The Sports KiosK

When the Madness gets Depressing

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 01:44:00 +0000

Day four of March Madness coverage. You know the drill.

-Butler 63, Kansas State 56

What a heartbreaking game. I have to give Butler a ton of credit: they are a very good team, and this tournament has been the culmination of several years of excellence. They played aggressive defense all game and consistently worked to get to the rim when their threes weren't open.

Kansas State did their best to make it a game, but they didn't have the firepower to do so. Pullen just didn't have his shot going today, and he couldn't get to the rim as much as usual. State did an admirable job of continuing to go to the rim when their shots weren't falling, but they had trouble finishing and weren't getting any calls. Their pressure got them back into the game, but once Butler made a couple shots to end the run, Kansas was simply out of gas.

I only have two major gripes with this game. One was the officiating. I thought it was very uneven, and often seemed to be favoring Butler. They were just as physical and aggressive as Kansas State, but they seemed to be able to get away with it, particularly when State drove into the lane. Butler, meanwhile, was getting calls on most contact. Regardless of whether or not it was biased, I thought it was clearly inconsistent, and the players often looked perplexed as to what was and was not acceptable. Still, Kansas State was fouling most of the times it was called, and they certainly shouldn't use the refs as an excuse for their results.

The other problem I have was with Kansas State's lack of composure down the stretch. For such a smart team, and one that had been so heady when the going got tough, I found their collapse at the end of the game perplexing. They didn't have any sense of urgency, nor did they seem to have much of a plan. The game had already gotten away from them by that point, but the combination of missed free throws, poor ball-handling, and a distinct lack of urgency cemented the loss. If you had told me yesterday that this would be the case, I would have laughed at you.

This is why you don't try to predict college basketball: they're still twenty year old kids at the end of the day. Who knows how they'll react to anything, let alone a pair of grueling games followed by facing a far more aggressive opponent than they had played previously in front of thousands of people. You just don't know.

At the very least, I don't.

-West Virginia 73, Kentucky 66

The opening few minutes of this game looked like the beginning of a rather definitive statement. Kentucky was on a mission, and West Virginia were the poor suckers that got in their way. Then a few shots didn't fall, and West Virginia hit a couple threes, and the game was suddenly close is spite of Kentucky's dominance. Then Kentucky failed to generate transition opportunities, and their outside shots weren't falling, so their offense ground to a halt. West Virginia stayed uncharacteristically hot, and they took a lead into halftime.

Coming out of the half, Kentucky didn't seem to have a much better plan. Transition, Wall penetrating, outside shots, and occasionally a Cousins post-up. West Virginia cut off the transitions for the most part, the outside shots weren't falling, Cousins only got the ball sporadically, and Wall couldn't do everything. West Virginia, meanwhile, finally managed to avoid having their inside shots blocked, and their good outside shooting forced Kentucky to respect their three point shots. This opened up better driving lanes, and suddenly West Virginia wasn't just a hot team, they were a complete team.

During all of this, the only adjustment Kentucky made was a stifling press (which was admittedly a smart and incredibly effective decision). Their offense still revolved around outside shots they weren't making and dribble drives that weren't working. They couldn't hit their free throws, so even when they did penetrate successfully, they were forced to take one point instead of two.

Kentucky did an admirable job of closing the gap at the end. Taking a lead from sixteen to four is no mean feat, and they absolutely never gave up. Unfortunately, it spoke more to their lack of urgency earlier in the game than it did their ability to step up late in the game. They never felt like the game was in jeopardy until it was beyond repair, and although their efforts were valiant, they were too little too late. Poor free throw shooting and a tendency to coast were their greatest flaws, and those were the things that ultimately ended their season.

Given that I predicted this, you would think that I would be happy (particularly as it salvaged an otherwise poor run of predictions). Unfortunately, I have to admit that I wish I was wrong. The tournament was more interesting with Kentucky alive and fighting. I never knew what they were going to do, but I knew that it was going to be incredibly entertaining. Even in defeat, I had the feeling right to the very end that maybe, just maybe, they had one more miracle comeback in them.

I liked it better when I had that to hope for.

Tomorrow's matchups:

-Tennessee vs. Michigan State

Michigan State is always a good rebounding team, and that will certainly serve them well in this game. Tennessee struggles to score at times, and beyond Chism in the post, they don't really have a go-to offensive set. If Michigan State limits Tennessee's second chances and gets another great performance from a role player, they will probably win the game.

From Tennessee's perspective, the game is as simple as hammering the boards and stopping Morgan/Summers/Green on offense. State lacks efficient scorers and creators without Lucas, and if 2 of those three don't have good offensive days, Michigan State might barely score 45.

I'm going with Michigan State because they play the same game as Tennessee, only they perfected it. Throw in the March credentials of one Tom Izzo, and I'm just tired of picking against them. Tennessee is more talented with the absence of Lucas, and they have certainly beaten very good teams this year (Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio State, to name three), but at a certain point I find it hard to believe that a team that has no studs, very few scoring options, and plays frenetically for extended stretches can make a Final Four. It just doesn't compute.

Of course, if we've learned anything these last two days, it's ignore all of my picks. Also, if you're gambling, take the points.

I wish I had more to say about this game, but I'm still mourning the loss of Ohio State, Kansas, Kentucky, and Kansas State. I just can't be content with a pair of scrappy and under-talented teams when four of the seven best teams in the country lost too early. Tennessee and Michigan State certainly earned their way to the Elite Eight, but with the exception of Tennessee's game against Ohio State I haven't felt like I have been watching good teams so much as opportunistic ones. I like watching cute and fun teams the first weekend. Now I want to see greatness.

One man's Cinderella is another man's peasant, I suppose.

-Baylor vs. Duke

One thing I need to get in print before the game starts: Zoubek fouls on every play. He isn't skilled on defense, he just cheats, and he gets away with it a lot. This was endlessly frustrating during Duke's last game, and I'm sure it will come up again tomorrow.

Baylor played the game of the tournament against Saint Mary's, while Duke sucked it up and got away with it because they played a beleaguered Purdue team. Baylor's front line is going to hammer Duke, and unless the refs are being paid off, I imagine Duke's bigs will be in foul trouble quickly.

(Of course, the refs very well may be paid off. I put nothing past Duke.)

Duke's two best non-conference opponents this season were Wisconsin and Georgetown. They lost by four and twelve, respectively. Baylor beat Xavier in their marquee non-conference game. Neither team has been tested in the tournament, so predicting their performance is close games is largely speculation. In spite of this, if you watched each of their games on Friday and ignored their reputations, there is absolutely no way you would pick Duke to win. Factor in Baylor's performance in a very tough conference and the partisan crowd (the game will be played in Houston), and Baylor just makes sense.

Plus, Duke is a bunch of whiny, pansy chokers. So there's that.

Image via Zimbio

When the Madness Stinks

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:56:00 +0000

A recap of today's games before we move on to tomorrow's action:

-Tennessee 76, Ohio State 73

This game was incredibly frustrating to watch. Neither team was willing to accept its limitations, and it ultimately cost Ohio State a shot at the Final Four. Where to start...

Ohio State: Absolutely refused to drive for the middle twenty minutes of the game. They settled for bad jumpers and contested threes, which they weren't making. Unfortunately, there were spurts when they made a few, and that emboldened them to keep trying. Whenever they took the ball to the basket, they either got fouled or passed to a wide open shooter. It is by far their best offensive strategy, but you wouldn't know it based on their decision making. I have to give Tennessee some credit for this, as their defensive was consistent and smothering, but the ease with which Turner and Lighty drove by people at times only made it that much more frustrating.

Turner absolutely carried Ohio State the first ten minutes of the second half, scoring 14 in a row to keep his team in the game. He played well down the stretch, but his teammates simply weren't helping him much, and the game got away. Today, he and Lighty simply weren't enough. (Buford was the only other player to score in the second half. He had three.)

I have to blame the coach, Thad Motta, for some of this. Why is he not telling his team to attack the basket? Maybe he was and the players simply didn't listen. I can live with that. But he made another error when he pressed after Turner made the go-ahead shot. Prior to that point, the press had been effective at generating some turnovers, and that was necessary because Ohio State was losing. Once they went ahead, though, they needed to get back on defense as quickly as possible. Tennessee had been shaky in half-court offense all game, and if Ohio State could rebound, they would have the game in hand. Additionally, Turner was gassed, and he is the front of their 1-3-1 press/trap. Tennessee broke the press and got an easy go-ahead layup that proved to be the difference.

Not an indefensible choice, but a suspect one at best.

Tennessee: How many threes did they airball? 5? 10? I have no idea. Way too many. Conversely, how often did their passing in the post generate easy backdoor opportunities? Ugh. In spite of being 4 for 15 on threes, they did an exceptional job of hammering the boards and looking for the open man when Ohio State doubled. Their guards struggled with their ball-handling at times, but with the exception of the final couple minutes, Ohio State rarely capitalized.

I'm forced to eat a small plate of crow over Wayne Chism's performance. 9 for 16 and 11 boards while being the emotional leader of a team that has been through the emotional wringer this year. (I won't bother explaining it, as the announcers refused to shut up about it. Suffice it to say it involved copious amounts of stupidity.) I didn't think he was a chump or anything, but I did not think Tennessee would go very far relying on him as their number one option. I guess they showed me.

In spite of all of those nuisances, the game was generally pretty well played. Each team imposed its will on defense and found a way to generate points when they had to. Basketball is a game in which the difference is typically two or three possessions, and between a mistimed press and a poor turnover, Ohio State sealed their fate. I'm sad to see Turner and Ohio State go, but Tennessee earned it.

Mostly.

-Saint Mary's 49, Baylor 72

What a savage beat down this was. Baylor's front line was amazing. Controlling the boards, stopping drives, pushing Samhan away from the basket...they did it all. Their guards absolutely worked their Saint Mary's counterparts, moving wherever they wanted to and getting open looks whenever they desired.

To some extent, Baylor was impressive because of their competition. Had they played a legitimate 2 seed, they might not have embarrassed their opposition so thoroughly. They played the most complete game I have seen in the entire tournament, though, and they have quietly played as well as anyone for the past two weeks. They have not lost a game this year by more than seven points while playing in the best conference in the country. After Kentucky, there is no one I would rather avoid for the duration of the tournament.

One last thing: I can't forget to say goodbye to the fat guy. I can safely say I will not be missing Samhan. FINALLY a team remembers that guys who can't shoot from more than eight feet or move with the ball are easily defended by denying them deep post position. Thanks a bunch, Baylor. You're doing God's work.

-Northern Iowa 52, Michigan State 59

This is the only result that genuinely surprised me. It shouldn't have, because Tom Izzo has been to 5 Final Fours in ten years and made a living winning when no one thought he would. Michigan state out-rebounded Iowa, Summers stepped up and doubled his scoring average, and Farokhmanesh had a bad game. That's the story of the game in three bullet points.

-Purdue 57, Duke 70

What a putrid game. Ugly in every sense of the word. Bad shots, too many missed shots, too many fouls that both were and were not called. All around ugly. Add in the fact that Duke won, and my only thought is this: how much money does Duke send to the selection committee every year to ensure themselves a crappy region?

Props to Singler for playing extremely well, particularly when none of his teammates could. Props to Purdue for fighting to the end. Slops to the referees, (abhorrent) the rest of Duke, (sucked immeasurably) the selection committee, (terrible) and the general talent level of this year's tournament (low, to say the least). This game didn't even have the common decency to be exciting. I want those two hours of my life back.

(An Aside: Lest you think I'm bitter about these last two results and thus shunned them, I'll explain why they got the short end of the coverage stick: they sucked. A lot. Nothing about either game was watchable, and they reminded me that college basketball is a severely inferior product to the pro variety. Nothing more, nothing less.)

And now a look ahead to Elite Eight action:

-Butler vs. Kansas State

I'm going to be forced to count Butler out this time. Kansas State is most decidedly not Syracuse. They're healthy, their guards are unbelievable, they hammer the boards, and no one is going to keep them from putting up points one way or another. With the exception of Baylor, I don't think anyone left in the tournament plays smarter. I just don't see Butler winning.

Now, I'm forced to hedge the above statements by saying that Butler is a quality team and has been for years, that they have beaten quality opponents to get here, and that they wont be intimidated by Kansas State. All of these are true, and given the that the overarching theme of this tournament has been "When talent is down, anything can happen", I couldn't be too surprised if Butler won.

I'm just having trouble seeing how they could.

-West Virginia vs. Kentucky

Whether or not this is the best game of the tournament, it is almost assuredly going to be the best matchup. Kansas State or Baylor versus Kentucky could conceivably be better, but those teams lack the big name coach and tradition that West Virginia has. When you factor in the contrasting styles, you have all the ingredients for a classic.

West Virginia is the Yeoman's team. They don't have any name guys. Their biggest asset is killing themselves on defense and being scrappy everywhere else. None of their players has overwhelming skills in any area, yet their starters are all efficient scorers. They epitomize what we have come to think of as Big East basketball, and they do so with little ballyhoo and fanfare.

Kentucky couldn't be any more different. They are the most celebrated team in the country. They have talent and name players up and down their roster. Wall. Cousins. Bledsoe. Peterson. All of their names will be called on draft day, and early on, at that. They are the most athletic team in the country, the best offensive team in the country, and their coach is probably the most controversial. When you combine that with their extensive history as a pantheon level basketball school, they couldn't possibly be more different than their competition.

The question you have to ask when determining the outcome of this game is this: Who is Kentucky? Are they 2003 Syracuse, a young team led by a future superstar (Carmelo Anthony) that rose to the moment? Are they 2008 Memphis, who, led by Derrick Rose, got to the finals before they ultimately succumbed to their fatal flaw? (Free Throw Shooting. Coincidentally, Kentucky's fatal flaw.) Are they the new Fab Five, whose youth was so prominently on display when Webber called that foolish timeout? Or are they 2005 North Carolina, the most talented team in the tournament, and the one that will eventually cut down the nets.

My guess is somewhere between 2003 Syracuse and 2008 Memphis. Syracuse had one of the best college players ever, while Memphis was the spiritual predecessor to this Kentucky team (in no small part because of their shared coach). Wall is somewhere between Rose and Carmelo on the College Superstar Scale, and which one he gets compared to will be determined in the next two weeks.

This game presents the perfect opportunity for Kentucky's flaws to be exploited. Kentucky has a habit of letting even the most inferior of opponents back into games, and West Virginia should require no such favors. Kentucky may excel in close-and-late situations, but you can only dodge the bull so many times before you get the horns.

So my prediction is that Kentucky will get the horns at some point in this tournament. It seems that it has been fated from the beginning. Nearly every team that most closely resembles this group lost when their most fatal flaw came back to haunt them. Why would Kentucky be any different?

If it's going to happen sometime, it might as well be to the first team that presents a real threat. So yes, I'm picking West Virginia over Kentucky. I'll also be picking Kansas State or Baylor if Kentucky plays them. You can't run from your faults forever, and eventually, Kentucky's immaturity, lack of passion to close out games, and inability to make free throws will come back to haunt them.

I'm just not sure when.

Image via College Hoops Journal

When the Madness Starts

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:58:00 +0000

We'll kick off day two of March Madness coverage with recaps of last night's games, followed by previews of the Friday games.

-Syracuse 59, Butler 63

Someone commented on my previous article, saying that I didn't go out on a limb much by picking the favorites to win every game. While this is true, I thought I was pretty clear about my reservations regarding Syracuse and Kentucky, and those came to light during this game.

(Or at least what parts CBS deemed us worthy to view. Way to show us an ugly game in which West Virginia was pulling away over a game that was back and forth for the entire second half and was about eight game minutes ahead of its competitor. Brilliant.)

Syracuse's Wes Johnson was good, but he wasn't great. The tournament is a platform for great players to take over games and carry their teams, and without a superstar performance from Johnson, Syracuse was going to have to sweat some games. Butler wasn't intimidated by Syracuse being a big name program, and when they needed to, they were able to make outside shots to beat the 2-3 zone. Syracuse has a decent team, not a great one, and particularly without the depth provided by Onuaku, they were more a quality team than a juggernaut.

Of course, with all that said, I didn't expect them to lose to Butler, who won the game by getting to the line seven more times than the less aggressive Syracuse. So it goes in the tournament with one of the lowest talent levels in a while, where any team can string together a few good performances and embarrass the supposed titans of college basketball.

One of these rounds, though, the good teams have to get their act together and remember they're better. Right?

-Washington 56, West Virginia 69

What an ugly first ten minutes. Borderline unwatchable. Thankfully that was followed by a solid stretch of play from both sides, with the possible exception of the number of short shots each team missed. Eventually Washington's fouls came back to haunt them, and West Virginia's superior front-court asserted itself on both the offensive and defensive glass. Getting out-rebounded by 16 is a good way to lose, and lose Washington did.

I like West Virginia going forward. Id have trouble picking them against Kentucky, but they have the talent, coaching, and ability to win it all, especially if their shots are falling. Given that Kentucky is by far the best team they'll play for the rest of the tournament, the Final Four might in fact be theirs to lose if they can get that far.

-Xavier , Kansas State

There isn't enough hyperbole in the world to describe how incredible this game was.

I thought Kansas State had it at the end of regulation. The refs made a terrible call on the foul that gave Xavier three free throws, and instead of a narrow win, Kansas State would have to endure overtime.

Kansas State looked dejected, but they hammered Xavier in the post. I was thrilled to see a college team finally play smart down the stretch, going to their bread and butter again and again.

Then Jordan Crawford did what I have been begging every 'star' player in the tournament to do: carry his team when it mattered. His threes stared a certain loss in the face and brazenly said "Not Today"

Samuels made two clutch free throws for Kansas State, and as Xavier was bringing the ball down, I said out loud, "What are the odds this three goes in? 90%?" Sure enough, it was dead on. Pullen raced back and made an awesome layup, followed by a miss and a foul. Merriewether made one of two, leaving the door open. I assumed that the heroics had finally stopped, and that the game would finally end.

Silly me.

Crawford sunk yet another three. "Not Today".
I thought Kansas State was going to fold at this point. They had been through too much.

Pullen had other ideas.

Every missed shot was a transition opportunity for him. When Kelly went out hurt, he carried the scoring load. Crawford made Xavier's first three shots of double overtime, but it was not meant to be. Two made threes for Pullen in the most desperate of situations was simply too much.

Crawford did everything that could have been asked of him. He had to create every shot, and he made some enormous ones.

Pullen and Clemente look like 'those' guards we see every year in March Madness, the ones that carry their team when the game gets tight, make the heady plays, and get to the rim when they can.

Kentucky vs. Kansas State should be a classic. But I can pretty much gurantee it won't hold a candle to this.

-Cornell 45, Kentucky 62

The only thing I can think about when I watch a game involving Kentucky is how absurdly talented they are. It isn't even fair to ask their opposition to play with them most nights. Beyond their immaturity, they are simply impregnable.

Cousins showed why he is going to be a top 10 pick in spite of being a massive head case. His footwork was superb, he has touch around the rim, and he has the agility to play on the perimeter. Bledsoe plays second fiddle to Wall, but he is a magnificent second fiddle, picking up all of the loose ends. Patterson is much better than I realized. He has amazing quickness on defense and a solid post game, and he absolutely brutalized the Cornell bigs.

Then of course there is Wall, who simply defies description. Calling him fast feels like an insult. He's faster than fast. His fast-breaks are masterful orchestras in which he is the conductor. If anyone else is picked first in the draft, no matter what the team, it will be an absolute travesty.

As for Cornell, Kudos. You did everything you could, but you ran into the best team in the country. Now we get to see if Wall will make his mark as Carmelo Anthony once did, or if his college legacy is ultimately a footnote in his career.

On to tomorrow's matchups.

-Tennessee vs. Ohio State

I don't like this Tennessee team. They lack good post players, they can't shoot the three, and their best player was their fourth or fifth best player when the team was elite. Conversely, Ohio state has 3 players that shoot 38%+ from three in addition to Evan Turner (who shoots 35%). Ohio State beat up on Georgia Tech, while Tennessee barely beat San Diego State. Sorry, but this is another favorite I'm hitching my wagon to. I love teams that have a college superstar, and I love teams of older players that know how to use that superstar even more.

-Saint Mary's vs. Baylor

I hate Saint Mary's.

OK, that isn't true. I loathe them.

Allow me to to explain. Saint Mary's best player is the 6'11, 260 Omar Samhan. First of all, he is not 6'11. No way in hell. I he is 6'9, I would be surprised.

Second, and much more importantly, he can't jump. I don't mean that in the hyperbolic, he can only jump about a foot and a half way. He literally cannot leave the ground. He uses his enormous backside to move his defender, turns, and throws the ball at the hoop. He's like the fat kid in eighth grade gym who no one could guard, except in division one college basketball.

This infuriates me because it shouldn't be possible. How, at this level of the game, can someone who literally doesn't leave the ground to shoot make 13 of 16 shots in the second round of the tournament? How? This makes no sense to me, and like a dog who can't get his head out of a bucket, when I get confused I start shaking my head with rage.

Then we have Baylor, who 7 short years ago had a player (Patrick Dennehy) murdered by a former teammate. Their coach was forced to resign amidst allegations that he had made improper financial payments to players and planned to cover his actions by characterizing Dennehy as a drug dealer. Calling that devastating to the program would redefine trite.

Adding in the fact that Baylor was already a popular choice to win their region before the tournament even started, and I'm rooting for the real Cinderella story, not the fat guy who can't jump.

-Northern Iowa vs. Michigan State

The moment you have been waiting for is finally here. Are you sitting down?

I'm picking an underdog.

Northern Iowa is not just some random team living on prayers. They only lost 5 games all year, and they won the Missouri Valley Conference (a conference full of good mid-majors). Michigan State needed too much luck to beat Maryland, whereas Northern Iowa simply outplayed Kansas (possibly the best team in the country). Michigan State won't have Lucas, the best player on their team in every respect, while Ali Farokhmanesh will be dropping bombs all day for Iowa.

So what if Michigan State is only favored by 1? It still counts as an upset.

-Purdue vs. Duke

I hate Duke. I hate them in the most generic way possible, the way everyone hates them. I hate that they always get an easy region. I hate their smugness. I hate how overrated their players are. I hate how certain announcers suck up to them incessantly.

