Today's collection of deep thinking and sports, gettin' all sexy together.
1) A heartwarming story of Matt Holliday and leadership. I think it's a mistake to say this kind of thing absolutely doesn't matter. I just think it matters in an entirely quantifiable, observable way. That is, if it's going to matter, it's going to be because Kelton Wong benefits from the workouts, and his numbers improve, leading to more wins for the Cardinals.
2) Michael McCann breaks down the legal consequences of the Saints' bounty pool. Some of these are stretches, but almost all of these will be filed.
3) Sticking with the Saints, check out Friend of the Blog Chip's response to yesterday's last Saints post. I don't agree with him that this isn't newsworthy, but it's a good perspective, and he's dead on right that this is just one facet of sports' problem with injuries.
4) Junior Hockey in North America is moving toward banning fighting. The argument against this appears to be that the players just won't be ready for fighting in the NHL if they don't fight at the junior levels. Okay, so, don't fight in the NHL.
5) I wish I had something interesting to say about baseball's new playoff system that 'Duk over at Big League Stew didn't already cover. I feel like we're going to have to see how it plays out in practice.
What do you guys have?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Born This Way: The NHL and Gay Tolerance
Patrick Burke, scout for the Flyers and son of the Maple Leafs GM, has started a campaign called "You Can Play", with the laudable goal of stamping out "casual homophobia" in the NHL. "Casual homophobia" is defined as those times when you use a gay slur but aren't really degrading someone's sexuality. Like, "Stop being a fag" when you mean "Stop being a jerk." It's the kind of stuff that seems small to the people who aren't affected by it- I've certainly done it- but can create a climate of intolerance if people are just allowed to continue it unthinkingly.
In practice, this really isn't much different than the NBA's efforts to end a similar problem, though the NHL is being more proactive (the NBA only took action after Kobe Bryant and Joakim Noah got in trouble for publicly using slurs, though the NBA also cunningly used those two's desire to make amends to help sell the message). It's also fairly similar to the several MLB teams that have recorded "It Gets Better" videos.
But what does stand out from these other efforts is the specific players the Patrick Burke has recruited. To wit:
Rick Nash of the Columbus Blue Jackets; Duncan Keith of the Chicago Blackhawks; Brian Boyle of the New York Rangers; Matt Moulson of the New York Islanders; Joffrey Lupul of the Toronto Maple Leafs; Claude Giroux of the Philadelphia Flyers; Daniel Alfredsson of the Ottawa Senators; Scott Hartnell of the Philadelphia Flyers; Corey Perry of the Anaheim Ducks; Andy Greene of the New Jersey Devils; Dion Phaneuf of the Toronto Maple Leafs; and Henrik Lundqvist of the New York Rangers.
That list is heavy on defenders, goalies, and assorted "tuff guys". It's light on flashy, skill-based forwards, even though some of them are bigger names (say, Ovechkin and Crosy, if we're still counting Cros as a hockey player). In other words, the list seems purposely made up of guys more stereotypically masculine, which is probably a smarter way to deliver the message. I suppose it will only really matter along the margins, but still, it's easy to imagine a lot of old time hockey guys dismissing, say, Patrick Kane's thoughts on integration.
Like I said, that's not a big deal, but it's good to see a worthy campaign play even the small deals so shrewdly. And "If You Can Play, You Can Play" is pretty much the ideal we're all striving for, right?
In practice, this really isn't much different than the NBA's efforts to end a similar problem, though the NHL is being more proactive (the NBA only took action after Kobe Bryant and Joakim Noah got in trouble for publicly using slurs, though the NBA also cunningly used those two's desire to make amends to help sell the message). It's also fairly similar to the several MLB teams that have recorded "It Gets Better" videos.
But what does stand out from these other efforts is the specific players the Patrick Burke has recruited. To wit:
Rick Nash of the Columbus Blue Jackets; Duncan Keith of the Chicago Blackhawks; Brian Boyle of the New York Rangers; Matt Moulson of the New York Islanders; Joffrey Lupul of the Toronto Maple Leafs; Claude Giroux of the Philadelphia Flyers; Daniel Alfredsson of the Ottawa Senators; Scott Hartnell of the Philadelphia Flyers; Corey Perry of the Anaheim Ducks; Andy Greene of the New Jersey Devils; Dion Phaneuf of the Toronto Maple Leafs; and Henrik Lundqvist of the New York Rangers.
That list is heavy on defenders, goalies, and assorted "tuff guys". It's light on flashy, skill-based forwards, even though some of them are bigger names (say, Ovechkin and Crosy, if we're still counting Cros as a hockey player). In other words, the list seems purposely made up of guys more stereotypically masculine, which is probably a smarter way to deliver the message. I suppose it will only really matter along the margins, but still, it's easy to imagine a lot of old time hockey guys dismissing, say, Patrick Kane's thoughts on integration.
