If you can’t beat the Colts, become the Colts.
After firmly establishing ourselves as the team that loses to Indy, the Broncos decided to ape the Colts’ style, using the draft to acquire through picks and trades seven offensive players and just one defender. Weird.
A day after the surprising pick of Jay “Cragler” Cutler, the Broncos continued to reload the passing game with two wide receivers and two interior offensive linemen.
(Okay, speaking of Cutler, one last NFL.com draft profile bash. Cutler’s says, “Overall, Cutler has flown up draft charts a ton over the last three months, but he may struggle to become the consistent quarterback he has the talent to make.” Becoming the quarterback, and making one...so, in case Cutler doesn’t pan out, he’s also building a quarterback in his basement? I don’t get it.)
The wide receivers were Brandon Marshall of Central Florida and Domenik Hixon of Akron. If I saw either one play, I obviously don’t remember it. But a story on the impartial denverbroncos.com excites me. Marshall volunteered to move to safety as the team struggled his junior year and ended up leading the team in tackles. That’s awesome. Can he be as big a stud as Troy Brown? Hixon also played safety in college, but I’m more intrigued by his rumored 4.3 speed. Sure, a lot of fast guys don’t make it, but it’s the fourth round, you know?
The Broncos also drafted guard Chris Kuper of North Dakota (fifth round) and center Greg Eslinger of Minnesota (sixth). I hope Greg doesn’t plan on lining up at center any time soon. I said recently that I hoped the Broncos wouldn’t take O-linemen high, and they didn’t. The way I see it, the Broncos have a competitive advantage when it comes to drafting offensive linemen. Because they look for a different kind of blocker-that is to say, they don’t obsessively court obesity-the Broncos will always be able to find good fits for their system later in the draft. Hopefully one of these guys works out.
I guess it's not that weird that we have been so pass-minded in the draft. After all, playing from behind is definitely a weakness, and because of that the Pittsburgh game was over in the first half. I just hope Javon Walker can step in right away.
I was excited to see us take Elvis Dumervil, the defensive end from Louisville, because I’d heard of him, and that’s the best you can hope for with a second day pick. I was excited until I Googled him and remembered why I knew him-he’s the guy Marcus Vick cleated.
But Dumervil’s more than worthy of note as a player. He led the nation with 20 sacks and a record eleven forced fumbles last year. Awesome! How does a guy with production like that fall to the second day? Well, the Broncos website lists him at 5-11, 258 lbs. That’s small. Small enough to be undersized in college and yet finish the year with twenty sacks and eleven forced fumbles, if you get my drift. I think this is a tremendous pick. I’d much rather gamble on a guy who’s made the plays than a guy who really tore up the stopwatches.
Do you remember when Dwight Freeney came out? (Hey, he’s a Colt now, isn’t he?) Freeney led the country in sacks his last year but, thanks to size concerns, slipped a little in the draft. We all know how he turned out. Will Dumervil match Freeney? Probably not. But he’s definitely got an NFL-level game.
While I wish we could have snagged a couple Buffaloes, I’m more or less pleased with the second day’s selections. And y’all?
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Broncos on Day One of the Draft
Since John Elway (also known as the greatest quarterback who ever lived) retired, the Denver Broncos have been in no-man’s land.
I don’t mean that no one has proven worthy as Elway’s rightful heir, though obviously that’s true. More, the Broncos have tried to balance the needs of building for the future against keeping hope for the present.
Considering how long some teams take to rebuild, the Broncos have done a good job maintaining a winning team. But considering the demands of both the future and the present leaves us with bizarre drafts like the one we’ve just witnessed.
Obvious example: our first-round pick, Jay Cutler, the former Vanderbilt quarterback. Cutler, of course, was considered one of the top three QB prospects in the draft. His selection is curious, though, considering Jake Plummer not only led us to the AFC championship game last year, but became the first passer to beat Tom Brady in the playoffs.
What’s my take on Cutler? Honestly, I’m not sure. He’s clearly more athletic than Matt Leinart. And while he wasn’t all that successful in terms of wins in college, he was playing for Vanderbilt. Likewise, his statistics are pretty run-of-the-mill: Leinart’s passes routinely went for longer gains. That's odd, consdering how many have praised Cutler's arm strength. So is the numerical disparity due to Leinart’s superior receivers, or is Leinart fundamentally a better passer than Cutler? I don’t know.
Quarterback’s an odd pick for a team in our spot. Yet if Cutler becomes a top performer at the most valuable position in the game, then the pick was worth it no matter whom we passed on.
And there are good reasons for optimism. Young quarterbacks usually struggle. Is that because they’re young, or because they play for terrible teams? Think of this: the rare quarterbacks who, in recent years, have enjoyed early-career success-guys like Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, and Carson Palmer-played for solid teams and, more importantly, received fabulous coaching.
I have complete confidence in Mike Shanahan’s ability to mold quarterbacks. John Elway, Bubby Brister, and Jake Plummer were all most effective playing for Shanahan. Elway was a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer before Shanahan came to town, yet still made dramatic statistical improvement his last few seasons. Brian Griese didn’t really pan out, but the Broncos had the former Michigan passer, weak of arm and will, in the Pro Bowl by his third season. I think his failings are clearly his own. The coaching staff’s only mistake was sticking with him for too long.
So while other players could have filled more immediate needs, Cutler may become a fine passer in Denver for years to come.
Our second-round trade for Javon Walker was a masterful move, assuming he’s in good enough health to produce. Walker’s career stats show both annual improvement and an ability to catch the deep ball. He’s a lot like Ashley Lelie, except he can catch. (And he likes money-while Lelie is missing out on a $100,000 bonus this year for not working out with the team, Walker was famously blasted by Brett Favre for wanting more money last year. Too bad for Walker it didn’t happen this season, now that everyone questions what kind of team player Favre is.)
In the third round the Broncos selected tight end Tony Scheffler of Western Michigan. I have little to say but that he’s big and atheltic. He shouldn’t start right away or anything, but we’re solid enough at the position that we have a little time for him to develop.
At the end of the first day of the draft the Broncos had made improvements solely to their passing game. After Brady and Roethlisberger picked up huge chunks through the air on us in the playoffs, I would have thought stopping the pass would be a greater priority. What do you think? Did the Broncos have a good first day or did they blow it?
I don’t mean that no one has proven worthy as Elway’s rightful heir, though obviously that’s true. More, the Broncos have tried to balance the needs of building for the future against keeping hope for the present.
Considering how long some teams take to rebuild, the Broncos have done a good job maintaining a winning team. But considering the demands of both the future and the present leaves us with bizarre drafts like the one we’ve just witnessed.
Obvious example: our first-round pick, Jay Cutler, the former Vanderbilt quarterback. Cutler, of course, was considered one of the top three QB prospects in the draft. His selection is curious, though, considering Jake Plummer not only led us to the AFC championship game last year, but became the first passer to beat Tom Brady in the playoffs.
What’s my take on Cutler? Honestly, I’m not sure. He’s clearly more athletic than Matt Leinart. And while he wasn’t all that successful in terms of wins in college, he was playing for Vanderbilt. Likewise, his statistics are pretty run-of-the-mill: Leinart’s passes routinely went for longer gains. That's odd, consdering how many have praised Cutler's arm strength. So is the numerical disparity due to Leinart’s superior receivers, or is Leinart fundamentally a better passer than Cutler? I don’t know.
Quarterback’s an odd pick for a team in our spot. Yet if Cutler becomes a top performer at the most valuable position in the game, then the pick was worth it no matter whom we passed on.
And there are good reasons for optimism. Young quarterbacks usually struggle. Is that because they’re young, or because they play for terrible teams? Think of this: the rare quarterbacks who, in recent years, have enjoyed early-career success-guys like Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, and Carson Palmer-played for solid teams and, more importantly, received fabulous coaching.
I have complete confidence in Mike Shanahan’s ability to mold quarterbacks. John Elway, Bubby Brister, and Jake Plummer were all most effective playing for Shanahan. Elway was a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer before Shanahan came to town, yet still made dramatic statistical improvement his last few seasons. Brian Griese didn’t really pan out, but the Broncos had the former Michigan passer, weak of arm and will, in the Pro Bowl by his third season. I think his failings are clearly his own. The coaching staff’s only mistake was sticking with him for too long.
So while other players could have filled more immediate needs, Cutler may become a fine passer in Denver for years to come.
Our second-round trade for Javon Walker was a masterful move, assuming he’s in good enough health to produce. Walker’s career stats show both annual improvement and an ability to catch the deep ball. He’s a lot like Ashley Lelie, except he can catch. (And he likes money-while Lelie is missing out on a $100,000 bonus this year for not working out with the team, Walker was famously blasted by Brett Favre for wanting more money last year. Too bad for Walker it didn’t happen this season, now that everyone questions what kind of team player Favre is.)
In the third round the Broncos selected tight end Tony Scheffler of Western Michigan. I have little to say but that he’s big and atheltic. He shouldn’t start right away or anything, but we’re solid enough at the position that we have a little time for him to develop.
At the end of the first day of the draft the Broncos had made improvements solely to their passing game. After Brady and Roethlisberger picked up huge chunks through the air on us in the playoffs, I would have thought stopping the pass would be a greater priority. What do you think? Did the Broncos have a good first day or did they blow it?
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Broncos roster breakdown
The Broncos went to the AFC Championship last year and ought to be in a title-contending mood this season. Thus I think it appropriate to evaluate the Broncos’ current roster and look at needs as we head into the draft:
The depth chart on the Broncos’ official website will be our framework, though it's in dire need of an update.
By position:
Quarterback: Jake Plummer was terrific until the conference championship and any calls to replace him are misguided at best and hopeless at the realistic worst. The primary backup is Bradlee “equals mc squared” van Pelt. I hate him just for going to CSU, but I question his passing skills, too. Considering Plummer’s injury history and the Broncos’ contention intentions, it’d be wise to find a more suitable backup.
However, since we need a quarterbackup for right now, free agency is perhaps a wiser route than the draft. But a late-round prospect gives me someone to have misguided hope in, so I’m happy either way.
Running backs: Ron Dayne is the current starter of record, though he’s half the runner the dingable Tatum Bell is. The Broncos would be wise to find young depth in the draft, and the team has an impressive history with precisely that. Expect the Broncos to draft at least one tailback. Kyle Johnson is fine at fullback, which is a pretty fungible position in our offense at any rate.
