Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« May 2011 | Main | July 2011 »

June 30, 2011

A Cut Above the Rest

To be honest, there's not a ton of college basketball news to dive into when June turns into July. The NBA draft is over and done. The coaching carousel has ground to a halt. It'll be three-plus months before Midnight Madness even takes place. So, at this spot on the calendar, there's plenty of time to reflect.

I was thinking about doing a column regarding the ambiance of some of the older arenas in the sport, comparing them to the majesty of Fenway Park, Soldier Field, and Madison Square Garden. But then life (or, on a more accurate note, death) intervened. On Monday, former NC State forward Lorenzo Charles was killed after crashing the tour bus he was driving in Raleigh, NC.

The 50-plus hours since the news broke, many have shared their memories and condolences about the man who would become known for cementing one of the biggest upsets in NCAA championship history. I want to join in on what this circumstance means to me on the whole.

Everyone who is a fan of the sport remembers the night of April 4th, 1983. The Houston Cougars were a heavy favorite over NC State. Phi Slama Jama showed as much by jumping to a late lead in the second half before the Wolfpack pulled off a "Hoosiers"-esque comeback by ratcheting up the defense. With the last few seconds ticking off the clock, and the score tied at 52, Dereck Whittenburg hurled a 30-foot jumper toward the rim. One airball and one well-positioned teammate later, one of the most indelible moments of the tournament's history stood in Charles' sneakers.

I was three on the night of this fantastic finish. I was about eight years away from really starting to get into and understand college basketball as a whole. But as I grew in my love of the game, I remember watching CBS telecasts which started off with several magical moments of tournament lore. One of those, of course, showed Jim Valvano leaping around the court on the strength of Charles' dunk.

Now, closing in on the 30th anniversary of that championship, the key spark plug in the celebration is gone. It was the signature moment of the forward's career. He never really made a name for himself in his two years in the NBA. But for eternity, he's linked with the greatest moments in sports. Matter of fact, in my humble opinion, this is the best game-winning moment in my lifetime.

Hold up, you say. The best? Really? In all the nail-biting, heart-pounding, nerve-fraying moments in the lexicon of sports over the last 30 years, this is the one you choose?

Simply put ... nyes.

So what are some of the elements that help me arrive at that point? We'll work our way through all the bullet points.

The timing of the situation was impeccable. As with any buzzer-beater, the drama was intensified. Time plays a huge factor in building tension. Whether it's Phil Mickelson passing Ernie Els on the 18th hole of the 2004 Masters, the Lakers' Derek Fisher hitting a shot with 0.4 seconds against the Spurs that same year, or Adam Vinatieri splitting the uprights as time expires to give New England their first Super Bowl title in 2002, an instant flash of pressure can lead to a moment etched in memory.

Speaking of flash ... the brief brush with destiny made the story more alluring. As I said earlier, Charles did not have a bigger bucket in his career than that one at Albuquerque's Pit. After his two years in the Association with the Atlanta Hawks, Lorenzo became a journeyman in Europe. The fact that he was on the end of history might rank up there with Mike Jones, whose tackle on the one-yard line secured the Vince Lombardi Trophy for the St. Louis Rams in 2000.

Even though that bright light flashed on the Wolfpack forward, Charles wasn't the most likely hero. That honor basically belonged to Whittenburg, who led the team in scoring for the tourney. But on a team, everyone can play the winning role, just like Aaron Boone did with his walk-off homer to win the 2003 AL Pennant for the Yankees and Francisco Cabrera proved with a winning single that gave the Braves the 1992 NL Pennant.

In many cases, the best moments come from the "least" of teams. NC State needed to win the ACC tournament to even make the Big Dance. They did that, then ran with it to the NCAA Final as a six-seed. Houston's high-flying act of Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler was supposed to run Charles and his teammates out of the gym. But the contrast in styles ended and turning State's way at the end, which led to the comeback. It was a comeback reminiscent of two impressive runs made by the Dallas Mavericks during this year's championship run.

And although this year's Mavs weren't the favorites to win the title. They weren't near the underdogs that NC State was. The Wolfpack is actually in the class of those 2002 Patriots, the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks who beat the Yankees on a Luis Gonzalez single in Game 7, and, of course, the 1985 Villanova squad that shocked Georgetown 66-64.

As far as a singular moment, that play separated itself from the rest of the game in "wow!" factor. The game itself seemed like a fantastic test of will, but it may not have been the best display of basketball. If you're looking for the best game in recent NCAA memory, that would have to be the 1992 East Regional Final between Duke and Kentucky. However, Christian Laettner's buzzer-beating jumper came in the Elite Eight.

You could also say that the 1982 Championship between Georgetown and North Carolina was a better game. However (again), the last play of the game wasn't Michael Jordan's make. Georgetown had a chance to win before Fred Brown threw the ball away to James Worthy. And this leads me to my next point...

... This was for the end-all, be-all. Like Vinatieri's kick at the gun in '02, a missed opportunity meant overtime. But any borrowed time might run out against the Greatest Show on Turf and Phi Slama Jama. So the importance of ending all hope was crucial. It lifts those games above Joe Carter's World Series walk-off home run in 1993 due to the fact the Carter hit his blast in Game 6. The 1983 NCAA title game had everything on the line that night. Heck, the only other moment I can compare it to would be Charlotte Smith hitting the winning three at the horn to lift the UNC Lady Tar Heels to their only women's basketball crown in 1994.

So, let's take all the shots, kicks, putts, hits, and rallies that have made big-time sports so enjoyable over the last 30-plus years. The reason we can push them all behind Lorenzo Charles' sensational play comes down to one simple fact.

It was a putback. That's right. It wasn't a shot. It was a rebound ... of an airball. It was basically the Immaculate Reception of collegiate dunks. To have the headiness to stay in the right position for the rebound, catch the ball with one second left, and then jam it home says a lot about the moment.

To the family of Mr. Charles, I send my condolences. To the fans of Mr. Charles, I send my heartfelt jealousy that I could not witness, as it happened, the greatest game winner of my lifetime. And to Mr. Charles himself, thanks for providing a memory that will last forever in the annals of sport.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 6:39 PM | Comments (0)

2011 CFL Preview

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you are looking to have your football appetite whetted during the offseason, your best bet is the CFL. NFL Europa is no more, and I continue to maintain that arena football is some other sport. Some nigh-on-unwatchable sport. The upstart United Football League is a contender, and being a fan of fringe sports and leagues, I might do a preview of that, as well, but their season starts during the NFL preseason and runs largely concurrently with the NFL.

The CFL game is wide-open, with a longer, wider field and only three downs. This, of course, makes the league quite pass-heavy, which in turn sets up the run. You've probably heard about the other big differences between the Canadian and American games (12 men on the field vs. 11, sacrificing a point on touchbacks, etc.), so I won't belabor them.

It's easier than ever to watch the CFL stateside this year: for the second year in a row, all games, every one, will be on ESPN3.com, and the NFL Network will show a handful of games until the NFL season gets rolling.

Here is a team-by-team breakdown of the 2011 CFL:

Eastern Division

Montreal Alouettes

Last year: 12-6

Former college stars/NFL washouts you might be familiar with: QB Adrian McPherson, RB Dahrran Diedrick, WR Dallas Baker

The Alouettes have something of a dynasty going. They have won the last two Grey Cups and have appeared in eight of the last 11. They have also taken eight of the last 11 Eastern Division titles.

Of course, dynasties are only possibly with a peerless quarterback, and the Als have one in Anthony Calvillo, the greatest quarterback you've never heard of. He's second all-time in CFL career passing yards and seems set to break the record for career touchdown passes this year. Last year, at age 38, he still managed to put together a remarkable 32/7 TD/INT ratio and garnered a QB rating of 108.1 As he is still superstar caliber despite his age, it will be interesting to see how long he can maintain solid-starter status.

Toronto Argonauts

Last year: 9-9

Former college stars/NFL washouts you might be familiar with: QB Cleo Lemon, WR Jeremaine Copeland

One of the reasons Montreal has been able to win so many Eastern Division titles recently is the rest of the division has been lacking. Toronto has perhaps the proudest history of any team in the CFL this side of Edmonton, with 15 Grey Cups, but have won just 17 out of 56 games in the last three seasons. Last year's 9-9 mark was a big step in the right direction.

Hamilton Tiger-Cats

Last year: 9-9

Former college stars/NFL washouts you might be familiar with: RB Avon Cobourne, QB Quinton Porter

The Ti-Cats are another team taking steps in the right direction, after spending many, many years as the laughingstock of the league. I always enjoy watching their home games, as their field announcer (I don't know his name) sounds just like Randy "Macho Man" Savage; may he rest in peace.

Winnipeg Blue Bombers

Last year: 4-14

Former college stars/NFL washouts you might be familiar with: WR Terrence Edwards, LB Merrill Johnson

It is the Blue Bombers that have replaced Hamilton and Toronto as the dregs of the East. Part of the problem is they just got old: they were dominant in the early part of the decade with future CFL HOFers Milt Stegall, Charles Roberts, and Khari Jones. When they moved on, no one electrifying came in to replace them.

Western Division

Calgary Stampeders

Last year: 13-5

Former college stars/NFL washouts you might be familiar with: QB Michael Bishop, QB Drew Tate, WR Ken-Yon Rambo

I remember a 2002 NFL Sunday Night game between the Chicago Bears and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The Bucs were gunning for, and got, their first every victory where the game time temperature was under 40 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Bears' starting quarterback that day was abysmal. I just remember how lost he looked out there, and I just looked up the box score on him: 7-19, 0 touchdowns, 4 interceptions.

Hard to believe that same quarterback (who was also the starter for Temple during some of their most hapless years) is now a CFL superstar starting over the "names" I listed above. He is Henry Burris, last year's Most Outstanding Player in the league. The Stamps are the toughest team in the toughest division.

Saskatchewan Roughriders

Last year: 10-8

Former college stars/NFL washouts you might be familiar with: QB Terrelle Pryor (maybe), QB Ryan Dinwiddie, QB Darian Durant

Saskatchewan had a fairly non-notable history up until the last few years. In 2007, they won their first Grey Cup since 1989 and their third ever. They came back to the Grey Cup in 2009 and 2010 and lost to Montreal both times. They might take a step back this year with the loss of one of the league's most valuable Canadians ("non-imports," in the league's parlance), wide receiver Andy Fantuz, who has joined the Chicago Bears.

British Columbia Lions

Last year: 8-10

Former college stars/NFL washouts you might be familiar with: QB Jarious Jackson, DB Anthony Reddick

The Lions were the team to beat around the time I started paying attention to the CFL: In the 2006 and 2007 seasons, they went a combined 29-9-1 and won a Grey Cup. They haven't managed a winning record in the last two seasons, however. They might get a boost this year with the re-opening of their normal home after a year of renovations, BC Place, the only domed stadium in the CFL.

Edmonton Eskimos

Last year: 7-11

Former college stars/NFL washouts you might be familiar with: G Patrick Kabongo, WR Brandon James

In what's considered the CFL's modern era, 1949-present, the Esks are the most decorated franchise, with 13 Grey Cup championships. But like BC, they've slipped in recent years, just a tad, along with their longtime quarterback, Ricky Ray. Ray led Edmonton to a Grey Cup win 2005, but last year threw 11 touchdown passes against 16 interceptions.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 1:32 PM | Comments (0)

June 29, 2011

Tennis Has No Need For a Leading Lady

A lot is made of the fact that women's tennis lacks big names that consistently come to the fore. Is this, however, a bad thing? For attracting new fans, or even keeping the interest of casual ones, it is a drawback. There isn't a Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal, with the possible exception of Maria Sharapova, though that's got more to do with her "brand" than performances over the last couple of years.

Last week, fellow writer Mert Ertunga wrote an article stating that he couldn't see anything other than the top four men's tennis players reaching the semifinals. At the time of writing this, they are all on course to do so. The problem is that it is too predictable. Yes, the calibre of tennis is usually incredibly high when those four meet and they are sometimes pushed in the earlier rounds, but ultimately you expect them to come through.

Now on the women's side, you don't have that same confidence. At the start of Wimbledon, the four favorites at the bookmakers were Sharapova, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, and Caroline Wozniacki. Only one of whom remains at the quarterfinal stage. Has that detracted from the tournament? No, it has enhanced it.

On the men's side there are, realistically, four challengers for the title, whilst on the women's side, there are countless contenders. Yet all you hear from pundits is how women's tennis is going through a bad period. The simple fact is that you don't need superstars for the product to be interesting.

On the second Monday alone, the women's side produced some fascinating storylines. Serena Williams was beaten by Marion Bartoli in an encounter that often produced good tennis, but even when the standard of play dropped, it was still enthralling viewing. The reason why it was so gripping is that you had the sense that Bartoli could do something special. When Mikhail Youzhny went a set up against Roger Federer, you never had that sense. Deep down, you knew Federer would come back. Part of this feeling stems from the fact that women only play three sets, therefore an upset it more likely.

Elsewhere, there was another upset as Venus Williams was ousted by a fine performance by Tsetvana Pironkova and the world No. 1, Wozniacki, once again failed in her quest to win her first major title. She lost to Dominika Cibulkova. Some of the names in the quarterfinals may not be too familiar to some people, especially world No. 80, Tamira Paszek. Paszek was involved in one of the matches of the tournament against Francesca Schiavone in third round. Paszek won the final set 11-9 in match that lasted nearly four hours.

Though some of them may not be familiar to some people that doesn't mean that they won't be soon. The men who are successful tend to be in their mid-to-late-20s, whereas the women who are leading the way are younger. They are aged 20-24-years-old. There are some exceptions, like Li Na, Francesca Schiavone, and Marion Bartoli, who have all taken a little longer to mature as players.

The point is that instead of bemoaning unpredictability it is time to embrace it because we don't know how long it will last. Future stars like Petra Kvitova and Victoria Azarenka could go on to dominate the game and if they do, some people will complain about the same people always winning.

Posted by Luke Broadbent at 1:20 PM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 16

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Carl Edwards — Edwards, who skipped Saturday's Nationwide race in Wisconsin, finished third in the Toyota/Save Mart 350, posting his best ever finish at Sonoma. Edwards increased his lead in the point standings, and now leads Kevin Harvick by 25.

"I knew it would be wise to stay and concentrate on Sonoma," Edwards said. "And Jack Roush was in agreement. In fact, he's been begging me to 'stay' for weeks now. I'm in my final year of my contract with Roush Fenway Racing. If I don't get the money I deserve, then Roush Fenway will hear me say what you'd expect the guy who's led the points standings nearly all year say: 'watch me go.'"

2. Kevin Harvick — Harvick started 26th at Sonoma and recovered from a mid-race accident before fighting his way to a finish of ninth, taking his ninth top-10 finish of the year. He remained second in the point standings, and trails Carl Edwards by 25.

"First of all," Harvick said, "I'd like to thank our sponsor, Rheem Tankless Water Heaters. We surely don't want them called 'Rheem Thankless Water Heaters. But the No. 29 Richard Childress Chevrolet wasn't the only thing 'reamed' at Sonoma. There was lot of 'bad blood' out there, and I'm not talking about the bonds of kinship that link those blasted Busch brothers. Tony Stewart and Brian Vickers smacked each other around, leaving the rear of Stewart's No. 14 elevated on a tire barrier. Vickers may hear from NASCAR about that. If so, it will be the first time a driver will be fined for another car's rear end being too high."

3. Kyle Busch — Busch finished a solid 11th in the Toyota/Save Mart 350 as big brother Kurt drove to a decisive victory. Kyle fell one spot to fifth in the point standings, 37 behind Carl Edwards.

"For once this year," Busch said, "Kurt drove like a maniac instead of acting like one. The No. 22 Penske Dodge was unstoppable out front. I'm sure Kurt appreciated the clean air on the track as much as his team appreciated the 'clean air' on their radio frequency. Understandably, the 'curse' of Kurt Busch can only be lifted by a win.

"As for my finish, I'm satisfied. Or, to put it in terms that are rarely spoken by either of the Busch brothers, 'I can't complain.'"

4. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson joined Hendrick Motorsports teammate Jeff Gordon in the top 10 at Sonoma, finishing seventh to Gordon's runner-up result. Johnson, who won last year at Sonoma, jumped two places in the Sprint Cup point standings to third, and trails Carl Edwards by 33.

"I enjoy racing in 'Wine Country,'" Johnson said. "Someday, like Jeff Gordon, I hope to offer my own brand of fine wines, produced at my winery that will be called 'Wynasty.'

5. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt was one of seven cars collected in a lap 37 pile-up started when Tony Stewart spun Brian Vickers in turn 11. The damage left a hole in the radiator of the No. 88 Amp Energy/National Guard Chevrolet was serious, and Earnhardt limped home with his first DNF of the year, finishing 41st.

"What caused our downfall?" Earnhardt asked. "Was it a hole, or a-holes? Hopefully, that's the end of my involvement in the Tony Stewart/Brian Vickers feud. I though Red Bull was leaving NASCAR. Apparently, not without a fight."

6. Kurt Busch — Busch led 76 of 110 laps in the Toyota/Save Mart 350, scoring his first career road course victory with a dominating performance at Sonoma. Busch beat Jeff Gordon by four seconds, and improved three spots in the Sprint Cup point standings to fourth, and now trails Carl Edwards by 34.

"That was a major butt-whooping," Busch said, "and I agree with everyone who's been saying that's exactly what I've needed this year. Hopefully, this will be a harbinger of more good things to come. We've been wildly inconsistent this year.It's been either tirade or parade.

"I'd like to thank my team for their hard work and perseverance. I believe they wanted this even more than I did. Not a win, mind you, but something that would finally shut me up."

7. Jeff Gordon — Gordon stayed on the track during a caution with 20 laps to go, going from 20th to 8th before a dash to the checkers that gave him the runner-up finish at Sonoma. It was Gordon's third top-five finish in the last five races, and boosted him three spots in the point standings to ninth.

"I'm pleased with our finish here," Gordon said. "But I have to admit, I had a lot more fun racing Kurt Busch last year as opposed to Sunday. I got a big kick, as well as a big punt, from being behind Kurt last year."

8. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth was running 13th, up from his qualifying position of 26th, on lap 65 when he was tagged from behind by Joey Logano in the No. 20 Home Depot car. The spin dropped Kenseth back to 35th, and he gamely battled back to finish 14th. He remained sixth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 52 out of first.

"Not only was Logano's move childish," Kenseth said, "it was also child-ish. As such, and given my non-confrontational style, I shall handle the situation with 'kid gloves.'"

9. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin was rear-ended by A.J. Allmendinger's No. 43 Ford on lap 43, the contact from which was later determined to have damaged the track bar on Hamlin's No. 11 FedEx Freight Toyota. Hamlin resigned to the garage for repairs and finished 37th, completing only 99 of 110 laps.

"We had the car to challenge Kurt Busch," Hamlin said. "That is, until the bottom fell out, so to speak. Allmendinger may drive for Richard Petty, but his actions on Sunday surely weren't fit for a king. In fact, A.J. is 'STuPid.' There was a lot of talk about road course ringers, but no one warned me about road course 'Dingers.' So Allmendinger gets the road course finger."

10. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer finished fourth at Sonoma, posting his third top-five finish this year. It was Bowyer's best result this year, and he improved two places in the Sprint Cup point standings to eight.

"As you know," Bowyer said, "my RCR teammate Jeff Burton will be taking NFL star Chad Ochocinco for some laps around Atlanta Motor Speedway on Thursday. Hopefully, this ride will last more than the 1.5 second bull ride Ochocinco took earlier this year. I think Jeff is really looking forward to this, and I expect he'll get a lot from the experience, but not a word in edgewise."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:41 AM | Comments (0)

June 28, 2011

TSP Over Replacement

Last month, I wrote about Total Statistical Production (TSP), a stat-based rating system for basketball players. Two weeks ago, I wrote about using the system to effectively evaluate multiple seasons and careers. If you haven't read those pieces yet, go check them out now, or this one won't make any sense.

Total Statistical Production is intended to evaluate individual player seasons. Because of its emphasis on floor time and production, though, it is not ideal for analyzing careers. TSP compares a player to zero, so anything that is not zero (or negative) improves his score. If a player could somehow go 48 minutes and pull down one rebound without compiling any other statistics, he would have a positive score for that game.

TSP2 (explained last week) adds two extra steps to emphasize peak performance and per-minute production. It is a useful and effective method for evaluating players over multiple seasons. However, it gets away from the linear weights model by bringing in per-minute numbers (TSP/MP). TSP2 is guessing in a way that the original formula wasn't. It comes up with numbers that make sense and says, "This is close enough." Usually, it is. But there's an alternative.

The other method involves replacement value — if this guy wasn't on the floor, what kind of production would his team be getting instead? Statheads in every sport struggle in trying to define replacement value. In the NBA, sixth, seventh, and eighth men typically average between 0.0017 and 0.0018 TSP/MP, but most sixth men are pretty good, and at 0.0017 whole teams would rank below replacement level. Even a standard of 0.0015 TSP/MP still rates many decent players as "below replacement level", like they should be D-League. Last season, the Nets collectively averaged less than 0.0015 TSP/MP. I realize the Nets were awful, but replacing them with the UConn Huskies or the Maine Red Claws wasn't going to improve the situation.

Let's set 0.00125 TSP/MP as replacement level. Almost no one with significant playing time is so inefficient. With this figure in place, we can reward a player for the value he provides on the floor, using this formula: (TSP/MP - 0.00125) * MP. Take Total Statistical Production per Minute Played minus Replacement Value, and multiply the result by the player's minutes. We'll call this statistic TSPOR (tee-spore), Total Statistical Production Over Replacement. Here's how it works, using Derrick Rose's 2010-11 season as an example. Rose's TSP/MP was just under 0.0023, and he played 3,026 minutes. So our math is (0.0023 - 0.00125) * 3,026 = 3.14. Rose's value was 3.14 TSP over replacement. This is roughly equivalent to 314 points Rose gave the Bulls compared to a D-League player. The full top 10 for the 2010-11 regular season:

1. Kevin Love, 4.99
2. LeBron James, 4.81
3. Dwight Howard, 4.70
4. Chris Paul, 4.55
5. Pau Gasol, 4.50
6. Dwyane Wade, 3.71
7. Zach Randolph, 3.65
8. Blake Griffin, 3.60
9. Kevin Durant, 3.52
10. Al Horford, 3.49

In making the case for TSPOR, one of the things I feel like I need to do is show that it produces reasonable results. They needn't conform exactly to conventional wisdom — and in fact probably shouldn't, or the stat doesn't tell us anything we don't already know — but they shouldn't show anything ridiculous. Let's start by looking at the top players of the past few decades. For rating multiple seasons, we still need a way to emphasize peak performance, so let's square the value of each individual year, just like we did with TSP2. Thus, when we calculate Love's career TSPOR, his 2010-11 is valued at 24.9. The best regular-season players of the 1980s, according to TSPOR:

1. Magic Johnson, 303
2. Larry Bird, 287
3. Michael Jordan, 274
4. Charles Barkley, 218
5. Moses Malone, 199
6. Hakeem Olajuwon, 174
7. Alex English, 147
8. Robert Parish, 140
9. Clyde Drexler, 132
10. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 131

I've written this before, but one of my favorite things about TSP is that it doesn't require a positional adjustment. It's not biased toward rebounds, so it's fair to everyone, not just big men. The top five players on this list give you an all-star team: Magic at point, Jordan playing the two position, Bird the three, Barkley at power forward, and Malone at center.

The 11th-15th ranked players of the '80s: John Stockton, Kevin McHale, Fat Lever, Larry Nance, Adrian Dantley. That all seems pretty reasonable to me. The list leans toward the latter part of the decade, but that's largely because the 1984 rookie class included Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon, and Stockton, all of whom are top-five all-time at their positions. The 1990s:

1. David Robinson, 298
2. Karl Malone, 258
3. John Stockton, 214
4. Michael Jordan, 213
5. Shaquille O'Neal, 200
6. Hakeem Olajuwon, 195
7. Charles Barkley, 179
8. Scottie Pippen, 123
9. Gary Payton, 108
10. Shawn Kemp, 98

Next five: Patrick Ewing, Clyde Drexler, Dikembe Mutombo, Horace Grant, Reggie Miller. Note that while Jordan doesn't rate at the top of either decade, he's near the top of the list for both the '80s and the '90s. Barkley and Olajuwon also make the top 10 of both lists. The next group shows TSPOR leaders from 2000-10 — the list does not include last season (2010-11):

1. Kevin Garnett, 221
2. Dirk Nowitzki, 196
3. LeBron James, 163
4. Tim Duncan, 152
5. Shawn Marion, 149
6. Kobe Bryant, 134
7. Steve Nash, 122
8. Jason Kidd, 113
9. Chris Paul, 107
10. Shaquille O'Neal, 105

Next five: Elton Brand, Amare Stoudemire, Dwyane Wade, Tracy McGrady, Dwight Howard. The fast-paced Phoenix Suns rate perhaps a little higher than they should, but Marion is a cinch top-10 player from the last decade, shockingly underrated. Over these 10 seasons, how many players scored at least 10,000 points, with 4,000 rebounds, 1,500 assists, 750 steals, and fewer than 1,500 turnovers? Only Marion.

What about season-by-season? Below are TSPOR all-star teams for each of the last 30 seasons. Each year has two guards, two forwards, a center, and a sixth man (the highest-scoring player not already listed). No distinction is made between point guards and shooting guards, or small forwards and power forwards, and in some instances I've made judgement calls on where a player should be listed.

TSPOR All-NBA Teams

1981-82

G: Magic Johnson, LAL
G: Sidney Moncrief, MIL
F: Julius Erving, PHI
F: Alex English, DEN
C: Moses Malone, HOU
6: Artis Gilmore, CHI

MVP: Moses Malone

1982-83

G: Magic Johnson, LAL
G: Sidney Moncrief, MIL
F: Larry Bird, BOS
F: Alex English, DEN
C: Moses Malone, HOU
6: Artis Gilmore, CHI

MVP: Magic Johnson

1983-84

G: Magic Johnson, LAL
G: Isiah Thomas, DET
F: Larry Bird, BOS
F: Adrian Dantley, UTA
C: Bill Laimbeer, DET
6: Alex English, DEN

MVP: Larry Bird

1984-85

G: Magic Johnson, LAL
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Larry Bird, BOS
F: Calvin Natt, DEN
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, LAL
6: Isiah Thomas, DET

MVP: Larry Bird

1985-86

G: Magic Johnson, LAL
G: Alvin Robertson, SA
F: Larry Bird, BOS
F: Charles Barkley, PHI
C: Hakeem Olajuwon, HOU
6: Adrian Dantley, UTA

MVP: Larry Bird

1986-87

G: Magic Johnson, LAL
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Larry Bird, BOS
F: Charles Barkley, PHI
C: Hakeem Olajuwon, HOU
6: Kevin McHale, BOS

MVP: Larry Bird

1987-88

G: John Stockton, UTA
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Larry Bird, BOS
F: Charles Barkley, PHI
C: Hakeem Olajuwon, HOU
6: Clyde Drexler, POR

MVP: Michael Jordan

1988-89

G: Magic Johnson, LAL
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Charles Barkley, PHI
F: Karl Malone, UTA
C: Hakeem Olajuwon, HOU
6: John Stockton, UTA

MVP: Michael Jordan

1989-90

G: Magic Johnson, LAL
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Charles Barkley, PHI
F: Karl Malone, UTA
C: David Robinson, SA
6: Patrick Ewing, NY

MVP: Michael Jordan

1990-91

G: John Stockton, UTA
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Charles Barkley, PHI
F: Karl Malone, UTA
C: David Robinson, SA
6: Magic Johnson, LAL

MVP: Michael Jordan

1991-92

G: John Stockton, UTA
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Karl Malone, UTA
F: Charles Barkley, PHI
C: David Robinson, SA
6: Horace Grant, CHI

MVP: David Robinson

1992-93

G: John Stockton, UTA
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Karl Malone, UTA
F: Charles Barkley, PHI
C: Hakeem Olajuwon, HOU
6: David Robinson, SA

MVP: Hakeem Olajuwon

1993-94

G: John Stockton, UTA
G: Mark Price, CLE
F: Shawn Kemp, SEA
F: Karl Malone, UTA
C: Shaquille O'Neal, ORL
6: David Robinson, SA

MVP: Shaquille O'Neal

1994-95

G: John Stockton, UTA
G: Gary Payton, SEA
F: Karl Malone, UTA
F: Charles Barkley, PHO
C: David Robinson, SA
6: Shaquille O'Neal, ORL

MVP: David Robinson

1995-96

G: Penny Hardaway, ORL
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Karl Malone, UTA
F: Charles Barkley, PHO
C: David Robinson, SA
6: John Stockton, UTA

MVP: David Robinson

1996-97

G: John Stockton, UTA
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Grant Hill, DET
F: Karl Malone, UTA
C: Hakeem Olajuwon, HOU
6: Gary Payton, SEA

MVP: Karl Malone

1997-98

G: Gary Payton, SEA
G: Michael Jordan, CHI
F: Karl Malone, UTA
F: Kevin Garnett, MIN
C: David Robinson, SA
6: Shaquille O'Neal, LAL

MVP: Karl Malone

1998-99

G: Jason Kidd, PHO
G: Gary Payton, SEA
F: Karl Malone, UTA
F: Tim Duncan, SA
C: Shaquille O'Neal, LAL
6: David Robinson, SA

MVP: Shaquille O'Neal

1999-2000

G: Gary Payton, SEA
G: Vince Carter, TOR
F: Kevin Garnett, MIN
F: Karl Malone, UTA
C: Shaquille O'Neal, LAL
6: Chris Webber, SAC

MVP: Shaquille O'Neal

2000-01

G: Ray Allen, MIL
G: Vince Carter, TOR
F: Kevin Garnett, MIN
F: Dirk Nowitzki, DAL
C: Shaquille O'Neal, LAL
6: Shawn Marion, PHO

MVP: Shaquille O'Neal

2001-02

G: Gary Payton, SEA
G: Andre Miller, CLE
F: Tim Duncan, SA
F: Elton Brand, LAC
C: Shaquille O'Neal, LAL
6: Kevin Garnett, MIN

MVP: Tim Duncan

2002-03

G: Jason Kidd, NJ
G: Kobe Bryant, LAL
F: Tracy McGrady, ORL
F: Kevin Garnett, MIN
C: Shaquille O'Neal, LAL
6: Dirk Nowitzki, DAL

MVP: Kevin Garnett

2003-04

G: Sam Cassell, MIN
G: Kobe Bryant, LAL
F: Peja Stojakovic, SAC
F: Kevin Garnett, MIN
C: Shaquille O'Neal, LAL
6: Dirk Nowitzki, DAL

MVP: Kevin Garnett

2004-05

G: Steve Nash, PHO
G: Stephon Marbury, NY
F: Kevin Garnett, MIN
F: Shawn Marion, PHO
C: Amare Stoudemire, PHO
6: LeBron James, CLE

MVP: Kevin Garnett

2005-06

G: Steve Nash, PHO
G: Kobe Bryant, LAL
F: Shawn Marion, PHO
F: Kevin Garnett, MIN
C: Ben Wallace, DET
6: Elton Brand, LAC

MVP: Shawn Marion

2006-07

G: Steve Nash, PHO
G: Kobe Bryant, LAL
F: Shawn Marion, PHO
F: Dirk Nowitzki, DAL
C: Amare Stoudemire, PHO
6: Kevin Garnett, MIN

MVP: Shawn Marion

2007-08

G: Chris Paul, NO
G: Kobe Bryant, LAL
F: LeBron James, CLE
F: Amare Stoudemire, PHO
C: Dwight Howard, ORL
6: Kevin Garnett, BOS

MVP: Chris Paul

2008-09

G: Chris Paul, NO
G: Dwyane Wade, MIA
F: LeBron James, CLE
F: Pau Gasol, LAL
C: Dwight Howard, ORL
6: Kobe Bryant, LAL

MVP: Chris Paul

2009-10

G: Steve Nash, PHO
G: Dwyane Wade, MIA
F: LeBron James, CLE
F: Kevin Durant, OKC
C: Dwight Howard, ORL
6: David Lee, NYK

MVP: LeBron James

2010-11

G: Chris Paul, NO
G: Dwyane Wade, MIA
F: LeBron James, MIA
F: Kevin Love, MIN
C: Dwight Howard, ORL
6: Pau Gasol, LAL

MVP: Kevin Love

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:40 PM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2011

MLB Trade Deadline: The Sellers

For every "yin," there is a "yang." For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And for every list of MLB trade deadline "buyers", there is a counter-balancing list of sellers that are necessary to fit those buyers with able-bodied veterans.