Like I said, that's not a big deal, but it's good to see a worthy campaign play even the small deals so shrewdly. And "If You Can Play, You Can Play" is pretty much the ideal we're all striving for, right?
Faster Than My Bullet: Baseball, the Houston Colt .45s, and Promoting Violence
This is the Houston Astros' 50th Anniversary, and all indications are that they will celebrate by losing two games for each year they've been around. They're also going to wear a bunch of throwback jerseys, including one from the earliest days as the Houston Colt .45s.
But hold up, slow up, stop, control, says the MLB Commissioner's office. Houston can't display the Colt .45s logo- that is, a smoking gun- on their jerseys.
I'm torn on this. Generally speaking, I'm uncomfortable around guns and sensitive to policies that want to add a few more measures of control to them. On the other hand, "Colt .45s" is an awesome, evocative team name, perfect for Texas, and the logo is kind of cool.
In a broader sense, I'm not really sure what Baseball is accomplishing here. Any time Baseball wants to try to help decrease gun violence- or at least, not offer tacit support of gun culture- I'm right behind 'em. And the game certainly has every right to protect and maintain it's brand, and if that includes eschewing the imagery of violent weapons, very well. I certainly wouldn't argue that the New York Glocks or the San Francisco AK-47s would be team names chosen in good taste.
But at the same time, that logo is a stylized drawing of an Old West-style revolver. Isn't that a little antiquated?. In fact, it's probably a little closer to the Braves' tomahawk chop than it is anything that promotes violence in the modern world.
I dunno. On balance, I suppose I don't mind Baseball doing this. I just wonder if they couldn't have chosen their battles better.
But hold up, slow up, stop, control, says the MLB Commissioner's office. Houston can't display the Colt .45s logo- that is, a smoking gun- on their jerseys.
I'm torn on this. Generally speaking, I'm uncomfortable around guns and sensitive to policies that want to add a few more measures of control to them. On the other hand, "Colt .45s" is an awesome, evocative team name, perfect for Texas, and the logo is kind of cool.
In a broader sense, I'm not really sure what Baseball is accomplishing here. Any time Baseball wants to try to help decrease gun violence- or at least, not offer tacit support of gun culture- I'm right behind 'em. And the game certainly has every right to protect and maintain it's brand, and if that includes eschewing the imagery of violent weapons, very well. I certainly wouldn't argue that the New York Glocks or the San Francisco AK-47s would be team names chosen in good taste.
But at the same time, that logo is a stylized drawing of an Old West-style revolver. Isn't that a little antiquated?. In fact, it's probably a little closer to the Braves' tomahawk chop than it is anything that promotes violence in the modern world.
I dunno. On balance, I suppose I don't mind Baseball doing this. I just wonder if they couldn't have chosen their battles better.
Fight Test: How Hockey Media is Covering Violence in the Game
The big viral video in the hockey world this last week is here, where Mike Milbury and Jeremy Roenick get in a very contentious, almost physical, confrontation over Eric Nystrom's (really objectionably) hit on Kris Letang. It's actually a little embarrassing if you think of these guys as professional broadcasters. They talk over each other and interrupt, they clench their fists and puff their chests, and at the end, it descends into personal insults and angry recriminations. Roenick may well never back on set with Milbury.
In a sense, I can understand why the confrontation escalated so quickly. Roenick had great success in- and thus, was personally validated by- a system of hockey that did not go nearly as far in policing hits like this. I'm sure that on some level, he feels like any attempt to criticize that system is an attempt to denigrate his accomplishments. Milbury, meanwhile, while a former tough guy (in a much tougher era of the NHL to begin with) is also a hockey dad, and I'm sure he's thinking of his son as the concussion statistics swell and more players see an early end to their careers. It gets personal because it IS personal for these guys. It gets ugly because this is an ugly subject.
But the thing is, NBC didn't have to air it.
I just don't see what the viewers got out of this segment. It's just two men arguing past each other. Nobody challenges Roenick on his assertion that it was on Letang to protect himself (and it would have been easy, just ask, "Okay, how?"). Nobody refutes Milbury when he says Nystrom went off the puck and straight for the hit (though, of course, it'd be hard to refute him on that). Nobody explains the rules on hits, nobody says what the players could have done, nobody examines how the play could have developed (besides Roenick's ridiculous "What if Letang got the puck and skated all the way down the ice and scored an easy goal?" hypothetical). Milbury tries to provide a little bit of context for the debate on hits and concussions, but it's just one stat screen that they both blow past very quickly. This does nothing to educate, inform, or enlighten viewers about the world of hockey.