Wide receiver: Rod Smith is a franchise great, but aging. (It’s relative: his numbers last year surpassed those of Super Bowl MVP Hines Ward.) Ashley Lelie is requesting a trade, and rumors of a swap for the Packers’ Javon Walker make a lot of sense if he's healthy.
In any event, the Broncos could use more depth at the position. Rookie receivers rarely really arrive with results, though, and the team already has enough “intriguing youngsters” who “turn heads” in camp each year. Free agency is the best way to rebuild the corps.
Tight end: No standouts, but we were fine last year. Jeb Putzier was our best big-man pass catcher, but reserve Nate Jackson, a former wideout if I recall correctly, should help pick up some of the slack. Depth is welcome as it is everywhere, but tight end need not be a priority.
Offensive line: Here I fall into the same trap I ridiculed ESPN for a few weeks ago. Having said that, young linemen are often shuffled between positions and thus through the prism of the draft it makes sense to lump them together. The Broncos’ starting unit is still very good. Tom Nalen is aging, but the team already has plans to replace him with young guard Ben Hamilton. Unfortunately, if I gave you any kind of a report on the quality of our backups I’d be guessing. I’ll defer to the front office; if they think we need to use draft picks here I won’t second-guess that, although a high pick should be out of the question.
Defensive line: A whole lot of okay. While many of last year’s acqusitions held their own, I can’t help but worry for the line in the absence of Trevor Pryce, despite his reduced production last season. A true pass rusher is desperately needed for a team that lost Reggie Hayward and Pryce two years in a row. If no sure thing is available at No. 15, the Broncos may carpet-bomb the D-line in later rounds as they have done in years past.
Linebackers: With Ian Gold, Al Wilson, and D.J. Williams, the Broncos are set. Even a backup like Patrick Chukwurah can make plays when the opportunity is presented. Not a major need position.
Cornerback: Champ Bailey bounced back after a horrible first year in Denver, and the Broncos seem pleased with last year’s corner-heavy draft crop, so any picks here would be surprising.
Safety: Nick Ferguson and John Lynch are the projected starters and should be fine, assuming Lynch can keep his headhunting under control. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to pick up a young safety to replace either one down the line.
Special teams: The kicking game is set with Jason Elam and Todd Sauerbrun, but the return game is often neglected. I’d love to see the Broncos snag Jeremy Bloom with a late-rounder.
Your thoughts?
The depth chart on the Broncos’ official website will be our framework, though it's in dire need of an update.
By position:
Quarterback: Jake Plummer was terrific until the conference championship and any calls to replace him are misguided at best and hopeless at the realistic worst. The primary backup is Bradlee “equals mc squared” van Pelt. I hate him just for going to CSU, but I question his passing skills, too. Considering Plummer’s injury history and the Broncos’ contention intentions, it’d be wise to find a more suitable backup.
However, since we need a quarterbackup for right now, free agency is perhaps a wiser route than the draft. But a late-round prospect gives me someone to have misguided hope in, so I’m happy either way.
Running backs: Ron Dayne is the current starter of record, though he’s half the runner the dingable Tatum Bell is. The Broncos would be wise to find young depth in the draft, and the team has an impressive history with precisely that. Expect the Broncos to draft at least one tailback. Kyle Johnson is fine at fullback, which is a pretty fungible position in our offense at any rate.
Wide receiver: Rod Smith is a franchise great, but aging. (It’s relative: his numbers last year surpassed those of Super Bowl MVP Hines Ward.) Ashley Lelie is requesting a trade, and rumors of a swap for the Packers’ Javon Walker make a lot of sense if he's healthy.
In any event, the Broncos could use more depth at the position. Rookie receivers rarely really arrive with results, though, and the team already has enough “intriguing youngsters” who “turn heads” in camp each year. Free agency is the best way to rebuild the corps.
Tight end: No standouts, but we were fine last year. Jeb Putzier was our best big-man pass catcher, but reserve Nate Jackson, a former wideout if I recall correctly, should help pick up some of the slack. Depth is welcome as it is everywhere, but tight end need not be a priority.
Offensive line: Here I fall into the same trap I ridiculed ESPN for a few weeks ago. Having said that, young linemen are often shuffled between positions and thus through the prism of the draft it makes sense to lump them together. The Broncos’ starting unit is still very good. Tom Nalen is aging, but the team already has plans to replace him with young guard Ben Hamilton. Unfortunately, if I gave you any kind of a report on the quality of our backups I’d be guessing. I’ll defer to the front office; if they think we need to use draft picks here I won’t second-guess that, although a high pick should be out of the question.
Defensive line: A whole lot of okay. While many of last year’s acqusitions held their own, I can’t help but worry for the line in the absence of Trevor Pryce, despite his reduced production last season. A true pass rusher is desperately needed for a team that lost Reggie Hayward and Pryce two years in a row. If no sure thing is available at No. 15, the Broncos may carpet-bomb the D-line in later rounds as they have done in years past.
Linebackers: With Ian Gold, Al Wilson, and D.J. Williams, the Broncos are set. Even a backup like Patrick Chukwurah can make plays when the opportunity is presented. Not a major need position.
Cornerback: Champ Bailey bounced back after a horrible first year in Denver, and the Broncos seem pleased with last year’s corner-heavy draft crop, so any picks here would be surprising.
Safety: Nick Ferguson and John Lynch are the projected starters and should be fine, assuming Lynch can keep his headhunting under control. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to pick up a young safety to replace either one down the line.
Special teams: The kicking game is set with Jason Elam and Todd Sauerbrun, but the return game is often neglected. I’d love to see the Broncos snag Jeremy Bloom with a late-rounder.
Your thoughts?
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Nuggets suspend K-Mart
If you couldn’t decode that cryptic title, the Nuggets have suspended power forward Kenyon Martin indefinitely.
The aforelinked Denver Post article points out that Martin refused to play in the second half of Game 2 after playing limited minutes in the first half. The Nuggets didn’t give an official reason for the suspension, but we’re all grown-ups here, and the two are obviously related. From the article:
Karl tries to cushion the blow at the end, but he makes a pretty good point. Either you can play or you can’t, and it's obvious Martin is limited right now.
While it’s no secret I’m not a fan of Martin or his ridiculous cap-crushing contract, I can’t help but think how much better things would be for him if his name was Ben Wallace. But until you win Defensive Player of the Year, apparently, you can’t determine your own substitution patterns. You still have to listen to the coach before that. Injury or not, taking yourself out for the game seems like a pretty selfish thing to do in the playoffs. But who cares what I think?
Even more telling was the reaction of Ruben Patterson, though it’s not surprising he’s nuts enough to go on the record:
I have mixed feelings. There are way too many scapegoats in the world, and it’s gotta be tough to be in Martin’s shoes right now. But the fact is at least three of his teammates told reporters they’re not completely buying his injury excuse. Even if they don’t realize how hurt he is, that’s a bad situation.
Will the Nuggets move Martin in the offseason? I don’t know or care yet. But the intensity of the team’s reaction tells me the Nuggets will be fired up for Game 3 at home tomorrow night (8:30 Mountain, TNT). I know I am. You?
The aforelinked Denver Post article points out that Martin refused to play in the second half of Game 2 after playing limited minutes in the first half. The Nuggets didn’t give an official reason for the suspension, but we’re all grown-ups here, and the two are obviously related. From the article:
"He just doesn't practice very often," Karl said. "He just wants to play in the games. That, philosophically, just doesn't make any sense to me. I (still) think he has a big-time heart and I think he's a big-time competitor."
Karl tries to cushion the blow at the end, but he makes a pretty good point. Either you can play or you can’t, and it's obvious Martin is limited right now.
While it’s no secret I’m not a fan of Martin or his ridiculous cap-crushing contract, I can’t help but think how much better things would be for him if his name was Ben Wallace. But until you win Defensive Player of the Year, apparently, you can’t determine your own substitution patterns. You still have to listen to the coach before that. Injury or not, taking yourself out for the game seems like a pretty selfish thing to do in the playoffs. But who cares what I think?
In the wake of Martin's actions, two prominent Nuggets players, who agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity, said they had lost faith in the power forward as a teammate.
Even more telling was the reaction of Ruben Patterson, though it’s not surprising he’s nuts enough to go on the record:
"He ain't hurt or nothing," Patterson said. "He just wanted to be in the game. ... He was very angry."
I have mixed feelings. There are way too many scapegoats in the world, and it’s gotta be tough to be in Martin’s shoes right now. But the fact is at least three of his teammates told reporters they’re not completely buying his injury excuse. Even if they don’t realize how hurt he is, that’s a bad situation.
Will the Nuggets move Martin in the offseason? I don’t know or care yet. But the intensity of the team’s reaction tells me the Nuggets will be fired up for Game 3 at home tomorrow night (8:30 Mountain, TNT). I know I am. You?
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
More than meets the eye
I was holding off on my NFL draft coverage, but while I waited, the whole world went completely insane.
The evaluation of potential NFL players could not possibly make less sense. Would you like an example? The league’s official website, NFL.com, has gotten in on the madness. The site features profiles and grades for tons of potential draftees.
Let’s take a look at Vince Young’s.
We'll start off with the grading scale, which assigns Young a final grade of M 5.9. On a scale of zero to I-wish-these-people-made-sense, that grade itself gets a zero. Let me break it down, according to their own guidelines:
Vince is an “M”, which means:
The 5.9 is even more fun:
You really have to read the whole profile to appreciate how loony these guys are and, if you have the time, I highly recommend it. Specifically, though, I also liked their five “critical factors” in the first section. They are size, athletic ability, strength, competes, and play speed.
Two questions: Do those sound like the five most critical factors to you? I agree that competitiveness and athletic ability (which includes strength in my book) could be two of the top five, but the rest of those seem pretty random. Also, Young got a 7.5 on “competes”, which I assume is a distant cousin of competitiveness. Shouldn’t Young be the gold standard for a 10 on that scale?
The system is so inane that I think it would make more sense to rate draftees the way we rank Transformers. I'm serious. Remember those little blue and red charts on the back of the packages? They had eight categories, each judged on a scale from zero (bad) to ten (good). And thus we come to Hole Punch Sports’ First Annual Transformers-style Ranking For My Recommended No. 1 Pick (HPSFATRFMRN1P, for short). (Some of these are a bit more of a reach than others.)
