was looking for a pissing contest on who has the hardest job.
"It's not being a poor sport or anything like that. If somebody beats you up, you're not going to congratulate them. That doesn't make sense to me."
I don't know if I agree with that statement completely...but James said "beats you up," not "beats you," so I think he was differentiating between a competition and a fight...maybe.
This is the part where Michael Rosenberg starts picking out old quotes showing what great sports other athletes are.
Well, it does make sense to me. And you know who agrees with me?
Michael Jordan!
Michael Jordan? The same guy who treated his own teammates like shit, allegedly got his father killed for his gambling debts he refused to pay due to his competitive nature, the guy who is currently running the Bobcats into the ground and yelled at my fiance for offering him Powerade over Gatorade (Gatorade was not available and he requested a drink) at a golf tournament? I am not sure I like him enough to agree with Michael.
And you know who agrees with me?
Magic Johnson!
Yes, Magic Johnson was always a great sport and he is a good businessman. He is also famous for finding the cure for AIDS, which turns out to be money (Top 20 South Park episode of all time for me).
In 1991, Jordan said the two-time defending champion Pistons had been bad for basketball with their overly physical play. The Pistons took offense, and after the Bulls swept them, several Pistons walked off the floor without shaking the Bulls' hands.
That Pistons team included Isiah Thomas, which is why Michael Rosenberg is not including him on the list of good sports, even though he was generally a good sport. If he included Isiah Thomas as someone who was a good sport, it would disprove his idea that LeBron James was completely in the wrong by allowing the Magic to celebrate on their homecourt and wait until later to congratulate them because Isiah did something similar in his career.
He wasn't being competitive. He was just being a sore loser. And nobody likes a sore loser.
I disagree for reasons I will share later. I think he was being a sort of sore loser but he had good reasoning for it.
The difference between athletes and movie stars is that athletes can't just storm off the set. They are held accountable.
Another major difference is that athletes and movie stars have completely different professions. There are also probably 1,000 other differences before you get to the fact athletes are accountable and actors are not, which I am not sure is even true. This is not a good comparison.
And you know who agrees with me?
LeBron James!
"We went up against a better team," James said in 2007, after losing to the San Antonio Spurs in his only Finals appearance so far. "We know the Spurs are definitely the better team in this series."
Clearly LeBron James did not feel the Magic were the best team in the series. He was frustrated and did not want to say something he may regret at a press conference or on the court. He did not want to act like an ass, so he gave himself time to get over it, then spoke about it. That seems sort of logical to me.
Or was that true? Phil Taylor thinks LeBron may have had ulterior motives and in that exact moment he wasn't thinking of how the Cavs had just lost the game, but how he could send a secret message to the Cavs.
There's not much debate to be had there. You're not likely to find anyone who would seriously argue that snubbing the Magic was a classy move on King James' part.
No, it was not classy at all. I will 100% agree with that idea but there was some sort of logic to LeBron's decision to act like a baby. Not to mention, it really wasn't that big of a deal. Sure, he acted like an ass but it's doubtful in that moment the Magic were incredibly angry with him.
The more interesting question is, Why did LeBron do it?
Because he was very upset what he viewed as a superior Cavs team lost to the Magic and played so poorly in doing so. That's pretty much it.
"I'm a competitor," he said. "That's what I do. It doesn't make sense to me to go over and shake somebody's hand."
That's almost believable, because James has grown up in an era in which the definition of a great competitor has been badly skewed. We heap so much praise on an athlete who "hates to lose" that some players don't even recognize when that hatred goes too far.
He was actually asked the question and answered the question. His answer is 100% believable...not "almost" believable.
It's been said that Michael Jordan would have cheated his own grandmother to win at cards. That's not passion. That's unhealthy.
But Michael Rosenberg holds him up as a beacon of sportsmanship light in this dreary world of assholes. This can't be true.
It's hard to believe he was just so overcome by disappointment that he forgot his manners.
How is that hard to believe? Hasn't Phil Taylor ever been upset? I have acted like a baby before when I was disappointed playing sports, so it makes sense LeBron just left the court before he acted like a jerk. He chose the lesser of two evils because he is human after all.
By not uttering a word, he was speaking volumes to Cavs management.
This is probably 2% likely. I would imagine at that moment when LeBron James was disappointed he knew Cavs management would get his super secret message that walking off the court and not shaking hands with the opposing team would convey. If James really had a problem with Cavs management I think talking to them, which he will do, is more effective than walking off the court.
James was putting Ferry on notice that he has no intention of trying to drag this group to a championship again. More help had better be on the way next year, King James seemed to be saying, or tell the Knicks to start getting my uniform ready.
James may have been thinking this at some point during the game, but I really doubt he thought that not shaking hands with the Magic would show that he did not like his supporting cast that much. I doubt this because it really makes no sense. Maybe he is frustrated with his supporting cast, but I don't think walking off the court and being kind of classless would convey that message.
Now, James isn't ready to say all that publicly yet. That's where the public relations savvy comes in. He has another year in Cleveland, at least, and he doesn't want to spend it being portrayed as the demanding superstar threatening the franchise,
So LeBron sent a super secret warning shot across the bow of Cavs management and now he will be quiet in hopes they understood it. Cavs management probably know James needs more help already because they won 66 games in the regular season and did not even make the NBA Finals.
That's more of a Kobe way to play it.
No it isn't. Kobe would dump on his teammates in public and then demand a trade. He actually did that too.
James was telling the Cavs that if he has to walk away like this at the end of next season, he just might keep walking all the way to New York.
That super secret message of walking off the court without shaking hands also had a super secret walk that showed Cavs management not only was he going to be a free agent, but he was going to New York. It's amazing how much a walk can tell a person. It was his "I'm going to New York, not any other city, when I am a free agent" walk.
It might have seemed like James had finally made a little mistake, but don't be fooled. He knew exactly where he was going.
Sure, buddy. I find it more likely he was angry with his team's performance and did not feel like shaking hands and he will later ask for more team help in the off season...using words to express the feelings, and not hoping his walking off the court without shaking hands conveyed his displeasure.
Though I think LeBron acted like an ass, I do agree with LZ Granderson's take on this issue.
He starts with a story about his kid, which is pretty hyperbolic, but it does make sense given this situation.
Well, call me a contrarian because I don't have a problem with the way LeBron handled the situation. In fact, I thought it was rather intelligent given the circumstances.
Contrarian.
How many times have we seen quotes taken immediately after a tough loss, blown up and spiral into a greater controversy because the person talking was angry?
Now let me hedge a little bit. I think LeBron was acting like an ass by not shaking hands with the Magic, but we don't know exactly what was going through his head. Maybe at that point he was fed up with his teammates (which would be conveyed verbally, not through the magic walk off the court) or something else and he knew it wasn't the best time to speak to the media either. He possibly knew he would say something that wasn't smart, so the best thing to do is walk away and calm down.
Dwight Howard and the Magic hardly looked disappointed that LeBron didn't stick around after the horn.
I guess this is another thing that gets me. The Magic were in the middle of celebrating their victory, they probably did not even care LeBron walked off the court. They wanted to celebrate at that point, not shake everyone's hand.
A ritual of insincere gestures being sold as good sportsmanship is yet one more step in the march toward mediocrity -- like telling young players, "Good job," when actually they didn't do a very good job at all.
I feel like I am LZ's brother right now. There is such a thin line between giving people false confidence and building them up. I think even an insincere gesture is better than no gesture at all, but I do see what LZ is saying.
That's like the un-apology apology public figures are famous for giving when they're more sorry they got caught than they are for the action that got them in trouble.
We as a people do love apologies, whether they are sincere or not. I don't think someone should really apologize if they are not sorry, but I know I am in the minority on that opinion.
You want to know what's poor sportsmanship?
Brett Favre cutting off all communication with his mentee and supposed friend Aaron Rogers after being traded to the Jets. Or Shaq freestyling about Kobe's Finals loss -- more than four years after being traded from L.A.
It's very hard to continue to agree with LZ's position when he goes off topic like this, but I still do agree. Though both situations are not great sportsmanship, they don't pertain that much to this situation.
