OK, let's try this again. This time, I'll separate opinion from fact so the unreasonable Cowboy fans (NOTE: this is not all of you, probably not even the majority) know where it is vulnerable. That way, I can save you the effort of fabricating weaknesses.
Opinion #1 - regular season success is nice, but the most important thing to real fans is winning championships.
One of the double-edges of rooting for historically competitive teams is that you learn a bitter lesson very well: the closer you get to a championship, the more painful failure is. Ask an '86 Red Sox fan. Or a post-2000 Yankee fan. Or you can take it from this fan of the '02 San Francisco Giants. The lesson would not be true if regular season success defined us as fans since such success is a prerequisite for the ultimate agonizing defeat, not a cure.
Opinion #2 - the best players in any sport are the ones who do the most to help their teams win championships.
In no sport is this truer than in football. At no position is this truer than quarterback. Dan Marino owned every record in the book for a while. But he is not usually in the "Best QB Ever" discussion or he's dismissed quickly. Joe Montana has mediocre statistics by comparison. But Montana is in almost every such discussion, often the consensus winner. Montana has multiple rings while Marino retired ringless. NOBODY argues Marino is better than Montana. This is not a coincidence. As Shannon Sharpe said, you only date records, you marry championships.
Opinion #3 - when we're talking about NFL QBs, the most significant difference between good and great players is NOT physical ability.
These guys are the top .0000005% of the world at what they do. It's just illogical to argue that the talent level within that small of a group differs drastically from player-to-player when talent is the primary qualification for entry into it. Sure, there are guys like Brett Favre, John Elway, and Michael Vick who had some exceptional gift that set them apart based on raw ability. Or guys like Jeff Garcia and Doug Flutie who were physically average yet still enjoyed success. But they are the exceptions.
Opinion #4 - when we're talking about NFL QBs, the most significant difference between good and great players is the confidence and poise to bring raw ability to bear under the suffocating pressure of unreasonable expectations or high stakes.
We could revisit the Marino-Montana comparison, but I like Marino. Comparing him over and over to Montana isn't fair; after all, Darlin' Dan is the strongest argument for greatness despite missing a ring. Instead, take a look at the list of supremely talented QBs who flopped: Ryan Leaf, Michael Vick, Daunte Culpepper, Todd Marinovich, Jeff George, etc. These guys had just as much talent (often more) than guys who went on to great success.
Another example was on display during the Miami-San Diego game. Chad Pennington has fallen into an abyss the last couple years; he was almost pushed out of the league. But coming off a confidence-boosting win, he showed much more poise leading the offense and looked great doing it. Has his talent-level changed drastically in the last couple of weeks? Obviously not, but his performance has.
Opinion #5 - if you constantly mention a group of individuals together, you imply that they are equal unless you explicitly say otherwise.
I don't really have much to support this; HERE is the weakest part of the argument. I can be persuaded one way or the other. I just think it's natural to conclude that, by constantly making a collective unit of separate individuals without differentiating between them, you imply that there is no significant difference i.e. they are the same.
If you agree with these opinions, the only objective conclusion is that Tony Romo is overrated based on the following facts:
Fact #1 - Romo is constantly mentioned in the same breath with the best QBs in the league - Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Eli Manning, etc. WITHOUT qualification.
The talking heads do not restrict the comparison to statistics or regular season success. They do not say that Romo is on his way to being amongst the elite or has the potential to be there. They simply speak as if he already has arrived. Often they explicitly call him one of the best.
Fact #2 - there are other QBs in the league who have put up similar stats and/or have won some big games with no more talent around them (often less).
Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Brett Favre, Drew Brees, Donovan McNabb, Carson Palmer, Phillip Rivers, Jake Delhomme, and David Garrard all come to mind. As for Garrard, I'm honestly shocked people are so down on him. I understand that the D and running game largely won that playoff game in Pittsburgh. I also understand he threw 2 picks. But am I the only one who remembers the big plays he came up with down the stretch - both of that game and the regular season? This was a ROAD PLAYOFF game, in Pittsburgh no less (not the easiest place to play in the dead of winter). And his team was still standing when the dust settled.
The following need no further discussion:
Fact #3 - Romo has not led the Cowboys to a playoff win or any other win that is directly and immediately significant to a Super Bowl ring i.e. a regular season game that decides your postseason fate.
Fact #4 - despite having superior players, his teams have lost 2 such games (one at home) and Romo showed considerable lack of poise in both losses (interceptions, bad decisions, fumbled snap, etc.).
Fact #5 - Romo is only in his 3rd season as the starter.
Fact #6 - Romo plays behind one of the best offensive lines in the league.
Fact #7 - Romo leads one of the deepest arsenals of offensive skill players in the league.
Fact #8 - Romo throws a lot of interceptions and fumbles too frequently.
From here, the conclusion is simple. Since Romo's confidence and poise at the most important moments still need work, he cannot be on par with the Mannings, Brady, and Favre. As long as people continue to mention them all together, that's exactly where he is. And this is overrating him.
Not only that, but putting him above some of the other QBs in league may be too high considering his ranking is largely a product of statistics and regular season wins, which in turn could be more the product of his environment than Romo. Who knows what the superior talent of guys like JeMarcus Russell, Jay Cutler, Matt Ryan, Jason Campbell, Aaron Rodgers, or Roethlisberger could do in that offense?
Furthermore, who knows what Romo would look like if you took him out of Dallas? That offense gives him a big advantage when it comes to confidence and poise, and those are still his biggest weaknesses to date.
I'm not saying I'd take those guys over him. I'm just saying that his offense is probably making him look better than he is and some of those guys are still pretty close.
Lastly, I want to point out something. That he is overrated (i.e. not yet one of the best) is NOT A CRITICISM. The man is young and relatively inexperienced - he SHOULD NOT YET be one of the best. That he has already ascended to his current heights and handled himself so well under the glare of Dallas is nothing short of incredible. I respect Tony Romo. I would certainly root for him if he played for a different team.
If this is an attack, it's an attack on the "experts" doing the rating.
Since Romo is not in this group, I'm really struggling to see how I've offended him or his fans.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
If Only We Could Replace Tim McCarver with Joe Rogan
Two rather significant disclaimers have to be attached. First, I know absolutely nothing about mixed martial arts. I never wrestled or boxed or practiced a martial art of any kind. I've only been in a handful of fights.
One of the perks of being big and athletic from an early age is that the belligerent usually find a reason to avoid you (unless they can get at you anonymously - in cyberspace for example). Even the ones who could stomp you out without breaking a sweat. I think it's an apex predator thing - even if sharks had a taste for humans, we still wouldn't be high on their menu. Not because we pose a real threat to them in the course of defending ourselves, but because we pose some threat. There is totally harmless prey available, so why risk it?
The consequence is that I'm not usually in a fight unless I start it. Since I'm a generally reasonable and friendly person, this has rarely happened except for a few drunken occasions. Throw in a couple gang fights - not as in Bloods vs. Crips, but as in a group of people on either side. That's it, my entire fighting resume. Not exactly the stuff of professional careers.
The second disclaimer is that I generally like Joe Rogan. He was good on Newsradio, judging from the few re-runs I've seen. The one stand-up I've seen of his was damn funny. True, his voice can get a tad irritating when he's excited. And true, his knowledge of simian strength seems a little too intimate (how does he know that Karo Parisyan is chimpanzee-strong? What exactly is Rogan doing in his free time? And why is he doing it with chimps?). But nobody is perfect.