And it wasn't meant to. Watch the beginning of the video again. The host says that Roenick is brought out specifically BECAUSE he disagrees with Milbury. And look at the two men- they're tense from the very first second. This was a planned argument. It was a set up for these two men to get ugly. It was "Crossfire" on sports, and between Around the Horn and Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless, we have way too much of that shit already. Just men competing to see how loud they can yell at each other, and eventually, how personally they can insult each other. Fans get nothing from it, and sports look worse for it.
Hockey hits are a very important topic, and the debate is probably more necessary than the one on fighting. But the debate has to be real, not just Roenick trading his reducto ad absurdiam crap for Milbury's defensive peacocking. Anything else is an insult to the fans.
In a sense, I can understand why the confrontation escalated so quickly. Roenick had great success in- and thus, was personally validated by- a system of hockey that did not go nearly as far in policing hits like this. I'm sure that on some level, he feels like any attempt to criticize that system is an attempt to denigrate his accomplishments. Milbury, meanwhile, while a former tough guy (in a much tougher era of the NHL to begin with) is also a hockey dad, and I'm sure he's thinking of his son as the concussion statistics swell and more players see an early end to their careers. It gets personal because it IS personal for these guys. It gets ugly because this is an ugly subject.
But the thing is, NBC didn't have to air it.
I just don't see what the viewers got out of this segment. It's just two men arguing past each other. Nobody challenges Roenick on his assertion that it was on Letang to protect himself (and it would have been easy, just ask, "Okay, how?"). Nobody refutes Milbury when he says Nystrom went off the puck and straight for the hit (though, of course, it'd be hard to refute him on that). Nobody explains the rules on hits, nobody says what the players could have done, nobody examines how the play could have developed (besides Roenick's ridiculous "What if Letang got the puck and skated all the way down the ice and scored an easy goal?" hypothetical). Milbury tries to provide a little bit of context for the debate on hits and concussions, but it's just one stat screen that they both blow past very quickly. This does nothing to educate, inform, or enlighten viewers about the world of hockey.
And it wasn't meant to. Watch the beginning of the video again. The host says that Roenick is brought out specifically BECAUSE he disagrees with Milbury. And look at the two men- they're tense from the very first second. This was a planned argument. It was a set up for these two men to get ugly. It was "Crossfire" on sports, and between Around the Horn and Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless, we have way too much of that shit already. Just men competing to see how loud they can yell at each other, and eventually, how personally they can insult each other. Fans get nothing from it, and sports look worse for it.
Hockey hits are a very important topic, and the debate is probably more necessary than the one on fighting. But the debate has to be real, not just Roenick trading his reducto ad absurdiam crap for Milbury's defensive peacocking. Anything else is an insult to the fans.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
All Over The World: Soccer and Basic Nationalism
The U.S. beat Italy in a friendly for the first time in 11 matches. This is a big deal for the U.S. Soccer team, and one would hope it can only be good news for Soccer in America. Of course, the lack of media coverage isn't encouraging, but let's let it ride a little, huh? Anyway, the lack of media coverage of soccer is a whole 'nother blog post, and I'm not sure it would be an interesting one.
What's interesting to me is that the new head coach, Juergen Klinsmann, is getting a lot of credit, especially for his focus on getting players with dual citizenship to commit to the U.S. This is what really fascinates me about soccer. The international tournaments are so important, and no country's national league is so obviously dominant, that we get to see how nationalism plays out for these athletes. I can't think of any other sport where you get that. Baseball draws from a surprising number of countries for the "National Pastime", but international competitions are an afterthought, while MLB is indisputably the most important league, so the players only rarely have to think about which team they'll play for (the World Baseball Classic comes to mind, but has anyone cared about that since the first one? Has there even been a second one? NOBODY KNOWS BECAUSE NOBODY CARES). Hockey and basketball are both pretty international, but the Olympics aren't the be-all to end-all, and the North American leagues are, again, the consensus for the most talented, important leagues. And of course, football is almost exclusively an American thing.
But in soccer? Well, the World Cup is almost certainly the ultimate prize, even though it only comes around every four years. And as for the "best" league...well, who knows? EPL? La Liga? Even Bundesliga has its champions.
And thus, players have some reason to really consider what team they want to play for, and what country they want to represent. I think what we're seeing is that nationalism isn't the ultimate factor. Not just in the regular leagues- obviously, money is the primary motivator there, and I think that's just fine. But even in the international tournaments and friendlies, I think it's clear that players aren't just thinking about their country of origin.
