Yesterday, the NBA announced a revamped set of rules concerning refs' issuing of technical fouls, specifying certain player actions -- "aggressive gestures, such as air punches," "demonstrative disagreement, such as when a player incredulously raises his hands," "running directly at an official to complain about a call," and "excessive inquiries about a call, even in a civilized tone" -- as grounds for an automatic T.
As Bill Simmons would say, "Ladies and gentlemen: your 2010-2011 NBA season!"
I'm not sure if this is more egregious or laughable (definitely some of both), but with each reign-tightening, dictatorial maneuver by Boss Stern, the NBA loses more and more credibility as a professional sports league to be taken seriously. How do you legitimize a competitive sports environment where the players are basically being instructed to become robots and cease showing emotion on the court?
"We don't want our players looking like they're complaining about calls on the court," said Ron Johnson, the NBA's senior vice president of referee operations, "because it makes them look like complainers."
Well, then.
Look, I understand that some players go over the top in their arguing with officials. Rasheed Wallace has earned a reputation as someone who goes ballistic over nearly every call, and that undermines his own credibility with the refs. But you're gonna tell me that every player in the league is now going to be treated like an uncontrolled infant and get muzzled before he has the opportunity to voice his opinion?
Actually, to answer my own question, no. You know that the league's prized possessions -- superstars like Kobe and LeBron -- are going to be given infinitely more free reign to vent than everybody else. And that underscores a larger point, that this measure is really just a tool to try to save face and further silence widespread player criticism about the blatantly unfair manner in which games are officiated. Raja Bell, you don't like that you just got called for three touch fouls on Kobe in 90 seconds? Well, too bad...because if you go and so much as discuss it with the ref, you're gonna be hit with a tech.
But once again, Stern has erred badly here. Look at how his league has been criticized by fans and players alike in the last couple of postseasons concerning the officiating. Does he really think that this is just going to go away? That ruling with an even more iron-clad fist is going to fix the league's image and credibility problem? News flash, Mr. Stern: this is just gonna make it worse. Much worse.
Well, I'm done venting for now. Please don't T me up.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
LeBron Jumps Ship, Heads to Miami
Wow, LeBron. I was never a fan. Now I'm even less of one.
In an over-dramatized, over-hyped hour-long TV special, The King let the country know that the Miami Heat will be the recipient of his services starting next year.
Ok, so let's state the obvious. The Heat will be stacked next year with James, Wade, and Bosh. That trio, if healthy, gives the Heat a chance to win the big prize for many years to come. LeBron has consistently stated in recent weeks that winning is his number one priority. So what's wrong with this decision?
First, let's think short-term. Right now, assuming Miami gets rid of Michael Beasley, the Heat will have a bunch of scrubs surrounding the new Big 3. That's definitely not a guaranteed recipe for success. And if James, Wade or Bosh gets injured for any extended period of time? That team suddenly falls in the average to good range...certainly not the 70+ win team that many are projecting them to be (40% of respondents in an ESPN poll think they'll break the 70-win threshold next year).
Now let's think long-term/LeBron's legacy...because we all know that LeBron is deeply concerned with his reputation and how people perceive him. Simply put, he's an egomaniac. Why then would he want to go to a team, that frankly, isn't really his? Miami is Wade's team; he's already led them to a championship, something that the King has never experienced. Given that, I can't really see Wade giving the reigns of the team to LeBron. How, then, will the King react in crunch time when Wade demands the ball and gets it? Will he pout and stop trying like he essentially did in games 5 and 6 of this year's Eastern Conference Semifinals against the Celtics? I could definitely see that happening.
And if LeBron and the Heat do go on to win multiple championships, how would people react to that? I think there would be a large contingent of people who would belittle his achievements, who wouldn't overlook the fact that he'd be winning them with another bona fide superstar in Wade. Given his failure to win a championship in Cleveland where he was The Man (the King, actually), you can just hear people saying that he "couldn't win the big one" by himself.
Count me among the critics. I would've respected him the most if he had stayed in Cleveland and committed to finishing what he started, but I still would've respected his decision had he decided to go to Chicago or New Jersey and build a team around young talent. But now? He looks like a sellout. He went for the sexy move, joining a mini All-Star team. He may win a championship or two or three in Miami, but clearly he will not have built the championship product from start to finish. A major contributor? Obviously. But at the end of the day, he'd still have jumped on board Wade's team.
Let's get back to the bottom line, though. LeBron stabbed the city of Cleveland in the heart. The reason this is so egregious is because he did it in slow-motion, with his LeBronathon primetime TV special, instead of just stating his decision and being done with it. He obviously understands the anguish that Cleveland sports fans have suffered over the years. But he couldn't care less. And that about sums up LeBron: he's largely indifferent to the plight of those around him. Of course, he wants everyone to show him the love, but he doesn't realize that you have to be, at the very least, respectful to people in return in order to be universally liked (or loved). Obviously Cavs fans would've been pissed even if LeBron had announced his decision to leave in an understated manner. But would they have been burning his jersey in the streets and throwing eggs at his giant "Witness" billboard in downtown Cleveland, as they were in the immediate aftermath of The Decision (sponsored by Vitamin Water and a collection of other James-endorsed products)? I don't think they would have.
How LeBron's career unfolds from here on out remains to be seen. But by signing with the Heat, LeBron made the decision that gives him the least to gain and most to lose. Not to mention a growing number of people who hate everything he stands for.
*************
p.s. Dan Gilbert is my new favorite owner. He tells it like it is.
In an over-dramatized, over-hyped hour-long TV special, The King let the country know that the Miami Heat will be the recipient of his services starting next year.
Ok, so let's state the obvious. The Heat will be stacked next year with James, Wade, and Bosh. That trio, if healthy, gives the Heat a chance to win the big prize for many years to come. LeBron has consistently stated in recent weeks that winning is his number one priority. So what's wrong with this decision?
First, let's think short-term. Right now, assuming Miami gets rid of Michael Beasley, the Heat will have a bunch of scrubs surrounding the new Big 3. That's definitely not a guaranteed recipe for success. And if James, Wade or Bosh gets injured for any extended period of time? That team suddenly falls in the average to good range...certainly not the 70+ win team that many are projecting them to be (40% of respondents in an ESPN poll think they'll break the 70-win threshold next year).
Now let's think long-term/LeBron's legacy...because we all know that LeBron is deeply concerned with his reputation and how people perceive him. Simply put, he's an egomaniac. Why then would he want to go to a team, that frankly, isn't really his? Miami is Wade's team; he's already led them to a championship, something that the King has never experienced. Given that, I can't really see Wade giving the reigns of the team to LeBron. How, then, will the King react in crunch time when Wade demands the ball and gets it? Will he pout and stop trying like he essentially did in games 5 and 6 of this year's Eastern Conference Semifinals against the Celtics? I could definitely see that happening.
And if LeBron and the Heat do go on to win multiple championships, how would people react to that? I think there would be a large contingent of people who would belittle his achievements, who wouldn't overlook the fact that he'd be winning them with another bona fide superstar in Wade. Given his failure to win a championship in Cleveland where he was The Man (the King, actually), you can just hear people saying that he "couldn't win the big one" by himself.
Count me among the critics. I would've respected him the most if he had stayed in Cleveland and committed to finishing what he started, but I still would've respected his decision had he decided to go to Chicago or New Jersey and build a team around young talent. But now? He looks like a sellout. He went for the sexy move, joining a mini All-Star team. He may win a championship or two or three in Miami, but clearly he will not have built the championship product from start to finish. A major contributor? Obviously. But at the end of the day, he'd still have jumped on board Wade's team.
Let's get back to the bottom line, though. LeBron stabbed the city of Cleveland in the heart. The reason this is so egregious is because he did it in slow-motion, with his LeBronathon primetime TV special, instead of just stating his decision and being done with it. He obviously understands the anguish that Cleveland sports fans have suffered over the years. But he couldn't care less. And that about sums up LeBron: he's largely indifferent to the plight of those around him. Of course, he wants everyone to show him the love, but he doesn't realize that you have to be, at the very least, respectful to people in return in order to be universally liked (or loved). Obviously Cavs fans would've been pissed even if LeBron had announced his decision to leave in an understated manner. But would they have been burning his jersey in the streets and throwing eggs at his giant "Witness" billboard in downtown Cleveland, as they were in the immediate aftermath of The Decision (sponsored by Vitamin Water and a collection of other James-endorsed products)? I don't think they would have.
How LeBron's career unfolds from here on out remains to be seen. But by signing with the Heat, LeBron made the decision that gives him the least to gain and most to lose. Not to mention a growing number of people who hate everything he stands for.
*************
p.s. Dan Gilbert is my new favorite owner. He tells it like it is.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
"Personal Foul": A Telling Account of a Corrupt Enterprise
In 2008, during his 11-month sentence in the Pensacola federal prison, disgraced NBA referee Tim Donaghy began writing his memoir. Part admission of personal wrongdoing and part exposé of his former employer, Personal Foul: A First-Person Account of the Scandal that Rocked The NBA is a candid account of Donaghy's fall from grace after he was convicted of betting on hundreds of NBA games throughout his 13-year career as an NBA referee. Through revelations of his own misdeeds, Donaghy discusses the "culture of fraud" that exists in the NBA with respect to the way games are officiated. He reveals how he was able to correctly pick 70 to 80 percent of games he bet on just by knowing which officials were slated to ref which games. Personal biases, relationships, and vendettas -- all of those come into play for a startlingly high number of referees when they work a game in the NBA. The refs often have an agenda -- and so does the league as a whole. In fact, Donaghy explains how in certain cases during his career (especially during the playoffs, when the stakes are highest), a referee crew would take directives from higher-ups in the NBA headquarters who wanted the game called a certain way so that the desired team would win.
Call it like you see it? When it comes to NBA refs, that couldn't be further from the truth.
In the last chapter of his book, titled "Fixing the NBA", Donaghy diagnoses the biggest problems facing the NBA today and the hurdles to overcoming them. First is the contention, repeated ad nauseum by David Stern in the wake of the scandal, that Donaghy was a lone "rogue referee" who acted out of line. This is simply untrue; the league is rampant with corruption. Moreover, there exists a marked lack of true accountability to uphold the integrity of the game. Donaghy explains how in July of 2008, the NBA hired Ronald L. Johnson, a retired U.S. Army General, to fill the newly created position of Senior Vice President of Referee Operations. Johnson would be responsible for "all aspects of the NBA's officiating program, including recruiting, training and development, scheduling, data management and analysis, and work rules enforcement." Johnson was to report to Joel Litvin, the NBA's President for League and Basketball Operations, who described Donaghy's allegations of a culture of fraud among NBA referees as "the desperate act of a convicted felon who was hoping to avoid prison time."
Clearly, Litvin is just the sort of person who would be complicit in this culture of fraud, someone willing to sweep the league's issues under the rug...definitely not the person you'd want in charge of referee operations if your true interest is reforming the game. It gets better (worse), though. Later that month, the NBA announced that one of the three individuals charged with reporting to Johnson in a restructuring of the Referee Operations Department would be Joe Borgia -- the same ref who once purposely changed a foul from Chris Webber to one of his teammates uninvolved in the play so that Webber wouldn't foul out (the reason being that fans hadn't come to see Webber sit on the bench).
Call it like you see it? When it comes to NBA refs, that couldn't be further from the truth.
In the last chapter of his book, titled "Fixing the NBA", Donaghy diagnoses the biggest problems facing the NBA today and the hurdles to overcoming them. First is the contention, repeated ad nauseum by David Stern in the wake of the scandal, that Donaghy was a lone "rogue referee" who acted out of line. This is simply untrue; the league is rampant with corruption. Moreover, there exists a marked lack of true accountability to uphold the integrity of the game. Donaghy explains how in July of 2008, the NBA hired Ronald L. Johnson, a retired U.S. Army General, to fill the newly created position of Senior Vice President of Referee Operations. Johnson would be responsible for "all aspects of the NBA's officiating program, including recruiting, training and development, scheduling, data management and analysis, and work rules enforcement." Johnson was to report to Joel Litvin, the NBA's President for League and Basketball Operations, who described Donaghy's allegations of a culture of fraud among NBA referees as "the desperate act of a convicted felon who was hoping to avoid prison time."
Clearly, Litvin is just the sort of person who would be complicit in this culture of fraud, someone willing to sweep the league's issues under the rug...definitely not the person you'd want in charge of referee operations if your true interest is reforming the game. It gets better (worse), though. Later that month, the NBA announced that one of the three individuals charged with reporting to Johnson in a restructuring of the Referee Operations Department would be Joe Borgia -- the same ref who once purposely changed a foul from Chris Webber to one of his teammates uninvolved in the play so that Webber wouldn't foul out (the reason being that fans hadn't come to see Webber sit on the bench).
"If I were an NBA fan," Donaghy wrote about all this, "I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry." Me neither.
But the real heart of the issue that Donaghy addresses in this chapter concerns the league's shameless marketing of, and favoritism toward, individual athletes. Clearly, every time Kobe and LeBron put on their uniforms, the leauge is hoping that they perform well because they are the league's moneymakers; their success is the NBA's success. It logically follows, then, that the league does not want them to rack up fouls, sit on the bench for long periods of time, and get thrown out of games. But this presents problems -- namely, the fact that the refs frequently allow them and other high-caliber superstars to play according to a different set of rules than everyone else on the court. As Donaghy writes, the league has to "make up its mind about whether it's putting on real games featuring real competition, where the referees have the power to enforce the rules in the rule book, or whether it's putting on a show." If it's a show, Donaghy continues, then let's just come out and admit it: "simply change the NBA rule book to reflect that certain players get special treatment, marquee players get 10 fouls instead of six, and global icons are permitted to move their pivot foot. At least we'd be telling the truth."
While reading this, I found myself identifying with Donaghy's views to a tee. NBA basketball as it currently stands is unlike any other type of basketball that exists in the world. It's hardly real athletic competition; instead, it's a show, a performance, much like a circus. You'd think that over time, the tendency would be toward reform as more and more people have caught onto the egregious way in which the league operates (type in "The NBA is" on Google and the first three terms that the search engine provides to complete the sentence are "fixed", "rigged", and "a joke"). But here's the problem for me and other people who actually want to see genuine, fair basketball: we're outnumbered. I'd say that there are many more basketball fans in this country who simply want to see the "show" version of the sport, or as Donaghy puts it, "the opportunity to see some of the world's most amazing athletes perform physical miracles that you and I can only dream of." And if rules get broken along the way -- if Kobe is allowed to shove a defender to the ground while hitting one of his ridiculous turnaround fadeways, or if LeBron is able to take 5 steps on the way to one of his breathtaking dunks -- well, so be it. It was cool to watch.
To sum up, Donaghy may be a convicted felon, but in this book he tells it like it is. He admits his own mistakes, and he uses them in part to shed light on the culture of fraud and corruption that permeates the NBA. He closes, sadly enough, by resigning himself to the fact that everything he said throughout the course of the book will undoubtedly fall on the deaf ears of the league; after all, he's a disgraced ex-referee who gambled on NBA games, and he's going up against a powerful enterprise steadfast in its determination to paint him as that one bad apple, the "rogue referee". We should know better. As Donaghy concludes, "Just because I may not be the perfect messenger doesn't discredit the ideas I'm putting forth."
