When the NBA All-Star game was rolling around earlier this year, there was considerable debate over just how many Detroit Pistons should make the East squad. It turned out that the only starter left off was SF Tayshaun Prince. G's Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton were accompanied by PF Rasheed Wallace and C Ben Wallace. The Pistons seemed headed for their third consecutive NBA finals and their 2nd NBA Championship in three years. The bolts got a little loose in the 2nd half of the season, but everyone just attributed that to the Pistons being bored. Everyone assumed that they'd turn it back on when the playoffs rolled around.
In the first round with Milwaukee, they discarded the Bucks in 5 games. However, they were blown out in the game they lost and almost lost at least one other game. The Cleveland Cavaliers, riding only LeBron James, took the Pistons to seven games, at one point leading the series 3-2. Now, the Miami Heat have the Pistons cornere! d 3-1 in the Eastern Conference Finals. After pointing the finger at new coach Flip Saunders as a reason their offense was improved during the regular season, the players are now throwing him under the bus for their defensive ineptitude during the last couple series. The Pistons need to look in the mirror quick and realize what made them successful. Or, they can continue reading this post as a little refresher.
When I was growing up, we got the Denver tv stations because my town didn't have local ABC, CBS, and NBC stations. So, I saw Chauncey Billups win state titles in HS on tv. Chauncey was a Colorado basketball legend and starred at the University of Colorado, not exactly a bball powerhouse. But, when he got to the NBA, he bounced around a little bit ... Boston ... Toronto ... Denver ... Minnesota ... then, finally, Detroit. He went through 4 franchises in his first four years in the league. Billups is a good player, but when the Pistons beat the Laker! s to win the NBA title, he wasn't a star. He was a good player who ra n the team, distributed the ball, scored, and hit big shots.
Richard Hamilton started his career with the Wizards, but they let him go. Hamilton is a good mid-range shooter. His shooting percentage from 3-pt. range went up considerably this year, but he's still not a marquee guy from deep. Hamilton doesn't handle the ball exceptionally well and isn't a shut down defender. He's a good scorer. Tayshaun Prince is a solid SF, but definitely not a go-to stud. He's long and athletic (to things Hamilton really isn't), shoots a very high percentage from 3, has a solid post up game, and is a good defender. Both Hamilton and Prince benefit in their shooting percentage from having such good players around them.
Rasheed Wallace was jettisoned from Portland to Atlanta (not a place any basketball player - besides Joe Johnson - wants to go) before being moved to Detroit the year the Pistons won the title. Wallace is a great talent, but he's a basketcase and is! n't someone a team can rely on game in and game out. The other Wallace, Ben, has become a high-quality interior player by focusing on defense and rebounding. However, recently, he's tried to expand his offensive game. He can't shoot, doesn't really have any moves, and is a liability at the charity stripe ... as is evident from the "Hack-a-Ben" strategy Pat Riley has gone to a few times in the Pistons-Heat series. Ben Wallace is a star, if he is a star, because he defends and rebounds and that is where his focus should be.
My point is that Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace are good players, but none of them, by themselves, is an elite star in the NBA. The Pistons don't have a LeBron James or a Dwayne Wade, or a Tim Duncan or Dirk Nowitzki. But, they don't have a weak link, really, either. They have complimentary pieces that Joe Dumars did a terrific job in assembling. Unfortunately, the Pistons have forg! otten that they beat the "more talented" Lakers because they outworked them, just as the Heat are doing to the Pistons in this series. If you compare talent, the Pistons are right up there with the Heat, although many people would argue that Wade and Shaq are the two best players in the series. I'd take Billups over any PG on the Heat, Wade over Hamilton, Prince over Posey (by a little, although they are similar players), R. Wallace over Udonis Haslem (if Wallace is focused) and Shaq over B. Wallace (although it's close). So, the Pistons have talent. But, they don't have enough talent not to work like they did when they were the underdogs. They need to stop blaming Flip Saunders and realize that if they want to be a dynasty, they need to get back to doing what they do best. Ben Wallace needs to defend and rebound and not worry about getting touches on the offensive end. Rasheed Wallace needs to dig in and abuse Haslem on the block, not float outside the arc. Billups needs to create for his teammates and himself and all three perimeter ! players need to make shots. Plus, they need to defend. It won't be easy, but you can't let Wade shoot almost 70% from the field. If you can beat Kobe, a younger Shaq, and Phil Jackson, you should be able to at least give Wade, Shaq and Riley a series.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Boneheaded Baserunners
Recently, I was watching Cardinals closer Jason Isringhausen stuggle through another late-game situation (Saturday, May 27th), only to be bailed out when catcher Yadier Molina picked San Diego Padre Brian Giles off 1st. There were runners on 1st and 2nd, so Giles wasn't going anywhere, and he got caught too far off 1st and Molina picked him off for the last out of the game. Honestly, I don't know what to say because it was such a stupid play. Perhaps, Giles didn't think Molina would try to pick him off, or maybe he wasn't thinking about it and he wanted to have a large secondary lead in case he needed to score on a ball in the gap. Either way, Giles was the go-ahead run ... his run is only important if the tying run (Mike Cameron, on second) score first. If Giles got thrown out at the plate trying to score on a Josh Bard (the batter in the incident) double, fine. The game will be headed to extra innings tied. But, Giles dropped the ball and cost his team the game. Pl! us, it was a horrible end to the game as a viewer. It's too bad Albert Pujols didn't drop the ball.
Even more curious, in my opinion, was the inability of Johnny Damon to advance from 2nd to 3rd on a flyout to right field in a game recently. On the same play, someone slower (I think Miguel Cairo) scored from 3rd. There are 90 feet between successive bases. That's 90 between home and 1st, 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and home. So, presumably, it should take less time for Damon to get from 2nd to 3rd than for Cairo to race from 3rd to home. Thinking about it now, the right fielder probably had a shorter throw to 3rd than to home, but not so much different that it didn't make sense for Damon not to advance - other than that Damon is a self-professed "idiot". Roy agreed to look at where a right fielder would have to be to have a longer throw to 3rd than to home, so hopefully we will see the result of such an analysis soon. But, thinking about it now, 3rd and! home are 90 feet apart, as we've already established. The right fiel d line and the left field line are orthogonal. Thus, if you catch the ball on the RF line, it's a shorter throw to home than to 3rd. The magic point occurs when you are 45 feet from the RF line. Then, you have the same distance to each of the two stations ... that's 45 feet on an imaginary line perpendicular to the RF line ... or parallel to the LF line. Does that make sense? I can do a diagram if someone would like. My wife understands, so you should too!
If there had been one out already when the fly ball was hit, I would be ok with Damon staying at 2nd. However, the bases were loaded with no one out. So, if Damon had advanced, he would have been at 3rd with one out. It's common knowledge that you don't make the 1st or 3rd out at 3rd, but you try to get there with 1 out. There are a lot of ways to score from 3rd with one out, including the sacrifice fly, which is the play that scored Cairo. As it turned out, Alex Rodriguez grounded into a double play,! which he could have done just as easily with runners on 1st and 3rd with one out. However, he may have been looking to just hit a fly ball with a runner on 3rd and one out, rather than looking for a base hit ... so, the Yankees may have given up a run, or even a big inning by not having Damon advance on the sacrifice fly. In that regard, I'm in favor of Damon not advancing. I hope he continues to make similarly boneheaded plays in the future, because the Yankees are one of my most hated teams. I just thought I'd bring attention to it because it isn't an intelligent play, no matter how you look at it. Keep up the good work Johnny!
Even more curious, in my opinion, was the inability of Johnny Damon to advance from 2nd to 3rd on a flyout to right field in a game recently. On the same play, someone slower (I think Miguel Cairo) scored from 3rd. There are 90 feet between successive bases. That's 90 between home and 1st, 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and home. So, presumably, it should take less time for Damon to get from 2nd to 3rd than for Cairo to race from 3rd to home. Thinking about it now, the right fielder probably had a shorter throw to 3rd than to home, but not so much different that it didn't make sense for Damon not to advance - other than that Damon is a self-professed "idiot". Roy agreed to look at where a right fielder would have to be to have a longer throw to 3rd than to home, so hopefully we will see the result of such an analysis soon. But, thinking about it now, 3rd and! home are 90 feet apart, as we've already established. The right fiel d line and the left field line are orthogonal. Thus, if you catch the ball on the RF line, it's a shorter throw to home than to 3rd. The magic point occurs when you are 45 feet from the RF line. Then, you have the same distance to each of the two stations ... that's 45 feet on an imaginary line perpendicular to the RF line ... or parallel to the LF line. Does that make sense? I can do a diagram if someone would like. My wife understands, so you should too!
If there had been one out already when the fly ball was hit, I would be ok with Damon staying at 2nd. However, the bases were loaded with no one out. So, if Damon had advanced, he would have been at 3rd with one out. It's common knowledge that you don't make the 1st or 3rd out at 3rd, but you try to get there with 1 out. There are a lot of ways to score from 3rd with one out, including the sacrifice fly, which is the play that scored Cairo. As it turned out, Alex Rodriguez grounded into a double play,! which he could have done just as easily with runners on 1st and 3rd with one out. However, he may have been looking to just hit a fly ball with a runner on 3rd and one out, rather than looking for a base hit ... so, the Yankees may have given up a run, or even a big inning by not having Damon advance on the sacrifice fly. In that regard, I'm in favor of Damon not advancing. I hope he continues to make similarly boneheaded plays in the future, because the Yankees are one of my most hated teams. I just thought I'd bring attention to it because it isn't an intelligent play, no matter how you look at it. Keep up the good work Johnny!
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Is Bonds hitting in the wrong park?
