Yardbarker: Doc319

Cleveland Cavaliers 2008-09 Season Preview

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:08:40 -0500

Cleveland's 2007-08 Record: 45-37 Key Losses: Devin Brown, Damon Jones, Joe Smith Key Additions: J.J. Hickson, Darnell Jackson, Tarence Kinsey, Mo Williams, Lorenzen Wright 1. What significant moves were made during the offseason? The Cavaliers traded Joe Smith and Damon Jones to Milwaukee as part of a three team, six player deal that brought point guard Mo Williams to Cleveland. The Cavaliers hope that Williams--who averaged 17.2 ppg and 6.3 apg last season for Milwaukee--will not only be the best playmaker that they have had at the point guard spot since Andre Miller but that he will also be a bona fide second scoring option who can create his own shot; no Cavalier other than LeBron James has averaged more than 17 ppg since James joined the team in 2003-04. Rookie J.J. Hickson played very well in the Vegas Summer League (19.4 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .534 FG%) and if he can be productive during the regular season then he will add some youth and athleticism to their center/power forward rotation, which currently consists of Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Ben Wallace and Anderson Varejao. 2. What are the team's biggest strengths? LeBron James, rebounding and team defense. Even the most casual basketball fan knows about LeBron James. Many people believe that James is already the best player in the NBA but he still needs to improve his outside shot and his free throw percentage to surpass 2007-08 MVP Kobe Bryant. That said, James is a remarkable talent, a powerful and explosive scorer who also sees the floor brilliantly and can destroy trapping defenses with remarkable crosscourt passes. His defense has improved by leaps and bounds since his rookie year and he is on the verge of being an All-Defensive Team member. James' brilliance is so obvious that it tends to overshadow the other two key factors that comprise the foundation for Cleveland's recent postseason success; the reality is that if all a team has is one great player then they will not go far in the playoffs and may not even earn a playoff berth at all: in 2006-07, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen each failed to lead their respective teams to the playoffs but when they combined forces in Boston the Celtics won the 2008 championship. James played very well in his first two NBA seasons but the Cavaliers did not make the playoffs. In 2005, the Cavaliers hired Mike Brown to be their head coach and he brought with him the blueprint for success that he learned as an assistant coach under Gregg Popovich in San Antonio: defense and rebounding. The Cavaliers have won five playoff series since 2006, more than any team in the NBA except for San Antonio (seven) and Detroit (six). Teams tend to follow the example set by their best player, James deserves a lot of credit for buying into Brown's defense-first philosophy. The Cavaliers are a scrappy team that contests shots, tries to keep the opposing team out of the paint and rebounds very well on both backboards. Media "experts" annually underestimate how well the Cavaliers will do. Last season, some pundits even predicted that the Cavaliers would miss the playoffs the year after going to the NBA Finals! Many people expect make the mistake of simply looking at the names on Cleveland's roster; they see LeBron James and little else that excites them and then they assume that the team is not that good. They fail to understand that Cleveland's commitment to defense and rebounding not only makes the Cavaliers a formidable team but that this style is even more effective in the playoffs, when the game slows down and each possession becomes even more important. The Cavaliers extended the eventual champion Celtics to seven games in last year's Eastern Conference Finals and everybody justifiably raved about James' wonderful seventh game performance (45 points, six assists, five rebounds in a 97-92 loss). However, the Cavs knotted the series at 2-2 even though James shot just 20-78 from the field (.256) and committed 23 turnovers in those first four games. How could the Cavaliers go toe to toe with the best team in the league with James playing so poorly? The answer is that the Cavaliers played excellent defense in those games, holding Boston below 90 points each time and twice limiting the Celtics to fewer than 80 points. 3. What are the team's biggest weaknesses? Even if Williams performs as well as the Cavaliers hope, the team still lacks players who can create their own shots as well as create shots for teammates. James shoulders most of that burden, Williams will certainly help and Delonte West can fill that void at times but in recent years the Cavaliers have not scored a lot of easy baskets, either in transition or in the half court. The other main concern for the Cavaliers is that Ilgauskas and Wallace must remain healthy. They both have accumulated a lot of mileage but the Cavaliers need for them to be productive in order to continue to excel defensively and on the glass. Ilgauskas has a history of foot problems but he has actually been fairly durable in recent seasons; Wallace has a balky back that bothered him sporadically last season and he seems to have lost some of the athleticism that enabled him to dominate the paint as an undersized big man. 4. What are the goals for this team? James led the Cavs to the NBA Finals in 2007 and to the Eastern Conference Finals in 2008. As long as he is in his prime and surrounded by a reasonably good supporting cast, Cleveland's goal every year will remain the same: return to the NBA Finals and then complete the job by winning the championship. 5. Will LeBron James win his first NBA MVP? Now that Bryant won an MVP award, James is the best active player who has not received that honor. As long as he is healthy, James figures to put up MVP-level statistics for at least the next 10 years, so the timing of him winning his first MVP has more to do with his team's overall performance than anything else. In effect, the "tiebreaker" last year that enabled Bryant to win the MVP was that his Lakers finished with the best record in arguably the most competitive Western Conference race ever. If the Cavaliers exceed the 50 win plateau and contend for the best record in the East then James will garner a lot of support from the MVP voters. Predicted Record: 55-27