No, it certainly doesn't. Just like doctors used to smoke cigarettes while giving their patients sound medical advice, Donaghy can bear the burden of his faults while accurately diagnosing the NBA's problems. The question remains, will enough people ever care to correct them?
***********
In completely unrelated news, what a past few days for U.S. sports! First U.S. soccer advances to the Round of 16 with a memorable goal in stoppage time over Algeria, then John Isner closes out the longest match in Wimbledon history with a 70-68 (70-68!) 5th-set win over France's Nicolas Mahut. Wow!
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Celtics-Lakers Game 7
I'm not going to comment at length because there's really not a lot to say.
This was one of the ugliest NBA Finals games -- hell, maybe NBA games -- ever. So much sloppiness and poor execution. On the flip side, you can say that this game was a defensive stalemate with each team refusing to give the other anything easy. But that doesn't take away from the ugliness.
In the end, the Celtics offense completely fell apart and the Lakers hit some key free throws to pull out the win and get their 16th NBA title. With the Lakers up 3 and about 30 seconds left, the Lakers got a huge call when Kobe barreled into Rasheed Wallace but earned the blocking call. You could argue that Rasheed was moving slightly. I think it was a pretty clear charging call -- Wallace was outside the restricted area, and Kobe ran him over. Kobe hit the two free throws, and the Lakers went up by 5. The magnitude of the call became apparent when Rondo hit a three on the Celtics' next possession that would have tied it.
For the 4th quarter, the Lakers shot 4 more free throws (21) than the Celtics did for the entire game (17). Kobe alone shot 9 free throws in the quarter.
I'm running out of things to say regarding the refs and star treatment. Stars are always the beneficiaries of close (or in certain cases, not so close) calls, presumably because most people want to live in a world where there are stars to glorify and make money off of. In the end, Kobe got his 5th ring, tying Magic for most in a Laker uniform, and so now we can credibly begin the debate on "Who's the best Laker ever???!!!" Yay!
I think the way the whole league operates -- the tyrannical nature of its commissioner with regard to stifling criticism and doling out fines, the blatant star treatment, the lack of consistency and accountability among referees, the multitude of adoring fans who vicariously soak up all the glamor and glitz of a few players' superstardom -- is sickening. Whatever, life isn't fair...obviously. Money talks.
There's always next year, though. Maybe next year we can have a Jazz-Bobcats Finals.
Or maybe I can keep dreaming.
This was one of the ugliest NBA Finals games -- hell, maybe NBA games -- ever. So much sloppiness and poor execution. On the flip side, you can say that this game was a defensive stalemate with each team refusing to give the other anything easy. But that doesn't take away from the ugliness.
In the end, the Celtics offense completely fell apart and the Lakers hit some key free throws to pull out the win and get their 16th NBA title. With the Lakers up 3 and about 30 seconds left, the Lakers got a huge call when Kobe barreled into Rasheed Wallace but earned the blocking call. You could argue that Rasheed was moving slightly. I think it was a pretty clear charging call -- Wallace was outside the restricted area, and Kobe ran him over. Kobe hit the two free throws, and the Lakers went up by 5. The magnitude of the call became apparent when Rondo hit a three on the Celtics' next possession that would have tied it.
For the 4th quarter, the Lakers shot 4 more free throws (21) than the Celtics did for the entire game (17). Kobe alone shot 9 free throws in the quarter.
I'm running out of things to say regarding the refs and star treatment. Stars are always the beneficiaries of close (or in certain cases, not so close) calls, presumably because most people want to live in a world where there are stars to glorify and make money off of. In the end, Kobe got his 5th ring, tying Magic for most in a Laker uniform, and so now we can credibly begin the debate on "Who's the best Laker ever???!!!" Yay!
I think the way the whole league operates -- the tyrannical nature of its commissioner with regard to stifling criticism and doling out fines, the blatant star treatment, the lack of consistency and accountability among referees, the multitude of adoring fans who vicariously soak up all the glamor and glitz of a few players' superstardom -- is sickening. Whatever, life isn't fair...obviously. Money talks.
There's always next year, though. Maybe next year we can have a Jazz-Bobcats Finals.
Or maybe I can keep dreaming.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Celtics-Lakers Game 5
What a game. What a freakin' game.
This one had it all. End-to-end excitement. A Kobe-Pierce offensive duel that, for a stretch in the 3rd quarter, overshadowed the rest of the game. Hard-nosed defense. Stretches of ugly, sloppy play -- which has been an all-too-common theme in this year's playoffs. But whatever, I'll look on the bright side and say that both teams played a tough, gritty game and laid it all out on the line. Celtics were just a little better (even though they had one of their patented 4th-quarter semi-collapses where it looked like they were trying to give the game to the Lakers -- including Kevin Garnett losing a jump-ball to Derek Fisher. Really, Garnett? And Phil Jackson had no qualms about voicing his thoughts on the Celtics' tendency to blow leads during a timeout when he was Mic'ed up and essentially said for the country to hear that the Celts were the league's best chokers. Gotta love Phil. You know that will be major bulletin board material for Boston as they prepare for Game 6).
One other thing I'd like to note is that while Kobe completely went off in the 3rd quarter, scoring 19 of his team's 26 points in the period, the Celtics were still able to extend the lead (they stretched a six-point halftime advantage to as much as 13 before settling for an eight-point cushion at the end of the quarter). More evidence for the "team is more effective than an individual" argument. Look, there's no denying the Black Mamba's a ridiculously talented basketball player who can do things with a basketball that almost nobody else on the planet can. But while Kobe was schooling defenders and hitting a bunch of seemingly-impossible fadeaways, the rest of his team was stagnant, having gone into "stand around and watch Kobe" mode. And that hurt the Lakers, as all the guys in purple not named Kobe were largely ineffective both in the quarter (7 points on 3-for-10 shooting and only two players scoring) and on the night (Fisher/Artest -- 4 of 18 from the field combined; Bynum played 32 minutes but attempted just six shots; Gasol looked out of sync and missed a number of jumpers he normally buries).
Boston, on the other hand, played their typical team style, dishing the rock and getting everyone involved. The "Big Four", in fact, all had big games on offense: Pierce led the way with 27 points, followed by Rondo and Garnett with 18 apiece, and Ray Allen with 12.
Extremely telling stat for the third quarter: Kobe -- 7-of-9 shooting, 19 points; Celtics -- 12-of-19 shooting, 28 points, 5 contributors to the scoring load. Celtics > Kobe.
Extremely telling stat for the game: number of assists for Boston -- 21; number of assists for LA -- 12. When you play together, it boosts team morale and gets everyone to play harder and more effectively. The Celtics were an embodiment of that concept tonight.
The Lakers, on the other hand, are moving in the opposite direction; Kobe has now attempted twice as many shots (120 FGA) in this series as any of his other teammates (Gasol is second with 60 FGA).
Now the series shifts back to LA. Will Boston take one of two on the road to wrap up the franchise's 18th title? If they keep playing Celtics basketball, I think the answer's yes.
This one had it all. End-to-end excitement. A Kobe-Pierce offensive duel that, for a stretch in the 3rd quarter, overshadowed the rest of the game. Hard-nosed defense. Stretches of ugly, sloppy play -- which has been an all-too-common theme in this year's playoffs. But whatever, I'll look on the bright side and say that both teams played a tough, gritty game and laid it all out on the line. Celtics were just a little better (even though they had one of their patented 4th-quarter semi-collapses where it looked like they were trying to give the game to the Lakers -- including Kevin Garnett losing a jump-ball to Derek Fisher. Really, Garnett? And Phil Jackson had no qualms about voicing his thoughts on the Celtics' tendency to blow leads during a timeout when he was Mic'ed up and essentially said for the country to hear that the Celts were the league's best chokers. Gotta love Phil. You know that will be major bulletin board material for Boston as they prepare for Game 6).
One other thing I'd like to note is that while Kobe completely went off in the 3rd quarter, scoring 19 of his team's 26 points in the period, the Celtics were still able to extend the lead (they stretched a six-point halftime advantage to as much as 13 before settling for an eight-point cushion at the end of the quarter). More evidence for the "team is more effective than an individual" argument. Look, there's no denying the Black Mamba's a ridiculously talented basketball player who can do things with a basketball that almost nobody else on the planet can. But while Kobe was schooling defenders and hitting a bunch of seemingly-impossible fadeaways, the rest of his team was stagnant, having gone into "stand around and watch Kobe" mode. And that hurt the Lakers, as all the guys in purple not named Kobe were largely ineffective both in the quarter (7 points on 3-for-10 shooting and only two players scoring) and on the night (Fisher/Artest -- 4 of 18 from the field combined; Bynum played 32 minutes but attempted just six shots; Gasol looked out of sync and missed a number of jumpers he normally buries).
Boston, on the other hand, played their typical team style, dishing the rock and getting everyone involved. The "Big Four", in fact, all had big games on offense: Pierce led the way with 27 points, followed by Rondo and Garnett with 18 apiece, and Ray Allen with 12.
Extremely telling stat for the third quarter: Kobe -- 7-of-9 shooting, 19 points; Celtics -- 12-of-19 shooting, 28 points, 5 contributors to the scoring load. Celtics > Kobe.
Extremely telling stat for the game: number of assists for Boston -- 21; number of assists for LA -- 12. When you play together, it boosts team morale and gets everyone to play harder and more effectively. The Celtics were an embodiment of that concept tonight.
The Lakers, on the other hand, are moving in the opposite direction; Kobe has now attempted twice as many shots (120 FGA) in this series as any of his other teammates (Gasol is second with 60 FGA).
Now the series shifts back to LA. Will Boston take one of two on the road to wrap up the franchise's 18th title? If they keep playing Celtics basketball, I think the answer's yes.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Bud Selig Strikes Out...Again
One of the worst calls in the history of sports has been cemented by possibly the worst decision in the history of sports. And somehow, I'm not surprised.
Bud Selig announced today that he will not overturn the call that ruined Armando Galarraga's perfect game last night, which adds another layer of incompetence to his inept regime as commissioner of MLB.
Jim Joyce, you messed up big time. But -- and I can't believe I'm saying this a night after I witnessed what I did -- Bud Selig, you just messed up even worse.
Pouring salt into a wound? Try shooting a bazooka into a fire pit.
This was a unique situation that should have been dealt with in a unique manner. A pitcher got robbed last night on the final out of the game. Galarraga knew it. Joyce knew it. Selig knew it. All the commissioner had to do was invoke the power that he had and overturn the call. Galarraga would have officially gotten what is rightfully his. Joyce would have been relieved of his egregious error and could have breathed easier for the rest of his life, knowing that the power of reason had prevailed and prevented his ineptness from denying a pitcher a piece of baseball immortality. It was the logical and correct decision.
Too logical, I guess, for clueless Bud.
This isn't the first time that Selig has been the poster boy for ineptitude in sports. Flash back to the 2002 MLB All-Star game in Milwaukee, where the game went into extra innings as both teams used up pitcher after pitcher. In the middle of the 11th inning, with each side having only one available pitcher left, AL manager Joe Torre and NL manager Bob Brenly met with Selig to discuss the situation. Selig ultimately determined that if the NL didn't score in the bottom half of the inning, the game would end in a tie. As the bottom of the frame progressed, the crowed booed mightily and serenaded the commissioner with chants of "Let them play! Let them play!" As the camera panned to Selig, the commissioner, in what will go down as one of the enduring images in all of baseball, responded with a pathetically comical shrug of the shoulders, epitomizing his utter incompetence and lack of command over the situation. The game ended in a tie.
Eight years later, who would've thought that that infamous All-Star game would be so mightily trumped by an even more egregious display of Selig's buffoonery?
Well, here we are.
Now, to those defending Selig's decision: sorry, but I'm not buying the "Pandora's box", "this would open up a can of worms," "where do you draw the line?" schtick. That's ridiculous. First, overturning this particular call would not have affected the outcome of the game. Second, this could have set the tide in motion for implementing a new and specific policy on instant replay... WHILE CORRECTING THIS PARTICULAR DEBACLE! Please tell me, what would've been so bad about correcting this call, acknowledging that the system currently in place is ill-equipped to deal with umpire error, and coming up with a workable policy to be used from here on out? Selig's already shown this innovative, quick-thinking spirit (well, for him, anyway) back in August 2008, when he implemented the current policy of instant replay for home runs. That went into effect immediately, to be used for the rest of the '08 season and the playoffs. Selig could've done a similar thing here.
He had the ball in his court -- a clear opportunity to right the wrong, to extricate the league from this quagmire.
But instead, Selig struck out...again.
What a coward.
Bud Selig announced today that he will not overturn the call that ruined Armando Galarraga's perfect game last night, which adds another layer of incompetence to his inept regime as commissioner of MLB.
Jim Joyce, you messed up big time. But -- and I can't believe I'm saying this a night after I witnessed what I did -- Bud Selig, you just messed up even worse.
Pouring salt into a wound? Try shooting a bazooka into a fire pit.
This was a unique situation that should have been dealt with in a unique manner. A pitcher got robbed last night on the final out of the game. Galarraga knew it. Joyce knew it. Selig knew it. All the commissioner had to do was invoke the power that he had and overturn the call. Galarraga would have officially gotten what is rightfully his. Joyce would have been relieved of his egregious error and could have breathed easier for the rest of his life, knowing that the power of reason had prevailed and prevented his ineptness from denying a pitcher a piece of baseball immortality. It was the logical and correct decision.
Too logical, I guess, for clueless Bud.
This isn't the first time that Selig has been the poster boy for ineptitude in sports. Flash back to the 2002 MLB All-Star game in Milwaukee, where the game went into extra innings as both teams used up pitcher after pitcher. In the middle of the 11th inning, with each side having only one available pitcher left, AL manager Joe Torre and NL manager Bob Brenly met with Selig to discuss the situation. Selig ultimately determined that if the NL didn't score in the bottom half of the inning, the game would end in a tie. As the bottom of the frame progressed, the crowed booed mightily and serenaded the commissioner with chants of "Let them play! Let them play!" As the camera panned to Selig, the commissioner, in what will go down as one of the enduring images in all of baseball, responded with a pathetically comical shrug of the shoulders, epitomizing his utter incompetence and lack of command over the situation. The game ended in a tie.
Eight years later, who would've thought that that infamous All-Star game would be so mightily trumped by an even more egregious display of Selig's buffoonery?
Well, here we are.
Now, to those defending Selig's decision: sorry, but I'm not buying the "Pandora's box", "this would open up a can of worms," "where do you draw the line?" schtick. That's ridiculous. First, overturning this particular call would not have affected the outcome of the game. Second, this could have set the tide in motion for implementing a new and specific policy on instant replay... WHILE CORRECTING THIS PARTICULAR DEBACLE! Please tell me, what would've been so bad about correcting this call, acknowledging that the system currently in place is ill-equipped to deal with umpire error, and coming up with a workable policy to be used from here on out? Selig's already shown this innovative, quick-thinking spirit (well, for him, anyway) back in August 2008, when he implemented the current policy of instant replay for home runs. That went into effect immediately, to be used for the rest of the '08 season and the playoffs. Selig could've done a similar thing here.
He had the ball in his court -- a clear opportunity to right the wrong, to extricate the league from this quagmire.
But instead, Selig struck out...again.
