Yesterday on PTI, JA Adande and Michael Wilbon were given AJ Pierzynski's interference play against the Tampa Bay Rays as a topic. JA Adande read the prompter "What do you know? There's a controversial baseball play and AJ Pierzynski's right in the middle of it. This one happened when the White Sox played the Tampa Bay Rays Sunday. Pierzynski was caught in a rundown, he pulled a Vlade Divac worthy flop, and somehow suckered the umpires into calling interference. So, Wilbon, do you applaud your boy's trickery, or should he be punished and the umpires suspended for making a mockery of the game."
Wilbon's answer is as appalling as Pierzynski's actions, although not unexpected: "Come on, baseball's based historically on these types of plays and all kinds of cheating ... Pierzynski is just smart ... Pierzynski knows how to get away with little things, it's savvy ... He made a smart play for his team which was about to get swept by Tampa in a battle of what had been first place teams, the White Sox salvaged that game, they go back into first ..."
Where does Wilbon stand on performance-enhancing drugs? If you condone Pierzynski's actions, you have to support all the steroid and HGH users for trying to help their teams, too ... right? Isn't it "smart" if you can get your chemist to manufacture a product that will help you out and not be detected by league testing?
Or, is it possible that Wilbon enjoys Pierzynski's antics more than similar shenanigans from other players because AJ plays for the Chicago White Sox? As long as one of Wilbon's home town teams benefits, everything is perfect.
Personally, I think Pierzynski should be suspended for a couple games for intentionally deceiving the umpires and baiting them into making an awful call. Additionally, the umpires involved should be suspended a game for allowing themselves to be duped like that. They should have been able to see that Pierzynski wasn't interfered with; it was obvious that Pierzynski went out of his way to try to create contact (emphasis on the "try to create" because there wasn't any meaningful contact). It should be looked at on a case by case basis, but Pierzynski doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me because he has a track-record. At some point, enough is enough. Pierzynski is a good player, but he should be told emphatically by the league that this type of action is unacceptable.
If Wilbon wants to praise Pierzynski, whatever. While baseball doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, Wilbon's opinions on PTI (while I do like PTI) are even less important. So, if he wants to say something outrageous (maybe that's what he was doing on this one?) every once in a while, well, it'll help keep the debate strong. If both people were right, there wouldn't be much debating.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Phelps: Best Athlete?
Michael Phelps has been the talk of the 2008 Olympics thus far, and rightfully so. Phelps set 7 world records during his 17 heat race to a record 8 gold medals. Phelps is a dominant intermediate distance swimmer. He blew away the field in the 400 IM, 200 butterfly (even with the goggle problem), 200 freestyle and 200 IM. He also showed he is the best butterflier in the world by edging Milorad Cavic in the 100 by 0.01 seconds in his most difficult individual test. He also swam the butterfly leg of the 4x100 medley relay for the US. While Phelps didn't swim any breast or backstroke events, his splits in the IM's demonstrated that he is more than adequate at both of those strokes.
Phelps is a great overall swimmer and he is terrific off the turn with his underwater dolphin kick. However, Phelps is hurt in some people's eyes (Skip Bayless, for one) by his inability to show that he is the fastest swimmer on the planet. He didn't attempt the 50 or 100 free, and his split in the lead-off leg of the 4x100 free relay showed that, while Phelps is fast, he's not in the same category in that event as the elite speed freestylers in the world. I imagine he'd be less suited for the 50 free because it doesn't allow him to use his superior endurance/speed combination or his great turns.
So, while Phelps' accomplishments are record-setting and should be applauded, they don't necessitate him being labeled as the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. In fact, I think making that claim based solely on the numbers does a disservice to every Olympic athlete, including Phelps. If you look at numbers of medals as the basis for your decision, you gloss over the actual accomplishments. The accomplishment is winning the 200 butterfly and setting a new WR, or the 200 freestyle, or the ... well, you get the point.
