Somehow, we shouldn't be surprised. Anymore, the sports media, especially the TV talking heads, will find a way to create a new hero just about every day in their own minds -- then attempt to convince the viewing public of that particular athlete's iconic status. We should stand in awe and bow our heads in reverence, they will breathlessly claim. Whether or not the hypester folks perpetually flapping their soup coolers really believe that stuff themselves would seem to be a very good question. Yes, they've got a job to do. I get that, and evidently the sort of stuff they spout must be popular amongst many, because ratings matter in their world. I get that too, but after a while of being continually bombarded by these people trying to make mountains out of molehills -- it can not only get wearisome, but cause an objective fan to cast a very skeptical eye on what they just saw and heard.
Enter Derek Jeter as their latest offering of an athlete that is so "special" -- in their minds -- that he should be given special treatment as well, in particular when it comes to Jeter being eligible for enshrinement in baseball's Hall of Fame. Now don't get me wrong. Yours truly has a huge amount of respect for what Jeter has accomplished over his on-going major league career. He's put up a slew of very impressive individual statistics, both offensively and defensively since he broke into the majors back in 1995. Jeter's also won a fistful of World Series' over that time, and for the last 10 years has been the "captain" of the Yankees, arguably the highest profile team in all of sports. He's also been known across the baseball spectrum as the consummate teammate. And all the while, he seems to have been a model citizen in his off-the-field life. There are few athletes in history that have ever had such a glowing resume.
But now, the idea has been floated that when Jeter becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame, he should be voted in unanimously. Yours truly would be hard pressed to explain why any voter would leave Jeter off his/her ballot when the time came, but wait a minute.
NOBODY'S ever been unanimously voted in. EVER. It's mind-boggling that players the likes of Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, Musial, Williams, DiMaggio, and umpteen other legends of the game were left off certain ballots when they became eligible to be voted on for enshrinement -- but they were.
Quick quiz. Which player got the highest percentage of Hall of Fame votes in history? The answer, below, may surprise you.
Sure, unless he pulls a Pete Rose or Barry Bonds type stunt before he hangs up his cleats, highly unlikely, Jeter's probably a shoo-in for the Hall when his time comes. But does anyone really believe he should be the first to get 100% of the ballots when a guy like Babe Ruth only got 95.13%? And by the way, why is there current talk of Jeter going into the Hall anyway? Last time I looked, he was still playing, and could for a few more years. Then there's a 5 year waiting period before he'd even be considered. It could well be into the 2020's before he becomes eligible anyway. So why, pray tell, should anybody be the least bit concerned right now about what might happen that far down the road? Can't the sound byte monsters think of anything better to serve up to us? (That's almost as bad as that commercial featuring Joe Theisman talking about his prostate. Excuse me, but I don't want to hear about Joe Theisman's prostate either.)
Regardless, Jeter shouldn't get any special treatment when the time comes. One guy got that, but I still think it was wrong. That was Roberto Clemente, who had an equally, if not superior career with the Pittsburgh Pirates as that Jeter has enjoyed with the Yankees. On December 31, 1972, Clemente perished in an airplane crash not far from his native Puerto Rico, while trying to get humanitarian aid to Nicaragua, in the aftermath of a horrendous earthquake that had left that country devastated. It was a noble cause indeed, and Clemente's untimely death was certainly a tragedy. His body was never recovered from the sea. Less than 3 months later, on March 20, 1973, the Baseball Writers Association of America, the scribes who do the actual voting on Hall of Fame nominees, convened a special session. Clemente garnered 92.69% of the votes to posthumously gain immediate induction. But with all due respect to the legacy of a fantastic baseball player, and an even better man -- why should Clemente have warranted such special treatment at the time to have the 5 year waiting period waived? Had he not been on that plane and instead got into a terrible car accident, which he survived, but left him unable to ever play again, that emergency meeting of the BWAA probably never would have taken place. Even though he was a "lock" for the H of F, Clemente would have been put on hold for 5 years like everybody else. Not to be insensitive, but what's really the difference?
Quick quiz answer. Tom Seaver got 98.84% of the vote, barely edging out Nolan Ryan, who checks in second with 98.79%.
Out of all the legends to ever play the game, you'll never guess who got the 3rd highest voting percentage into the H of F. That was Cal Ripken Jr., at 98.53%. He was only a .276 career hitter, but dammit, he played a lot of games in a row. For posterity's sake, that ranks Ripken well above the aforementioned names of Ruth, Cobb, etc.
For that matter, Willie Mays only garnered 94.68% of the vote to be a mere 14th on the all-time percentage list. Evidently, in the eyes of the voters, Cal Jr. was much more deserving of a plaque in Cooperstown than the Say Hey Kid. How in the hell can THAT be?
I have a theory on that. As time has gone on, the media exposure, along with the hype they espouse, keeps getting greater and greater for these players. And let's face it. For all their wisdom and experience, the distinguished members of the BWAA are only human. Like propaganda, if they keep hearing the same thing over and over and over again, they might just start believing it.
By the time the spin-meisters are done, maybe Jeter will get that 100% after all.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Bias in the NBA
NBA fans, at least the objective ones, have known for a long time that the rules don't seem to be exactly equal when it comes to league referees making calls during the course of games.
Recent case in point: Guard Ray Allen, formerly a long-time fixture with the Boston Celtics, who jumped ship to the Miami Heat before last year and won a title. Allen is a well-known commodity. During a game against the Minnesota Timberwolves, Allen was dribbling the ball and pushed off with his free arm on Minnesota defender JJ Barea. (Barea obviously does not enjoy the same name recognition as Allen.) Perhaps technically it should have been called a foul, but things like that happen all the time in the NBA so play went on. It was no big deal and no call was made. However, just a short while later, much the same scenario played itself out, but that time Barea gave Allen a similar one-armed shove. It was no big deal either, but Allen became incensed. He attempted to charge Barea, with what looked like mayhem on his mind, for what he deemed to have been some sort of assault upon his person. Luckily, other players and officials intervened and stopped the incident from escalating. Nevertheless, when all was said and done, Barea had been slapped with a flagrant foul, Miami somehow wound up shooting 3 technical foul free throws, and Barea was ejected from the game. Allen would not only play on, but claimed in a post-game TV interview that what Barea had done was "bush league". In reality, Barea had done no more to Allen than Allen had done to him a short while before. Evidently, Ray-Ray thinks it's OK to do things to others, but when he gets a dose of his own medicine -- it's time to throw down. Worse yet, the officials in the league seem to buy into it.
