When I was a kid, I was a pretty good shot. My day camp had riflery, and I shot .22's, pretty well, too. I remember the range master and how he ran the range. You were given a rifle, and the first round was for practice. Correcting for bad sighting was easy if, for example, your first five shots ended up in the upper right hand quadrant of the target. He'd tell you to adjust your sight two clicks to the left and two clicks down. Then, when you shot your next round, presumably you would place your bullets in the area of the bulls eye (which actually happened much more often than not).
Contrast that with the shooter who misses the target or places shots in each quadrant. That shooter is so inconsistent he probably is not controlling his breathing, is jerking the trigger and has no idea whether he will hit the target or not. The problem is so bad if so fundamental that it is hard to correct. You need to tell the shooter to control his breathing, but not to stop it, and not to jerk the trigger, etc., etc., etc. The point being that it is much harder to correct this problem because the problems are manifested all over the place.
And that leads me to the Philadelphia 76ers. The good news, if you can call it that, is that the team's problems are consistent, analogously in the same quadrant. They are the following: 1) Ben Simmons right now is either unable or unwilling to shoot the ball enough and well enough to take over a game, for all of the hype behind him; 2) the team has a penchant for blowing big leads in the second half; 3) the team turns the ball over too much; 4) the team has too many one-dimensional guards and cannot guard another team's star guard; and 5) it still does not know whether for all the money they are paying him they can have a healthy and in-shape Joel Embiid on the floor for 75 games a season.
The bad news, if we go back to the rifle range analogy, is that the range master could be dealing with a shooter with an out-of-date gun or bad eyes, as the problems the team is dealing with, while fixable, are pronounced, especially for a team that is in year 5 or so of "The Process." Problem #6, if there is one, is that there have been a lot of misses in the draft, for all of Sam Hinkie's stockpiling of draft picks (and, to his credit, Hinkie warned that not every move would work). Michael Carter-Williams was a miss, as were Nerlens Noel and Jahlil Okafor, the latter somewhat glaring because the league has almost totally morphed away from needing the type of player Okafor is, which is a throwback to the days where you couldn't win without a center who could dominate in the low post. And it is hard to say right now what the team has in Simmons, who admittedly missed a season in his formative years and has shown signs of brilliance, and this year's first overall pick, Markell Fultz, whose grade must be an incomplete.
So, how to fix things? As for #1, Simmons needs to spend the summer working on his jump shot. His 103 or so touches a game, which the last time I looked were 20 more than the next guy, seem excessive when you consider his overall production. Kyrie Irving, LeBron James, and Russell Westbrook he is not. To me, the more touches a player has, the easier it can be to defend his team. So, patience has to be the watch word. As for #2, part of that is personnel, part of that is leadership and part of that is coaching. Robert Covington and Embiid are defensive stoppers; the team has no such stopper at guard and seems to present an opportunity for an opposing guard -- the other night it was Shabazz Napier because the Trail Blazers were without Damian Lilliard -- to show his stuff. But given that this is a persistent problem, coach Brett Brown, for all of his positivity, has to be held accountable too, as does the front office. If for no other reason, get a guard who can come off the bench and given you 15-20 minutes a night of the type of pain-in-the-neck defense that helps define a winning team. That could help the team prevent some awful skids in the second half.
As for #3, that's a hard one, but it seems like there are certain players for whom this problem persists -- Embiid, perhaps because he is not in optimal shape or because he has yet to fully realize that backing in and putting the ball on the floor can be problematic and shooting guard J.J. Redick, who the team signed to a one-year, $23 million deal to shoot better than he has, turn the ball over less and defend better than he has. Again, this has to be a matter of concentration and having the players become more familiar with one another more than anything else. Coaching figures into this too -- there just are too many mistakes for a team that should make the playoffs but right now does not look like it is going to.
#4 seems like one of the biggest problems. The guard corps simply does not defend well. That's why the team drafted Fultz, a comprehensive guard whom they hope can bring the mojo the way the elite guards in the league do. Teams salivated over him, and it seemed clear from mid-season last season that he was the consensus #1 pick. But he has missed a lot of time, and other guards in the draft (think Donovan Mitchell) have distinguished themselves, as has Celtics' forward Jayson Tatum, who can flat-out shoot the lights out. So, the pressure mounts, and given some of the things that manifested themselves when the team shelved Fultz only a few games into the season, you have to wonder what is ailing him. This ownership group is notoriously non-transparent about player issues, so is it just Fultz's shoulder or did his machinations in trying to play in pain create a hitch in his shot that the team has struggled to correct? Many questions are out there, but presumably if the team were to get the Fultz that they thought they drafted, they would have an outstanding piece who could help cure some of their core woes -- well-rounded back court play.
As for #6, the team cannot afford the magnitude of mistakes it has made with its top draft picks. As they go forward, they need to find the right pieces to fit in with some potential superstars. The future still has a bright tint to it, but now that the misses seem to be consistent and falling into a pattern, they should be easier to correct. Each and every one of them presents a unique problem. Fixable? Sure, but the fixes for some require some depth and consideration in approach and do not suggest that they can be quick. Are they possibly quick enough to turn around this downturn and enable the team to make the playoffs? Perhaps yes, perhaps not.
The Process has hit a bump in the road. The team is not as good as people thought it could be at the season's outset or when the team when on a good run in the early fall. That said, it is not as bad as its recent play has suggested and the schedule seems to get easier in the second half. Optimists suggest that the process still has a way to go and that fans should be patient. Right now, that is all that they can be; they have no choice.
Should the team go on a run, Simmons assert himself more, Fultz become healthy, Embiid stay healthy and the team go on a roll, all will be rosy, the team will make the playoffs and things will be looking up. And the team might have another key draft pick and will have the most money to spend on free agents, who, presumably, will be willing to come to Philadelphia and help forge a squad that can make a deep run in the playoffs.
Should Embiid's back continue to balk and he miss games, Fultz look more like Carter-Williams and less like a potential Harden or Westbrook or Irving, the team continue to blow leads and the team spiral into a sub-.500 season, perhaps significantly so, then the picture will be different. Will the fans -- who clearly bought into the hype -- return to the level they upped for season-ticket packages this year? Will Simmons and Fultz project out to be more than starters, even if pretty good ones? (The team needs stars, absolute stars -- to contend for at title). And will Embiid end up on the list of big men who could have been something and could have contributed heavily to a contender but for persistent maladies? That is the nightmare scenario.
The stakes are higher. The pressure is greater. The shine is off. Potential means, as Michigan State football coach Duffy Daugherty once said, "that you ain't done it yet." The clock keeps on ticking; other teams do not stand still. With each game, the scrutiny intensifies, the patience diminishes. The Process once was cool, funky, mysterious, intriguing, in vogue. Right now, it is a bit like yesterday's fashion hit, the car of the year a couple of years back. Still cool, but neither the latest nor the greatest.
The fans are waiting for it to break out, to yield the harvest that was predicted for it, even if those doing the predicting were those doing the hyping in order to create some magic beyond the fellows who do amazing things with drums during timeout at the Wells Fargo Center. The place is festive, and there are moments of brilliance. But that's all they are -- moments. Not win streaks, not seasons, not eras. Moments. The fans like the moments, to be sure. But they are waiting for what was promised -- the momentous and, ultimately, monuments to those who win championships.
Moments help sell tickets for a season.
The momentous lasts forever.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
The Big Ten and Bowl Games
No knocking the results. That said. . .
The SEC has two teams in the playoff. The Big Ten has none.
Which means one of many things:
1. The Big Ten from top to bottom is the better conference.
2. The SEC is top heavy (see #1).
3. The SEC is overrated.
4. The Big Ten is underrated.
5. The entire system needs a reboot.
6. The playoff should have eight teams in it.
7. Those who run the playoff should not whine that the playoff takes the kids away from classes and that adding another round would add to that distraction when there usually is a gap of a month between the end of the (regular) season and the bowl games anyway.
8. There is so much money involved that the players are getting exploited and that a scholarship is not enough compensation for the (unilateral) commitment they make in that a) scholarships are not for four years but renewable on an annual basis; b) kids have to sit out a year if they transfer to a BCS school, c) kids in the current program can get penalized for the sins of a past program in that they might not be able to go to a bowl game or have an inferior team because their team is not able to award the same scholarships as an unpenalized team and d) coaches can leave at any time for anywhere and not have to sit out a year, but players cannot leave without penalty if a coach does.
9. Americans are unique people who fixate on this sort of thing when the rest of the world is focused on its professional soccer leagues and the World Cup, which is set for June and July in Moscow.
10. Saquon Barkley is an amazing football player.
11. Urban Meyer's lustre might be fading.
12. Paul Chryst knows a few choice words.
13. It's hard to win consistently at Vanderbilt.
14. Wisconsin does not get a lot of respect.
15. If Alabama's football program were a country, its revenue would put it in the top 50 in the world.
16. If Alabama's football program were a country, the United Nations would try to sanction it for unspeakable crimes against humanity.
17. Nick Saban is the [name the dictator] of college football.
18. People still do not know who Kirby Smart is.
19. People in the Northeast still think "Securities and Exchange Commission" when they first hear the term SEC mentioned.
20. How many people care about bowl games except those who sponsor them and those whose schools participate in them, if only because there are so many. Back in the day, when there were only 7 TV channels in a major city and entertainment options were scarce, as a sports fan you cared and you watched. But when options abound -- for example such DI stalwarts as Cornell and Harvard were on TV last night on the road (on ESPN, no less) playing basketball at SEC schools, well, if you could tune into that why watch Wisconsin take on Miami, for example, for forego watching a Harry Potter marathon on your cable channel?
Happy New Year!
The SEC has two teams in the playoff. The Big Ten has none.
Which means one of many things:
1. The Big Ten from top to bottom is the better conference.
2. The SEC is top heavy (see #1).
3. The SEC is overrated.
4. The Big Ten is underrated.
5. The entire system needs a reboot.
6. The playoff should have eight teams in it.
7. Those who run the playoff should not whine that the playoff takes the kids away from classes and that adding another round would add to that distraction when there usually is a gap of a month between the end of the (regular) season and the bowl games anyway.
8. There is so much money involved that the players are getting exploited and that a scholarship is not enough compensation for the (unilateral) commitment they make in that a) scholarships are not for four years but renewable on an annual basis; b) kids have to sit out a year if they transfer to a BCS school, c) kids in the current program can get penalized for the sins of a past program in that they might not be able to go to a bowl game or have an inferior team because their team is not able to award the same scholarships as an unpenalized team and d) coaches can leave at any time for anywhere and not have to sit out a year, but players cannot leave without penalty if a coach does.
9. Americans are unique people who fixate on this sort of thing when the rest of the world is focused on its professional soccer leagues and the World Cup, which is set for June and July in Moscow.
10. Saquon Barkley is an amazing football player.
11. Urban Meyer's lustre might be fading.
12. Paul Chryst knows a few choice words.
13. It's hard to win consistently at Vanderbilt.
14. Wisconsin does not get a lot of respect.
15. If Alabama's football program were a country, its revenue would put it in the top 50 in the world.
16. If Alabama's football program were a country, the United Nations would try to sanction it for unspeakable crimes against humanity.
17. Nick Saban is the [name the dictator] of college football.
18. People still do not know who Kirby Smart is.
19. People in the Northeast still think "Securities and Exchange Commission" when they first hear the term SEC mentioned.
20. How many people care about bowl games except those who sponsor them and those whose schools participate in them, if only because there are so many. Back in the day, when there were only 7 TV channels in a major city and entertainment options were scarce, as a sports fan you cared and you watched. But when options abound -- for example such DI stalwarts as Cornell and Harvard were on TV last night on the road (on ESPN, no less) playing basketball at SEC schools, well, if you could tune into that why watch Wisconsin take on Miami, for example, for forego watching a Harry Potter marathon on your cable channel?
Happy New Year!
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
The Marlins' Fire Sale
Why should you go to a game if you are a Miami Marlins' fan? Your team just traded its stars, and I would have said bankable stars but new CEO Derek Jeter recently spoke of netting a gain of $265 million by shedding the long-term contract of uber-slugger Giancarlo Stanton. His premise is that the Marlins will not win with Stanton because they are lacking too many other pieces, so why shell out that money for him? In other words, fans need to trust the process with business decisions like that so that the Marlins can re-tool the team the new-fashioned way -- through draft picks, the signing of foreign players and analytics.
The Marlins are an obvious choice to pick on, but so are perennial also-rans in many other leagues with the exception of the National Football League, where parity is such that many of last year's good teams have fallen off, only to be replaced this year by teams who were not all that good last year. That's great for the NFL, which has some serious issues to deal with, first and foremost of which is the long-term health of its players. But in Major League Baseball, it has to be hard to root for the Marlins now or the San Diego Padres almost ever. In the English Premier League, it has to be hard to root for a team not named City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham and Arsenal, although admittedly it can be tough to be a fan of those teams too. That said, with the exception of Leicester's catching lightning in a bottle a few years ago, why would anyone spend a lot of emotional energy to root for anyone else. True, money does not buy you a title, but it is necessary to spend a lot to get your team into the top six. And with the NBA, well, it has to be hard to be, among other things, a fan of the Brooklyn Nets or the Phoenix Suns.
Circling back to the Marlins, they just jettisoned the key players. Yet, they're asking season ticket holders to renew and new people to subscribe to season tickets. I'll put it to you another way. Give me the Astros and the worst sales force in the world or the Marlins and the best one, and I'll bet on the Astros' sales force to sell more tickets than the Marlins' sales force any day of the week. I only can imagine the sales pitch being made to Marlins' fans. Among the possibilities are "come see the other team" and "invest in the future of professional baseball in Florida." As to the former, years ago the Nats and Pirates advertised in the Philadelphia market to draw Phillies' fans to their teams road series in Washington and Pittsburgh. Could the Marlins do the same? As to "trusting a process," well, you need some future stars to watch now in order to make that pitch compelling. The 76ers had amazingly talented Joel Embiid available last year. By comparison, who do the Marlins have?
After the 2008 season, the Phillies had waiting lists for their full- and partial-season ticket plans. Because they were not forward-thinking after 2008, the team consistently regressed to the point where they are today, where the team is trying to sell hope to the fans, whose experience is that the team more often than not has not been that good. Today, you can buy single-game tickets in any section of the ball park, including the section right behind home plate. I suppose that the business owners and plaintiffs lawyers stop subscribing if the team does not provide a compelling product on the field. And Philadelphia has been a baseball town. Sure, it's an Eagles' town, but it also has plenty of baseball fans. Even then, the team's average attendance has been way down. The once electric atmosphere at Citizens Bank Park now reflects the current of a third-world island whose power remains constant for about one-third of a day and sputters the rest of the time.
Loneliness is a killer. Remember "That Natural?" The New York team that Robert Redford played for and Wilfred Brimley managed played to an empty stadium, where you could hear foul balls clatter off empty bleachers in the midst of a hot summer's day. The Marlins' broadcasters will be able to hear individual conversations from the stands and distinguish the call of the lonely hot dog or beer vender in the seats near their perch. Fans will go, some out of habit and some because their dads took them and they feel obligated to take their kids. But people will not come close to turning out in big numbers, perhaps for a long time. It doesn't help that the new owner has all of the personality of someone who just underwent a colonoscopy without anesthesia. Even Derek Jeter does not seem to believe in the product he will be putting on the field come March. The stadium will be empty; the experience at the ball park worse than loneliness, because encroaching upon a fan's solitude will be awful play juxtaposed against not-so-distant memories of the champions of 1997 and 2003.
The omnipresence of the media offers numerous entertainment alternatives. It seems like Marlins' fans will save money and at the same time find more joy in something other than baseball, for this season and years to come. Derek Jeter, if he has not already, will realize quickly that the magic he brought to the playing field does not have any sway in a town where, if anything, its fans footed for him to fail. Now they need him to succeed -- and in a hurry.
The Marlins are an obvious choice to pick on, but so are perennial also-rans in many other leagues with the exception of the National Football League, where parity is such that many of last year's good teams have fallen off, only to be replaced this year by teams who were not all that good last year. That's great for the NFL, which has some serious issues to deal with, first and foremost of which is the long-term health of its players. But in Major League Baseball, it has to be hard to root for the Marlins now or the San Diego Padres almost ever. In the English Premier League, it has to be hard to root for a team not named City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham and Arsenal, although admittedly it can be tough to be a fan of those teams too. That said, with the exception of Leicester's catching lightning in a bottle a few years ago, why would anyone spend a lot of emotional energy to root for anyone else. True, money does not buy you a title, but it is necessary to spend a lot to get your team into the top six. And with the NBA, well, it has to be hard to be, among other things, a fan of the Brooklyn Nets or the Phoenix Suns.