Taking a day to calm down and gather your thoughts, that's a sign of maturity.
This is actually where I agree. Rather than say or do something stupid, it is more mature to just walk away from the situation...though I know people will argue walking away from the situation is immature.
That to me is much better than ripping teammates he may have to play with or a coach he may have to play under next season. I always tend to believe that teams function better when you keep unrest in the family.
So LZ seems to think that LeBron James was not happy with his supporting cast, but he doesn't believe his actual walking off the court meant anything to Cleveland management, it meant more that he was disappointed and frustrated.
You catch an irate LeBron James talking after a series in which he literally had to carry his teammates in the fourth quarter each game, then you're likely to get him saying some things that could interrupt the chemistry that got them to 66 wins.
LeBron was one of the few Cleveland players that showed up in the series and I think he really struggled with that. I think it is better to walk off the floor, not fake congratulate someone or do a press conference after the game angrily, and give yourself time to gather your thoughts before you start bitching.
Besides, I tend to think good sportsmanship isn't just about what you do in the heat of battle but what you premeditate and what you do afterward.
An interesting way to look at it. He separates sportsmanship in the heat of battle, or immediately after the heat of battle, from sportsmanship at a press conference afterwards and during the days after the game.
As he said, he's a competitor and like him, I believe competition isn't always nice.
Though I think LeBron James should have shaken hands with the Magic, I do think he is a jerk for not doing this but don't have a problem with him not speaking to the media after the game. He did not want to say something he would later regret and he probably wanted to take out any problem he had in private...which is what should happen. I also think James was frustrated with his supporting cast but his walking off the court was not a show for Cavs management to see, he was truly upset.
It is hard to make a list of the top 10 relievers of all time, especially since the role has changed so much over the past several years. Here's my list:
1. Mariano Rivera- I don't see how this can be argued and he is even better when you throw in the postseason numbers.
2. Dennis Eckersley- He did it for a shorter amount of time because he was a starter for a while but was incredibly dominant.
3. Hoyt Wilhelm- He was a different kind of reliever from today but he was incredibly successful with just a knuckleball.
4. Rollie Fingers- He was pretty consistent his whole career and is one of the first famous closers.
5. Rich Gossage- He stayed around a little too long but he pitched longer innings and had great numbers in his prime.
6. Trevor Hoffman- He averaged just over an inning per appearance in his career, so he is the poster boy for the new reliever/closer. I don't know where to rank him really, cwhen compared to the other relievers who pitched 1-2+ innings so I put him here. It's hard to balance the innings pitched with the numbers he has put up.
7. Bruce Sutter- I may have ranked him above Trevor Hoffman if I did this tomorrow or any other day. His career was a little shorter than I would like to be in the top 10, but he was money in his prime in the late 70's/early 80's.
8. Dan Quisenberry- Great career in the 80's and he even pitched more than one inning per outing and still got saves.
9. Lee Smith- I am not as high on Smith as other people are. He appeared dominant and intimidating on the mound and he could be at times.
10. Jeff Reardon- He had success no matter where he went. John Wetteland almost made this spot but did not because he did not pitch as long and well as Hoffman and rarely pitched more than an inning, so I rank the other relievers over him.
Go ahead and tear me apart or disagree if you like. This was very hard, so I know I was wrong on something.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
13 comments 3 Journalistic Tidbits I Need To Correct
If I were Peter King I would call them morsels of tidbits or servings of tidbits. Either way you get the point, it would be food related. Each of these three articles are not necessarily bad or wrong on their own, but they each contain comments that I (surprisingly or not) take some issue with.
-Jay Mariotti starts us off with a discussion on Derrick Rose. If there is ever a person who is not likely to be able to lead a discussion on cheating and having great ethics and values, it's Jay Mariotti. The same guy who re-wrote an entire column in March about conference tournaments that changed the entire premise of the column and he never acknowledged it and tried to play off like he had not changed anything. The same Jay Mariotti who constantly has a little note at the beginning of his columns that says,
Editor's Note: The following is an updated version of Monday's original column.
In Jay's case "updated" usually means "was corrected due to an incorrect fact or false premise the author originally included in the column." This is not the guy we want discussing how dirty college basketball is. Yes, this column has also been "updated."
It's much more important that he address this: A gifted player from the president's home base of Chicago,
This fact has nothing to do with anything related to Derrick Rose or this situation. Chicago was also the home base of Al Capone...this still means nothing.
just voted the NBA's Rookie of the Year, is accused by the NCAA of knowingly allowing an imposter to take his SAT test so he could gain admission to the University of Memphis, where he spent all of one season leading the Tigers to within a few seconds of a 2008 national championship.
Just to play devil's advocate here, but Rose would not have had to take the SAT or pay an imposter to take the SAT if the NBA allowed him to go straight there after high school. I am not for allowing players to go straight to the NBA after high school for purely selfish reasons, but this would never have happened if the NBA did not require him to go to college.
Also, I would like to know who the dumbass that checked the Rose imposter in at the SAT was? Did he/she not know what Rose looked like? I thought he was a legend in Chicago? I feel like someone would have seen it wasn't him. I took the SAT in the same building as Jerry Stackhouse and Jeff McInnis (both went to UNC) and trust me, everyone knew they were in the building. No one could see it wasn't Derrick Rose?
The fallout is wicked in multiple directions. It impacts our perception of Rose, whose potential Hall of Fame career now is marred by the indelible smudge of academic fraud.
Hold on just a second there partner. I like Derrick Rose's potential as much as the next guy, but let's not go overboard quite yet and say he may have "a potential Hall of Fame" career. Give it two more years. Also, in those two more years, no one will remember anything about this incident or anything of the like. It will be forgotten. People tend to have very short memories when it comes to academic fraud...it's not very sexy.
It makes me wonder why Kentucky, a program scarred by scandal in the past, was so quick to hire Calipari while claiming to have known about the probe and apparently sneaking it past some of the school's trustees.
They want to win and they weren't winning, so they hired a coach who will put asses in the seats and trophies in the trophy case.
And how many high schools are participating in altering the grades of athletes?
If I conclude "altering" includes helping them get good grades using a type of help other students don't receive, but not counting tutoring, and including the type of help Derrick Rose received?...75%? Is that too low?
Rose needs to come out of hiding and say something, anything. The longer he stays quiet -- the story broke four days ago -- the more guilty he is in the eyes of the public. If he was innocent, wouldn't he be voicing outrage about the allegations?
Yes Jay, if Rose was innocent he probably would be voicing some sort of outrage over the allegations...if he was innocent he would do this, but he hasn't. Maybe there is a reason he has not expressed outrage.
(Bengoodfella waiting for Jay to get it...)
Contrary to what the Rose camp seems to believe, this story is not going away like that speeding episode last year, when Derrick was ticketed for going 106 mph in a 65 zone on Interstate 88 and all of Chicago immediately forgave him.
They covered up a speeding ticket that Rose got? When will the outrage and cover-ups end?! If the Rose family is also covering up several parking tickets, he should be thrown in jail immediately. Chicago should never have forgiven him for speeding. So many traffic violations, so many cover-ups...
Not only might Memphis lose its runner-up finish, it could face sanctions that reduces its new coach, Josh Pastner, to a newer and perhaps more hapless version of Tom Crean, the Indiana coach who is rebuilding a ravaged program after the scandals under predecessor Kelvin Sampson. What's pathetic in Pastner's case is that he wasn't made aware of the full depth of the probe until after he was hired.
Pastner is a more hapless version of Tom Crean because he coaches at Memphis, which is in Conference USA and he coaches a team that is nobody now in a conference that is full of nobodies, while Crean's team is in the Big 10. Basically Pastner will be fired in three years, while Crean will have a great chance at rebuilding the Indiana program.
So, who exactly did Barnhart interview about a coach to whom Kentucky is paying more than $31 million over eight years? The family gardener?
Yes, they did. That's exactly who they interviewed. He reported that Calipari prefers perennials and tends to want his flowers mulched during the winter, regardless of how little sense it makes.
And why did at least two members of the UK Board of Trustees not know about the investigation until the other day?