The following list details the 14 teams that fall into the category of "have-not" as the 2011 MLB non-waiver trade deadline nears. As was the case with part one of this two-part series, this second entry is based firmly in the realm of my opinion and is not necessarily tied to any inside information.

The Unmotivated Sellers

This first group of sellers represents those teams that are less traditional "seller," but rather quite likely to take a wait and see approach as the July 31st deadline nears. Comprised of teams either overachieving but realistic about their prospects for sustained success in 2011 or playing to their expected potential as sustained middle-of-the-pack representatives, the expectation would be for this set of franchises to not be too anxious in upsetting their proverbial apple cart by turning over their roster, making these guys more like "stayers" than "sellers."

Washington Nationals — Manager turmoil aside, it does appear that the Nats are finally turning the corner from league door mat to legitimate up-and-comer. With an improved rotation and a solid lineup, don't expect to see the Nationals move any of their youngsters. A couple names that may make sense if the right deal surfaces are pitchers Jason Marquis and Tom Gorzelanny, as well as veterans Jerry Hairston, Jr. and Ivan Rodriguez. Of that group, only Marquis and Hairston would be players that I think Washington may be willing to part ways with as Gorzelanny may have value beyond this season and I-Rod provides a level of leadership that may prove too valuable to trade away.

Toronto Blue Jays — The good news for Toronto is they seem to have found a legitimate ace in pitcher Ricky Romero and they have put together a bullpen that has the depth of talent to keep the Jays competitive all season long. Additionally, this is a team that does have a Cy Young contender in the aforementioned Romero, as well as a true MVP candidate in slugger Jose Bautista. Unfortunately, Toronto also plays in a brutally difficult division, which makes any trade-deadline deal a relatively fruitless effort. Expect the Jays to continue to build during the offseason, though 1B/OF Adam Lind may be one player that they put on the market in hopes of finding a contender willing to overpay for his services.

Pittsburgh Pirates — For the first time in nearly twenty years, the Pirates actually have a reason to think positive about their play on the field. Missing one of their key offensive lynchpins in 3B Pedro Alvarez, the Bucs have managed to parlay consistent starting pitching, timely hitting, solid base running, and clutch late-inning work into a winning record (at least at the time of this article hitting the web). While nobody of sane mind or body would think that Pittsburgh will remain in the race for the duration, ending the season over .500 has to be a goal for the Pirates based on their recent inability to do so, so unhinging their bus from the current roster doesn't make a lot of sense. Still, Matt Diaz is one bat off the bench that they could part with, as is 1B Lyle Overbay since they do have Garrett Jones taking the majority of those innings, but beyond that, there doesn't seem to be any reason to trade anyone else.

Seattle Mariners — If Seattle played in the AL East, they likely would be more aggressive of a seller. If they were in the AL Central, they'd likely be a more willing shopper as they do have some young chips that could be dealt away to net them a slugging left fielder or third bagger or a middle infielder of substance. As it stands with the Mariners playing in the AL West, however, they are more likely to stand pat and remain patient than to make any big moves as either a buyer or a seller. Two names that may get some play as trade options are Chone Figgins and Jack Wilson, but both would be relatively inconsequential moves.

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim — The Angels came into 2011 cautiously optimistic but surely have realized that their team, as currently comprised, is not a contender. Well, I don't expect a massive sell-off to go down; reliever Scott Downs is a player who I would anticipate being sent out of town, as he is a guy that can bring back some talent in return. While OF Vernon Wells has been a disappointment to date, I'd be surprised if the Angels give up on him this season and Abreu is a guy that likely wouldn't bring the necessary return to make moving him a winning proposition.

The Tweeners

This next group of teams aren't quite in a position where they will be overly cautious in sending players out of town, but they aren't outright sellers looking to turn over their roster, either. Anticipate those teams listed below to send some bit players out of town, but I'd be surprised if any big names find themselves packing up their lockers for "greener pastures."

Kansas City Royals — Stop me if you heard this before. In 2011, the Royals are a team that has stretches where they look like a group that could make some noise and finish at or just over .500. But they also have stretches where they just can't get things right, which ultimately undoes any positive energy that their hot streaks generate. Traditionally, the Royals are prime suspects for buyers looking to grab a difference-making player come trade deadline time, but things may be different this time around as their young nucleus of Alex Gordon, Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, Mitch Maier, and Billy Butler finally seem to be entrenching themselves as contributors at the major league level.

That said, the one name that is of consequence and may be leaving town is closer Joaquim Soria. Aaron Crow is a pitcher that the Royals think may be ready to step into the closer role and Soria has been streaky in 2011, making a change here far less a risk than it would have been in previous seasons. Soria would be a very inviting commodity for the Indians, who need a good closer and may want to make a splash.

Florida Marlins — The Marlins have some real nice youth in OFs Logan Morrison and Mike Stanton, along with 1B Gaby Sanchez. Their pitching staff, while inconsistent, is talented and young. In short, they won't be willing to send any of their starting pitching or those aforementioned youngsters out of town. However, one very big name may be shipped out of town simply because the timing makes sense, and that would be SS Hanley Ramirez. Ramirez has had his run-ins with management relative to his level of effort and his commitment to the team in his time in Miami and, while moving him would certainly be a major deal, it is one that makes a good deal of sense and could get the Marlins a huge return without reeking of a pure "fire sale" sort of approach that has typically been associated with the Marlins in the past. The Cincinnati Reds are the one team that may be motivated enough to deal away some very good prospects — including flame-throwing lefty Aroldis Chapman — in order to get their hands on Hanley.

San Diego Padres — The Padres are one year removed from their surprising run in 2010 and it is very clear that they are not getting the same sort of consistent performance from their pitching staff as they had a year ago, nor do they have the anchor in the lineup as they are now without superstar 1B Adrian Gonzalez. While the hope was their new middle infield of Orlando Hudson and Jason Bartlett and a full season of Ryan Ludwich in the outfield alongside newcomer Cameron Maybin would provide enough offensive stability to keep the Padres in contention, injuries and spotty performance has been far too prevalent for that hope to come to fruition.

Nonetheless, wholesale changes don't make a great deal of sense as it could be said that a healthy Hudson and a full season of rookie 1B Anthony Rizzo could absolutely be a realistic hope that would drastically change the 2012 outlook for San Diego. Considering that realization, it is much more likely that we will see the Pads move a few peripheral pieces, such as OF/1B Brad Hawpe and reliever Chad Qualls, than anything more substantial. Expect the typically active trade deadline players like Boston, Detroit, the Yankees, and the Cardinals to be most interested in calling the Padres as we approach the deadline.

The "Cellars"

The third and final group of "have-nots" are teams that truly need to be looking to go in a vastly different direction. Be it front office turmoil, aging core, or flat lack of talent, these final six teams are the most likely to be involved in a number of trade deadline dealings and, quite frankly, should welcome the upheaval that will come with a large scale turnover of roster.

New York Mets — Much has been made of the mess the Wilpons have made of this once proud franchise. Even with the dirty dealings of their ownership group, this team has remained relatively competitive and, at the time of this writing at least, they do still have a shot at the postseason if things were to fall just right in Flushing Meadows. But with the tumult surrounding their ownership and the reality that this is, by and large, a very old roster that continues to underperform, it is time to blow the thing up. By season's end, I would anticipate Carlos Beltran, Angel Pagan, Willie Harris, Mike Pelfrey, and Frankie Rodriguez all be wearing different uniforms.

Further, it is my contention that the time has come to part ways with SS Jose Reyes, as well. Leg problems don't bode well for a sustained future as an all-star sparkplug for Reyes and with Ruben Tejada waiting in the wings (and currently holding down the fort at 2B), they do have a viable replacement. The prospects the Mets could net by dealing away Reyes are very much necessary assets if the Mets are to rebuild without a prolonged period of really bad baseball alienating their waning fan-base — and a team like Tampa Bay is one that could stand to gain the most by making a name-brand add like pulling Reyes into their mix. Any way you look at it, the Mets are looking like a team that needs to change things up sooner rather than later.

Baltimore Orioles — I give the Orioles a ton of credit; they did go for it during this offseason. Bringing J.J. Hardy, Mark Reynolds, Derek Lee, Vlad Guerrero, and Kevin Gregg into B-More seemed like a great idea at the time. Unfortunately, Lee and Guerrero are far too streaky at this point in their careers, Reynolds is a far better served as a secondary power option in a lineup than the primary option, and Gregg is what he always has been, an inconsistent closer.

So with all the effort, the Orioles are still a fourth-place team and miles behind their division leaders. The only way to break out of this vicious cycle is to bring in an influx of young talent and hope for some home runs, both literally and figuratively speaking. Lee could get some decent return, as could Guerrero, but it is Mark Reynolds, J.J. Hardy, and Mike Gonzalez that are the most palatable targets as they can fill real needs for contenders with deep pockets and some talent in their farm systems. The Twins could use Reynolds' bat, the Rangers could be interested in Lee at 1B, and the Red Sox would love to bring the lefty Gonzalez into their bullpen.

Oakland Athletics — How screwed up are the A's? Their "official" MLB depth chart lists Conor Jackson as the starter at both first base and left field. If that's the case, I think I have some insight into why they are not succeeding on the diamond ... reminds me of an old Bugs Bunny episode ... but I digress. The A's are lacking a key fundamental skill set in their daily lineup: talent. DH Hideki Matsui is old and non-productive, OF Coco Crisp is a journeyman for a reason, and the A's have arguably the worst infield this side of Houston's Minute Maid Park.

They do have some quality young pitching depth, but this poses an additional problem in that they really don't have marketable chips to trade off outside of their pitchers, which would mean that even making moves with this staff they may be setting themselves back instead of forward.

Crisp needs to be moved to a team looking for some outfield depth (Colorado?) and Conor Jackson, David DeJesus, and/or Matsui need to be sent away for prospects. They could move one or more of their relievers to a contender such as the Cardinals — Grant Balfour, Brian Fuentes, and Michael Wuertz would be the names here — to net some value, but this is a rebuilding effort that will be exactly that, an effort, if they are hoping for long-term success.

Chicago Cubs — Yes, it pains me greatly to admit — again — so early in the year that my beloved Cubbies are sellers and cellar-dwellers. This is a high-cost team that just isn't right in its general makeup. They do have some great young talent, namely SS Starlin Castro, which show promise for the future. But as long as they continue to trot high-paid players like Alfonso Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, and Carlos Zambrano onto the field, they won't be able to make the necessary changes that have to be made to sustain success and positive growth.

Ramirez is likely someone who will stay put, as he does still provide value both defensively and offensively and he does appear to show up each and every day with a commitment to winning, but Soriano must be dealt (perhaps to a team desperate for a big bat like Colorado) for whatever they can get in return, and Zambrano needs a change of scenery (the Yankees would be a very fitting destination and could provide Z the motivation he needs to focus every turn in the rotation).

Further, they need to deal away some of their other movable parts; catcher Geovany Soto is one productive player who could net some quality return as the Cubs have his heir apparent in Welington Castillo chomping at the bit to become a permanent fixture on a big league team.

The Cubs also have some pro-ready players who have netted time in the majors, but don't appear to be long-term fixtures in RP Marcos Mateo, OF Tyler Colvin, and P Casey Coleman and Randy Wells. Finally, the Cubs have a group of players who they really have to make a decision on, namely RP Jeff Samardzija, the oft-injured pitcher Angel Guzman, and the enigma that is Kosuke Fukudome, whose salary they would need to eat a great deal of in any prospective deal. Bottom line is while the Cubs do have a solid core around which to build, they need to make some very tough business decisions if they want to break the "curse" that we all hear so much about.

Los Angeles Dodgers — Call it gross misfortune, but the Dodgers are actually a team that isn't too far from being a real contender in the National League. The misfortune comes in as you assess their ownership situation — with a very clear sense of disarray in play, it is only logical to assume that their payroll will need to be slashed before the start of the 2012 season, which should lead to a significant number of moves being made between now and the end of the '11 season. One very logical move would be to package a veteran bat like Juan Uribe with an inconsistent young arm like Hong-Chih Kuo to a contender needing both (like the Chicago White Sox). Other potential deals could include veterans such as OF Marcus Thames and IFs Casey Blake, Jamey Carroll, and Aaron Miles or Ps Ted Lilly and Hiroki Kuroda. Expect some player movement in L.A.

Houston Astros — Living in Houston, I have access to the pulse of the general fan base as it relates to the Astros, and I have to tell you that I've been quite shocked by the lack of perspective these fans have. Heading into this season, there actually was a great deal of enthusiasm from a large vein of their fandom, which is shocking to say the least. Even the most optimistic of realists could have clearly seen that Brett Myers' excellent 2011 season was a blip on the radar of an otherwise average career, that 3B Chris Johnson was not a major league talent, and that Carlos Lee was never going to regain his old form of 30 home runs and 100+ RBIs. Their bullpen was an unmitigated disaster even before de facto closer Brandon Lyon was shelved for the season and aside from Hunter Pence, their everyday lineup was about as bad as it gets in the league.

Regardless of the tenor leading into the season, reality has clearly set in and there really isn't a whole lot of positive spin that can be put on the team with the league's worst record and one of the five least prospect-laden farm systems in the game today. With a new ownership group set to take over in the coming month, it is very clear that these Houston Astros bear very little resemblance to the team that will be in place at this time next season.

Carlos Lee is an albatross that cannot be exiled short of cutting him outright (which, for my money, is the right move to send the message of change needed from the new owner), but they do have some movable parts that still have value and aren't terribly onerous in terms of their current contract situation. Wandy Rodriguez is a quality starting pitcher and a lefty, so he is very much one that needs to be in play and a team like the D-Backs or even the Yankees may come calling for Wandy. Brett Myers needs to be dealt, though his value has taken a hit from his very sub-par 2011 performance to date. Veteran middle infielders Clint Barmes and Jeff Keppinger are both decent glove-men with a proven ability to contribute off the bench, so a team like the Braves may be interested in either or both.

But their biggest bargaining chip may come at the highest PR cost and that is RF Hunter Pence. Pence is beloved in Houston, but that value may serve little purpose from a business perspective if the Astros are indeed going to transition into full rebuild mode. A team like the Phillies would most definitely overpay for a player of Pence's talent and it is that position of strength that may make a deal including Hunter an absolute necessity, regardless of the public relations hit that the team will take in moving him. It needs to be about the long-term return on investment for the new ownership, which is why ultimately I see Pence being sent out of town.

Despite the reality that many of these deals may never take place, what is clear is that the buyers and sellers in MLB have identified themselves and there should be a very active run up to the July 31st trade deadline. Sit back and enjoy what should amount to one of the more active trade seasons in several years!

Posted by Matt Thomas at 2:35 PM | Comments (4)

Fast Moves Shake Up NHL's Western Conference

It's not even the free agent frenzy and the Western Conference has already shifted immensely thanks to several big moves. Last year's Western Conference race was already one of the tightest we've ever seen, and with big names landing new homes out West, it's going to get even tighter. Let's take a look at the impact:

Columbus Blue Jackets Get Jeff Carter

Jeff Carter was arguably the best forward for the Philadelphia Flyers last year. He was also rumored to be part of a locker room problem alongside captain Mike Richards (though who knows how many of those rumors are actually true). Carter's a lock for 30-50 goals, and his arrival in Columbus gives the Blue Jackets the first true No. 1 center in the team's history.

Will he play with fellow sniper Rick Nash or will he anchor a second line that takes the heat off Nash? Either option is a boost for Columbus, who struggled mightily to score goals at times. For Nash, the Columbus captain finally gets some relief, and with defenses splitting their efforts between Nash and Carter, both will benefit — as will other forwards such as Derreck Brassard, Kristian Huselius, Antoine Vermette, and R.J. Umberger.

L.A. Kings Get Mike Richards

The Jeff Carter trade was expected, as the Philadelphia Flyers needed to dump salary in order to sign goaltender Ilya Bryzgalov. But few actually predicted that the team would trade Richards, the team captain, a skilled player that also mirrored the grittier traits of Bobby Clarke. His trade may signify a major shift in thinking in Philadelphia, but for the L.A. Kings, it's a huge step forward.

The Kings struggled at times on both ends of the ice last season (losing Anze Kopitar for the stretch run and playoffs didn't help). With Richards now inserted into the lineup, the Kings now have the talent to fill out two scoring lines. And with Richards able to play on both ends of the ice, he might assume the role of shutdown center for the Kings, as well. At the very least, he'll eat up some penalty kill minutes. How this plays into Terry Murray's defensive scheme remains to be seen, as a common gripe for Kings fans was Murray's insistence on playing a strict system. Will he open things up now that he has more talent to work with?

San Jose Sharks Get Brett Burns

Since the Sharks lost Rob Blake to retirement, there's been a huge talent gap between Dan Boyle and the rest of San Jose's defense. Sure, Douglas Murray is a beast in terms of physical play, and Jason Demers rounded into a top-four defenseman by the end of the season. However, the team still had a huge hole in terms of a No. 2 minute-muncher, as well as another power play blueliner.

Enter Burns, a forward-turned-defenseman with huge offensive instincts and reasonable defensive skills. With a booming shot and the ability to regularly play 26-28 minutes if necessary, Burns gives Todd McLellan many options for his newly re-tooled defense. If Burns finds his stride with San Jose and the Sharks' other young defense (Demers, Marc-Edouard Vlasic) become reliable top-four blueliners, San Jose's biggest weakness could turn into one of their strengths.

Of course, the Western Conference is far from settled. Big-name free agents still have to find new homes, and who knows what trades we'll see over the next few weeks. And, of course, the Detroit Red Wings could claim that they've made the biggest offseason move simply by re-upping Norris Trophy winner/hockey god Nicklas Lidstrom to another year. Gear up, folks, the first drop's been a doozy, but there's still more to come on this rollercoaster.

Posted by Mike Chen at 12:49 PM | Comments (0)

June 24, 2011

Foul Territory: Breaks, Bribes, and Big Three

* Forearm Shiver, or Cast-Away — Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols will miss 4-6 weeks with a fractured wrist from a collision with a base runner over the weekend. Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa, when asked how the team would fare without their star, considered the question carefully, then asked to sleep on it, in his car, at a stoplight.

* Over the Hill, Gang, or Back By Grandpop-ular Demand, or Just Like "Old" Times — 80-year-old Jack McKeon was named interim manager of the Florida Marlins on Monday, nearly six years after he retired from the same position. McKeon took over for Edwin Rodriguez, who resigned on Sunday, with the Marlins in last place and saddled with a 1-18 record in June. McKeon craftily bridged the generation gap between himself and his youthful squad by unveiling his own stash of performance-enhancing drugs, and shocked his team by showing them a legitimate prescription for his PEDs.

* Devil Without a Pause, or Digit-al Undergraduate, or This Little Piggy Went to Market — The Cleveland Cavaliers snagged Duke freshman Kyrie Irving with the No. 1 pick in Thursday's NBA draft in Newark, New Jersey. Irving, who played in only 11 games last season for the Blue Devils because of an injury to his right big toe, insisted the toe is fully healed. With Irving's right foot such a hot topic of conversation in the New Jersey area, many onlookers were surprised that New York Jets coach Rex Ryan wasn't in attendance.

* Calm With Aplomb, or Time Off For Good Behavior — U.S. Open champ Rory McIlroy will take three weeks off before returning to action for the British Open at Sandwich, England in mid-July. McIlroy said he fully expects to be able to handle the pressure that comes with being the heir apparent to Tiger Woods. McIlroy, and nearly all of Woods former mistresses, would agree, there's quite a bit more fame and fortune to be had in being the "next Tiger Woods" as opposed to being "Tiger Woods' next."

* Standing Pat, or Erik the "Instead" — Miami Heat president Pat Riley said he has no plans to coach, offering support to head coach Erik Spoelstra, and said the Heat will contend for the NBA championship for years to come. Riley said he expects LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh to work hard to improve during the offseason, and Riley expressed optimism that the Big Three could make a big three should the Heat return to the Finals.

* Chad's Producer Should Be Very Careful When He Asks to "Go to a Break" — Miami Dolphins quarterback Chad Pennington plans to skip the 2011 season while recovering from shoulder and knee injuries, and will instead work as an analyst for FOX Sports. Pennington has the charisma and knowledge to be a fine analyst, but, as his oft-injured reputation would suggest, he appears imminently more qualified as a "sideline" reporter.

* Wing's to Go, or Jagr Bomb-shell, or Pay Czech — Jaromir Jagr's agent said the Penguins and Red Wings are the front-runners in the race to sign the 39-year-old wing looking to make his NHL comeback. Jagr said he didn't know when he would make a decision, but welcomed interested parties to watch him ponder the situation on a television special called "The Decision on Ice."

* Am-nasty International, or Criminal Mic-Chief, or Resident Evil, or FIFA Kicks Back, or Son of a Pitch! — FIFA, the world's soccer governing body, said it had "compelling" evidence that Asian Football Confederation chief Mohamed "Mo' Money" bin Hammam and FIFA vice-president Jack "Boot" Warner conspired to bribe voters in the organization's presidential election. FIFA suspended the two, so, ironically, it turns out they did, in fact, pay for it.

* Refund, Yes, Yes, Yes, or She Can Hit a The Bottle, But Not a Note — British singer Amy Winehouse canceled part of her European tour after an erratic performance in Belgrade, Serbia in which she stumbled on stage and had trouble remembering lyrics. Winehouse's performance was reminiscent of pretty much any of her other concerts, or of Christina Aguilera's singing of the national anthem.

* Wolf Blitzer, or Kurt(esy) Flush — The Minnesota Timberwolves fired head coach Kurt Rambis on Thursday. Rambis was 32-132 in two years as the T-Wolves coach, and his relationship with general manager David Kahn had deteriorated over the course of the season to the point where they barely spoke. Insiders say the two rarely said "hello," but had no trouble at all saying "goodbye." Kahn justified the move by saying the only rings the T-Wolves would ever see with Rambis as coach were the ones Rambis himself was wearing.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 2:11 PM | Comments (0)

June 23, 2011

MLB Trade Deadline: The Buyers

Like no other sport, baseball's annual midseason trade deadline is typically a frenzied, interest-worthy phenomenon. Fans of teams from every spectrum of the league's power structure are vested in these activities as the good teams look to become great, the great teams aim to become unbeatable, and even the worst of the worst are afforded a hopeful opportunity for making sound moves towards building for the future.

While this hope provides a sound alibi for the masses to remain engaged with the season, despite many finding their supported franchise woefully out of contention — and believe me, as a loyal Cubs fan, I can relate to this paradigm quite directly — the reality is the pomp surrounding baseball's July 31st non-waiver trade deadline typically belies the fundamental truth that most teams don't make the key moves that make the most sense.

As a public service to MLB and its thirty franchises, I've taken the liberty of bringing those very moves to the forefront for each and every one of those teams in a two-part series of articles. The first entry in that series, detailing the "Haves," can be found below. I assure you that this information is based on zero factual information and reflects nothing more than my own personal knowledge of the game and those that play it and, as I've already mentioned, my Cub fandom should provide all the legitimacy to this process that is deserved.

The Buyers

The following teams are going into the trade deadline in a position of relative strength. Their first half performance has shown that they are not only on the right track, but are clearly nearest a point where you could say one big "add" would provide the most direct jolt in nudging each from contender to favorite status.

Philadelphia Phillies — Currently owning baseball's best record, the Fighting Phils have parlayed their one key offseason acquisition (SP Cliff Lee) into a dominant starting rotation that will anchor the team despite some obvious weaknesses in their day-to-day lineup. To that end, the one move that Philly should be looking at making is acquiring a dynamic bat from the right side. While this market may be thin for such players, Houston's Hunter Pence would be the most ideal fit. He has speed, plays solid defense and is a solid, proven hitter. He can play any of the three outfield positions, so he should be able to get steady at bats to remain sharp for a role as a pinch-hitter and double-switch guy in the playoffs.

Boston Red Sox — Having gone 42-19 since a dismal 2-10 start to the season, the Red Sox are rolling and have scored the most runs in baseball. Clearly, they are the class of the American League and should remain firmly entrenched atop the tough AL East as they look forward to the return of current disabled listers Carl Crawford, Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, and Bobby Jenks. A power lefty out of the bullpen is really the best fit for the Sox, so Baltimore's Mike Gonzalez should be their target.

New York Yankees — While once again in contention, the Yankees are in a very tough spot. They are clearly not as complete a team as the Red Sox, so a division title is a tough proposition, and with the Rays breathing down their necks, they can't afford to slip up at all as the Dog Days of Summer rear their head. There is no doubt that the Pinstripers are most inclined to look for another solid starting pitcher, and Chicago's Carlos Zambrano would provide the intensity and intimidating presence that could buoy a rotation that, as currently constructed, is primed for a letdown as the season grows longer.

Atlanta Braves — You have to hand it to the Braves, their management team continues to field a very competitive team in spite of their aging stars and injury-prone youth movement. While they could use another quality rotation arm, their bigger need is bringing in a utility player that could spell Chipper Jones, Alex Gonzalez, and Dan Uggla in an effort to keep those players fresh. Based on their starting rotation's strategy of producing lots of ground balls and letting their defense do the work, Houston's Clint Barmes makes sense. While he lacks a big stick, he is a proven commodity as a strong defensive player and does have experience battling through a pennant chase while serving as a spot-player or late-inning defensive replacement.

Milwaukee Brewers — The Brewers have come on of late, moving into a spot that most pundits had them slotted in atop the NL's weak Central division. While they should have plenty of talent on their roster to ultimately take their division crown, a bullpen of Latroy Hawkins, Kameron Loe, Zach Braddock, Marco Estrada and Sergio Mitre does not instill much confidence. Even when lefty specialist Mitch Stetter returns, you have to think that their front office is diligently looking at finding an arm or two to further anchor their 'pen. The Angels' Scott Downs is one guy that the Brew Crew should have on speed dial.

St. Louis Cardinals — Injuries may ultimately derail any hopes the Cards have of making some noise in search of a playoff berth, but the veteran St. Louis team is still very much a contender at this point in the season. While the bullpen has not been a disaster, acquiring another late-inning arm would certainly be a cook-to-order way to offset any drop off in runs that losing Albert Pujols for any length of time would lead to. Though he's struggled, Oakland's Brian Fuentes is a proven late-inning guy who would benefit from the stability and reputation of St. Louis's top notch pitching coaches.

Texas Rangers — The defending AL champ should face little resistance on their way to another division title. Still, there is something lacking from this team that makes you wonder how deep a run they can make in the post season once they get there. Baltimore's Derek Lee brings a gold-glove caliber defensive player into the mix and a bat that, when hot, is as consistent as any in the league. With the young Mitch Moreland currently handling most of the first base duties, Lee would fit in nicely on a rotational basis.

Tampa Bay Rays — Even as a third-place team, the Rays are still considered a very strong ball club and, with the right move, would certainly fall into the category of contender. Getting their hands on a starting shortstop has to be a priority, and making a big play in netting New York's Jose Reyes would immediately move Tampa from pursuer to pursued.

San Francisco Giants — I know what you're thinking ... the Giants aren't even winning their own division at this point so how can they be considered in this first cut of teams? Well, they did win the World Series last season and they still have a very deep, very good starting rotation. Obviously, losing Buster Posey was a big blow to an already middle-of-the-road offensive team. To help offset this loss, the Giants should be looking at grabbing a quality back stop with offensive potential, and Chicago's Geovany Soto would be a nice pick up in serving that very purpose.

The Fence-Riders

This next group of teams is either atop their division currently as overachievers or a bit lower in the standings than their talent would lead you to believe they'd be. Also considered buyers, these guys are in a much more tenuous position where not making a move may well prove disastrous to their hopes for 2011.

Arizona Diamondbacks — Aside from Cleveland, the Diamondbacks are the biggest positive surprise in baseball. An unimpressive lineup combined with an erratic set of starting pitchers makes the D-Backs a prime suspect for falling flat on their face in the season's second half. To help avoid this eventuality, Arizona should be looking for a top-tier starting pitcher, especially since there isn't any realistic offensive options that could be both key contributors and affordable under Arizona's traditionally conservative payroll. Houston's Wandy Rodriguez is an interesting guy and would fit that mold at a price that would be right for Arizona.

