As CWS foreign correspondent (that is, me wearing a beret) reports, last weekend was the first meeting for Manchester United and Liverpool since their match on October 15, 2011- which, as EPL watchers know, was punctuated when ManU left back Patrice Evra accused Liverpool forward Luis Suarez of racially abusing him throughout the match. Suarez denied it, but was suspended for 8 games anyway.
Last week, when the clubs met again. Ever ManU/Liverpool game is closely watched as this is a big rivalry, but the racial incident was certainly on everyone's mind. Evra and Suarez lined up for the traditional pre-game handshake...and Suarez refused to shake Evra's hand. Very publicly, very dramatically. You can see it here. See? KABOOM.
It's very odd to me to see an athlete intentionally and publicly extend a controversy like that. I know that this is a complicated situation- race is at the heart of it, and Suarez is Uruguayan, Evra is a black frenchman, they both play for an English soccer league- there's a lot of moving parts. But still, most athletes just want to put stuff like this behind them, and I don't understand why Suarez would be any different.
I wonder if sports aren't making an already frought situation more complicated. The hands-down worst aspect of sports is how tribal it can get. Ty Cobb can spike another player, Michael Jordan can invent entire fictional backstories to make guys out to be jerks, a bunch of pricks can attack Bryan Stowe, and Canucks fans can start a riot, and on some level, it's all explained by the fact that sports created this heightened emotional state and the obvious conflict. It's way too easy for the other team and the other fans to just become The Other- and from there, you can justify almost anything.
To bring this back to Suarez, ManU and Liverpool are major rivals, and the EPL isn't entirely known for having a laid back attitude about rivalry games. The players had spent most of the previous days studying how to beat each other, and right at the moment Suarez and Evra were to shake hands, the teams were on the verge of a grueling, 90 minute physical conflict with each other. Emotionally speaking, that's a very hard time to show even a minor act of contrition.
None of which is to excuse Suarez; we're all expected to control our emotions, and if an athlete really has a problem with another, he's wiser to channel that into his action on the pitch. My point is only that this might explain Suarez' behavior; even if he was able to put aside the tribal instincts of racial abuse, well, he was in the thrawl of another tribe, too; his team.
Soccer heavily promotes itself as a tolerant, diverse game. It has some right to do so (stories like this rather convince me, at least). To a large extent, the pitch can be a refuge to ethnic, racial, and nationalistic strife. But we need to recognize- and let's let the Suarez/Evra conflict remind us of this- that sports only have a limited utility in solving such conflicts. Indeed, there's a real danger that sports just exchange one conflict for another, and the other may be little better.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
We Report What We Decide
So LeBron James has indicated that he's open to playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers again, which of course means that ESPN has exploded into ZOMGWTFBBQ mode. Here is the quote:
A couple points:
1) A search of google, YouTube, and ESPN's web site could not reveal a transcript of the interview in which LeBron's comments were made. Meaning we don't know what the interviewer actually asked. Was the reporter asking soon? Eventually? Ever? Why can't ANYONE post a video of this interview or a transcript to show us the exact context of the answer?
2) LeBron himself gave no time frame on such a return, nor did he list it as a certainty. He didn't say he intended to come back, or even that he wanted to come back, simply that he wouldn't rule out the possibility.
Now, with those two things in mind, let's run through some of the reactions:
1) Michael Smith on ESPN's First Take used the language of infidelity in regards to LeBron, saying that Miami went from being the mistress to the second wife. The panelists then discussed whether Miami fans should be offended.
2) Michael Wallace for ESPN continued the sexual talk and piled on condemnation by writing an article entitled "LeBron wrong to flirt with Cavaliers reunion."
It isn't a reaction, actually, but back in January Sam Amico of Fox Sports speculated that LeBron would return to Cleveland in 2014 when his contract in Miami is up because he doesn't like the management there. Anyone doubt this will breathe new life into such speculation?
LeBron didn't take out an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer polling the city what they would think about him returning in 2014. He was in Cleveland for a game against the Cavs, and a reporter asked him if he'd ever come back. What was he supposed to say? I mean, he had options. He could have said "no comment." He could have said "no way." He could have said "as soon as possible." He could have said "I am your Lord God and thou shalt have no gods before me." There is an infinite combination of words in the English language, but I don't see anything in LeBron's statements to invite such sermonizing or speculation. Maybe he will one day return to Cleveland. Maybe if he tries Cleveland will tell him to get lost. Who knows? Who cares? We are talking about something that probably won't happen ever, and even if it does, couldn't happen before 2014. ESPN is spending hours discussing a possibility two or more years down the road when they won't spend 5 minutes out of 1440 minutes a day talking about hockey, or soccer.
That's the crux of this, is that this didn't become a story that they reported on. They created this story. I think the "worst" think you could say about this is that LeBron was offering an olive branch to a city and franchise he snubbed because deep down he wants everyone to like him. Whether that's a character flaw or not isn't something I'm interested in discussing right now. What it isn't is an invitation to speculate on the timing or probability of a return. But ESPN ran with it anyway, which is going to lead me to punch myself in the balls by bringing up the dreaded name of Tebow.