Why do I have to answer all these pretty obvious questions? Because those were probably the two members of the UK Board of Trustees that were not in favor of hiring Calipari and wanted to hire John Pelphrey, Travis Ford or someone else who had some affiliation to the University of Kentucky.
accomplishing that in the form of John Wall, the nation's top prep point guard; center DeMarcus Cousins, who was to have joined him at Memphis; 6-10 center Daniel Orton; small forward Jon Hood; junior-college transfer Daniel Dodson and a second star point guard, Eric Bledsoe. Patrick Patterson, the talented big man, decided to eschew the NBA Draft to return. If Jodie Meeks does the same -- he of the 54-point game at Tennessee -- Calipari has the makings of a Final Four team.
Kentucky is going to be loaded. I think a certain college team located in North Carolina that wears dark blue uniforms at times and has a coach who's last name begins with a "K" needs to make a completely illegal phone call to Eric Bledsoe and convince him to come play PG for that certain team located in Durham. Illegal, yes, but they need a point guard badly and winning is everything.
I am kidding, I would never want that to happen. I was serious about the winning is everything thing though.
School is wrapping up, summer is ahead, and it's no news flash that the world is crooked. Why would anyone care, you ask, if Derrick Rose had an imposter take an SAT test?
I'll tell you why: Because it reeks of flagrant dishonesty, athletic privilege and academic fraud. And one of these days -- or years or decades -- it has to stop.
There is a better chance of Jay Mariotti actually coming within 10 feet of Ozzie Guillen than this type stuff ever stopping.
-Bill Simmons writes a David Ortiz eulogy. It's a typical Bill Simmons joint, full of hyperbole and stories of the wonderful things Ortiz has done.
In the academy award-winning classic Cocktail, Coughlin tells young Flanagan, "Everything ends badly, otherwise it wouldn't end." It's the single greatest yearbook quote ever. Hell, it may be the greatest movie quote ever.
I am not even sure that is an original quote and am pretty sure that was said at some point prior to the movie. That being said, if I listed the top 1,000 quotes in movie history, this may make the list...maybe. So greatest ever? Probably not.
Remember in Superman II when Clark Kent gave up his superpowers so he could be with Lois Lane -- lesson No. 184 on how women ruin everything -- and then a bully beat the crap out of the suddenly mortal superhero in a diner? That's been Big Papi since Opening Day.
Remember when human beings could say what they meant or felt without using a pop culture analogy? That's not Bill Simmons, ever.
The steroid whispers started quickly. By late April, every conversation I had with a Sox fan seemed to include a "We need to mail Papi some HGH" joke. It was an easy leap for a couple of reasons: First, his power numbers leapt like Obama's Q rating from 2003 to 2007. Second, he's Dominican, and more than a few of his brethren -- Sammy Sosa, Miguel Tejada, Guillermo Mota -- have been in the center of PED controversies.
I am not saying that Big Papi is now or ever was on steroids. I am not saying that is why he is slumping this year. I don't have an idea of why he has dropped off so quickly and that is what is so puzzling. I will however dispute some of Bill's ideas. Also, if Ortiz was ever going to start using steroids, now would be a good time to start. The BoSox and my fantasy team could certainly use him.
We braced for Ortiz to be linked to a bombshell headline that began with the words "Former Sox Clubhouse Attendant … " But one thing nagged at me: He wasn't belting bombs that were dying at the warning track like so many other former 'roiders.
I don't even know how this is any type of proof of anything. If you ever need hyperbolic evidence, call Bill Simmons, he can give it to you. I have no idea what the trend is for the ball to do when an ex-steroider hits it, but I know the trend is not that the ex-steroider hits a proliferation of baseballs that go 385 feet instead of 410 feet. Every baseball player has hit a few balls that almost went out of the park but did not, that is neither proof of steroid use nor proof of no steroid use. It's proof the ball hit was not a home run.
I would not use this as proof that Ortiz was not a former 'roider. How about the fact he has never been linked or caught with them? That sounds better.
It reminded me of watching Jim Rice fall apart in the late '80s, when he lost bat speed overnight the way you and I lose a BlackBerry.
That's not even a great comparison. Rice did not fall off this quickly. He did not fall off this badly at the age of 36 in his last year and his decline seemed to be much more gradual than Ortiz's.
Ortizn also had a better run in the 2000's than Rice ever had, I just found that interesting. Rice was more consistent than Ortiz. (I look at Rice's numbers and can't help but wonder if he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame)
Look at the numbers:
Ortiz
Rice
This is an epic fall off. I can't think of another hitter that has fallen off so quickly and in such a dramatic fashion.
By mid-May, I was pondering another theory: Maybe Papi was older than he claimed. In Seth Mnookin's book Feeding the Monster, he recounts the story of how Boston nearly blew the chance to acquire Ortiz because they were concerned that he was much older than the media guide said.
Ah yes, the "Maybe my son is not using drugs, but all of his friends are" theory. It avoids any type of acceptance of a potential problem (like the departure of Manny), while still giving a possible reason for Ortiz's decline that is not Ortiz's fault and doesn't reflect poorly on him.
How many Latin players have been exposed for lying about their ages in the past few years? Hell, one of Papi's best friends -- Tejada -- was found to have cut two years off his birth certificate when he was 17, er, 19 … you get the point.
Yep. What else did one of Papi's best friends, Tejada, also lie about and get caught doing? Here's a hint, it begins with steroids. I find it interesting that Bill is willing to accept that Ortiz lied about his age like other Latin players, but is not willing to accept Ortiz lied about using steroids like other Latin players, and he bases this belief purely on the fact the balls he hits are not dying at the warning track.
Watching Papi flounder now, I'd believe he's really 36 or 37 (not 33) before I'd believe PEDs are responsible.
Of course he would. That's natural. Unfortunately there is no proof either way, but certainly no proof Ortiz lied about his age, while hardly any circumstantial proof of steroid use. All I know is that it could also be both. Yes, since Tejada lied about his age and steroids, Big Papi could do both as well.
Let's be honest, Ortiz did not always look to be in the best shape. I did not affectionately (or maybe not) call him Big Fatty for nothing. Maybe he's kind of hit his baseball wall. I don't have any good explanation really.
Some players hit their peaks at different ages. Jeff Failcouer hit his at age 22.
The fans are suffering just like he is. Only when he left 12 men on base against Anaheim on May 14 did I receive a slew of angry e-mails from back home, but even those tirades centered more around Terry Francona's steadfast refusal to drop Ortiz in the order.
That's actually anger directed at Ortiz because they would not have to drop him in the batting order if he did not suck. So yes, BoSox fans were indirectly mad at Francona for not dropping him in the order, but were really deflecting anger at Ortiz onto the manager.
Really, that's a tribute to what he means to his fans and how delightful it was to watch him play. His career might be over (notice I left the door open; I'm such a sap), but Ortiz has reached the highest level an athlete can reach: unequivocal devotion. Sox fans love him the same way you love an ailing family member. In the end, at his bleakest point, he's brought out the best of an entire fan base. He has inspired dignity and emotion and loyalty. The fans could have sped his demise (and saved a few games) by booing until Francona benched him. They didn't. How often does that happen?
As always, you Red Sox fans are the best. The world would give up without your constant loyalty to your players. You give me a reason to go on in my life. (Ok, I am done...sorry I had to do a little bit of that)
Barring a miraculous return of bat speed, he'll be benched or released soon. It'll hurt, and I'm going to feel bad.
At some point I am going to release him off my fantasy team. I still refuse to do it, and there he is sitting on the bench ranked around #1200 offensively and can only play the Utility position and I still have him there waiting for a big break out game.
-On his Twitter, Peter King responded to the question, "What is your fondest memory from the past 20 years, the one that you will tell your grandkids about with a big smile on," with this answer:
Hmmmm. Fondest memory of last 20 years ... Probably spending a week inside the Packers, seeing everything. that was fun. '95.
He is obsessed Brett Favre. It's actually not really funny and bordering on pathetic. He asks for more abuse about Favre than he actually gets. He asks for and deserves more.