Cleveland Indians — Anybody that tells you that they thought the Indians would be atop their division this late in the season is a dirty liar or a pathetically tunnel-visioned Indian fan. Finding a great closer would be a boon for Cleveland's slim chances at remaining in a position of power in the AL. Kansas City's Joaquim Soria is one guy who would provide a boost to Cleveland's late inning consistency and is someone that may be had at the right price.

Cincinnati Reds — The Reds have underachieved to date in 2011, but there is still time to turn things around for the new Big Red Machine. But such a turnaround will not happen unless they can net themselves another big bat to provide protection in the lineup for Joey Votto and company. With the Marlins struggling, star SS Hanley Ramirez may not be the pipe dream that many would have him pegged for and the Reds are one team that have the arms (Aroldis Chapman) and prospects to make such a deal palatable to the Marlins.

Colorado Rockies — The Rockies have the talent to compete in this division, but they need to find another power bat. Chicago's Alfonso Soriano is an expensive option, but with his contract set to expire, the time may be right to move him.

Minnesota Twins — Injuries to key players in the early going have led to some struggles for the Twins, but they aren't so far behind in the standings that they should be throwing in the towel just yet. They do have a talented rotation and their bullpen is not a weakness as long as players play to their potential. But there are many holes offensively that can't be ignored, so Baltimore's Mark Reynolds would be a solid "get" and would provide some middle-of-the-order power that is clearly lacking in the Twin Cities.

Chicago White Sox — Though finding themselves a few games below .500, the White Sox are a veteran club with tons of potential to get hot in a hurry. It is this reality that makes the team an interesting read as the trade deadline approaches ... they do have some high salary guys that could be appealing to other contenders in "buy" mode, which would net them some solid prospects, but they also are close enough in the standings to move into the market as buyers themselves.

Logically, in looking at their team makeup, a closer would make sense here, however there are a few other teams that will be looking at late-inning arms and my sense is the ChiSox won't be willing to part with the same number or quality of prospects that some of those others may dangle. So a quality back up plan is securing a quality situational arm with an upside ... enter L.A.'s Hong-Chih Kuo. Kuo's struggles have been epic this season, but he is a low risk option and a lefty arm who could use a change of scenery. And, in this one case, there is the value-add angle of including Juan Uribe in a package for Kuo, which would net them another veteran bat and could be a very realistic "throw-in" option.

Detroit Tigers — Of all the teams in this "buyer" category, the Tigers, at least in my reckoning, are the least likely to pull off a "go for it" sort of maneuver. They have some high priced players in place already and they have to feel good about their depth in pitching. The one glaring hole in their lineup is on the left side of their defense. Expect the Tigers to make a play for a situational bat with some defensive acumen, which makes San Diego's Jason Bartlett and interesting option.

Stay tuned for the second follow-up article featuring the remaining 14 clubs who find themselves in the position of "sellers."

Posted by Matt Thomas at 5:42 PM | Comments (0)

Cavs Must Draft and Build For the Future

Even in Miami, LeBron James still haunts Cleveland.

Despite coming up short in the NBA Finals against the Dallas Mavericks, James still dictates how and who Cleveland drafts.

While the Cleveland Cavaliers were the worst team in the NBA with a mark of 19-63, they go into this coming draft with major issues at the point guard and small forward spots.

Cleveland has Baron Davis, Ramon Sessions, and Daniel Gibson currently as their point guards, and Anderson Varejao, Antwan Jamison, J.J Hickson, and Samardo Samuels as their current small forwards.

Look for Cleveland to move and unload assets either during the draft or during the free-agency period.

For Cleveland, their biggest need may not be at point guard, as Davis is capable of creating his own shot, but the 6'3", 215-lb veteran also has a salary of $14,000,000. If owner Dan Gilbert is savvy and wise, he would try to move Davis and gain an extra second-round pick for him either in 2011 or 2012.

The other movable asset for Cleveland is small forward with Antawn Jamison and his $13.3 million dollar salary. Jamison's veteran leadership could help a NBA title contender, but it will not help the re-building Cavaliers anytime soon.

The key for Cleveland is to draft for the future and build a solid foundation that emphasizes teamwork and solid play, and not rely on or cater to one superstar, as in the case of LeBron James.

With ESPN reporting that the Cavs have settled on Duke point guard Kyrie Irving, do not be too surprised to see the Cavaliers go in another direction and go with Arizona small forward Derrick Williams and Kentucky point guard Brandon Knight.

The prospective Williams/Knight duo not only addresses both of Cleveland's needs at the small forward and point guard spots, but also look to be impact players who can help jumpstart Cleveland's next generation of hoops.

Posted by Robert Cobb at 4:12 PM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2011

Breaking Down Wimbledon 2011

The first week of Wimbledon is underway, and while the women's draw is full of question marks and unknowns, the men's draw seems to be pointing in a clear direction: one should expect the top four seeds to meet in the semis, bringing us a grass-court version of the same matchups that took place in the semis of Roland Garros on Friday, June 3rd.

At Roland Garros, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, and Andy Murray made it to the semifinals, losing only five total sets between them to get there. The only serious threat (apologies to John Isner fans, but his match against Nadal was at best a pleasant surprise, definitely not a serious threat for an upset at any moment of the match) to the aces making it to the semis came from Viktor Troicki in the round of 16 when he led Andy Murray two sets to love before losing in a close fifth set. Looking at the men's draw at Wimbledon, I find it hard to expect a different outcome in London.

Keeping in mind that this article is being written at the end of the first round matches on Tuesday, let's begin with the top quarter of the draw, where we find last year's champion and the top seed, Rafael Nadal. After winning his first round match comfortably against Michael Russell in the next round, he will face Ryan Sweeting, who played little less than four hours to win his first round in five sets. Then he may play against either Gilles Muller, who surprisingly has a win over Rafa at Wimbledon in 2005, or against Canadian Milos Raonic, who is considered by many to be a serious threat for any top player in the first week of a Slam. In all honesty, this is not 2005 and Rafa is not the same as he was six years ago on grass, nor is Raonic likely to beat him in a five-set match, although for one set he may be considered to have decent odds in his favor.

The rest of Nadal's quarter of the draw up to the round of 16 features Del Potro, still trying to find his form after his long recovery from injuries, nevertheless not a serious threat on grass to Nadal, and Simon, who has already faced Nadal three different times in Slams, never winning a single set. In the quarterfinals, Nadal could face a number of players; Tomas Berdych, Fernando Verdasco, and Mardy Fish are likely candidates, as well as the talented Robin Haase and the experienced Julien Benneteau. The most serious threat out of those at first glance would be Berdych, last year's finalist. However, considering Berdych's form as of late, this is a great chance for Fish to break through and get to the quarters. But on that Friday of the second week, it would be a monumental upset if Nadal was not scheduled to be on the court for his semifinals match.

Andy Murray has some potential threats in his quarter of the draw, but the serious ones all have to face each other before getting to Murray in the quarterfinals; out of Andy Roddick, Feliciano Lopez, Ivo Karlovic, and Gael Monfils, only one can possibly face Murray in the quarters. Murray has potentially Ljubicic, followed by Richard Gasquet or Stanislas Wawrinka. Out of the top four seeds, Murray has the toughest road; Roddick is always dangerous on grass, although on the decline at this point in his career, and players such as Karlovic and Gasquet are what many consider "loose cannons," capable of beating a player on a given day. However, Murray is also himself a tougher, more mature player, and I would dare any objective betting man to not pick him to face Nadal in the semis. As for me, I can't wait to see that semifinal match.

The six-time winner Roger Federer has some experienced players who have tasted success in Slams, but how many of them can possibly play a perfect five-set match to take Federer out? None, in my opinion. His second round opponent, Adrian Mannarino, enjoyed a nice upset over a fast-declining Marin Cilic in Queen's Club two weeks ago on grass, and should get Federer nice and ready for David Nalbandian in the next round. Nalbandian is an ex-Wimbledon finalist and has desirable 8-10 record against Federer — for those who don't follow tennis much, yes, that is indeed desirable record against the 16-time Slam champion. However, the last time they played was three years ago, and while Federer has declined somewhat since then, Nalbandian is only a shadow of the player that he was in 2007, the last time that he defeated Federer.

In the round of 16, the likely opponents are Isner, Nicolas Almagro, or Mikhail Youzhny. These are decent opponents, and definitely good enough to get Federer ready for tougher challenges in the quarterfinals, but nothing more. In fact, many top players prefer being challenged just enough to keep them sharp for later rounds, instead of strolling through matches before facing a top player. If Federer is one of those who wish similar things, he could not have asked for a better draw.

In the quarters, on paper, he is likely to face Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Fernando Gonzales, Andreas Beck, or David Ferrer. One would think that the most serious challenge should come from Tsonga, but for some strange reason, the Frenchman decided to play tournaments both weeks leading up to Wimbledon. He did not even withdraw from the Unicef Open last week, after reaching the finals of Queen's Club that got postponed to Monday due to rain. Why he would not withdraw from Unicef Open to rest and be sharp for Wimbledon, it remains a mystery. Watching him lose his focus several times during his first round match today, I think he will regret that decision as the rounds go further. I would say that he is already facing danger in the second round if the young, explosive Grigor Dimitrov gets through his first round without exerting much effort. In any case, I look for Federer to add yet another semifinal round appearance to his career numbers.

Finally, at the bottom quarter of the draw, there is this year's star player, Novak Djokovic. The one thing that I feel the need to underline, and one that ironically I should not have to, is that Djokovic can very well be successful at Wimbledon. I insist on that because there is this bizarre notion among tennis fans that Djokovic is a weak grass-court player. For the record, he has reached the semifinals twice in Wimbledon, and only twice in his career has he failed to reach the second week; add to that, one finals appearance at Queen's Club out of the three times that he participated; then throw his recent form in the mix and you have a player who has a legitimate shot at breaking Federer and Nadal's stronghold on the Wimbledon title since 2003.

As to Djokovic's draw, I think he has the easiest road to the semis out of all the top four seeds. His toughest challenge on the way there should be Robin Soderling. The chances of Marcos Baghdatis, Viktor Troicki, Michael Llodra, Jurgen Melzer, Xavier Malisse, or Bernard Tomic upsetting Djokovic, or Soderling followed by Djokovic, are slim to none.

Does this all mean that we should turn the channel to something else until next Friday? Or simply watch the women's draw? Of course not. There are some fascinating early-round matchups, and there will be more in the second week. As I mentioned before, for example, I am looking forward to Tsonga vs. Dimitrov, or to Soderling vs. Hewitt. Just do not get your hopes up too high if you are fan of a player outside the top four and your player happens to face one of them. Finally, once that second Friday comes around, get ready for some top quality tennis between four excellent players.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 12:05 PM | Comments (12)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 15

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Carl Edwards — Edwards led 30 laps at Michigan and finished fifth, earning his series-best eighth top-five result of the year. Edwards boosted his lead in the Sprint Cup point standings, and now leads second-place Kevin Harvick by 20.

"How does it feel to lead with nine laps to go and not win the race?" Edwards asked. "It's the pits. My No. 99 Roush Fenway Ford was adorned with the Aflac 'Now Hiring' paint scheme, which hopefully served as a not-too-subtle hint to my crew members of the fleetingness of employment.

"Now, as a driver for Roush Fenway, baseball and racing go together like Joe Gibbs Racing and cheating. From personal experience, I know an illegal oil can part when I see one. 'Oil Can' Boyd once roamed Fenway Park. 'Oil Can Ployed' makes its home at JGR."

2. Kyle Busch — An eventful week for Busch ended on Sunday with a solid third-place finish in the Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips 400 at Michigan. Busch's probation ended last Tuesday, then the Joe Gibbs Racing fleet was ordered by NASCAR to change oil pans on Friday. On Sunday, Busch fought an indigestion problem before crew chief Dave Rogers rectified it with Tums and water. Busch improved one spot in the point standings, and trails Carl Edwards by 29.

"Take it from me," Busch said. "It's not always a bad thing to run out of gas.

"My No. 18 hauler was parked beside Kevin Harvick's No. 29 hauler. That was risky, because even our haulers are feuding. I'm guessing NASCAR thinks a parking lot is the only place these two teams can get 'along.' But seriously, it looks as though NASCAR is sending us mixed signals. It appears probation was NASCAR's way of saying 'no more.' This must be their method of asking for 'more.' I rate NASCAR's disciplinary methods an 'A' for 'ambiguity.' Let me say, though, there was a lot of glaring going on between the two teams. I believe that's the first time Harvick and I have seen eye to eye."

3. Kevin Harvick — Harvick came home 14th at Michigan, struggling with handling issues and surviving in the Heluva Good! 400. However, due to subpar days from Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt, Jr., Harvick vaulted two places in the point standings to second, and now trails Carl Edwards by 20 points.

"See," Harvick said, "I can revel in the misery of someone besides Kyle Busch. And I will continue to pester Busch without end. You would never hear me complain of heartburn. I've got a foolproof immunity to heartburn. It's called being heartless."

4. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished 21st at Michigan, seeing a possible top-10 result fall to the wayside when his No. 88 Amp Energy Chevrolet was pinched into the wall on lap 191 when Mark Martin got loose and slid up the track. The contact caused a tire rub that ended Earnhardt's charge to the front. He remained third in the point standings, 27 out of first.

"It's hard to stay mad at Mark," Earnhardt said. "That's why my crew and I held a 're-tire-ment' party in the pits shortly after he sent me into the wall. At Mark's last retirement party, I asked him to 'stay in touch.' Apparently, he took that a bit too literally. Now, unfortunately, he has to deal with the wrath of Junior Nation. The first rule of Junior Nation is: 'If you 'turn against' the No. 88, regardless of circumstances, Junior Nation will 'turn against' you.

"Despite it all, I still expect Mark and I to remain professional and work together. We've got lots of information to share. Mark's finished second in the Sprint Cup rankings four times, so he's got a wealth of advice to share about 'not winning.'"

5. Jimmie Johnson — An early spin on lap 8 foreshadowed a tough day for the No. 48 Lowe's team at Michigan. A broken sway bar was found to be the culprit, and Johnson fell down two laps quickly after racing without the necessary equipment. A scarcity of yellow flags left the team with little opportunity for repairs, and Johnson finished 27th, one lap down. He tumbled three spots in the point standings to fifth, and trails Carl Edwards by 29.

"As the five-time Sprint Cup champion," Johnson said, "I normally advocate the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' philosophy. Not in this case. A broken sway bar sent me for a loop. And even the sport's most notorious 'spin' doctor, Chad Knaus, couldn't put it back together. Chad's and the No. 48 strategists often have cram sessions to find ways to skirt NASCAR's nebulous rules. We call those meetings 'unapproved part-ies."

6. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth chased Denny Hamlin down the stretch at Michigan, but came up short after a last-gasp effort in the final turn. Kenseth spun his tires on the final restart, but got a boost from Roush Fenway teammate Carl Edwards, but pushed him to clean air. He got close to Hamlin, but lost by .281 seconds. Kenseth improved one spot to sixth in the point standings, and trails Edwards by 41.

"Kudos to NASCAR officials," Kenseth said. "They did something that I couldn't — 'catch' Hamlin. I now know why the Joe Gibbs cars had to go back to their old oil pans — because the new ones were 'busted.' In any case, Hamlin applauded me for my efforts with the same words NASCAR uttered to the Gibbs team — 'nice try.'"

7. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin won the race out of the pits during the final caution at Michigan, and repelled the advances of Matt Kenseth over the final laps. Hamlin's narrow victory was his first of the season, and quite fulfilling in the wake of recent strong runs in which victory eluded him. He jumped three places in the point standings to ninth, and is 77 out of first.

"Due to my slow start this season," Hamlin said, "many people had written me off as a championship contender. To them, I say the same thing I told NASCAR inspectors last Friday: 'It was an honest mistake.' NASCAR's fined the three JGR crew chiefs $50,000. That's chump change, and not nearly enough to cause the 'Great Oil Pan-ic of 2011.'"

8. Kurt Busch — Busch finished 11th at Michigan after earning his third consecutive pole, just missing his fourth-straight top-10 result. He improved one spot in the point standings to seventh, and is now 41 out of first.

"Even with an 11th-place finish," Busch said, "I'm still not happy. I'm a habitual complainer. My crew chief Steve Addington will vouch for that. Tums may shut my brother Kyle up, but there's not a product made that will stop my whining.

"Despite my qualifying efforts, I'm still winless on the year. That, as well as my reputation as the most-punched driver in NASCAR, indicates that I'm unable to finish what I 'started.'"

9. Ryan Newman — Newman finished sixth in the Heleva Good! Sour Cream Dips 400, posting his seventh top-10 finish of the year. Newman is now eighth in the Sprint Cup point standings, and trails Carl Edwards by 76.

"Amid all the fighting, probations, and unapproved car parts," Newman said, "I've quietly ascended to No. 8 in the point standings. Just like my fine for punching a fellow driver, you could say I'm flying under the radar."

10. Jeff Gordon — Gordon was running seventh when Dale Earnhardt, Jr. hit the wall, bringing out the race's final caution at Michigan. Gordon opted for four tires, which set him back to 15th for the restart. He lost two positions in the remaining five laps and finished 17th.

"Obviously, two tires was the right call," Gordon said. "We just made the 'right' call twice. And, as the saying goes, two 'rights' make a wrong."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:21 AM | Comments (0)

June 21, 2011

Pittsburgh Steelers Rule Was Needed

Last month, the National Football League introduced a number of rules changes involving illegal hits and their definition. Owners also came close to approving a measure that would fine clubs for "excessive numbers" of illegal hits during the season. (How many would be defined as "excessive" is still under debate by the owners).

The idea has been called the "Pittsburgh Steelers Rule" by the league, due to the amount of fines racked up last year by Steelers linebacker James Harrison. The media jumped on it, pointing their finger at Commissioner Roger Goodell and crying "Wolf! Wolf!"

And it seems I'm the only one who's completely okay with it.

While it is true that the rules changes will make what are already knee-jerk, subjective calls by the referees even harder to determine, the new rules will protect players from less-than-stable personalities like Brandon Meriweather of the New England Patriots.

You remember that, don't you? When Meriweather intentionally went after Baltimore's Todd Heap with a cheap shot to the head? Watch the video on YouTube. It was calculated, it was malicious, it was unavoidable.

His apology three days later showed a man who was in remorse, but not over injuring a fellow human being. Rather, Meriweather looked like a child who got caught doing something he shouldn't have and bashful over his $50,000 punishment. Look up that video on YouTube too and see for yourself.

For every Meriweather who gets caught, there are dozens more players just one night of peer pressure away from doing it. Every hard hit is a badge of honor in this league. It's a notch in the belt. A trophy. A defender hits someone too hard; they pay $25,000 in fines. But then their buddies all over the league are going to take them out, buy them a celebratory bottle of whatever to wash down a dinner from only the nicest restaurant. Then they hit the club, down some cocktails, and before too long, the $25,000 debt has been covered, only exacerbating the problem.

The NFL has said that the rules changes are in place to encourage coaches to teach proper techniques and to correct dangerous play on the field. If it takes a few, less-than-stable millionaire football players emptying out their bank accounts to make a safer game, then so be it.

(By the way, you know that all the money that NFL players have to shell out for fines goes to charity, right?)

I hate to say it, but except for Bill Belichick and a few others, NFL coaches have been sorely lacking in teaching their players the fundamentals. I'm not saying they're actively encouraging their players to inflict harm on opponents and risk their own health and safety. But by not placing an emphasis on proper technique during practice (think tackling sleds and dummies), they're contributing to the problem by having allowed it to progress to where it has.

The NFL has a problem with hard hits and until the league makes a hard hit of their own, no one's going to pay attention.

Posted by Ryan Day at 6:48 PM | Comments (0)

Go Easy on LeBron

Boy, am I backpedaling on this one. Last month, I wrote a column about winning the wrong way, centered around the idea that LeBron James and his Miami Heat teammates had engineered a cheap title, winning not by raising their game to new heights, but by going somewhere it would be easy to win. At the time, I wrote that I was "disgusted" by the Heat's success, and I made a lot of sarcastic comments about LeBron's competitive spirit, especially in comparison with Michael Jordan's.

When Miami was rolling through the Eastern Conference playoffs, going 12-3, sportswriters started describing LeBron as the best possible combination of Bill Russell and Jordan, writing about how he had "grown up" in Miami, finally elevated his game to championship level. I don't mean to be unkind, but how stupid do you have to be that you can't tell the difference between improving as a player or having better teammates? That was the narrative leading up to the Finals, and ElGee of Back Picks summed it up nicely, how people were ignoring all the times James played well in Cleveland, and attributing undue heroism to his postseason play this year in Miami.

Now that the Heat have lost in the NBA Finals — and I'm as happy about that as most of you are — the opposite of what I had anticipated has come to pass. The writers who lionized LeBron have turned on him: he came up small in the Finals, and the Heat failed because he wasn't good enough. It's not any more true than the original story, about how LeBron had grown up, reached new heights, and turned into Jordan/Russell/Clark Kent/Joe Montana.

Miami didn't lose because LeBron is a bad player or a choker. Okay, he was a non-factor in Game 4. He had a triple-double in Game 5, and the Heat still lost. This isn't all about LeBron.

The Cavs didn't lose in the playoffs year after year because of some deficiency in LeBron's game. They lost because the other four guys usually weren't very good. This year, Miami didn't lose because James hasn't grown up, or can't handle the pressure, or isn't one of the two or three best players in the world. The Heat lost because Dallas outplayed them in a six-game series. That includes LeBron, of course — this obviously wasn't his best performance — but the series was never a referendum on King James.

If the Heat had won, that wouldn't have made LeBron a Jordan-esque hero any more than the series loss turns him into Jean Van de Velde. My favorite quote on choking is by longtime MLB manager Gene Mauch: "Losing streaks are funny. If you lose at the beginning you got off to a bad start. If you lose in the middle of the season, you're in a slump. If you lose at the end, you're choking." Everyone goes through slumps, but if your slump comes in the playoffs, all of a sudden it's an indictment of your will to win. What a load of crap.

You don't judge an individual player by his team's results, not even in basketball. During Michael Jordan's first five seasons, the Bulls were a .500 team: 205-205. Magic Johnson's Lakers lost in the NBA Finals four times. Larry Bird's Celtics finished with the best record in the NBA six times, but only won three championships. Are any of those guys chokers? Are their legacies diminished because they ran into a hot opponent at the wrong time, or had teammates who couldn't keep up?

Even more than the issue of team results, you shouldn't judge anyone by a handful of games. For the first 15 games of this postseason, LeBron really did look like the second coming of Jordan. For the final six, he simply looked like a good player, with positives and negatives, good plays and bad ones. He's not a superhuman gifted with a magical ability to elevate his game if there's a title at stake, and he's not a choker who can't win the big one. I'm sure he'll win a championship eventually, maybe even this time next year. These last six games don't define him as a player. They wouldn't have if he'd won, and they don't now that he's lost.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 5:13 PM | Comments (1)

June 20, 2011

Flim-Flam Man Fleecing the Fish?

"When we see glowing things about (Jeffrey) Loria, a lot of us are ready to throw up." — as quoted from a private art dealer in New York

What began this year as a team which reminded many of champions of recent past is now on the verge of descending into chaos and the resultant mediocrity that comes with it. And you can thank Jeffrey Loria for that.

It wasn't bad enough that he took an organization with scads of minor-league prospects and handled it with all the care and concern of a bomb defuser with DTs. He's been given the opportunity to do the same thing to another one, this team being as far south of his first home base in the majors as geographically possible. Judging by the reputation Jeffrey Loria is now preceded by in his business affairs, one gets an image in mind of a common flim-flam man being run out of town on a rail, putting as much ground between him and his former victims (ahem!) as he can.

The story of Jeffrey Loria's most recent foray into professional baseball, that being owner of the Florida Marlins, has proven to be more of the same. Loria's modus operandi has changed little if any at all: behind-the-scenes meddling, second guessing, and generally making life as difficult as possible for his hired hands. This particular chapter in The Life of Loria began, arguably, with the firing of manager Fredi Gonzalez, bench coach Carlos Tocsa, and hitting coach Jim Presley after a mediocre 34-36 start. Loria was convinced that the Marlins "can do better and be better." To that end, Bobby Valentine had reportedly put his name up for consideration to fill the vacancy; since that time, he's also reportedly voiced his opinion of said position as being resoundingly negative. I believe the words were something akin to, "I'd rather manage in Siberia." Or so it's been said.

And this is coming from a man who had been friends with Loria for 20 years, not to mention a man who's been in and around baseball a very long time. If that's how his friends feel about him, what kind of man are we talking about here?

Maybe he's the kind of man who brings a partner into a deal and then stiffs him in the end? Bobby Murcer could answer that question for you, if he were still with us today.

Basically, the story goes as such: Loria includes Murcer in his plan to buy the Oklahoma City 89ers, and after the deal is finalized Loria gives Murcer the brush and just like that, Murcer's out.

Perhaps he's the kind of man who brings in spring training instructors without consulting with his manager? In 2000, he did just that, inviting Maury Wills and Jeff Torborg as spring training instructors, while manager Felipe Alou was left to discover this little tidbit after the fact.

Is he the kind of person who is accused of fraud and racketeering? Ask his former compatriots in sunny old Montreal, who filed a federal racketeering lawsuit against Loria for $100 million, accusing Loria of turning down potentially lucrative TV and radio contracts in order to drive the Expos deeper into debt, providing the impetus for moving the team to another city. Commissioner Bug Selig was also named in this suit, who made no secret of his wish to eliminate the team entirely (along with the Minnesota Twins), ostensibly as part of a tactic meant to pressure the Players Union during labor negotiations.

Now, Loria initially invested $12 million in the Expos, which gave him a 24% share of the team. When it was all said and done, Selig had given Loria $120 million for all his trouble, along with a $38 million interest-free loan and an agreement that cleared the way for Loria to buy the Marlins for $158 million.

Now, that $120 mil is interesting, in and of itself. You see, Loria sold the team to a group licensed as Expos Baseball, LP. This group was comprised of the other 29 major league clubs. So basically he sold a major league team to Major League Baseball. And who runs Major League Baseball? Bud Selig. He sold the team to one of his former partners, one who just happens to be running the whole show. Funny thing, that.

And now we come to 2010. In August of last year, documents brought to light in an article on Deadspin showed that Loria and Co. were pocketing a big chunk of the money they received in MLB's revenue-sharing plan, something they had been suspected of doing for some time. Loria and team president David Samson have made a practice of presenting the team's financial state as harrowing; at best, a break-even prospect. The vocal stylings of Jeff and Dave played on the heartstrings of local government representatives, so much so that the team was able to land a $2.4 billion stadium for a team that will (probably) be long gone before it's paid off. Indeed, if Loria's grandchildren plan on living locally, they'll be feeling the pinch of the stadium tax.

With all that history, it hardly seems worthwhile to bring up the firing of team staff members. And that's actually true. Problem is, it's that sort of mentality that has carried over into his handling of team personnel. However, this team now has bigger problems than who runs the show down on the field; the real problem is who's minding the store. And when that man has his fingers in the till, the conventional wisdom is that he's only stealing from himself.

But in Jeffrey Loria's case, the victims may be most everyone else. Just ask his friends.

Posted by Clinton Riddle at 4:51 PM | Comments (0)

June 17, 2011

Foul Territory: Champs and Chumps

* He Drains the Main Vein in White Plains, or Peter Out, or Uri-Nate, or I May Be Only 5'9," But Don't Call Me "Wee" — Oklahoma City Thunder guard Nate Robinson was cited after police caught him urinating on a sidewalk outside a bookstore in White Plains, New York early last Friday. Robinson will likely pay a $50 fine, and probably won't be disciplined by the team. Robinson apologized, and Thunder head coach Scott Brooks accepted, and fittingly told Robinson to "shake it off."

* That Bites — The Boston Bruins won Game 7 4-0 over the Vancouver Canucks, taking a hotly contested Stanley Cup championship. Interestingly, Vancouver's Daniel Sedin, who on Tuesday said the Canucks were going to win Game 7, was left biting his tongue, and not anyone's finger.

* "NY" Stands For "Not Yet" — Derek Jeter strained his right calf running out a fly ball on Monday, and was placed on the disabled list, which puts his pursuit of the 3,000-hit mantle on hold. Jeter led off the bottom of the first in Monday's game against the Indians with a single, giving him 2,994 hits for his career. Manager Joe Girardi, eyes planted firmly on Jorge Posada, said he was grateful for having an easy decision to bench a player.

* No. 1 Directive Agency, or Drew to a Shill — Former Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor hired Drew Rosenhaus as his agent, and Pryor declared for the NFL's supplemental draft. Rosenhaus' first order of business was talking up Pryor, and he said that Pryor will be a "great" NFL quarterback. Rosenhaus' second order of business was informing Pryor that he only accepts cash.

* Germanator, or Unanimous "Decision" — The Dallas Mavericks closed out the Miami Heat, winning Game 6 105-95 on Sunday and claiming the NBA title 4 games to 2. Dirk Nowitzki was named most valuable player, and laid claim to the title of NBA's best player, just days after Dwyane Wade and LeBron James mocked the illness that slowed Nowitzki for the latter part of the series. If James had any case to consider himself the NBA's best, he "coughed it up" during the Finals.

* Cut Me, a Ribbon, Lou!, or Thankfully, No Children Were Eaten During the Induction Ceremony — Mike Tyson and Sylvester Stallone were inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame on Sunday in Canastota, New York. An emotional Tyson choked up and fumbled his words before ending his induction speech early in front of a rapt audience, who, surprisingly, were "all ears."

* PED-al to the Meddle, or Tour De France-y Meeting You Here — Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton crossed paths in an Aspen, Colorado restaurant over the weekend. Hamilton claimed the confrontation was combative, while Armstrong contended it was "uneventful." Apparently, according to Hamilton, Armstrong made several pointed threats. Hamilton replied with a retort that has become all too familiar for Armstrong: "What's gotten into you?"