It's happened a lot in the league over the years. Everybody remembers Shaquille O'Neal. Between height and weight, he was probably the player with the most total girth ever to play in the NBA. Shaq would routinely receive the ball maybe 10-12 feet from basket. Never much of a shooter, he'd typically lower his shoulder, take one dribble, and make contact with a stationary defender -- pushing him back a foot or two. Excuse me, but that was a foul. Another dribble, another bump, another couple feet of displacement. Repeat a couple more times -- and presto -- Shaq would be right under the basket, and merely stand on his toes to slam home a dunk. Because Shaq was a super-star, nobody batted an eye and such a play was deemed acceptable. Nevermind he committed 3-4 charging fouls along the way which weren't called. For that matter, consider the opposite scenario. The very same player that Shaq pushed around is trying to score himself on the other end of the court. If he bumped into the man-mountain, chances are he'd just bounce off, maybe even winding up on the floor. But incredibly, he might get whistled for a charging call, and Shaq might be bricking a couple more free throw attempts. How could that be right?
Besides Ray Allen on the Miami Heat, super-star Dwyane Wade routinely gets away with bulldozing a defender on the way to the basket. If any call is made, it typically goes against the defender. Not only did he get knocked down, he'll have to watch D-Wade shoot free throws. That's always been OK. Still is. Flip the scenario, and have that same guy run over Wade in the same manner, and not only will he get called for charging, but perhaps "flagrantly". To boot, Wade would probably jump up and want to fight like Allen did, and the poor guy that got ran over on the other end of the court 20 seconds ago in the same fashion, by the same guy, would be lucky if HE didn't get tossed out of the game. It's not right.
We've seen other big names get away with the same shenanigans over the years. Kobe Bryant can push, shove, bump, poke, and pretty much do whatever he wants without a whistle blowing. If a defender somehow makes the slightest incidental contact with Kobe, Mr. Bryant will often fall to the floor writhing in pain like he just got tased. Tweet goes the official's whistle. While still grimacing, limping, or shaking an arm trying to get the "feeling" back into it from the horrific "physical abuse" he had suffered moments earlier, Kobe will shoot free throws. Most times he'll even favor the leg that supposedly originally got hurt, or shake the correct arm, trying to get some "feeling" back into it, that supposedly originally suffered the "brutal" contact. Regardless, magically, as play recommences, Kobe is completely cured. It's a miracle. And the refs continue to buy it. Paul Pierce of the Boston Celtics does much the same thing, along with others.
Likely the all time Rodney Dangerfield poster-child for getting no respect was former Detroit Piston Bill Laimbeer. There were countless times when Laimbeer would establish his defensive position, arms straight up in the air, and stand as still as a snowman. Then somebody like Michael Jordan would run right through him on the way to the basket, with Laimbeer winding up on the floor. Guess who got called for a foul?
And it's not even just basketball. It's always happened in other sports as well. The good players always seem to get the benefit of the calls, sometimes to the point of being outrageous. Tom Glavine, longtime ace pitcher for the Atlanta Braves and likely future Hall of Famer, had his own scam going on for years. Glavine was just a little guy, and he didn't have overpowering stuff, but he possessed precise control with his pitches. Glavine would routinely throw a pitch thigh-high, but 3-4 inches outside the strike zone. He knew it was a ball. The catcher knew it was a ball, the batter knew it was a ball, and everybody watching on TV knew it was a ball. But with his control, Glavine would keep "painting" that same spot over and over and over again. After a while, the home plate umpire would somehow become convinced that if Glavine could keep hitting the same spot over and over again -- they must be strikes, so he'd call them strikes. It seemed to happen every time, with every different umpire -- for years -- but those pitches were all still balls. When the batters would start crowding the plate to cover them, all Glavine had to do was throw a little "chin music" one time, or plunk a guy in the ribs, and the opposing hitters would back off the plate to start the cycle over again. Glavine was truly a master at that art, but it didn't make it right.
And don't get me started on soccer. Some of those guys put folks like Kobe to shame with their drama queen routines. It's like if an opposing player even comes close to touching them, they'll flop to the pitch like they just stepped on a land mine. A minute later they'll be back running up and down the field. Another miracle.
But it isn't right. Never has been. Never will be.
Granted, some athletes are more talented than others, and salaries can vary wildly. But hey, if they're playing the same game in the same league -- is it really too much to ask that they play by the same rules?
Recent case in point: Guard Ray Allen, formerly a long-time fixture with the Boston Celtics, who jumped ship to the Miami Heat before last year and won a title. Allen is a well-known commodity. During a game against the Minnesota Timberwolves, Allen was dribbling the ball and pushed off with his free arm on Minnesota defender JJ Barea. (Barea obviously does not enjoy the same name recognition as Allen.) Perhaps technically it should have been called a foul, but things like that happen all the time in the NBA so play went on. It was no big deal and no call was made. However, just a short while later, much the same scenario played itself out, but that time Barea gave Allen a similar one-armed shove. It was no big deal either, but Allen became incensed. He attempted to charge Barea, with what looked like mayhem on his mind, for what he deemed to have been some sort of assault upon his person. Luckily, other players and officials intervened and stopped the incident from escalating. Nevertheless, when all was said and done, Barea had been slapped with a flagrant foul, Miami somehow wound up shooting 3 technical foul free throws, and Barea was ejected from the game. Allen would not only play on, but claimed in a post-game TV interview that what Barea had done was "bush league". In reality, Barea had done no more to Allen than Allen had done to him a short while before. Evidently, Ray-Ray thinks it's OK to do things to others, but when he gets a dose of his own medicine -- it's time to throw down. Worse yet, the officials in the league seem to buy into it.