I do love one thing about them, though. Their wonderful propensity to falter in March over the last decade, followed by them having to explain why, despite having a one seed and the easiest region, they couldn't make it to the second weekend. It's probably my favorite hate in sports. Other than Brett Favre, of course.

So in spite of the fact that Purdue is missing their heart and soul in Robbie Hummel, I'm picking them to beat Duke.

There are plenty of logical reasons for the pick. Duke's propensity to choke. Purdue being under-seeded after the loss of Hummel despite having a 29-5 season in what we now realize was a deep and talented Big-10. The emotional high Purdue is riding from being counted out.

But mostly I'm picking Purdue because I unequivocally hate Duke. I don't like to indulge such petty childishness often in my writing, but I have to say, it feels good.

Image via CJ Online

When the Madness Stops

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:26:00 +0000

To this point I have neglected to write about the NCAA Tournament, and given that this is the most inclusive and watched sporting event of the year, I feel like the reason bears mentioning. Simply put, I had nothing to say before the first round that you wouldn't have heard about from every imaginable source, and none of them know anything. Kansas lost in the second round. Under no circumstances would I have predicted this. The Big East Crumbled. I thought they were the best conference in the regular season. Saint Mary's won 2 games. I thought centers had to be able to at least graze the rim to play in the tournament.

So what changed?

Truthfully, very little. There will still be upsets, I will still pick games incorrectly, and nobody knows anything. However, the tournament has a very specific dynamic that changes from the first weekend to the second. The Cinderellas remember that it's almost midnight, the good teams realize they can not coast, and it becomes clear who is truly excellent and who isn't.

Therefore, I now have at least a little sense of what is going on, and I have watched all of the remaining teams play at least a couple games, so I feel qualified to write about them. For the rest of the tournament, I will preview all of the upcoming games with at least a modicum of analysis and insight. Hopefully.

-Butler vs. Syracuse

I have disliked Syracuse all season. Not in the sense that they somehow aggravate me (like Duke) or that I think they're bad (like Saint Mary's), but because they lack a true star. The best teams always have definably excellent players, and I have no idea who theirs would be. Maybe Wes Johnson is that player, but I would be hard pressed to put him in the category of Evan Turner and John Wall as a player who can will his team to victory. Since 2006 (the last really bad year for college basketball), nearly every Final Four team had either a single overwhelmingly excellent player or a deep team loaded with NBA talent (or both). Syracuse lacks at least the latter, and possibly the former.

Then again, they lost 4 games all season while playing in the best conference in the country, so what do I know.

Of course, that conference has flamed out so far in the tournament. So maybe I do know.

As far as Butler, this isn't a terribly surprising result for them. They have been good for years, and they're quietly 30-4 this year. But they also only beat Murray State by two while Syracuse crushed their opponents. I'll take Syracuse. For now.

-Xavier vs. Kansas State

Xavier lost to most of the decent out of conference teams they played this year, including a loss to Kansas State by 15. Kansas State played in either the best or second best conference in the country and lost 1 fewer game total. I'm not a rocket scientist, but that seems to say Kansas State to me.

-Washington vs. West Virginia

Being a UCLA fan, the subject of Pac-10 futility came up regularly this season. Whenever it did, I said that no matter how few teams we got into the tournament, they would probably both do well, and everyone would be forced to admit that the Pac-10 wasn't as bad as previously thought. (I only half believed either end of this argument, but I kept making it anyways.)

Well, that's about what happened, and now Washington gets rewarded with a game against a seasoned opponent with a good coach. West Virginia lost 6 games all season, and 3 were close losses. All of them were against quality opponents. Washington could catch fire and pull of the upset...but I doubt it.

-Cornell vs. Kentucky

Kentucky reminds me of the late 90's Lakers teams. All the talent in the world, and too little maturity to do anything with it. Those teams got better when they cleared out the head cases and brought in Phil Jackson. Kentucky will be doing neither. They spend game after game riding their emotions, playing to their opponents instead of playing their own game, making poor decisions, and generally believing that they have proven something when they have done no such thing. Their competitive fire is not exactly burning bright, and it rarely does until they enter a close and late situation. They are, in short, what turn many people off of basketball.

And yet...they're probably the most fun team to watch in college basketball. They ooze talent from every pore. Wall and Cousins dominate their opponents with astonishing ease. They fly up and down the court, they can press viciously when necessary, and they are simply better and more athletic than anyone they will play this year.

Cornell, meanwhile, was brutally under-seeded. They lost four games this year, two of which were to Kansas and Syracuse. You might recognize those as one seeds. Yes, they play in a weak conference, but all they can do is beat who they play. They did just that in the first two rounds, and against teams that are known for their defense, Cornell scored 78 and 87 points against Temple and Wisconsin, respectively. I'm almost certain they're going to do the same tomorrow. The difference is that Kentucky will shrug, inbound the ball, and run like hell to do the same. Cornell might be able to stop and shoot with better teams, but they can not run and jump with superior athletes. Kentucky will win.

You know, unless being a bunch of 19 year-old head cases brings them down. Which it might.

I'll be posting a new article every day for the next 3 days, so come back to see my thoughts on each upcoming day.

Image via John Wall Pictures

Kevin Durant is Not the MVP

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:03:00 +0000

There is an insufferable habit amongst followers of the NBA to eschew logic in favor of the sexy story. Nowhere is this more prevalent than than the MVP hype machine. Regardless of how painfully obvious it is that one player has run amok in the league and separated himself from his peers, we insist on pretending that the award is being contested.

Which brings us to the present situation, where people are actually defending the notion that Kevin Durant might be the MVP instead of Lebron James.

This idea is indefensible in every way, shape, and form. Lebron James has won player of the month every month this season. No one has ever won the award every month of a season. He has carried his team to the best record in the NBA. Then there is the matter of statistical comparison.

Lebron: 30 points, 7.2 rebounds, 8.5 assists, 1.7 steals, 1 block. 50/35/78 percentages. 3.5 TO.

Durant: 29.6 points, 7.5 rebounds, 2.8 assists, 1.3 steals, 1 block. 48/38/88 percentages. 3.5 TO.

Durant is a marginally better free throw shooter (+1 point per game difference) and 3 point shooter (+.5 point per game). Lebron creates more turnovers (+.5 point per game)...and gets almost 6 more assists a game (+12-15 points per game?).

Think about that difference. Do you know how many players in the NBA average at least 5.7 assists? 15. Total. The difference between the two is so great that you cannot even say they play the same position. Lebron and Durant score at the same rate on the same number of shots, and in Lebron's spare time he also has to act as his team's main facilitator, while Durant defers those duties. Given that the two have become a wash defensively (which is a credit to Durant's work off the court), the verdict seems rather clear.

Not since Magic has a scorer had so much responsibility to distribute, and with due respect to Magic and Bird, neither had as much asked of them as Lebron (that's a good thing). Who else in the league would actually attempt to play the scoring wing and point guard positions and hope for even a modicum of success? Wade? He does it well, but not as well. Kobe isn't half the passer Lebron is. Players like Arenas and Evans attempt the role, and their success (or lack thereof) is indicative of how futile the effort usually is.

None of this is meant as an attack on Durant. He is, to be sure, a phenomenal player, and the fact that he is so close to Lebron is so many statistical categories is a credit to his meteoric rise through the league. His efforts on defense this season have become infectious, and his team has gone from being a laughing stock on that end of the floor (20/30 in points per 100 possessions) to one of the best defensive teams in the league (6/30). Without a reliable second scorer, he is forced to carry his team's offense every night. Few players have more asked of them and deliver so consistently.

Lebron James, however, is one of those players. Unquestionably. Unfortunately, because we have become so used to his incredible gifts, we are inclined to look elsewhere for greatness. This is not the first time this has happened.

In 1987, Larry Bird was coming off 3 straight MVP's and had a slightly better season statistically in 87 than he did in 86. Bird averaged 4 more points and 3 more rebounds than Magic, while Magic averaged 5 more assists. Bird was slightly better on defense. The Lakers won 6 more games than Boston, but they played in the weaker conference. At the very least, the vote should have been close, right?

Magic got 65 first place votes. Bird got 1.

The result wasn't egregious so much as the process. Magic was going to get his lifetime achievement award, and nothing was going to stop it.

Far more blatant atrocities would follow. Karl Malone won the MVP in 97 over Jordan for no conceivable reason. Forget the statistics: Jordan's Bulls won 5 more games than the Jazz in a division that had 4 50 game winners. The entire Western Conference had 4. Given that neither team's number 2 player (Stockton and Pippen, respectively) was chopped liver, I'm going to say that a direct comparison of team success was a good metric to trust. Jordan proved that in the finals, just as he would the next year.

A more recent example is Steve Nash's 2005 MVP. People were no longer enamored with Shaq, and Nash was running the fun and gun Suns. Shaq averaged 7 more points, 7 more rebounds, 2 more blocks, and shot 60% from the field. He also played defense, something Nash wasn't exactly adept at. Nash averaged a whopping 8 more assists, but that was his only edge. When you factor in that Shaq's points per shot was 1.52 compared to 1.35 for Nash, and that Shaq's misses were likely to lead to additional chances for fouls, tip-ins, and rebounds, not to mention the upswing Miami took along with the downturn the Lakers endured, the answer to the MVP question was exceedingly clear.

And yet, Shaq lost.

These aren't the only examples of this behavior, but they illustrate my larger point: that we become enamored with what is new and fresh, as opposed to what is objectively most excellent. The stories of Jordan, Shaq, and Lebron have been told, ad nauseum. We have measured their tangible qualities and turned their intangible qualities into whatever metaphors we see fit. There is little new ground to explore until Lebron wins a title, and because of that we have become jaded to his everyday excellence.

The NBA is a league that emphasizes potential. Kevin Durant is only beginning to realize his, and the possibility that his potential is somehow greater and more exciting that Lebron's entices us to behave irrationally. This is unfair, and in the case of the MVP, it creates a false belief that because something is newer it is somehow greater.

Durant should be appreciated for what he is: an excellent player of immense talent who has brought his team to his level and is only beginning to realize his potential.

We should appreciate Lebron for what he is: the once and future MVP.

We don't have to compare and confuse the two to enjoy them both.

Image via RotoRadio

The NFL: Who Can Wait?

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:50:00 +0000

This has to be the worst time of the year for sports. The NFL is months away. The NBA is all sorted out but hasn't moved on to the playoffs yet. Baseball is in its pre-season, March Madness hasn't started, and most stories revolve around whatever scandal is hottest. I don't have anything interesting to say about Tiger Woods, Ben Roethlisberger being drunk and womanizing hardly qualifies as news, and the "revelation" that Allen Iverson drinks and gambles is about as shocking as a sunrise.

Luckily for me, the NFL free agency period just kicked off. Lots of money being thrown around on quick fixes, players with questionable potential, and posturing to sell more tickets next season? This time of year, that qualifies as hot stuff.

-First, the inevitable veterans that were cut to save cash.

Ladainian Tomlinson: Probably a year too late, which is the saddest part. Lots of great players never win titles, but few do it with such depressing consistency. Year after year, the Chargers inevitably left the playoffs earlier than they should have, typically after a lackluster effort by their star running back. After a good effort in a heartbreaking loss to the Patriots in '07, his last 3 seasons were notable mostly because of the way they ended: with Tomlinson sitting on the bench, helmet on, isolated from his teammates and hiding behind his tinted visor. A sad end for a hall of fame running back that leaves his once sterling legacy tarnished.

And yet, I can't help but feel sorry for him. He shouldered the load for the Chargers for seven years, and he never shirked the responsibility. He was by every account a hard worker and a humble person. His fans loved him nearly without fail. He reacted badly when he was hurt or struggling because he cared so much. The thought of his own mortality bothered him, and in pressure situations he was far too tightly wound. It was his fatal flaw. All he could be was a great player that couldn't carry his team in the playoffs.

We shouldn't remember him for two years when he broke down and couldn't deal with it. We should remember him for the seven years when he single-handedly carried an offense, always cared about living up to his responsibilities, and carried himself like a professional on and off the field. Those were 7 damn good years. Any team would have been ecstatic to have them.

Thomas Jones: Contracts in the NFL may not cripple franchises like they do in the NBA, but no one can convince me the system isn't flawed when someone like Jones rushes for 1400 yards and then gets cut to save money. Yes, the Jets have an excellent replacement waiting in the wings, but every team in the league would love to have two productive backs.

This isn't Jones first rodeo, though. The Bears cut Jones in 2007 to make way for Cedric Benson after Jones had rushed for 1200 yards and the Bears made the Super Bowl. The Bears went 7-9 the following season, and Benson rushed for 674 yards. Let's hope the Jets are smarter than they seem.

Jake Delhomme: The funniest big name cut. The poor guy was so inept that he became that wonderful combination of hilarious and pathetic, the ultimate train wreck. He was so bad that when he was officially succeeded by the un-drafted Matt Moore, the Panthers promptly won 4 of their last 5 games. A mercy killing was in order, and that's what poor Jake got. Hopefully some contender picks him up to be a back-up. As long as it isn't the Bears.

-Now for the false hope that throwing money at our problems provides: the free agent signings.

Antrel Rolle: Signed with the Giants for 5 years and $37 million, $15 million guaranteed. He shouldn't be one of the highest paid safeties in the league (which he now is), but the price actually seems reasonable for what they're getting. Confidence, toughness, and jaw-rattling hits don't grow on trees, and the Giants secondary could use all of them.

Anquan Boldin: Technically a trade, but he was leaving no matter what. The Cardinals got 3rd and 4th round picks in return, while Boldin signed a 3 year $25 million extension. A few people went out of their way to bash this trade, apparently for no reason other than to go against the grain. The idea that this transaction is anything less than a coup for the Ravens is ridiculous. They desperately needed an offensive playmaker and leadership presence on that side of the ball, and Boldin provides both. He's also one of the toughest players in the league: after suffering a severe skull fracture, he returned to play within a few weeks, helping the Cardinals reach the Super Bowl.

Oh, and he's made 3 Pro Bowls.

He'll fit in perfectly with the toughest team in the league as a desperately needed playmaker, and he might even supplant Ray Lewis as the toughest Raven. Explain to me how this could be a bad thing? If the Ravens' defense can keep from getting old too quickly, they will be formidable in 2010.

(Note that this trade, whether it works out or not, was an attempt to put a good team over the top with a logical move. It will stand in stark contrast to several other signings.)

Antonio Cromartie: I know a good number of Chargers fans. For the last two seasons, there were two topics that gave them pained looks: Tomlinson's decay, and coach Turner's ineptitude. Their favorite? Bashing Cromartie. They did it constantly. So while I'm inclined to trust the savant of defense that is Rex Ryan, I'm guessing that 10 people that watch every Chargers game are probably on to something.

Luckily for the Jets, Revis will be pulling the tougher assignment and easing Cromartie's burden, so maybe the move works. It just won't create the defensive juggernaut some people foresee.

Josh Cribbs: You know the Browns are an awful excuse for a franchise when they have to be shamed into paying their best player. Cribbs is so good at special teams it's borderline unfair, and he made their offense immensely less putrid whenever he got to run the wildcat. You would think the Browns would have overpaid him just to make him happy. Instead, they tried to play hardball.

Idiots.

Gary Brackett: The 29 year old defensive captain of a team that got to the Super Bowl gets 5 years $33 million. Visionary thoughts such as "Let's make sure to re-sign our best players at reasonable salaries" are why the Colts win 12 games every year. Go figure.

Nate Burleson, Kyle VandenBosch: Both decent players, both fill holes, both signed to reasonable contracts. They're also 28 and 31, respectively. With a team as awful as the Lions, seeking short term help reeks of desperation (and by all accounts, the Lions acted rather desperate in their pursuit of name free agents). Of course, fortunes change quickly in the NFL, so maybe steady progress will prove better than none.

I doubt it, though. (I know what you're thinking. 'Doubting the Lions' prospects for success? Where else can I find such insightful analysis?')

Brandon Marshall: Currently playing footsie with the Seahawks. Carroll is undoubtedly enamored with his athleticism, and thinks he can solve his quarterback problem by surrounding him with talented receivers. That may work in college, but it wont fly in the pros. Get a QB first, Pete. Then get a receiver who will berate that quarterback whenever he misses a throw.

Chester Taylor: My favorite move of the off-season. An under-appreciated player, Taylor is a versatile offensive talent who was only on the bench because the best running back in the NFL played ahead of him. The Bears got him for a song, and he will provide desperately needed options for Cutler while allowing Forte to save his legs. Awesome.

Julius Peppers: Signed with the Bears for 6 years, $91.5 million, 42 million guaranteed in the first three years.

I'm going to be calm. Rational. I'm going to look at this signing from all sides, carefully weigh every factor, be objective with regard to both player and team...

And still come to the conclusion that the Bears organization is filled with chimps. Are they serious with this signing? Did they just make up a number? Was any thought whatsoever put into this decision? Do they realize why this is absolutely indefensible?

(Deep Breath) OK. That was emotional. Let me take a more nuanced approach.

Albert Haynesworth was a first team All-Pro in 2007 and 2008. He is a defensive tackle, one of the three most important and irreplaceable positions on a football field. The other two are left tackle and quarterback, both offensive positions. That means, essentially, that Albert Haynesworth was one of the 2 most important defensive players in the NFL for two consecutive years. When he became a free agent, he was offered a 7 year contract for $100 million, of which $41 million was guaranteed.

Haynesworth was 27 when he signed that contract. Peppers is 30. Peppers plays a less valuable position than Haynesworth, and doesn't play that position as well as Albert plays his.

So what am I missing? How is a guy who was 10th in the league in sacks, who is visibly declining, and who got exactly 2.5 sacks in 2007, going to be paid like a franchise player? In what way is this defensible? It isn't like the Bears are on the cusp of a title and only need Peppers to put them into contention. They're one game under .500 the last 3 years with no playoff appearances.

The answer is two-fold. For one, the Bears had money burning a hole in their pocket. If the Bears are losers this season and they didn't use their cap space, their fans will complain that the team wasn't doing everything it could to put the best possible product on the field. Future flexibility be damned, fans would rather be 9-7 than 7-9, and if that costs $16 million and our future, so be it.

Which leads to the second reason: the coaching staff and front office are on the hot seat. They know that one more year of futility is going to lead to their dismissal, and if Peppers can generate a few more wins, that might mean another year of employment.

Of course, this speculates that Peppers is going to be worth a few wins, a rather dubious assumption. Even if he is healthy and giving a peak performance (which, admittedly, is a sight to behold), he can't fix a broken offense, a complete lack of receivers, and a defense that loses at least 2 key parts annually to injuries.

Peppers is an Oriental rug covering up a three year stain of failure. No one is going to look under the rug when things are good. But when the Bears start to lose, and the smell of that stain wafts through Soldier Field, the fans are going to lift the rug and remember that this was all just a distraction.

Stinks, doesn't it?

Image via MKROB

Wizards, Bullets, and Curses, Oh My!, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:14:00 +0000

When we last left off, the Bullets were busy making a mockery of the draft process. The one decent player they had, Jeff Malone, was traded in 1990. The team did not make the playoffs for 8 straight years, from 1989 to 1996. During much of that stretch they had the same propensity to be just good enough to not be able to draft a sure thing, and just dumb enough to make the least of their draft picks.

In 1994, this started to change. First, the team drafted Juwan Howard in, someone who could actually play basketball without making a mockery of the game. Then, in the fall of 1994 they traded Tom Gugliotta and a couple first round picks for Chris Webber, who was also known to be capable of playing basketball. The trade was a panic move by the Warriors, who were worried that Webber would flee the following summer when he could exercise his opt-out clause. Webber hated Don Nelson (then the coach of the Warriors), and the change of scenery should have done him good.

Amusingly, the Bullets managed to trade a notoriously un-clutch, soft, overrated "superstar" in Vince Carter for the same thing in Chris Webber. Even with the draft four years away, they almost telepathically linked that pick to the very thing that always crippled them: a star that didn't feel the need to do what stars do.

Webber's first two seasons were marked by injuries. He played 54 and 15 games in his first two seasons, and the team continued to be dreadful. Amusingly, the season in which he only played 15 games the teams' record was 18 games better than when he played in 54 games the year prior, although some of that was due to the team having drafted Rasheed Wallace.

Of course, they traded Rasheed Wallace for Rod Strickland after one year. While this wasn't an abjectly terrible trade, trading away promising young big men for aging guards is never a good move. Strickland gave the Bullets 3 good seasons and one decent one before being washed up, ultimately succeeding in getting them to the playoffs once and winning zero games when they got there. Wallace went on to play on teams that went to the conference finals regularly and won a title. Rasheed also played in 4 All-Star games to Strickland's zero. Short term thinking at its finest.

The following year (96-97), with a (mostly) healthy Webber, the team made the playoffs and served as the whipping boys for the 69 win Chicago Bulls. The following year the team failed to make the playoffs despite winning 42 games, having fallen one short of the Heat and the Knicks.

Taking these developments as a whole, and considering the painful preceding decade, the Bullets were in good shape. Webber and Howard were young and talented, each having made an All-Star game at that point. While the team was far from a contender, the most common model for success in the NBA is taking a talented core of players and building around them, and the Bullets had their core.

That is, they had their core until that May, when they traded Webber because he was being a petulant asshole and the Bullets decided that they were sick of that. Wes Unseld (now the G.M. of the Bullets, a role in which he did his best to make sure no one remembered he was a great player by systematically destroying the team) was tired of Webber's immaturity and vacillating interest in playing hard, and traded him for Mitch Richmond, a consummate professional. Richmond was also 33, while Webber was 25. Richmond played two more years before retiring, while Webber went on to lead the Kings to the Conference Finals in 2002 and played in a number of other game 7's that the Kings ultimately lost.

This trade, more than anything else, is a microcosm for the failure of the Bullets. They target the wrong kind of player, and then they can't handle the ramifications, leading them to do more damage. Webber was the same player for the Bullets that he was in Golden State. They were correct in trying to obtain him for a bargain price. When you acquire a head case, though, you have to have a plan for dealing with them. They can't be treated as though they are mature, upstanding players who are without flaw if that simply isn't the case. While Webber was a great talent, he was also a head case of the highest order. A couple years on the Kings, with better and more veteran teammates around him and a better and more veteran coach leading him, helped him mature into a much better (if still flawed) player and leader. Much as Elvin Hayes needed Unseld to cover up his faults, Webber needed a group of people that wouldn't accept his faults. Webber never got this in Washington, and it won't be the last time we see this happen.