ESPN is still, today, mentioning Tebow and Tebowmania. They are using Linsanity to bring Tebow up. During the regular season and the playoffs they used any excuse to bring up Tebow, going so far as to mention his name 160 times in a single hour long broadcast of SportsCenter. Throughout all of this, they would open the discussion with a defense of why they were bringing it up by saying "it's all people are talking about." But maybe the only reason people are talking about it, is because ESPN, as the biggest name in sports news, made such a big point of promoting him. This blog already had one post comparing the stats of Tebow, Joe Flacco, and Alex Smith during the regular season that showed how Tebow was worse than them in every measurable way.
I am actually not hating on Linsanity, but what percentage of the people that are aware of Jeremy Lin are aware of Ty Lawson and his work with the Denver Nuggets, or Kyrie Irving in Cleveland? But Lin plays in New York, which nets more exposure, and he is a more compelling story at the moment when you factor in the win streak and the personal struggles he's overcome.
But let's recognize that in saying that, sports reporters are making an editorial decision. ESPN is making specific programming decisions. They have an agenda, and they are pushing it. By tying Tebow into Linsanity, they are explicitly using a player they didn't create to try and maintain the relevance of a player they did create. And while they never doubted Tebow, watching First Take the past two days you'll already see the knives coming out to tear down Lin. Yesterday they declared the death of Lin puns, and today they are already anticipating the bubble popping, the other shoe dropping. When Lin (and the Knicks, let's not forget them) finally lose (which they will), I wonder what the story will be then. But there will be an angle, and ESPN will be crafting it, not reporting it. Perhaps it's inevitable, maybe it's desirable, but what it isn't is something they are blameless of doing.
"I think it would be great, it would be fun to play in front of these fans again. I had a lot of fun times here. You can't predict the future. Hopefully you continue to stay healthy. I'm here as a Miami player and I'm happy where I am now but I don't rule that out in any sense. If I decide to come back, hopefully the fans will accept me."
A couple points:
1) A search of google, YouTube, and ESPN's web site could not reveal a transcript of the interview in which LeBron's comments were made. Meaning we don't know what the interviewer actually asked. Was the reporter asking soon? Eventually? Ever? Why can't ANYONE post a video of this interview or a transcript to show us the exact context of the answer?
2) LeBron himself gave no time frame on such a return, nor did he list it as a certainty. He didn't say he intended to come back, or even that he wanted to come back, simply that he wouldn't rule out the possibility.
Now, with those two things in mind, let's run through some of the reactions:
1) Michael Smith on ESPN's First Take used the language of infidelity in regards to LeBron, saying that Miami went from being the mistress to the second wife. The panelists then discussed whether Miami fans should be offended.
2) Michael Wallace for ESPN continued the sexual talk and piled on condemnation by writing an article entitled "LeBron wrong to flirt with Cavaliers reunion."
It isn't a reaction, actually, but back in January Sam Amico of Fox Sports speculated that LeBron would return to Cleveland in 2014 when his contract in Miami is up because he doesn't like the management there. Anyone doubt this will breathe new life into such speculation?
LeBron didn't take out an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer polling the city what they would think about him returning in 2014. He was in Cleveland for a game against the Cavs, and a reporter asked him if he'd ever come back. What was he supposed to say? I mean, he had options. He could have said "no comment." He could have said "no way." He could have said "as soon as possible." He could have said "I am your Lord God and thou shalt have no gods before me." There is an infinite combination of words in the English language, but I don't see anything in LeBron's statements to invite such sermonizing or speculation. Maybe he will one day return to Cleveland. Maybe if he tries Cleveland will tell him to get lost. Who knows? Who cares? We are talking about something that probably won't happen ever, and even if it does, couldn't happen before 2014. ESPN is spending hours discussing a possibility two or more years down the road when they won't spend 5 minutes out of 1440 minutes a day talking about hockey, or soccer.
That's the crux of this, is that this didn't become a story that they reported on. They created this story. I think the "worst" think you could say about this is that LeBron was offering an olive branch to a city and franchise he snubbed because deep down he wants everyone to like him. Whether that's a character flaw or not isn't something I'm interested in discussing right now. What it isn't is an invitation to speculate on the timing or probability of a return. But ESPN ran with it anyway, which is going to lead me to punch myself in the balls by bringing up the dreaded name of Tebow.
ESPN is still, today, mentioning Tebow and Tebowmania. They are using Linsanity to bring Tebow up. During the regular season and the playoffs they used any excuse to bring up Tebow, going so far as to mention his name 160 times in a single hour long broadcast of SportsCenter. Throughout all of this, they would open the discussion with a defense of why they were bringing it up by saying "it's all people are talking about." But maybe the only reason people are talking about it, is because ESPN, as the biggest name in sports news, made such a big point of promoting him. This blog already had one post comparing the stats of Tebow, Joe Flacco, and Alex Smith during the regular season that showed how Tebow was worse than them in every measurable way.