It's happened a lot in the league over the years. Everybody remembers Shaquille O'Neal. Between height and weight, he was probably the player with the most total girth ever to play in the NBA. Shaq would routinely receive the ball maybe 10-12 feet from basket. Never much of a shooter, he'd typically lower his shoulder, take one dribble, and make contact with a stationary defender -- pushing him back a foot or two. Excuse me, but that was a foul. Another dribble, another bump, another couple feet of displacement. Repeat a couple more times -- and presto -- Shaq would be right under the basket, and merely stand on his toes to slam home a dunk. Because Shaq was a super-star, nobody batted an eye and such a play was deemed acceptable. Nevermind he committed 3-4 charging fouls along the way which weren't called. For that matter, consider the opposite scenario. The very same player that Shaq pushed around is trying to score himself on the other end of the court. If he bumped into the man-mountain, chances are he'd just bounce off, maybe even winding up on the floor. But incredibly, he might get whistled for a charging call, and Shaq might be bricking a couple more free throw attempts. How could that be right?
Besides Ray Allen on the Miami Heat, super-star Dwyane Wade routinely gets away with bulldozing a defender on the way to the basket. If any call is made, it typically goes against the defender. Not only did he get knocked down, he'll have to watch D-Wade shoot free throws. That's always been OK. Still is. Flip the scenario, and have that same guy run over Wade in the same manner, and not only will he get called for charging, but perhaps "flagrantly". To boot, Wade would probably jump up and want to fight like Allen did, and the poor guy that got ran over on the other end of the court 20 seconds ago in the same fashion, by the same guy, would be lucky if HE didn't get tossed out of the game. It's not right.
We've seen other big names get away with the same shenanigans over the years. Kobe Bryant can push, shove, bump, poke, and pretty much do whatever he wants without a whistle blowing. If a defender somehow makes the slightest incidental contact with Kobe, Mr. Bryant will often fall to the floor writhing in pain like he just got tased. Tweet goes the official's whistle. While still grimacing, limping, or shaking an arm trying to get the "feeling" back into it from the horrific "physical abuse" he had suffered moments earlier, Kobe will shoot free throws. Most times he'll even favor the leg that supposedly originally got hurt, or shake the correct arm, trying to get some "feeling" back into it, that supposedly originally suffered the "brutal" contact. Regardless, magically, as play recommences, Kobe is completely cured. It's a miracle. And the refs continue to buy it. Paul Pierce of the Boston Celtics does much the same thing, along with others.
Likely the all time Rodney Dangerfield poster-child for getting no respect was former Detroit Piston Bill Laimbeer. There were countless times when Laimbeer would establish his defensive position, arms straight up in the air, and stand as still as a snowman. Then somebody like Michael Jordan would run right through him on the way to the basket, with Laimbeer winding up on the floor. Guess who got called for a foul?
And it's not even just basketball. It's always happened in other sports as well. The good players always seem to get the benefit of the calls, sometimes to the point of being outrageous. Tom Glavine, longtime ace pitcher for the Atlanta Braves and likely future Hall of Famer, had his own scam going on for years. Glavine was just a little guy, and he didn't have overpowering stuff, but he possessed precise control with his pitches. Glavine would routinely throw a pitch thigh-high, but 3-4 inches outside the strike zone. He knew it was a ball. The catcher knew it was a ball, the batter knew it was a ball, and everybody watching on TV knew it was a ball. But with his control, Glavine would keep "painting" that same spot over and over and over again. After a while, the home plate umpire would somehow become convinced that if Glavine could keep hitting the same spot over and over again -- they must be strikes, so he'd call them strikes. It seemed to happen every time, with every different umpire -- for years -- but those pitches were all still balls. When the batters would start crowding the plate to cover them, all Glavine had to do was throw a little "chin music" one time, or plunk a guy in the ribs, and the opposing hitters would back off the plate to start the cycle over again. Glavine was truly a master at that art, but it didn't make it right.
And don't get me started on soccer. Some of those guys put folks like Kobe to shame with their drama queen routines. It's like if an opposing player even comes close to touching them, they'll flop to the pitch like they just stepped on a land mine. A minute later they'll be back running up and down the field. Another miracle.
But it isn't right. Never has been. Never will be.
Granted, some athletes are more talented than others, and salaries can vary wildly. But hey, if they're playing the same game in the same league -- is it really too much to ask that they play by the same rules?
Monday, March 4, 2013
Who's the greatest of all time?
A lot of people in sports have been called "the greatest" at what they do -- or did. After a while, it gets hard to sort them out.
In football, Jim Brown was the greatest running back. Then a guy named Gale Sayers came along and, if his career hadn't been cut short by a knee injury, or medical science was then what it is now -- maybe he would have been the greatest. Later, there was another Chicago Bear named Walter Payton who was considered the greatest. If Barry Sanders hadn't got sick and tired of the Detroit Lions' losing ways and took a premature retirement -- maybe HE would have been the greatest. Now some dude named Adrian is on the scene tearing it up, and maybe in a few years HE'LL be the greatest. Beats me.
Babe Ruth was the greatest home run hitter. Then Roger Maris hit his 61 in '61 to eclipse the Babe's single-season record of 60.. But Maris had 8 more games to get that last home run. Nobody much mentions Maris anymore, so he couldn't have been THAT great. Career-wise, for decades Ruth's 714 home run record looked untouchable. But a guy named Hank Aaron was pounding out 35-40 dingers every year, played for a long time, and finally shattered the Babe's record by putting up 755. Maybe HE was the greatest. Of course, Barry Bonds eventually surpassed them both with 762. But Bonds was associated with the steroid thing. Maybe he took them and maybe he didn't. And if he did, maybe he could have broke the record anyway even if he didn't. If that sounds confusing -- not to worry. Yours truly has been lost for years, but let's press on anyway. At any rate, I dare say nobody calls Bonds the greatest.