Circling back to the Marlins, they just jettisoned the key players. Yet, they're asking season ticket holders to renew and new people to subscribe to season tickets. I'll put it to you another way. Give me the Astros and the worst sales force in the world or the Marlins and the best one, and I'll bet on the Astros' sales force to sell more tickets than the Marlins' sales force any day of the week. I only can imagine the sales pitch being made to Marlins' fans. Among the possibilities are "come see the other team" and "invest in the future of professional baseball in Florida." As to the former, years ago the Nats and Pirates advertised in the Philadelphia market to draw Phillies' fans to their teams road series in Washington and Pittsburgh. Could the Marlins do the same? As to "trusting a process," well, you need some future stars to watch now in order to make that pitch compelling. The 76ers had amazingly talented Joel Embiid available last year. By comparison, who do the Marlins have?
After the 2008 season, the Phillies had waiting lists for their full- and partial-season ticket plans. Because they were not forward-thinking after 2008, the team consistently regressed to the point where they are today, where the team is trying to sell hope to the fans, whose experience is that the team more often than not has not been that good. Today, you can buy single-game tickets in any section of the ball park, including the section right behind home plate. I suppose that the business owners and plaintiffs lawyers stop subscribing if the team does not provide a compelling product on the field. And Philadelphia has been a baseball town. Sure, it's an Eagles' town, but it also has plenty of baseball fans. Even then, the team's average attendance has been way down. The once electric atmosphere at Citizens Bank Park now reflects the current of a third-world island whose power remains constant for about one-third of a day and sputters the rest of the time.
Loneliness is a killer. Remember "That Natural?" The New York team that Robert Redford played for and Wilfred Brimley managed played to an empty stadium, where you could hear foul balls clatter off empty bleachers in the midst of a hot summer's day. The Marlins' broadcasters will be able to hear individual conversations from the stands and distinguish the call of the lonely hot dog or beer vender in the seats near their perch. Fans will go, some out of habit and some because their dads took them and they feel obligated to take their kids. But people will not come close to turning out in big numbers, perhaps for a long time. It doesn't help that the new owner has all of the personality of someone who just underwent a colonoscopy without anesthesia. Even Derek Jeter does not seem to believe in the product he will be putting on the field come March. The stadium will be empty; the experience at the ball park worse than loneliness, because encroaching upon a fan's solitude will be awful play juxtaposed against not-so-distant memories of the champions of 1997 and 2003.
The omnipresence of the media offers numerous entertainment alternatives. It seems like Marlins' fans will save money and at the same time find more joy in something other than baseball, for this season and years to come. Derek Jeter, if he has not already, will realize quickly that the magic he brought to the playing field does not have any sway in a town where, if anything, its fans footed for him to fail. Now they need him to succeed -- and in a hurry.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Kareem is Right
Basketball is the sport of the future.
In the 1970's, the five most popular spectator sports were in no particular order baseball, football, basketball, horse racing and boxing (and I could be wrong, as auto racing might have been better attended than basketball despite a mostly regional appeal because the salary wars between the NBA and ABA were diluting the quality of play and bankrupting teams). Horse racing at the time was the only place you could place a legal bet; fast forward to today and you have lotteries, casinos and places to make legal bets all over the place. Boxing had its day, and there were some awesome fighters back then, so much so that when you watched the summer Olympics, you cared most about the US men's basketball team, the US track teams, the swimmers and the boxers, and, again, not in that order. I would submit that in '76 we cared as much about the fate of Sugar Ray Leonard as anyone on the US Olympic team. But too many shady deals, bad decisions and the brutality of it all have caused boxing to drop way down on the list (although MMA is up).
Fast forward to today. I don't know what the top five are, but it stands to reason that football, baseball and basketball are among the top five, and I would suggest that on a global basis so is soccer (and soccer might be #1 because of how widespread it is played). Hockey fans will scream, kick and shout, and while I appreciate their passion I still doubt how widespread the appeal is. Football has major issues, and it stands to reason that the game that is played 10 years from now will be dramatically different from the one that is played today, much more like flag football, lacrosse or Greco-Roman wrestling. The hitting will be all but gone, and the sport will be different. And, if it were to become like flag football, will it be watchable. I would submit, and have to incur many howlers, that lacrosse in its present state is not all that watchable. The reasons are specialization, that you cannot see the players faces, and that there is an exaggerated importance on the faceoff. A lot of the plays that end up in goals just look the same. The average age of a baseball fan is 55, and the MLB game is not moving any faster. I went to minor league games over the past couple of seasons that took a couple of hours to play; sadly, MLB games take over three hours to play, with too much time between at-bats, pitches, innings, you name it.
That leaves professional basketball. The purists will argue with some merit that it is more entertainment than high art, and they will try to wax eloquent about the joys of the college game. The problem right now with the college game is that teams with the most talent (which include players who will leave after a single season) aren't seasoned enough normally to win a national title. Plus, there are timeouts every four minutes, as it the key strategy sessions held during the timeouts will fundamentally change the way the game is played. As Charles Barkley said yesterday, everyone on a pro team is a very good player. The talent is amazing, you can see the players faces, and the scoring opportunities -- while not as varied and dramatic as in soccer -- are still compelling. The game appeals to fans of all ages and races; by far the most diverse crowds attend professional basketball games. Put simply, basketball is fun to watch, it moves, there is a lot of scoring, and there numerous stars. Quod erat demonstratum.
Unless, of course, you were to look globally. Soccer is king and should continue to be so for a while. Basketball is popular, no doubt, and could gain in popularity should it attempt to go more global (the NBA that is; there are many leagues in many countries other than the United States). People play pick-up soccer anywhere, and it seems that each town in every European country has a team in some sort of league. I just don't think that basketball will overtake soccer in terms of popularity, although basketball's popularity might grow at a rate faster than soccer's. Creating a champions-league concept like they have in soccer might help the NBA's international appeal. That would be quite compelling.
All that said, Kareem is onto something. And if people are angry with what he said, it's because they are in denial and do not want to admit that it has a good chance of happening.
In the 1970's, the five most popular spectator sports were in no particular order baseball, football, basketball, horse racing and boxing (and I could be wrong, as auto racing might have been better attended than basketball despite a mostly regional appeal because the salary wars between the NBA and ABA were diluting the quality of play and bankrupting teams). Horse racing at the time was the only place you could place a legal bet; fast forward to today and you have lotteries, casinos and places to make legal bets all over the place. Boxing had its day, and there were some awesome fighters back then, so much so that when you watched the summer Olympics, you cared most about the US men's basketball team, the US track teams, the swimmers and the boxers, and, again, not in that order. I would submit that in '76 we cared as much about the fate of Sugar Ray Leonard as anyone on the US Olympic team. But too many shady deals, bad decisions and the brutality of it all have caused boxing to drop way down on the list (although MMA is up).
Fast forward to today. I don't know what the top five are, but it stands to reason that football, baseball and basketball are among the top five, and I would suggest that on a global basis so is soccer (and soccer might be #1 because of how widespread it is played). Hockey fans will scream, kick and shout, and while I appreciate their passion I still doubt how widespread the appeal is. Football has major issues, and it stands to reason that the game that is played 10 years from now will be dramatically different from the one that is played today, much more like flag football, lacrosse or Greco-Roman wrestling. The hitting will be all but gone, and the sport will be different. And, if it were to become like flag football, will it be watchable. I would submit, and have to incur many howlers, that lacrosse in its present state is not all that watchable. The reasons are specialization, that you cannot see the players faces, and that there is an exaggerated importance on the faceoff. A lot of the plays that end up in goals just look the same. The average age of a baseball fan is 55, and the MLB game is not moving any faster. I went to minor league games over the past couple of seasons that took a couple of hours to play; sadly, MLB games take over three hours to play, with too much time between at-bats, pitches, innings, you name it.
That leaves professional basketball. The purists will argue with some merit that it is more entertainment than high art, and they will try to wax eloquent about the joys of the college game. The problem right now with the college game is that teams with the most talent (which include players who will leave after a single season) aren't seasoned enough normally to win a national title. Plus, there are timeouts every four minutes, as it the key strategy sessions held during the timeouts will fundamentally change the way the game is played. As Charles Barkley said yesterday, everyone on a pro team is a very good player. The talent is amazing, you can see the players faces, and the scoring opportunities -- while not as varied and dramatic as in soccer -- are still compelling. The game appeals to fans of all ages and races; by far the most diverse crowds attend professional basketball games. Put simply, basketball is fun to watch, it moves, there is a lot of scoring, and there numerous stars. Quod erat demonstratum.
Unless, of course, you were to look globally. Soccer is king and should continue to be so for a while. Basketball is popular, no doubt, and could gain in popularity should it attempt to go more global (the NBA that is; there are many leagues in many countries other than the United States). People play pick-up soccer anywhere, and it seems that each town in every European country has a team in some sort of league. I just don't think that basketball will overtake soccer in terms of popularity, although basketball's popularity might grow at a rate faster than soccer's. Creating a champions-league concept like they have in soccer might help the NBA's international appeal. That would be quite compelling.
All that said, Kareem is onto something. And if people are angry with what he said, it's because they are in denial and do not want to admit that it has a good chance of happening.
Friday, December 08, 2017
Thoughts on 76ers-Lakers Last Night
In no particular order:
1. The 76ers are in a bit of a rut. Losing to Phoenix on Monday and the Lakers last night, the above-.500 76ers lost to two teams who are collectively playing around .333 basketball.
2. The sign of a young, inexperienced team is that it can be absolutely brilliant and absolutely frustrating -- in the same game. Name the game, name the frustration. The team blew a 24-point lead against the Warriors and a big lead at home against the John Wall-less Wizards, only to have that gave devolve into a hack-a-Ben-athon that caused the last five minutes to take 40 to play. Last night, the Lakers got out to a ten point lead -- but the game was not that close, only to see the purple and gold push the lead out to 16 in the second half, and then have the 76ers storm back to tie it up, only then to turn the ball over twice in the last ninety seconds (Embiid once, Reddick the other) and then to have a chance to tie again but to fail to make the shot. If you're a fan, all you can say is "aargh!"
3. The team is exposed defensively at guard. At one point, the 76ers had Reddick, T.J. McConnell and Jarrod Bayless on the floor at once. That defensive combo scares absolutely no one, and the Lakers took advantage of it. That's not to say that Lonzo Ball was a shooting threat -- he isn't -- but Jordon Clarkson had a tidy 16 off the bench in not that many minutes and others (Kentavius Caldwell-Pope comes to mind) shot well enough to help give the Lakers the win. The 76ers need the advertised Markell Fultz to return in a hurry.
4. The team missed Dario Saric last night. I joked that the team was in a fog because of the news that they traded Jahlil Okafor and Nick Stauskas to the Nets earlier in the day. And while those guys had good friends on the team, the team did miss the grit of Saric, who was out with what was reported as an eye laceration. Saric does the dirty work, battles for the offensive boards, and does everything pretty well. That's not to say that the team would have won with him in there -- the game admittedly would have been different, but the rebounding differential that existed for a lot of the game would not have been there. As it was, back-up center turned power forward at least for the night Richaun Holmes had what might have been a career game for him, coming up with many clutch buckets as the team stormed back to tie it up.
5. Joel Embiid is a beast. No one can guard him, and it's hard to figure out how to run any inside offense when he's in there. He's foul-prone now, but that's bound to change as he gets more experience.
6. Ben Simmons had another interesting/potentially awesome stat line with some great plays, yet. . .. 12 points, 13 boards and 15 assists is pretty terrific, but he had some defensive lapses and needs to assert himself more. He is good, but does he know how much better he can be or how good he is? Until he gets more assertive, teams won't have to commit the resources on defense that they have to commit to, among others, James Harden and LeBron James. While he might never shoot as well as those guys, he still can do things most players cannot.
7. Lonzo Ball showed everyone something last night. He played within himself, he rebounded well, defended well enough, made some great passes and scored in the double figures. He is very composed out there. His shooting -- if possible -- is worse than that of Simmons, but he made a strong contribution last night.
8. Brandon Ingram really improved in the off-season. Last year, he looked like the overmatched skinny guy without the strength of Durant or skills more than that of a stationery shooter. This year, he looks stronger, like he put on some good weight, and he really worked on his ability to create shots. He had a very nice night last night.
9. Obligatory word about the officials. Admittedly, officiating basketball might be the hardest game to officiate, although diehard fans of other sports will argue to the contrary. The one thing I noticed is that while hand-checking per se is called, what the officials increasingly do not call are the following -- 1) when a defender puts a forearm on the back of a player who has his back to the basket and 2) when a dribbler wards off a defender with a forearm, pushing him away. Both teams did the former last night, and Ingram's signature move is to push off with his left forearm. That's not to say he's the only one or that the lack of calls on him (or anyone else for that matter) cost the 76ers the game or gave it to the Lakers. The Lakers played better, and the 76ers did not do enough to win. It's just that it's hard to figure out where the consistency is among officials in making calls.
1. The 76ers are in a bit of a rut. Losing to Phoenix on Monday and the Lakers last night, the above-.500 76ers lost to two teams who are collectively playing around .333 basketball.
2. The sign of a young, inexperienced team is that it can be absolutely brilliant and absolutely frustrating -- in the same game. Name the game, name the frustration. The team blew a 24-point lead against the Warriors and a big lead at home against the John Wall-less Wizards, only to have that gave devolve into a hack-a-Ben-athon that caused the last five minutes to take 40 to play. Last night, the Lakers got out to a ten point lead -- but the game was not that close, only to see the purple and gold push the lead out to 16 in the second half, and then have the 76ers storm back to tie it up, only then to turn the ball over twice in the last ninety seconds (Embiid once, Reddick the other) and then to have a chance to tie again but to fail to make the shot. If you're a fan, all you can say is "aargh!"
3. The team is exposed defensively at guard. At one point, the 76ers had Reddick, T.J. McConnell and Jarrod Bayless on the floor at once. That defensive combo scares absolutely no one, and the Lakers took advantage of it. That's not to say that Lonzo Ball was a shooting threat -- he isn't -- but Jordon Clarkson had a tidy 16 off the bench in not that many minutes and others (Kentavius Caldwell-Pope comes to mind) shot well enough to help give the Lakers the win. The 76ers need the advertised Markell Fultz to return in a hurry.
4. The team missed Dario Saric last night. I joked that the team was in a fog because of the news that they traded Jahlil Okafor and Nick Stauskas to the Nets earlier in the day. And while those guys had good friends on the team, the team did miss the grit of Saric, who was out with what was reported as an eye laceration. Saric does the dirty work, battles for the offensive boards, and does everything pretty well. That's not to say that the team would have won with him in there -- the game admittedly would have been different, but the rebounding differential that existed for a lot of the game would not have been there. As it was, back-up center turned power forward at least for the night Richaun Holmes had what might have been a career game for him, coming up with many clutch buckets as the team stormed back to tie it up.
5. Joel Embiid is a beast. No one can guard him, and it's hard to figure out how to run any inside offense when he's in there. He's foul-prone now, but that's bound to change as he gets more experience.
6. Ben Simmons had another interesting/potentially awesome stat line with some great plays, yet. . .. 12 points, 13 boards and 15 assists is pretty terrific, but he had some defensive lapses and needs to assert himself more. He is good, but does he know how much better he can be or how good he is? Until he gets more assertive, teams won't have to commit the resources on defense that they have to commit to, among others, James Harden and LeBron James. While he might never shoot as well as those guys, he still can do things most players cannot.
7. Lonzo Ball showed everyone something last night. He played within himself, he rebounded well, defended well enough, made some great passes and scored in the double figures. He is very composed out there. His shooting -- if possible -- is worse than that of Simmons, but he made a strong contribution last night.
8. Brandon Ingram really improved in the off-season. Last year, he looked like the overmatched skinny guy without the strength of Durant or skills more than that of a stationery shooter. This year, he looks stronger, like he put on some good weight, and he really worked on his ability to create shots. He had a very nice night last night.