What a coward.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
A Dream Denied: Galarraga's Perfect Game Ruined by Umpire
As if I needed more fodder to berate people who officiate/ref/umpire sports for a living.
Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers pitched a perfect game tonight, but umpire Jim Joyce called Cleveland Indians batter James Donald safe on his grounder to first with two outs in the ninth -- even though he was out by a full step -- in what will go down as one of the worst calls in sports history (if you measure worst in terms of degree of significance and impact).
Terrible. Embarassing. Shameful. Egregious. Call it what you want.
Joyce said the right thing after the game: "I just cost that kid a perfect game. I thought he beat the throw. I was convinced he beat the throw, until I saw the replay...I don't blame them a bit or anything that was said. I would've said it myself if I had been Galarraga. I would've been the first person in my face, and he never said a word to me."
But honestly, let's not rush to laud the man for his words. If you cost a major league pitcher a perfect game, what the hell would you possibly say differently? Would you become defensive? "Oh, yeah, I might've gotten the call wrong, but screw everyone who's criticizing me." Anything other than what Joyce had said and he should've been tarred and feathered.
If I were Bud Selig, I would officially overturn the call and give Galarraga his perfect game. This wasn't a subjective judgment call, like a foul in basketball or pass interference in football. No, Joyce got the call wrong. He was solely responsible for Galarraga not getting credit for a perfect game. That's egregious.
Silver lining from this debacle: MLB will expand its use of instant replay. It has to. History shouldn't be altered the way that it was tonight, and the least we can do is learn from our mistakes. Our country's history is replete with examples of this. People have made some egregious decisions in our country's past -- some infinitely worse than what Joyce did -- but for the most part, we've been able to overcome them and have progressed as a society.
Now it's time for one of those progressions. Joyce's flagrant error has scarred our country's pastime, in plain view for all of us to see. The "purists" -- those who love talking about the necessity of preserving the game's "human element" -- must fade into the background. We need to do everything in our power to increase the accuracy of calls in professional sports. Expanding instant replay in MLB would lead us on the right path (frankly, I think replay should be heavily expanded into basketball as well since NBA refs suck so much, but out of respect to Galarraga I'll keep my focus here on baseball).
I like the idea ESPN writer Jayson Stark proposed: keep the home run replay system as is, expand it to all fair-or-foul plays, and give each team one challenge to use throughout the course of the game. The thinking behind the latter idea is that teams will be inclined to save their challenge for later in a game when it matters most, thus mitigating the potentially devastating effect of a blown call that decides the outcome of a game. Or, you know, a call that robs a pitcher of a perfect game.
I'm feeling so many emotions from this train wreck. Anger. Frustration. Sympathy (for Galarraga, not Joyce...while I consider myself a sympathetic person, I just can't find it in me to feel sympathy for a man displaying incompetence and lack of preparedness on the scale that Joyce did).
Bottom line, the system is broken. Let's fix it.
Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers pitched a perfect game tonight, but umpire Jim Joyce called Cleveland Indians batter James Donald safe on his grounder to first with two outs in the ninth -- even though he was out by a full step -- in what will go down as one of the worst calls in sports history (if you measure worst in terms of degree of significance and impact).
Terrible. Embarassing. Shameful. Egregious. Call it what you want.
Some people's reasoning might go like this: Joyce missed the call. Professional officials in every sport miss calls all the time. Thus, we shouldn't vilify Joyce more so than any other official that makes a mistake throughout the course of a game.
This logic is faulty. We can and should vilify Joyce...more than your run-of-the-mill blown call. Much more. Galarraga was one out away from a perfect game. One out away from baseball immortality. Given this, Joyce should have been mentally prepared for the situation that unfolded right before his eyes. He should have thought to himself, "Ok, if there's a close play at first, I must make sure I'm ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN that the runner is safe in order for me to call him safe." It's just common sense.Joyce said the right thing after the game: "I just cost that kid a perfect game. I thought he beat the throw. I was convinced he beat the throw, until I saw the replay...I don't blame them a bit or anything that was said. I would've said it myself if I had been Galarraga. I would've been the first person in my face, and he never said a word to me."
But honestly, let's not rush to laud the man for his words. If you cost a major league pitcher a perfect game, what the hell would you possibly say differently? Would you become defensive? "Oh, yeah, I might've gotten the call wrong, but screw everyone who's criticizing me." Anything other than what Joyce had said and he should've been tarred and feathered.
If I were Bud Selig, I would officially overturn the call and give Galarraga his perfect game. This wasn't a subjective judgment call, like a foul in basketball or pass interference in football. No, Joyce got the call wrong. He was solely responsible for Galarraga not getting credit for a perfect game. That's egregious.
Silver lining from this debacle: MLB will expand its use of instant replay. It has to. History shouldn't be altered the way that it was tonight, and the least we can do is learn from our mistakes. Our country's history is replete with examples of this. People have made some egregious decisions in our country's past -- some infinitely worse than what Joyce did -- but for the most part, we've been able to overcome them and have progressed as a society.
Now it's time for one of those progressions. Joyce's flagrant error has scarred our country's pastime, in plain view for all of us to see. The "purists" -- those who love talking about the necessity of preserving the game's "human element" -- must fade into the background. We need to do everything in our power to increase the accuracy of calls in professional sports. Expanding instant replay in MLB would lead us on the right path (frankly, I think replay should be heavily expanded into basketball as well since NBA refs suck so much, but out of respect to Galarraga I'll keep my focus here on baseball).
I like the idea ESPN writer Jayson Stark proposed: keep the home run replay system as is, expand it to all fair-or-foul plays, and give each team one challenge to use throughout the course of the game. The thinking behind the latter idea is that teams will be inclined to save their challenge for later in a game when it matters most, thus mitigating the potentially devastating effect of a blown call that decides the outcome of a game. Or, you know, a call that robs a pitcher of a perfect game.
I'm feeling so many emotions from this train wreck. Anger. Frustration. Sympathy (for Galarraga, not Joyce...while I consider myself a sympathetic person, I just can't find it in me to feel sympathy for a man displaying incompetence and lack of preparedness on the scale that Joyce did).
Bottom line, the system is broken. Let's fix it.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Refs Gone Wild
This is getting absurd.
Yesterday, we witnessed not one, but two ridiculous displays of officials abusing their authority and unjustly tossing players out of games. First you had umpire Joe West throw out pitcher Mark Buehrle and manager Ozzie Guillen after West called Buehrle for a pair of balks in the first three innings of the White Sox-Indians game. Then there was Kendrick Perkins getting tossed by Eddie Rush for arguing a foul call in last night's Magic-Celtics Game 5.
Both instances were egregious. Buehrle was called for his first balk in the second inning, and Guillen came out of the dugout in his defense. After pleading his case for a minute, West simply tossed him.
"I went out to ask him why he's embarrassing Buehrle and he give me one of this," Guillen said, waving his hand dismissively. "When you're a professional and you have to respect the managers, the way we're supposed to respect the umpires, they are supposed to respect back."
So much for that. Buehrle was called for his second balk an inning later, tossed his glove, and was immediately thrown out by West.
Said Buehrle of West: "I think he's too worried about promoting his CD [West is a country music singer and songwriter with his own website] and I think he likes seeing his name in the papers a little bit too much instead of worrying about the rules."
Guillen concurred with his pitcher's assessment, saying that "sometimes he thinks people pay to watch him umpire."
The Perkins incident, though, may have been even more ridiculous. After being called for a questionable foul guarding Dwight Howard, Perkins looked up at Rush in disbelief before quickly turning around and walking away.
No matter. Rush T'ed him up anyway, and Perkins, having already picked up a T as part of a double-tech earlier, was automatically ejected, dearly costing the Celtics as the Magic pulled away and won the game. And since that was Perk's seventh technical of the playoffs, it was supposed to result in an automatic one-game suspension. Fortunately, the league today rescinded the tech -- basically admitting the ref was at fault. But Rush's antics still had a major influence on Game 5 and could have serious consequences on the rest of the series -- and potentially the Finals -- if Perkins does end up getting his seventh tech and has to sit a game.
Simply put, I'm absolutely disgusted by the behavior of the officials in both of these incidents.
Officials in all sports are supposed to enforce the rules of the game, not become part of the game. But some of them clearly don't recognize this fact, and think that their position gives them the power to act in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. What makes these instances especially egregious is that both involved dubious calls -- Buehrle's "balks" were inconclusive at best, and Perkins' "foul" was also questionable. For this reason, the players had the right to vent a little. And that's exactly what both Buehrle and Perkins did -- vent a little. They didn't go crazy or do anything ridiculous. But the two officials involved were evidently on such a huge power trip that they decided, "Oh, what the hell, I can do whatever I damn well please." Because of this, we've now seen and read all about West and Rush -- for all the wrong reasons. Awesome.
Both the MLB and NBA should strictly discipline their respective officials. Until the leagues demonstrate that there will be legitimate consequences for the rash, impetuous actions of the officials they employ, this clownish type of behavior will continue unchecked.
Yesterday, we witnessed not one, but two ridiculous displays of officials abusing their authority and unjustly tossing players out of games. First you had umpire Joe West throw out pitcher Mark Buehrle and manager Ozzie Guillen after West called Buehrle for a pair of balks in the first three innings of the White Sox-Indians game. Then there was Kendrick Perkins getting tossed by Eddie Rush for arguing a foul call in last night's Magic-Celtics Game 5.
Both instances were egregious. Buehrle was called for his first balk in the second inning, and Guillen came out of the dugout in his defense. After pleading his case for a minute, West simply tossed him.
"I went out to ask him why he's embarrassing Buehrle and he give me one of this," Guillen said, waving his hand dismissively. "When you're a professional and you have to respect the managers, the way we're supposed to respect the umpires, they are supposed to respect back."
So much for that. Buehrle was called for his second balk an inning later, tossed his glove, and was immediately thrown out by West.
Said Buehrle of West: "I think he's too worried about promoting his CD [West is a country music singer and songwriter with his own website] and I think he likes seeing his name in the papers a little bit too much instead of worrying about the rules."
Guillen concurred with his pitcher's assessment, saying that "sometimes he thinks people pay to watch him umpire."
The Perkins incident, though, may have been even more ridiculous. After being called for a questionable foul guarding Dwight Howard, Perkins looked up at Rush in disbelief before quickly turning around and walking away.
No matter. Rush T'ed him up anyway, and Perkins, having already picked up a T as part of a double-tech earlier, was automatically ejected, dearly costing the Celtics as the Magic pulled away and won the game. And since that was Perk's seventh technical of the playoffs, it was supposed to result in an automatic one-game suspension. Fortunately, the league today rescinded the tech -- basically admitting the ref was at fault. But Rush's antics still had a major influence on Game 5 and could have serious consequences on the rest of the series -- and potentially the Finals -- if Perkins does end up getting his seventh tech and has to sit a game.
Simply put, I'm absolutely disgusted by the behavior of the officials in both of these incidents.
Officials in all sports are supposed to enforce the rules of the game, not become part of the game. But some of them clearly don't recognize this fact, and think that their position gives them the power to act in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. What makes these instances especially egregious is that both involved dubious calls -- Buehrle's "balks" were inconclusive at best, and Perkins' "foul" was also questionable. For this reason, the players had the right to vent a little. And that's exactly what both Buehrle and Perkins did -- vent a little. They didn't go crazy or do anything ridiculous. But the two officials involved were evidently on such a huge power trip that they decided, "Oh, what the hell, I can do whatever I damn well please." Because of this, we've now seen and read all about West and Rush -- for all the wrong reasons. Awesome.
Both the MLB and NBA should strictly discipline their respective officials. Until the leagues demonstrate that there will be legitimate consequences for the rash, impetuous actions of the officials they employ, this clownish type of behavior will continue unchecked.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Where is Orlando's Killer Instinct?
After watching the Orlando Magic come out flat and play a dud in their Game 1 loss to the Celtics, I immediately thought two things: 1) The Magic weren't going to roll undefeated to the Finals, and 2) They were bound to come out firing on all cylinders in Game 2.
Seemed logical, right? In all fairness to the Magic, they had had six days off since finishing their 4-game demolition of the Hawks, so perhaps it wasn't too surprising that they came out rusty and weren't at the top of their game in the Eastern Conference Finals opener. It happens.
But Game 2? That was inexcusable. Once again, the Magic looked lackluster, falling behind by as much as 11, and although they briefly went ahead by a point after another patented Celtics 4th-quarter collapse, they ultimately succumbed to Boston, 95-92.
Two underwhelming performances. Two home games lost. One sizeable deficit to make up in the series.
The officials during these first two games have been atrocious, with egregious calls and non-calls against both teams, but honestly, who hasn't come to expect this by now? They're simply terrible at what they do.
I'm not gonna talk about the refs now, though. No, what's most surprising -- and disappointing -- about this series thus far is the noticeable lack of, to borrow one of Walt Clyde Frazier's patented phrases, "fire and desire" in the Magic's play.
Where is their killer instinct?
During these past two games, Orlando has had none. The team has looked flat, disjointed, and uninspired. In Game 2, they were terrible in the clutch. Vince Carter conjured up memories of Nick Anderson circa 1995 by missing two huge free throws with Orlando trailing by three and 30 seconds left. The Magic got a needed stop on Boston's next possession, but then J.J. Reddick made a boneheaded play after he secured the rebound by dribbling to near half court and then calling a timeout with just three and a half seconds left. Had he called timeout before dribbling -- or dribbled past half court -- the Magic would've gotten to inbound the ball in front of the half court line, with plenty of time to get up a potential game-tying three. But because J.J. -- smart Duke grad that he is -- did neither of those things, Orlando was forced to inbound at about three-quarters court, behind the half court line. Jameer Nelson's desperation heave was well short.
I'm really disappointed in the Magic. I thought they were legitimate championship material this year. And while I know the series isn't over and anything can happen, the Magic really haven't done anything to suggest that they have what it takes to win this series.
Dwight Howard has been largely ineffective trying to post up against Kendrick Perkins and Big Baby Davis. Mickael Pietrus and Rashard Lewis have done nothing. Seriously, watching Game 2 last night, I completely forgot that they were on the team. And that's saying something, considering the fact that both played big roles in the team's thrashing of Atlanta. Vince and J.J. have probably been Orlando's best players in Games 1 and 2, but obviously the two of them aren't impervious to choking in the clutch.
Most of all, the Magic just seem to be missing that something to get them over the hump. They don't have the swagger of a champion. Even going back to last year's Finals against the Lakers, it just seems like when the game's on the line, the Magic players shrink from the moment. They lack leadership in the most crucial times.
A week ago, I thought that the Magic were ready to dethrone the Lakers. Sadly, it now looks like Orlando won't even get back to the Finals.
Seemed logical, right? In all fairness to the Magic, they had had six days off since finishing their 4-game demolition of the Hawks, so perhaps it wasn't too surprising that they came out rusty and weren't at the top of their game in the Eastern Conference Finals opener. It happens.
But Game 2? That was inexcusable. Once again, the Magic looked lackluster, falling behind by as much as 11, and although they briefly went ahead by a point after another patented Celtics 4th-quarter collapse, they ultimately succumbed to Boston, 95-92.
Two underwhelming performances. Two home games lost. One sizeable deficit to make up in the series.
The officials during these first two games have been atrocious, with egregious calls and non-calls against both teams, but honestly, who hasn't come to expect this by now? They're simply terrible at what they do.