Peter King finally put his MMQB-Tuesday up.
As you read this, NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith might still be assessing the damage in his Washington office after what can best be described as a bizarre fire in the bathroom adjacent to his office around 5 a.m.
I knew Lisa "Left-Eye" Lopes faked her death. This is further proof. (Anyone get it?)
One: Jack Donlan is not dead. That's a pretty big mistake, and I've apologized to Donlan, the longtime Management Council czar with the league, for killing him in the column.
I have no excuses for the screwup; it's just one of those things that happens when you don't check all your facts, and it's a good warning to me.
By the way, Jack Donlan, you are dead to Peter King. Just thought you may want to know about this.
Talk about not checking your facts. He wrote someone was dead who was alive. Maybe 20 years at SI was one month too long for Peter.
From Eric Batchelor of Acton, Mass.: "Hope you are still enjoying Boston! Last season Tom Brady didn't even play in the preseason; considering he's coming off knee surgery, do you expect him to play in a few games this year or do you think the Pats will sideline him until game one of the regular season and have him only participate in practice?''
This is an absolutely urgent question that must be answered immediately. Will Tom Brady play a couple series in an absolutely meaningless games that few diehard fans of the Patriots care about? Peter answers this question and ignores many other great questions, like mine. That irritates me.
I can tell you what Brady told me: He wants to play in the preseason, and he wants to play in the preseason badly.
Great, glad we know the answer to that. All Patriots fans can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing Brady will be playing in meaningless games. I can't tell you how happy I am that question got answered. Well, I can actually...1.2%.
Peter also defends Matt Millen as being a good announcer in this column. I remember Millen being a decent announcer, but I also remember him being an NFL official for one game, so my memory may be a little fuzzy. I really do remember him being an NFL official for a game or a half, something like that, before he got the idea of murdering the Detroit Lions team and fan base.
From Rich Eisen of Culver City, Calif. (and NFL Network): "Rumor has it SI will celebrate PKing's 20-year anny by making him the cover model on swimsuit issue.''
No comment. But my agent has been in negotiations with the Omar The Tentmaker Swimwear Group. That's the only statement I am free to make at this time.
As if his random shoutouts to people who we don't care about weren't enough, now Peter is relaying jokes he is making on his Twitter. More football, less bullshit please.
Michael K. of Jacksonville: "Great write-up on Austin Wood. In an age when pitch counts have major league managers pulling pitchers out of games when they are cruising and mowing down opposing hitters, this kid's performance is a rare thing. Are any MLB teams giving him a look?''
Michael K from Jacksonville, I agree that managers are too tender with their pitcher's arms, but his career high for pitches thrown was somewhere below 40 and he threw 169 pitches. That's like if Peter's record for running was one mile and he decided was going to go out and run four miles. Then he had to run again in two days. Remember this guy is a closer, not a starter. There is also an economic term called declining returns and that pertains to pitchers, which is why they tend to get pulled when they may look like they are cruising. I am not defending the babying of pitcher's but at a certain point a pitcher will quit dominating and a manager has to decide when that point will occur.
I would like to see Austin Wood throw 100 more pitches two-five days later and see what happens. I bet he will get lit up.
John Trent of Reno: "After reading your column today marking your 20 years with SI, it got me thinking about you and your writing career. What has always struck me about your writing is how you've never lost your sense of wonder, and your enjoyment of what you do (rarely, if ever, have you penned columns bemoaning the difficult travel, the 24/7 nature of reporting in the electronic age, or dealing with millionaire athletes who can be, as Al Michaels would say, "truculent" from time to time).
Are you fucking kidding me John, the Dumbass, from Reno? (Caps lock alert) EVERY SINGLE FUCKING WEEK PETER BITCHES ABOUT TRAVELING ACCOMODATIONS, THE TASTE OF COFFEE, HOW A HOTEL DOES NOT MAKE COFFEE EARLY ENOUGH FOR HIM, HOW MUCH SOAP IS IN THE HOTEL, WHAT KIND OF SHAMPOO IS AT A HOTEL, IF SOMEONE RUNS A STOP SIGN, OR 100 OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD THAT PISSES HIM OFF. HE HAS SPECIAL SECTIONS DEDICATED TO BITCHING ABOUT THIS STUFF. READ HIS COLUMNS AND DON'T BE A DUMB KISSASS.
John, does not read Peter's column. Peter complains about everything and criticizes restaurants performance serving food and pretty much anything else he doesn't like.
Last year, I was at a minor-league baseball game in Kannapolis, N.C., and sitting there on a hot summer night, I thought how great it was that my job allows me to go to places I'd almost certainly never go to, even places most people think, "Why'd you want to go there?'' Because it's there.
I am shocked he did not bitch about something at the game as well. Peter's sense of wonder often comes from complete and utter ignorance at the world. Many times people who have a childlike wonder have that wonder because they spend most of their time being so self involved they don't have a chance to notice that Drew Brees is good or that coffee can be better at a local chain.
-Jay Mariotti starts us off with a discussion on Derrick Rose. If there is ever a person who is not likely to be able to lead a discussion on cheating and having great ethics and values, it's Jay Mariotti. The same guy who re-wrote an entire column in March about conference tournaments that changed the entire premise of the column and he never acknowledged it and tried to play off like he had not changed anything. The same Jay Mariotti who constantly has a little note at the beginning of his columns that says,
Editor's Note: The following is an updated version of Monday's original column.
In Jay's case "updated" usually means "was corrected due to an incorrect fact or false premise the author originally included in the column." This is not the guy we want discussing how dirty college basketball is. Yes, this column has also been "updated."
It's much more important that he address this: A gifted player from the president's home base of Chicago,
This fact has nothing to do with anything related to Derrick Rose or this situation. Chicago was also the home base of Al Capone...this still means nothing.
just voted the NBA's Rookie of the Year, is accused by the NCAA of knowingly allowing an imposter to take his SAT test so he could gain admission to the University of Memphis, where he spent all of one season leading the Tigers to within a few seconds of a 2008 national championship.
Just to play devil's advocate here, but Rose would not have had to take the SAT or pay an imposter to take the SAT if the NBA allowed him to go straight there after high school. I am not for allowing players to go straight to the NBA after high school for purely selfish reasons, but this would never have happened if the NBA did not require him to go to college.
Also, I would like to know who the dumbass that checked the Rose imposter in at the SAT was? Did he/she not know what Rose looked like? I thought he was a legend in Chicago? I feel like someone would have seen it wasn't him. I took the SAT in the same building as Jerry Stackhouse and Jeff McInnis (both went to UNC) and trust me, everyone knew they were in the building. No one could see it wasn't Derrick Rose?
The fallout is wicked in multiple directions. It impacts our perception of Rose, whose potential Hall of Fame career now is marred by the indelible smudge of academic fraud.
Hold on just a second there partner. I like Derrick Rose's potential as much as the next guy, but let's not go overboard quite yet and say he may have "a potential Hall of Fame" career. Give it two more years. Also, in those two more years, no one will remember anything about this incident or anything of the like. It will be forgotten. People tend to have very short memories when it comes to academic fraud...it's not very sexy.
It makes me wonder why Kentucky, a program scarred by scandal in the past, was so quick to hire Calipari while claiming to have known about the probe and apparently sneaking it past some of the school's trustees.
They want to win and they weren't winning, so they hired a coach who will put asses in the seats and trophies in the trophy case.
And how many high schools are participating in altering the grades of athletes?
If I conclude "altering" includes helping them get good grades using a type of help other students don't receive, but not counting tutoring, and including the type of help Derrick Rose received?...75%? Is that too low?
Rose needs to come out of hiding and say something, anything. The longer he stays quiet -- the story broke four days ago -- the more guilty he is in the eyes of the public. If he was innocent, wouldn't he be voicing outrage about the allegations?
Yes Jay, if Rose was innocent he probably would be voicing some sort of outrage over the allegations...if he was innocent he would do this, but he hasn't. Maybe there is a reason he has not expressed outrage.
(Bengoodfella waiting for Jay to get it...)