TNT Broadcasters Steal Show During NBA's First Outdoor Game in 36 Years

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:46:26 -0500

"Basketball calls us outside to play because outside is where basketball lives"--David Aldridge during TNT's introduction to the AutoTrader.com Open The Indian Wells Tennis Garden hosted the NBA's second outdoor game ever, a 77-72 Denver victory over Phoenix. Denver All-Stars Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony sat out due to minor injuries, as did Phoenix All-Star Amare Stoudemire. J.R. Smith and Mateen Cleaves led the Nuggets with 12 points each, while Steve Nash paced Phoenix with 16 points. Denver shot 29-80 from the field (.362), including 1-11 (.091) from three point range, while Phoenix shot 25-79 from the field (.316), including 2-16 (.125) from three point range. Considering the lack of star power plus the fact that this is just the second preseason game for both teams, one would expect a sloppy game. Add in windy conditions and rapidly dropping temperatures and we found out that the concept of an outdoor preseason game is good but the execution--at least in this case--left something to be desired. Remember those backyard pickup games on crisp fall nights when the wind was gusting, you could not get loose and there were more airballs and bricks than swishes? That is what this game looked like, particularly in the second half. Or, as Charles Barkley is fond of saying, "The operation was a success but the patient died." In this instance, the banter among TNT's broadcasting trio of Barkley, Reggie Miller and Marv Albert was often more entertaining than the game itself, although after this airballapalooza/brickathon I don't think that Commissioner David Stern will follow up on Barkley's suggestion to play the All-Star Game outdoors. However, Miller's idea that the game should have started an hour earlier is worth implementing if the NBA decides to have another outdoor game. With both starting units on the court--albeit bereft of the injured All-Stars mentioned above--Phoenix outscored Denver 20-18 in the first quarter. The Suns enjoyed a 41-37 halftime lead, a Bizarro world score for two teams that are known for playing run and gun ball. The Suns went ice cold from the field in the third quarter, scoring just 13 points, and the Nuggets pulled ahead and hung on for a win that will not be replayed on ESPN Classic any time soon. The Suns have replaced Mike D'Antoni and his offensive philosophy of shooting in "seven seconds or less" with Terry Porter, who plans to place an emphasis on defense and half court offensive execution. As Porter put it, the Suns will still run this season but they want to do so after defensive stops, not after taking the ball out of the basket after the opposing team scores. The Nuggets feature the same coach (George Karl) and the same stars (Iverson and Anthony) that they have had in recent years. They lost defensive hub Marcus Camby but the defensive intensity of their bench figures to improve with the addition of energy players like Renaldo Balkman, Chris Andersen and Ruben Patterson. However, the "knucklehead quotient" on this team is reaching levels not seen since Portland housed the "Jail Blazers": let's just say that a locker room with Iverson, Anthony, Patterson, Andersen, Kenyon Martin, J.R. Smith and Smush Parker will never be a dull place (not to say that all of those players are bad people but they all have repeatedly demonstrated bad judgment on and/or off the court on more than one occasion). Shaquille O'Neal looks like he is in decent shape but it is obvious that his days of being an explosive and nimble inside player are long gone. He is huge and he literally throws his weight around but his game is shockingly ground bound now; he seems to struggle to dunk in traffic, something that he did with ease during his prime, often while defenders clung helplessly to him trying in vain to foul him before he slammed the ball through the hoop. That said, O'Neal still has an impact on the defense--literally and figuratively; he has to be guarded and at times still has to be double-teamed and that creates space for the other Suns. The Suns were a better team last year after they acquired him, even thought that truth became somewhat obscured by their meltdown in the first round of the playoffs versus San Antonio. Phoenix rookie Robin Lopez played with a lot of energy, contributing eight points, five rebounds and seven blocked shots. He looks like Anderson Varejao with his wild, flowing hair and he plays like Cleveland's frenetic Brazilian center/forward. Suns forward Boris Diaw drew Barkley's ire on several occasions for being too laid back and lacking a killer instinct. "He gives up more layups than any player in the NBA," Barkley grumbled about Diaw's propensity for passing the ball when he is right in front of the rim. That was a mild remark for Barkley on this night as he offered wide ranging commentary not only on the game but also on politics, the 1984 U.S. Olympic Team and seemingly any other thought that came into his mind. TNT executives were probably alternately laughing, cringing and wondering if it was too late to put Barkley's microphone on eight second delay. At one point, Albert wryly asked, "Are we on the air?" Barkley made a candid admission that he has mentioned a few times on TNT: "One of the big regrets of my career is that I did not become a better defender." Of course, he then (half jokingly) took a shot at his first team, the Philadelphia 76ers: "I blame that on all the dead weight I had to carry with the 76ers." Barkley suggested that he could not play defense with the Sixers because he had to do all of the scoring and rebounding. He did carry a heavy burden at one point in his career but in his formative years with the Sixers Barkley played with Moses Malone, Julius Erving and Maurice Cheeks, so there were plenty of opportunities for him to learn how to play defense and plenty of role models from whom he could have sought guidance. The reality is that Barkley was a great talent and a very productive player but he never took his conditioning or his defense as seriously as Michael Jordan did or Kobe Bryant does. Barkley added that he is still made at the Sixers for not drafting Brad Daugherty in 1986 and I completely agree that that was a travesty. Miller offered a clip and save prediction--"Houston is my pick to win the West"--but Barkley is not convinced, largely because of the unreliability of Ron Artest, of whom Barkley said, "He's a couple sandwiches short of a picnic." Miller also said, "Larry Brown got on me as much as any coach in my career and made me a better player. I think he's the best thing that ever happened to me in my career in Indiana." Speaking of demanding, hard driving coaches, Barkley recalled that he, Karl Malone, John Stockton and Terry Porter rode to the airport together after Bobby Knight cut them from the 1984 Olympic Team. Keep in mind that Joe Kleine, Leon Wood, Jon Koncak and Jeff Turner made the cut. Barkley touched on Phoenix' inability to win a championship despite having a two-time MVP and a host of All-Stars and skilled role players. He said point blank that the Suns probably could have won a championship or two if they had focused more on defense and rebounding. Miller offered up the same weak excuses that Suns' fans--and sometimes Suns' players--cite, including what Phoenix supporters call the Horry game but what should properly be called the Stoudemire/Diaw game; after all, it was their overreaction that cost the Suns, not Horry's shove of Steve Nash. If Stoudemire and Diaw had kept their cool, then Horry would have been the only player who go suspended. Anyway, Barkley rightly insisted that if the Suns had defended and rebounded better then they would have had a much better opportunity to defeat the Spurs. As for the Nuggets, Anthony told TNT's Cheryl Miller, "I think that when I put my mind to it, I can defend whoever I want to." Needless to say, that begs the question of when/if Anthony will in fact put his mind to playing good defense on a consistent basis. Barkley said flatly that Denver is Anthony's team and that how much he buys into what Karl is selling will determine how far the Nuggets go. Miller is convinced that Anthony learned how to step his game up from his experience playing alongside former NBA champions Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade with Team USA but Albert said, essentially, that talk is cheap: the Nuggets need to see real progress from Anthony, not just hear him say the right things during preseason. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Anthony to play good defense or to even know exactly where he is supposed to be defensively. Postscript: The venerable Joe Gilmartin describes the NBA's first outdoor game, a preseason contest in 1972 in which Phoenix defeated Milwaukee 113-100: "The game marked the debut of Butch van Breda Kolff's brief (seven-game) stint as Suns' head coach, and with Neal Walk scoring 15 points and Charlie Scott 14, the Suns beat the Bucks, who were led by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson, 113-110. As he usually did, Suns forward Connie Hawkins drew the most oohs and ahs with some of his patented swoops."