I'm not gonna talk about the refs now, though. No, what's most surprising -- and disappointing -- about this series thus far is the noticeable lack of, to borrow one of Walt Clyde Frazier's patented phrases, "fire and desire" in the Magic's play.
Where is their killer instinct?
During these past two games, Orlando has had none. The team has looked flat, disjointed, and uninspired. In Game 2, they were terrible in the clutch. Vince Carter conjured up memories of Nick Anderson circa 1995 by missing two huge free throws with Orlando trailing by three and 30 seconds left. The Magic got a needed stop on Boston's next possession, but then J.J. Reddick made a boneheaded play after he secured the rebound by dribbling to near half court and then calling a timeout with just three and a half seconds left. Had he called timeout before dribbling -- or dribbled past half court -- the Magic would've gotten to inbound the ball in front of the half court line, with plenty of time to get up a potential game-tying three. But because J.J. -- smart Duke grad that he is -- did neither of those things, Orlando was forced to inbound at about three-quarters court, behind the half court line. Jameer Nelson's desperation heave was well short.
I'm really disappointed in the Magic. I thought they were legitimate championship material this year. And while I know the series isn't over and anything can happen, the Magic really haven't done anything to suggest that they have what it takes to win this series.
Dwight Howard has been largely ineffective trying to post up against Kendrick Perkins and Big Baby Davis. Mickael Pietrus and Rashard Lewis have done nothing. Seriously, watching Game 2 last night, I completely forgot that they were on the team. And that's saying something, considering the fact that both played big roles in the team's thrashing of Atlanta. Vince and J.J. have probably been Orlando's best players in Games 1 and 2, but obviously the two of them aren't impervious to choking in the clutch.
Most of all, the Magic just seem to be missing that something to get them over the hump. They don't have the swagger of a champion. Even going back to last year's Finals against the Lakers, it just seems like when the game's on the line, the Magic players shrink from the moment. They lack leadership in the most crucial times.
A week ago, I thought that the Magic were ready to dethrone the Lakers. Sadly, it now looks like Orlando won't even get back to the Finals.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
How 'Bout Them Canadiens?
Those of you who have been reading my blog know by now that I'm a big "team over individual" guy. So as a token of my appreciation for gritty team play that triumphs over phenomenal individual talent, I just want to say this: How 'bout them Canadiens???!!!
The Canadians -- affectionately refered to as "the Habs" (les Habitants) -- entered the NHL postseason as an extremely weak playoff team, at least from a statistical standpoint. During the regular season, they had just 39 wins against 43 losses (33 regular losses and 10 overtime losses). They also had a -6 GF/GA differential, meaning they gave up more goals than they scored. Simply put, the Habs inspired little confidence that they'd do anything in the postseason, especially since they were going up against superstar Alexander Ovechkin and the top-seeded Washington Capitals in the first round. The Capitals were a juggernaut, having finished the season with 54 wins against just 28 total losses, as well as a ridiculous +85 GS/GA differential. Oh yeah, and the Caps had also scored 318 goals during the season -- most in the NHL since the 1995-1996 season. Given the seemingly huge talent disparity between the two teams, a significant number of sports analysts picked the Capitals to sweep the Canadiens.
That prediction turned out to be a bad one after Montreal came into the Verizon Center and beat Washington in overtime, 3-2, in Game 1. But it was just one game, right? And sure enough, the Caps exerted their authority in the next three games to take a commanding 3-1 series lead. The Habs were finished -- or so everyone thought. But the Canadians rallied to win the next two and force a decisive Game 7 at Washington. It was highly improbable that Montreal had even gotten to this point, and most people still thought that Ovechkin, by far more talented than anyone on the Canadiens team, would be able to carry the Caps into the next round.
Didn't happen. The Habs imposed their workmanlike style of play on the Caps and outlasted them 2-1 to stun the Presidents' Trophy winner and advance to the next round.
"I think they thought we were kind of a bump in the road," said Montreal defenseman Hal Gill. "That's hockey, that's playoffs. I think we played better as a team than they did."
There ya go -- that whole teamwork thing. It can come up huge, even when you're completely outmatched in terms of raw talent.
So with one superstar vanquished from the postseason much sooner than anyone expected, the Canadiens next turned their eyes to Sidney Crosby, the NHL's other main superstar, and the defending champion Pittsburgh Penguins. At this point, the common refrain from the so-called experts was that the Habs had pulled off an absolute shocker in the first round, but this is where their improbable ride would come to an end. The Penguins maybe didn't have quite as much offensive firepower as the Capitals, but they had still scored 257 goals during the regular season, good for 5th in the league -- and 40 more than the Canadiens had scored. The talent disparity, the analysts said once again, would be too much for the Habs to overcome.
The Penguins twice went up by a game in the series, but each time the Canadiens fought back to tie it. After Pittsburgh won a closely contested Game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead, Montreal was once again on the brink of elimination. But the Habs were able to defend home ice and outlast the Pens 4-3 in Game 6, setting up another decisive Game 7 on the road.
Unlike the decisive game against the Caps, this Game 7 would have little drama, as the Canadiens stormed out to a 4-0 lead before holding back the Penguins for a 5-2 victory.
Another shocker.
"First the Capitals, now the Penguins," read the Associated Press article the following day. "The Canadiens, the worst-record team in the playoffs, keep sending home the NHL's best."
That they did. The Habs, in fact, became the first team ever to beat the Presidents' Trophy winner and Stanley Cup champion in successive rounds as an eighth-seeded team.
"We played Washington and we were supposed to get killed and we played these guys and we were supposed to get killed," said Habs defenseman Gill. "It's nice to be part of a team that gets things done."
Operative word: team.
So the Montreal Canadiens just took out the two biggest superstars in the NHL. Are you kidding me??? That would be like a team like the Milwaukee Bucks taking out Kobe and LeBron in successive rounds. Unbelievable.
Next up for these monumental overachievers is the Eastern Conference Finals, where the Habs will take on the 7th-seeded Philadelphia Flyers for the right to go to the Stanley Cup Finals (a 7th-seed vs. an 8th-seed in the conference final...as a huge fan of upsets, I'm lovin' it).
Whatever happens from here on out, this year's NHL playoffs have shown that the most talented team doesn't always come out on top. Heart and determination and teamwork count for a lot, and can neutralize an opposing team's advantage in overall talent.
Watch out, Kobe.
The Canadians -- affectionately refered to as "the Habs" (les Habitants) -- entered the NHL postseason as an extremely weak playoff team, at least from a statistical standpoint. During the regular season, they had just 39 wins against 43 losses (33 regular losses and 10 overtime losses). They also had a -6 GF/GA differential, meaning they gave up more goals than they scored. Simply put, the Habs inspired little confidence that they'd do anything in the postseason, especially since they were going up against superstar Alexander Ovechkin and the top-seeded Washington Capitals in the first round. The Capitals were a juggernaut, having finished the season with 54 wins against just 28 total losses, as well as a ridiculous +85 GS/GA differential. Oh yeah, and the Caps had also scored 318 goals during the season -- most in the NHL since the 1995-1996 season. Given the seemingly huge talent disparity between the two teams, a significant number of sports analysts picked the Capitals to sweep the Canadiens.
That prediction turned out to be a bad one after Montreal came into the Verizon Center and beat Washington in overtime, 3-2, in Game 1. But it was just one game, right? And sure enough, the Caps exerted their authority in the next three games to take a commanding 3-1 series lead. The Habs were finished -- or so everyone thought. But the Canadians rallied to win the next two and force a decisive Game 7 at Washington. It was highly improbable that Montreal had even gotten to this point, and most people still thought that Ovechkin, by far more talented than anyone on the Canadiens team, would be able to carry the Caps into the next round.
Didn't happen. The Habs imposed their workmanlike style of play on the Caps and outlasted them 2-1 to stun the Presidents' Trophy winner and advance to the next round.
"I think they thought we were kind of a bump in the road," said Montreal defenseman Hal Gill. "That's hockey, that's playoffs. I think we played better as a team than they did."
There ya go -- that whole teamwork thing. It can come up huge, even when you're completely outmatched in terms of raw talent.
So with one superstar vanquished from the postseason much sooner than anyone expected, the Canadiens next turned their eyes to Sidney Crosby, the NHL's other main superstar, and the defending champion Pittsburgh Penguins. At this point, the common refrain from the so-called experts was that the Habs had pulled off an absolute shocker in the first round, but this is where their improbable ride would come to an end. The Penguins maybe didn't have quite as much offensive firepower as the Capitals, but they had still scored 257 goals during the regular season, good for 5th in the league -- and 40 more than the Canadiens had scored. The talent disparity, the analysts said once again, would be too much for the Habs to overcome.
The Penguins twice went up by a game in the series, but each time the Canadiens fought back to tie it. After Pittsburgh won a closely contested Game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead, Montreal was once again on the brink of elimination. But the Habs were able to defend home ice and outlast the Pens 4-3 in Game 6, setting up another decisive Game 7 on the road.
Unlike the decisive game against the Caps, this Game 7 would have little drama, as the Canadiens stormed out to a 4-0 lead before holding back the Penguins for a 5-2 victory.
Another shocker.
"First the Capitals, now the Penguins," read the Associated Press article the following day. "The Canadiens, the worst-record team in the playoffs, keep sending home the NHL's best."
That they did. The Habs, in fact, became the first team ever to beat the Presidents' Trophy winner and Stanley Cup champion in successive rounds as an eighth-seeded team.
"We played Washington and we were supposed to get killed and we played these guys and we were supposed to get killed," said Habs defenseman Gill. "It's nice to be part of a team that gets things done."
Operative word: team.
So the Montreal Canadiens just took out the two biggest superstars in the NHL. Are you kidding me??? That would be like a team like the Milwaukee Bucks taking out Kobe and LeBron in successive rounds. Unbelievable.
Next up for these monumental overachievers is the Eastern Conference Finals, where the Habs will take on the 7th-seeded Philadelphia Flyers for the right to go to the Stanley Cup Finals (a 7th-seed vs. an 8th-seed in the conference final...as a huge fan of upsets, I'm lovin' it).
Whatever happens from here on out, this year's NHL playoffs have shown that the most talented team doesn't always come out on top. Heart and determination and teamwork count for a lot, and can neutralize an opposing team's advantage in overall talent.
Watch out, Kobe.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
New York Liberty Open 2010 Season with a Bang
The following blog post is dedicated to Elissa, who gave me the encouragement and support -- not to mention, background research -- necessary to forge ahead, despite my apprehension, and write about a subject of which I previously knew very little. Thanks, Liss, for helping me achieve my full potential as a sportswriter. I couldn't have done it without you.
***********
***********
Many people probably think of the WNBA as the NBA's unpopular kid sister. After all, the WNBA has only 12 teams to the NBA's 30, and only 34 regular season games to the NBA's 82. The WNBA has one fewer playoff round than its obnoxious older brother. The women play their first two rounds as best-of-three series, culminating in a best-of-five Finals; the men play all best-of-seven series. The NBA spans a total of nine months, from October to June, while the WNBA is relegated to four summer months, when most people are out at the ballpark taking in a baseball game or on the beach getting their tans. Let's face it -- there's a gross inequity in the two leagues in terms of money and overall popularity.
But if you were to dismiss the WNBA as a league not worth taking seriously...well, you'd be doing yourself an injustice. Women can generate the same excitement as the men when it comes to playing the game of basketball. Take the New York Liberty's second pre-season game this past Tuesday, for example, which started at a bright and early 10:30 AM. Aided by the team's fifth annual Kids Day, a sold-out, boisterous Madison Square Garden crowd of over 19,000 watched the Liberty outlast the Connecticut Sun 89-85...in triple overtime.
I don't care who you're watching, a triple-overtime basketball game of any kind is bound to be an entertaining experience. But this game had not only the length, but an abundance of star power and some intriguing storylines to go along with it. Tina Charles, the first overall pick in this year's WNBA draft -- and who also happened to lead UConn to back-to-back titles and undefeated seasons (no big deal) -- finished with 22 points and 13 rebounds, and figures to have a long and dominant career in the league. Meanwhile, on New York's side, Cappie Pondexter, a former Rutgers phenom and three-time WNBA All-Star who was traded from the Phoenix Mercury in the offseason, made her Liberty debut after sitting out the team's opener. If her performance in Tuesday's game is a harbinger of things to come, let's just say that the Liberty faithful should start getting excited -- Pondexter finished with 14 points, 11 boards, and 8 assists, just two shy of a triple-double. She also made an absolutely huge play with 22.8 seconds left in the second overtime and the Liberty down two when she blocked a layup by Kara Lawson that would've given Connecticut a commanding (given the circumstances) four-point lead. She then followed up that play with a key assist to teammate Essence Carson, who hit a layup to tie the score and send the game into a third overtime, which proved to be the decisive period.
Pondexter, the 2nd-overall pick in the 2006 draft, is obviously a versatile player, but she also showed she has a winning attitude to go along with her game. "I've never seen, experienced or heard of any preseason game that long," Pondexter said of the marathon victory over the Sun. "It was awesome, good to see the kids out there enjoying themselves. Good thing we put on a good show for them."
Yo, Joe Johnson: remember when you essentially said you didn't give a shit what the fans think after one of your atrocious playoff games against the Magic? Take a lesson from this woman on how to conduct yourself as a professional.
Back to the Liberty...the win was truly a team effort. In addition to Pondexter's heroics, they also got great performances from former UConn star Kalana Greene, who put up 14 points and grabbed 9 rebounds, Janel McCarville (13 points, 10 rebounds), and new Liberty center Taj McWilliams-Franklin (9 points, 10 rebounds, 2 blocked shots).
Mechelle Voepel, an analyst for ESPN, picks the Liberty to finish second in the Eastern Conference...behind, yes, the Connecticut Sun that they just outlasted in triple-overtime. Do I see a little tri-state-area rivalry brewing here?
Hopefully, the two teams will meet again in the playoffs. And if you're in the NYC area at all this summer, I'd recommend hitting up a Liberty game at the World's Most Famous Arena...
Because it sure beats watching the Knicks.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Why I Don't Want a Lakers-Cavs Finals...and Why You Shouldn't Either
“Dude I really hope there’s a Lakers-Cavs Finals this year!”
“Kobe! LeBron! That would be awesome!”
“Every true basketball fan should want two of the greatest players in the game squaring off against each other!”
I’ve heard and read those comments in some form from friends, TV analysts, sports columnists, and just people in general.
Time for me to give my input.
I’m about to make a statement that will probably shock most basketball fans in America (other than those who know me well, of course, and to whom I've already made my view extremely clear).
I would hate to see a Lakers-Cavs Finals. Hate it. And you should, too.
Have you recovered from the shock yet? No?
Let me explain.
What NBA commissioner David Stern has done over the past few years is package his brand as a game glorifying individuals at the expense of the team. It’s all about the superstar. It’s about LeBron’s breathtaking dunks. It’s about Kobe schooling three defenders on a ridiculous fadeway. What it’s not about any longer is the team. And that’s sad…because last time I checked, basketball was a team sport.
Remember those Nike ads last year featuring the Kobe and LeBron puppets? Well, they came out during the Eastern Conference Finals between the Cavs and the Magic. It was as if that series wasn’t even being played. Everyone wanted Lakers-Cavs – excuse me, Kobe-LeBron. The game was no longer about the team. It was about two individuals.