Phelps competes in a sport that allows him to win multiple gold medals. In fact, a swimmer could compete solely in the freestyle and win the 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 4x100 medley relay, 4x100 freestyle relay, and 4x200 freestyle relay. So, without being able to do the breaststroke, backstroke or butterfly, a great freestyler could win 9 gold medals. Sure, it would take an incredible swimmer, but the best a basketball player can do is one gold medal per Olympics (in basketball).
Usain Bolt just set world records in the 100 and 200, laying claim to his position as the world's fastest man. Mark Spitz previously won 7 gold medals in swimming. Usain Bolt is the only man to ever win gold in both the 100 and 200 while setting new WR's in both. Carl Lewis and Jesse Owens never did that. So, you can't just dismiss Bolt because he isn't going to win 8 gold medals. He does what he does better than anyone else ever has, and he's not a one trick pony. He has terrific high end speed and a good enough start to dominate the 100. And, he has enough endurance to cruise to victory in the 200. Of course, Usain Bolt isn't an elite long jumper (to the best of my knowledge) like Carl Lewis was. And, can Usain Bolt sing? Remember Carl Lewis' rendition of the national anthem? Oh yeah, Carl Lewis couldn't really sing either ... but he was a heck of a track athlete.
Michael Phelps has to propel his body through water. While he's unmatched at what he does, he just has to swim. In the decathlon, you have to run the 100m, 400m, 1500m and 110m hurdles. You also have to throw the discuss, shot put and javelin. To top it off, you have to long jump, high jump and pole vault. So, you have to run fast and be able to run relatively quickly over a fairly long distance. Plus, you have to be able to clear objects while running fast. You have to throw three totally different objects. And, you have to be able to jump horizontally, vertically, and launch yourself into the air using a pole. The array of skills required for the decathlon, to me, is far more diverse than the skills required of Michael Phelps. But, you could argue that decathletes aren't able to win any of the 10 events by themselves, so they don't have to be as good at each of the skills as a swimmer who is swimming the 200 free or the 100 butterfly. But, you have to admit that being a good freestyler/breakstroker/backstroker/butterflier doesn't adversely affect a swimmer's ability in the other strokes. However, that isn't true for decathletes. Have you seen the world-class discuss and shot put throwers? They are much thicker than the best 1500m runners in the world, who generally have a much different body shape than the top 100m sprinters in the world.
And, I don't think you can neglect athletes from sports that force you to react to something that an opponent does. And, no, someone going out fast in the 400 IM doesn't count. Michael Phelps knew if he crushed world records, he would be hard to beat. So, it was all about swimming his race (and getting help from teammates in the relays). In his closest race, the 100 fly, he set a new Olympic record, but didn't set the world record. In baseball, basketball, boxing, soccer, volleyball, etc., you have to be able to react to actions of your opponents. Don't you remember that Rocky movie with Ivan Drago?!?
I'm not an Olympic history expert. I didn't see Carl Lewis in 1984. I didn't see Jesse Owens run or Mark Spitz swim. So, I'm not going to throw out a pick for the best Olympic athlete ever. But, I do know you need more than medal counts to figure out the best athlete. If a gymnast won 7 gold medals (individual all-around, and all six event finals), he'd (yes, it's a he because the women only have 4 event finals, so the most a female gymnast could win is 6 gold medals - 5 individual + 1 team) come up one short of Phelps' record. Do you want him to win the 100m and 110m hurdles as well? Come on.
Phelps is a great overall swimmer and he is terrific off the turn with his underwater dolphin kick. However, Phelps is hurt in some people's eyes (Skip Bayless, for one) by his inability to show that he is the fastest swimmer on the planet. He didn't attempt the 50 or 100 free, and his split in the lead-off leg of the 4x100 free relay showed that, while Phelps is fast, he's not in the same category in that event as the elite speed freestylers in the world. I imagine he'd be less suited for the 50 free because it doesn't allow him to use his superior endurance/speed combination or his great turns.
