(Just some sports vibing...)
Individual Glory vs. Collective Success: A Primer on Team Sports
Stemming from the Reggie Bush siutation, someone asked the question not too long ago whether people would rather have the Heisman or a national title (I think it was national title, but I'm not 100% sure). I didn't answer the question then because I didn't have one. As one might imagine, I do now. I'd take the title (cue the lousy offbrand sports drink jokes) for two reasons.
1) I'm not going Herman Edwards here, but what he said is close enough. Where I will go is here: in team sports, what's the main objective? The primary goal, the purpose of playing the game? For the team to win. Isn't that it: long and short? Whether it's football or baseball, whether the method is offense or defense, whether you win by 1 or 100, the point is for the team to win. If the team wins, things are good. If not, then not so much. That's why Bush started playing football. That's why people care that Bush has talent. "Benny, how about Bush wanting to play football because he's good at it"...as somewhat stated before, why does it matter that he's good at football? Why does it matter that LeBron is talented? Albert Pujols? Thierry Henry? Their talents help their teams win. DJ Khaled's song isn't called "All I Do Is Play Well".
Last I checked, points determined wins and losses. Not yards, hits, rebounds...points. Or runs in baseball, or goals in hockey and soccer. All that other stuff is really nice and flashy, and it helps a team win. Two things: A) "helps" a team win...we've seen cases where teams won the box score but lost the game - and while I like sabermetrics I'm sure any sabermetrician will tell you the point of it all is to find who best helps teams win (oh yeah, they have a stat for that); and B) helps a team "win"...all goes back to the goal of winning. Even in the case of Michael and the Jordanaires, four other people had to get out there with him. Any Cleveland Cavs fan will tell you: teams win games.
2) Quick: who won the Heisman in 2002? Who won the NFL MVP award in 2005? How about the NBA MVP in 2004? While you think up those answers; think about how much less time it'd take you to remember that Ohio State, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the Detroit Pistons won the championships of the related leagues. Individual achievements are mere footnotes in team sports. Quick: name one person from each of the last 5 HoF classes in either football or baseball (basketball is different, as there is much less of a distinction between pro and college inductees). Shoot, if anyone can go back three years in college football or even name when three people were inducted into the College Baseball HoF I'd be mildly shocked. Really: who besides Ivan Maisel can name the last 20 Heisman winners? I can name the last 20 national champions in my sleep (Alabama, Florida, LSU, Florida, Texas, USC, USC/LSU, Ohio State, Miami, Oklahoma, Florida State, Tennessee...okay, that's enough).
Speaking of the HoF, we hear this question all the time in terms of HoF or a Super Bowl ring. I understand why people say HoF. I just don't agree with them for the reasons listed above. Other than the really famous people who even non-sports fans could guess, who really remembers who's in the HoF anyway? Case in point: how many people remember who Floyd Little is now? Made what was called one of the best speeches in history - about a month and a half ago. I bet almost no one remembers what team he played for. Shoot, even when we identify players...how do we do it: through affiliation with a team (I would say 'university' in terms of college, but that'd be like participating in a masquerade). Who's Reggie Bush? The RB from USC. Tim Tebow? QB from UF. Jerry Rice? WR for the 49ers. Floyd Little? Um...uh...Bronco RB. Everything is derivative from the team, which makes sense since we're talking about team sports.
So yes, the team honor is more important...because it's a team sport.
Mark Cuban, LeBron James, and a Travis McCoy Song
Cuban said that James cost himself a lot of money when he moved to Miami. No, he's not talking about the contract differential (which, again, is non-existent due to the difference in the tax laws of Florida and those in Ohio...but not going there). He's talking about - or was talking about - the drop in LeBron's Q rating to its current level. People don't buy merchandise regarding players they don't like - and we fans in South Florida are a fickle set unless the Dolphins are the subject. That Q rating is going to hurt his endorsement opportunities as well, which will of course cut into his goal of being a billionaire. Cuban knows what he's talking about: I mean, he is one. It's akin to that whole "takes one to know one" thing. Anyway, James is going to have a hard time getting there because people have to like you to spend money on you. "Well, they may go or watch to see him lose"...true. They won't spend in any other capacity, though - and that money doesn't go to him anyway. He didn't go to the Knicks or Nets, so not even that is a possibility in terms of extra income.
There's also the plain and simple fact that a billion dollars is a lot of money. He's only 25 and has a lot of age-related earning potential: still a lot of money. There's inflation: still a lot of money, especially considering the economic times. IIRC, only Tiger Woods has ever reached that point...and there are several advantages that Woods had over James. Shoot, Michael Jordan had his own brand under Nike - that people still buy and wear. Never got close. James made the decision (come on: it was a veritable softball) to not become a billionaire. He could have done it had he stayed in Cleveland: he had the hometown thing going, hadn't gone through that awful PR stunt, and was the man on that team. He wins two titles in Cleveland, he writes his own billion-dollar check. Now? Not so much. I don't agree with Cuban on everything, but I agree with him a lot...and he got this one right.