I am actually not hating on Linsanity, but what percentage of the people that are aware of Jeremy Lin are aware of Ty Lawson and his work with the Denver Nuggets, or Kyrie Irving in Cleveland? But Lin plays in New York, which nets more exposure, and he is a more compelling story at the moment when you factor in the win streak and the personal struggles he's overcome.
But let's recognize that in saying that, sports reporters are making an editorial decision. ESPN is making specific programming decisions. They have an agenda, and they are pushing it. By tying Tebow into Linsanity, they are explicitly using a player they didn't create to try and maintain the relevance of a player they did create. And while they never doubted Tebow, watching First Take the past two days you'll already see the knives coming out to tear down Lin. Yesterday they declared the death of Lin puns, and today they are already anticipating the bubble popping, the other shoe dropping. When Lin (and the Knicks, let's not forget them) finally lose (which they will), I wonder what the story will be then. But there will be an angle, and ESPN will be crafting it, not reporting it. Perhaps it's inevitable, maybe it's desirable, but what it isn't is something they are blameless of doing.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Dwight Howard and the Art of Negotiating
Sports have given us a lot. Positive and negative role models, hours of entertainment, schadenfreude, the list goes on and on. For anyone teaching a class on negotiation, they're a godsend of easily accessible examples. Dwight Howard, in his weekly quest for a new trading partner this year, has become a one man factory of such examples, and particularly of showing how to negotiate in the context of other known bidders. And to not only start a sentence with a conjunction, but also to rip off an old country singer, let me point out one of the most important things to remember in any negotiation:
"Know when to walk away, and know when to run."
In any negotiation you need to know when you are getting hosed, and that you hurt yourself more in taking a deal than you do in just walking from the table and trying your luck elsewhere (in court, the open market, with the team roster you already have, etc). Sometimes you can actually back another party off of unreasonable demands simply by turning your back on them. "We'll just have to settle this in court" can sometimes lead to that 11th hour phone call that is willing to accept an earlier, better offer of yours. "No thanks, that's too much" might result in the counterfeiter working in the basement of a Chinese convention center grabbing you and telling you that yes, actually, they WILL accept your offer of $5 for that new pair of Air Fordans. Other times it may mean that Dwight Howard is not coming to Chicago, and while that isn't as exciting as "ZOMG! DWIGHT HOWARD IS COMING TO CHICAGO!" it can also be a very good thing.
Now, I have been one of the people hoping that Dwight comes here. Lots of sports writers that know and get paid more than I do have weighed in on why it would be good for Dwight and the Bulls, and lots of sports writers that know LESS than I do but still get paid more have speculated on the details of how such a trade might go down. This is where we enter territory of WHY? WHY IN THE EVER LOVING NAME OF GOD OR C'THULHU BOTH WOULD I DO THAT?!
For instance, I have seen trade scenarios for the Chicago Bulls giving up Noah, Taj, Butler, Deng AND draft picks in order to get Dwight Howard, who is an unrestricted free agent (UFA) this summer and can pack his bags and leave. Even in a sign and trade where Dwight executes the extension in his current contract we'd only be sure of getting him through 2013. So let's see, we trade away our young core and upcoming talent to rent a guy that has thrown his teammates under a bus all season? A guy that, while the most dominating center in the league right now, only gets that title because the league is bereft of good centers?*
Then you've got some guy on ESPN outlining the trade that could send Dwight Howard to Golden State. I will say this, I don't know what the trade he outlined is, there I professed my ignorance. The reason is because my brain was too busy spit-taking cerebral fluid out of my eyeballs, and I just changed the channel. There is no scenario where Dwight Howard stays in Golden State past July 2012. The fact it took him half a season to put Chicago on his list, but the Nets were on there from the start, shows that he is as much or more about location and market exposure than he is about winning championships. Golden State is an also ran. Sorry 'Ciscoans, but the Lakers will always eclipse you, and right now the Clippers do too. You are in a life and death struggle with the Kings for 3rd most important team in your state, nevermind the rest of the country. I'm not saying that you'll never be good, but Dwight Howard ain't staying there. He wants to be in L.A., or NYC. He can be convinced to go to Dallas. He's barely considering Chicago. If Howard gets traded to Golden State you can clock his time there with an egg timer. And in the meantime, Orlando will demand that Golden State gut itself of what little talent it has. Orlando doesn't just want picks, they want stars to come in and sell tickets that they would otherwise lose with Dwight gone. So while I didn't actually watch the suggested trade, I can't see it happening without moving Monta Ellis, who still has two years left on his contract, compared to the 5 months they'd be getting out of Howard.
Either of those trades are terrible for the Bulls or the Warriors. So you walk away. Orlando can scream to the night sky all it wants about the unfairness of its situation, and how you can't expect them to give up a player like Dwight Howard for just some draft picks or maybe the #2 star on your team. They want matching value or close to it. People in hell want ice water.