9. Obligatory word about the officials. Admittedly, officiating basketball might be the hardest game to officiate, although diehard fans of other sports will argue to the contrary. The one thing I noticed is that while hand-checking per se is called, what the officials increasingly do not call are the following -- 1) when a defender puts a forearm on the back of a player who has his back to the basket and 2) when a dribbler wards off a defender with a forearm, pushing him away. Both teams did the former last night, and Ingram's signature move is to push off with his left forearm. That's not to say he's the only one or that the lack of calls on him (or anyone else for that matter) cost the 76ers the game or gave it to the Lakers. The Lakers played better, and the 76ers did not do enough to win. It's just that it's hard to figure out where the consistency is among officials in making calls.
Monday, December 04, 2017
Thoughts on Arsenal-Manchester United on Saturday
Arsenal was on a roll. It took it to visiting Tottenham a few weeks ago at Emirates Stadium, going up 2-0 by halftime and then was in control the rest of the way. The Gunners went up 1-0 mid-week on Huddersfield, and then pushed the throttles hard in the second half, winning 5-0. Those two results should have given Arsenal a ton of confidence going into its home match versus visiting United and its coach, Jose Mourinho.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the rout. Mourinho coached a "rope-a-dope" game, which would have been noted for its brilliance but for the fact that Arsenal dominated all but the first 11 minutes. Mourinho sensed individual cracks in the Gunners' back line, and its forwards caused otherwise steady defenders Koscielny, Mustafi and Monreal (who was woefully out of position on United's first score) to make mistakes early. The result -- United was up two nil after eleven minutes.
After that, it was all Arsenal. The Gunners ended up scoring right after half and took 33 shots in the game, with 15 of them on goal. It was as if there were a garage door covering the net, at least in the form of United keeper David DeGea, who played an outstanding match, so much so that his coach told him after the game that he is the best keeper in the world (he is certainly atop the conversation; experts will argue and win that Bayern Munich keeper Manuel Neuer is the best keeper in the world, with DeGea and Juve's Gianluigi Buffon right behind). DeGea was here, there and everywhere, making save after save and in the process tying a modern Premiership record for saves in a contest. You would expect that a besieged keeper on a team staving off relegation would hold that record, not someone from the elite 6 teams in the league.
Was this Mourinho's strategy? To pressure Arsenal early, get his scores and the park the bus? If so, it was brilliant, but it's hard to say whether that was the strategy or not. True, Mourinho gets accused of parking the bus after getting a lead, but if United parked the bus this time, it was not near the croquet club and its senior citizen's tea but in a lot on the wrong side of town where people have the ability to break in and steal the bus. Because that's precisely what happened. Arsenal clawed and kicked and stomped near the goal, with DeGea's signature save being sticking out a foot to thwart a follow-on shot by Alexis Sanchez that would have tied the match at two and surely put the momentum squarely in Arsenal's favor. That foot told Arsenal simply, "not today." Yet the Gunners kept on coming, but it was shortly after that amazing save that United went on a counterattack and went up 3-1.
You would have figured the game was over then, around the 77th minute or so, but then United start center midfielder Paul Pogba got sent off on a straight red and the Gunners' continued to threated. The real disappointment for Arsenal, other than failing to score, was a missed call of a penalty inside the United box at the 85th minute. Referee Andre Mariner didn't see the play as a penalty; all the commentators did. Had Mariner called the infraction and Sanchez converted the free kick, the game would have been tied at 2-2 with a compelling five minutes to go and an added five minutes of stoppage time. As it was, Arsenal kept pouring it on, but to no avail.
The commentators offered that it was the game of the season in the EPL, and there is no debating that here. It's a shame for Arsenal, who was on enough of a roll that a win versus United might have suggested there is more to this team than winning a few only to lose a big one that reminds its fans of the talent gap between it and the elite teams. And now it looks as though they might lose Alexis Sanchez, the engine of the team, either mid-season or on a free transfer after it, and that would be a devastating loss. They also might lose center attacking midfielder Mesut Ozil, who is unparalleled when his game is on but who disappears too often to be considered among the top ten at his position in the world and command a commensurate salary. Ozil might need a chance of scenery, but the Gunners need Sanchez to stay for a while. If both were to leave, Arsenal is in a rebuilding mode.
But not to detract from the match -- it was compelling, it was fervent, it was action-packed, and if you told Arsenal fans before it that their team would have 15 shots on goal and control possession 75% of the time, they would have signed up for those stats. They weren't, however, enough for their team to win the match.
Odd, delightful, compelling match it was, with DeGea's performance one that will help define his career and delight Spanish fans as to their possibilities in the World Cup.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the rout. Mourinho coached a "rope-a-dope" game, which would have been noted for its brilliance but for the fact that Arsenal dominated all but the first 11 minutes. Mourinho sensed individual cracks in the Gunners' back line, and its forwards caused otherwise steady defenders Koscielny, Mustafi and Monreal (who was woefully out of position on United's first score) to make mistakes early. The result -- United was up two nil after eleven minutes.
After that, it was all Arsenal. The Gunners ended up scoring right after half and took 33 shots in the game, with 15 of them on goal. It was as if there were a garage door covering the net, at least in the form of United keeper David DeGea, who played an outstanding match, so much so that his coach told him after the game that he is the best keeper in the world (he is certainly atop the conversation; experts will argue and win that Bayern Munich keeper Manuel Neuer is the best keeper in the world, with DeGea and Juve's Gianluigi Buffon right behind). DeGea was here, there and everywhere, making save after save and in the process tying a modern Premiership record for saves in a contest. You would expect that a besieged keeper on a team staving off relegation would hold that record, not someone from the elite 6 teams in the league.
Was this Mourinho's strategy? To pressure Arsenal early, get his scores and the park the bus? If so, it was brilliant, but it's hard to say whether that was the strategy or not. True, Mourinho gets accused of parking the bus after getting a lead, but if United parked the bus this time, it was not near the croquet club and its senior citizen's tea but in a lot on the wrong side of town where people have the ability to break in and steal the bus. Because that's precisely what happened. Arsenal clawed and kicked and stomped near the goal, with DeGea's signature save being sticking out a foot to thwart a follow-on shot by Alexis Sanchez that would have tied the match at two and surely put the momentum squarely in Arsenal's favor. That foot told Arsenal simply, "not today." Yet the Gunners kept on coming, but it was shortly after that amazing save that United went on a counterattack and went up 3-1.
You would have figured the game was over then, around the 77th minute or so, but then United start center midfielder Paul Pogba got sent off on a straight red and the Gunners' continued to threated. The real disappointment for Arsenal, other than failing to score, was a missed call of a penalty inside the United box at the 85th minute. Referee Andre Mariner didn't see the play as a penalty; all the commentators did. Had Mariner called the infraction and Sanchez converted the free kick, the game would have been tied at 2-2 with a compelling five minutes to go and an added five minutes of stoppage time. As it was, Arsenal kept pouring it on, but to no avail.
The commentators offered that it was the game of the season in the EPL, and there is no debating that here. It's a shame for Arsenal, who was on enough of a roll that a win versus United might have suggested there is more to this team than winning a few only to lose a big one that reminds its fans of the talent gap between it and the elite teams. And now it looks as though they might lose Alexis Sanchez, the engine of the team, either mid-season or on a free transfer after it, and that would be a devastating loss. They also might lose center attacking midfielder Mesut Ozil, who is unparalleled when his game is on but who disappears too often to be considered among the top ten at his position in the world and command a commensurate salary. Ozil might need a chance of scenery, but the Gunners need Sanchez to stay for a while. If both were to leave, Arsenal is in a rebuilding mode.
But not to detract from the match -- it was compelling, it was fervent, it was action-packed, and if you told Arsenal fans before it that their team would have 15 shots on goal and control possession 75% of the time, they would have signed up for those stats. They weren't, however, enough for their team to win the match.
Odd, delightful, compelling match it was, with DeGea's performance one that will help define his career and delight Spanish fans as to their possibilities in the World Cup.
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Thanks, Mike and Mike!
Back in the day, when Bill Clinton was at the end of his eight-year run as President, I had a relatively long commute. 39.5 miles each way, to be exact, most of it on a major highway, only 6 traffic lights, but before EZ Pass. There were no cell phones, just car phones (which got cloned with some regularity at major interchanges), and there was no satellite radio. The offerings in the morning were slim -- music with endless commercials or local sports talk.
The problem with the latter was that it switched from being informative to very opinionated. Some of the hosts were better than others. Some were kind and funny, others were downright insulting to the listeners. My major issue was that I wanted to relax on the way to work and to learn something. By the end of my very long drive, I found that something -- it was Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio.
When the show started, it didn't enjoy the commercial success that it has today. Neither Mike Greenberg nor Mike Golic were household names. There were many fewer commercials, and while I enjoyed the opinions of both hosts -- who are bright but also considerate -- their opinions did not dominate the show. The reason for that was, really, who cared at that moment in time what they thought. After all, they had no natural audience the way a former sportswriter in a big city might have on the radio. And it was a national audience, so people did not want opinions on the latest controversy in any of the major cities. Or, at least at great length.
Enter Mike & Mike. They had an easy chemistry, understood the nuances of developing a national audience, where they could lose people if they focused on too much of one thing over another. They had the right type of egos -- that they could do a good job on their stage, as opposed to the self-absorbed who believe and act like they are better than everyone else. They had great guests, and they did a good job of interviewing them. Knowledge was shared, as was wisdom, with frequent guests such as former NFL player and college coach Bill Curry and former NFL player and coach Herman Edwards, among many others. They also did not take themselves too seriously; they had fun.
I remember after listening for a few weeks that I talked with my wife at the dinner table about this new show. I offered that I liked the format, that the hosts were smart and funny and opined that they would become household names over time. I am not sure that they thought they would be when they started, but it goes to show you that if you sit down and try to do a good job without acting high and mighty good things can happen. And boy did they! Mike & Mike took off to the point where they are well known across the U.S.
And now it comes to an end this Friday. I'll remember the Bob Picozzi "Did you Knows-ees?," the singing of the "Good Morning Song," the various bets that were made over games, such as the results of football match-ups between Notre Dame (Golic's alma mater) and Northwestern (Greenie's alma mater). I'll remember the great conversations with Bill Curry, the strong interactions with, among others, Buster Olney, Jayson Stark, Jon Gruden, Mark Schlereth, and the easy rapport that they had with almost every guest who joined the show. Listeners (and viewers on the simulcast) never knew what new thing they would learn on a given day or what good laugh they might get because of the stories that one of the guests would tell. Mike & Mike got into high gear early and, even more impressively, sustained their excellence for 18 years.
Sadly, words of their breakup leaked and it strikes me that there was some friction between the two men as discussions of Mike Greenberg's future as an AM show host on ESPN TV became public. Both men acted professionally with one another on air during the summer, and it was impossible to tell that there were any hard feelings. It's sad, if true, that this uneasiness and the hard feelings had to take place. Both men deserved better than that. They should take some comfort that they are going out on top of their game after 18, yes 18 years! Most people don't know when to call it a career and have to be told. In this case, both men are going onto other attractive ventures.
To give the 18 years some form of context, I was a younger father with a newborn at the time the show began to air. Today that newborn is almost 6'2" tall, is a high school senior, and wants to go into the media, most likely sports journalism. That's how long 18 years is. Mike & Mike, in essence, accompanied me while my wife and I were raising a young sports fan.
I will listen to Golic & Wingo when it begins to air and profoundly hope that Wingo will continue to be Wingo and not try to be Greenie. I don't know if I will have the chance to watch Mike Greenberg on TV right away, but for about ten years I was a bit surprised that no major network had recruited him to lead their "good morning" show or even ultimately become an anchor on the evening news. He is a good study, quick with facts, and has a good way of getting along with people on the air.
Mike Golic is a great combination of a former defensive tackle/battler on the field with a kind manner, light touch and very good sense of humor. He offers a great perspective and, like Mike Greenberg, interacts well with everyone. While I appreciated very much the interactions with Golic and Greenberg, their "shtick" as it were -- Golic as the macho man and Greenberg as the wimpy metrosexual -- could be suffocating at times. Golic & Wingo won't be tagged with that act, and the show will be better off for it.
But the focus now is on Mike & Mike for the next three mornings before they call it quits for good. I hope that when the show ends, they can do the equivalent of what Tim Riggins did on Friday Night Lights after he played his last football game. The enigmatic, brooding, good-looking fullback grabbed his cleats and carried them back into the stadium, where he placed them in the end zone. Then he walked away and did not look back.
Mike & Mike's closeout, as it were, deserves something as pointed, meaningful and sentimental. It was a great ride. Thanks for letting us all be a part of it.
The problem with the latter was that it switched from being informative to very opinionated. Some of the hosts were better than others. Some were kind and funny, others were downright insulting to the listeners. My major issue was that I wanted to relax on the way to work and to learn something. By the end of my very long drive, I found that something -- it was Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio.
When the show started, it didn't enjoy the commercial success that it has today. Neither Mike Greenberg nor Mike Golic were household names. There were many fewer commercials, and while I enjoyed the opinions of both hosts -- who are bright but also considerate -- their opinions did not dominate the show. The reason for that was, really, who cared at that moment in time what they thought. After all, they had no natural audience the way a former sportswriter in a big city might have on the radio. And it was a national audience, so people did not want opinions on the latest controversy in any of the major cities. Or, at least at great length.
Enter Mike & Mike. They had an easy chemistry, understood the nuances of developing a national audience, where they could lose people if they focused on too much of one thing over another. They had the right type of egos -- that they could do a good job on their stage, as opposed to the self-absorbed who believe and act like they are better than everyone else. They had great guests, and they did a good job of interviewing them. Knowledge was shared, as was wisdom, with frequent guests such as former NFL player and college coach Bill Curry and former NFL player and coach Herman Edwards, among many others. They also did not take themselves too seriously; they had fun.
I remember after listening for a few weeks that I talked with my wife at the dinner table about this new show. I offered that I liked the format, that the hosts were smart and funny and opined that they would become household names over time. I am not sure that they thought they would be when they started, but it goes to show you that if you sit down and try to do a good job without acting high and mighty good things can happen. And boy did they! Mike & Mike took off to the point where they are well known across the U.S.
And now it comes to an end this Friday. I'll remember the Bob Picozzi "Did you Knows-ees?," the singing of the "Good Morning Song," the various bets that were made over games, such as the results of football match-ups between Notre Dame (Golic's alma mater) and Northwestern (Greenie's alma mater). I'll remember the great conversations with Bill Curry, the strong interactions with, among others, Buster Olney, Jayson Stark, Jon Gruden, Mark Schlereth, and the easy rapport that they had with almost every guest who joined the show. Listeners (and viewers on the simulcast) never knew what new thing they would learn on a given day or what good laugh they might get because of the stories that one of the guests would tell. Mike & Mike got into high gear early and, even more impressively, sustained their excellence for 18 years.
Sadly, words of their breakup leaked and it strikes me that there was some friction between the two men as discussions of Mike Greenberg's future as an AM show host on ESPN TV became public. Both men acted professionally with one another on air during the summer, and it was impossible to tell that there were any hard feelings. It's sad, if true, that this uneasiness and the hard feelings had to take place. Both men deserved better than that. They should take some comfort that they are going out on top of their game after 18, yes 18 years! Most people don't know when to call it a career and have to be told. In this case, both men are going onto other attractive ventures.
To give the 18 years some form of context, I was a younger father with a newborn at the time the show began to air. Today that newborn is almost 6'2" tall, is a high school senior, and wants to go into the media, most likely sports journalism. That's how long 18 years is. Mike & Mike, in essence, accompanied me while my wife and I were raising a young sports fan.
I will listen to Golic & Wingo when it begins to air and profoundly hope that Wingo will continue to be Wingo and not try to be Greenie. I don't know if I will have the chance to watch Mike Greenberg on TV right away, but for about ten years I was a bit surprised that no major network had recruited him to lead their "good morning" show or even ultimately become an anchor on the evening news. He is a good study, quick with facts, and has a good way of getting along with people on the air.
Mike Golic is a great combination of a former defensive tackle/battler on the field with a kind manner, light touch and very good sense of humor. He offers a great perspective and, like Mike Greenberg, interacts well with everyone. While I appreciated very much the interactions with Golic and Greenberg, their "shtick" as it were -- Golic as the macho man and Greenberg as the wimpy metrosexual -- could be suffocating at times. Golic & Wingo won't be tagged with that act, and the show will be better off for it.