The categories, please:
Strength: Can you remember the USC defensive backs bouncing off Young in the Rose Bowl? Here it makes more sense to compare Young’s strength to other quarterbacks rather than NFL players on the whole, in which case I give him a conservative 9.
Intelligence: He made decisions under pressure about as well as any college quarterback I’ve seen, but like all rookies, he’ll have much to learn in the NFL. I give Young an 8. (Isn’t that about what the Wonderlic gave him?)
Speed: In the age of 4.4 defensive ends, it’s fair to rate Young’s speed against that of all NFL players (rather than just quarterbacks). It’s players at other positions he’ll be trying to outrun. Young’s not really Michael Vick, but he has a deceptively long stride and picks up yards in a hurry. 8.
Endurance: Not sure what football attribute this relates to, but Young is durable and in shape, like almost everyone. I’ll give him an 8.
Rank: Finished the season at No. 1. Rank is a 10.
Courage: Young didn’t win the Congressional Medal of Honor, but neither did any animated robots. He did, however, have the guts to run for a touchdown on fourth-and-five in the closing seconds of the national championship game. Courage is a 10.
Firepower: I guess I have to go with arm strength here. Young certainly has the ability to make every throw in an NFL playbook, but he doesn’t have quite the zip of a Favre. I’ll give him an 8.
Skill: As a total package of throwing ability, accuracy, and mobility, I have to give Young at least a 9.
Weaknesses? I’m not seeing any.
Now back to the other part of that thirteen-character “abbreviation” where, if you didn’t catch it, I recommended Vince Young as this year’s No. 1 pick. This, even though the Texans are apparently considering only Reggie Bush and Mario Williams.
Why Young? It’s simple.
I hadn’t heard of Williams until draft hype season. That alone tells me he’s not really good enough to go No. 1 overall. Sorry.
So it’s really Young vs. Bush. Well, Young beat Bush in the national championship game. Not Bush’s fault, you say. I agree, but then that’s my whole point. Even though Bush had a fine game, he still couldn’t impact the outcome the way Young did.
Will that carry over to the pros? Yes. Great quarterbacks-like Joe Montana, John Elway, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, and even the overrated Dan Marino and Peyton Manning-almost always have their teams in contention. With great running backs-Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Terrell Davis, Marshall Faulk, LaDainian Tomlinson-it’s more of a toss-up.
So is Vince Young the obvious choice at the top of the draft, or am I crazy, too?
The evaluation of potential NFL players could not possibly make less sense. Would you like an example? The league’s official website, NFL.com, has gotten in on the madness. The site features profiles and grades for tons of potential draftees.
Let’s take a look at Vince Young’s.
We'll start off with the grading scale, which assigns Young a final grade of M 5.9. On a scale of zero to I-wish-these-people-made-sense, that grade itself gets a zero. Let me break it down, according to their own guidelines:
Vince is an “M”, which means:
Very good athletic ability, but inconsistent production in college.Doesn’t learn football well? I can’t remember a college player in my life who made more improvement over his career than Vince Young, who developed from a quarterback who ran early, often, and exclusively to one of the nation’s most dangerous passers.
Meets minimum height, weight & speed requirements for the position.
Player lacks good football instincts or doesn’t seem to learn football very well
The 5.9 is even more fun:
Very good backup & very good special teams playerI do agree that Young could be an outstanding special teams player. He’s got speed, long arms, and strength. Why didn’t Mack Brown have him covering punts?
You really have to read the whole profile to appreciate how loony these guys are and, if you have the time, I highly recommend it. Specifically, though, I also liked their five “critical factors” in the first section. They are size, athletic ability, strength, competes, and play speed.
Two questions: Do those sound like the five most critical factors to you? I agree that competitiveness and athletic ability (which includes strength in my book) could be two of the top five, but the rest of those seem pretty random. Also, Young got a 7.5 on “competes”, which I assume is a distant cousin of competitiveness. Shouldn’t Young be the gold standard for a 10 on that scale?
The system is so inane that I think it would make more sense to rate draftees the way we rank Transformers. I'm serious. Remember those little blue and red charts on the back of the packages? They had eight categories, each judged on a scale from zero (bad) to ten (good). And thus we come to Hole Punch Sports’ First Annual Transformers-style Ranking For My Recommended No. 1 Pick (HPSFATRFMRN1P, for short). (Some of these are a bit more of a reach than others.)
The categories, please:
Strength: Can you remember the USC defensive backs bouncing off Young in the Rose Bowl? Here it makes more sense to compare Young’s strength to other quarterbacks rather than NFL players on the whole, in which case I give him a conservative 9.
Intelligence: He made decisions under pressure about as well as any college quarterback I’ve seen, but like all rookies, he’ll have much to learn in the NFL. I give Young an 8. (Isn’t that about what the Wonderlic gave him?)
Speed: In the age of 4.4 defensive ends, it’s fair to rate Young’s speed against that of all NFL players (rather than just quarterbacks). It’s players at other positions he’ll be trying to outrun. Young’s not really Michael Vick, but he has a deceptively long stride and picks up yards in a hurry. 8.
Endurance: Not sure what football attribute this relates to, but Young is durable and in shape, like almost everyone. I’ll give him an 8.
Rank: Finished the season at No. 1. Rank is a 10.
Courage: Young didn’t win the Congressional Medal of Honor, but neither did any animated robots. He did, however, have the guts to run for a touchdown on fourth-and-five in the closing seconds of the national championship game. Courage is a 10.
Firepower: I guess I have to go with arm strength here. Young certainly has the ability to make every throw in an NFL playbook, but he doesn’t have quite the zip of a Favre. I’ll give him an 8.
Skill: As a total package of throwing ability, accuracy, and mobility, I have to give Young at least a 9.
Weaknesses? I’m not seeing any.
Now back to the other part of that thirteen-character “abbreviation” where, if you didn’t catch it, I recommended Vince Young as this year’s No. 1 pick. This, even though the Texans are apparently considering only Reggie Bush and Mario Williams.
Why Young? It’s simple.
I hadn’t heard of Williams until draft hype season. That alone tells me he’s not really good enough to go No. 1 overall. Sorry.
So it’s really Young vs. Bush. Well, Young beat Bush in the national championship game. Not Bush’s fault, you say. I agree, but then that’s my whole point. Even though Bush had a fine game, he still couldn’t impact the outcome the way Young did.
Will that carry over to the pros? Yes. Great quarterbacks-like Joe Montana, John Elway, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, and even the overrated Dan Marino and Peyton Manning-almost always have their teams in contention. With great running backs-Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Terrell Davis, Marshall Faulk, LaDainian Tomlinson-it’s more of a toss-up.
So is Vince Young the obvious choice at the top of the draft, or am I crazy, too?
Thursday, April 20, 2006
The West, plus a Finals prediction
Unlike the Eastern Conference, the West features good teams and players you’ve heard of.
(1) San Antonio Spurs vs. (8) Sacramento Kings. San Antonio is better at almost everything, though Spurs small forward Bruce Bowen is lining up against the one player who can match him cheapshot for cheapshot, Kings moodswingman Ron Artest.
Tim Duncan’s had sort of a rough year, and new acquisitions Michael Finley and Nick van Exel didn’t make the expected difference...yet the Spurs won 63 games, more than everyone but Detroit. I’m tempted to go with the sweep, considering San Antonio is better on the road (29-12) than Sac-town is at home (27-14), but there are just enough tiny question marks to persuade me otherwise. They’ll handle Sacramento in five games.
(2) Phoenix Suns vs. (7) Los Angeles Lakers. The Suns aren’t really ready to contend for the title, but this is a mismatch. If the Lakers have the very best player in this series, the Suns may possess the next twelve best. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Kobe score 50 in a game or two, especially against the swarming Phoenix D, but who says that would guarantee a win? Let’s give the Suns the series in five.
(4) Dallas Mavericks vs. (5) Memphis Grizzlies. You’ve no doubt heard that Dallas has the second-best record in the West, yet takes the fourth seed here because they didn’t win their division. That led to the Clippers and Grizzlies both wanting to lose down the stretch, forcing a playoff matchup with the Nuggets, against whom they’d have the home court.
I don't know how badly Memphis wanted to lose, but they would have been stupid to try, because nobody loses like the Clippers. Besides, Memphis was going to check out after the first round anyway. Against Dallas, they’ll be home after four games.
A lot of people say the NBA playoff format needs tinkering. I disagree, except that I'd prefer a return to five-game first rounds. The regular season should mean something? It does. Win your division, get a high seed. If there's any real problem with the playoff set-up, it's that there's a team in the East that's still playing despite a losing record, while a .500 team in the West has to watch from the courch. But since that 41-41 squad is Utah, I think we have a great system in place.
(3) Denver Nuggets vs. (6) Los Angeles Clippers. Congratulations to the Clippers on finding meaning in defeat. L.A. lost enough down the stretch to clinch homecourt for this series. That’s problematic for Denver, which is much better at home.
Let's break it down...
Center: Marcus Camby vs. Chris Kaman. Camby cooled off considerably after a hot start to the year but still beat Kaman's averages in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. (Did I forget anything?) As if you didn't already know he's better. Edge, Nuggets.
Power Forward: Kenyon Martin vs. Elton Brand. Kenyon Martin has battled injuries all year, and who knows how much he can play in this series? The Nuggets will need his defense against Brand, who was an early MVP candidate this year. But even if Martin was at 100%, I'd give the edge to the Clips.
Small Forward: Carmelo Anthony vs. Corey Maggette. Maggette missed fifty games this year, but returned in time for the season finale. However, he went to Duke, so how do you think he'll fare in the NBA playoff spotlight?
Anthony's developed into one of the league's most dangerous scorers in crunch time. It's time for him to have a breakout postseason.
Shooting Guard: Ruben Patterson vs. Cuttino Mobley. Not a strong point for either team. Patterson's been non-stop energy since joining the Nuggets, but is playing out out of position. Mobley's game is about as diverse as a GOP convention, but he can score. Still, his small edge in shooting doesn't offset Patterson's edge in everything else. Advantage to the Nuggets.
