Most Philadelphia Eagles' fans would have asked you what kind of crack you were smoking if going into today's games you believed they had a good chance to make the playoffs.
Two reasons would have dominated their thinking. First, the Birds would have had to beat Dallas and then hope for two other results: losses by either Minnesota or Chicago and an Oakland victory at Tampa Bay. Second, the Birds played inconsistently in their first fifteen games and terribly in their loss to the Redskins last week. Taken together, few Eagles' fans were feeling good about the Eagles' chances today. Moreover, I'm sure that some were hoping for a shellacking at the hands of Dallas, if only to force ownership's hand regarding head coach and GM Andy Reid and the quarterback, Donovan McNabb (I am not among the disbelievers, however, when it comes to McNabb, whom I believe is good enough to win a Super Bowl).
And then a funny thing happened on the way to missing the playoffs for the third time in the past four seasons. When we turned on the television mid-afternoon, my son and I learned that the Vikings were in a dogfight with the Giants (who only let starting QB Eli Manning play the first half; the Vikings prevailed on a game-ending 50-yard field goal by Ryan Longwell), the Bears were in a tight game with the Texans, and Oakland was hanging in there against the Bucs. Then, the tides turned again, and the Bucs pulled ahead of the Raiders, thanks to a great interception return by safety Sabby Piscitelli.
But, by the time the Eagles-Cowboys game started, the stars had aligned for the hometown Birds. The Texans beat the Bears, the Raiders upset the Bucs, and the stage was set for the winner to go to the playoffs. That's right, the Eagles once again could control their own fate.
Against Dallas, of all teams, the team that Philadelphia fans seem to want to beat the most. Rewind to the season's outset, and many pundits predicted that the Cowboys were one of the favorites to win the Super Bowl. The Giants? Written off. Too many (for the worse) personnel changes. The Redskins? Ah, improving. The Eagles? Well, good, but aging, and probably falling short in what at the time was regarded as the toughest division in the NFL.
So what happened? The Eagles' shattered the myth of America's team once again. They showed that Cowboys' QB Tony Romo does not belong on the NFL's version of Mount Olympus, that they could force turnovers, and in the end, in the most unlikely of scenarios, the Eagles trounced the one-time Super Bowl favorites, 44-6. And now it's onward to Minnesota against the formidable but beatable NFC North champions.
The Cowboys get to play golf, think about a disappointing season and wonder which of their employee roster will help ring in the new stadium that awaits them. Not only did they not make the playoffs, they failed spectacularly in a must-win game.
As for the Eagles, they answered some questions today. Andy Reid will be back as head coach and, in all likelihood, general manager. You don't replace someone with his track record unless the replacement is superior, and most candidates to replace him would represent a significant amount of risk. Likewise, Donovan McNabb will return as the starting quarterback for the same reasons. Kevin Kolb represents too much of a risk right now.
There are other questions. The offensive line is iffy. The tackles are old and unrestricted free agents, and their best lineman (Shawn Andrews) is coming off back surgery. Their center is average. L.J. Smith, the underacheiving tight end, won't return (he's a free agent). The wide receiver corps is improved, but undistinguished. They could use an upgrade at fullback, some more depth on the defensive line and at linebacker. Most importantly, they need to get out of the 6-10 through 10-6 zone. You can't stay there forever, and they need to take a step forward again. The big question is will they?
Many local pundits hoped that something like this wouldn't happen. They fear that owner Jeffrey Lurie and president Joe Banner will tout this season as a triumph, as something to build upon. They hope that the front office will examine thoroughly whether Reid should continue, period, and, if so, continue to be both GM and head coach. They also hope that Reid will evaluate his coaching strategy and his quarterback and determine if changes need to be made. They fear that the front office and Reid won't do any of this.
Right now, it's much better to be in the playoffs than to lament what might have been. Eagles' fans are perhaps more giddy about crushing Dallas than about the prospect of the playoffs, although the gap between the two will evaporate by tomorrow morning.
The day's results were unlikely and unexpected.
Fly, Eagles, fly.
Indeed.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Yankee Hubris
The Yankees have invested over $400 million in C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira.
Outside the Mets, the Yankees are the only team to open up their pocketbooks in a big way (signing Francisco Rodriguez; the Phillies signed Raul Ibanez and the Dodgers Rafael Furcal, but not at overly huge numbers compared to what K-Rod and the Yankee trio commanded). Either they know something that the rest of us don't, or else they've committed some big-time folly.
Yes, the Yankees generate more revenue than other teams (from the YES Network, among others). But we're in a recession, New York is probably in a bigger recession than the rest of the country because of the throes of Wall Street, and, well, Hank Steinbrenner so far has proven only that he emulates his father's bluster, not his business savvy. And as we've learned so many times, business savvy can skip generations and frequently does.
On the positive side, Sabathia is an oustanding pitcher (especially before the post-season) and can help carry a team long distances. Burnett is a great talent who did well in Florida and still has a lot of tread left on the tires and is well-qualified to be a #2 starter. Finally, all reports on Teixeira is what a machine he is -- defensively as well as offensively. If you take the "advocacy" point of view, the Yankees struck gold and Red Sox' and Rays' fans should shudder because the Yankees have reloaded and are overdue.
On the negative side, Sabathia, the thoroughbred, has come up lame in the post-season, and his girth creates concerns about longevity. He carries a lot of weight, figuratively and literally. He's a risk over the course of his entire contract. Burnett, another thoroughbred, had few teams all that interested during last year's playoff run. The stories focused on his makeup and personality, not great things to hear if you're going to pay the guy north of $16 million per season. As for Teixeira, it's hard to find much negative except to question whether he's in the uberstar class of players like Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez. There's not question that he's a prime-time player, but can he withstand the expectations of being the main guy? If you take the "criticism" point of view, the Yankees have definitely improved their team, but they've made some big bets, particularly on pitchers, that could come back to haunt them.
So did the Yankees act wisely? I'd rather have the troika they signed than not to have them. I do wonder whether they overpaid, particularly for Burnett, and whether they gave Sabathia too long a deal. I also wonder how real the suitors were for Teixeira at the price point he finally settled on. Signing players at big numbers is what makes the Yankees the Yankees. Whether these signings prove wise and whether the Yankees can sustain the revenues they enjoyed before the U.S. financial system collapsed in September remains to be seen.
Outside the Mets, the Yankees are the only team to open up their pocketbooks in a big way (signing Francisco Rodriguez; the Phillies signed Raul Ibanez and the Dodgers Rafael Furcal, but not at overly huge numbers compared to what K-Rod and the Yankee trio commanded). Either they know something that the rest of us don't, or else they've committed some big-time folly.
Yes, the Yankees generate more revenue than other teams (from the YES Network, among others). But we're in a recession, New York is probably in a bigger recession than the rest of the country because of the throes of Wall Street, and, well, Hank Steinbrenner so far has proven only that he emulates his father's bluster, not his business savvy. And as we've learned so many times, business savvy can skip generations and frequently does.
On the positive side, Sabathia is an oustanding pitcher (especially before the post-season) and can help carry a team long distances. Burnett is a great talent who did well in Florida and still has a lot of tread left on the tires and is well-qualified to be a #2 starter. Finally, all reports on Teixeira is what a machine he is -- defensively as well as offensively. If you take the "advocacy" point of view, the Yankees struck gold and Red Sox' and Rays' fans should shudder because the Yankees have reloaded and are overdue.
On the negative side, Sabathia, the thoroughbred, has come up lame in the post-season, and his girth creates concerns about longevity. He carries a lot of weight, figuratively and literally. He's a risk over the course of his entire contract. Burnett, another thoroughbred, had few teams all that interested during last year's playoff run. The stories focused on his makeup and personality, not great things to hear if you're going to pay the guy north of $16 million per season. As for Teixeira, it's hard to find much negative except to question whether he's in the uberstar class of players like Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez. There's not question that he's a prime-time player, but can he withstand the expectations of being the main guy? If you take the "criticism" point of view, the Yankees have definitely improved their team, but they've made some big bets, particularly on pitchers, that could come back to haunt them.
So did the Yankees act wisely? I'd rather have the troika they signed than not to have them. I do wonder whether they overpaid, particularly for Burnett, and whether they gave Sabathia too long a deal. I also wonder how real the suitors were for Teixeira at the price point he finally settled on. Signing players at big numbers is what makes the Yankees the Yankees. Whether these signings prove wise and whether the Yankees can sustain the revenues they enjoyed before the U.S. financial system collapsed in September remains to be seen.
Mock NBA Draft
Hoops Hype has posted a mock NBA draft. Carolina's do-it-all Tyler Hansbrough projects as #23 in the first round, based on production, not potential.
If this projection isn't a symbol of the NBA's potential (huge) problems, I don't know what is.
Let's use the economy as a metaphor. Many people were living beyond their means, placing value on things well beyond what they were worth. Take a look at your nearby shopping mall. Huge sales, little traffic, lots of big brands suddenly not worth what they were six months ago.
Take a look at the NBA. Lots of flash and dash, with the product being questionable in most places save the elites. How much longer can the NBA sustain this model? (True, their jerseys are cheaper than NFL jerseys, but perhaps that's because you don't get sleeves with an NBA jersey).
Take a look at the downstairs prices at the average NBA game versus the average Major League Baseball game (save New York, perhaps). Who will continue to buy these tickets at these prices? And for how long?
Here's something to consider. I was at dinner last night with a friend who is a lawyer representing mutual funds. He explained last night that fund companies have serious budgeting issues because they make their money by taking a percentage of the assets they have under management. Well, suppose a fund family had $10 billion under management at the end of 2007. Then suppose that same fund family will have $6 billion under management at December 31 of this year. Finally, that fund family "charges" one percent of all assets under management. So, at the end of 2007, its revenues were $100 million. Now, at the end of 2008, its revenues would be $60 million. Somehow, some way, that fund family has a lot less revenue and, therefore, will need to cut back on its spending.
Well, NBA, most of your customers are in a similar predicament. And, while sports are said to be recession-proof (a statement to which I don't subscribe given how expensive some tickets are these days and how mediocre some teams have remained over the course of decades), the economy is in a bad way and could remain so for some time. In turn, your customers will feel it -- corporations and individuals alike. Unless you're selling to the super-rich exclusively, you're going to have a problem. All of a sudden, your franchises are worth less, and, as a result, your tickets.
I have argued for a while on this blog that the NBA should shed teams, shorten its schedule, improve its product and give the world better basketball. The NBA over the years has ignored such criticism, because in sales the numbers don't lie. My guess is that the NBA office has liked the numbers -- in terms of ticket sales, TV revenue and merchandise sales -- enough to dismiss such criticism as ill-informed. And, to be fair, they have had a point. In the short term.
The NBA now has a unique opportunity to improve its product. It should take it, or else risk plummeting sales and revenues.
Because watching its current brand of basketball -- with too many teams, too many games and too many isolation plays -- is a luxury.
Last time I checked, luxuries don't fare so well in a recession.
If this projection isn't a symbol of the NBA's potential (huge) problems, I don't know what is.
Let's use the economy as a metaphor. Many people were living beyond their means, placing value on things well beyond what they were worth. Take a look at your nearby shopping mall. Huge sales, little traffic, lots of big brands suddenly not worth what they were six months ago.
Take a look at the NBA. Lots of flash and dash, with the product being questionable in most places save the elites. How much longer can the NBA sustain this model? (True, their jerseys are cheaper than NFL jerseys, but perhaps that's because you don't get sleeves with an NBA jersey).
Take a look at the downstairs prices at the average NBA game versus the average Major League Baseball game (save New York, perhaps). Who will continue to buy these tickets at these prices? And for how long?
Here's something to consider. I was at dinner last night with a friend who is a lawyer representing mutual funds. He explained last night that fund companies have serious budgeting issues because they make their money by taking a percentage of the assets they have under management. Well, suppose a fund family had $10 billion under management at the end of 2007. Then suppose that same fund family will have $6 billion under management at December 31 of this year. Finally, that fund family "charges" one percent of all assets under management. So, at the end of 2007, its revenues were $100 million. Now, at the end of 2008, its revenues would be $60 million. Somehow, some way, that fund family has a lot less revenue and, therefore, will need to cut back on its spending.
Well, NBA, most of your customers are in a similar predicament. And, while sports are said to be recession-proof (a statement to which I don't subscribe given how expensive some tickets are these days and how mediocre some teams have remained over the course of decades), the economy is in a bad way and could remain so for some time. In turn, your customers will feel it -- corporations and individuals alike. Unless you're selling to the super-rich exclusively, you're going to have a problem. All of a sudden, your franchises are worth less, and, as a result, your tickets.
I have argued for a while on this blog that the NBA should shed teams, shorten its schedule, improve its product and give the world better basketball. The NBA over the years has ignored such criticism, because in sales the numbers don't lie. My guess is that the NBA office has liked the numbers -- in terms of ticket sales, TV revenue and merchandise sales -- enough to dismiss such criticism as ill-informed. And, to be fair, they have had a point. In the short term.
The NBA now has a unique opportunity to improve its product. It should take it, or else risk plummeting sales and revenues.
Because watching its current brand of basketball -- with too many teams, too many games and too many isolation plays -- is a luxury.
Last time I checked, luxuries don't fare so well in a recession.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Great Observations from Dana Pennett O'Neil on "The Jay Wright Show" Last Night
Working late, driving home in the soup, I happened upon Villanova men's hoops coach Jay Wright's radio show. Among the guests were Minnesota Timberwolf Randy Foye (a Villanova alum) and ESPN.com's Dana Pennett O'Neil, who covers college hoops and who once covered 'Nova for the Philadelphia Daily News.
O'Neil is first-rate at her job, and she offered one great line last night and some chilling observations about men's college basketball recruiting.
O'Neil is a Penn State alum, and she commented on the inking of 82 year-old Penn State coach Joe Paterno to a three-year contract extension. She lamented the fact that the Nittany Lions still don't have a succession plan, and contrasted that fact to the fact that several programs around the country with younger head coaches have them. Then she got to Penn State defensive coordinator Tom Bradley, a good coach who's well-liked in the Penn State community (he's also a Penn State alum). Bradley's name at times has been bandied about as a successor to Paterno. Offered O'Neil: "He's just like Prince Charles."
Touche. The man who might never get to the throne because of the longevity of the person ahead of him.
She then moved to a piece that she recently wrote on ESPN.com regarding college basketball recruiting. This is required reading for anyone who is a college basketball fan and wonders how kids get to certain teams. The rules permit some absolutely slimely behavior, and it appears in cases that "handlers" of kids -- AAU coaches and the like -- pocket fees, indirectly, of course -- for the possibility of delivering players to schools. One example in O'Neil's article is how Kentucky got a recruit by paying his father several thousands of dollars in fees to speak at head coach Billy Gillispie's camps. (That father pocketed monies for speaking at a few other major college coaches camps too). Another example is how kids get to travel all summer and appear at elite camps. Some of this kids have little money of their own, so how do they get there?
The coaches interviewed are all over the place. The most honest of them appears to be St. Joe's Phil Martelli, an outstanding coach who plays by the rules. Others -- and some would surprise you -- have a view that so long as it's not prohibited it's permitted and that you need to maintain your edge by doing what you can within the rules to land players. Lest you think that high-end DI players are students first, you might think again. After all, given the ethics that surround how some kids get to certain schools, what can they possible learn from the recruiting process that's a good life lesson. They'll clearly learn that someone gets greased somewhere all the time.
And that's just delightful. Look, I don't expect the most successful people to be saints. Most people push hard to be successful. But I do expect them to stay well within NCAA rules and common-sense ethical rules. And the latter area is where we get into problems. They say that sausage and democracy both are wonderful things, but that you don't want to see either of them made. Perhaps the same holds true for Division I college basketball. Read the whole thing and make up your own mind.
You shouldn't be shocked by what you read unless you truly believe that every kid takes challenging classes, will be proficient in math, science and a foreign language and ready for a white-collar job upon graduation. That clearly doesn't happen, but O'Neil doesn't get into the student-athlete paradigm. Perhaps she will some day. This article simply focuses on the recruiting process, and, yes, it resembles sausage-making.
Read O'Neil's stuff on ESPN. She writes well and was a solid contributor on Daily News Live on Comcast SportsNet in Philadelphia before moving to ESPN. She wrote a thoughtful piece on this topic, and hopefully it will start some serious discussions among basketball coaches and at the NCAA about the next stage of reforms in DI recruiting.
O'Neil is first-rate at her job, and she offered one great line last night and some chilling observations about men's college basketball recruiting.
O'Neil is a Penn State alum, and she commented on the inking of 82 year-old Penn State coach Joe Paterno to a three-year contract extension. She lamented the fact that the Nittany Lions still don't have a succession plan, and contrasted that fact to the fact that several programs around the country with younger head coaches have them. Then she got to Penn State defensive coordinator Tom Bradley, a good coach who's well-liked in the Penn State community (he's also a Penn State alum). Bradley's name at times has been bandied about as a successor to Paterno. Offered O'Neil: "He's just like Prince Charles."
Touche. The man who might never get to the throne because of the longevity of the person ahead of him.
She then moved to a piece that she recently wrote on ESPN.com regarding college basketball recruiting. This is required reading for anyone who is a college basketball fan and wonders how kids get to certain teams. The rules permit some absolutely slimely behavior, and it appears in cases that "handlers" of kids -- AAU coaches and the like -- pocket fees, indirectly, of course -- for the possibility of delivering players to schools. One example in O'Neil's article is how Kentucky got a recruit by paying his father several thousands of dollars in fees to speak at head coach Billy Gillispie's camps. (That father pocketed monies for speaking at a few other major college coaches camps too). Another example is how kids get to travel all summer and appear at elite camps. Some of this kids have little money of their own, so how do they get there?