Joe Louis was considered the greatest heavyweight champ, having held the title for 12 years. Years later some guy named Cassius Clay came along, won the title, changed his name to Muhammed Ali, and started saying HE was the greatest. A lot of people still believe him. But he got whupped in his prime by the likes of Leon Spinks. That doesn't sound so great. Nobody talks much about Rocky Marciano either anymore, but HE was the only one to go undefeated during his entire heavyweight professional career. Shouldn't that count for something?
Gordie Howe was the greatest hockey player -- until that skinny kid named Wayne Gretzky came along and shattered all his scoring records. Who's the greatest? Take your pick.
Jesse Owens was the greatest track star back in the 30s. Fast forward a few decades and Carl Lewis was considered the greatest. These days, a Jamaican named Usain Bolt would blow by either one of them like they were in slow motion. After all, it's still just a man running a 100 meter dash on his own two legs. Maybe HE'S the greatest.
Jack Nicklaus was the greatest golfer. Then Tiger Woods took the game by storm and was winning seemingly everything. Surely he would eclipse Jack's records, particularly the number of "major" tournament victories. Tiger was the greatest. But in the last few years, Tiger has slowed down and maybe he won't pass that record after all. To boot, that pesky young Irish lad, one Rory McIlroy, is ranked #1 in the world at the tender young age of 23. So far, given his age and experience, he's equalled or surpassed a lot of things Jack and Tiger did at the same point in their careers. Some project HIM to be the greatest.
Once upon a time, many thought Oscar Robertson was the greatest basketball player. Some guy named Michael Jordan showed up years later, and now HE'S considered the greatest. But hold on, there's another dude named Lebron James that might be even better than Jordan. Could HE be the greatest? Is there another kid in a gym somewhere that will come along one day and make us all forget about Jordan and James, so HE can be the greatest? Who knows?
Lance Armstrong was undoubtedly the greatest cyclist of all time. But then, well, you know the rest.
Rod Laver was the greatest tennis player. Then guys like Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg made a lot of people forget about what Laver ever did. Go forward another generation and names like Pete Sampras and Roger Federer come to mind as the greatest. Who was indeed the greatest? Beats me -- it might turn out to be that Serbian guy Novak Djokovic that's been steam-rolling the tennis world for the last few years, and continues to do so.
All in all, it just seems like "the greatest" is a phrase that gets used way too often (this article notwithstanding of course, nyuk, nyuk). However, there should only be ONE that is the greatest of them all -- at least among us mere mortals.
Indeed there was, and it has absolutely nothing to do with sports. Further, though I've referred only to male athletes above as examples, it was not meant to overlook the fairer sex. Certainly, the ladies have put forth their own versions of the "greatest". For that matter, yours truly considers "the greatest of all time" to be a woman.
Unlike Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali , she never saw the need to proclaim herself as the "greatest". Nor did the media over-hype her every move, as they are so prone to do today with their hero of the day/week/month/year, whatever.
Quite the contrary. She, along with so many of us over the years, came to know her status as the all-time #1 because of her husband. He was the one that shouted it out repeatedly to her, and I dare say we all came to believe him.
That woman's name was Audrey Meadows (1922-1996). Even the "Great One" himself (Jackie Gleason/Ralph Kramden) told us over and over......
Alice, you're the greatest.
Names in sports come and go, but there will never be another Alice. May she rest in peace on the moon. After all, isn't that where Ralph ("one of these days -- pow -- zoom") kept promising to send her?
I rest my case.
In football, Jim Brown was the greatest running back. Then a guy named Gale Sayers came along and, if his career hadn't been cut short by a knee injury, or medical science was then what it is now -- maybe he would have been the greatest. Later, there was another Chicago Bear named Walter Payton who was considered the greatest. If Barry Sanders hadn't got sick and tired of the Detroit Lions' losing ways and took a premature retirement -- maybe HE would have been the greatest. Now some dude named Adrian is on the scene tearing it up, and maybe in a few years HE'LL be the greatest. Beats me.
Babe Ruth was the greatest home run hitter. Then Roger Maris hit his 61 in '61 to eclipse the Babe's single-season record of 60.. But Maris had 8 more games to get that last home run. Nobody much mentions Maris anymore, so he couldn't have been THAT great. Career-wise, for decades Ruth's 714 home run record looked untouchable. But a guy named Hank Aaron was pounding out 35-40 dingers every year, played for a long time, and finally shattered the Babe's record by putting up 755. Maybe HE was the greatest. Of course, Barry Bonds eventually surpassed them both with 762. But Bonds was associated with the steroid thing. Maybe he took them and maybe he didn't. And if he did, maybe he could have broke the record anyway even if he didn't. If that sounds confusing -- not to worry. Yours truly has been lost for years, but let's press on anyway. At any rate, I dare say nobody calls Bonds the greatest.
Joe Louis was considered the greatest heavyweight champ, having held the title for 12 years. Years later some guy named Cassius Clay came along, won the title, changed his name to Muhammed Ali, and started saying HE was the greatest. A lot of people still believe him. But he got whupped in his prime by the likes of Leon Spinks. That doesn't sound so great. Nobody talks much about Rocky Marciano either anymore, but HE was the only one to go undefeated during his entire heavyweight professional career. Shouldn't that count for something?
Gordie Howe was the greatest hockey player -- until that skinny kid named Wayne Gretzky came along and shattered all his scoring records. Who's the greatest? Take your pick.
Jesse Owens was the greatest track star back in the 30s. Fast forward a few decades and Carl Lewis was considered the greatest. These days, a Jamaican named Usain Bolt would blow by either one of them like they were in slow motion. After all, it's still just a man running a 100 meter dash on his own two legs. Maybe HE'S the greatest.