With those disclaimers in mind, I'd argue Rogan is one of the better analysts/color-commentators out there.
He does an excellent job enhancing an MMA fight for the casual fan. By casual, I mean someone like me. Someone who knows almost nothing about the sport, who has no plans to ever compete in it, but who watches every fight he or she can. As with Jason Whitlock's writing, you can pick almost any fight Rogan does as an example of his excellence.
Take the Forrest Griffin/Rampage Jackson card.
I'm not sure how or why, but Rogan seems to really know what he's talking about. In the Stevenson/Tibau fight, Tibau had Stevenson trapped in an omo plata shoulder lock for a couple minutes. Had Rogan not been there to explain what was happening, I would have simply taken it for what it looked like: one dude with his arm between another dude's legs. It didn't look particularly dangerous or painful.
Instead, Rogan did a superb job of explaining how and why Stevenson was in very precarious and painful position, that only his left leg was keeping Tibau from flattening him onto his stomach and submitting him.
Later during the Griffin/Rampage fight, Griffin delivered a brutal leg kick and took Rampage down. Rogan immediately pointed out that Griffin could pass from half-guard to side-mount at will because Rampage's legs were open. However, Rogan observed that he probably wouldn't do so immediately because Griffin trains with Randy Couture, who prefers half-guard to side-mount. As if it were scripted, Griffin easily transitioned to side-mount but only after delivering some damage from half-guard for a while.
In the same fight, Rogan forewarned that Griffin possesses an excellent ground game that gets overlooked because of his propensity to stand and bang. Guess what proved to be the difference in the fight? Rampage routinely caught Griffin with shots, cut him pretty badly, and even knocked him down in the first round. But he lost a unanimous decision. Sure those brutal leg kicks played a part, but not more so than the numerous near-submissions and dominant ground control.
He rarely misses a leg buckle, gets fooled into knockdown-hysteria by a slip, or criticizes a stoppage as bad unless it was obviously bad.
But it isn't only that Rogan seems to understand the sport, it's that he communicates it so effectively and honestly. No one will ever accuse him of being a modern-day Grantland Rice. But there can be beauty in rough simplicity as well. And that's fortunate because Rogan is nothing if not rough and simple.
He does not paint an artful image with eloquent language. Quite frequently, he is screaming obscenities at the top of his lungs. But when he is calm and translating the intricacies of the sport for the layman at home, I have heard few better.
He remains objective. Equally complimentary and critical when appropriate. He efficiently adds to the fight with relevant information at timely intervals.
Maybe he looks better because he works alongside the excruciatingly overdramatic Mike Goldberg, who has a firm grasp of the obvious and is overly fond of saying one guy "exploded" on the other guy.
Maybe he looks better because of the other clowns bringing the fights to the public. I'm pretty sure I heard Gus Johnson call Petruzzelli's win over Kimbo Slice the biggest upset in MMA history. Holy hyperbole Batman!
I think the Serra over St. Pierre might be a tad bigger than a former IFL-er over an Internet street brawler. Maybe that's just me.
Regardless, Joe Rogan deserves praise for being inexplicably fantastic at his job. Now, if we could just do something about those post-fight interviews...
One of the perks of being big and athletic from an early age is that the belligerent usually find a reason to avoid you (unless they can get at you anonymously - in cyberspace for example). Even the ones who could stomp you out without breaking a sweat. I think it's an apex predator thing - even if sharks had a taste for humans, we still wouldn't be high on their menu. Not because we pose a real threat to them in the course of defending ourselves, but because we pose some threat. There is totally harmless prey available, so why risk it?
The consequence is that I'm not usually in a fight unless I start it. Since I'm a generally reasonable and friendly person, this has rarely happened except for a few drunken occasions. Throw in a couple gang fights - not as in Bloods vs. Crips, but as in a group of people on either side. That's it, my entire fighting resume. Not exactly the stuff of professional careers.
The second disclaimer is that I generally like Joe Rogan. He was good on Newsradio, judging from the few re-runs I've seen. The one stand-up I've seen of his was damn funny. True, his voice can get a tad irritating when he's excited. And true, his knowledge of simian strength seems a little too intimate (how does he know that Karo Parisyan is chimpanzee-strong? What exactly is Rogan doing in his free time? And why is he doing it with chimps?). But nobody is perfect.
With those disclaimers in mind, I'd argue Rogan is one of the better analysts/color-commentators out there.
He does an excellent job enhancing an MMA fight for the casual fan. By casual, I mean someone like me. Someone who knows almost nothing about the sport, who has no plans to ever compete in it, but who watches every fight he or she can. As with Jason Whitlock's writing, you can pick almost any fight Rogan does as an example of his excellence.
Take the Forrest Griffin/Rampage Jackson card.
I'm not sure how or why, but Rogan seems to really know what he's talking about. In the Stevenson/Tibau fight, Tibau had Stevenson trapped in an omo plata shoulder lock for a couple minutes. Had Rogan not been there to explain what was happening, I would have simply taken it for what it looked like: one dude with his arm between another dude's legs. It didn't look particularly dangerous or painful.
Instead, Rogan did a superb job of explaining how and why Stevenson was in very precarious and painful position, that only his left leg was keeping Tibau from flattening him onto his stomach and submitting him.
Later during the Griffin/Rampage fight, Griffin delivered a brutal leg kick and took Rampage down. Rogan immediately pointed out that Griffin could pass from half-guard to side-mount at will because Rampage's legs were open. However, Rogan observed that he probably wouldn't do so immediately because Griffin trains with Randy Couture, who prefers half-guard to side-mount. As if it were scripted, Griffin easily transitioned to side-mount but only after delivering some damage from half-guard for a while.
In the same fight, Rogan forewarned that Griffin possesses an excellent ground game that gets overlooked because of his propensity to stand and bang. Guess what proved to be the difference in the fight? Rampage routinely caught Griffin with shots, cut him pretty badly, and even knocked him down in the first round. But he lost a unanimous decision. Sure those brutal leg kicks played a part, but not more so than the numerous near-submissions and dominant ground control.
He rarely misses a leg buckle, gets fooled into knockdown-hysteria by a slip, or criticizes a stoppage as bad unless it was obviously bad.
But it isn't only that Rogan seems to understand the sport, it's that he communicates it so effectively and honestly. No one will ever accuse him of being a modern-day Grantland Rice. But there can be beauty in rough simplicity as well. And that's fortunate because Rogan is nothing if not rough and simple.
He does not paint an artful image with eloquent language. Quite frequently, he is screaming obscenities at the top of his lungs. But when he is calm and translating the intricacies of the sport for the layman at home, I have heard few better.
He remains objective. Equally complimentary and critical when appropriate. He efficiently adds to the fight with relevant information at timely intervals.
Maybe he looks better because he works alongside the excruciatingly overdramatic Mike Goldberg, who has a firm grasp of the obvious and is overly fond of saying one guy "exploded" on the other guy.
Maybe he looks better because of the other clowns bringing the fights to the public. I'm pretty sure I heard Gus Johnson call Petruzzelli's win over Kimbo Slice the biggest upset in MMA history. Holy hyperbole Batman!
I think the Serra over St. Pierre might be a tad bigger than a former IFL-er over an Internet street brawler. Maybe that's just me.
Regardless, Joe Rogan deserves praise for being inexplicably fantastic at his job. Now, if we could just do something about those post-fight interviews...