The coaches interviewed are all over the place. The most honest of them appears to be St. Joe's Phil Martelli, an outstanding coach who plays by the rules. Others -- and some would surprise you -- have a view that so long as it's not prohibited it's permitted and that you need to maintain your edge by doing what you can within the rules to land players. Lest you think that high-end DI players are students first, you might think again. After all, given the ethics that surround how some kids get to certain schools, what can they possible learn from the recruiting process that's a good life lesson. They'll clearly learn that someone gets greased somewhere all the time.
And that's just delightful. Look, I don't expect the most successful people to be saints. Most people push hard to be successful. But I do expect them to stay well within NCAA rules and common-sense ethical rules. And the latter area is where we get into problems. They say that sausage and democracy both are wonderful things, but that you don't want to see either of them made. Perhaps the same holds true for Division I college basketball. Read the whole thing and make up your own mind.
You shouldn't be shocked by what you read unless you truly believe that every kid takes challenging classes, will be proficient in math, science and a foreign language and ready for a white-collar job upon graduation. That clearly doesn't happen, but O'Neil doesn't get into the student-athlete paradigm. Perhaps she will some day. This article simply focuses on the recruiting process, and, yes, it resembles sausage-making.
Read O'Neil's stuff on ESPN. She writes well and was a solid contributor on Daily News Live on Comcast SportsNet in Philadelphia before moving to ESPN. She wrote a thoughtful piece on this topic, and hopefully it will start some serious discussions among basketball coaches and at the NCAA about the next stage of reforms in DI recruiting.
Only in America
I was somewhat surprised when I read the blurbs section of my morning paper to learn of a controversy in Northeastern Pennsylvania involving a ShopRite's refusal to inscribe a birthday cake with a child's full name.
The ShopRite, you seek, objected to writing the kid's name. They did offer the parents to inscribe "Happy Birthday" and leave room for the parents to inscribe the rest of the name, but the parents refused and went to a Wal0Mart, which happily obliged them.
Before you jump to conclusions, understand that the name of the child is Adolf Hitler Campbell. He has a sister whose middle name is Aryan Nation and a brother named after Heinrich Himmler.
In a land of forgiveness that treasures freedom of speech and accommodating customers, who's right -- ShopRite or Wal-Mart? You can read more here.
Putting aside the freedom of speech issues, how on earth can anyone in their right mind name their kid after Adolf Hitler? Perhaps the answer lies within the question and the term "right mind." The Campbells think they're correct, and many of us would beg to differ. I pity the child, who, my guess is, will get a bunch of attention because of his name, almost all of it bad.
I believe that in German the authorities have much more control over what you can name a child, and that it would be almost impossible if not illegal to name a child Adolf Hitler. Yet, in America, you can. The question for those who would say that the ShopRite is obviously correct is where you do you draw the line. Suppose a store were to decline Thais because their last names are long or Muslims because they think they're terrorists ? The answer isn't as easy as many would think.
Likewise, the question for the Wal-Marts of the world is how far do you go to accommodate people? And, because of the First Amendment, should you even care at all (unless someone told you they planned to put a bomb in the cake). President Bush's popularity rating is very low -- do you decline putting his name on the cake? Bernard Madoff? Marc Dreier? Michael Vick?
Who decides? Where do you draw the line? Or, do you draw it at all?
So that's the intellectual conundrum for the day. The questions get the hardest when you marry speech you do not like with a law that helps make the country great.
The ShopRite, you seek, objected to writing the kid's name. They did offer the parents to inscribe "Happy Birthday" and leave room for the parents to inscribe the rest of the name, but the parents refused and went to a Wal0Mart, which happily obliged them.
Before you jump to conclusions, understand that the name of the child is Adolf Hitler Campbell. He has a sister whose middle name is Aryan Nation and a brother named after Heinrich Himmler.
In a land of forgiveness that treasures freedom of speech and accommodating customers, who's right -- ShopRite or Wal-Mart? You can read more here.
Putting aside the freedom of speech issues, how on earth can anyone in their right mind name their kid after Adolf Hitler? Perhaps the answer lies within the question and the term "right mind." The Campbells think they're correct, and many of us would beg to differ. I pity the child, who, my guess is, will get a bunch of attention because of his name, almost all of it bad.
I believe that in German the authorities have much more control over what you can name a child, and that it would be almost impossible if not illegal to name a child Adolf Hitler. Yet, in America, you can. The question for those who would say that the ShopRite is obviously correct is where you do you draw the line. Suppose a store were to decline Thais because their last names are long or Muslims because they think they're terrorists ? The answer isn't as easy as many would think.
Likewise, the question for the Wal-Marts of the world is how far do you go to accommodate people? And, because of the First Amendment, should you even care at all (unless someone told you they planned to put a bomb in the cake). President Bush's popularity rating is very low -- do you decline putting his name on the cake? Bernard Madoff? Marc Dreier? Michael Vick?
Who decides? Where do you draw the line? Or, do you draw it at all?
So that's the intellectual conundrum for the day. The questions get the hardest when you marry speech you do not like with a law that helps make the country great.
Reflecting upon Mo Cheeks
Thinking aloud, I can think of no more classier an individual who has graced the Philadelphia sports scene, as a player and as a coach.
Mo Cheeks, we will miss you very much.
Mo Cheeks, we will miss you very much.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
More on Coaching Third and Fourth Grade Boys' Basketball
In my prior post, I described how our first game went. We excellent on offense, were good at rebounding, outscored the other team significantly but didn't pass the ball well, didn't screen and sometimes ran into one another on offense. So. . .
At our practice last week, we emphasized passing, dribbling with the player's head up, screening and moving without the ball. We only get about one hour, we spend a bunch of time on fundamentals, and when we got to the screening, rolling and two on one drills, suffice it to say that practice didn't go great. We didn't have enough time to put in plays, and I'm still not sure that with only one 55-minute practice per week we really can get the kids to remember set plays from week to week (some aren't even 9 yet). Walking out of the gym, I said to my co-coach, "Well, we'll see how they do on Saturday."
Before the game we warmed up with layups and a two-on-one drill (as we find ourselves frequently on fast breaks, with two of our guys against one defender). I took a few of the kids aside and reminded them about screening, showed them where to set screens and to call out screens to the better ballhandlers. I didn't expect much except this -- we have a bunch of talent on our team, and the kids can run.
So what happened? Well, we "won" by an even bigger margin than the week before. With the first game jitters out of the way, our kids played with more focus. As it turned out, despite the uneven practice, what we said about dribbling with heads up, spacing, passing and setting picks started to take root. Two players set screens that enabled dribblers to go in for layups. Some kids showed nice moves when they switched hands while dribbling. On the fast breaks that we had, they filled the lanes nicely and evenly. By games end, we had five kids sprinting down the court. Now we need to work on finishing plays -- we put the ball up too hard on the breaks, and missed more layups than we made.
Our league is non-competitive, so there is no official score, and there is no playoff system. Our goal is simple -- to help the kids play together better, to have each kid improve week to week and to have fun. The kids inspired us by how hard they worked. We don't yell at them (this is a recreational league -- a kids' game that's supposed to be fun), just to them, reminding them about keeping their hands up on defense, about staying with their man, and about looking for screens. We take care to point out to the kids what they did well when we take them aside to coach them on what they can be doing better.
So what's the message in all this? Here are a few:
1. Focus on the fundamentals. Make sure each kid can handle the ball, dribbles with both hands and with his head up. One of our fastest players focused on dribbling with his head up -- he played a much better (and more controlled) game.
2. Emphasize crisp passing all the time. We have a saying: "Make every pass count." That means don't throw the ball at someone's knees or feet, give them the ball chest high so that they can move right away when they get the ball. I took a few of the kids aside before the game and told them that my challenge was for each of them to have at least one assist.
3. On defense, tell the kids to hustle a little bit more. Translated, that means that we teach them to step in front of their opponent's "strong" hand and make them switch hands. Our best defenders picked up on that early, and they created steals when the opponent tried to switch hands or reverse course. It's a good skill to teach, and you can disrupt the rhythm of even the best players on the other team. We also encourage deflections, and we're working with the kids to stay under control. Yes, we have a few kids who bump into their opponents a bit too much.
4. Stay with the kids on screening. Remind those who seem more inclined to do it where to set the screens. Right now, we're focusing on screening the player guarding the ballhandler, to enable the ballhandler to swing around the pick for a layup or short jumper. We're not as advanced as to have off-ball screens, but we'll get there. The kids saw the results of the screens -- they were pretty good.
5. Be patient. Stay with the drills, and the kids will get better at them. Repetition is key.
6. Finally, let the kids be themselves. The talented ones figure out good ways to get to the basket, and the rest crashed the boards. Emphasize team work and hard work, and good things will happen. Be positive, be encouraging, and even the least talented kids will improve. All each kid needs is for someone to be patient with him and guide him. This isn't rocket science -- it's teaching good skills.
Have fun!
At our practice last week, we emphasized passing, dribbling with the player's head up, screening and moving without the ball. We only get about one hour, we spend a bunch of time on fundamentals, and when we got to the screening, rolling and two on one drills, suffice it to say that practice didn't go great. We didn't have enough time to put in plays, and I'm still not sure that with only one 55-minute practice per week we really can get the kids to remember set plays from week to week (some aren't even 9 yet). Walking out of the gym, I said to my co-coach, "Well, we'll see how they do on Saturday."
Before the game we warmed up with layups and a two-on-one drill (as we find ourselves frequently on fast breaks, with two of our guys against one defender). I took a few of the kids aside and reminded them about screening, showed them where to set screens and to call out screens to the better ballhandlers. I didn't expect much except this -- we have a bunch of talent on our team, and the kids can run.
So what happened? Well, we "won" by an even bigger margin than the week before. With the first game jitters out of the way, our kids played with more focus. As it turned out, despite the uneven practice, what we said about dribbling with heads up, spacing, passing and setting picks started to take root. Two players set screens that enabled dribblers to go in for layups. Some kids showed nice moves when they switched hands while dribbling. On the fast breaks that we had, they filled the lanes nicely and evenly. By games end, we had five kids sprinting down the court. Now we need to work on finishing plays -- we put the ball up too hard on the breaks, and missed more layups than we made.
Our league is non-competitive, so there is no official score, and there is no playoff system. Our goal is simple -- to help the kids play together better, to have each kid improve week to week and to have fun. The kids inspired us by how hard they worked. We don't yell at them (this is a recreational league -- a kids' game that's supposed to be fun), just to them, reminding them about keeping their hands up on defense, about staying with their man, and about looking for screens. We take care to point out to the kids what they did well when we take them aside to coach them on what they can be doing better.
So what's the message in all this? Here are a few:
1. Focus on the fundamentals. Make sure each kid can handle the ball, dribbles with both hands and with his head up. One of our fastest players focused on dribbling with his head up -- he played a much better (and more controlled) game.
2. Emphasize crisp passing all the time. We have a saying: "Make every pass count." That means don't throw the ball at someone's knees or feet, give them the ball chest high so that they can move right away when they get the ball. I took a few of the kids aside before the game and told them that my challenge was for each of them to have at least one assist.
3. On defense, tell the kids to hustle a little bit more. Translated, that means that we teach them to step in front of their opponent's "strong" hand and make them switch hands. Our best defenders picked up on that early, and they created steals when the opponent tried to switch hands or reverse course. It's a good skill to teach, and you can disrupt the rhythm of even the best players on the other team. We also encourage deflections, and we're working with the kids to stay under control. Yes, we have a few kids who bump into their opponents a bit too much.
4. Stay with the kids on screening. Remind those who seem more inclined to do it where to set the screens. Right now, we're focusing on screening the player guarding the ballhandler, to enable the ballhandler to swing around the pick for a layup or short jumper. We're not as advanced as to have off-ball screens, but we'll get there. The kids saw the results of the screens -- they were pretty good.
5. Be patient. Stay with the drills, and the kids will get better at them. Repetition is key.
6. Finally, let the kids be themselves. The talented ones figure out good ways to get to the basket, and the rest crashed the boards. Emphasize team work and hard work, and good things will happen. Be positive, be encouraging, and even the least talented kids will improve. All each kid needs is for someone to be patient with him and guide him. This isn't rocket science -- it's teaching good skills.
Have fun!
Pat Burrell as a Mentor, Will be Missed
So says Chase Utley. (Scroll down to the end of the article to read Utley's quote).
Three's a Crowd in the MNF Booth
Mike Tirico is the play-by-play guy, and he's good enough at his job.
Ron Jaworski prepares better than any analyst in the business, is likable, fair and knows what he's talking about.
So Tony Kornheiser, who is better known as a writer, is in the booth because. . .
Can anyone answer the question for me?
Ron Jaworski prepares better than any analyst in the business, is likable, fair and knows what he's talking about.
So Tony Kornheiser, who is better known as a writer, is in the booth because. . .
Can anyone answer the question for me?
Monday, December 15, 2008
Metbeats, err Deadbeats?
Fred Wilpon, the Mets' owner, invested a lot of his money (how much, though, we do not know) with Bernard Madoff, the Ponzi of his generation, the guy who looks like he scammed investors out of as much as $50 billion. The scheme is so broad that it's rocking banks in Spain, France and Japan, and perhaps bankrupting many residents of a $17 million per townhouse community in West Palm Beach. Read The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal for the gory details. As Eddie Murphy said in Trading Places, the way to really get at rich people is to make them poor people.
The papers over the course of the past two days send a mixed message. What I took from them is that yes, Wilpon and his family trust did invest a bunch of money with Madoff. The real questions are how much, and will this problem hurt the Mets?
Look, everyone is poorer as a result of the cataclysm that hit the Dow in the past three months. The Arena Football League won't play in 2009, NASCAR is hurting (the Big 3 automakers' troubles have wounded this organization), and you have to wonder about the WNBA and even the NBA and NHL. Companies just can't pony up for tickets any more, they're slashing their advertising budgets, and, well, the story just isn't pretty. Major League Baseball will get hit too, in some way. Perhaps the sponsorships won't be there, or at least in the amount of dollars the teams might expect. Ads for local TV and radio will be harder to sell. Expensive merchandise won't sell as readily, and people will give up season ticket packages.
What could be worse for the Mets is how well capitalized they'll continue to be and how much money the Wilpons can continue to throw at free-agent signings. Sure, the Mets are in the best media market and, yes, they generate a bunch of revenue. But the team hasn't been shy about spending on free agents, and you have to wonder if the monies deployed to sign these players come from operating revenues or infusions from the Wilpons. If it's the latter, that could spell trouble for the Mets.
Look, I'm a Phillies fan, but I would take no joy out of a financial demise of a great team. The Mets put out a good product, and their compulsion to win brings out the best in the NL East. The division wouldn't be a strong were the Mets to suffer a serious financial wound, and, by the way, I wouldn't wish anyone to be a victm of a Ponzi scheme, especially this type of betrayal, one that took place over decades. The whole Madoff affair is one big mess.
Reports in the following weeks should tell us how well or poorly the Mets will fare because of the Madoff situation.
The papers over the course of the past two days send a mixed message. What I took from them is that yes, Wilpon and his family trust did invest a bunch of money with Madoff. The real questions are how much, and will this problem hurt the Mets?
Look, everyone is poorer as a result of the cataclysm that hit the Dow in the past three months. The Arena Football League won't play in 2009, NASCAR is hurting (the Big 3 automakers' troubles have wounded this organization), and you have to wonder about the WNBA and even the NBA and NHL. Companies just can't pony up for tickets any more, they're slashing their advertising budgets, and, well, the story just isn't pretty. Major League Baseball will get hit too, in some way. Perhaps the sponsorships won't be there, or at least in the amount of dollars the teams might expect. Ads for local TV and radio will be harder to sell. Expensive merchandise won't sell as readily, and people will give up season ticket packages.
What could be worse for the Mets is how well capitalized they'll continue to be and how much money the Wilpons can continue to throw at free-agent signings. Sure, the Mets are in the best media market and, yes, they generate a bunch of revenue. But the team hasn't been shy about spending on free agents, and you have to wonder if the monies deployed to sign these players come from operating revenues or infusions from the Wilpons. If it's the latter, that could spell trouble for the Mets.
Look, I'm a Phillies fan, but I would take no joy out of a financial demise of a great team. The Mets put out a good product, and their compulsion to win brings out the best in the NL East. The division wouldn't be a strong were the Mets to suffer a serious financial wound, and, by the way, I wouldn't wish anyone to be a victm of a Ponzi scheme, especially this type of betrayal, one that took place over decades. The whole Madoff affair is one big mess.
Reports in the following weeks should tell us how well or poorly the Mets will fare because of the Madoff situation.
Wisdom and Silliness from Philadelphia
The wisdom, of course, is the signing of Jamie Moyer to a two-year deal. Yes, it's risky to ink a crafty 46 year-old lefty to more than a 1-year deal, but Moyer rocked last year for the Phillies. He's a hometown guy, he's a team leader, and he still gets people out. Remember, it's been said of lefties that they're like a good wine -- they get better with age.