Put it this way. Klinsmann is having some success convincing German-Americans with dual citizenship to switch to playing for the U.S. If nationalism were the primary factor...well...if their stronger ties were to the U.S., then they'd already be playing for it, wouldn't they? And if their stronger ties were to Germany, well, Klinsmann shouldn't be able to convince them to move over, right? So it doesn't make much sense that they'd be switching just because Klinsmann is talking to them. On the other hand, if something else, like, say, playing for legendary figure in soccer means quite a bit to these players, too, then finally, it all makes sense.
I don't really have much of a problem with this. I think pride in your country is worth quite a bit, but at the same time, we should all strive to be citizens of the world, and not let a flag get in the way of our goals and values. But it's really fun that soccer, unlike the other major sports, really lets us see that play out.
What's interesting to me is that the new head coach, Juergen Klinsmann, is getting a lot of credit, especially for his focus on getting players with dual citizenship to commit to the U.S. This is what really fascinates me about soccer. The international tournaments are so important, and no country's national league is so obviously dominant, that we get to see how nationalism plays out for these athletes. I can't think of any other sport where you get that. Baseball draws from a surprising number of countries for the "National Pastime", but international competitions are an afterthought, while MLB is indisputably the most important league, so the players only rarely have to think about which team they'll play for (the World Baseball Classic comes to mind, but has anyone cared about that since the first one? Has there even been a second one? NOBODY KNOWS BECAUSE NOBODY CARES). Hockey and basketball are both pretty international, but the Olympics aren't the be-all to end-all, and the North American leagues are, again, the consensus for the most talented, important leagues. And of course, football is almost exclusively an American thing.
But in soccer? Well, the World Cup is almost certainly the ultimate prize, even though it only comes around every four years. And as for the "best" league...well, who knows? EPL? La Liga? Even Bundesliga has its champions.
And thus, players have some reason to really consider what team they want to play for, and what country they want to represent. I think what we're seeing is that nationalism isn't the ultimate factor. Not just in the regular leagues- obviously, money is the primary motivator there, and I think that's just fine. But even in the international tournaments and friendlies, I think it's clear that players aren't just thinking about their country of origin.
Put it this way. Klinsmann is having some success convincing German-Americans with dual citizenship to switch to playing for the U.S. If nationalism were the primary factor...well...if their stronger ties were to the U.S., then they'd already be playing for it, wouldn't they? And if their stronger ties were to Germany, well, Klinsmann shouldn't be able to convince them to move over, right? So it doesn't make much sense that they'd be switching just because Klinsmann is talking to them. On the other hand, if something else, like, say, playing for legendary figure in soccer means quite a bit to these players, too, then finally, it all makes sense.
I don't really have much of a problem with this. I think pride in your country is worth quite a bit, but at the same time, we should all strive to be citizens of the world, and not let a flag get in the way of our goals and values. But it's really fun that soccer, unlike the other major sports, really lets us see that play out.
Some More on the Saints
I said in the previous post that just punishing the Saints won't be enough. We also have to reform the culture around the NFL, because sure, it's just that fucking easy, isn't it Colby?
The fact is, it's really fucking hard, and I'm not sure how to even begin. Roger Gooddell really has tried to rein in the most despicable, violent hits. But at some point, I fear he's trying to beat up the ocean. Not only has he been mocked for his efforts, but really, how do you play football without the hits? And if you have to allow the hits, where do you draw the line so that it's clear what's acceptable and what isn't? How do you craft a punishment that actually deters players, and doesn't just make them do a loss/benefit calculation?
And if you're part of the sports media, and hits are a legitimate part of the game, how do you report on them, how do you note who is good at them, without in some way condoning them? How do you stop the fans from getting excited about them? Jesus, I've spent two blog posts soul-searching about them, and I still get excited about them.
This is why I'm worried that Troy Aikman is right. It's hard to separate football from the violence, and it's hard to keep justifying the violence- especially when it comes time for us to start thinking about letting some of our kids play football. This isn't hockey, where there are major leagues and tournaments that really tone down on the violence. How do you have football without tackling?
This is one of those times where I hope I'm not nearly as smart as I think I am.
The fact is, it's really fucking hard, and I'm not sure how to even begin. Roger Gooddell really has tried to rein in the most despicable, violent hits. But at some point, I fear he's trying to beat up the ocean. Not only has he been mocked for his efforts, but really, how do you play football without the hits? And if you have to allow the hits, where do you draw the line so that it's clear what's acceptable and what isn't? How do you craft a punishment that actually deters players, and doesn't just make them do a loss/benefit calculation?
And if you're part of the sports media, and hits are a legitimate part of the game, how do you report on them, how do you note who is good at them, without in some way condoning them? How do you stop the fans from getting excited about them? Jesus, I've spent two blog posts soul-searching about them, and I still get excited about them.