All of Orlando's leverage here is based on the fact that multiple teams want Howard. Howard's gone in July. If Orlando doesn't trade him for something, they lose him and get nothing. Thing is, most teams know that. Mark Cuban is already preparing to dump salaries like Pat Riley did two years ago to get LeBron and Bosh in the hopes that he can similarly get DWill and Dwight in Dallas. If Dwight doens't get traded, he's the biggest name in free agency and can go where he wants, get paid what he wants, or both. So you can wait out the trade season and get him without giving up anything.
Unless, unless, someone swoops in between now and the end of February with a deal that sends Howard to them. Thing is, Howard can STILL walk in July on that team, only now it loses not only Howard, but the pieces it traded to get him. The only situation in which that makes sense is if you think Dwight gives you the chance at a title run (see Bulls, Lakers) and/or you think you can convince Dwight to re-up with you in the offseason (see title run, heavy market exposure in NYC/L.A.) New Jersey can't make at title run post-trade with Howard (because they can't make a playoff run without him). Maybe Dallas, maybe the Lakers (I don't see what Howard/Kobe gives them that Bynum/Gasol/Kobe don't, but whatever, I'll give them benefit of the doubt). Definitely the Bulls, provided they don't trade away half their damn team in the process.
OR, Dwight and Orlando execute a sign and trade, giving you Dwight through 2013. It gives you more time to build your case to keep Dwight. You get to play out this season, and build around him more next season if you don't win it all now.
So this possibility of a sign and trade is the only thing that will keep Dwight from coming available in July. If you really want Dwight, and you know another team is willing to give up assets to make a sign and trade, then you need to outbid them. Orlando's leverage here is not based on Dwight's worth. It's based solely on the fact that there is competition. That being the case, every team needs to watch bidding more than it can bear to pay. It's not a real negotiation, it's an auction. But Orlando will want to walk into any negotiating room and demand more than objectively the deal is worth. If no one else was interested in Dwight, the Bulls could tell them "hey, we'll give you Noah and a draft pick." Orlando could say no to that deal. Then Howard walks in July. If Orlando doesn't make a trade, they lose Dwight and get nothing for next year. If the Bulls don't make a trade, they continue compiling the best record in the East. And that's the key here. Maybe the Lakers have nothing to lose in shipping Bynum over for Dwight. The Bulls though, have the best record in the league. They have problems and concerns, but they are winning. They are favorites to reach the Eastern Finals this year and next. They can easily get the raw end of any deal, because they don't need to make any deal. Knowledge of that gives them the greatest power in any negotiation: the power to just say no.
*Seriously, when Bynum is starting in the All-Star game I give up on the 5 spot. I started watching basketball when Ewing, Olajuwon, and Robinson were still playing and Shaq was the up and coming rookie. Olajuwon and Shaq battle it out with most sports writers to round out the top 5 centers of all time, but Ewing and Robinson would take Dwight's lunch money and hang him by his underwear in a locker. Then you still had Alonzo Mourning out there playing solid, Dikembe Motumbo getting just as many blocks as Howard, and Vlade Divac not embarassing himself in L.A. Okay, maybe that last part is debatable, but did he embarass himself any more than Bynum did last year in the playoffs?
Monday, February 13, 2012
WHAT'S MY AGE AGAIN?
The big news in baseball today is that the Oakland A's have signed the Cuban Defector Yeonis Cespedes to a 4 year, $36 million dollar deal. I really wish the Cardinals played the A's this year so that I could hear Mike Shannon take a crack at that name.
I don't have a lot to say about the contract. I'm kinda of the mindset that players have a right to go out and get whatever they can get on the market. Or maybe I'm just deadened by a lot of other big contracts this off-season. And hey, I've got some affection for the A's, and Cespedes is a good story, so this'll be fun.
On the other hand, I can't get over little things like this:
"The first assumption is that Cespedes is actually 26 as he and his agents claim."
Or this:
"Maybe it’s more possible that everyone calmed down a bit and realized that a 26 year-old — hopefully — Cuban player is not necessarily a sure thing no matter how flashy his workout videos and short-season statistics were."
MUST we do this every time a Latino player inks a big, surprising, deal? I got pretty sick of it late last fall with Pujols, and don't think I've forgotten that similar rumors have plagued Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz.
I get the concern. Cespedes is already 26, and may need a year of seasoning at Triple A. If he's actually 27 or 28, then yeah, this is going to be like that episode of "Cheers" with Sam in the minors, or "The Rookie". And if he's actually going to be 32 at the end of this contract, maybe he won't be as sharp as he would've been at just 30.
But at the same time, there's no magic age where players turn into pumpkins, and there's plenty of guys who's primes last into their early 30s (Pujols, again, springs to mind- at 32, he had a season worth Cespedes' $9 million a year. And if he was actually older, well, my point is stronger). This may be much ado about nothing.
More importantly, though, it's just frustrating that so many Latino players are getting hit on the same issue, with the same absence of evidence in each case. I know that there's real money on the line, and I know that there's a real possibility some of these guys are fudging their ages (Hell, I'm sure someone's done it before). But from now on, before we start talking about that, I'd like some evidence a little stronger than, "Well, he comes from a place where they don't keep records all that good!"
