Apparently, I know some folks who know some folks who know this guy, so I guess that's pretty cool. But more relevant to our interests is just how much this guy's website reflects one of my bugaboos.
I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb to say that we all have our favorite sports and teams. And the thing is, we want to watch...our favorite sports and teams. If you like college basketball, you don't want to watch the pros because it's "close enough". If you're a Raiders fan, you don't want to watch the Chiefs just because Fox or CBS thinks they've got the more interesting match-up that week. We want to watch what we want to watch.
And so, if you're fan of high school sports, that's what you want to watch. For a long time, that wasn't an option; no one really airs high school sports outside of the state championships, so you were stuck. But that's why this business model is so smart. It's not just recognizing that there's a market there, but it's giving the fans more choice on what sports and games they're going to watch. That's empowering, and the one thing sports fans desperately need right now is more power.
But it's also clearly enriching for the guys who figure that out, too. This guy is clearly doing quite well. Major League Baseball has seen its revenues skyrocket since it's incorporated streaming radio and television options. This is the one trend in sports I'm comfortable saying is the wave of the future; we're going to want more and more ability to decide for ourselves which game to watch. Eventually, we're going to get it.
Friday, February 24, 2012
WIND SPRINTS FOR 2/24/12
Your collection of smart people bein' all smart about sports for this fine Friday afternoon.
1) Oh, look, Rob Neyer agrees with Federally Mandated Contraception Blogger Mike.
2) We do not cover MMA very much on this blog, so thank god for fans like Pinkstononfilm. He brings us an article on the MMA's own issues with player safety.
3) Albert Pujols does not like the Angels referring to him as "El Homre". Dude, did you never go to junior high? Objecting to a nickname is the best way to make it stick.
4) I think I'm on solid ground in saying that, outside of the catcher position, baseball is the least physically threatening major sport. So, the fact that we can still see a number of big name players struggle to recover from injuries ought to show us that no sport gets to take it easy.
5) A bunch of my favorite baseball writers have a Kickstarter for a book about second tier baseball players- the guys who you loved as a kid, but realized as an adult weren't HoFers. If you've got some scratch, contribute.
What games are you watching this weekend?
1) Oh, look, Rob Neyer agrees with Federally Mandated Contraception Blogger Mike.
2) We do not cover MMA very much on this blog, so thank god for fans like Pinkstononfilm. He brings us an article on the MMA's own issues with player safety.
3) Albert Pujols does not like the Angels referring to him as "El Homre". Dude, did you never go to junior high? Objecting to a nickname is the best way to make it stick.
4) I think I'm on solid ground in saying that, outside of the catcher position, baseball is the least physically threatening major sport. So, the fact that we can still see a number of big name players struggle to recover from injuries ought to show us that no sport gets to take it easy.
5) A bunch of my favorite baseball writers have a Kickstarter for a book about second tier baseball players- the guys who you loved as a kid, but realized as an adult weren't HoFers. If you've got some scratch, contribute.
What games are you watching this weekend?
Some More Bullshit on Ryan Braun
Eva Longoria's personal death blogger Mike said a lot of good stuff about Ryan Braun yesterday, so go read him again. But I have some more thoughts, again, in reverse order of relevance...
1) Fuck that, he's still a fucking cheater. C'mon, isn't mascara a PED?
2) As #1 shows, the PED issue has become nothing more than a rhetorical cudgel for opposing fans. For 80% of baseball, the issue is no longer about someone having an "unfair" edge, because the numbers were so massive and the oversight so lax, there was nothing "unfair" about it. Now, it's just confirmation bias. I don't like Ryan Braun, so I'm going to mention this little incident every time he comes up in conversation (and he comes up more than you think, since I work at an Axe Body Spray factory). I DO like David Ortiz, so I somehow seem to forget that he's been accused of PEDs, too. It's just a witchhunt now.
3) And as #1 and #2 are the case, I'm awfully glad that MLB's testing process seems to have some useful form of due process. As I indicated in the Manny Ramirez post, baseball is these guys' sine qua non in a way that even we fans don't understand. I don't like taking away someone's livelihood in a process that is wired for the accuser from the start. I'm not sure if MLB's PED testing program is as reliable as I want, but at least it punishes the MLB when it fails to follow its own procedures.
4) Braun's people are complaining that the results were leaked, and that that's going to tarnish his image even though he successfully appealed the decision. This is undeniably true (see: #1, above), and the fact that Braun's decision was overturned because MLB didn't follow proper procedures, rather than some proof that Braun didn't really take PEDs, won't help. But I'm not sure this is really the hill to fight and die on. The same impulse that makes me uncomfortable with a process that is wired for the accuser also makes me uncomfortable with a process that is completely secret until the final conclusion. Sunlight, disinfectant, whatever. Put it this way: if MLB had just come out and announced that Braun was suspended with no explanation, I would not be very sure that it was the right call, even though I hate Braun.
Anyway, this is all distracting from the real issue, which is that Bernie Brewer once killed a man. Take all the beer baths you want, Bernie; the blood will never wash off those hands.
1) Fuck that, he's still a fucking cheater. C'mon, isn't mascara a PED?
2) As #1 shows, the PED issue has become nothing more than a rhetorical cudgel for opposing fans. For 80% of baseball, the issue is no longer about someone having an "unfair" edge, because the numbers were so massive and the oversight so lax, there was nothing "unfair" about it. Now, it's just confirmation bias. I don't like Ryan Braun, so I'm going to mention this little incident every time he comes up in conversation (and he comes up more than you think, since I work at an Axe Body Spray factory). I DO like David Ortiz, so I somehow seem to forget that he's been accused of PEDs, too. It's just a witchhunt now.
3) And as #1 and #2 are the case, I'm awfully glad that MLB's testing process seems to have some useful form of due process. As I indicated in the Manny Ramirez post, baseball is these guys' sine qua non in a way that even we fans don't understand. I don't like taking away someone's livelihood in a process that is wired for the accuser from the start. I'm not sure if MLB's PED testing program is as reliable as I want, but at least it punishes the MLB when it fails to follow its own procedures.