This is why I'm worried that Troy Aikman is right. It's hard to separate football from the violence, and it's hard to keep justifying the violence- especially when it comes time for us to start thinking about letting some of our kids play football. This isn't hockey, where there are major leagues and tournaments that really tone down on the violence. How do you have football without tackling?
This is one of those times where I hope I'm not nearly as smart as I think I am.
When the Saints Go Kicking Heads In
An official NFL investigation has reported that the New Orleans Saints maintained a "bounty pool" for the last three seasons, in which the defensive players were paid cash for injuring opposing players. The "pool" was maintained by defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, and head coach Sean Peyton knew about it (As did GM Mickey Loomis). Animaniac Blogger Mike got the ball rolling on this already, but this story is important enough to warrant a few posts. Don't be surprised if we return to it later this week.
Mike has admirably covered how horrible this is, and correctly noted that these players and coaches- in my mind, especially the coaches and GMs- need to be punished. My only addition is that that won't be enough.
The fact is, I'm barely surprised by this. I didn't predict it by any means, but there is an easy, logical progression from the general demeanor of the NFL and football media to actions just like this. It's not just that hits are a fundamental part of the game, and that the field of play creates several "blind spots" (such as the bottom of the pile) where the players can outright attack each other with impunity- though they are, and it does. It's not just that injuring a star player is an effective- though abhorrent- tactic. It's that we openly laud a lot of the violence in the NFL.
We count down the biggest hits on Tuesday morning, with Chris Berman and his crew hooting and hollaring all the way (Note: the NFL has asked that we stop doing this. It has also been mocked for doing so). Roger Gooddell's efforts to reign in the most violent excesses of the game are widely mocked by the media and harshly criticized by the players. "Bounties" have actually been openly talked about in fan circles for YEARS, and while nobody holds Kissing Suzy Kolber up as an authority, the language is still out there. And I'm as bad as anyone. I've gone into multiple games openly rooting for Brett Favre, Aaron RAHDJAHS! and Tim Tebow to break their collarbones (must be something about quarterbacks with ostentatious touchdown celebrations, I guess).
My point is, current NFL culture incentivizes a lot of violent behavior, and does not really explain where the line is. And as that's the case, of course some people are going to cross the line. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish the Saints players and coaches; the fact is, EVERY team was operating in the same culture, and the Saints are the only ones who did something so ridiculous (...I hope?). So, obviously, players, coaches, and teams still have a choice here. But when the entire defensive organization of a team is implicated, along with the head coach and GM, this clearly goes beyond the "few bad apples" defense. The NFL must punish the Saints for this, but if it doesn't also change the culture that allowed this, it won't be enough.
One more point on this. The Saints were ranked 24th in defense for 2011. 25th in '09, when the Saints won the Super Bowl. 2010 was obviously different, with the team coming in 4th, but still, the trend is clear: the "Bounty Pool" was not producing appreciably better defense. And if all the violence isn't producing better football, what's the point, exactly?
Mike has admirably covered how horrible this is, and correctly noted that these players and coaches- in my mind, especially the coaches and GMs- need to be punished. My only addition is that that won't be enough.
The fact is, I'm barely surprised by this. I didn't predict it by any means, but there is an easy, logical progression from the general demeanor of the NFL and football media to actions just like this. It's not just that hits are a fundamental part of the game, and that the field of play creates several "blind spots" (such as the bottom of the pile) where the players can outright attack each other with impunity- though they are, and it does. It's not just that injuring a star player is an effective- though abhorrent- tactic. It's that we openly laud a lot of the violence in the NFL.
We count down the biggest hits on Tuesday morning, with Chris Berman and his crew hooting and hollaring all the way (Note: the NFL has asked that we stop doing this. It has also been mocked for doing so). Roger Gooddell's efforts to reign in the most violent excesses of the game are widely mocked by the media and harshly criticized by the players. "Bounties" have actually been openly talked about in fan circles for YEARS, and while nobody holds Kissing Suzy Kolber up as an authority, the language is still out there. And I'm as bad as anyone. I've gone into multiple games openly rooting for Brett Favre, Aaron RAHDJAHS! and Tim Tebow to break their collarbones (must be something about quarterbacks with ostentatious touchdown celebrations, I guess).
My point is, current NFL culture incentivizes a lot of violent behavior, and does not really explain where the line is. And as that's the case, of course some people are going to cross the line. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish the Saints players and coaches; the fact is, EVERY team was operating in the same culture, and the Saints are the only ones who did something so ridiculous (...I hope?). So, obviously, players, coaches, and teams still have a choice here. But when the entire defensive organization of a team is implicated, along with the head coach and GM, this clearly goes beyond the "few bad apples" defense. The NFL must punish the Saints for this, but if it doesn't also change the culture that allowed this, it won't be enough.