AT&T Park, the home field of the San Francisco Giants, may be among the worst places for hitting home runs. According to my analysis of the 2000 to 2005 seasons, only the San Diego Padres' PETCO Park rates worse. How many more home runs might Barry Bonds have hit playing his home games somewhere else?
A while back, Evan asked about home run ball parks. The burning question there was, do the Rangers and Reds play in better homer parks than the Rockies? I think the answer is no.
I looked at AB/HR for both pitchers and batters both at home and on the road over the last six seasons, using data from Retrosheet. (For teams that have changed home parks, only the seasons in their current park are included.) I computed the ratio of road AB/HR to home AB/HR. A value larger than one means it takes more at bats to hit a home run on the road, while a ! value less than one means it takes fewer. So the team with the highest ratio seems to have the best homer ball park.
Here's a visualization of the Batting vs. Pitching ratios, which demonstrates a pretty strong correlation between them. (Note that this includes a few extra data points, whic! h are the old parks of the teams that have moved.)
The fact that the batting ratio is usually above the line means that hitters are affected more by going on the road than pitchers.
The data suggest that the Rockies and White Sox have the best parks for hitting home runs in, while the Padres and Giants have the worst.
Unfortunately, this analysis is not without its problems. The unbalanced schedule presents one, because the road statistics are strongly influenced by the division. Also, while several teams have nearly identical ratios for batting and pitching, others are not so close, including San Francisco. The Giants pitchers seem to enjoy the biggest home field advantage of any team, but their bat! ting is fourth from the bottom, at about 0.85. This type of anomaly may have to do with differences in difficulty for lefty and righty batters. A more thorough analysis would account for both of these factors. Any suggestions?
Still, I think this is a clear improvement over simple counting of home runs in various ball parks over the same period.
A while back, Evan asked about home run ball parks. The burning question there was, do the Rangers and Reds play in better homer parks than the Rockies? I think the answer is no.
I looked at AB/HR for both pitchers and batters both at home and on the road over the last six seasons, using data from Retrosheet. (For teams that have changed home parks, only the seasons in their current park are included.) I computed the ratio of road AB/HR to home AB/HR. A value larger than one means it takes more at bats to hit a home run on the road, while a ! value less than one means it takes fewer. So the team with the highest ratio seems to have the best homer ball park.
AB/HR Road vs. Home Ratio
| Team | Batting | Pitching | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado Rockies | 1.46 | 1.23 | 1.34 |
| Chicago White Sox | 1.46 | 1.16 | 1.31 |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 1.23 | 1.15 | 1.19 |
| Cincinnati Reds | 1.17 | 1.17 | 1.17 |
| Texas Rangers | 1.31 | 1.02 | 1.16 |
| Houston Astros | 1.18 | 1.09 | 1.14 |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 1.08 | 1.13 | 1.11 |
| New York Yankees | 1.17 | 1.02 | 1.10 |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 1.16 | 1.03 | 1.10 |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 1.09 | 1.09 | 1.09 |
| Chicago Cubs | 1.08 | 1.01 | 1.05 |
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 1.08 | 1.01 | 1.04 |
| Baltimore Orioles | 1.05 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| Oakland Athletics | 1.13 | 0.91 | 1.02 |
| Atlanta Braves | 1.01 | 0.95 | 0.98 |
| Kansas City Royals | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.98 |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 1.01 | 0.91 | 0.96 |
| Anaheim Angels | 1.05 | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| Cleveland Indians | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.95 |
| Tampa Bay Devil Rays | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.92 |
| Seattle Mariners | 0.97 | 0.84 | 0.90 |
| Minnesota Twins | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.89 |
| Boston Red Sox | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.88 |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.88 |
| New York Mets | 0.92 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| Florida Marlins | 0.93 | 0.78 | 0.85 |
| Washington Nationals | 0.72 | 0.88 | 0.81 |
| Detroit Tigers | 0.84 | 0.73 | 0.78 |
| San Francisco Giants | 0.85 | 0.69 | 0.77 |
| San Diego Padres | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.74 |
Here's a visualization of the Batting vs. Pitching ratios, which demonstrates a pretty strong correlation between them. (Note that this includes a few extra data points, whic! h are the old parks of the teams that have moved.)
The fact that the batting ratio is usually above the line means that hitters are affected more by going on the road than pitchers.The data suggest that the Rockies and White Sox have the best parks for hitting home runs in, while the Padres and Giants have the worst.
Unfortunately, this analysis is not without its problems. The unbalanced schedule presents one, because the road statistics are strongly influenced by the division. Also, while several teams have nearly identical ratios for batting and pitching, others are not so close, including San Francisco. The Giants pitchers seem to enjoy the biggest home field advantage of any team, but their bat! ting is fourth from the bottom, at about 0.85. This type of anomaly may have to do with differences in difficulty for lefty and righty batters. A more thorough analysis would account for both of these factors. Any suggestions?
Still, I think this is a clear improvement over simple counting of home runs in various ball parks over the same period.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Hack a (insert your favorite bad foul shooter here)
For the sake of basketball, the Pistons and Heat should make a pact. They should agree to either: a) just have a foul shooting contest between Shaquille O'Neal and Ben Wallace to decide the series or b) agree that both teams won't intentionally send either Shaq or Ben to the line, at least not obviously — if either player is making a move and you don't want him to get an easy lay-up, foul him, but don't grab him out by the 3-pt line. Hack-a-Shaq and Hack-a-Ben is effective, if you block out, but it's not fun to watch and it's, essentially, a wash if both teams do it. At one point, Shaq and Ben sat down so they wouldn't be fouled ... that's not basketball.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Just make a mercy rule
The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference is implementing a new rule to curb blowouts. Now, coaches of teams that win by more than 50 points will be suspended for the next game. This rule is ludicrous. What happens if you insert your third-string guys when you're up 30 and they keep racking up points? If you happen to be up by more than 50 late in a game, are you supposed to tell the kids to just let the other team score? That would be even more embarrassing to the losing team than losing by 55, 60, or even 90 points. Obviously, it's not necessary to "pile on", but what if it just happens that a team gets blown out. Sometimes it happens. The University of Oklahoma beat Texas A&M 77-0 a few years ago. OU was really good and A&M was a little bit down, but OU wasn't 77 points better ... things just spiralled out of control for the Aggies. Should Bob Stoops have punted on 1st down every time the Sooners got the ball in the 2nd half? No one is forcing high sc! hoolers to play footballl (or at least they shouldn't be). High school athletics are competitive. At some point, you have to take the training wheels off and let kids ride or crash!
My first experience with adults trying to shield children from winning and losing in sports was when I heard about my cousin's tee-ball league in Bellevue, WA. They didn't keep score. As Herm Edwards said, "You play to win the game!" Instead of just playing for fun, all the kids kept score themselves. They still knew if they played bad, played well, lost, won, etc. If a kid grounds out 3 times and they get slaughtered, does it really matter if no one was keeping an official score? I don't think so. Parents might feel better about it, though.
Now, officials in Connecticut are making absurd rules that aren't necessary. The world doesn't need more rules, especially bad ones that are reactions to something (New London winning 4 games last year by more than 50, includi! ng one 90-0) that has happened recently. Even more ludicrous is the r ationale for not having a "mercy rule": they don't want to cut into playing time for back-ups. Let the coaches manage their own teams. If players, coaches, parents and fans aren't happy about getting blown out, find a better coach, prepare better, work harder, etc. Or, find a new sport to play. Not everyone is good at football (insert just about anything here). The sooner kids learn to deal with both success and failure, the better off they'll be. And, if coaches don't have to worry about stupid rules, they'll be able to focus on coaching the kids and helping them improve ... doing what they are supposed to be doing!
My first experience with adults trying to shield children from winning and losing in sports was when I heard about my cousin's tee-ball league in Bellevue, WA. They didn't keep score. As Herm Edwards said, "You play to win the game!" Instead of just playing for fun, all the kids kept score themselves. They still knew if they played bad, played well, lost, won, etc. If a kid grounds out 3 times and they get slaughtered, does it really matter if no one was keeping an official score? I don't think so. Parents might feel better about it, though.
Now, officials in Connecticut are making absurd rules that aren't necessary. The world doesn't need more rules, especially bad ones that are reactions to something (New London winning 4 games last year by more than 50, includi! ng one 90-0) that has happened recently. Even more ludicrous is the r ationale for not having a "mercy rule": they don't want to cut into playing time for back-ups. Let the coaches manage their own teams. If players, coaches, parents and fans aren't happy about getting blown out, find a better coach, prepare better, work harder, etc. Or, find a new sport to play. Not everyone is good at football (insert just about anything here). The sooner kids learn to deal with both success and failure, the better off they'll be. And, if coaches don't have to worry about stupid rules, they'll be able to focus on coaching the kids and helping them improve ... doing what they are supposed to be doing!
10 GAMES!
MLB dropped the ball on this one. Michael Barrett received a 10-game suspension for punching A.J. Pierzynski. Ten games is less than 1/16th of the season. It's about 6% of the season. It's less than getting a 1 game suspension in football. Barrett will be out less than two weeks. Barrett was totally wrong and took a cheap shot at A.J. It's a good thing Barrett didn't spit on him, then he might have been out longer!
Go for broke
Last night's NBA playoff action between the Miami Heat and the Detroit Pistons very nearly went to hell for the Pistons in the final two minutes. This may be in part due to (dare I say it?) officiating. Not only were some questionable fouls called after blocked shots by first Chauncey Billups (of Gary Payton) and then Rasheed Wallace (of Antoine Walker), but the refs also let Payton and James Posey ride Billups all over the court whenever Detroit wanted to in-bound the ball to him. Dick Bavetta even jumped out of the way as Posey sent Billups out of bounds on one such play, only to ignore Tayshaun Prince's plea for a time-out and call a five-second violation a moment later.