But the Magic weren’t buying it. Dwight Howard made some comments saying how offended he was that those commercials were running when the Magic hadn’t even been eliminated yet. He took it upon himself to alter the script. And I’m so glad he did. No Kobe-LeBron in last year’s Finals. Sorry, David Stern.
Speaking of Stern, we know that the good ole' commish wants a Lakers-Cavs Finals. It’s obvious. Kobe and LeBron in the Finals means better TV ratings, which means more money for the league. He wants this. But I’m going to take it a step further and say that I’m deeply suspicious that he's had the refs do their part to influence games in the past...and I'm sure he'll be doing it again in this year's playoffs.
Yeah, I'll use the word: conspiracy.
Flash back to that Magic-Cavs Eastern Conference Finals last year. The Magic were supposed to bow out obediently and play their role in Stern's script. But they didn't. They stole Game 1 in Cleveland. LeBron bailed the Cavs out in Game 2 with a game-winning three at the buzzer. The Magic won Game 3 at home convincingly. Now, Stern was getting nervous. If the Magic were to win Game 4 at home, the Cavs would all of a sudden be in serious jeopardy of losing the series.
Game 4 was close. Went down to the wire. With the Magic leading by two and the final seconds ticking down, King James (and I'm not saying that in deference, or affectionately, or with any positive connotation at all) drove the lane. Mickael Pietrus was guarding him. LeBron tripped; Pietrus barely touched him. Foul called on Pietrus. It was ridiculous, but I couldn't say I was surprised. You know, the King James thing.
He made both foul shots to tie the game. Then things really got absurd. The Magic were inbounding from half court with about a second and a half left in regulation. The ball was lobbed in to a cutting Dwight Howard -- and he got mauled. Mauled. Hit the ground hard. Since LeBron had just gotten that ticky-tack foul called in his favor, surely Dwight Howard would get the benefit of the call here, right?
Nope. No foul called. Game goes into overtime.
It was at this point that I was all but sure that Stern and the officials were trying to influence the outcome of the game. How could you not think that after watching what had just happened?
But fortunately -- and this was awesome -- Dwight Howard wasn't gonna let this bullshit break the Magic apart. He took it upon himself in overtime to will his team to victory, completely overpowering Ben Wallace and Anderson Varejao for like three rim-rattling dunks and altering the Cavs' shots to preserve the victory for Orlando and a 3-1 series lead. The Magic had prevailed over both the Cavs and the refs.
The Cavs took Game 5 back at home, but the Magic completely blew them away in Game 6 to clinch the series. And although they lost in the Finals to Kobe and the Lakers, I could take satisfaction in knowing that Orlando had spoiled the commissioner's dream matchup.
Which brings me back to this year's playoffs. I think that Stern is going to once again pull some shady maneuvers to try to create a Kobe-LeBron Finals. What might that entail? It could involve having Bennett Salvatore and Joey Crawford, two of Stern's most loyal lapdogs, officiate games that have a high degree of importance -- games that can turn or decide a series (Salvatore was the ref responsible for the LeBron call and subsequent Dwight no-call in Magic-Cavs Game 4 last year. When Magic coach Stan Van Gundy went out to argue, Salvatore simply screamed at him to "Go back to the bench!" Because, you know, refs shouldn't ever have any accountability. Crawford, meanwhile, always seems like he's on a power trip, and was the ref who allegedly challenged Tim Duncan to a fight in a 2007 NBA playoff game).
Especially if the Cavs and Magic square off again in the Eastern Conference Finals, I think Stern and his minions will try to exert their influence as much as possible.
And Stern will also definitely squelch all criticism directed toward the league; he's already done so. Look at what just happened to Dwight Howard for criticizing the officiating on his blog -- he got fined $35,000. The thing is, Howard's absolutely right; he has been treated unfairly by the refs. But Stern wants all criticism silenced, so Howard is $35,000 poorer now (not that that's a lot of money for him, but it's the principle that matters). Multiple other coaches and players have been fined the same for their criticisms of incompetent and/or biased officiating.
I think that all fans of good, pure, untainted team basketball should do the same.
***********
Update: just found this article online. Sheds some light on the infamous Game 6 of the Lakers-Kings 2002 Western Conference Finals, as well as the whole issue of potential conspiracies throughout the history of the NBA playoffs. Check it out.
http://www.rwor.org/a/133/NBA_referee.html
“Kobe! LeBron! That would be awesome!”
“Every true basketball fan should want two of the greatest players in the game squaring off against each other!”
I’ve heard and read those comments in some form from friends, TV analysts, sports columnists, and just people in general.
Time for me to give my input.
I’m about to make a statement that will probably shock most basketball fans in America (other than those who know me well, of course, and to whom I've already made my view extremely clear).
I would hate to see a Lakers-Cavs Finals. Hate it. And you should, too.
Have you recovered from the shock yet? No?
Let me explain.
What NBA commissioner David Stern has done over the past few years is package his brand as a game glorifying individuals at the expense of the team. It’s all about the superstar. It’s about LeBron’s breathtaking dunks. It’s about Kobe schooling three defenders on a ridiculous fadeway. What it’s not about any longer is the team. And that’s sad…because last time I checked, basketball was a team sport.
Remember those Nike ads last year featuring the Kobe and LeBron puppets? Well, they came out during the Eastern Conference Finals between the Cavs and the Magic. It was as if that series wasn’t even being played. Everyone wanted Lakers-Cavs – excuse me, Kobe-LeBron. The game was no longer about the team. It was about two individuals.
But the Magic weren’t buying it. Dwight Howard made some comments saying how offended he was that those commercials were running when the Magic hadn’t even been eliminated yet. He took it upon himself to alter the script. And I’m so glad he did. No Kobe-LeBron in last year’s Finals. Sorry, David Stern.
Speaking of Stern, we know that the good ole' commish wants a Lakers-Cavs Finals. It’s obvious. Kobe and LeBron in the Finals means better TV ratings, which means more money for the league. He wants this. But I’m going to take it a step further and say that I’m deeply suspicious that he's had the refs do their part to influence games in the past...and I'm sure he'll be doing it again in this year's playoffs.
Yeah, I'll use the word: conspiracy.
Flash back to that Magic-Cavs Eastern Conference Finals last year. The Magic were supposed to bow out obediently and play their role in Stern's script. But they didn't. They stole Game 1 in Cleveland. LeBron bailed the Cavs out in Game 2 with a game-winning three at the buzzer. The Magic won Game 3 at home convincingly. Now, Stern was getting nervous. If the Magic were to win Game 4 at home, the Cavs would all of a sudden be in serious jeopardy of losing the series.
Game 4 was close. Went down to the wire. With the Magic leading by two and the final seconds ticking down, King James (and I'm not saying that in deference, or affectionately, or with any positive connotation at all) drove the lane. Mickael Pietrus was guarding him. LeBron tripped; Pietrus barely touched him. Foul called on Pietrus. It was ridiculous, but I couldn't say I was surprised. You know, the King James thing.
He made both foul shots to tie the game. Then things really got absurd. The Magic were inbounding from half court with about a second and a half left in regulation. The ball was lobbed in to a cutting Dwight Howard -- and he got mauled. Mauled. Hit the ground hard. Since LeBron had just gotten that ticky-tack foul called in his favor, surely Dwight Howard would get the benefit of the call here, right?
Nope. No foul called. Game goes into overtime.
It was at this point that I was all but sure that Stern and the officials were trying to influence the outcome of the game. How could you not think that after watching what had just happened?
But fortunately -- and this was awesome -- Dwight Howard wasn't gonna let this bullshit break the Magic apart. He took it upon himself in overtime to will his team to victory, completely overpowering Ben Wallace and Anderson Varejao for like three rim-rattling dunks and altering the Cavs' shots to preserve the victory for Orlando and a 3-1 series lead. The Magic had prevailed over both the Cavs and the refs.
The Cavs took Game 5 back at home, but the Magic completely blew them away in Game 6 to clinch the series. And although they lost in the Finals to Kobe and the Lakers, I could take satisfaction in knowing that Orlando had spoiled the commissioner's dream matchup.
Which brings me back to this year's playoffs. I think that Stern is going to once again pull some shady maneuvers to try to create a Kobe-LeBron Finals. What might that entail? It could involve having Bennett Salvatore and Joey Crawford, two of Stern's most loyal lapdogs, officiate games that have a high degree of importance -- games that can turn or decide a series (Salvatore was the ref responsible for the LeBron call and subsequent Dwight no-call in Magic-Cavs Game 4 last year. When Magic coach Stan Van Gundy went out to argue, Salvatore simply screamed at him to "Go back to the bench!" Because, you know, refs shouldn't ever have any accountability. Crawford, meanwhile, always seems like he's on a power trip, and was the ref who allegedly challenged Tim Duncan to a fight in a 2007 NBA playoff game).
Especially if the Cavs and Magic square off again in the Eastern Conference Finals, I think Stern and his minions will try to exert their influence as much as possible.
And Stern will also definitely squelch all criticism directed toward the league; he's already done so. Look at what just happened to Dwight Howard for criticizing the officiating on his blog -- he got fined $35,000. The thing is, Howard's absolutely right; he has been treated unfairly by the refs. But Stern wants all criticism silenced, so Howard is $35,000 poorer now (not that that's a lot of money for him, but it's the principle that matters). Multiple other coaches and players have been fined the same for their criticisms of incompetent and/or biased officiating.
I've been on espn.com and other sports websites a lot recently. And it's apparent that a ton of other fans like me have just about had it. After Stern's latest shenanigans -- throwing down the gauntlet on Howard -- I was reading the user comments on the Associated Press article on the ESPN website. Some people were likening Stern to a leader of the mafia. Some were calling him a dictator. Others correctly pointed out that through his actions, Stern was trampling on the players' right to freedom of speech. Some were even calling into question the constitutionality of his actions (and while that debate is outside the scope of this post, it's a valid one. Lonnie, Jack...get on it!)
Basketball is one of the greatest sports -- and the NBA one of the most prominent professional sports leagues -- on the planet. They shouldn't be tainted because of one corrupt individual and several accomplices that have demonstrated that they'll willingly compromise the integrity of the game in order to try to maximize their profits.
So to come back full circle, I'm approaching the problem I'd have with a Lakers-Cavs Finals from two main angles: 1) the team game angle, and how Kobe-LeBron would diminish the emphasis on team, and 2) the corruption/conspiracy angle, where I'm arguing that David Stern has a vested interest in a Lakers-Cavs Finals, and will do everything in his power -- regardless of whether it violates the principles of fairness and neutrality that he and the refs are supposed to uphold -- to try to get that. It failed last year, but this is a new year, and another chance for Stern to get what he wants.
As a big fan of the team game, I'm going to be rooting for, well, two great teams to make the NBA Finals. Magic vs. Jazz would be awesome. So would Bucks vs. Spurs. For either of these matchups, we'd get to see two teams playing the game the right way...and David Stern would be pissed because his two golden boys, Kobe and LeBron -- especially LeBron -- wouldn't be in the Finals. And since I honestly think that David Stern is a corrupt NBA commissioner, that would make me happy.
So yeah, in case this hasn't been made clear already, I will be vociferously rooting against a Lakers-Cavs Finals.I think that all fans of good, pure, untainted team basketball should do the same.
***********
Update: just found this article online. Sheds some light on the infamous Game 6 of the Lakers-Kings 2002 Western Conference Finals, as well as the whole issue of potential conspiracies throughout the history of the NBA playoffs. Check it out.
http://www.rwor.org/a/133/NBA_referee.html
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Folly of the NHL's Playoff Re-seeding
You know something I don't like? David Stern and the refs trying to influence certain outcomes of the NBA playoffs in order to maximize TV ratings and revenues. Just kidding -- this post won't be about that...although you'll probably be hearing back from me after LeBron shoots an average of 42 free throws a game in the Eastern Conference Finals against the Magic.
No, today I'm going to talk about the NHL's ridiculous policy of re-seeding teams after each round of the playoffs, which ensures that the lowest remaining seed always plays the highest remaining seed.
So the 7th-seeded Philadelphia Flyers have just eliminated the 2nd-seeded New Jersey Devils in the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs. What should happen next? Obviously, given the eight-team-per-conference playoff format that the NHL has (just like the NBA), Philly should play the winner of the 3 vs. 6 matchup between the Sabres and Bruins. It would be that way for almost every other collegiate and professional sports playoff tournament -- just take a look at the bracket, advance the two winners, and they play each other in the next round.
(Notable exception: the NFL playoffs, which also re-seeds after each round. While I don't like re-seeding there either, it doesn't have as much of an effect because each round is just one game instead of a series, thus making an upset more likely on any given day, re-seeding can affect a maximum of only two rounds, and the talent gap between the teams is usually not as enormous as larger tournaments, as only the top six teams in each conference make the NFL postseason).
But a series with Buffalo or Boston isn't in the cards for Philly. Instead, the Flyers will likely get Alexander Ovechkin and the top-seed Washington Capitals (currently up 3-1 in their series with the Canadiens) in the second round. Which is completely unfair. Now, I dislike Philadelphia sports teams as much as any New Yorker -- and Philly knocked out the Rangers on the final day of the regular season -- but the Flyers deserve better. They worked their butts off and played an excellent series against a favored Devils squad. And their reward for pulling off the upset is a date with the top seed in the conference?
Let's go back to this year's March Madness to demonstrate how absurd this way of thinking is. After 14th-seeded Ohio stunned the nation and upset 3rd-seeded Georgetown in the first round, they rightly got to play the winner of the 6-11 matchup in their region -- the two teams next to them in the bracket. But using the NHL's logic, Ohio would've drawn Kansas -- the highest remaining seed in their region -- in the second round. And that would have been ridiculous.
(On second thought, given what happened to the Jayhawks, maybe that draw would've worked out better for Ohio).
The point is, a team that pulls off an upset in the postseason should be rewarded, not punished, for their efforts.
I guess that's one area where the NBA playoffs actually have it right.
No, today I'm going to talk about the NHL's ridiculous policy of re-seeding teams after each round of the playoffs, which ensures that the lowest remaining seed always plays the highest remaining seed.
So the 7th-seeded Philadelphia Flyers have just eliminated the 2nd-seeded New Jersey Devils in the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs. What should happen next? Obviously, given the eight-team-per-conference playoff format that the NHL has (just like the NBA), Philly should play the winner of the 3 vs. 6 matchup between the Sabres and Bruins. It would be that way for almost every other collegiate and professional sports playoff tournament -- just take a look at the bracket, advance the two winners, and they play each other in the next round.
(Notable exception: the NFL playoffs, which also re-seeds after each round. While I don't like re-seeding there either, it doesn't have as much of an effect because each round is just one game instead of a series, thus making an upset more likely on any given day, re-seeding can affect a maximum of only two rounds, and the talent gap between the teams is usually not as enormous as larger tournaments, as only the top six teams in each conference make the NFL postseason).
But a series with Buffalo or Boston isn't in the cards for Philly. Instead, the Flyers will likely get Alexander Ovechkin and the top-seed Washington Capitals (currently up 3-1 in their series with the Canadiens) in the second round. Which is completely unfair. Now, I dislike Philadelphia sports teams as much as any New Yorker -- and Philly knocked out the Rangers on the final day of the regular season -- but the Flyers deserve better. They worked their butts off and played an excellent series against a favored Devils squad. And their reward for pulling off the upset is a date with the top seed in the conference?