My guess is that the equity markets affected Mr. Moyer, who has seven children, in such a way that perhaps the corpus of money he saved up isn't what it was, say, before the Phillies figured it out in September and went on their dash to the World Series. As a result, that extra, second guaranteed year became more important. When the Phillies figured out that someone else will sign Derek Lowe for more money than he's worth, the options to replace Moyer became fewer and further between. That's why Moyer got the second guaranteed year -- it's a function of supply and demand (which is also why Pat Burrell right now is lingering on the free agent market -- he could be victim of the economy because streaky, slow 32 year-old below average fielding left fielders aren't as much in demand). At any rate, signing Moyer was the smart move.
The dumb move came this past week from one of Moyer's proteges, wunderkind portsider Cole Hamels, who called the Mets' choke artists when interviewed on WFAN. Cole, who was at his most eloquent during the post-season, took the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- from the NY radio station hosts and created bulletin board material for an entire season. Why did someone like Hamels say something so stupid? Well, he didn't have his mentor, whom he follows around reverently during the season, there to filter his remarks. Moyer offers the wisdom of experience, while Hamels offers, at times, the untamed qualities of youth. Forgive Hamels, he's not even 25, and most of us have said or done things before that age that we wouldn't have done given what we know now. Still, you're asked to grow up faster in the world of sports, and Hamels proved in this instance that he hasn't fully matured as the total person yet. (Then again, such brashness might be the key ingredient to what makes him great).
Moyer and Hamels, bookends on a championship season, back together again for at least two more years.
The ambassador and the prodigy, still going strong.
My guess is that the equity markets affected Mr. Moyer, who has seven children, in such a way that perhaps the corpus of money he saved up isn't what it was, say, before the Phillies figured it out in September and went on their dash to the World Series. As a result, that extra, second guaranteed year became more important. When the Phillies figured out that someone else will sign Derek Lowe for more money than he's worth, the options to replace Moyer became fewer and further between. That's why Moyer got the second guaranteed year -- it's a function of supply and demand (which is also why Pat Burrell right now is lingering on the free agent market -- he could be victim of the economy because streaky, slow 32 year-old below average fielding left fielders aren't as much in demand). At any rate, signing Moyer was the smart move.
The dumb move came this past week from one of Moyer's proteges, wunderkind portsider Cole Hamels, who called the Mets' choke artists when interviewed on WFAN. Cole, who was at his most eloquent during the post-season, took the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- from the NY radio station hosts and created bulletin board material for an entire season. Why did someone like Hamels say something so stupid? Well, he didn't have his mentor, whom he follows around reverently during the season, there to filter his remarks. Moyer offers the wisdom of experience, while Hamels offers, at times, the untamed qualities of youth. Forgive Hamels, he's not even 25, and most of us have said or done things before that age that we wouldn't have done given what we know now. Still, you're asked to grow up faster in the world of sports, and Hamels proved in this instance that he hasn't fully matured as the total person yet. (Then again, such brashness might be the key ingredient to what makes him great).
Moyer and Hamels, bookends on a championship season, back together again for at least two more years.
The ambassador and the prodigy, still going strong.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Philadelphia Thrift?
The world has changed for everyone. People's retirement funds are way down, the reign of the financial institutions as we once knew it is over. Wall Street's glitter no longer reflects the way it once did, and most businesses have fewer dollars to spread around than before.
Baseball is no exception, and the post-financial institution crash era has given a new meaning -- for all of us -- to the term "prudence." That's not to say that teams threw around money extravagantly before (in baseball terms; in the world of most us, baseball players are extremely well paid). But now they must look even more closely as the dollars they'll spend.
Why?
Because despite arguments that sports are recession proof (and I'd submit that there are Philadelphia Eagles' fans who would let their houses get foreclosed upon before they'd give up tickets to their beloved Birds), this recession is an extremely deep one, and we haven't hit the bottom yet. It will affect teams in the following ways:
1. Sponsors will look at their advertising budgets more closely. Not only will local revenue suffer, but the share of national revenue will suffer too. The demand for ad time will drop, and, therefore, the price of media time will drop too.
2. Businesses won't pony up for luxury boxes or season tickets the way they once did. If you're cutting budgets, stuff like this is the first to go. In addition, there will be season-ticket holders who drop their plans. Again, if you're watching your wallet, no better way to save thousands of dollars a year than to pass on a full- or partial-season ticket plan.
3. Merchandising revenues will drop. Somehow I believe that fans everywhere will make their favorite jerseys and t-shirts last longer. I, for one, plan to wear my Phillies' World Series gear as long as possible.
4. Concession revenues might drop too. Again, paying $6.75 for a beer today at Citizens Bank Park, for example, doesn't look as appealing as it might have before our retirement accounts plunged off the cliff.
That means front offices everywhere are looking for bargains, and they're especially not going to let sentiment or fan commentaries get in the way of wise decisions. For example, Phillies GM Ruben Amaro has tried hard to sign Jamie Moyer, a free agent, to a new contract. The Phillies reportedly have offered Moyer 1 year with an option. Moyer, who just turned 46, wants two guaranteed years. Yes, Moyer is a great clubhouse presence, an outstanding member of the community and he had a great year. But he's also pitching on a considerable amount of guile, his best days behind him (or so it appears). I'm a huge Moyer fan, but I would consider a 2-year deal for Derek Lowe (okay, at more money) a better investment. I really would hate to see the hometown team lose Moyer, but it's a business.
I can't say the same for Pat Burrell or understand where all of his newly found fans are coming from. The guy is 32, has very limited range in the field, can't run, and was terrible from August through years end (he did have a few big hits, but he was mostly unproductive during that time). He also did nothing from September 15 through the season's end in 2007 (even after a span from July 1 through September 15 where he had the best on-base percentage in the National League). Burrell would make a fine DH in the AL, and is probably worth a two-year deal with a club option at about $7.5 million per. He made $14 million last year, the fifth in a back-end loaded contract. My guess is that he's looking for at least 3 years at $12 million per, and he's not worth it. I've looked in many places for "hot-stove" stories about interest in Burrell. All that I've been able to find is that he's a second-tier free agent who might suffer because of the recession. Right now, he has no publicized suitors.
And, yet, people are blasting the Phillies for being cheap regarding Burrell. While I have not been the biggest fan of the Phillies' ownership, they have many challenges facing them. For example, Ryan Howard, Ryan Madson, Cole Hamels and Shane Victorino are eligible for arbitration. If the Phillies cannot get any of those players to sign deals (and my guess is that they won't until they move closer to eligibility for free agency), expect them to get big raises in arbitration. Those awards will increase the payroll significantly. Moreover, the Phillies need to tweak the roster here and there. They could use at least one more starting pitcher, another solid reliever and an outfielder to replace Burrell. All will cost money, but it's not likely they can sign Burrell for big numbers if they need to pay more to four players who are more valuable to the team.
Do I want Moyer back -- yes, but at the right price.
Do I want Burrell back? No, not really, but if he were the best option, he definitely must return at the right price.
It strikes me that the market for most players -- except the exceptional ones (and I'd put Sabathia and K-Rod in that category) -- has shrunk. Fans need to be patient with their teams and wait out the off-season. After all, while you might not be thrilled that your team is being thrifty, you don't want the long-term agony of suffering through a rushed, long-term deal for an albatross.
Baseball is no exception, and the post-financial institution crash era has given a new meaning -- for all of us -- to the term "prudence." That's not to say that teams threw around money extravagantly before (in baseball terms; in the world of most us, baseball players are extremely well paid). But now they must look even more closely as the dollars they'll spend.
Why?
Because despite arguments that sports are recession proof (and I'd submit that there are Philadelphia Eagles' fans who would let their houses get foreclosed upon before they'd give up tickets to their beloved Birds), this recession is an extremely deep one, and we haven't hit the bottom yet. It will affect teams in the following ways:
1. Sponsors will look at their advertising budgets more closely. Not only will local revenue suffer, but the share of national revenue will suffer too. The demand for ad time will drop, and, therefore, the price of media time will drop too.
2. Businesses won't pony up for luxury boxes or season tickets the way they once did. If you're cutting budgets, stuff like this is the first to go. In addition, there will be season-ticket holders who drop their plans. Again, if you're watching your wallet, no better way to save thousands of dollars a year than to pass on a full- or partial-season ticket plan.
3. Merchandising revenues will drop. Somehow I believe that fans everywhere will make their favorite jerseys and t-shirts last longer. I, for one, plan to wear my Phillies' World Series gear as long as possible.
4. Concession revenues might drop too. Again, paying $6.75 for a beer today at Citizens Bank Park, for example, doesn't look as appealing as it might have before our retirement accounts plunged off the cliff.
That means front offices everywhere are looking for bargains, and they're especially not going to let sentiment or fan commentaries get in the way of wise decisions. For example, Phillies GM Ruben Amaro has tried hard to sign Jamie Moyer, a free agent, to a new contract. The Phillies reportedly have offered Moyer 1 year with an option. Moyer, who just turned 46, wants two guaranteed years. Yes, Moyer is a great clubhouse presence, an outstanding member of the community and he had a great year. But he's also pitching on a considerable amount of guile, his best days behind him (or so it appears). I'm a huge Moyer fan, but I would consider a 2-year deal for Derek Lowe (okay, at more money) a better investment. I really would hate to see the hometown team lose Moyer, but it's a business.
I can't say the same for Pat Burrell or understand where all of his newly found fans are coming from. The guy is 32, has very limited range in the field, can't run, and was terrible from August through years end (he did have a few big hits, but he was mostly unproductive during that time). He also did nothing from September 15 through the season's end in 2007 (even after a span from July 1 through September 15 where he had the best on-base percentage in the National League). Burrell would make a fine DH in the AL, and is probably worth a two-year deal with a club option at about $7.5 million per. He made $14 million last year, the fifth in a back-end loaded contract. My guess is that he's looking for at least 3 years at $12 million per, and he's not worth it. I've looked in many places for "hot-stove" stories about interest in Burrell. All that I've been able to find is that he's a second-tier free agent who might suffer because of the recession. Right now, he has no publicized suitors.
And, yet, people are blasting the Phillies for being cheap regarding Burrell. While I have not been the biggest fan of the Phillies' ownership, they have many challenges facing them. For example, Ryan Howard, Ryan Madson, Cole Hamels and Shane Victorino are eligible for arbitration. If the Phillies cannot get any of those players to sign deals (and my guess is that they won't until they move closer to eligibility for free agency), expect them to get big raises in arbitration. Those awards will increase the payroll significantly. Moreover, the Phillies need to tweak the roster here and there. They could use at least one more starting pitcher, another solid reliever and an outfielder to replace Burrell. All will cost money, but it's not likely they can sign Burrell for big numbers if they need to pay more to four players who are more valuable to the team.
Do I want Moyer back -- yes, but at the right price.
Do I want Burrell back? No, not really, but if he were the best option, he definitely must return at the right price.
It strikes me that the market for most players -- except the exceptional ones (and I'd put Sabathia and K-Rod in that category) -- has shrunk. Fans need to be patient with their teams and wait out the off-season. After all, while you might not be thrilled that your team is being thrifty, you don't want the long-term agony of suffering through a rushed, long-term deal for an albatross.
New York Money
Okay, so the banking world is in the dumper. Right around the time of the fall of the Houses of Bear and Lehman, the demise of Merrill and the humiliation of Citi, the conventional wisdom was that the recession would hit NYC harder than many areas (save Detroit) because 12.5% of the jobs accounted for about 35% of the tax revenues in NYC. Translated, if the investment banking community takes a broadside and starts listing quickly, the money that customarily cascaded to the restaurants, salons and other service providers would trickle to a halt quickly. Digging deeper, one would wonder what cash many would have left to pony up for the most expensive seats in baseball, big cable bills, and the merchandise that fans started to think was an entitlement.
I even read yesterday (I think it was on Jon Heyman's post on SI.com) that the second-tier free agents in baseball (Pat Burrell comes to mind quickly) might get hurt in the recession, as teams are worried about their revenues. Now, I'm not the biggest Burrell fan, but guys who hit .270 with an OBP of .385, hit 30+ homers and knock in 95 runs a season are few and far between (okay, he looks like a statue at times in the field, but he'd be a good DH in the AL). Moreover, many teams have to be worried about all sorts of revenue, because in this deep of a recession few get spared.
Unless, of course, you're CC Sabathia or K-Rod, who are signing sizable deals with the Yankees and Mets respectively. Which means that the Yankees are fortifying an area of considerable need -- starting pitching, while the Mets are doing the same with their bullpen. Both teams will be much more formidable with these additions, and you can make the argument (once again) that the Mets are the team to beat in the NL East (despite the Phillies' having won the World Series). But, huge signings don't guarantee World Series appearances, and for all their moves (both through elevations of players like David Wright and Jose Reyes and signings of players like Carlos Beltran, Johan Santana and K-Rod), the Mets still have figured out the algorithm that gets them to their first series since 2000. The Yankees have been more successful, of course, but in the past 5 years they've had more than their share of frustrations.
Put differently, just because you open your wallets doesn't mean that you'll win a World Series (see Mets, Yankees, Cubs). Then again, just because you're smart with your money doesn't mean that you'll win one, either (see A's, Twins). To me, the former have a better chance than the latter because after some point you must pony up and pay for excellence. Naturally, that excellence has to stay healthy and hungry and can't simply mail it in after the big bucks have been guaranteed. Still, the bet here is that while these signings excite Yankee and Met fans, respectively (God forbid you to root for both teams in NYC), the lifelong fans will view these signs with a "wait and see" attitude.
Why? Because Mo Vaughn ballooned and faded after becoming a Met, as did Bobby Bonilla. Carl Pavano, fresh off outstanding post-season work, got hurt, as did Billy Wagner, whose closer skills began to fade. Tommy Glavine was really nothing more than an innings eater, and he went out with a big implosion. Beltrain has not become the next Roberto Clemente, Jason Giambi had as many downs as ups, and the last version of Roger Clemens (a very expensive version, too) was not good.
There have been, of course, many successes. A-Rod, for all of the lightning he attracts, is an amazing player. Mike Mussina pitched very well in New York. Johan Santana is one of the three best starting pitchers in the National League. Wagner was very good for two years, and so forth.
But at the end of the day, it's not just about the money. It's about chemistry, it's about putting together a team that picks each other up and has an attitude that it can win at any time. It's not about people who want to brand themselves and garner endless endorsements. It's about the pitcher who goes on three days' rest, it's about the light-hitting catcher who starts to take command of a pitching staff, it's about the middle reliever who finally listens to the pitching coach, works out harder and turns himself into a setup man. It's about a group of 25 highly skilled players pulling together.
Both NY teams have the ability to put together a roster of all-stars that will sell ticket after ticket. Right now, though, both are searching to get into the groove that all World Series champions find at some point, the groove that the Yankees found so well in the mid-1990's.
The bet here is that these two signings will push both teams closer to finding that groove.
I even read yesterday (I think it was on Jon Heyman's post on SI.com) that the second-tier free agents in baseball (Pat Burrell comes to mind quickly) might get hurt in the recession, as teams are worried about their revenues. Now, I'm not the biggest Burrell fan, but guys who hit .270 with an OBP of .385, hit 30+ homers and knock in 95 runs a season are few and far between (okay, he looks like a statue at times in the field, but he'd be a good DH in the AL). Moreover, many teams have to be worried about all sorts of revenue, because in this deep of a recession few get spared.
Unless, of course, you're CC Sabathia or K-Rod, who are signing sizable deals with the Yankees and Mets respectively. Which means that the Yankees are fortifying an area of considerable need -- starting pitching, while the Mets are doing the same with their bullpen. Both teams will be much more formidable with these additions, and you can make the argument (once again) that the Mets are the team to beat in the NL East (despite the Phillies' having won the World Series). But, huge signings don't guarantee World Series appearances, and for all their moves (both through elevations of players like David Wright and Jose Reyes and signings of players like Carlos Beltran, Johan Santana and K-Rod), the Mets still have figured out the algorithm that gets them to their first series since 2000. The Yankees have been more successful, of course, but in the past 5 years they've had more than their share of frustrations.
Put differently, just because you open your wallets doesn't mean that you'll win a World Series (see Mets, Yankees, Cubs). Then again, just because you're smart with your money doesn't mean that you'll win one, either (see A's, Twins). To me, the former have a better chance than the latter because after some point you must pony up and pay for excellence. Naturally, that excellence has to stay healthy and hungry and can't simply mail it in after the big bucks have been guaranteed. Still, the bet here is that while these signings excite Yankee and Met fans, respectively (God forbid you to root for both teams in NYC), the lifelong fans will view these signs with a "wait and see" attitude.
Why? Because Mo Vaughn ballooned and faded after becoming a Met, as did Bobby Bonilla. Carl Pavano, fresh off outstanding post-season work, got hurt, as did Billy Wagner, whose closer skills began to fade. Tommy Glavine was really nothing more than an innings eater, and he went out with a big implosion. Beltrain has not become the next Roberto Clemente, Jason Giambi had as many downs as ups, and the last version of Roger Clemens (a very expensive version, too) was not good.
There have been, of course, many successes. A-Rod, for all of the lightning he attracts, is an amazing player. Mike Mussina pitched very well in New York. Johan Santana is one of the three best starting pitchers in the National League. Wagner was very good for two years, and so forth.
But at the end of the day, it's not just about the money. It's about chemistry, it's about putting together a team that picks each other up and has an attitude that it can win at any time. It's not about people who want to brand themselves and garner endless endorsements. It's about the pitcher who goes on three days' rest, it's about the light-hitting catcher who starts to take command of a pitching staff, it's about the middle reliever who finally listens to the pitching coach, works out harder and turns himself into a setup man. It's about a group of 25 highly skilled players pulling together.