But that's not the point. The point is, the Heat almost did the right thing, and almost pulled off an improbable victory that almost gave them a commanding lead in the series, in which they're now headed home for two games. Almost, but not quite.
Remember many years ago when Reggie Miller single-handedly pulled out a last-second victory against the Knicks by pushing one of them (John Starks, maybe?) out of the way on an in-bound pass (after Miller had made one three) and then retreating beyond the line to make another three-pointer? It should have been called a foul, yes. But it wasn't.
Some time ago, in a source I doubt I could find, I read an opinion about football that, I realized yesterday, has managed to stick with me. Basically, it said that football coaches are too conservative. Big surprise there. More specifically, it said that when trailing late in the game, football coaches should pull out all the stops. Go for it on fourth down. Try for the big play. Run a flea-flicker (or a "gadget" play, if you're the Steelers).
Why? Because you're probably going to lose anyway. Sure, fourth down is a big gamble. But not getting it doesn't hurt you that much, because there's already not much time left, and you're already behind, so punting is probably going to lead to a loss as well. (You have a better chance of converting a fourth down than of recovering an onside kick, and the difference in yardage if you fail is about the same.) You're not going to win every game this way. There's nothing you can do about that. But you might win a few games that you would lose by playing it safe. And that could be the difference, for example, between making the playoffs and not.
Back to basketball: I think the same approach applies. Don't listen to the guys on the sidelines who keep telling you to go for the two and then foul. That's a low-variance solution that will almost always result in you scoring about the same number of points as the other guys, and thus you losing, because they already have more. The more free throws you let them shoot, the more likely it is they'll hit about 75% of them (unless it's Shaq or Ben Wallace you're fouling). And thus, the more likely that time will run out without you closing the gap.
Instead, take a tip from Reggie Miller. Take a tip from UCLA (vs. Gonzaga). (Hmmm, maybe there's a connection?) On offense, shoot the three-pointers! On defense, take the ball away! Three-point shots are lower percentage, yes, but they're higher variance. If you make them, you're golden. And experience tells me that if you just take the ball away and act like nothing is wrong, the officials might not know what to do. Sure, you're still going to lose most of the time. But in the playoffs, one game could make all the difference.
But that's not the point. The point is, the Heat almost did the right thing, and almost pulled off an improbable victory that almost gave them a commanding lead in the series, in which they're now headed home for two games. Almost, but not quite.
Remember many years ago when Reggie Miller single-handedly pulled out a last-second victory against the Knicks by pushing one of them (John Starks, maybe?) out of the way on an in-bound pass (after Miller had made one three) and then retreating beyond the line to make another three-pointer? It should have been called a foul, yes. But it wasn't.
Some time ago, in a source I doubt I could find, I read an opinion about football that, I realized yesterday, has managed to stick with me. Basically, it said that football coaches are too conservative. Big surprise there. More specifically, it said that when trailing late in the game, football coaches should pull out all the stops. Go for it on fourth down. Try for the big play. Run a flea-flicker (or a "gadget" play, if you're the Steelers).
Why? Because you're probably going to lose anyway. Sure, fourth down is a big gamble. But not getting it doesn't hurt you that much, because there's already not much time left, and you're already behind, so punting is probably going to lead to a loss as well. (You have a better chance of converting a fourth down than of recovering an onside kick, and the difference in yardage if you fail is about the same.) You're not going to win every game this way. There's nothing you can do about that. But you might win a few games that you would lose by playing it safe. And that could be the difference, for example, between making the playoffs and not.
Back to basketball: I think the same approach applies. Don't listen to the guys on the sidelines who keep telling you to go for the two and then foul. That's a low-variance solution that will almost always result in you scoring about the same number of points as the other guys, and thus you losing, because they already have more. The more free throws you let them shoot, the more likely it is they'll hit about 75% of them (unless it's Shaq or Ben Wallace you're fouling). And thus, the more likely that time will run out without you closing the gap.
Instead, take a tip from Reggie Miller. Take a tip from UCLA (vs. Gonzaga). (Hmmm, maybe there's a connection?) On offense, shoot the three-pointers! On defense, take the ball away! Three-point shots are lower percentage, yes, but they're higher variance. If you make them, you're golden. And experience tells me that if you just take the ball away and act like nothing is wrong, the officials might not know what to do. Sure, you're still going to lose most of the time. But in the playoffs, one game could make all the difference.
Closing thoughts
Any Braves fans out there wishing your closer was still John Smoltz? At the end of last Friday's telecast, after Atlanta closer Chris Reitsma blew the Braves' hard-earned one-run lead in the bottom of the ninth inning against the Arizona Diamondbacks, as his team was trudging, dejected, back to the dug-out, one commentator, perhaps Skip Caray, announced that it was Atlanta's eleventh blown save of the year. Ouch! At first I was astonished. But when I considered it a bit, I understood that this didn't mean Reitsma, or any other closer, had blown eleven saves. Rather, it was a statistic aggregated over the entire Braves bullpen. At that point, I realized that I had no idea what it meant.
I think I know what it "means". Eleven times in their first forty-two games, one Braves pitcher relinquished a lead that another had built. But, what does it mean? The biggest problem with statistics in sports is their presentation without context or implication. Statistics as a discipline is not just about counting things and occasionally dividing to get an expectation. It's also about comparisons and correlations.
The knowledge that already eleven times in forty-two games, the Braves have let go of their leads must invoke pangs of anguish in any fan. But, you can't expect every lead, however small, to transform directly into a win. The other team's going to score some runs. Maybe other teams blow leads even more often. It's possible that Braves fans should feel fortunate. But because the people with the numbers only give us little glimpses of them, we just don't know.
That's not what this post is really about, though. What I really want to know is, why can't the Braves have their cake and eat it, too? More concretely, why can't John Smoltz be a starter, and a closer, too? I'm not asking for him to close his own games. That would require moving him into right field during the seventh and eighth innings, or something. I'm not even talking about the games before and after his starts, when he can probably use the rest. But there are two other games in there when he could probably throw an inning without ill effects. (And they're not going to have 1-3 run leads in all of those games.) He's throwing on the side anyway, right? Why not put it to good use?
In fact, there are a number of starters around baseball who seem to have stuff the quality of a premier closer—guys like Oswalt, Schmidt, Beckett, Santana, etc. (please, suggest your favorite)—as well as some who have been closers at other times—Derek Lowe, for example. The Red Sox don't seem to need help in the ninth inning these days, so Beckett can safely stay out of the bullpen for now, but the Astros . . . .
I think I know what it "means". Eleven times in their first forty-two games, one Braves pitcher relinquished a lead that another had built. But, what does it mean? The biggest problem with statistics in sports is their presentation without context or implication. Statistics as a discipline is not just about counting things and occasionally dividing to get an expectation. It's also about comparisons and correlations.
The knowledge that already eleven times in forty-two games, the Braves have let go of their leads must invoke pangs of anguish in any fan. But, you can't expect every lead, however small, to transform directly into a win. The other team's going to score some runs. Maybe other teams blow leads even more often. It's possible that Braves fans should feel fortunate. But because the people with the numbers only give us little glimpses of them, we just don't know.
That's not what this post is really about, though. What I really want to know is, why can't the Braves have their cake and eat it, too? More concretely, why can't John Smoltz be a starter, and a closer, too? I'm not asking for him to close his own games. That would require moving him into right field during the seventh and eighth innings, or something. I'm not even talking about the games before and after his starts, when he can probably use the rest. But there are two other games in there when he could probably throw an inning without ill effects. (And they're not going to have 1-3 run leads in all of those games.) He's throwing on the side anyway, right? Why not put it to good use?
In fact, there are a number of starters around baseball who seem to have stuff the quality of a premier closer—guys like Oswalt, Schmidt, Beckett, Santana, etc. (please, suggest your favorite)—as well as some who have been closers at other times—Derek Lowe, for example. The Red Sox don't seem to need help in the ninth inning these days, so Beckett can safely stay out of the bullpen for now, but the Astros . . . .
Thursday, May 25, 2006
How low can they go?
What's more amazing: a) the Tigers have won 13 of 14 or b) the Royals have lost 13 in a row? Personally, I have my money on the Tigers winning 13 of 14 being the bigger surprise. Even more amazing than the Royals losing 13 in a row, is that they have already won 10 games this year, including three in a row against the Indians before to notch their 8th, 9th, and 10th wins. They are now 10-35 ... that means that before this latest skid, they were 10-22; that's not too shabby. At one point, the Royals were 2-2, just prior to an 11-game losing streak. They also rolled off 6 losses in a row to fall from 5-14 to 5-20. So, we are less than two months into the season, and the Royals have already rattled off two double-digit losing streaks. I'm not interested in the total number of losses they accumulate, I'm more interested in the number of times they can string together 10+ losses in a row. I'll try to keep you posted.
- games 5-15, total streak 11 games -> 2-13 ! record
- games 33-35, total streak 13games -> 10-35 record
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
A League of His Own
I'll admit it: in the past, I've been critical of NBA Commissioner David Stern. I was wrong. David Stern has done a lot of great things for the NBA. He's implemented a much-needed dress code and curbed outrageous rookie salaries. Does anyone remember when Glenn "Big Dog" Robinson came out of Purdue and was demanding $100 million in his first contract? Stern has a high schooler-free draft coming up later this summer and a developmental league to cushion the falls of players who, mistakenly, jump to the league too soon. During Stern's tenure (1984-present), the NBA has gone from a league dominated by domestic stars to one filled with international players, including 2-time MVP Nash (Canada), Yao (China), Dirk (Germany), Pau (Spain), and Manu (Argentina). Those guys are so big you recognize them just by one name. Add in Tony Parker, Boris Diaw, Andrew Bogut, Darko, Peja , AK47, Nocioni, Diop, Deng, etc., and you realize that the league is being enhanced by all the talen! t the world has to offer. At the same time, a new crop of U.S. stars (led by LBJ, Carmelo, Wade, Chris Bosh, Chris Paul, etc.) is taking the league by storm.