The Modern Sports Dilemma and the Boo-Birds Who Helped Inspire It
Everyone knows exactly what it feels like to want to laugh, cry, and rage at the same time. That's because it is the only way to deal with the world on a daily basis.
For instance, look at the American voting process. Less than 50% of the country votes. Who makes up a disproportionate percentage of the non-voting public? Minorities, the poor, the middle-class, the disillusioned. Who gets routinely screwed? Minorities, the poor, the middle-class, the disillusioned.
And why don't these people vote?
Often it is because they feel powerless to change the system. To borrow from MLK, they believe they have nothing for which to vote. This is not a criticism of them. The establishment has been masterful in convincing them that it has the power to control the system and will always have it. But this is obviously untrue. It is the establishment's most powerful weapon and it is total nonsense.
If Kevin Spacey is right and the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist, then this is a close second.
The establishment has power because it is in power and has structured the system to benefit itself (it's also got everyone distracted by in-fighting; that's a different story). But the power to put and keep it in control rests - and always rests - with the people. Campaign contributions and special interest groups are incredibly effective, but they aren't votes. Only the people control their votes.
And who has the numbers? Minorities, the poor, the middle-class, the disillusioned.
If you believe the majority of 21st Century America is white and upper-class, you probably haven't left your gated community for quite some time.
The easiest way to change the system for the average American is to vote together. We have the numbers to do it. But enough of us have been convinced not to wield this power that nothing of substance every really changes. In our favor anyway.
The vast majority of the last superpower on the planet is closer to the 9th Ward (and apparently getting closer) than it is to 10 houses and an Ivy League education. And yet we continue to elect stiffs like Bush/Quayle, Clinton/Gore, and Bush Lite/Chaney. If you think about it without forcing yourself to laugh, you better not have a gun in the house.
How is this relevant to sports? Because the situation is the exact same.
The fans continue to get screwed by increasingly spoiled/selfish athletes, rising ticket/condiment prices, and greedy/disloyal owners. Meanwhile, the owners and players (the establishment) get fatter, richer, and increase their stables of luxury SUVs. Our response is to throw up our hands and say, "oh well, what can we do? Here's $10 for a light beer and another $50 for my upper deck seat."
Yet, we have the most control over the situation. Just like the political establishment needs vote to stay in control, the sports establishment needs fans to exist. If we ignore it, it disappears so we control it. Unfortunately, this means that, just as we have helped create our regrettable political reality, so have we fans helped create the current sports monster.
Take booing for example.
I'm sure it happens in all sports, but baseball is my expertise so it is where I can speak with the most authority. Everyone knows the infamous reputations of Philly, New York, and Boston to a lesser degree. But you're starting to see it spread to every stadium. Even my heretofore mellow compatriots in SF have been guilty of it with Barry Zito.
A guy gets an insane contract, struggles under the weight of expectation, and the "loyal" fans turn on him. It doesn't matter if he is sick to death over the slump. It doesn't matter that the slump is often the product of pressure created by desperately wanting to meet expectations. It doesn't matter that booing usually makes the situation worse by increasing that pressure, thus prolonging the slump, thus further hurting the fans' team.
Look, I agree that these guys are insanely paid. I also agree that we fans have a right to expect a certain level of production for that money. And I heartily support booing bums who don't give a flip (that's you JD) or guys who get millions then dog it (give Manny time LA - once a dog, always a dog). I even agree that the huge contract is fair warning of the potential for harsh criticism.
But what purpose is served by booing a guy whose only sin is trying but not performing under a big contract and who is sincerely upset by the situation? What's the justification?
Are these players supposed to turn down the money thrown at them? Are they supposed to give the money back if they fail to deliver? Are they supposed to point out flaws in a system that greatly favors them? Would any of the lusty boo-birds do this?
Even worse, it sends the message that their behavior doesn't matter as long as they put up good numbers. One way to send this message is to cheer a good player no matter what else he does. Many fans are guilty of this to a degree (my stance on Barry Bonds is an admission of my own such guilt). But this is what we're supposed to do - support your team and players within the generous bounds of reason.
An equally effective way to send the message is to boo a slumping player no matter what else he does. Sadly, many fans are guilty of this as well. But it is short-sighted and counterproductive. It embitters the players, hurts the fans' team, and creates an environment where players justifiably believe that performance entitles them to any outrageous behavior.
We as fans have the real power. It is time we started using it intelligently to our advantage. So boo the superstar who doesn't play hard. Boo the guy who slumps and doesn't particularly care. Boo the guy who chucks his girlfriend down a flight of stairs regardless of what he does on the field.
But don't boo the guys who really care about doing well and are trying to do so. Yes, it's frustrating to have a $17 million pitcher lose almost 20 games. But what more can the man do when he is trying everything?
Yes, it will take a little discretion, restraint, and maturity on our part.
But then we have all the more reason to demand it from them.
For instance, look at the American voting process. Less than 50% of the country votes. Who makes up a disproportionate percentage of the non-voting public? Minorities, the poor, the middle-class, the disillusioned. Who gets routinely screwed? Minorities, the poor, the middle-class, the disillusioned.
And why don't these people vote?
Often it is because they feel powerless to change the system. To borrow from MLK, they believe they have nothing for which to vote. This is not a criticism of them. The establishment has been masterful in convincing them that it has the power to control the system and will always have it. But this is obviously untrue. It is the establishment's most powerful weapon and it is total nonsense.
If Kevin Spacey is right and the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist, then this is a close second.
The establishment has power because it is in power and has structured the system to benefit itself (it's also got everyone distracted by in-fighting; that's a different story). But the power to put and keep it in control rests - and always rests - with the people. Campaign contributions and special interest groups are incredibly effective, but they aren't votes. Only the people control their votes.
And who has the numbers? Minorities, the poor, the middle-class, the disillusioned.
If you believe the majority of 21st Century America is white and upper-class, you probably haven't left your gated community for quite some time.
The easiest way to change the system for the average American is to vote together. We have the numbers to do it. But enough of us have been convinced not to wield this power that nothing of substance every really changes. In our favor anyway.
The vast majority of the last superpower on the planet is closer to the 9th Ward (and apparently getting closer) than it is to 10 houses and an Ivy League education. And yet we continue to elect stiffs like Bush/Quayle, Clinton/Gore, and Bush Lite/Chaney. If you think about it without forcing yourself to laugh, you better not have a gun in the house.
How is this relevant to sports? Because the situation is the exact same.
The fans continue to get screwed by increasingly spoiled/selfish athletes, rising ticket/condiment prices, and greedy/disloyal owners. Meanwhile, the owners and players (the establishment) get fatter, richer, and increase their stables of luxury SUVs. Our response is to throw up our hands and say, "oh well, what can we do? Here's $10 for a light beer and another $50 for my upper deck seat."
Yet, we have the most control over the situation. Just like the political establishment needs vote to stay in control, the sports establishment needs fans to exist. If we ignore it, it disappears so we control it. Unfortunately, this means that, just as we have helped create our regrettable political reality, so have we fans helped create the current sports monster.
Take booing for example.
I'm sure it happens in all sports, but baseball is my expertise so it is where I can speak with the most authority. Everyone knows the infamous reputations of Philly, New York, and Boston to a lesser degree. But you're starting to see it spread to every stadium. Even my heretofore mellow compatriots in SF have been guilty of it with Barry Zito.