Let's go back to this year's March Madness to demonstrate how absurd this way of thinking is. After 14th-seeded Ohio stunned the nation and upset 3rd-seeded Georgetown in the first round, they rightly got to play the winner of the 6-11 matchup in their region -- the two teams next to them in the bracket. But using the NHL's logic, Ohio would've drawn Kansas -- the highest remaining seed in their region -- in the second round. And that would have been ridiculous.
(On second thought, given what happened to the Jayhawks, maybe that draw would've worked out better for Ohio).
The point is, a team that pulls off an upset in the postseason should be rewarded, not punished, for their efforts.
I guess that's one area where the NBA playoffs actually have it right.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Girardi's Conservative Management
As the espn.com recap read after the Yankees 10-0 dismantling of the Rays this past Saturday, "C.C. Sabathia was going to lose his no-hit bid one way or another."
Yep, he sure was.
That's because even before Sabathia surrendered a sharp single to left to Tampa Bay's Kelly Shoppach with two outs in the bottom of the eighth, Yankees manager Joe Girardi had already decided to take C.C. out after facing Shoppach regardless of what happened because of a high pitch count (111).
"Watching that pitch count go up and up and up, that was what was on my mind the most. Shoppach was his last hitter no matter what," Girardi said. "He did not know that going out. I told him when he came out. It's not something you want to do, but you have to think big picture."
"The big picture was the month of October. You have to think ahead. You can't be short- sighted," Girardi continued. "I would have loved to see him walk out with no hits and eight innings. I would have loved to see it, but it didn't happen. It made it real easy to go get him."
I completely disagree, and I believe the large majority of baseball fans do too.
Girardi's been a decent manager since he came to New York before the 2008 season, but sometimes he overmanages and acts too "mechanical." Yes, C.C.'s pitch count was high. Yes, it is about the "big picture." But sometimes you have to step back and really evaluate what you're doing rather than just "going by the book."
We're talking about a no-hitter here. There have been 263 no-hitters thrown in MLB history, 221 in the modern era (since 1900). That's less than one per year -- this ain't the most common occurrence in the world. You have a pitcher in Sabathia who was competing his heart out; do you think he wanted to come out? Of course not.
Sabathia's take on the situation: "It makes it easy now, but there would have been fighting out there on the mound."
He wanted to be given the chance to seal the deal and get the damn no-hitter. Any other pitcher would have felt the exact same way.
It's one game; did Girardi really think one high pitch count was going to render Sabathia useless in October should the Yankees make it back to the playoffs?
Bottom line, Girardi's mentality should've been to keep Sabathia in the game until the no-hitter was broken up. In admitting that he would not have done so, Girardi showed a lack of appreciation for one of the game's most difficult achievements.
Yep, he sure was.
That's because even before Sabathia surrendered a sharp single to left to Tampa Bay's Kelly Shoppach with two outs in the bottom of the eighth, Yankees manager Joe Girardi had already decided to take C.C. out after facing Shoppach regardless of what happened because of a high pitch count (111).
"Watching that pitch count go up and up and up, that was what was on my mind the most. Shoppach was his last hitter no matter what," Girardi said. "He did not know that going out. I told him when he came out. It's not something you want to do, but you have to think big picture."
"The big picture was the month of October. You have to think ahead. You can't be short- sighted," Girardi continued. "I would have loved to see him walk out with no hits and eight innings. I would have loved to see it, but it didn't happen. It made it real easy to go get him."
I completely disagree, and I believe the large majority of baseball fans do too.
Girardi's been a decent manager since he came to New York before the 2008 season, but sometimes he overmanages and acts too "mechanical." Yes, C.C.'s pitch count was high. Yes, it is about the "big picture." But sometimes you have to step back and really evaluate what you're doing rather than just "going by the book."
We're talking about a no-hitter here. There have been 263 no-hitters thrown in MLB history, 221 in the modern era (since 1900). That's less than one per year -- this ain't the most common occurrence in the world. You have a pitcher in Sabathia who was competing his heart out; do you think he wanted to come out? Of course not.
Sabathia's take on the situation: "It makes it easy now, but there would have been fighting out there on the mound."
He wanted to be given the chance to seal the deal and get the damn no-hitter. Any other pitcher would have felt the exact same way.
It's one game; did Girardi really think one high pitch count was going to render Sabathia useless in October should the Yankees make it back to the playoffs?
Bottom line, Girardi's mentality should've been to keep Sabathia in the game until the no-hitter was broken up. In admitting that he would not have done so, Girardi showed a lack of appreciation for one of the game's most difficult achievements.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The Championship Game and Its Larger Significance
One inch.
That was the difference between a probable Butler win and...well, reality, which was a Duke win.
Butler, down by five with just over two minutes to play, had cut the Duke lead to one on a pair of Matt Howard layups. And after an ugly Kyle Singler shot that barely grazed the rim, Butler got the ball back with just over 35 seconds left. All the Bulldogs needed was one score to complete the dream.
But Gordon Hayward's high-arching shot over the outstretched arm of Duke's Brian Zoubek was a smidgen (I would never normally use that word, but that's the best way I can describe it) too long, bouncing off the rim back to Zoubek, who was immediately fouled with three seconds left. Zoubek made the first before intentionally missing the second (which, in retrospect, was a stupid decision, when you consider what happened next...what could have been). Hayward grabbed the rebound, took a few dribbles until he was a little over half court, and let the shot fly.
A whole nation waited.
It looked good. It was going in. The movie Hoosiers was going to have nothing on the ending of this game.
And then cold, hard reality hit as the ball hit the backboard, then the front rim, and finally the hardwood. Game over. Duke had won. Goliath had won. A team from a power conference had (once again) won the national championship.
Had Hayward's shot over Zoubek been an inch (or less) shorter, or had his final desperation heave hit the backboard slightly softer, Butler would have won. David would have won. A team from the small mid-major Horizon League would have won the national championship.
But maybe that underscores a larger reality...that while the score says that Duke won the game and the 2010 national championship, Butler was perhaps just as much a winner as its opponent. The normally-outlandish Gregg Doyel of CBSSports.com astutely wrote about this idea in his column on Monday (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13162720/butler-loses-battle-wins-war-for-our-memories?tag=headlines;other). Doyel basically said that, much like George Mason is the defining memory of the 2006 tournament, what we're going to remember from the 2010 tournament is not Duke winning the national championship. We're going to remember Butler. We're going to remember a small mid-major with an enrollment of just over 4,000 defying the odds and knocking out three heavyweights from major conferences to reach the championship game.
Doyel went on to say that had Duke totally destroyed Butler, obviously the enduring memory of the tournament would have been completely different. It would have legitimized the idea that Butler was "an overmatched pretender not worthy of being in this game, much less being in our memory." But of course, that did not happen. The Bulldogs hung neck-and-neck with the Devils for the entire game; they just fell a bounce short in the end.
So for every fan of underdogs and upsets, there is much positive to take away from this game, and really this tournament as a whole, even though it didn't have the storybook ending that we had all hoped for.
This tournament demonstrated that so-called mid-majors can play with and beat the big boys. And obviously Butler's journey to the finals (as well as impressive performances from other mid-majors like St. Mary's and Northern Iowa) will only help with recruitment for these programs, and for mid-majors in general. We all saw that a mid-major can actually win the NCAA tournament -- not have a nice little run, maybe win a couple games, but actually win it all. Recruits know it. And while maybe schools like Duke, UNC, Kentucky, and Kansas will continue to be the top choices of most top-notch recruits across the country, I think this year's tournament will have a long-lasting effect of making highly talented recruits more willing to play for a mid-major -- or at least less averse to playing for one.
Bottom line, there's little doubt in my mind that a team from outside the "Big 6" will eventually win it all. I could see it happening within the decade.
*************
Random sidenote: the CBS camera crew, or whatever executive was in charge of the camera angles, should be fired immediately for sheer idiocy. Who the hell wants to watch a good chunk of the game (including key parts of the last few minutes) from an overhead view or awkward diagonal sideview? Not me. Not any sane human being. I was watching the game with my dad, and the first time they went to one of the weird angles we looked at each other like, "This has got to be a joke, right?" And then it kept on happening. And happening. And we eventually realized that, no, they weren't trying to be funny...they're just terrible at life.
That was the difference between a probable Butler win and...well, reality, which was a Duke win.
Butler, down by five with just over two minutes to play, had cut the Duke lead to one on a pair of Matt Howard layups. And after an ugly Kyle Singler shot that barely grazed the rim, Butler got the ball back with just over 35 seconds left. All the Bulldogs needed was one score to complete the dream.
But Gordon Hayward's high-arching shot over the outstretched arm of Duke's Brian Zoubek was a smidgen (I would never normally use that word, but that's the best way I can describe it) too long, bouncing off the rim back to Zoubek, who was immediately fouled with three seconds left. Zoubek made the first before intentionally missing the second (which, in retrospect, was a stupid decision, when you consider what happened next...what could have been). Hayward grabbed the rebound, took a few dribbles until he was a little over half court, and let the shot fly.
A whole nation waited.
It looked good. It was going in. The movie Hoosiers was going to have nothing on the ending of this game.
And then cold, hard reality hit as the ball hit the backboard, then the front rim, and finally the hardwood. Game over. Duke had won. Goliath had won. A team from a power conference had (once again) won the national championship.
Had Hayward's shot over Zoubek been an inch (or less) shorter, or had his final desperation heave hit the backboard slightly softer, Butler would have won. David would have won. A team from the small mid-major Horizon League would have won the national championship.
But maybe that underscores a larger reality...that while the score says that Duke won the game and the 2010 national championship, Butler was perhaps just as much a winner as its opponent. The normally-outlandish Gregg Doyel of CBSSports.com astutely wrote about this idea in his column on Monday (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13162720/butler-loses-battle-wins-war-for-our-memories?tag=headlines;other). Doyel basically said that, much like George Mason is the defining memory of the 2006 tournament, what we're going to remember from the 2010 tournament is not Duke winning the national championship. We're going to remember Butler. We're going to remember a small mid-major with an enrollment of just over 4,000 defying the odds and knocking out three heavyweights from major conferences to reach the championship game.
Doyel went on to say that had Duke totally destroyed Butler, obviously the enduring memory of the tournament would have been completely different. It would have legitimized the idea that Butler was "an overmatched pretender not worthy of being in this game, much less being in our memory." But of course, that did not happen. The Bulldogs hung neck-and-neck with the Devils for the entire game; they just fell a bounce short in the end.
So for every fan of underdogs and upsets, there is much positive to take away from this game, and really this tournament as a whole, even though it didn't have the storybook ending that we had all hoped for.
This tournament demonstrated that so-called mid-majors can play with and beat the big boys. And obviously Butler's journey to the finals (as well as impressive performances from other mid-majors like St. Mary's and Northern Iowa) will only help with recruitment for these programs, and for mid-majors in general. We all saw that a mid-major can actually win the NCAA tournament -- not have a nice little run, maybe win a couple games, but actually win it all. Recruits know it. And while maybe schools like Duke, UNC, Kentucky, and Kansas will continue to be the top choices of most top-notch recruits across the country, I think this year's tournament will have a long-lasting effect of making highly talented recruits more willing to play for a mid-major -- or at least less averse to playing for one.
Bottom line, there's little doubt in my mind that a team from outside the "Big 6" will eventually win it all. I could see it happening within the decade.
*************
Random sidenote: the CBS camera crew, or whatever executive was in charge of the camera angles, should be fired immediately for sheer idiocy. Who the hell wants to watch a good chunk of the game (including key parts of the last few minutes) from an overhead view or awkward diagonal sideview? Not me. Not any sane human being. I was watching the game with my dad, and the first time they went to one of the weird angles we looked at each other like, "This has got to be a joke, right?" And then it kept on happening. And happening. And we eventually realized that, no, they weren't trying to be funny...they're just terrible at life.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Underdogs Falter...Except Butler
Well, none of the three big cinderellas were able to continue their storybook runs past the round of 16, something that honestly surprised me. But what surprised me in particular, more than the fact that they lost, was how these teams' leaders, after displaying top-notch performances in the first two rounds and leading their respective teams to uncharted territory, played so poorly in the Sweet 16. Both Cornell's Ryan Wittman and Northern Iowa's Ali Farokhmanesh badly faltered. And by badly faltered, I mean they looked like they had forgotten how to play basketball. Farokhmanesh, after missing seven free throws all season, missed three against Michigan State and missed all but two of his nine field-goal attempts. Wittman similarly had a night to forget, as he finished 3 for 10 from the field after going 7 for 10 and 10 for 15 in the first two rounds of the tourney. As for St. Mary's? Well, their entire team just didn't show up, as the Gaels trailed Baylor 46-17 at the half before succumbing to the Bears by a 23-point margin.
Look, I understand that these three teams were playing out of their minds up until this point, and it would have been unrealistic to expect them to keep up that level of play. But that still doesn't make it any less puzzling when you consider the extent to which these teams, and their best players, struggled in the Sweet 16. Maybe it was the hype doted on them by an adoring media, maybe it was the pressure of keeping their improbable rides going, I don't know. All I know is that Ryan Wittman is better than what he showed against Kentucky, and Ali Farokhmanesh is better than what he showed against Michigan State. When you consider that Cornell, despite a terrible first thirty-five minutes, trailed Kentucky by only six with 5 minutes to play, and that Northern Iowa was neck-and-neck with State until the final minute or so, you realize that these two teams could have won had their best players had even average games.
Anyway, all is not lost for the mid-majors, as Butler, in its typical workmanlike fashion, took out both Syracuse and Kansas State to reach its first Final Four in school history. Even better, Butler will get to play its remaining games in downtown Indianapolis, a mere seven miles away from campus. Of course, the loveable underdog theme has been played up non-stop since Saturday, especially since the Bulldogs play their home games in the same place (Hinkle Fieldhouse, it's called -- doesn't that sound like just the perfect home court name for a loveable underdog?) as the legendary movie Hoosiers was filmed. It should be great, with Butler going against a tradition-rich power conference team in Michigan State, which could be followed by a national championship game against an even more tradition-rich program in Duke. Whether the Bulldogs play one more game this season or two, they will undoubtedly have almost everyone in 70,000-seat Lucas Oil Stadium, as well as the large majority of the country, on their side.
This is what makes March Madness great -- having a team like Butler, who almost nobody predicted would make it here, in the Final Four. I find it ridiculous listening to people like Gary Parrish of CBSSports.com (bonehead sports writers at CBS -- seems to be a trend here these past couple of weeks), who wrote in his latest column that "the nation would be more excited to watch a Kentucky-Kansas title game than, say, a Duke-Butler title game. No question about that." Really, Gary? No question? Because at least for me, and I suspect many other sports fans across the country, we'd rather see a championship game between two true teams than a star-studded matchup that features players doing little more than auditioning for the NBA. I watched the Wildcats and Jayhawks get bounced from this tournament, and they looked awful. Selfish play. No semblance of teamwork. Just individuals trying to do their thing...and failing. If Butler is able to win the national championship, it will truly demonstrate that a team whose players are willing to put their egos aside and sacrifice individual accolades for the success of the group will be the last one standing.
I hope it happens.