* Group of Near-Death, or Two Out of Three Ain't Bad — The United States beat Guadeloupe 1-0 on Tuesday to slip in to the quarterfinals of the Gold Cup, overcoming a stunning loss to Panama on Saturday. They will face Jamaica on Sunday in Washington, D.C. The inconsistent and underperforming U.S squad seems headed for a disappointing Gold Cup result, which would confirm the growing notion that American is a "soccer-mad" country.

* Kenny and the Debts, or Lie-censed to Ill — Tennessee Titans wide receiver Kenny Britt has two arrest warrants outstanding in Tennessee, alleging that he provided inaccurate information on two separate license applications. Attorney Jonathan Farmer said Britt would be in Tennessee soon to handle the warrants, and instructed the simple-minded Britt that he is, by state law, obligated to return because Tennessee is the "Volunteer" state.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 3:52 PM | Comments (0)

How to Realign Major League Baseball

Rumors have been floating around about the potential for MLB to realign into a system with two 15-team leagues and no divisions. Early rumors have the top five teams from each league making it into a 10-team playoff. I like the idea of balanced leagues, divisions or no divisions. But a system with no divisions has the potential to lessen rivalry.

Early rumor speak of the Houston Astros being the team that would switch from the National League to the American league, creating a natural rivalry with the Texas Rangers. Don't you think we could do better creating natural rivalries than just that one adjustment?

In a division-less League, the Yankees would likely play the Red Sox the same amount of times as the Seattle Mariners. The Chicago Cubs would play the St. Louis Cardinals as often as the Florida Marlins. Creating one natural rivalry, only to lessen a dozen others doesn't seem wise to me.

Let me propose what I believe to be a better system for Major League Baseball that would increase rivalry throughout the league.

Major League Baseball should have no leagues, but three 10-team geographic divisions: East, Central, and West. Where would the teams fall under my system?

East — Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Florida Marlins, New York Mets, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, Tampa Bay Rays, Toronto Blue Jays, and Washington Nationals

Central — Atlanta Braves, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Royals, Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota Twins and St. Louis, Cardinals

West — Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies, Houston Astros, Los Angeles Angles, Los Angeles Dodgers, Oakland Athletics, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants, Seattle Mariners, and Texas Rangers

This geographic divide simply takes the 10 teams furthest to the east, then 10 teams furthest to the west, and then those remaining end up in the Central. Under this system, teams in the East would never have to cross a time zone to play within their division. Those in the Central would have to cross one at most and those in the West will only have to cross two time zones when the Texas teams are involved.

Perhaps you are asking, why does geography matter? Firstly, as a financial concern, less travel means less money. Secondly, and more importantly for baseball fans, for the sake of rivalry. There are some good rivalries in baseball today, but rivalry always grows stronger with proximity. It's a lot easier to hate teams when they are closer to home. Ask somebody who grew up in New York City or Brooklyn (which was its own city at the time) when the Giants, Yankees, and Dodgers all played there. The hate that existed between the fans makes the today's Red Sox and Yankees fans look like they are holding hands.

They say familiarity breeds contempt. Proximity breeds hate. Some of the rivalries created under this system include Cubs vs. White Sox, Yankees vs. Mets, Angels vs. Dodgers, Indians vs. Reds, Twins vs. Brewers, Marlins vs. Rays, and Nationals vs. Orioles. Admittedly, the one team that would suffer from this, losing its rivals and not gaining any to closer proximity, is the Atlanta Braves. So, of course, it isn't perfect. One possible solution would be moving the Pirates to the Central and the Braves to the East. I'd hear arguments for that.

I also think the playoff system could work very well in a three division league. Take the top four teams from each division, creating a 12-team playoff similar to that in the NFL. Give each division winner a first round bye, along with the team with the next best record that didn't win their division. Opening round series would be played between teams ranked 5-12 with 5 playing 12, 6 playing 11, and so on. The lowest seed to win would then play the highest seed with home field advantage always going to the higher ranked team.

Let's do a mock up of this idea as if were taking place this season with results as of Sunday, June 12. While Milwaukee and Atlanta are currently tied, let's give Milwaukee the tiebreaker for simplicity's sake at this point.

East

1. Philadelphia (1 overall)
2. Boston (4 overall)
3. New York Yankees (7 overall)
4. Tampa Bay (10 overall)

Central

1. Milwaukee (2 overall)
1. Atlanta (5 overall)
3. St. Louis (6 overall)
4. Cleveland (9 overall)

West

1. San Francisco (3 overall)
2. Arizona (8 overall)
3. Texas (11 overall)
4. Seattle (12 overall)

First-Round Byes

1. Philadelphia
2. Milwaukee
3. San Francisco
4. Boston

Opening Round

5. Atlanta vs. 12. Seattle
6. St. Louis vs. 11. Texas
7. New York Yankees vs. 10. Tampa Bay
8. Arizona vs. 9. Cleveland

Again for simplicity, let's say that the higher ranked teams won each of the opening series.

Second Round

1. Philadelphia vs. 8. Arizona
2. Milwaukee vs. 7. New York Yankees
3. San Francisco vs. 6. St. Louis
4. Boston vs. 5. Atlanta

One could argue for the bracket being set from there with the winner of Philadelphia vs. Arizona playing the winner of Boston vs. Atlanta etc. Or one could re-adjust the bracket again, making sure the highest seed always plays the lowest seed. I'm not fussed either way.

This system does necessitate change in other areas as well. Firstly, what would the schedule be like? With nine division opponents and twenty inter-division opponents, I'd recommend three games against every non-division opponent (60 games) and 11 games against every division opponent (99 games). This would shorten the season by three games (159), a necessity when dealing with an extra round of playoffs.

Non-division games would be a standard three-game series alternating location each year. Division matchups would alternate with each team between six home, five road games and five home, six road games. This would probably do away with four-game series, creating more two-game series.

Another difficulty would be ever plaguing question: Should we have the pitchers hit or have designated hitters? I see a number of options with this.

1. Uniform system.

Either no pitchers hit or all pitchers hit in every division.

2. Each division votes and chooses.

If the West wants pitchers to hit, they'll hit. If the East wants a DH, they can have one. Home teams call the shots.

3. Each team chooses for themselves and remains that way for the entire season.

If the Cardinals want to keep having their pitchers hit in the Central, so be it. If Boston wants to keep David Ortiz in at DH, so be it. Again, home teams call the shots.

4. Each home team chooses on game day.

I think this would be the most fun. Home teams can be allowed to choose whether or not their pitchers hit on a game by game basis, based on their own pitcher's ability to hit, their own DH options, the opposing team's pitcher's ability to hit, and the opposing team's DH options. I know this would be infuriating to some teams, but it would redefine home field advantage and make winning on the road a real accomplishment. Imagine a playing the Red Sox and being able to effectively bench David Ortiz every time he is on the road. It really has some potential.

The final difficulty I see with this proposal is the All-Star Game. Again, I see a number of options.

1. No All-Star Game.

I know it may not be a popular option, but it is feasible. At this point, the MLB All-Star Game is the best of the four major American team sports. Getting rid of it would at least lead the way for us to not have to sit through another pointless NFL Pro Bowl.

2. Split the Central and play East vs. West.

I don't really like it, but one could easily split any of the divisions in half and make each half join the other divisions. There's no good way to decide which division to split or which teams to send in which direction, but I suppose it's an option.

3. Round robin All-Star Games.

Playing three All-Star Games would be ridiculous, especially if the games meant nothing, but it would allow for greater exposure of relief pitchers as actual all-stars. I don't see any other advantage, though.

4. Unaffiliated All-Star Game.

Again, I think this is the most fun option. Instead of having teams that have to align with a certain league or division, why not have the fans vote for their favorite two of everything, including starting pitchers and coaches, flip a coin for each, and assign them to an unaffiliated all-star team. Have the players and coaches fill in the gaps and just have a good, old-fashioned, fun-loving baseball game. This would allow for Roy Halladay to pitch to Ryan Howard, for King Felix to pitch to Ichiro, or for Joe Mauer to trash talk Justin Morneau as he steps to the plate.

Realignment is never an easy thing to bring about. It requires so much politicking and complaining that I can't imagine my system ever even being considered. But it provides MLB with the opportunity for each ball club to play each other every year, it could save each club money in travel costs and it could help to recreate location based rivalries.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 12:19 PM | Comments (7)

June 16, 2011

Will Wimbledon Determine Who is Greatest Ever?

Ah, the green, green grass of the All England Lawn Tennis Club. My home away from home. Wimbledon, England, and the championships are just around the corner. I can smell the blades of red fescue in my dreams. And the red, dirty clay of Roland Garros is now just a memory.

Immediately following the French Open final, the debate began in earnest again about Roger Federer being declared the best tennis player of all-time. Rafael Nadal managed to once again defeat his arch nemesis Roger and tie legendary Bjorn Borg with six French Open titles, the most in the modern era. Given this win, and the career record Nadal holds over Federer, the case could be made that the anointing of Roger is premature. I wonder, should Rafa win at Wimbledon, would that relegate Federer to just a great, and not the greatest?

Let's explore this further. Roger Federer, truly an all-time great, became known as "the greatest" after surpassing Pete Sampras as the male tennis player with the most major singles titles, known as the Grand Slam tournaments. Pete Sampras held the title for less than a decade with 14 total "slam titles" after surpassing the previous record holder, Roy Emerson's 12. Federer dominated on all surfaces, and his generally young age still means that Federer can add to that number. He almost did a week ago at the French Open. Early on, it looked like Federer was going to take the first set easily and be on a course for a classic win. That, of course, turned out not the be the case.

With Federer playing at the level he did at the French, and being on his favorite surface, grass, Federer is odds on to win another big title. That would clearly put him in the pantheon of immortals. Or would it?

Trying to determine who is the greatest of all-time in men's tennis is complicated. Since all we have are statistics and career records to go by, it would seem that Roger currently is the greatest. I disagree. If you want to really look at this, you have to go back through the history of tennis and not forget about the players prior to the Open era of the sport. A history lesson is appropriate here.

Prior to Open tennis, the game was broken up into amateur and professional tours. The Wimbledon, Australian, French, and U.S. championships were confined to amateurs. So that meant if you were a professional, you were banned from playing in the tournament. That is actually how the term "Open" actually came to be. When the agreements were reached with all the major tournaments to "open up" to professionals as well as amateurs, you got "Open" tennis. The first truly open major tournament was the U.S. Open, played in 1968 and won by then-amateur Arthur Ashe.

What this division meant was that from the early 1930s until 1968, the best of the players, at their personal and professional peaks, did not compete for the major championships at Wimbledon, Australia, France, or the U.S. It also meant that in order to actually make a living at tennis, you had to take your major wins and turn pro. Many of the all-time greatest players probably would have wildly different records had there been Open tennis for the entire century.

It has been argued that the late Pancho Gonzalez may have been the greatest player ever. I only saw Pancho playing at the old age of 41, but his legendary and until last year record match against Charlie Pasarell at Wimbledon in 1969 at that age makes the case that he may have been had he not turned pro immediately after winning his second U.S. championship in 1949. I have to leave him out, though, because while he was dominant for nearly two decades on the professional tour, it is hard to compare his overall career record.

Now, the name not heard much anymore is William Tatem Tilden, or "Big Bill" Tilden. Star of the roaring '20s, often held in similar stratospheres as his contemporaries Babe Ruth and Bobby Jones, could be the greatest ever. His .938 career match winning percentage at all matches and tournaments has never been matched. His seven career U.S. championships, nine consecutive U.S. championship finals appearances, and his 10 overall final appearances is a record that has yet to be matched. Also, given that in that day there were really only two tournaments that counted, that being the U.S. and Wimbledon, it makes the feat even more interesting.

The Australian Championships, or Australian Open as it is known now, was a major tournament, however, the only way to reach it was by a month-long ocean liner voyage. There were many Australians who would make the reverse trip, that from Australia to England, but that was the normal course of the day as wealthier English had winter residences and businesses down under. To travel to Australia to play in an amateur tennis tournament was virtually unheard of at that time.

The French Open was closed to only French residents until 1925. Tilden himself only made the ocean voyage to Europe to play six times, in 1920, 1921, and 1927-1930. Tilden won Wimbledon in both 1920 and 1921 and then again in his last appearance in 1930. Given that, Tilden won essentially every major championship he competed in defeating every great player of his day. If you add the four professional tournament wins he had following his amateur career, it could be argued that Tilden had 14 major tournament wins. Total that, a .938 winning percentage at those tournaments, the fact that there were only two tournaments that counted toward the record, the problems with travel and the medical dangers of the time (Tilden actually lost half of a finger due to a fence scratch to gangrene during his career), his accomplishments seem to add up to that.

However, times were different and hard to compare. So while in the list of tennis immortals, I would not quite put him there. I would put him ahead of Federer, Nadal, and several others, though.

Roger Federer has clearly has been the king of tennis in the 21st century. I have a hard time remembering a tournament he hasn't been on my television competing in. His record of accomplishment is great, and he has won what has become known as the career grand slam, that of winning all four of the majors at one time in his career. That alone is an amazing accomplishment, as only six men in tennis history have done so. The beauty of tennis is that it is competed on different surfaces (clay, grass, and hard court) and the ability to win on each surface takes completely different skills and a true mastery of the sport. No other sport does the same.

Even given that, I cannot give the throne to Federer yet. What is also missing is the longevity factor. Yes, tennis players today play a lot more matches then were played in years past, and their bodies tend to break down with that increased tempo. I temper that with the knowledge that today players have entourages to train them, feed them, nurse them, and pamper them. Travel is by plane, not boat. Most of the illnesses of the past that would kill you today are cured with a vaccine or there are treatments for them. To last a career into your older years was probably harder even in the 1960s, let alone in the 1920s.

So, given my lengthy history lesson, Roger Federer is still not the greatest of all-time. That title still has to go to Rod Laver. Laver has a career record you can compare with some similarity, and he did play a portion of his career in the Open era. Laver was an amateur until 1963, and in 1962 became only the second player in history to capture what is known as the "Grand Slam," winning the Australian, Wimbledon, French, and U.S. Championships all in the same year. He spent six years in the professional ranks, winning eight major professional titles. Then the Open era began, and he won a total of five additional majors, including his second in 1969 and only the third Grand Slam in men's tennis history.

Laver is the only man in the modern era of tennis to do so to this day. He completed it at the age of 31. His 11 total major titles and eight professional titles would put him at 19 major titles, still several ahead of Roger Federer today. His two Grand Slams alone put him far above Federer and any other champion past and present. I'm not even counting his doubles titles and the fact that unlike Federer and all of the recent greats, Laver and the previous champions all competed in doubles and mixed doubles, as well.

Roy Emerson was a great player. Emerson, however, was a far cry from any of his Australian contemporaries Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, and Rod Laver. Emerson never had to face Hoad or Rosewall in a major tournament at their primes, and while early on he had two wins over Laver at majors, the bulk of his major title wins came in Australia. Emerson held the record of Grand Slam title wins at 12 until Sampras, but clearly that was more due to his decision to not turn pro until Open tennis than his ability to dominate any of his peers or the all-time greats. I think this one fact puts the statistic of Grand Slam tournament singles titles as the benchmark for greatness in question. Had tennis been open from the beginning, Emerson clearly would never have had the record he did, and Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzalez might have 20 major titles each.

Is Federer, or even Nadal, the greatest of all-time? History will have to tell, but as the game of tennis has evolved like other professional sports, the ability to truly categorize it has diminished. Tennis stars rarely if ever play major tournaments in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles, meaning they play a much smaller amount of matches and physically don't have to compete as hard. Players today have the advantage of technology in everything they use. Racquets are made of composites and more consistent. The clay, grass, and hard courts are so technologically groomed that the unpredictability of playing on the different surfaces has dissipated. The rules have changed to accommodate television, shortening sets and matches at many major tournaments.

If Federer manages to win at Wimbledon, I think he will get closer to the title of all =-time greatest. And just like the poem that adorns the hallowed grounds, "If..."

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 9:31 PM | Comments (1)

Gold Cup Heats Up

In my last column, I previewed and predicted the Gold Cup. Now that the quarterfinals are set, how did I do?

At first glance, pretty good: I got seven of the eight quarterfinalists correct. I only erred in picking Guadeloupe instead of Guatemala. But then again, eight of the 12 teams in the competition make the quarterfinals, and two of the four that didn't (Cuba and Grenada) would be left off by anyone with passing knowledge of CONCACAF.

I will pat myself on the back for correctly leaving off Canada. Lots of pundits had this event as their coming-out party. You can never go wrong picking against the "Les Rouges."

What concerns me as a U.S. fan is how much they struggled in group play, and how unstoppable Mexico has been. After kicking off their tournament with a comfortable win over the Canadians, the U.S. lost to Panama. It was their first loss in Gold Cup group play ever. They didn't look much better in their win against Guadeloupe, a tepid 1-0 affair where Guadeloupe had plenty of chances and the U.S., and Clint Dempsey in particular, missed chance after chance after chance.

On the other side of the coin, Mexico has been utterly, utterly dominant, and Javier "Chicharito" Hernandez has been a 23-year-old man among boys.

Usually, it's the Mexicans who sleepwalk and stumble in the group stages, only to get their act together for the knockout rounds. Now that's what the U.S. will have to do. Fortunately, I think they can do it; for one, it's impossible to dismiss the fully-loaded U.S. national team, and fully-loaded they are with Dempsey, Landon Donovan, Tim Howard, and Jozy Altidore logging 1,042 minutes between them in the group stage, out of a possible 1,080.

Their half of the quarterfinal bracket is favorable too. They draw Jamaica in the quarterfinals, and although Jamaica has been superb in the group stage (3-0-0, upset Honduras, only team in the tournament not to concede a goal), I'm still not quite able to pick them to beat what should hopefully be a motivated U.S. squad.

If the U.S. does get past Jamaica, then the semifinal will only be easier, either against El Salvador or a Panama team I am certain the Yanks will be eager to exact revenge on.

Speaking of U.S. soccer puzzles, I don't quite understand why Altidore, who is leading the U.S. in scoring in this competition, shines so brightly with the national team and struggles so mightily in club soccer. Ever since leaving New York in 2008, Jozy has logged just three goals in 49 games in Spain, England and Turkey. Contrast that with 12 goals in 28 for the US National Team. Granted, the competition in the top flight leagues of Spain, England, and possibly even Turkey is better than the Trinidads and Cubas the Americans often have to face, but the difference in scoring rate shouldn't be THIS stark.

To wit: in roughly the same span of time that Altidore scored those three goals in Europe, he has scored 4 goals for the U.S. against Mexico, Poland, Turkey, and Spain, all four World Cup mainstays.

The other half of the Gold Cup quarterfinal bracket pits Mexico against Guatemala and Honduras against Costa Rica.

The Honduras/Costa Rica game is probably the best quarterfinal of the four. As I stated in last week's column, these two squads jockey for the third-best team in the region, and that's an important place to be, because three teams are all CONCACAF receives in the way of automatic World Cup berths.

But now, one of them won't even make the final four of this tournament. Both have something to prove, as well, after having problems in the group stage: I mentioned Honduras lost to Jamaica, but they also let Guatemala hold them to a scoreless draw. Costa Rica allowed El Salvador to draw them, and they are still smarting from their game against Mexico. After the Mexicans blew away Guatemala and Cuba, Costa Rica was supposed to give them a decent game, but instead, Mexico tossed them aside as easily as they did the rest.

It should be noted that the draws Costa Rica and Honduras allowed to El Salvador and Guatemala, respectively, are pretty embarrassing, at least on paper. Those two squads (both quarterfinalists) are the lowest-FIFA-ranked teams in the competitions in the tournament (but they both made the quarterfinals). Below Cuba. Below Grenada. That said, I submit that the FIFA rankings for CONCACAF are, uh, not correct. I implied as much in my last column. The FIFA rankings have Cuba fifth in the region, ahead of Costa Rica and Panama, fer chrissakes.

As far as the Mexico and Guatemala quarterfinal, oy. That could be ugly. If somehow, someway, Guatemala wins, it would be their greatest accomplishment in decades. The Guatemalans proved equal to their last challenge, that draw with Honduras. They also dispatched Grenada as easily as the rest of the group, which put them into the final eight. So they have some pluck. While I don't expect anything but another Mexican blowout, I will be watching eagerly. It's the ultimate David vs. Goliath matchup (you know how much I love those) and I love rooting against Mexico.

As for the rest of my predictions, I suppose I will do the honorable thing and stick with them, although of course calling for the U.S. to beat Mexico now is a lot dicier. I had Guadeloupe in the semis; I hereby replace them with Panama. Game on!

Posted by Kevin Beane at 11:12 AM | Comments (2)

June 15, 2011

A Championship-Defining Turning Point

The epic, drawn-out nature of the NBA playoffs usually creates a certain amount of volatility from game-to-game, especially as the teams become more even in later rounds. In some cases, teams that lose a game by 30 points or more can come back to win a series. Such patterns mean that it is not only unlikely, but implausible to find a sort of "line in the sand" moment in a playoff campaign that changed everything about how a team performed.

For the new NBA champion Dallas Mavericks, such a moment can be clearly defined. It happened in only the team's fourth playoff game this season, but the results from before and after the contest are undeniable, as is the change in the team's reputation that it fostered.

On April 23, in Game 4 of the first round, Dallas held a 67-44 lead late in the third quarter. In the fourth, Portland took advantage of Dallas' complacency to pick up a famous win and tie the series at 2. Brandon Roy, bad knees and all, was dominant in the fourth quarter and scored or assisted on 14 of the Blazers' final 17 baskets. The contest came two games after Roy was held scoreless.

In the moments following Game 4 in Portland, there was absolutely no reason to believe the Mavs could make a run at the NBA title. There was tremendous doubt that they could even win two more games to get out of the first round. Many, including some Mavs fans, predicted Portland would win the series before it was played. Game 4 only entrenched that belief for many. Despite a whole new cast of characters for that game and this season as opposed to five years ago, save for Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry, the Mavs still carried a reputation of not being able to close out big games from the 2006 Finals.

I have no idea what went on in the locker room after the loss on a Saturday afternoon in Portland, but after that collapse, Dallas proceeded to go 14-3 for the rest of the playoffs. Furthermore, the Mavs won three series in that run against three title-contenders that had top-seven records in the regular season. If such a turnaround wasn't indicative enough of a changing mindset, the Mavs went from the team that couldn't close the deal to the team that made the memorable fourth quarter comebacks. In Games 1 and 3 against the Lakers, Games 4 and 5 against the Thunder and Games 2, 4, and 5 against the Heat, Dallas came back from fourth quarter deficits to win.

In Game 4 against Oklahoma City and Game 2 of the Finals, the comebacks were especially pronounced, 15-point margins for the opposition in each case well into the fourth quarter. In both games, Nowitzki took charge. In Miami, Dirk scored the last nine Mavericks points to pull off a stunning win. Before these playoffs, Dirk still had a reputation among some that he couldn't perform late in games. That was, frankly, total crap. Nowitzki has usually been among the league's best go-to guys in the fourth quarter, but carried a reputation from the 2006 Finals and the first-round disaster against Golden State the following year that wasn't bound to be completely shaken until he won a championship.

While Game 4 in Portland represented a line of demarcation in the 2011 playoffs for the Mavs, the Game 2 comeback in Miami also represented a crossroads, as well. For most of that game, the Heat both took advantage of careless Dallas errors and swarmed defensively. The Mavs looked rattled and probably deserved to be down 98-73, rather that 88-73 with seven minutes left. The fact that they stayed in relative touch with the Heat in that game was a testament to Dallas' new resolve. However, the people that have been following the Mavs all year knew that Dallas had been getting good perimeter looks in each of the first two games, but couldn't knock them down. When the series went back to Dallas, more shots fell.

The only game the Mavs won in the series that didn't involve some sort of fourth quarter fight back was the clincher, Game 6. By the fourth quarter in that game, the Mavericks had broken Miami's will. As was the case in several Dallas wins, good perimeter defense forced Dwyane Wade and LeBron James to take outside shots. Erik Spoelstra became so desperate in Game 6 that a cryogenically frozen Eddie House had to be warmed up to play crucial minutes.

If the Rick Carlisle/Spoelstra coaching matchup were a boxing match, it would have been stopped very early on. Carlisle, who likes for his teams to play zone defense about as much as any coach in the league, changed the tone of the series when he used it late in Game 4. Across the whole series, Dallas actually used a zone less often (on a per-possession basis) than in the regular season. However, when the Mavs went into zone in Game 4, it discombobulated the Heat. Miami scored just 14 fourth quarter points in Game 4 on approximately 22 possessions. The zone was useful to the Mavs because it was used a weapon, and not a standard defensive tactic.

Carlisle's tinkering with the starting lineup after Game 3 putting J.J. Barea in for DeShawn Stevenson, not only allowed for Barea to have an immediate impact on the game, but motivated Stevenson. Even moves that didn't make much initial sense in the series, like playing Brian Cardinal over Corey Brewer, ended up working wonders for the Mavs. Meanwhile, Spoelstra made little adjustment until the final game when Mike Bibby (who started the previous five games at point) was sat altogether.

I've intentionally refrained from talking about the LeBron-Wade-Bosh triad for any length of time because I firmly believe that this is the Mavs' time. To talk about the Heat as much as has been going on implies that Miami lost the series more than Dallas won it. But I would be remiss if I didn't say something about LeBron. Yes, this was a catastrophic series for LeBron, and all of the criticisms being leveled are very fair. I agree with most of them. However, the team was still two wins away from a title, without LeBron having a signature performance in the series. Also, Shawn Marion did an excellent job on James defensively, including some big stops in the fourth quarter of several games.
Could LeBron have been more aggressive? Absolutely. But don't discount just how well the Mavericks played defensively.

Therefore, I'm not sure Miami really needs to blow the team up like has been pontificated in the last couple of days. I'm also not willing to make statements like, "LeBron will never perform in the Finals or win a championship." Time will tell, and no one really has any idea how that legacy will be written.

Nonetheless, LeBron predicting eight championships or more with the Heat at what amounted to the sports equivalent of President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner adds to the great amount of hilarity associated with Miami's self-proclaimed failure. It also made the victory that much sweeter for Dallas. Don't get me wrong, the Mavericks winning a title against Chicago, Boston, Orlando or whoever from the East would have been special. But to win it against the Heat, who broke the Mavs' hearts after Wade had significant help from the officials five years ago makes the triumph poetic. Furthermore, it was Miami this time who was heavily favored, and who blew Game 2 in a similar way to how the Mavs infamously blew Game 3 in 2006. In short, the Finals win exercised Dallas' demons in the most fitting way possible.

While Dirk winning his first title and solidifying his status as one of the greatest 15-20 players to ever play the game was a huge story, it's easy to overlook all of the veterans on Dallas' team that won their first title on Sunday night like Jason Kidd, Terry, and Marion. All have been on excellent teams in the past that could never quite close the deal for whatever reason. And in the end, I hope that these Finals are remembered more for those veterans (and some hungry, fiery youngsters, as well) on a true team than Miami's unsubstantiated hubris.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 2:47 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 14

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Carl Edwards — Edwards dropped a valve 58 laps in to the 5-Hour Energy 500, ending the day early for the No. 99 Kellogg's/Cheez-It Ford. He finished 37th, by far his worst finish of the year, but remained in front of the point standings lead, 6 ahead of Jimmie Johnson.

"I started with eight cylinders," Edwards said. "Then there were seven. And that led to six, points, that is, in my lead in the Sprint Cup standings. And look who's behind me. Jimmie Johnson, winner of five Cup championships. He finished fourth on Sunday. I was running third when my valve broke. Johnson is at number two in the standings. I guess that makes him the one to beat.

"You may have seen me in the TNT booth after my engine blew, and it's clear I'm a natural at broadcasting. Whether behind the wheel or in front of a monitor, I've got no problem with 'exposure,' which is obviously the case when I'm 'showing my parts' on national television."

2. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson finished a strong fourth at Pocono, posting his fourth top-5 result of the year and taking a chunk out of Carl Edwards points lead. Johnson entered the race 40 behind Edwards; he now trails by only six as the series heads to Michigan.

"As NASCAR's five time defending champion," Johnson said, "and arguably the sport's best driver, I often wonder if I can get any bigger. Well, the answer is 'yes,' in Edwards' rear-view mirror.

"I like my position. I've got a rival blowing an engine, and rival's car owner blowing a gasket. Heck, when the Sprint Cup points leader is in the broadcast booth yucking it up with the TNT crew during the race, I can only consider that a good thing for me and every other driver trailing him. Edwards is a 'show off.' He put on a 'show' off the track. While it may be good for his broadcast aspirations, as a contender for the Cup, he's all 'talk.'"

3. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. —Earnhardt scored his fourth-straight top-10 finish of the year, posting a sixth in the 5-Hour Energy 500 at Pocono, rounding out a trifecta of Hendrick Motorsports cars in the top 10. Jeff Gordon took first, while Jimmie Johnson finished fourth. Earnhardt improved one spot in the point standings to third, and trails Carl Edwards by 10.

"Had the No. 88 Amp Energy Chevrolet won the 5-Hour Energy 500," Earnhardt said, "there would have been a huge conflict of interest in victory lane. Amp Energy Drink is the industry leader among energy drinks. They play second to no one. I wish I could say the same.

"If we keep running this consistently, the wins will come. 107 races is a long spell to go without a victory, and if I fail to win at Michigan, I'll then be fighting a three-year victory drought. That's when Junior Nation becomes 'Junior Stag-Nation."

4. Kevin Harvick — Harvick toyed early with RCR nemesis Kyle Busch, drawing a warning from NASCAR, but otherwise took care of business at Pocono, finishing fifth. Harvick held on the fourth in the point standings, and now trails Carl Edwards, who finished 37th, by 11.

"I did indeed try to force Busch down the track on the long straightaway," Harvick admitted. "I figured Kyle needed a good 'straight left' after Richard Childress delivered a 'straight right' last week. Of course, Kyle did nothing about it. We've all heard of Morgan Freeman 'Driving Miss Daisy' around Atlanta. Now you've heard of Kevin Harvick 'Driving Mr. Pansy' down the track."

5. Kyle Busch: Busch finished third at Pocono, following big brother Kurt, who finished second, across the finish line. But that was where the good news ended. Kyle Busch's No. 18 M&M Toyota failed a post-race inspection, which found his front end too low. NASCAR penalized Busch six championship driver points, while Joe Gibbs lost six owner points, and crew chief Dave Rogers was fined $25,000.