Point Guard: Andre Miller vs. Sam Cassell. Neither point is getting a GQ spread, though you've got to feel good for Andre finally having the edge in the looks department. Miller should come into this series with a lot of motivation, playing against both a former team and a point guard who owned him in the postseason two years ago. If Miller's game were any less generic, his feelings might even matter. Cassell will win this matchup.
Bench: Denver's better upfront with Francisco Elson and Reggie Evans, but that advantage will be largely negated if Martin can't stay on the floor and either one has to guard Brand for long stretches. The Clippers' key reserves are Vladimir Radmanovic and Shaun Livingston. If Earl Boykins can go, the Nuggets will have a sizeable bench advantage; else, it's more or less a stalemate.
Coaching: George Karl vs. Mike Dunleavy. Dunleavy has a winning postseason record, which is news to me, but Karl's not only the superior coach, he has a better command of his team.
Outlook: The Clippers are dangerous, but I expect Carmelo Anthony to have a huge series, and the Nuggets to win in six.
Championship Prediction:
It’s not going out on a limb to predict exactly what happened last year, but the Spurs and Pistons are still the class of their respective conferences and should meet in the Finals.
Their regular seasons were similar-Detroit won 64 games, San Antonio 63-but San Antonio overcame a lot to get their record, while Detroit overcame pretty much nothing, unless you count losing head coach/major distraction Larry Brown. The Spurs are a better team, and they will repeat as champions.
(1) San Antonio Spurs vs. (8) Sacramento Kings. San Antonio is better at almost everything, though Spurs small forward Bruce Bowen is lining up against the one player who can match him cheapshot for cheapshot, Kings moodswingman Ron Artest.
Tim Duncan’s had sort of a rough year, and new acquisitions Michael Finley and Nick van Exel didn’t make the expected difference...yet the Spurs won 63 games, more than everyone but Detroit. I’m tempted to go with the sweep, considering San Antonio is better on the road (29-12) than Sac-town is at home (27-14), but there are just enough tiny question marks to persuade me otherwise. They’ll handle Sacramento in five games.
(2) Phoenix Suns vs. (7) Los Angeles Lakers. The Suns aren’t really ready to contend for the title, but this is a mismatch. If the Lakers have the very best player in this series, the Suns may possess the next twelve best. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Kobe score 50 in a game or two, especially against the swarming Phoenix D, but who says that would guarantee a win? Let’s give the Suns the series in five.
(4) Dallas Mavericks vs. (5) Memphis Grizzlies. You’ve no doubt heard that Dallas has the second-best record in the West, yet takes the fourth seed here because they didn’t win their division. That led to the Clippers and Grizzlies both wanting to lose down the stretch, forcing a playoff matchup with the Nuggets, against whom they’d have the home court.
I don't know how badly Memphis wanted to lose, but they would have been stupid to try, because nobody loses like the Clippers. Besides, Memphis was going to check out after the first round anyway. Against Dallas, they’ll be home after four games.
A lot of people say the NBA playoff format needs tinkering. I disagree, except that I'd prefer a return to five-game first rounds. The regular season should mean something? It does. Win your division, get a high seed. If there's any real problem with the playoff set-up, it's that there's a team in the East that's still playing despite a losing record, while a .500 team in the West has to watch from the courch. But since that 41-41 squad is Utah, I think we have a great system in place.
(3) Denver Nuggets vs. (6) Los Angeles Clippers. Congratulations to the Clippers on finding meaning in defeat. L.A. lost enough down the stretch to clinch homecourt for this series. That’s problematic for Denver, which is much better at home.
Let's break it down...
Center: Marcus Camby vs. Chris Kaman. Camby cooled off considerably after a hot start to the year but still beat Kaman's averages in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. (Did I forget anything?) As if you didn't already know he's better. Edge, Nuggets.
Power Forward: Kenyon Martin vs. Elton Brand. Kenyon Martin has battled injuries all year, and who knows how much he can play in this series? The Nuggets will need his defense against Brand, who was an early MVP candidate this year. But even if Martin was at 100%, I'd give the edge to the Clips.
Small Forward: Carmelo Anthony vs. Corey Maggette. Maggette missed fifty games this year, but returned in time for the season finale. However, he went to Duke, so how do you think he'll fare in the NBA playoff spotlight?
Anthony's developed into one of the league's most dangerous scorers in crunch time. It's time for him to have a breakout postseason.
Shooting Guard: Ruben Patterson vs. Cuttino Mobley. Not a strong point for either team. Patterson's been non-stop energy since joining the Nuggets, but is playing out out of position. Mobley's game is about as diverse as a GOP convention, but he can score. Still, his small edge in shooting doesn't offset Patterson's edge in everything else. Advantage to the Nuggets.
Point Guard: Andre Miller vs. Sam Cassell. Neither point is getting a GQ spread, though you've got to feel good for Andre finally having the edge in the looks department. Miller should come into this series with a lot of motivation, playing against both a former team and a point guard who owned him in the postseason two years ago. If Miller's game were any less generic, his feelings might even matter. Cassell will win this matchup.
Bench: Denver's better upfront with Francisco Elson and Reggie Evans, but that advantage will be largely negated if Martin can't stay on the floor and either one has to guard Brand for long stretches. The Clippers' key reserves are Vladimir Radmanovic and Shaun Livingston. If Earl Boykins can go, the Nuggets will have a sizeable bench advantage; else, it's more or less a stalemate.
Coaching: George Karl vs. Mike Dunleavy. Dunleavy has a winning postseason record, which is news to me, but Karl's not only the superior coach, he has a better command of his team.
Outlook: The Clippers are dangerous, but I expect Carmelo Anthony to have a huge series, and the Nuggets to win in six.
Championship Prediction:
It’s not going out on a limb to predict exactly what happened last year, but the Spurs and Pistons are still the class of their respective conferences and should meet in the Finals.
Their regular seasons were similar-Detroit won 64 games, San Antonio 63-but San Antonio overcame a lot to get their record, while Detroit overcame pretty much nothing, unless you count losing head coach/major distraction Larry Brown. The Spurs are a better team, and they will repeat as champions.
Eastern Conference first-round preview
I don’t know if the East is truly weaker than the West-Detroit is as legit a title contender as anyone-but it’s certainly thinner. So the first-round matchups are pretty lame. I’m not getting paid by the word here, but I’ll prove it to you:
(1) Detroit Pistons vs. (8) Milwaukee Bucks. The Pistons are the clear favorite in the East, which they will win. The Bucks, meanwhile, didn’t even have a winning season (40-42). We can talk about matchups, or I can just tell you: Sweep, Detroit.
(2) Miami Heat vs. (7) Chicago Bulls. Miami has struggled against elite teams; fortunately for them, Chicago is not in that category. This is getting ridiculous. I’ll give Chicago a game; Heat 4-1.
(3) New Jersey Nets vs. (6) Indiana Pacers. Say what you want about T.O., because I’ve said plenty, but I find him much easier to root for than Vince Carter. While Owens is selfish and impossible to reason with, at least he always plays his heart out, even on those rare occasions when he feels underpaid. Carter, on the other hand, tanked it to get traded even with a maxed-out and fully-guaranteed contract.
Indiana has been ground zero for turmoil the last few years, thanks to Ron Artest, who was finally traded. His replacement, Peja Stojakovic, was in top form, replacing all of the scoring and none of the defense.
Talent-wise, I may give Indiana the edge, especially since New Jersey has no bench. But the Pacers, like Dallas, have been shuffling lineups all season long. So I’ll give New Jersey the edge on their consistency, but I think the Pacers could take at least six games to bow out.
(Can someone remind me again why the league switched to a best-of-seven first round a few years back? Oh, right, the league finally had a chance to do the Lakers a favor. Might have been a good idea at the time, but now we have to watch teams like these two duke it out for a month and a half just to find out which will lose to Miami. Oh, joy. Remember, class: just because a series is close doesn’t mean it’s good.)
(4) Cleveland Cavaliers vs. (5) Washington Wizards. Now this might actually be an interesting series. We’ve got the playoff debut of HPS NBA MVP LeBron James, which ought to be exciting. Forget what you’ve heard about Steve Nash: James makes some of the most exciting passes I’ve ever seen.
Washington is spearheaded by a trio of Gilbert Arenas, Antawn Jamison, and Caron Butler. I thought Caron was worthy of a much higher pick a few years ago, and I’m glad his hard work has vindicated me in retrospect. It’s also instructive that each of these starring players were very productive in major college programs; perhaps the draft isn’t as risky as we think.
Also, and I hesitate to bring this up, but it’s pretty clear the Nuggets made a huge blunder when they went with Andre Miller instead of Gilbert Arenas a few years back. Arenas averaged 29.3 points per game this year; Miller scored that many points in any single game just once.
So I’m hesitant to slam Kiki now, because the move made sense to me at the time considering the money Arenas wanted. Then again, I wasn’t employed by the NBA and hadn’t seen Arenas play much. This, to me, underscores that Vandeweghe has done an average job at best. Compared to past Denver GMs, that makes him look like a genius, but he hasn’t made very many moves that turned out right. Actually, that’s unfair-the Antonio McDyess for Marcus Camby and Nene move was an absolute heist. Then again, if you can’t beat the Knicks in a trade, then….well, there’s no way to finish that statement, because the Knicks never get the better of anyone.
Anyway, we can talk about the Nuggets in tomorrow’s post. Point is, this should be a really exciting series, hopefully with no defense whatsoever. Cavs in seven.
(1) Detroit Pistons vs. (8) Milwaukee Bucks. The Pistons are the clear favorite in the East, which they will win. The Bucks, meanwhile, didn’t even have a winning season (40-42). We can talk about matchups, or I can just tell you: Sweep, Detroit.
(2) Miami Heat vs. (7) Chicago Bulls. Miami has struggled against elite teams; fortunately for them, Chicago is not in that category. This is getting ridiculous. I’ll give Chicago a game; Heat 4-1.
(3) New Jersey Nets vs. (6) Indiana Pacers. Say what you want about T.O., because I’ve said plenty, but I find him much easier to root for than Vince Carter. While Owens is selfish and impossible to reason with, at least he always plays his heart out, even on those rare occasions when he feels underpaid. Carter, on the other hand, tanked it to get traded even with a maxed-out and fully-guaranteed contract.