Derek Jeter, Silly Umpires, the Human Element, Idiotic Reactions, and Fair Play
So this is where the instant replay argument comes up yet again in baseball: Jeter was apparently hit by a pitch last night and thus awarded first base. Only problem was the pitch hit the bat, which makes it a foul ball. Rays manager Joe Maddon argued the call and got ejected. Okay, nothing of consequence yet. Next at-bat, Curtis Granderson gives the Yankees the lead with a homerun. The Rays came back and won the game, which enabled the issue to be swept under the rug. It shouldn't be swept under the rug, though. There are a few reasons.
1) The call was wrong. May as well start with the obvious. Anyone with decent vision can see on the replay that the ball hit Jeter's bat. I admit you can't really see it live, but alas: that's why there's point number two.
2) This "human element" argument against replay is cow manure. "Oh, people mess up: it's part of the game"..."the players aren't perfect: why should the umpires have to be"...uh, maybe because that's the umps' job? Their job is to uphold the integrity of the game and make sure the game is played correctly. It's the same idea as the one that requires lawyers and police officers (and wishes politicians) to be held to a higher moral standard than the rest of society. I'm not saying that they try to get things wrong or make unsavory calls. They do, though, have an unwillingness to listen to reason that stretches beyond what most would consider normal. Of course, they can be helped with this. Problem is someone as stubborn as they are won't allow it.
3) Tim Kurkjian said something on Mike and Mike which I totally agree with: that Bud Selig won't do anything about this until some team gets royally...um..."unfavored" via small fastening item that spins into place and has a regular or Phillips head...and the whole world sees it. Nevermind the fact that this has happened already (see: Series, World [1985]) and that the umpiring during last year's playoffs was an uunmitigated disaster, as I've mentioned previously. Game 4 of the ALCS was probably the worst-officiated sporting event I've ever seen. But rather than solve the problem, we're going to wait until some poor (figuratively speaking) team has to suffer. Some team is going to have to give up its right to win a championship - and they only give those out once a year - for Bud to get his head out of [the sand] and get this right. Those who want to laud Bud for interleague play and the wild card, I've got two numbers for you: 1997 and 1995.
4) It actually (although incorrectly) brings up an interesting discussion on team play. Jeter admitted to his gamesmanship in a postgame interview. People now say Jeter cheated and blah blah blah (always nice to work in a Ke$ha reference). As mentioned above, the player's responsibility is to win. The umpire's responsibility is to uphold fairness. Jeter only took the base because the umpire awarded it to him. Blaming Jeter is just wrong.
Individual Glory vs. Collective Success: A Primer on Team Sports
Stemming from the Reggie Bush siutation, someone asked the question not too long ago whether people would rather have the Heisman or a national title (I think it was national title, but I'm not 100% sure). I didn't answer the question then because I didn't have one. As one might imagine, I do now. I'd take the title (cue the lousy offbrand sports drink jokes) for two reasons.
1) I'm not going Herman Edwards here, but what he said is close enough. Where I will go is here: in team sports, what's the main objective? The primary goal, the purpose of playing the game? For the team to win. Isn't that it: long and short? Whether it's football or baseball, whether the method is offense or defense, whether you win by 1 or 100, the point is for the team to win. If the team wins, things are good. If not, then not so much. That's why Bush started playing football. That's why people care that Bush has talent. "Benny, how about Bush wanting to play football because he's good at it"...as somewhat stated before, why does it matter that he's good at football? Why does it matter that LeBron is talented? Albert Pujols? Thierry Henry? Their talents help their teams win. DJ Khaled's song isn't called "All I Do Is Play Well".
Last I checked, points determined wins and losses. Not yards, hits, rebounds...points. Or runs in baseball, or goals in hockey and soccer. All that other stuff is really nice and flashy, and it helps a team win. Two things: A) "helps" a team win...we've seen cases where teams won the box score but lost the game - and while I like sabermetrics I'm sure any sabermetrician will tell you the point of it all is to find who best helps teams win (oh yeah, they have a stat for that); and B) helps a team "win"...all goes back to the goal of winning. Even in the case of Michael and the Jordanaires, four other people had to get out there with him. Any Cleveland Cavs fan will tell you: teams win games.
2) Quick: who won the Heisman in 2002? Who won the NFL MVP award in 2005? How about the NBA MVP in 2004? While you think up those answers; think about how much less time it'd take you to remember that Ohio State, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the Detroit Pistons won the championships of the related leagues. Individual achievements are mere footnotes in team sports. Quick: name one person from each of the last 5 HoF classes in either football or baseball (basketball is different, as there is much less of a distinction between pro and college inductees). Shoot, if anyone can go back three years in college football or even name when three people were inducted into the College Baseball HoF I'd be mildly shocked. Really: who besides Ivan Maisel can name the last 20 Heisman winners? I can name the last 20 national champions in my sleep (Alabama, Florida, LSU, Florida, Texas, USC, USC/LSU, Ohio State, Miami, Oklahoma, Florida State, Tennessee...okay, that's enough).