"That's just great," Busch said. "One week, I'm decked by Richard Childress. The next, I'm docked by NASCAR. It appears I got 'served' by both. According to NASCAR, the left front of the vehicle was 1/16 inch too low, which is outside the tolerance. I'm not surprised, because I'm rarely inside anyone's tolerance.

"Harvick certainly puts the 'ass' in 'harass.' He just doesn't know when to stop. He certainly doesn't need to fight Richard Childress' fights for him. Childress can take care of himself just as well as he took care of me. But I have to thank Harvick for teaching me a valuable lesson — that I'm the bigger man."

6. Kurt Busch — Busch won his second straight pole, topping the charts in Saturday qualifying for the 5-Hour Energy 500. Busch led 37 laps on Sunday, but couldn't get near Jeff Gordon's No. 24 down the stretch, and settled for the runner-up spot, his best finish of the year.

"It would have been more fitting," Busch said, "had Kyle finished second and I finished third. That way, I could have said, for once, that I had Kyle's back."

7. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth came home eighth at Pocono, earning his seventh top-10 of the year and fourth in the last five races. He remained seventh in the Sprint Cup point standings, and trails Carl Edwards by 44.

"Don't let Carl Edwards' broadcast persona fool you," Kenseth said. "Television-friendly is where the friendly stops.

"As you may know, my car was sponsored in part this week by Affliction Clothing, apparel favored by several mixed martial arts fighters and those who emulate them. It's quite on odd pairing, since I probably rank somewhere between Kyle Busch and a sleeping kitten on the toughness scale. Affliction and I have a unique relationship unlike any other between a sponsor and driver: I'm forbidden to wear the product."

8. Jeff Gordon — Gordon took charge over the final 50 laps at Pocono, pulling away for his second win this year and 84th career triumph, which tied him with Darrell Waltrip and Bobby Allison for third on the all-time list. Gordon jumped two spots in the point standings to 11th, 81 out of first.

"With the new wildcard berths," Gordon said, "two wins all but guarantees a spot in the Chase For The Cup. Let this be a warning to everyone: I think this win is a clear indication that a fifth Sprint Cup is not out of the question. That may not have been the case in 2010. Last year, when I vowed to 'go for five,' many assumed I was declaring my allegiance to Jimmie Johnson's quest for his fifth Cup title."

9. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin led 76 of the first 101 laps in the 5-Hour Energy 500, but a flat tire on lap 161 ended his dominance and left him scrambling to make up ground over the final 39 laps. He remained on the lead lap and finished 19th, ending a run of three straight top-10s. Hamlin dropped one spot in the point standings to 12th, 84 out of first.

"The No. 11 FedEx Ground Toyota had the field covered," Hamlin said, "until the flat tire ruined my day. But that didn't stop me from quoting emerging color commentary personality Carl Edwards when I said to my crew, 'It's air time!'

10. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer, who won The Prelude to the Dream last Wednesday, finished 16th at Pocono, struggling with handling on the two-mile tri-oval. Bowyer did, however, improve one spot to eighth in the point standings, and now is 73 out of first.

"My name may be 'Clint,'" Bowyer said, "but I am by no means 'The Enforcer.' That would be Kevin Harvick, who, like our boss Richard Childress, takes matters into his own hands. Harvick has an uncanny ability to get into any driver's head. According to Kevin, it's particularly easy to get into Kyle Busch's head, because there's so much room."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:34 PM | Comments (0)

June 14, 2011

A King Gone, But Not Forgotten

I've always believed nothing good would ever come out of Dallas. It's the town where J.R. cheated Bobby out of Ewing Oil, the former home of Stars winger Sean Avery and his "sloppy seconds" comments. T.O. showered himself with popcorn in Dallas while never winning a single playoff game. A-Rod went there as one of sports' freshest young faces back in 2001, only to come out the lip-glossing, unwritten-rules-breaker everyone not wearing pinstriped pajamas loves to hate on. JFK went there in 1963 and never came out at all.

Dallas, of course, is also home to the Mavericks, formerly one of the NBA's biggest postseason busts of all-time.

When the Mavs blew a 23-point lead in their opening round series in Portland back on April 23, it was no real surprise. After all, they'd lost three first-round series in the past four years, including once as the Western Conference top seed. The count was about to go to four in five years. No big deal. It wasn't like June was missing out on anything. But then, something happened.

The Mavs' hearts grew three sizes after that day.

Dirk Nowitzki & Co. returned home and won, then closed out the Trailblazers in six. They swept the Lakers and took the Thunder in five, including one comeback win from 15 points down inside of five minutes to play. And Sunday night, the Mavs did the basketball world a service, knocking out everyone's newest villains, LeBron James and the Miami Heat. Oh yeah, they won their first NBA championship in the process.

So, as self-righteous owner Mark Cuban stood at the podium wearing his championship cap and berating viewers for not believing in his basketball team, I had to admit he was right. Sure, we doubted his team. We had every right to.

The Mavericks' reversal of their perennial postseason underachievement was as unexpected as the Grinch coming upon the true meaning of Christmas there on Mount Crumpett after 53 years of buzz-killing the yuletide. Not to mention that the Heat at times looked as invincible in these playoffs as any champion in the post-M.J. era. As their apparent invincibility grew, so too did their obvious cockiness, which made their fall all the sweeter. And funnier, at least in Cleveland.

Something good has finally come out of Dallas.

Or has it?

Maybe not, if you're a Celtics or Lakers fan. Age is closing the window on your championship-contending opportunities with each passing day. Los Angeles may have a few more runs if Kobe Bryant's battle-worn body can hold up, but Boston is nearly out of gas. An extra-motivated Heat squad come October will be as welcome as Anthony Weiner at the next Democratic fund-raiser.

For that matter, the Bulls, Grizzlies, and Thunder, whose time is rapidly approaching, may have all been better suited if the Heat just had their way with the Mavs and been done with it. All the "not one, not two, not three..." multiple-championship delusions aside, Miami's appetite would have been satisfied and it is easier to get around a sleeping bear than a hungry one.

But America's jubilance this week is less about staving off a Heat dynasty than it is about denying the King his throne. Talk shows and blogs are savoring LeBron James' fourth quarter disappearing acts, while the rest of us hold hands with our Cleveland brethren and sing a round of Kumbaya. It's gotten personal, and it's not even our fight.

Here's the other thing for me: despite living in New England, I like LeBron. He had me long before his conciliatory comments toward the Celtics after eliminating them in the second round back in May. Granted, in looking around, I don't see many on my side of this, but I'm okay with being a contrarian.

James has never gone into the crowd to punch a fan. He's never used a gun on a teammate to shake him down for gambling debts, nor has he paid off a plaintiff accusing him of rape. His only crime against society is wanting to get away from Lake Erie, and I'm not sure when having Cleveland's back became the right thing to do for the rest of us. I've been there twice and each time the cabbie couldn't get me back to the airport fast enough.

Plenty will say it's not about dissing Cleveland, it's about quitting on his team, of not coming through in the clutch. If that were the case, why were the Celtics and Bulls sitting in their living rooms Sunday night like the rest of us? Despite what Scottie Pippen thinks, LeBron may not be M.J, but he is also not the Gay Girl In Damascus fraud many are contending, either.

Nowadays it's hard to find a more scrutinized athlete not named Tiger, and he did bring a lot of this on himself. Nevertheless, between handlers who arranged The Decision, and all his fretting every spring over which friend may be tapping his mother or girlfriend, it's as if someone close enough got the bright idea of tagging James with a 'Kick Me' sign while pretending to slap him on the back.

Of course, the problem with tagging a 'Kick Me' sign onto the back of someone with a 250-pound, 6'8" frame who also doubles as the best basketball player in the world is that one day he's going to find it there. And then he's going to remember this week, when the dissing and the hating and the jokes (he can't make change for a buck because he doesn't have a fourth quarter) went into overdrive. And when he does, I hope the next game is on national television.

Maybe then, LeBron haters out there will conclude what I did many years ago: nothing good ever comes out of Dallas. Even in victory.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 4:21 PM | Comments (2)

Stats and the Best Players in NBA History

The week before last, I wrote about Total Statistical Production (TSP), a stat-based rating system for basketball players. If you haven't read that piece yet, go check it out now, or this one won't make any sense.

Okay, ready?

Let's talk about ranking players historically. TSP rewards floor time, and this is intentional. Per-minute ratings sometimes say a sixth man who plays 25 minutes a game, or a starter who misses the last month of the season, is just as valuable as a 40-minute man who plays every game, which — if their per-minute numbers are even close — obviously isn't true. At the same time, however, we don't want players to rate high just because they were on the court a lot. This is particularly important if we want to rate multiple seasons or full careers. Surely there's a way to balance excellence and efficiency with consistency and production? Actually, there are two ways. One involves replacement level, but this week we'll look at my preferred method, TSP2. Let me show you results, and then I'll explain how we got there. By raw TSP, these are the top 10 regular-season players of the '90s:

1. Karl Malone, 86.3
2. David Robinson, 80.5
3. John Stockton, 76.6
4. Hakeem Olajuwon, 69.4
5. Scottie Pippen, 66.8
6. Charles Barkley, 65.9
7. Gary Payton, 65.1
8. Shaquille O'Neal, 61.9
9. Reggie Miller, 61.1
10. Michael Jordan, 59.5

Keep in mind that Jordan retired twice during the '90s and only played about 60% of the decade. Still, even 60% of M.J. probably should rate higher than 10th. The TSP2 list is:

1. David Robinson, 79.4
2. Karl Malone, 75.9
3. John Stockton, 68.4
4. Michael Jordan, 65.8
5. Shaquille O'Neal, 64.7
6. Hakeem Olajuwon, 64.4
7. Charles Barkley, 61.0
8. Scottie Pippen, 54.8
9. Gary Payton, 52.5
10. Dikembe Mutombo, 47.5

I think that's a fair evaluation of Jordan, given that he played 503 games and Stockton played 770. The new list is designed to reward longevity, consistency, and peak performance. To arrive at these ranks, we start with individual seasons (rather than looking at the decade as a whole). Let's use Karl Malone as an example. Season by season, his TSP ratings are:

1990: 9.6
1991: 9.1
1992: 10.0
1993: 8.7
1994: 9.1
1995: 9.0
1996: 9.5
1997: 8.8
1998: 4.4
1999: 8.0
sum: 86.3

To arrive at our new values, take each of those numbers, then square and divide by 10: TSP²/10. Our new results are:

1990: 9.3
1991: 8.2
1992: 9.9
1993: 7.6
1994: 8.3
1995: 8.1
1996: 9.1
1997: 7.8
1998: 5.1*
1999: 6.5
sum: 79.8

* Adjusted for strike-shortened season

By this method, the difference between good and great seasons grows larger. A 10-TSP season is still worth 10 (100/10), but a 5-TSP season is worth only 2.5 (25/10). When we talk about the best ever, we don't just mean someone who played a lot of games — we mean someone who lit the world on fire, who dominated the game, did things that had never been done. Squaring before finding the sum emphasizes peak performance and rewards the players who dazzled us.

There's one more step — two, really. Multiply the player's TSP per minute played (TSP/MP) by 25,000. This usually yields a number similar to his career TSP. Malone's TSP/MP in the '90s was 0.0029, which comes to 72.3. For the final result, find the harmonic mean of the squared sum (79.8) and MP25K (72.3); for Malone, that number is 75.9. The formula for harmonic mean is 2xy/(x+y): 2 * 79.8 * 72.3 / (79.8 + 72.3). This method, TSP2, has limitations, but for full-time players with substantial careers, it is usually effective and provides an accurate representation of their performances.

This method is not effective for individual seasons. In fact, it's ridiculous. To adapt it for individual seasons, multiply TSP/MP by 3,000 instead of 25,000. You can also use TSP Over Replacement (explained next week), or just use raw TSP, which generally gives an accurate picture on its own and shouldn't require much adjustment.

For rating careers, however, I prefer TSP2. I'll show why now, listing the top players at each position. These lists are exclusively statistical, and do not reflect my subjective opinion. They were generated by finding the harmonic mean of (1) the squared sums of a player's individual seasons and (2) his career TSP/MP multiplied by 25,000. By TSP2, here are the top centers in NBA/ABA history:

1. Wilt Chamberlain, 133.2
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 111.4
3. Bill Russell, 92.1
4. Hakeem Olajuwon, 87.1
5. David Robinson, 85.7
6. Walt Bellamy, 82.6
7. Artis Gilmore, 80.7
8. Moses Malone, 79.8
9. Shaquille O'Neal, 79.7
10. Bob Lanier, 68.0

Two groups of players are notably underrated on this list: great defenders and elite postseason performers. Traditional statistics usually fail to capture defensive value, and the ratings you see are based solely on regular-season numbers. Russell, who was one of the finest defenders in history, and the most successful postseason player of all time, is probably a lot closer to Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar than he appears. Olajuwon probably deserves a boost for the same reasons. Shaquille O'Neal, a three-time Finals MVP, surely deserves to rank higher than ninth. Subjectively, I rank them this way: Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Olajuwon, Shaq, George Mikan, Malone, Robinson, Gilmore, Bellamy.

Rounding out TSP2's top 15: Wes Unseld, Robert Parish, Patrick Ewing, Bob McAdoo, Nate Thurmond. Nowhere near the top 15, Alonzo Mourning (42.7) rates as a very good center, but not nearly as good as his reputation. He ranks behind contemporaries Dikembe Mutombo, Vlade Divac, and Ben Wallace. On the other side, Bellamy, Gilmore, and Lanier are among the more underrated centers. With all due respect to, say, Patrick Ewing, it's absurd to suggest that he was a better center than Bellamy or Gilmore. George Mikan, whom I believe was easily one of the 10 best centers of all time, doesn't make the stat-based list because his career was so short.

Players are listed at the position that I judged to fit them most closely, but some guys spent time at (for instance) center and power forward, or shooting guard and small forward. In this system, fortunately, a player's listed position only affects which list he appears on, not his score. The top 10 power forwards:

1. Charles Barkley, 90.3
2. Karl Malone, 86.5
3. Bob Pettit, 83.5
4. Jerry Lucas, 79.8
5. Kevin Garnett, 78.5
6. Elgin Baylor, 73.5
7. Dan Issel, 70.2
8. Tim Duncan, 69.0
9. Dirk Nowitzki, 67.0
10. Dolph Schayes, 64.1

For anyone doing the math at home, you might notice that a few guys rate a little higher than they're supposed to. Any season shorter than 79 games is pro-rated to 80 games, so players like Pettit aren't punished for playing when the season was only 72 games long. This adjustment is particularly important when we square the single-season TSP, and a shorter schedule represents a significant handicap. This is especially meaningful for the 1998-99 strike season.

The rest of the top 15: Elvin Hayes, Bailey Howell, Shawn Marion, Billy Cunningham, Kevin McHale. TSP2 probably underrates Tim Duncan as much as any player. He's a terrific defender and a successful postseason player, plus he played in the 2000s, when slow game pace limited team possessions, and thus individual opportunities. Garnett and Nowitzki are undervalued for the same reason, as are contemporary players at other positions. This formula rates Duncan as the eighth-best power forward in history, but that's a shortcoming of the system. Duncan is not overrated.

Singling out someone as underrated, I might look at Issel, who played six seasons in the ABA, but was also a terrific player after the merger. I counted ABA seasons as having 90% of the value of NBA seasons. I don't believe Issel is really the seventh-best power forward in history, but I do think he's top-10.

You may note that the scores in the next group are a little lower. Modern small forwards rate about the same as power forwards, but before the introduction of the three-point line, post players who could rebound and score inside were usually far more productive. More on this later.

1. Larry Bird, 81.4
2. Julius Erving, 80.4
3. LeBron James, 63.1
4. Larry Nance, 60.8
5. Alex English, 60.2
6. Adrian Dantley, 58.4
7. Scottie Pippen, 58.1
8. Rick Barry, 57.7
9. Dominique Wilkins, 55.5
10. Chris Mullin, 50.8

Filling out the top 15: Paul Pierce, Terry Cummings, Dennis Rodman, Marques Johnson, Tracy McGrady. Notably absent from the list is Hall of Famer James Worthy (43.3). He was a good player on three championship teams, but the championship aura rubbed off on him in a way that enhanced his reputation beyond reality. Compare Worthy to Nance, who played mostly the same years and about the same number of career minutes:

Worthy scored 633 more points, but he missed 1,032 more shots. Worthy had 398 more assists, but 2,644 fewer rebounds. He had 169 more steals, but 1,403 fewer blocks. He committed 148 more turnovers. Statistically, there is no comparison between them. Yet Worthy's reputation far exceeds Nance's, because he had the good fortune to play with Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, on a team coached by Pat Riley.

Two-guards:

1. Michael Jordan, 95.5
2. Clyde Drexler, 69.7
3. Kobe Bryant, 62.0
4. John Havlicek, 56.5
5. Reggie Miller, 56.2
6. George Gervin, 53.8
7. Ray Allen, 50.9
8. Jeff Hornacek, 50.0
9. Fat Lever, 49.5
10. Vince Carter, 47.7

The rest of the top 15: Hal Greer, Alvin Robertson, Dwyane Wade, Dave Bing, Allen Iverson. Two players who deserve special attention are 13th-ranked Dwyane Wade and 15th-ranked Allen Iverson. Wade has only played 547 regular-season games; no one in the top 10 has fewer than 900. When Wade gets more experience, he's a lock for the top 10.

I've listed Iverson as a shooting guard partly just to get him onto a list at all (he'd be 21st among point guards). According to TSP2, Iverson (41.6) is among the most overrated players in history. What TSP sees in The Answer is a guy who played a lot of minutes and took a lot of shots. Iverson was a 42.5% shooter who committed over 3,000 turnovers. You can get away with that if you're Jason Kidd and you have 12,000 assists and 8,000 rebounds, but Iverson only had half that many (5,624 and 3,394).

Also notable by his absence from the top 15 is Joe Dumars (29.7), who benefitted from the same kind of championship halo as Worthy. Playing 35 minutes a game, Dumars averaged just 16 points, 4.5 assists, and 2.2 rebounds, with twice as many turnovers as his blocks and steals put together. That makes Iverson (26.7 ppg, 6.2 apg, 3.7 rpg) look like Michael Jordan.

Few of the shooting guards are terribly underrated. Several of them are a little underrated, but most have reputations more or less in line with what TSP2 shows. The exception is Lafayette Lever. He played only eight full seasons, but his career TSP/MP (.0025) is the third-best of any two guard in history, behind only Jordan and Drexler. Compared to replacement level, he ranks even higher than this. Lever had the misfortune to be a contemporary of Jordan and Drexler, and his skills were subtle. He wasn't a great scorer (shot 44.7% and averaged 13.9 ppg), but he grabbed 6 rebounds and 6 assists per game — sensational numbers for his position — plus he was a very good defensive player.

How many players have at least three seasons averaging 7 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists per game? Six: Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson, Jason Kidd, LeBron James, Larry Bird, and Fat Lever. That's select company. Lever spent most of his career on mediocre Nuggets teams, but in his best seasons (1986-90), he had Magic Johnson numbers: 19 ppg, 9 rpg, and 7.5 apg, with more steals than turnovers every year. He was easily one of the top ten players ever at his position, maybe top five. Point guards below:

1. Oscar Robertson, 101.8
2. John Stockton, 87.8
3. Magic Johnson, 86.2
4. Jerry West, 73.6
5. Jason Kidd, 61.8
6. Gary Payton, 60.2
7. Walt Frazier, 55.3
8. Steve Nash, 53.7
9. Lenny Wilkens, 51.5
10. Maurice Cheeks, 49.7

Okay. Stockton is ahead of Magic. I know. Stockton played 1,500 games, Magic played 900 games. Magic was more effective per minute (0.0032 to 0.0029), but 600 games, almost 15,000 minutes ... If you had a pretty average team, 30-30 or so heading into the end of the regular season, trying to make a playoff push, and you could add Magic Johnson to your roster for 9 games, or John Stockton for 15 games, which would you take?

The issue, when you're rating careers, is that you're not asking about Magic for 900 games and Stockton for 900 games. You're looking at Magic for 900 games and Stockton for 1,500. TSP agrees that Johnson was better when he was on the court, but it sees Stock as more valuable because he played so much longer. Here are some career totals:

Are Magic's 2,500 rebounds worth Stockton's 5,500 assists? Are his 750 fewer turnovers worth Stock's 1,500 steals? Are his 50 blocks worth Stockton's 2,000 points? These are huge advantages for Stockton. I believe Magic should rate ahead anyway, because this data does not include postseason performance. Magic starred in the playoffs and Finals in a way that Stockton did not, and that should move him ahead. That said, I don't believe there's anything wrong with the formula that "mistakenly" caused John Stockton to rate too high, or Magic too low. As an assessment of their regular-season careers, I believe these ratings — which are almost equal, actually — are fair to both players.

The difference between the top three or four point guards and the rest of the bunch is monumental — no one is close. The TSP2 gap between Stockton and Kidd is about the same as the difference between Kidd and Mike Bibby (35.4, about 30th). The Wages of Wins network has been making some noise recently to the effect that Kidd might reasonably be compared to Stockton. Both are all-time greats, but I do not believe their careers are truly comparable.

The biggest differences are rebounds, assists, and especially scoring and shooting percentage. The rebound difference (4,153 in Kidd's favor) and the assist difference (+4,228 for Stockton) roughly cancel out (unless you use a rebound-oriented rating system like the Wages of Wins people do). But the shooting categories represent an enormous advantage for Stockton. Stockton made 1,071 more field goals than Kidd, in 1,207 fewer attempts. TSP recognizes that as a difference of about 30: 2,000 points and 1,000 possessions.

Kidd was such a poor shooter that his offense is basically just ball-handling — his shooting rates only slightly above "worthless" — but the Wages of Wins systems place a huge premium on rebounding, and underrate assists and steals (two areas where Stockton excelled). Win Score, the more basic of the Wages of Wins stats, evaluates boards being just as valuable as steals and twice as valuable as assists. You can judge for yourself whether or not that makes sense.

Kidd rates nearly equal to Stockton in that system ... because he rebounded like a forward. Let me quote from Arturo Galletti: "Big Men (F/C) are on average more productive than everyone else. They in fact account for 50% of all productivity ... a lot of the exceptional players in league history were tall for their position or played and produced like big men (Magic, Charles Barkley, Dennis Rodman, Jordan, Kevin Garnett, and LeBron James are six examples that come quickly to mind)."

Okay, one point at a time:

1. Big men dominate the Wages of Wins stats because the Wages of Wins place enormous emphasis on rebounding. TSP doesn't overrate rebounds, so centers rate the same as everybody else. Their TSP2 totals are higher than other positions because they have longer careers, not because their TSP scores were any higher. A 40-year-old guard who has lost his speed probably can't play in the NBA. A 40-year-old center is still 7' tall and probably still very strong in the paint. But season-by-season, big guys don't rate any higher than guards.

2. Of course players who are an unusual height for their position excel. If you want to be a 6'9" point guard, you had damn well better be Magic Johnson. I remember being 10 years old at basketball camp, trying to explain to my coach that I was a point guard, not a center. I wasn't very assertive when I was 10, so that didn't work, but on the last day of camp, when we had shooting competitions, I finally proved I was the best outside shooter on the team. Someone who is effectively allowed to play out of position relative to his height has to be an exceptional player, or they'll move him back "where he belongs."

3. My favorite part: "a lot of the exceptional players in league history were tall for their position or played and produced like big men." So you either have to be tall ... or else do the same things, even though you're not tall. That's some fascinating analysis: being tall is really important ... except when it's not. If you rate rebounds being twice as valuable as assists, of course you'll say all the best players are big men (or small men who rebound). You might even reach the conclusion that Jason Kidd was just as good as Stockton.

Is Kidd one of the greatest point guards in history? Of course. Was he in Stockton's class? Absolutely not. You compare Stockton to Magic and West; you compare Kidd to Payton and Nash and Frazier.

Anyway, rounding out the top 15 point guards, we have: Chris Paul (rising quickly), Terry Porter, Kevin Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and Tim Hardaway. There are three point guards so badly overrated as to merit discussion. One is Isiah Thomas, a low-percentage shooter who committed a turnover once every 10 minutes. His TSP/MP is about the same as Mookie Blaylock or Sam Cassell — fine players, but hardly all-time greats.

Pete Maravich (33.6 TSP2) played just 658 games, and was active for only 10 seasons. He scored often (24.1 ppg), but he didn't have a high percentage (44.1%) and wasn't a great assist man. Most overrated players have at least three of the following points in common:

1. Famous before they got to the NBA, or made headlines off the court.
2. Played with good teammates and won multiple championships.
3. Scored a lot, didn't get many rebounds or assists.
4. Low shooting percentages.
5. Poor defense.
6. Lots of turnovers.
7. Short careers, so people remember them at their best.

A player who meets one or two of these criteria is seldom significantly overrated. Those who meet 3-4 of the conditions above are usually regarded as being much better players than they actually are. Those who fit five or more of these standards are always significantly overrated. Maravich probably qualifies for four of those points (1, 3, 4, and 7). I'm not trying to pick on Pistol Pete, or Isiah Thomas, or Iverson or Mourning or any of the players I identified as overrated. The tricky thing about calling someone overrated is that it usually leaves nobody happy. Many fans mistakenly read "overrated" as a synonym for "bad", which it isn't. All of the guys I named were good players, some of them very good. But when you label people like that, the fanboys (and fangirls, presumably) come out to defend their heroes, sometimes forgetting their manners. Just to save everybody some trouble, I'm not biased against your team, my mental health is quite sound, and I could beat you in one-on-one.

The other side's problem is that it's very, very hard to refute an "overrated" accusation. If I say James Worthy is overrated, and you say I'm biased/crazy/stupid, it kind of proves the point. I'm saying lots of people think he's great, even though he's not. You say he is so. I mean, have you no sense of irony? Incidentally, though, it's math that thinks Worthy is overrated, not me. Well, actually, I agree — he is overrated — but I'm just passing along the numbers here.

Anyway, the third point guard I wanted to comment on is Bob Cousy (42.7). Last week, I noted, "The equality among positions in TSP goes back more than 30 years. It is true, though, that in the game's early years, centers and power forwards dominated." Oscar Robertson and Jerry West were superstars right away, and TSP recognizes that. But before them (and Lenny Wilkens, who debuted the same year), small forwards and guards — even Hall of Famers like Cousy — don't rate well statistically. Cousy's best season, according to TSP, was 1955-56, when his rating was 6.1 (6.8 if you adjust for the 72-game season). That 6.8 would have ranked 14th in 2010-11, between Al Horford and Amare Stoudemire. Hey, that's a good season. But it's nothing special, and that's Cousy's very best year.

It's not that Cousy is overrated, precisely. He probably was the best guard of his era. But do we really need an adjustment to bring Cousy's scores into line with those of Bill Russell and Bob Pettit, or Robertson and West? I would liken it to what Bill James calls the "Gavy Cravath argument":

"If Gavy Cravath is the best home run hitter of 1915 and Babe Ruth is the best home run hitter of 1925, is Gavy Cravath equal to Babe Ruth? No, he isn't, because 20 homers are not the same as 50, no matter how many home runs anybody else in the league may have hit."

Cousy was a 37.5% shooter, actually never shot as high as 40% in any season. That's on two-pointers. He averaged 7.5 assists per game. Steve Nash averages 8.5, Robertson averaged 9.5, Stockton averaged 10.5, Magic averaged 11.2. Cousy was a good guard, but he was not a dominant player. Dave Heeren, in his seminal Basketball Abstract, wrote that Cousy "was the outstanding NBA guard for the decade of the 1950s. But by standards of any of the succeeding decades neither he nor any other guard of the 1950s was much better than average. Cousy's frilly, but not essentially excellent, style of play became antiquated the minute Oscar Robertson and Jerry West entered the league in 1960."

If Cousy was the best point guard of the '50s, does that make him the equal of Robertson or Magic, the best point guards of their respective eras? No, for the same reason Gavy Cravath wasn't Babe Ruth. The dominant players of the '50s and '60s, apart from Robertson and West, were all big men, and TSP recognizes that. In my mind, a stat adjustment to bring the numbers for Cousy or Sam Jones into line with those of Pettit and Russell distorts what actually happened. When Cousy played, you could win without a good point guard; you couldn't win without a dominant big man.

Similarly, to suggest that Cousy was as dominant in his league as Big O or Magic or Stockton is ludicrous. It's simply not true. I'm not trying to pick on Cousy, because this is true for every guard of his era, but when modern analysts equate Cousy being the best guard of the '50s to Stockton or Kidd being the best of their respective eras, and assume that Cousy was as valuable a player — that's just not the case. For six seasons (1950-56), the Celtics had two Hall of Fame guards, Bill Sharman and Cousy. The team never finished better than second in the East and never reached the NBA Finals, not even once. Guards of the 1950s generally were not very effective players, and TSP reflects that.

A good statistic has to shake things up a little — but only a little. If you're interested in stats, you've probably read something along these lines before: a statistic that tells you nothing you already know is flawed, and a statistic that tells you only what you already know is useless. If TSP showed that Muggsy Bogues was the best player of all time, and Rodman more valuable to the Bulls than Jordan, it wouldn't be useful; you couldn't trust the stat. But if all it did was confirm conventional wisdom, it would be pointless. I believe TSP and TSP2 find the middle ground. They mostly synch up with common sense — the stuff we already know — but there are also some knocks at players who are widely celebrated, like Derrick Rose or Isiah Thomas.

To wrap up this column, I'll present the TSP2 All-Time Team. Next week, I'll tackle replacement value.

First-Team All-TSP2

G: Oscar Robertson
G: Michael Jordan
F: Larry Bird
F: Charles Barkley
C: Wilt Chamberlain

Second-Team All-TSP2

G: Magic Johnson
G: Clyde Drexler
F: Dr. J
F: Karl Malone
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Third-Team All-TSP2

G: John Stockton
G: Kobe Bryant
F: LeBron James
F: Bob Pettit
C: Bill Russell

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:55 PM | Comments (4)

June 13, 2011

The Goalie Showdown

The Vancouver Canucks have the Boston Bruins on the ropes in the Stanley Cup finals, leading three games to two in a seven-game series. The story of the series is that despite winning three of the five games that have been played, the Canucks have been outscored in the series 14-6. The Canucks can be thankful that the NHL doesn't use aggregate scoring.