Both NY teams have the ability to put together a roster of all-stars that will sell ticket after ticket. Right now, though, both are searching to get into the groove that all World Series champions find at some point, the groove that the Yankees found so well in the mid-1990's.
The bet here is that these two signings will push both teams closer to finding that groove.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Baking to Impress (Or, Tap Into Your Inner Renaissance Man)
Want to impress, well, anyone? Then try this recipe, thanks to McCormick, the spice company. They placed an ad in Bon Appetit, I followed it, and drew good -- no, check that, rave reviews.
1. Pre-heat your oven to 425 degrees.
2. Take out four 6-ounce custard cups, grease them thoroughly with butter.
3. Melt 8 oz of butter in a microwaveable (and pretty large) bowl, along with 4 oz of semi-sweet baker's chocolate (I used 3 oz of Ghirardelli and 1 oz of 62% Scharfenberger).
4. Whisk those ingredients together in the bowl.
5. Add in 1 tablespoon of Cabernet or other wine (I used a Bordeaux) and 1 teaspoon of vanilla extract. Keep whisking.
5. Add 2 eggs and 1 egg yolk. Whisk together, along with 1 cup of confectioner's sugar.
6. Then add 6 tablespoons of flour, and a quarter teaspoon each of cinammon and ginger.
7. Once everything is all mixed together, pour the mixture into each of the custard cups.
8. Put the custard cups on a baking sheet (this can get a little tricky, because the recipe doesn't tell you how to prevent the cups from sliding off the sheet). Put the cups/sheet into the oven.
9. Take out of oven after 15 minutes (or when the outside edges are firmer and the middle is still soft). Let cool for 1 minute.
10. Use a knife around the outside edge of each custard cup. Then, being careful not to burn yourself, turn the custard cup upside down and put onto a serving plate. Sprinkle with some confectioner's sugar.
The cake is harder on the outside, and inside it resembles chocolate lava.
Following a recipe really isn't that hard, and you'll impress anyone who partakes.
Happy baking!
1. Pre-heat your oven to 425 degrees.
2. Take out four 6-ounce custard cups, grease them thoroughly with butter.
3. Melt 8 oz of butter in a microwaveable (and pretty large) bowl, along with 4 oz of semi-sweet baker's chocolate (I used 3 oz of Ghirardelli and 1 oz of 62% Scharfenberger).
4. Whisk those ingredients together in the bowl.
5. Add in 1 tablespoon of Cabernet or other wine (I used a Bordeaux) and 1 teaspoon of vanilla extract. Keep whisking.
5. Add 2 eggs and 1 egg yolk. Whisk together, along with 1 cup of confectioner's sugar.
6. Then add 6 tablespoons of flour, and a quarter teaspoon each of cinammon and ginger.
7. Once everything is all mixed together, pour the mixture into each of the custard cups.
8. Put the custard cups on a baking sheet (this can get a little tricky, because the recipe doesn't tell you how to prevent the cups from sliding off the sheet). Put the cups/sheet into the oven.
9. Take out of oven after 15 minutes (or when the outside edges are firmer and the middle is still soft). Let cool for 1 minute.
10. Use a knife around the outside edge of each custard cup. Then, being careful not to burn yourself, turn the custard cup upside down and put onto a serving plate. Sprinkle with some confectioner's sugar.
The cake is harder on the outside, and inside it resembles chocolate lava.
Following a recipe really isn't that hard, and you'll impress anyone who partakes.
Happy baking!
Opening Day: 3rd and 4th Grade Basketball League
We were nervous, my co-coach and I. Only two practices, the last one before Thanksgiving. We heard reports that other coaches actually were putting in plays and that they were working. Well, what could we do? We thought we had some talent, and when we got to our game we learned that the kid who hit jumpers in the second-grade league was on the other team. Okay, so we had a challenge.
But it's a non-competitive league, an excellent ref stopped play to explain situations, and it's all about fun and developing skills. The league requires man-to-man defense (the high school coach apparently insists upon it), and the league also now requires that you play your best players in the second quarter (so that they get to go against the best players on the other team). All ten of our kids showed (one had a travel soccer game 25 miles away earlier that morning).
So what happened?
First, the kids played tenacious defense. They deflected, they stole the ball, they disrupted, and they rebounded okay if not great, but they hustled. I don't think the other team's coach had set plays, but if he did, they got no traction. Man-to-man defense can do that to you (it affected us to). Memo to coaches at this level -- don't worry so much about set plays. Teach your players to screen, roll and keep on screening. The outstanding shooter on the other team scored one bucket the entire game.
Second, the offense was uneven. We had a few skilled kids who could go coast to coast after a rebound, and we hit many more shots than the other team. Of our four primary ballhandlers, only one can dribble with his head up, slow down, keep his dribble and pass off it. He threw some outstanding passes. The other three are very athletic, but we kept telling them to slow down. Practice this week will emphasize playing more under control and passing. Still, we were off to a good start.
The best moment of the day came at half-time, when our best player, the ballhandler who passes and rebounds, came up to me and whispered, "I think I am dominating." I smiled and replied, "Tell you what -- hit a few more shots and throw some more good passes, and I might agree with you." He had an excellent game.
All in all, it was a fun day. The kids worked hard, and they're getting to know each other. My co-coach and I have taken mental notes on some of the things we want kids to work on -- catching and shooting for one, dribbling with heads up for all, setting screens for most. It promises to be a fun season.
But it's a non-competitive league, an excellent ref stopped play to explain situations, and it's all about fun and developing skills. The league requires man-to-man defense (the high school coach apparently insists upon it), and the league also now requires that you play your best players in the second quarter (so that they get to go against the best players on the other team). All ten of our kids showed (one had a travel soccer game 25 miles away earlier that morning).
So what happened?
First, the kids played tenacious defense. They deflected, they stole the ball, they disrupted, and they rebounded okay if not great, but they hustled. I don't think the other team's coach had set plays, but if he did, they got no traction. Man-to-man defense can do that to you (it affected us to). Memo to coaches at this level -- don't worry so much about set plays. Teach your players to screen, roll and keep on screening. The outstanding shooter on the other team scored one bucket the entire game.
Second, the offense was uneven. We had a few skilled kids who could go coast to coast after a rebound, and we hit many more shots than the other team. Of our four primary ballhandlers, only one can dribble with his head up, slow down, keep his dribble and pass off it. He threw some outstanding passes. The other three are very athletic, but we kept telling them to slow down. Practice this week will emphasize playing more under control and passing. Still, we were off to a good start.
The best moment of the day came at half-time, when our best player, the ballhandler who passes and rebounds, came up to me and whispered, "I think I am dominating." I smiled and replied, "Tell you what -- hit a few more shots and throw some more good passes, and I might agree with you." He had an excellent game.
All in all, it was a fun day. The kids worked hard, and they're getting to know each other. My co-coach and I have taken mental notes on some of the things we want kids to work on -- catching and shooting for one, dribbling with heads up for all, setting screens for most. It promises to be a fun season.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
SportsProf as Your Next Offensive Coordinator?
The recent talk, particularly in Sports Illustrated, on innovation in college football reminded me of this post, which I wrote over four years ago. In it, I wrote of the single-wing offense of years ago and my proposal for a SportsProf offense that would rely upon six skill position players who all have the ability to run, catch and throw. The reason? Well, unless your team is blessed to have a transcendant pocket passer in Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, you might not have a chance to win the title for years. Okay, so Trent Dilfer did win a Super Bowl with the Ravens, but he's the exception, not the rule. More importantly, evolution in football is fierce. Coaches work around the clock to design defenses to throw offenses for a loop. Most of those offenses rely upon a strong-armed quarterback who can throw the ball into tight spots and lead their teams to victory. It stands to reason that defenses catch up with offense mindsets every day. Hence. . .
the SportsProf offense. And here's the thing: as SI writes in its current issue, many coaches -- from high school to college and even the pros -- are adapting elements of the single wing to throw off defenses, gain yards and win ball games. There are many reasons for this, but it's all about deceiving the defense. And, with a single-wing type of offense, the defense doesn't know who's getting the snap or what he's going to do with the ball once he gets it. So, it would stand to reason that if you run a generic set, but with a multitude of skill set players who can do it all (see Kordell Stewart, Antawn Randle-El, and a host of guys who were quarterbacks in college or high school), you can snap the ball to any one of them and call a nifty play that paralyzes the run stuffers and makes the super-fast linebacker of today go the wrong way.
Stuff like that used to be called gadgetry. Remember that the spread offense that many college teams now use once was derided as the "chuck and duck." Also, it wasn't as though when introduced the West Coast offense mustered a ton of respect. It was only when these offenses started to work well that they garnered the respect of those raised on the theory of "three yards and a cloud of dust." The old joke, of course, was that the "No Passing" signs near Ohio State's stadium were references to the preference for the running game and not traffic.
Today, though, athletes who play defense train year-round. Defensive coaches study film so much you wonder what they could do if they assisted General Petraeus with the surge in Iraq. They blitz corner backs, have down linemen drop back into coverage, play seven defensive backs at a time, call "house" blitzes and all the rest. The reasons that they do so are a) when they study film, they can predict to a degree what the other team will call depending on how the offense sets up at scrimmage and b) because each team has a relatively immobile quarterback (sorry Michael Vick, Donovan McNabb, John Elway) who either has to hand the ball off or throw from a formation that suggests a tendency.
So, if you want to innovate, it might make sense to run plays from symmetrical formations that reveal no intentions or assymetrical ones than can support weakside plays. If you have not one but four quarterbacks on the field, some of whom might run when the ball is snapped to them, you can fool the defense. After all, it's hard to design defenses when you have trouble discerning from the way a team lines up how the team will break from scrimmage.
Multiple skill sets. Symmetrical formations. Intricately functioning assymetrical ones. Figuring out not only which linemen are strong, but which are mobile. Not relying upon one player -- the strong-armed quarterback -- for too much of your success. Not relying upon one lineman -- the left tackle -- to keep your quarterback healthy. If you're about to lament that this type of offense will eliminate the long passing game, it might not. It might change it, but it won't eliminate it. Besides, how many teams run more than a half dozen "vertical" long pass plays each game? Not as many as you might think.
So that's the SportsProf offense. Deception. Quickness. Smarts. Not relying too much on one player for your team's success or failure.
Welcome to the offense of the next decade. Many teams are adapting their playbooks to incorporate this type of thinking. I submit that it's only a matter of time before teams scrap their whole playbooks and design their offenses around their best athletes, not just their best passers.
the SportsProf offense. And here's the thing: as SI writes in its current issue, many coaches -- from high school to college and even the pros -- are adapting elements of the single wing to throw off defenses, gain yards and win ball games. There are many reasons for this, but it's all about deceiving the defense. And, with a single-wing type of offense, the defense doesn't know who's getting the snap or what he's going to do with the ball once he gets it. So, it would stand to reason that if you run a generic set, but with a multitude of skill set players who can do it all (see Kordell Stewart, Antawn Randle-El, and a host of guys who were quarterbacks in college or high school), you can snap the ball to any one of them and call a nifty play that paralyzes the run stuffers and makes the super-fast linebacker of today go the wrong way.
Stuff like that used to be called gadgetry. Remember that the spread offense that many college teams now use once was derided as the "chuck and duck." Also, it wasn't as though when introduced the West Coast offense mustered a ton of respect. It was only when these offenses started to work well that they garnered the respect of those raised on the theory of "three yards and a cloud of dust." The old joke, of course, was that the "No Passing" signs near Ohio State's stadium were references to the preference for the running game and not traffic.
Today, though, athletes who play defense train year-round. Defensive coaches study film so much you wonder what they could do if they assisted General Petraeus with the surge in Iraq. They blitz corner backs, have down linemen drop back into coverage, play seven defensive backs at a time, call "house" blitzes and all the rest. The reasons that they do so are a) when they study film, they can predict to a degree what the other team will call depending on how the offense sets up at scrimmage and b) because each team has a relatively immobile quarterback (sorry Michael Vick, Donovan McNabb, John Elway) who either has to hand the ball off or throw from a formation that suggests a tendency.
So, if you want to innovate, it might make sense to run plays from symmetrical formations that reveal no intentions or assymetrical ones than can support weakside plays. If you have not one but four quarterbacks on the field, some of whom might run when the ball is snapped to them, you can fool the defense. After all, it's hard to design defenses when you have trouble discerning from the way a team lines up how the team will break from scrimmage.
Multiple skill sets. Symmetrical formations. Intricately functioning assymetrical ones. Figuring out not only which linemen are strong, but which are mobile. Not relying upon one player -- the strong-armed quarterback -- for too much of your success. Not relying upon one lineman -- the left tackle -- to keep your quarterback healthy. If you're about to lament that this type of offense will eliminate the long passing game, it might not. It might change it, but it won't eliminate it. Besides, how many teams run more than a half dozen "vertical" long pass plays each game? Not as many as you might think.
So that's the SportsProf offense. Deception. Quickness. Smarts. Not relying too much on one player for your team's success or failure.
Welcome to the offense of the next decade. Many teams are adapting their playbooks to incorporate this type of thinking. I submit that it's only a matter of time before teams scrap their whole playbooks and design their offenses around their best athletes, not just their best passers.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Thank You, NFL
I am an Eagles' fan, and the Eagles are hosting the Cardinals on Thanksgiving night.
The Eagles aren't quite in a free fall, but they're managing to get less out of their talent than any other team in the league at the moment. Saturday's game against the Ravens in Baltimore demonstrates the frustration that the players and fans are experiencing. Nothing went right, other than Quentin Demps' kick return for a touchdown (a rare occurrence for Birds' fans).
So, what better way to celebrate family holiday and spend time together than NOT watch the game on Thursday night? The NFL is providing that luxury to Eagles' fans because they are showing the game only on the NFL network.
And most of us don't subscribe to the NFL Network.
It's quite simple, actually. Cable companies already charge us a king's ransom for their products. It's a poundage that we have to pay to live in a civilized society, and it's an expensive one. The NFL Network is not part of your basic first- or second-level cable packages -- it's a premium channel that you'll have to pay extra for.
And most of us don't do that.
We're not inclined to pay extra for a time that's in the proverbial shopping cart going 70 miles an hour over the side of the cliff. We're not inclined to pay for extra luxuries in the worst recession the country has seen in 80 years.
So thanks for denying us a simpler pleasure of watching -- for free -- an NFL game in our home town so that we could conclude the evening with our families watching the same brand of football that we'll get for free earlier in the day (that is, if you call what they're playing in Detroit football right now).
We'll get over it, even if we have to watch the Eagles play their last five games -- five weeks which are certain to go pretty slowly for Philadelphia fans.
The Eagles aren't quite in a free fall, but they're managing to get less out of their talent than any other team in the league at the moment. Saturday's game against the Ravens in Baltimore demonstrates the frustration that the players and fans are experiencing. Nothing went right, other than Quentin Demps' kick return for a touchdown (a rare occurrence for Birds' fans).
So, what better way to celebrate family holiday and spend time together than NOT watch the game on Thursday night? The NFL is providing that luxury to Eagles' fans because they are showing the game only on the NFL network.
And most of us don't subscribe to the NFL Network.
It's quite simple, actually. Cable companies already charge us a king's ransom for their products. It's a poundage that we have to pay to live in a civilized society, and it's an expensive one. The NFL Network is not part of your basic first- or second-level cable packages -- it's a premium channel that you'll have to pay extra for.
And most of us don't do that.
We're not inclined to pay extra for a time that's in the proverbial shopping cart going 70 miles an hour over the side of the cliff. We're not inclined to pay for extra luxuries in the worst recession the country has seen in 80 years.
So thanks for denying us a simpler pleasure of watching -- for free -- an NFL game in our home town so that we could conclude the evening with our families watching the same brand of football that we'll get for free earlier in the day (that is, if you call what they're playing in Detroit football right now).
We'll get over it, even if we have to watch the Eagles play their last five games -- five weeks which are certain to go pretty slowly for Philadelphia fans.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The End of an Era in Philadelphia?
Or, is it?
Is Donovan McNabb through in Philadelphia?
Is the Andy Reid era over?
Don't be so sure.
First, the Eagles' ownership seems to love Reid. Second, the head coach seems to love Donovan McNabb. So, until we hear more, we can't assume that Donovan McNabb is through permanently as the Eagles' quarterback. Yes, he had a bad day today, but so did the Eagles' offensive line (which didn't do a good job protecting him or his back-up, Kevin Kolb, who did nothing to suggest he'll become a household name if and when he succeeds McNabb at quarterback). As for the Eagles' offense, we'll, it hasn't been all that imaginative for years.
Second, the Eagles have a thirty-year waiting list for season tickets, and their fan base would much prefer to have their homes foreclosed upon than give up their precious Eagles' tickets. So, they're not that likely to walk. Perhaps the Eagles would take a hit in merchandise, but my local Dick's cashier told me that they sell many $110 dollar NFL replica jerseys to fans. The bottom line is that the bottom line will remain healthy even if the Eagles keep Reid and McNabb.
Third, Kolb didn't look like the second coming of Roger Staubach, John Elway or Matt Ryan today. Now, putting him into a close game against the agile, hostile defense of the Ravens wasn't totally fair, and the offense line didn't seem to know how to protect him. So, fans have to be careful what they wish for. Yes, McNabb has looked bad in the past three games, can throw off the wrong foot and into the ground, but no fan should be eager to replace him unless we're pretty sure that the replacement will be an improvement. Kolb didn't look to be a step up, at least not today.