A guy gets an insane contract, struggles under the weight of expectation, and the "loyal" fans turn on him. It doesn't matter if he is sick to death over the slump. It doesn't matter that the slump is often the product of pressure created by desperately wanting to meet expectations. It doesn't matter that booing usually makes the situation worse by increasing that pressure, thus prolonging the slump, thus further hurting the fans' team.
Look, I agree that these guys are insanely paid. I also agree that we fans have a right to expect a certain level of production for that money. And I heartily support booing bums who don't give a flip (that's you JD) or guys who get millions then dog it (give Manny time LA - once a dog, always a dog). I even agree that the huge contract is fair warning of the potential for harsh criticism.
But what purpose is served by booing a guy whose only sin is trying but not performing under a big contract and who is sincerely upset by the situation? What's the justification?
Are these players supposed to turn down the money thrown at them? Are they supposed to give the money back if they fail to deliver? Are they supposed to point out flaws in a system that greatly favors them? Would any of the lusty boo-birds do this?
Even worse, it sends the message that their behavior doesn't matter as long as they put up good numbers. One way to send this message is to cheer a good player no matter what else he does. Many fans are guilty of this to a degree (my stance on Barry Bonds is an admission of my own such guilt). But this is what we're supposed to do - support your team and players within the generous bounds of reason.
An equally effective way to send the message is to boo a slumping player no matter what else he does. Sadly, many fans are guilty of this as well. But it is short-sighted and counterproductive. It embitters the players, hurts the fans' team, and creates an environment where players justifiably believe that performance entitles them to any outrageous behavior.
We as fans have the real power. It is time we started using it intelligently to our advantage. So boo the superstar who doesn't play hard. Boo the guy who slumps and doesn't particularly care. Boo the guy who chucks his girlfriend down a flight of stairs regardless of what he does on the field.
But don't boo the guys who really care about doing well and are trying to do so. Yes, it's frustrating to have a $17 million pitcher lose almost 20 games. But what more can the man do when he is trying everything?
Yes, it will take a little discretion, restraint, and maturity on our part.
But then we have all the more reason to demand it from them.
Friday, October 3, 2008
How Barry Bonds Is Becoming a Martyr
People will accuse me of writing this article just to antagonize readers into commenting, etc. In fact, the idea for it was proposed in just such a fashion. Superficially, that's not an outrageous accusation.
I mean, I am an irrationally die-hard San Francisco Giants fan. As such, I have every reason to invent defenses for Barry Lamar Bonds. The only difference between the ultra-competitive Giants teams of '97 through 2003 and the atrocities that have been fielded since is a healthy #25.
Barry was a force of chemically-enhanced nature for the team I love. His presence made everyone in the lineup offensively better by several orders of magnitude. Every at-bat had the potential to right the course of a game gone awry. Without him, the Orange and Black went from perennial contender to de-clawed kitten. So why wouldn't I or any fan in a similar position blindly defend him?
Because that's not really the reason I write here.
As I've said before, I'm just interested in the catharsis of knowing that one sane and honest argument is floating in cyberspace. If I blindly defended, criticized, supported, or otherwise commented on anything, it would defeat that purpose.
And that's why I'll defend Barry from all the steroid abuse - it's just dishonest. Not every single person, but the majority. Most people dislike Barry for various and good reason. My problem is that they spew their venom under the guise of self-righteous indignation, claiming he destroyed the purity of the game.
That's just false. One person cannot ruin a game as big and old as baseball. Not even Bud Selig.
The indisputable fact is that a very significant percentage of the entire league was on something, along with Barry. And he was not the first. See Mitchell Report (and by all accounts it barely scratched the surface). Many of his fellow users were pitchers - starters and relievers. After all, if the primary benefit to use is reduced recovery time, then relief pitchers are as logical candidates as sluggers. They face the most extreme daily stress potential.
Roger Clemens, Jason Grimsley, and Eric Gagne lend credence to both ideas.
The fact that the percentage of use was so high is very significant. It severely discredits righteous indignation over destroying baseball as the real reason for all the abuse lobbed Bonds' way. Why only Barry? He didn't start it and he wasn't the only one. He is just, to date, the best chemically-enhanced ballplayer we've seen.
Why not Mark McGwire? Why not Sammy Sosa? What about Brady Anderson? Or Jose Canseco? Why not any of the other guys who are implicated and suddenly became prolific sluggers?
Or how about Clemens? He's just as implicated as Bonds and dude threw a broken bat at a guy. Not only that, he explained it away by claiming he thought it was the ball (I'm gonna need an explanation for that explanation i.e. why the hell would you be throwing the ball at a runner).
The high percentage also means that an enhanced Bonds usually performed against other enhanced athletes. Consequently, enhancement is a fatuous reason for diminishing Barry's accomplishments when compared to his contemporaries. The reality is, he had no artificial advantage that they did not possess themselves.
Of course, equally true is that comparing his numbers to those of other generations is meaningless. But I'd argue that's true of every generational comparison - how do we normalize stats generated against 8 all-white teams with those generated against 16 integrated teams with those generated against the diluted talent of 30 teams?
And normalize we must for the comparisons to have any real meaning (and that includes considering the evolution of training, travel, salaries, etc.).
Here's the thing. I'm defending Barry Lamar from this particular attack and only this attack. I'll be the first to admit that there are many honest and valid reasons for disliking Bonds. By all accounts, he is an unbelievably objectionable human-being. There are just too many stories from too many people who have too little reason to lie to doubt this allegation.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue differently - not even Krukow or Kuiper.
He is selfish. He is boorish. He is arrogant. He is dishonest and disloyal. He is, apparently, cheap despite being a multi-millionaire many times over. That would indicate he ain't particularly bright.
Fine. All valid reasons for slamming the man and far better ones than the steroid nonsense (the old adage in baseball is "if you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough"). I wouldn't marshal even a token defense. The guy is easily the best, most valuable Giant of my lifetime and I still wouldn't consider picking him as my favorite.
Barry Bonds has made his bed through his abhorrent behavior. He continues to do so. It is the public's right to force him to sleep in it. Furthermore, the public should do so because it may discourage future stars from repeating his mistakes. But we should do so fairly, for the right reasons.
And that's not what we're doing. We are forcing him to sleep in a much larger bed made by many more people. That is unfair and, as such, ineffective. Unfair criticism is easy to discredit and easier to dismiss.
Which is just what Barry and the rest of the superstars are doing.
I mean, I am an irrationally die-hard San Francisco Giants fan. As such, I have every reason to invent defenses for Barry Lamar Bonds. The only difference between the ultra-competitive Giants teams of '97 through 2003 and the atrocities that have been fielded since is a healthy #25.
Barry was a force of chemically-enhanced nature for the team I love. His presence made everyone in the lineup offensively better by several orders of magnitude. Every at-bat had the potential to right the course of a game gone awry. Without him, the Orange and Black went from perennial contender to de-clawed kitten. So why wouldn't I or any fan in a similar position blindly defend him?
Because that's not really the reason I write here.
As I've said before, I'm just interested in the catharsis of knowing that one sane and honest argument is floating in cyberspace. If I blindly defended, criticized, supported, or otherwise commented on anything, it would defeat that purpose.
And that's why I'll defend Barry from all the steroid abuse - it's just dishonest. Not every single person, but the majority. Most people dislike Barry for various and good reason. My problem is that they spew their venom under the guise of self-righteous indignation, claiming he destroyed the purity of the game.
That's just false. One person cannot ruin a game as big and old as baseball. Not even Bud Selig.