Roberto Luongo has tallied 2 shutout wins, the first in Game 1 and the second in Game 5. He also allowed 12 goals in just over 100 minutes between the posts spanning Games 3 and 4. That's Roberto Luongo for you. He'll be the best goalie in the world one night and the next night, he'll look as though he would get benched playing for a high school team.

On the other side of the ice, we have Tim Thomas, who has allowed 6 goals in five games and lost three times. In Games 1 and 5 when Thomas was great, Luongo was perfect.

Of interest in this series is that the home team has won every game thus far. On the road in the 2011 playoffs, Luongo struggled in Chicago, dominated in Nashville and had one win and one loss in San Jose. Home and away doesn't seem to be Luongo's problem, but he does get intimidated by certain buildings.

I don't tend to make a big deal out of the gossip in between games. That sort of gossip works much like the force, only affecting weak minded athletes. Roberto Luongo has a weak mind. His comments about Tim Thomas were pointless. He blathered about saves he could make and Thomas could make and after the blah, blah, blah he points out that he "pumps Thomas's tires" all the time and Thomas never says anything nice about him.

What is the point of this comment? Are you really going to complain to the media that the opposing goalie in the Stanley Cup final isn't sending you Valentines and liking your Facebook updates? Grow a pair and get over it, Roberto. How is this complaining going to help your game? Luongo and others in Vancouver have blamed the media for blowing this out of proportion. If you're looking for blame, look no farther than Luongo himself, prattling on, giving the media fodder.

To me, supplying fodder against yourself is the signal of a player with some mental difficulties, never a good thing for a goalie. I've said it before and I'll say it again: with Luongo, when it rains, it pours.

So after the hurricane in Games 3 and 4, Luongo recovered and had the Game 5 shutout. As the Canucks return to Boston for Game 6, which Luongo will we see? Indeed that seems to be the question before every game throughout the 2011 playoffs for the Canucks. We have seen the fantastic Luongo more often than the lousy Luongo and the result is that the Canucks are a win away from hoisting the Cup of all cups.

I can guarantee you this: we won't see both Luongos. He won't have a bad Game 6 and a good Game 7. If he has a bad Game 6, he'll have a bad Game 7. If he has a good Game 6, there won't be a Game 7.

It's hard to believe that we could see a championship series go in favor of the Canucks that saw Henrik Sedin and Ryan Kesler score zero goals and Daniel Sedin score one. This has helped contribute to the fact that somehow this series has gotten to the point where offensive play seems to matter less than any series in recent memory.

Another symptom of offensive play being a non-factor seems to be the atypical scores of the games. Three shutouts, and a lopsided 8-1 mess. Of the five games, only Game 2 was a normal hockey game, resulting in a 3-2 victory for the Canucks.

The final symptom that shows this series belongs to the goalies is amazing saves that have been made as compared to some of the goals that have been let in, particularly by Tim Thomas, that required as much luck as skill on the part of the goal scorer. I'm not trying to devalue the goals that were scored. The nature of many sports, particularly hockey, is that sometimes the bounces go your way and sometimes they don't. Skill puts you in a position to take advantage of those bounces more frequently and to increase your chances on those bounces, but there are a lot of bounces that I don't think athletes can always claim happened as they intended.

Fans know that both teams can score goals at any time, yet the Canucks have only managed 6 goals all series and the Bruins have been shutout twice. I attribute this to the goalies. And I predict the final game of the series will be because of the goalies, as well.

I'll boldly say that I think this series belongs to the Bruins. I have a feeling the Bruins will attack Luongo and the stellar Canucks defense early and often. All they need is a first period goal and they're golden. Scoring the first goal has meant victory in every game this series. There have been a grand total of two lead changes all series, both in Game 2.

If the Bruins can crack Luongo in the first period, they might have him for the remaining five periods of the series as the floodgates tend to open and Luongo gets progressively worse until he gets benched. Game 7 in Vancouver will be more difficult, but I don't think Luongo will have enough time to clear his head and the pressure will overwhelm him.

The only worry I have for the Bruins is that Tim Thomas seems to play better with a lead and if they can't get Thomas the lead, he may wear down and allow the final goal of the series and the season. He has been scored on late in all three of his losses in this series. Boston fans must hope that he doesn't make it four.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 12:13 PM | Comments (0)

Is Common Sense Coming to Major League Baseball?

The report this week that Major League Baseball is considering realignment is music to my ears, and signals a possibility of the National Pastime returning to common sense.

It's always been my contention that divisions and even conferences create unfair situations for teams that are more successful than others and reward the mediocre ones just because they happen to play in a weak division. Take my beloved Seattle Seahawks, for example. Granted, I loved the fact that they made the NFL playoffs last year, but the stark reality of them becoming the first team with a losing record to play in the postseason was more of a chuckle factor than the hard evidence one needs to justify a team playing for a championship.

In the case of MLB, they're kicking around the idea of rebalancing the leagues and scrapping the division system. This, I say, could be the best news about baseball I've heard since they announced the Seattle Mariners as an expansion franchise for 1977. But, as with any change of this magnitude, there are a number of factors that pose a roadblock in the return to common sense.

First and foremost is the question of which National League team will switch to the American League. I've read that Houston is the most logical choice, primarily in that it would create a natural rivalry with the Texas Rangers.

While that would be nice, I tend to stand on the side of tradition. In my opinion, the team to go to the AL should be Milwaukee. Since the franchise moved from Seattle before the 1970 season, it has been an AL team — that is, until its move to the NL in 1998. For us old-timers, the old Brewers of the American League put together some great teams that had nearly a decade of glory. The "Brew Crew" days of Robin Yount, Jim Gantner, Cecil Cooper, and the rest were a great tribute to a franchise rising from the ashes of the Pilots' debacle. In fact, for me, it's a little weird to see them wear their throwback uniforms and be playing against a NL opponent.

Another important question is that of interleague play. I, for one, am not a staunch proponent of the notion, but neither am I vehemently opposed to it. I merely tolerate it because it does create some intriguing matchups. But because interleague play was "saved" with the Brewers' move to the NL in '98 to create unbalanced leagues, it might be in jeopardy with the creation of balanced leagues. Or the schedule might need to incorporate interleague play throughout the season rather than the couple weeks it occupies currently. My hope is that interleague play goes away if the divisions go away.

I suppose the final question this potential realignment poses is what it will do to the competitive balance of the leagues. Since the wild card was introduced to the postseason chase in 1995, 10 times has a division winner supplanted another team with a better record from making the playoffs. Of course, the fans of those teams are glad that their team made the playoffs (as alluded to above with my Seahawks reference), and the fans of the others are steamed that their "better" team didn't get a shot at the title. With the elimination of divisions, those teams more deserving (as some would argue) of a postseason berth would get it. I supposed that a viable compromise would be to keep the leagues as-is, but go back to the two-division alignment. However, I'd personally favor leagues sans divisions.

The bottom line, though, is that I am pleased that MLB is even considering the idea. It's a common sense approach from an organization that has made few decisions based on common sense in recent years. I'd love to see every major sports league consider this approach (I've always thought the NFL should scrap the conferences), although I doubt it will ever happen. But at least baseball could be an example of what the structure of a league should look like — and how to reward the teams that truly deserve a shot at the next level.

Posted by Adam Russell at 11:31 AM | Comments (3)

June 10, 2011

Foul Territory: College Strippers and Busch Whippers

* "Canned" Heat — Dallas guard DeShawn Stevenson said LeBron James "checked out" in the final minutes of the Mavericks 86-83 over the Heat on Tuesday. James scored only 8 points, the first time he's failed to score in double-digits in 90 career playoff games. Stevenson also called James and Dwyane Wade "great actors" earlier in the week. It just goes to show that Stevenson can "spit" game as well as James can "throw" game.

* Buck Eyesore — Ohio State's Terrelle Pryor announced through his attorney on Tuesday that he will not return for his senior season. He had already been suspended for the first five games of the season, and he will likely declare himself available for the NFL supplemental draft. Uncharacteristically, and to the surprise of area car salesmen and tattoo artists, Pryor said he wasn't "coming back for more." Also surprisingly, OSU's compliance department commended Pryor's announcement, as it marked the first time he'd told the truth in well over two years. Pryor said he looked forward to the professional game, but not the pay cut it would entail.

* Gone "Limp," or Major Boner — Tiger Woods pulled out of the U.S. Open because of ongoing injuries to his left leg, temporarily suspending his pursuit of Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 majors. It will be the first U.S. Open Woods has missed since 1994. Ratings for NBC and ESPN's coverage of the event are sure to plummet, although that will likely be offset by a rise in the quality of play.

* Fuzzy Baller, or Racket-tier — Rafael Nadal won the French Open title on Sunday, defeating his rival, Switzerland's Roger Federer, 7-5, 7-6 (5), 5-7, 6-1. It was Nadal's sixth French title, tying him with Bjorn Borg, and his 10th Grand Slam title, which leaves him six behind Federer in major championships. Nadal has beaten Federer in their last four Grand Slam head-to-head matchups, leaving Federer mystified and wondering if, like a true Swiss, he's stuck in "neutral."

* "Head" Lock, or $150,000 Richard, or $150,000 Poorer — Car owner Richard Childress attacked Kyle Busch on Saturday after the NASCAR Camping World trucks race, punching Busch and putting him in a headlock. On Monday, NASCAR fined Childress $150,000 and placed him on probation until the end of the year. So neither party went unpunished.

* "Inside" Technique, or Warning Shot, or This Time the Discharge Was Welcome — Plaxico Burress left jail on Monday after serving 20 months for illegally carrying and firing a gun at a Manhattan nightclub in November of 2008. Agent Drew Rosenhaus said Burress would immediately begin training for a comeback, and any of the NFL's 32 teams is a potential landing spot. Burress reportedly persevered through prayer, family, and a cell mate nicknamed "Left Guard," who protected his backside.

* Strip Club, or Poll Dance Revolution, or It's the First Time Matt Leinart's Ever Had a Problem Giving Anything Up — Southern California was stripped of its 2004 national title on Monday, mostly as a result of sanctions stemming from the Reggie Bush investigation. The Trojans 55-19 2005 Orange Bowl victory over Oklahoma was wiped from the record books, but USC will not have to relinquish their Associated Press national championship. Bush, who had to return his Heisman Trophy award, will likely have to take up fishing if he ever again wants to utter the words "it's a keeper."

* Shaq Off, or Shaq to the Future — Shaquille O'Neal announced his retirement from the NBA last Friday, ending his 19-year career that began with the Magic and saw him star for five other teams. The versatile O'Neal, who has an MBA and has served as a police officer, plans to earn his doctorate in human resources. Thus, the post-NBA O'Neal will be even more well-rounded than he was during his playing days.

* He Made This Bed of "Nails," Now He Has to Lie In It — Former New York Met and Philadelphia Phillie Lenny Dykstra was jailed on Monday, charged with 25 felony and misdemeanor counts of grand theft auto, as well as drug possession. Dykstra was accused of using phony information to lease a car from a Southern California dealership. It was the latest in a number attempts at fraud by Dykstra, but not the last — he was recently accused of the same by Major League Baseball for petitioning to add 25 steals to his career statistics.

* Rome Is Adjourning, or Gone But Not Forgotten — Vancouver defenseman Aaron Rome was suspended four games by the NHL for his blindside hit on Boston's Nathan Horton Monday that left Horton with a severe concussion. Rome will miss the remainder of the Stanley Cup finals, and if he is to face judgment at the hands of Boston, it will come when the Bruins and Canucks meet next season. If retribution is coming, it will be a long time "Bruin."

* Peacock of the Walk — NBC retained rights to air the Olympic Games through 2020, paying over $4 billion in winning the first U.S. rights auction since 2003, when the network secured the 2010 and 2012 Games. NBC beat out competing bids from ESPN and Fox, as well as a surprising proposal from MTV. Ultimately, MTV's chances disintegrated when the selection committee discovered the network wished to make teen pregnancy an Olympic sport.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 7:48 PM | Comments (0)

June 9, 2011

Smoke Without Fire

This fall, John Calipari will begin his third season as Kenucky's head basketball coach. And for the third year in a row, Calipari's incoming freshman class is ranked as the nation's best.

Like Calipari, Pete Carroll rode top recruiting classes to his program's glory, as did perennial top 10-recruiter Jim Tressel. And in the past two weeks, Tressel's employment and Carroll's 2004 BCS Championship have been erased because of benefits their players improperly received.

To the casual fan, these two steps must seem like an inevitable major college sports lifecycle that is exposed every few weeks at another major program. Phase 1: Improve recruiting; Phase 2: Be exposed for running a program that improperly benefits its players.

Calipari has obviously demonstrated a mastery of the first phase, not just at Kentucky. And virtually nobody outside of the commonwealth would be surprised if he met the second in the near future.

But this is the wrong way to judge Calipari. While his past is certainly scented with more than a hint of impropriety smoke, he has never been burned by recruiting violation fire in the way that Tressel, Carroll, Bruce Pearl, and so many others have.

Calipari is the best recruiter in college basketball. And for that alone, many conclude he must be leveraging some illegal advantage.

Yet, the reality of his position does not make the source of this advantage clear. The Kentucky basketball nation is a large and passionate fan base, but they are not the Yankees. If college basketball were merely a free agent fundraising campaign, UK would do well just to compete with Duke, UCLA, and others. And Kentucky money would have had nothing to do with Derrick Rose or Tyreke Evans going to Memphis under Calipari.

Moreover, if Kentucky would be hard-pressed to compete with other programs' dollars, imagine the underdog it would be based on locale. While Lexington has its beautiful pastoral side, there are plenty of major college programs in generally more desirable locations. It is difficult to envision a top recruit punctuating his commitment announcement by "taking his talents to Lex Vegas."

Many accurately link Calipari's success with his access to a network of influential characters, including Worldwide Wes and Sonny Vaccaro. This is the most legitimate reason to believe recruits have selected Calipari's programs en masse. But if these relationships give Calipari such an edge in recruiting, what does that say about his peers? Calipari's BlackBerry was not stolen or bestowed to him. He earned each of those names and numbers over time.

In "Dazed and Confused," Matthew McConaughey's Wooderson creepily proclaims his love for high school girls because while he gets older, they stay the same age. Unfortunately for college basketball fans, this same phenomenon works against our affinity for hoops recruits.

For each of us, the march of time beyond college age separates us from any perspective we might share with 18-year-old basketball prospects (or at least it should). Every year, we get older and our interests change, but what catches the eye of a recruit stays the same.

And Calipari, more than any other coach, has found a dependable way to attract high profile young athletes. Cash, cars, and tattoos will work for some time, but the graveyard of coaches whose careers were cut short by cash-and-turn recruiting is running out of plots. Instead, the cocktail of charisma and star power Calipari has developed over time seems sustainable.

Jadedly assuming Calipari's professional demise is just around the corner is akin to reminding ourselves that we all will die eventually. Sure, everyone has a last day; but to assume that makes the quality of what is between now and then insignificant is to completely miss the point.

Keeping a run-of-the-mill secret is hard today. For the coach of a program as weighty as UK, for an individual as targeted as Calipari, for a process as open as high school recruiting? That kind of secret would be Oswald-grassy-knoll-impossible to keep.

Calipari's connections and image certainly do not suggest a choir boy in the church of NCAA rules. But then again, we all thought Jim Tressel's did.

The most recent round of NCAA scandals has reminded us that no major college coach should be considered "clean." But for all of the innuendo and scorn of his peers, John Calipari has risen to as elite a job as his profession offers after 20 years of high scrutiny. If he blatantly disregarded the rules during that rise, we would have known by now. Like baseball players whose success is clouded by steroid skepticism, Calipari can blame his peers in large part for his ill repute.

And that is a shame, because success should never be a cause for fault.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 7:00 PM | Comments (0)

First and 10: 10 Burning Thoughts

Ten thoughts that are racing to the top of my head as we're now less than 100 days until college football kicks off?

Sure, why not? Let's not waste time and get started.

1) Let's get Ohio State out of the way early. There's no need to tell the story again, so I won't. I'll just get to the point.

There needs to be a thorough cleaning of ship in Columbus. I'm not talking about just Jim Tressel, who finally resigned after delaying the inevitable, or Terrelle Pryor, who as I am writing this announced his departure from Buckeye Country. OSU President Gordon Gee has to get the pink slip and take embattled AD Gene Smith with him.

Who can forget Gee's ludicrous remark during a press conference when he said he hoped Tressel "wouldn't fire him." Really, Mr. Gee? There hasn't been a more clueless group of administrators seen since ESPN's 30 For 30 special "Pony Express." From the top down, the NCAA couldn't find a more obvious case of lack of institutional control if they tried. I thought Bruce Pearl's disastrous fall at Tennessee was bad. Ohio State has clearly shown that, for once, fair and square, they beat the SEC at something, and then some.

Think Pat Haden at USC isn't watching carefully what the NCAA does? If Ohio State gets the same slap on the wrist that Michigan's basketball program got for the Fab Four days, heads will roll in Los Angeles, among other parts of the country.

1a) If you thought "Legends" and "Leaders" were pompous division choices for the Big 10, after what has already gone down at Ohio State, now how do you feel?

2) I have to admit that I'm somewhat surprised with all the hype for Texas A&M this spring. Apparently, either the Cotton Bowl is a distant memory to many in the media, or LSU is getting even more hype just for manhandling A&M the way they did. While I have no doubts that Texas A&M will be a pretty good team in 2011, I'm still a bit skeptical at placing them among the 10 best teams in the country. Then again, despite all the skepticism, I look at their schedule and think they could easily go 10-2, losing to Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Maybe there's a BCS bowl invite yet for Aggieland. But, should the Aggies slip and lose to Missouri and get shocked by Baylor, going 8-4, that wouldn't surprise me either. There's really not a team in the country that is tougher to figure out than the Aggies.

3) Speaking of the Aggies, while Oklahoma/Texas will always have a special place in college football lore, the showdown between Arkansas and Texas A&M looms larger this year in Big D. Unless Texas surges back to prominence in a big way this season, the Sooners and Longhorns would have to take a back seat to the Southwest Classic, as the Razorbacks and Aggies both have high BCS aspirations heading into this season.

4) Georgia's Mark Richt needs to beat Boise State more than the Broncos need to beat UGA. Therefore, on a really early hunch, I'm taking the Bulldogs in the Georgia Dome to quickly snuff out any talk about Boise busting the BCS this year. However, I think Boise shouldn't have to play the role of potential BCS-buster every season, as I'll state later in this column.

5) It seems as though Mack Brown is going to retire soon at Texas. If you're looking for a potential candidate for the job, remember that Texas has a recent history of hiring coaches that have success at programs that aren't perennial winners. They plucked John Mackovic from Illinois, then grabbed Brown from North Carolina. Should history repeat himself, all signs point to Texas making a run at Mississippi State's Dan Mullen. It might seem a harder pull than you'd think; Mullen genuinely seems happy in Starkville. However, don't be surprised if the Horns place their first call his way.

6) The SEC's presidents and chancellors voted to lower football recruiting classes from 28 to 25 starting next season. While on the surface, this seems like a reasonable idea, I honestly think it matters none. If a recruit, or a recruit's parents, don't know by now that SEC teams tend to over-sign and that's part of the risk they take in committing, then who really is to blame?

7) I never wish for any player to get injured.

I really hope though that Andrew Luck doesn't get injured this year. While it seems absolutely crazy to turn down the chance of being the top pick in the NFL draft to return to Stanford (it seems less dumb each day the lockout continues though), a career-ending injury would be a heartbreaking end for a player with immense talent.

And yes, Luck is the undisputed, clear-cut Heisman front-runner. No doubts.

8) I doubt Urban Meyer goes to Ohio State next year. Really doubt it. He'd have to really have the coaching bug bad in him to consider it and even then, his family would have to be on board fully. The guy has nothing to prove in the ranks of college football; taking a long-term fat paycheck for a much less stressful gig at ESPN seems to be the better bet for the former Gator coach.

In fact, given the situation the Buckeyes are in, I wouldn't count on a big name coach coming into Columbus anytime soon.

9) Is it just me, or is it really odd that Notre Dame has been this much under the radar so far? Brian Kelly doesn't have all the pieces just yet to lift the Irish back up to the nation's elite, but if the eyes of the college football world stay off the Irish long enough, they'll come back to surprise many faster than most would expect.

10) As bad as the Big East has been in the BCS picture so far, I'm all for the Big East champ and the Mountain West champ meeting for a one-game playoff, held on the same day as the SEC and ACC title games, to decide for a slot in the BCS. Granted, the BCS complaints have died down somewhat with Utah's ascent to the Pac-12 and TCU's upcoming move to the Big East, but I think with Boise State around, the MWC has enough power right now to at least bring this up to gain some clout in the BCS picture.

Let's put it this way: UConn vs. Boise. UConn vs. Nevada. Who wins? Something tells me a large percentage has UConn losing at least one of those matchups.

The season's less than three months away. Get ready now!

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 4:21 PM | Comments (0)

June 8, 2011

Joe Rogan, Bad Words, and a Fractured Culture

This story is in response to Brad Oremland's Fire Joe Rogan piece.

On Monday, fellow SC writer Brad Oremland wrote a column about how UFC commentator Joe Rogan should be fired for using language considered to be offensive by a large percentage of Americans.

To sum it up, Brad argues Rogan used hate speech, and in order to take the next step toward becoming a mainstream American sporting organization, the UFC must fire Rogan as a sign of their disapproval of the cultural attitudes reflected by his language.

"If the UFC wants to be taken seriously and reach its full potential," Brad wrote, "it needs to start acting like the grown-ups."

I won't use the words Rogan said, or that Oremland discussed at length in his column, because I don't need them for the purpose of this article. In fact, this article isn't even really about Rogan's language. He said what he said. Some like it. Some don't. And most probably didn't notice or didn't care. At any rate, that subject has been discussed and there's not much need to rehash it here.

What I find far more interesting in this debate is the place the UFC holds in the American sporting landscape, and whether the growth of mixed martial arts, and UFC as its main competitive organization, necessitates a change in how the insiders of the sport operate.

In other words, does the growth of MMA mean the UFC has to "grow up," as Brad puts it?

Diehard MMA fans will be able to tell you a whole lot more about the history of MMA and the rise of the UFC than I will, so this is no history lesson. But to sum it up, MMA in America started off in the mid-1990s as a way of seeing which single-discipline fighters would win a fight. Could a kick-boxer beat a karate master? Could a boxer beat a wrestler? Put them in a cage and find out.

There weren't a whole lot of rules (or weight classes) in the beginning, but that changed as promotions wanted to put on shows across the country and needed approval from state licensing boards. Then in 2001, the Fertitta brothers bought the UFC and installed marketing genius Dana White as the organization's front man. The Ultimate Fighter landed on Spike, Tap Out gear started showing up at JC Penny, and presto chango, an empire was born.

At its core, though, nothing has changed about MMA since those early days of Royce Gracie and Ken Shamrock. It's a gladiator sport. Two men (or women now) enter a cage/ring/octagon/some other form of enclosed area, then try to destroy each other physically. The fighters have come a million miles from their forefathers in terms of being well rounded and well trained, but the goal remains the same: destroy your opponent before he destroys you.

MMA is a sport of violence. Make no mistake about it. That's what draws the fans. We want to see somebody get hurt, or pull off a cool submission that would result in injury if the other guy wasn't forced to give up. That's why you hear fans boo when a fighter whose primary skill is wrestling takes a guy down but just holds his position instead of trying to put his elbows through the other guy's face. The National Football League may be doing everything in their power to prevent concussions, but in the UFC, knockout of the night gets you a nice fat bonus check.

Most of America doesn't watch MMA, and that's okay. We are no longer in an age where something has to appeal to the common denominator in order to be worth air time. This is the age of a fractured media, where niche programming is king. You've got FOX News for the right-wing conservatives. You've got MSNBC for the left-wing liberals. You've got the HGTV, Comedy Central, Court TV, and five different ESPNs. Everybody gets what they want, and everybody else can shove off.

The good part of the fractured media age is that minority interests that used to be ignored now have a place of their own. The moneyed powers of corporate media may still run the big show, but modern technology has provided the world access to all the side shows it can handle. If you want it, it's out there. And if it isn't, go make it. In the history of the world, there have never been as many avenues for expression as there are now.

The down side to this incredible freedom of choice is that because the niche market gets to operate in its own bubble, members often lose connection of the fact they operate as part of a larger culture. We focus in so much on ourselves and people like us that we lose touch of the other side, the them to our us. And in our own echo chamber, we can pretty much talk ourselves into anything.

And that's what brings us back to Joe Rogan and the question of what becomes of a counter-culture niche market when that niche market starts to get so big the mainstream takes an interest? Can it continue to exist in its original form, playing by its own niche rules, or does it have to adapt to mainstream cultural standards?

To bring it back to the UFC, should they stop having sexy ring girls because they depict females as sex objects and might give young men and women a distorted sense of femininity?

Should fighters no longer be able to throw elbows because they cause some of the most gruesome cuts you'll ever see, and that can't possibly be good for young viewers?

Should Joe Rogan pretend he's Bob Costas so nobody gets offended?

Many would say yes. Perhaps Brad would, as well. But that assumes that the UFC and the MMA culture want to be accepted as a brother to the more-established American sporting mainstays. And I just don't think that's the case.

MMA is not mainstream America. It is a hyper-macho, violent sport that takes pride in its counter-culture roots. It is the very definition of niche — a very profitable one thanks to White's exceptional vision and marketing prowess, but a niche nonetheless. And we shouldn't confuse the rise in visibility as a sign it's time to "grow up" or some other euphemism for conformity.

In a way, Rogan is the embodiment of the UFC's place in the larger American culture. Anybody who has followed Rogan's career is not surprised at the least that he would use language some find offensive. That's what he does. He sees the modern moral code from the outside and finds humor in pointing out its inconsistency and hypocrisy. He's a true counter-culturalist, except instead of being a pot-smoking hippie, he's a pot-smoking comedian and fight announcer. And his fans love him for it (as Brad found out).

For better or worse, our culture has fractured beyond repair. The mainstream doesn't get to draft a niche market and make it its own any more. The decentralization of media power has provided the kings of niche culture the power of self determination, and it's up to them to decide how much of their values they're willing to trade in for mainstream's money.

And that's really all this is about — money. White and the UFC have found a way to make it hand over fist their way. They don't need to adapt. They don't need anybody's moral approval. They have their business model, and it relies on violence, sexy ring girls, and Joe Rogan being Joe Rogan.

So if you want to watch a UFC pay-per-view, go ahead. But you would be wise to check your moral expectations at the door. It's a different kind of place, with its own set of rules. And conforming to mainstream culture isn't on the agenda.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 5:02 PM | Comments (14)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 13

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Carl Edwards — Edwards posted his series-best 10th top-10 result of the year, placing fifth in the STP 400 at Kansas. He increased his lead in the Sprint Cup point standings, and now leads Jimmie Johnson by 40.

"As temperatures rose," Edwards said, "the track conditions changed, and we weren't able to stay on top of those. But I'll never complain about finishing fifth, unless it's in a fight between me, the two Busch brothers, and two girls.

"I consider myself an expert on physical confrontations. But never in a thousand years could I have foreseen a car owner assaulting a driver. Normally, Richard Childress is very calm and level-headed. I'm not sure how that team will respond without the brains of the operation. It seems that RCR has lost its 'mind.'"

2. Kevin Harvick — Harvick came home 11th at Kansas, Richard Childress Racing's top finisher, just missing his eighth top-10 finish of the year. Harvick fell two spots in the point standings to fourth, and now trails Carl Edwards by 43.

"Like a lot of cars," Harvick said, "we had handling issues. That's quite different than the problem Kyle Busch experienced. That was a case of man-handling issues. Richard Childress kicked it old school. And by 'it,' I mean Busch's tail.

"RCR, drivers, and owners alike, have declared war on Kyle Busch. It's a team effort. I got inside Busch's head; Richard Childress went upside it."

3. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished second at Kansas, coming up short in a fuel-mileage race for the second straight week. This time, though, Earnhardt's No. 88 Amp Chevy had the fuel to finish, but so did race winner Brad Keselowski, who held off Earnhardt over the final nine laps. Earnhardt moved up one spot in the point standings to third, trailing Carl Edwards by 41.

"Keselowski made the most of his last stop for fuel," Earnhardt said. "I knew we had the gas to finish, so all I could do while trailing the No. 2 Miller Lite Dodge was hope for 'less filling.' Unfortunately, it didn't work out. I'm tempted to say 'You win some, you lose some,' but only half of that statement would be true.

"To my fans, I can only say 'Hang it there.' Junior Nation is experiencing pain at the pump. I strongly advise them to have a taste of a hot new product, Amp Energy Shot, fortified with a blast of penicillin. Hey, you know what they say: 'What happens in the infield stays, period.' In the meantime, we'll keep working hard to unlock the secret to winning, as well as the secret to determining the No. 88 car's exact mileage."

4. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson started 31st at Kansas and battled a loose race car for much of the race on Kansas Speedway's slick surface. Timely adjustments enabled Johnson to battle near the front late in the race, but a late pit stop for fuel set him back before he charged to a finish of seventh. He moved up one spot in the point standings to second and trails Carl Edwards by 40.

"We had the car to win," Johnson said, "but gas mileage bit us in the end. This week, we lost time because we had to top off the fuel tank. Last week in Charlotte, we lost time because we 'topped off' the car with an adjustment wrench.

"I'm appalled by the Richard Childress-Kyle Busch fiasco. And I think any other driver would feel the same if Chad Knaus attacked a rival driver. Was it a case of 'butt heads' or 'buttheads?' This kind of thing is certainly not what NASCAR needs, unless they want people to watch. Incidentally, Jerry Springer would make a great Grand Marshall."

5. Kyle Busch — A day after a heated altercation with Richard Childress, Busch finished 12th in the STP 400 on Sunday. Busch remained fifth in the Sprint Cup point standings and trails Carl Edwards by 60.

"What did NASCAR almost say to Childress after he slugged me on Saturday?" Busch said. "'You're not in Kansas anymore.' Alas, Childress was allowed to hang around at the track, where he faced a slightly more enjoyable form of assault: being 'slapped' on the back in congratulations.