4) Braun's people are complaining that the results were leaked, and that that's going to tarnish his image even though he successfully appealed the decision. This is undeniably true (see: #1, above), and the fact that Braun's decision was overturned because MLB didn't follow proper procedures, rather than some proof that Braun didn't really take PEDs, won't help. But I'm not sure this is really the hill to fight and die on. The same impulse that makes me uncomfortable with a process that is wired for the accuser also makes me uncomfortable with a process that is completely secret until the final conclusion. Sunlight, disinfectant, whatever. Put it this way: if MLB had just come out and announced that Braun was suspended with no explanation, I would not be very sure that it was the right call, even though I hate Braun.
Anyway, this is all distracting from the real issue, which is that Bernie Brewer once killed a man. Take all the beer baths you want, Bernie; the blood will never wash off those hands.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Working the Refs
Today a panel of arbitrators ruled 2 to 1 in favor of Ryan Braun in overturning his suspension by the MLB for testing positive in the post-season for performance enhancing drugs. The MLB has already issued a statement disagreeing with the decision.
I don't know the facts of the case, I wasn't privy to the evidence and arguments presented to arbitrators, and frankly I don't care enough to go hunting them down. What I think this illustrates is a broader trend in our society to bemoan the outcome of any disciplinary system when that system acquits.
The Rodney King trial saw riots, the OJ Simpson trial fostered outrage, and the Casey Anthony verdict garnered death threats. Republicans have spent years fighting the idea that terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts, and when the underwear bomber received life in prison Democrats responded to Republican criticism by saying "see? The system CAN work."
What's disturbing about that last remark, that retort, is the idea implicit in it that had the defendant been acquitted, that the judicial system had somehow failed. That we had prejudged the defendant and were grading our actual judicial system on its ability to validate our preconceived notions.
I spent a summer working in employment law on the employer side, where my job was to assist in the defense of an employer against charges of discrimination by employees. Cases initially went before an arbitrator rather than to a federal court. Now, I have a lot of good things to say about arbitration, but one area in which it struggles is the independence afforded our judiciary. In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cases, arbitrators are selected from a list of arbitrators agreed upon in collective bargaining between the union and the employer, and this list is subject to constant update. So you get situations where an arbitrator rules against the union, or the employer, and that side then challenges their inclusion for future cases. I don't know how arbitrators for baseball are selected, but don't think MLB officials won't remember the names of these arbitrators going forward.
Which, sometimes arbitrators and judges do get it wrong. They are human. But there's also a lot of sour grapes in our society whenever a court doesn't rule our way. Whether it be cries of judicial activism or outright vandalism, we attack the system and its officers for any outcome we don't support. And the hope is that by continuing to boo the refs, it'll shade their calls down the line. At some point though we need to step back from our personal investment in any given issue and realize that any system of dispute resolution that doesn't occasionally invalidate our preconceived notions is no system at all. It's just a rubber stamp. That may be fine and well so long as you're the one doing the stamping, but some day it'll be you getting stamped.
I don't know the facts of the case, I wasn't privy to the evidence and arguments presented to arbitrators, and frankly I don't care enough to go hunting them down. What I think this illustrates is a broader trend in our society to bemoan the outcome of any disciplinary system when that system acquits.
The Rodney King trial saw riots, the OJ Simpson trial fostered outrage, and the Casey Anthony verdict garnered death threats. Republicans have spent years fighting the idea that terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts, and when the underwear bomber received life in prison Democrats responded to Republican criticism by saying "see? The system CAN work."
What's disturbing about that last remark, that retort, is the idea implicit in it that had the defendant been acquitted, that the judicial system had somehow failed. That we had prejudged the defendant and were grading our actual judicial system on its ability to validate our preconceived notions.
I spent a summer working in employment law on the employer side, where my job was to assist in the defense of an employer against charges of discrimination by employees. Cases initially went before an arbitrator rather than to a federal court. Now, I have a lot of good things to say about arbitration, but one area in which it struggles is the independence afforded our judiciary. In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cases, arbitrators are selected from a list of arbitrators agreed upon in collective bargaining between the union and the employer, and this list is subject to constant update. So you get situations where an arbitrator rules against the union, or the employer, and that side then challenges their inclusion for future cases. I don't know how arbitrators for baseball are selected, but don't think MLB officials won't remember the names of these arbitrators going forward.
Which, sometimes arbitrators and judges do get it wrong. They are human. But there's also a lot of sour grapes in our society whenever a court doesn't rule our way. Whether it be cries of judicial activism or outright vandalism, we attack the system and its officers for any outcome we don't support. And the hope is that by continuing to boo the refs, it'll shade their calls down the line. At some point though we need to step back from our personal investment in any given issue and realize that any system of dispute resolution that doesn't occasionally invalidate our preconceived notions is no system at all. It's just a rubber stamp. That may be fine and well so long as you're the one doing the stamping, but some day it'll be you getting stamped.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The Long Game, or How I Learned to What Football is (Currently) Doing Right
Last night Greg Popavich sat Tim Duncan and Tony Parker, his two biggest stars, despite not having injuries, in order to give the older stars rest in a compressed NBA season full of back-to-backs. The Spurs were consequently rocked by the Portland Trail Blazers for a 40 point loss. This loss leaves the Spurs as the #2 seed in their conference, right where they were before hand.
Now, I won't denigrate Pops for resting his aging stars to keep some gas in their tank. Heck, I've advocated that Thibodeau should do more to limit the minutes of Bulls stars. But it does say something that we are in the middle of a season in which coaches and teams play the schedule as much or more than they play the games. Everyone has an eye on the playoffs, getting there in as good a seed as possible while leaving something in the tank and limiting injuries, and to do that you basically have to accept that you are not only going to lose some games, but that you are going to have to concede games.
This is largely a function of the compressed schedule. Too many games in too small a time frame. Even in a full season of 82 games (16 more) the extra 2 months space it out enough that you don't see such blatant towel tossing. But I wonder if number of games doesn't factor in some. If this compressed season were the same length but had 6-16 less games (a 50-60 game season), would we have enough rest to have teams treat every game equally?