The indisputable fact is that a very significant percentage of the entire league was on something, along with Barry. And he was not the first. See Mitchell Report (and by all accounts it barely scratched the surface). Many of his fellow users were pitchers - starters and relievers. After all, if the primary benefit to use is reduced recovery time, then relief pitchers are as logical candidates as sluggers. They face the most extreme daily stress potential.
Roger Clemens, Jason Grimsley, and Eric Gagne lend credence to both ideas.
The fact that the percentage of use was so high is very significant. It severely discredits righteous indignation over destroying baseball as the real reason for all the abuse lobbed Bonds' way. Why only Barry? He didn't start it and he wasn't the only one. He is just, to date, the best chemically-enhanced ballplayer we've seen.
Why not Mark McGwire? Why not Sammy Sosa? What about Brady Anderson? Or Jose Canseco? Why not any of the other guys who are implicated and suddenly became prolific sluggers?
Or how about Clemens? He's just as implicated as Bonds and dude threw a broken bat at a guy. Not only that, he explained it away by claiming he thought it was the ball (I'm gonna need an explanation for that explanation i.e. why the hell would you be throwing the ball at a runner).
The high percentage also means that an enhanced Bonds usually performed against other enhanced athletes. Consequently, enhancement is a fatuous reason for diminishing Barry's accomplishments when compared to his contemporaries. The reality is, he had no artificial advantage that they did not possess themselves.
Of course, equally true is that comparing his numbers to those of other generations is meaningless. But I'd argue that's true of every generational comparison - how do we normalize stats generated against 8 all-white teams with those generated against 16 integrated teams with those generated against the diluted talent of 30 teams?
And normalize we must for the comparisons to have any real meaning (and that includes considering the evolution of training, travel, salaries, etc.).
Here's the thing. I'm defending Barry Lamar from this particular attack and only this attack. I'll be the first to admit that there are many honest and valid reasons for disliking Bonds. By all accounts, he is an unbelievably objectionable human-being. There are just too many stories from too many people who have too little reason to lie to doubt this allegation.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue differently - not even Krukow or Kuiper.
He is selfish. He is boorish. He is arrogant. He is dishonest and disloyal. He is, apparently, cheap despite being a multi-millionaire many times over. That would indicate he ain't particularly bright.
Fine. All valid reasons for slamming the man and far better ones than the steroid nonsense (the old adage in baseball is "if you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough"). I wouldn't marshal even a token defense. The guy is easily the best, most valuable Giant of my lifetime and I still wouldn't consider picking him as my favorite.
Barry Bonds has made his bed through his abhorrent behavior. He continues to do so. It is the public's right to force him to sleep in it. Furthermore, the public should do so because it may discourage future stars from repeating his mistakes. But we should do so fairly, for the right reasons.
And that's not what we're doing. We are forcing him to sleep in a much larger bed made by many more people. That is unfair and, as such, ineffective. Unfair criticism is easy to discredit and easier to dismiss.
Which is just what Barry and the rest of the superstars are doing.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Move Over Sliced Bread, It's Jason Whitlock
Uhhh, this could get undignified. In fact, it probably will so I'll apologize in advance. Jason Whitlock should be canonized for journalistic excellence. And I'm not talking sports journalism, which is becoming an absurdly meaningless term. I'm talking general journalism. I mean put him in the echelons of Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd.
If he wrote for the New York Times, he would be one of the most influential voices in print. I don't even think he gets that respect in the sports world, which is criminal. Full disclosure - I don't pay too much attention to ESPN or Fox Sports or popular culture, but I am aware of most of the big stories in each - it's almost impossible not to be. Maybe the truth is he does, but I don't think so.
You can pick any of his columns and each one is a masterpiece. I have found no other writer who can start a piece on one sensational topic then so fluidly transition into an objective and reasonable analysis of a much more socially-substantive issue.
His observations on race are among the most profound. But that is a tired and generally hollow compliment to an African-American commentator - he/she is black so the party line is he/she has unique racial insight. Think Chris Rock's infamous bit on Colin Powell - he's so well spoken, he speaks so well.
Even so, Mr. Whitlock deserves immense praise for pulling zero punches when discussing the hot-button topic. For instance, he was one of the few African-Americans brave enough to point out that the Jena Six Civil Rights warriors were actually a bunch of black dudes who stomped out one white teen. He also rightly condemned the mental midgets who hung nooses in trees, then claimed ignorance to such an act's significance (apparently, they've been able to dodge that little nugget of info in the 21st Century's information deluge). Side note - I'm all for stomping those kids out, but it should've been one-on-one (maybe two-on-one) and it should've been one of the kids who did the hanging.
And lest you make the claim, like his other critics, that he is overly critical of African-Americans just to get ahead in White America, I offer this piece. It includes an observation about the racial double-standard that persists in American society. Or his comparison of the Wall Street to welfare. The man is honest and astute, which means he is also fair.
All this while still managing to be self-deprecatingly funny and entertaining. It is so refreshing to see a prodigious talent that does not take itself too seriously.
Of course, Mr. Whitlock is not perfect. Nor is anyone. I don't always agree with him, but why should I? Or him with me? For example, I think he is overly critical of JeMarcus Russell and Vince Young. Plus I think he's just wrong about Russell's probability for success in the NFL. But you know what? Mr. Whitlock played the game at its penultimate level; I played tackle with my friends in the park (in my defense, I was an elite high school basketball and baseball player). I'm prepared to concede he may have insights that I do not.
His latest NFL truths column revolves smoothly around the wide receiver virus currently infecting the NFL. No surprise, it is priceless stuff and a perfect illustration of my previous comments. He starts with a piece about the most sensational athletes in the game today, and ends with an absolute evisceration of Sarah Palin. An accurate and timely one at that (this is going to be unintentional comedy on a grand scale).
Along the way, he drops fabulous insight about the root of the WR problems (rule changes protecting them) and Al Davis (failing under him is actually a success on your resume). His analysis of WRs in general (single greatest threat to the NFL) and specifically (TO, Burgess, Ocho Sinko, Moss, Smith) is stellar. As are his assessments of Aaron Rodgers (would be unwise to play through his injury, but he might be pressured into it) and Tennessee Titans (would be equally unwise to overreact and extend Kerry Collins).
His integrity and racial insight is also on display. Here I will elaborate because it is subtle. First, you have to have seen Spike Lee's "Bamboozled" and I would bet good money I am one of the few white people to be so lucky. It is without a doubt the finest acting hour for Damon Wayans, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Mos Def, Canibus, Paul Mooney, Tommy Davidson, Michael Rappaport, and Charli Baltimore. It should have made Savion Glover a supernova. Plus "Blak iz Blak" is one of the more powerful rap songs I have ever heard.
If you haven't seen the movie and you're a reasonable person, you should. Suffice it to say that Mr. Whitlock's is not a flattering characterization of TO or Ocho Sinko.
But for those of you who need superficial evenness to prove equality, he includes the white Matt Jones, Tony Mandarich, Kerry Collins, and Derek Anderson in his crosshairs. I assume Michael Lombardi is white as well. Plus he goes to bat for the black (minus Ditka) ESPN crew as well as the white Aaron Rodgers and Monte Kiffin.
Again, the substance of Mr. Whitlock's arguments proves his objectivity and wisdom. The above one-for-one is only for those of you myopic enough to miss the substance.
Finally, his sense of humor peppers the entire article. I'll let the other readers choose what is funny since dissecting humor is, by definition, an autopsy.