Fourth, the same holds true for Reid, but the argument to replace him is easier. He has shown blind spots as a general manager and a coach, each year for the past several years. The team seems to have reached a point where it won't get much better under his stewardship. More frustrating is that a Tom Coughlin-led Giants' team -- which seemed on the verge of imploding only two seasons ago -- is now the franchise to be emulated in the NFL. That's pretty hard for Birds' fans to take. And, of course, the Cowboys are trying to reclaim the mantle of being "America's Team" and the Redskins have finally turned the corner under the tumultuous ownership of Daniel Snyder. I would think it would be easier to replace Reid with a coach that has a chance to succeed than it would be to replace McNabb with a quarterback who can do better, at least next year.
Fifth, ironically, it would seem, the Birds' front office would be more likelly to part with McNabb than Reid. At least, that's the sense I've gotten from reading the local press in Philadelphia and listening to the radio. I still believe that McNabb can win a title with the right team and under the right system -- he needs better receivers than he's enjoyed during his tenure in Philadelphia. And, if the Eagles were to trade him, it's hard to believe they'll get more than a third-round draft pick for him. That trade, for the right franchise, could prove to be a steal.
So what do the Eagles do? They're 5-5-1, and realistically they'll have to win out to get to the playoffs. That would mean beating each of their division rivals, plus Arizona and Cleveland. More likely than not, they'll win only one of those games.
The air waves will be burning tonight and all next week about the Eagles, their coach and their quarterback. Expect the discussion to ensue throughout the remainder of the season.
Is Donovan McNabb through in Philadelphia?
Is the Andy Reid era over?
Don't be so sure.
First, the Eagles' ownership seems to love Reid. Second, the head coach seems to love Donovan McNabb. So, until we hear more, we can't assume that Donovan McNabb is through permanently as the Eagles' quarterback. Yes, he had a bad day today, but so did the Eagles' offensive line (which didn't do a good job protecting him or his back-up, Kevin Kolb, who did nothing to suggest he'll become a household name if and when he succeeds McNabb at quarterback). As for the Eagles' offense, we'll, it hasn't been all that imaginative for years.
Second, the Eagles have a thirty-year waiting list for season tickets, and their fan base would much prefer to have their homes foreclosed upon than give up their precious Eagles' tickets. So, they're not that likely to walk. Perhaps the Eagles would take a hit in merchandise, but my local Dick's cashier told me that they sell many $110 dollar NFL replica jerseys to fans. The bottom line is that the bottom line will remain healthy even if the Eagles keep Reid and McNabb.
Third, Kolb didn't look like the second coming of Roger Staubach, John Elway or Matt Ryan today. Now, putting him into a close game against the agile, hostile defense of the Ravens wasn't totally fair, and the offense line didn't seem to know how to protect him. So, fans have to be careful what they wish for. Yes, McNabb has looked bad in the past three games, can throw off the wrong foot and into the ground, but no fan should be eager to replace him unless we're pretty sure that the replacement will be an improvement. Kolb didn't look to be a step up, at least not today.
Fourth, the same holds true for Reid, but the argument to replace him is easier. He has shown blind spots as a general manager and a coach, each year for the past several years. The team seems to have reached a point where it won't get much better under his stewardship. More frustrating is that a Tom Coughlin-led Giants' team -- which seemed on the verge of imploding only two seasons ago -- is now the franchise to be emulated in the NFL. That's pretty hard for Birds' fans to take. And, of course, the Cowboys are trying to reclaim the mantle of being "America's Team" and the Redskins have finally turned the corner under the tumultuous ownership of Daniel Snyder. I would think it would be easier to replace Reid with a coach that has a chance to succeed than it would be to replace McNabb with a quarterback who can do better, at least next year.
Fifth, ironically, it would seem, the Birds' front office would be more likelly to part with McNabb than Reid. At least, that's the sense I've gotten from reading the local press in Philadelphia and listening to the radio. I still believe that McNabb can win a title with the right team and under the right system -- he needs better receivers than he's enjoyed during his tenure in Philadelphia. And, if the Eagles were to trade him, it's hard to believe they'll get more than a third-round draft pick for him. That trade, for the right franchise, could prove to be a steal.
So what do the Eagles do? They're 5-5-1, and realistically they'll have to win out to get to the playoffs. That would mean beating each of their division rivals, plus Arizona and Cleveland. More likely than not, they'll win only one of those games.
The air waves will be burning tonight and all next week about the Eagles, their coach and their quarterback. Expect the discussion to ensue throughout the remainder of the season.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Coaching Third and Fourth Grade Boys' Basketball
Many of you have linked to my posts about coaching second-grade basketball, which I did with a friend last year. We had seven boys and two girls on the team, and a majority of the kids had little knowledge of the game -- how to dribble, how to defend, how to crash the boards, how to shoot. The great news was that the kids were enthusiastic, worked hard, and progressed well during the season. We only had one practice per week (if that, as some weeks the gym wasn't available), but we drilled repetitively on some basic skills, tried to have a little fun, and had a good season. You can read about what we did in those practices here.
This year, we've moved up a grade. The league remains non-competitive (that is, the league doesn't keep score, even if the kids do in their heads), and, yes, man-to-man defense is still required (if I only could teach the kids the back-door cut -- which they're slow to grasp, we'd score layups at will all the time, because the kids still tend to crowd and overplay on defense). This year, the league is not co-ed, and we have a mix of third- and fourth-graders. Last year, we only had second-graders, so there is an upgrade in talent.
We've only had two practices, so I'll share with you what we're trying to accomplish in practice. We get about one hour, and we have either a whole "sideways" full court or half of one. Translated, we don't have a ton of space, so we make do with what we have. Here are some suggestions:
1. Make the most out of limited practice time. We only have one practice per week, so don't linger. Get the kids going, be organized, plan every minute.
2. We start with some simple talk about what we're trying to accomplish -- working on the fundamentals, looking to make a good pass, keep your head up when dribbling, sliding on defense, crashing the boards. That takes about 2 minutes.
3. We then spend about 3 minutes on defensive slides. It's a good way to get the kids' juices flowing, and we take them back-and-forth across the floor. We stop and start quickly, so they know that they'll have to move in short spurts and change directions.
4. Then we move into lay-up lines for about 3 minutes. Again, it's a good way to get started, and by this time we're ten minutes into practice and halfway through our first ten-minute segment.
5. We then work on dribbling drills for about 5 minutes. We do two drills, such as the "fingers" drill, where the kids dribble in place and switch hands on command, but they need to look at a coach and shout out the number of fingers he's holding up. This drill encourages the kids to look up and not at the ball. Then we'll do a stop and start drill, where the kids will dribble down the court and stop and throw a pass. We're trying to teach them to pass off the dribble fluidly -- so that they don't pick up their dribbles and hold the ball until the defense swarms.
6. We then working on passing drills for another 5 minutes. So, for example, two kids will make their way down the floor either chest- or bounce-passing the ball to one other. The theme -- make every single pass count. Make sure that the passes hit the kids near the letters, so to speak, so that they don't have to go reaching for the ball.
Then we have a one-minute water break.
The second segment of practice focuses on plays. So, we'll spend say 5 minutes on catch-and-shoot drills, as we try to teach the kids that when they're in close if they put the ball on the floor a defender will probably swipe it away. This drill is especially important for the bigger kids. Then we'll spend about 7 minutes on the give-and-go play and 7 minutes on setting screens. We tried the back-door play, but the kids aren't yet good enough to keep their dribbles on the one hand and do the cut on the other. We might continue to teach it, but at this age, teaching the pick-and-roll or the dribble handoff might be a better use of our time. After this 19-minute segment, it's time for another water break.
After the second water break, we'll spend 16 minutes scrimmaging, either 3 on 3 to emphasize defensive stops or 5 on 5. We can do better on offense in the former, but having 4 kids stand around isn't exactly optimal. We'll stop play to teach, so as to emphasize passing, not picking up the dribble too early, not dribbling into the corner, how to defend properly. After scrimmaging, we'll run a two-minute foul-shooting drill, and wrap up with the kids for another minute and then send them home.
The goal is to teach them more fundamentals, give them a good workout, and get them ready to play at a higher level, all the while having fun, which is the most important thing. This year presents different challenges from last year, as the baseline of experience is much greater than last year's. We're up for the challenge, and it will be interesting to see how well we can teach new concepts and how quickly the kids can grasp them.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on what works and what doesn't. What I just wrote is more in the way of a suggestion than a tried-and-true recipe. Thanks for your insights.
This year, we've moved up a grade. The league remains non-competitive (that is, the league doesn't keep score, even if the kids do in their heads), and, yes, man-to-man defense is still required (if I only could teach the kids the back-door cut -- which they're slow to grasp, we'd score layups at will all the time, because the kids still tend to crowd and overplay on defense). This year, the league is not co-ed, and we have a mix of third- and fourth-graders. Last year, we only had second-graders, so there is an upgrade in talent.
We've only had two practices, so I'll share with you what we're trying to accomplish in practice. We get about one hour, and we have either a whole "sideways" full court or half of one. Translated, we don't have a ton of space, so we make do with what we have. Here are some suggestions:
1. Make the most out of limited practice time. We only have one practice per week, so don't linger. Get the kids going, be organized, plan every minute.
2. We start with some simple talk about what we're trying to accomplish -- working on the fundamentals, looking to make a good pass, keep your head up when dribbling, sliding on defense, crashing the boards. That takes about 2 minutes.
3. We then spend about 3 minutes on defensive slides. It's a good way to get the kids' juices flowing, and we take them back-and-forth across the floor. We stop and start quickly, so they know that they'll have to move in short spurts and change directions.
4. Then we move into lay-up lines for about 3 minutes. Again, it's a good way to get started, and by this time we're ten minutes into practice and halfway through our first ten-minute segment.
5. We then work on dribbling drills for about 5 minutes. We do two drills, such as the "fingers" drill, where the kids dribble in place and switch hands on command, but they need to look at a coach and shout out the number of fingers he's holding up. This drill encourages the kids to look up and not at the ball. Then we'll do a stop and start drill, where the kids will dribble down the court and stop and throw a pass. We're trying to teach them to pass off the dribble fluidly -- so that they don't pick up their dribbles and hold the ball until the defense swarms.
6. We then working on passing drills for another 5 minutes. So, for example, two kids will make their way down the floor either chest- or bounce-passing the ball to one other. The theme -- make every single pass count. Make sure that the passes hit the kids near the letters, so to speak, so that they don't have to go reaching for the ball.
Then we have a one-minute water break.
The second segment of practice focuses on plays. So, we'll spend say 5 minutes on catch-and-shoot drills, as we try to teach the kids that when they're in close if they put the ball on the floor a defender will probably swipe it away. This drill is especially important for the bigger kids. Then we'll spend about 7 minutes on the give-and-go play and 7 minutes on setting screens. We tried the back-door play, but the kids aren't yet good enough to keep their dribbles on the one hand and do the cut on the other. We might continue to teach it, but at this age, teaching the pick-and-roll or the dribble handoff might be a better use of our time. After this 19-minute segment, it's time for another water break.
After the second water break, we'll spend 16 minutes scrimmaging, either 3 on 3 to emphasize defensive stops or 5 on 5. We can do better on offense in the former, but having 4 kids stand around isn't exactly optimal. We'll stop play to teach, so as to emphasize passing, not picking up the dribble too early, not dribbling into the corner, how to defend properly. After scrimmaging, we'll run a two-minute foul-shooting drill, and wrap up with the kids for another minute and then send them home.
The goal is to teach them more fundamentals, give them a good workout, and get them ready to play at a higher level, all the while having fun, which is the most important thing. This year presents different challenges from last year, as the baseline of experience is much greater than last year's. We're up for the challenge, and it will be interesting to see how well we can teach new concepts and how quickly the kids can grasp them.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on what works and what doesn't. What I just wrote is more in the way of a suggestion than a tried-and-true recipe. Thanks for your insights.
Accomplishing Goals
I travel with a PSP on long-distance business trips. I only use it on airplanes, and it's a good insurance policy in case of a travel delay or getting antsy on a very long flight, packed in coach.
For my latest trip I purchased FIFA Soccer 09, and it's a very complete game. I play at the "beginner" or "amateur" level, and while I sometimes play Arsenal against Tottenham, Lyon against Marseilles or AC Milan against Inter (not to mention Manchester United against Liverpool or Celtic versus Rangers), sometimes I need a break.
We all want to accomplish our professional goals in life. So what better a way than to accomplish goals than to score some!
How do you do that?
It's pretty easy. Take a four-and-a-half or five-star team (like some of the ones mentioned above) and play them against a team from the English Second Division (where the teams have half-star and one-star ratings). Play at the "beginner" or "amateur" level, and find yourself winning 10-0. Talk about accomplishing goals!
Now, it's not always that fun, as the PSP typically lets you run by the defenders in this format (as opposed to scoring dazzling goals with short passes or crosses -- the PlayStation 2 game used to let you do that), but, still, scoring goals is scoring goals, and in this world there's something to be said for having fun playing your games. Now, if you get pretty good at this game, you can tee up Arsenal against Tottenham in this format and win 7-0, too. That is, before your wrists start to get tired.
So, if you want to accomplish some goals, score some! It's good video game therapy from time to time.
For my latest trip I purchased FIFA Soccer 09, and it's a very complete game. I play at the "beginner" or "amateur" level, and while I sometimes play Arsenal against Tottenham, Lyon against Marseilles or AC Milan against Inter (not to mention Manchester United against Liverpool or Celtic versus Rangers), sometimes I need a break.
We all want to accomplish our professional goals in life. So what better a way than to accomplish goals than to score some!
How do you do that?
It's pretty easy. Take a four-and-a-half or five-star team (like some of the ones mentioned above) and play them against a team from the English Second Division (where the teams have half-star and one-star ratings). Play at the "beginner" or "amateur" level, and find yourself winning 10-0. Talk about accomplishing goals!
Now, it's not always that fun, as the PSP typically lets you run by the defenders in this format (as opposed to scoring dazzling goals with short passes or crosses -- the PlayStation 2 game used to let you do that), but, still, scoring goals is scoring goals, and in this world there's something to be said for having fun playing your games. Now, if you get pretty good at this game, you can tee up Arsenal against Tottenham in this format and win 7-0, too. That is, before your wrists start to get tired.
So, if you want to accomplish some goals, score some! It's good video game therapy from time to time.
Tom Coughlin Gets It
It's amazing that there isn't more of a buzz about the coaching of the Giants' Tom Coughlin. Yes, there's a buzz about the Giants' offensive line play and their running game, but not enough in my opinion.
Why?
Because Coughlin saw an ability to innovate in the NFL and he did. And this is the first significant innovation since Bill Walsh determined that with bigger and faster defenses, "three yards and a cloud of dust" and two-back backfields with both backs sharing a rather big rushing load would no longer work. Okay, so Walsh's innovation might be more significant in terms of having created a new football theory, but Coughlin's return to smash-mouth rushing is pretty clever, too.
Why?
Because almost every NFL defense -- even the 3-4 -- has been built to stop West Coast-style offenses and, most certainly, one-back offenses. Which means that there's been a tendency for a while to stop the "death by a thousand cuts" passing offenses over stopping up-the-gut rushing attacks. That tendency gave Coughlin -- a firm believer in the notion that winning the battles in the trenches on both sides of the ball leads to victories -- a chance to take an old-time notion and jam it down the throats of those who like to throw tons of packages at you but don't necessarily have the strength to stop run after run after run.
Is what Coughlin's doing that innovative?
No and yes.
No, because, well, rushing the ball right at the defense has been a part of the game since the beginning of the game. Yes, because it takes courage to go against the grain and emphasize the run when teams obsess over having the perfect quarterback who can work miracles. Make no mistake -- Eli Manning is an excellent quarterback -- but the Giants' ball-control offense tires out defenses and puts tons of points on the board.
Tom Coughlin, whom I criticized in these pages a couple of years ago for failing to control the egos and dissenters in his locker room, has done just that and created an offensive style of football that differs somewhat significantly from those of the rest of the pack and could well lead the Giants to their second straight Super Bowl victory.
Old-time football. It's not exactly "putting on the foil" (for those who might like a Slapshot reference), but it works like a charm.
Why?
Because Coughlin saw an ability to innovate in the NFL and he did. And this is the first significant innovation since Bill Walsh determined that with bigger and faster defenses, "three yards and a cloud of dust" and two-back backfields with both backs sharing a rather big rushing load would no longer work. Okay, so Walsh's innovation might be more significant in terms of having created a new football theory, but Coughlin's return to smash-mouth rushing is pretty clever, too.
Why?
Because almost every NFL defense -- even the 3-4 -- has been built to stop West Coast-style offenses and, most certainly, one-back offenses. Which means that there's been a tendency for a while to stop the "death by a thousand cuts" passing offenses over stopping up-the-gut rushing attacks. That tendency gave Coughlin -- a firm believer in the notion that winning the battles in the trenches on both sides of the ball leads to victories -- a chance to take an old-time notion and jam it down the throats of those who like to throw tons of packages at you but don't necessarily have the strength to stop run after run after run.
Is what Coughlin's doing that innovative?
No and yes.
No, because, well, rushing the ball right at the defense has been a part of the game since the beginning of the game. Yes, because it takes courage to go against the grain and emphasize the run when teams obsess over having the perfect quarterback who can work miracles. Make no mistake -- Eli Manning is an excellent quarterback -- but the Giants' ball-control offense tires out defenses and puts tons of points on the board.
Tom Coughlin, whom I criticized in these pages a couple of years ago for failing to control the egos and dissenters in his locker room, has done just that and created an offensive style of football that differs somewhat significantly from those of the rest of the pack and could well lead the Giants to their second straight Super Bowl victory.