So, while Phelps' accomplishments are record-setting and should be applauded, they don't necessitate him being labeled as the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. In fact, I think making that claim based solely on the numbers does a disservice to every Olympic athlete, including Phelps. If you look at numbers of medals as the basis for your decision, you gloss over the actual accomplishments. The accomplishment is winning the 200 butterfly and setting a new WR, or the 200 freestyle, or the ... well, you get the point.
Phelps competes in a sport that allows him to win multiple gold medals. In fact, a swimmer could compete solely in the freestyle and win the 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 4x100 medley relay, 4x100 freestyle relay, and 4x200 freestyle relay. So, without being able to do the breaststroke, backstroke or butterfly, a great freestyler could win 9 gold medals. Sure, it would take an incredible swimmer, but the best a basketball player can do is one gold medal per Olympics (in basketball).
Usain Bolt just set world records in the 100 and 200, laying claim to his position as the world's fastest man. Mark Spitz previously won 7 gold medals in swimming. Usain Bolt is the only man to ever win gold in both the 100 and 200 while setting new WR's in both. Carl Lewis and Jesse Owens never did that. So, you can't just dismiss Bolt because he isn't going to win 8 gold medals. He does what he does better than anyone else ever has, and he's not a one trick pony. He has terrific high end speed and a good enough start to dominate the 100. And, he has enough endurance to cruise to victory in the 200. Of course, Usain Bolt isn't an elite long jumper (to the best of my knowledge) like Carl Lewis was. And, can Usain Bolt sing? Remember Carl Lewis' rendition of the national anthem? Oh yeah, Carl Lewis couldn't really sing either ... but he was a heck of a track athlete.
Michael Phelps has to propel his body through water. While he's unmatched at what he does, he just has to swim. In the decathlon, you have to run the 100m, 400m, 1500m and 110m hurdles. You also have to throw the discuss, shot put and javelin. To top it off, you have to long jump, high jump and pole vault. So, you have to run fast and be able to run relatively quickly over a fairly long distance. Plus, you have to be able to clear objects while running fast. You have to throw three totally different objects. And, you have to be able to jump horizontally, vertically, and launch yourself into the air using a pole. The array of skills required for the decathlon, to me, is far more diverse than the skills required of Michael Phelps. But, you could argue that decathletes aren't able to win any of the 10 events by themselves, so they don't have to be as good at each of the skills as a swimmer who is swimming the 200 free or the 100 butterfly. But, you have to admit that being a good freestyler/breakstroker/backstroker/butterflier doesn't adversely affect a swimmer's ability in the other strokes. However, that isn't true for decathletes. Have you seen the world-class discuss and shot put throwers? They are much thicker than the best 1500m runners in the world, who generally have a much different body shape than the top 100m sprinters in the world.
And, I don't think you can neglect athletes from sports that force you to react to something that an opponent does. And, no, someone going out fast in the 400 IM doesn't count. Michael Phelps knew if he crushed world records, he would be hard to beat. So, it was all about swimming his race (and getting help from teammates in the relays). In his closest race, the 100 fly, he set a new Olympic record, but didn't set the world record. In baseball, basketball, boxing, soccer, volleyball, etc., you have to be able to react to actions of your opponents. Don't you remember that Rocky movie with Ivan Drago?!?
I'm not an Olympic history expert. I didn't see Carl Lewis in 1984. I didn't see Jesse Owens run or Mark Spitz swim. So, I'm not going to throw out a pick for the best Olympic athlete ever. But, I do know you need more than medal counts to figure out the best athlete. If a gymnast won 7 gold medals (individual all-around, and all six event finals), he'd (yes, it's a he because the women only have 4 event finals, so the most a female gymnast could win is 6 gold medals - 5 individual + 1 team) come up one short of Phelps' record. Do you want him to win the 100m and 110m hurdles as well? Come on.
Manny being subversive
Manny Ramirez finally got his wish, he was banished from Red Sox Nation and sent to Hollywood to play for the Los Angeles Dodgers. I know, I know ... this is old news. Well, it was brought back to the forefront (for me) when I read a column in the Sporting News written by Detroit RP Todd Jones. The column, titled "In an ugly divorce, Manny beat Boston to the punch", Jones seems to defend Manny's actions.