David Stern needs to continue to build the league that in the mid-90's was losing its grip on the American public to the NHL. I remember a Sports Illustrated cover with the headline NHL hot, NBA not ... or at least something to that effect. Since then, the NBA has reclaimed its place as #2 (behind the NFL) while the NHL has fallen so far that it has probably been passed by NASCAR. Donald Sterling, another DS, may have allowed Elgin Baylor and Mike Dunleavy to turn around the woeful Clippers franchise. However, there are still laughing-stocks nestled around the nation ... just look at the mecca of U.S. basketball, NYC! The Knicks are atrocious and tied down with the wrong coach, a bad GM, and the absurd pairing of Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury in the back court.* Along with a pair of shoot-first ! PG's, they have Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford, a couple of ball-hoggin g SG's. They also have Jerome James and Eddy Curry clogging up the middle, and I mean that literally and figuratively. The Knicks gave way too much money (and what turned into the #2 draft pick in this year's draft) for a couple guys who played really well in their contract years but have struggled with staying motivated and staying in shape the rest of the time. What did management think would happen when they locked them up to multi-year, guaranteed-money, deals?
David Stern was wrong to make suggestions to Knicks management. The Knicks have had enough time to make changes. They've been saddled with bad contracts, and rather than bite the bullet and wait out their punishment, they've tried to dig their way out of the hole by trading one bad contract for another and adding more expensive pieces that don't fit anywhere in the puzzle that is winning in the NBA. It's time for David Stern to step in! David Stern doesn't need to be making suggestions, he needs ! to be making calls. He didn't suggest that Allen Iverson clean up his attire, he made a rule that forced AI to dress up, along with all of his peers. Stern should take a similar stance with the Knicks and the Hawks (who have quite the stable of wing players but not much else). The Hawks left Chris Paul on the board last year and took Marvin Williams. They let Boris Diaw go to the Suns in the Joe Johnson deal. Interesting moves ... I've seen enough of them, it's time for Stern to take charge.
In fact, there are a lot of teams that could use some help. The Seattle Sonics were a solid team in 2004-2005, but the losses of Vladimir Radmonovic, Jerome James and Coach Nate MacMillan resulted in the Sonics missing the playoffs this year. The Lakers traded Shaq, missed the playoffs in 04-05 and lost in the first round this year. The Kings fired Rick Adelman, the Warriors hired Mike Montgomery and haven't been able to make the playoffs, despite a starting five of B! aron Davis, Jason Richardson, Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy and Adonal Fo yle (a solid defensive center). The Minnesota Timberwolves blew up the bench (letting Flip Saunders go to Detroit) and roster around Kevin Garnett, the Jazz can't find guards to go with AK47, Carlos Boozer and Mehmet Okur (although they'd be better off if Kirilenko and Boozer can stay healthy), and the Nuggets gave Kenyon Martin a max deal! Where does Kenyon Martin fit on a team with Carmelo, Nene (Brazil) and Marcus Camby? The correct answer is on the bench, if Nene is healthy. However, despite the front court studs, they can't find a decent SG. The problem with the NBA is that some teams have too many guards, some not enough, some players (Tim Thomas with the Bulls) don't fit with their current team and would be better off playing for another team (like the Phoenix Suns). Basketball isn't necessarily about having the best talent, it's about having pieces that fit together. Sure, you need good players, but Starbury, Stevie Franchise, Jamal Crawford, Jalen Rose, and E! ddy Curry are all talented. How'd the Knicks do?
Stern can't just improve the Knicks and Hawks without a little cooperation from other teams. So, in the best interest of the league, Stern should be given full reign ... the NBA is his playground. Owners would be relieved of their duties and given shares in the new NBA Corporation based on the estimated worth of their teams. Teams like the Phoenix Suns, who have been constructed well â€" with players who have complimentary skill sets and a coach who's system takes advantage of their abilities â€" will probably remain unchanged. Stern would give Kevin Garnett the chance to be a star in a major market, such as New York City, or on a championship contender, possibly being paired with King James in Cleveland. Kobe won't be burdened with another star and Lamar Odom will be moved elsewhere so he can actually touch the ball every once in a while. By systematically putting teams together that make sense (like the ! Detroit Pistons), the overall product will improve. Erick Dampier won 't be on the Mavericks because Dallas doesn't want an offensive weapon in the post. Diop will man the middle for the Mavericks and provide defense and rebounding.
LeBron James wouldn't have a post-up center (Zydrunas Ilgauskas) clogging up the lane. He also wouldn't have Larry Hughes as a running mate. Hughes is a good player, but he doesn't shoot the three well (28% on the season) and is best with the ball in his hands. LBJ should have teammates who can hit open perimeter shots, defend, and run the floor. In David Stern's NBA, the Cavs starting five would be Raja Bell (49% from 3-pt range), LeBron, Tayshaun Prince (48% from 3-pt range), Kevin Garnett and LaMarcus Aldridge. James would be the primary ballhandler on a team filled with athletic players who can defend and shoot from the perimeter.
Additionally, Stern and his management team will be in charge of hiring, firing, contract negotiations, discipline, etc. To paraphrase the commish, if pla! yers don't like it, they can get out and do something else for a living. Players will be rewarded financially based on personal and team performance, as well as attendance, jersey sales, and other marketing-related endeavors. In the interest of good basketball and employee satisfaction, it's important that players and coaches are put in positions where they can succeed. That isn't happening, on a large-scale, currently. It's time for a change. It's time for David Stern's powers to be increased, for the betterment of the league financially and on the court.
*I just googled the NY Knicks and clicked on the link to the Knicks page on nba.com and a 2006-2007 NY Knicks tickets pop-up came up. Who were the Knicks featured? David Lee, Nate Robinson, and Channing Frye. The NY Knicks are marketing Lee, Robinson and Frye.
David Stern needs to continue to build the league that in the mid-90's was losing its grip on the American public to the NHL. I remember a Sports Illustrated cover with the headline NHL hot, NBA not ... or at least something to that effect. Since then, the NBA has reclaimed its place as #2 (behind the NFL) while the NHL has fallen so far that it has probably been passed by NASCAR. Donald Sterling, another DS, may have allowed Elgin Baylor and Mike Dunleavy to turn around the woeful Clippers franchise. However, there are still laughing-stocks nestled around the nation ... just look at the mecca of U.S. basketball, NYC! The Knicks are atrocious and tied down with the wrong coach, a bad GM, and the absurd pairing of Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury in the back court.* Along with a pair of shoot-first ! PG's, they have Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford, a couple of ball-hoggin g SG's. They also have Jerome James and Eddy Curry clogging up the middle, and I mean that literally and figuratively. The Knicks gave way too much money (and what turned into the #2 draft pick in this year's draft) for a couple guys who played really well in their contract years but have struggled with staying motivated and staying in shape the rest of the time. What did management think would happen when they locked them up to multi-year, guaranteed-money, deals?
David Stern was wrong to make suggestions to Knicks management. The Knicks have had enough time to make changes. They've been saddled with bad contracts, and rather than bite the bullet and wait out their punishment, they've tried to dig their way out of the hole by trading one bad contract for another and adding more expensive pieces that don't fit anywhere in the puzzle that is winning in the NBA. It's time for David Stern to step in! David Stern doesn't need to be making suggestions, he needs ! to be making calls. He didn't suggest that Allen Iverson clean up his attire, he made a rule that forced AI to dress up, along with all of his peers. Stern should take a similar stance with the Knicks and the Hawks (who have quite the stable of wing players but not much else). The Hawks left Chris Paul on the board last year and took Marvin Williams. They let Boris Diaw go to the Suns in the Joe Johnson deal. Interesting moves ... I've seen enough of them, it's time for Stern to take charge.
In fact, there are a lot of teams that could use some help. The Seattle Sonics were a solid team in 2004-2005, but the losses of Vladimir Radmonovic, Jerome James and Coach Nate MacMillan resulted in the Sonics missing the playoffs this year. The Lakers traded Shaq, missed the playoffs in 04-05 and lost in the first round this year. The Kings fired Rick Adelman, the Warriors hired Mike Montgomery and haven't been able to make the playoffs, despite a starting five of B! aron Davis, Jason Richardson, Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy and Adonal Fo yle (a solid defensive center). The Minnesota Timberwolves blew up the bench (letting Flip Saunders go to Detroit) and roster around Kevin Garnett, the Jazz can't find guards to go with AK47, Carlos Boozer and Mehmet Okur (although they'd be better off if Kirilenko and Boozer can stay healthy), and the Nuggets gave Kenyon Martin a max deal! Where does Kenyon Martin fit on a team with Carmelo, Nene (Brazil) and Marcus Camby? The correct answer is on the bench, if Nene is healthy. However, despite the front court studs, they can't find a decent SG. The problem with the NBA is that some teams have too many guards, some not enough, some players (Tim Thomas with the Bulls) don't fit with their current team and would be better off playing for another team (like the Phoenix Suns). Basketball isn't necessarily about having the best talent, it's about having pieces that fit together. Sure, you need good players, but Starbury, Stevie Franchise, Jamal Crawford, Jalen Rose, and E! ddy Curry are all talented. How'd the Knicks do?