Ernie Davis' Triumph Over Racism Needs No Embellishment

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:04:13 -0500

Ernie Davis' death from cancer at the age of 23 is first and foremost a human tragedy; looking beyond the loss that his family and friends suffered, NFL fans will always wonder what he might have accomplished had he lived long enough to play for the Cleveland Browns. Davis led Syracuse to a national championship in 1959 and two years later he became the first black athlete to win the Heisman Trophy, a remarkable cultural shift just five years after his Syracuse predecessor--Jim Brown--was snubbed for that honor due to the color of his skin; in protest of that travesty, Dick Schaap resigned as a Heisman Trophy voter. "The Express"--which opened in theaters today--tells Davis' life story. We all know that any Hollywood movie that is not expressly labeled as a documentary--and even some movies that are called documentaries--will take some poetic/dramatic license, because real life is just deemed to be too boring. Jeff Merron, who writes for Page 2 at ESPN.com, compared Davis' real life to the "reel life" that is depicted in "The Express." In general, "The Express" is an accurate portrayal of Davis' life and times but the movie's depiction of when Davis' Syracuse team played West Virginia appears to be distorted in several ways. "Express" forcefully contends that the referees and the hostile crowd would not tolerate Davis scoring a touchdown but, as Merron notes, the reality is that the only time Davis faced West Virginia--in 1960--he gained 125 yards on 14 carries and scored two touchdowns. "The Express" portrays the West Virginia fans as boisterously hostile and racist but there is no evidence that the foul behavior depicted in the movie actually happened during that game. In fact, Dick Easterly--Syracuse's quarterback at that time--recently refuted the movie's account of those events: "I apologize to the people of West Virginia because that did not happen. The scene is completely fictitious." This kind of historical revisionism is a lot different than making some minor alterations to a script to heighten drama. Davis and other black athletes in that era faced plenty of real life racism, so it is doubly wrong to smear the reputations of people who did not mistreat him: such a lie not only harms innocent people but it lets the real racists off scot-free. There is no need to make up hateful things that did not happen and it would be infinitely better to forcefully portray the people who really were racists--and call them (and/or their schools) out by name. "Express" did exactly that in its accurate account of the despicable treatment that Davis received in the 1960 Cotton Bowl and in several other games--but adding something to the mix that did not happen weakens the film instead of strengthening it.

Phil Jackson on Lamar Odom: "He's Not Playing Basketball"

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:56:47 -0500

Am I overreacting by suggesting that the biggest issue facing the L.A. Lakers this season is finding the proper role for Lamar Odom? Lakers' Coach Phil Jackson is less than thrilled with what he has seen from Odom thus far: "I just got through telling him that this is really basketball now. He looks like he's either curling or doing some other kind of sport. He's not playing basketball. The first shot he took (in the first preseason game, a 99-90 loss to the Jazz) was a three-pointer in the middle of the third quarter? That was pretty interesting." Jackson also hinted that the experiment of having Odom handling the ball out front instead of Kobe Bryant or Derek Fisher--a disaster in the making--may mercifully be over. Assistant Coach Kurt Rambis, who was the acting Coach during the preseason game, said that Odom's performance was "fair to middling, maybe poor" and added that Odom "didn't seem focused out there." Rambis also noted that even if Odom does OK on the offensive end of the court there is also the issue of him being able to defend smaller, quicker wing players. As I said in June, moving Odom to a wing position is not going to work. Assuming that Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum are healthy and productive they will start at power forward and center respectively and Odom will have to come off of the bench. If he cannot handle that mentally or perform up to his usual standards while not being a starter and having his minutes reduced somewhat then the Lakers will have to seriously look at trading him, preferably for a legitimate starting small forward. The complicating factor in all of this is that the Lakers still have to determine for sure exactly what they have in Bynum. There are still reasons to be concerned about his conditioning and he has yet to prove that he can play at a high level for a full season--that does not mean that I don't think that he can do so but he still has to prove that he can. The Lakers don't want to trade Odom for a small forward and then have Bynum come up with an injury or go through a slump. Meanwhile, though, with Bynum, Gasol and Odom all currently healthy and available, Jackson faces the delicate, awkward task of putting together the most effective player rotation while at the same time not turning Odom--who is in a contract year and does not want to come off of the bench--into a disgruntled distraction. Make no mistake, the Odom situation is the number one concern for the Lakers right now. The coaching staff realizes this, even if many analysts, fans and casual observers do not. Can the Lakers still win 55-60 games even if this situation festers throughout the season? Yes, they can, because they have the best player in the NBA and the best coach, plus they have a very good second option in Gasol. However, if this problem is not resolved during the season it could be their undoing in the playoffs, when the importance of every game and every possession becomes heightened. Just think back to the 2000-01 Portland Trail Blazers; they did not have an MVP-caliber player like Bryant but 1-12 their roster was deeper and more talented than the current Lakers' roster is. In fact, their roster was too deep and it was overstocked at certain positions, particularly power forward. The front office foolishly accentuated that problem by acquiring yet another forward--Detlef Schrempf--down the stretch, a move that merely exacerbated the problem of allocating minutes so that everyone would be happy while at the same time not disrupting the team's rhythm on the court. The year before, the Blazers came within one bad fourth quarter of making it to the NBA Finals but in 2001--after starting out 27-10, including a 10 game winning streak--they faded badly down the stretch and lost in the first round of the playoffs. The Lakers' current problem with Odom is not nearly as severe--and the Lakers do not have as many head cases as the Blazers did--but the Lakers do need to get everyone settled into their roles well before the stretch drive of the regular season and certainly before the playoffs begin.