One more point on this. The Saints were ranked 24th in defense for 2011. 25th in '09, when the Saints won the Super Bowl. 2010 was obviously different, with the team coming in 4th, but still, the trend is clear: the "Bounty Pool" was not producing appreciably better defense. And if all the violence isn't producing better football, what's the point, exactly?
Friday, March 2, 2012
Stepping In
So this happened.
Now, obviously (I hope) we can all agree that this is horrific. But I honestly think part of the problem is that we all look at each other and say "oh, the league will penalize this appropriately."
Maybe we shouldn't wait or hope for that. Maybe, MAYBE, we should look at this as support for lawsuits. If I were an offensive player, and I received an injury, ANY injury, against the New Orleans Saints, I would be filing a case in federal court against the players, the coaches, and the ownership of that team.
In addition to any other specific claims, I would be making specific intentional and negligent tort claims via respondeat superior logic against the team. Setting a bounty against opposing players isn't just barbaric, it is illegal.
Think about this. What other field are you allowed to announce a 4 or 5 figure reward for someone physically injuring a rival of yours? That doesn't happen, but we're supposed to look the other way because what, it's sports? If anything we should be looking at this even harder because it's a GAME. I can't imagine a more shameful curtain pulled aside absent Pete Rose betting on the game.
I don't expect careers to end over this, which is a travesty. But our court system can, and should, consider this as added evidence to hit everyone involved where it most counts: their wallets. The fact that these people will finally realize they aren't above the law or common human decency should be a bonus.
Now, obviously (I hope) we can all agree that this is horrific. But I honestly think part of the problem is that we all look at each other and say "oh, the league will penalize this appropriately."
Maybe we shouldn't wait or hope for that. Maybe, MAYBE, we should look at this as support for lawsuits. If I were an offensive player, and I received an injury, ANY injury, against the New Orleans Saints, I would be filing a case in federal court against the players, the coaches, and the ownership of that team.
In addition to any other specific claims, I would be making specific intentional and negligent tort claims via respondeat superior logic against the team. Setting a bounty against opposing players isn't just barbaric, it is illegal.
Think about this. What other field are you allowed to announce a 4 or 5 figure reward for someone physically injuring a rival of yours? That doesn't happen, but we're supposed to look the other way because what, it's sports? If anything we should be looking at this even harder because it's a GAME. I can't imagine a more shameful curtain pulled aside absent Pete Rose betting on the game.
I don't expect careers to end over this, which is a travesty. But our court system can, and should, consider this as added evidence to hit everyone involved where it most counts: their wallets. The fact that these people will finally realize they aren't above the law or common human decency should be a bonus.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Free Throw Line Between Genius and Madness
I was recently asked what it was that made Michael Jordan so great. I had to think about it for a minute, because I think there are a lot of factors that combine to make Michael Jordan into JORDAN.
Now, let me first say that while I live in Chicago and root for the Bulls now, I did not grow up a Bulls fan. I grew up in Texas. I didn't even watch pro-basketball until high school (football being king in Texas). Obviously I saw the occasional game, but I didn't actually follow the sport until 1994 when one of my best friends invited me to watch the Houston Rockets in the Finals against the New York Knicks. That cemented me as a Rockets fan through the end of the Dream Era, and I hated the Bulls in the late 90s. All of that being said I still think Michael Jordan is the best shooting guard of all time, and may be the best basketball player of all time. But why?
There are the numbers, of course. He's third on the all-time scoring list while being tied with Wilt Chamberlain for first in points-per-game. Third in all time steals ranking fifth in steals per game. Hit a third of all the three pointers he ever took. The awards. The highlight clips of all his game winning shots that have entered the cultural zeitgeist.
There are other cultural factors that I'll return to in another post (mostly to do with marketing and history).
There is also the mentality. Now we can go back and forth about the degree to which intangibles are bullshit, whether Jeter gets more credit than he should, whether Tebow's 4th quarter heroics are a function of will or a function of defensive excellence by his team couple with defensive breakdown by his opponents (like going to a prevent defense that softens up short passing zones and opens up running lanes to prevent big plays when a tight man coverage plus a blitz has been working all day). And I am going to be the first one to say that I don't care how much you want to win, you still need a certain level of physical skill and ability. Tiger Woods on his worst, hungover, post-divorce day will beat me over 18 holes even if I know my family is back in the clubhouse with a gun to their heads. Mentality though can give you the edge when all other things are equal or close to equal.