I'm not enough of a baseball fan to know, but I will toss out the totally unsupported supposition that managers in baseball also take a less than urgent approach to all 162 games. "Is this pitcher struggling? Should I go to the bullpen? Nah, it's only 15 games in and I want to evaluate his toughness." The higher game count lets you experiment more.
In some ways that's good in evaluating your talent or for getting your backups and younger players experience. But as someone shelling out over $50 for a ticket, I want to see my team win, and not use my one outing for the week/month to tinker with lineups. I can sit at home and watch Quenneville debate himself over who should be 2nd line center in HD for free while writing one of these blog posts in between catching youtube videos of corgis playing tetherball.
As a fan with cable and internet, I'm fascinated by the chess game that is this NBA season. I'm fascinated by the strategizing of when and how much to rest players with an eye towards the season as a whole, and not just this game. But that's only because, as a fan that isn't buying tickets and has so much media exposure, I have that luxury.
Football, on the other hand, at both the college and professional level, has done so much more to make every game count. You never see teams take their foot off the gas. And while in the injury regard this can be bad (pushing players to get back sooner than may be advisable), it does make me as a fan more invested in every outing.
Blog Overlord Craig may, and plenty of sports writers and statisticians certainly do, say that the more games a season has the more the law of large numbers will show us what a team's real capability is. But is that really the case if a team is only ever playing at 85-95% much of the time? Does the worship of sample size overlook too much of the human element? Not just physical, mental, and emotional fatigue, but calculated slacking? Craig has specifically lauded playoffs where statisticians decry them. That's because the smaller sample size admits more intangibles (like "heart") and luck. I would also argue it is the only thing that mandates 100% focus and effort.
Notwithstanding my other post today on football's coming decline, I think the smaller sample size of the football season helps capture this playoff mentality throughout the entire season. Going back to my post from earlier today, continued expansion of the football season to 18 or more games risks not only player health, but team focus. Perhaps the two are indistinguishable.
Pride Goeth Before the Fall
So this happened.
I don't have a lot to add to this story that other pundits haven't already, but I missed the Wind Sprint and this to me is a big story and ties directly in to what we have talked about and continue to talk about on this blog.
I think Aikman has some very valid points. I know it seems ludicrous when you look at football's numbers right now, but Aikman's taking a long view, as in one or two generations long view. The boys at PTI have discussed how boxing used to be a huge part of American culture, and even baseball has fallen from its loftiest of perches. Baseball will always be big, and it will always be with us, but kids on the playground these days don't exclusively dream of playing center field for the Yankees.
Cultural shifts happen. To some degree baseball's king status was a result of it being the only game in town for the longest time. Baseball as a professional sport was already an adult when professional basketball and football leagues were entering their awkward teenage years. Even though the seasons of the sports don't perfectly sync up, baseball was bound to lose some fans to the other sports, even though I would argue that more professional sports helps create a professional sports world that overall enhances the value of any particular sport. ESPN, for example, wouldn't exist if MLB were still the only pro sports league.
So what cultural shift could knock some wind out of football's sails? Aikman mentions two things: overexpansion/overexposure, and injuries (specifically concussions but I will address the broader point).
Aikman has a good perspective on this. Growing up in Texas I watched Aikman bring 3 Super Bowl victories to Dallas, and then he got knocked out of the game for getting too many concussions. The Cowboys haven't been back to the Super Bowl without him. Father Time catches up to everyone. Emmit Smith and Jerry Rice hung around arguably longer than they should have, arguably damaging their brand by petering out over the course of a couple lackluster seasons, although they didn't harm their relationship with their former fan bases the way Brett Favre did. But how many more years did Aikman have? Brady looked like he was on the downslide the past season or two, and then this season he resurged and led his team back to the Super Bowl. In fact, Vegas is giving the Patriots good odds to return next year. Yeah, Emmit petered out a couple years after Aikman, but quarterbacks have longer careers than running backs because they don't take as many hits and don't rely on their speed (which is quicker to go than arm strength). Aikman retired after receiving his 10th concussion at the age of 34 after 11 years in the league. For comparison: Peyton Manning is 35 and has played for 13 seasons, and the only thing that will keep him from playing longer is injury. Tom Brady is now 34 and has been in the league for 12 years, and without the injury concerns of Peyton or Aikman, looks fine to play several more years.
So injuries cut short Aikman's career (like they might do to Peyton). But that happens right? It happens to lots of football players. Heck, Greg Oden just had another surgery that will bench him for the remainder of this year. Oden may never play again, and never got the chance to play a full NBA season despite being a #1 draft pick, and his sport is far less violent. But stories like Oden in the NBA are far bigger outliers than career ending injuries in the NFL, and while I don't want to put QBs on too big a pedestal here, Peyton's injury and the Colts performance in 2011 put a particular exclamation point on the statement that teams can live or die at the QB position, more so than at any other position in the sport that right now is the most popular. If your franchise QB goes down, your season can go with it, and for playoff teams that creates a ripple effect throughout the entire league. The NFL recognizes this, and they've basically developed Marquess of Queensbury rules for pass-rushers. QBs are more protected by officiating than probably any other position in sports, and yet they still get hurt, and when they do a team, the city it sits in, and TV networks selling advertisements for those games watch millions of dollars go up in smoke.
Injuries are a part of any sport, but football is the only one that involves contact by design. Yeah, you bump and shove in basketball, but then you get called for a foul. Hockey has checking and fighting, but you still have penalties and ultimately the hits aren't the fulcrum around which the sport pivots. But in football you tackle. Every play will result in one of two outcomes: a score or the ball carrier getting knocked to the ground. Every play sees linemen at the least hitting each other.
Half my friends from college that played football in high school have some form of nagging injury. Their wrists pop from years of jamming pads, or they have a slipped disc in their back, or their knees pop from that time they tore lateral cartilage.