I don't have a lot to say about the contract. I'm kinda of the mindset that players have a right to go out and get whatever they can get on the market. Or maybe I'm just deadened by a lot of other big contracts this off-season. And hey, I've got some affection for the A's, and Cespedes is a good story, so this'll be fun.
On the other hand, I can't get over little things like this:
"The first assumption is that Cespedes is actually 26 as he and his agents claim."
Or this:
"Maybe it’s more possible that everyone calmed down a bit and realized that a 26 year-old — hopefully — Cuban player is not necessarily a sure thing no matter how flashy his workout videos and short-season statistics were."
MUST we do this every time a Latino player inks a big, surprising, deal? I got pretty sick of it late last fall with Pujols, and don't think I've forgotten that similar rumors have plagued Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz.
I get the concern. Cespedes is already 26, and may need a year of seasoning at Triple A. If he's actually 27 or 28, then yeah, this is going to be like that episode of "Cheers" with Sam in the minors, or "The Rookie". And if he's actually going to be 32 at the end of this contract, maybe he won't be as sharp as he would've been at just 30.
But at the same time, there's no magic age where players turn into pumpkins, and there's plenty of guys who's primes last into their early 30s (Pujols, again, springs to mind- at 32, he had a season worth Cespedes' $9 million a year. And if he was actually older, well, my point is stronger). This may be much ado about nothing.
More importantly, though, it's just frustrating that so many Latino players are getting hit on the same issue, with the same absence of evidence in each case. I know that there's real money on the line, and I know that there's a real possibility some of these guys are fudging their ages (Hell, I'm sure someone's done it before). But from now on, before we start talking about that, I'd like some evidence a little stronger than, "Well, he comes from a place where they don't keep records all that good!"
Sunday, February 12, 2012
ATTENTION FOOTBALL FANS.
DO THIS. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PREFERABLY.
Sorry for the short notice, but if it helps, I know there's only like, 2 of you who read this anyway.
The NFL blackout rules make no sense to me, and they're at best counterproductive to the teams that don't sell out. It's like 1930s baseball owners who thought radio was going to hurt their ticket sales.
Time for another statement of Progressive Sports Fan First Principles: Awesome sports should be as viewed by as many people as possible. Sports viewership should be democratized. The means of sports viewership should rightfully be in the hands of viewers. I don't know, something, YOU GET THE POINT.
Go forth! FANS UNITE!
Sorry for the short notice, but if it helps, I know there's only like, 2 of you who read this anyway.
The NFL blackout rules make no sense to me, and they're at best counterproductive to the teams that don't sell out. It's like 1930s baseball owners who thought radio was going to hurt their ticket sales.
Time for another statement of Progressive Sports Fan First Principles: Awesome sports should be as viewed by as many people as possible. Sports viewership should be democratized. The means of sports viewership should rightfully be in the hands of viewers. I don't know, something, YOU GET THE POINT.
Go forth! FANS UNITE!
WHY WE WRITE
This story seems a little overblown, but it's interesting, nonetheless.
Similar, personal story: my wife and I thought about postponing our wedding because we'd heard it the weekend of a Cardinals-Cubs series, in which case her dad and I wouldn't have been able to be in the same room, much less become family. We were wrong about the schedule, so everything went ahead as planned.
Stories like this are why I'm so interested in the moral, political, and social dimensions of sports. Sports just affect us so much, even if we're not sports fans, even if we can't see how they're affecting us. Sometimes, it's because we're letting them affect us too much; we let it get personal or worse, tribal. Sometimes, it's that the actors in the sports are getting too myopic and not seeing how they hurt the sport, the fans, or even themselves. And sometimes- quite often, I would say- the sports affect us, and it's harmless, maybe even beneficial.
In each case, it's worth exploring. It's worth identifying what's what, and calling out the people responsible. Because sports and our obsession with them aren't going away- or at least, they aren't going to without a lot of discussion.
Similar, personal story: my wife and I thought about postponing our wedding because we'd heard it the weekend of a Cardinals-Cubs series, in which case her dad and I wouldn't have been able to be in the same room, much less become family. We were wrong about the schedule, so everything went ahead as planned.
Stories like this are why I'm so interested in the moral, political, and social dimensions of sports. Sports just affect us so much, even if we're not sports fans, even if we can't see how they're affecting us. Sometimes, it's because we're letting them affect us too much; we let it get personal or worse, tribal. Sometimes, it's that the actors in the sports are getting too myopic and not seeing how they hurt the sport, the fans, or even themselves. And sometimes- quite often, I would say- the sports affect us, and it's harmless, maybe even beneficial.
In each case, it's worth exploring. It's worth identifying what's what, and calling out the people responsible. Because sports and our obsession with them aren't going away- or at least, they aren't going to without a lot of discussion.
Unsafe At Any Speed
Ralph Nader has decided he has something to say about the NHL.
WELL, THAT OUGHTTA DO THE TRICK.