Jack Nicklaus was the greatest golfer. Then Tiger Woods took the game by storm and was winning seemingly everything. Surely he would eclipse Jack's records, particularly the number of "major" tournament victories. Tiger was the greatest. But in the last few years, Tiger has slowed down and maybe he won't pass that record after all. To boot, that pesky young Irish lad, one Rory McIlroy, is ranked #1 in the world at the tender young age of 23. So far, given his age and experience, he's equalled or surpassed a lot of things Jack and Tiger did at the same point in their careers. Some project HIM to be the greatest.
Once upon a time, many thought Oscar Robertson was the greatest basketball player. Some guy named Michael Jordan showed up years later, and now HE'S considered the greatest. But hold on, there's another dude named Lebron James that might be even better than Jordan. Could HE be the greatest? Is there another kid in a gym somewhere that will come along one day and make us all forget about Jordan and James, so HE can be the greatest? Who knows?
Lance Armstrong was undoubtedly the greatest cyclist of all time. But then, well, you know the rest.
Rod Laver was the greatest tennis player. Then guys like Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg made a lot of people forget about what Laver ever did. Go forward another generation and names like Pete Sampras and Roger Federer come to mind as the greatest. Who was indeed the greatest? Beats me -- it might turn out to be that Serbian guy Novak Djokovic that's been steam-rolling the tennis world for the last few years, and continues to do so.
All in all, it just seems like "the greatest" is a phrase that gets used way too often (this article notwithstanding of course, nyuk, nyuk). However, there should only be ONE that is the greatest of them all -- at least among us mere mortals.
Indeed there was, and it has absolutely nothing to do with sports. Further, though I've referred only to male athletes above as examples, it was not meant to overlook the fairer sex. Certainly, the ladies have put forth their own versions of the "greatest". For that matter, yours truly considers "the greatest of all time" to be a woman.
Unlike Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali , she never saw the need to proclaim herself as the "greatest". Nor did the media over-hype her every move, as they are so prone to do today with their hero of the day/week/month/year, whatever.
Quite the contrary. She, along with so many of us over the years, came to know her status as the all-time #1 because of her husband. He was the one that shouted it out repeatedly to her, and I dare say we all came to believe him.
That woman's name was Audrey Meadows (1922-1996). Even the "Great One" himself (Jackie Gleason/Ralph Kramden) told us over and over......
Alice, you're the greatest.
Names in sports come and go, but there will never be another Alice. May she rest in peace on the moon. After all, isn't that where Ralph ("one of these days -- pow -- zoom") kept promising to send her?
I rest my case.
Michigan didn't prove anything
Some will say Michigan proved their "toughness" by defeating cross-state arch rival Michigan State in the basketball game. Actually, they did no such thing. In fact, in front of their rabid home crowd, the Wolverines were lucky to barely escape with a 1 point victory.
Winning in the Big Ten is tough these days, especially on the road. Even Indiana, possibly the best team in the country, would probably attest to that. They've lost a couple close games on the road to teams they likely would have throttled at home (and also a couple home games that are head scratchers, but everybody has a sub-par outing once in a while). The Big Ten has 6-7 teams that could qualify for the NCAA tournament coming around in a little over a week. There's been some serious in-conference competition going on over the course of the regular season.
As for UM/MSU this time around? The Spartans didn't really have a bad game, nor did the Wolverines necessarily have a good one. In the end, a one point victory is just that. As close as it gets. But remember, this was played on Michigan's home court which, theoretically, is supposed to make a big difference. No doubt, the Wolverines wanted some pay-back for the 23 point thrashing they had suffered at the hands of the Spartans 3 weeks ago on MSU's home court. It was supposed to be a "statement" game. Instead, UM was indeed fortunate to squeak by with the narrowest of victories. That could hardly be considered a "statement" by the Maize and Blue. (Speaking of which, as I mentioned a while back, hi-def TV or not, what is it with them sometimes wearing yellow uniforms with yellow names and yellow numbers on the back that blend in so nobody can see them? There should be a rule against that. Where's a dress code when you need one?).
If anything this game showed that, despite some wonderfully gifted players, it's just not in UM's DNA (or perhaps ability?) to be able to put the hammer down -- like MSU earlier did to them -- when the other team isn't intimidated and refuses to fold. In other words, Michigan's still soft.
Depending on how the seedings and brackets come down, that could very well be exposed along about the 2nd or 3rd game in the NCAA tournament.
Look at it this way: even though Michigan flirted with being ranked #1 in the country a couple times over the course of the regular season -- do you REALLY think they're Final Four and/or national championship capable? Not me.
Conversely, once the tournament starts, and "home courts" go out the window, who would dare count out Michigan State as a serious contender? There's no consensus team out there this year that is heads and shoulders above everybody else. In fact, there's probably 10-15 teams with a legitimate shot at the title, MSU being one of them.
At this time, certainly no one knows how all the bracketology will work out, but wouldn't it be something if UM and MSU got another crack at each other somewhere down the road in the tournament at a neutral site?
And all things considered -- who do you REALLY think would win that game?
There are teams with histories of being road warriors, and there are teams with histories of melting away like the Wicked Witch of the West when the lights go up and all the pressure is on.
Between UM and MSU hoops -- I just have a hunch who's who......
Winning in the Big Ten is tough these days, especially on the road. Even Indiana, possibly the best team in the country, would probably attest to that. They've lost a couple close games on the road to teams they likely would have throttled at home (and also a couple home games that are head scratchers, but everybody has a sub-par outing once in a while). The Big Ten has 6-7 teams that could qualify for the NCAA tournament coming around in a little over a week. There's been some serious in-conference competition going on over the course of the regular season.