All of this leads into the upcoming cultural shift for football: The more we learn about these health risks, the more parents will discourage children from playing it. Aikman is a Hall of Fame, multiple championship winning QB, and in that article he's quoted as saying he'd rather his own kids play something else. Peyton and Eli Manning got where they were by having the genes and mentoring of Archie Manning. Aikman could produce similar athletic progeny, and yet he'd rather them play soccer, or lacrosse, or basketball.
I can sympathize. Aikman says he wants his kids playing something else, but he won't actively discourage them. I, however, will actively encourage my kids to play other sports. I will actively dissuade them from playing football, and I will absolutely prohibit their playing it at the Pop Warner level. Not only are injuries just more endemic to the sport, but I don't trust the coaching. The NFL this year had to institute a new rule mid-season where a player that takes a hit to the head has to get cleared by an independent doctor not indebted to the team before he can return. Why? Because these professionals put Colt McCoy back into a game after taking a brutal helmet shot in which he suffered a concussion. Trained professionals either missed the concussion or actively ignored it. I certainly don't trust amateur coaches at the high school or little league level who encourage kids to "rub some dirt on it" and "suck it up". The past decade has seen multiple instances of high school kids dying of heat exhaustion while training for football because the coaches push too hard.
So the prevalence of injuries in the sport currently combined with the attitude shift of parents I think creates two problems for the NFL that boil down to the same root: absence of talent damaging the product.
1) Current teams like the Colts are losing their best players to concussions and other serious injuries that harm viewer interest. The 14-2 Colts under Peyton Manning are exciting to watch, and I'll pay to see that. The 2-14 Colts without him are an embarassment, and even if my team is going to beat them by 30 points, I can find other things to do with my time than watch it happen.
2) Up and coming generations of athletes are being increasingly encouraged to play other sports. Athletes like LeBron James can play any sport they want. They are physically gifted. And if my son were equally gifted, I would press him very hard to play baseball or basketball, because salaries in those sports are comparable but careers are longer and safer. Over time and multiple generations, the best and brightest will be in other sports. Football will always have players, but it will be settling for the lesser athletes, kinda like boxing now vs MMA.
Add on top of this the NFL wants to increase season length to cram in more games for more money. Guess what happens when you play more games? You get more injuries. As seasons get longer, your franchise players will have even bigger challenges staying healthy, and the product will be even further damaged.
I don't know what the answer is, but as a fan of the sport it is good to know that lots of minds are thinking about it.
I don't have a lot to add to this story that other pundits haven't already, but I missed the Wind Sprint and this to me is a big story and ties directly in to what we have talked about and continue to talk about on this blog.
I think Aikman has some very valid points. I know it seems ludicrous when you look at football's numbers right now, but Aikman's taking a long view, as in one or two generations long view. The boys at PTI have discussed how boxing used to be a huge part of American culture, and even baseball has fallen from its loftiest of perches. Baseball will always be big, and it will always be with us, but kids on the playground these days don't exclusively dream of playing center field for the Yankees.
Cultural shifts happen. To some degree baseball's king status was a result of it being the only game in town for the longest time. Baseball as a professional sport was already an adult when professional basketball and football leagues were entering their awkward teenage years. Even though the seasons of the sports don't perfectly sync up, baseball was bound to lose some fans to the other sports, even though I would argue that more professional sports helps create a professional sports world that overall enhances the value of any particular sport. ESPN, for example, wouldn't exist if MLB were still the only pro sports league.
So what cultural shift could knock some wind out of football's sails? Aikman mentions two things: overexpansion/overexposure, and injuries (specifically concussions but I will address the broader point).
Aikman has a good perspective on this. Growing up in Texas I watched Aikman bring 3 Super Bowl victories to Dallas, and then he got knocked out of the game for getting too many concussions. The Cowboys haven't been back to the Super Bowl without him. Father Time catches up to everyone. Emmit Smith and Jerry Rice hung around arguably longer than they should have, arguably damaging their brand by petering out over the course of a couple lackluster seasons, although they didn't harm their relationship with their former fan bases the way Brett Favre did. But how many more years did Aikman have? Brady looked like he was on the downslide the past season or two, and then this season he resurged and led his team back to the Super Bowl. In fact, Vegas is giving the Patriots good odds to return next year. Yeah, Emmit petered out a couple years after Aikman, but quarterbacks have longer careers than running backs because they don't take as many hits and don't rely on their speed (which is quicker to go than arm strength). Aikman retired after receiving his 10th concussion at the age of 34 after 11 years in the league. For comparison: Peyton Manning is 35 and has played for 13 seasons, and the only thing that will keep him from playing longer is injury. Tom Brady is now 34 and has been in the league for 12 years, and without the injury concerns of Peyton or Aikman, looks fine to play several more years.
So injuries cut short Aikman's career (like they might do to Peyton). But that happens right? It happens to lots of football players. Heck, Greg Oden just had another surgery that will bench him for the remainder of this year. Oden may never play again, and never got the chance to play a full NBA season despite being a #1 draft pick, and his sport is far less violent. But stories like Oden in the NBA are far bigger outliers than career ending injuries in the NFL, and while I don't want to put QBs on too big a pedestal here, Peyton's injury and the Colts performance in 2011 put a particular exclamation point on the statement that teams can live or die at the QB position, more so than at any other position in the sport that right now is the most popular. If your franchise QB goes down, your season can go with it, and for playoff teams that creates a ripple effect throughout the entire league. The NFL recognizes this, and they've basically developed Marquess of Queensbury rules for pass-rushers. QBs are more protected by officiating than probably any other position in sports, and yet they still get hurt, and when they do a team, the city it sits in, and TV networks selling advertisements for those games watch millions of dollars go up in smoke.
Injuries are a part of any sport, but football is the only one that involves contact by design. Yeah, you bump and shove in basketball, but then you get called for a foul. Hockey has checking and fighting, but you still have penalties and ultimately the hits aren't the fulcrum around which the sport pivots. But in football you tackle. Every play will result in one of two outcomes: a score or the ball carrier getting knocked to the ground. Every play sees linemen at the least hitting each other.
Half my friends from college that played football in high school have some form of nagging injury. Their wrists pop from years of jamming pads, or they have a slipped disc in their back, or their knees pop from that time they tore lateral cartilage.