The post Webber era was again marked by both stupidity and futility. 7 straight years missing the playoffs, trading Ben Wallace for nothing, trading Rip Hamilton for the enigmatic Jerry Stackhouse, drafting Kwame Brown (in what was admittedly a pretty rotten draft).....the list goes on. They even managed to whiff in the 2003 draft, taking Jarvis Hayes over guys like Leandro Barbosa, Kendrick Perkins, and........Josh Howard. Awkward.

This era was, of course, notable mostly for the 2 years from 01-03 when none other than Michael Jordan decided that being the team president wasn't enough, and he laced up the sneakers once more.

Now, I understand that people wanted him to go out on top, the final shot of his career a picturesque game winner in the finals, our memories of him as an unstoppable force of nature intact. But being a professional athlete is a fleeting gift, and it wasn't as though he couldn't play anymore. He simply wasn't the player he once was.

His return did not, however, do much good for his franchise. Yes, they won 18 more games than they had the year prior (up from 19 to 37), but they still didn't make the playoffs in either year, and it wasn't as though Jordan was a long term solution. He was a sideshow, and one that prevented the team from moving forward and improving in a substantive way.

When Jordan moved on, the team went back to the gutter, winning 25 games. They had also, over the coure of 6 years, given up Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, and Rip Hamilton, who would of course go on to win a title as 3 of the starters on the 2004 Pistons. There was a glimmer of hope, though, as in 2003 they signed Gilbert Arenas, a player who was immensely talented and wanted out of a bad situation in Golden State after 2 years. If that sounds familiar, that would be because it's the exact same thing that happened with Chris Webber. I wish I were making this up.

In 2004 the team traded Stackhouse and Devin Harris for Antawn Jamison. Jamison's presence, combined with breakout years from Arenas and Larry Hughes, propelled the team from 27th in offense to 10th, and they made the 2005 playoffs, where they beat the Chicago Bulls in 6 games before getting swept by the Heat.

Hughes left in free agency that summer, but a trade for Caron Butler (only giving up uber-bust Kwame Brown) more than sufficiently replaced him. The Wizards had a talented core in place, but it was a core that was heavy on offense and light on defense. The next three seasons reinforced that notion, as they finished near to .500 every year. Each of those years they made the playoffs only to be ousted by Lebron James and the Cavaliers.

By 2008, the Wizards had tired of this, and DeShawn Stevenson decided that he was going to take matters into his own hands. He went out of his way to say that he was completely capable of guarding Lebron, and went as far as to call him overrated.

Anyone with a modicum of sense would have thought better than to call out someone who was definitely going to take it personally and subsequently make the Wizards pay. DeShawn does not have that sense.

Lebron, predictably, averaged a 30-9.5-7.5 for the series, with a game 6 line of 27-13-13 thrown in for good measure.

To make matters worse, Arenas had missed all but 13 games of the season with a knee injury, and yet still attempted to come back for the playoffs. He was incapable of performing, and played in only 4 of the 6 games, and in limited minutes when he did play.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being a team that can't quite get over the hump. It happens to lots of teams, and as long as you don't make any really terrible mistakes with trades, draft picks, or contracts, you will generally be able to improve your team given some patience and due diligence.

The Wizards, apparently thinking about none of this, decided to give a player who was a notorious head case, couldn't play defense, and had just played a whopping 13 games due to a serious knee injury, a $111 million contract for 6 years.

The rest is history. Arenas played 2 games the following year while openly fighting with the team about the treatment he should seek. He was ready to play in 09-10, and came back to a team that underachieved from the start. The infamous gun incident, and his unbelievably stupid handling of it, was simply the straw that broke the Wizards back. They had no financial flexibility because of Arenas' situation, and a roster that could barely win a game. The Wizards had little choice but to gut the team, a slap to the face for their fans who expected a product that was at the very least entertaining. To add injury to insult, the only real player they acquired in their dealings was hurt within 4 games, an injury that would end his season.

What's amazing is that, through all of this, there was only one constant: the late Abe Pollin. He had been the principal owner of the team for essentially as long as it had existed. He always showed an affinity for star players, refusing to be objective in matters regarding them. He hired unfit coaches and general managers, and he didn't put out a watchable product for the better part of 3 decades.

He also helped to re-build Washington D.C., particularly the area around the new stadium. Unlike many such projects, where there are grand promises of gentrification and increased economic viability, Abe actually delivered, the area having been built up considerably in the wake of the new arena.

Whatever he, and by extension the Wizards, are, though, they are not cursed. It is actually remarkable how far their predicament is from a curse. There are only a handful of devastating injuries in their history, and the players that sustained them (Arenas and Webber) were known to be injury prone well in advance of the Wizards acquiring them and signing them. The team has consistently targeted players, such as Hayes, Webber, and Arenas, that on many levels simply don't understand sublimating themselves for the team. They aren't the kind of players you want the future of your franchise to be reliant upon, and yet time and time again the Wizards created a situation in which that was their only option. They drafted terribly for nearly their entire existence, traded quality young players for aging and soon to be decrepit veterans, and when they did get flawed talent, they didn't create an environment in which they could mature and thrive.

None of that suggests a curse to me. It suggests a 30 year period of willful ignorance, a refusal to learn from mistakes, and an inability to sacrifice short term benefit for long term prosperity.

Perhaps now that can change. Maybe new leadership will have the sense to realize what mistakes have been made. But there is ample opportunity for error this summer: a draft with loads of talent but many question marks, and a free agent class with a similar dynamic. Hopefully, for their fans sake, they make some prudent moves.

Of course, they could simply be cursed into stupidity. That should probably be their new marketing plan. At least then they would have an excuse for this crap.

Image Via ScrapeTV

Wizards, Bullets, and Curses, Oh My!

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:21:00 +0000

A friend emailed me recently asking whether or not I thought the Wizards were cursed. The short answer to his question was no, I don't believe that cosmic forces have aligned to collectively screw over an NBA franchise. Excepting the possibility of the supernatural, though, I was forced to admit that he had a point about the eeriness of their futility. This is, after all, the team had a Mexican standoff in their locker room. That standoff involved a player (Arenas) who has played 47 games in the last three seasons combined while under contract for 111 million dollars over 6 years. Arenas then decided that the most mature way to handle these allegations was to make light of it by mock shooting his teammates before a game, which made about as much sense as Tiger mock humping a caddy at a golf tournament. Naturally, at that point the league decided to eschew allowing the legal system to run its course in favor of a year long suspension.

The Wizards subsequently decided that since they were going to stink, they might as well stink in the cheapest way possible. They sold every decent player they had for nothing, asking for nothing more than an expiring contract in return. Next year they'll be terrible, but they'll be terrible with a low payroll.

What little they did receive in return for their assets was Josh Howard, a decent player who was not working out in Dallas. Naturally, he tore his ACL in his fourth game as a Wizard.

Now, this could just be poor luck, but it certainly seemed to be a trend. Given that, I decided that I had no choice but to figure out whether the Wizards were simply a terrible team with terrible management, or were in fact hexed by some otherworldly force.

(Cue flashback to the early 60's)

The Bullets' (their name until 1997) first 7 seasons of existence were rather nondescript. They never finished with a winning record, though they still managed to make the playoffs twice. With the number 2 overall pick in 1967, they drafted Earl Monroe, a future Hall of Fame shooting guard. In 1968 they drafted Wes Unseld, a.k.a. the player whose career was a testament to team basketball. He was so good he won an MVP while averaging 14 points a game (which happens less often than World Wars do). For the next decade, Unseld's defense, rebounding, and outlet passing would lead the Bullets to consistent success, with him as the focal point. The Bullets went from 36 wins without Wes to 57 with him and had the honor of losing to the Knicks in the playoffs. They lost to the Knicks again the following year, then broke through and beat them in 1971, advancing to the finals to play the Milwaukee Bucks. That Bucks team featured guys named Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson, so naturally the Bullets were swept. Still, the Bullets managed to go from a joke to the finals in three years, overcoming the rival and incumbent champion Knicks in the process.

Of course, management screwed things up. When future hall-of-famer Earl Monroe felt that he deserved a salary bump, the Bullets countered by trading Monroe to the Knicks. Yes, the same team that the Bullets had just managed to supplant as the Eastern power after a three year struggle. In a related story, the Knicks won the 1973 title, and the Bullets lost to the Knicks in the playoffs in 72, 73, and 74.

Following the Bullets 1972 playoff exit, they traded for the enigmatic Elvin Hayes. In and of itself, this is not a particularly shocking event. Hayes was an incredibly talented player, and the Bullets only traded the rather forgettable Jack Marin to acquire Hayes. However, as we will see later, acquiring these kind of players (enigmatic, moody, petulant, possibly chokers) became a pattern for the Bullets.

For the moment, though, the void left by Earl Monroe's 1972 trade was filled, and the Hayes-Unseld duo took the Bullets from 38 wins to 52. An early exit from the playoffs at the hands of the Knicks awaited them, as it did the following year. Finally, in 1975, the Bullets made it back to the finals, where they were swept by Rick Barry's Warriors.

The following two years the team lost early in the playoffs to inconsequential teams, then finished the 77-78 season with 44 wins. In spite of this downward trend, they managed to beat the 52 win Spurs and 57 win Sixers in a pair of 6 game series to advance to the finals against the upstart Sonics. Hayes did his best to choke away the title, fouling out of game 7 with 8 minutes to go and having scored only 12 points. Unseld and a deep supporting cast took it upon themselves to make sure Hayes' best attempts at failure were in vain, and the Bullets prevailed by 6. After the game, Hayes took it upon himself to remind everyone that he was now a champion, and always had to be referred to as such. He went on to lament the fact that he was never recognized as MVP of the league, demonstrating a startling degree of "Not getting it". This is the kind of player the Wizards acquire.

The Bullets won 54 games in 79 (most in the NBA) and made the finals again, ultimately losing in 5 games to the Sonics. Neither of the Bullets future Hall of Famers had a particularly good series, and the future was ominous at best in spite of the team having had its best regular season ever.

The team got old quickly, winning only 39 games each of the following seasons and missing the playoffs in the second. Unseld subsequently retired while Hayes was traded back to Houston, where he played for 3 seasons before also retiring.

Based on the success of the Bullets to this point, one would have to conclude that the team had followed an arc commonly seen in professional sports, from struggling expansion team to precocious contender, to champion, to aging incumbent, to has been. Very little about that trend stands out as being unusual, and based upon results, such a conclusion would be justified. However, with the exception of drafting and holding on to one Wes Unseld, the Bullets had made a number of very questionable choices, most notably with Earl Monroe. Not only was he a future hall of fame player, he was perfectly suited to Unseld's outlet passing, and yet he was traded to the team's main rival for a bag of beans. Elvin Hayes was a calculated risk, and one that worked for the best, but he certainly did his best to prove the Bullets wrong, and only through good fortune and copious opportunities did the Bullets succeed in winning a title, largely in spite of Hayes.

Now, these things might not even out in the short run. In fact, they seldom do. But in the long run, if you make bad choices, you're going to pay for it eventually. Abe Pollin, the owner of the team until his recent death, rarely knew how to fold a bad hand, and was faced with many bad hands during his tenure largely because of his own poor choices.

The team's first chance to rebuild came in the 1983 draft. With the 10th pick in a deep draft, they took Jeff Malone, passing on Clyde Drexler. This was like taking J.J. Reddick over Brandon Roy because Reddick scored more points in college. Drexler was clearly the better athlete, played on the better team, and was a first team All-American his Junior year. Malone scored a lot on a team that never made an NCAA tournament. Needless to say, Portland went on to multiple finals with Drexler as their best player, and Drexler won a title as the Rockets second best player. Jeff Malone played in two All-Star games, which suited him well because he didn't play any defense to begin with.

The team managed to make the playoffs 5 straight years (84-88) despite only having a winning record (42-40) once. They lost in the first round every time, winning 6 games total. Malone then missed a pair of seasons with injuries and was ultimately traded. During this 5 year stretch (one that would prove to be relatively prosperous, sad as that is) the team had 6 first round picks. The first, Melvin Turpin, was traded for a good and young Clifford Robinson, who was traded for the aging but still effective Moses Malone, who left as a free agent after two seasons. We'll count that as a half success. The next year they drafted Kenny Green, who can safely be called a full fail, particularly considering that he was drafted immediately prior to Karl Malone, (Joe Dumars, A.C. Green and Terry Porter were also available). The following year it was John Williams and Anthony Jones, who started a combined 91 games in their careers. 1987 brought the reasonably decent Mugsy Bogues, who the team promptly gave up in the following expansion draft. 1988 saw them draft Harvey Grant, who had a few decent seasons and was ultimately unremarkable.

The common thread? The team was just decent enough to not pick very highly, and just dumb enough to make the least of their opportunities. These fruitless drafts would come back to haunt the team over the next 8 years, a stretch in which they did not make the playoffs and won more than 31 games only twice.

Having been though all of that, do I have an answer? Nope. I've only gotten halfway through the pile of fail that is the Bullets/Wizards. If there is a curse, it's going to take a lot more digging, because all I can see from here is incompetence. Check back Monday for part two, where I open the tomb and pretend that I might find something exciting.

Image via Turner

Meeting the Deadline

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:07:00 +0000

This is one of the slowest parts of the year for sports stories, unless you like to pretend that you can do a serious breakdown of curling or the biathlon. I suppose I could write the umpteenth article criticizing Tiger Woods for being a robot, but my opinion could be summarized in far too few words for an article: who cares.

Instead, I’m going to break down the 5 biggest trades from the NBA trade deadline and how they will affect their respective team this season (when relevant) and beyond.

(Note: I'm going to be discussing things that affect teams' salary caps. If you aren't well versed on how these work, suffice it to say that there is a limit to how much a team can spend, and trading for expiring contracts takes money off of the books, allowing a team to spend as it chooses.)

5. Knicks trade Nate Robinson and Marcus Landry to Boston for Eddie House, J.R. Giddens, Bill Walker and a future conditional second-round pick.

I don’t really understand this trade from the Knicks perspective, other than receiving a second round pick. All the contracts are expiring this year, and they certainly got less talent than they gave. Still, Robinson is a headache, and getting a pick for their troubles was probably enough to convince them to help Boston.

Boston, conversely, needed to do something to revitalize their team. Trading Ray Allen was probably necessary if they were going to win a title this year, but they couldn’t find anyone willing to give up quality talent for the cap space Allen’s expiring contract would provide. Hopefully they can sign Allen cheaply this summer, or use him in a sign and trade to acquire talent, because as I noted last week, their window is slamming shut.

Robinson will possibly provide enough scoring off the bench to propel them a round deeper than they deserve to go, but I wouldn’t expect much more than that. A nice move, but not a great move.

4. Washington trades Caron Butler, Brendan Haywood and DeShawn Stevenson to Dallas in exchange for Josh Howard, Drew Gooden, James Singleton and Quinton Ross.

Quite the stellar trade for Dallas. Haywood is an underrated big man who scores efficiently, plays solid defense, rebounds, and doesn’t need or want to be treated like a focal point of the team. Butler is injury prone, has slipped considerably on defense, and doesn’t score efficiently anymore. That said, he is going to a considerably better situation in Dallas, and he should be able to consolidate his roles to defense and good, open looks on offense, thereby alleviating those problems. He is also someone his teammates will actually like, unlike Josh Howard.

Short term, this trade is interesting for the Mavericks, but ultimately inconsequential. They aren’t going to win a title, or possibly even make it much further in the playoffs with this group as opposed to the old one. They simply aren’t as good as the Lakers and Nuggets, and they are possibly worse than the Spurs, Jazz, and Thunder as well. A nice, necessary move, but it isn’t likely to change much this year.

The Wizards made the first of two moves to gut the team and dump as much salary as possible. The Arenas situation has completely destroyed that team, and they will be lucky to salvage the situation within 5 years. Barring free agents this summer inexplicably deciding to sign with them, the Wizards have a long road to recovery ahead.

3. L.A. Clippers trade Marcus Camby to Portland in exchange for Travis Outlaw and Steve Blake.

The Clippers save a little money and get a chance to look at Outlaw and see if they want to keep him. Like nearly every trade they make, this one wasn’t about getting better, it was about the bottom line.

The Blazers got the big man they desperately needed, even if it is only a short-term solution. Maybe they will re-sign him and try to make a run next year with a (theoretically) healthy team. This year, they are one of several teams that simply can’t match up in a deep Western Conference, and while a first round upset may be a possibility, anything more would be miraculous.

2. Cleveland trades Zydrunas Ilgauskas, the rights to Emir Preldzic and 2010 first-round draft pick to Washington for Antawn Jamison.

The second move the Wizards made to gut their team and save money. The first round pick may be useful, but it will be a late pick and probably only bring a marginal talent. The team will buy out Z to allow him to sign with a contender, most likely the one he was just traded from. It’s one of the NBA’s sillier rules, and one that they allegedly want to change in the near future.

Rant:

As for the Cavaliers, they needed to make a trade. Them stupidly sitting on their expiring contracts last year led to them being too evenly matched with the Magic (and would have led to something similar had they played the Lakers), and ultimately their demise. If they had made a similar trade a year ago, they would be playing for a repeat instead of continuing to wonder if they have enough to beat the Lakers. It was an indefensible decision at the time, and it has only made the organization trying desperately to retain the services of the best player in the world look all the more foolish with hindsight.

/End rant.

As far as the Cavaliers are concerned, I don’t feel like this particular trade has been accurately assessed thus far. At first, everyone lauded them for making such a smart move. Everyone said that they needed a power forward that could stretch the floor, and Jamison seemed to fit the bill.

Unfortunately, this fails to account for a few significant factors. Jamison has never been a particularly good rebounder, something all Cavaliers forwards excel at. He has never been a particularly efficient scorer, relying on volume to score his points. His defense is atrocious, and defense is Cleveland’s bread and butter.

Lastly, and most importantly, he is 33 and turns 34 in June. The Cavaliers only goal is to re-sign Lebron, and getting someone like, say, Amare, who is 27, would have gone a lot further in convincing Lebron that Cleveland was the place to be if he wanted to win games. Jamison might have another year or two in him, but he is clearly on the decline, and not someone James should count on winning a series of titles with.

Just the same, the people who overreacted after Jamison’s initial performance with the team were equally wrong. Jamison isn’t a terrible player, he just had a bad night. The next game he shot 9-14, and the truth lies somewhere in-between.

I think it was a useful and necessary trade for the Cavaliers. They are better now than they were a week ago, and when the team figures out how to play together, I imagine that will become clear.

However, long term, the decision to keep Hickson and forgo the opportunity to acquire Amare may cause irreparable damage. It will be worse if Lebron leaves this summer, but it will sting nearly as much if they cannot win titles as currently constructed.

1. New York acquired Tracy McGrady from Houston for Jared Jeffries, Jordan Hill, a protected 2012 first-round pick and the right to exchange first-round picks in 2011. Houston received Kevin Martin and Hilton Armstrong from Sacramento for Carl Landry and Joey Dorsey. Sacramento received Larry Hughes from New York for Sergio Rodriguez.

This was the biggest trade of the season, and one that has become the subject of much controversy. Let’s analyze it team by team.

New York: The team that had the most work to do. They have put all of their eggs into the 2010 free agent basket, and without this trade they would not have been able to clear the cap space needed to sign as many of those players as possible. They gave up quite a bit, but McGrady is actually playing well, and if he will re-sign at an affordable rate, the Knicks will have gotten even more out of this deal than they could have hoped for.

Sacramento: The team that needed to figure out who it was. Tyreke Evans and Kevin Martin weren’t co-existing, and since their coach is too dense to realize that playing Udrih at point guard and those two at the wings might have worked, they traded Martin. Anyone who thinks that they got robbed, though, is sorely mistaken. Yes, the deal was largely about saving money (a lot of money, at that), but Carl Landry is an excellent post player who can actually guard people, and no one on their team fit that description prior to his arrival. Landry, Evans, and Casspi form a solid young core of players to build around, and while the Kings still need a great deal of work, they could certainly become a successful young team (similar to Portland) sooner rather than later.

Landry is also considerably cheaper than Martin, and given some dubious facts about Martin that I will enumerate shortly, this may turn out to be more a theft of Houston than Sacramento (though I doubt it).

Regardless of how we evaluate this trade in the future, the manner in which Martin was traded was very confusing. The Kings insisted that he wasn't available, and then gave him up for what might turn out to be a good haul, but was almost assuredly less than another suitor might have offered had they been aware of Martin's availability. A confusing development from a team that was on the verge of collapse less than a year ago. Let's hope they know something we don't.

Houston: The team that had everything to gain. Financial relief in the form of expiring contracts is a hot commodity in the NBA, and McGrady’s whopping $20 Million expiring contract certainly qualified. Houston maximized their leverage, receiving a pair of first round picks, Martin, and Jordan Hill (the 8th pick in last years’ draft) for Carl Landry and a player (McGrady) that wasn’t even playing. You can’t do much better than that.

I would like to temper expectations a bit, though. Martin is not a savior. In 07/08 and 08/09 he missed 21 and 31 games respectively, and this year he will have missed at least 30 by season's end. His shooting percentage has gone down by about two percent a year each of the past four years. He doesn’t play defense, he doesn’t rebound, and he is 27.

He is also the scorer the Rockets desperately needed, and a player who was likely a victim of poor circumstance in Sacramento. He scores incredibly efficiently and he draws fouls, which will allow Yao to take easier shots or more free throws since the Rockets will be in the bonus that much more often. With Martin, Ariza, and hopefully a healthy Yao, the Rockets have an excellent core and a 3-5 year window in which they could, given good health, win a title. Their role players are both excellent and cheap, and they seem to be able to find replacements whenever necessary.

Of course, McGrady was an even better shooting guard joining the team in a season in which he turned 26. To that point, he didn’t have much of an injury history, either. So maybe this is all wishful thinking by the Rockets, and they need too much to go right for them to succeed.

Regardless of the outcome, I’ll give them this: they tried. That’s more than a lot of teams can say.

Image via Turner.com

When the Mighty Fall

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:04:00 +0000

The Boston Celtics were incredibly fortunate to win the NBA title in 2008. They had a pair of trades that gave them the top end talent they required. Their young players blossomed into excellent role players. They required 26 of a possible 28 games to get through the playoffs, allowing lesser teams to drag out playoff series instead of being able to end them quickly. Essentially, for one year, anything that could go their way did. Considering that they were thought to have a window of 2-4 years to win a title beginning with the 2007-2008 season, the future looked promising.