Contrary to what the Rose camp seems to believe, this story is not going away like that speeding episode last year, when Derrick was ticketed for going 106 mph in a 65 zone on Interstate 88 and all of Chicago immediately forgave him.
They covered up a speeding ticket that Rose got? When will the outrage and cover-ups end?! If the Rose family is also covering up several parking tickets, he should be thrown in jail immediately. Chicago should never have forgiven him for speeding. So many traffic violations, so many cover-ups...
Not only might Memphis lose its runner-up finish, it could face sanctions that reduces its new coach, Josh Pastner, to a newer and perhaps more hapless version of Tom Crean, the Indiana coach who is rebuilding a ravaged program after the scandals under predecessor Kelvin Sampson. What's pathetic in Pastner's case is that he wasn't made aware of the full depth of the probe until after he was hired.
Pastner is a more hapless version of Tom Crean because he coaches at Memphis, which is in Conference USA and he coaches a team that is nobody now in a conference that is full of nobodies, while Crean's team is in the Big 10. Basically Pastner will be fired in three years, while Crean will have a great chance at rebuilding the Indiana program.
So, who exactly did Barnhart interview about a coach to whom Kentucky is paying more than $31 million over eight years? The family gardener?
Yes, they did. That's exactly who they interviewed. He reported that Calipari prefers perennials and tends to want his flowers mulched during the winter, regardless of how little sense it makes.
And why did at least two members of the UK Board of Trustees not know about the investigation until the other day?
Why do I have to answer all these pretty obvious questions? Because those were probably the two members of the UK Board of Trustees that were not in favor of hiring Calipari and wanted to hire John Pelphrey, Travis Ford or someone else who had some affiliation to the University of Kentucky.
accomplishing that in the form of John Wall, the nation's top prep point guard; center DeMarcus Cousins, who was to have joined him at Memphis; 6-10 center Daniel Orton; small forward Jon Hood; junior-college transfer Daniel Dodson and a second star point guard, Eric Bledsoe. Patrick Patterson, the talented big man, decided to eschew the NBA Draft to return. If Jodie Meeks does the same -- he of the 54-point game at Tennessee -- Calipari has the makings of a Final Four team.
Kentucky is going to be loaded. I think a certain college team located in North Carolina that wears dark blue uniforms at times and has a coach who's last name begins with a "K" needs to make a completely illegal phone call to Eric Bledsoe and convince him to come play PG for that certain team located in Durham. Illegal, yes, but they need a point guard badly and winning is everything.
I am kidding, I would never want that to happen. I was serious about the winning is everything thing though.
School is wrapping up, summer is ahead, and it's no news flash that the world is crooked. Why would anyone care, you ask, if Derrick Rose had an imposter take an SAT test?
I'll tell you why: Because it reeks of flagrant dishonesty, athletic privilege and academic fraud. And one of these days -- or years or decades -- it has to stop.
There is a better chance of Jay Mariotti actually coming within 10 feet of Ozzie Guillen than this type stuff ever stopping.
-Bill Simmons writes a David Ortiz eulogy. It's a typical Bill Simmons joint, full of hyperbole and stories of the wonderful things Ortiz has done.
In the academy award-winning classic Cocktail, Coughlin tells young Flanagan, "Everything ends badly, otherwise it wouldn't end." It's the single greatest yearbook quote ever. Hell, it may be the greatest movie quote ever.
I am not even sure that is an original quote and am pretty sure that was said at some point prior to the movie. That being said, if I listed the top 1,000 quotes in movie history, this may make the list...maybe. So greatest ever? Probably not.
Remember in Superman II when Clark Kent gave up his superpowers so he could be with Lois Lane -- lesson No. 184 on how women ruin everything -- and then a bully beat the crap out of the suddenly mortal superhero in a diner? That's been Big Papi since Opening Day.
Remember when human beings could say what they meant or felt without using a pop culture analogy? That's not Bill Simmons, ever.
The steroid whispers started quickly. By late April, every conversation I had with a Sox fan seemed to include a "We need to mail Papi some HGH" joke. It was an easy leap for a couple of reasons: First, his power numbers leapt like Obama's Q rating from 2003 to 2007. Second, he's Dominican, and more than a few of his brethren -- Sammy Sosa, Miguel Tejada, Guillermo Mota -- have been in the center of PED controversies.
I am not saying that Big Papi is now or ever was on steroids. I am not saying that is why he is slumping this year. I don't have an idea of why he has dropped off so quickly and that is what is so puzzling. I will however dispute some of Bill's ideas. Also, if Ortiz was ever going to start using steroids, now would be a good time to start. The BoSox and my fantasy team could certainly use him.
We braced for Ortiz to be linked to a bombshell headline that began with the words "Former Sox Clubhouse Attendant … " But one thing nagged at me: He wasn't belting bombs that were dying at the warning track like so many other former 'roiders.
I don't even know how this is any type of proof of anything. If you ever need hyperbolic evidence, call Bill Simmons, he can give it to you. I have no idea what the trend is for the ball to do when an ex-steroider hits it, but I know the trend is not that the ex-steroider hits a proliferation of baseballs that go 385 feet instead of 410 feet. Every baseball player has hit a few balls that almost went out of the park but did not, that is neither proof of steroid use nor proof of no steroid use. It's proof the ball hit was not a home run.
I would not use this as proof that Ortiz was not a former 'roider. How about the fact he has never been linked or caught with them? That sounds better.
It reminded me of watching Jim Rice fall apart in the late '80s, when he lost bat speed overnight the way you and I lose a BlackBerry.
That's not even a great comparison. Rice did not fall off this quickly. He did not fall off this badly at the age of 36 in his last year and his decline seemed to be much more gradual than Ortiz's.
Ortizn also had a better run in the 2000's than Rice ever had, I just found that interesting. Rice was more consistent than Ortiz. (I look at Rice's numbers and can't help but wonder if he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame)
Look at the numbers:
Ortiz
Rice
This is an epic fall off. I can't think of another hitter that has fallen off so quickly and in such a dramatic fashion.
By mid-May, I was pondering another theory: Maybe Papi was older than he claimed. In Seth Mnookin's book Feeding the Monster, he recounts the story of how Boston nearly blew the chance to acquire Ortiz because they were concerned that he was much older than the media guide said.
Ah yes, the "Maybe my son is not using drugs, but all of his friends are" theory. It avoids any type of acceptance of a potential problem (like the departure of Manny), while still giving a possible reason for Ortiz's decline that is not Ortiz's fault and doesn't reflect poorly on him.
How many Latin players have been exposed for lying about their ages in the past few years? Hell, one of Papi's best friends -- Tejada -- was found to have cut two years off his birth certificate when he was 17, er, 19 … you get the point.
Yep. What else did one of Papi's best friends, Tejada, also lie about and get caught doing? Here's a hint, it begins with steroids. I find it interesting that Bill is willing to accept that Ortiz lied about his age like other Latin players, but is not willing to accept Ortiz lied about using steroids like other Latin players, and he bases this belief purely on the fact the balls he hits are not dying at the warning track.
Watching Papi flounder now, I'd believe he's really 36 or 37 (not 33) before I'd believe PEDs are responsible.
Of course he would. That's natural. Unfortunately there is no proof either way, but certainly no proof Ortiz lied about his age, while hardly any circumstantial proof of steroid use. All I know is that it could also be both. Yes, since Tejada lied about his age and steroids, Big Papi could do both as well.
Let's be honest, Ortiz did not always look to be in the best shape. I did not affectionately (or maybe not) call him Big Fatty for nothing. Maybe he's kind of hit his baseball wall. I don't have any good explanation really.
Some players hit their peaks at different ages. Jeff Failcouer hit his at age 22.
The fans are suffering just like he is. Only when he left 12 men on base against Anaheim on May 14 did I receive a slew of angry e-mails from back home, but even those tirades centered more around Terry Francona's steadfast refusal to drop Ortiz in the order.
That's actually anger directed at Ortiz because they would not have to drop him in the batting order if he did not suck. So yes, BoSox fans were indirectly mad at Francona for not dropping him in the order, but were really deflecting anger at Ortiz onto the manager.
