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.
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
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)