Jazz Outlast Lakers 99-90 in Andrew Bynum's Return to Action

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:40:51 -0500

The Utah Jazz defeated the L.A Lakers 99-90 in the preseason opener for both teams. The game was played at the Honda Center in Anaheim, California and broadcast by NBA TV, which picked up the local L.A. Lakers feed featuring play by play announcer Joel Meyers and color commentator Stu Lantz (due to some kind of unexplained glitch, the only audio for the first couple minutes of the game consisted of the sounds on the court and P.A. announcer Lawrence Tanter). Ronnie Brewer and Paul Millsap led the Jazz with 13 points each, while Deron Williams had 11 points and a game-high eight assists. Andrew Bynum, playing competitively for the first time since January, led both teams with 15 points and eight rebounds. Jordan Farmar also scored 15 points. Kobe Bryant had eight points, five rebounds and five assists while playing 24 minutes; he played the entire first and third quarters while sitting out the second and fourth quarters. Trevor Ariza played very actively at both ends of the court, contributing 10 points and five rebounds. The Lakers moved Lamar Odom all over the court as they begin the season-long process of trying to find the proper role for him now that Bynum has returned to health but the only category Odom led the Lakers in was fouls committed (five). Odom finished with five points, five rebounds and three assists. The vision of him handling the ball at the top of the key instead of Bryant or Derek Fisher cannot be comforting to Lakers' fans but even more disconcerting is the vision of him chasing small forward shooters like Kyle Korver off of screens. Odom's best attribute is his ability to rebound and that was the one thing that he did well despite being shifted around to multiple positions. Pau Gasol got off to a good start--making his first three shots from the field--but after a hack by Mehmet Okur opened up a cut in Gasol's lip he left the game and did not return. Both teams were shorthanded. Lakers Coach Phil Jackson was not at the game due to some swelling in his legs, possibly caused by an allergic reaction to medication that he is taking. It is unclear when he will return to the bench. Jazz All-Star Carlos Boozer sat out to rest a sore left hamstring and Matt Harpring did not play because he is still recovering from ankle surgery. Laker reserves Sasha Vujacic and Luke Walton did not play due to minor injuries that will not likely sideline them for a significant period of time. Although it is widely expected that Bynum and Gasol will both start, Bynum began this game on the bench as the Lakers opened with a lineup of Gasol, Odom and Trevor Ariza up front, with Bryant and Fisher in the backcourt. Nominally, Odom is the power forward in that lineup but on the Lakers' first possession, Odom handled the ball out front, while Bryant posted on the left block. After Bryant was double-teamed, he fed Gasol, who buried an open jumper from the right baseline. On defense, Odom guarded center Okur, Gasol checked power forward Millsap and Trevor Ariza matched up with small forward C.J. Miles. Odom picked up two quick fouls--a silly loose ball foul right after he was stripped of the ball on a drive and a hack when Millsap drove to the hoop. Acting Head Coach Kurt Rambis kept Odom in the game anyway. The score was tied at 10 when Bynum made his first appearance at the 6:55 mark after Gasol had to leave the game due to the blood rule. The first time he touched the ball, Bynum drained a foul line jumper. Bynum's second touch came after he set a screen for Bryant on the left wing and both defenders collapsed on Bryant, who whipped a pass to a cutting Bynum. Bynum took one dribble and tried to make a power move but Okur swatted his shot out of bounds. Not long after that, Bynum caught the ball on the left block versus Okur and drained a nice turnaround jumper. Then Bynum received the ball from Bryant in the middle of the lane, hit another turnaround jumper and drew a foul on Millsap. Bynum completed the three point play by making the free throw. Shortly after that, Vladimir Radmanovic checked in for Odom and promptly ruined an opportunity for an easy layup by fumbling a Bryant pass out of bounds. The ball hit him in both hands. Bryant put some pace on it but, as Lantz said, "You've got to catch that one." A few possessions later, Bynum got his first dunk of the game after Fisher lost the ball, dove to the court, recovered possession and flipped a no look lob pass over his head to Bynum right in front of the rim. The Lakers shot 75% from the field and led 26-19 at the end of the first quarter despite committing nine turnovers. Bynum scored nine points on 4-6 shooting and had four rebounds. Bryant did not look for his shot much but made his presence felt as a playmaker (four assists) and on defense, including a sensational left handed blocked shot that wiped out a sure layup for Jarron Collins. It was very interesting and telling to see Bynum posting up in the second quarter when Bryant was not in the game. Without Bryant attracting defensive attention, perimeter defenders feel free to sag into the paint and dig for the ball. Bynum does not have sufficient court awareness to deal with this just yet, so the first time this happened he had the ball stripped right out of his hands. The next time Bynum caught the ball on the block, he reacted to the double-team by hastily throwing up a weak shot that clanged off of the rim. Bynum is a talented player with a lot of the proverbial upside but what many people don't recognize or understand is that when he is on the court with Bryant he gets to play one on one--or often one on none after a screen/roll play--and that is a whole different scenario than having to create his own shot when the defense does not have to be concerned about Bryant. After a sloppy second quarter contested largely by reserve players from both teams, the Lakers led 42-40 at halftime. Bryant gambled for a steal and gave up a backdoor layup to Brewer on the opening possession of the second half but then Bryant quickly answered with a jumper after using a nice jab step to create some space. The Lakers' court balance and transition defense were very poor in the third quarter, resulting in a lot of fast break dunks for the Jazz. Lantz really liked Ariza's activity and early in the third quarter Lantz made an excellent observation: "Kobe looks for his teammates but you can only look for teammates who are moving without the ball. Trevor Ariza is always slashing, trying to get to the paint. You make that kind of movement and you are going to find yourself in position to get easy opportunities." Bynum did not do much in the third quarter but on one possession he faced up Okur at the free throw line extended and made a nice drive, finishing strongly with his left hand, to put the Lakers up 57-56. However, the Jazz closed the quarter with a 20-12 run. Like the second quarter, the fourth quarter was largely contested by reserve players from both teams. Bynum reentered the game with 5:51 remaining. He immediately caught the ball deep in the paint and made a left handed hook over Kevin Lyde, a 28 year old undrafted free agent rookie who has played four seasons in the NBDL. However, on the next possession we once again saw the difference in Bynum's game when Bryant is not on the court: Bynum caught the ball in the midpost area and was stripped of the ball by a guard (Ronnie Price) digging down. "That one's on Andrew," Lantz explained. "He made a commitment to that particular move without reading the defense first, reading where the weakside was, reading if a double-team was coming." Lantz could have added that when Bryant is in the game, such reads are much simpler because the double-team is likely not coming at all, so Bynum can simply go to work against his defender. Anyone who thinks that Bynum is a franchise-level player right now simply does not understand the game; he may develop into such a player but thus far in Bynum's brief career a lot of his offensive production has come as a byproduct of the defensive attention that Bryant attracts. That is not a bad thing nor is stating this meant to be a criticism of Bynum; at least Bynum can take advantage of such situations, unlike Kwame Brown. Rather, this is a criticism of fans and "stat gurus" alike who overstate Bynum's value. There is a big difference between Bynum's potential and his value right now--right now, Bynum is valuable for his rebounding, shotblocking and ability to finish in the paint, not because he is a franchise-level player. That said, Bynum made a nice adjustment the next time he caught the ball, making a quick move against Lyde before the double-team could arrive and drawing a foul. Bynum made both free throws to cut Utah's lead to 95-86. On the next possession, Bynum held on to the ball longer, but the Jazz did not double-team him. Bynum attempted a turnaround jumper that Lyde blocked. After the game, Bynum offered a very candid and realistic answer when asked if he was happy with his performance: "Nah, it was decent. I think I can do better. I need to do better." This game did not really answer the questions about the Lakers' player rotations because we still have yet to see Gasol and Bynum on the court together, let alone seeing Gasol, Bynum and Odom in action at the same time. Ariza looked very good and if he can play like that consistently he really should be the starting small forward. The Jazz were shorthanded as well but they obviously have a nice group of young, athletic players--Millsap, Brewer, Miles--to complement the Williams-Boozer duo. Okur had a solid game in limited action and although Andrei Kirilenko had a quiet night his versatitility and his ability to defend multiple positions make him very valuable.