There has been some research recently on the prevalence of sociopathic tendencies amongst politicians and CEOS. See here. I find it fascinating, because it boils down to this: the traits that we associate with sociopathic behavior, while crippling in most social contexts, are a boon in the more "cut throat" worlds of politics and business. Lack of empathy, comfort with deception, these are things we almost expect out of the rich and powerful. Lo and behold, evidence of sociopathy may be as high as four times the normal population rate amongst that sector.
So are there are other mental disorders that can benefit you in other areas? We laugh at anal-retentive, type A personalities, but no one wants a scatter-brained accountant. We kind of expect artists to be daydreamers. What about athletes?
I'm not saying Michael Jordan is a sociopath, but he is hyper-competitive. No matter how humble and nice his commercial persona was, on the court Michael Jordan was an asshole. He wanted to win every night he stepped out there. Actually no, he didn't want to win, he wanted to beat you. He wanted to curb stomp you and have you know it was him that did it. If you tried to forfeit he might stalk back to the locker room, duct tape you into your uniform, and drag you onto the court so he could destroy you in front of every girl you'd ever had a crush on. The man invented insults that other teams never said about him, convinced himself they were real, and then used that slight to fuel himself. The flu game wasn't about beating the Jazz, it was probably just to show the common cold that he wouldn't take its shit. The man didn't want to win, he needed to win. It was a psychological compulsion, probably of such a powerful nature that it should be classified a disorder, but it drove him to relentlessly improve his game. In the end, it made him a champion, and for that we forgive all (see Kobe, hotel, Denver).
Now, let me first say that while I live in Chicago and root for the Bulls now, I did not grow up a Bulls fan. I grew up in Texas. I didn't even watch pro-basketball until high school (football being king in Texas). Obviously I saw the occasional game, but I didn't actually follow the sport until 1994 when one of my best friends invited me to watch the Houston Rockets in the Finals against the New York Knicks. That cemented me as a Rockets fan through the end of the Dream Era, and I hated the Bulls in the late 90s. All of that being said I still think Michael Jordan is the best shooting guard of all time, and may be the best basketball player of all time. But why?
There are the numbers, of course. He's third on the all-time scoring list while being tied with Wilt Chamberlain for first in points-per-game. Third in all time steals ranking fifth in steals per game. Hit a third of all the three pointers he ever took. The awards. The highlight clips of all his game winning shots that have entered the cultural zeitgeist.
There are other cultural factors that I'll return to in another post (mostly to do with marketing and history).
There is also the mentality. Now we can go back and forth about the degree to which intangibles are bullshit, whether Jeter gets more credit than he should, whether Tebow's 4th quarter heroics are a function of will or a function of defensive excellence by his team couple with defensive breakdown by his opponents (like going to a prevent defense that softens up short passing zones and opens up running lanes to prevent big plays when a tight man coverage plus a blitz has been working all day). And I am going to be the first one to say that I don't care how much you want to win, you still need a certain level of physical skill and ability. Tiger Woods on his worst, hungover, post-divorce day will beat me over 18 holes even if I know my family is back in the clubhouse with a gun to their heads. Mentality though can give you the edge when all other things are equal or close to equal.
There has been some research recently on the prevalence of sociopathic tendencies amongst politicians and CEOS. See here. I find it fascinating, because it boils down to this: the traits that we associate with sociopathic behavior, while crippling in most social contexts, are a boon in the more "cut throat" worlds of politics and business. Lack of empathy, comfort with deception, these are things we almost expect out of the rich and powerful. Lo and behold, evidence of sociopathy may be as high as four times the normal population rate amongst that sector.
So are there are other mental disorders that can benefit you in other areas? We laugh at anal-retentive, type A personalities, but no one wants a scatter-brained accountant. We kind of expect artists to be daydreamers. What about athletes?
I'm not saying Michael Jordan is a sociopath, but he is hyper-competitive. No matter how humble and nice his commercial persona was, on the court Michael Jordan was an asshole. He wanted to win every night he stepped out there. Actually no, he didn't want to win, he wanted to beat you. He wanted to curb stomp you and have you know it was him that did it. If you tried to forfeit he might stalk back to the locker room, duct tape you into your uniform, and drag you onto the court so he could destroy you in front of every girl you'd ever had a crush on. The man invented insults that other teams never said about him, convinced himself they were real, and then used that slight to fuel himself. The flu game wasn't about beating the Jazz, it was probably just to show the common cold that he wouldn't take its shit. The man didn't want to win, he needed to win. It was a psychological compulsion, probably of such a powerful nature that it should be classified a disorder, but it drove him to relentlessly improve his game. In the end, it made him a champion, and for that we forgive all (see Kobe, hotel, Denver).