Stern can't just improve the Knicks and Hawks without a little cooperation from other teams. So, in the best interest of the league, Stern should be given full reign ... the NBA is his playground. Owners would be relieved of their duties and given shares in the new NBA Corporation based on the estimated worth of their teams. Teams like the Phoenix Suns, who have been constructed well â€" with players who have complimentary skill sets and a coach who's system takes advantage of their abilities â€" will probably remain unchanged. Stern would give Kevin Garnett the chance to be a star in a major market, such as New York City, or on a championship contender, possibly being paired with King James in Cleveland. Kobe won't be burdened with another star and Lamar Odom will be moved elsewhere so he can actually touch the ball every once in a while. By systematically putting teams together that make sense (like the ! Detroit Pistons), the overall product will improve. Erick Dampier won 't be on the Mavericks because Dallas doesn't want an offensive weapon in the post. Diop will man the middle for the Mavericks and provide defense and rebounding.
LeBron James wouldn't have a post-up center (Zydrunas Ilgauskas) clogging up the lane. He also wouldn't have Larry Hughes as a running mate. Hughes is a good player, but he doesn't shoot the three well (28% on the season) and is best with the ball in his hands. LBJ should have teammates who can hit open perimeter shots, defend, and run the floor. In David Stern's NBA, the Cavs starting five would be Raja Bell (49% from 3-pt range), LeBron, Tayshaun Prince (48% from 3-pt range), Kevin Garnett and LaMarcus Aldridge. James would be the primary ballhandler on a team filled with athletic players who can defend and shoot from the perimeter.
Additionally, Stern and his management team will be in charge of hiring, firing, contract negotiations, discipline, etc. To paraphrase the commish, if pla! yers don't like it, they can get out and do something else for a living. Players will be rewarded financially based on personal and team performance, as well as attendance, jersey sales, and other marketing-related endeavors. In the interest of good basketball and employee satisfaction, it's important that players and coaches are put in positions where they can succeed. That isn't happening, on a large-scale, currently. It's time for a change. It's time for David Stern's powers to be increased, for the betterment of the league financially and on the court.
*I just googled the NY Knicks and clicked on the link to the Knicks page on nba.com and a 2006-2007 NY Knicks tickets pop-up came up. Who were the Knicks featured? David Lee, Nate Robinson, and Channing Frye. The NY Knicks are marketing Lee, Robinson and Frye.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Offensive Foul?
Early in game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals between the Heat and the Pistons, the announcers made a comment about the game being a game for men because the refs were letting the players play. Why, then, was Dwayne Wade going to the bench less than halfway through the 2nd quarter with 3 personal fouls? Apparently, because they didn't want to call two blocking fouls on Lindsay Hunter on the same Miami offensive possession. On the first play, Wade was driving to the basket and Hunter, essentially, ran into him. Wade didn't push him down. Wade's elbow/forearm made contact with Hunter, but that just happened to be where they met. Actually, Wade did push a little bit, but it wouldn't be enough to knock over a 5 year-old, much less an NBA player. It was obviously a block. Then, Hunter committed a block on the next move by Wade as well. Wade wasn't moving into Hunter, Hunter was sliding in front of Wade and didn't have the position to take a charge. If Hunter is going! to commit fouls, call fouls on him or don't call anything if it's close. The refs shouldn't be baited into calling an offensive foul on the visiting team's best player because the fans boo'ed the previous call and the defender is trying to bait them. I'm just hoping the refs don't ruin this series. Well, that's not all, I hope David Stern doesn't blindly defend their hideous calls as well.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Where do they find these guys?
Does anyone else find Tim Kurkjian's commentary lacking? I was going to let his stats on Albert Pujols slide until I heard him talking about the White Sox - Cubs incident today. But, let's start with the Pujols piece. Kurkjian tries to validate Pujols' greatness by stating that his achievements in six categories are unprecedented (I think it was six, although it might be seven). The problem is, four of the categories are batting average, hits, extra base hits and total bases. I think the other two (or three) are runs scored, RBI's and home runs (maybe not home runs). If you get a lot of AB's and hit for a high average, you are going to get a lot of hits. And, power hitters who hit for a high average are going to get a lot of extra base hits, between the HR's and the doubles, but that one isn't tied as closely to other categories. However, if you get a lot of hits and extra base hits, you are going to have a lot of total bases. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to f! igure that one out. Runs batted in and runs scored are linked, at least to some extent, to the performance of your teammates. Pujols isn't exceptionally fast and doesn't steal a ton of bases. He's been aided by a star-studded lineup. Now, I agree that Pujols is a really good young player. If he continues to improve and stay healthy, he'll probably challenge Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds (or A-Rod) for the all-time HR mark down the road and might win as many MVP's as the aforementioned Bonds. He's either 1A or 1B (the other being Rodriguez) in the game today. No one needs a list of obscure, highly-related stats as evidence of Pujol's productivity. What about on-base percentage, on-base + slugging percentage, average with runners in scoring position, etc?
Moving on to Michael Barrett clocking A.J. Pierzynski, Kurkjian said Barrett was 99.9% at fault (and deserved a suspension of 5-10 games), but that Pierzynski was culpable as well because he was moving toward ! Barrett. Originally, I didn't know why Pierzynski was headed toward t he Cubs' dugout. It turns out that he was going to retrieve his helmet. In the replay, you can see that he is going to get his helmet, and trying to avoid Barrett without taking an absurdly indirect route. Pierzynski has every right to go get his helmet. Barrett isn't the king of the field and he's 100% at fault. He started the brawl. He grabbed Pierzynski around the waist, he yelled at him, and he took a swing at him. Kurkjian thinks 5-10 games? Are you kidding me? Russ Springer got 4 for throwing at Barry Bonds. Barrett deserves at least 20 games, if not 30, 40, or 50. A player once got 30 games for hitting his own manager (according to an ESPN list I saw) and another player got 30 games for pushing an umpire. I know umpires are sacred in the eyes of MLB brass, but punching a player on the other team without provocation should not be tolerated. Kurkjian's suggested suspension length amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and insinuating that Pierzyn! ski was at fault at all is equally as egregious ... and, no, I'm not the president of the A.J. Pierzynski fan club or anything like that.
Does anyone out there actually enjoy Kurkjian's commentary? I'd be interested to hear.
Moving on to Michael Barrett clocking A.J. Pierzynski, Kurkjian said Barrett was 99.9% at fault (and deserved a suspension of 5-10 games), but that Pierzynski was culpable as well because he was moving toward ! Barrett. Originally, I didn't know why Pierzynski was headed toward t he Cubs' dugout. It turns out that he was going to retrieve his helmet. In the replay, you can see that he is going to get his helmet, and trying to avoid Barrett without taking an absurdly indirect route. Pierzynski has every right to go get his helmet. Barrett isn't the king of the field and he's 100% at fault. He started the brawl. He grabbed Pierzynski around the waist, he yelled at him, and he took a swing at him. Kurkjian thinks 5-10 games? Are you kidding me? Russ Springer got 4 for throwing at Barry Bonds. Barrett deserves at least 20 games, if not 30, 40, or 50. A player once got 30 games for hitting his own manager (according to an ESPN list I saw) and another player got 30 games for pushing an umpire. I know umpires are sacred in the eyes of MLB brass, but punching a player on the other team without provocation should not be tolerated. Kurkjian's suggested suspension length amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and insinuating that Pierzyn! ski was at fault at all is equally as egregious ... and, no, I'm not the president of the A.J. Pierzynski fan club or anything like that.
Does anyone out there actually enjoy Kurkjian's commentary? I'd be interested to hear.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Springer, NBA Scheduling, and Jim Rome on to something
I was watching the Astros v. Giants the other day to check on Barry Bonds for a couple reasons: a) he's on my fantasy team and I could really benefit from him stealing a few bases (or getting a couple hits, that's more realistic) and b) if he passes Babe Ruth, they'll stop talking about him quite so much, I think that would be good for everyone. I quickly realized that Bonds wouldn't be getting an AB against Russ Springer. His first pitch was a slider that started right at Bonds' butt and moved even farther away from the plate. Then, after running the count to 3-1 on inside pitches â€" with the only strike coming on a foul ball off the knob of Bonds' bat that almost hit him â€" Springer finished Bonds off by coming up and in, hitting Barry in the shoulder.
Springer either a) has really bad control, b) wanted to get thrown out, so wanted to be warned before hitting Bonds, or c) wanted to draw the ordeal out as long as he could. He obviously wasn't trying to get! Bonds out and didn't want Bonds to swing the bat. If that's the case, hit him in the butt and get the thing over with ... but please clue us in to what is so bad about Barry Bonds. You don't come up and in on multiple occasions in the same plate appearance when you've already thrown a ball behind the batter. Springer should be suspended ... it's a joke if he isn't. Oh wait, Bud Selig is still commish ... it's a joke either way.
(I just saw "the punch" and it definitely wasn't suspension worthy ... that was ridiculous ... Finley and Ginobli jumped on him! What constitutes a punch?)
Moving on, what is the deal with the NBA playoff scheduling? Why are the Suns and Clippers playing game seven on Monday? Why aren't all the series every other day? I think they should play every day that isn't a travel day, but if you're going to draw it out, every other day is long enough. The Heat are already done. The other two series could end tomorrow. There ! might not be any games Saturday or Sunday. That is ridiculous, althou gh I doubt both the Cavs and Mavs will win tomorrow. Earlier in the second round, there were no games a week ago. The Heat, Nets, Suns and Clippers played Wednesday and Friday, with the other four teams having Wednesday-Friday off. Who is in charge of these things?