McNabb's Leadership Questioned

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:31:19 -0500

The Philadelphia Eagles have a 2-3 record and are in last place in the tough NFC East, 2.5 games behind the 4-0 New York Giants. The Eagles blew out the horrible St. Louis Rams 38-3 in week one, defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers 15-6 in week three and have lost three close games to the Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bears and Washington Redskins. You may recall that Terrell Owens received a lot of criticism for questioning Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb's performance under pressure, specifically in Super Bowl XXXIX but also in general. The Cowboys have a 26-11 record since acquiring Owens, who has combined with quarterback Tony Romo to form arguably the deadliest QB-WR tandem in the league. Dallas made the playoffs in 2006 and 2007 and seems to be a lock to make the playoffs this season. Meanwhile, the Eagles went 10-6 in 2006 but they have been on a downward trend overall since getting rid of Owens: 8-8 last season and then this year's sub-.500 start. That adds up to a mediocre 20-17 record. Philadelphia Daily News columnist Les Bowen, who admits to being a frequent defender of McNabb over the years, now believes that McNabb must "take ownership of this mess and fix it." Bowen declares: Donovan McNabb's assertions about the Eagles being better than teams that keep beating them rang really hollow on Sunday. McNabb didn't come off as fiery or even defiantly optimistic--just clueless, especially when McNabb, challenged to support his view, could provide no real evidence. It was a little like McNabb's forlorn cry last year, when he declared that the road to the NFC East title still ran through Philadelphia, at a point when the Birds were well on their way to finishing last in the division. Nobody got inspired. Bowen singles out McNabb's lack of leadership and composure in a crucial goal line situation last Sunday versus the Redskins. The Eagles lost three yards on third and one from the 2 and had to settle for a field goal but Bowen says that McNabb should have taken charge before that play happened: McNabb--whose postgame analysis of the play was absolute unintelligible gibberish--needed to call the timeout there, when he saw the misalignment. Or he needed to grab (tight end L. J.) Smith and send him over to the proper spot. Or maybe, before all that, he needed to make it clear to (Coach Andy) Reid that sore chest or no, he was ready and willing to run a quarterback sneak to pick up the first down. That would have been leadership, much more effective than asserting how good your team is after an embarrassing loss. When the Eagles first got rid of Owens, most members of the media piled on against Owens, but Michael Irvin--then a commentator for ESPN--said that the Eagles were "losing their ass to save their face" (i.e., appeasing McNabb for public relations purposes but actually making the on field product worse). The won-loss records of the Cowboys and Eagles since that time, plus Owens' high level of production as a Cowboy (185 receptions, 2866 yards, 15.5 avg., 33 touchdowns) show that Irvin was right. One of the obvious things that the Eagles need is someone who can make big plays down the field and who can get the ball into the endzone. In other words, they need Owens, who led the NFL in receiving TDs in 2006, ranked third last year despite missing a game due to injury and is currently tied for the NFL lead in receiving TDs this season. Don't forget that McNabb had by far his best season in 2004, the one complete season that he played with Owens.