Nader is looking to prevent concussions by ending fighting in hockey. He also wants to eliminate all shots to the head. These are laudable goals, and I support them in every way. I have my doubts on Nader's ability to accomplish them, but Nader is just one part of the drive to end fighting, and that drive was already well under way before he got involved. An end to fighting WILL come in the NHL, and I will not be surprised if we see it in the next decade.
My worry is that we're making the debate over concussions too much about fighting, and we're downplaying the other major causes of concussions. That we're going to finally outlaw fighting and just say, "PROBLEM SOLVED! RAISES FOR EVERYONE!" Look at Nader's letter. He wants head shots outlawed, too, but he discusses fighting more, and saves his biggest rhetorical flourishes for fighting.
If we're talking about concussions, we can't end it there, though. Crosby and Giroux weren't concussed in a fight, they were hit during regular play. Those kinds of concussions are just as serious, probably more prevelant...and much harder to solve. It's going to be lengthy process of continued player discipline, continued improvements to safety equipment, better training, and maybe even new rules that will sacrifice some of the things we like about the game.
In other words, there's no easy answers, and even the hard answers aren't clear right now. And in some ways, I think that's why we're turning to fighting, because it's something we CAN solve rather easily (all we have to do is shut Don Cherry the fuck up, at this point). It's like the old saying, "I'm kicking the dog because I can't find the cat." (Jeez, some of my old sayings are violent). Viking of the Blog Mike's argument is that it's like having a Diet Coke at dinner- yeah, it only saves you 50 calories, but that's still 50 calories. He's not wrong. I just want to make sure that the NHL doesn't think that that's enough.
I still think that fighting, in it's current form, takes an incredible physical and mental toll on the players, and it makes the fans come off as far too barbaric. It's turning off potential fans and thus, limiting the sport. I still fully support ending it, and the sooner the better. But my priority right now is player safety, so I want to make sure the reform doesn't end there.
WELL, THAT OUGHTTA DO THE TRICK.
Nader is looking to prevent concussions by ending fighting in hockey. He also wants to eliminate all shots to the head. These are laudable goals, and I support them in every way. I have my doubts on Nader's ability to accomplish them, but Nader is just one part of the drive to end fighting, and that drive was already well under way before he got involved. An end to fighting WILL come in the NHL, and I will not be surprised if we see it in the next decade.
My worry is that we're making the debate over concussions too much about fighting, and we're downplaying the other major causes of concussions. That we're going to finally outlaw fighting and just say, "PROBLEM SOLVED! RAISES FOR EVERYONE!" Look at Nader's letter. He wants head shots outlawed, too, but he discusses fighting more, and saves his biggest rhetorical flourishes for fighting.
If we're talking about concussions, we can't end it there, though. Crosby and Giroux weren't concussed in a fight, they were hit during regular play. Those kinds of concussions are just as serious, probably more prevelant...and much harder to solve. It's going to be lengthy process of continued player discipline, continued improvements to safety equipment, better training, and maybe even new rules that will sacrifice some of the things we like about the game.
In other words, there's no easy answers, and even the hard answers aren't clear right now. And in some ways, I think that's why we're turning to fighting, because it's something we CAN solve rather easily (all we have to do is shut Don Cherry the fuck up, at this point). It's like the old saying, "I'm kicking the dog because I can't find the cat." (Jeez, some of my old sayings are violent). Viking of the Blog Mike's argument is that it's like having a Diet Coke at dinner- yeah, it only saves you 50 calories, but that's still 50 calories. He's not wrong. I just want to make sure that the NHL doesn't think that that's enough.
I still think that fighting, in it's current form, takes an incredible physical and mental toll on the players, and it makes the fans come off as far too barbaric. It's turning off potential fans and thus, limiting the sport. I still fully support ending it, and the sooner the better. But my priority right now is player safety, so I want to make sure the reform doesn't end there.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Pain and Sports
Well, this is quite something, isn't it?
I can't blame you if you're surprised; it's not every sport that explicitly encourage physical pain. But I get it if you're not surprised, too; there's an awful lot of sports that try to look the other way at pain.
We the fans certainly complicate matters. We hate to see "head hunting" or "targeting", but we love big hits. We love "giving the other guy something to think about". We love seeing a player rise above the pain. And our list of "Dirtiest Players" often grows one shorter when our team picks up certain guys from free agency. I mean, I've certainly rooted, mostly in jest, for Tim Tebow to break a collarbone, and my opinion of Dan Carcillo certainly changed when his uniform did (though it's back to normal, now that I know he's useless).
There is a difference between enjoying a strong, physical sport and just cold baying for blood, but man, I'll admit that that line is only a molecule thick in some spots. Hockey is instructive here (and as this blog goes on, we'll definitely talk more about that); I really can see a moral difference between checking and fighting. But there's checks and then there's targeting the head. There's fights and then there's scuffles after the whistle. There's a lot of grey area, and I don't envy Brenden Shanahan in sorting all that out.
There's no real bright line rules to guide us in those closer cases, and I can't really propose one here. But maybe I can suggest a frame work to get us thinking about this.