After they achieved a 27-2 record to start the 2008-2009 season, discussion moved from that of a repeat to the possibility of them becoming one of the greatest teams of all time. Rondo was becoming the All-Star he is today, the big three were continuing their All-NBA form, and in spite of losing their glue-guy in Posey, their bench, particularly Powe, Perkins, and Davis, was excellent.

A rough mid-season stretch seemed to indicate that there was reason for concern, but that was quickly forgotten with a 12 game win streak. Seven games later, Kevin Garnett suffered a season ending knee injury, and in spite of the Celtics strong play down the stretch without him, it was clear that Garnett’s absence removed any possibility of a Celtics repeat. If he could heal and come back to his 2008 form, though, title contention in 2010 and possibly 2011 seemed to be a formality.

The NBA, though, is not kind to worn bodies, and in a sport where a couple inches is the difference in many a play, Garnett losing more than a couple on his vertical coupled with being a step slower saw him return as a shell of himself. Allen has slipped a bit from last season as well, and the role players who once so eagerly followed the big three now seek to usurp them, sensing that it is their time to shine.

The team is currently having an identity crisis. Paul Pierce remains their rock, playing at a high level in spite of his advancing age. Rondo has been similarly excellent, and has in fact been the Celtics’ best player, but he has to reconcile that with his prior role as subordinate to his more veteran teammates. Garnett has not accepted that he has lost a step, Davis and Perkins grumble about playing time, and Allen is simply not the player he was, and is being aggressively shopped to other teams in hopes of bringing back talent for his expiring contract. In short, they are one of many teams that have no hope of winning a title this year, barring a dramatic trade.

These developments bother me for two reasons.

There are only so many captivating players and teams in the league. While the talent pool is deeper than it has been in quite some time, collections of talent with such celebrated and noteworthy histories are limited to a few organizations. The Celtics are one such team. Pierce was busy keeping the team relevant for the last decade, a beacon of hope for an otherwise miserably bad team. Allen was one of the best shooting guards in the NBA annually, a player whose bravado and confidence made his better teams extremely fun to watch.

Then, of course, there was Garnett. A player whose gifts are so unique and plentiful that it defied reason when he exited the playoffs quickly and quietly on an annual basis. It seemed that the player who exemplified professionalism, commitment to defense, and intensity was simply unable to elevate his teammates through his own play.

When Garnett was traded to the Celtics, he got a new lease on life, and immediately used his considerable social capital to mold the team in his image. Allen and Pierce, players not known for their defense, bought in to his commitment on that end of the floor, which then permeated the entire team. They were on a mission, and relentless defense was their battle plan.

For the rest of the year, no team was more close-knit, supportive of their teammates, or committed to the same goal. While I am far from a Celtics fan, when they won the title, it felt right to me. They had gone about their business in a most professional and admirable way, and each of their rather likable All-Stars now had the crucial championship that completed their resumes.

The following year, every team in the league hated the Celtics. Their swagger bothered their opponents, and every game was a ferocious battle to prove that they were still as hungry as they had been the year prior. They proved to be an admirable foe for both the Bulls and Magic in the playoffs, and while they were ultimately eliminated, they fought valiantly to the bitter end and were immensely fun to watch.

With their current decline, that element of rivalry and competitiveness is gone. They are a neutered version of the team that aroused such ire in their opponents, as pathetic as a boxer that refuses to know when they should give it up. The NBA needs more rivalries and bad blood, not less. Losing the Celtics as we knew them, combined with Orlando’s erratic play, makes Cleveland a prohibitive favorite in the East, and likely means that their competition on the way to the finals will be little more than a speed bump. That may lead to the coronation of Lebron the league so desperately desires, but the ease with which it appears it will come will likely prove anti-climactic in comparison to the slugfests we have seen the last two seasons, which is a pity.

The second reason is one that is much more tied up in sentiment than entertainment. The Celtics weren’t just a collection of talent that was well suited to one another. They were a team in every sense of the word. Kevin Garnett, sensing that this was his last opportunity to absolve himself of the sin of playoff failure, sought to create a team in his image. He convinced his fellow All-Stars to commit to defense with the same ferocity and reckless abandon that he practiced. When they bought in, he then convinced the rest of the team, largely an array of late draft picks and veteran free agents, to make the same commitment.

From that point on, everything he did on the court, his teammates mimicked. He swatted away shots after a foul was called. His teammates did the same. He protected the rim with a fanatical fury. His teammates learned to never give up easy baskets. Garnett stood and cheered his teammates from the bench when he was not playing. Soon they cheered constantly for the starters, until the entire team essentially refused to sit while the game was being played.

All of these things lend themselves to the idea that one man, with enough heart and vision, can mold a collective in his image. Garnett had the exact combination of experience and ability to achieve such a dream, and the result was the team he wanted to play for his entire career.

There is a reason these things rarely happen. When players are young, regardless of their talent, they lack the leadership skills requisite for getting a team to follow them. As they grow, they become more capable of both playing and leading well, but there are still only a handful of players whose ability garners them universal respect, and amongst them there are only so many with the ability or desire to lead. Combine this with the necessity of having teammates who are not only like-minded but also talented, and it becomes apparent why such special teams come about so rarely.

Garnett needed 12 seasons and a change of scenery to get his chance, and he made the most of it. He embodied what so many of us want to see in ourselves: a man whose vision and drive are contagious to the point that our peers feel compelled to follow our lead. It is the ultimate manifestation of leadership and competence, proof that not only are we qualified to perform our duties, but so qualified and so persuasive that we can do it in the exact manner that we choose while pushing both subordinate and peer alike to better exemplify the example we set.

Which is why the end of this referendum on leadership is so unfortunate. Only a select few players and situations lend themselves to these results. Losing one such team reminds us not only of how special they are, but how fleeting that victory really is. Whether it is an erosion of our skills, a failure to push ourselves to maintain our standards of excellence, the jealousy of our peers or the ambitions of our pupils, ultimately even the most perfect pillar of teamwork and leadership will fall under its own weight. Its construction was merely a temporary triumph, as long for this world as a sand castle at high tide. In the end, our endeavors will, with few exceptions, ultimately fail to stand the test of time.

I’m just glad I could enjoy it while it lasted.

Image via Melancholiac

Heroes and Villains

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:05:00 +0000

Roberto Alomar is not a sexy name in baseball. He didn’t have the caché of a big market for the majority of his career. He didn’t hit a prodigious number of home runs, he wasn’t accused of taking steroids, and he never won an MVP. During his seventeen-season career, the words you would use to describe him would have been excellent, workmanlike, and consistent. He rarely found himself the subject of much attention, and he seemed to prefer it that way. Who needs attention when you are quietly the best player at your position since the legendary Joe Morgan?

Unfortunately, all of that nondescript excellence only made his moment of weakness seem all the more glaring.

I remember the spitting incident because it affected my meager personal finances a great deal. I was young at the time, and the best baseball card I owned was a rare Roberto Alomar. I had gotten it with my mom on a trip to the card shop. I don’t know what it was about it that made it stand out to me, but it was the one I chose. A couple years later, I was watching baseball highlights and saw a replay of the incident. Alomar’s old team, the Blue Jays, against his current team, the Orioles. He got called out on strikes, and argued with the umpire, John Hirschbeck. Eventually, after a heated exchange and a lot of chest bumping and posturing, Alomar spit in his face.

I couldn’t believe it. My mom joked that the card would either be worth a ton or nothing at all. From that day on, I followed Alomar’s career. In my youth, it seemed too bizarre to be a coincidence, and I wanted to know who this guy really was.

I followed him to the Indians, where he was a part of one of the greatest offenses in the history of baseball. I looked up his numbers to see how great he really was. A 12 time All-Star with 10 time Gold-Gloves and 4 Silver-Slugger awards. He played for 2 World Series champions in Toronto, a standout player on a team loaded with talent. He was 6th or better in MVP voting 5 times, an amazing feat for a second baseman, particularly one who played with the likes of Manny Ramirez, Cal Ripken and Rickey Henderson. Most importantly, try as I might, I just couldn’t find much other reason to dislike the guy.

To clarify what happened in the spitting incident: Alomar alleged that the umpire used a racial slur when referring to him and said that he was goading Alomar about the strikeout as well. Alomar and the umpire (Hirschbeck) were both angry the next day, and Alomar said that "(Hirschbeck) had a problem with his family when his son died--I know that's something real tough in life--but after that he just changed, personality-wise. He just got real bitter." Hirschbeck had to be restrained from going after Alomar the following day, and was unable to officiate the game.

Am I going to defend Alomar’s actions? Of course not. They were despicable then, and they’re despicable now. To say what he said, even in anger, is such a callous act that one cannot help but feel its sting even as the years pass. Alomar did his best to repent, donating 50K to ALS research (Hirschbeck's son died of ALS) at the time, and has continued to support the cause to this day. He and Hirschbeck are now friends, and Hirschbeck himself has said, "Was I angry at the time? Yeah. I was mad. I was ticked off. But you forgive and you forget and you move on with life. It's one of those things that happened in the heat of the moment. He made a mistake, but I don't hold a grudge about it. And I would hope and pray that nobody else lets it interfere with what he accomplished professionally."

So everything should be fine, right? A man made a mistake and atoned for it in the best way he could, and the man he slighted has accepted his apology and calls him a friend. Hirschbeck even attests to the character of the man whom he once hated above all others. As rational people we can put this behind us, right?

Obviously Hall of Fame voters can’t. Alomar, unequivocally a Hall of Fame player based upon any conceivable metric, wasn’t voted in this year. In addition, if I were to bring his name up out of the blue, the incident I have spent so much time addressing would be most people's first memory. The answer, then, appears to be a resounding ‘No’.

But why?

We can’t let the incident go because it frames him so nicely for us as fans. Everything else in his career was so unassuming that the first time he brought attention to himself, it stuck. Turning a sweet double play, stealing a base, and getting on base at an impressive rate simply don’t register on whatever radar we use as fans to calibrate our interest. Only his spitting incident brought our awareness of his existence beyond that of a familiar name, and as such we compartmentalized him into the role of villain.

Villains are necessary in sports as much as heroes are. It gives us someone to root against, which is almost as much fun as having someone to root for. That’s why there can’t be shades of grey: how can you half root for someone? You either love someone, hate someone, or are indifferent. You can love or hate with degrees, but it is still essentially the same. Anything else requires too much thought, and thinking gets in the way of a rooting interest.

I hated Kobe Bryant for years for reasons that escape me now. It wasn’t based upon anything very tangible, I just didn’t like him. In retrospect, it was probably a defense of my basketball icon, Jordan, and my feeling that comparing this Kobe guy to him was a cruel joke. Sure, I found other reasons to hate him. His cockiness. His brashness. His apparent disdain for the kind of basketball that actually wins games, which seemed to get in the way of him proving how good he was.

To some extent, these things were true. They were also true of Jordan, the man whose career I felt was beyond reproach in every way, shape and form. In addition to these (perceived) negative traits, Kobe is also an incredibly hard worker, a student of the game, and a player whose will to succeed is nearly unmatched. Did I want to see these things? Of course not. What would I do if I were forced to look at him objectively, like a real person with strengths and weaknesses? I wouldn’t know what to think about him, which would make it pretty hard to root either for or against him, and therefore the Lakers. Which would make me indifferent to one of the best teams in basketball. Where is the fun in that?

In the case of Kobe, this is not a particularly unfair phenomenon. I’m not a Lakers fan, so I’m obviously going to be more open to thinking negatively about him. Lakers fans can focus on his positives, and in the end he will get a fairly even-handed public perception, if only by virtue of opinions averaging out. Kobe has a lifetime of deeds carried out very publicly, and to much acclaim and criticism. Every buzzer beating jumper, every game in which he scores 60 points, every court trial and public feud registers on our aforementioned fan radar. We can take the scope of his career and form an opinion because we have felt something about him the entire way.

With someone like Alomar, this is impossible. He plays baseball, which does not lend itself to too many distinct moments over the course of a seemingly endless season. Game winning hits, big home runs, and highlight-reel plays draw us in, but ultimately it is force of personality that will either hold our attention or leave us indifferent. Alomar was simply not a big personality (at least publicly), so we formed our opinions with what little he gave us.

As unfair as this is, I would argue that it is not a particularly damaging or surprising phenomenon. Most people understand that it is just a game, and if they saw Alomar on the street they would almost certainly have the good sense to leave him alone. We create heroes and villains in our lives outside of sports all the time because it is easier than empathizing and understanding, which require a great deal of effort. This is simply a fact of life, and as sports are so often used as a metaphor for life, I see no reason they would be exempt from taking on this trait.

Perhaps, though, we can use this as a lesson to steer us in a more nuanced direction. Clearly the Hall of Fame committee is incapable of this, having embarrassed themselves on so many occasions it is barely worth mentioning. As fans, however, we can achieve a more refined understanding of those we follow by trying to be more even-handed. Isn’t it a lot more fun to root one way or the other on Alomar knowing the spitting incident was an outlier? Maybe you have taken the rest of his career into account and simply don’t care, maybe you realized it was an isolated incident and don’t feel the same disdain. It doesn’t really matter, because now have all the answers and come to a conclusion, rather than cherry picking the incidents you like.

Isn’t it more fun to root against Kobe knowing how hard he works? Doesn’t that make his failure all the more satisfying?

Don’t we want to root for people who seem at least a little human, if only because that makes them more like us?

At the very least, it would prevent us from losing sight of the truth and castigating decent guys like Alomar for mistakes we are all capable of making. Our inability to forget is contagious, having infected those deemed worthy to judge his career. We should have opinions, but uninformed opinions are dangerous and have far reaching consequences. It may not matter as often in sports as it does in life, but it is nonetheless unfortunate when it prevents someone from realizing their dream.

Just be careful. If you’re too objective, you might end up indifferent. Where’s the fun in that?

Image via h-net

Today We Spell Redemption, S-A-I-N-T-S

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:42:00 +0000

I’ve discussed at length why football brings about the emotions it so effortlessly coaxes from its followers. We don’t only find a reason to attach a ridiculous amount of our happiness to our team of choice, when they aren’t playing we muster up the energy to shift our hatred and exuberance elsewhere. For me, the result was a slightly irrational attachment to the Saints for a great number of reasons (bottom of the article). Their team is a series of cast-offs (Vilma, Brees, Colston), their coach gave up salary to get the defensive coordinator he wanted, and their city could obviously use a distraction, not to mention any financial windfall that winning might bring. As such, I was understandably nervous, given that if you had asked me before the game, I would have given an edge to the Colts, a.k.a. the team that doesn’t lose when it tries.

A quarter into the game, I was sufficiently shocked. The Colts are good, but they typically start slowly and build from there. They adjust at halftime, and if they haven’t sealed the game by the fourth quarter, Manning will simply summon his now requisite late-game heroics. Instead, they came out firing on all cylinders, and the Saints gained only 32 yards on two drives. I held little hope for a Saints comeback, and I assumed that the Colts really were as good as advertised, while the Saints had used up their luck in one too many close games and would fall one miracle short.

Then, slowly but surely, the tide changed and the roles reversed. The Saints regained the ability to put drives together, getting 131 yards on the next two drives, while the Colts got 15 on their next pair of possessions. The second ended in disappointment for the Saints, but they made the correct call on 4th and 1. The play will be converted the vast majority of the time, and they left the Colts with an extremely long field to traverse. If they had kicked a field goal, they would still have been down two field goals, and at that point the Colts had only failed to score once. When the Colts failed to get a single first down, the door was open for the Saints to move the ball into field goal range, and the kick was true. While the 10-6 score was not indicative of a Saints momentum shift, it was clear that they had some idea as to how to slow Manning down, and their offense was performing very well. Even though they were kicking to start the half, if they could stop the Colts they would almost certainly follow up with a score, and that outcome seemed probable given the change in the game’s dynamic.

Just as these thoughts crystallized in my mind, the second most shocking thing I have ever seen in a Super Bowl happened. (The first is still Harrison intercepting the pass for a touchdown last year. That was the last play of the half, and it swung the game by 14 points. I’d say it’s fairly impossible to top.) The Saints attempted the onside kick, and while it was sniffed out to some extent, Baskett was unable to read the ball well enough to be aggressive, and a Saint did an excellent job of punishing his indecision by shoving him to the ground. The ball bounced off of his face, and the Saints held the ball through the ensuing scrum.

Now, this was significant for a couple of reasons. First, it took a possession away from the Colts that they were expecting to have. While this may seem obvious, the Colts haven’t beaten good teams by large margins this season, and a single possession was likely to be significant in the outcome of the game. The Saints held the ball last in both halves, and they ended the game with 10 possessions to the Colts 8, excluding the interception. If the Saints did not recover the kick, they would likely have faced an even score, or something close to it. In other words, it was completely necessary to their victory, and not attempting the onside kick would likely have led to a loss, or at least a much greater chance for the Colts winning.

Second, their coach (Sean Payton) said after the game that he felt that the play had a 60-70% chance of succeeding. I don’t know what could possibly lead him to those numbers besides hubris, but it is nonetheless interesting that he was so resolute in his strategy. This suggests to me that he felt that the Colts were a superior team, and that he would need some luck to pull out a victory. Onside kicks are about the best way a team can create their own luck, and I don’t put it past a coach known for being as confident as Payton is to make up some numbers to convince his team of his strategy. He was going to be a hero or a goat depending on the outcome, in spite of the fact that it was likely as necessary a risk as the Saints felt it was. Results based justification is the norm in sports, and I’m happy that Payton chose the correct approach over the conventional one in spite of the criticism he would have received had the result been different.

But I digress.

The result of the drive after the onside kick felt inevitable. The Saints took the short and medium gains the Colts were allowing them, and an excellent run by Pierre Thomas gave the Saints the lead. At this point I was cautiously optimistic, knowing that while the Saints had temporarily stolen control of the game, Manning was stewing on the bench and itching to get back at the Saints.

Sure enough, he did just that. The Colts faced only two third downs on their drive, with 4 and 5 yards to go respectively. Bland and efficient would best describe their effortless march down the field, and much like the Saints on the prior drive, they simply took whatever the defense gave them. I had seen Manning do this so many times this season that I simply gave up hope. I knew the Saints would drive, and possibly score, but the Colts would always have the answer. Manning wasn’t going to be outdone.

The Saints did exactly that, and they made their only choice I disagreed with the entire game. Facing 4th and 3 from the Colts 29, they elected to take the 47-yard field goal. I felt that the decision was similar to the one they made on 4th and 1: field goals wouldn’t win the game, as they had to assume the Colts would score, so only touchdowns would suffice. In this case, they had the additional knowledge that the field goal was far from automatic, and that their offense could gain 3 yards almost on accident. Instead, they attempted and made the field goal, and gave the ball back to Manning on what I assumed would be another touchdown drive.

Instead, the Saints perfected the "bend but don’t break" strategy and left the Colts with a 4th and 11 from the Saints 33. This led to the only Colts decision I disagreed with: not going for the first down. As crazy as that may sound, the Colts Kicker (Stover) is not exactly a spring chicken at 42. He is also 13-32 on 50+ yard kicks for his career, and he was outside on a somewhat slippery field. The Colts chance of completing an 11 yard first down was probably in the range of 50-50 considering the amount of time Manning was getting to throw, and the Saints’ consistent blitzing meant that Manning would likely be able to find an opening. Some people have suggested that the Colts might have punted here, but the possibility of a touchback and a net gain of 11 yards as opposed to a 50-50 chance of keeping the ball doesn’t make sense to me. If nothing else, the chance of converting the 4th down was probably higher than the chance of Stover making the field goal, and a failure would give the Saints 8 fewer yards than the field goal as well.

Once the field goal missed, for the first time in the game I felt like the Saints would win. They didn’t have the lead, and the Colts would get a rebuttal, but every drive had taken an eternity. If the Saints and Colts traded scoring possessions, the Saints would likely be able to claim the last possession, and the way their offense had been moving the ball scoring seemed to be a formality. True to this prediction, the Saints moved the ball as well as is conceivable against what was essentially a prevent defense. They didn’t face a third down once, gaining 58 yards in 9 plays and taking nearly 5 minutes off of the clock. The 2-point conversion was one of the most amazing plays I can remember, the receiver possessing the ball just long enough while on the ground to justify calling it a catch. I was certainly happy for the advent of high-speed cameras, as it was clear that Moore held the ball steady and over the goal line before it was knocked away. Yet another bit of luck for the Saints in a game in which they needed all of it.

The ensuing drive went according to the script in my head. The Colts gained 45 yards in 6 plays, and a tie game seemed inevitable. Then, as suddenly as the onside kick, Porter snatched the ball away and weaved through the 2 possible tacklers on his way to the end zone. 31-17 Saints, and the game was clearly over. It likely would have been over even if he had been tackled, as 3 minutes was not a great deal of time for the Saints to use up given the way their offense had been playing.

As an aside, the play was Wayne’s fault. He failed to cut across the front of his defender and left Porter an opening to jump in and steal the pass. Manning certainly should have recognized the bad cut on such a short route, but he is used to the route being run correctly, which it wasn’t. He still deserves a share of the blame, but this mistake wasn’t as inexplicable as the one Favre made two weeks prior.

The rest of the game was a formality. The Colts would never be able to score fast enough to make it a game, and the Saints once again bent but didn’t break, getting a stop on their own 5-yard line. New Orleans had its title, The Colts were chokers once more, and all was right with the world. Or at least that’s what you would think based upon what you might read elsewhere.

There are two main storylines that emerged from the game: the quarterback’s respective legacies, and the meaning of the victory for the city of New Orleans.

Regarding the former, Brees established himself as a likely hall-of-fame player. His last six seasons have been excellent, he has quietly amassed impressive numbers, and he has the most important credential a quarterback can have: a championship. Manning was somehow going to be in the conversation for greatest of all time had he won, which is patently ridiculous. He is an excellent quarterback who won a Super Bowl against a one-dimensional (read: mediocre) Bears team, and only did so because of an epic collapse on the part of the Patriots. Manning is 9-9 in the playoffs, and while he has been consistently excellent, and at times amazing, his teams are nearly always favored and yet rarely come through when it matters. He does not belong in the conversation for best ever. Yet.