As for UM/MSU this time around? The Spartans didn't really have a bad game, nor did the Wolverines necessarily have a good one. In the end, a one point victory is just that. As close as it gets. But remember, this was played on Michigan's home court which, theoretically, is supposed to make a big difference. No doubt, the Wolverines wanted some pay-back for the 23 point thrashing they had suffered at the hands of the Spartans 3 weeks ago on MSU's home court. It was supposed to be a "statement" game. Instead, UM was indeed fortunate to squeak by with the narrowest of victories. That could hardly be considered a "statement" by the Maize and Blue. (Speaking of which, as I mentioned a while back, hi-def TV or not, what is it with them sometimes wearing yellow uniforms with yellow names and yellow numbers on the back that blend in so nobody can see them? There should be a rule against that. Where's a dress code when you need one?).
If anything this game showed that, despite some wonderfully gifted players, it's just not in UM's DNA (or perhaps ability?) to be able to put the hammer down -- like MSU earlier did to them -- when the other team isn't intimidated and refuses to fold. In other words, Michigan's still soft.
Depending on how the seedings and brackets come down, that could very well be exposed along about the 2nd or 3rd game in the NCAA tournament.
Look at it this way: even though Michigan flirted with being ranked #1 in the country a couple times over the course of the regular season -- do you REALLY think they're Final Four and/or national championship capable? Not me.
Conversely, once the tournament starts, and "home courts" go out the window, who would dare count out Michigan State as a serious contender? There's no consensus team out there this year that is heads and shoulders above everybody else. In fact, there's probably 10-15 teams with a legitimate shot at the title, MSU being one of them.
At this time, certainly no one knows how all the bracketology will work out, but wouldn't it be something if UM and MSU got another crack at each other somewhere down the road in the tournament at a neutral site?
And all things considered -- who do you REALLY think would win that game?
There are teams with histories of being road warriors, and there are teams with histories of melting away like the Wicked Witch of the West when the lights go up and all the pressure is on.
Between UM and MSU hoops -- I just have a hunch who's who......
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Michigan. A history of being overrated
Don't get me wrong. I like the Michigan Wolverines. Nothing against Michigan State, a mighty fine institution of education and athletics, but for some reason I grew up rooting for Michigan. Not sure how that came about, considering nobody in my family, including yours truly, ever went to school there. Maybe it's like being a hard-core Republican or Democrat. I suspect if many of them took an objective look back -- they couldn't logically explain how they originally came to embrace their party either. And be it the UM/MSU rivalry or politics, it seems that once some folks have it in their head that one side is always right, and the other always wrong -- they typically find a way to rationalize their allegiance -- even if it totally defies logic.
That said, I think Michigan is once again overrated. How the Wolverines can come into their basketball rematch against the Spartans as the #4 team in the country, versus MSU being ranked 9th -- after Michigan State absolutely destroyed them in their first contest, would indeed seem to defy logic. It's almost like the polls are rigged in Michigan's favor. The powers that be WANT them to win.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time Michigan was (in my opinion) over-hyped. Back in 1997, the Wolverines shared a national football championship with Nebraska. Both went through the season undefeated and won their bowl games. Yet then, and to this day, yours truly still believes Nebraska would have absolutely trashed Michigan if they had played head-up. A look back will tell you Michigan defeated Washington State, and a QB named Ryan Leaf, by 5 points in the Rose Bowl. Nebraska whomped Tennessee by 25 points in the Orange Bowl. The Volunteers were led by a QB named Peyton Manning.
Throughout the season, evidently the pollsters thought Michigan played in a tougher conference than Nebraska -- so they got points for that. But when it came bowl time -- all those supposedly tough teams UM had played in the Big 10 took on a different look. Washington walloped Michigan State 51-23. Arizona St. topped Iowa 17-7. Wisconsin got thumped by Georgia 33-6. Penn State went down at the hands of Florida 21-6. And the Buckeyes of Ohio State got clobbered by Florida State 31-14. If the Big Ten was such a tough conference back then, somebody forgot to tell the rest of the country. To boot, Nebraska beat its opponents by an average of 31 points a game. Michigan checked in 2 touchdowns behind with an average winning margin of 17. And those two teams shared a national championship? Somebody was overrated.
Going a little further back, consider the "Fab Five" era in basketball at Michigan. In 1991, despite their obvious raw physical talent, it was pretty much unheard of to have one, let alone five freshmen starters on a major college basketball team. They were the talk of the nation. Hype, hype, hype. To their credit, they made it all the way to the NCAA championship game -- but they lost. Come 1992, with a year of experience under their belts, surely they would be champions -- right? The media hype was in overdrive. Wrong. They lost in the finals again. Recently, legendary coach Bobby Knight may have summed it up quite well when he said regardless of the NCAA tournament runs -- Michigan didn't even win the Big 10 championship during those 2 years, so he failed to see what was so fab about the "Fab 5". Sour grapes? Maybe, but Knight's Indiana teams went 3-1 against Michigan during those "fabulous" two years, so how can one seriously dispute his take on it? He was there, and he beat them 3 out of 4.
Much more recently, Michigan hired a new football coach named Brady Hoke. Even as a rookie, Hoke just couldn't resist disrespecting Ohio State, referring to them as merely "Ohio". Nevermind that before their football program imploded, the Buckeyes had absolutely owned the Wolverines for several years. Brady finally broke the jinx and UM defeated OSU, even though Ohio State's football program was in a shambles at the time. All hail Michigan. Then, as usual, they got cocky and decided to take on Alabama, the reigning national champs, in the opening game of the following season. Despite Alabama having lost several key players to the NFL after the previous season, Michigan promptly got annihilated by a vastly superior team.
It just seems like Michigan is always overrated -- and takes it for granted -- while Michigan State continues to struggle for respect every step of the way. If one looks at the Tom Izzo era in basketball, and even MSU's football record over the last several years against UM, one would think it should be the other way around.
Looking at it another way -- Michigan State hard. Michigan soft. Though I'm usually wrong when I make predictions, I fully expect MSU to dump the Wolverines in Ann Arbor to sweep the season series.