Jones brings up the Twins' treatment of Torii Hunter and Johan Santana, stating that below market contracts were offered, then the terms were leaked so "The play looks greedy, and the team takes the high road." He said "Manny smelled that coming" and that "if the Red Sox didn't want to pick up his options, they would start a discreet campaign to turn the city against him." Jones points to the situation of Nomar Garciaparra as a case when the Red Sox did this previously.
While Jones does write that "I'm not condoning how Manny got out of Boston," I think he's surrounded by too many trees to see the forest. First, I'll get the Nomar case out of the way. Nomar was offered a fairly lucrative multi-year deal by the Red Sox. He turned it down and then his career took a downward trend. The Twins aren't a big market club. They can only afford to pay a couple veterans big money, and spending $20 million per year on a pitcher isn't a wise investment. The Twins can't wrap one third of their payroll into a guy who's going out there once every five days, especially for multiple years. If Santana got seriously hurt in the first year of a six year deal, the Twins would be crippled financially for years. If Hunter and Santana wanted to stay in Minnesota, they could have accepted slightly below market deals.
Moving back to the Ramirez situation, tanking like Manny did was ridiculous, even by Ramirez's standards. If Manny knew that the Red Sox weren't going to pick up his options for 2009 and 2010, as Jones contends, then why didn't Manny just go all out and try to post the best numbers he could in his last year in Boston? If he knew he wasn't going to be in Boston next year, then he knew he'd be a free agent this winter. While he has been on fire since joining the Dodgers (.424 BA, 6 HR's, 21 RBI in 16 games), he failed to show he could produce for the entire season after having a sub-par (for Manny) 2007 season - maybe he was tanking a little last year, too? Even worse, Manny showed the kind of behavior he is capable of if he isn't happy. No GM with a solid head on his shoulders is going to give Manny the long-term deal he's looking for because of the possibility that Manny will decide that he doesn't want to play hard. At that point, it will be the GM's problem and said GM will have to figure out how to maximize value in a trade (as Theo did in Boston) to pass the buck or figure out how to make Manny happy (good luck).
I'm not sure what went wrong for Manny in Boston, but I think the situation is further evidence that the compensation system in baseball needs to be reworked. The salary structure up front for stars like Ryan Braun, Miguel Cabrera, Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder, etc. is out-of-whack. Similarly, veterans shouldn't be on 7-year, guaranteed money deals. If Manny could have left Boston (or Boston could have kicked Manny to the curb to pursue A-Rod) years ago, this whole fiasco never would have materialized. And, maybe the Mariners would have a few more wins for all the millions they've spent this year. But, unfortunately, I know a new, improved system isn't on the horizon.
Jones brings up the Twins' treatment of Torii Hunter and Johan Santana, stating that below market contracts were offered, then the terms were leaked so "The play looks greedy, and the team takes the high road." He said "Manny smelled that coming" and that "if the Red Sox didn't want to pick up his options, they would start a discreet campaign to turn the city against him." Jones points to the situation of Nomar Garciaparra as a case when the Red Sox did this previously.
While Jones does write that "I'm not condoning how Manny got out of Boston," I think he's surrounded by too many trees to see the forest. First, I'll get the Nomar case out of the way. Nomar was offered a fairly lucrative multi-year deal by the Red Sox. He turned it down and then his career took a downward trend. The Twins aren't a big market club. They can only afford to pay a couple veterans big money, and spending $20 million per year on a pitcher isn't a wise investment. The Twins can't wrap one third of their payroll into a guy who's going out there once every five days, especially for multiple years. If Santana got seriously hurt in the first year of a six year deal, the Twins would be crippled financially for years. If Hunter and Santana wanted to stay in Minnesota, they could have accepted slightly below market deals.