Really, that's a tribute to what he means to his fans and how delightful it was to watch him play. His career might be over (notice I left the door open; I'm such a sap), but Ortiz has reached the highest level an athlete can reach: unequivocal devotion. Sox fans love him the same way you love an ailing family member. In the end, at his bleakest point, he's brought out the best of an entire fan base. He has inspired dignity and emotion and loyalty. The fans could have sped his demise (and saved a few games) by booing until Francona benched him. They didn't. How often does that happen?
As always, you Red Sox fans are the best. The world would give up without your constant loyalty to your players. You give me a reason to go on in my life. (Ok, I am done...sorry I had to do a little bit of that)
Barring a miraculous return of bat speed, he'll be benched or released soon. It'll hurt, and I'm going to feel bad.
At some point I am going to release him off my fantasy team. I still refuse to do it, and there he is sitting on the bench ranked around #1200 offensively and can only play the Utility position and I still have him there waiting for a big break out game.
-On his Twitter, Peter King responded to the question, "What is your fondest memory from the past 20 years, the one that you will tell your grandkids about with a big smile on," with this answer:
Hmmmm. Fondest memory of last 20 years ... Probably spending a week inside the Packers, seeing everything. that was fun. '95.
He is obsessed Brett Favre. It's actually not really funny and bordering on pathetic. He asks for more abuse about Favre than he actually gets. He asks for and deserves more.
Peter King finally put his MMQB-Tuesday up.
As you read this, NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith might still be assessing the damage in his Washington office after what can best be described as a bizarre fire in the bathroom adjacent to his office around 5 a.m.
I knew Lisa "Left-Eye" Lopes faked her death. This is further proof. (Anyone get it?)
One: Jack Donlan is not dead. That's a pretty big mistake, and I've apologized to Donlan, the longtime Management Council czar with the league, for killing him in the column.
I have no excuses for the screwup; it's just one of those things that happens when you don't check all your facts, and it's a good warning to me.
By the way, Jack Donlan, you are dead to Peter King. Just thought you may want to know about this.
Talk about not checking your facts. He wrote someone was dead who was alive. Maybe 20 years at SI was one month too long for Peter.
From Eric Batchelor of Acton, Mass.: "Hope you are still enjoying Boston! Last season Tom Brady didn't even play in the preseason; considering he's coming off knee surgery, do you expect him to play in a few games this year or do you think the Pats will sideline him until game one of the regular season and have him only participate in practice?''
This is an absolutely urgent question that must be answered immediately. Will Tom Brady play a couple series in an absolutely meaningless games that few diehard fans of the Patriots care about? Peter answers this question and ignores many other great questions, like mine. That irritates me.
I can tell you what Brady told me: He wants to play in the preseason, and he wants to play in the preseason badly.
Great, glad we know the answer to that. All Patriots fans can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing Brady will be playing in meaningless games. I can't tell you how happy I am that question got answered. Well, I can actually...1.2%.
Peter also defends Matt Millen as being a good announcer in this column. I remember Millen being a decent announcer, but I also remember him being an NFL official for one game, so my memory may be a little fuzzy. I really do remember him being an NFL official for a game or a half, something like that, before he got the idea of murdering the Detroit Lions team and fan base.
From Rich Eisen of Culver City, Calif. (and NFL Network): "Rumor has it SI will celebrate PKing's 20-year anny by making him the cover model on swimsuit issue.''
No comment. But my agent has been in negotiations with the Omar The Tentmaker Swimwear Group. That's the only statement I am free to make at this time.
As if his random shoutouts to people who we don't care about weren't enough, now Peter is relaying jokes he is making on his Twitter. More football, less bullshit please.
Michael K. of Jacksonville: "Great write-up on Austin Wood. In an age when pitch counts have major league managers pulling pitchers out of games when they are cruising and mowing down opposing hitters, this kid's performance is a rare thing. Are any MLB teams giving him a look?''
Michael K from Jacksonville, I agree that managers are too tender with their pitcher's arms, but his career high for pitches thrown was somewhere below 40 and he threw 169 pitches. That's like if Peter's record for running was one mile and he decided was going to go out and run four miles. Then he had to run again in two days. Remember this guy is a closer, not a starter. There is also an economic term called declining returns and that pertains to pitchers, which is why they tend to get pulled when they may look like they are cruising. I am not defending the babying of pitcher's but at a certain point a pitcher will quit dominating and a manager has to decide when that point will occur.
I would like to see Austin Wood throw 100 more pitches two-five days later and see what happens. I bet he will get lit up.
John Trent of Reno: "After reading your column today marking your 20 years with SI, it got me thinking about you and your writing career. What has always struck me about your writing is how you've never lost your sense of wonder, and your enjoyment of what you do (rarely, if ever, have you penned columns bemoaning the difficult travel, the 24/7 nature of reporting in the electronic age, or dealing with millionaire athletes who can be, as Al Michaels would say, "truculent" from time to time).
Are you fucking kidding me John, the Dumbass, from Reno? (Caps lock alert) EVERY SINGLE FUCKING WEEK PETER BITCHES ABOUT TRAVELING ACCOMODATIONS, THE TASTE OF COFFEE, HOW A HOTEL DOES NOT MAKE COFFEE EARLY ENOUGH FOR HIM, HOW MUCH SOAP IS IN THE HOTEL, WHAT KIND OF SHAMPOO IS AT A HOTEL, IF SOMEONE RUNS A STOP SIGN, OR 100 OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD THAT PISSES HIM OFF. HE HAS SPECIAL SECTIONS DEDICATED TO BITCHING ABOUT THIS STUFF. READ HIS COLUMNS AND DON'T BE A DUMB KISSASS.
John, does not read Peter's column. Peter complains about everything and criticizes restaurants performance serving food and pretty much anything else he doesn't like.
Last year, I was at a minor-league baseball game in Kannapolis, N.C., and sitting there on a hot summer night, I thought how great it was that my job allows me to go to places I'd almost certainly never go to, even places most people think, "Why'd you want to go there?'' Because it's there.
I am shocked he did not bitch about something at the game as well. Peter's sense of wonder often comes from complete and utter ignorance at the world. Many times people who have a childlike wonder have that wonder because they spend most of their time being so self involved they don't have a chance to notice that Drew Brees is good or that coffee can be better at a local chain.
Monday, June 1, 2009
29 comments MMQB Review: Peter Remembers When He Didn't Have To Work So Hard
It's Monday, which means we get Peter King's MMQB. We had better enjoy/dread it for the next couple of weeks because Peter will be taking a vacation soon and not writing his weekly MMQB. I will miss him during that time span, though I know we are going to get tons of stories of coffee related adventures and in-depth stories on conversations he had with people who we don't know. It's like talking to your grandparents all day about their friends, except worse, because at least your grandparents don't talk about Brett Favre all the time.
MMQB!
I have nothing new to report on those column favorites, Brett Favre and Mike Vick.
Thank you for reporting that you have nothing new to report on Brett Favre and Mike Vick. Apparently Peter works for ESPN now. Except he doesn't interrupt the regular scheduled program for a SportsCenter minute to tell us breaking news that there is no breaking news.
Give Drew Brees his props.
Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows it irritates me when sportswriters insist on pointing out great players or achievements by players that fans already know about, but the writer just assumes that because he/she doesn't pay attention to the player, then no one else knows about the player/achievement either. It pisses me off. Peter is assuming we all ignore Drew Brees' achievement like he tends to do.
No, you give Drew Brees props. I have given him props. I am not the one who put the Saints as the 24th best team in the league based solely on the reasoning Jeremy Shockey may not be healthy for all 16 games next year. Brees made Lance Moore a receiving threat, played a few games last year without his #1 receiver (or what seemed like ANY good receivers) and his team had a mediocre defense and he still almost broke Dan Marino's NFL passing yardage record and led the team to an 8-8 record. He was the team last year at times. Everyone who follows football understands this. Please don't tell everyone to give Drew Brees props because we are not the ones that are ignoring his achievements and acting as if Jeremy Shockey is the only receiving threat on that New Orleans team. I have given Brees props throughout his career, probably too many props. I told everyone who would listen I would take Brees over Vick in 2001 when they were in the draft together and also said I would trade Phillip Rivers and keep Brees if I were the Chargers. Not that those were correct decisions for the Chargers to make, but it seems as if Peter is one of the few not giving Brees props.