But the focus now is on Mike & Mike for the next three mornings before they call it quits for good. I hope that when the show ends, they can do the equivalent of what Tim Riggins did on Friday Night Lights after he played his last football game. The enigmatic, brooding, good-looking fullback grabbed his cleats and carried them back into the stadium, where he placed them in the end zone. Then he walked away and did not look back.
Mike & Mike's closeout, as it were, deserves something as pointed, meaningful and sentimental. It was a great ride. Thanks for letting us all be a part of it.
Monday, November 13, 2017
Gym Workouts
I go to this mega-gym. I mean, it has everything. All sorts of rooms and machines and programs, a few pools, literally, something for everyone. The owner is an entrepreneur, and to his great credit he always is innovating. What started out as a small place is in certain ways a tribute to fitness.
Except there is one problem. I tend to think that many are working out the wrong way. There are the muscleheads who lift and look swollen but who do zero cardio and zero flexibility work. There are the cardioheads who do only cardio, and even then they do not do it right. I think of a friend with a sizeable gut who goes onto an elliptical with all of the force of a saunter in the park on a nice spring day. He goes at one slow pace for at least a half an hour, but what does that really do for him? And then there are the minority of flexibility types, who do things like yoga but only yoga. No cardio, no resistance training.
I am not an expert on fitness or diet, but my doctors tell me that my heart is in good shape and my numbers are good, that my bone density for someone in his mid-fifties is fine, etc. So I must be doing something right. I don't want to preach to you as to what to do, except consult one of the fitness experts at your health club and get on a program that combines all three aspects of fitness. Do some cardio, but interval work designed to get your heart rate up and staying up for say 20-30 minutes. Do some resistance training, but make sure to balance upper and lower body and the anterior and posteriors of your body (i.e., front and back, as many just focus on the front). And do some dynamic stretching, so that you remain flexible (feeling stretched out also is a stress reducer). And change it up every now and then so that you do not get bored.
You will feel and look better. You must be patient -- the hardest thing is to start and stay with a routine until it starts to feel good. But if you are going to work out, try to get some good advice and try to do it right. I see too many people in the gym who are out of balance and, in the end, could be doing more harm in the long run or, better but still not good, not doing much that really helps them. Some go for social time, some go to tell themselves that they are doing something, and others really work it. That means pushing and pulling yourself hard, breaking a sweat, lifting heavy weights, pulling heavy weights, stretching and going hard on an elliptical, treadmill, arc trainer, what have you.
Don't just show up. While showing up, of course, is key, have at it. Make the most of your time at the gym, just don't tell yourself that you are working out and simply feel good about the act of showing up and going through the motions. Remember, at times the biggest lies are the ones we tell ourselves. The questions you should be asking are -- is this a good workout for me, is this covering the risk areas for someone my age, and am I pushing myself enough to get into good and better shape. You might not like the answers initially, but keep challenging yourself so that you use your workouts to maximize your health.
You will be glad that you did.
Except there is one problem. I tend to think that many are working out the wrong way. There are the muscleheads who lift and look swollen but who do zero cardio and zero flexibility work. There are the cardioheads who do only cardio, and even then they do not do it right. I think of a friend with a sizeable gut who goes onto an elliptical with all of the force of a saunter in the park on a nice spring day. He goes at one slow pace for at least a half an hour, but what does that really do for him? And then there are the minority of flexibility types, who do things like yoga but only yoga. No cardio, no resistance training.
I am not an expert on fitness or diet, but my doctors tell me that my heart is in good shape and my numbers are good, that my bone density for someone in his mid-fifties is fine, etc. So I must be doing something right. I don't want to preach to you as to what to do, except consult one of the fitness experts at your health club and get on a program that combines all three aspects of fitness. Do some cardio, but interval work designed to get your heart rate up and staying up for say 20-30 minutes. Do some resistance training, but make sure to balance upper and lower body and the anterior and posteriors of your body (i.e., front and back, as many just focus on the front). And do some dynamic stretching, so that you remain flexible (feeling stretched out also is a stress reducer). And change it up every now and then so that you do not get bored.
You will feel and look better. You must be patient -- the hardest thing is to start and stay with a routine until it starts to feel good. But if you are going to work out, try to get some good advice and try to do it right. I see too many people in the gym who are out of balance and, in the end, could be doing more harm in the long run or, better but still not good, not doing much that really helps them. Some go for social time, some go to tell themselves that they are doing something, and others really work it. That means pushing and pulling yourself hard, breaking a sweat, lifting heavy weights, pulling heavy weights, stretching and going hard on an elliptical, treadmill, arc trainer, what have you.
Don't just show up. While showing up, of course, is key, have at it. Make the most of your time at the gym, just don't tell yourself that you are working out and simply feel good about the act of showing up and going through the motions. Remember, at times the biggest lies are the ones we tell ourselves. The questions you should be asking are -- is this a good workout for me, is this covering the risk areas for someone my age, and am I pushing myself enough to get into good and better shape. You might not like the answers initially, but keep challenging yourself so that you use your workouts to maximize your health.
You will be glad that you did.
Friday, November 03, 2017
What Really is Hurting the NFL's Ratings?
President Trump taunts the NFL about its ratings.
Pundits surmise many theories as to why ratings are down, from the quality of product to the time it takes to play games to the protests by kneeling, the protests against the kneeling, the lack of scarcity (i.e., the NFL is on TV three days per week), the availability of other entertainment alternatives, the abhorrence of what has happened to former players and an unwillingness to watch a game where its players could get maimed for life, the obsession with fantasy football at the expense of watching the games and the presence of the Red Zone, which enables fans to pick highlights over the games themselves.
All are good theories. I subscribe to each of them. There are those who are protesting because Colin Kaepernick does not have a job. There are those who are boycotting because they believe that the protests by kneeling are an assault on the flag and the military. (The contrary view is that the protests are against police brutality or insensitivity and are not in opposition to the flag or the military). There is a lot of entertainment from which to choose, and college games can be more compelling (if not in conflict) because if the big-time teams lose one game, well, they could be out of the playoff picture. Put differently, there is a lot of football on television all the time. The games also take a long time; lots of stoppages, and one recent game I watched took four hours to complete. Some friends feel guilty because of the "after" stories of people like Kevin Turner, Rickey Dixon, John Mackey and many, many more. Some seem to care more about winning fantasy points than watching the games. I tend to watch the Red Zone when my home team is not playing; I don't want to endure the timeouts and stoppages, I just want the action.
There is no single reason. I am sure that for some who no longer watch there are combinations of factors. All of these reasons are problematic, plus the fact that the average age of an NFL fan is about 50 years old (baseball fans are even older). I do not know what the solution is, but an 8% drop has hurt those who cover the games -- they just cannot generate the revenue through commercials that they could if the viewership went up. Atop that, I am ignorant as to whether companies prefer internet advertising to television advertising. ESPN's financial troubles are well-chronicled. Hindsight suggests that they overpaid for TV rights, and since they cannot generate sufficient advertising revenue or subscription revenue they are letting staff go. And that begs another question . . .
Is viewership down because cable subscriptions are down and, therefore, Millenials are watching through streaming video or pooling resources to watch games or going to bars to do so. If there is one bill in the house homeowners hate, it is their cable bill. If isn't that, it's the cell phone bill. And if something has to give, are people preferring to get what they can through Netflix and Amazon Prime and not wanting to pay for television. The decline in subscriptions to cable networks suggestions that there is something to this argument.
The NFL is popular, yes, but something strange and potentially transformative is going on. In 20 years, it will be virtually a flag football league, played more like lacrosse in terms of hitting than what it used to be. The statistics seem to suggest that, as you just cannot have increasingly bigger and faster players hit each other hard -- even if they only do so in games and not at practices -- and not have that hitting occur at a staggering cost to the participants' well being. As it is, even putting that problem aside, the game has issues because stars get hurt and then their teams can turn into mush. Green Bay has struggled without Aaron Rogers, Indianapolis is pathetic without Andrew Luck, and Houston will list and limp without Deshaun Watson.
I have written before that pro football is on top but that it could drop significantly because of decisions it is and is not making and because of factors beyond its control. If I were the NFL, I'd spend my money on an Evolution Committee before spending too much time and energy on other matters. Many factors are trending down, and, if they combine, they could create a storm that, when it happens, the pundits will say the owners should have seen coming.
Pundits surmise many theories as to why ratings are down, from the quality of product to the time it takes to play games to the protests by kneeling, the protests against the kneeling, the lack of scarcity (i.e., the NFL is on TV three days per week), the availability of other entertainment alternatives, the abhorrence of what has happened to former players and an unwillingness to watch a game where its players could get maimed for life, the obsession with fantasy football at the expense of watching the games and the presence of the Red Zone, which enables fans to pick highlights over the games themselves.
All are good theories. I subscribe to each of them. There are those who are protesting because Colin Kaepernick does not have a job. There are those who are boycotting because they believe that the protests by kneeling are an assault on the flag and the military. (The contrary view is that the protests are against police brutality or insensitivity and are not in opposition to the flag or the military). There is a lot of entertainment from which to choose, and college games can be more compelling (if not in conflict) because if the big-time teams lose one game, well, they could be out of the playoff picture. Put differently, there is a lot of football on television all the time. The games also take a long time; lots of stoppages, and one recent game I watched took four hours to complete. Some friends feel guilty because of the "after" stories of people like Kevin Turner, Rickey Dixon, John Mackey and many, many more. Some seem to care more about winning fantasy points than watching the games. I tend to watch the Red Zone when my home team is not playing; I don't want to endure the timeouts and stoppages, I just want the action.
There is no single reason. I am sure that for some who no longer watch there are combinations of factors. All of these reasons are problematic, plus the fact that the average age of an NFL fan is about 50 years old (baseball fans are even older). I do not know what the solution is, but an 8% drop has hurt those who cover the games -- they just cannot generate the revenue through commercials that they could if the viewership went up. Atop that, I am ignorant as to whether companies prefer internet advertising to television advertising. ESPN's financial troubles are well-chronicled. Hindsight suggests that they overpaid for TV rights, and since they cannot generate sufficient advertising revenue or subscription revenue they are letting staff go. And that begs another question . . .
Is viewership down because cable subscriptions are down and, therefore, Millenials are watching through streaming video or pooling resources to watch games or going to bars to do so. If there is one bill in the house homeowners hate, it is their cable bill. If isn't that, it's the cell phone bill. And if something has to give, are people preferring to get what they can through Netflix and Amazon Prime and not wanting to pay for television. The decline in subscriptions to cable networks suggestions that there is something to this argument.
The NFL is popular, yes, but something strange and potentially transformative is going on. In 20 years, it will be virtually a flag football league, played more like lacrosse in terms of hitting than what it used to be. The statistics seem to suggest that, as you just cannot have increasingly bigger and faster players hit each other hard -- even if they only do so in games and not at practices -- and not have that hitting occur at a staggering cost to the participants' well being. As it is, even putting that problem aside, the game has issues because stars get hurt and then their teams can turn into mush. Green Bay has struggled without Aaron Rogers, Indianapolis is pathetic without Andrew Luck, and Houston will list and limp without Deshaun Watson.
I have written before that pro football is on top but that it could drop significantly because of decisions it is and is not making and because of factors beyond its control. If I were the NFL, I'd spend my money on an Evolution Committee before spending too much time and energy on other matters. Many factors are trending down, and, if they combine, they could create a storm that, when it happens, the pundits will say the owners should have seen coming.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Thoughts about the US Men's National Soccer Team Debacle
All they needed was a single point.
A draw.
Against Trinidad & Tobago, the worst team in CONCACAF. (For the uninitiated, this is the relatively easy group that the US finds itself within FIFA and must come in third in the group to qualify for the World Cup. The toughest competition -- Mexico).
Okay, on the road.
Okay, on a bumpy field.
Okay, before a stadium that was more empty than full.
And they lost 2-1.
Compounding a terrible display was the fact that in order to remain third in the group behind Mexico and Costa Rica, the US needed Mexico to defeat Honduras and Costa Rica to beat Panama. Neither came through. Those results meant that Panama is going to the World Cup and Honduras is in a playoff with Australia to try to get there. This is the first time the US has not qualified for the World Cup since 1986.
Here are some thoughts:
1. Christian Pulisic is by far the US's best player, the only world-class player on the roster. (Tim Howard was, but at 37 he is past his prime). Likewise, while Clint Dempsey had his moments on the international stage, he, too, is past his prime, as is Michael Bradley. Neither of them, in their primes, was nearly as good as Pulisic, who is only 19.
2. The US needs several dozen more Pulisics -- talented youngsters who are playing for elite teams in Europe -- and, get this, actually playing, as in starting. Until this happens, the US will not fare better than advancing out of the group stage and perhaps winning a single game in the knockout round. The talent just is not there. Sure, you can argue that before 2010 Spain had a ton of talent and never won and that the same holds true for the Belgians, who are loaded with world-class players. But even if some talent-laden teams falter (France in 2010 in South Africa), other talented teams come to the forefront, not the US.
3. The US needs its best players to play in Europe; the competition in the top leagues -- England, Spain, France, Germany and Italy -- is better than it is in MLS. MLS makes life too comfortable and doesn't offer the intense soccer atmosphere that Europe does. The cultural mindset has to change.
4. Imagine how bad the US would have been over the years if the US hadn't had armed forces bases in Germany, soldiers who married German women who gave birth to sons who became good players. What this says is that the culture for developing soccer players in the US needs an overhaul.
5. The US needs to recruit better athletes into the soccer developmental system. It also needs to create an academy environment where the best youth players are not trying to get into college but are vying for placement with teams in the top leagues in Europe, even if it means moving far away from home and then going out on loan. That's just the way the world works in soccer. The advent of studies showing the danger or playing American football might steer some talented youths into soccer. Apparently, Odell Beckham, Jr. was an outstanding soccer player. Imagine if some talented NFL players were soccer players -- imagine Megatron, Calvin Johnson, as a goalie. He'd still be playing, and the bet here is that he'd be one of the best in the world. Darren Sproles? He's be an outstanding two-way midfielder, no question about it. How about Zach Ertz as a center back? Beckham Jr., not to be confused with soccer's main Beckham, would be a striker or central attacking midfielder. The possibilities are endless. Just prying 5 of the ESPN top 300 football recruits every year into soccer at age 14 could do wonders for the US's developmental program.
6. The bureaucracy has gotten stale. I have nothing against either Sunil Gulati or Bruce Arena, except that we need a full-time head of US Soccer and pay her/him accordingly and that we need a coach who is not recycled. I have heard great things about Tab Ramos, but I wonder if the US should poll the top managers in Europe and recruit and up-and-comer, say an assistant from Manchester City or Juventus or some squad like that -- and put him in charge. Otherwise, the risk is to recycle people who have had mixed success. The US could find a real star, and it needs new ideas.
7. The roster selections should be devoid of politics, and the lineup likewise. I recall a discussion years ago about the English National Team. Sure, it was okay to have both Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard on the roster, because both were stars, but it was far from clear that they should be on the pitch at the same time. There also were players on the roster who got there because of lifetime achievement awards versus being the best for the team at the time. A case in point is Pulisic -- it seemed like it took both Juergen Klinsmann and Bruce Arena too long to work him into the starting lineup, even when it was clear that he was the best player on the roster and perhaps, even at 19, in US history. The latter contention is a reach, but within the next three years, barring injury, the fans will be saying that.
8. Good organizations are strong from the core on down. Steve Samson, once the U.S. coach, offered that the US was a nation of midfielders. The reasoning was that kids are treated almost robotically in youth programs and have little opportunity to play pick-up games and freelance the way they do in other parts of the world. The NYT magazine several years ago had a great article about the Dutch system; while the Dutch system is off-kilter now (Netherlands missed 2016 Euros and will miss the 2018 World Cup), they had a good idea for developing young players and helping fund the soccer federation.
The loss to Trinidad and Tobago and the corresponding missing out on the World Cup is a huge blow to U.S. men's soccer. MLS had started to generate momentum, and the advent of the English Premier League on television in the US started to generate more interest. What remains now is an interesting dichotomy -- a stronger and growing appreciation for the international game, and a decreasing one for the U.S. game. The next president of U.S. soccer, and the next coach of the men's national team, will have to deal with that.