I think the question is intent. If a player is intentionally trying to hurt another, or if any sport or rule explicitly encourages hurting a player (even just to the extent that he's drops the ball or fumbles the pass or misses the puck or whatever) it's suspect. There's still a lot of gray area, and some sports I love are probably implicated. Bt it's a start.
I think it's clear how Ultimate Tazer Ball runs afoul of that standard; the defense's entire means of accomplishing it's goal is physical pain. I know there's only been minor injuries so far, but man, that seems like walking the razor's edge.
Of course, I can only speak to why I wouldn't watch such a sport, and why I would tell other people not to do so, either. As far as participating in it goes, I really have little interest in denying someone their right to fuck up their own body. But as far as we, the fans go...well, at a certain point, we just start to look too much like Romans.
I can't blame you if you're surprised; it's not every sport that explicitly encourage physical pain. But I get it if you're not surprised, too; there's an awful lot of sports that try to look the other way at pain.
We the fans certainly complicate matters. We hate to see "head hunting" or "targeting", but we love big hits. We love "giving the other guy something to think about". We love seeing a player rise above the pain. And our list of "Dirtiest Players" often grows one shorter when our team picks up certain guys from free agency. I mean, I've certainly rooted, mostly in jest, for Tim Tebow to break a collarbone, and my opinion of Dan Carcillo certainly changed when his uniform did (though it's back to normal, now that I know he's useless).
There is a difference between enjoying a strong, physical sport and just cold baying for blood, but man, I'll admit that that line is only a molecule thick in some spots. Hockey is instructive here (and as this blog goes on, we'll definitely talk more about that); I really can see a moral difference between checking and fighting. But there's checks and then there's targeting the head. There's fights and then there's scuffles after the whistle. There's a lot of grey area, and I don't envy Brenden Shanahan in sorting all that out.
There's no real bright line rules to guide us in those closer cases, and I can't really propose one here. But maybe I can suggest a frame work to get us thinking about this.
I think the question is intent. If a player is intentionally trying to hurt another, or if any sport or rule explicitly encourages hurting a player (even just to the extent that he's drops the ball or fumbles the pass or misses the puck or whatever) it's suspect. There's still a lot of gray area, and some sports I love are probably implicated. Bt it's a start.
I think it's clear how Ultimate Tazer Ball runs afoul of that standard; the defense's entire means of accomplishing it's goal is physical pain. I know there's only been minor injuries so far, but man, that seems like walking the razor's edge.
Of course, I can only speak to why I wouldn't watch such a sport, and why I would tell other people not to do so, either. As far as participating in it goes, I really have little interest in denying someone their right to fuck up their own body. But as far as we, the fans go...well, at a certain point, we just start to look too much like Romans.
TIM THOMAS: THE TED NUGENT OF HOCKEY
Fun Fact: Both Tim Thomas and Ted Nugent were born in eastern Michigan. Must be something in Lake Michigan.
Anyway, I guess at some point I had to address Tim Thomas' recent political statements, considering that whenever someone talks to me about the President, they refer to him as "YA BOY, Barack Obama".
(And he IS ma boy, so step to the right, haters. Well, further to the right, if that's possible at this point.)
Now, Thomas' statements are ridiculous. But the proper response to Thomas' dumb statements is to explain why it's dumb (here, I'll start: the birth control "mandate" is not at all about religious freedom- indeed, the Catholic Bishops' position represents an infringement of the religious freedom of employees of Catholic employers, who may not hold the same religious views as the bishops. And the "FIRST THEY CAME!" speech is so cliched, I'm actually asleep right now just from typing the first three words of it). The proper response is NOT to act as if Thomas shouldn't have spoken up at all; indeed, it's better that he DID speak up so that I can keep calling him dumb.
NHL pundits are doing just that, though, trying to silence of dismiss Thomas' statements as not even worth discussing (And yet, they let notorious thought criminal Don Cherry still run free). This isn't just the wrong tactic; it's also pretty weird in the world of sports. Aren't we used to athletes and such saying conservative, or at least libertarian things? When Albert Pujols and Tony La Russa went to some dumb Glen Beck rally, we heard some cosmopolitan Cardinal fans wring their hands (most notably Idol of the Blog Will Leitch), but for the most part, it passed without comment. When Rush Limbaugh sat in the Patriots' owner's box for the Super Bowl, the most anyone said was booger jokes.
I don't quite know why the NHL punditocracy is reacting differently (my guess is it's because NHL pundits are a little more liberal, since they all live in Canadien or northern U.S. cities are are pretty used to covering a lot of international players), but it's unfortunate. It's actually got a parallel with how the NFL pundit class is treating Giselle right now. In both cases, we've got someone with fame/expertise in one field opining about another. And maybe their opinions are misguided and ill-informed, but no one's really explaining what they're getting wrong, they're all just saying, "LOL, STFU Giselle/Thomas". At this point, the biggest difference is probably that Giselle's never eaten a cheeseburger.
Listen, I know being a progressive sports fan is hard. The big name players are all rich, too many of them are religious, the even-richer owners hold way too many of the cards, the system rewards selfishness way too much, war imagery and rhetoric is far too prevalent, etc. But I think any list of progressive "First Principles" would include a broad view of freedom of speech. And that means that the solution to dumb speech is MORE speech.