That ESPN ran him out proves the depths to which that network has atrophied. It was the straw that broke this camel's back and drove me to the netherworld of Fox Sports.
Jason Whitlock is the best sports writer out there. It is time that he gets that recognition.
I warned you it would be undignified.
If he wrote for the New York Times, he would be one of the most influential voices in print. I don't even think he gets that respect in the sports world, which is criminal. Full disclosure - I don't pay too much attention to ESPN or Fox Sports or popular culture, but I am aware of most of the big stories in each - it's almost impossible not to be. Maybe the truth is he does, but I don't think so.
You can pick any of his columns and each one is a masterpiece. I have found no other writer who can start a piece on one sensational topic then so fluidly transition into an objective and reasonable analysis of a much more socially-substantive issue.
His observations on race are among the most profound. But that is a tired and generally hollow compliment to an African-American commentator - he/she is black so the party line is he/she has unique racial insight. Think Chris Rock's infamous bit on Colin Powell - he's so well spoken, he speaks so well.
Even so, Mr. Whitlock deserves immense praise for pulling zero punches when discussing the hot-button topic. For instance, he was one of the few African-Americans brave enough to point out that the Jena Six Civil Rights warriors were actually a bunch of black dudes who stomped out one white teen. He also rightly condemned the mental midgets who hung nooses in trees, then claimed ignorance to such an act's significance (apparently, they've been able to dodge that little nugget of info in the 21st Century's information deluge). Side note - I'm all for stomping those kids out, but it should've been one-on-one (maybe two-on-one) and it should've been one of the kids who did the hanging.
And lest you make the claim, like his other critics, that he is overly critical of African-Americans just to get ahead in White America, I offer this piece. It includes an observation about the racial double-standard that persists in American society. Or his comparison of the Wall Street to welfare. The man is honest and astute, which means he is also fair.
All this while still managing to be self-deprecatingly funny and entertaining. It is so refreshing to see a prodigious talent that does not take itself too seriously.
Of course, Mr. Whitlock is not perfect. Nor is anyone. I don't always agree with him, but why should I? Or him with me? For example, I think he is overly critical of JeMarcus Russell and Vince Young. Plus I think he's just wrong about Russell's probability for success in the NFL. But you know what? Mr. Whitlock played the game at its penultimate level; I played tackle with my friends in the park (in my defense, I was an elite high school basketball and baseball player). I'm prepared to concede he may have insights that I do not.
His latest NFL truths column revolves smoothly around the wide receiver virus currently infecting the NFL. No surprise, it is priceless stuff and a perfect illustration of my previous comments. He starts with a piece about the most sensational athletes in the game today, and ends with an absolute evisceration of Sarah Palin. An accurate and timely one at that (this is going to be unintentional comedy on a grand scale).
Along the way, he drops fabulous insight about the root of the WR problems (rule changes protecting them) and Al Davis (failing under him is actually a success on your resume). His analysis of WRs in general (single greatest threat to the NFL) and specifically (TO, Burgess, Ocho Sinko, Moss, Smith) is stellar. As are his assessments of Aaron Rodgers (would be unwise to play through his injury, but he might be pressured into it) and Tennessee Titans (would be equally unwise to overreact and extend Kerry Collins).
His integrity and racial insight is also on display. Here I will elaborate because it is subtle. First, you have to have seen Spike Lee's "Bamboozled" and I would bet good money I am one of the few white people to be so lucky. It is without a doubt the finest acting hour for Damon Wayans, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Mos Def, Canibus, Paul Mooney, Tommy Davidson, Michael Rappaport, and Charli Baltimore. It should have made Savion Glover a supernova. Plus "Blak iz Blak" is one of the more powerful rap songs I have ever heard.
If you haven't seen the movie and you're a reasonable person, you should. Suffice it to say that Mr. Whitlock's is not a flattering characterization of TO or Ocho Sinko.
But for those of you who need superficial evenness to prove equality, he includes the white Matt Jones, Tony Mandarich, Kerry Collins, and Derek Anderson in his crosshairs. I assume Michael Lombardi is white as well. Plus he goes to bat for the black (minus Ditka) ESPN crew as well as the white Aaron Rodgers and Monte Kiffin.
Again, the substance of Mr. Whitlock's arguments proves his objectivity and wisdom. The above one-for-one is only for those of you myopic enough to miss the substance.
Finally, his sense of humor peppers the entire article. I'll let the other readers choose what is funny since dissecting humor is, by definition, an autopsy.
That ESPN ran him out proves the depths to which that network has atrophied. It was the straw that broke this camel's back and drove me to the netherworld of Fox Sports.
Jason Whitlock is the best sports writer out there. It is time that he gets that recognition.
I warned you it would be undignified.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Tony Romo Is Still Overrated
I hesitate to respond to James Williamson's open challenge to Dallas Cowboy haters. I do so because it is obviously a transparent attempt to get closer to his stated goal of becoming an NFL analyst by striking an antagonistic pose. He hopes this will generate comments and reads to get into the popular or most read column.
Young James is obviously NOT interested in a reasoned, mature, and objective debate. I made just such an argument in support of a position he didn't like (Romo's overrated) and he responded by implying I had no brain, calling me a "dumbbut" I believe was his unique phrasing.
Now, he has responded an obviously subjective challenge while trumpeting his reputation for objectivity.
The only interest I have in this website is catharsis, not an exhibitionist debate. Being a professional sports columnist would be great, but so would being an astronaut. I'm taking a more realistic approach to success and just sat for the California Bar so I write for myself. If people like it or not and are inspired to respond, that is awesome and I appreciate each response (except the ones questioning my intelligence and anatomical possessions).
However, I do enjoy a good challenge and it will be simple to prove to a reasonable person that I am the objective analyst and James is not. I might even prove to some people that Romo is the most overrated player in the NFL. Here we go.
First, in his challenge he says he has trashed talked and it makes him sick. As I pointed out, he was lobbing sophomoric insults at me in the last couple days. More hilariously, later in the very same article, he implies I am either jealous, ignorant, deceiving myself, etc. Forgive me if his contrition seems a little insincere and self-serving. Not exactly the best way to start a supposedly objective discussion.
Second, his entire argument for Romo being one of the best QBs in the NFL is statistic-driven. I suggest this is the product of playing too much fantasy sports or just growing up under the fantasy curtain that has fallen. Statistics are great, but they do not always indicate greatness since greatness is measured by championships (in basketball and football at least).
Ask Dan Marino or Joe Montana. Or just look at recent history. Until the last several years, the unquestioned statistical virtuoso at QB was Peyton Manning. However, equally unquestionable was that the best QB was Tom Brady. Both played behind good lines on good teams, but Brady always won (don't everyone freak out, I said this has changed).
And here's where my argument destroys his. I say Romo is the most overrated QB in the NFL. This can be true even if there are only 3 QBs better than he (i.e. Brady, Manning, Brees as seems to be the consensus). Since the position held by the media, etc. is that Romo is one of the best QBs, he is overrated if he is not one of the best. And since 'best' is a matter of skill and performance not of ranking, the fact that Romo is 4th best does not prove he is one of the best.
Those 3 QBs (and others I would argue) possess skills and resumes that prove they are better than Romo. So even if I were to concede the point that only those 3 are better (which I don't), I would still be objectively right since you simply cannot argue that Romo is on their level.