All of this leads into the upcoming cultural shift for football: The more we learn about these health risks, the more parents will discourage children from playing it. Aikman is a Hall of Fame, multiple championship winning QB, and in that article he's quoted as saying he'd rather his own kids play something else. Peyton and Eli Manning got where they were by having the genes and mentoring of Archie Manning. Aikman could produce similar athletic progeny, and yet he'd rather them play soccer, or lacrosse, or basketball.
I can sympathize. Aikman says he wants his kids playing something else, but he won't actively discourage them. I, however, will actively encourage my kids to play other sports. I will actively dissuade them from playing football, and I will absolutely prohibit their playing it at the Pop Warner level. Not only are injuries just more endemic to the sport, but I don't trust the coaching. The NFL this year had to institute a new rule mid-season where a player that takes a hit to the head has to get cleared by an independent doctor not indebted to the team before he can return. Why? Because these professionals put Colt McCoy back into a game after taking a brutal helmet shot in which he suffered a concussion. Trained professionals either missed the concussion or actively ignored it. I certainly don't trust amateur coaches at the high school or little league level who encourage kids to "rub some dirt on it" and "suck it up". The past decade has seen multiple instances of high school kids dying of heat exhaustion while training for football because the coaches push too hard.
So the prevalence of injuries in the sport currently combined with the attitude shift of parents I think creates two problems for the NFL that boil down to the same root: absence of talent damaging the product.
1) Current teams like the Colts are losing their best players to concussions and other serious injuries that harm viewer interest. The 14-2 Colts under Peyton Manning are exciting to watch, and I'll pay to see that. The 2-14 Colts without him are an embarassment, and even if my team is going to beat them by 30 points, I can find other things to do with my time than watch it happen.
2) Up and coming generations of athletes are being increasingly encouraged to play other sports. Athletes like LeBron James can play any sport they want. They are physically gifted. And if my son were equally gifted, I would press him very hard to play baseball or basketball, because salaries in those sports are comparable but careers are longer and safer. Over time and multiple generations, the best and brightest will be in other sports. Football will always have players, but it will be settling for the lesser athletes, kinda like boxing now vs MMA.
Add on top of this the NFL wants to increase season length to cram in more games for more money. Guess what happens when you play more games? You get more injuries. As seasons get longer, your franchise players will have even bigger challenges staying healthy, and the product will be even further damaged.
I don't know what the answer is, but as a fan of the sport it is good to know that lots of minds are thinking about it.
OH MY GOD YOU GUYS ACTUAL SPORTS TRIBALISM!
So, some students from University of Minnesota Duluth- where, I suppose, one could major in coming up with hockey chants- have been reprimanded for "racist chants" against the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux. The chants included something about "smallpox blankets". Obviously, the specific chants and taunts used aren't being reported, as who wants to reprint that shit?
This immediately reminded me of the 2006 NFC Championship game between Chicago and New Orleans, where one Bears fan held up a sign that said something like, "CHICAGO BEARS: FINISHING WHAT KATRINA STARTED." This is just that level of charming.
My obvious antipathy aside, I'm kinda torn here. I think the UofM students- and that Bears fan- clearly went too far. But I like a loud, boisterous crowd. I like chants and taunts that just kinda skirt the edge. I like the idea of fans getting in opposing teams' heads. And as anyone who's been to a college hockey game will know, the "smallpox blanket" thing, while by no means genteel, is also not the worst thing said at an average game. So, I don't know where to draw the line.
I think I'm going to just be a pussy and say no line needs to be drawn at all. Going back to what I said in the Tim Thomas post, the answer to bad speech is more speech. So, the UofM students are free to say whatever ugly, racist shit they can justify to themselves- and the rest of us can say that they're being ugly, unjustified racists. Maybe that kind of public embarrassment won't be enough to reign in these kinds of douchebags. But I'd like to try it before we start treating a hockey game like a tennis match in the queen's personal box.
This immediately reminded me of the 2006 NFC Championship game between Chicago and New Orleans, where one Bears fan held up a sign that said something like, "CHICAGO BEARS: FINISHING WHAT KATRINA STARTED." This is just that level of charming.
My obvious antipathy aside, I'm kinda torn here. I think the UofM students- and that Bears fan- clearly went too far. But I like a loud, boisterous crowd. I like chants and taunts that just kinda skirt the edge. I like the idea of fans getting in opposing teams' heads. And as anyone who's been to a college hockey game will know, the "smallpox blanket" thing, while by no means genteel, is also not the worst thing said at an average game. So, I don't know where to draw the line.
I think I'm going to just be a pussy and say no line needs to be drawn at all. Going back to what I said in the Tim Thomas post, the answer to bad speech is more speech. So, the UofM students are free to say whatever ugly, racist shit they can justify to themselves- and the rest of us can say that they're being ugly, unjustified racists. Maybe that kind of public embarrassment won't be enough to reign in these kinds of douchebags. But I'd like to try it before we start treating a hockey game like a tennis match in the queen's personal box.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
WIND SPRINTS FOR 2/21/12
New blog feature- every few days or so- basically, however long it takes us to collect enough links- we'll post a bunch of links to other thoughtful, progressive sports writing out there. Stuff that really interested us, but may not inspire a full blog post. Here's the first one.
1) Barry Petchesky at Deadspin has a pretty thorough frisking of Bruce Bochy's decision to not let Buster Posey block the plate. Lot of good stuff in there. All I'd add is what Imposter Blogger Mike said after my post on fighting in the NHL- even if this doesn't really solve the problem, any move toward player safety should be welcomed. Perfect isn't the enemy of good, and all that.
2) In honor of The Simpsons' 500th episode, two different reflections on "Homer at the Bat", my father's favorite Simpsons episode. One from Erik Malinowski at Deadspin, the other from Larry Granillo at Baseball Prospectus.
3) A preview of this Sunday's "Real Sports" segment on the KHL tragedy from over the summer. We'll spend a lot of time talking about how the major sports leagues treat their players like chattel, but honestly, these small, international leagues- which often don't even have the money to protect their players- are a huge part of the problem.