And even if not -- which team do you think has more of what it takes to be a threat in the upcoming NCAA tournament?
That said, I think Michigan is once again overrated. How the Wolverines can come into their basketball rematch against the Spartans as the #4 team in the country, versus MSU being ranked 9th -- after Michigan State absolutely destroyed them in their first contest, would indeed seem to defy logic. It's almost like the polls are rigged in Michigan's favor. The powers that be WANT them to win.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time Michigan was (in my opinion) over-hyped. Back in 1997, the Wolverines shared a national football championship with Nebraska. Both went through the season undefeated and won their bowl games. Yet then, and to this day, yours truly still believes Nebraska would have absolutely trashed Michigan if they had played head-up. A look back will tell you Michigan defeated Washington State, and a QB named Ryan Leaf, by 5 points in the Rose Bowl. Nebraska whomped Tennessee by 25 points in the Orange Bowl. The Volunteers were led by a QB named Peyton Manning.
Throughout the season, evidently the pollsters thought Michigan played in a tougher conference than Nebraska -- so they got points for that. But when it came bowl time -- all those supposedly tough teams UM had played in the Big 10 took on a different look. Washington walloped Michigan State 51-23. Arizona St. topped Iowa 17-7. Wisconsin got thumped by Georgia 33-6. Penn State went down at the hands of Florida 21-6. And the Buckeyes of Ohio State got clobbered by Florida State 31-14. If the Big Ten was such a tough conference back then, somebody forgot to tell the rest of the country. To boot, Nebraska beat its opponents by an average of 31 points a game. Michigan checked in 2 touchdowns behind with an average winning margin of 17. And those two teams shared a national championship? Somebody was overrated.
Going a little further back, consider the "Fab Five" era in basketball at Michigan. In 1991, despite their obvious raw physical talent, it was pretty much unheard of to have one, let alone five freshmen starters on a major college basketball team. They were the talk of the nation. Hype, hype, hype. To their credit, they made it all the way to the NCAA championship game -- but they lost. Come 1992, with a year of experience under their belts, surely they would be champions -- right? The media hype was in overdrive. Wrong. They lost in the finals again. Recently, legendary coach Bobby Knight may have summed it up quite well when he said regardless of the NCAA tournament runs -- Michigan didn't even win the Big 10 championship during those 2 years, so he failed to see what was so fab about the "Fab 5". Sour grapes? Maybe, but Knight's Indiana teams went 3-1 against Michigan during those "fabulous" two years, so how can one seriously dispute his take on it? He was there, and he beat them 3 out of 4.
Much more recently, Michigan hired a new football coach named Brady Hoke. Even as a rookie, Hoke just couldn't resist disrespecting Ohio State, referring to them as merely "Ohio". Nevermind that before their football program imploded, the Buckeyes had absolutely owned the Wolverines for several years. Brady finally broke the jinx and UM defeated OSU, even though Ohio State's football program was in a shambles at the time. All hail Michigan. Then, as usual, they got cocky and decided to take on Alabama, the reigning national champs, in the opening game of the following season. Despite Alabama having lost several key players to the NFL after the previous season, Michigan promptly got annihilated by a vastly superior team.
It just seems like Michigan is always overrated -- and takes it for granted -- while Michigan State continues to struggle for respect every step of the way. If one looks at the Tom Izzo era in basketball, and even MSU's football record over the last several years against UM, one would think it should be the other way around.
Looking at it another way -- Michigan State hard. Michigan soft. Though I'm usually wrong when I make predictions, I fully expect MSU to dump the Wolverines in Ann Arbor to sweep the season series.
And even if not -- which team do you think has more of what it takes to be a threat in the upcoming NCAA tournament?
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Dennis Rodman in North Korea
Ideally, everybody's supposed to be equal in this country, but we're really not. It all depends on who you are. Some people can do things that are deemed OK, while if others do the very same thing, people are outraged.
Dennis Rodman seems to be a good example. Recently, the Worm took a trip to North Korea. Evidently, he was not only welcomed with open arms, but treated like royalty. Rodman was photographed sitting next to the Premier of the country, one Kim Jong Un, I believe, yukking it up at a basketball game. At that, Americans have been led to believe North Korea is bad. Even part of "an axis of evil". How do we know this? Because our government says so, and they've never lied to us -- right? In reality, the average American citizen has no idea what's going on over there.
Nevertheless, nobody seems to be in an uproar over Rodman visiting North Korea and hanging out with the Premier. On the contrary, it's generally looked upon almost like some form of entertainment. After all, with his various antics over the years, Rodman is sometimes viewed as the world's biggest kid. He's just having a good time experiencing something new. No harm done. In a few days everybody will forget about it.
But just for kicks, imagine what the reaction would have been if, say, Bill Laimbeer, a former teammate of Rodman's on the Detroit Pistons, was doing the same thing. Just a guess, but Laimbeer may very well have been painted as some sort of public enemy, much like Jane Fonda was decades ago when she went to North Viet Nam. Instead of his action being considered harmless, Laimbeer might have been hauled before a Congressional committee to be grilled, and likely stigmatized for life as some sort of traitor. Between two former teammates -- going to the same country, sitting next to the same guy, and having a few laughs watching the same basketball game would likely be viewed in vastly different ways. One guy can slide. The other probably wouldn't.
It all depends who you are. A guy like Ernie Els, "the big easy" could probably goose the Queen of England and get away with it. Royal laughter would resound throughout Buckingham Palace. Plug another guy like Manny Pacquiao into the same scenario, and his Filipino butt might find itself in a dungeon somewhere. Her Highness would not be amused -- as they say.
I hope they hurry up and decide on a new Pope. What I REALLY want to see is Sir Charles Barkley, the former "round mound of rebound", give the new Pontiff a "wedgie" when His Eminence delivers his inaugural address to the adoring throngs below in St. Peter's square. That dude can get away with just about anything, and already has, including his golf swing, but somehow everybody still loves him.