I'm running out of computer battery, but I have to praise Jim Rome for defending Barry Bonds, in a round about way. He actually went after Albert Pujols and his defense of Bonds. He also called out the league and the testing program, in a way, by remarking that masking agents and substances that aren't tested for still allow players to use performance enhancers if they want, and Rome believes they do. Really? I agree. Bonds probably wasn't clean a few years back, might not be clean now, but he's never failed a league drug test, to the best of my knowledge. No one really knows how many players are "cheating" or "taking advantage of the system" and the league doesn't know ... that's the point. G! oing after Bonds may be a good publicity stunt, but it isn't going to help fix anything except the public perception of the league. I don't know what the solution to the problem is. I'm tempted to say that if it's coming down to whether or not your chemist can stay ahead of the league's chemist, wouldn't it be fair to allow players to use steriods, at least then you wouldn't have to worry about some players having access to better masking agents and more advanced drugs than other players. In an ideal world, players wouldn't sacrifice their health for stardom. Maybe, if the amount of money at stake wasn't so outrageous, players would think twice before injecting themselves, but probably not. Chalk this one up to human nature, I guess. And, until MLB gets a testing policy that is infallible, the playing field won't be level. People will be "cheating," some will be caught, some won't. That's fair. But, that's life, I guess.
Springer either a) has really bad control, b) wanted to get thrown out, so wanted to be warned before hitting Bonds, or c) wanted to draw the ordeal out as long as he could. He obviously wasn't trying to get! Bonds out and didn't want Bonds to swing the bat. If that's the case, hit him in the butt and get the thing over with ... but please clue us in to what is so bad about Barry Bonds. You don't come up and in on multiple occasions in the same plate appearance when you've already thrown a ball behind the batter. Springer should be suspended ... it's a joke if he isn't. Oh wait, Bud Selig is still commish ... it's a joke either way.
(I just saw "the punch" and it definitely wasn't suspension worthy ... that was ridiculous ... Finley and Ginobli jumped on him! What constitutes a punch?)
Moving on, what is the deal with the NBA playoff scheduling? Why are the Suns and Clippers playing game seven on Monday? Why aren't all the series every other day? I think they should play every day that isn't a travel day, but if you're going to draw it out, every other day is long enough. The Heat are already done. The other two series could end tomorrow. There ! might not be any games Saturday or Sunday. That is ridiculous, althou gh I doubt both the Cavs and Mavs will win tomorrow. Earlier in the second round, there were no games a week ago. The Heat, Nets, Suns and Clippers played Wednesday and Friday, with the other four teams having Wednesday-Friday off. Who is in charge of these things?
I'm running out of computer battery, but I have to praise Jim Rome for defending Barry Bonds, in a round about way. He actually went after Albert Pujols and his defense of Bonds. He also called out the league and the testing program, in a way, by remarking that masking agents and substances that aren't tested for still allow players to use performance enhancers if they want, and Rome believes they do. Really? I agree. Bonds probably wasn't clean a few years back, might not be clean now, but he's never failed a league drug test, to the best of my knowledge. No one really knows how many players are "cheating" or "taking advantage of the system" and the league doesn't know ... that's the point. G! oing after Bonds may be a good publicity stunt, but it isn't going to help fix anything except the public perception of the league. I don't know what the solution to the problem is. I'm tempted to say that if it's coming down to whether or not your chemist can stay ahead of the league's chemist, wouldn't it be fair to allow players to use steriods, at least then you wouldn't have to worry about some players having access to better masking agents and more advanced drugs than other players. In an ideal world, players wouldn't sacrifice their health for stardom. Maybe, if the amount of money at stake wasn't so outrageous, players would think twice before injecting themselves, but probably not. Chalk this one up to human nature, I guess. And, until MLB gets a testing policy that is infallible, the playing field won't be level. People will be "cheating," some will be caught, some won't. That's fair. But, that's life, I guess.
Ultimate Fighter ... and a punch from Jason Terry?
Tonight's episode of The Ultimate Fighter on Spike is just one of the numerous examples of what is wrong when officials and judges have too much power. The two round fight between Tait and Josh ended in a split decision (it would have gone to a third, and deciding, round if it was tied after two). Tait won 20-18 (meaning he won both rounds) on one scorecard, but Josh won 20-18 on the other two cards, so he won the fight. Josh was the better fighter standing up, but Tait almost submitted him more than once when the fight went to the ground. It should have gone to a third round, but that isn't really the problem. The problem is that there is no consistency. If all three judges scored the fight 20-18 for Josh, then fine. But there is something wrong with one fighter winning both rounds in one judge's eyes and another judge seeing it completely opposite. Tait summed it up when we was interviewed just prior to leaving, saying "in a ! decision, nobody wins that fight, it's an opinion."
What are judges scoring? What decides who wins a round? In a boxing match, is it who lands more punches, who causes more damage, who has better looking boots? In ultimate fighting, is it who lands more shots, who is the aggressor, who's on top more on the ground? It doesn't seem like the judges agree with each other, and they definitely aren't on the same page as the fighters or commentators. It seems like everyone would be better off if they knew what they were trying to accomplish (other than ending the fight before it goes to the judges). [See What are we raving about?]
Jason Terry was suspended for game six against the Spurs. Way to go David Stern and the NBA execs. Jason Terry is an important cog in the Mavericks attack. The Mavs might be able to close out the defending champs in game six, b! ut they should be trying to do it with Jason Terry. I haven't seen an y replays and wasn't in a room with a DVR last night, so I couldn't rewind in real-time. What I did see was Michael Finley jumping on Jason Terry when Terry obviously had possession while his team was calling time out. The Mavericks should have been awarded the ball without the jump ball at center court. Finley fouled Terry. Maybe Terry should have been shooting free throws. Why do officials allow players to foul others jumping on them to cause jump balls? I don't understand it ... I think it's just something they do because that's the way they do it, which isn't really a good reason to do anything.
What are judges scoring? What decides who wins a round? In a boxing match, is it who lands more punches, who causes more damage, who has better looking boots? In ultimate fighting, is it who lands more shots, who is the aggressor, who's on top more on the ground? It doesn't seem like the judges agree with each other, and they definitely aren't on the same page as the fighters or commentators. It seems like everyone would be better off if they knew what they were trying to accomplish (other than ending the fight before it goes to the judges). [See What are we raving about?]
Jason Terry was suspended for game six against the Spurs. Way to go David Stern and the NBA execs. Jason Terry is an important cog in the Mavericks attack. The Mavs might be able to close out the defending champs in game six, b! ut they should be trying to do it with Jason Terry. I haven't seen an y replays and wasn't in a room with a DVR last night, so I couldn't rewind in real-time. What I did see was Michael Finley jumping on Jason Terry when Terry obviously had possession while his team was calling time out. The Mavericks should have been awarded the ball without the jump ball at center court. Finley fouled Terry. Maybe Terry should have been shooting free throws. Why do officials allow players to foul others jumping on them to cause jump balls? I don't understand it ... I think it's just something they do because that's the way they do it, which isn't really a good reason to do anything.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Last Thoughts (for now)
I'd already turned off my laptop last night when Shaun Livingston was called for stepping out-of-bounds with just over 40 seconds left in double OT. So, I had both hands free to use the pause and rewind live TV feature associated with my new Dish package. I looked at the play 3 times and I'm pretty sure he was in-bounds. How do you miss that call at that point in the game? The ref had a good angle, he just blew the call, unless my slow motion replay deceived me (it was about 1 AM, my time, when the play took place).
Ok, I can only spend so much time on one bad call, so I move on to a good play, though the result wasn't what he was hoping for, by Sam Cassell to launch a three-pointer down five as time was running down — I think there were about 20 seconds left. Announcers always say that when you are down 5, you don't need to shoot a 3. You can get a 2, then get a three the next time. The problem is, if you have to foul (rather than forcing a turnover), you may be back down 5 with even less time on the clock. I think the Suns learned from their debacle against the Lakers and probably wouldn't turn it over easily up late. Cassell would have been wrong to take a two-point shot because they needed to close the gap, and that isn't something you are going to do if you are getting 2's and then sending Nash, Barbosa, and Bell to the line. If Shaq was the primary ballhandler for a team, take the easy two (if you can get it) and then foul him as soon as he touches it. You can't afford to do that with the Suns. Their best bet was for Cassell (or someone else) to hit the three, bringing them within two. Then, if you don't get the steal, foul quickly and take your lumps. Repeat the sequence and you're down three after two made FT's ... hopefully, there would be enough time to get a good look. Maybe, they'd even have a time out ... they could advance the ball! (if this seems totally random, or even a little random, read the previous post)
Ok, I can only spend so much time on one bad call, so I move on to a good play, though the result wasn't what he was hoping for, by Sam Cassell to launch a three-pointer down five as time was running down — I think there were about 20 seconds left. Announcers always say that when you are down 5, you don't need to shoot a 3. You can get a 2, then get a three the next time. The problem is, if you have to foul (rather than forcing a turnover), you may be back down 5 with even less time on the clock. I think the Suns learned from their debacle against the Lakers and probably wouldn't turn it over easily up late. Cassell would have been wrong to take a two-point shot because they needed to close the gap, and that isn't something you are going to do if you are getting 2's and then sending Nash, Barbosa, and Bell to the line. If Shaq was the primary ballhandler for a team, take the easy two (if you can get it) and then foul him as soon as he touches it. You can't afford to do that with the Suns. Their best bet was for Cassell (or someone else) to hit the three, bringing them within two. Then, if you don't get the steal, foul quickly and take your lumps. Repeat the sequence and you're down three after two made FT's ... hopefully, there would be enough time to get a good look. Maybe, they'd even have a time out ... they could advance the ball! (if this seems totally random, or even a little random, read the previous post)
Random Thoughts
This will be a little disjointed, but try to stick with me. With 8.7 seconds left in the 3rd quarter of game 5 of the Clipper v. Suns series, a foul was called on Tim Thomas. Why? Sam Cassell pump faked, Tim Thomas went for it and jumped up in the air. Then, Cassell launched himself into Thomas and flailed his arms like he was shooting. It was as much an offensive foul as a defensive foul. Tim Thomas wasn't going to land on Cassell. Cassell moved into the location where Thomas was going to land. Cassell wasn't making an honest attempt to shoot the ball. An eight year-old doesn't jump that far in when preparing to shoot a long jumper, so I'm sure Cassell wasn't attempting to make the shot. I understand referees make that call routinely. However, that doesn't mean they should. As a defender, you don't have to be stationary to get an offensive foul called on an offensive player who initiates contact. Personally, I think Cassell should have received an offensive fou! l or no call should have been made. If you get a guy in the air and he lands on you, that's one thing. There are enough fouls in basketball games without players making cheap plays like that which are, essentially, attempts to cheat the system and get free trips to the foul line.