Indiana has been ground zero for turmoil the last few years, thanks to Ron Artest, who was finally traded. His replacement, Peja Stojakovic, was in top form, replacing all of the scoring and none of the defense.
Talent-wise, I may give Indiana the edge, especially since New Jersey has no bench. But the Pacers, like Dallas, have been shuffling lineups all season long. So I’ll give New Jersey the edge on their consistency, but I think the Pacers could take at least six games to bow out.
(Can someone remind me again why the league switched to a best-of-seven first round a few years back? Oh, right, the league finally had a chance to do the Lakers a favor. Might have been a good idea at the time, but now we have to watch teams like these two duke it out for a month and a half just to find out which will lose to Miami. Oh, joy. Remember, class: just because a series is close doesn’t mean it’s good.)
(4) Cleveland Cavaliers vs. (5) Washington Wizards. Now this might actually be an interesting series. We’ve got the playoff debut of HPS NBA MVP LeBron James, which ought to be exciting. Forget what you’ve heard about Steve Nash: James makes some of the most exciting passes I’ve ever seen.
Washington is spearheaded by a trio of Gilbert Arenas, Antawn Jamison, and Caron Butler. I thought Caron was worthy of a much higher pick a few years ago, and I’m glad his hard work has vindicated me in retrospect. It’s also instructive that each of these starring players were very productive in major college programs; perhaps the draft isn’t as risky as we think.
Also, and I hesitate to bring this up, but it’s pretty clear the Nuggets made a huge blunder when they went with Andre Miller instead of Gilbert Arenas a few years back. Arenas averaged 29.3 points per game this year; Miller scored that many points in any single game just once.
So I’m hesitant to slam Kiki now, because the move made sense to me at the time considering the money Arenas wanted. Then again, I wasn’t employed by the NBA and hadn’t seen Arenas play much. This, to me, underscores that Vandeweghe has done an average job at best. Compared to past Denver GMs, that makes him look like a genius, but he hasn’t made very many moves that turned out right. Actually, that’s unfair-the Antonio McDyess for Marcus Camby and Nene move was an absolute heist. Then again, if you can’t beat the Knicks in a trade, then….well, there’s no way to finish that statement, because the Knicks never get the better of anyone.
Anyway, we can talk about the Nuggets in tomorrow’s post. Point is, this should be a really exciting series, hopefully with no defense whatsoever. Cavs in seven.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
NBA MVP
Unlike last year, Steve Nash is a legitimate MVP candidate. However, before I fall back into Canada-bashing, let me say the most annoying trend by Nash supporters is how he’s given credit for every improvement his teammates make. It’s ridiculous.
Phoenix has the third-best record in the West this year despite missing Amare Stoudemire for pretty much the whole season, and Nash has raised his game. But so has Shawn Marion, who actually plays defense, too, and it’s tough to separate the two of them.
In fact, that seems to be a theme this year: many traditional MVP candidates are sharing the spotlight with a teammate good enough that it’s tough to tell who’s had the better season. Tim Duncan is peerless and showed tremendous heart playing through injuries this season. But Tony Parker actually leads the Spurs in scoring by a slim margin and is among the league leaders in shooting percentage. Chauncey Billups is statistically almost neck-and-neck with Nash, but the Pistons have a deep, quality lineup that will always work against them in the races for individual honors. And Dwyane Wade, who I wussed out of calling the MVP last year, always has Shaq to fall back on, though O’Neal has missed a lot of games this year.
Conversely, a number of players had standout seasons as their team’s big star, like Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki and of course Kobe Bryant. All of the players listed have at least decent MVP arguments. However, I see this as a three-man race. In descending order:
3. Dwyane Wade. Shaq has been in and out of the lineup all year, and only recently has Shaq found his legs. Meanwhile, Wade has been a rock for the Heat and remained their go-to guy in crunch time. He’s versatile: 27.2 points, 5.7 rebounds, 6.7 assists, and 1.95 steals per game. Wade shoots 49.5 percent from the floor, which is awesome for a high-scoring perimeter player. (By comparison, Kobe shoots just under forty-five percent.) The only real knock against Wade is that Miami has struggled against other elite teams, but that’s hardly his fault alone.
2. Dirk Nowitzki. No one enjoys bashing Dirk for being soft more than I do. He’s put up typical Dirk numbers and continues to shoot better than men half his size. My favorite stat? He’s shooting 90.1% from the foul line. That’s impressive for a seven-footer, though maybe it shouldn’t be since he’s closer to the basket than guards are.
Dirk’s still not quite a stopper on defense and doesn’t have Wade’s diverse skills. So why do I have him ahead? For starters, he’s played in 81 games this year to Wade’s 75. He’s been hotter down the stretch. And despite injuries and inconsistency throughout the Dallas lineup, Dirk’s team has won more games: 60 to the Heat’s 52.
1. LeBron James. Considering predictions before the draft, it’s surprising that LeBron is almost overlooked sometimes next to classmates Wade and Carmelo. But James has lived up to almost every drop of hype. Cleveland wins fifty games for the year if they can sneak past the mighty Hawks tonight, even though James’ best teammates are soft-shoed middlemen Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas.
LeBron does almost everything for the Cavaliers: he scores, he rebounds, he passes, and he leads. At just 21, his all-around numbers are already taken for granted. But I think LeBron has done the most with the least.
So I’m giving the edge to LeBron, though maybe I should be looking in Dirk’s direction. What do you think?
Phoenix has the third-best record in the West this year despite missing Amare Stoudemire for pretty much the whole season, and Nash has raised his game. But so has Shawn Marion, who actually plays defense, too, and it’s tough to separate the two of them.
In fact, that seems to be a theme this year: many traditional MVP candidates are sharing the spotlight with a teammate good enough that it’s tough to tell who’s had the better season. Tim Duncan is peerless and showed tremendous heart playing through injuries this season. But Tony Parker actually leads the Spurs in scoring by a slim margin and is among the league leaders in shooting percentage. Chauncey Billups is statistically almost neck-and-neck with Nash, but the Pistons have a deep, quality lineup that will always work against them in the races for individual honors. And Dwyane Wade, who I wussed out of calling the MVP last year, always has Shaq to fall back on, though O’Neal has missed a lot of games this year.
Conversely, a number of players had standout seasons as their team’s big star, like Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki and of course Kobe Bryant. All of the players listed have at least decent MVP arguments. However, I see this as a three-man race. In descending order:
3. Dwyane Wade. Shaq has been in and out of the lineup all year, and only recently has Shaq found his legs. Meanwhile, Wade has been a rock for the Heat and remained their go-to guy in crunch time. He’s versatile: 27.2 points, 5.7 rebounds, 6.7 assists, and 1.95 steals per game. Wade shoots 49.5 percent from the floor, which is awesome for a high-scoring perimeter player. (By comparison, Kobe shoots just under forty-five percent.) The only real knock against Wade is that Miami has struggled against other elite teams, but that’s hardly his fault alone.
2. Dirk Nowitzki. No one enjoys bashing Dirk for being soft more than I do. He’s put up typical Dirk numbers and continues to shoot better than men half his size. My favorite stat? He’s shooting 90.1% from the foul line. That’s impressive for a seven-footer, though maybe it shouldn’t be since he’s closer to the basket than guards are.
Dirk’s still not quite a stopper on defense and doesn’t have Wade’s diverse skills. So why do I have him ahead? For starters, he’s played in 81 games this year to Wade’s 75. He’s been hotter down the stretch. And despite injuries and inconsistency throughout the Dallas lineup, Dirk’s team has won more games: 60 to the Heat’s 52.
1. LeBron James. Considering predictions before the draft, it’s surprising that LeBron is almost overlooked sometimes next to classmates Wade and Carmelo. But James has lived up to almost every drop of hype. Cleveland wins fifty games for the year if they can sneak past the mighty Hawks tonight, even though James’ best teammates are soft-shoed middlemen Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas.
LeBron does almost everything for the Cavaliers: he scores, he rebounds, he passes, and he leads. At just 21, his all-around numbers are already taken for granted. But I think LeBron has done the most with the least.
So I’m giving the edge to LeBron, though maybe I should be looking in Dirk’s direction. What do you think?
Monday, April 17, 2006
I am a HUGE geek
Forget Hayden Christiansen: Kobe Bryant is the real-life Anakin Skywalker.
One of the biggest complaints leveled against the new Star Wars trilogy is how it undermined everyone’s childhood heroes. The most egregious example is that Darth Vader, one of the baddest villains in cinematic history, apparently got his start as a preening pretty boy.
It’s not really as shocking as it appears at first glance. In the original movies, Vader’s son was the biggest geek of them all (“But I was gonna go to the Tosche Station to pick up some power converters”), proving whining is a trait passed on genetically. When Luke struggles to live up to his familial destiny, he’s merely following in the footsteps of his father, who could barely hack it throughout the prequels. In the first trilogy, despite his enormous power, Vader, like everyone else in the universe, ultimately takes his orders from old white guys.
While, ultimately, it’s a tale of redemption, the saga told in the Star Wars movies also shows how Anakin’s selfishness derailed his life and kept him from his real potential.
And when I think of careers marred by selfish actions, I think of Kobe Bryant, who could have been one of the best basketball players and most beloved sports figures in American history.
We like our heroes with extra helpings of defiance. Kobe was the one player who joined the NBA straight out of high school and never blinked. He embraced the mantle of being the next Michael Jordan and seemed ready, willing, and eager to surpass His Airness.
But the backlash kicked in almost as quickly. After all, his hype has always preceded his highlights. When he made his first All-Star Game, in ’98, Kobe wasn’t even starting for the Lakers. How could that be right?
When the Lakers were winning championships, he still wasn’t playing on the level he was given credit for. Shaq and a mature supporting cast covered for most of Kobe’s deficiencies, like average-at-best defense and poor shot selection. If anything, he was turning into the classic case of an athlete who was given too much too soon.
While his off-court debacles are well-documented, the zenith of Kobe’s war against team basketball came in the 2004 NBA Finals against the Detroit Pistons, when his selfish gunning-and simultaneous Shaq avoidance-killed the Lakers’ hopes for a fourth title in five seasons.