Or I can use simple logic. The most overrated player in the NFL is a QB, there is simply no reasonable alternative. Every football observer will tell you that the QB gets too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. In his comment to my original column, James is guilty of just this. He overrates Romo by saying he won in GB and Buffalo while simultaneously proving his lack of objectivity by saying the team lost the playoff game to NY.
So if the most overrated player in the NFL is a QB, what QB is more overrated than Romo? Brady? Favre? Mannings? Brees? Who? Nobody. Romo is the most overrated QB ergo he is the most overrated player in the NFL.
Need more proof I'm objective? How about the fact that I openly admit I'm a Niner fan, hate the Cowboys, and that Dallas is one of the best teams in the NFL (if not the best). Furthermore, I have continually said Romo is good, maybe even very good. Just not the best.
Finally, the perception is not that he has the tools to become one of the best or will become one of the best. I wouldn't necessarily argue with either of these points. But the perception is that Romo is (as in, at this moment) one of the best. That just isn't true and earns him the title of most overrated.
Tony Romo stands behind the best offensive line in football and orchestrates its premiere offense. He does so very well, but he has not won the really important games even when he was supposed to. Tom Brady has. Peyton Manning has. Eli Manning has done them one better by winning TWO games he had no business winning (man, I dislike the Mannings). Romo cannot yet compete with that.
If he is not one of the best, he is the most overrated. And he is clearly not one of the best.
There it is. In all it's objective and rationale glory, James. Against this, you have offered an argument for Romo based on statistics and regular season wins. To further hurt your claim to objectivity and sound analysis, you speak of Romo in the same breath as Favre, Aikman, and Staubach.
Those are 3 Hall-of-Famers. Tony Romo has yet to win a playoff game and is only in his 3rd year.
Unfortunately, you have done this in print. And the public can now judge you for it.
Young James is obviously NOT interested in a reasoned, mature, and objective debate. I made just such an argument in support of a position he didn't like (Romo's overrated) and he responded by implying I had no brain, calling me a "dumbbut" I believe was his unique phrasing.
Now, he has responded an obviously subjective challenge while trumpeting his reputation for objectivity.
The only interest I have in this website is catharsis, not an exhibitionist debate. Being a professional sports columnist would be great, but so would being an astronaut. I'm taking a more realistic approach to success and just sat for the California Bar so I write for myself. If people like it or not and are inspired to respond, that is awesome and I appreciate each response (except the ones questioning my intelligence and anatomical possessions).
However, I do enjoy a good challenge and it will be simple to prove to a reasonable person that I am the objective analyst and James is not. I might even prove to some people that Romo is the most overrated player in the NFL. Here we go.
First, in his challenge he says he has trashed talked and it makes him sick. As I pointed out, he was lobbing sophomoric insults at me in the last couple days. More hilariously, later in the very same article, he implies I am either jealous, ignorant, deceiving myself, etc. Forgive me if his contrition seems a little insincere and self-serving. Not exactly the best way to start a supposedly objective discussion.
Second, his entire argument for Romo being one of the best QBs in the NFL is statistic-driven. I suggest this is the product of playing too much fantasy sports or just growing up under the fantasy curtain that has fallen. Statistics are great, but they do not always indicate greatness since greatness is measured by championships (in basketball and football at least).
Ask Dan Marino or Joe Montana. Or just look at recent history. Until the last several years, the unquestioned statistical virtuoso at QB was Peyton Manning. However, equally unquestionable was that the best QB was Tom Brady. Both played behind good lines on good teams, but Brady always won (don't everyone freak out, I said this has changed).
And here's where my argument destroys his. I say Romo is the most overrated QB in the NFL. This can be true even if there are only 3 QBs better than he (i.e. Brady, Manning, Brees as seems to be the consensus). Since the position held by the media, etc. is that Romo is one of the best QBs, he is overrated if he is not one of the best. And since 'best' is a matter of skill and performance not of ranking, the fact that Romo is 4th best does not prove he is one of the best.
Those 3 QBs (and others I would argue) possess skills and resumes that prove they are better than Romo. So even if I were to concede the point that only those 3 are better (which I don't), I would still be objectively right since you simply cannot argue that Romo is on their level.
Or I can use simple logic. The most overrated player in the NFL is a QB, there is simply no reasonable alternative. Every football observer will tell you that the QB gets too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. In his comment to my original column, James is guilty of just this. He overrates Romo by saying he won in GB and Buffalo while simultaneously proving his lack of objectivity by saying the team lost the playoff game to NY.
So if the most overrated player in the NFL is a QB, what QB is more overrated than Romo? Brady? Favre? Mannings? Brees? Who? Nobody. Romo is the most overrated QB ergo he is the most overrated player in the NFL.
Need more proof I'm objective? How about the fact that I openly admit I'm a Niner fan, hate the Cowboys, and that Dallas is one of the best teams in the NFL (if not the best). Furthermore, I have continually said Romo is good, maybe even very good. Just not the best.
Finally, the perception is not that he has the tools to become one of the best or will become one of the best. I wouldn't necessarily argue with either of these points. But the perception is that Romo is (as in, at this moment) one of the best. That just isn't true and earns him the title of most overrated.
Tony Romo stands behind the best offensive line in football and orchestrates its premiere offense. He does so very well, but he has not won the really important games even when he was supposed to. Tom Brady has. Peyton Manning has. Eli Manning has done them one better by winning TWO games he had no business winning (man, I dislike the Mannings). Romo cannot yet compete with that.
If he is not one of the best, he is the most overrated. And he is clearly not one of the best.
There it is. In all it's objective and rationale glory, James. Against this, you have offered an argument for Romo based on statistics and regular season wins. To further hurt your claim to objectivity and sound analysis, you speak of Romo in the same breath as Favre, Aikman, and Staubach.
Those are 3 Hall-of-Famers. Tony Romo has yet to win a playoff game and is only in his 3rd year.
Unfortunately, you have done this in print. And the public can now judge you for it.
Sorry Josh, We Loved You So Now We Get to Destroy You
There is something that really bothers me about the modern sports culture. The spectator world of sports (fans and journalists) claims to love the games and teams it observes. If you listen to answers to direct questions on the matter.
But if you watch and listen to it on a daily basis, the truth is that this is a convenient facade. It is a moral preemptive strike. The sports world glows on the surface in effusive praise for the athletes while underneath it jealously boils as it waits for the next star to fall.
And as it plummets from the heavens into which we rushed it, the sports world gleefully gets our kicks in. It is our right because we showered it with love on the way up.
Josh Howard is the latest example of this; you'll recognize him from the red bull's-eye on his back. Look, I'm not saying he's the sharpest tool in the shed. Nor am I saying he doesn't deserve criticism for poor timing and judgment. What I am saying is let's try to hang on to that last edge of perspective. This shouldn't be hard for a real fan.
There is the marijuana incident. The worst that can be said here is his timing was colossally stupid and his judgment was questionable. That's it. And let's be honest here, such a distraction should not be an excuse for affecting the performance of an athlete getting paid millions of dollars to play. In the playoffs no less. If it's news to you that NBA players (along with millions of other Americans) smoke marijuana when not on the job, well your world will be shattered the more time you spend outside of your bubble. Go back.
There is also the Star-Spangled Banner episode. Again, the worst that can be said here is that his timing and judgment were colossally stupid. He needs to realize he is under a microscope at all times and disrespecting the country, even as a goof, while we are in two wars (three if you count the one with Wall Street) is just d-u-m-b.