Regardless of the politics, who is the next president of the federation and who is the next head coach of the men's team, one major fact remains -- you cannot sustain winning without top talent. The debacle within CONCACAF demonstrated this markedly. You can have the best organization in the world, but you cannot win without talent. Right now, only Pulisic would have a chance to make the World Cup squad of the major contenders in 2018, and he might not make all of them. He wouldn't start for any of them -- Germany, France, Spain, Brazil, England, Belgium -- and he probably wouldn't make the German or French teams. Remember this, Belgium is a country about 1/22 the size of the U.S., too, with about 15 million people. They have a roster that most would envy. The U.S., with about 315 million people, cannot find 11 players to contend seriously internationally.
Whoever takes the helm of US Soccer needs to figure out how to chance all of this in a hurry.
A draw.
Against Trinidad & Tobago, the worst team in CONCACAF. (For the uninitiated, this is the relatively easy group that the US finds itself within FIFA and must come in third in the group to qualify for the World Cup. The toughest competition -- Mexico).
Okay, on the road.
Okay, on a bumpy field.
Okay, before a stadium that was more empty than full.
And they lost 2-1.
Compounding a terrible display was the fact that in order to remain third in the group behind Mexico and Costa Rica, the US needed Mexico to defeat Honduras and Costa Rica to beat Panama. Neither came through. Those results meant that Panama is going to the World Cup and Honduras is in a playoff with Australia to try to get there. This is the first time the US has not qualified for the World Cup since 1986.
Here are some thoughts:
1. Christian Pulisic is by far the US's best player, the only world-class player on the roster. (Tim Howard was, but at 37 he is past his prime). Likewise, while Clint Dempsey had his moments on the international stage, he, too, is past his prime, as is Michael Bradley. Neither of them, in their primes, was nearly as good as Pulisic, who is only 19.
2. The US needs several dozen more Pulisics -- talented youngsters who are playing for elite teams in Europe -- and, get this, actually playing, as in starting. Until this happens, the US will not fare better than advancing out of the group stage and perhaps winning a single game in the knockout round. The talent just is not there. Sure, you can argue that before 2010 Spain had a ton of talent and never won and that the same holds true for the Belgians, who are loaded with world-class players. But even if some talent-laden teams falter (France in 2010 in South Africa), other talented teams come to the forefront, not the US.
3. The US needs its best players to play in Europe; the competition in the top leagues -- England, Spain, France, Germany and Italy -- is better than it is in MLS. MLS makes life too comfortable and doesn't offer the intense soccer atmosphere that Europe does. The cultural mindset has to change.
4. Imagine how bad the US would have been over the years if the US hadn't had armed forces bases in Germany, soldiers who married German women who gave birth to sons who became good players. What this says is that the culture for developing soccer players in the US needs an overhaul.
5. The US needs to recruit better athletes into the soccer developmental system. It also needs to create an academy environment where the best youth players are not trying to get into college but are vying for placement with teams in the top leagues in Europe, even if it means moving far away from home and then going out on loan. That's just the way the world works in soccer. The advent of studies showing the danger or playing American football might steer some talented youths into soccer. Apparently, Odell Beckham, Jr. was an outstanding soccer player. Imagine if some talented NFL players were soccer players -- imagine Megatron, Calvin Johnson, as a goalie. He'd still be playing, and the bet here is that he'd be one of the best in the world. Darren Sproles? He's be an outstanding two-way midfielder, no question about it. How about Zach Ertz as a center back? Beckham Jr., not to be confused with soccer's main Beckham, would be a striker or central attacking midfielder. The possibilities are endless. Just prying 5 of the ESPN top 300 football recruits every year into soccer at age 14 could do wonders for the US's developmental program.
6. The bureaucracy has gotten stale. I have nothing against either Sunil Gulati or Bruce Arena, except that we need a full-time head of US Soccer and pay her/him accordingly and that we need a coach who is not recycled. I have heard great things about Tab Ramos, but I wonder if the US should poll the top managers in Europe and recruit and up-and-comer, say an assistant from Manchester City or Juventus or some squad like that -- and put him in charge. Otherwise, the risk is to recycle people who have had mixed success. The US could find a real star, and it needs new ideas.
7. The roster selections should be devoid of politics, and the lineup likewise. I recall a discussion years ago about the English National Team. Sure, it was okay to have both Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard on the roster, because both were stars, but it was far from clear that they should be on the pitch at the same time. There also were players on the roster who got there because of lifetime achievement awards versus being the best for the team at the time. A case in point is Pulisic -- it seemed like it took both Juergen Klinsmann and Bruce Arena too long to work him into the starting lineup, even when it was clear that he was the best player on the roster and perhaps, even at 19, in US history. The latter contention is a reach, but within the next three years, barring injury, the fans will be saying that.
8. Good organizations are strong from the core on down. Steve Samson, once the U.S. coach, offered that the US was a nation of midfielders. The reasoning was that kids are treated almost robotically in youth programs and have little opportunity to play pick-up games and freelance the way they do in other parts of the world. The NYT magazine several years ago had a great article about the Dutch system; while the Dutch system is off-kilter now (Netherlands missed 2016 Euros and will miss the 2018 World Cup), they had a good idea for developing young players and helping fund the soccer federation.
The loss to Trinidad and Tobago and the corresponding missing out on the World Cup is a huge blow to U.S. men's soccer. MLS had started to generate momentum, and the advent of the English Premier League on television in the US started to generate more interest. What remains now is an interesting dichotomy -- a stronger and growing appreciation for the international game, and a decreasing one for the U.S. game. The next president of U.S. soccer, and the next coach of the men's national team, will have to deal with that.
Regardless of the politics, who is the next president of the federation and who is the next head coach of the men's team, one major fact remains -- you cannot sustain winning without top talent. The debacle within CONCACAF demonstrated this markedly. You can have the best organization in the world, but you cannot win without talent. Right now, only Pulisic would have a chance to make the World Cup squad of the major contenders in 2018, and he might not make all of them. He wouldn't start for any of them -- Germany, France, Spain, Brazil, England, Belgium -- and he probably wouldn't make the German or French teams. Remember this, Belgium is a country about 1/22 the size of the U.S., too, with about 15 million people. They have a roster that most would envy. The U.S., with about 315 million people, cannot find 11 players to contend seriously internationally.
Whoever takes the helm of US Soccer needs to figure out how to chance all of this in a hurry.
Friday, September 29, 2017
The College Basketball Mess
Among the defenses that do not work with law enforcement is "everyone does it."
Among the mantras of law enforcement when it comes to investigations is "you must keep on look under rocks until there are no more rocks to look under."
Given that there are a lot of rocks, a lot of people who will be willing to point out those rocks in exchange for a deal and the amount of money paid to college coaches to sustain winning and the amount of monies that college athletic departments get for shoe endorsements, you have a cocktail of ingredients that is easily combustible and can shout out "scandal" all by itself.
Using a different analogy, the four indicted assistant coaches are the first four dominoes to fall. Because the schools where they worked recruited against many other big-time schools, other dominoes sit close enough to them that they can fall, too. Not just assistant coaches and shoe company reps, but also AAU coaches and, yes, head college coaches.
College sports used to be an extracurricular activity along the lines of the chorus, the newspaper and the debating club. Those college sports that derive significant revenue can be important to universities athletic budgets. I say "can be" because I recently read an article that indicated that more than 80% of Division I football programs lose money (defeating the argument that the football programs at many schools fund the other athletic teams). Regardless of profitability (which is problematic because the universities themselves are tax-exempt organizations), the football and basketball programs can generate significant revenue for the university. As a result, those who lead them command significant salaries. The dollars are so big that it makes you wonder what the purpose of the head coach is -- to mold young men, to make money for the university or to perpetuate himself in his job (regardless of tactics and whether he really molds young men) in order to keep earning staggering sums of money. The more that money is involved, the greater potential for all sorts of problems.
This scandal should (and I emphasize should) enable university boards and presidents to take full control over the mission of the university and not be held hostage by popular coaches or win-at-all-costs-hungry boosters. This scandal should end the horrible paternalism of the professional leagues and create avenues for talented teenagers to go professional the way they do in soccer globally. Right now, the best player in the U.S. is a 19 year-old who stars -- yes, stars -- in Germany. His name is Christian Pulisic and he is very, very good. He comes from Hershey, Pennsylvania. Why can't it be that a top high schooler from Baltimore cannot sign with the 76ers out of high school, play on their G-League team and then have a professional career? If you do this, you'll take out of the college game kids who really only want to play basketball and stop the charade of making them go to college. I know I have thrown out many concepts here, but something significant is plaguing college sports.
Money, the wanting for it by those who either make a lot of it or are on the cusp of doing so or the lack of it for those who need it (the kids whose families don't have it and who play before packed arenas and don't get paid for it). The recent enforcement of labor law rules regarding internships helps frame the issue. A kid who is an intern either must get college credit or get paid; he may not work for free. College athletes in revenue-generating sports (profitable or not) don't get college credit and don't get paid. Yet, their coaches get paid in the top 0.5% of all earners in the United States. Something is awry, and it's sad that the universities haven't been able to address this issue themselves. Now the Federal government will, and in the form of deferred prosecution agreements or corporate integrity agreements or both.
And that is only after they get done with what promises to be a long and widespread investigation. I forget who said this, but it rings true -- "No head coach of a major college football or basketball program is resting easily now."
Stay tuned.
Among the mantras of law enforcement when it comes to investigations is "you must keep on look under rocks until there are no more rocks to look under."
Given that there are a lot of rocks, a lot of people who will be willing to point out those rocks in exchange for a deal and the amount of money paid to college coaches to sustain winning and the amount of monies that college athletic departments get for shoe endorsements, you have a cocktail of ingredients that is easily combustible and can shout out "scandal" all by itself.
Using a different analogy, the four indicted assistant coaches are the first four dominoes to fall. Because the schools where they worked recruited against many other big-time schools, other dominoes sit close enough to them that they can fall, too. Not just assistant coaches and shoe company reps, but also AAU coaches and, yes, head college coaches.
College sports used to be an extracurricular activity along the lines of the chorus, the newspaper and the debating club. Those college sports that derive significant revenue can be important to universities athletic budgets. I say "can be" because I recently read an article that indicated that more than 80% of Division I football programs lose money (defeating the argument that the football programs at many schools fund the other athletic teams). Regardless of profitability (which is problematic because the universities themselves are tax-exempt organizations), the football and basketball programs can generate significant revenue for the university. As a result, those who lead them command significant salaries. The dollars are so big that it makes you wonder what the purpose of the head coach is -- to mold young men, to make money for the university or to perpetuate himself in his job (regardless of tactics and whether he really molds young men) in order to keep earning staggering sums of money. The more that money is involved, the greater potential for all sorts of problems.
This scandal should (and I emphasize should) enable university boards and presidents to take full control over the mission of the university and not be held hostage by popular coaches or win-at-all-costs-hungry boosters. This scandal should end the horrible paternalism of the professional leagues and create avenues for talented teenagers to go professional the way they do in soccer globally. Right now, the best player in the U.S. is a 19 year-old who stars -- yes, stars -- in Germany. His name is Christian Pulisic and he is very, very good. He comes from Hershey, Pennsylvania. Why can't it be that a top high schooler from Baltimore cannot sign with the 76ers out of high school, play on their G-League team and then have a professional career? If you do this, you'll take out of the college game kids who really only want to play basketball and stop the charade of making them go to college. I know I have thrown out many concepts here, but something significant is plaguing college sports.
Money, the wanting for it by those who either make a lot of it or are on the cusp of doing so or the lack of it for those who need it (the kids whose families don't have it and who play before packed arenas and don't get paid for it). The recent enforcement of labor law rules regarding internships helps frame the issue. A kid who is an intern either must get college credit or get paid; he may not work for free. College athletes in revenue-generating sports (profitable or not) don't get college credit and don't get paid. Yet, their coaches get paid in the top 0.5% of all earners in the United States. Something is awry, and it's sad that the universities haven't been able to address this issue themselves. Now the Federal government will, and in the form of deferred prosecution agreements or corporate integrity agreements or both.
And that is only after they get done with what promises to be a long and widespread investigation. I forget who said this, but it rings true -- "No head coach of a major college football or basketball program is resting easily now."
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Interesting Article the Other Day
about a quarterback competition at an FCS school.
Three competitors -- one, a freshman, one a transfer from an ACC school and the other a transfer from a Big 12 school.
The school?
The University of Pennsylvania.
No, I am not bashing the Ivies and Penn in particular in this post (there are many other reasons to take pokes at the Ancient Eight and Penn both seriously and for fun). What I am pointing out that is if the Ivies use their transfer allotments selectively (that is, most transfers are not transferring because they play sports and are wanted), they can help their cause tremendously.
Enter the Princeton Tigers, who have, in the aggregate, the best overall athletic program in the Ivies (and, if not, one of the top two or three). The wags will say, well, if you lower your standards and take good kids who, absent the sport, wouldn't have had a chance to get into the school, this is what can happen. Let's put that argument aside, because I do not believe we ever will achieve full transparency on the delta between the non-athletes' admission profiles and the athletes' admission profiles. (Again, this is not meant to be a swipe, just a discussion). Think about this, though -- Princeton has done this without any athletic transfers in the past 25 years (and, no, the circumstances behind the football playing Garrett brothers don't count because they were unique and also more than 25 years ago).
None.
I once discussed the topic with a Princeton assistant football coach who lamented that the Tigers did not take transfers (one of the reasons is that the size of the school was the smallest or second smallest in the Ivies, and it's hard to take transfers if a) kids don't drop out or fail out and b) if they don't go abroad to study -- there just isn't surplus room). I offered that it would be nice if the football team could get four a year, because that could really help. His answer surprised me. He said, "we don't need for a year. Heck, we could use one every three years if it's the right one." And then he told me the story about how the team was short at a critical position because one player left school and another broke his leg and how if they were allowed to take this one kid from one of the service academies or a place like Northwestern, I think it was, that the results for the team could have been a lot different. Just one player, too.
Princeton will start taking transfers in the next year or so. Will they take QBs from BCS schools? They apparently don't need to, because they just landed a QB recruit who turned down offers from many BCS schools because of the high quality of the education he can receive in Tigertown. Will they augment a key position if they can? Absolutely.
But so will the Physics Department, Jazz Ensemble, etc.
And so it goes.
Three competitors -- one, a freshman, one a transfer from an ACC school and the other a transfer from a Big 12 school.
The school?
The University of Pennsylvania.
No, I am not bashing the Ivies and Penn in particular in this post (there are many other reasons to take pokes at the Ancient Eight and Penn both seriously and for fun). What I am pointing out that is if the Ivies use their transfer allotments selectively (that is, most transfers are not transferring because they play sports and are wanted), they can help their cause tremendously.
Enter the Princeton Tigers, who have, in the aggregate, the best overall athletic program in the Ivies (and, if not, one of the top two or three). The wags will say, well, if you lower your standards and take good kids who, absent the sport, wouldn't have had a chance to get into the school, this is what can happen. Let's put that argument aside, because I do not believe we ever will achieve full transparency on the delta between the non-athletes' admission profiles and the athletes' admission profiles. (Again, this is not meant to be a swipe, just a discussion). Think about this, though -- Princeton has done this without any athletic transfers in the past 25 years (and, no, the circumstances behind the football playing Garrett brothers don't count because they were unique and also more than 25 years ago).
None.
I once discussed the topic with a Princeton assistant football coach who lamented that the Tigers did not take transfers (one of the reasons is that the size of the school was the smallest or second smallest in the Ivies, and it's hard to take transfers if a) kids don't drop out or fail out and b) if they don't go abroad to study -- there just isn't surplus room). I offered that it would be nice if the football team could get four a year, because that could really help. His answer surprised me. He said, "we don't need for a year. Heck, we could use one every three years if it's the right one." And then he told me the story about how the team was short at a critical position because one player left school and another broke his leg and how if they were allowed to take this one kid from one of the service academies or a place like Northwestern, I think it was, that the results for the team could have been a lot different. Just one player, too.
Princeton will start taking transfers in the next year or so. Will they take QBs from BCS schools? They apparently don't need to, because they just landed a QB recruit who turned down offers from many BCS schools because of the high quality of the education he can receive in Tigertown. Will they augment a key position if they can? Absolutely.