Yet as Kobe’s play has finally begun to match his massive potential, public opinion may be swinging back the other way. An article in the most recent issue of Sports Illustrated examines him pretty fairly and shows that while he’s still widely despised, his popularity might be on the rise. And in recent weeks, he’s received serious backing for this year’s Most Valuable Player award.
Kobe’s continued to make progress on the court, just as he’s done steadily his whole career. Most notably, he had games this year of 62 and 81 (!) points. Some criticized his assist totals in those games, which is absurd. I don’t care if you had no boards, zero assists, gave up fifty to the guy you guarded and turned the ball over eight times¬-if you scored 81, you had a great game.
For the year, Kobe’s averaged more than 35 points per game and will win the scoring title. He still shoots way too many threes and a little too much in general, but he’s the most dangerous scorer the NBA has seen in years. With Tim Duncan hobbling and Shaq aging, he’s the one player this year who could win a playoff series single-handedly. Darth Vader had his high points, too.
When it comes to Kobe, with everything he’s achieved, the question will always be: what could he have accomplished being a little more patient and a little less self-centered? Couldn’t he have won more than Jordan’s six rings? Didn’t he have enough talent to put Magic and Bird to shame? And couldn’t he have taken Jordan’s place as a global superstar?
Will Kobe complete his character comeback and find redemption in his career? Maybe. But to me, his story will always be a sad one.
One of the biggest complaints leveled against the new Star Wars trilogy is how it undermined everyone’s childhood heroes. The most egregious example is that Darth Vader, one of the baddest villains in cinematic history, apparently got his start as a preening pretty boy.
It’s not really as shocking as it appears at first glance. In the original movies, Vader’s son was the biggest geek of them all (“But I was gonna go to the Tosche Station to pick up some power converters”), proving whining is a trait passed on genetically. When Luke struggles to live up to his familial destiny, he’s merely following in the footsteps of his father, who could barely hack it throughout the prequels. In the first trilogy, despite his enormous power, Vader, like everyone else in the universe, ultimately takes his orders from old white guys.
While, ultimately, it’s a tale of redemption, the saga told in the Star Wars movies also shows how Anakin’s selfishness derailed his life and kept him from his real potential.
And when I think of careers marred by selfish actions, I think of Kobe Bryant, who could have been one of the best basketball players and most beloved sports figures in American history.
We like our heroes with extra helpings of defiance. Kobe was the one player who joined the NBA straight out of high school and never blinked. He embraced the mantle of being the next Michael Jordan and seemed ready, willing, and eager to surpass His Airness.
But the backlash kicked in almost as quickly. After all, his hype has always preceded his highlights. When he made his first All-Star Game, in ’98, Kobe wasn’t even starting for the Lakers. How could that be right?
When the Lakers were winning championships, he still wasn’t playing on the level he was given credit for. Shaq and a mature supporting cast covered for most of Kobe’s deficiencies, like average-at-best defense and poor shot selection. If anything, he was turning into the classic case of an athlete who was given too much too soon.
While his off-court debacles are well-documented, the zenith of Kobe’s war against team basketball came in the 2004 NBA Finals against the Detroit Pistons, when his selfish gunning-and simultaneous Shaq avoidance-killed the Lakers’ hopes for a fourth title in five seasons.
Yet as Kobe’s play has finally begun to match his massive potential, public opinion may be swinging back the other way. An article in the most recent issue of Sports Illustrated examines him pretty fairly and shows that while he’s still widely despised, his popularity might be on the rise. And in recent weeks, he’s received serious backing for this year’s Most Valuable Player award.
Kobe’s continued to make progress on the court, just as he’s done steadily his whole career. Most notably, he had games this year of 62 and 81 (!) points. Some criticized his assist totals in those games, which is absurd. I don’t care if you had no boards, zero assists, gave up fifty to the guy you guarded and turned the ball over eight times¬-if you scored 81, you had a great game.
For the year, Kobe’s averaged more than 35 points per game and will win the scoring title. He still shoots way too many threes and a little too much in general, but he’s the most dangerous scorer the NBA has seen in years. With Tim Duncan hobbling and Shaq aging, he’s the one player this year who could win a playoff series single-handedly. Darth Vader had his high points, too.
When it comes to Kobe, with everything he’s achieved, the question will always be: what could he have accomplished being a little more patient and a little less self-centered? Couldn’t he have won more than Jordan’s six rings? Didn’t he have enough talent to put Magic and Bird to shame? And couldn’t he have taken Jordan’s place as a global superstar?
Will Kobe complete his character comeback and find redemption in his career? Maybe. But to me, his story will always be a sad one.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Best Hole Punch Post in the History of Today
I hate contrived stats. I don’t mean shooting up like a cow to inflate one’s home run totals. I hate statistics that sound like they mean something, but have obviously been manipulated for persuasive effect.
Like this gem from an article by ESPN’s Gene Wojciechowski:
When I read that sentence, the first thing that jumped out at me was: why did they pick 34 degrees instead of 32 degrees? Thirty-two at least means something-it’s the freezing point of water. That’s not really relevant to football, but at least it’s meaningful in everyday life. Favre must have won a couple games at 33 or 34 degrees and using 34 instead of 32 must make his record look even better-I can't think of any other possible explanation, but I don't have the numbers.
I’m not a meteorologist, but let’s assume here. How many games could Brett Favre have possibly played in Lambeau that started at 33 or 34 degrees? At worst, his record when it’s freezing at kickoff at home is like 36-4 or something. That’s still incredible. And at least that looks like it means something.
I stumbled across another example of this the other day on my social networking website of choice, the Facebook. (Is it just me, or is the term “social networking” pretty freaking creepy? Doesn’t that sound like a Nazi program?)
Anyway, as part of the Facebook, you can join various groups, which mostly revolve around your interests. I stumbled across one the other day called, “John Stockton Best White Guy Under 6’6 Ever.” I’ll give the creator and the four other members the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were trying to say John Stockton was the best white basketball player ever who was shorter than 6 feet, 6 inches. (But then, maybe they meant he was the best person.)
Why six-foot-six? The answer is obvious: Larry Bird. I am sure some people think Stockton was a better player than Bird, but those people are, without exception, idiots. However, Bird’s 6-9, so of course he’s not included under the six-six rule.
So then I was thinking, why didn’t they just say John Stockton is the best white player ever under six-foot-eight? 6-6, like 32 degrees, does sound somewhat relevant, since six inches is exactly half a foot. But another reason might be that they wanted to run and hide from Rick Barry, who was 6’7”. (Of course, I don’t expect Jazz fanboys to give Barry his due more than anyone else does.)
The thing is, putting any height stipulation on it (and I’ve ignored the huge race qualifier, which is a whole other issue) just minimizes the impact. Who cares who the best white player under six and a half feet was? You can talk about height in basketball in less obvious ways-why not call Stockton the best white point guard ever? (I don’t expect Bob Cousy to get his props on the Facebook, either.)
Besides, this group has a little more work to do. Have you seen the NBA logo? The best white player under 6’6” in NBA history was Jerry West.
Like this gem from an article by ESPN’s Gene Wojciechowski:
Brett Favre is “40-4 at Lambeau when the temperature at kickoff is 34 degrees or lower.”I don’t really get that. What’s Favre’s record at 35 degrees, you know? The stat says the Packers and Favre have been incredibly successful when the weather is cold, which you’d expect, but 40-4 is amazing. Still, don’t you feel manipulated?
When I read that sentence, the first thing that jumped out at me was: why did they pick 34 degrees instead of 32 degrees? Thirty-two at least means something-it’s the freezing point of water. That’s not really relevant to football, but at least it’s meaningful in everyday life. Favre must have won a couple games at 33 or 34 degrees and using 34 instead of 32 must make his record look even better-I can't think of any other possible explanation, but I don't have the numbers.
I’m not a meteorologist, but let’s assume here. How many games could Brett Favre have possibly played in Lambeau that started at 33 or 34 degrees? At worst, his record when it’s freezing at kickoff at home is like 36-4 or something. That’s still incredible. And at least that looks like it means something.
I stumbled across another example of this the other day on my social networking website of choice, the Facebook. (Is it just me, or is the term “social networking” pretty freaking creepy? Doesn’t that sound like a Nazi program?)
Anyway, as part of the Facebook, you can join various groups, which mostly revolve around your interests. I stumbled across one the other day called, “John Stockton Best White Guy Under 6’6 Ever.” I’ll give the creator and the four other members the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were trying to say John Stockton was the best white basketball player ever who was shorter than 6 feet, 6 inches. (But then, maybe they meant he was the best person.)
Why six-foot-six? The answer is obvious: Larry Bird. I am sure some people think Stockton was a better player than Bird, but those people are, without exception, idiots. However, Bird’s 6-9, so of course he’s not included under the six-six rule.
So then I was thinking, why didn’t they just say John Stockton is the best white player ever under six-foot-eight? 6-6, like 32 degrees, does sound somewhat relevant, since six inches is exactly half a foot. But another reason might be that they wanted to run and hide from Rick Barry, who was 6’7”. (Of course, I don’t expect Jazz fanboys to give Barry his due more than anyone else does.)
The thing is, putting any height stipulation on it (and I’ve ignored the huge race qualifier, which is a whole other issue) just minimizes the impact. Who cares who the best white player under six and a half feet was? You can talk about height in basketball in less obvious ways-why not call Stockton the best white point guard ever? (I don’t expect Bob Cousy to get his props on the Facebook, either.)
Besides, this group has a little more work to do. Have you seen the NBA logo? The best white player under 6’6” in NBA history was Jerry West.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
ESPN's polls are still open
This is insane.
ESPN is now accepting votes on what you, the fan, think your favorite team should do in the upcoming NFL draft. Hang on, that’s not entirely accurate. Actually, what they’re asking for is which position your team should draft for, or whether they should take the best player available.
For example, if you click right now on the Broncos’ 15th pick, you get a pop-up asking, “Which area should the Broncos focus on with the 22nd pick in the first round?” That’s not my typo-the Broncos have not one but TWO first-round selections, and apparently this rare occurrence has overwhelmed the servers at ESPN.com and led to massive confusion.