Belated Black History Month Post
Jesus, this blog is a shit show. I had a Black History Month post all ready to go, I was gonna put it up yesterday and then, boom, nothing. We had to go and talk about Penn State AGAIN. Sorry about that, folks. Let's make up for it now.
You see, every sports network likes to throw up something for BHM, and they all just like to talk about Jackie and then get back to, I dunno, talking about who's the Most Now or whatever retardery ESPN is getting into this week. And I hate that. There's a lot other interesting people to look at. Crusaders like Arthur Ashe. People who held real power, like Wayne Embry, the first black NBA exec. Trailblazers in leagues that are still grappling with integration (Aren't we all?) Like Willie O'Ree in the NHL*. Or hell, the history of blacks in NFL, from the their sporadic numbers in the early century to the de facto color line in the 30s and 40s through the Rooney Rule today (boy howdy, are we going to get into the Rooney rule sometime).
*- O'Ree really fascinates me because he played for the Bruins, right around the time the Red Sox were finally giving in on integration. Boston remained a hotbed of racial tension until the 80s, but there he was, before Pumpsie Green, even.
But the fact is, baseball is my area of expertise, so...yeah, I have something to say about Jackie.
The legend goes that everyone- Branch Rickey, the Dodgers, Jackie Robinson himself- knew that Robinson was not the best African American baseball player in the country. But, he had the best temperament, the best demeanor. He was the one deemed most capable of dealing with the pressure- and yes, outright HATE- of being the First African American in Major League Baseball.
From everything I've read, this is true. And demeanor is important. Not because of bullshit like Derek Jeter's "intangible leadership qualities" or whatever, but because a proper demeanor is what turns raw talent into tangible accomplishments. I would say the big difference between Michael Jordan and Lebron James is demeanor. So, I don't want to dismiss Jackie's incredible demeanor.
But our constant focus on it is still horseshit.
Because here's the thing, if Jackie Robinson wasn't the best African American player, he was still REALLY FREAKIN' GOOD. His career slash line was .311/.409/.474. Six time All-Star. 197 stolen bases. That's a damn good career, regardless of the background.
I think all the talk of "he wasn't the BEST, but..." ends up just diminishing Jackie. It's not intentionally racial, it's more about the fundamental bias of sportswriters in favor of "character" and "leadership" and, again, "intangibles". But the effect is the same- it makes Jackie Robinson sound a bit more like an Affirmative Action hire rather than the legitimate Hall of Famer he is.
You see, every sports network likes to throw up something for BHM, and they all just like to talk about Jackie and then get back to, I dunno, talking about who's the Most Now or whatever retardery ESPN is getting into this week. And I hate that. There's a lot other interesting people to look at. Crusaders like Arthur Ashe. People who held real power, like Wayne Embry, the first black NBA exec. Trailblazers in leagues that are still grappling with integration (Aren't we all?) Like Willie O'Ree in the NHL*. Or hell, the history of blacks in NFL, from the their sporadic numbers in the early century to the de facto color line in the 30s and 40s through the Rooney Rule today (boy howdy, are we going to get into the Rooney rule sometime).
*- O'Ree really fascinates me because he played for the Bruins, right around the time the Red Sox were finally giving in on integration. Boston remained a hotbed of racial tension until the 80s, but there he was, before Pumpsie Green, even.
But the fact is, baseball is my area of expertise, so...yeah, I have something to say about Jackie.
The legend goes that everyone- Branch Rickey, the Dodgers, Jackie Robinson himself- knew that Robinson was not the best African American baseball player in the country. But, he had the best temperament, the best demeanor. He was the one deemed most capable of dealing with the pressure- and yes, outright HATE- of being the First African American in Major League Baseball.
From everything I've read, this is true. And demeanor is important. Not because of bullshit like Derek Jeter's "intangible leadership qualities" or whatever, but because a proper demeanor is what turns raw talent into tangible accomplishments. I would say the big difference between Michael Jordan and Lebron James is demeanor. So, I don't want to dismiss Jackie's incredible demeanor.
But our constant focus on it is still horseshit.
Because here's the thing, if Jackie Robinson wasn't the best African American player, he was still REALLY FREAKIN' GOOD. His career slash line was .311/.409/.474. Six time All-Star. 197 stolen bases. That's a damn good career, regardless of the background.
I think all the talk of "he wasn't the BEST, but..." ends up just diminishing Jackie. It's not intentionally racial, it's more about the fundamental bias of sportswriters in favor of "character" and "leadership" and, again, "intangibles". But the effect is the same- it makes Jackie Robinson sound a bit more like an Affirmative Action hire rather than the legitimate Hall of Famer he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)