Monday Night Football Quick Hits: Wacky Night in New Orleans Edition

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:50:43 -0500

Reggie Bush's record setting night was not enough for the New Orleans Saints, who dropped a 30-27 decision to the Minnesota Vikings after Ryan Longwell made a 30 yard field goal with just 13 seconds left. Bush became just the 12th player in NFL history to return two punts for touchdowns in the same game. He also set franchise records for single game punt return yardage (176), career punt return touchdowns (four) and single season punt return touchdowns (three, with 11 games still remaining in the season). ESPN employed an MPH graphic that indicated that Bush reached a peak speed of over 22 MPH during one of his returns, which is remarkable, especially considering that he was wearing a helmet and pads. Adrian Peterson gained just 32 yards on 21 rushes for the Vikings but Gus Frerotte had a solid game (19-36, 222 yards, one touchdown, no interceptions) and Minnesota forced four turnovers in addition to scoring a touchdown on Antoine Winfield's 59 yard return of a blocked Martin Gramatica field goal in the first half. Gramatica also missed a field goal with 2:04 left in the fourth quarter that could have put New Orleans up 30-27; instead, the Vikings drove downfield, bled the clock down and won despite being outgained from scrimmage by 105 yards (375-270). ESPN's Tony Kornheiser said that this performance was Bush's "A Star is Born" moment but that is just another example of hype gone wild. The last player to have two punt returns for a touchdown in one game was Detroit's Eddie Drummond in 2004. Last I checked, Drummond is not a star and is probably not even as well known as Mr. Drummond from "Diff'rent Strokes." You simply don't become a star in the NFL merely by returning punts for touchdowns; you can become a phenomenon for a brief time like Dante Hall used to be or like Devin Hester is now but even if you are a great punt returner you are likely going to have fewer than 10 TD returns in your whole career. Gale Sayers was a great punt and kick returner but he earned his stardom because he was also perhaps the most electrifying running back in the NFL during his brief, injury-filled Hall of Fame career; Sayers had two career punt return TDs and six career kickoff return TDs while playing four full seasons and parts of three other seasons. Bush has yet to prove to be a great--or even significantly above average--NFL running back. He rushed 12 times for 29 yards against Minnesota. Bush is a prolific receiver in terms of number of catches--he already has 199 receptions in just 33 career games--but he is not a highly productive receiver in terms of yardage or touchdowns; he has averaged 7.4 yards per reception in his career and caught six touchdown passes. He had seven receptions for 64 yards and no touchdowns on Monday night. The most apt comparison to Bush right now is probably Eric Metcalf, who made three Pro Bowls during his 13 year career. Metcalf never became a great running back but he caught 541 passes for 5572 yards (10.3 avg.) and 31 touchdowns; he also had 10 punt return touchdowns and two kickoff return touchdowns. Metcalf holds the NFL career record for punt return TDs, ranks fourth in career punt return yards (3453), 12th in career kickoff return yards (5813) and 12th in career all purpose yards (17,230). Metcalf was a very good NFL player but he was not a star--certainly not a star in the breathless way that Kornheiser means, someone who is one of the elite players in the entire league. Metcalf was a very valuable special teams performer who was also a productive receiver. If Bush continues to do well as a returner and increases his yards per reception average then he can reach the same level that Metcalf did. During Monday Night Countdown it was great to see the footage from this weekend when the San Francisco 49ers retired Steve Young's number eight. Stuart Scott asked Young what stood out most for him from the ceremony and Young singled out two things: (1) It means a lot to him that his number is right next to Bill Walsh's name on the Ring of Honor, because Walsh believed in Young when many people didn't, told Young that the West Coast Offense was tailor-made for him encouraged him to go out and perform at a high level; (2) Young's children are not old enough to remember his playing career but now they are old enough to have some understanding of what he did, so this ceremony was an opportunity for him to share some aspects of his career with them. Later, when Scott shifted gears and talked about today's quarterbacks, saying that there are "some great signal callers in this league," Young replied, "There are a few," adding that New Orleans' Drew Brees is "in the 'A' group because he's decided to make it his craft, his profession. He's got into the depths of the playbook and he understands the little, tiny things. Watch him tonight: he is great at being able to just make a little flick of the shoulders to move linebackers and open up lanes for the tight ends. He is ahead of the game. Most quarterbacks who leave the huddle in the NFL, they have the play in their mind, the motion and then they are going to watch the defense and react. Drew actually starts to dictate terms, like Peyton Manning, like Tom Brady. They dictate to defenses and they go after parts of the defense. You'll see that today. He is one of the best in the NFL today, no question." Young is an outstanding analyst because he does not buy into hype and because he explains specifically what a player does well or does not do well. He often speaks of quarterbacking as a "craft" and that is certainly the approach that he took toward the position when he played in the NFL. He respects and understands the nature of this craft and that is why he not only played so well but why he can explain the game with such clarity and depth. Brees, completed 26 of 46 passes for 330 yards with one touchdown and two interceptions. Even though his second interception was a Hail Mary fling on New Orleans' final offensive play, Brees was not as crisp or accurate as he had been in the first four games of the season. Obviously, it does not help matters that Marques Colston and Jeremy Shockey are out of action due to injury. Still, Young said that this performance did not change his opinion that Brees is one of the top five quarterbacks in the NFL. Young cited several plays in which Brees made subtle shoulder, head and pump fakes that very few QBs can do. He noted that Brees can make full field reads that most QBs cannot make and that many coaches will not even let their QBs try to make. The Vikings entered this season with high expectations but, like the Saints, they are only 2-3 and just hanging around the outskirts of playoff contention. They had hoped that Tarvaris Jackson would be their quarterback of the future but after starting the season 0-2 Coach Brad Childress benched him in favor of Frerotte. Although Frerotte has led the team to a 2-1 mark as a starter, his statistics are only marginally better than Jackson's. Since it looks like both Wild Card teams will come out of the NFC East, the Vikings and Saints each will likely have to win their divisions to make the playoffs; the Vikings are tied with Green Bay and one game behind the Chicago Bears right now in the NFC North, while the Saints are in last place in the NFC South, two games behind the Carolina Panthers. Here are some notes/comments about Sunday's action: Early in the Indianapolis-Houston game, Dan Dierdorf said, "Anybody who says modern NFL players don't need training camp doesn't know what they're talking about. Even Peyton Manning needed it." So why do Tom Jackson and Cris Carter keep insisting that the time that Brett Favre missed before signing with the Jets doesn't matter? I realize that Favre had a great game last week and that he currently leads the NFL in passer rating but the Jets' two wins--and Favre's two best performances--came against teams that did not make the playoffs last year, though Miami and Arizona certainly seem to have improved this season. Versus New England and San Diego, Favre had four touchdowns and three interceptions in two losses and it was obvious that the Jets were using a limited playbook because Favre does not yet know the whole offensive system and is not completely on the same page with his receivers. Two weeks ago, Steve Young said that it could take until week 10 before Favre really knows the Jets' system and that assessment seems a lot more realistic than what Jackson and Carter have been saying. Indianapolis' come from behind 31-27 win--during which the Colts scored 21 points in just 2:10 in the fourth quarter--brings to mind an idea that