4) The St. Louis Cardinal hipster. I imagine you could write this post about every team in baseball. Everyone tries to give no-names and has-beens one more shot. That's okay. It's good for the players and great for the fans.
5) There's apparently a growing subculture of geeks and hockey. I support and endorse this alliance.
6) If Rick Santorum keeps talking about 1970s relievers, he just might win my vote.
What do you guys have?
1) Barry Petchesky at Deadspin has a pretty thorough frisking of Bruce Bochy's decision to not let Buster Posey block the plate. Lot of good stuff in there. All I'd add is what Imposter Blogger Mike said after my post on fighting in the NHL- even if this doesn't really solve the problem, any move toward player safety should be welcomed. Perfect isn't the enemy of good, and all that.
2) In honor of The Simpsons' 500th episode, two different reflections on "Homer at the Bat", my father's favorite Simpsons episode. One from Erik Malinowski at Deadspin, the other from Larry Granillo at Baseball Prospectus.
3) A preview of this Sunday's "Real Sports" segment on the KHL tragedy from over the summer. We'll spend a lot of time talking about how the major sports leagues treat their players like chattel, but honestly, these small, international leagues- which often don't even have the money to protect their players- are a huge part of the problem.
4) The St. Louis Cardinal hipster. I imagine you could write this post about every team in baseball. Everyone tries to give no-names and has-beens one more shot. That's okay. It's good for the players and great for the fans.
5) There's apparently a growing subculture of geeks and hockey. I support and endorse this alliance.
6) If Rick Santorum keeps talking about 1970s relievers, he just might win my vote.
What do you guys have?
Monday, February 20, 2012
MANNY RAMIREZ AND LIFE AFTER BASEBALL
GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE: Manny Ramirez has signed a minor league contract with the Oakland A's. My Three reactions to this, in reverse order of relevance:
1) THANK GOD. Manny Ramirez is unquestionably a nut, but baseball is more interesting with the nuts around. Sports are supposed to be fun, and Ramirez was fun, even if it was only in the "fun to hate" sense.
2) This is pretty much the prototypical "Moneyball" signing. For a long list of reasons- most of which aren't really about what he can do on the field- most teams don't want Ramirez, even at a steep discount. But, he may still have some productivity in him. And since no other team wants him, the As get to find out just how much productivity for about the cost of a lottery ticket. This has all happened before, and it will all happen again.
3) This shows you just how hard it is to quit this game. Ramirez almost certainly has nothing else to do with himself. He never developed any outside skills; he never needed to. The usual roles for former athletes- coaching, broadcasting, etc.- are almost certainly closed to Ramirez, as well. His skills were always instinctive and ephemeral; he can't teach it or explain it.
So, I can't blame him for wanting to delay the inevitable, for wanting to wring every possible second of baseball out of his body before it becomes impossible for him to continue. In fact, he reminds me of Rickey Henderson, who famously ended up in some beach ball league in San Diego or something, just trying to play a little longer, maybe get one more look from a major league scout. It wasn't just that these guys have nothing else to do; they have nothing else they want to do. Baseball was the defining aspect of their lives, it validated them. After enough years of that, they really do think baseball is an incredible part of their lives.
It's ironic; Henderson and Ramirez were both, in their time, held up as pretty good examples of what was wrong with pro athletes. But in the twilight of their careers, they're willing to take extreme pay cuts and endure intense humiliation for the one thing we like most about athletes: unbridled love of the game.
1) THANK GOD. Manny Ramirez is unquestionably a nut, but baseball is more interesting with the nuts around. Sports are supposed to be fun, and Ramirez was fun, even if it was only in the "fun to hate" sense.
2) This is pretty much the prototypical "Moneyball" signing. For a long list of reasons- most of which aren't really about what he can do on the field- most teams don't want Ramirez, even at a steep discount. But, he may still have some productivity in him. And since no other team wants him, the As get to find out just how much productivity for about the cost of a lottery ticket. This has all happened before, and it will all happen again.
3) This shows you just how hard it is to quit this game. Ramirez almost certainly has nothing else to do with himself. He never developed any outside skills; he never needed to. The usual roles for former athletes- coaching, broadcasting, etc.- are almost certainly closed to Ramirez, as well. His skills were always instinctive and ephemeral; he can't teach it or explain it.
So, I can't blame him for wanting to delay the inevitable, for wanting to wring every possible second of baseball out of his body before it becomes impossible for him to continue. In fact, he reminds me of Rickey Henderson, who famously ended up in some beach ball league in San Diego or something, just trying to play a little longer, maybe get one more look from a major league scout. It wasn't just that these guys have nothing else to do; they have nothing else they want to do. Baseball was the defining aspect of their lives, it validated them. After enough years of that, they really do think baseball is an incredible part of their lives.
It's ironic; Henderson and Ramirez were both, in their time, held up as pretty good examples of what was wrong with pro athletes. But in the twilight of their careers, they're willing to take extreme pay cuts and endure intense humiliation for the one thing we like most about athletes: unbridled love of the game.
Human, All Too Human
"Are you a man? Grow up! Play the game! You're a professional!"
One or all of these statements have been the response from sports pundits who other sports pundits (in a psychoanalytical circle jerk) ask about the impact of trade rumors on players' performance. Exhibits:
1) Lamar Odom at the outset of the NBA season. After David Stern personally vetoed the Chris Paul-Lakers-Rockets trade out of a complete conflict of interest in attempting to sell the Hornets, Odom was reportedly unhappy in L.A. because they had wanted to trade him. He was sent to the Mavericks for a pick in what was at the time considered one of the most lopsided deals in recent memory. (Other reports were that the new Lakers coach had personal problems with Odom and the Lakers office was unhappy with the publicity his marriage to a Kardashian was causing.)
2) Dwight Howard asking for a trade to a new team every week. (At this point I think the Colorado Rockies, San Francisco 49ers, Boston Bruins, and Team Livestrong are on the wish list). Is this affecting his chemistry with his teammates? Are they trying? Do they feel like he's thrown them under the bus?