Moving back to the Ramirez situation, tanking like Manny did was ridiculous, even by Ramirez's standards. If Manny knew that the Red Sox weren't going to pick up his options for 2009 and 2010, as Jones contends, then why didn't Manny just go all out and try to post the best numbers he could in his last year in Boston? If he knew he wasn't going to be in Boston next year, then he knew he'd be a free agent this winter. While he has been on fire since joining the Dodgers (.424 BA, 6 HR's, 21 RBI in 16 games), he failed to show he could produce for the entire season after having a sub-par (for Manny) 2007 season - maybe he was tanking a little last year, too? Even worse, Manny showed the kind of behavior he is capable of if he isn't happy. No GM with a solid head on his shoulders is going to give Manny the long-term deal he's looking for because of the possibility that Manny will decide that he doesn't want to play hard. At that point, it will be the GM's problem and said GM will have to figure out how to maximize value in a trade (as Theo did in Boston) to pass the buck or figure out how to make Manny happy (good luck).
I'm not sure what went wrong for Manny in Boston, but I think the situation is further evidence that the compensation system in baseball needs to be reworked. The salary structure up front for stars like Ryan Braun, Miguel Cabrera, Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder, etc. is out-of-whack. Similarly, veterans shouldn't be on 7-year, guaranteed money deals. If Manny could have left Boston (or Boston could have kicked Manny to the curb to pursue A-Rod) years ago, this whole fiasco never would have materialized. And, maybe the Mariners would have a few more wins for all the millions they've spent this year. But, unfortunately, I know a new, improved system isn't on the horizon.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Medal Count - Who cares?
Yes, I know, the Olympic medal count is sacred. Winning the overall (and gold) medal count proves the athletic superiority of your country! Right.
The only thing the medal count is useful for is counting medals. You can see which country has won the most medals. You can see if a country won more medals than in previous games, although this is tricky if the number of events changes. When did synchronized diving become an Olympic sport?
Now, divers can not only win their regular diving events, they can also team up and win the synchronized diving competition. Nice. While there may (and I stress the word "may") be demand for synchronized diving, I find the event to be ridiculous. While the judging in diving hurts it in my sports definition, the additional judging required in the synchronized event essentially eliminates it from any consideration, at least in my eyes. What's next, 3 people diving side-by-side-by-side in harmony? How 'bout 4? I can hardly wait!
Many of the best athletes in the United States play football, baseball and basketball. Hockey and soccer are other team sports that suck up large athletic resources of many countries. And, while basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball (at least this year) are Olympic sports, there is only 1 medal at stake, even though there are at least 12 players on each of those teams. And, while a country might have more than one individual (track events, among others) or team (beach volleyball) in some sports, you only get one entry per country in the large team sports.
So, what's my point? Not all sports are treated equally when it comes to medal allotment. Michael Phelps won 8 gold medals at this Olympics. If Nastia Liukin and her teammates on the USA gymnastics team had swept everything, she would have won 6 gold medals (team, individual all-around, and event finals on the uneven bars, vault, floor and balance beam). Phelps won three relays, the 200 free, two IM's, and the 100 and 200 butterfly. He didn't compete in the 100 and 200 breast and back or the 50, 100, 400, 800 or 1500 free, or any of the ones I may have left off the list.
So, even if you can simplify it down and say that only Olympic events determine the worth of a country's athletes, which you can't, it doesn't make sense to base things solely off medals. But, I guess, if your country's doing well in the medal count, you can go ahead and taunt people from other countries ... but I won't be doing that.
The only thing the medal count is useful for is counting medals. You can see which country has won the most medals. You can see if a country won more medals than in previous games, although this is tricky if the number of events changes. When did synchronized diving become an Olympic sport?
Now, divers can not only win their regular diving events, they can also team up and win the synchronized diving competition. Nice. While there may (and I stress the word "may") be demand for synchronized diving, I find the event to be ridiculous. While the judging in diving hurts it in my sports definition, the additional judging required in the synchronized event essentially eliminates it from any consideration, at least in my eyes. What's next, 3 people diving side-by-side-by-side in harmony? How 'bout 4? I can hardly wait!