Dick Vermeil expressed a long time ago: late in the game when everything is on the line you simply cannot make a critical mistake that wipes out everything good that you did earlier. That is what losing players and losing teams do and in order to become a winning player or a winning team it is essential to get out of that habit. This requires concentration, focus and discipline. The Texans dominated for most of the game and led 27-10 with fewer than five minutes remaining but there is a reason that their organization has never experienced sustained success. Backup quarterback Sage Rosenfels--who started in place of the ill Matt Schaub--played very well for most of the game but in crunch time he simply did not understand what he needed to do to give his team the best chance to win. In chess, strong players know that when you have an advantage you "play against your opponent's play"; in other words, instead of trying to capture every last pawn on the board, you determine what your opponent's most dangerous piece is and you make sure that he cannot harm you with it. Similarly, the Texans did not need to score any more points or to make any heroic plays; they needed to protect the ball, run the clock down, punt if necessary and make the Colts have to traverse a long field just to score one time. Instead, Rosenfels tried to take on half of the Colts' defense during a wild, leaping scramble, was stripped of the ball and Gary Brackett returned the resulting fumble 68 yards for a touchdown. Rosenfels compounded this error with another fumble that put the Colts in easy scoring range and before you knew it the Texans lost the game. For a good portion of the past week, many members of the media have tried to manufacture a Terrell Owens controversy out of thin air, using out of context quotes and amateur psychoanalyzing. Prior to Dallas' 31-22 win versus Cincinnati, Dallas owner Jerry Jones tried to settle things down by saying of Owens, "He's a terrific playmaker and we want to get him the ball. We'll overly try to get him the ball. There's no question about that. We should. It ought to open things up for other places on the offense." Naturally, those logical comments made several of the people on the set of ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown apoplectic. "Let's keep this simple," Tom Jackson said. "They are at a tipping point and here's what it is. Are you going to continue to force the ball to Terrell Owens and exclude people like Felix Jones and give Marion Barber eight carries in a game that you lost when you've been running the ball as well as you have? I'll say this: what else was Jerry Jones going to say? Was he going to say, 'No, we're not going to throw the ball to him as much'? Because he knows what the reaction would have been. Again, I've read the book, I've seen the ending and so has Jerry Jones." Next, Keyshawn Johnson--author of Just Give Me the Damn Ball!--told the lovely fairy tale of how he used to be a selfish player before he saw the light and then won a Super Bowl; the fairy tale is not that he used to be selfish but rather that he became unselfish--the season after his Tampa Bay Buccaneers won the Super Bowl he was the third leading receiver on the squad when they deactivated him for the remainder of the season due to conduct detrimental to the team. Johnson was never as good of a player as Owens and he was more disruptive than Owens has ever been. As I wrote last week, "Based on skill set and attitude, Johnson is quite possibly the last person on Earth who should ever open his mouth to comment about Owens' abilities, work ethic or commitment to winning." Mike Ditka and Cris Carter were more restrained in their comments. Ditka simply noted that for some reason many wide receivers seem to think that they are open on every play and they also have an aversion to blocking (of course, the latter criticism certainly does not apply to Owens, as we have clearly seen on several occasions just this season). Carter said that he thinks that Dallas quarterback Tony Romo is too smart to fall into this, whatever that means. Owens is one of the best wide receivers of all-time and a first ballot Hall of Famer, so it is a shame that so many people who should know better spend so much time speaking negatively about him. Much to the dismay of Owens' critics, he did not do anything disruptive on Sunday and in fact played an important role in Dallas' victory. Owens finished with two receptions for 67 yards--including a very important second half 57 yard touchdown--and one rush for eight yards. Although Owens had a quiet first half statistically, he made his presence felt because the Bengals had to account for him defensively. CBS' Phil Simms used the telestrator to demonstrate how Tony Romo's four yeard TD pass to Jason Witten was set up by Owens, who started out in the backfield and then ran a pattern in the right flat, attracting multiple defenders, creating a gap for Witten. Owens became just the eighth player in NFL history to catch 900 passes and the third fastest to reach that milestone (178 games). He also moved into a fourth place tie with Marshall Faulk on the career touchdowns scored list (136). The Cowboys jumped out to a 17-0 lead and seemed to be well on their way to routing the Bengals but turnovers--including a fumble and an interception by Romo--helped Cincinnati to get back into the game. With Dallas clinging to a 17-16 lead, the Cowboys recovered a Chris Perry fumble and that is when Owens made his big TD reception, outrunning the entire Bengals secondary after he caught the ball over the middle. The Bengals answered with a Palmer touchdown pass to T.J. Houshmandzadeh but their two point conversion attempt failed and the Cowboys sewed up the win with a clock chewing drive that culminated in a touchdown reception by Patrick Crayton after the ball sailed right through Miles Austin's hands. After the game, Tom Jackson said of Chad Johnson, "He's a good kid. A little mixed up, but a good kid." This is what I just don't get. I'm not saying that Johnson is a bad person, though I don't think that he is a good teammate--but why do Jackson and so many others look at Johnson as some kind of lovable eccentric but they speak of Owens as if he is the devil incarnate? During the game telecast, Phil Simms hit the nail on the head about Johnson when he said that teams reflect the attitude and mindset of their leaders and that Johnson and Houshmandzadeh both have to be aware that as team leaders their conduct sets the tone for everyone else. Simms mentioned that he discussed this before the game with Cincinnati Coach Marvin Lewis and that Lewis, while understandably careful about how he chose his words, agreed that Johnson and Houshmandzadeh must be mindful of how their actions affect the entire team--which is a diplomatic way of saying that they are not quite the leaders that Lewis wants them to be. In his postgame standup, Owens did something great: he simply made a short statement and did not answer any questions, thus not providing anything for the media to misinterpret or take out of context; if the media is going to continue to distort his words and paint him as a bad guy then he should respond in exactly that fashion, fulfilling the bare minimum in terms of being available. For the record, here is what he said: "I'm going to make this short and sweet, man. I'm not going to answer too many questions but I've just been dealing with a lot of stuff. This was a great team win. We fought hard to get back in this ball game. There has been a lot of criticism that I have taken all week and it's more about me just giving God all the glory for the opportunities he gave me today. It was frustrating out there but I just kept with it and my teammates stuck with it. I'm about more than being number 81, it's about more than a star being on my helmet. God put me in this situation to let everybody know that I am a man of God no matter what criticisms I may take or that people may point at me. I'm standing here today just to profess my faith in God and the ability he gave me to show that on the football field today. God used me for his glory and reality is where glory resides and that's all I've got to say." Quote of the Week, I: After Tony Kornheiser noted that Minnesota owner Zygi Wilf often listens to talk radio to get a sense of what people think about his team, Ron Jaworski declared, "Anyone who is going to make decisions based on talk radio should not be in the position of owning a team." Kornheiser responded, "Thank you. I do talk radio. So does Mike (Tirico)." Quote of the Week, II: "Nothing sadder than a man who has lost his sole."--Greg Gumbel after Joseph Addai's shoe fell apart during Indianapolis' 31-27 win over Houston.