Also, what is with the love affair with offensive fouls. I'm all for good defense, but Sam Cassell stepped in to take a charge just as Raja Bell was leaving the floor on a runner. They collided ... Cassell hit the deck ... Bell missed the ugly runner and got an offensive foul. I think the only reason Bell was called for an offensive foul was the distance he travelled in the air before making contact with Cassell (I don't mean to pick on Cassell, he just happens to be a main figure in these examples). However, once Bell leaves the floor, Cassell can't slide in, and usually the tie goes to the offensive player. It seems like that has changed in the playoffs this year, and! I'm not sure why. It seems like the more you can do, within reason, to help the offense and the flow of the game, the better the product will be (or at least seem).
Moving over to the diamond, why wasn't Bernie Williams suspended for throwing his helmet at (or in the direction of) an umpire? Delmon Young, a Tampa Bay Devil Rays AAA prospect, was handed a 50-game suspension after a bat he tossed hit an umpire in the chest. In the NBA playoffs, Udonis Haslem (Miami Heat PF) received a one game suspension for tossing his mouthpiece in the vicinity of the feet of an official. Haslem claims he wasn't throwing it at the ref. Young doesn't claim to have had any malicious intentions in his incident. It looked to me like Williams looked back before flipping his helmet, so I would suspect that he knew it would be headed for the umpire. A mouthpiece gets you one game in the NBA, a bat making contact gets you 50 in AAA, I'd think a helmet in MLB would be worth 5-10 games. Think about it, what was Bernie Williams doing tossin! g his helmet back toward the plate/infield. He was walking back to the dugout and should have taken the bat (which he left in the batter's box) and helmet back with him. If you want to toss your equipment to the dugout and have someone bring your hat and glove out to you, that's fine. It's a generally accepted practice. The bat boy will grab your stuff. But, what Bernie Williams did was an obvious attempt to show up the umpire and he should be punished.
Back to the hardwood (kind of), the Knicks and Larry Brown should cut their losses and part ways mutually. The Knicks don't seem to want Brown. I don't think Brown really wants to coach Stephon Marbury and Co. anymore. Why should the Knicks give Brown $25 million to get out of his contract? That's stupid. It seems like the only thing that can keep Brown at the helm of the Knicks is the 4 years and $40 million left on his contract. The Knicks shouldn't have given Brown $50 million, but Brown s! houldn't have taken it either. He didn't appear able to give it his a ll and now he wants out (at least that's what I'm hearing) to take a different job (Golden State and Sacremento are rumored). Doesn't Brown make enough money coaching that he doesn't need to collect money from the teams he's no longer coaching?
The Clippers just tied the game on a 3 by Cassell and Brand set a block (not a screen) on the defender (Barbosa, I think). It was obviously a foul on Brand. Come on, I'd think professional basketball players would understand how to set a legal screen! I guess maybe I'm asking too much. And, I have no idea why Brand didn't get a flagrant foul. Marion took off from the circle and Brand hit him hard from behind (didn't come close to the ball). Sometimes, you just have to let guys dunk the ball. There have been some cheap flagrant fouls called ... and this one wasn't called. Ridiculous. I guess the eight-second violation on the Clippers is justice.
Doug Flutie was recently on PTI and h! e talked about micro-management of football by coaches, specifically coaches being able to talk to QB's because there are communication devices in the helmets. Well, I see the same thing in NBA games. Why are teams given so many time outs? Teams hoard them like a fat kid with a box of Snickers bars and then use them every possession at the end of the game. Practice some plays in practice and then call them. Every once in a while, call a time out and design a play in a crucial situation. It's excruciating to watch these games that are drawn out because you spend more time watching commercials during breaks than watching basketball. The league should look into limits on the number of time outs they can take to the final couple minutes of a half. But, they should have competent refs doing playoff games too ... and that, obviously, isn't happening, despite all the crap coming out of David Stern's mouth about the refs only missing 5% of the calls.
Speaking of ! time outs, why do you get to advance the ball? I guess it gives you a better chance to score quickly, thus making late-game heroics more likely. It seems like a hokie, contrived rule to me, and it should be removed from the books. If the Suns had a time out left at the end of OT, they could have advanced the ball after the Clippers turned it over after they advanced it. Beam me down the court, ref!
Why was Steve Nash the MVP? I know the argument, they finished near the top of the West without Amare Stoudemire. That is true. The Suns also had a bunch of players who had career years. Ok. But, you have to look at the players who had career years and understand why they had career years. Maybe it was Nash, maybe it was more minutes, more shots, maturation, etc. The Suns have a lot of young players around Nash: Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa, James Jones. Raja Bell (who just hit a three to tie the game ... I thought the Clippers had this one won) has a bigger role. Shawn Marion is a good player. Eddie House can fill! it up as a backup PG. Nash deserves a lot of credit for the success the Suns have enjoyed the last couple years. However, I don't think his play merits back-to-back MVP awards. I think I would have voted for LeBron James, if I had a vote. Larry Hughes missed a lot of time, and I think the Suns are set up better to compliment Nash than the Cavs are to compliment James.
Stop the game! Dwayne Wade was on the court for two possessions a couple games back after catching an elbow in the face courtesy of Vince Carter. Shawn Marion just went to the floor with an ankle injury suffered when he came down on Shaun Livingston's foot after a dunk. Marion made the basket. There wasn't an obvious advantage for the Clippers, other than the 5 on 4 with Marion injured. The refs should stop the games. If it's a fast break, let it go until the next basket. Otherwise, stop it, get it fixed, then resume. If someone fakes it, give them a T and nip it in the butt! .
Thanks for reading, I'm going to enjoy the last couple mi nutes of double OT ... or cringe every time D'Antoni or Dunleavy call time out.
Also, what is with the love affair with offensive fouls. I'm all for good defense, but Sam Cassell stepped in to take a charge just as Raja Bell was leaving the floor on a runner. They collided ... Cassell hit the deck ... Bell missed the ugly runner and got an offensive foul. I think the only reason Bell was called for an offensive foul was the distance he travelled in the air before making contact with Cassell (I don't mean to pick on Cassell, he just happens to be a main figure in these examples). However, once Bell leaves the floor, Cassell can't slide in, and usually the tie goes to the offensive player. It seems like that has changed in the playoffs this year, and! I'm not sure why. It seems like the more you can do, within reason, to help the offense and the flow of the game, the better the product will be (or at least seem).
Moving over to the diamond, why wasn't Bernie Williams suspended for throwing his helmet at (or in the direction of) an umpire? Delmon Young, a Tampa Bay Devil Rays AAA prospect, was handed a 50-game suspension after a bat he tossed hit an umpire in the chest. In the NBA playoffs, Udonis Haslem (Miami Heat PF) received a one game suspension for tossing his mouthpiece in the vicinity of the feet of an official. Haslem claims he wasn't throwing it at the ref. Young doesn't claim to have had any malicious intentions in his incident. It looked to me like Williams looked back before flipping his helmet, so I would suspect that he knew it would be headed for the umpire. A mouthpiece gets you one game in the NBA, a bat making contact gets you 50 in AAA, I'd think a helmet in MLB would be worth 5-10 games. Think about it, what was Bernie Williams doing tossin! g his helmet back toward the plate/infield. He was walking back to the dugout and should have taken the bat (which he left in the batter's box) and helmet back with him. If you want to toss your equipment to the dugout and have someone bring your hat and glove out to you, that's fine. It's a generally accepted practice. The bat boy will grab your stuff. But, what Bernie Williams did was an obvious attempt to show up the umpire and he should be punished.
Back to the hardwood (kind of), the Knicks and Larry Brown should cut their losses and part ways mutually. The Knicks don't seem to want Brown. I don't think Brown really wants to coach Stephon Marbury and Co. anymore. Why should the Knicks give Brown $25 million to get out of his contract? That's stupid. It seems like the only thing that can keep Brown at the helm of the Knicks is the 4 years and $40 million left on his contract. The Knicks shouldn't have given Brown $50 million, but Brown s! houldn't have taken it either. He didn't appear able to give it his a ll and now he wants out (at least that's what I'm hearing) to take a different job (Golden State and Sacremento are rumored). Doesn't Brown make enough money coaching that he doesn't need to collect money from the teams he's no longer coaching?
The Clippers just tied the game on a 3 by Cassell and Brand set a block (not a screen) on the defender (Barbosa, I think). It was obviously a foul on Brand. Come on, I'd think professional basketball players would understand how to set a legal screen! I guess maybe I'm asking too much. And, I have no idea why Brand didn't get a flagrant foul. Marion took off from the circle and Brand hit him hard from behind (didn't come close to the ball). Sometimes, you just have to let guys dunk the ball. There have been some cheap flagrant fouls called ... and this one wasn't called. Ridiculous. I guess the eight-second violation on the Clippers is justice.