3) Joakim Noah in Chicago is a fixture of any trade rumors for Chicago (whether for Dwight Howard or anyone else). Noah's numbers were down at the beginning of the season and so this question came up for him as well (Noah's response was that he feels the burden of expectation now that he's got a bigger contract).
4) Pau Gasol. Craig mentioned one particular rumor in an earlier column. This is by no means the only trade rumor involving Gasol. Gasol was part of the Stern nixed Paul trade at the outset of the season. Since then he and Bynum have been fixtures of Howard trade rumors. For all I know Gasol for Deron Williams rumors are also bouncing around out there (if not feel free to credit me for starting them). Regardless, today on Mike and Mike in the Morning we had Kobe quoted as ripping his front office saying that he liked playing with Pau but if they are going to trade him just "!@%!@ do it already". This led to the speculation of whether Pau's play this year has been impacted by the constant trade rumors.
In all of these examples, someone will look at the players in question, who may or may not be impacted by the uncertainty surrounding their career, and tell them to STFU, to man up, to grow a pair, to take off that skirt, to grow up, to act like an adult, and they will iterate and reiterate that these grown men are professionals and they are paid to play a game. Maybe playing in Charlotte isn't as exciting as playing in L.A., but if that upsets you then you can cry yourself to sleep on top of the $10 million you are making.
First of all: Yes, true, they are adults, and they are professionals. They receive substantial compensation (some more than others) to engage in an activity children, college students, and people that work less than 80 hours a week engage in for fun and exercise. They aren't performing brain surgery. They aren't being asked to fix our economy or teach our nation's children how to read (though some do).
But they aren't robots, either. They are still human beings, and a lot of that gets lost in the make-up of sports labor. Compensation aside, when players sign a contract with a team their options become significantly limited. If a normal person is unhappy in their job, they can quit. If a better offer comes along, they can take it. If they want to relocate, they have the option. Signed players do not have those options, and in every sport the contract structure favors the owners. Some sports more than others.
Let's say you're a young quarterback drafted onto a 2-14 team. Your team is giving up 4 sacks a game and you suffer your first concussion as a rookie, and then your team goes out and trades its draft picks for an aging receiver, signs a linebacker in free agency, and just tells you to get rid of the ball quicker rather than beef up your o-line. Well guess what, you're stuck. You can't leave, because that team has the exclusive right to your services for the next 4 years. That's not calendar years, that's years of play. You can't even quit, sit on your couch for 4 years, and come back, because the contract tolls until you come back. You could spend your best years languishing on a bad team under a severe risk of injury. For every Peyton Manning there are half a dozen David Carrs.
Now let's talk about Peyton Manning. Those overpaid athletes, in football at least, almost never see every dime of their big contracts. Football contracts by and large are backloaded and aren't guaranteed. Owners can freely cut a player whose price tag got too big, despite having freely negotiated those terms. I wouldn't be surprised if most owners gladly bloat a contracts numbers to induce a signing knowing they will never pay the back end of it. Peyton Manning specifically is owed $28 million this coming season. He won a Super Bowl for the Colts, and had them in the playoffs in the 2010-2011 season. He gets injured this past year and the Colts drop to 2-14 without him. But that's okay, because now they get to draft Andrew Luck, who ESPN can't stop fellating or declaring to be the best talent of a generation. Oh, and by the way, they will be able to draft him under the new CBA's brand new rules regarding rookie salaries (non-negotiable scheduled payments based on draft order like the NBA has). So they get possibly the next Peyton Manning for less money than the Panthers are paying Cam Newton. Jim Irsay has been tripping over himself trying to find more social media outlets with which to make Peyton Manning feel unwelcome. Peyton Manning, the guy who not only made the Colts relevant, but has hospitals named after him in Indianapolis, and has declared repeatedly he wants to retire as a Colt. Irsay's response: Fine, but first we need to renegotiate that $28 million I freely negotiated earlier for no other reason than I just don't feel like paying it.
Free agency has helped balance the power some, but the majority of the cards are still in the hands of owners. The NBA almost lost a season after its best season in a decade due to owners like Dan Gilbert hating the fact that they can't dictate to players not only how much they get paid but where they will play and for how long. No wonder then that the players' union caused a shit storm when their spokesperson talked about NBA owners having a "plantation mentality". Set aside the racial implications (which are important), it is a fact that when owners start talking trades, they treat these human beings the same way schoolyard children treat toys, lunch box treats, or playing cards. They are assets to be traded, not people with feelings, desires, and ambitions; nevermind home mortgages, friends, and children in a specific school district within their current city.
No other profession can treat workers this way. Imagine, for a moment, that you are an engineer. You went to college specifically to study engineering for the purpose of entering the field of alternative energy development. You work for a company that engineers solar panels. After five years, your company comes in one day and tells you they are shipping you off to work for Shell's oil fields in Qatar, so pack your bags, because Shell is sending them two mid-level managers. Or maybe you're a PR rep for a Democratic senator and suddenly he tells you that there are some promising interns coming up the ranks of the College Republicans at Harvard that they've been promised in exchange for shipping you off to Washington state to help a Republican governor get re-elected. Oh, and you can't quit unless you never want to work in politics/engineering again.
Yes, these players are quite often very well compensated. But let's also recognize that their compensation is due to the fact that the sports themselves make massive amounts of money. Players aren't paid millions in compensation for giving up their freedom of contract, they are paid millions because sports make billions.
Does all of this mean that we need to cry a river for Peyton Manning or Pau Gasol? No. I'm not reaching for the Kleenex, nor do I expect you to be. But it bears repeating that, however much money players make, they are human too.
One or all of these statements have been the response from sports pundits who other sports pundits (in a psychoanalytical circle jerk) ask about the impact of trade rumors on players' performance. Exhibits:
1) Lamar Odom at the outset of the NBA season. After David Stern personally vetoed the Chris Paul-Lakers-Rockets trade out of a complete conflict of interest in attempting to sell the Hornets, Odom was reportedly unhappy in L.A. because they had wanted to trade him. He was sent to the Mavericks for a pick in what was at the time considered one of the most lopsided deals in recent memory. (Other reports were that the new Lakers coach had personal problems with Odom and the Lakers office was unhappy with the publicity his marriage to a Kardashian was causing.)