Old-time football. It's not exactly "putting on the foil" (for those who might like a Slapshot reference), but it works like a charm.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The National League MVP Voters Got It Right
Albert Pujols is the best player in the National League, and, yes, in 2008 he was the most valuable, or, at least, deserving of the award. He kept a so-so at best Cardinals team in the hunt for most of the year, and that effort, while playing with a bad elbow, and his numbers, were worthy of the National League's most valuable player award.
Yes, I am a Phillies' partisan, but no Phillies' position player deserved the MVP award this year. While Phillies' fans chanted "MVP" near the end of the season when Ryan Howard came to the plate, the slugging first baseman didn't have the numbers that Pujols did and was not nearly as consistent. But for an awesome September, Howard would have had an average year (for a slugger, and not just for him). That September was memorable and helped propel the Phillies to the NL East title, of that there is little doubt. But Howard's body of work during the year didn't merit the MVP award.
As it was, the Philadelphia chapter of the baseball writers voted Brad Lidge the team's MVP, and they got it right. Going into the 2008 season, I had said that if the Phillies hit the way they did in 2007 and got some better pitching, they could win the division (of course, I said this before the Mets acquired Johan Santana). As it turned out, the team didn't hit the way it did in 2007, but the pitching -- and particularly the bullpen -- was better. The major difference was in the closer position, where Brad Lidge had a perfect game of a year. As for the position players, well, Jimmy Rollins' overall game was in a funk through August, Chase Utley didn't look right after May (although he revived nicely late in the year), Pat Burrell was about even (although he didn't do much from August through year's end, although, yes, he did have a few big hits).
But why digress on the details? Two years ago, Rollins was the MVP, and three years ago it was Howard. Utley was a favorite going into this season, and his torrid early months forecast a third MVP award in a row for the Phillies. But does it really matter? All members of the 2008 Phillies contributed to something much more satisfying -- a championship.
Yes, it's nice to get the hardware, and it's nice to be called a Cy Young Award winner, a Rookie of the Year, an All-Star, an MVP Award winner, a Gold Glover (and, yes, Chase Utley should have won one this year, too).
But it's even better to be called a champion.
Yes, I am a Phillies' partisan, but no Phillies' position player deserved the MVP award this year. While Phillies' fans chanted "MVP" near the end of the season when Ryan Howard came to the plate, the slugging first baseman didn't have the numbers that Pujols did and was not nearly as consistent. But for an awesome September, Howard would have had an average year (for a slugger, and not just for him). That September was memorable and helped propel the Phillies to the NL East title, of that there is little doubt. But Howard's body of work during the year didn't merit the MVP award.
As it was, the Philadelphia chapter of the baseball writers voted Brad Lidge the team's MVP, and they got it right. Going into the 2008 season, I had said that if the Phillies hit the way they did in 2007 and got some better pitching, they could win the division (of course, I said this before the Mets acquired Johan Santana). As it turned out, the team didn't hit the way it did in 2007, but the pitching -- and particularly the bullpen -- was better. The major difference was in the closer position, where Brad Lidge had a perfect game of a year. As for the position players, well, Jimmy Rollins' overall game was in a funk through August, Chase Utley didn't look right after May (although he revived nicely late in the year), Pat Burrell was about even (although he didn't do much from August through year's end, although, yes, he did have a few big hits).
But why digress on the details? Two years ago, Rollins was the MVP, and three years ago it was Howard. Utley was a favorite going into this season, and his torrid early months forecast a third MVP award in a row for the Phillies. But does it really matter? All members of the 2008 Phillies contributed to something much more satisfying -- a championship.
Yes, it's nice to get the hardware, and it's nice to be called a Cy Young Award winner, a Rookie of the Year, an All-Star, an MVP Award winner, a Gold Glover (and, yes, Chase Utley should have won one this year, too).
But it's even better to be called a champion.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Hope for Princeton Basketball
Central Michigan beat Princeton, 55-53, in the Tigers' season opener at Jadwin Gym tonight. And, yes, Central Michigan isn't Michigan State, and a Chippewas fan told me at halftime that his alma mater was missing two of their top players. Still, they had at least one good one left, as 6'8", 235-pound forward Chris Kellerman scored outside and inside, had 28 points and led his team to victory.
So why was there hope?
Was it because the Tigers only lost by two in their home opener? Was it because they started two freshmen, two sophomores and a senior? Was it because they started a front line that goes 6'9", 6'8", 6'7"?
Answer: none of the above. (Click here for the box score).
The answer is that frosh PG Doug Davis scored 25 points, is a great ballhandler, can break the ankles of a defender, can shoot the three and can take over a game. When was the last time a Tiger had 25 points in his first game in a Princeton uniform? Not in the past 30 years, I don't think. When was the last time the Tigers had a player this exciting? And when was the last time the Tigers had a guard this able on offense?
Imagine this: a Philly point guard in a Princeton uniform. Take the the years of wisdom and court savvy handed down from the likes of Sonny Hill, Guy Rodgers, Hal Lear, Earl Monroe, Andre McCarter, Pooh Richardson, Sean "Reds" Smith and many others and send it to Princeton, to be coached by a terrific guard himself in Sydney Johnson, and you could have someone very, very special.
I can't say that a star was born tonight, because Doug Davis came into Princeton with star quality. But a star was launched tonight, and if you're a Princeton basketball fan, you have to be very happy. I'm not sure where this year's team will go, but in Doug Davis you have someone to build around for four years.
And when was the last time a Princeton basketball fan had this much excitement?
Sydney Johnson is onto something in Princeton. The Tiger hoops magic is coming back.
So why was there hope?
Was it because the Tigers only lost by two in their home opener? Was it because they started two freshmen, two sophomores and a senior? Was it because they started a front line that goes 6'9", 6'8", 6'7"?
Answer: none of the above. (Click here for the box score).
The answer is that frosh PG Doug Davis scored 25 points, is a great ballhandler, can break the ankles of a defender, can shoot the three and can take over a game. When was the last time a Tiger had 25 points in his first game in a Princeton uniform? Not in the past 30 years, I don't think. When was the last time the Tigers had a player this exciting? And when was the last time the Tigers had a guard this able on offense?
Imagine this: a Philly point guard in a Princeton uniform. Take the the years of wisdom and court savvy handed down from the likes of Sonny Hill, Guy Rodgers, Hal Lear, Earl Monroe, Andre McCarter, Pooh Richardson, Sean "Reds" Smith and many others and send it to Princeton, to be coached by a terrific guard himself in Sydney Johnson, and you could have someone very, very special.
I can't say that a star was born tonight, because Doug Davis came into Princeton with star quality. But a star was launched tonight, and if you're a Princeton basketball fan, you have to be very happy. I'm not sure where this year's team will go, but in Doug Davis you have someone to build around for four years.
And when was the last time a Princeton basketball fan had this much excitement?
Sydney Johnson is onto something in Princeton. The Tiger hoops magic is coming back.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Charlie Weis to Call the Plays for Notre Dame Against Navy
So touted the headline on cnnsi.com.
Context, though, is hard to discern. My immediate reaction was: "And this is a good thing, why?"
I'm sure some Domers will say that this is great, that Weis is an offensive genius, and that, well, this needed to be done. I'm sure that others will say that this is evidence that Weis really was meant to be a coordinator, and that this is an indication that perhaps he isn't the head coach people thought he would be after his first season in South Bend.
Wise move?
Desperation?
Somewhere in between?
Notre Dame fans, what say you?
Context, though, is hard to discern. My immediate reaction was: "And this is a good thing, why?"
I'm sure some Domers will say that this is great, that Weis is an offensive genius, and that, well, this needed to be done. I'm sure that others will say that this is evidence that Weis really was meant to be a coordinator, and that this is an indication that perhaps he isn't the head coach people thought he would be after his first season in South Bend.
Wise move?
Desperation?
Somewhere in between?
Notre Dame fans, what say you?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Support Princeton Field Hockey!
When: Tuesday, 1 p.m. at Princeton's Class of 1952 Stadium.
What: The Princeton Field Hockey team plays Stanford in a play-in game to determine who goes to the NCAA tournament.
Why: The Princeton Field Hockey team is the Ivy champion, they have excelled in the Ivies for a while, they show great grit and teamwork and are ranked #11 in the country.
If you're a Princeton fan and have some time on Veterans' Day, this is a good way to spend an autumn afternoon, cheering on a great group of young women.
Go Tigers!
What: The Princeton Field Hockey team plays Stanford in a play-in game to determine who goes to the NCAA tournament.
Why: The Princeton Field Hockey team is the Ivy champion, they have excelled in the Ivies for a while, they show great grit and teamwork and are ranked #11 in the country.
If you're a Princeton fan and have some time on Veterans' Day, this is a good way to spend an autumn afternoon, cheering on a great group of young women.
Go Tigers!
Holliday No Longer On Ice, But Is He Headed to Siberia?
ESPN.com reports that Matt Holliday, the Rockies' slugging outfielder (who also happens to be an excellent base stealer) is about to be traded to the Oakland A's.
That's probably better news for the Rockies, who are going to get some prospects and, as a result, aren't going to have to face trading Holliday at the trading deadline in a contract year (where reports were that they weren't going to be able to re-sign him) than it is for Holliday. The reason: the A's seem to be the Sisyphus of the Majors, just like the mythological character who kept on pushing the rock up the hill, only never to get to the top. Make no mistake, Billy Beane is an excellent general manager, one of the best in the game. The question is: can the A's win the division and get back to the World Series?
At any rate, Phillies' fans could only dream about the prospect of getting Matt Holliday. It would have been great having a lineup that started with Rollins, Victorino, Utley, Howard and Holliday, but it's not meant to be. The Phillies need to devote serious resources to offering long-term deals to Ryan Howard and Cole Hamels, among others. Inking Holliday was a luxury that they just couldn't afford.
That's probably better news for the Rockies, who are going to get some prospects and, as a result, aren't going to have to face trading Holliday at the trading deadline in a contract year (where reports were that they weren't going to be able to re-sign him) than it is for Holliday. The reason: the A's seem to be the Sisyphus of the Majors, just like the mythological character who kept on pushing the rock up the hill, only never to get to the top. Make no mistake, Billy Beane is an excellent general manager, one of the best in the game. The question is: can the A's win the division and get back to the World Series?
At any rate, Phillies' fans could only dream about the prospect of getting Matt Holliday. It would have been great having a lineup that started with Rollins, Victorino, Utley, Howard and Holliday, but it's not meant to be. The Phillies need to devote serious resources to offering long-term deals to Ryan Howard and Cole Hamels, among others. Inking Holliday was a luxury that they just couldn't afford.
College Football: It's Fun to See Different Teams Doing Well
Neighbors and friends went to Penn State, but a close friend grew up in Iowa City, so I witnessed the despair of the Penn State faithful and the joy of my friend at Iowa's last-minute upset of #3 Penn State. I'm also enjoying the run of Texas Tech, which is #2 in the country. After all, many years ago, when people talked of the stalwarts of the then-Southwest Conference, Texas Tech's name did not come up.
What do you attribute the newly found parity to? Is it that all schools are limited to 85 scholarships? Is it that some of the best players at the elite schools don't stay for the full four years (while they might at some of the schools that don't have the recruiting magic of the perenially elites)? I think it would be hard to say injuries and academic woes, because they happen to every school every year.
And then there's a school's commitment to its program. Sometimes schools that have been beaten down renew their commitments in terms of facilities and coaching staffs. There's also innovation. The Texas Tech offense is just hard to stop.
Take a look at these two lists:
Alabama
Texas Tech
Texas
Florida
Oklahoma
USC
Utah
Penn State
Boise State
Georgia
and then this one
Ohio State
Miami (FL)
Notre Dame
Michigan
Tennessee
Nebraska
Florida State
Virginia Tech
Arkansas
Auburn.
Suppose you hadn't watched college football for ten years. Which list would you believe represented the top 10 teams in the country?
Then again, all this raises the question that won't go away: should there be a playoff system?
What do you attribute the newly found parity to? Is it that all schools are limited to 85 scholarships? Is it that some of the best players at the elite schools don't stay for the full four years (while they might at some of the schools that don't have the recruiting magic of the perenially elites)? I think it would be hard to say injuries and academic woes, because they happen to every school every year.
And then there's a school's commitment to its program. Sometimes schools that have been beaten down renew their commitments in terms of facilities and coaching staffs. There's also innovation. The Texas Tech offense is just hard to stop.
Take a look at these two lists:
Alabama
Texas Tech
Texas
Florida
Oklahoma
USC
Utah
Penn State
Boise State
Georgia
and then this one
Ohio State
Miami (FL)
Notre Dame
Michigan
Tennessee
Nebraska
Florida State
Virginia Tech
Arkansas
Auburn.
Suppose you hadn't watched college football for ten years. Which list would you believe represented the top 10 teams in the country?
Then again, all this raises the question that won't go away: should there be a playoff system?
Friday, November 07, 2008
Oregon State Men's Hoops Recruiting
should get a boost from the fact that Barack Obama was elected president. As most readers know, the OSU men's hoops coach, Craig Robinson, is the older brother of Michelle Obama, the first lady-elect.
The Sports Law Blog has a good post and link regarding how Craig Robinson might use this fact to his advantage in rebuilding the OSU program. Most certainly, the relationship between the two should help Craig Robinson a good deal. That said, Craig Robinson is an excellent coach and terrific guy, and high school coaches and parents would be fortunate to have such a good man coach their kids for four years.
Apparently, offering a kid a night in the Lincoln Bedroom is an NCAA no-no. But there's nothing to prevent OSU to schedule a few games in the DC area every year and then make a trip to the White House and a get-together with the leader of the free world.
Now that would be pretty cool.
And it would beat a promise of a trip to the Rainbow Classic any day of the week.
The Sports Law Blog has a good post and link regarding how Craig Robinson might use this fact to his advantage in rebuilding the OSU program. Most certainly, the relationship between the two should help Craig Robinson a good deal. That said, Craig Robinson is an excellent coach and terrific guy, and high school coaches and parents would be fortunate to have such a good man coach their kids for four years.
Apparently, offering a kid a night in the Lincoln Bedroom is an NCAA no-no. But there's nothing to prevent OSU to schedule a few games in the DC area every year and then make a trip to the White House and a get-together with the leader of the free world.
Now that would be pretty cool.
And it would beat a promise of a trip to the Rainbow Classic any day of the week.
Hisses and Boos for Sports Illustrated
Dear Editor:
I just received the edition that should have covered the "Fightin' Phils" win in the World Series over destiny's darlings, the Tampa Bay Rays (whom you predicted would win the Series). I should have read an elegy about all things Phillies, how well they played, how much almost every player contributed, about Charlie Manuel, Jamie Moyer, Joe Blanton and the rest of the gang.
Instead, we got a thought piece (for the most part) from Tom Verducci about ways to change the World Series. Sure, the Series needs to be changed, but couldn't you have had someone else write that article after you published the huzzahs for the Phillies?
Your coverage wasn't worthy of the great achievement of this team. Perhaps if they played the game wearing skimpy bathing suits you would have done a better job.
I remain
a longtime subscriber who just can't make out the print of ESPN the Magazine.
SportsProf
I just received the edition that should have covered the "Fightin' Phils" win in the World Series over destiny's darlings, the Tampa Bay Rays (whom you predicted would win the Series). I should have read an elegy about all things Phillies, how well they played, how much almost every player contributed, about Charlie Manuel, Jamie Moyer, Joe Blanton and the rest of the gang.
Instead, we got a thought piece (for the most part) from Tom Verducci about ways to change the World Series. Sure, the Series needs to be changed, but couldn't you have had someone else write that article after you published the huzzahs for the Phillies?
Your coverage wasn't worthy of the great achievement of this team. Perhaps if they played the game wearing skimpy bathing suits you would have done a better job.
I remain
a longtime subscriber who just can't make out the print of ESPN the Magazine.
SportsProf
Mark Cuban Would Be Good for Major League Baseball
Why?
Because apparently Bud Selig doesn't think so.
As the linked post explains, Cuban has expressed interest in owning the Cubs. (Perhaps he'd even shorten his name to Cub as part of the deal). Cuban is a breath of fresh air, generally, and why shouldn't Major League Baseball have an owner in its midst who challenges the status quo (after all, that's particular in vogue right now) and asks some good questions about why MLB works the way it does?
Because, somehow in some way, the Lords of Baseball think that Bud Selig has all the answers, or, put differently, is enough of a stooge that they can vector onto him whatever they want and he'll follow along under the facade of leadership. But the Lords should remember that Bud works for them, not the other way around. Why shouldn't they want Mark Cuban?
Is it because they want to perpetuate the same type of thinking that a) had a World Series game start at 10:00 p.m. and b) had another one played, in part, in a torrential downpour? Is it because they want to overlook the rather pronounced enlargement of the average MLB player, which resulted not from overeating, weightlifting or additional hormones in our food but from syringes?
There have been many worse owners in Major League Baseball, including some who just can't get their teams back on track and win. So, it's okay to let Peter Angelos make a mess out of the once-proud Orioles, David Glass to wreck Kansas City, and the McClatchy family to keep the Pirates in losing fashion? That's fine, but letting Mark Cuban into the owners' club isn't?
C'mon, Bud, share your thoughts with us, just like you did after you suspended Game 5 of the World Series.
The baseball world awaits your wisdom.
Because apparently Bud Selig doesn't think so.