But several other things need to be pointed out. First, Josh Howard is 28. That sounds far more mature than it really is. Remember, all these athletes are in a bubble of fawning handlers probably from middle school on. Additionally, the NBA is not real-life; being a 20-something millionaire is not real-life. These things have to retard emotional development and maturation. I'm not saying this excuses any lapse in judgment or sin, but I think Josh's were pretty mild.
Second, Josh is African-American. Like it or not, race is and probably will be relevant for my lifetime. Here, it is relevant because (a) African-Americans have a right to a reasonable degree of resentment towards the country; and (b) as suburban teens underage drink, inner city kids seem to smoke marijuana. A disproportionate number of those teens are African-American. Argue these points if you will, but - if you take them as true - both would make Howard's already mild lapses in judgment even more so.
Third, Josh has apologized. Sincerely. The apology showed a depth of thought beyond just, "I'm sorry" for spin's sake. He evidenced understanding that the country is not perfect but has given him a lot as well. He displayed respect for the sacrifices of the military and understanding that he had disrespected those sacrifices. Additionally, he took responsibility for his actions. Instead of using the passive voice to duck it (i.e. I'm sorry for what happened, I'm sorry if people were offended, etc.), Josh stood up like a man and took possession of his actions and consequences. None of us is perfect and Josh has done all that you can ask in the wake of human imperfection.
And this brings me back to my opening point. I am a fan because I love watching the sports I play. I love watching them played at the highest level. I admire those men and women who have dedicated their lives to this pursuit. As such, I don't look for every reason to destroy these athletes (unless they play for the Dallas Cowboys, Los Angeles Dodgers/Lakers, or anywhere in Boston). I don't believe anyone who truly loves these games would do so. I don't believe the sports world would do so if all that love was genuine.
But that is exactly what happens every day. There is ample room for criticism. Serious criticism. But instead of addressing these issues - domestic violence, illegitimate children, suffocating egotism, out-of-control salaries and ticket prices, etc. - we wait like rabid dogs for the next sensational headline. Then we attack, and we keep attacking regardless of the severity until the next athlete stumbles into the crosshairs.
Again, I want to be very clear about this. I am the first to admit that many of these athletes have become loathsome, self-impressed parasites with absolutely no regard for anyone but themselves. But attack them. Don't attack Josh Howard just because he is a pro athlete and has screwed up.
Or at least do your due diligence. If you learned that Josh has spent an impressive amount of time and money improving the community in which he grew up, maybe a couple slips of the tongue aren't so serious.
In that spirit, boo the guy who's dogging it and doesn't care (J.D. Drew). Don't boo the guy who is killing himself without results even if he is making most of our yearly salaries in a couple games (1st half Barry Zito).
Use the power of the pen against the guy scattering illegitimate children like apple seed (Travis Henry to name the latest). Don't use it against some poor kid who's greatest sin might be that he's too emotionally fragile for the NFL (Vince Young).
If we expect the athletes to hold themselves to a higher code, we must hold ourselves to one as well. Believe me, you will still get to spew all the venom and bile you want.
You'll just have to dilute it with some reality.
But if you watch and listen to it on a daily basis, the truth is that this is a convenient facade. It is a moral preemptive strike. The sports world glows on the surface in effusive praise for the athletes while underneath it jealously boils as it waits for the next star to fall.
And as it plummets from the heavens into which we rushed it, the sports world gleefully gets our kicks in. It is our right because we showered it with love on the way up.
Josh Howard is the latest example of this; you'll recognize him from the red bull's-eye on his back. Look, I'm not saying he's the sharpest tool in the shed. Nor am I saying he doesn't deserve criticism for poor timing and judgment. What I am saying is let's try to hang on to that last edge of perspective. This shouldn't be hard for a real fan.
There is the marijuana incident. The worst that can be said here is his timing was colossally stupid and his judgment was questionable. That's it. And let's be honest here, such a distraction should not be an excuse for affecting the performance of an athlete getting paid millions of dollars to play. In the playoffs no less. If it's news to you that NBA players (along with millions of other Americans) smoke marijuana when not on the job, well your world will be shattered the more time you spend outside of your bubble. Go back.
There is also the Star-Spangled Banner episode. Again, the worst that can be said here is that his timing and judgment were colossally stupid. He needs to realize he is under a microscope at all times and disrespecting the country, even as a goof, while we are in two wars (three if you count the one with Wall Street) is just d-u-m-b.
But several other things need to be pointed out. First, Josh Howard is 28. That sounds far more mature than it really is. Remember, all these athletes are in a bubble of fawning handlers probably from middle school on. Additionally, the NBA is not real-life; being a 20-something millionaire is not real-life. These things have to retard emotional development and maturation. I'm not saying this excuses any lapse in judgment or sin, but I think Josh's were pretty mild.
Second, Josh is African-American. Like it or not, race is and probably will be relevant for my lifetime. Here, it is relevant because (a) African-Americans have a right to a reasonable degree of resentment towards the country; and (b) as suburban teens underage drink, inner city kids seem to smoke marijuana. A disproportionate number of those teens are African-American. Argue these points if you will, but - if you take them as true - both would make Howard's already mild lapses in judgment even more so.
Third, Josh has apologized. Sincerely. The apology showed a depth of thought beyond just, "I'm sorry" for spin's sake. He evidenced understanding that the country is not perfect but has given him a lot as well. He displayed respect for the sacrifices of the military and understanding that he had disrespected those sacrifices. Additionally, he took responsibility for his actions. Instead of using the passive voice to duck it (i.e. I'm sorry for what happened, I'm sorry if people were offended, etc.), Josh stood up like a man and took possession of his actions and consequences. None of us is perfect and Josh has done all that you can ask in the wake of human imperfection.
And this brings me back to my opening point. I am a fan because I love watching the sports I play. I love watching them played at the highest level. I admire those men and women who have dedicated their lives to this pursuit. As such, I don't look for every reason to destroy these athletes (unless they play for the Dallas Cowboys, Los Angeles Dodgers/Lakers, or anywhere in Boston). I don't believe anyone who truly loves these games would do so. I don't believe the sports world would do so if all that love was genuine.
But that is exactly what happens every day. There is ample room for criticism. Serious criticism. But instead of addressing these issues - domestic violence, illegitimate children, suffocating egotism, out-of-control salaries and ticket prices, etc. - we wait like rabid dogs for the next sensational headline. Then we attack, and we keep attacking regardless of the severity until the next athlete stumbles into the crosshairs.
Again, I want to be very clear about this. I am the first to admit that many of these athletes have become loathsome, self-impressed parasites with absolutely no regard for anyone but themselves. But attack them. Don't attack Josh Howard just because he is a pro athlete and has screwed up.
Or at least do your due diligence. If you learned that Josh has spent an impressive amount of time and money improving the community in which he grew up, maybe a couple slips of the tongue aren't so serious.
In that spirit, boo the guy who's dogging it and doesn't care (J.D. Drew). Don't boo the guy who is killing himself without results even if he is making most of our yearly salaries in a couple games (1st half Barry Zito).
Use the power of the pen against the guy scattering illegitimate children like apple seed (Travis Henry to name the latest). Don't use it against some poor kid who's greatest sin might be that he's too emotionally fragile for the NFL (Vince Young).
If we expect the athletes to hold themselves to a higher code, we must hold ourselves to one as well. Believe me, you will still get to spew all the venom and bile you want.
You'll just have to dilute it with some reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)