As far as the meaning of the title to the city, I find much of the talk about how amazing it is for the populace to be disingenuous. To be clear, I am very happy for the city of New Orleans. I lived in Chicago during the Jordan years, and to say that he gave the city a sense of civic pride and identity would be an understatement. The Saints fans are passionate and dedicated, and this title will be something they can hold on to forever, a priceless memory that redeems a lifetime of fandom that had been filled with nothing but the dull sting of defeat, year after agonizing year.

It does not, however, build a single house, or bring back a single body. It does not heal the mental scars of a people who felt abandoned by their own country, nor does it change the fact that the something similar is likely to happen again someday. (Even if it is on a smaller scale, hurricanes in that region are as much a part of life as earthquakes in California. It is only a matter of when, not if, something similar happens again.) The city still has one of the highest murder rates in the country, its poorest citizens are still without their homes, and the vast majority of Americans have forgotten what transpired there because it doesn’t affect us. We rarely see the continued effects of Katrina, and rare is the person that will dare mention that the owner of the Saints, Tom Benson, was desperate to move the team after Katrina, as he wanted a new stadium and a bigger market. Had the then NFL commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, not forced Benson to stay, we would likely be discussing the San Antonio Saints.

We wont discuss these things because they’re depressing, and this is football. We love sports because they are a distraction from real life, not because they serve as a reminder of painful and embarrassing incidents. The Saints’ fans love their team, and they channeled that love to became the best crowd in football. Drew Brees committed to his adopted city in a most admirable way, while simultaneously becoming the best leader in football. He is one of the only quarterbacks in the league that leads his teams’ pre-game ritual because of how respected he is, and the fans call him Breesus. He was once given up on, much like the city he has come to represent, and each needed this victory to feel legitimate, like they had accomplished something in the wake of their respective tragedies.

Football won’t save New Orleans, Super Bowl or no. But it can be a nice distraction from the realities of rebuilding, and give a city the pride it so sorely needs. In that sense, this really did mean more to the Saints than it possibly could have to any other team. For that reason, and that reason alone, I’m happy they won.

Lord knows it didn't come easy.

Image via NBC Sports

Our Newest National Holiday

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:04:00 +0000

The stage has been set for America’s only sports related national holiday. Amazingly, my predictions regarding the games proved to be more or less correct. I guess picking the favorites will lead to that result a good bit of the time. In any case, in preparation for the greatest spectacle of the year, lets look back at the conference championship games and see what useful information we can glean.

-Jets 17, Colts 30

The Colts did what they always do. They took the other team’s best shot, stayed in the game, adjusted, and overwhelmed their opposition long enough to win. They usually win these games close, but they also usually play a much better team. Regardless of whether or not the Jets deserved to be in the game, they were a 9-7 team, and you are what your record says you are. The Colts might be beaten when they try this season, but the teams that came the closest were the good ones, not the hot ones.

Just the same, the Jets have to be happy that they got as far as they did. Lots of other teams had their opportunities and didn’t take advantage of them, and their future certainly looks bright. Great young quarterbacks, running backs, and corner backs don’t grow on trees, and with a bit of experience and a few more pieces they will be in position to have an excellent decade. Sanchez had his best game of the playoffs and looked as good as could be expected. The team gave up 30 points and only got 3 yards a carry, and that was never going to result in a win, but they made it a game for the duration, and that’s enough. For now.

One thing about the Colts is clear: they are not going to beat anyone running the ball. There just isn’t much point. Addai had a decent game, but the Jets weren’t exactly stacking the line against him. The team always has and always will live and die by the sword that is Peyton Manning’s arm. They go into every game believing that a mediocre defensive result is good enough because they know that in close games they will give up field goals while scoring touchdowns. Manning passed to whoever Revis wasn’t guarding like he was playing catch from the end of the second quarter on.

Perhaps the most important thing that came out of the game for the Colts happened after the game. No one seemed happy, or surprised, or particularly impressed. Nearly half of this team has done this before, and they know that second place is an awfully long way from first. They might lose Sunday, but it won’t be because they rested on their laurels.

-Vikings 28, Saints 31

I have made it abundantly clear in my articles leading up to this that I am rooting for the Saints for a litany of reasons. I will now add providing me with one of the most entertaining games I have ever seen to that list.

The storyline after the game was obviously the turnovers for Minnesota, and deservedly so. When you out gain a team by more than 200 yards, convert 16 more first downs, and commit 4 fewer penalties for 56 fewer yards, victory seems assured. Alas, that was not the case. I would argue, though, that this was not a case of choking, or a series of random turnovers that would not happen were the game replayed. They were, rather, examples of what we so often forget in sports: you are what you have always been, not only what you have been lately.

This means that the mistakes that arise in moments such as these are often not as bizarre as they may seem, but have instead been hinted at for quite some time. When Memphis lost to Kansas in the NCAA final in 2008, they did so primarily because they couldn’t make free throws. This had been an issue all season, but less so in the tournament. The problem surfaced at what would appear to be an inopportune moment, but what was more likely a correction in the numbers over a larger sample size. The 1986 Red Sox had bullpen issues all season. In game 6, their bullpen couldn’t get anyone out. It wasn’t a choke, it had been happening all season. It just manifested itself when it mattered most.

Similarly, the Vikings employ two certifiable turnover machines in Peterson and Favre, and they were going against one of the best defenses in the league at creating turnovers. Most of the fumbles were balls being punched away, a result of the Vikings holding the ball further from their bodies than is safe in order to try to gain more yards. The interception at the end of the game was particularly predictable. Favre has done this for the better part of a decade, whether it was against Carolina in ‘03, the Giants in ‘07, or New Orleans in ‘09. He simply doesn’t understand playing to the situation, and while that interception might have evened out with some of his better plays over the course of an entire game, when committed in a situation where it was simply unnecessary and there was literally no time to make up for it, his team lost.

New Orleans had much more trouble on offense than I expected. I assumed that with Brees’ quick release, the front four would be rendered ineffective and Brees would find open targets. This held true, but in reality, Brees could rarely complete a pass for big yardage, and the running game was as ineffective as one would expect against the defensive tackles of the Vikings. Their defense was good enough, creating turnovers while giving up huge chunks of yardage, and their special teams managed not to hurt them, although Bush certainly came as close as one can without doing so.

The real story of the game has to be the unbelievably bad overtime rules the league still uses. At the beginning of overtime I turned to my friends and asked how much more excited they would be in this were college overtime rules. To a person they all agreed that it would increase the drama of the game considerably, and be an infinitely more fair system than essentially flipping a coin for what is often an automatic win, and if nothing else an extremely significant advantage.

I understand the desire to end games reasonably quickly in the regular season, but can’t the league take a cue from the NHL and at least play the entire period? Wouldn’t it have been more interesting (and fair) to see Brett Favre with the ball in his hands again? How would creating a system where football, and not a game of chance, determined the outcome? The fact that this system still exists is a testament to the power of institutions to cling to the familiar when all evidence points to a clearly superior solution. Alas, we will have to settle for one of the best games in recent memory and a conclusion that, while exciting, should have been made all the more so by a rebuttal. Alas, such is life.

-Saints vs. Colts

I have considered this match-up endlessly because I find both of these teams to be mercurial juggernauts. The Colts have won every game they have tried to win, but they look more methodic than dominant in doing so. The Saints have lost two games they tried to win, and at times looked as though they were an unstoppable force, but too often they have let bad teams pretend to be their equal. They rely far too heavily on the mistakes of their opponents, and the Colts are not a team known to make such mistakes.

In the Colts favor is the seeming boredom that goes with their success. Teams have them for as long as they possibly can, then Peyton rides in on a white horse and leads his team to a win, no matter how little time or how great a deficit he is faced with. The seemingly routine way in which they take the other team’s best punch, adjust, and then lock them out of the game is jarringly consistent, in a way I don’t think I’ve ever seen. The Patriots of ’07 were a team that had unanswerable threats. The Colts are a team that answers threats and then unleashes their own.

The Saints have very little in their favor, but they do seem to have two claims to superiority. First, they beat the Patriots by a score of 17-38, a game that they clearly knew they needed and subsequently dominated. Those Patriots had dominated the Colts the week before, and by all rights should have won the game. Judging by mutual opponents is a solid indicator of success when match-ups are not a mitigating factor, and in this case I feel confident that the results of those games are indeed significant.

Second, the Saints have played considerably better teams than the Colts in the playoffs. The Vikings are certainly better than the Jets and Ravens (and by a considerable margin), and the Cardinals may be as well. The Saints will not be surprised by the speed or precision of Manning and the Colts, and they have certainly faced offenses with better balance. Their ability to defend the pass, while similar to the Jets in that they have one dominant corner and a far less effective one, is very good, and the basis of their defense. Manning may be better than Favre, but his receivers aren’t better than those of the Vikings, and in any case he isn’t that much better.

Conversely, the Colts have not seen a passing attack like this one is some time, and certainly not in the playoffs. The Saints receivers have most assuredly had their shame session and resolved to have a better game this week than last. Brees will not have nearly the same kind of pressure he face against the Vikings, and the running game should be able to provide better support as well.

Amusingly, much of this goes back to the second article I wrote for this site. The Patriots went for it on 4th and 2 and didn’t quite make it. The Colts made them pay, and incidentally set statistically correct football back more years than I care to count. They ruined what should have been a monumental moment in the course of football history, and I was so incensed that I felt compelled to write. Combined with their indifference towards perfection, karma, then, would appear not to be on their side, and who could possibly have better Karma that New Orleans? I believe in Karma, if for no other reason than it’s a comforting thought that people will get what is coming to them. For that reason, amongst a litany of others, I’m picking the Saints. Karma, and my heart, say it’s the right choice. I want it. They need it. It just makes too much sense.

My head, though, says Colts. It does that when teams win every game they actually cared about. Go figure.

Image via NFLtouchdown.com

On the Rebound

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:58:00 +0000

All is right with the NFL. Well, nearly everything, anyways. The teams that were better all season long acquitted themselves, handily dispatching the would-be Davids to their Goliath. The lone exception was San Diego, a team that for reasons elucidated last week probably had the worst match-up of any top seed.

Perhaps most importantly, the playoffs were once again entertaining, not so much because the games were closer than last week’s blowouts (they weren’t), but because the level of both competition and aggression felt decidedly upgraded from the first round. Going into the weekend, I was hoping that the listless play of the prior weekend would be a distant memory, and for the most part the action delivered.

-Cardinals vs. Saints

Clearly the most ridiculous game of the weekend. My heart sunk into my stomach when Arizona led off the game with the 70-yard touchdown run. Visions of Arizona making a second consecutive run to the Super Bowl flashed through my head, a seeming certainty given the miracle that saved them the week before and the explosive start to this one.

Then New Orleans moved the ball methodically and regained their considerable home-field advantage while evening the score. New Orleans would score touchdowns on their next two drives while stifling the Arizona offense. Arizona had another touchdown drive in them to narrow the gap to 7, but the next two New Orleans drives were for touchdowns, and once again the defense was excellent.

The game never again felt close, but the explosiveness and precision of the Saints made the blowout highly entertaining. Reggie Bush had a career day, running with the combination of power and speed he has never shown since college. Brees’ casual excellence and unbelievable accuracy left the Arizona defense with no answers, and unlike the week prior, Kurt Warner wasn’t near enough to perfection to bail them out.

The Saints played like we knew they could, and their knack for explosive plays in addition to balanced and precise offense makes them the scariest team in the NFL. Barring a meltdown, they ought to win every game they play, particularly when the crowd is on their side.

-Ravens vs. Colts

If you are a fan of tactically excellent football, this was a clinic of epic proportions by the Colts. The Ravens were considerably more fortunate than people realized last week, and the Colts were not going to make the same mistakes the Patriots made. They protected the ball and played to maintain good field position. Eventually they led a methodic drive for a touchdown, followed by another, and the score was 3-17 with little hope for the Ravens. The one turnover they did commit was quickly rectified by an impressive play by Pierre Garcon to steal the ball back.

The Ravens, conversely, were exposed as being a talented but ultimately one-dimensional team. Their inability to pass consistently was incredibly apparent, and yet they allowed themselves to become a passing team in the second half. They managed to average 4.6 yards per carry, but they only rushed 19 times, as opposed to 35 passes. This was a reaction to being down by 7 and then 14, and to some extent it was a reasonable choice. It’s difficult to string a long drive together with a majority of plays being runs. Still, it was clearly the team’s strength, and it isn’t as though 30 minutes is such a short amount of time to score that running the ball is a poor decision. Their defense did as well as could be expected, and while Flacco may have been hurt, that is little consolation for a defensive unit that is long in the tooth and unlikely to be together much longer.

The Colts did what they have done all season: be good enough to win. Their point differential isn’t terribly impressive, and they don’t overwhelm opponents with any aspect of their game, but that’s the nature of being just good enough, and it’s a skill they seem to have mastered. 15-0 when actually trying to win is a record that’s hard to dispute.

-Cowboys vs. Vikings

As I said last week, the Cowboys were the hottest team in football, and were vulnerable only to their own inconsistency. Seemingly everyone loved them, forgetting that they were the subject of intense scrutiny a mere month before. The Vikings, conversely, were the only excellent team whose struggles seemed like they might be indicative of a larger problem, primarily because of their copious injuries.

As it turns out, I was largely correct, as with the exception of Flozell Adams injury, the team had little excuse for their performance. The Vikings defensive line was amazing, but the rest of their team performed at a fairly average level. The Vikings were only 4-13 on third down, they didn’t run the ball well, and the vast majority of their passing yards came on a few big plays. If the Cowboys had not turned the ball over three times, they may have been able to keep the game close, at the very least.

Of course, those turnovers were no accident. The Vikings’ defensive line is terrifying, probably the best unit of players left on any team in the playoffs. They forced three fumbles and hurried Romo into poor passes the entire game.

Similarly, you can’t take anything away from the Vikings because they made big plays. While they are unlikely to match the consistency of the Saints or Colts, points all count the same. I doubt their ability to get plays on offense when they have to, but their defense makes sure they don’t need many. Sometimes that’s good enough.

-Jets vs. Chargers

I said I didn’t want to live in a world where the Jets beat the Chargers, and I meant it. It stinks. I hate it when the team that has underachieved all season gets into the playoffs on a fluke because they played two teams with nothing to gain. The Chargers were the better team all season, winning 11 straight to finish the year. Their match-up with the Colts would have been infinitely more interesting that the Jets’, and the game would have been a great deal more competitive.

That said, the Jets were not worse than the Chargers by nearly the margin that I believed. They had the best defense in the NFL, one of the best rushing attacks, and a nearly identical point differential (which, admittedly, was buoyed a bit by their final two wins against teams that had given up). They presented a difficult match-up for the Chargers, and the result was not entirely surprising.

Despite all of this, there is no conclusion to draw other than the Chargers choked away a prime opportunity. One random interception, another that was entirely Rivers’ fault, two missed field goals, and an offensive game plan that was far too reliant on Tomlinson. The loss was inexcusable, and it is yet another squandered year for a franchise that hasn’t been able to put a competent playoff run together. Their window doesn’t seem to have closed definitively, but you have to wonder if it’s going to happen for them if it hasn’t yet.

This weekends match-ups:

-Jets vs. Colts

I have a lot of trouble believing that the Jets can win this game. In spite of the win over the Chargers, there are a number of parallels to what the Ravens did to the Patriots, and we saw how that worked out when the Ravens played the Colts. The Colts haven’t lost a game they tried to win all season, and they are the masters of doing just enough to win. Mark Sanchez has quietly done very little in the Jets’ wins, and he will almost certainly have to make plays to beat the Colts. The Colts generate long scoring drives when they need them and don’t beat themselves with bad penalties or turnovers, and they are simply a much more talented and experienced team.

Despite these overwhelming disadvantages, the Jets have the ability to create turnovers and run the ball effectively. Peyton Manning has thrown interceptions more frequently than normal of late, and sometimes teams can ride a wave of momentum to victory. Given the Jets’ performance of late, it’s not hard to imagine them winning a game they have no business pulling out.

But I doubt it.

-Vikings vs. Saints

The game of the season for a litany of reasons. A pair of quarterbacks cast off by their previous teams (in Favre’s case, two teams) in favor of quarterbacks who were supposed to be the future, proving that the future is now in the NFL. Two franchises with no super bowls, the Saints having never been to one while the Vikings lost four in the seventies. A team that rushes the quarterback with impunity (the Vikings) against the quarterback with the fastest release in football (Brees). Reggie Bush versus Percy Harvin, Sidney Rice versus Marcus Colston…the list is endless. Most interesting in the fact that these were the best two teams in the NFC for the entirety of the regular season, and their meeting seems to have been a foregone conclusion for about as long.

I looked hard for an interesting take on why the Saints would win this game, but I don’t know that there is one. They have tremendous home field advantage and an excellent coach going against the much-maligned Brad Childress. They don’t really have a weakness beyond an occasionally suspect defense, and their offense is the best combination of consistency and explosiveness in the league. The Vikings were good last week, but they looked vulnerable at times, and the Saints won’t make the mistakes the Cowboys did. Seems like an open and shut case.

Unless you really believe in Brett Favre. I’d rather not.

Image via The Sports Union

An Unlikely Hero

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:14:00 +0000

What a bizarre set of first round games. Three blowouts and a fourth game that felt like one until an improbable comeback followed by an equally improbable finish left us with by far the most competitive game of the weekend. Three underdogs won, 2 road teams won, and I couldn’t help but feel ambivalence towards most of it. Blowouts are rarely exciting, and this weekend was no exception. Nearly every game felt like it was over before it had a chance to get started.

Through three games, I just didn’t see any point in investing myself in the outcomes. Like most fans without a team I was left disappointed by the lack of compelling action relative to the previous two seasons. Two years ago the Patriots provided compelling theater every weekend. You may have hated them, but they were always entertaining, and their playoff games prior to the super bowl were notable for their incredibly high degree of proficiency, particularly on offense. The pursuit of perfection was at the very least an interesting historical reason to watch, and the aura of invincibility that surrounded the team was so great it seemed almost tangible.

Last year the Cardinals unleashed the beast that is Larry Fitzgerald, and every one of their offensive possessions offered the chance of seeing some previously unfathomable passing zenith. Whenever Warner wound up to throw, everyone in the room held their collective breath, waiting for Fitzgerald to snatch the ball from over the heads of a pair of defensive backs. The AFC championship game was on of the nastiest, most gut-wrenching contests I have ever seen. Big hits were thrown around as casually as high-fives as a fraternity. Even the Super Bowl delivered for the most part, a strong fourth quarter making up for a slight lack of action in the preceding three, capped off by one of the best finishes in the games’ history.

This year held little of that promise. The two weeks leading up to the playoffs were largely unexciting, and three of the four first round match-ups were repeats of the prior week. The scores of the precursors were 24-0, 33-7, and 37-0. Not exactly indicative of an exciting week to follow. Teams were resting their starters, though, and it’s hard to judge future results with so many mitigating factors. It was at least possible, if not probable, that the rematches would exceed their predecessors. They couldn’t be any worse, right?

-Jets vs. Bengals

I called the Bengals overrated, and I was right. I also called Mark Sanchez a pretty boy who makes a lot of mistakes. He is, and he didn’t. He was managed more tightly than you would infer from the undue hype, though. He only attempted 15 passes, compared to 41 runs. He did complete 12 of those 15, but he certainly never had the weight of his team on his shoulders.

Excepting Sanchez’s efficiency, the game wasn’t particularly well played. The Bengals missed two short field goals that would have made the 10-point loss considerably more interesting. They also only completed half of their pass attempts. Cedric Benson had an exceptional game, racking up 169 yards on 21 carries, but his team couldn’t parlay that into points. The Jets were basically protecting their first half lead for the rest of the game, and even though it felt like it might get exciting, it never did.

Looking forward, I don’t think I want to live in a world where teams like the Jets beat teams like the Chargers. Parity is thrown around far too lightly with respect to the NFL, but if teams like the Jets (mediocre-good) can beat teams like the Chargers (good-great) in the playoffs with any consistency, the claims of mediocrity will eventually have to be lent credence. The Jets have a good match-up, boasting the best corner in football and an excellent pass-rush against a one-dimensional offense. The Chargers don’t stop the run especially well, either, which also bodes well for the Jets. Hopefully overall excellence wins out, but I’m not holding my breath.

-Eagles vs. Cowboys

I had high hopes for this game in spite of the week 17 beat-down the Eagles suffered. Division rivals with a score to settle tend to produce good games, and the first game the two played was a pretty competitive affair. Alas, it was not meant to be. Romo had his way with the Eagles early and often, Felix Jones ran roughshod, and the Cowboys defense held the Eagles to 56 yards rushing and a shade over 50% completion percentage.

Unlike the Bengals/Jets game, this one wasn’t notable for its poor play so much as its inevitable conclusion. The second quarter was so one-sided that the thought of the Eagles mounting a comeback was inconceivable. It was at this point that I started to consider the possibility that the playoffs might not be able to live up to my lofty expectations. Neither of the next two games had any particular cache, there was no undefeated team to root for, and even the best teams felt vulnerable.

My own feelings aside, the Cowboys have to like their chances. They’re hot, they’re talented, and they don’t have a discernable weakness beyond their own inconsistency. Their next opponent, the Vikings, have not been nearly as good following the loss of several key players, and the Saints and Cardinals are hardly juggernauts. If they play like they have the last 4 games, their appearance in the Super Bowl almost appears to be a formality. All the more reason to remember that two losses in December does not constitute the end of the world any more than four wins makes you an unstoppable force. (Looks up) Oops.

- Ravens vs. Patriots

Another game I had high hopes for. The Ravens have a point differential (+130) in stark contrast to their 9-7 record, and the Patriots are a team you expect to step up this time of year. Instead, the game was over even faster than the previous two. A seventy-yard run and two turnovers in nine minutes will do that. Just like that, much as in the previous game, a comeback felt like an impossibility, and the rest of the game did little to hold my interest. The only stat you need to understand the game: Flacco was 4-10 passing for 34 yards, and his team won by 19. The game was many things, but entertaining was not one of them, and my interest in football was at a season long low.