As the linked post explains, Cuban has expressed interest in owning the Cubs. (Perhaps he'd even shorten his name to Cub as part of the deal). Cuban is a breath of fresh air, generally, and why shouldn't Major League Baseball have an owner in its midst who challenges the status quo (after all, that's particular in vogue right now) and asks some good questions about why MLB works the way it does?
Because, somehow in some way, the Lords of Baseball think that Bud Selig has all the answers, or, put differently, is enough of a stooge that they can vector onto him whatever they want and he'll follow along under the facade of leadership. But the Lords should remember that Bud works for them, not the other way around. Why shouldn't they want Mark Cuban?
Is it because they want to perpetuate the same type of thinking that a) had a World Series game start at 10:00 p.m. and b) had another one played, in part, in a torrential downpour? Is it because they want to overlook the rather pronounced enlargement of the average MLB player, which resulted not from overeating, weightlifting or additional hormones in our food but from syringes?
There have been many worse owners in Major League Baseball, including some who just can't get their teams back on track and win. So, it's okay to let Peter Angelos make a mess out of the once-proud Orioles, David Glass to wreck Kansas City, and the McClatchy family to keep the Pirates in losing fashion? That's fine, but letting Mark Cuban into the owners' club isn't?
C'mon, Bud, share your thoughts with us, just like you did after you suspended Game 5 of the World Series.
The baseball world awaits your wisdom.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Early Holliday Season in Philadelphia?
So reports Si.com's Jon Heyman, who reports that the Phillies are aggressively pursuing Matt Holliday, who is eligible to be a free agent after the 2009 season and who, apparently, the Rockies have no chance of retaining.
The article isn't clear as to whom the Phillies would have to trade to land the leftfielder. Shane Victorino's name was mentioned, but the Phillies would be hard-pressed to replace the Gold Glove centerfielder and catalyst. The Phillies have a core crop of minor leaguers, including catcher Lou Marson, shortstop Jason Donald and pitcher Carlos Carrasco, with whom they were unwilling to part in the pursuit of CC Sabathia from the Indians.
But let's suppose they land Holliday. How about this for a lineup:
Jimmy Rollins, SS
Jayson Werth, RF
Chase Utley, 2B
Ryan Howard, 1B
Matt Holliday, LF
Shane Victorino, CF
Pedro Feliz, 3B
Carlos Ruiz, C
pitcher
That's pretty impressive, especially in the first through sixth positions. Holliday is an upgrade over Burrell, whose contributions fell off the cliff starting in August. The Phillies might miss Burrell's on-base percentage, but they won't miss his defense (awful, if not as bad as that of Chris Duncan of the Cardinals) and his streakiness. Reports were that the Phillies had made up their mind at season's end to part with Burrell (he made $14 million this year). The bet here is that some AL team will overpay for him and give him at least 3 years and $10 million per.
But Matt Holliday? In Philadelphia? In that lineup?
Look out!
The article isn't clear as to whom the Phillies would have to trade to land the leftfielder. Shane Victorino's name was mentioned, but the Phillies would be hard-pressed to replace the Gold Glove centerfielder and catalyst. The Phillies have a core crop of minor leaguers, including catcher Lou Marson, shortstop Jason Donald and pitcher Carlos Carrasco, with whom they were unwilling to part in the pursuit of CC Sabathia from the Indians.
But let's suppose they land Holliday. How about this for a lineup:
Jimmy Rollins, SS
Jayson Werth, RF
Chase Utley, 2B
Ryan Howard, 1B
Matt Holliday, LF
Shane Victorino, CF
Pedro Feliz, 3B
Carlos Ruiz, C
pitcher
That's pretty impressive, especially in the first through sixth positions. Holliday is an upgrade over Burrell, whose contributions fell off the cliff starting in August. The Phillies might miss Burrell's on-base percentage, but they won't miss his defense (awful, if not as bad as that of Chris Duncan of the Cardinals) and his streakiness. Reports were that the Phillies had made up their mind at season's end to part with Burrell (he made $14 million this year). The bet here is that some AL team will overpay for him and give him at least 3 years and $10 million per.
But Matt Holliday? In Philadelphia? In that lineup?
Look out!
On Chase Utley's Speech at the Phillies' Parade
Dear Chase:
You're a tremendous player. The fans love watching you play because you play with such even-keel emotions. Most of us get frustrated when our internet connection isn't fast enough, but you are one cool customer. You don't get too high when you get a big hit, and you don't get too low when you strike out more than once in a game.
We do admire you for that, although history in Philadelphia tells us that the most popular player on the 1980 World Series champs was neither of the team's Hall of Famers -- Steve Carlton and Mike Schmidt -- but a happy-go-lucky relief pitcher who showed lots of positive energy -- Tug McGraw. We admired Lefty for the precision he brought to the pitching mound, but he was strange. He didn't talk to the Philadelphia media for over a decade. We loved Schmidt's prodigious accomplishments -- he had an outstanding on-base percentage, was the best home run hitter in the game and the best fielding third baseman -- but he was a cool customer, keeping all of his emotions inside. It was hard to warm up to him the way we could McGraw or the easygoing star centerfielder, Garry Maddox.
So, okay, you're not the personality guy on the team, but boy do fans admire you. Jimmy Rollins seems to be the team's leader, Cole Hamels and Ryan Howard seem to be relaxed and happy, Shane Victorino is a prime catalyst, and Jamie Moyer the elder statesman. Which means that you don't really have to say much -- you can let your bat and glove do your talking for you.
Except there's this one thing that we have to discuss -- the day that you decided to open your mouth, wearing your Seattle grunge-rock attire at the parade and say something other than the usual post-game speak about "seeing the ball well" that many players dive into in interviews. Because you don't usually say much, we can all imagine what you might say if we could talk to you in detail about the art of hitting, about fielding your position, and about the mental game of baseball. Because you hardly said much, we envisioned you as a bright UCLA man, a guy we'd want to have over for a meal, shoot the breeze.
And then you opened your mouth and said a bad word. Illusions -- to the extent they remained after your profane utterance within earshot of a microphone at the All-Star Game's home run hitting contest -- were shattered. Many who held you up as the ultimate professional to be admired suddenly found you to be about as thoughtful as the small number of fans who harrassed Tampa Bay fans at Citizens Bank Park during the Series. Parents were shocked, grandparents horrified, young children disappointed.
More so than if you struck out four times looking in Game 7 of the World Series.
Listen, we still like and admire you, we just despise what you said. And for that you owe everyone an apology. You didn't need to tarnish a very happy day by saying what you said. Your overall "rating", as it were, among Phillies' fans is down, not because of your play, but because of this. Do the right thing, offer a sincere, written apology, and get kudos again in our forgiving world for being a stand-up guy and admitting your mistake.
Again, we still love the way you play and are grateful for all your efforts. Thanks for your great play in the 2008 World Series.
Just tweak your overall "game" a little bit.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
SportsProf
You're a tremendous player. The fans love watching you play because you play with such even-keel emotions. Most of us get frustrated when our internet connection isn't fast enough, but you are one cool customer. You don't get too high when you get a big hit, and you don't get too low when you strike out more than once in a game.
We do admire you for that, although history in Philadelphia tells us that the most popular player on the 1980 World Series champs was neither of the team's Hall of Famers -- Steve Carlton and Mike Schmidt -- but a happy-go-lucky relief pitcher who showed lots of positive energy -- Tug McGraw. We admired Lefty for the precision he brought to the pitching mound, but he was strange. He didn't talk to the Philadelphia media for over a decade. We loved Schmidt's prodigious accomplishments -- he had an outstanding on-base percentage, was the best home run hitter in the game and the best fielding third baseman -- but he was a cool customer, keeping all of his emotions inside. It was hard to warm up to him the way we could McGraw or the easygoing star centerfielder, Garry Maddox.
So, okay, you're not the personality guy on the team, but boy do fans admire you. Jimmy Rollins seems to be the team's leader, Cole Hamels and Ryan Howard seem to be relaxed and happy, Shane Victorino is a prime catalyst, and Jamie Moyer the elder statesman. Which means that you don't really have to say much -- you can let your bat and glove do your talking for you.
Except there's this one thing that we have to discuss -- the day that you decided to open your mouth, wearing your Seattle grunge-rock attire at the parade and say something other than the usual post-game speak about "seeing the ball well" that many players dive into in interviews. Because you don't usually say much, we can all imagine what you might say if we could talk to you in detail about the art of hitting, about fielding your position, and about the mental game of baseball. Because you hardly said much, we envisioned you as a bright UCLA man, a guy we'd want to have over for a meal, shoot the breeze.
And then you opened your mouth and said a bad word. Illusions -- to the extent they remained after your profane utterance within earshot of a microphone at the All-Star Game's home run hitting contest -- were shattered. Many who held you up as the ultimate professional to be admired suddenly found you to be about as thoughtful as the small number of fans who harrassed Tampa Bay fans at Citizens Bank Park during the Series. Parents were shocked, grandparents horrified, young children disappointed.
More so than if you struck out four times looking in Game 7 of the World Series.
Listen, we still like and admire you, we just despise what you said. And for that you owe everyone an apology. You didn't need to tarnish a very happy day by saying what you said. Your overall "rating", as it were, among Phillies' fans is down, not because of your play, but because of this. Do the right thing, offer a sincere, written apology, and get kudos again in our forgiving world for being a stand-up guy and admitting your mistake.
Again, we still love the way you play and are grateful for all your efforts. Thanks for your great play in the 2008 World Series.
Just tweak your overall "game" a little bit.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
SportsProf
Why Signing Pitchers to Long-Term Deals is Risky
Barry Zito.
Kevin Brown.
Darren Dreifort.
Carlos Silva.
Those are just some examples of teams inking free-agent pitchers to long-term deals, only to have them blow up in their faces. John Donovan of Sports Illustrated.com wrote this excellent piece on why it might not be such a good idea for any team to offer CC Sabathia the huge bucks that he's asking. Why? Despite the excellent work of Sabathia during his career and especially this past season, such agreements are more likely to fail than not -- by a two-to-one margin.
The Brewers and Yankees are going to compete for Sabathia. The difference between the two franchises (and, for that matter, the Yankees and everyone else) is, as Mike Francesa has said on WFAN, that the Yankees can take these risks, take a loss on them every now and then, and not have their franchise suffer for years because of a bad investment. The other teams -- with the possible exception of the Boston Red Sox -- cannot suffer such bad investments and have their teams thrive year in and year out.
So, the question is: will Sabathia remain Sabathia the Great, will he turn into Kevin Brown and get hurt, or will he become the Zito of the Midwest or East. Let's re-visit this question in a few years.
Kevin Brown.
Darren Dreifort.
Carlos Silva.
Those are just some examples of teams inking free-agent pitchers to long-term deals, only to have them blow up in their faces. John Donovan of Sports Illustrated.com wrote this excellent piece on why it might not be such a good idea for any team to offer CC Sabathia the huge bucks that he's asking. Why? Despite the excellent work of Sabathia during his career and especially this past season, such agreements are more likely to fail than not -- by a two-to-one margin.
The Brewers and Yankees are going to compete for Sabathia. The difference between the two franchises (and, for that matter, the Yankees and everyone else) is, as Mike Francesa has said on WFAN, that the Yankees can take these risks, take a loss on them every now and then, and not have their franchise suffer for years because of a bad investment. The other teams -- with the possible exception of the Boston Red Sox -- cannot suffer such bad investments and have their teams thrive year in and year out.
So, the question is: will Sabathia remain Sabathia the Great, will he turn into Kevin Brown and get hurt, or will he become the Zito of the Midwest or East. Let's re-visit this question in a few years.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
The Phillies -- My Personal Parade
By now almost everything that could have been written about the Phillies' magical 2008 season has been written. We've read about the strength of the Phillies' bullpen, the sagacity of Jamie Moyer, the personal transformation of Brett Myers, the emergence of Cole Hamels as a national star, the perfect year of Brad Lidge, the monster shots of Ryan Howard, the savvy, excellent play of Chase Utley, the catalytic ability of Shane Victorino, Charlie Manuel, a "players" manager who knows where to draw the line, the Hall of Fame general managership of Pat Gillick, the timeless home run call of Hall of Fame broadcaster Harry Kalas and the victory parade to end all victory parades. Lots of great photos and articles, lots of great moments, and a wonderful time for legions of devoted fans who kept the park packed until 2 a.m., stayed steadfastly in a downpour and rooted hard in the cold. The book on 2008 has been written, the t-shirts and hats and collectibles created, and, well, as of Monday the team will announce a new GM to replace the retiring Gillick and talk of rebuilding the roster. The Circle of Baseball Life, as it were.
I've shared with you some of my personal story, but not all of it. You know from previous posts that my father took me to games as early as 1964, that we watched the Hall of Fame performances of Steve Carlton and Mike Schmidt, the playoff teams of the late 1970s and the World Series teams of 1980 and 1983. (Dad was at Game 6 of the 1980 Series, when Tug McGraw struck out Willie Wilson to end the game and clinch the Phillies' Series victory). We watched some great visiting teams and players -- Bench, Seaver, Perez, McCovey, Mays, Winfield, Carter (Gary), Stargell, Parker, and many, many more. We sat in the Sunday heat at Veterans Stadium, once couldn't find our car during a thunderstorm, drank cokes, ate hot dogs and peanuts, and loved talking baseball.
This was the same guy who played wiffle ball with me since I learned to walk, who carried me into our pediatrician's office on several occasions when my congenitally trick knee would pop out on me as a young boy. The same guy who played two major college sports (including baseball) while only being able to see out of one eye, the guy who would pitch to me in the front yard and catch me with his suit and dress shoes on on a hot summer's night. The guy who taught me to love the game of baseball as a hobby and a pastime, even though, I'm sure, was somewhat disappointed that I didn't demonstrate a fraction of his baseball ability (and whose disappointment, though, did not manifest all that much after a (short) while).
The Philies' post-season was rife with emotions for me and many others. Baseball is the game many of my generation shared with their fathers (and grandfathers), and the Phillies hadn't been in the Series in 15 years and hadn't won one in 28. Philadelphia had gone 25 years without winning a championship in a major sport, and, well, we've been disappointed over the years. So much so that there were more than a few of us who saw the suspension of Game 3 on Monday night -- despite the Phillies' being up 3-1 in games and tied with 3 1/2 innings to go -- as an omen of doom, that the baseball gods were going to deny a great group of fans (as the victory parade demonstrated) and a wonderful team a World Series title. Put simply, while we enjoyed every hit, every home run, every great pitch, we weren't going to relax until, well, Brad Lidge struck out Eric Hinske to clinch Game 5 and the world championship for the Phillies.
My eyes welled up at the time, I high-fived my kids and my wife, hugged them, and just sat in my family room with a big smile on my face. Friends from all over emailed me, and I had been emailed my cousin and an old friend constantly during the game, sharing thoughts, emotions and hopes. A good friend called me from Citizens Bank Park (a work commitment compelled me to decline a mid-day offer for 2 tickets to the clincher) to share in the noise and revelry. Boy, it was loud!
It was a great night, and, yes, somewhat hard to get work done the next day. I work in central New Jersey, in a place full of Met and Yankee fans, but my colleagues were waiting to see if I would demonstrate a post-Series glow. I don't have a ton of hobbies, but following the Phillies is one of them. Yes, I smiled, and I bought a celebratory cake for all to share. The victory seemed surreal -- after all, the Phillies have been around since 1883 and had won only one Series before this year. The enormity of the victory had yet to sink in, even as I managed to contribute to the region's retail economy buying shirts, hats and other collectibles for family.
The parade would follow two days later, this past Friday. I managed to get two tickets to Citizens Bank Park to watch the end of the parade. I don't use the words "always" and "never" all that much, but I never want to pick one child over the other. So, we left the decision to my kids. My younger child, my eight year-old son, said my eleven year-old daughter should go because he's gone to more games with me. Moved by her brother's generosity, my daughter said that my son should go because he said she could go. So began an endless loop. In the end, they couldn't decide.
So I started to call friends of mine who might want to go. One had family responsibilities, one was taking his daughter to visit a college, a few others had work commitments. After a short while, I determined that going to the parade wasn't meant to be for me, and that I actually didn't need to go. Instead, we offered the tickets to a family in our community full of diehard fans. The look on their faces was all I needed -- they were thrilled to go.
I watched the parade on my computer at work (sorry, IT colleagues, as I know that streaming slows down the internet for everyone) and called my mother for updates (she was watching on TV at home). I marveled at the sea of red, the large crowd, the reaction of the players to the cheering they received from an entire region. It was great to see, galvanizing what I had always known -- that the Philadelphia fans are as dedicated as they come.
While the parade closed the chapter on the season for many, it hadn't for me. I still kept on thinking of my dad, who died way too young, in his mid-50's, and how great it would have been for him to share it with me and my family. About how we would have gone to games together, how he would have bought all sorts of Phillies stuff for the kids, how we would have talked about Cole Hamels' ability to deceive with his changeup, Ryan Howard's power, Chase Utley's overall excellence, Jimmy Rollins' leadership, and so on. We miss our loved ones for all sorts of reasons -- for their unconditional love, for their wisdom, for their humor and for the things we shared with them the most. For me, baseball was at the top of the list. The Phillies' success once again rekindled my strong, loving memories of my father. I needed to find my own way to close the chapter on the Phillies' season. Somehow, going to a parade with at least a million people in attendance just wasn't going to be it.