Doug Flutie was recently on PTI and h! e talked about micro-management of football by coaches, specifically coaches being able to talk to QB's because there are communication devices in the helmets. Well, I see the same thing in NBA games. Why are teams given so many time outs? Teams hoard them like a fat kid with a box of Snickers bars and then use them every possession at the end of the game. Practice some plays in practice and then call them. Every once in a while, call a time out and design a play in a crucial situation. It's excruciating to watch these games that are drawn out because you spend more time watching commercials during breaks than watching basketball. The league should look into limits on the number of time outs they can take to the final couple minutes of a half. But, they should have competent refs doing playoff games too ... and that, obviously, isn't happening, despite all the crap coming out of David Stern's mouth about the refs only missing 5% of the calls.
Speaking of ! time outs, why do you get to advance the ball? I guess it gives you a better chance to score quickly, thus making late-game heroics more likely. It seems like a hokie, contrived rule to me, and it should be removed from the books. If the Suns had a time out left at the end of OT, they could have advanced the ball after the Clippers turned it over after they advanced it. Beam me down the court, ref!
Why was Steve Nash the MVP? I know the argument, they finished near the top of the West without Amare Stoudemire. That is true. The Suns also had a bunch of players who had career years. Ok. But, you have to look at the players who had career years and understand why they had career years. Maybe it was Nash, maybe it was more minutes, more shots, maturation, etc. The Suns have a lot of young players around Nash: Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa, James Jones. Raja Bell (who just hit a three to tie the game ... I thought the Clippers had this one won) has a bigger role. Shawn Marion is a good player. Eddie House can fill! it up as a backup PG. Nash deserves a lot of credit for the success the Suns have enjoyed the last couple years. However, I don't think his play merits back-to-back MVP awards. I think I would have voted for LeBron James, if I had a vote. Larry Hughes missed a lot of time, and I think the Suns are set up better to compliment Nash than the Cavs are to compliment James.
Stop the game! Dwayne Wade was on the court for two possessions a couple games back after catching an elbow in the face courtesy of Vince Carter. Shawn Marion just went to the floor with an ankle injury suffered when he came down on Shaun Livingston's foot after a dunk. Marion made the basket. There wasn't an obvious advantage for the Clippers, other than the 5 on 4 with Marion injured. The refs should stop the games. If it's a fast break, let it go until the next basket. Otherwise, stop it, get it fixed, then resume. If someone fakes it, give them a T and nip it in the butt! .
Thanks for reading, I'm going to enjoy the last couple mi nutes of double OT ... or cringe every time D'Antoni or Dunleavy call time out.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
No longer King
Why did the Kings let Rick Adelman go? Often, players get tired of coaches. However, Adelman has led the franchise through a change from Jason Williams, Chris Webber and Vlade Divac to Mike Bibby, Bonzi Wells, and Ron Artest. The Kings played the defending champions tough in the first round, losing to the Spurs in six games. They have a solid, if not spectacular, rotation headed by Bibby, Wells, Artest, Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Brad Miller. All five of those players have been all-stars or almost all-stars during their careers. The team was among the best after acquiring Artest midway through the season.
I understand that change is the status quo when it comes to NBA coaching jobs. Larry Brown left Detroit to coach the New York Knicks. Flip Saunders was let go by Minnesota and ended up in Detroit. Good move for Flip, bad move for Larry. George Karl has bounced from Seattle to Milwaukee to Denver. Phil Jackson was in LA, was gone, and is now back. Nate Mc! Millan left a playoff team in Seattle to take the Portland job. That didn't really work out for either team. Coaches aren't exempt from criticism or blame, but if things are going well, why rock the boat? Give Adelman an entire season with the group he led up against the Spurs. Geoff Petrie should be working on improving the roster, not looking for a new coach. If the Kings don't move up into the top echelon of teams in the west next year, then you can make a move. I hope the new coach makes the Kings as fun to watch as Adelman did.
I understand that change is the status quo when it comes to NBA coaching jobs. Larry Brown left Detroit to coach the New York Knicks. Flip Saunders was let go by Minnesota and ended up in Detroit. Good move for Flip, bad move for Larry. George Karl has bounced from Seattle to Milwaukee to Denver. Phil Jackson was in LA, was gone, and is now back. Nate Mc! Millan left a playoff team in Seattle to take the Portland job. That didn't really work out for either team. Coaches aren't exempt from criticism or blame, but if things are going well, why rock the boat? Give Adelman an entire season with the group he led up against the Spurs. Geoff Petrie should be working on improving the roster, not looking for a new coach. If the Kings don't move up into the top echelon of teams in the west next year, then you can make a move. I hope the new coach makes the Kings as fun to watch as Adelman did.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
An Eye for an Eye
eclipses the Suns.
Ron Artest retaliated, rather gently, with a forearm to Manu Ginobli's noggin in game 1 of the Spurs v. Kings series and was suspended. Yesterday, Raja Bell took Kobe down, admittedly with more force than he should have given the current, suspension-happy, climate. However, Bell's foul of Bryant was no worse than some of the elbows Kobe has hit Bell with during the series. Raja Bell was responsible for the incident yesterday, which resulted in a one game suspension being issued today. Kobe Bryant is also to blame and the league either a) fails to recognize that fact or b) is ignoring it, just like they did when they penalized Ron Artest and not Manu Ginobli.
There has been some physical play in the playoffs this year. But, it's bound to happen when you see the same team over and over again. That is just the way it is. The problem is the league is overreacting. They overreacted to the Artest incident (possibly because of Arte! st's history) and have been hamstrung by it ever since. Dana Jacobsen reasoned, on Cold Pizza this morning, that because Artest got one game, Bell has to get one game. Well, Bell isn't Artest. I don't think it should matter who does what, but it does ... the league cares, at least usually. Each incident is different, despite similarities, so blanket application of rules does not make sense.
Physical play will continue and the referees need to continue to give flagrant and technical fouls for actions that are out-of-line. The league doesn't need to intervene after the fact and automatically suspend guys. What the league should do is look at the entire body of work that leads up to an act before deciding what to do. Artest didn't hurt Ginobli, Bell didn't hurt Bryant, Posey didn't hurt Hinrich. None of these incidents were Kermit Washington - Rudy T. I think Artest and Bell were both within the limits of acceptable action and the league office is shaping! the playoffs ... decreasing the friction the Lakers and Spurs are fac ing in the first round. Maybe the league is trying to create buzz with Spurs v. Mavs and Lakers v. Clippers, battles of LA and TX.
One final note: Reggie Evans should receive a very harsh suspension. If I were handing out suspensions, Evans would get 20 games to start next season and 5 games the next time his team reached the playoffs. Players shouldn't have to worry about having their private parts attacked during games and the league needs to take a stand. Bell and Artest were sending messages in the open. Evans tried to hurt Kaman without the refs seeing. If Kaman had not shoved Evans (which he was penalized for) and brought attention to the event, Evans might have gotten away with it. I know I didn't notice what happened at full speed. I'd compare this to a hitter corking his bat or a pitcher scuffing the ball in baseball, actions that are done deceitfully. Plus, add in the bodily harm that can be done when you are grabbing! and pulling at someone's privates and you realize the league should take a stern position, pardon the pun. So far? Nothing! Maybe they're busy debating whether or not tights violate the on-court dress code.
Ron Artest retaliated, rather gently, with a forearm to Manu Ginobli's noggin in game 1 of the Spurs v. Kings series and was suspended. Yesterday, Raja Bell took Kobe down, admittedly with more force than he should have given the current, suspension-happy, climate. However, Bell's foul of Bryant was no worse than some of the elbows Kobe has hit Bell with during the series. Raja Bell was responsible for the incident yesterday, which resulted in a one game suspension being issued today. Kobe Bryant is also to blame and the league either a) fails to recognize that fact or b) is ignoring it, just like they did when they penalized Ron Artest and not Manu Ginobli.
There has been some physical play in the playoffs this year. But, it's bound to happen when you see the same team over and over again. That is just the way it is. The problem is the league is overreacting. They overreacted to the Artest incident (possibly because of Arte! st's history) and have been hamstrung by it ever since. Dana Jacobsen reasoned, on Cold Pizza this morning, that because Artest got one game, Bell has to get one game. Well, Bell isn't Artest. I don't think it should matter who does what, but it does ... the league cares, at least usually. Each incident is different, despite similarities, so blanket application of rules does not make sense.
Physical play will continue and the referees need to continue to give flagrant and technical fouls for actions that are out-of-line. The league doesn't need to intervene after the fact and automatically suspend guys. What the league should do is look at the entire body of work that leads up to an act before deciding what to do. Artest didn't hurt Ginobli, Bell didn't hurt Bryant, Posey didn't hurt Hinrich. None of these incidents were Kermit Washington - Rudy T. I think Artest and Bell were both within the limits of acceptable action and the league office is shaping! the playoffs ... decreasing the friction the Lakers and Spurs are fac ing in the first round. Maybe the league is trying to create buzz with Spurs v. Mavs and Lakers v. Clippers, battles of LA and TX.
One final note: Reggie Evans should receive a very harsh suspension. If I were handing out suspensions, Evans would get 20 games to start next season and 5 games the next time his team reached the playoffs. Players shouldn't have to worry about having their private parts attacked during games and the league needs to take a stand. Bell and Artest were sending messages in the open. Evans tried to hurt Kaman without the refs seeing. If Kaman had not shoved Evans (which he was penalized for) and brought attention to the event, Evans might have gotten away with it. I know I didn't notice what happened at full speed. I'd compare this to a hitter corking his bat or a pitcher scuffing the ball in baseball, actions that are done deceitfully. Plus, add in the bodily harm that can be done when you are grabbing! and pulling at someone's privates and you realize the league should take a stern position, pardon the pun. So far? Nothing! Maybe they're busy debating whether or not tights violate the on-court dress code.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