Anyway, the choices are: defensive tackle, guard/center, running back, tight end, wide receiver, or of course the best player available. I really like the choice of “guard/center”. If I made the poll, I would have managed to insult you simpletons even further and asked,
“Which area should the Broncos focus on with the 22nd pick in the first round? (You know, the one right after No. 14):
1) Fat fellow
2) Guy who runs with ball
3) Best player available”
What is with the polling in sports anyway? I am all for fans voicing their opinions (obviously), but why does anyone want to share them with a TV network that’s just going to pass it off as news? (I didn’t vote in this poll and hope none of you did, but if you did, at least voting on the Internet during the day beats rushing to your computer during a game, which in turns beats sending in a text message during a game just for the privilege of getting a ballot.)
Pretty weak stuff. Apparently creativity and effort fall just behind journalistic ethics in the ESPN hierarchy. Just think how many times I could have voted if, say, the Raiders had had more realistic strategic options, like, “Rank draftees by number of felony convictions” or “Exhume Al Davis, he’ll know what to do.”
More to the point, I am a little concerned. I do not like the direction the NFL is heading with overexposure. As jmgore pointed out in the comments the other day, the NFL is so awesome precisely because the games are, by comparison to other sports, so rare. That keeps the play so intense. In contrast, there are eighty-two games in an NBA season, which is a little more than five years of an NFL player’s career. (And the average NFL player doesn’t last five years.)
Think about it this way: eighty-two of their regular season games ago, the New England Patriots had not only never won a Super Bowl in their franchise’s history, but had yet to start a game with Tom Brady at the helm. (Don’t even get me started on baseball-162 Broncos games ago, John Elway couldn’t win the big one.)
Different sports have different strengths-baseball should have a much longer season than football-and while no one’s suggesting lengthening the NFL season, I think it’s nice to have an offseason once in a while. That’s the main reason I haven’t taken the Broncos to task for a string of uh, creative offseason moves.
For this specific example, the blame lays solely on ESPN. But the NFL has a television network now, stars in one of the best-selling videogames, and stays just active enough to be in the public mind year-round-and I’m beginning to wonder if the games will always live up to the hype.
The NBA couldn’t have been more popular among young people in the early 90’s-at least with the ones I knew-but before they knew it, shoving Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill down fans’ throats got old. I just hope the NFL doesn’t make the same mistake.
ESPN is now accepting votes on what you, the fan, think your favorite team should do in the upcoming NFL draft. Hang on, that’s not entirely accurate. Actually, what they’re asking for is which position your team should draft for, or whether they should take the best player available.
For example, if you click right now on the Broncos’ 15th pick, you get a pop-up asking, “Which area should the Broncos focus on with the 22nd pick in the first round?” That’s not my typo-the Broncos have not one but TWO first-round selections, and apparently this rare occurrence has overwhelmed the servers at ESPN.com and led to massive confusion.
Anyway, the choices are: defensive tackle, guard/center, running back, tight end, wide receiver, or of course the best player available. I really like the choice of “guard/center”. If I made the poll, I would have managed to insult you simpletons even further and asked,
“Which area should the Broncos focus on with the 22nd pick in the first round? (You know, the one right after No. 14):
1) Fat fellow
2) Guy who runs with ball
3) Best player available”
What is with the polling in sports anyway? I am all for fans voicing their opinions (obviously), but why does anyone want to share them with a TV network that’s just going to pass it off as news? (I didn’t vote in this poll and hope none of you did, but if you did, at least voting on the Internet during the day beats rushing to your computer during a game, which in turns beats sending in a text message during a game just for the privilege of getting a ballot.)
Pretty weak stuff. Apparently creativity and effort fall just behind journalistic ethics in the ESPN hierarchy. Just think how many times I could have voted if, say, the Raiders had had more realistic strategic options, like, “Rank draftees by number of felony convictions” or “Exhume Al Davis, he’ll know what to do.”
More to the point, I am a little concerned. I do not like the direction the NFL is heading with overexposure. As jmgore pointed out in the comments the other day, the NFL is so awesome precisely because the games are, by comparison to other sports, so rare. That keeps the play so intense. In contrast, there are eighty-two games in an NBA season, which is a little more than five years of an NFL player’s career. (And the average NFL player doesn’t last five years.)
Think about it this way: eighty-two of their regular season games ago, the New England Patriots had not only never won a Super Bowl in their franchise’s history, but had yet to start a game with Tom Brady at the helm. (Don’t even get me started on baseball-162 Broncos games ago, John Elway couldn’t win the big one.)
Different sports have different strengths-baseball should have a much longer season than football-and while no one’s suggesting lengthening the NFL season, I think it’s nice to have an offseason once in a while. That’s the main reason I haven’t taken the Broncos to task for a string of uh, creative offseason moves.
For this specific example, the blame lays solely on ESPN. But the NFL has a television network now, stars in one of the best-selling videogames, and stays just active enough to be in the public mind year-round-and I’m beginning to wonder if the games will always live up to the hype.
The NBA couldn’t have been more popular among young people in the early 90’s-at least with the ones I knew-but before they knew it, shoving Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill down fans’ throats got old. I just hope the NFL doesn’t make the same mistake.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Checking In...
Last night the Nuggets won the Northwest Division with a 110-98 win over the Portland Trailblazers.
The article calls it the Nuggets’ first division title in eighteen years, which is just ridiculous. Anyway, I’m thrilled, so we’re going back to the Hole Punch Vault to see what went right and what didn’t this season.
First things first. I did say the Nuggets would win the division title, and I’m pointing that out because my recent predictions that the Broncos and University of Connecticut’s mens basketball team would win championships have whittled down my readership. (I also predicted a record of 54-28. That seems unlikely, as the Nuggets would not only have to win out, but also win half a dozen games they’ve already lost.)
What went right: Frontcourt depth. Nene injured his knee in the first game and was lost for the season and Kenyon Martin has been in and out of the lineup. And Ed Najera is gone now. But the Nuggets pieced together a decent inside corps thanks to a surprisingly more consistent Francisco Elson, an amazing start by Marcus Camby, and, of course, Carmelo’s maturation.
What went wrong: Earl Watson. I thought we signed him because we actually wanted him, but it turned out he really was just trade bait like everyone else said. I guess this actually went right because we did trade him.
What went right: Carmelo. My prediction (ahem):
What went wrong: Outside shooting. We’re dead-last in three-point percentage.
What went right: The trade that brought us Ruben Patterson and Reggie Evans.
I gave us the slight edge when it happened, but Kiki deserves serious props because it turned out to provide a major boost. It didn’t get the publicity, but forget what you’ve heard-it worked out fifty times better than when the Broncos signed all those Cleveland Browns.
Outlook: Maybe the biggest factor in the division title, of course, was the rest of our pathetic division, from which we will likely be the only playoff team. This puts us in an interesting playoff position. As a division winner, we’re automatically a top-three seed (we’ll be No. 3), but have a chance to finish with a worse record than the sixth seed, meaning we wouldn’t even have homecourt advantage in the first round.
Anyway, the sixth seed will probably be the Memphis Grizzlies or Los Angeles Clippers. Statistically, both look to have a little bit of an edge on us. But I think the Nuggets’ situation is somewhat analogous to that of the Pittsburgh Steelers this year-because of injuries and, in our case, trades, the team is better than its numbers and record would indicate.
We can beat either team. We’d even have an outside shot against the Suns in the second round. Either way, while the Nuggets may not look like they’ve made the huge leap I’d predicted, they continue to become one of the league’s elite teams.
The article calls it the Nuggets’ first division title in eighteen years, which is just ridiculous. Anyway, I’m thrilled, so we’re going back to the Hole Punch Vault to see what went right and what didn’t this season.
First things first. I did say the Nuggets would win the division title, and I’m pointing that out because my recent predictions that the Broncos and University of Connecticut’s mens basketball team would win championships have whittled down my readership. (I also predicted a record of 54-28. That seems unlikely, as the Nuggets would not only have to win out, but also win half a dozen games they’ve already lost.)
What went right: Frontcourt depth. Nene injured his knee in the first game and was lost for the season and Kenyon Martin has been in and out of the lineup. And Ed Najera is gone now. But the Nuggets pieced together a decent inside corps thanks to a surprisingly more consistent Francisco Elson, an amazing start by Marcus Camby, and, of course, Carmelo’s maturation.
What went wrong: Earl Watson. I thought we signed him because we actually wanted him, but it turned out he really was just trade bait like everyone else said. I guess this actually went right because we did trade him.
What went right: Carmelo. My prediction (ahem):
I think Carmelo will have a fantastic season and score in the mid-twenties per game, in addition to regaining his rookie year late-game mojo. He won't be a stopper defensively, nor will we ask him to be, but expect him to play hard enough to earn big minutes.Carmelo did indeed raise his scoring average to a current 26.8 per game. Even more impressively, he’s continued the efficiency he showcased at the end of last season with career-highs in field goal (48.2%) and free-throw (80.7%) shooting. And if you’ve watched a Nuggets game lately, you’ve surely heard that his late-game shooting percentages are among the league’s best (actually, I think they’ve said he is the league’s best), placing him in stark contrast to classmate LeBron James. Carmelo probably deserves cursory MVP consideration, if only because of how the offense stagnates when he’s on the bench. And he’s averaging 37 minutes per game.
What went wrong: Outside shooting. We’re dead-last in three-point percentage.
What went right: The trade that brought us Ruben Patterson and Reggie Evans.
I gave us the slight edge when it happened, but Kiki deserves serious props because it turned out to provide a major boost. It didn’t get the publicity, but forget what you’ve heard-it worked out fifty times better than when the Broncos signed all those Cleveland Browns.
Outlook: Maybe the biggest factor in the division title, of course, was the rest of our pathetic division, from which we will likely be the only playoff team. This puts us in an interesting playoff position. As a division winner, we’re automatically a top-three seed (we’ll be No. 3), but have a chance to finish with a worse record than the sixth seed, meaning we wouldn’t even have homecourt advantage in the first round.
Anyway, the sixth seed will probably be the Memphis Grizzlies or Los Angeles Clippers. Statistically, both look to have a little bit of an edge on us. But I think the Nuggets’ situation is somewhat analogous to that of the Pittsburgh Steelers this year-because of injuries and, in our case, trades, the team is better than its numbers and record would indicate.
We can beat either team. We’d even have an outside shot against the Suns in the second round. Either way, while the Nuggets may not look like they’ve made the huge leap I’d predicted, they continue to become one of the league’s elite teams.