Look, I understand that these three teams were playing out of their minds up until this point, and it would have been unrealistic to expect them to keep up that level of play. But that still doesn't make it any less puzzling when you consider the extent to which these teams, and their best players, struggled in the Sweet 16. Maybe it was the hype doted on them by an adoring media, maybe it was the pressure of keeping their improbable rides going, I don't know. All I know is that Ryan Wittman is better than what he showed against Kentucky, and Ali Farokhmanesh is better than what he showed against Michigan State. When you consider that Cornell, despite a terrible first thirty-five minutes, trailed Kentucky by only six with 5 minutes to play, and that Northern Iowa was neck-and-neck with State until the final minute or so, you realize that these two teams could have won had their best players had even average games.
Anyway, all is not lost for the mid-majors, as Butler, in its typical workmanlike fashion, took out both Syracuse and Kansas State to reach its first Final Four in school history. Even better, Butler will get to play its remaining games in downtown Indianapolis, a mere seven miles away from campus. Of course, the loveable underdog theme has been played up non-stop since Saturday, especially since the Bulldogs play their home games in the same place (Hinkle Fieldhouse, it's called -- doesn't that sound like just the perfect home court name for a loveable underdog?) as the legendary movie Hoosiers was filmed. It should be great, with Butler going against a tradition-rich power conference team in Michigan State, which could be followed by a national championship game against an even more tradition-rich program in Duke. Whether the Bulldogs play one more game this season or two, they will undoubtedly have almost everyone in 70,000-seat Lucas Oil Stadium, as well as the large majority of the country, on their side.
This is what makes March Madness great -- having a team like Butler, who almost nobody predicted would make it here, in the Final Four. I find it ridiculous listening to people like Gary Parrish of CBSSports.com (bonehead sports writers at CBS -- seems to be a trend here these past couple of weeks), who wrote in his latest column that "the nation would be more excited to watch a Kentucky-Kansas title game than, say, a Duke-Butler title game. No question about that." Really, Gary? No question? Because at least for me, and I suspect many other sports fans across the country, we'd rather see a championship game between two true teams than a star-studded matchup that features players doing little more than auditioning for the NBA. I watched the Wildcats and Jayhawks get bounced from this tournament, and they looked awful. Selfish play. No semblance of teamwork. Just individuals trying to do their thing...and failing. If Butler is able to win the national championship, it will truly demonstrate that a team whose players are willing to put their egos aside and sacrifice individual accolades for the success of the group will be the last one standing.
I hope it happens.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sweet 16 -- Year of the Underdog
When three of the 16 teams left in this year's Sweet 16 are Northern Iowa, St. Mary's, and Cornell, you know this is no ordinary March Madness. After George Mason's improbable run to the Final Four in 2006, the last three years have seen a depressingly low number of upsets. With the NCAA trying its hardest to minimize the chances of multiple mid-majors advancing past the tournament's first weekend, it's simply amazing that 11 different conferences are represented among the 16 final spots in this year's tourney.
But hopefully this is not the end. This year's three biggest cinderellas (although I'm not sure that term is appropriate anymore after watching them play) all have at least a decent shot of advancing to the Elite Eight. Here's why:
1. Northern Iowa vs. Michigan State: perhaps the biggest factor that gives the Panthers of UNI at least even chances of getting past the Spartans is due to an unfortunate circumstance, but one that will favor them immensely. Kalin Lucas, State's star point guard, ruptured his Achilles' tendon in Sunday's game against Maryland and will miss the remainder of the season. Although I would never wish an injury on a team that I'm rooting against, you gotta like what this does for Northern Iowa's chances. Lucas was the Spartans' best player, averaging 14.8 points and 4 assists on the season, and his lightning quick speed would've given the Panthers fits on defense. Korie Lucious, who hit the game-winning buzzer-beater against the Terps on Sunday, will likely start in his place. Lucious has averaged a shade over 5 points per game and doesn't have the athleticism or overall presence that Lucas has. If Northern Iowa is able to implement their game plan -- which is to slow the game down, control the tempo, and work the shot clock down for good open looks --they should be able to keep this improbable ride going to the Elite Eight.
2. St. Mary's vs. Baylor: Of the three "cinderellas", I think St. Mary's has the toughest task in its Sweet 16 matchup. Baylor is an extremely big, athletic team that should have a sizeable advantage in the post and on the boards -- not to mention in the crowd, as the Bears will be playing in Houston, just a couple hours away from home. But to count out St. Mary's at this point would be downright foolish. We saw what they could do against 'Nova. When they're hitting shots and effectively feeding the ball to Omar Samhan, they are a scary team to face. Not to mention, they're probably one of the most unselfish teams left in the tournament, exude a relaxed and confident demeanor (watching them laugh it up on the bench against Villanova, they looked like a high school-aged CYO team or something), and are pretty much playing with house money at this point. This could be the perfect storm for the tiny school from Moraga, California to pull yet another upset.
3. Cornell vs. Kentucky: I'm not gonna mince words -- this Cornell team is flat out sick. Apparently ignoramuses like CBSsports.com's Mike Freeman haven't realized it yet, though; Freeman's under the impression that Kentucky will win by at least 30. Which really makes me scratch my head. Because Cornell has already played a team of Kentucky's caliber -- none other than the Kansas Jayhawks, and the Big Red lost to them by just five. Cornell's offense is a model of efficiency. They shoot the lights out, display excellent teamwork, have a dominant -- as-in "Big 6 Conference dominant" -- seven-foot center in Jeff Foote, and have one player who speaks five languages and can solve a Rubik's cube in two minutes (wait, that last reason doesn't matter for this game? Fine, look at the first three then). Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that Cornell's entry into the Sweet 16 was no fluke. Kentucky, meanwhile, while obviously ridiculously talented and athletic, is also young and undisciplined. This upset I can really see happening.
So yeah, Freeman, I'd love to bet you that your 30-point prediction will be wrong. I'll even give you odds.
But hopefully this is not the end. This year's three biggest cinderellas (although I'm not sure that term is appropriate anymore after watching them play) all have at least a decent shot of advancing to the Elite Eight. Here's why:
1. Northern Iowa vs. Michigan State: perhaps the biggest factor that gives the Panthers of UNI at least even chances of getting past the Spartans is due to an unfortunate circumstance, but one that will favor them immensely. Kalin Lucas, State's star point guard, ruptured his Achilles' tendon in Sunday's game against Maryland and will miss the remainder of the season. Although I would never wish an injury on a team that I'm rooting against, you gotta like what this does for Northern Iowa's chances. Lucas was the Spartans' best player, averaging 14.8 points and 4 assists on the season, and his lightning quick speed would've given the Panthers fits on defense. Korie Lucious, who hit the game-winning buzzer-beater against the Terps on Sunday, will likely start in his place. Lucious has averaged a shade over 5 points per game and doesn't have the athleticism or overall presence that Lucas has. If Northern Iowa is able to implement their game plan -- which is to slow the game down, control the tempo, and work the shot clock down for good open looks --they should be able to keep this improbable ride going to the Elite Eight.
2. St. Mary's vs. Baylor: Of the three "cinderellas", I think St. Mary's has the toughest task in its Sweet 16 matchup. Baylor is an extremely big, athletic team that should have a sizeable advantage in the post and on the boards -- not to mention in the crowd, as the Bears will be playing in Houston, just a couple hours away from home. But to count out St. Mary's at this point would be downright foolish. We saw what they could do against 'Nova. When they're hitting shots and effectively feeding the ball to Omar Samhan, they are a scary team to face. Not to mention, they're probably one of the most unselfish teams left in the tournament, exude a relaxed and confident demeanor (watching them laugh it up on the bench against Villanova, they looked like a high school-aged CYO team or something), and are pretty much playing with house money at this point. This could be the perfect storm for the tiny school from Moraga, California to pull yet another upset.
3. Cornell vs. Kentucky: I'm not gonna mince words -- this Cornell team is flat out sick. Apparently ignoramuses like CBSsports.com's Mike Freeman haven't realized it yet, though; Freeman's under the impression that Kentucky will win by at least 30. Which really makes me scratch my head. Because Cornell has already played a team of Kentucky's caliber -- none other than the Kansas Jayhawks, and the Big Red lost to them by just five. Cornell's offense is a model of efficiency. They shoot the lights out, display excellent teamwork, have a dominant -- as-in "Big 6 Conference dominant" -- seven-foot center in Jeff Foote, and have one player who speaks five languages and can solve a Rubik's cube in two minutes (wait, that last reason doesn't matter for this game? Fine, look at the first three then). Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that Cornell's entry into the Sweet 16 was no fluke. Kentucky, meanwhile, while obviously ridiculously talented and athletic, is also young and undisciplined. This upset I can really see happening.
So yeah, Freeman, I'd love to bet you that your 30-point prediction will be wrong. I'll even give you odds.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Shot
Sherron Collins drives strong to the hoop, puts in the lay-up. Kansas immediately calls timeout. 43 seconds left, one point game. The crowd is going bonkers. And I'm thinking, "Are you f****** kidding me???"
Northern Iowa had played 38 minutes of superb basketball. Had totally outplayed the overall number one seed in the tournament. Had led by seven -- SEVEN -- just 25 seconds ago. And now, a couple of bad turnovers later, the Panthers were on the verge of blowing it.
I thought back to Kansas-Bucknell in 2005, when Bucknell had led for almost the entire game before one of their players committed a stupid intentional foul that gave Kansas two shots and the ball, and ultimately, a one-point lead. But then Chris McNaughton, Bucknell's 6'11'' center from Germany, came to the rescue, hitting a baby hook that proved to be the game winner for the Bison and seal an upset of monumental proportions.
As the commercial break ended and Northern Iowa prepared to inbound the ball, I thought to myself, "Who's going to be the Panthers' McNaughton?" (Ok, I wasn't exactly thinking in that composed a manner; I was more yelling and cursing at the TV while pacing back and forth. But humor me.) There were still 43 seconds left on the clock; somebody from Northern Iowa was going to have to come up big and hit a shot.
What happened next is history. Freshman Jake Koch inbounds to senior brother Adam Koch, who passes it back to the younger Koch, who finds point guard Kwadzo Ahelegbe, who throws it ahead to cold-blooded assassin Ali Faroukhmanesh. Faroukhmanesh pauses, surveys the scene, thinks, "What the hell," and launches what will undoubtedly go down as one of the clutchest shots in the history of the NCAA tournament. Nothing but net. One Kansas offensive foul later and Northern Iowa had essentially sealed one of the great upsets in tournament history, eliminating the team that many had picked to win it all.
In the three days since, The Shot has been endlessly talked about and analyzed. The conventional thinking is, "There's no way Faroukhmanesh should've taken that shot." There were 30 seconds left on the shot clock (37 in the game), UNI was up one, and Faroukhmanesh, after making his first three 3-pointers in the game, had missed his last seven shots. Conventional wisdom says he should've held the ball and either waited until Kansas fouled or worked the shot clock down and taken a shot with under 10 seconds remaining in the game.
I don't buy it, and I'm glad Faroukhmanesh didn't either. He's a shooter; he had to take that shot. As a so-called "shooter" myself (at least back in my high school days), I subscribe to the idea that shooters should keep shooting, even if they are in a cold streak. Eventually, they'll start falling again.
For the last couple of minutes, Northern Iowa had been playing scared. They were playing not to lose instead of to win. Somebody had to step up and make a play. That somebody was Ali Faroukhmanesh.
Because of him, the tournament's number one seed is one-and-done. And Northern Iowa is marching on.
Northern Iowa had played 38 minutes of superb basketball. Had totally outplayed the overall number one seed in the tournament. Had led by seven -- SEVEN -- just 25 seconds ago. And now, a couple of bad turnovers later, the Panthers were on the verge of blowing it.
I thought back to Kansas-Bucknell in 2005, when Bucknell had led for almost the entire game before one of their players committed a stupid intentional foul that gave Kansas two shots and the ball, and ultimately, a one-point lead. But then Chris McNaughton, Bucknell's 6'11'' center from Germany, came to the rescue, hitting a baby hook that proved to be the game winner for the Bison and seal an upset of monumental proportions.
As the commercial break ended and Northern Iowa prepared to inbound the ball, I thought to myself, "Who's going to be the Panthers' McNaughton?" (Ok, I wasn't exactly thinking in that composed a manner; I was more yelling and cursing at the TV while pacing back and forth. But humor me.) There were still 43 seconds left on the clock; somebody from Northern Iowa was going to have to come up big and hit a shot.
What happened next is history. Freshman Jake Koch inbounds to senior brother Adam Koch, who passes it back to the younger Koch, who finds point guard Kwadzo Ahelegbe, who throws it ahead to cold-blooded assassin Ali Faroukhmanesh. Faroukhmanesh pauses, surveys the scene, thinks, "What the hell," and launches what will undoubtedly go down as one of the clutchest shots in the history of the NCAA tournament. Nothing but net. One Kansas offensive foul later and Northern Iowa had essentially sealed one of the great upsets in tournament history, eliminating the team that many had picked to win it all.
In the three days since, The Shot has been endlessly talked about and analyzed. The conventional thinking is, "There's no way Faroukhmanesh should've taken that shot." There were 30 seconds left on the shot clock (37 in the game), UNI was up one, and Faroukhmanesh, after making his first three 3-pointers in the game, had missed his last seven shots. Conventional wisdom says he should've held the ball and either waited until Kansas fouled or worked the shot clock down and taken a shot with under 10 seconds remaining in the game.
I don't buy it, and I'm glad Faroukhmanesh didn't either. He's a shooter; he had to take that shot. As a so-called "shooter" myself (at least back in my high school days), I subscribe to the idea that shooters should keep shooting, even if they are in a cold streak. Eventually, they'll start falling again.
For the last couple of minutes, Northern Iowa had been playing scared. They were playing not to lose instead of to win. Somebody had to step up and make a play. That somebody was Ali Faroukhmanesh.
Because of him, the tournament's number one seed is one-and-done. And Northern Iowa is marching on.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
St. Mary's over 'Nova
Riding a wave -- or should I say, Gael storm -- of unselfish play, clutch shooting, and a dominant and intelligent big man in Omar Samhan, St. Mary's outplays Villanova, the officials call a fair game, and the Gaels send the Wildcats where they belonged Thursday -- home.
Congratulations to St. Mary's on advancing to the Sweet 16 for the first time in school history.
Needless to say, I'm kinda happy.
Congratulations to St. Mary's on advancing to the Sweet 16 for the first time in school history.
Needless to say, I'm kinda happy.
Friday, March 19, 2010
First-round Recap and Villanova-Robert Morris Refs
The first round of March Madness has ended, and man, was it awesome. Thursday was probably the most exciting day of college basketball I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. Overtimes, buzzer beaters, a slew of upsets...the opening day of the tournament had it all. Ohio over Georgetown? Unreal. And it wasn't just that they won -- the team that finished 9th in the MAC conference (with a losing record, to boot) killed the Hoyas. It wasn't even close. Major bracket buster there, and I'm loving it. In Friday's action, Cornell took down Temple for their first ever NCAA win, and the Ivy League's first since 1998. The Big Red look legit, with a bunch of seasoned vets that play smart, can shoot the three (they were 9 for 23 against Temple, including a bunch of daggers that put the game out of reach in the second half) and a 7-foot center in Jeff Foote, who wouldn't look out of place playing in a BCS conference. I can definitely see Cornell beating Wisconsin (who barely squeaked by Wofford) and giving Kentucky a real run for their money in the Sweet 16.