Dennis Rodman seems to be a good example. Recently, the Worm took a trip to North Korea. Evidently, he was not only welcomed with open arms, but treated like royalty. Rodman was photographed sitting next to the Premier of the country, one Kim Jong Un, I believe, yukking it up at a basketball game. At that, Americans have been led to believe North Korea is bad. Even part of "an axis of evil". How do we know this? Because our government says so, and they've never lied to us -- right? In reality, the average American citizen has no idea what's going on over there.
Nevertheless, nobody seems to be in an uproar over Rodman visiting North Korea and hanging out with the Premier. On the contrary, it's generally looked upon almost like some form of entertainment. After all, with his various antics over the years, Rodman is sometimes viewed as the world's biggest kid. He's just having a good time experiencing something new. No harm done. In a few days everybody will forget about it.
But just for kicks, imagine what the reaction would have been if, say, Bill Laimbeer, a former teammate of Rodman's on the Detroit Pistons, was doing the same thing. Just a guess, but Laimbeer may very well have been painted as some sort of public enemy, much like Jane Fonda was decades ago when she went to North Viet Nam. Instead of his action being considered harmless, Laimbeer might have been hauled before a Congressional committee to be grilled, and likely stigmatized for life as some sort of traitor. Between two former teammates -- going to the same country, sitting next to the same guy, and having a few laughs watching the same basketball game would likely be viewed in vastly different ways. One guy can slide. The other probably wouldn't.
It all depends who you are. A guy like Ernie Els, "the big easy" could probably goose the Queen of England and get away with it. Royal laughter would resound throughout Buckingham Palace. Plug another guy like Manny Pacquiao into the same scenario, and his Filipino butt might find itself in a dungeon somewhere. Her Highness would not be amused -- as they say.
I hope they hurry up and decide on a new Pope. What I REALLY want to see is Sir Charles Barkley, the former "round mound of rebound", give the new Pontiff a "wedgie" when His Eminence delivers his inaugural address to the adoring throngs below in St. Peter's square. That dude can get away with just about anything, and already has, including his golf swing, but somehow everybody still loves him.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Highlight rants
See Tiger Woods miss a putt. See Tiger miss another putt. See Tiger miss yet a third putt. See Tiger taking off his shoes and socks before he wades into a pond where his last shot came to rest. See Tiger 6 shots back after one round of the Honda Open. These are highlights? Why in the hell would I want to watch some guy miss putts and take his footwear off? And what's next? Will we be force-fed video clips of Tiger downing a cheeseburger in the clubhouse? Good grief. We've already had to endure watching him drink water and eat bananas in the past while real action was going on everywhere else on the course. Here's a novel idea. How about showing us what the leaders of the tournament did?
See Kobe Bryant whirl, twist, spin, and gyrate to take an off-balance shot into triple coverage while ignoring two wide-open teammates for an easy pass. See Kobe and the Lakers every night on sports recaps. Like Tiger, Kobe highlights seem to be mandatory. See the Lakers with a 29-30 record, in 9th place in the Western Conference, and 2 games out of the last playoff spot. If one buys into the hype, the Lakers making the playoffs seems to rank right up there with matters of national security. It's like if they fail, our entire country will be in grave danger. It's the plague. The nukes are coming. The Lakers didn't make the playoffs. Please. And even if they do -- what's the point? They'll just get blown out in the first round by the likes of San Antonio or Oklahoma City anyway.
I can't wait for the NFL draft. Why? Because some team, mercifully (for us), will take former Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o, and the on-going soap opera, replete with imaginary girlfriend and how fast he ran the 40-yard dash at the NFL combine, will have finally aired it's last episode.
Los Angeles Angel outfielder Mike Trout has the talking heads in an uproar lately. Evidently, he reported to spring training weighing 30-40 pounds more than he did last year. Hey, if he can still hit .300, have 80-90 RBIs, steal 30 bases, and continue his stellar defensive play, it shouldn't matter if he showed up looking like Kim Kardashian though -- I must admit -- that would be very interesting. Bet the Angels' locker room and shower facilities would liven up a bit too, but I digress.
It's been almost an hour since I sat down to write this rant. Just peeked at the TV.
Now they're showing Tiger putting his shoes and socks back on -- again. C'mon man. Is there no end to this?
See Kobe Bryant whirl, twist, spin, and gyrate to take an off-balance shot into triple coverage while ignoring two wide-open teammates for an easy pass. See Kobe and the Lakers every night on sports recaps. Like Tiger, Kobe highlights seem to be mandatory. See the Lakers with a 29-30 record, in 9th place in the Western Conference, and 2 games out of the last playoff spot. If one buys into the hype, the Lakers making the playoffs seems to rank right up there with matters of national security. It's like if they fail, our entire country will be in grave danger. It's the plague. The nukes are coming. The Lakers didn't make the playoffs. Please. And even if they do -- what's the point? They'll just get blown out in the first round by the likes of San Antonio or Oklahoma City anyway.
I can't wait for the NFL draft. Why? Because some team, mercifully (for us), will take former Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o, and the on-going soap opera, replete with imaginary girlfriend and how fast he ran the 40-yard dash at the NFL combine, will have finally aired it's last episode.
Los Angeles Angel outfielder Mike Trout has the talking heads in an uproar lately. Evidently, he reported to spring training weighing 30-40 pounds more than he did last year. Hey, if he can still hit .300, have 80-90 RBIs, steal 30 bases, and continue his stellar defensive play, it shouldn't matter if he showed up looking like Kim Kardashian though -- I must admit -- that would be very interesting. Bet the Angels' locker room and shower facilities would liven up a bit too, but I digress.
It's been almost an hour since I sat down to write this rant. Just peeked at the TV.
Now they're showing Tiger putting his shoes and socks back on -- again. C'mon man. Is there no end to this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)