Whether or not the Ravens can keep pace with the Colts is another matter entirely. The Colts have a habit of pulling out close games, while the Ravens have a habit of blowing them. The game between the two of them earlier in the season was 17-15, and their respective statistics suggest that they’re closer in ability than their records would indicate. Everything intangible points to the Colts, though, and all things being equal, I’ll take the team that snatches victory from defeat over the one that snatches defeat from victory every time.

-Packers vs. Cardinals

I had no idea what to think of this game. The Packers are better by a decent margin statistically, and they were on a prodigious winning streak, but the Cardinals showed last year that they are not a team you overlook. I assumed that the game would be fairly close with the Packers pulling away at the end, the Cardinals falling victim to their injuries and malaise.

Given this mindset, you can only imagine my surprise when the game was quickly 17-0 Cardinals. I was ready to give up on football. What’s the point when the games are functionally over in half an hour? The only reason I held out any hope was the seeming randomness of the turnovers. If the Packers could just stop giving the ball away, they could probably make the game respectable at the very least.

Then the Cardinals scored to go up by 21, and I was once again ready to give up for good. The Packers scored, and it was only a fourteen-point game, but they couldn’t stop the Cardinals. I figured it was as close as the game would get. No sooner did I have the thought than the Packers recovered the most perfect onside kick I have ever seen.

The rest of the game was sheer magic. Back and forth touchdowns, amazing offensive plays that simply trumped excellent defensive efforts, and that elusive intangible that can simply be described as playoff atmosphere. The missed field goal was as epic as I’ve witnessed, having been too young to have witnessed “Wide Right” in Super Bowl XXV. The final play was as bizarre as could be expected in such a ridiculous game, and it was about as exciting as an overtime finish can be.

Amusingly enough, it was the Cardinals who once again saved the playoffs. Apparently between losing Boldin and the spread moving by 5.5 points in the Packers favor they found some motivation. I’ll never like their inconsistency, and I’ll definitely never root for Kurt Warner, but they’ve been awfully entertaining the last couple years, and they may have saved the playoffs. They definitely saved week one.

As for their match-up with the Saints, I really have no idea what to think. I’m pulling for the Saints for all the reasons I described last week, but they don’t have momentum on their side, and while they were often excellent, they were also frequently fortunate. The Cardinals, conversely, have just won a game that has them brimming with confidence. They have playoff experience and they won’t have the pressure of being a favorite for the rest of their playoff run. The Saints may be a better team, but pressure is a fickle thing, and their recent stumbles may be indicative of that.

What a difference a week makes. The dull rematches will finally give way to compelling storylines. Favre trying to win a Super Bowl for the Packer’s hated rival, going against an embattled quarterback who idolized him as a child. The Ravens trying to live up to their potential and avenge a narrow loss to the reigning MVP and prohibitive favorite. The Jets trying to prove everyone wrong while the Chargers try to finally get it done. The team that pulls at your heartstrings versus the team that saved the playoffs.

It’s a fresh start for the playoffs, and being the sucker that I am, I’m all in again. Besides, these games have to be better than last week’s. They couldn’t be worse, right?

(Looks up)

Crap.

Image Via Babble.com

A Life or Death Decision

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:45:00 +0000

The NFL playoffs are upon us. 32 teams have been whittled down to 12, and for four more glorious weeks we will be able to enjoy the pinnacle of America’s national pastime. I, like many of you, do not have a horse in the playoff race. Despite this, those of us who have followed our teams throughout the season will still be watching in spite of their absence. Why is this? What is it about football that captivates us to the point that we create a rooting interest where none previously existed? The answer is clearly not tradition; the Super Bowl may be a national holiday, but so was the World Series once upon a time.

The explanation lies within the nature of the game itself. If you had never seen a sport before, and I was to show you tape of each sport at its finest, what would you gravitate towards? Baseball? I doubt it. What is interesting about the game from a laymen’s perspective? We love the game because our fathers love the game, because we played it as children, because we grew up going to the ballpark. We definitely do not love it because it is an impressive spectacle, because it so rarely is.

Conversely, imagine watching basketball or football for the first time. Seven-foot tall athletic specimens flying through the air to dunk a ball on a rim ten feet above the ground. Lightning quick running backs dodging all comers before being tackled, each player moving twenty miles an hour in opposite directions. You would see spectacles of unrivaled athleticism, superhuman feats the likes of which you had never seen. If you had any inclination to like sports, you would no doubt be impressed at the very least, and quite possibly hooked.

This alone, however, cannot answer our question, or we would devour basketball with the same fervor as we do the NFL. With the exception of March Madness, this is not the case. This leads me to the philosophical reason: we see in football games what we want to see in ourselves.

Think about the reasons you love or hate a football player and their team. Brett Favre has been one of the most popular players in the history of the NFL. He has been nearly above reproach for the vast majority of his career despite being as flawed as anyone. This is because his most notable qualities are those we wish to see in ourselves: toughness, candor, and fearlessness. Players like Jay Cutler are reviled because they are perceived as self interested and whiny. Randy Moss is talented but doesn’t work hard enough, which makes it acceptable to hate him. Peyton Manning was a choker. Tom Brady was clutch. Is it any accident that we gravitate towards the teams we perceive as possessing the qualities we want to see in ourselves?

Football is best for this because we know so few players by face and the game is so team oriented by nature. Basketball has 5 players on the court and we always see their faces. When a player resonates, they resonate wherever they go. Simply put, players like Bird, Magic, and Jordan were bigger than their teams. They would have been the faces of the league wherever they were.

In football, we can’t make this leap. Sure, we like Favre because of his style, but that doesn’t necessarily translate wherever he goes. We need to see players within the context of their teams to truly appreciate them. Favre wasn’t just tough, he made the Packers tough. Brady isn’t just a winner, he helped the Patriots win three Super Bowls. We need context because even the best-known NFL players can’t stand alone. Football is too much of a team game for that. This isn’t to say that individuals don’t resonate, but that their presence alone rarely makes us fans. Rather, we become fans of those players team's because of what they represent collectively, with the individual exemplifying the greater theme.

The game is so quantifiable, the imposition of wills so tangible, that we come to see in the athletes what we want to see in ourselves. We want to believe that we would be the toughest player on the team, as fearless as the receiver going over the middle, the gunslinger throwing the ball into the smallest holes. We would crash into the line with reckless abandon for 4 yards at a time if we only had the chance. We know we can’t dunk, and hitting a ball with a stick just isn’t all that manly. But we can still believe that we could take every hit and still get up, and give maximum effort to the very end. We can picture ourselves in the battle, fighting for everything we hold dear, imposing our will on our opponents. The game is a very literal manifestation of our most dramatic notions of masculinity and competition, and we hold those notions too dear not to take seriously. Rooting for a team that doesn’t agree with your notions of competition is as bad as having those notions yourself.

None of this is meant to somehow suggest that people don't appreciate the game for its more tangible qualities. I simply believe that we are prone to making connections with a football team more easily than in other sports because football represents what we want to see in ourselves. Since we don't want to root for a team that isn't like us, we're going to have to figure out what team's personality matches ours the best.

-Jets

The team you root for if you love the underdog. They have one of the most unheralded running backs in the league in Thomas Jones, one of the best defenses in the NFL, and a coach who is bound to become a press conference legend. They also employ a pretty boy rookie quarterback who makes a lot of mistakes. Who sees himself as that guy?

-Bengals

Do you love overrated teams with past their prime wide receivers and morbidly depressed head coaches? Marvin Lewis hasn’t looked happy in years, Cedric Benson is hurt, they lost their best linebacker, and Chad OchoCinco tweaked his knee. They have, however, had a teammate die recently. I suppose if you're a sucker for Rudy (and who isn't?), you could do a lot worse. Otherwise, I don’t see much here to identify with.

-Eagles

If you like stories of redemption, this might be the team for you. Reid and McNabb have had their share of trials and tribulations, and in spite of being one of the most successful teams for the past 10 years, they have no trophies to show for it. They’re also a fun team to watch because of Jackson, so if you like big plays and long-time-coming stories of success, hop on this bandwagon. There’s plenty of room since Philadelphians are pessimists by nature, so you wont even have to feel guilty about it.

-Cowboys

If you like bad head coaches, quarterbacks who are great people and possibly choke artists, and underachievers in general, the Cowboys are where it’s at. Their December woes may have ended, but they still haven’t won a playoff game in 13 years. They combine some of the most likeable guys (Marion Barber, Romo) and some of the most loathable (Roy Williams). Unsurprisingly, this makes them a pretty ambiguous team, and it’s hard to say how anyone feels about them. It doesn’t seem like a very rewarding team to root for, but maybe you’re more honest about your ups and downs than the rest of us.

-Ravens

The old stalwarts of defense, led by the personification of faded glory in Ray Lewis. One last run to the top is probably all he has left in the tank, and the team will kill itself to get him there. They can run the ball as well as anyone, and Flacco has made strides at quarterback, but winning three road games is damn near impossible, especially for a team that shoots itself in the foot as much as they do. If they play up to their considerable potential anything is possible, but bad habits have a way of coming back to haunt you. Another team for people more honest about their flaws than I am.

-Patriots

This is another team that might be in one-last-run territory. Brady has been injured for the second half of the year, Welker is out, and they’re more predictable than ever. If you love rooting for greatness to last as long as it possibly can, you can’t do any better than these guys. They’ll battle it out until the end, and everyone is afraid of them. Fading champions are called that for a reason, though, and usually it’s because they’re on the bad side of their primes. Maybe they’re George Foreman, but they’re probably more like old Tyson at this point.

-Packers

If you hate Brett Favre, look no further. I can’t imagine how gratifying it would be for Packers fans if they could win a Super Bowl without him by beating him. The Packers have been quietly excellent all year, and they are extremely well rounded. The best teams in the NFC have not fared well as of late, and these guys could easily be their equals. Defiantly sticking to your guns (in this case, Aaron Rodgers) is always gratifying when it goes your way, and it’s hard for me not to root for these guys in that regard. If they play the Vikings in the playoffs the battle lines will be drawn, and which side you come down on will say a lot about you. I know who I'm rooting for.

-Cardinals

They were the team nobody believed in last year, so I don’t think they can have that going for them again. They make big plays in the passing game and Kurt Warner has defied all logic by still being productive. I’ve always found something a bit smug about him, so I’m not really a fan, but few things in the sport delight me as much as watching Fitzgerald dominate defensive backs. Not a terribly polarizing team in any way, I guess you would root for them if you really liked seeing old people succeed. Good luck with that.

-Chargers

The team you root for if you love quiet excellence. Rivers gets a fraction of the press that his contemporaries do while being every bit as excellent. He’s so good that he has covered up for the fact that the team is terrible at running the ball and is still 13-3. Their defense isn’t terribly impressive either, but they won’t be playing a very good team in round two, and they have always had the Colts number. I love seeing ignored excellence defiantly force its way into our collective consciousness, and Rivers may very well do just that. When they quietly stop giving LT the ball in the playoffs, the weight of the entire team will be on their quarterback. I’m hoping he can shoulder it.

-Colts

Professionalism may get you far in life, but it can be awfully boring. This team just doesn’t have much of a personality. They have won a lot of close games, and nothing would make me more scared as an opposing fan than seeing Manning with the ball in the final two minutes of a game. This is, however, the team that gave up on perfection for no apparent reason, and did so in a completely baffling way. That, I cannot abide, and neither should you.

-Vikings

If you absolutely, positively, can’t get enough of Brett Favre, then you don’t even need to read this. You have already had plenty of his Kool-Aid, and loved every drop. For the rest of us, this was actually a difficult decision. The team has Adrian Peterson, after all, the closest thing the league has to an actual freak of nature, and they played such an entertaining style. The squabble between Favre and Childress brought me back to reality, though, reminding me that at heart, Brett is still the same petulant athlete he was the last several years. I can’t root for a player who thinks the world revolves around him, and while accusations of such behavior are often leveled without justification, openly questioning your coach on an 11-3 is fairly unforgivable. I'm taking the Packers side in this divorce.

-Saints

A quarterback left for dead by the Chargers. An array of cast-off offensive weapons from every round of the draft or who were simply given up on. A defense built for speed and creating turnovers. A city devastated by a natural disaster that still hasn’t recovered. A coach willing to give up part of his salary to hire the defensive coordinator he wanted. The fans that provide the best home-field advantage in the league. The team personifies heart, tenacity, desire, and all of the other traits we associate with overcoming adversity. They represent the city that needed them so badly to distract them from the pain of rebuilding. If they won the Super Bowl it would mean more to that city than it could possibly mean to any other. The Saints play for their fans more so than any other team in the league. How could they not when they see what those fans have been through every day?

That’s the kind of team I want representing me. Those are the guys I want to be like. That’s the team that I can picture myself being a part of, bringing joy to people who need it to temporarily take them from their misery. I’d kill myself play after play for the Saints, if only I could.

But I’ll probably just root for them because I think they’re fun to watch. It’s a lot less pretentious that way.

Image Via Take no Prisoners

A Waste of Potential

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:54:00 +0000

Tracy McGrady was, for a period of about 7 years, one of the truly elite players in the NBA. A world class scorer with a gift for lifting mediocre teams to respectability, the most notable aspect of his legacy is being the best player never to advance past the first round of the playoffs. He is currently the highest paid player in the NBA, and he is being shopped by the Rockets for a fraction of what he might have been worth a couple of years ago. The tale of how he got to this point is both fascinating and depressing, and serves as a reminder that while the NBA is so often measured in potential, a great deal of it is never realized.

It took me several years to appreciate McGrady’s game. I associated him with the kind of player I felt was ruining the game: the selfish ball-handler who at best could not help his team win games, and at worst simply had no interest in doing so. Darius Miles, Stephon Marbury, Shawn Marion, Vince Carter, Antoine Walker. Talented players to be sure, but they all suffered from an inability to translate their talents to victories (To varying degrees, obviously). I thought McGrady was one of them, as evidenced by his propensity to take any and every shot and his lack of postseason success.

What I didn’t realize was how competitive he was, how much respect he demanded, how unfortunate many of his circumstances were. I looked back at his career and realized how much I had forgotten, how unfair many of my assumptions have been. It seems to me that if we’re going to understand his current situation, and that of similar players, this is a most worthwhile endeavor. After all, to understand how we got here, we have to look at where we have been.

T-Mac was drafted by the Raptors in 1997, one of the earlier players to skip college entirely. The team was surprisingly talented in spite of their 16-66 record, featuring Damon Stoudamire, Doug Christie, Marcus Camby and Chauncey Billups. The next year, T-Mac was joined by his cousin, Vince Carter, who quickly became the teams’ leading scorer and marquee player. McGrady emerged as a scorer in his third year, averaging 15 points in 31 minutes, and the Raptors made the playoffs for the first time. The Knicks swept them in 3 games.

Constricted by playing next to Carter, who had a very similar role, McGrady left for Orlando and a chance to play with Grant Hill. Hill would play 47 games in 4 years as T-Mac’s teammate, a series of injuries leaving him a shell of his former All-NBA self. T-Mac, meanwhile, blossomed into a premier scorer, winning a pair of scoring titles in 02-03 and 03-04. He made 4 All-Star teams in 4 years, as well as 2 All-NBA first teams and 2 All-NBA second teams.

The Magic made the playoffs his first three years on the team, losing to the Bucks 3-1, the Hornets 3-1, and the Pistons 4-3. The last series was particularly devastating as the Magic held a 3-1 series lead before losing three straight. McGrady was famously quoted as saying that it was nice to "finally be in the position to advance to the second round (of the playoffs)" before game 5, and it was unclear after game 4 if he even realized the playoff format had been changed from a 5 game first round series to 7 games. When the Magic went on to lose the series, he was pigeonholed as a loser who couldn’t get his team over the hump, a selfish shooter who didn’t make his team better.

What was the reality of the matter? Those teams were garbage, and McGrady played very well in the playoffs. His best teammates in that three-year run were Mike Miller, Darrell Armstrong, Drew Gooden, and Gordon Giricek. McGrady averaged 34, 31, and 32 points in the respective playoff series, playing 44 minutes a game each time. While two of his final three games in the Pistons series were unremarkable, his game 6 effort was anything but: 37 points, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, and 2 steals, while playing 47 minutes. His team lost by 15 points. With Juwan Howard as a sidekick in 03-04, the team won 21 games and appeared to be going nowhere fast.

McGrady was mercifully traded after the 2004 season for Cuttino Mobley, Steve Francis, and Kelvin Cato. Unsurprisingly, one of the 10 best players in the NBA turned out to be a bit more valuable than 3 serviceable players, and the Magic got rid of Mobley and Francis within a year and a half. McGrady, meanwhile, was paired with Yao Ming, one of the premier centers in the NBA. The team was otherwise devoid of much talent, but having 2 perennial top 15 players is an awfully good start for a team hoping to contend for a title.

McGrady’s style didn’t mesh all that well with Ming’s. Ming is a gifted passer and post player that demands a double team, the sort of player who is much better when the offense is run through him. McGrady is a scorer that wants to create off the dribble, which necessitates a good number of isolations and high screen and rolls. In spite of this, the team’s record improved by six games. The team’s defense made up for McGrady’s lack of prowess on that end of the floor, while McGrady improved the team’s offense by stretching the floor and creating a high-low game with Yao.

Perhaps the most encouraging sign for the team was McGrady’s unbelievable sequence against the Spurs in December. McGrady scored 13 points in the final 35 seconds of the game to give the Rockets a one point win over the past and future Champions, an outburst that had Rockets fans dreaming of glory days to come.

They went on to lose a brutal seven game series to the Mavericks in spite of McGrady and Yao’s best efforts. T-Mac averaged 31 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists, while Yao averaged 21 points, 8 rebounds and 3 blocks. Game seven was the most telling of the series: McGrady scored 27, Yao scored 33, and the rest of the team scored 16. The Rockets lost by 40, and McGrady was left to explain his fifth first round exit.

In spite of this, the Rockets has cause to be optimistic. Yao was 25 and McGrady was 26, the team had little in the way of proven role players, and the Lakers’ dynasty was officially over. Improvement over their previous results seemed to be a formality. Unfortunately, the team was about to be plagued by their now trademark injuries. McGrady had missed 40 games in his previous 6 seasons. Yao had missed 2 games in his first 3 seasons. McGrady would miss 35, 11, 16, and 47 games in the four seasons that followed, while Yao would miss 25, 34, 27, and 5.

The team would miss the 2006 playoffs entirely, due in no small part to these injuries. The 2006-2007 witnessed an 18 game improvement due to the addition of Shane Battier and Bonzi Wells, as well as the emergence of Rafer Alston and Luther Head as role players. McGrady missed 24 fewer games, and the team was once again in the playoffs, this time against an emerging Jazz team. Yao was healthy for the playoffs and averaged 25 points and 10 rebounds, while McGrady averaged 25 points, 6 rebounds and 7 assists.

It didn’t matter. The Rockets took a 2-0 series lead only to lose in seven games, in spite of McGrady’s stellar game 7: 29 points, 13 assists, 5 rebounds, 3 blocks and only 2 turnovers. Williams and Boozer proved to be the superior inside-outside combo, and their supporting cast was superior as well. None of this stopped McGrady from being blamed. Why? Because he wanted it that way.

McGrady said before the series that if the Rockets lost, it was “on him”. After the series, he said, "Right now, it's a lot of hurt. It feels good that we competed the way we did and pushed seven games. But on the other hand, it was just disappointing." He left the interview fighting back tears.

The loss was nothing like the shellacking they had suffered at the hands of the Mavericks. 103-99 was the final, and it was 96-95 with 1:46 left. McGrady had once again played well and left with nothing to show for it. Three years into the Yao-McGrady experiment, the team appeared to be no closer to winning a title than it was three years prior.

The following year was trying, with both players missing numerous games and Yao being placed on the Injured Reserve list in February. In spite of this, the team managed to win 22 straight games at one point, and went into the playoffs confident in spite of the loss of Yao. They were matched up with the Jazz, and revenge was clearly on their minds.

Do I really need to say what happened? The Rockets lost in 6 games, although this time they didn’t give their fans false hope by starting the series strong. McGrady once again had a stellar game to close a series: 40 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with only 1 turnover. The Rockets still lost by 22. They were down by 17 in the first half, but T-Mac scored 13 in a row to cut the lead to 58-54 at halftime. His teammates admitted that they we of little assistance, but that did nothing to stop the criticism. 7 first round exits in 7 tries. It’s too much fun to blame it on the best player to point the finger elsewhere.

At this point, I was sold on Tracy’s merits, feeling that he was a completely misunderstood player. A 7 time All-Star, 7 times All-NBA (2 First Team, 3 Second Team, 2 Third Team), and a 2 time scoring champion. He always played well in the playoffs, particularly in deciding games, and he was a warrior who was respected by his peers in the league and on his team. He was simply a victim of circumstance.

Unfortunately, the last year has not been kind to his legacy, and a great deal of that is his fault. He missed 47 games in 08-09, and the team appeared to be playing better without him. Yao was healthy, the supporting cast was well constructed, and the team had a clear direction. The Rockets went 26-9 after McGrady announced he was getting knee surgery, and they advanced past the first round of the playoffs for the first time in the McGrady/Yao era. They even took the Lakers to a seventh game, ultimately losing, but they fought gamely in the absence of both McGrady and Yao, who was injured in game 3 and will likely not play until fall 2010.

T-Mac’s crime was not being hurt, though, but rather the manner in which he handled his injury. He had missed games sporadically throughout the season, but had returned in February and was playing reasonably well. The Rockets’ management, however, felt that the team had clearly demonstrated superior play without McGrady, and were looking to showcase his talents for any potential suitors. When it became clear that the team was planning to trade him, McGrady announced that he was getting knee surgery, thereby ruining any trade value he might have had.

The Rockets were understandably unhappy, and from that point on they have been waiting for the day that Tracy will leave the team. He is the rarest of assets in the current NBA climate: a serviceable NBA player with a massive expiring contract, 23 million dollars. While Tracy understandably wants to play to raise his market value, the team has no interest in allowing him to both risk injury and take playing time away from their developing players. The current offers for McGrady are reportedly insulting, but plenty of teams are looking for cap room, either for financial relief or the opportunity to sign one of the vaunted 2010 free agents. The offers will improve come February, and even if they don’t, Tracy will simply wait out his final days as a Rocket at home, having banished himself from the team when they balked at his desire for a greater role.

The question, then, is where does this go? Does McGrady have the ability to stay healthy enough to help a team win? Can he accept being the third or fourth best player on an excellent team? Will any of the current (and future) contenders see enough in him to take a flyer on him?