But so will the Physics Department, Jazz Ensemble, etc.
And so it goes.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Time Is Mean to the All-Time Greats
Example Number Infinity -- Watching Usain Bolt pull up in the 4x100 meter relay in the World Championships on what was his final anchor leg for Jamaica. The sports gods just are not kind to all but those who are in or near their prime.
Jim Brown walked away at the top of his game. So did Barry Sanders. Sandy Koufax did too.
Bolt was close to his prime, and he deserved better.
Jim Brown walked away at the top of his game. So did Barry Sanders. Sandy Koufax did too.
Bolt was close to his prime, and he deserved better.
Chase Utley's Ejection the Other Night
Was a head scratcher, wasn't it? It appeared that he asked the second base umpire to move out of his line of sight. Next think you know, the umpire ejected the 38 year-old veteran and one of the most respected players in the game.
Yes, I really want to see umpires eject one of the all-time greats. Okay, don't get on me about the fact that Utley is not a Hall of Famer (I would argue that he is a borderline one; sadly, injuries derailed more opportunities for a WAR number that would have put him in). But to eject anyone for that request? Was there anything more to it than that? Or did the umpire have a bet with a friend that he could get on Sports Center if he ejected a famous player on a pretext? As for the latter, I doubt that came close to happening. Simplest solution is that the arbiter just had a bad night.
Yes, I really want to see umpires eject one of the all-time greats. Okay, don't get on me about the fact that Utley is not a Hall of Famer (I would argue that he is a borderline one; sadly, injuries derailed more opportunities for a WAR number that would have put him in). But to eject anyone for that request? Was there anything more to it than that? Or did the umpire have a bet with a friend that he could get on Sports Center if he ejected a famous player on a pretext? As for the latter, I doubt that came close to happening. Simplest solution is that the arbiter just had a bad night.
Tuesday, August 01, 2017
Random Question
Do you remember where you were when Steve Pearce hit two walk-off grand slams in the same week?
Bonus questions:
What team does Steve Pearce play for?
What position does he play?
And, if you consider yourself to be a good baseball fan and don't know about what Pearce accomplished or who he is, console yourself because you are not alone. Many who had savant-like knowledge decades ago have succumbed to a few basic principles -- 1) so much is written down and available by the few clicks of a smart phone, why memorize it and 2) so much information is going through your head -- precisely because that information is available -- that you don't begin to know facts that you would have thought were foundational decades ago. Ergo. . . why you might be drawing a blank on Steve Pearce.
But congratulations should go to Pearce nonetheless -- what he did was quite an accomplishment.
For whatever team he plays for and at whatever position he plays.
Bonus questions:
What team does Steve Pearce play for?
What position does he play?
And, if you consider yourself to be a good baseball fan and don't know about what Pearce accomplished or who he is, console yourself because you are not alone. Many who had savant-like knowledge decades ago have succumbed to a few basic principles -- 1) so much is written down and available by the few clicks of a smart phone, why memorize it and 2) so much information is going through your head -- precisely because that information is available -- that you don't begin to know facts that you would have thought were foundational decades ago. Ergo. . . why you might be drawing a blank on Steve Pearce.
But congratulations should go to Pearce nonetheless -- what he did was quite an accomplishment.
For whatever team he plays for and at whatever position he plays.
Brief Book Review
Buy Baseball America's recently released "Hall of Fame Almanac." Great 1-page entries for every member of the Hall of Fame.
The book I would like to see written is a comparison of those who made the Hall of Fame to those whose stats as measured by modern metrics would not have warranted inclusion and those whose stats would have warranted inclusion. For example, Rabbit Maranville is by no stretch a Hall of Famer, nor are the several members of the Giants and Cardinals who played in the thirties who made the Hall of Fame because their teammates were on the Veterans' Committee. Or, to paraphrase from Baseball Prospectus, there is a Hall of Fame and a Hall of Very Good.
The book I would like to see written is a comparison of those who made the Hall of Fame to those whose stats as measured by modern metrics would not have warranted inclusion and those whose stats would have warranted inclusion. For example, Rabbit Maranville is by no stretch a Hall of Famer, nor are the several members of the Giants and Cardinals who played in the thirties who made the Hall of Fame because their teammates were on the Veterans' Committee. Or, to paraphrase from Baseball Prospectus, there is a Hall of Fame and a Hall of Very Good.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Did MLS Really Reject a $4 Billion TV Deal?
I see many headlines on my Twitter feed. One that drew notice was a report that MLS rejected a $4 billion TV contract because it did not want to agree to having a construct that called for promotion and relegation. The tree for that decision must have been interesting.
One branch might have suggested taking the contract, agreeing to the construct, and using the $4 billion to buttress all teams in MLS. $4 billion? Wow, that would be an amazing contract for a league whose best teams would not be in the English Premier League but probably somewhere in the lower half of the Championship League in England (an improvement over, say, five years ago). Imagine what MLS and its teams could do with that money. Sounds like an easy decision -- just agree to promotion and relegation, right?
Wrong. MLS is run in an American way. Owners put up big money for a franchise, and, when doing so, put up money for a franchise in a certain league, not a certain universe. So, for example, the owners of the Red Bulls bought an MLS franchise, not a franchise in a potential sub-league. The consequences of relegation of big-city teams in MLS could shake MLS to its core, at least right now. Imagine if in the same season franchises in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago got relegated. What would happen? Those franchises would not draw any fans playing the likes of current second- and even third-tier teams in stadiums meant for the big time. The would go broke and spiral into a precipitous decline. Precedent for this abounds in England. So, MLS rejected the potential for $4 billion out of a lack of confidence that U.S. soccer could absorb the downside to relegation as opposed to benefit from the upside of promotion.
Right now, the decision makes sense on its face. U.S. soccer still has a ways to go to match the overall (if not top-to-bottom) strength of the top 5 or 6 leagues in Europe. Until the U.S. is certain that the franchises in the major cities will become as robust as say the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Tottenham and Arsenal, who are all but assured of remaining in the Premier League each and every year, MLS does not want to take the risk. Because should one of the big-city franchises plummet, that franchise could take the entire league down -- at least right now. I don't know whether that's true, by the way or what MLS has modeled, but it stands to reason right now that MLS wants to strengthen its core a little more before agreeing to a big TV contract with that type of requirement in it.
All that glitters is not gold, even if it has many, many zeroes after a crooked number. The powers that be in MLS must think that a bigger and better contract will come in the near future. They could be right.
One branch might have suggested taking the contract, agreeing to the construct, and using the $4 billion to buttress all teams in MLS. $4 billion? Wow, that would be an amazing contract for a league whose best teams would not be in the English Premier League but probably somewhere in the lower half of the Championship League in England (an improvement over, say, five years ago). Imagine what MLS and its teams could do with that money. Sounds like an easy decision -- just agree to promotion and relegation, right?
Wrong. MLS is run in an American way. Owners put up big money for a franchise, and, when doing so, put up money for a franchise in a certain league, not a certain universe. So, for example, the owners of the Red Bulls bought an MLS franchise, not a franchise in a potential sub-league. The consequences of relegation of big-city teams in MLS could shake MLS to its core, at least right now. Imagine if in the same season franchises in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago got relegated. What would happen? Those franchises would not draw any fans playing the likes of current second- and even third-tier teams in stadiums meant for the big time. The would go broke and spiral into a precipitous decline. Precedent for this abounds in England. So, MLS rejected the potential for $4 billion out of a lack of confidence that U.S. soccer could absorb the downside to relegation as opposed to benefit from the upside of promotion.
Right now, the decision makes sense on its face. U.S. soccer still has a ways to go to match the overall (if not top-to-bottom) strength of the top 5 or 6 leagues in Europe. Until the U.S. is certain that the franchises in the major cities will become as robust as say the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Tottenham and Arsenal, who are all but assured of remaining in the Premier League each and every year, MLS does not want to take the risk. Because should one of the big-city franchises plummet, that franchise could take the entire league down -- at least right now. I don't know whether that's true, by the way or what MLS has modeled, but it stands to reason right now that MLS wants to strengthen its core a little more before agreeing to a big TV contract with that type of requirement in it.
All that glitters is not gold, even if it has many, many zeroes after a crooked number. The powers that be in MLS must think that a bigger and better contract will come in the near future. They could be right.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Are Spectator Sports Doomed?
I read an interesting blurb in Sports Illustrated about the average age of TV viewers for all sports. Not surprisingly, the "youngest" average viewer watches soccer -- and s/he is 39. The oldest? Baseball, at a whopping 62 years of age.
Of course, data without context is dangerous. Because of the large number of people in the front end of the Baby Boom, there stand to be more people pushing up the average because there are more front-end Boomers than say Millenials. Second, many more of those who are front-end Boomers and older are bound to be retired and have more time on their hands to watch the old idiot box than those who are younger, who presumably are working, recovering from a hard day at work, or doing the pediatric thing and tending to kids' basics needs, taking them to lessons or games or helping them with homework. Somehow I don't think the blurb offered that type of insight. Instead, it just boldly and baldly recites the average age of viewers.
Does it mean that younger people are not interesting in American football? How could that be, as it seems to be the most popular sport in the country (despite the guilt that some feel for watching it because players can end up with long-term health issues, many of them too awful to witness or bear)? They have to be watching it; the NFL enjoys good ratings even if the games can take forever, hitting isn't what it used to be and of the hours it takes to play a game there really isn't even 60 minutes of action, but a fraction thereof because of all the time that runs while the players are coming back from a play or getting ready for the next one. To me, the number is skewed because there just are more people above the age of 55 right now, and that is the reason why the averages are so high.
Then again, are we seeing a population/demographic problem in the country or a separate problem for spectator sports. If the experts in healthcare are to be believed -- and they are credible -- the budget for Medicare in say 2030 will be what the entire U.S. budget is now. Translated, we have a lot of people born before 1964 and not enough born after to support the entitlement. If that's the case, then the sports world's problem is not unique to it.
Or is it? After all, if there are fewer people coming up behind the Boomers, then there is a smaller denominator of people who might be willing to buy tickets or watch on TV. And that means that the average age of a fan is high, and that the population that might be available to support teams will be smaller for a while, even as the country's population grows. But if it grows, is it because of birth rates or immigration or both? As you can see, there are many variables that can affect these averages and this number.
The one thing that I did glean from the data is the popularity of soccer and the good future it seems to have in the United States. It seems well-situated to benefit from the lowest average. Then again, the sports with the highest averages have a good opportunity to draw in more young fans. They just need to figure out what they are not watching as much as they used to.
So, spectator sports are not doomed. It is just that the preferences of those spectators might be changing. Remember, about 45 years ago boxing and horse racing were among the top 5 in popular sports. The former got hurt by the boycott of the 1980 Olympics, the retirements of Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier (and then the attrition of welter- and middleweights such as Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran and the likes, as well as some questionable decisions and characters (including the robbery of Roy Jones, Jr. in the 1988 Olympics in Seoul). The latter got decimated by the legalization of lotteries and casinos; at one time, a horse race was the only place one could go to place a legal bet. Not anymore. Atop that, rumors ran rampant that there was funny business going on with the trotters and the pacers.
Times and preferences change. No, baseball is not dead, but baseball and football have things to worry about, namely the slowness of the former and the injuries in the latter. Somehow, they should evolve, but the powers that be should remember how baseball once was the national pastime and how popular boxing and horse racing were and adjust accordingly.
Of course, data without context is dangerous. Because of the large number of people in the front end of the Baby Boom, there stand to be more people pushing up the average because there are more front-end Boomers than say Millenials. Second, many more of those who are front-end Boomers and older are bound to be retired and have more time on their hands to watch the old idiot box than those who are younger, who presumably are working, recovering from a hard day at work, or doing the pediatric thing and tending to kids' basics needs, taking them to lessons or games or helping them with homework. Somehow I don't think the blurb offered that type of insight. Instead, it just boldly and baldly recites the average age of viewers.
Does it mean that younger people are not interesting in American football? How could that be, as it seems to be the most popular sport in the country (despite the guilt that some feel for watching it because players can end up with long-term health issues, many of them too awful to witness or bear)? They have to be watching it; the NFL enjoys good ratings even if the games can take forever, hitting isn't what it used to be and of the hours it takes to play a game there really isn't even 60 minutes of action, but a fraction thereof because of all the time that runs while the players are coming back from a play or getting ready for the next one. To me, the number is skewed because there just are more people above the age of 55 right now, and that is the reason why the averages are so high.
Then again, are we seeing a population/demographic problem in the country or a separate problem for spectator sports. If the experts in healthcare are to be believed -- and they are credible -- the budget for Medicare in say 2030 will be what the entire U.S. budget is now. Translated, we have a lot of people born before 1964 and not enough born after to support the entitlement. If that's the case, then the sports world's problem is not unique to it.
Or is it? After all, if there are fewer people coming up behind the Boomers, then there is a smaller denominator of people who might be willing to buy tickets or watch on TV. And that means that the average age of a fan is high, and that the population that might be available to support teams will be smaller for a while, even as the country's population grows. But if it grows, is it because of birth rates or immigration or both? As you can see, there are many variables that can affect these averages and this number.
The one thing that I did glean from the data is the popularity of soccer and the good future it seems to have in the United States. It seems well-situated to benefit from the lowest average. Then again, the sports with the highest averages have a good opportunity to draw in more young fans. They just need to figure out what they are not watching as much as they used to.
So, spectator sports are not doomed. It is just that the preferences of those spectators might be changing. Remember, about 45 years ago boxing and horse racing were among the top 5 in popular sports. The former got hurt by the boycott of the 1980 Olympics, the retirements of Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier (and then the attrition of welter- and middleweights such as Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran and the likes, as well as some questionable decisions and characters (including the robbery of Roy Jones, Jr. in the 1988 Olympics in Seoul). The latter got decimated by the legalization of lotteries and casinos; at one time, a horse race was the only place one could go to place a legal bet. Not anymore. Atop that, rumors ran rampant that there was funny business going on with the trotters and the pacers.
Times and preferences change. No, baseball is not dead, but baseball and football have things to worry about, namely the slowness of the former and the injuries in the latter. Somehow, they should evolve, but the powers that be should remember how baseball once was the national pastime and how popular boxing and horse racing were and adjust accordingly.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
NBA Summer League
It is fun to watch first- and second-year players show their stuff. It's great to see the high draft picks, the international players and the guys with good stories, including some who were unfortunate enough to stay in college for four years and then have doubts cast about them precisely because they might not have had the confidence to leave school earlier or were deemed not good enough to be drafted. The ingredients to this cocktail are intriguing and provide some very interesting opportunities and views.
But let's not get ahead of our skis -- you have young players guarding young players, and players who are not used to playing together, all the while trying to excel. Can we draw meaning from any of it? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Did Lonzo Ball show off a good passing vision? Absolutely. He has a gift there. Did Jayson Tatum show off some good offensive moves? Yes, he did, with the important caveat that it was not Kawhi Leonard who was guarding him. Not, of course, that you have a Kawhi Leonard guard you on most nights. You do not. Has Caleb Swanigan made a statement by putting up double doubles every night? Yes and no. Yes, because he comes in as underrated or dismissed as Carlos Boozer did years ago, and my tea leaves say he is a second-round bargain. But it isn't as though he has had Paul Millsap or Al Jefferson or Al Horford banging on him every night. He has not.
We balance, of course, the concept of "you play who you play" with "you aren't playing against all-stars." The summer league is exciting because the teams get to show off their new players, and players who might have been overlooked get to surprise the onlookers with skills that they have honed in the off-season. While the first-round picks are playing to get in better playing shape and adjust to a faster speed, most players in these games are playing for the scouts of every team in the NBA and the top teams in Europe. Fare well, and you might make your NBA team, get picked up by another NBA team, earn a spot in the now G-League or get offered a contract for an overseas team.
It depends on who you are. Lonzo, well, he's already a Laker legend and he has yet to play in a game. Alex Poythress? He's an interesting one. He gave the 76ers some good minutes at the end of last season and looks to be an NBA player. Can he force the 76ers to make a tough decision because they now have a crowded roster, or can the 76ers use him to get another 2nd round pick in a trade? He is ready for the league. How about Larry Drew II? Could he displace one of the 76ers' point guards, or is he playing for the GM in another city?