Go ahead and annoy me Peter with the information you have.
In the 89-year history of the National Football League, only one player has thrown for more yards in a three-year period than Brees has thrown for in his last three years. This is Drew Brees we're talking about, not any of the very famous quarterbacks I'm going to show you in this chart.
I don't need this information, I put Brees very high in the rankings of quarterbacks in the NFL. #2 in fact.
I know there are tons of people out there who think a lot of Brees, I just hate it when Peter King acts as if he telling everyone new information about Brees. We know he is good, I am glad he just noticed.
"It's just numbers,'' Brees said when I told him about this gaudy list on Friday. "It's not a very big deal. To be mentioned in the same breath with Marino, Elway and all those guys is a great honor. Wow. But in the grand scheme of things, we don't have the ring. One of the reasons nobody would know about those numbers is, look at our record. [The Saints are 25-23 in that period.]
I want to know how Peter presents these type of lists to players? Does he call them up and say, "Hey Drew, Peter King here. Did you know you are second over the last 3 years in passing yardage? Give me your response to that!"
MMQB!
I have nothing new to report on those column favorites, Brett Favre and Mike Vick.
Thank you for reporting that you have nothing new to report on Brett Favre and Mike Vick. Apparently Peter works for ESPN now. Except he doesn't interrupt the regular scheduled program for a SportsCenter minute to tell us breaking news that there is no breaking news.
Give Drew Brees his props.
Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows it irritates me when sportswriters insist on pointing out great players or achievements by players that fans already know about, but the writer just assumes that because he/she doesn't pay attention to the player, then no one else knows about the player/achievement either. It pisses me off. Peter is assuming we all ignore Drew Brees' achievement like he tends to do.
No, you give Drew Brees props. I have given him props. I am not the one who put the Saints as the 24th best team in the league based solely on the reasoning Jeremy Shockey may not be healthy for all 16 games next year. Brees made Lance Moore a receiving threat, played a few games last year without his #1 receiver (or what seemed like ANY good receivers) and his team had a mediocre defense and he still almost broke Dan Marino's NFL passing yardage record and led the team to an 8-8 record. He was the team last year at times. Everyone who follows football understands this. Please don't tell everyone to give Drew Brees props because we are not the ones that are ignoring his achievements and acting as if Jeremy Shockey is the only receiving threat on that New Orleans team. I have given Brees props throughout his career, probably too many props. I told everyone who would listen I would take Brees over Vick in 2001 when they were in the draft together and also said I would trade Phillip Rivers and keep Brees if I were the Chargers. Not that those were correct decisions for the Chargers to make, but it seems as if Peter is one of the few not giving Brees props.
Go ahead and annoy me Peter with the information you have.
In the 89-year history of the National Football League, only one player has thrown for more yards in a three-year period than Brees has thrown for in his last three years. This is Drew Brees we're talking about, not any of the very famous quarterbacks I'm going to show you in this chart.
I don't need this information, I put Brees very high in the rankings of quarterbacks in the NFL. #2 in fact.
I know there are tons of people out there who think a lot of Brees, I just hate it when Peter King acts as if he telling everyone new information about Brees. We know he is good, I am glad he just noticed.
"It's just numbers,'' Brees said when I told him about this gaudy list on Friday. "It's not a very big deal. To be mentioned in the same breath with Marino, Elway and all those guys is a great honor. Wow. But in the grand scheme of things, we don't have the ring. One of the reasons nobody would know about those numbers is, look at our record. [The Saints are 25-23 in that period.]
I want to know how Peter presents these type of lists to players? Does he call them up and say, "Hey Drew, Peter King here. Did you know you are second over the last 3 years in passing yardage? Give me your response to that!"
If so, I think that would annoy me if I were a pro football player.
It's beginning to look a lot like Stafford
Wow, he is doing a story on the Detroit Lions. They are not even close to the East Coast. Color me surprised.
"We've got two criteria for when Matthew will play,'' said Schwartz. "One is he'll play when he's ready. The second is when he's the best quarterback for us. But so far, whatever the opposite of buyers' remorse is, that's what we have.
The opposite of buyer's remorse is immediately wishing that you had bought something that you did not purchase. I don't know what that means for the Lions this upcoming year, but at least Matt Millen is not involved with the team anymore. I can't wait for Stafford to be a better quarterback than Mark Sanchez. It's not because I don't like the Jets, I just don't think Sanchez was a 1st round quarterback and such a to-do was made of his arriving in New York.
One was about a 2009 inductee, Randall McDaniel, a former teammate of Zimmerman's...He should have been a first-ballot guy. Which Zimmerman, who played with McDaniel in Minnesota, did. And then he said: "He's not only the strongest man I've ever seen. But he used to challenge defensive backs to races for $100, and they wouldn't take him up on it. If they did, he would have smoked them all.
I realize Randall McDaniel was a great player and may deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but the fact he was strong and could run really fast is not two great criteria that should help put him in there. Mike Mamula would make the HoF based on that criteria.
He was a phenomenal football player.''
More importantly, he was strong and could run fast though. Way more importantly, what the hell were the Vikings doing with defensive backs that could lose a foot race to a Guard? I think reflects much more poorly on the defensive backs than it reflects well on McDaniel.
Happy Anniversary to me.
(The sound of Peter tooting his own horn begins)
But the current cover, the June 1, 2009 edition of the mag with Tom Brady on the front and my story inside, is one I'll keep.
Because it has like 3 super sexy pictures of Tom Brady's chiseled face?
Because that date --today -- is my 20th anniversary at the magazine.
Congratulations. I would buy Peter a cake, but I have a feeling he may have one or five in the fridge already.
I think back to when I was hired, and I remember thinking what a plum job this was.
Oh, and Peter, it still is a plum job. Don't ever forget that. There are thousands of journalism majors who would hold your sweet little (maybe not little) daughters hostage for your job.
Mulvoy told me I'd be responsible for some NFL stories in the offseason, and maybe a story or two in other sports, but I'd be able to enjoy the offseason. In the first couple of years, I bet I had 10 weeks in the offseason when I didn't have an assignment, including vacation. What a life! No TV, a little radio, no internet, no cell phones.
Holy crap! If Peter had known he would have had to work all year long, he would have taken that job at the landfill instead. If anyone ever wonders why these old time journalists are always on television bitter, angry, and hate blogs, this is why. Many journalists used to not work 10 weeks of the year, at least the football journalists did not. They could ignore news that was occurring because no one else had access to the news, but now they have to work harder because information is readily available. Damn Internet! I would be pissed off too if my well paid 40 weeks a year job became a full time job. No one went to journalism school to get a full time job.
I wrote my "Inside the NFL'' column for the magazine each week during the season, and maybe six or eight times each offseason.
That still sounds about right. I know Jim Trotter and other columnists write this every week for SI now, along with Peter. I am not even sure if Peter does 6 or 8 in an offseason any more.
That's how this mayhem began. I started out as a sportswriter. Now I'm a sportswriter who does the NBC "Football Night in America'' show, a radio gig (Sirius NFL Radio) one or two mornings a week, a few other talk shows around the country, and multiple columns for SI.com.
Impressed with ourselves much?
The other day, Mike Florio of profootballtalk.com made a great point about the difference between Mike Vick coverage during his possible return to football in 2009 and the coverage of Leonard Little's return to football in 1999. Little got 90 days in jail for vehicular manslaughter while being more than two times over the legal limit for alcohol, and he was suspended by the NFL for eight games. Florio's point was that if that happened today, the court in Missouri would have gotten ripped to shreds for a relatively light sentence (it also included 1,000 hours of community service and four years' probation),
Uh oh, here's my soapbox. This is absolutely true. I would have personally ripped that court to shreds on this blog and 10 people would have read it. The effect would have been thundering.