I don’t have the answers, though I suspect he will struggle adjusting to a new role. I think he will eventually realize that his legacy is at stake and accept that his skills have diminished. Whether that happens this year in a deal with one of the contenders or next year with whoever wins the free agent sweepstakes is yet to be seen.

The most striking lesson to be taken from McGrady’s career seems to be that of potential and its fickle nature. So often we speak of contenders, up and comers, and future stars. Yet there is only 1 championship a year, a handful of places on All-NBA and All-Star teams, even fewer plaques in the Hall of Fame. Not all potential will be realized, and possibility does not equal probability, let alone certainty.

McGrady’s career serves as a cautionary tale to those of us enamored with placing players in the NBA hierarchy. It’s easy to anoint Tracy a loser and be done with it, but the truth is more complicated than that. He deserves his share of blame for his playoff failures, to be sure, but placing the entirety of the burden on his shoulders is simply too much. He was a truly excellent player that elevated otherwise unremarkable teams, was comfortable under pressure, and killed himself attempting to lift his teams. He has tarnished his legacy of late, but that should not detract from his accomplishments. He still has time to make it right and realize his newfound potential as a complimentary player. Where he once failed, he can now succeed.

But who knows if he will. That’s the lesson, after all.

Image Via NGNG Sports

The Week That Was

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:24:00 +0000

Not the most exciting weekend in the NFL. The games that were good lacked much in the way of interesting storylines, and the most interesting thing anyone can find to talk about in hindsight is what team is having the worst collapse. That said, most of the games had at least a nugget of interesting action lurking within, so an NFL roundup seems in order.

-Chargers vs. Titans, 42-17

This seemed like an interesting game on paper, but the Titans couldn’t muster up any more magic to save their season. Chris Johnson was spectacular in defeat, as he always is. Little in football is as enthralling as watching defenders try in vain to catch him once he gets moving. The Chargers have snuck under the radar due to their slow start and the Colts record, but they have the Colts number in January. With a bye on their side, they just have to hope they can avoid New England, and the Super Bowl seems like a strong possibility.

-Bills vs. Falcons, 3-31

Did anyone watch this game? Buffalo stinks, the Falcons are mediocre, and Roddy White is good. Next.

-Chiefs vs. Bengals, 10-17

The Chiefs have fought hard in every game, which is more than can be said of some other awful teams (Seahawks). The Bengals are not as good as their record indicates; their best wins are over the Steelers (mediocre or slightly better) and the Ravens (good, but enigmatic and prone to self destruction). They beat Green Bay close, and every other win is over a bad team. I’m thinking a one and done in January, not unlike the last time they made the playoffs. Lets hope Palmer’s knee makes it out intact this time.

-Raiders vs. Browns, 9-23

None of us watched this game. If you did, that means you are a fan of one of these teams (I’m sorry) or a masochist. Either way, let’s just pretend it didn’t happen.

-Seahawks vs. Packers, 10-48

Do the Seahawks have any hope for the future? No quarterback, no running back, dubious effort, and their best win this year was over Jacksonville. San Francisco and Arizona are at least decent teams that give some effort. I struggle to see how they will be competitive for a playoff spot anytime soon.

The Packers, on the other hand, are another team that has snuck under the radar. Other than that inexcusable loss to the Buccaneers, they have lost to the Vikings twice, the Bengals, and the Steelers. Only the second Vikings loss was by more than 7 (26-38). If they can avoid the Vikings in the playoffs, they have a legitimate shot at going to the Super Bowl. This would simultaneously cause Brett Favre to throw everyone he could think of under the bus, and remind Packers fans of how much they protected him over the years. Have faith, Rodgers. Have faith.

-Texans vs. Dolphins, 27-20

Every good team was praying for this outcome. The Texans are the easiest first round opponent the Patriots/Bengals could hope for, since they are down to 1 real offensive threat (Johnson). They lose to every decent team they play (Their best win was against the Bengals; their second best was against the Titans week 2) and they have a habit of collapsing at the end of games. They play the Patriots this week, so normally I would say no playoffs for them, but I would not put it past the Patriots to manipulate the outcome to earn the privilege of playing them again a week later (if that’s a possibility).

I’m looking forward to seeing the Dolphins next year with a healthy Ronnie Brown and a more experienced Henne. I would be surprised if they didn’t make the playoffs, and they’re one of the most entertaining teams in the NFL. It’s a shame they couldn’t pull this game out, but alas, there’s always next year.

-Jaguars vs. Patriots, 7-35

The Jaguars decided not to show up for this game, so I’m deciding not to write about them. It only seems fair.

With regards to Randy Moss’ lack of effort, can we please agree that this is not (and has never been) an issue? Football players, and athletes in general, hate teammates who don’t give their best effort. Do you think Moss has traversed his entire career without being called out publicly by a single teammate on accident? When he was a Raider he stopped running after 30 yards because no one could throw it that far. If the play is a pass that isn’t called for him, he might not kill himself on his route. But watch any game and you will see that he always blocks hard on runs, he works to get open on broken plays, and his teammates respect him. Sportswriters like to tear down athletes who seem infinitely talented but indifferent. They believe that if they only had Moss’ talent, they could be so much better than him. They would care so much more than he does. They would run every play like it was their last. The truth of the matter is that even an athlete as supremely talented as Moss has to work hard, and he showed the past two weeks that what the media perceived as indifference was simply a dry spell. Relax, and try to brace your fall off of the high horse.

The Patriots seem to be rounding into form just in time, but they still lack impressive wins. I have trouble believing that they can beat the Colts and the Chargers on the way to the Super Bowl, but if anyone is going to do it, it’s them.

-Buccaneers vs. Saints, 20-17

I have to give the Buccaneers credit for giving it their all. Their talent level is abysmal, and they don’t have a very good coaching staff (Morris needs to be fired; they’re delaying the inevitable if they keep him), but they have still managed wins over the Packers and Saints. Effort counts for something, and in a couple years the Freeman/Cadillac duo could conceivably have them winning games (I doubt more than 8, but that’s better than 3).

The Saints, meanwhile, are the requisite team that everyone panics about because they have lost two consecutive games to fall to an abysmal 13-2. The 1998 Broncos also went 13-0 and then lost 2 games, to an 8-8 and a 10-6 team. They went on to win the Super Bowl. The Saints may have lost to a fairly abysmal Buccaneers team, but their best running back was hurt for the entire Buccaneers comeback, and their kicker missed an easy field goal. The Cowboys are a good team that desperately needed a win against the Saints. I’m not saying there is no need for concern, but the sky isn’t falling, either. They still have the best crowd in football, the most offensive weapons, and a fast, playmaking defense. Combine those with a bye and an inconsistent NFC, and I’m not too concerned.

-Panthers vs. Giants, 41-9

The Panthers have to get rid of Jake Delhomme. I don’t care whom they replace him with (although Jason Campbell makes an awful lot of sense); he is holding back the franchise. Move on with the best pair of running backs in the league and someone who won’t throw four interceptions a game. Moore seems decent, but it’s hard to say what will happen when the league gets a better look at him.

The real story of the game, though, was the shockingly poor effort the Giants gave. They were in a must win game, at home, against a clearly inferior opponent, in the final game at their home stadium, and they gave absolutely no indication that they cared in the slightest. The Panthers pushed them around on the offensive and defensive lines and ran the ball with impunity. I have always felt that the Giants were overachievers, particularly Eli Manning, but I did expect them to win the last two games and make things interesting for the Cowboys.

Despite their abhorrent effort, the Giants will be returning a litany of weapons for the upcoming season, and I suspect that if they can figure out what is wrong with Jacobs and replace some of their departing defensive personnel, they’ll be near the top of the NFC next year. Losses like this can fester, though (see: Carolina, 09 playoffs), and that is something that cannot be overlooked.

-Ravens vs. Steelers, 20-23

Probably the second best game of the week, but one that ultimately left me feeling unsatisfied. The Ravens gave the game away with drops and penalties, and despite the fact that they are much better than their record indicates, they have to stop holding themselves back at a certain point. Their point differential is +122; the Colts is +132. Somehow, this has left them with 6 fewer wins. In any case, no opponent wants to see them in the playoffs, and a win will likely land them there.

The Steelers, conversely, have probably overachieved given their injuries. They have gotten by on experience and fourth quarter heroics for the better part of the year, and they’ll need them this week if they want the opportunity to defend their title. I doubt they would make any waves if they got that far, but stranger things have happened.

-Rams vs. Cardinals, 10-31

I hope you didn’t watch this game, if only for the plausible scenario in which it could have made your eyes bleed. I never have much faith in the Cardinals, but they have two of the best receivers in the NFL and a quarterback who can get it to them if he has time. We saw last year that sometimes, that’s enough.

-Lions vs. 49ers, 6-20

It’s a shame that Calvin Johnson has to waste his time on such a terrible team. Stafford has shown promise, but the team’s miserly (not to mention incompetent) ownership will undermine the player’s efforts more often then not.

The 49ers, conversely, are moving towards being at least a shadow of their former selves. They have finally figured out how to use Vernon Davis, Crabtree is a very talented receiver, their defense is allowing the 6th fewest points, and they have an excellent young coach. If they can find a quarterback, they could quickly rise to the level of contender. Easier said than done.

-Cowboys vs. Redskins, 17-0

The Cowboys avoid yet another December collapse while the Redskins count the days until they can overpay a name head coach. We’ll see how the Cowboys do in January. Nothing matters until then.

-Broncos vs. Eagles, 27-30

As a Bears fan, I was only too confident that people would realize the error in their ways. Orton simply isn’t as good as he was playing early in the year, and while his first and second half statistics are similar, the team’s scoring has not been. They had four 20-point games in the first 6, while they have had only three such games in their last 9. Orton has, admittedly, been much better than I thought he would be, and the improvement from Bears receivers to the Broncos', namely Marshall, has no doubt buoyed his rise. If they do make the playoffs, I expect a thorough thrashing at the hands of their opponents.

As for the Eagles, they almost squandered a considerable lead, only to steal the game back at the end. Jackson, Celek, McCoy, and Maclin represent the best set of skill position players McNabb has ever had, and their defense is good enough, 16th in points allowed. They’re a legitimate threat in the playoffs, and with Minnesota choking away the second seed, they could potentially only have 1 road game. If that’s the case, I like their chances. If they have to play three games, two of which will be on the road? Not so much.

-Jets vs. Colts, 29-15

At this point everyone has thrown out their opinion as to attempting to go 16-0. I feel strongly that going for it is the only correct choice. The players want to, it helps them keep their mental edge, and nobody forgets the team that does the impossible. Those points have been beaten to death elsewhere, though, so I feel no need to expand upon them.

What I do find odd is the decision to play the starters for almost the entire game before pulling them. Were they more likely to get hurt at the end? How did this decision help the Colts in any way? I’m befuddled. It seems to me that the move succeeded in doing nothing but angering and confusing the players. Obviously if they win the Super Bowl this will all be called a masterstroke, but I’m failing to see the logic.

-Vikings vs. Bears, 30-36

Who knew this would be the game of the week? Normally I would chalk the Vikings' failure up to a divisional road loss, nothing to be ashamed of. The Vikings haven't looked impressive in defeat, though, and apart from their ability to overcome a deficit, I don’t see much to lead me to believe that they’re a potential Super Bowl winner. Their defense, especially against the pass, is a weakness that teams will exploit, and they're going to have to win a shootout or two to win a title. Then again, the Saints look vulnerable, and if the Vikings can get to the Super Bowl, anything can happen.

I expect an extremely exciting playoffs. The NFC in particular is awash in potentially awesome matchups. The AFC should join suit after the first week, and since they’re giving us such an exciting week 17, I’m willing to let one bad week slide.

It’s the NFL playoffs. Sure, it’s still just a ridiculous game of grown men hurting each other, Brett Favre drama and overreaction to the slightest sign of weakness. But now it’s for keeps.

Image via MSNBC

Second Class Citizens

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 07:21:00 +0000

There is an elite class of NBA player: the few who are good enough to be the best player on a championship team. This doesn't mean that they will, mind you, but merely that they could. Whether you know this by history, by anecdote, or simply by feeling, they are the most elite fraternity in the NBA. Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Paul, Howard, Nash, Nowitzki, Carmelo, and Duncan* (henceforth referred to as the “Big 9”). That’s it. Nine guys. You might be saying, “But that means only those 9 teams could conceivably win the title this year”; that’s correct. That’s how the NBA works: your best player matters more than anything else, and they are more important to their team's success than in any other sport.

*(Note: the Celtics are an exception because of their unusual situation of having 4 all-star players, and 2 years ago Garnett would have been considered top tier.)

Only 3 guys on that list have titles, but another three have been in the finals, and another 2 have been in the conference finals. Only Paul has missed such hallowed ground, and the reasons for that were discussed at length in my last article. What I am interested in now, though, are the players who have the ability to crack that list. These are their stories, in order of least to most likely to crack the above group.*

*(Note: this is not an appraisal of their ability at present. This is a projection of their future skills.)

9. Joe Johnson and Josh Smith

I’m forced to put these guys on the list simply because of how well the Hawks are playing. I strongly suspect that Joe Johnson is their most relevant player, but given Smith’s youth and incredible athletic gifts I’ll call it a tie. My suspicion is that with one of the Big 9, we would be talking about one of the best teams in the NBA, and a very real threat to the Lakers. Instead, I think that this team will go the way most teams with two second-best players go: the second round of the playoffs and out.

Long term, Joe Johnson is going to leave in free agency to team up with someone for whom he can be a sidekick (or at least he should), and Josh Smith will probably never learn how to elevate the level of play of his teammates, resigning him to a similar fate. But for the sheer “could” factor, they made the list.

8. Danny Granger

If this were a ranking of ability right now, Granger would probably be 3rd or 4th. He can shoot from anywhere, gets to the free-throw line frequently (and hits 84% of them), plays solid defense, and plays hard. His numbers suggest that he is only a few points/assists behind Wade, with a much better 3-point percentage. He’s only 26, and he’s been mostly healthy in his first 4 seasons.

This, however, is why numbers lie. It isn’t that he doesn’t do these things; quite the contrary. It’s who he does them for: a bad team. The only time Granger has seen the playoffs was as a rookie, when he was a very low option for the Pacers. He has all the earmarks of a player that gets good stats as the go-to guy on a bad team, but would be awesome as a second banana. (See: Pau Gasol)

So why did I include him on this list? He is an extremely well rounded player who works his butt off, and he has never had a very good team around him. So judging him at this point is at least slightly premature. With a deep team around him, he may very well be able to be the best player on a championship team, or at least a very good one.

But I doubt it.

7. Derrick Rose

An incredible talent, probably the best body of any point guard in the NBA. He is impossibly quick; nobody can stay in front of him when he tries to go to the rim. He is unselfish to a fault, and he put on an absolute clinic during the playoffs last year, taking a much more talented and experienced Celtics team to 7 games. He just turned 21. What’s not to like?

A few things. For one, he isn’t a very good jump shooter, and 3’s are out of the question. He doesn’t play amazing defense, although he certainly isn’t terrible. He doesn’t seem to be able to reach his teammates the way the elite must. Above all, he simply hasn’t improved from his first year to his second.

The mitigating factors, though, are omnipresent. A haphazardly put together team, the worst coach in the NBA, and a total lack of a scorer to pass to would make life difficult for any point guard. My suspicion is that his personality, more than anything else, will lead to him being an amazing second best player on a very good team. If the Bulls land a marquee free agent this summer, that will happen sooner rather than later. But don’t count on Rose being the next Isiah Thomas, if for no reason other than lacking his edge.

6. Rajon Rondo

Blasphemy to put him above his teammates, you say? Allow me to explain. The Celtics are a possible exception to the normal “Best Player” rules at the moment since they’re essentially a super version of the 2004 Pistons (strong defense, very balanced, totally unified team). 2 years ago, before Garnett had his knee problems and became an excellent complimentary player rather than a top 5-10 player, this was not the case. Pierce and Allen are having excellent seasons, but they have past their respective primes and are playing for one last title at this point.

Rondo, on the other hand, has blossomed into a terrifying force on both offense and defense. He drives past defenders whenever he pleases, passes with pinpoint accuracy, and finishes well at the rim. He can ball-hawk or play lockdown defense, and above all else, he carries himself like a leader of the team.

The questions with him are pressing, though. He can’t shoot, and much like Rose, 3’s are simply out of the question. His free throws are shockingly bad (55% this year), and he doesn’t score at a very high rate. These things lead me to believe that, like Rose, his fate is to be an excellent sidekick. Unlike Rose, though, he has that elusive Isiah-like nastiness about him that makes me believe he might will a deep team into the finals one day, much like Jason Kidd did twice. The two have very similar games, and when Rondo becomes the captain of a ship, we’ll see how he fares. Until then, he can rest easy vacillating between the 4th and 2nd option on a team that can win the title.

5. Tyreke Evans

I did not expect to be putting this guy on the list. Everything measurable said superstar, everything intangible said selfish gunner. The biggest problem was that he was cast as a point guard simply because he handles the ball well. The NBA had its day with non-facilitator point guards like Marbury, Arenas, and Nate Robinson; it doesn’t work. (At least for the purpose of winning games.) In reality, he is a hyper-athletic wing who gets to the rim at will (noticing a theme?), has very good passing ability, and has a good sense for when he needs to just take over. His performance in the Kings comeback over the bulls was very impressive, and his stats are gaudy for a rookie. He has been characterized as a smaller Lebron; the numbers back that up:

Evans: 20 points, 5 assists, 5 rebounds, 1.5 steals, 46% shooting.

Lebron (rookie): 21 points, 6 assists, 5.5 rebounds, 1.5 steals, 42% shooting.

Shockingly similar. That said, Evans has very definite faults. He isn’t a great jump shooter, and his 3-point percentage is quite low (sound familiar?). His defense is OK, but not a strength. Above all else, he is simply young, and makes the mistakes young players make. Make no mistake about it, though: this guy is an All-Star waiting to happen, and he may very well have some titles to call his own before this decade is over.

4. Brandon Roy

A year ago I thought he was a Big 9 guy for sure. Now, not so much. It isn’t that he has done anything wrong; on the contrary, he is an extremely well rounded guard, capable of shooting, passing, finishing at the rim, rebounding, and playing defense. It’s just that he hasn’t taken his game to the level of the elite. His team has suffered copious injuries, to be sure, and the Blazers results defy reason in large part because of his contributions. Do I think that he would fare well in a game that came down to dueling elite players? Possibly. But my money is still on the Nash/Duncan/Carmelo/Kobe group. And until Roy lifts his team to the level of elite, and not first round playoff exit, I will remain skeptical.

3. Brandon Jennings

Wow. I expected nothing of this guy. I assumed he was another athletic guard who couldn’t facilitate, couldn’t shoot, and wouldn’t ever play for a winner. Instead, he is remarkably unselfish, shoots shockingly well, and seems to be a flat-out winner. He is a bit slight, and his overall field goal percentage is low, but he is also 20 and the best player on a team that is over-achieving like crazy. Barring injury and possibly defense, I can’t see any good reason this guy won’t crack the top 10 within 3 years. He has all the tools to be the best player on a title team.

The only reason I have any doubt at all is because of the names he would be following as a guard leading a title team: Magic, Kobe, Isiah, Jordan. That’s it for the last 30 years, and that is awfully good company. Of course, the same argument goes for every other guard on this list, and he’s as good as any of them. Maybe he’s Batman, maybe Robin; more likely he’s a very close second to a better player on a title team. Plenty of teams would kill for that guy, though, and being a close two has worked out fine for plenty of guys. (See: Kobe, 00-02)

2. Deron Williams

It’s possible that he is too high on this list. Guys below him have more upside and athleticism, and he is probably about as good now as he will ever be. That said, he is 25, he has only had 1 minor injury (missing 14 games last season), he averages 20 points and 10 assists, he can post up almost anyone that guards him, and he plays strong man defense. His team has made the playoffs each of the last three years despite their second best player, Boozer, being hurt/a distraction, and Williams has played brilliantly every time. He has never made an All-Star team, which is a crime that will be rectified this year.

The problem? Nothing specific. He just might not be that good. Plenty of very excellent players aren’t in the top tier. Less than half of the All-Stars are members of the group. Being the best player on a title team means carrying your team for long stretches, lifting your teammates’ play, and eventually dueling with the best players in the league and winning. I don’t know if he can get there. But I know it’s a damn shame people don’t realize he might.

1. Kevin Durant

I watched the Thunder game against the Mavericks a week ago. It was closer than the 86-100 score indicates, as it was a 5 point game with 3 minutes to play. Durant struggled with his shot, going 4-18. His team played like you would expect a group of talented young guys to play, making silly turnovers and taking some bad shots. Two things stood out about the Thunder. First, Durant, as well as his teammates, has made tremendous strides in his defense. A year ago, such poor shooting from Durant would have meant a certain blowout. This year, they stayed in the game far longer than they deserved to simply because of how hard they worked. It is hurting his offense at times, but only slightly, and at a tremendous benefit to the team’s success.

The second was the sort of thing you see out of true winners. Durant and his teammates killed themselves all game for each other. When a guy hit a big shot, the entire bench erupted in genuine excitement. No matter how much the Thunder were losing by, they scrapped for every inch. They weren’t going to give that game up without a fight, and they weren’t going to let their teammates down by giving a shoddy effort. That stems from their best player and his infectious energy, as well as his desire to do whatever it takes to improve himself and his team.

His numbers speak for themselves: you don’t see too many 6’9” small forwards who score 28 points a game on only 20 shots (the few who exist reside almost exclusively in the Big 9). He can shoot the 3, and he’s just starting to get blocks and steals. Once he cuts down on his turnovers and learns how to pace himself correctly, he will absolutely crack the top tier. He may be there already, but guys who have never played in the playoffs have to prove it.

I can’t wait to watch him get there.

Missing St. Paul

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:00:00 +0000

Chris Paul is a player whose ability nearly supercedes superlatives. The best point guard in the NBA. Undoubtedly one of the 5 best players in the league. A multiple time all star who lifts the play of his teammates as well as anyone. A gifted passer who can also get to the rim at will and shoot from anywhere on the floor, as well as one of the best ball hawking guards on defense. His game is nearly without flaw, and yet, due to circumstance alone, he is also saddled with a far less desirable superlative: The best irrelevant player in the NBA.