"Realistically, I should be first in the point standings, because everybody is after me. Childress' aggression put me in a no-win situation, which happens to always be the situation when a Busch brother fights. If I fight back, I'll be accused of beating up a senior citizen. If I don't fight back, I'm a wimp. I either save face or lose face. That's why, when faced with a physical confrontations, I always do an about face, and turn the other cheek."

6. Kurt Busch — Busch started from the pole and led 152 of 267 laps, but had to settle for a ninth-place finish after surrendering the lead to pit for fuel with ten laps to go. It was Busch's second-straight top-10 finish, and he maintained sixth in the point standings, 71 out of first.

"With better fuel mileage," Busch said, "we could have won the race. I think it's easy for people to listen to my radio communication and tell how the race is going. In Kansas, the further my fuel gauge strayed from 'F,' the closer my language veered to 'F.'

"I think Richard Childress should have shown a little more restraint. I know that's hard when dealing with a Busch brother, but Childress should look to Roger Penske for inspiration. Roger's wanted to punch me for years now, but hasn't."

7. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished sixth at Kansas, earning his sixth top-10 result of the season. He held on to the seventh spot in the Sprint Cup point standings and trails Carl Edwards by 73.

"If you asked fans to recall their favorite articles involving drivers being bullied," Kenseth said, "you can be sure my name would appear in a number of the 'submissions.'"

8. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin posted his fourth-straight top-10 finish, and fifth in the last six races, with a third in the STP 400 at Kansas. He improved one place in the point standings to 11th, 104 out of first, as he continues his gradual climb in the points after a dismal start to the season.

"I dug myself a hole with my early-season performance," Hamlin said. "But I can't beat myself up over that. And I sure won't let Richard Childress do it either. Look at that. I just took a 'jab' at Kyle Busch. But who hasn't?

"Anyway, despite my slow start to the season, I would be a coward if I didn't choose to fight back. Another jab at Kyle Busch. Kyle's usually got an answer for everything, except punches."

9. Tony Stewart — Stewart led twice for 20 laps at Kansas, and was in contention for the win before a late stop for fuel relegated him to an eighth-place finish. The No. 14 Office Depot/Mobil 1 team had trouble filling the tank during a pit stop on lap 212, which necessitated an additional stop. Stewart improved one spot in the point standings to eighth, and now trails Carl Edwards by 92.

"By golly," Stewart said, "I'm a NASCAR driver. I expect 'full' service when I bring my car to the pits.

"As for the Richard Childress-Kyle Busch incident, I warned years ago that NASCAR was descending into a WWE-like atmosphere. It looks like it's come full circle. We've got back flips, championship belts, and owners involved in fights. Vince McMahon would be proud. What's next? Overpriced pay-per-view offerings for events few people care about?"

10. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer finished 18th in the STP 400, one lap down to the leaders after a race filled with handling issues. More notably, Bowyer won Saturday's Camping World Truck series O'Reilly Auto Parts 250, a win that was soon overshadowed by the confrontation between Richard Childress and Kyle Busch.

"NASCAR came down hard on Richard Childress," Bowyer said. "He's on probation until the end of the year, and he was fined $150,000. You can either call him '$150,000 Richard' or '$150,000 Poorer.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:15 PM | Comments (0)

June 7, 2011

Fire Joe Rogan

Note: due to its subject matter, this column contains language that many readers, as well as the author, consider offensive.

Update: SC's Joshua Duffy response to this column: Joe Rogan, Bad Words, and a Fractured Culture

Joe Rogan is the best color commentator in MMA. I know some people prefer Bas Rutten or Pat Miletich, but Rogan is my favorite. The UFC should suspend or fire him.

Rogan has never been someone who plays by the rules, and that's part of his appeal. But in recent months, Rogan has called fellow MMA journalist Tomas Ríos a faggot, and fellow MMA journalist Maggie Hendricks "cunty". The UFC, which employs Rogan on its broadcasts, so far doesn't seem to feel this is a problem.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but those are two of the most offensive terms in the English language, with a long and ugly history of violence attached to them. This isn't just "sticks and stones" — those words are slurs targeted at two historically oppressed communities: women and gay men. I hate to pull the role model card, but a lot of people look up to Rogan, and I shudder to think how many posters on the UG have now incorporated “cunty” into their vocabularies.

To call a woman any derivative of the word cunt is to condone and perpetuate a term long associated with misogyny, legal oppression, and sexual assault. Few words are truly powerful today, but that is one of them, probably the most shocking word in the English language. I guess the UFC should just be glad Maggie isn’t black.

If something like this happened in a mainstream sport ... calling someone a faggot you can get away with, if your apology is good enough. Rogan's “apology” involved calling Ríos a cocksucker. Seriously. Maybe that's funny if you have a warped sense of humor, but it's definitely not a compassionate or professional response from a grown man who's old enough to know better.

It's the latter concern — professionalism — that's most at issue right now. You can get away with calling someone a faggot, if your apology is good enough. But calling a female reporter cunty? No way. Absolutely not. That gets a player suspended, a coach fired, and an announcer banned for life.

But that's in real sports. For all that we talk about mixed martial arts being the fastest-growing sport in the world, it doesn't attract a fraction of the coverage that football or baseball get. It's comparable more to MLS, or women's golf. MMA isn't on network television, and it's not on the front page of the sports section. Mixed martial arts is a great sport. But if the UFC wants to be taken seriously and reach its full potential, it needs to start acting like the grown-ups. Ironically, it would be a good sign for MMA if Rogan’s gay-baiting and woman-bashing were a bigger deal.

In its infancy, the UFC benefitted from its own outrageousness. But by now, the people who are drawn in by that sort of thing know about MMA. If the sport is to reach a wider audience, its executives can't condone the kind of hate language Rogan has been using. Again, let's not sugar-coat this or make excuses. There's a difference between calling someone an asshole and a faggot. One is mean and crude, but the other has a long association with hatred and violence, from schoolyard bullying to murder.

There’s a difference between calling someone a douchebag and calling a woman a cunt. The second word has a long history of association with rape and repression. Those words are powerful, and that’s why Rogan chose them. Those terms are demeaning and threatening in a way that normal insults aren’t. That’s why most of us consider them unacceptable. And that’s why the UFC can’t tolerate this kind of behavior from someone who represents the company.

At the very least, the UFC should suspend Rogan. UFC President Dana White should sit him down and say, "Joe, I appreciate you sticking up for us and our fighters, but this kind of thing doesn't help anybody. We're trying to get MMA licensed in New York. We're negotiating a new TV deal for The Ultimate Fighter. This whole thing with Strikeforce and Showtime still needs to be settled. We're just starting to get mainstream sports coverage, and if it looks like we accept this kind of language, that really sets back our cause. I don't think you're a bad guy, but we have to act on this thing. Take the next few events off, come back for the show in Rio, and go easy on the really serious slurs.”

With White speaking, I’m sure there would be a lot more cussing in there, and probably a few more verbal bro-hugs, but something to that effect gets the idea across. Rogan is a smart guy, and he genuinely loves the sport. He’ll understand White’s position. I’m sure that Rogan wants MMA in New York, and on network television, and wants what’s good for the sport. If that means not breaking out George Carlin's seven dirty words every time someone disagrees with him, he’ll rein things in. And that’s not just good for MMA; it’s good for everyone.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 3:18 PM | Comments (48)

East Asia's Rise to Tennis Prominence

As the 2011 installment of the French open came to a conclusion, there were three stories that captured people's attention. One of which was Roger Federer proving that he isn't over the hill just yet, as he ended the 43-match winning streak of Novak Djokovic. Another story was Rafael Nadal capturing his sixth Roland Garros title, equalling Bjorn Borg's record. Yet the story that may well have a more lasting impact was that of Li Na's victory in the women's final against Francesa Schiavone.

Li became the first-ever Chinese player to win a major title and talk has begun as to whether China will eventually become a tennis powerhouse. The journey for Li herself has been a long one given that she is 29-years-old and she only reached her first slam final earlier this year at the Australian Open. Her journey to the top has been somewhat fragmented because of injuries and taking some time out in order to complete a journalism course at university.

Li isn't the only Chinese that has been making in-roads in the women's game. China currently has four players in the top 100, including Li, who has moved up to No. 4. Elsewhere, there is Shuai Peng, ranked No. 20, who despite never having won a singles tournament other than winning gold at the 2010 Asian Games, is having her best year to date. Shuai Zhang occupies No. 76, whilst Zheng Jie is No. 80, though Zheng has been a semifinalist at Wimbledon and the Australian Open, as well as winning doubles titles at both of those events with her compatriot, Yan Zi.

The Chinese men, however, aren't doing quite so well. Their highest ranked player is Yan Bai at No. 348.

Perhaps the effect Li's win will have in China is overstated, but it's hard to believe that out of the 1.3 billion Chinese people, not one was inspired to go and hit a tennis ball after witnessing Li make history.

China's rise in tennis is by no means an isolated occurrence in the world of "western" sport. East Asian nations have been making waves in sport for a few years now. In 2002, Japan and South Korea hosted the FIFA World Cup and South Korea finished in fourth place at that tournament. In golf, South Korea's K.J. Choi is a perennial challenger in major tournaments and his fellow countryman, Y.E. Yang, became the first Asian player to win a major when he won the 2009 PGA Championship.

East Asians have long been at the top of most cue sports, such as 9-ball pool, but now numerous Chinese players are breaking through and winning some of snooker's top tournaments. In fact, snooker is now so popular in China that it now hosts one of the very few ranking tournaments on the snooker calendar.

One thing that immediately leaps to mind when thinking about East Asian sportspeople is their work ethic. Soccer teams like South Korea, North Korea, and Japan are all organized outfits that will run for the full 90 minutes. This mentality may be demonstrated best in Ji-Sung Park, a midfielder at Manchester United. It is also a trait that is obviously present in Li. To continually strive to better yourself, even at an age when most players' careers take a downward trajectory, speaks volumes about her personality and desire to work. Her work ethic is also clear on court, as she is a battler that rarely gives up on a ball.

Besides work ethic, they also appear to be mentally strong, thus they rarely get flustered or collapse under the pressure. K.J. Choi tends to quietly go about his business with par after par and whilst he hasn't won a major title, it's not because he has choked, rather his opponents have just been that little bit better.

It's hard to say whether China, or indeed East Asia, will take the tennis world by storm, but the necessary tools are in place and even if this is as good as it gets for China, then they have a lot to be proud of. Li is just what the women's game needs right now. In a game dominated by power-hitting with very little thought, Li is a breath of fresh air with her variety of shots and great personality, which comes to the fore in post-match interviews. She may not shape the future of tennis, but she has certainly shaped the present and for that, we are grateful.

Posted by Luke Broadbent at 10:55 AM | Comments (1)

June 6, 2011

How the Miami Heat Have Redefined Hate

Sports hate has always been around. The Miami Heat, however have redefined hatred. They have helped fan hate evolve, elevated it, and have made hate as fashionable as fan passion.

In the process, they have redefined sports arguments. Those at ESPN and the sports radio hosts who love the Heat give endless statistics and attempt counter-arguments based on facts to demonstrate that rooting against the Heat is a choice based on stupidity. However, what the pundits don't realize is that hate is an emotion and emotions often get in the way of facts. There are plenty of reasons to be fans of the Yankees, but Red Sox fans don't want to hear them.

Emotions, fans have been told, have no place in how anyone should feel about the Heat. Everyone must love LeBron James and the rest of the Heatles. They are too good to not love and there are thousands of reasons to believe in the Heat. One by one, national media have given arguments that hating the Heat is not an option and not as fun anymore.

Hating the Heat all season is pointless fans have been told, unless you are in Cleveland. Fans in Cleveland, however, have been told they are reaching their statute of limitations in the hate they are allotted. After all, the Heat have reached the championship, which means they are good and if they occasionally do something that triggers a little bit of anger in fans, it should be forgiven.

The Heat, however, are the gift that keeps on giving, as Dwyane Wade gave Heat haters the pose in front of the Dallas bench, which inspired the Mavericks to a comeback win in Game 2, while LeBron James followed up the pose with the cross-court celebration with Wade.

Fan hatred is part of what fuels sports. The great rivalries are dependent on hatred, as Notre Dame and USC football fans can attest. Some of the greatest teams have used hatred to fuel championship runs like the love-them-or-hate-them Yankees or Duke Blue Devil basketball team.

Hatred in sports is for the most part one-dimensional. A team is so good that everyone hates them because their team never has a chance to win a championship like Notre Dame football used to be hated. A team was arrogant and celebrated early and often like the Miami (FL) Hurricanes and Florida State Seminole football team. A team can be hated because it buys championships like the Yankees.

The list of reasons to hate a team or player is virtually unlimited, but usually fans who hate teams are mostly united in their reason for their hatred. The Miami Heat have gone several steps beyond normal fan hatred. They have given fans different reasons to hate them all year and have given sports a new way to debate hate.

It is possible to take any reason a sports team is generally hated and apply it to the Heat. Want to hate a player because he left a city and with his departure the franchise has fallen mightily and the fans feel betrayed? LeBron James is the answer.

Want to hate a team because they have found a way to buy a championship by bringing in the best available talent? The Heat signed Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, and Chris Bosh in what was probably the biggest offseason free agent bonanza in sports history. The Yankees must be smiling and trying to figure out how they can make a bigger splash.

Want to hate a team because of their arrogance? The Heat have named themselves the "Heatles," celebrated championships in the offseason, boasted they would win multiple championships, and talked after the Celtics series like they won the championship.

The Chicago Bears celebrated a championship before winning one with the Super Bowl Shuffle, but in a lovable hokey way. The Heat's celebration had higher production values then the actual championship celebration the NBA puts on.

Want to hate a team because they are a bunch of crybabies? According to their coach, the Heat literally cried after a loss during the regular season, but then again maybe they didn't, he told us later. The Heat not only cried, but also acted like babies when they denied they cried. Soccer players who flop and scream at the top of the lungs when they trip on a blade of grass must be proud.

Want to hate a team because they play in a city that is more fun than the average city, and more glamorous? The Heat aren't playing in the plains, they are in Miami. Even Lakers and Knicks fans can be jealous.

Want to hate a player because he didn't believe the city he was in could give him sufficient fame, so he left it? Or someone who shunned his hometown team while alleging they were an option so he could be closer to his family? Chris Bosh's leaving Toronto and Dwyane Wade's flirtation with Chicago will help fuel that hate. Want to hate a coach who with little to no resume inherited a championship team? Erik Spoelstra will fulfill that need.

A new reason to hate the Heat, however, is all of the people who are now citing statistics about how good the Heat are and how fans need to dial down the hatred. Great teams are hated. It is part of sports and part of being great. The Heat seem so desperate to be liked and some in sports seem so desperate to make fans give up their hate that it just looks bad for everyone involved and further ignites the hate.

The Heat have also given rise to NBA generational hate. Football has this type of hate, as retired players say hitting was harder in the good old days when clothesline tackles were legal. Baseball has made generational hate a cottage industry, saying it "was just a game" in the good old days.

Basketball never really had generational hate because the basketball timeline, according to NBA Commissioner David Stern and ESPN, started with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and the superstar era. The NBA moves from superstar era to superstar era.

Bird and Magic handed off to Michael Jordan, who handed off to Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant, who were handing off to James and Wade as Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose wait in the wings. Bill Russell and those who played before Bird and Magic are rarely talked about or talked to by national media.

Charles Barkley and players from his generation claim they never would have changed teams or joined forces with other superstars to win a championship in the prime of their careers. But recently, the Celtics combined Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce to make the "Big Three," but no one hated them. Retired players did not rail against them. The Heat combined three of the NBA's premier players and in the process have given us the divide the NBA needed in terms of generations.

There is hope that kinder personalities like Kevin Durant will restore superstar inspired generational hand-off, but the proverbial cat is out of the bag.

The Heat have inspired the current group of NBA players to want to join forces and now many are saying it is up to the NBA collective bargaining agreement to address competitive balance in the league. The league, we are being told ,cannot survive if players join forces like they did in Miami. What will Portland or New Orleans do? The NBA will become like baseball where the Yankees dominate and small markets will become obsolete.

The Heat can be hated for many many reasons now, and someday soon they will win a championship. At that point, they will enjoy the hatred heaped on them as they have a true championship celebration.

Posted by Vito Curcuru at 12:48 PM | Comments (7)

Eyes on the Prize

Roughly a third of the way through the MLB season, there are five teams that stand out from the rest. I'm not necessarily talking about the teams with the best records, but rather teams that look like sure bets to make the postseason — and that appear to have what it takes to win once there. It's a group of teams that have had a lot of recent success — and the Cleveland Indians.

Teams are listed in order of most to least wins, not necessarily in order of rank.

St Louis Cardinals (36-25)

The Cardinals were a popular pick to finish either second or third in the NL Central before the season was even close to starting. Then they lost ace Adam Wainwright, who had a higher WAR than any other pitcher in MLB over the last two seasons. Then the season started and they lost David Freese, Kyle McClellan, and MLB batting average leader Matt Holliday to the DL along the way — and all this with Albert Pujols in the worst hitting funk of his career.

Despite this, they have led the division for most of the season, and with Pujols finally heating up with 4 home runs (two walk-offs) in a weekend series against the rival Cubs, they look like they might run away with it. It also doesn't hurt that they finally appear to have figured out their bullpen issues, which to date have led to a league worst 12 blown saves. Assuming they had converted only half of those, they would be sitting with a record of 42-19 — and with a revitalized bullpen, they may just cut that number of blown saves in half of over the second third of the season.

Philadelphia Phillies (35-24)

For all the preseason doubt of the Cardinals, there was just as much positive hype surrounding the Phillies, who have what has been touted as, and may in fact be, one of the greatest pitching rotations of all-time. Their offense has been their weakness all year long, and it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that some timely hitting could easily have this team with 40 wins or more.

They haven't had as many injury problems as the Cardinals, so they won't gain much in the way of talent down the stretch. But given that they have so woefully underperformed at the plate, and are capable of so much more, one has to expect an even better performance over the next third of the season.

Cleveland Indians (33-24)

They've actually been collapsing recently, going 3-9 in their last 12 games, and losing claim to the league's best record as a result. But this team has a lot going for it, mostly the fact that only one team (the 31-27 Detroit Tigers) are within seven games in the AL Central.

With an infusion of young talent, especially among the pitching staff, this team should be one of the most capable in the league of avoiding fading late in the season due to wear and tear. If Asdrubal Cabrera can continue what is shaping up to be the best year of his career, and the pitching can continue to do an adequate job, this team can expect to find themselves with a chance to do something special this year.

Boston Red Sox (33-26)

Yeah, those Red Sox — the same guys that started the season 2-10 — are now among the favorites to win it all this year. Going 31-16 since the middle of April was no fluke for this team, and I expect a similar record over similar stretches for the rest of the year.

It sounds almost too easy, and that's because it is — like the Miami Heat in the NBA — the Red Sox are simply stacked with too much talent to not be wildly successful this year. The offense is scoring runs in huge bunches and Josh Beckett is back. If this team isn't at least in the 2011 ALCS, I'll be shocked.

New York Yankees (33-24)

They've enjoyed more success than any franchise in baseball history, and this year looks to be yet another one that will see the Yankees in the playoffs. With veterans Derek Jeter, who will get his 3,000th career hit at some point this season, and Mariano Rivera leading the way, the Yankees have more experience than any other team that looks likely to make the playoffs.

History says the Yankees will find a way into the playoffs, and their roster indicates they'll be an undesirable matchup for anybody once they get there.

Posted by Paul Foeller at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)

June 3, 2011

Sports Q&A: "Walk" Away, Terrelle Pryor

In the wake of Jim Tressel's forced resignation, Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor is under NCAA investigation for his use of a succession of used cars. Pryor has already been suspended for the first five games of 2011 for accepting cash and tattoos from a tattoo parlor owner who has pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and money-laundering charges. Is Pryor going down?

Is Pryor going down? Absolutely. But, as history has shown us, not without "making a deal" first.

Reportedly, in his three years at Ohio State, Pryor has tooled around Columbus in no less than eight vehicles from no less than three dealerships. According to the owners of each dealership, it's all well and good, because they have said that all transactions were cleared through OSU's compliance department. Never mind that "OSU Compliance Department" is the biggest oxymoron in college athletics history. OSU Compliance is a lot like Pryor himself — neither can say "no." But let's not be overly critical of the OSU Compliance Department. It is, in fact, the hardest-working department in the university, as well as its largest employer of the blind.

If the compliance department, did, in fact, approve all of Pryor's used car transactions, then there is a rubber stamp somewhere within the department with a lot of explaining to do. Yes, they looked the other way. They looked every other way but "at" Pryor. It's a stunning example of the lengths an institution will go to keep their money maker happy. And it sure did take a lot to keep Pryor happy.

Pryor doesn't seem to be alarmed, or worried at all, by the NCAA investigation. Not long after reports indicated Pryor was under investigation, he casually rolled up to a meeting at the Woody Hayes Athletic Center (where employees still have to "punch" in) driving a Nissan 350Z with temporary tags, and a sound system blaring Gary Numan's "Cars." Okay, so Pryor's never heard of Gary Numan, or subtlety, for that matter. So let's amend the statement. He arrived in a car with a sound system blasting Chamillionaire's "Ridin' Dirty."

In all seriousness, Pryor didn't need music to herald his coming. Heck, he's the most watched athlete in Ohio, and that doesn't even include his time on the football field. Maybe a bicycle would have been a more discreet, and wiser, manner of arrival. In a sports car? Not smart. Pryor apparently has no intention of hiding, and every intention of flaunting, the so-called spoils of his fame. Sure, he's been known to blaze a trail. Now, he's known more for leaving a trail.

Pryor shouldn't have been driving. Not only because it gave the impression that he was thumbing his nose at investigators. No, Pryor shouldn't have been driving because he didn't have a valid license. Pryor's license was suspended because he failed to provide proof of insurance after a February 19th traffic stop for a stop-sign violation (let's assume the dual-threat Pryor "ran it" or just "passed" right through it). This charge is one of three traffic violations Pryor has had in the last three years. As a football player, Pryor would be classified as "driven." Maybe that should apply to his transportation methods as well. If not, then get the OSU sousaphone player to dot the "i" in "bike," pronto. Before Pryor kills himself, a pedestrian, or a university.

Would an athlete concerned about the outcome of such an investigation be dumb enough to be seen driving a sports car, knowing it wouldn't appear supportive of his defense? No. Pryor, obviously, is not concerned about the outcome of his investigation. Could his behavior been any worse? Well, yes. He could have popped out of his ride and proudly displayed his new tattoo, and introduced onlookers to his newly-hired agent, and whipped out a trunk-load of OSU memorabilia, and, to top it all off, produced a smoking gun, unlicensed, of course.

Indeed, Pryor's shenanigans, especially when viewed in conjunction with OSU's other problems, are downright comical. Pryor's a running quarterback. He's also a running joke.

While nearly all of Pryor's actions have been unwise, he is by no means dumb. He is, on the contrary, a manipulative shyster who preys on the desires of those eager to rub shoulders with greatness, or in this case, a superior athlete and horrible driver posing as "greatness." He's conquered the trifecta of shady persons relationships, with a tattoo parlor owner, used car salesmen, and Ohio State coaches. Pryor's a master salesman. He's sold himself to everyone but the devil, but I bet the devil will soon be wearing some OSU memorabilia. Hell may not be his next destination, but there is some form of purgatory in his future. May that purgatory be a disastrous NFL career? His athleticism gives him the potential to be the next Daunte Culpepper, but his irresponsibility saddles him with the certainty of becoming the next JaMarcus Russell.

Pryor's free reign of freebies is a testament to the lack of vigilance on behalf of OSU and the NCAA. It's oversight with too much oversight. OSU's compliance department has no valid excuse when it comes to explaining their actions. Did they blindly approve certain transactions while knowing the dealings were questionable, at best, and non-compliant, at worst? If so, they were wrong. Did they follow proper procedure and still approve Pryor's transactions? If so, that may be an even more egregious error. Whatever the case, a complete overhaul of the departments operating procedures is in order.

What, then, could be the reasoning behind Pryor's actions? Ironically, and with apologies to Jim Tressel, it seems to be an act of "resignation." Pryor knows, when all is said, done, and penalized, his college career will likely be over. That doesn't appear to bother him greatly. Pryor can call it a career and begin preparation for the NFL, while leaving a crumbling OSU athletic program in his wake. It seems he's already begun his professional career, because he's getting "paid" to play.

Pryor's exit will equal in shame what his entrance was in grandeur. That probably doesn't bother him. But it should. If Pryor has any sense of respect for himself and Ohio State, he will admit his mistakes, freely and truthfully, and submit to any questioning OSU and the NCAA so desire. And never put on a Buckeye uniform again.

In Pryor's case, it would behoove him to "walk" away as opposed to being "driven" off.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:36 PM | Comments (9)

June 2, 2011

A Fair Process to Becoming an Owner?

"Somebody's property being seized was un-American. There are core values in this country and fairness is one of them. I think everyone deserves a second chance." — Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt (April 2011)

Is Major League Baseball still as American as apple pie? It largely depends upon its commissioner's preferences at the time, who serves at the behest of MLB's 30 team owners.

The question needs to be asked as to whether presiding Commissioner of MLB Bud Selig makes major decisions such as team ownership based upon sound business acumen or subjective reasoning influenced by his personal relationships, such as with specific MLB team owners or individuals who potentially could become owners.

Never have there been four MLB baseball franchises up for sale or takeover within one calendar year, with MLB taking over operations of two of the four so far.

The Texas Rangers, sold in August 2010 to Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan — its minority owner and president — was taken over for a brief time by MLB prior to the Rangers' auction on August 4th. Selig took on former Rangers owner Tom Hicks via the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, took on his major creditors, and made it nearly impossible for any other bid to come to fruition except that of Greenberg's and Ryan's.

Then we have the New York Mets, which I discussed in an April 2011 piece titled, "Eyes Wide Shut," posing the question of whether or not Bud Selig was going out of his way to protect Mets' owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz from the same scrutiny he has bestowed upon Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt.

Unfortunately, the Dodgers are about $500 million in debt, with the Mets debt topping $600 million and simultaneously being sued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for $1 billion.

Yet Selig went out of his way to have MLB takeover day-to-day operations of the Dodgers in April 2011, while he vehemently defends his friend Fred Wilpon. At the very least, both the Dodgers and the Mets have been mismanaged and personal allegiances should be taken off of the table at this juncture.

McCourt's problems center on his divorce from wife, Jamie McCourt, and a potential settlement. Otherwise, it will be up to a judge to make the determination of splitting ownership of the Dodgers down the middle between the McCourt's, resulting in an eventual sale of the team. Neither McCourt will have the working capital to continue ownership.

But Bud Selig would not let the process play itself out, nor allow Frank McCourt to transact a deal with Fox Broadcasting, which McCourt maintains would save the Dodgers for him and to help make the organization once again whole.

Working in Wilpon's favor is Selig's full support of his ownership in spite of the legal mess hovering over him by trustee Irving Picard. Picard is liquidating Madoff's firm on behalf of Madoff's clients, damaged by his thievery and fraud.

The Wilpon's now want the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and Picard off of their backs and have motioned to have the case moved to U.S. District Court. But the question remains as to whether Wilpon was complicit in his rotten investments with Madoff, his good friend of 30 years. But no matter for Selig, who remains true.

Lastly, we have the Houston Astros, who have sadly now turned into a veritable laughing stock of a team, six years removed from their last appearance in the 2005 World Series.

Enter one more billionaire, Jim Crane, founder and previous owner of Eagle Global Logistics (EGL) and now Chairman of Crane Global Logistics, in Houston, TX, both freight forwarding operations.

Astros' owner Drayton McClane has chosen Jim Crane to sell the Astros to, pending 30 MLB team owners' approval. For a cool $680 million, Crane will have succeeded on his third try to become a MLB team owner, having lost out on possible acquisitions of both the Chicago Cubs and the Texas Rangers. But this time, Selig will grant Crane his seal of approval.

Not only did Jim Crane have the initial highest bid for the purchase of the Texas Rangers in 2010, by some $15 million, but because his bid was denied by MLB, he then teamed up at the August 4, 2010 auction with Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to hopefully prevail over Greenberg and Ryan.

But for Selig, who had been quoted as saying that Crane was "unapprovable" as a MLB owner, the game was won by Greenberg and Ryan, although a bankruptcy judge had not yet held the auction,. In the end, Crane and Cuban lost out when Greenberg raised his bid to $593 million at the auction and prevailed.

Many have asked why Bud Selig would less than a year later now approve of Jim Crane? Selig met with him earlier in May 2011 and sources have said it's a green light for the owners since Selig has changed his mind on Crane. Was Crane denied the Rangers because Selig was so pro Greenberg/Ryan or so anti-Crane/Cuban? Or did he simply not approve of Crane?

And again, what is the criterion that the Commissioner of MLB uses in discerning who gets to stay and who goes with all things being equal?

Important to note in this supposed vetting process that leads to MLB team ownership is that in the year 2000, Jim Crane's EGL had 2,073 of its employees file charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for:

"Asserting failure to and/or refusal to recruit, hire or promote African-Americans, Hispanics and female employees; demoting female employees from managerial positions; imposing disparate discipline to African-Americans, Hispanics and female employees; maintaining a hostile work environment ; failing to adequately investigate incidents of sexual and gender harassment; paying African-Americans, Hispanics and female employees less than Caucasian and/or male employees for performing similar or comparable work; discriminating against older female and older African-American employees and applicants for employment; failure to maintain proper records regarding applicants for employment."

All of the above Jim Crane denied, and entered into a voluntary settlement with the EEOC to the tune of $9,000,000 in 2001. In 2005, the U.S. District Court returned $6 million back to EGL, as out of the 2,073 claims, upon further review, it was determined that only 203 merited back-pay, which was largely the basis for the original $9 million assessed fine.

Since Jim Crane was not exonerated of wrong doing, but reached a settlement and was refunded part of that settlement, why choose him to run a MLB franchise, when Bud Selig is supposedly sensitive to maintaining good race relations? That is another million dollar question.

And given MLB's not so glowing record on promoting minorities and women both on and off the field of play, should not Selig stay away from another fire he might later have to put out?

Richard Lapchick's Center for Diversity and Ethics at the University of Central Florida, notes in his 2011 report card for MLB that there are only six major league managers of African-American or Latino heritage, no African-Americans are chief executives or presidents of any teams with one exception being Pam Gardner, president of business operations in the Astros organization under owner Drayton McClane. African-American and Latino general managers of MLB teams total four.