Whatever happened to those four years probation? Didn't Little get picked up for DUI again? I guess you can still plead down from DUI and it won't affect your probation...which I, of course, think is stupid.
I think in some ways we beat horses 'til they're long past dead today. In some cases, the pressure to be first causes those of us in the news business to react too quickly. The Boston Herald's false Spygate report comes to mind. That concerns me.
(Coughing) Brett Favre and anything related to him is another good example. (It was a long cough)
"I think he has been a great flamboyant quarterback, but he has made more stupid plays than any great quarterback I have ever seen.''
--Tarkenton, lobbing another bomb toward southern Mississippi.
The ironic part about Tarkenton't quotes is that he was not ever a saint himself in Minnesota. If I am not wrong I think this quote from Wikipedia describes someone very well. Guess who it is...
He was also known to heave the ball deep on third and long with no regard to an interception. He stated this was due to the great defense they had.
Whose Wikipedia page is this? Tarkenton's. Sounds to me as if though I agree with Tarkenton's assessment, he may be the old man calling the veteran out for the same things he did.
Now Peter writes a page long story on Austin Wood who pitched 12 1/3 innings of no-hit baseball, which is a wonderful feat. Not necessarily deserving of 25% of the space in a Monday football column, but still exciting and wonderful. He replaced the starter in the 7th inning and then threw 169 pitches. Yes, this guy is the closer for Texas and he pitched 169 pitches...and no Dusty Baker was not the manager of the Longhorns team.
Again, I am not a big fan of pitch counts but I think this guy needed to be taken out at some point.
Wood started cramping severely around the 15th.
It's not like the bullpen was tired or anything, this guy replaced the starter in the game. There were other pitchers available.
Before he went out for the 17th, Wood adjourned to the locker room and threw up violently because he'd been drinking too much too fast.
"Did you think you'd be too sick to go back out?'' I asked.
"Oh, I wasn't coming out of that game,'' he said.
I understand he doesn't want to come out of the game and all......but he is vomiting and cramping. It may be time to get someone warmed up.
That was Wood's 163rd pitch. Usually he'd throw between 10 and 30 in an outing. Never, ever in his high school or college career had he gone this far in a game, thrown this many pitches.
Doesn't this sound slightly irresponsible to anyone else on the Texas coaching staff's part?
Wood said, "but I couldn't believe how good I felt. My arm felt great. I wasn't sick, even though I threw up. But my body felt great, my arm felt great.''
Yes, because everyone knows after a good hard workout you immediately become sore. He should know the pain is going to come a few days later, if there is any pain. I wonder how he felt 2 days later?
Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me
When Brett Favre has thrown this spring to high school receivers near his Sumrall, Miss., home, one of the wideouts has been a 6-foot-1, 195-pound Division I prospect with Ole Miss, Mississippi State and Louisville chasing him. Pretty good pedigree too. The wide receiver in question: Steve McNair Jr., the son the former MVP quarterback.
I thought Peter had no Brett Favre news? He just had to mention something about Favre or else he would go through withdrawal. This man is obsessed with Brett Favre.
1. I think these are my three opinions about Anquan Boldin likely changing his agent from firebrand Drew Rosenhaus to the less-confrontational Creative Artists Agency, with Tom Condon and Ben Dogra:
c. Absolute gut feeling: Boldin stays in Arizona and gets a new deal done, quietly, around Halloween. Kurt Warner rejoices.
This is why Peter gets paid the big bucks...for his gut feelings. So Boldin fires the agent that was playing hard ball with the Cardinals, the one who was looking into trades, and was ignoring the fact Boldin wanted to stay with the Cards...and Peter thinks this may mean Boldin wants to stay in Arizona. Gosh, what gives you that impression Peter, other than common sense of course?
Usually when a team fires its head coach, it means it wants to change the direction of the franchise, so in a similar situation Boldin wanted to change the direction of the negotiations, so he fired Rosenhaus. Maybe I am being a smart ass but it seems to me like he is wanting to stay in Arizona and will. I did not have to dig too deep to come to this conclusion.
5. I think I wouldn't be bothered so much by the news of Eric Mangini sending his rookie class on a 10-hour bus ride to Hartford to work at his weekend football camp for underprivileged kids -- if he and his coaches hadn't flown there.
This is the same Eric Mangini that Peter believes will give Joshua Cribbs a new contract halfway through his current contract. He's like Bill Parcells, except moderately incompetent.
Peter is probably just pissed off that Mangini did not donate anything to Dr. Z's foundation and yet he had time to help out underprivileged children. I don't think Mangini understands. Dr. Z can't talk and we need to get him back to where he can talk and interact again. Fuck little underprivileged children. If Mangini has time to get a plane to help underprivileged children, he certainly had time to help a foundation whose sole purpose was to help an 76 year old man get expensive therapy to overcome a stroke, while ignoring all other stroke victims.
I think that is why Peter is really mad.
The bottom line, though, is a coach shouldn't enlist people who he barely knows to go work a camp for him, even if the camp is a tremendous idea, which it is.
Peter probably thinks a better camp idea would be a camp entirely funded for one underprivileged child that he knows well and ignoring the other underprivileged children in the country.
7. I think I have nothing new to report on your favorite newsmakers, Brett Favre and Michael Vick.
Yes, this is the second time that Peter has stated he has no information on either of these players. We get it.
b. You tell me the World Baseball Classic isn't kryptonite for Daisuke Matsuzaka. Since winning the WBC MVP, Matsuzaka has started four games for the Red Sox. Innings: 16.1. Hits: 29. Walks: 10. That's 2.4 baserunners per inning.
d. So Jason Varitek hit a ball into the right-center-field upper deck, about six rows from the top of the Metrodome, on Thursday. One of the longest balls I've ever seen hit. And the Twins came out and said it was a 427-foot homer. I said on Twitter, if it is, then I'm Bud Selig. So I get this link back from a homer-run-measuring site, Hit Tracker (yes, there is really a home-run measuring site, from the looks of it), with the real-deal measurement of 452 feet. I trust the math in here far more than I trust the Metrodome's measurers. Check it out:
f. Nothing personal, Rance. But Rance Mulliniks' middle name should be "Statingtheobvious.'' Mulliniks also informed the New England audience Sunday that Nick Green, one of the offending shortstops, was a "young rookie.'' This is Green's fifth year getting big-league at-bats, with his fifth team. NESN might want to make it mandatory that the analysts it has subbing for the ailing Jerry Remy actually have heard of the players in the starting lineup.
Anyone looking for a Red Sox update? Fred or Ivn? If so, here you go.
e. Saturday was the third time in two weeks that a shaky play or error by the shortstop played a huge role in a Red Sox loss. Either Jed Lowrie is going to be ready in about 10 minutes, or they'd better trade a real prospect for Omar Vizquel.
Yes, trade a "real prospect" for this guy. It doesn't matter that Vizquel is not currently available, if the Red Sox demand him, Peter thinks the Rangers have to give him up. I would like to know what a "real prospect" can be defined as.
c. Mariano Rivera is not only the greatest relief pitcher of all time, but also one of the 10 best pitchers of all time. What an amazing specimen and competitor.
Really? I have a lot of respect for closers but I don't know if I can go this far. I would like to pretend that I can and Rivera is a great closer, but top 10 best pitchers of all time? I don't know how I feel about closers in regard to putting even the best one in that category. It feels a bit much for me.
i. You go, Daniel Schlereth. The son of ESPN's Mark Schlereth, the former Bronco and 'Skin guard, made his major-league debut as a lefty reliever for Arizona Friday night in Phoenix, getting the Braves out 1-2-3 (Brian McCann, Garret Anderson, Casey Kotchman) Friday night with a very nervous dad in attendance, then followed it up with a second shutout inning Sunday.
You get zero credit for getting out Anderson and the next shutout inning was Failcouer, Jordan Schafer, and a pinch hitter. I could get at least three of those guys out. I just don't want this kid to get too full of himself. Many people have gotten those three guys out this year.
I am going to send another question to Peter this week. I just have to think about it. I am determined to have him answer my question, and I want him to get an attitude with me. I will probably fail again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)