We don't see how the sausage is made, how the teams put together their rosters or how front offices scout players, inventory their reports and try to fill holes in their rosters. Suffice it to say that many sets of eyes -- multiple sets from each team -- watch these games and watch films of these games. For the average fan like me, it's basketball in July, and that's all I need, a little fix, something to carry me over until NFL camps begin, baseball pennant races heat up, the English Premier League begins. But for those in the business, their season starts now, and there are gems to mine and polish.
And they are right in front of everyone's eyes.
But let's not get ahead of our skis -- you have young players guarding young players, and players who are not used to playing together, all the while trying to excel. Can we draw meaning from any of it? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Did Lonzo Ball show off a good passing vision? Absolutely. He has a gift there. Did Jayson Tatum show off some good offensive moves? Yes, he did, with the important caveat that it was not Kawhi Leonard who was guarding him. Not, of course, that you have a Kawhi Leonard guard you on most nights. You do not. Has Caleb Swanigan made a statement by putting up double doubles every night? Yes and no. Yes, because he comes in as underrated or dismissed as Carlos Boozer did years ago, and my tea leaves say he is a second-round bargain. But it isn't as though he has had Paul Millsap or Al Jefferson or Al Horford banging on him every night. He has not.
We balance, of course, the concept of "you play who you play" with "you aren't playing against all-stars." The summer league is exciting because the teams get to show off their new players, and players who might have been overlooked get to surprise the onlookers with skills that they have honed in the off-season. While the first-round picks are playing to get in better playing shape and adjust to a faster speed, most players in these games are playing for the scouts of every team in the NBA and the top teams in Europe. Fare well, and you might make your NBA team, get picked up by another NBA team, earn a spot in the now G-League or get offered a contract for an overseas team.
It depends on who you are. Lonzo, well, he's already a Laker legend and he has yet to play in a game. Alex Poythress? He's an interesting one. He gave the 76ers some good minutes at the end of last season and looks to be an NBA player. Can he force the 76ers to make a tough decision because they now have a crowded roster, or can the 76ers use him to get another 2nd round pick in a trade? He is ready for the league. How about Larry Drew II? Could he displace one of the 76ers' point guards, or is he playing for the GM in another city?
We don't see how the sausage is made, how the teams put together their rosters or how front offices scout players, inventory their reports and try to fill holes in their rosters. Suffice it to say that many sets of eyes -- multiple sets from each team -- watch these games and watch films of these games. For the average fan like me, it's basketball in July, and that's all I need, a little fix, something to carry me over until NFL camps begin, baseball pennant races heat up, the English Premier League begins. But for those in the business, their season starts now, and there are gems to mine and polish.
And they are right in front of everyone's eyes.
Wednesday, July 05, 2017
Taxation (and Regulatory Schemes) Affect Behavior
No, I am not a policy wonk, and, similarly, this is not a policy post or rant or anything political, except insofar as to offer that if you put a luxury tax in place or a salary cap, well, you are trying to affect behavior. History is full of stories about unintended consequences of tax and regulatory schemes, and, of course, advocates for both side of an argument will debate even whether the consequences are even the consequences. This result, of course, derives from an era where compromise is considered to be akin to graphic pornography. Winning isn't the only thing, apparently, it is the only possibility to remain relevant. (I'll put aside erudite and articulate arguments to trust the Philadelphia 76ers' process for a moment).
So that's my introduction for an essay on the NBA's salary cap and luxury tax, which has had the following consequences -- an arms' race in the Western Conference, stars trying to align with one another literally to create a dynasty on one team, certain key players over the years who take less to perpetuate excellence (and, pray tell, they even let themselves be coached), other teams depleting their rosters in order to re-build through the draft, and a competitive landscape that is worse that conforms to Pareto -- 80% of the teams are not relevant, and about 20% of the teams are. There are, of course, teams that will approach either end of the continuum, but by and large there are about two teams in the East and say 6 in the West that could contend for the title, and you have to reduce the West's number because of the brutal attrition that the playoffs enforce. The question then becomes -- is this what the NBA wanted when it put this system in place and does it get to the parity that the NFL has (which, depending on who you are, has created excitement or mediocrity generally in the NFL).
The behavior is worth watching and interesting and, quite frankly, creates a compelling off-season as the league approaches July 1 each year. Sadly, though, this drama frequently eclipses the drama that should occur two thirds of the way into the season, but usually does not, as the teams that make the playoffs usually consist of those who would have made the playoffs had the season ended, say, on March 15. Which means that the NBA isn't always selling elite competition -- it is selling a form of entertainment. And that form of entertainment get diluted when the good teams start to rest their stars and the up-and-coming if a few years away teams don't rush their injured youngsters back from injuries for two good reasons -- 1) they don't want to see those folks exacerbate their injuries and 2) there is no point in winning at some point in the season when winning means you'll get a worse draft pick than you would if you were to lose games. Does that mean that teams intentionally lose games? Hardly, but it does mean that they can suit up teams that do not have the talent to compete. Let's face it, for much of the past three or so years the 76ers were suiting up players who wouldn't have cracked the rotation on most teams and who were barely a few steps ahead of returning to the D-League.
What's worse is that the NBA rewards the top teams (they have the talent and depth to make a deep run into the playoffs) and the bottom ones (who, if crafty, can rebuild through the draft and become elite). Those who make a game of it, so to speak, who try to field the best team better but are stuck in the vortex that is the middle of the draft every year, can face a fate of finishing annually a few games above or below .500. And what is the fun in that? e
I happen to like the NBA -- it has great players, it offers a great atmosphere and the best teams are truly great. But for the rest of the fans who commit to a team and even to paying for tickets, well, the league has to do a better job of creating parity and giving each team a decent chance of winning a championship. True, some teams have been grossly mismanaged. But many have not been. Sure, they might have missed on drafting Kawhi Leonard or Isaiah Thomas when they had the chance, and that sometimes happened. But they do their homework and scouting and aren't just bad enough to draft a league-changing player or good enough to draw a free agent who can make a real difference. Until that changes, the NBA will be an oligarchy of sorts, and that will not be sustainable.
So that's my introduction for an essay on the NBA's salary cap and luxury tax, which has had the following consequences -- an arms' race in the Western Conference, stars trying to align with one another literally to create a dynasty on one team, certain key players over the years who take less to perpetuate excellence (and, pray tell, they even let themselves be coached), other teams depleting their rosters in order to re-build through the draft, and a competitive landscape that is worse that conforms to Pareto -- 80% of the teams are not relevant, and about 20% of the teams are. There are, of course, teams that will approach either end of the continuum, but by and large there are about two teams in the East and say 6 in the West that could contend for the title, and you have to reduce the West's number because of the brutal attrition that the playoffs enforce. The question then becomes -- is this what the NBA wanted when it put this system in place and does it get to the parity that the NFL has (which, depending on who you are, has created excitement or mediocrity generally in the NFL).
The behavior is worth watching and interesting and, quite frankly, creates a compelling off-season as the league approaches July 1 each year. Sadly, though, this drama frequently eclipses the drama that should occur two thirds of the way into the season, but usually does not, as the teams that make the playoffs usually consist of those who would have made the playoffs had the season ended, say, on March 15. Which means that the NBA isn't always selling elite competition -- it is selling a form of entertainment. And that form of entertainment get diluted when the good teams start to rest their stars and the up-and-coming if a few years away teams don't rush their injured youngsters back from injuries for two good reasons -- 1) they don't want to see those folks exacerbate their injuries and 2) there is no point in winning at some point in the season when winning means you'll get a worse draft pick than you would if you were to lose games. Does that mean that teams intentionally lose games? Hardly, but it does mean that they can suit up teams that do not have the talent to compete. Let's face it, for much of the past three or so years the 76ers were suiting up players who wouldn't have cracked the rotation on most teams and who were barely a few steps ahead of returning to the D-League.
What's worse is that the NBA rewards the top teams (they have the talent and depth to make a deep run into the playoffs) and the bottom ones (who, if crafty, can rebuild through the draft and become elite). Those who make a game of it, so to speak, who try to field the best team better but are stuck in the vortex that is the middle of the draft every year, can face a fate of finishing annually a few games above or below .500. And what is the fun in that? e
I happen to like the NBA -- it has great players, it offers a great atmosphere and the best teams are truly great. But for the rest of the fans who commit to a team and even to paying for tickets, well, the league has to do a better job of creating parity and giving each team a decent chance of winning a championship. True, some teams have been grossly mismanaged. But many have not been. Sure, they might have missed on drafting Kawhi Leonard or Isaiah Thomas when they had the chance, and that sometimes happened. But they do their homework and scouting and aren't just bad enough to draft a league-changing player or good enough to draw a free agent who can make a real difference. Until that changes, the NBA will be an oligarchy of sorts, and that will not be sustainable.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
The NBA Draft
What more can you ask for?
You get great fashion.
You get speculation about the future of human performance (one of America's favorite pastimes).
You get intrigue regarding which teams might make what moves to make them better (another favorite pastime).
You get a few self-important talking heads bloviate as to who might be good, who might not be, what teams might want to do and how they might fare, with zero accountability. It's not as though anyone does a retrospective as to whether Jay Bilas was right or not.
You get the agony and ecstasy of the fans in the arena. The draft is in Brooklyn, which traded its first-round picks this year and next year in the ill-fated trade for Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce. So, the Nets are without a first-rounder. You'll also get some Knicks' fans, and they're frustrated because the drama surrounding the team is better theater than what the team puts on the floor. And the team is ready to peddle 7'3" Kristaps Porzingis, the fans' favorite, for the right price. You'll also get a large number of fans making the trek from Philadelphia. That will be a boisterous group, excited about The Process and willing to put their newfound treasures in the face of New York-area fans who typically talk smack about Philadelphia generally and the 76ers particularly.
What more can the viewing public ask for? There will be trades. Someone will slide. There will be Euro stashes, players who do Euro steps and an inevitable Euro stash (see, e.g., Dario Saric). There will be rampant speculation about which mid-first rounder will turn out to be the next Kawhi Leonard and which second rounder will turn into the next Isiah Thomas.
All good fun, but they do play the games for a good reason -- to see who, really, is all that good and can win. Stock up: Philadelphia 76ers, seemingly about to abound with talent. Stock up: Boston Celtics, because of who they might be adding, and because they get the most out of their talent. Stock down: Nets, because they seem hopeless, owned by the one Russian oligarch who seemingly cannot win. Stock down: Knicks, because Jim Dolan owns them and does not seem to have a clue. Stock up: Kings, so long as they don't blow their picks. Stock down: Malik Monk, who has dropped in mock drafts, who is 6'3" and about whom there are questions about whether he can create his own shot well enough at the NBA level. And then there are those whose stocks rise and fall for no proffered reason.
Okay, so it's not a game 7, it's not Lakers-Celtics or anything like that. But for June, it's as good as it gets, and it's pretty darned good.
You get great fashion.
You get speculation about the future of human performance (one of America's favorite pastimes).
You get intrigue regarding which teams might make what moves to make them better (another favorite pastime).
You get a few self-important talking heads bloviate as to who might be good, who might not be, what teams might want to do and how they might fare, with zero accountability. It's not as though anyone does a retrospective as to whether Jay Bilas was right or not.
You get the agony and ecstasy of the fans in the arena. The draft is in Brooklyn, which traded its first-round picks this year and next year in the ill-fated trade for Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce. So, the Nets are without a first-rounder. You'll also get some Knicks' fans, and they're frustrated because the drama surrounding the team is better theater than what the team puts on the floor. And the team is ready to peddle 7'3" Kristaps Porzingis, the fans' favorite, for the right price. You'll also get a large number of fans making the trek from Philadelphia. That will be a boisterous group, excited about The Process and willing to put their newfound treasures in the face of New York-area fans who typically talk smack about Philadelphia generally and the 76ers particularly.
What more can the viewing public ask for? There will be trades. Someone will slide. There will be Euro stashes, players who do Euro steps and an inevitable Euro stash (see, e.g., Dario Saric). There will be rampant speculation about which mid-first rounder will turn out to be the next Kawhi Leonard and which second rounder will turn into the next Isiah Thomas.
All good fun, but they do play the games for a good reason -- to see who, really, is all that good and can win. Stock up: Philadelphia 76ers, seemingly about to abound with talent. Stock up: Boston Celtics, because of who they might be adding, and because they get the most out of their talent. Stock down: Nets, because they seem hopeless, owned by the one Russian oligarch who seemingly cannot win. Stock down: Knicks, because Jim Dolan owns them and does not seem to have a clue. Stock up: Kings, so long as they don't blow their picks. Stock down: Malik Monk, who has dropped in mock drafts, who is 6'3" and about whom there are questions about whether he can create his own shot well enough at the NBA level. And then there are those whose stocks rise and fall for no proffered reason.
Okay, so it's not a game 7, it's not Lakers-Celtics or anything like that. But for June, it's as good as it gets, and it's pretty darned good.
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Why Didn't This Get More Publicity?
The story goes something like this -- WWE match featuring "Big Show," a 400-plus-pound rassler known for bad temperament. Match is in a steel cage. Young child gets out of his mother's sight, somehow gets into the cage. The rassler is all pumped up; the fear is that he will body slam the little boy. Ring security shoots the rassler and kills him.
The headlines made it seem matter-of-fact, that this shooting was justified because the rassler had a history of instability and could have killed the little boy. The natural selection crowd, a distinct but vocal minority, decried the shooting, but not because both lives were worth saving. No, some of these folks argued that the kid got in there and, yes, he could have been hurt, but that nature should have taken its course without the shooting, which meant that if the handlers couldn't have convinced Big Show not to body slam or otherwise hurt the little boy and the boy got hurt or killed, well, that was supposed to happen because the inattentive mom put her son in that position and sometimes that is life.
I don't agree with the latter position; all that needed to be done should have been done to save the boy from harm and ultimately the rassler from harm too. That said, I wasn't there and don't know whether the shooting was justified or not. But, when I read the article, I felt that those who let it get to press should have been a little more demonstrative about the tragedy of the whole thing and whether in this type of a situation the shooting was justified -- and without going to the natural selection crowd, a few of whom were wont to argue that if anyone should have gotten hurt it was the little boy's mother for letting him out of sight in the first place.
But a fatal shooting because a little boy got into a steel cage? That never should have happened. The little boy should not have gotten close to the ring or the cage or whatever, and the entrance to the cage should have hard a guard near it so that no one from the audience could have gotten in. You go to a professional wrestling match, you expect to see all sorts of drama and hijinx, but not anyone shooting a real gun with real bulets at one of the contestants. No, not ever.
So Big Show is gone, dead, because of something that got way out of hand and should not have happened. The world shrugged, perhaps because the guy was a giant, perhaps because he topped 400 pounds, perhaps because he had a history of some erratic behavior.
The indifference is hard to take. No one deserves that fate.
The headlines made it seem matter-of-fact, that this shooting was justified because the rassler had a history of instability and could have killed the little boy. The natural selection crowd, a distinct but vocal minority, decried the shooting, but not because both lives were worth saving. No, some of these folks argued that the kid got in there and, yes, he could have been hurt, but that nature should have taken its course without the shooting, which meant that if the handlers couldn't have convinced Big Show not to body slam or otherwise hurt the little boy and the boy got hurt or killed, well, that was supposed to happen because the inattentive mom put her son in that position and sometimes that is life.
I don't agree with the latter position; all that needed to be done should have been done to save the boy from harm and ultimately the rassler from harm too. That said, I wasn't there and don't know whether the shooting was justified or not. But, when I read the article, I felt that those who let it get to press should have been a little more demonstrative about the tragedy of the whole thing and whether in this type of a situation the shooting was justified -- and without going to the natural selection crowd, a few of whom were wont to argue that if anyone should have gotten hurt it was the little boy's mother for letting him out of sight in the first place.
But a fatal shooting because a little boy got into a steel cage? That never should have happened. The little boy should not have gotten close to the ring or the cage or whatever, and the entrance to the cage should have hard a guard near it so that no one from the audience could have gotten in. You go to a professional wrestling match, you expect to see all sorts of drama and hijinx, but not anyone shooting a real gun with real bulets at one of the contestants. No, not ever.
So Big Show is gone, dead, because of something that got way out of hand and should not have happened. The world shrugged, perhaps because the guy was a giant, perhaps because he topped 400 pounds, perhaps because he had a history of some erratic behavior.