But Lapchick insists that "Bud Selig has helped make MLB's central and team front offices look more like America."

And since it was announced that Crane was selected as the purported next owner of the Houston Astros, it prompted the Houston Chapter of the NAACP to make the following statement prior to a meeting with him earlier in May 2011: "We are deeply concerned that someone that has a broad reach throughout the community and across the country regarding employment has such a dismal record in the area of discrimination. As such, this is someone that should be monitored very closely in the area of employment discrimination as it relates to minorities and women."

Since that statement, President-elect of the Houston Chapter, Dr. D.Z. Cofield, is pleased with Jim Crane's offering to disclose to the Chapter the contents and documents of his EEOC case.

So finally, does the selection process for ownership by the Commissioner of MLB and its owners necessarily need to be made more transparent to those outside the organization of MLB?

After all, MLB enjoys exemption from more U.S. anti-trust laws than any other professional sports leagues in the U.S., it gets subsidization from taxpayers throughout the country for its stadiums, infrastructure, and leases, MLB benefits from all cable TV subscribers' contracts whether or not they ever tune into a MLB game, gains billions of dollars in revenue from television and radio broadcasts through FCC-licensed airwaves, and remains exempt from opening their books to any other entity including the Major League Baseball Players Association.

We, as not only fans, but as taxpayers and consumers, deserve a bit more disclosure and should require further scrutiny from MLB and its office of Commissioner in ownership matters impacting municipalities throughout U.S. MLB is hardly a "private" corporation as many in the sports industry and news media foolishly suggest.

Bud Selig has a lot on his plate, right now, all right. And what he is serving up this time certainly does not include apple pie.

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 12:39 PM | Comments (1)

2011 Gold Cup Preview

Nearly a year has passed since the World Cup has passed, which is usually the beginning and the end of United States interest in soccer.

But international soccer thrums on every year, and the pinnacle of international soccer, besides the World Cup, is each continent's championship.

The most famous and respected of these continental championships is naturally Europe's, with the Euro Championship being broadcast on ESPN. These tournaments might even occasionally have America sleepily open one eye halfway before closing it again until the World Cup.

That's a pity, because right under our noses every two years is the CONCACAF (read: North American, plus Guyana and Suriname) championship, the Gold Cup. If the United States cannot gain much traction on the world soccer stage, they can, and have (four times) been crowned champion of the continent, no mean feat when Mexico is involved.

Unfortunately, after the U.S. and Mexico, the talent and quality of North American soccer drops considerably. Only one CONCACAF nation besides the U.S. and Mexico has ever gotten out of the group stage in the World Cup (Costa Rica, in 1990).

In the CONCACAF hierarchy, where the U.S. and Mexico are far, far out in front of their peers, Costa Rica was reliably the third-best team in the region for a long time. But that has changed in the last couple of years, with Costa Rica passing the torch to Honduras, both in World Cup qualifying and in the Central American Championships.

Beyond these four nations, several others (Jamaica, Trinidad, Canada, Panama) make occasional forays into competitiveness. But it's still the Mexicans' and the Americans' show, and probably will be for quite some time.

Mexico is the defending champion, having shellacked the Yanks 5-0 in the 2009 Final. It should be noted, however, that the U.S. played that tournament with a young, experimental squad. The last time the U.S. placed their best roster in the tournament, in 2007, the beat Mexico in the final in dramatic fashion.

This year, with a slot in the 2014 Confederations Cup on the line (a tournament which pits all the continental champions against each other as an appetizer to the World Cup), the U.S. team is again bringing their best and brightest onto the pitch.

Let's look at each of the groups. Play begins Sunday.

GROUP A (Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Cuba)

Mexico should not have a particularly hard time getting through this group, but it's still probably the most difficult group of the three groups. Costa Rica will be eager to put their disappointments of the last two years behind them, and El Salvador can be scrappy: they made it to the final round of CONCACAF World Cup qualifying in the last iteration for the first time since 1998, and beat Mexico along the way.

Cuba will be the group's pushover, and if prior tournaments Cuba has participated in on U.S. soil are any indication, defections from the squad from players seeking political asylum is a very real possibility.

GROUP B (Honduras, Jamaica, Guatemala, Grenada)

Ay Caramba! This group is brutal. The only squad with a good shot at getting a point off of Honduras is Jamaica. Jamaica made it to the 1998 World Cup, but has sunk like a stone since then, failing to make it to the final round of World Cup qualifiers in 2006 and 2010. Rock Bottom came in 2007, when they didn't even advance to the Gold Cup after being upset at home by ... St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

They have sloooowly made their way back to respectability since then, however, and recent results are encouraging.

Guatemala has not kept up with its neighbors and at this point can only be considered better than Nicaragua and Belize in Central America. They do have a pretty good rivalry with Honduras, so maybe they can make some hay from that.

Grenada. Let's see (consults Wikipedia) ... this is their second Gold Cup, having qualified in 2009 too. There, they were smashed in all three group games by an aggregate score of 10-0. They do have a better FIFA World Ranking than Guatemala, so perhaps winning that game should be their goal.

GROUP C (United States, Canada, Panama, Guadeloupe)

Although Group A probably had the best top three teams, Group C is stronger from top to bottom. The U.S. should advance to the knockout stages, but Canada, who won the Gold Cup in 2000, is very eager to be taken seriously.

There is also bad blood between the American and Canadian teams; in the semifinals of the 2007 Gold Cup, the U.S. was clinging to a 2-1 lead, down a man, when Canada scored an equalizer that was very incorrectly waved off for offsides; had it counted, a 30-minute overtime would have been played, with the U.S. still down a man and all the momentum with Canada.

I maintain, however, that the disallowed goal was moot due to another officiating error: the goal happened very, very late in injury time, and the officials gave far more injury time than they should have permitted, given the relatively clean, injury-free flow to the second half and that several substitutes came on at the same time. At any rate, this will be Canada's first opportunity to avenge that loss.

Panama has never qualified for a World Cup, but usually makes it to the final qualification group. Additionally, they are the last North American team besides the U.S. and Mexico to make it to the Gold Cup final, losing in a shootout to the U.S. in 2005.

Guadeloupe is an interesting case. They are not eligible for the World Cup because they are fully a "state" of France, just as much as Hawaii is to the U.S. But they are allowed to participate in the Gold Cup for some reason and usually do well, having advanced to the knockout stages in each of the last two Gold Cups, including a semifinal appearance in 2007.

It doesn't speak well of the caliber of CONCACAF when a remote province of France is pretty much on par with anyone below the U.S. and Mexico. I think they make it out of the group stage this year, too.

Predictions

Quarterfinalists

Mexico
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Honduras
Jamaica
USA
Guadaloupe
Panama

Semifinalists

Mexico
USA
Honduras
Guadeloupe

Finals

USA over Mexico. It's their turn.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 11:50 AM | Comments (1)

June 1, 2011

Total Statistical Production: Basketball

Dave Heeren is one of the most important sports statisticians of all time. He doesn't have the name recognition of a Bill James or Tom Tango, but Heeren's TENDEX system formed the basis of almost every subsequent attempt at statistical player evaluation in basketball. I read Heeren's Basketball Abstract I don't know how many times in the '80s and '90s.

Since then, we've had similar creations, including Dean Oliver's Approximate Value (AV), John Hollinger's Player Efficiency Rating (PER) and Game Score, the NBA's own Efficiency statistic, and David Berri's Win Score and Wins Produced, based on the book The Wages of Wins, by Berri, Martin B. Schmidt, and Stacey L. Brook. The heart of Heeren's work, and most of the others, is that through most of NBA history, an average possession is worth about one point. Let me quote from Heeren:

"The formula works because a ball possession is worth one point on the average. This means that rebounds and steals which acquire possession are valued at one point apiece, an assist which converts an ordinary one-point possession into an easy two-point basket is worth one, and missed shots which result in squandering possession are equivalent to turnovers and are minus-one. Of course, if an offensive rebound follows a missed shot, the team having missed the shot is back where it started — still having the ball without having scored. A minus-one is given to the player who missed the shot and a plus-one to the player who rebounded. The sequence results in zero, as indeed it should because no points are scored."

The problem is that a rebound (+1) is not as valuable as a steal (also +1), and a missed field goal or free throw (both -1) is not as bad as a turnover (-1). Why not? Because only about 70% of missed shots are rebounded by the other team. If a player misses a shot, his team still has a 30% chance of getting the ball. If he commits a turnover, his team's chance of having the ball is 0%. A steal always turns a possession for your opponent into a possession for your team. Getting a steal is the equivalent of forcing the miss and grabbing the rebound.

Heeren is right that an offensive rebound cancels out a missed shot — it's appropriate for those to be equal — but the real value is plus or minus 7/10 of a possession. And he's right that a steal cancels out a turnover, since those are opposite sides of the same coin. But a missed shot doesn't create a turnover — it creates a neutral possession. With that in mind, the formula for Total Statistical Production (TSP) is:

PTS - .5*FTA - FG - .7*FGM + .7*ORB +.3*DRB +.5*AST + STL - TOV + .5*BLK

As in other systems, everything is scaled to points. A missed free throw is a half-point deduction. A successful free-throw is a half-point addition. A successful field goal which gives the other team possession is a full-point deduction, since it ends the possession. Thus, a regular two-point basket gives a player +1: 2 PTS - 1 FG. A missed field goal (which might be rebounded by the shooter's team) is -0.7, while an offensive rebound is +0.7. A defensive rebound is valued at +0.3. In this system, a player must shoot at least 41.2% on two-pointers, 26.0% from the arc, and 50% from the line in order to score positive points as a shooter. Anything below those levels will lower his score.

Take that 41.2% shooter. In 1,000 shots, he will score 824 points and miss 588 times. About 412 of those will result in defensive rebounds, so his team loses the ball. But there will also be about 176 offensive rebounds. So that's 824 points and 176 offensive boards. 824 + 176 = 1,000. This is a zero-value offensive player, and a zero-value scorer in TSP. Someone can shoot 42% or 43% and get a positive TSP rating from that, but his value will still be very close to zero-level. TSP is compared to zero, not to replacement level, so zero-value is a very poor player.

TSP values assists at half a point, steals as plus-one, and turnovers as minus-one. Blocked shots (on defense) are worth half a point. Fouls, which may be good or bad, are not part of the system. A foul which turns an opponent's breakaway into an in-bound pass, or an easy layup into a pair of free throws, is a good foul. A defensive foul near the end of the game is often helpful, even necessary. Fouls can also be associated with aggressive defense, which we would not wish to punish. I am open to the idea of a small penalty for fouls in the future, but right now I don't see a need. However, as Heeren expressed more than 20 years ago, the league should track offensive fouls separately, since those always result in loss of possession and are equivalent to a turnover. Similarly, flagrant/technical fouls are always negative.

The system is logically consistent. A missed shot (-0.7) and an offensive rebound (+0.7) cancel each other out. A turnover (-1) and a steal (+1) cancel each other out. The missed shot is less harmful (-0.7) than a turnover (-1), because a turnover definitely goes to the other team, but a missed shot creates a loose ball that the shooter's team might get back. A missed shot (-0.7 for the shooting team) and a defensive rebound (+0.3 for the other team) — effectively resulting in a turnover — are worth the same amount (1) as a turnover. The formula is in harmony. To convert TSP into an easy-to-handle number, I divide the result by 100.

There is one variable with which I am not entirely satisfied: Free Throw Attempts, currently scored as minus-½. Two successful free throws are worth the same (+1) as a successful field goal. That makes sense. But three successful free throws are worth less (+1.5) than a successful three-pointer (+2). A two-point basket plus a free throw is also worth +1.5. That's not fair. If a player gets fouled while attempting a three-pointer and makes all three shots, that should be the same value as a successful three. If a player drives and gets fouled, but his shot goes in and he makes the free throw, that should be the same value as a successful three. There's a similar problem regarding missed free throws, which are over-penalized.

Since I recognize this problem, why not fix it? Honestly, because I'm not smart enough to see a solution. I could lower the deduction for free throw attempts, say, from 0.5 to 0.4. But now a pair of free throws is worth more (1.2) than a two-point basket. Values with a free throw attempt set at -0.4:

2-pt FG: +1.0
2 FT: +1.2
FG + FT: +1.6
3 FT: +1.8
3-pt FG: +2.0

That seems just as bad, and unnecessarily complicated to boot. So why not just penalize missed foul shots, and let successful ones stand? But that would overvalue free throws. Sink them both, and now that's worth twice as much as a two-point field goal, equal to a three-pointer. Besides, a lot of free throws are at the end of the game when the other team is trying to foul, wants you shooting free throws. If you go 1/2, your opponent is happy.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, and someone better at math than I am can tell me how to correct the formula. Wins Produced estimates the value of a free throw attempt at -0.47, but in the interest of saving some decimal points, I think -0.50 is close enough. For now, I'm willing to live with the fact that free throws are slightly undervalued, and make subjective adjustments for this.

Here's an example of the system in action: Carmelo Anthony's 2010-11 season. Anthony scored 1,970 points. That's +1970. He made 684 field goals (-684) and missed 817 (-572), bringing his score to +714. Remember, a missed shot is -0.7, a two-point field goal is +1.0 (+2 points, -1 possession), and a three-pointer is +2.0 (+3 pts, -1 poss). 'Melo also shot 605 free throws (-303), so his TSP from shooting is +411. Another way of looking at this is as 589 two-point field goals (+589), 95 three-point field goals (+190), 817 missed field goals (-572), 507 free throws (+253), and 98 missed free throws (-49). So 589 + 190 - 572 + 253 - 49 = 411.

Anthony grabbed 118 offensive rebounds (+83) and 445 defensive rebounds (+133), raising his score to +627. Add 221 assists (+110) and 46 blocks (+23), he's at +760. Finally, give him +68 for his steals and -206 for turnovers: +622. Divide by 100, and Anthony's 2010-11 TSP is 6.22. That's the system.

PTS - .5*FTA - FG - .7*FGM + .7*ORB +.3*DRB +.5*AST + STL - TOV + .5*BLK

Total Statistical Production is designed to rate a player's efficiency and production, so players with more floor time will have higher scores. A player who puts in 40 minutes might see his play suffer as a result of fatigue. His per-minute averages will drop as he tires, but someone who plays 40 minutes a game is out there because his team needs him, because he's better than the next-best guy. I don't want this system to punish iron men or superstars who are too good to sit. Someone who gives his team 40 minutes a game is more valuable than a sixth man who plays for 20 minutes. It's like a starter vs. closer argument in baseball: the relief pitcher has to be a lot better per inning to merit a higher score. Same thing here: a backup has to be a lot better per minute to be more valuable than a starter.

That said, TSP can be easily adapted to per-game or per-minute value: simply divide the original score by Games Played or Minutes Played. TSP is not adjusted for game pace, but that's possible, too, both on the team and league levels. The indispensable Basketball-Reference.com offers estimates of team possessions, or you can use a simple formula like the one below. The value of a game pace adjustment is especially apparent when looking at teams rather than individuals. Without an adjustment, the Denver Nuggets score the highest TSP in the NBA for 2010-11, followed by 'Melo's other team, the Knicks. The Bulls, who finished with the best record in the league, are 11th. When you apply a simple game pace adjustment — TSP * lg(PF+PA) / tm(PF+PA) — the results are much more intuitive:

1. San Antonio Spurs (61-21)
2. Los Angeles Lakers (57-25)
3. Dallas Mavericks (57-25)
4. Chicago Bulls (62-20)
5. Boston Celtics (56-26)
6. Miami Heat (58-24)
7. Oklahoma City Thunder (55-27)
8. Denver Nuggets (50-32)
9. Houston Rockets (43-39)
10. New York Knicks (42-40)

The bottom five, in descending order, are: Kings, Wizards, T-Wolves, Nets, Cavaliers. All of that seems pretty reasonable to me. Please note, however, that TSP is intended to evaluate individual players rather than teams.

Here are individual TSP leaders for the 2010-11 season:

1. LeBron James, 8.6
2. Dwight Howard, 8.4
3. Pau Gasol, 8.3
4. Kevin Love, 8.3
5. Chris Paul, 8.2
6. Blake Griffin, 7.5
7. Kevin Durant, 7.3
8. LaMarcus Aldridge, 7.3
9. Dwyane Wade, 7.2
10. Zack Randolph, 7.1
11. Derrick Rose, 6.9
12. Al Jefferson, 6.9

I suspect the first thing you noticed is that league MVP Derrick Rose is 11th. Plenty of people feel James or Howard was more deserving, but no one has Rose outside the top 10 (except the Wages of Wins folks, who rate him even lower). Rose is a little underrated by raw TSP because the Bulls had a fairly slow game pace, and he climbs to ninth if you adjust for that. But compare Rose to Chris Paul, ranked fifth. Both have similar shooting percentages and rebound totals. Rose scored 758 more points, which is a ton, but he also took 669 more shots. Paul had 150 more assists, but the biggest difference is steals and turnovers. Paul had 188 steals and only 177 turnovers (which is phenomenal). Rose had 85 steals and 278 turnovers. That's a difference of 204 possessions.

Rose rates behind Paul because, although he scored 758 more points, Rose had 150 fewer assists and used about 775 more possessions:

* 100 fewer steals
* 100 more turnovers
* 300 more field goals
* 300 more missed shots (about 200 possessions)
* 171 more free throw attempts (about 75 possessions)

TSP is not punishing Rose for his field goals or free throws: all of his successful shots score him points. A two-point field goal turns a normal one-point possession into a two-point possession — that's +1 in the formula. But it's not +2. A successful shot ends your team's possession. What TSP is saying is that those 669 shots and 171 free throws weren't worth +758 — more like +125. Shot are supposed to yield points. A good formula can't reward someone just for shooting. Paul makes up the -125 deficit with 159 assists (+80), 103 steals (+103), and 101 fewer turnovers (+101).

I wouldn't want to argue that Rose wasn't one of the 10 best players in the NBA this season. Put him as high as sixth, you'll get no argument from me. But this is a 44.5% shooter who didn't lead the league in scoring, doesn't rebound much, wasn't among the top five in assists, was in the top five in both turnovers and missed shots, and isn't a particularly good defensive player. I think 9th is closer to the mark than 1st.

Kevin Love easily led the league in TSP/G and TSP/MP, followed by Howard, James, Paul, and Gasol. TSP ranks Kobe Bryant (fourth in MVP voting) behind his teammate Gasol (no MVP votes), despite 537 more points. Kobe missed 900 shots this season, most in the NBA. Gasol missed 527. Kobe had 100 more assists, but Gasol had 200 more rebounds. Kobe had 50 more steals, but 100 more turnovers. Gasol blocked 100 more shots. Give me the big man.

My choice for MVP would have been Dwight Howard. His TSP comes in slightly behind James, and Love was better per-minute, but Howard is a great defensive player and shoots a lot of free throws, both of which are undervalued in the formula. As you have probably read before, the statistic isn't the analysis, just the framework of the analysis. Total Statistical Production is intended to be the beginning of the argument, not the end of it.

TSP is a retrodictive system, not a predictive one. It is designed to tell us what already happened, not what will. Of course the system has some predictive power — I feel comfortable assuming that James and Howard will be top-10 players again next season — but that's not what it's designed for. TSP looks at a game, season, or career, and estimates a player's statistical contributions using a simple formula. The results are similar to those of more complicated systems, but I would argue in favor of TSP because it is what
Arturo Galletti describes as something "a 10-year-old could do with a pencil." That's not necessarily a bad thing. In TSP, it is easy to determine why a player rates where he does.

The first test any statistical rating system must pass is common sense. Below are TSP rankings for the past three decades; I believe the system produces reasonable results each time. It sees superstars as superstars. TSP is fair to guards, forwards, and centers; it is fair to shooters, rebounders, and ball-handlers. I don't believe any major statistic is obviously over- or under-rated, though — like other statistical rating systems — it does not properly credit defensive skill. Here are TSP's top three for each of the last 30 seasons, with the leader's name in bold.

1981-82: Moses Malone, Magic Johnson, Julius Erving
1982-83: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Moses Malone
1983-84: Larry Bird, Adrian Dantley, Alex English
1984-85: Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas
1985-86: Larry Bird, Charles Barkley, Magic Johnson
1986-87: Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson
1987-88: Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Larry Bird
1988-89: Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Magic Johnson
1989-90: Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Magic Johnson
1990-91: Michael Jordan, David Robinson, John Stockton
1991-92: Michael Jordan, John Stockton, David Robinson
1992-93: Hakeem Olajuwon, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone
1993-94: Shaquille O'Neal, David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon
1994-95: David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, John Stockton
1995-96: David Robinson, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone
1996-97: Karl Malone, Michael Jordan, John Stockton
1997-98: Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan
1998-99: Jason Kidd, Shaquille O'Neal, Gary Payton
1999-00: Shaquille O'Neal, Gary Payton, Kevin Garnett
2000-01: Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki
2001-02: Tim Duncan, Elton Brand, Kevin Garnett
2002-03: Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Tim Duncan
2003-04: Kevin Garnett, Peja Stojakovic, Shawn Marion
2004-05: Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Shawn Marion
2005-06: Shawn Marion, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James
2006-07: Shawn Marion, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki
2007-08: Chris Paul, LeBron James, Amare Stoudemire
2008-09: Chris Paul, LeBron James, Dwyane Wade
2009-10: LeBron James, Kevin Durant, David Lee
2010-11: LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Pau Gasol

Those are all great players, not a crazy selection on the list. I suppose the one who might require some explanation is Shawn Marion. I wasn't shocked to see him sneak into the top three once or twice, but Marion's rating where he did was as much a surprise to me as much as it probably is to you. I even checked to make sure I hadn't mislabeled the statistics for Shaquille O'Neal or something. I hadn't. On paper, Shawn Marion was the most productive player in the NBA for a couple of years.

Let's use 2005-06 as an example of why he rates how he does. That season, Marion's teammate Steve Nash won MVP. Nash scores as a very good player, eighth in the league according to TSP. Nash dished 826 assists that season, almost 700 more than Marion (143). But the big guy outdid him everywhere else. Marion had 300 more points, 600 more rebounds, 100 more steals, 100 more blocks, and 150 fewer turnovers. This is a stat-based system — it doesn't see intangibles — but it's hard to understand how Nash's 700 assists could be worth more than Marion's 1,250 points, rebounds, steals, blocks, and turnovers.

One reason I like TSP is that it doesn't require a positional adjustment. The list above includes 16 seasons by point guards, 12 shooting guards, 18 small forwards, 29 power forwards, and 15 centers. Everything is basically equal except power forward, and their dominance is a chronological fluke, not a bias in the system. There's no slant towards big men — centers rate the same as everybody else.

The equality among positions in TSP goes back more than 30 years. It is true, though, that in the game's early years, centers and power forwards dominated. I'll address that next week, along with ideas for using TSP more effectively, particularly when ranking careers or multiple seasons. We'll also tackle Total Statistical Production Over Replacement.

In the meantime, I believe the simple formula I've developed is effective and interesting, but I would be happy to address questions or get ideas about making it better.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:04 PM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 12

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Carl Edwards — Edwards, who won the All-Star Race last week, led 61 laps in the Coca-Cola 600, but late handling problems prevented any chance of a Charlotte sweep. Edwards finished 16th, only his third result out of the top 10 this year, and holds a 36-point lead over Kevin Harvick in the point standings.

"I led 61 of the first 75 laps," Edwards said, "but I couldn't finish what I started. That's opposed to the All-Star Race, when I finished what I started with, which was an un-wrecked race car. This may be the first time a NASCAR driver has been credited with a 'ground out.' Who knew there were speed bumps in the Charlotte infield? Luckily, Charlotte doesn't have a divot-replacement policy."

2. Kevin Harvick — Harvick swept past Dale Earnhardt, Jr. in turn four after the No. 88 National Guard Chevy ran out of gas, giving Harvick an unlikely win in the Coca-Cola 600, his third win of the year. Harvick jumped three places in the Sprint Cup point standings, and now trails Carl Edwards by 36 points.

"Whether driving the Budweiser car or drinking a cold can of Bud," Harvick said, "it's always nice to see a 'coaster.'

"Now, Sunday wasn't a good day for the letters 'J' and 'R.' First, rookie J.R. Hildebrand crashes on the final turn at Indy and loses the Indianapolis 500. Then, Dale Jr. runs out of gas on the final lap at Charlotte. And both were driving cars sponsored by the National Guard. Now that's a conspiracy!"

3. Kyle Busch — Busch spun twice at Charlotte, once through the grassy infield on lap 318, then again on lap 343, and the cumulative effect of those mishaps ended his day early. Busch finished 32nd, 55 laps down, and dropped two spots in the point standings to fifth.

"Sunday's was certainly no joyride," Busch said. "And speaking of 'joyrides,' how is an early finish at Charlotte like a run in with the Iredell County Sheriff's department? In each case, someone tells you to 'pull over.' This is definitely not an incident in which I can plead innocence."

4. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson's engine blew on lap 395, sending him to the garage early with his first DNF of the year. He was credited with a 28th-place finish, and dropped one place in the point standings to third, 37 behind Carl Edwards.

"It's certainly disappointing to post our first DNF of the year," Johnson said. "Of course, that disappointment is offset by the satisfaction of knowing we haven't recorded a single 'DNFF' in five years. That's a 'did not finish first.'

"Clearly, we weren't at our best. It's never a good sign when you leave the pits with a wrench on the car. I call that a 'mistake;' Chad Knaus calls it a sneaky attempt at a little extra downforce. In any case, we can't afford to leave wrenches lying unattended. I suspect we'll need all the tools we have, because I foresee a need to 'tighten screws' on this team."

5. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt took the lead on lap 399 when Greg Biffle pitted for fuel, and with the finish line in sight two laps later, victory, as well as an end to Junior's 104-race winless streak, appeared to be at hand. But alas, Earnhardt's No. 88 Chevrolet sputtered and slowed two corners from the end. Kevin Harvick passed Earnhardt for the win, and Earnhardt settled for a disappointing, yet solid seventh-place.

"As my fuel tank emptied," Earnhardt said, "so did the hopes of Junior Nation. That's the first time I can remember 'E' getting booed. Usually, I'm accustomed to getting good mileage, at least out of the 'Earnhardt' name. But this time my gas tank let me down. Apparently, my fuel gauge, like me, is subject to unreasonable expectations."

6. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth boasted the car to beat at Charlotte, leading 103 of 402 laps, but a pit stop for fuel on lap 393 relegated him to a finish of 14th. He fell one spot to seventh in the Sprint Cup point standings, and trails Carl Edwards by 71.

"A lot of drivers," Kenseth said, "Dale Earnhardt, Jr. included, 'stopped for gas' on Sunday. We just happened to do it in the pits. Gas mileage is a very unpredictable aspect of NASCAR racing, but not nearly as unpredictable as NASCAR's reasoning behind whether or not to throw a caution flag. Personally, I can understand NASCAR's reasoning for waving a caution just for a beverage can. Clearly, NASCAR spotters, like everyone else, were watching the race on Charlotte's gigantic high-definition screen, which makes a can look like 40-gallon barrel. Of course, not throwing a caution with two laps to go and Earnhardt leading was equally controversial. NASCAR doesn't need a big screen to make that call, because Junior is already larger than life."

7. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer finished 15th in the Coca-Cola 600 as Richard Childress Racing teammate Kevin Harvick took the win in dramatic fashion. Bowyer improved one spot in the point standings to eighth, 80 out of first.

"I've got to hand it to Harvick," Bowyer said. "He's one lucky S.O.B. Some say he's more lucky than good. Others say he's more S.O.B. than lucky. Kevin once famously claimed that Jimmie Johnson had a horseshoe up his rear end. That obviously is no longer true. I think I speak for many drivers when I say to Kevin, 'Up yours.'"

8. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin ran out of fuel just before the finish at Charlotte, seeing a top-5 finish turn into a 10th-place result. Hamlin improved one place in the point standings to 12th, and trails Carl Edwards by 106.

"As you know," Hamlin said. "Kyle Busch got busted for speeding last week, doing 128 miles per hour in a 45-mph zone. He was cited by the Iredell County Sheriff's department for speeding and careless and reckless driving. Interestingly enough, Kyle wasn't the only one who was 'booking.' The officer who made the stop said Kyle had proper identification and was cooperative. Only one thing amazes me more than a person going three times the speed limit, and that is the fact that Kyle Busch, apparently, can be cooperative."

9. Kurt Busch — Busch gambled on fuel, choosing to stay out late while most cars pitted, and hoping a win or a top-10 finish would be the reward. Busch didn't win, but his fourth at Charlotte was his best result of the year and ended a string of four finishes outside the top 10. He climbed two places in the point standings to sixth, and trails Carl Edwards by 68.

"This is becoming a weekly habit," Busch said, "but I'd like to apologize to those who were listening to the No. 22 Shell/Pennzoil radio frequency. I said a word that shocked even myself — it was called a 'compliment.' Steve Addington made an astute call to fill the tank on lap 345. For that, Steve wins the Kurt Busch 'Bleeping Bleeper Of The Week' Award.

"Let's not overly condemn my brother Kyle for driving like a maniac on a public road. Lest we forget, this sport was built on moonshiners driving like maniacs with car-loads of white lightning. Just think. If some overzealous sheriff had stopped some mostly-innocent moonshiner for speeding 60 years ago, the course of history could have been changed forever, and this sport would likely be without alcohol sponsorship. We all owe Kyle our gratitude for reminding us where and why this sport started. Besides, Kyle was profiled by the cops. I can relate. The last time I was 'profiled,' I had my plastic surgeon take a little off the sides."

10. Tony Stewart — Stewart was poised for a top-10 finish with a little over 20 laps remaining in the Coca-Cola 600, but engine trouble, and a near-miss of Jeff Burton's spinning car, sent Stewart home with a 17th-place result. Stewart improved one spot in the point standings to ninth, 89 out of first.

"It's not a NASCAR race unless there's an accompanying conspiracy," Stewart said. "To wave or not to wave the caution flag. Let me be blunt: there is no conspiracy. Why? Because a conspiracy would actually logically explain NASCAR's actions. There can be no conspiracy, because there is no rhyme or reason to NASCAR's action where cautions and debris are concerned."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:25 AM | Comments (0)