Look at the other players who occupy that illustrious top 5. Lebron James has been to the second round of the playoffs 4 straight years, the Finals once, and could very easily win his first title this year. Kobe Bryant just won a title and is the odds-on favorite to repeat. Dwyane Wade is on a team of improving young players and is a free agent this summer. Dwight Howard just lost in the Finals, and appears poised to get back.

The players immediately below Paul are doing nearly as well as those above him. Deron Williams is on a 16-11 team and has been to a conference finals. The Jazz will also have cap room this summer, and the team has generally drafted well. Kevin Durant is on a very good young Thunder team that appears to be growing into a title contender. Nash’s Suns are back to their old style, and they have an 18-9 record to show for it. Dirk’s Mavericks are 20-8 and seem to have finally recovered from their brutal finals defeat in 2006 and first round playoff exit in 2007. Tim Duncan has the Spurs treading water as they always do this time of year, undoubtedly leading to one of their patented runs in the second half of the season. Carmelo Anthony has finally assumed the mantle of leadership for his team, and appears ready to repeat a run deep into the playoffs. Garnett and Pierce have the Celtics at the top of the standings, and they will undoubtedly be a force in the playoffs.

None of this is terribly surprising. The best players nearly always play on good teams simply because of the impact one player can have on a basketball team. Comparing these circumstances to Paul’s, however, is nothing less than shocking. Paul has been to the playoffs twice, and past the first round only once. His team is currently 12-14, 8-10 in the games he has played. (Paul missed 8 games with an injury.) The Hornets second best player, David West, has slipped considerably from his 2 season peak, and was probably too lauded in making a pair of All-Star teams before this decline. The team’s cap situation is poor, their young players have not developed, and their fans are letting them know how they feel by not showing up to games. Perhaps worst of all for Paul, while Lebron and Wade will be free agents in 2010, Paul won’t be a free agent until 2012, ensuring 2 more seasons that will likely be notable mostly for their mediocrity.

Given all of this, it would be tempting to say the Paul simply isn’t as good as was previously thought. If one player can have such an inordinate impact of his team, then why isn’t Paul? The answer, of course, is easy: he is. They’re just that bad without him.

The year before Paul arrived in New Orleans, they were an abysmal 18-64. Baron Davis was hurt much of the year, then finally traded for Speedy Claxton and Dale Davis. (If you haven’t heard of Claxton and Dale, there’s a reason: they weren’t that good.) The team had no other marquee players when they drafted Paul. They still jumped to 38-44 almost entirely because of his singular talents. Two years later the team was 56-26 and pushed the Spurs to a game 7 in the second round of the playoffs. Everything seemed to indicate that the team was becoming one of the contenders in the league, and given a young talent like Paul, they seemed likely to remain there for some time.

Last season, though, the errors in the strategy of Hornets’ management became clear. Peja Stojakovic was (and is) making more than 10 Million dollars a year to be an injury prone and defenseless shooter who can’t create his own shot. David West peaked as a nice second option without a very reliable post game and who couldn’t rebound as well as his position (power forward) required. Hilton Armstrong and Julian Wright are the best examples of the many draft picks that haven’t developed. Instead of keeping Tyson Chandler, whose play had declined but who had an attractive expiring contract to allow the team salary cap flexibility, the Hornets traded him for Emeka Okafor, who is essentially the player a healthy and effective Chandler was (possibly worse), but whose contract expires in 2014.

All of this ineptitude eventually translated to the court. While Paul was becoming one of the most dynamic and flawless point guards the NBA had ever seen, his teammates were becoming some of the worst in the league. They won 7 fewer games from 07/08 to 08/09, and that trend appears to be continuing this year. Particularly in the deep Western Conference, it appears likely that the team will miss the playoffs entirely.

We’re used to teams being bad, though. Teams like the Cubs and Browns are practically celebrated for it. It’s almost a necessity that some teams simply don’t figure it out, that some management groups are too inept to find success. There can only be so many winners, after all. Why, then, is this particular instance of mismanagement such a tragedy?

First, Paul’s irrelevance is so sad simply because of how fun it is to watch him play. He owns every aspect of his team. He is impossibly quick in every aspect of his game. Typically the smallest player on the court, he is also the most noticeable, his intensity permeating everyone around him. He plays with a reckless disregard for his body, completely unafraid of anyone, a quality most noticeable on his seemingly suicidal drives to the basket that somehow end with him making a shot over someone a foot taller than he is. He plays with an infectious passion at all times, alternating between a love-for-the-game smile and a nasty glare. Simply put, he is one of the most effective and entertaining players in the game.

Secondly, and most importantly, because basketball is supposed to be different than other sports. When talented basketball players know how to play team basketball, they’re supposed to be greeted with success. When once in a generation point guards can shoot from anywhere, play defense, drive past defenders at will, and get their teammates open shots in seemingly impossible situations, they’re supposed to be forces of nature within the league. We as fans want nothing less from the stars, because that’s what the NBA is: a league of stars. It’s a sport defined by the very best players and their teams, the character of which derives from said best player. Bird’s Celtics. Jordan’s Bulls. Kobe’s Lakers. Garnett’s Celtics. Wade’s Heat. Paul’s Hornets, or whatever team he plays for, deserve to be a member of that group. Or at least the group of teams that challenges those teams for titles, like those of Malone, Barkley, and Lebron.

This does not appear to be possible. The Hornets have painted themselves into a corner that they cannot easily get out of, both in terms of the quality of player they currently have and the quality they’re capable of obtaining. Paul has a contract through 2012, and the team would almost certainly not trade their only real asset.

Unfortunately, this makes Chris Paul irrelevant. Basketball is not a sport of loveable losers, or one where fans are accepting of failure, however sporadic. Basketball, rather, is a sport of realized and unrealized potential. Half the league makes the playoffs, and nearly all of the league’s most excellent players lie within that group. Those who don’t are perceived as too old, too young, too selfish, or simply too bad. Those rare players that can’t be forced into one of these groups are given different, more painful tags, like those applied to Iverson and Garnett. Selfish, too unselfish, can’t make their teammates better, overrated. The descriptions of players that all too often simply don’t have nearly enough help to realize their potential.

Paul, unfortunately, is the current representative of this group, and will undoubtedly hear these labels lobbed like verbal grenades. He will be subject to criticisms simply because he is the exception to the rule that great players make their teams great. In reality, he is simply a great player on a team so bad he can only make them mediocre.

So if you ever get the chance, watch him play. You won’t be disappointed, and in two and a half years, when he flees New Orleans for a real team, you’ll be there already, knowing what everyone else was missing. If we all watch Paul, maybe we can make him relevant, no matter how bad his team is.

Or maybe we should just watch football. At least if your team sucks there, you can still watch guys hit each other.

Image via MultiChannel.com

4th and Miles to Go

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:58:00 +0000

In my last article I talked a bit about the NFL’s unwillingness to accept the statistical modernization of their game, particularly when compared to baseball and basketball. This point was made in haste, and only as far as it applied to a particularly inept clock manager. I’ve felt that the lack of objectivity in football has held the strategy of the sport back for some time, and I probably get to see some example of the phenomenon every week, even if it doesn’t always affect the outcome of the game. I was totally unprepared, however, when not one but 2 outstanding instances of statistical thinking at work fell into my lap the very same day I published my Andy Reid article.

The first was the one you only cared about if you play fantasy football. Maurice Jones-Drew broke through the defense and took a knee at the 1 when the Jets were trying to allow him to score. By doing so, he allowed the Jaguars to run the majority of the remaining time off of the clock and kick the game winning field goal, as opposed to being forced to give the Jets the ball back with a chance to score. Mild argument ensued, but most people were more amused than upset. The Jaguars still won, after all, and 20 yard field goals are about as automatic as it gets.

The other has been discussed and dissected to the point of exhaustion. The Patriots, up 6 with just over two minutes to play, were facing 4th down and 2 to go. Instead of punting, the Patriots went for it and completed a pass for 1½ yards. The Colts scored a touchdown with little trouble, and the game was over. Every sports publication known to man had a take on the incident. It was Coach Belichick’s hubris. The Patriots didn’t trust their defense. Peyton Manning could have scored that touchdown no matter how far he had to go. In response to the largely incredulous mainstream media, the stat heads countered with the probability of victory for each decision. The verdict can be seen here, but the results are fairly simple: going for the first down gave the Patriots a 79% chance to win, and punting gave them a 70% chance to win. The counter-arguments from the players turned analysts were predictable. “Where did they play football?” “You can’t go for it, what if they don’t get the first down?” “I don’t care what the numbers say, I played football, and you have to trust your defense.” Or, my personal favorite, “It didn’t work, so it obviously wasn’t right.”

The topic of whether or not it was the correct decision has been beaten to death elsewhere, so I’ll mercifully spare you another diatribe about expected value or believing in your players. The situation was, by any measure, essentially a coin flip. The math supported the chosen decision, but not by an overwhelming margin. Yet, despite the comparable expected value (sorry, had to use it once) of each decision, I’m very confident that choosing to punt, regardless of the outcome of the game, would have brought coach Belichick a great deal less scrutiny. Football insiders, as well as fans, have by and large been resistant to changes in the statistical understanding of their game. Why, though, has this been the case? Why has the numbers revolution in sports eluded football?

Because football is a game we love for its subjectivity. You cannot measure how hard a tackle is, but you get awfully excited when a safety blows up a receiver going over the middle. Runs are enjoyable for their length, but just as much so for their style and power. The distance is measured more by phylum than specifics: a few yards is a decent run, 5-10 good, more than 15 long, more than 25 really long. Pass plays are short, medium and long. We know the exact yardage, but it only matters for first downs. Who cares if he got 4 or 6 if he only needed 3? Great football plays aren’t 3 pointers or home runs; they’re spectacular catches for first downs, tackles to prevent third down conversions, blocked field goals.

And yet, as much as the greatness of the plays, and the players, eludes measure, the circumstances are always measurable. There is always a down and distance, every play goes for a specific number of yards, the time left in the game always visible. Thus, the game becomes the ultimate expression of what all sports are: a mixture of the objective and subjective. We understand the game as a clash of titans, their collective actions immeasurable by any numbers that attempt to describe them, couched within the incredibly measurable and objective structure of a football game.

And somewhere along the line, the average fan never developed the ability to correlate the quantifiable with the human. We know the Patriots only needed two yards, but it seemed risky. We know the Jaguars could run the rest of the time off the clock, but damn it, you score the touchdown when you can. The fact that we have always measured the plays, the fact that we know every percentage and distance for every situation for as long as football has been played, and that we can extrapolate from these numbers the most correct course of action for nearly any situation does nothing to dissuade us from the notion that football is a game of people, not numbers.

Did this realization dissuade me from trying to advance the cause of the statistical revolution? Of course not. It just meant that I had to find an answer. What could make people embrace the increased knowledge of how to play a football game correctly? What could help people realize that the statistics aren’t something evil, designed to ruin their wonderfully subjective battlefield? In an instant, it occurred to me. Only in football could such a bizarre solution be true.

The players are, in fact, playing the hard hitting, scrappy, intangible dogfight we love so much. Nothing about this has changed, and nothing should. It’s the coaches that need to get their act together and embrace change.

How can this be the case? Because football players don’t make tactical decisions. They run the plays, and attempt to execute them correctly, with varying degrees of success. Their decisions are limited, as would be expected when 11 people are attempting to act as a coherent unit. This is distinctly unlike, say, basketball, where every player has the opportunity to shoot, pass, or attack their defender whenever they touch the ball. They’re certainly coached, and acting within a system, but ultimately they have to realize what decisions are good and bad.

Lets take an example of statistics changing the strategy of each sport. In basketball, it has recently been established that the corner (baseline) three-point shot is close to the most efficient shot in basketball. A good coach will tell his good shooters to take these shots, and his other players to pass to those players when they are in position to take the corner three. Ultimately, though, if the players do not set themselves up for these shots, the blame lies with them.

Conversely, football metrics focus on decisions made by the coach. If the down and distance is 4th and 2 yards to go, the players can’t make an inefficient choice; they will either punt as directed, or run the offensive play called for them. It is not their job to choose run or pass, punt or go for it, field goal or not, or any of the other decisions that drastically affect the outcome of games. It is their job to do what the coach tells them to do as well as possible.

Which brings us back to Belichick and going for it on that fateful 4th down, and the only thing I really want out of a football coach: common sense. Yes, it’s scary to go for it on 4th down, but it was 2 yards. The Patriots get two yards on accident. I’m sure the punt looked attractive, but Belichick had the confidence to trust the percentages and give his team the best chance to win. The outcome wasn’t the probable one; sometimes it won’t be. But he did what was right, and the players did the rest. If he punted and lost we might not have judged him as harshly, but that would be wrong. That would be the bias of the misinformed, confusing our love of the human element with outright ignorance. We wouldn’t like the game as much if coaches punted on third down, or never passed. I hope that someday we feel the same way about coaches who punt with impunity and ignore history. Coaches can change while the players stay the same. The game we love will still be there. We can still have the magic of intangibles if we embrace the math.

This is quite a liberating realization. We are free to enjoy the subjectivity of the game because we have compartmentalized it away from the objectively correct decisions behind the game. We can appreciate the nerds who pored over mountains of data involved in determining the win probability of every decision in every circumstance, then watch 22 grown men beat the hell out of each other to see what actually happens. We can watch our players fight like hell and love them, then berate our coach for stupidly punting. We are now free to enjoy the most beautiful reality of sport, and in many ways life itself: the idea that trial and error, experience, and objective fact can take us far, but our results will ultimately depend upon things like intuition, heart, and a myriad of other intangible qualities that will supplement our knowledge and give us our best chance of success. Our coaches' reason and our players' passion can coexist, distinctly separate and yet intertwined. We can respect the nerds and root for the jocks.

Or maybe I just need to yell at Belichick and ask the poindexters where they played football. This isn’t rocket science, after all.

Image via The New York Times

Is Andy Reid a Big Fat Idiot?

noreply@blogger.com (KiosK) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:15:00 +0000

Anyone who watches enough professional football inevitably comes to the same conclusion. "These coaches are morons. I could clearly do a better job." Most of the time it's an easy enough assertion to refute. There are 53 players on an NFL team, all with unique skill sets and roles. An offensive and defensive play book the size of a phone book that has to be created, then taught to an army of assistants, followed by direct oversight of said assistants as they teach it to an army of players. 16-18 hour days, 7 days a week for months on end. Most of us are perfectly willing to admit that we're not only under-qualified for the job, but that it probably isn't all that much fun, either, given that 2 bad weeks in the NFL will have a lynch mob waiting outside your house.

Why, then, can't Andy Reid, someone who has had an undeniable amount of success in the NFL, make an incredibly simple decision correctly?

Let me take you back to week 9 of this 2009 NFL season. The Eagles are losing 20-13 with 4:30 left in the fourth quarter, and they have no timeouts. They are facing 4th down with 11 yards to go from the Dallas 34 yard line. Dallas' offense had been mediocre, but they would only need one first down to essentially end the game. Their premier running back, Marion Barber, should really be nicknamed "The Closer" for the way he punishes tired defenses in the fourth quarter. And even if Philadelphia did think they could stop the Cowboys offense, a field goal really doesn't help much, as they would still have to score a touchdown on the ensuing drive. All of this is ignoring the fact that 51 yard field goals aren't exactly automatic. Clearly the Eagles should go for the first down, and even if they are unsuccessful, they will have the opportunity to stop the Cowboys and get the ball back. It's the only remotely acceptable decision.

But Andy Reid didn't have me on the sideline. He kicked the field goal.

The kick was good, and the Eagles were only down by 4 (hooray?). The Cowboys recovered the kickoff and ran for 2 quick first downs before running out the clock. All of this happened while I was cackling profusely at such incompetence. "What a moron! I'm just some guy, and even I wouldn't have done that. Doesn't this idiot have someone telling him how dumb this is?" This did, however, force me to consider the reasons the sort of person who makes these poor decisions would still be employed. After a great deal of consideration, I have come upon two.

Reason #1: Nobody is good at everything.

This may sound like a cop out, but it's really just an objective fact of life. Andy Reid is great at nearly every task expected of a head coach. Across 10 full seasons from 1999-2008, his record is 97-62-1. The Eagles made the playoffs 7 times in that span, 5 times going to the NFC Championship Game, and once to the Super Bowl. He has done this despite having 3 relevant offensive players for 9 of those years (Brian Westbrook, Donovan McNabb, and Terrell Owens), despite having his starting quarterback miss 21 games in 9 seasons, despite the realities of the salary cap, injuries, and the inherent disadvantage of poor draft position that comes with success. His teams get by with lesser offensive talent through scheme, turning players like Brian Celek and L.J. Smith into viable weapons. The defense is consistently one of the most feared in the NFL, blitzing on an astonishingly high percentage of downs to keep pressure off of the defensive backs. He has lost only one significant game playoff game in 10 years to an inferior team (the 2008 Cardinals). He is, quite simply, largely responsible for the success of one of the most consistently excellent franchises in the NFL.

And yet, despite all of the praise I have heaped upon him above, he has had two glaring weaknesses: Short yardage offense, and clock management. The first could have been solved by finding a running back who could handle a stacked line and gain 2 yards, but alas, to date this still has not happened. This is significant, but somewhat explicable. Teams have limited resources, and any decent running back ought to be able to gain 2 yards when his team needs him to, not to mention the blame the offensive line deserves.

The second, though, is baffling. Surely this is a correctable problem. I'm fairly certain that a short book could be written outlining the essentials of managing an NFL game clock, and the difference in even one game would make it a worthy read for Andy. It surely could have made the difference in Super Bowl XXXIX, when the Eagles, down by 10 with 5:40 to go, spent almost 4 minutes on a touchdown drive that left them unable to score again. He wastes timeouts on awful challenges routinely (he has been successful on 15 of 46 attempts, 5 of 26 in the last 5 seasons). The instances of poor clock management are innumerable, whether it be failing to run a play before the 2 minute warning, not using timeouts correctly, calling plays that won't stop the clock, not being able to execute a hurry-up offense...or kicking a field goal down by 7 with 4:30 to go.

Despite this, I'm willing to absolve these sins. Ignore them completely. Why? Because Andy Reid is good at almost everything else. He isn't the best defensive coach, so he hands most of those duties off to his coordinator. The aforementioned army of staff is there to fill in his weaknesses as much as anything else, and it makes sense. None of us is equally excellent at all aspects of our jobs. All of us have some manner of mental Kyrptonite, something we simply cannot grasp fully. Yes, the occasional person masters all of a coaches' tasks, but coaches such as Bill Belichick and Bill Parcells are in terribly short supply. Being a head coach in the NFL is ridiculously demanding and difficult, and Andy Reid seems up to almost any task.

It does raise one important question, though: why not simply have one of the numerous assistants help Andy in this regard? Better yet, there is no salary cap on coaches; the Eagles could hire the best Time Guru money can buy. But they haven't, and neither has any other team. Clock management problems are as old as the NFL itself, so why has there been no change? Why doesn't Andy Reid have an assistant in charge of clock management?

Reason #2*: The NFL is an old, stubborn league that is slow to accept change, and the coaches in the league are constantly in fear of losing their jobs.

This may seem like two reasons, but they are really one in the same. It is a pretty well accepted fact that on 4th down with 2 or fewer yards to go, it is nearly always correct to go for the first down rather than punt. The probability of successfully converting the attempt is about 70%. When you factor in subsequent scoring opportunities versus the potential loss in field position due to not converting the attempt, the expected value of going for it is much higher than not. Despite this, many coaches punt when the decision is unconscionably bad. Why?

Because that's the way they have seen it done in the past, and it presents the illusion of playing correctly. "Of course we punted, it was fourth down! So what if we were down by 10 with 5 minutes to go?" Statistics even out over time, but small sample sizes can fluctuate dramatically. If a team fails to convert multiple 4th down opportunities and loses, the coach will be blamed for not punting, no matter how correct the decision was. This might mean the coach being fired, or worse, damaging his reputation to the point that he won't be hired elsewhere.

What football needs is a statistical revolution, and a dramatic one. Baseball managers still do stupid things, but they are much more sensitive to the logic of the new information available to them. Once it was widely known that stealing bases was only effective if your rate of conversion was about 75%, teams stopped recklessly attempting to steal bases. Once they knew that On Base % was a lot more important than Batting Average, lead off hitters stopped being guys who never got walks. There are plenty more examples, but the point is simple: the math nerds got the athletes playing more correctly and efficiently.

Basketball is undergoing a similar revolution with Darrel Morey. The GM of the Houston Rockets has a team of nobodies playing incredibly well, largely because he's a statistical savant who knows what players have to be able to do to in order to succeed. More teams have followed his lead, and where 10 years ago the idea of a 6'5" power forward was a cruel joke, undersized players are now seen as an advantage at times because of their versatility.

The NFL is lagging behind terribly in this regard. Amusingly enough, it isn't the players who require correcting, but the coaches. NFL players have so little autonomy that there is little to correct with regards to their play. Rather, the change needs to occur tactically, the responsibility for this lying with the coaches. The cries of the stat geeks for less unnecessary punting and an understanding of clock management go largely unheeded because the NFL has such a sense of superiority about itself. "We're the NFL. Who are you? Where did you play? Where did you coach? I thought so. Go away, nerd." And as long as that's the attitude, and the fans remain ignorant of the statistical truths governing their beloved sport, what choice does a coach have? He certainly can't expect any fan or owner to objectively say, "It's OK that we lost, we know the numbers will even out". People are happier to lose by 10 punting than 20 trying to win. Even if Andy Reid were a clock savant, he would almost certainly take more blame for his failures than praise for his successes.

At some point, an owner might stand by his coach on these decisions through thick and thin...but not now. Not when the NFL is dramatically behind the MLB and NBA with regard to accepting new statistics and their usefulness. Not when people don't understand playing to win as opposed to playing to save face. Not when losing by less is somehow more important than playing to win. And certainly not when some people still don't understand that if you're down by 7 with 4:30 to go, going for it on 4th down and 11 to go is correct, even if you probably won't convert.

So don't blame Andy Reid. He's just a big fat idiot who wants to keep his job.

(*Note: Reason number 2 is worthy of extrapolation, and my article next week will further explore the difference between the 3 leagues' use of modern statistics.)

Image via Adamcorolla.com