Thursday, April 6, 2006
2006 Broncos schedule
You’ve probably heard already, but the NFL schedules for next season are out. I don’t much care about anyone but the Broncos.
I like Denver’s schedule quite a bit. We’ll have played the Pittsburgh Steelers and New England Patriots on the road by our eighth game of the season. We’re also hosting the Indianapolis Colts and Seattle Seahawks. If you had to pick four teams to excel next regular season, those might be the exact four. The Seahawks game is the latest of these (Dec. 3) or, in other words, each of these games comes too early for opponents to be resting anyone.
Two reasons I’m a fan of the schedule: first, I think tough early-season competition should be a good thing. Unlike recent seasons, we’ll have a better handle on how good the Broncos really are heading into the playoffs. It'll make the regular season more compelling. And second, now that they know the season will not be a cakewalk, Broncos management will stop cutting popular and productive players like Mike Anderson and Trevor Pryce and maybe consider putting that salary cap room towards a football player or two.
One thing bugs me, though this news didn’t break today-we’re playing the Chiefs in Kansas City on Thanksgiving, and the game will be broadcast nationally only on the NFL Network. Not a big deal for fans who live in Colorado-the game will be shown on a local channel as well-but it kind of sucks for Broncos lovers who are out of state, such as for my example my two readers. Unless, I guess, you guys already get the NFL Network. I run a sports blog in my uh, free time, but even I think watching the NFL Network makes you a little weird.
We’re also playing the Ravens Monday, Oct. 9, which I guess means the league’s given up on having attractive Monday night matchups.
I like Denver’s schedule quite a bit. We’ll have played the Pittsburgh Steelers and New England Patriots on the road by our eighth game of the season. We’re also hosting the Indianapolis Colts and Seattle Seahawks. If you had to pick four teams to excel next regular season, those might be the exact four. The Seahawks game is the latest of these (Dec. 3) or, in other words, each of these games comes too early for opponents to be resting anyone.
Two reasons I’m a fan of the schedule: first, I think tough early-season competition should be a good thing. Unlike recent seasons, we’ll have a better handle on how good the Broncos really are heading into the playoffs. It'll make the regular season more compelling. And second, now that they know the season will not be a cakewalk, Broncos management will stop cutting popular and productive players like Mike Anderson and Trevor Pryce and maybe consider putting that salary cap room towards a football player or two.
One thing bugs me, though this news didn’t break today-we’re playing the Chiefs in Kansas City on Thanksgiving, and the game will be broadcast nationally only on the NFL Network. Not a big deal for fans who live in Colorado-the game will be shown on a local channel as well-but it kind of sucks for Broncos lovers who are out of state, such as for my example my two readers. Unless, I guess, you guys already get the NFL Network. I run a sports blog in my uh, free time, but even I think watching the NFL Network makes you a little weird.
We’re also playing the Ravens Monday, Oct. 9, which I guess means the league’s given up on having attractive Monday night matchups.
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
Steroids Investigation
That was some NCAA title game yesterday, wasn’t it? I’m kidding; I didn’t watch it, either.
I did watch part of the Braves-Dodgers game, though, as part of a photo shoot chronicling my love for sports (that’s not a joke, by the way). Anyway, the broadcast team decided that the twenty-one run game was not interesting enough in and of itself, so talk drifted to the ongoing investigation of steroid use in baseball over the last several years.
Eric Karros, the longtime Los Angeles Dodger of Anaheim turned broadcaster, said he didn’t understand what the investigation was supposed to accomplish. Baseball can't change what already happened, he said, especially now that the game has been cleaned up.
I was a little surprised by this. Karros isn’t remembered as a special player, but his numbers would have looked much better if he hadn’t had to compete with the well-drugged stars of his era. (For six seasons from 1995 to 2000, Karros averaged the quietest 31 homers and 104 RBI ever for a player in such a pitchers’ park.) If he didn’t use steroids, in a lot of ways he suffered from them anyway.
But his response shouldn’t have been unexpected. The cronyism of the players association is a big reason baseball is such a mess today. Despite that, I have to agree with Karros. What’s the point? Just about everyone acknowledges that steroids were in widespread use. What else needs to or can be done?
Does anyone care? A lot of fans don’t. I don’t see why not, but at the same time, steroids weren’t against the rules of baseball until very recently. The players’ union was too power-hungry to look after its members’ health, and the owners were too money-hungry to force a lockout and clean up the game. Now they want an ex post facto investigation to bail them out?
It’s almost amusing how Barry Bonds’ potential career home-run record is being treated. Will Major League Baseball celebrate the accomplishment? Why should anyone care?
First, the career home run record just means you mean more homers in your career than anyone else did. As obvious as that sounds, it’s been elevated to seem like much more than that.
Other sports don’t have this problem. Dan Marino threw more touchdown passes than any quarterback in NFL history, but no one thinks he’s the best passer ever (no one with half a brain, anyway). Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the NBA’s all-time leading scorer, but many don’t even think he’s the best center in league history.
Put it this way: the current career home run record holder is Hank Aaron. But Hank Aaron’s not the best power hitter ever-he’s not even really close. Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and, yes, Barry Bonds were far more dangerous with a bat in their hands. (In a way, this makes Aaron hitting more home runs than everyone even more impressive.)
Second, though, that begs the questions: what could Aaron have accomplished using steroids? Why should he have to compete with players who have used them? But that question is the whole point: everyone thinks Bonds used steroids, so no one’s going to assume he’s better than Aaron just on the basis of a late-career power surge. (I know I just said Bonds was more dangerous at the plate. He was. But no one thinks it’s because of natural ability.)
Third: why is baseball’s record book so hallowed anyway? Cheating’s always been a part of the game. And while statistics may seem easily comparable over the years, they’re really not.
But yes, I’d hate to see baseball’s record book tainted. Yep, it’s in pristine condition. The all-time leader in batting average, Ty Cobb, was, by all accounts, ten times the jerk Bonds dreams of being. The all-time leader in hits gambled on the sport when he was still involved with it. Oh, and how many black pitchers did Babe Ruth face again?
Fourth, we’ll all remember the record, but we won’t care about the celebration for more than a few days. Can you imagine talking to co-workers about it someday? “Yeah, Bud looked like an idiot handing him that plaque last night, but it showed some real guts for Pepsi not to show up?” Yeah, not only that, I think I’ll buy some Pepsi products to reward their courage.
The bottom line, at this point, is that it’s up to the fans. If they don’t want to remember Bonds as a great player, they don’t have to.
Pete Rose was a versatile, tough, and great player, now seemingly alone in baseball purgatory. It obviously tears him up. After he retires, Bonds, Hall of Fame or not, will join him. Isn’t that punishment enough?
I did watch part of the Braves-Dodgers game, though, as part of a photo shoot chronicling my love for sports (that’s not a joke, by the way). Anyway, the broadcast team decided that the twenty-one run game was not interesting enough in and of itself, so talk drifted to the ongoing investigation of steroid use in baseball over the last several years.
Eric Karros, the longtime Los Angeles Dodger of Anaheim turned broadcaster, said he didn’t understand what the investigation was supposed to accomplish. Baseball can't change what already happened, he said, especially now that the game has been cleaned up.
I was a little surprised by this. Karros isn’t remembered as a special player, but his numbers would have looked much better if he hadn’t had to compete with the well-drugged stars of his era. (For six seasons from 1995 to 2000, Karros averaged the quietest 31 homers and 104 RBI ever for a player in such a pitchers’ park.) If he didn’t use steroids, in a lot of ways he suffered from them anyway.
But his response shouldn’t have been unexpected. The cronyism of the players association is a big reason baseball is such a mess today. Despite that, I have to agree with Karros. What’s the point? Just about everyone acknowledges that steroids were in widespread use. What else needs to or can be done?
Does anyone care? A lot of fans don’t. I don’t see why not, but at the same time, steroids weren’t against the rules of baseball until very recently. The players’ union was too power-hungry to look after its members’ health, and the owners were too money-hungry to force a lockout and clean up the game. Now they want an ex post facto investigation to bail them out?
It’s almost amusing how Barry Bonds’ potential career home-run record is being treated. Will Major League Baseball celebrate the accomplishment? Why should anyone care?
First, the career home run record just means you mean more homers in your career than anyone else did. As obvious as that sounds, it’s been elevated to seem like much more than that.
Other sports don’t have this problem. Dan Marino threw more touchdown passes than any quarterback in NFL history, but no one thinks he’s the best passer ever (no one with half a brain, anyway). Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the NBA’s all-time leading scorer, but many don’t even think he’s the best center in league history.
Put it this way: the current career home run record holder is Hank Aaron. But Hank Aaron’s not the best power hitter ever-he’s not even really close. Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and, yes, Barry Bonds were far more dangerous with a bat in their hands. (In a way, this makes Aaron hitting more home runs than everyone even more impressive.)
Second, though, that begs the questions: what could Aaron have accomplished using steroids? Why should he have to compete with players who have used them? But that question is the whole point: everyone thinks Bonds used steroids, so no one’s going to assume he’s better than Aaron just on the basis of a late-career power surge. (I know I just said Bonds was more dangerous at the plate. He was. But no one thinks it’s because of natural ability.)
Third: why is baseball’s record book so hallowed anyway? Cheating’s always been a part of the game. And while statistics may seem easily comparable over the years, they’re really not.
But yes, I’d hate to see baseball’s record book tainted. Yep, it’s in pristine condition. The all-time leader in batting average, Ty Cobb, was, by all accounts, ten times the jerk Bonds dreams of being. The all-time leader in hits gambled on the sport when he was still involved with it. Oh, and how many black pitchers did Babe Ruth face again?
Fourth, we’ll all remember the record, but we won’t care about the celebration for more than a few days. Can you imagine talking to co-workers about it someday? “Yeah, Bud looked like an idiot handing him that plaque last night, but it showed some real guts for Pepsi not to show up?” Yeah, not only that, I think I’ll buy some Pepsi products to reward their courage.
The bottom line, at this point, is that it’s up to the fans. If they don’t want to remember Bonds as a great player, they don’t have to.
Pete Rose was a versatile, tough, and great player, now seemingly alone in baseball purgatory. It obviously tears him up. After he retires, Bonds, Hall of Fame or not, will join him. Isn’t that punishment enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)