So this afternoon, I went to his grave site. I took with me a Phillies' towel and a cigar (he and many of his friends used to light them up on occasion). I placed the towel next to his headstone and started smoking a cigar, just the family plot, his headstone, me, my cigar and my thoughts. I shared with him news of the family and, of course, the Phillies, and how he'd have so much to be proud of. I watched as a few cars with Phillies flags drove by, headed to grave sites perhaps for the same reason I did. That notion, perhaps, might be lost on an entire nation -- that the Phillies' victory evoked so many positive memories and emotions for all of us.
I laughed, and, yes, I cried. I cried for the joy of what we couldn't share together, for the joy of what happened, and for the plain fact that I miss him. I laughed at some of the things we would have thought humorous, but, mostly, I just sat there, puffing this big cigar on a beautiful fall afternoon, alone in my thoughts, being thankful for what I have and for the bond that the Philadelphia Phillies and the game of baseball created between us.
That solitude was my parade, my way to close the chapter, my way to honor the Phillies and my father and to express my gratitude. Not just to a great baseball team, not just to great shared experiences with my family from spring training through Game 5, but also to a good man who gave me a great gift. I needed something less complicated than that -- just my father's memory, a cigar, and a nice fall afternoon.
Thank you, Philadelphia Phillies -- for everything.
I've shared with you some of my personal story, but not all of it. You know from previous posts that my father took me to games as early as 1964, that we watched the Hall of Fame performances of Steve Carlton and Mike Schmidt, the playoff teams of the late 1970s and the World Series teams of 1980 and 1983. (Dad was at Game 6 of the 1980 Series, when Tug McGraw struck out Willie Wilson to end the game and clinch the Phillies' Series victory). We watched some great visiting teams and players -- Bench, Seaver, Perez, McCovey, Mays, Winfield, Carter (Gary), Stargell, Parker, and many, many more. We sat in the Sunday heat at Veterans Stadium, once couldn't find our car during a thunderstorm, drank cokes, ate hot dogs and peanuts, and loved talking baseball.
This was the same guy who played wiffle ball with me since I learned to walk, who carried me into our pediatrician's office on several occasions when my congenitally trick knee would pop out on me as a young boy. The same guy who played two major college sports (including baseball) while only being able to see out of one eye, the guy who would pitch to me in the front yard and catch me with his suit and dress shoes on on a hot summer's night. The guy who taught me to love the game of baseball as a hobby and a pastime, even though, I'm sure, was somewhat disappointed that I didn't demonstrate a fraction of his baseball ability (and whose disappointment, though, did not manifest all that much after a (short) while).
The Philies' post-season was rife with emotions for me and many others. Baseball is the game many of my generation shared with their fathers (and grandfathers), and the Phillies hadn't been in the Series in 15 years and hadn't won one in 28. Philadelphia had gone 25 years without winning a championship in a major sport, and, well, we've been disappointed over the years. So much so that there were more than a few of us who saw the suspension of Game 3 on Monday night -- despite the Phillies' being up 3-1 in games and tied with 3 1/2 innings to go -- as an omen of doom, that the baseball gods were going to deny a great group of fans (as the victory parade demonstrated) and a wonderful team a World Series title. Put simply, while we enjoyed every hit, every home run, every great pitch, we weren't going to relax until, well, Brad Lidge struck out Eric Hinske to clinch Game 5 and the world championship for the Phillies.
My eyes welled up at the time, I high-fived my kids and my wife, hugged them, and just sat in my family room with a big smile on my face. Friends from all over emailed me, and I had been emailed my cousin and an old friend constantly during the game, sharing thoughts, emotions and hopes. A good friend called me from Citizens Bank Park (a work commitment compelled me to decline a mid-day offer for 2 tickets to the clincher) to share in the noise and revelry. Boy, it was loud!
It was a great night, and, yes, somewhat hard to get work done the next day. I work in central New Jersey, in a place full of Met and Yankee fans, but my colleagues were waiting to see if I would demonstrate a post-Series glow. I don't have a ton of hobbies, but following the Phillies is one of them. Yes, I smiled, and I bought a celebratory cake for all to share. The victory seemed surreal -- after all, the Phillies have been around since 1883 and had won only one Series before this year. The enormity of the victory had yet to sink in, even as I managed to contribute to the region's retail economy buying shirts, hats and other collectibles for family.
The parade would follow two days later, this past Friday. I managed to get two tickets to Citizens Bank Park to watch the end of the parade. I don't use the words "always" and "never" all that much, but I never want to pick one child over the other. So, we left the decision to my kids. My younger child, my eight year-old son, said my eleven year-old daughter should go because he's gone to more games with me. Moved by her brother's generosity, my daughter said that my son should go because he said she could go. So began an endless loop. In the end, they couldn't decide.
So I started to call friends of mine who might want to go. One had family responsibilities, one was taking his daughter to visit a college, a few others had work commitments. After a short while, I determined that going to the parade wasn't meant to be for me, and that I actually didn't need to go. Instead, we offered the tickets to a family in our community full of diehard fans. The look on their faces was all I needed -- they were thrilled to go.
I watched the parade on my computer at work (sorry, IT colleagues, as I know that streaming slows down the internet for everyone) and called my mother for updates (she was watching on TV at home). I marveled at the sea of red, the large crowd, the reaction of the players to the cheering they received from an entire region. It was great to see, galvanizing what I had always known -- that the Philadelphia fans are as dedicated as they come.
While the parade closed the chapter on the season for many, it hadn't for me. I still kept on thinking of my dad, who died way too young, in his mid-50's, and how great it would have been for him to share it with me and my family. About how we would have gone to games together, how he would have bought all sorts of Phillies stuff for the kids, how we would have talked about Cole Hamels' ability to deceive with his changeup, Ryan Howard's power, Chase Utley's overall excellence, Jimmy Rollins' leadership, and so on. We miss our loved ones for all sorts of reasons -- for their unconditional love, for their wisdom, for their humor and for the things we shared with them the most. For me, baseball was at the top of the list. The Phillies' success once again rekindled my strong, loving memories of my father. I needed to find my own way to close the chapter on the Phillies' season. Somehow, going to a parade with at least a million people in attendance just wasn't going to be it.
So this afternoon, I went to his grave site. I took with me a Phillies' towel and a cigar (he and many of his friends used to light them up on occasion). I placed the towel next to his headstone and started smoking a cigar, just the family plot, his headstone, me, my cigar and my thoughts. I shared with him news of the family and, of course, the Phillies, and how he'd have so much to be proud of. I watched as a few cars with Phillies flags drove by, headed to grave sites perhaps for the same reason I did. That notion, perhaps, might be lost on an entire nation -- that the Phillies' victory evoked so many positive memories and emotions for all of us.
I laughed, and, yes, I cried. I cried for the joy of what we couldn't share together, for the joy of what happened, and for the plain fact that I miss him. I laughed at some of the things we would have thought humorous, but, mostly, I just sat there, puffing this big cigar on a beautiful fall afternoon, alone in my thoughts, being thankful for what I have and for the bond that the Philadelphia Phillies and the game of baseball created between us.
That solitude was my parade, my way to close the chapter, my way to honor the Phillies and my father and to express my gratitude. Not just to a great baseball team, not just to great shared experiences with my family from spring training through Game 5, but also to a good man who gave me a great gift. I needed something less complicated than that -- just my father's memory, a cigar, and a nice fall afternoon.
Thank you, Philadelphia Phillies -- for everything.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Phils Win! Phils Win! Phils Win!
Phinally!
As a diehard Phillies' fan, I have waited 28 years for this.
As a stalwart Philadelphia fan, I have waited 25 years for another title.
The Phillies picked up where they left off last night. Another of many signature moments was when seldom-used OF Geoff Jenkins, "leading off" in the suspended game, doubled to right centerfield. Somehow, we Phillies fans knew that this was an omen of good things to come.
To the Rays' great credit, they kept battling. A nifty infield play by 2B Chase Utley prevented the Rays from taking the lead, as Utley threw Rays' SS Jason Bartlett out at home. Another signature play, as Utley faked throwing to first, prompting the Rays' 3B coach to send Bartlett home. Carlos Ruiz made the tag, and the game remained tied.
Fittingly, it was the Phillies' closer, "Lights Out" Lidge, who sealed the deal by striking out pinch hitter Eric Hinske to end the game. Controlled pandemonium ensued (the only "scary" moment was when 1B Ryan Howard ran in from his position and plowed into Lidge, but thankfully no one was worse for the wear).
Among the great moments last night, in no particular order of preference:
1. Phillies SS Jimmy Rollins, who said that before the game, he told Jenkins, "Listen, this is the middle of the game. You have to get up there and make something happen."
2. Phillies manager Charlie Manuel, whose post-game salute of the fans was memorable in its sincerity and tone.
3. The guy in a Santa Claus suit who held up a sign that said "Phillies fans, I forgive you." Phillies fans were accused of tossing snowballs at Santa in the 1970's. What really happened was that the guy playing Santa was drunk, so they were bombarding him because he was dishonoring Santa, but, naturally, the national media took another opportunity to slam the City of Brotherly Love.
4. The signs that said, "Mitch, we forgive you," as Phillies' fans remember well Mitch Williams, the sometimes wild closer who gave up the Series-ending home run to Joe Carter in the 1993 fall classic. I shrugged; I had never held anything against Williams, who I thought did the best he could. (I thought that the Blue Jays were the better team and that Phillies' manager Jim Fregosi was too stubborn upon insisting that the sometimes struggling Williams always had to pitch the 9th inning). At any rate, when I said all of this to my wife, she said, "Oh my, I didn't forgive him." And she's from Baltimore! Mitch has turned into a wonderful TV commentator.
5. Have a happy retirement, Pat Gillick! You built that Blue Jays' team, you built Seattle several years ago (they won 116 games in the regular season one year you were there) and you helped finish the job in Philadelphia. Great job!
6. Somewhere Ed Wade, Pat Gillick's predecessor, is laughing and smiling. He helped build this team, too, and deserves some of the credit for the team's success.
7. It was great to see the players so happy. To a player, they did their best, picked each other up and did a fantastic job.
8. Lastly, the fans. You stayed to 2 a.m., you got soaked, you froze, and you saw a great triumph!
Onto the parade!
Let's go, Phillies!
As a diehard Phillies' fan, I have waited 28 years for this.
As a stalwart Philadelphia fan, I have waited 25 years for another title.
The Phillies picked up where they left off last night. Another of many signature moments was when seldom-used OF Geoff Jenkins, "leading off" in the suspended game, doubled to right centerfield. Somehow, we Phillies fans knew that this was an omen of good things to come.
To the Rays' great credit, they kept battling. A nifty infield play by 2B Chase Utley prevented the Rays from taking the lead, as Utley threw Rays' SS Jason Bartlett out at home. Another signature play, as Utley faked throwing to first, prompting the Rays' 3B coach to send Bartlett home. Carlos Ruiz made the tag, and the game remained tied.
Fittingly, it was the Phillies' closer, "Lights Out" Lidge, who sealed the deal by striking out pinch hitter Eric Hinske to end the game. Controlled pandemonium ensued (the only "scary" moment was when 1B Ryan Howard ran in from his position and plowed into Lidge, but thankfully no one was worse for the wear).
Among the great moments last night, in no particular order of preference:
1. Phillies SS Jimmy Rollins, who said that before the game, he told Jenkins, "Listen, this is the middle of the game. You have to get up there and make something happen."
2. Phillies manager Charlie Manuel, whose post-game salute of the fans was memorable in its sincerity and tone.
3. The guy in a Santa Claus suit who held up a sign that said "Phillies fans, I forgive you." Phillies fans were accused of tossing snowballs at Santa in the 1970's. What really happened was that the guy playing Santa was drunk, so they were bombarding him because he was dishonoring Santa, but, naturally, the national media took another opportunity to slam the City of Brotherly Love.
4. The signs that said, "Mitch, we forgive you," as Phillies' fans remember well Mitch Williams, the sometimes wild closer who gave up the Series-ending home run to Joe Carter in the 1993 fall classic. I shrugged; I had never held anything against Williams, who I thought did the best he could. (I thought that the Blue Jays were the better team and that Phillies' manager Jim Fregosi was too stubborn upon insisting that the sometimes struggling Williams always had to pitch the 9th inning). At any rate, when I said all of this to my wife, she said, "Oh my, I didn't forgive him." And she's from Baltimore! Mitch has turned into a wonderful TV commentator.
5. Have a happy retirement, Pat Gillick! You built that Blue Jays' team, you built Seattle several years ago (they won 116 games in the regular season one year you were there) and you helped finish the job in Philadelphia. Great job!
6. Somewhere Ed Wade, Pat Gillick's predecessor, is laughing and smiling. He helped build this team, too, and deserves some of the credit for the team's success.
7. It was great to see the players so happy. To a player, they did their best, picked each other up and did a fantastic job.
8. Lastly, the fans. You stayed to 2 a.m., you got soaked, you froze, and you saw a great triumph!
Onto the parade!
Let's go, Phillies!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A Sincere Apology to Tampa Bay Fans
Dear Tampa Bay fans who went to games in Citizens Bank Park:
On behalf of the good fans of the City of Philadelphia (and not the profane, adult-adolescent group who seems to grab all the highlights and actually is small in number), I apologize to you on several accounts.
First, I apologize to you for verbal abuse and threatening behavior that you had to endure because of the particular people who were acting like morons. That behavior is unacceptable, embarrassing, and demeaning. The people who acted badly toward you should be ashamed of themselves, as we, the good fans, are ashamed of them. Believe it when I say that we don't like those bad actors any more than you do. Believe it when we say that we're disappointed in Phillies' management for not giving us the ability to text security (the way fans can do in many NFL stadiums) to alert them to physically menacing and consistently profane behavior, so they can send a team to diffuse a situation and usher the bad actors out. We all deserve better.
Second, I apologize to you for those instances where the good fans didn't take a stand and at least call out to the bad actors to stop. During the rain delay on Saturday night, I witnessed one episode where Tampa Bay fans had trouble getting past a bunch of about-to-be-drunk adult adolescents, some of whom said some very foul things (and, yes, my son and daughter were nearby and had to hear this filth). I shouted to them to stop, told them that kids were nearby. I gripped my umbrella, as did my wife, just in case. They were bullies and cowards, and, chastened, they slinked away. Needless to say, we moved away from them. The good fans who didn't take a stand should think twice about speaking up and out against the small few who can ruin a good time for the rest of us.
Third, I also apologize to you for the below-par job Phillies' management did, especially on Saturday night. They should have been better prepared. Yes, you can yell loudly, call Evan Longoria "Eva", try to boo Matt Garza off the mound, display funny signs and, yes, yell out to the general crowd. But you shouldn't be able to be consistently profane or menacing. Add in a bunch of beers consumed during a rain delay and fans frustrated because they're soggy, and management and Major League Baseball created a dangerous brew. Fortunately, no one got hurt. That said, I'm sorry that you couldn't enjoy yourselves. That's terrible.
So, please accept this heartfelt apology. I walked up to a few groups of Tampa Bay fans, apologize for the behavior that I saw displayed toward them and told them that not all of us go to ball games to drink to excess, act menacingly and shout profanely. Most of us see the same beauty in the game that you do. Most of us like to share our experiences with family members the same way you do. And, believe it or not, most of us admire the story of the Rays' season.
You deserved better at Citizens Bank Park -- from all Philadelphia fans, from Phillies' management, and from ballpark security.
Much better.
On behalf of the good fans of the City of Philadelphia (and not the profane, adult-adolescent group who seems to grab all the highlights and actually is small in number), I apologize to you on several accounts.
First, I apologize to you for verbal abuse and threatening behavior that you had to endure because of the particular people who were acting like morons. That behavior is unacceptable, embarrassing, and demeaning. The people who acted badly toward you should be ashamed of themselves, as we, the good fans, are ashamed of them. Believe it when I say that we don't like those bad actors any more than you do. Believe it when we say that we're disappointed in Phillies' management for not giving us the ability to text security (the way fans can do in many NFL stadiums) to alert them to physically menacing and consistently profane behavior, so they can send a team to diffuse a situation and usher the bad actors out. We all deserve better.
Second, I apologize to you for those instances where the good fans didn't take a stand and at least call out to the bad actors to stop. During the rain delay on Saturday night, I witnessed one episode where Tampa Bay fans had trouble getting past a bunch of about-to-be-drunk adult adolescents, some of whom said some very foul things (and, yes, my son and daughter were nearby and had to hear this filth). I shouted to them to stop, told them that kids were nearby. I gripped my umbrella, as did my wife, just in case. They were bullies and cowards, and, chastened, they slinked away. Needless to say, we moved away from them. The good fans who didn't take a stand should think twice about speaking up and out against the small few who can ruin a good time for the rest of us.
Third, I also apologize to you for the below-par job Phillies' management did, especially on Saturday night. They should have been better prepared. Yes, you can yell loudly, call Evan Longoria "Eva", try to boo Matt Garza off the mound, display funny signs and, yes, yell out to the general crowd. But you shouldn't be able to be consistently profane or menacing. Add in a bunch of beers consumed during a rain delay and fans frustrated because they're soggy, and management and Major League Baseball created a dangerous brew. Fortunately, no one got hurt. That said, I'm sorry that you couldn't enjoy yourselves. That's terrible.
So, please accept this heartfelt apology. I walked up to a few groups of Tampa Bay fans, apologize for the behavior that I saw displayed toward them and told them that not all of us go to ball games to drink to excess, act menacingly and shout profanely. Most of us see the same beauty in the game that you do. Most of us like to share our experiences with family members the same way you do. And, believe it or not, most of us admire the story of the Rays' season.
You deserved better at Citizens Bank Park -- from all Philadelphia fans, from Phillies' management, and from ballpark security.
Much better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)