Unfortunately, one game has already put a damper on the tournament for me and lots of other sports fans. Villanova will be playing in the second round after barely beating Robert Morris in overtime, but they shouldn't be. The officiating was an absolute disgrace. Simply put, the officials gave the game to Villanova -- and if you insist otherwise, then you're just deluding yourself. Here are a couple of absolutely ridiculous calls that went against Robert Morris that I took note of while watching the game:
-First half: Scottie Reynolds spins, crashes into Robert Morris player, falls down...and the Robert Morris guy gets called for the foul.
-6 seconds left in first half: 'Nova player grabs a rebound, falls down (never touched), loses the ball out of bounds...and a phantom foul gets called on Robert Morris.
But the absurdity was just getting started. Robert Morris was up by 8 with 4 minutes to play. After that, the officials apparently decided that they needed to get Villanova back in the game. Over these next four minutes, Villanova shot a total of 10 free throws, while Robert Morris shot 2. Scottie Reynolds shot 8 of those, getting "fouled" on four consecutive possessions (two or three of those could have easily been no-calls). With under three minutes to play, a Villanova defender had both his arms around the Robert Morris guy as a pass came his way. Which, you know, usually makes it hard for the guy on offense to catch the ball. Ball went out of bounds. If Villanova had had the ball, you know the foul would've been called immediately. But Villanova did not have the ball; Robert Morris did, and as a result, no foul was called. Villanova possession.
The refs shameless performance was just enough to get Villanova to tie the game up and send it into overtime. But they still weren't done -- there was one final play that epitomized all the bullshit that transpired in this game. Robert Morris was down four, and Villanova had the ball. A Robert Morris defender appeared to have tied up the Villanova guy -- and in fact, one of the refs who had the clearest look at the play called a jump ball. But then another official -- whose view was obstructed by about 3 other players -- burst onto the scene and called a foul. Which ref would win out? Obviously, the one with a bad view of the play who made the call against Robert Morris. Foul called, Villanova player goes to the line and makes two free throws. And although Robert Morris, fighting valiantly in the face of near impossible odds, somehow cut the deficit to one, they were never able to get over the hump, and they finally lost by three, 73-70.
For the game, Scottie Reynolds shot a total of 16 free throws while going 2 of 15 from the field. The foul disparity for the two teams was 31 to 19 (do I really need to tell you which team got called for 31 fouls and which team got called for 19?). The free throw disparity was 40 to 26. The disparity in the overall respect each team received from the refs was egregious.
Look, I can already hear the counterargument coming. "Villanova did what they needed to do to win. Robert Morris screwed up when it mattered most, which is why they lost the game." Yes and no. Robert Morris certainly did not help themselves by turning the ball over and missing shots at a couple of inopportune times. But seriously, when you're a number 15 seed, and you're going against not only a superior opponent, but the officials as well, don't you think you have the right to complain? Without those highly questionable foul calls that Scottie Reynolds received starting when Robert Morris was up by 8 with under 4 to play, Villanova does not win that game. It's that simple.
So was this pathetic display of officiating an overt conspiracy or just the inherent bias that seems to always occur when a popular team from a BCS conference plays against a small, relatively unknown mid-major? Honestly...I don't know. But as my buddy Ryan texted me after the game, "Big conferences pay the bills." And it's true. The NCAA would certainly prefer popular BCS teams with large fan bases to advance deep into the tournament, not unknown mid-majors with only a few thousand students. An upset or two is cute, maybe even wanted by the NCAA and CBS execs. But a team like Villanova...bounced in the first round? Nah, they don't want that. While watching the Georgetown-Ohio game later on, I couldn't help but wonder if the refs would pull a Robert Morris-like act on Ohio as the game got down to the wire. Fortunately, Ohio was so good -- and Georgetown so bad -- that it became a moot point (I actually thought the refs did a good job in this game, treating both teams fairly. You should be taking notes, Villanova officials).
The Robert Morris travesty wasn't the only example from these past two days of terrible calls going against the underdog mid-majors -- far from it. I saw a lot of poor calls and non-calls, and the overwhelming majority of them went against the lower seeds. Now I'm obviously not saying that every bad or missed call that went against the underdogs was part of a devious scheme to screw them over. I understand refs have a tough job, trying to keep up with a fast-paced game that often features ridiculous athletes sprinting up and down the court. But when refs do a poor job officiating in the tournament, it just seems that the calls almost always go against the less heralded underdog teams from non-BCS conferences.
Officials have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the game. Every team -- whether you're Villanova or Robert Morris, Kansas or Lehigh, Duke or Arkansas-Pine Bluff -- should be entitled to a fairly reffed game. Robert Morris didn't receive that. There was something more going on in that game than just a few poor calls. And that's sad.
Villanova should not be in the second round of the tournament. I'll be rooting hard for St. Mary's to knock them out.
Hopefully Villanova won't have their personal refs to save them this time.
Unfortunately, one game has already put a damper on the tournament for me and lots of other sports fans. Villanova will be playing in the second round after barely beating Robert Morris in overtime, but they shouldn't be. The officiating was an absolute disgrace. Simply put, the officials gave the game to Villanova -- and if you insist otherwise, then you're just deluding yourself. Here are a couple of absolutely ridiculous calls that went against Robert Morris that I took note of while watching the game:
-First half: Scottie Reynolds spins, crashes into Robert Morris player, falls down...and the Robert Morris guy gets called for the foul.
-6 seconds left in first half: 'Nova player grabs a rebound, falls down (never touched), loses the ball out of bounds...and a phantom foul gets called on Robert Morris.
But the absurdity was just getting started. Robert Morris was up by 8 with 4 minutes to play. After that, the officials apparently decided that they needed to get Villanova back in the game. Over these next four minutes, Villanova shot a total of 10 free throws, while Robert Morris shot 2. Scottie Reynolds shot 8 of those, getting "fouled" on four consecutive possessions (two or three of those could have easily been no-calls). With under three minutes to play, a Villanova defender had both his arms around the Robert Morris guy as a pass came his way. Which, you know, usually makes it hard for the guy on offense to catch the ball. Ball went out of bounds. If Villanova had had the ball, you know the foul would've been called immediately. But Villanova did not have the ball; Robert Morris did, and as a result, no foul was called. Villanova possession.
The refs shameless performance was just enough to get Villanova to tie the game up and send it into overtime. But they still weren't done -- there was one final play that epitomized all the bullshit that transpired in this game. Robert Morris was down four, and Villanova had the ball. A Robert Morris defender appeared to have tied up the Villanova guy -- and in fact, one of the refs who had the clearest look at the play called a jump ball. But then another official -- whose view was obstructed by about 3 other players -- burst onto the scene and called a foul. Which ref would win out? Obviously, the one with a bad view of the play who made the call against Robert Morris. Foul called, Villanova player goes to the line and makes two free throws. And although Robert Morris, fighting valiantly in the face of near impossible odds, somehow cut the deficit to one, they were never able to get over the hump, and they finally lost by three, 73-70.
For the game, Scottie Reynolds shot a total of 16 free throws while going 2 of 15 from the field. The foul disparity for the two teams was 31 to 19 (do I really need to tell you which team got called for 31 fouls and which team got called for 19?). The free throw disparity was 40 to 26. The disparity in the overall respect each team received from the refs was egregious.
Look, I can already hear the counterargument coming. "Villanova did what they needed to do to win. Robert Morris screwed up when it mattered most, which is why they lost the game." Yes and no. Robert Morris certainly did not help themselves by turning the ball over and missing shots at a couple of inopportune times. But seriously, when you're a number 15 seed, and you're going against not only a superior opponent, but the officials as well, don't you think you have the right to complain? Without those highly questionable foul calls that Scottie Reynolds received starting when Robert Morris was up by 8 with under 4 to play, Villanova does not win that game. It's that simple.
So was this pathetic display of officiating an overt conspiracy or just the inherent bias that seems to always occur when a popular team from a BCS conference plays against a small, relatively unknown mid-major? Honestly...I don't know. But as my buddy Ryan texted me after the game, "Big conferences pay the bills." And it's true. The NCAA would certainly prefer popular BCS teams with large fan bases to advance deep into the tournament, not unknown mid-majors with only a few thousand students. An upset or two is cute, maybe even wanted by the NCAA and CBS execs. But a team like Villanova...bounced in the first round? Nah, they don't want that. While watching the Georgetown-Ohio game later on, I couldn't help but wonder if the refs would pull a Robert Morris-like act on Ohio as the game got down to the wire. Fortunately, Ohio was so good -- and Georgetown so bad -- that it became a moot point (I actually thought the refs did a good job in this game, treating both teams fairly. You should be taking notes, Villanova officials).
The Robert Morris travesty wasn't the only example from these past two days of terrible calls going against the underdog mid-majors -- far from it. I saw a lot of poor calls and non-calls, and the overwhelming majority of them went against the lower seeds. Now I'm obviously not saying that every bad or missed call that went against the underdogs was part of a devious scheme to screw them over. I understand refs have a tough job, trying to keep up with a fast-paced game that often features ridiculous athletes sprinting up and down the court. But when refs do a poor job officiating in the tournament, it just seems that the calls almost always go against the less heralded underdog teams from non-BCS conferences.
Officials have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the game. Every team -- whether you're Villanova or Robert Morris, Kansas or Lehigh, Duke or Arkansas-Pine Bluff -- should be entitled to a fairly reffed game. Robert Morris didn't receive that. There was something more going on in that game than just a few poor calls. And that's sad.
Villanova should not be in the second round of the tournament. I'll be rooting hard for St. Mary's to knock them out.
Hopefully Villanova won't have their personal refs to save them this time.
Monday, March 15, 2010
March Madness Selection Committee's Choice of Bracket
March Madness is my favorite time of year. Nothing else in the way of sports matches the excitement, intrigue, and unpredictability that the NCAA men's basketball tournament brings. As a passionate sports fan, one of the things that I've always loved the most are upsets. I simply love watching the little guy rise to the occasion and defy the odds by beating a team that, on paper, is far superior. Go back five years, for example, to the first round of the 2005 NCAA tournament, where 14th-seed Bucknell stunned the nation by defeating what was a vastly superior Kansas squad. Nobody in their right mind would have predicted that upset -- but it happened. And that's what makes sports so great: on any given day, any team has a chance, no matter how remote. Sounds cliched, but it's true.
Which is why I am, once again, extremely frustrated by the bracket that the selection committee unveiled for March Madness 2010. In recent years, I, along with any other sports fan who cares passionately enough, have noticed a disturbing trend: the committee, it seems, tries to eliminate mid-major teams -- especially teams that have decent chances of making cinderella runs in the tourney -- by pitting them against each other in the first round.
Coincidence, you might say. Well, I have my doubts. Main reason? Consider a first-round seeding match-up -- say 6 vs.11, or 5 vs. 12. There has been an unmistakable trend where the selection committee pits 2 mid-major teams against each other...while having two teams from traditional power conferences with the same seeding match-up also play each other. The reason this last part is important is because it shows that, in many cases, the committee has had a choice of whether to pit mid-majors against majors or mid-majors against each other -- and has consistently chosen the latter. To make this clearer, let's look at the past 5 years, where there has been at least one case per year of this phenomenon:
-2005: Utah vs. UTEP (6 vs. 11 match-up #1, mid-majors ); Texas Tech vs. UCLA (6 vs. 11 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2006: Nevada vs. Montana (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Syracuse vs. Texas A&M (5 vs. 12 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2007: Butler vs. Old Dominion (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Virginia Tech vs. Illinios (5 vs. 12 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2008: Drake vs. Western Kentucky (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Clemson vs. Villanova (5 vs. 12 match-up # 2, power conferences)
-2009: Gonzaga vs. Akron (4 vs. 13 match-up #1, mid-majors); Washington vs. Mississippi State (4 vs. 13 match-up #2, power conferences)
Which is why I am, once again, extremely frustrated by the bracket that the selection committee unveiled for March Madness 2010. In recent years, I, along with any other sports fan who cares passionately enough, have noticed a disturbing trend: the committee, it seems, tries to eliminate mid-major teams -- especially teams that have decent chances of making cinderella runs in the tourney -- by pitting them against each other in the first round.
Coincidence, you might say. Well, I have my doubts. Main reason? Consider a first-round seeding match-up -- say 6 vs.11, or 5 vs. 12. There has been an unmistakable trend where the selection committee pits 2 mid-major teams against each other...while having two teams from traditional power conferences with the same seeding match-up also play each other. The reason this last part is important is because it shows that, in many cases, the committee has had a choice of whether to pit mid-majors against majors or mid-majors against each other -- and has consistently chosen the latter. To make this clearer, let's look at the past 5 years, where there has been at least one case per year of this phenomenon:
-2005: Utah vs. UTEP (6 vs. 11 match-up #1, mid-majors ); Texas Tech vs. UCLA (6 vs. 11 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2006: Nevada vs. Montana (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Syracuse vs. Texas A&M (5 vs. 12 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2007: Butler vs. Old Dominion (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Virginia Tech vs. Illinios (5 vs. 12 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2008: Drake vs. Western Kentucky (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Clemson vs. Villanova (5 vs. 12 match-up # 2, power conferences)
-2009: Gonzaga vs. Akron (4 vs. 13 match-up #1, mid-majors); Washington vs. Mississippi State (4 vs. 13 match-up #2, power conferences)
Why is this important? It's simple. Obviously, each year the NCAA tournament has a lot more teams from major BCS conferences in it than it does mid-majors. So for every instance in which the committee decides, "Let's have two mid-majors play each other in the first round," it ensures that there will be one less mid-major possible of making a deep cinderella run in the tournament.
The committee continued that trend this year. Richmond vs. St. Mary's (mid-majors) makes up one 7 vs. 10 match-up, while Oklahoma St. vs. Georgia Tech and Clemson vs. Missouri (power conferences) make up two of the other 7 vs. 10 match-ups. Even more significant, Butler and UTEP play each in a first-round 5 vs. 12 match-up, and they just currently happen to be two of the most formidable mid-major squads in the country. Gary Parrish of cbssports.com saw this for what it probably means, writing the following in his March Madness column this past Monday:
"The plan is to make the good non-BCS teams eliminate the other good non-BCS teams: I suppose (or at least I hope) it's a coincidence, but it seems every year one of the non-BCS teams most likely to make a run in this event gets paired with another non-BCS team that's likely to make a run in this event. This year's best example is a first-round game in the West between Butler and UTEP. I said last week that the three non-BCS schools with the best chance to make the Sweet 16 were New Mexico, Butler and UTEP, and now either Butler or UTEP is guaranteed to have its season end Thursday because of an unfortunate pairing."
Hmmm. Makes you wonder about the committee's intentions, huh? After all, it's no secret that teams from major conferences generally create more viewership, and thus, revenues, than mid-major schools. Casual fans are more likely to tune into a game involving traditional powerhouses like Duke or Kentucky than one involving, say, Siena, a small Catholic school with only a couple thousand students. Could that have been on the committee's mind as they were determining the first-round match-ups? Did they intentionally create the bracket to minimize the chances of a talented but not-sexy-for-ratings-purposes mid-major making a deep run in the tournament?
Again...makes you wonder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