Many of the best athletes in the United States play football, baseball and basketball. Hockey and soccer are other team sports that suck up large athletic resources of many countries. And, while basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball (at least this year) are Olympic sports, there is only 1 medal at stake, even though there are at least 12 players on each of those teams. And, while a country might have more than one individual (track events, among others) or team (beach volleyball) in some sports, you only get one entry per country in the large team sports.
So, what's my point? Not all sports are treated equally when it comes to medal allotment. Michael Phelps won 8 gold medals at this Olympics. If Nastia Liukin and her teammates on the USA gymnastics team had swept everything, she would have won 6 gold medals (team, individual all-around, and event finals on the uneven bars, vault, floor and balance beam). Phelps won three relays, the 200 free, two IM's, and the 100 and 200 butterfly. He didn't compete in the 100 and 200 breast and back or the 50, 100, 400, 800 or 1500 free, or any of the ones I may have left off the list.
So, even if you can simplify it down and say that only Olympic events determine the worth of a country's athletes, which you can't, it doesn't make sense to base things solely off medals. But, I guess, if your country's doing well in the medal count, you can go ahead and taunt people from other countries ... but I won't be doing that.
Monday, August 11, 2008
What did Sapp say?
During NFL Live today, Warren Sapp offered the following while praising Brett Favre: "pressure only busts a pipe, and I think he's not made of PCP."
PCP is the abbreviation for phencyclidine, a dissociative drug. Sapp was looking for PVC, which is the abbreviation for the common thermoplastic polymer polyvinyl chloride.
However, it's hard to bust on Sapp too much for a simple slip of the tongue like this one. On the other hand, the idea that LBJ or Kobe taking the massive money being talked about from a team in Europe will automatically lead to David Stern opening up a European NBA division is ludicrous in a much more offensive fashion. At this point, I'm not sure who I first heard this idea from (I think it was someone on ATH or PTI). But, that's neither here nor there.
The problem with that thought is that I seriously doubt LeBron James wants to play in Greece (over NY) if the money is the same. So, unless Stern is going to allow the European teams to circumvent the salary structure associated with the rest of the NBA, James isn't going to reside on the other side of the Atlantic while playing in the NBA. I don't always know what Stern is thinking, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to shift the power in the NBA to Europe by allowing European squads in his league to pay free agents whatever they want. Stern won't allow it and neither will the North American owners.
If Stern thinks Kobe and LeBron (and others stars) might actually leave the NBA, he might have to rethink the current salary structure in the game - which wouldn't be a bad idea, if you ask me. Or, is it possible that Kobe and LeBron are posturing and are just using the prospect of a big European deal to get more money in the NBA?
PCP is the abbreviation for phencyclidine, a dissociative drug. Sapp was looking for PVC, which is the abbreviation for the common thermoplastic polymer polyvinyl chloride.
However, it's hard to bust on Sapp too much for a simple slip of the tongue like this one. On the other hand, the idea that LBJ or Kobe taking the massive money being talked about from a team in Europe will automatically lead to David Stern opening up a European NBA division is ludicrous in a much more offensive fashion. At this point, I'm not sure who I first heard this idea from (I think it was someone on ATH or PTI). But, that's neither here nor there.
The problem with that thought is that I seriously doubt LeBron James wants to play in Greece (over NY) if the money is the same. So, unless Stern is going to allow the European teams to circumvent the salary structure associated with the rest of the NBA, James isn't going to reside on the other side of the Atlantic while playing in the NBA. I don't always know what Stern is thinking, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to shift the power in the NBA to Europe by allowing European squads in his league to pay free agents whatever they want. Stern won't allow it and neither will the North American owners.
If Stern thinks Kobe and LeBron (and others stars) might actually leave the NBA, he might have to rethink the current salary structure in the game - which wouldn't be a bad idea, if you ask me. Or, is it possible that Kobe and LeBron are posturing and are just using the prospect of a big European deal to get more money in the NBA?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