In other words, if you, like me, don't like what Thomas said, you need to engage on the issue, not just act like he shouldn't have spoken up. It's harder, but hey, that just means it's more worth it.
Anyway, I guess at some point I had to address Tim Thomas' recent political statements, considering that whenever someone talks to me about the President, they refer to him as "YA BOY, Barack Obama".
(And he IS ma boy, so step to the right, haters. Well, further to the right, if that's possible at this point.)
Now, Thomas' statements are ridiculous. But the proper response to Thomas' dumb statements is to explain why it's dumb (here, I'll start: the birth control "mandate" is not at all about religious freedom- indeed, the Catholic Bishops' position represents an infringement of the religious freedom of employees of Catholic employers, who may not hold the same religious views as the bishops. And the "FIRST THEY CAME!" speech is so cliched, I'm actually asleep right now just from typing the first three words of it). The proper response is NOT to act as if Thomas shouldn't have spoken up at all; indeed, it's better that he DID speak up so that I can keep calling him dumb.
NHL pundits are doing just that, though, trying to silence of dismiss Thomas' statements as not even worth discussing (And yet, they let notorious thought criminal Don Cherry still run free). This isn't just the wrong tactic; it's also pretty weird in the world of sports. Aren't we used to athletes and such saying conservative, or at least libertarian things? When Albert Pujols and Tony La Russa went to some dumb Glen Beck rally, we heard some cosmopolitan Cardinal fans wring their hands (most notably Idol of the Blog Will Leitch), but for the most part, it passed without comment. When Rush Limbaugh sat in the Patriots' owner's box for the Super Bowl, the most anyone said was booger jokes.
I don't quite know why the NHL punditocracy is reacting differently (my guess is it's because NHL pundits are a little more liberal, since they all live in Canadien or northern U.S. cities are are pretty used to covering a lot of international players), but it's unfortunate. It's actually got a parallel with how the NFL pundit class is treating Giselle right now. In both cases, we've got someone with fame/expertise in one field opining about another. And maybe their opinions are misguided and ill-informed, but no one's really explaining what they're getting wrong, they're all just saying, "LOL, STFU Giselle/Thomas". At this point, the biggest difference is probably that Giselle's never eaten a cheeseburger.
Listen, I know being a progressive sports fan is hard. The big name players are all rich, too many of them are religious, the even-richer owners hold way too many of the cards, the system rewards selfishness way too much, war imagery and rhetoric is far too prevalent, etc. But I think any list of progressive "First Principles" would include a broad view of freedom of speech. And that means that the solution to dumb speech is MORE speech.
In other words, if you, like me, don't like what Thomas said, you need to engage on the issue, not just act like he shouldn't have spoken up. It's harder, but hey, that just means it's more worth it.
Super Bowl Post Mortem
The New York Football Giants (and that's the only Berman-ism I can stand) went 9-7 in the regular season this year. Then they won the Super Bowl.
This is, of course, what you get with a single-elimination playoff structure with one game rounds. Sometimes, weird shit is going to happen- a blown call, a QB having a bad day, an ill-timed injury, hell, even bad hops are going to decide some of these games- and thus, some teams' seasons. (The same is true, to some extent, with any playoff system. Baseball's post season has rounds of 5, 7, and 7 games, and they haven't exactly avoided flukey champions).
But y'know what? Playoffs are fun and exciting precisely BECAUSE anything can happen when the stakes are that high. Hell, I figure watching a six seed beat a #1 is one of the divine pleasures of being sports fan (so long as you're closer in sympathy to the #6). So I'm not really interested in relitigating the role of the playoffs; they're fun, we all have fun with 'em, and they make a metric choda-ton of money, they're not going anywhere.
What I'm more interested in is if we're really sure that the Giants were such a mediocre team. Because here's the thing: Yeah, a half dozen playoff games are a lousy amount of data points to determine who the best team is.
But 16 regular season games aren't that much better.
Look at the evidence. The Giants spent the first half of their season plagued by injuries. Justin Tuck. Osi Umenyiora. Most of their defensive corps was banged up until the last few weeks. I'm sure true Giants fans can name a dozen other things- let's just call them X, Y, and Z.
By the time the playoffs rolled around, though, they were healthy again, X, Y, and Z were solved (like in math class!). And perhaps consequently, the Giants started winning some games. In other words, I think it's fair to argue that the Giants' regular season was flukey, and their playoff run was more representative of their skill.
It's kind of fashionable amongst the more nerdy segments of sports fandom (and I consider myself that) to decry playoffs, saying that they're too small a sample size to really tell us who the best teams were. But when you're already working with a small sample, and you've got some reason to doubt some of the results in that sample, aren't ANY more data points good? In other words, aren't their situations where the playoffs don't just obfuscate, but really illuminate?
I guess I'll put it to you guys: were the Giants a mediocre team that got some flukey wins in the playoffs, or did they have a flukey regular season, but became themselves in the playoffs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)