2) Dwight Howard asking for a trade to a new team every week. (At this point I think the Colorado Rockies, San Francisco 49ers, Boston Bruins, and Team Livestrong are on the wish list). Is this affecting his chemistry with his teammates? Are they trying? Do they feel like he's thrown them under the bus?
3) Joakim Noah in Chicago is a fixture of any trade rumors for Chicago (whether for Dwight Howard or anyone else). Noah's numbers were down at the beginning of the season and so this question came up for him as well (Noah's response was that he feels the burden of expectation now that he's got a bigger contract).
4) Pau Gasol. Craig mentioned one particular rumor in an earlier column. This is by no means the only trade rumor involving Gasol. Gasol was part of the Stern nixed Paul trade at the outset of the season. Since then he and Bynum have been fixtures of Howard trade rumors. For all I know Gasol for Deron Williams rumors are also bouncing around out there (if not feel free to credit me for starting them). Regardless, today on Mike and Mike in the Morning we had Kobe quoted as ripping his front office saying that he liked playing with Pau but if they are going to trade him just "!@%!@ do it already". This led to the speculation of whether Pau's play this year has been impacted by the constant trade rumors.
In all of these examples, someone will look at the players in question, who may or may not be impacted by the uncertainty surrounding their career, and tell them to STFU, to man up, to grow a pair, to take off that skirt, to grow up, to act like an adult, and they will iterate and reiterate that these grown men are professionals and they are paid to play a game. Maybe playing in Charlotte isn't as exciting as playing in L.A., but if that upsets you then you can cry yourself to sleep on top of the $10 million you are making.
First of all: Yes, true, they are adults, and they are professionals. They receive substantial compensation (some more than others) to engage in an activity children, college students, and people that work less than 80 hours a week engage in for fun and exercise. They aren't performing brain surgery. They aren't being asked to fix our economy or teach our nation's children how to read (though some do).
But they aren't robots, either. They are still human beings, and a lot of that gets lost in the make-up of sports labor. Compensation aside, when players sign a contract with a team their options become significantly limited. If a normal person is unhappy in their job, they can quit. If a better offer comes along, they can take it. If they want to relocate, they have the option. Signed players do not have those options, and in every sport the contract structure favors the owners. Some sports more than others.
Let's say you're a young quarterback drafted onto a 2-14 team. Your team is giving up 4 sacks a game and you suffer your first concussion as a rookie, and then your team goes out and trades its draft picks for an aging receiver, signs a linebacker in free agency, and just tells you to get rid of the ball quicker rather than beef up your o-line. Well guess what, you're stuck. You can't leave, because that team has the exclusive right to your services for the next 4 years. That's not calendar years, that's years of play. You can't even quit, sit on your couch for 4 years, and come back, because the contract tolls until you come back. You could spend your best years languishing on a bad team under a severe risk of injury. For every Peyton Manning there are half a dozen David Carrs.
Now let's talk about Peyton Manning. Those overpaid athletes, in football at least, almost never see every dime of their big contracts. Football contracts by and large are backloaded and aren't guaranteed. Owners can freely cut a player whose price tag got too big, despite having freely negotiated those terms. I wouldn't be surprised if most owners gladly bloat a contracts numbers to induce a signing knowing they will never pay the back end of it. Peyton Manning specifically is owed $28 million this coming season. He won a Super Bowl for the Colts, and had them in the playoffs in the 2010-2011 season. He gets injured this past year and the Colts drop to 2-14 without him. But that's okay, because now they get to draft Andrew Luck, who ESPN can't stop fellating or declaring to be the best talent of a generation. Oh, and by the way, they will be able to draft him under the new CBA's brand new rules regarding rookie salaries (non-negotiable scheduled payments based on draft order like the NBA has). So they get possibly the next Peyton Manning for less money than the Panthers are paying Cam Newton. Jim Irsay has been tripping over himself trying to find more social media outlets with which to make Peyton Manning feel unwelcome. Peyton Manning, the guy who not only made the Colts relevant, but has hospitals named after him in Indianapolis, and has declared repeatedly he wants to retire as a Colt. Irsay's response: Fine, but first we need to renegotiate that $28 million I freely negotiated earlier for no other reason than I just don't feel like paying it.
Free agency has helped balance the power some, but the majority of the cards are still in the hands of owners. The NBA almost lost a season after its best season in a decade due to owners like Dan Gilbert hating the fact that they can't dictate to players not only how much they get paid but where they will play and for how long. No wonder then that the players' union caused a shit storm when their spokesperson talked about NBA owners having a "plantation mentality". Set aside the racial implications (which are important), it is a fact that when owners start talking trades, they treat these human beings the same way schoolyard children treat toys, lunch box treats, or playing cards. They are assets to be traded, not people with feelings, desires, and ambitions; nevermind home mortgages, friends, and children in a specific school district within their current city.
No other profession can treat workers this way. Imagine, for a moment, that you are an engineer. You went to college specifically to study engineering for the purpose of entering the field of alternative energy development. You work for a company that engineers solar panels. After five years, your company comes in one day and tells you they are shipping you off to work for Shell's oil fields in Qatar, so pack your bags, because Shell is sending them two mid-level managers. Or maybe you're a PR rep for a Democratic senator and suddenly he tells you that there are some promising interns coming up the ranks of the College Republicans at Harvard that they've been promised in exchange for shipping you off to Washington state to help a Republican governor get re-elected. Oh, and you can't quit unless you never want to work in politics/engineering again.
Yes, these players are quite often very well compensated. But let's also recognize that their compensation is due to the fact that the sports themselves make massive amounts of money. Players aren't paid millions in compensation for giving up their freedom of contract, they are paid millions because sports make billions.
Does all of this mean that we need to cry a river for Peyton Manning or Pau Gasol? No. I'm not reaching for the Kleenex, nor do I expect you to be. But it bears repeating that, however much money players make, they are human too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)