Speaking of the HoF, we hear this question all the time in terms of HoF or a Super Bowl ring. I understand why people say HoF. I just don't agree with them for the reasons listed above. Other than the really famous people who even non-sports fans could guess, who really remembers who's in the HoF anyway? Case in point: how many people remember who Floyd Little is now? Made what was called one of the best speeches in history - about a month and a half ago. I bet almost no one remembers what team he played for. Shoot, even when we identify players...how do we do it: through affiliation with a team (I would say 'university' in terms of college, but that'd be like participating in a masquerade). Who's Reggie Bush? The RB from USC. Tim Tebow? QB from UF. Jerry Rice? WR for the 49ers. Floyd Little? Um...uh...Bronco RB. Everything is derivative from the team, which makes sense since we're talking about team sports.
So yes, the team honor is more important...because it's a team sport.
Mark Cuban, LeBron James, and a Travis McCoy Song
Cuban said that James cost himself a lot of money when he moved to Miami. No, he's not talking about the contract differential (which, again, is non-existent due to the difference in the tax laws of Florida and those in Ohio...but not going there). He's talking about - or was talking about - the drop in LeBron's Q rating to its current level. People don't buy merchandise regarding players they don't like - and we fans in South Florida are a fickle set unless the Dolphins are the subject. That Q rating is going to hurt his endorsement opportunities as well, which will of course cut into his goal of being a billionaire. Cuban knows what he's talking about: I mean, he is one. It's akin to that whole "takes one to know one" thing. Anyway, James is going to have a hard time getting there because people have to like you to spend money on you. "Well, they may go or watch to see him lose"...true. They won't spend in any other capacity, though - and that money doesn't go to him anyway. He didn't go to the Knicks or Nets, so not even that is a possibility in terms of extra income.
There's also the plain and simple fact that a billion dollars is a lot of money. He's only 25 and has a lot of age-related earning potential: still a lot of money. There's inflation: still a lot of money, especially considering the economic times. IIRC, only Tiger Woods has ever reached that point...and there are several advantages that Woods had over James. Shoot, Michael Jordan had his own brand under Nike - that people still buy and wear. Never got close. James made the decision (come on: it was a veritable softball) to not become a billionaire. He could have done it had he stayed in Cleveland: he had the hometown thing going, hadn't gone through that awful PR stunt, and was the man on that team. He wins two titles in Cleveland, he writes his own billion-dollar check. Now? Not so much. I don't agree with Cuban on everything, but I agree with him a lot...and he got this one right.
Derek Jeter, Silly Umpires, the Human Element, Idiotic Reactions, and Fair Play
So this is where the instant replay argument comes up yet again in baseball: Jeter was apparently hit by a pitch last night and thus awarded first base. Only problem was the pitch hit the bat, which makes it a foul ball. Rays manager Joe Maddon argued the call and got ejected. Okay, nothing of consequence yet. Next at-bat, Curtis Granderson gives the Yankees the lead with a homerun. The Rays came back and won the game, which enabled the issue to be swept under the rug. It shouldn't be swept under the rug, though. There are a few reasons.
1) The call was wrong. May as well start with the obvious. Anyone with decent vision can see on the replay that the ball hit Jeter's bat. I admit you can't really see it live, but alas: that's why there's point number two.
2) This "human element" argument against replay is cow manure. "Oh, people mess up: it's part of the game"..."the players aren't perfect: why should the umpires have to be"...uh, maybe because that's the umps' job? Their job is to uphold the integrity of the game and make sure the game is played correctly. It's the same idea as the one that requires lawyers and police officers (and wishes politicians) to be held to a higher moral standard than the rest of society. I'm not saying that they try to get things wrong or make unsavory calls. They do, though, have an unwillingness to listen to reason that stretches beyond what most would consider normal. Of course, they can be helped with this. Problem is someone as stubborn as they are won't allow it.
3) Tim Kurkjian said something on Mike and Mike which I totally agree with: that Bud Selig won't do anything about this until some team gets royally...um..."unfavored" via small fastening item that spins into place and has a regular or Phillips head...and the whole world sees it. Nevermind the fact that this has happened already (see: Series, World [1985]) and that the umpiring during last year's playoffs was an uunmitigated disaster, as I've mentioned previously. Game 4 of the ALCS was probably the worst-officiated sporting event I've ever seen. But rather than solve the problem, we're going to wait until some poor (figuratively speaking) team has to suffer. Some team is going to have to give up its right to win a championship - and they only give those out once a year - for Bud to get his head out of [the sand] and get this right. Those who want to laud Bud for interleague play and the wild card, I've got two numbers for you: 1997 and 1995.
4) It actually (although incorrectly) brings up an interesting discussion on team play. Jeter admitted to his gamesmanship in a postgame interview. People now say Jeter cheated and blah blah blah (always nice to work in a Ke$ha reference). As mentioned above, the player's responsibility is to win. The umpire's responsibility is to uphold fairness. Jeter only took the base because the umpire awarded it to him. Blaming Jeter is just wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment