I'm generally weary of works that purport to examine the "season/game/play/drive/double-switch that changed the world". It's like the "Great Man" theory of history, and while individual agency and actors matter a lot, I think it ends up obscuring the broader societal trends that were really driving the action. I think that the single, discrete events in sports that have really changed the world are few and far between, and probably already covered to death.
That being said, I read this preview of Tim Wendel's "Summer of '68: The Summer That Changed Baseball, and America, Forever", and I didn't hate it. That's impressive, considering I'm sick to my dick of anything talking about 1968, the winner of the Boomer Generation's prestigious "You Just Don't Know What It Was Like, Man" award for 42 consecutive years. But this article, at least, focuses on what that year meant to some professional athletes, and those stories are interesting. It doesn't really argue that those athletes changed much of the Vietnam-montages-set-to-Jimmy-Hendrix-guitar-solos around them.
Instead, it indicates that the athletes were, just like everyone else, affected by the world around them. And if you- like me- spend a lot of time thinking and writing about how sports affect us, it's really useful to see the reverse, how broader society affects sports.
Sports histories aren't very interesting when they're a collection of scores and stats, and they're not very useful even when they include vivid descriptions of plays and games. But when they place the sports and athletes in the context of the rest of the world- in other words, when they're just a sort of context to help us understand what else was going on at the time- they're incredibly rewarding.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Let's End Today On a Positive Note
Over the weekend, a bunch of teams' pitchers and catchers reported to spring training. The rest are going to trickle in one by one over the next few days (here's a previous post with a URL to all the reporting dates). It's funny; baseball is played, in some professional capacity, for over seven months of the year. Literally, the majority of my life as a sports fan has been taken up by baseball. And I still miss it when it's gone.
I think that of all the bullshit we fans have to put up with- the owners' greed, the leagues' disregard for the players' safety, the players' selfishness, the other teams' fans' tribalism, the pundits' bullshit- the entire concept of the offseason is the hardest to deal with. We all know why there has to be an offseason- the players just cannot go year round, and even if they could, that would just make the games meaningless- but understanding why it must be kind of just makes it more galling.
So, goddamn am I glad to have baseball back.
(Someone Else's) BREAKING NEWS: Derrick Rose wants Pau Gasol
The Spanish news outlet Marca is reporting, and the website Sheridan Hoops is confirming, that Derrick Rose has told the Chicago Bulls' front office that he'd be pretty happy if they could swing a trade that would bring them L.A. Laker Pau Gasol in exchange for Carlos Boozer and some pieces-parts lying around in the basement of the United Center.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about this very trend, calling it (i.e.- stealing someone else's term for it) "the rise of the player/general manager." Looks like Rose is the newest man to seek that title. At this point, it's pretty much the mark of true superstardom- does your team listen to your roster demands? Great, see you at the ASG.
God, that previous post is horribly convoluted. Here's the cliff notes of my thoughts on the matter: GMs almost certainly know more about roster construction, and should have the final say. But you can't argue with players wanting more ownership of their destinies. Wholesale roster construction like the odious MV3 in Miami is obnoxious, but mere requests should be welcomed.
I wonder how these things go? How did Rose "let (this) be known) to Bulls' management? Was there a meeting? Did Rose start a letter writing campaign? Or is it much less formal? Did he just text Gar Foreman while out on the town? Is this maybe one big game of telephone and everyone's got it wrong, Rose just wants some Kung Pao Chicken? I don't get it...
A few weeks ago, I wrote about this very trend, calling it (i.e.- stealing someone else's term for it) "the rise of the player/general manager." Looks like Rose is the newest man to seek that title. At this point, it's pretty much the mark of true superstardom- does your team listen to your roster demands? Great, see you at the ASG.
God, that previous post is horribly convoluted. Here's the cliff notes of my thoughts on the matter: GMs almost certainly know more about roster construction, and should have the final say. But you can't argue with players wanting more ownership of their destinies. Wholesale roster construction like the odious MV3 in Miami is obnoxious, but mere requests should be welcomed.
I wonder how these things go? How did Rose "let (this) be known) to Bulls' management? Was there a meeting? Did Rose start a letter writing campaign? Or is it much less formal? Did he just text Gar Foreman while out on the town? Is this maybe one big game of telephone and everyone's got it wrong, Rose just wants some Kung Pao Chicken? I don't get it...
A LONG WALK HOME
This afternoon, my beloved Chicago Blackhawks beat their divisional rival the St. Louis Blues 3-1. This was their first game at home after a disastrous road trip. Since that road trip started, the Hawks' record is 9-3, and the three wins have all come in the last three games.
However, there's an old adage that a team is never as good as it looks on a winning streak, nor as bad as it looks on a losing streak. I think that's what we're looking at here. The Hawks woeful run of games caused them to drop from sixth in the division...to sixth in the division. They're eleven games over .500 with 71 points. Even the goalies- who have come in for the most criticism in the 9 game skid, and most of it was deserved- are 21-14 (Crawford) and 11-7 (Emery).
This is not to say that the 9 game skid wasn't pretty bad, or that the team is destined to hoist the Cup. It's certainly not to say that Crawford and Emery are perfectly fine goalies. It's just to say that, well, the season is long, and it's made up of a lot of parts that seem really great and a lot of parts that seem really horrible, and both ends of the spectrum don't really tell you much about the season as a whole.
There's this weird bifurcation in sports, where what is actually important- the season as whole- get abstracted into a stat line while what is actually a bit more frivolous- any single regular season game- is immediate, visceral, and exciting. This works for players; they don't have to think about being 8 points back in the standings, they just have to think about the next game, the next period, the next SHIFT, even. Just start with having one good shift the next time you're on the ice, right? Worry about the shift after that when you play it.
The role of the fan- and I do think fans have a role to play in sports- can't be broken down into discrete events quite so easily. I think we fans do need to spend a little more time taking the long view, remembering previous successes (some of which may not be as long ago as it seems) and recognizing that all it takes is one game, or one goal, or just one funny hop for a losing streak to end.
I'm not saying we should avoid the excitement and joy of a single game- watch me at a game, I cheer everything, include the announcement of the raffle winners- and I'm not saying we can't criticize the team when they're mired in a losing streak. I can talk about sample sizes and flukes all day long, but something clearly went wrong during the Hawks' 9 game losing streak, and it's fair to ask if that can't be fixed before the playoffs. Let's just keep in mind that this, too, will pass.
It's an almost Obama-esque commitment to keeping your cool, staying on an even keel, and playing the long game. And that's a lot to ask for a lot of us, myself included. But it's something to aspire to, at least.
However, there's an old adage that a team is never as good as it looks on a winning streak, nor as bad as it looks on a losing streak. I think that's what we're looking at here. The Hawks woeful run of games caused them to drop from sixth in the division...to sixth in the division. They're eleven games over .500 with 71 points. Even the goalies- who have come in for the most criticism in the 9 game skid, and most of it was deserved- are 21-14 (Crawford) and 11-7 (Emery).
This is not to say that the 9 game skid wasn't pretty bad, or that the team is destined to hoist the Cup. It's certainly not to say that Crawford and Emery are perfectly fine goalies. It's just to say that, well, the season is long, and it's made up of a lot of parts that seem really great and a lot of parts that seem really horrible, and both ends of the spectrum don't really tell you much about the season as a whole.
There's this weird bifurcation in sports, where what is actually important- the season as whole- get abstracted into a stat line while what is actually a bit more frivolous- any single regular season game- is immediate, visceral, and exciting. This works for players; they don't have to think about being 8 points back in the standings, they just have to think about the next game, the next period, the next SHIFT, even. Just start with having one good shift the next time you're on the ice, right? Worry about the shift after that when you play it.
The role of the fan- and I do think fans have a role to play in sports- can't be broken down into discrete events quite so easily. I think we fans do need to spend a little more time taking the long view, remembering previous successes (some of which may not be as long ago as it seems) and recognizing that all it takes is one game, or one goal, or just one funny hop for a losing streak to end.
I'm not saying we should avoid the excitement and joy of a single game- watch me at a game, I cheer everything, include the announcement of the raffle winners- and I'm not saying we can't criticize the team when they're mired in a losing streak. I can talk about sample sizes and flukes all day long, but something clearly went wrong during the Hawks' 9 game losing streak, and it's fair to ask if that can't be fixed before the playoffs. Let's just keep in mind that this, too, will pass.
It's an almost Obama-esque commitment to keeping your cool, staying on an even keel, and playing the long game. And that's a lot to ask for a lot of us, myself included. But it's something to aspire to, at least.
JEREMY LIN AND THE VALUE OF DIVERSITY
This is going to be part one in a continuing series that we'll call "Buzz Bissinger should shut the fuck up and just enjoy his well-deserved royalties from Friday Night Lights."
If you've been following the NBA even just enough to know what those letters stand for, then you've heard about Jeremy Lin. Sportswriter-cum-curmudgeon Buzz Bissinger certainly has. Here's his column. He makes some interesting points, such as saying that it's ridiculous to think that Lin is better than Jordan or Chamberlain.
It's important that Bissinger say this, as Sylvester Q. Nobody has been repeatedly making just that claim from his daily column in the Nowehere Daily Nothing-Courier.
The dutiful frisking of strawmen completed, Bissinger addresses the racial component of Lin's fame. YOU MEAN THAT JEREMY LIN IS ASIAN AND MOST OF THE NBA ISN'T? HEAVENS TO MURGATROID. I NEVER WOULD HAVE NOTICED IF A GROWN MAN NAMED BUZZ (who does not have the excuse of having walked on the goddamn moon) HADN'T TOLD ME.
The problem here isn't that Bissinger is obliviousness to the most obvious facts of the situation, though; it's that he's critical of anyone excited by Lin's diverse background. And that is just wrongheaded.
Diversity is a VIRTUE. We are better off when we acknowledge that different people have different backgrounds. We're better off when we learn from these backgrounds, and appropriately adapt our own lives to what we've learned. If we dismiss everyone's different backgrounds as "irrelevant", we're just cheating ourselves out of the whole story.
So, the NBA and the broader basketball community is right to celebrate its ability to attract players of different backgrounds. It is right to celebrate its successes in promoting diversity. It is right to take a little pride that someone can find success and fame in the NBA even if they don't fit the typical NBA profile. It is well justified for the NBA- for all of us, really- to be happy when the Grand Meritocracy that sports are supposed to represent actually seems to work.
Of course, we have to be careful that the NBA isn't making Lin into a token. We can't let the NBA just point to Lin and say "RACISM OVER." But let's wait and see if that actually happens before we start yelling about it, huh?
The NBA, like society as a whole, has plenty of hang-ups about race (the Fifth Blog Cylon Mike has a plan for a blog post about race and the NBA dress code). It's learning as it goes. We all are. And the work is never really done, we're always going to have to figure out how to live alongside different kinds of people. But it really is okay to smile a little when we have some success at it.
If you've been following the NBA even just enough to know what those letters stand for, then you've heard about Jeremy Lin. Sportswriter-cum-curmudgeon Buzz Bissinger certainly has. Here's his column. He makes some interesting points, such as saying that it's ridiculous to think that Lin is better than Jordan or Chamberlain.
It's important that Bissinger say this, as Sylvester Q. Nobody has been repeatedly making just that claim from his daily column in the Nowehere Daily Nothing-Courier.
The dutiful frisking of strawmen completed, Bissinger addresses the racial component of Lin's fame. YOU MEAN THAT JEREMY LIN IS ASIAN AND MOST OF THE NBA ISN'T? HEAVENS TO MURGATROID. I NEVER WOULD HAVE NOTICED IF A GROWN MAN NAMED BUZZ (who does not have the excuse of having walked on the goddamn moon) HADN'T TOLD ME.
The problem here isn't that Bissinger is obliviousness to the most obvious facts of the situation, though; it's that he's critical of anyone excited by Lin's diverse background. And that is just wrongheaded.
Diversity is a VIRTUE. We are better off when we acknowledge that different people have different backgrounds. We're better off when we learn from these backgrounds, and appropriately adapt our own lives to what we've learned. If we dismiss everyone's different backgrounds as "irrelevant", we're just cheating ourselves out of the whole story.
So, the NBA and the broader basketball community is right to celebrate its ability to attract players of different backgrounds. It is right to celebrate its successes in promoting diversity. It is right to take a little pride that someone can find success and fame in the NBA even if they don't fit the typical NBA profile. It is well justified for the NBA- for all of us, really- to be happy when the Grand Meritocracy that sports are supposed to represent actually seems to work.
Of course, we have to be careful that the NBA isn't making Lin into a token. We can't let the NBA just point to Lin and say "RACISM OVER." But let's wait and see if that actually happens before we start yelling about it, huh?
The NBA, like society as a whole, has plenty of hang-ups about race (the Fifth Blog Cylon Mike has a plan for a blog post about race and the NBA dress code). It's learning as it goes. We all are. And the work is never really done, we're always going to have to figure out how to live alongside different kinds of people. But it really is okay to smile a little when we have some success at it.
BETTER THAN EVRA
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)