The indifference is hard to take. No one deserves that fate.
Monday, June 19, 2017
Soccer Transfer Talk
This is a season unto itself. It starts in May, as the seasons of the major soccer leagues start to wind down. Rumors abound. For example, since Arsenal missed out on qualifying for Champions League, rumors swirl that both Alexis Sanchez and Mesut Ozil are unhappy and want to play for teams that will play in the Champions League next season. For what it's worth, the absence of Champions League play on the schedule didn't stop Ngolo Kante from leaving Leicester to help propel Chelsea to a Premier League Championship, making him player of the year in the world's best league for the second consecutive year.
Everyone, it seems, is in the mix for going to United or City or Liverpool or Chelsea or Tottentham, not to mention Barca, Bayern Munich, Juventus, Real Madrid and PSG. It's hard to believe what is reported because it changes so much from one day to the next.
If you're an Arsenal fan, you worry that both your stars will want to bolt and you'll replace them with good players, not great ones. (You worry enough about owner Stan Kroenke's willingness to do what it takes to win). But Arsenal was quick to point out that in their Puma Kit poster for next season, look who appears -- Sanchez and Ozil. Perhaps that's a balm for the annoyed, but, then again, it could exacerbate the risk that Sanchez will leave on a free transfer after next season.
And so go the mentions. Griezmann to United? Lukaku back to Chelsea? Morata to United? DeGea to Real Madrid?
You have to love this time of the year. It seems like anything and everything can happen, but the reality is not all that much does from year to year.
And then there's the matter of the young players who emerge from beneath the radar like Kante did a few years ago (along with the older but as anonymous Jamie Vardy, who had a season for the ages two years ago). That's what makes the game exciting -- a position change, a change of manager, a change of formation, a year or two of maturity, a better pairing, as well as good transfers.
This particular season ends in several months, and it should be fun to watch.
Everyone, it seems, is in the mix for going to United or City or Liverpool or Chelsea or Tottentham, not to mention Barca, Bayern Munich, Juventus, Real Madrid and PSG. It's hard to believe what is reported because it changes so much from one day to the next.
If you're an Arsenal fan, you worry that both your stars will want to bolt and you'll replace them with good players, not great ones. (You worry enough about owner Stan Kroenke's willingness to do what it takes to win). But Arsenal was quick to point out that in their Puma Kit poster for next season, look who appears -- Sanchez and Ozil. Perhaps that's a balm for the annoyed, but, then again, it could exacerbate the risk that Sanchez will leave on a free transfer after next season.
And so go the mentions. Griezmann to United? Lukaku back to Chelsea? Morata to United? DeGea to Real Madrid?
You have to love this time of the year. It seems like anything and everything can happen, but the reality is not all that much does from year to year.
And then there's the matter of the young players who emerge from beneath the radar like Kante did a few years ago (along with the older but as anonymous Jamie Vardy, who had a season for the ages two years ago). That's what makes the game exciting -- a position change, a change of manager, a change of formation, a year or two of maturity, a better pairing, as well as good transfers.
This particular season ends in several months, and it should be fun to watch.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Amusing Headline of the Day
On my Twitter feed I saw a post that exclaimed that the Phillies believe that the righthanded pitcher they took in the second round is the best righty in the draft.
I had a few reactions, among which were the following:
-- what were they supposed to say?
--- on what basis?
-- are they kidding me?
Let me explain as to the latter. Name a pitcher that the Phillies have developed over the past say 70 years.
Robin Roberts? Okay.
Jim Bunning? Nope, didn't come up with the team.
Fergie Jenkins? Traded him away for, well, not much.
Steve Carlton? The Hall of Famer Steve Carlton? Nope, came up with the Cardinals.
Cy Young Award winners John Denny and Steve Bedrosian? Neither came up with the team.
Okay, that takes us through the 1980's. They signed Dave Stewart off the waiver wire, cut him, and then he became a star in Oakland and pitched on those great A's teams in the 1980's.
Curt Schilling? Nope. Phillies were -- get this -- his fourth stop, after Boston, Baltimore and Houston (they traded him to the Astros for Jason Grimsley).
That pretty much takes care of the 1990's.
Cole Hamels. All-Star Cole Hamels. Yes, the Phillies developed him.
Cliff Lee? Heck no.
Roy Halladay? Nope.
Roy Oswalt? Nope.
Sure, there were some promising names in between, guys with names like Wright, Munninghoff, Ghelfi, Bystrom (he of the 5-0 record in September of 1983 to help the Phillies clinch the East and then defeat a depleted Dodgers squad for the right to lose to the Orioles in the World Series).
So, when the team makes such a boast, the answer is why? Is it because the team is so desperate for quality starting pitching help? Or is it because the team has been so woeful in developing any starting pitching over the longest period of time? Other teams win games and put together wonderful legacies because of their ability to develop pitchers. The Cardinals, Dodgers and Yankees come to mind. But the Phillies?
They are what their record says they are.
Terrible about scouting, drafting and developing pitchers.
I had a few reactions, among which were the following:
-- what were they supposed to say?
--- on what basis?
-- are they kidding me?
Let me explain as to the latter. Name a pitcher that the Phillies have developed over the past say 70 years.
Robin Roberts? Okay.
Jim Bunning? Nope, didn't come up with the team.
Fergie Jenkins? Traded him away for, well, not much.
Steve Carlton? The Hall of Famer Steve Carlton? Nope, came up with the Cardinals.
Cy Young Award winners John Denny and Steve Bedrosian? Neither came up with the team.
Okay, that takes us through the 1980's. They signed Dave Stewart off the waiver wire, cut him, and then he became a star in Oakland and pitched on those great A's teams in the 1980's.
Curt Schilling? Nope. Phillies were -- get this -- his fourth stop, after Boston, Baltimore and Houston (they traded him to the Astros for Jason Grimsley).
That pretty much takes care of the 1990's.
Cole Hamels. All-Star Cole Hamels. Yes, the Phillies developed him.
Cliff Lee? Heck no.
Roy Halladay? Nope.
Roy Oswalt? Nope.
Sure, there were some promising names in between, guys with names like Wright, Munninghoff, Ghelfi, Bystrom (he of the 5-0 record in September of 1983 to help the Phillies clinch the East and then defeat a depleted Dodgers squad for the right to lose to the Orioles in the World Series).
So, when the team makes such a boast, the answer is why? Is it because the team is so desperate for quality starting pitching help? Or is it because the team has been so woeful in developing any starting pitching over the longest period of time? Other teams win games and put together wonderful legacies because of their ability to develop pitchers. The Cardinals, Dodgers and Yankees come to mind. But the Phillies?
They are what their record says they are.
Terrible about scouting, drafting and developing pitchers.
Day 500
The alarm goes off at 4:45 a.m. It's early, and sometimes it's hard not to fall back to sleep. As in really, really hard. But somehow, some way, you get out of bed, telling yourself at the outset of the program that you really will feel better in the long run if you do this, if you change your behavior and work an exercise regimen into your day the way you have changed your eating habits. So, you get up, put on your gym clothes, tiptoe in the hallway so as not to wake anyone, and you go down to the basement.
It's not the type of basement that anyone would brag about on an HGTV show. It's one of those early 1960's basements, built for utility and some storage but not for comfort. For one thing, the ceiling is low, so you have to be careful if you are of average height or bigger. The ventilation is okay, the space good enough. Good enough to fit a fixed bike, rowing machine, some resistance bands and an exercise mat.
You adopt a routine after a while, varying it to some degree to break up the boredom. Sweats seem mandatory in winter time, and the room is cool to start in the summer because of the air conditioning. You get down there, turn on the TV, tilt it toward the bike, and get on and start pedaling. Sometimes you go just ten minutes to get your heart going; other times you put yourself through punishing paces and increasing difficulty for about a half an hour, ending up sweaty and ready for the next thing. Over the course of 75 minutes you'll have biked, rowed, stretched with stretch bands, done yoga stretches, worked your upper body with resistance bands and attacked your core through the use of medicine balls. On some days you'll have done push-ups, too, or planks, and on most days you'll have used a hard foam roller to pop muscles in different directions.
Your stretching follows guidance accumulated over the years from Kelly Starrett's book, from a physical therapist, from a personal trainer and from reading, as well as some stretches borrowed from yoga tapes or a few yoga classes. At the end of the workout, you'll feel good, tight, fully stretched and ready for whatever the day has to bring.
After you take your shower, you'll eat a breakfast pretty much daily that consists of plain, non-fat yogurt with some cinnamon (or a 100-cal variety that is low on sugar), some whole-grain flakes (flax is my favorite), some granola to top it off and some fresh fruit. Berries are preferred if they are in-season and cheap, and a banana is the old standby. That breakfast is the opening act for a diet that is rich on vegetables and fruit, modest on the bad fats and rich in the good ones, a reasonable amount of carbs, and, usually, no processed sugar.
The results, after 500 days and counting (okay, so I have skipped a workout perhaps on 10 of those 500 days) are very good. I feel better and more energetic and my numbers, so to speak, the type that the doctors give you after drawing blood and sending it to a laboratory, are good too.
Is it worth it? Getting up that early? Well, I'll say this -- getting up that early is somewhat zen because you own your day at that point. No one else is up, which means that this part of the day is entirely yours -- and the only interruptions are the ones you create. That aspect of my day is something I cherish -- alone with my workout, alone with my thoughts, shaping my day. Is it worth it? Watching ESPN in the morning and its loop of features on Sports Center? If the end is getting into better shape and staying that way and feeling good about it, absolutely. If one gets irked by self-absorption and some sports journalistic narcissism courtesy of certain ESPN anchors and reporters, well, change the channel. But try to go to a zen-oriented channel -- and not one of the national news channels that report on only two types of news -- bad and worse.
So, yes, it's worth it -- the ritual, the routine, the location, the time of day, the feeling you get as you're making your way through your workout and then finishing it -- that you have accomplished something at the start of the day and are on a pathway to better and sustained wellness. You're aging, yes, and you have seen people age, sometimes badly. You visit a relative in an assisted living facility, a likable fellow who never took good care of himself and is paying the price for it now. Thankfully, his genial nature helped give him a nice life with friends and good experiences, but his physical weaknesses have taken a huge toll on him, even mentally to a degree. We all know aging has started to take place and is a fact of life, but we deny it, we fight it, we tell ourselves that we'll be the one to transcend and do better, but that always cannot be the case. Sometimes it's nature, sometimes it's nurture, and sometimes it's just dumb luck. But you keep on going, arising early, pushing yourself as hard as you can, even if at times no one notices or no one really cares. The thing is that you do, that you feel better, and that you feel, at least at an odd moment, that you can do anything and even suspend time.
In the end, it's more than a workout, it's a lifestyle, one of lean, clean eating, resisting the temptation of the gourmet desserts and wines, of getting out there and wanting to feel better, not to be sedentary, even if the lure of the 60-inch screen and what's on it can tempt one away from walking, gardening, biking, golfing and just getting out there. That's the thing of it -- the workout leads to a happier life, to serenity, to better things. It's not for the feint of heart or those who want to roll out of bed and do their thing without taking measure of their health, that's for sure. But for those who like the ritual, want the zen, it's as precious -- if not more so than -- any fine dining experience or watching a movie marathon on a cold winter's day.
It's life, and trying to live it to its fullest.
It's not the type of basement that anyone would brag about on an HGTV show. It's one of those early 1960's basements, built for utility and some storage but not for comfort. For one thing, the ceiling is low, so you have to be careful if you are of average height or bigger. The ventilation is okay, the space good enough. Good enough to fit a fixed bike, rowing machine, some resistance bands and an exercise mat.
You adopt a routine after a while, varying it to some degree to break up the boredom. Sweats seem mandatory in winter time, and the room is cool to start in the summer because of the air conditioning. You get down there, turn on the TV, tilt it toward the bike, and get on and start pedaling. Sometimes you go just ten minutes to get your heart going; other times you put yourself through punishing paces and increasing difficulty for about a half an hour, ending up sweaty and ready for the next thing. Over the course of 75 minutes you'll have biked, rowed, stretched with stretch bands, done yoga stretches, worked your upper body with resistance bands and attacked your core through the use of medicine balls. On some days you'll have done push-ups, too, or planks, and on most days you'll have used a hard foam roller to pop muscles in different directions.
Your stretching follows guidance accumulated over the years from Kelly Starrett's book, from a physical therapist, from a personal trainer and from reading, as well as some stretches borrowed from yoga tapes or a few yoga classes. At the end of the workout, you'll feel good, tight, fully stretched and ready for whatever the day has to bring.
After you take your shower, you'll eat a breakfast pretty much daily that consists of plain, non-fat yogurt with some cinnamon (or a 100-cal variety that is low on sugar), some whole-grain flakes (flax is my favorite), some granola to top it off and some fresh fruit. Berries are preferred if they are in-season and cheap, and a banana is the old standby. That breakfast is the opening act for a diet that is rich on vegetables and fruit, modest on the bad fats and rich in the good ones, a reasonable amount of carbs, and, usually, no processed sugar.
The results, after 500 days and counting (okay, so I have skipped a workout perhaps on 10 of those 500 days) are very good. I feel better and more energetic and my numbers, so to speak, the type that the doctors give you after drawing blood and sending it to a laboratory, are good too.
Is it worth it? Getting up that early? Well, I'll say this -- getting up that early is somewhat zen because you own your day at that point. No one else is up, which means that this part of the day is entirely yours -- and the only interruptions are the ones you create. That aspect of my day is something I cherish -- alone with my workout, alone with my thoughts, shaping my day. Is it worth it? Watching ESPN in the morning and its loop of features on Sports Center? If the end is getting into better shape and staying that way and feeling good about it, absolutely. If one gets irked by self-absorption and some sports journalistic narcissism courtesy of certain ESPN anchors and reporters, well, change the channel. But try to go to a zen-oriented channel -- and not one of the national news channels that report on only two types of news -- bad and worse.
So, yes, it's worth it -- the ritual, the routine, the location, the time of day, the feeling you get as you're making your way through your workout and then finishing it -- that you have accomplished something at the start of the day and are on a pathway to better and sustained wellness. You're aging, yes, and you have seen people age, sometimes badly. You visit a relative in an assisted living facility, a likable fellow who never took good care of himself and is paying the price for it now. Thankfully, his genial nature helped give him a nice life with friends and good experiences, but his physical weaknesses have taken a huge toll on him, even mentally to a degree. We all know aging has started to take place and is a fact of life, but we deny it, we fight it, we tell ourselves that we'll be the one to transcend and do better, but that always cannot be the case. Sometimes it's nature, sometimes it's nurture, and sometimes it's just dumb luck. But you keep on going, arising early, pushing yourself as hard as you can, even if at times no one notices or no one really cares. The thing is that you do, that you feel better, and that you feel, at least at an odd moment, that you can do anything and even suspend time.
In the end, it's more than a workout, it's a lifestyle, one of lean, clean eating, resisting the temptation of the gourmet desserts and wines, of getting out there and wanting to feel better, not to be sedentary, even if the lure of the 60-inch screen and what's on it can tempt one away from walking, gardening, biking, golfing and just getting out there. That's the thing of it -- the workout leads to a happier life, to serenity, to better things. It's not for the feint of heart or those who want to roll out of bed and do their thing without taking measure of their health, that's for sure. But for those who like the ritual, want the zen, it's as precious -- if not more so than -- any fine dining experience or watching a movie marathon on a cold winter's day.
It's life, and trying to live it to its fullest.
Monday, June 12, 2017
Max Scherzer Has Reached 2,000 Strikeouts in the Fourth Fewest Amount of Innings
Great accomplishment, in the absolute sense, for sure. He is an outstanding pitcher and in great company.
That said, does anyone measure the relative nature of this accomplishment? My main question is the following: How good is Scherzer's accomplishment in light of the fact that players are striking out with much greater frequency than they did when Pedro Martinez, #1 on the list, pitched and when many other strikeout kings did -- Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, etc.
It would be interesting to see an allowance for that frequency or lack thereof.
That said, does anyone measure the relative nature of this accomplishment? My main question is the following: How good is Scherzer's accomplishment in light of the fact that players are striking out with much greater frequency than they did when Pedro Martinez, #1 on the list, pitched and when many other strikeout kings did -- Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, etc.
It would be interesting to see an allowance for that frequency or lack thereof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)