ProBasketballNews.com Relaunch Kicks off With a Look at Basketball Statistical Analysis

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:10:45 -0500

I am pleased to report that Sam Amico's fine website ProBasketballNews.com is alive again after taking a hiatus during the offseason. I will be contributing original content to PBN.com on a regular basis but for the site relaunch we decided to run a piece that first appeared at 20 Second Timeout recently, namely my explanation of why most current forms of basketball statistical analysis should not properly considered to be a science: Sorry, Stats Analysis Not a Science (this is a clickable link in the original post) I don't expect that people who are making good money peddling their formulas and evaluations will stop doing so just because I have pointed out the flaws in their methodologies but it would be nice if someone who has the resources to do so would at least look into the way that certain statistics are kept, most notably assists. Wouldn't you like to know how many of Chris Paul's league-leading 925 assists last season were really assists under rule book definitions? I don't mean to single out Paul but as regular visitors to this site already know, during last year's playoffs when I was writing a recap for the Hornets' 101-82 game one victory over the Spurs I noticed some irregularities between the official play by play data regarding Paul's assists and what I had observed while watching the game. When I went back to the tape and reviewed those plays I found that several of them were improperly scored and the same thing was true when I examined a subsequent Hornets playoff game. Frankly, I find it disturbing that no prominent figures in the stats analysis community have made any kind of public response to my findings; it's as if they don't care whether or not the basic data that they are plugging into their formulas is accurate. As an example of why this is important (beyond the obvious reason that using faulty basic data leads to errors in the final stats formulas), a lot of people assert that Chris Paul "made" David West into an All-Star. No one would dispute that West benefits from playing alongside a great point guard but the reality--as I demonstrated in the two posts mentioned above and as anyone who watches Hornets' games with an educated eye understands--is that West is a phenomenally skilled player who creates a lot of his own offense because he can post up, shoot face up jumpers or face up a defender and drive to the hoop. However, when scorekeepers award Paul assists on a large number of West field goals for which Paul did not really deserve assists this not only skews Paul's rating in various stat systems but it also gives a false impression regarding West's game/skill set. I don't have the resources (or time) to track every one of Paul's assists from last season--let alone every assist awarded in the NBA--but surely someone at one of the big media conglomerates (or one of these academics who does nothing but crunch NBA numbers all day) has the wherewithal to really study this. Instead of claiming to provide accurate player ratings for every single player in the NBA, it would be nice if one or more of these "stat gurus" actually found out how reliable the basic data is in the first place. Of course, it is highly unlikely that anybody will ever do this, for several reasons: 1) There is no money to be made in conducting such research and, indeed, if the basic data is proven to be faulty to a significant extent then some of these guys could stand to lose money because their prior work--or at least the some of the conclusions that they drew about players--would be discredited to a certain degree. 2) It would take a lot of time to do this research properly. 3) Many of these "stat gurus" probably do not even know how to properly score an assist and thus they would not be qualified to do this research in the first place! Of course, none of this will stop the "stat gurus" from breathlessly telling us two weeks after the season started the "exact" ratings for every player in the NBA, all while making snide remarks about the GMs, coaches and scouts who make their livings doing proper, in depth player analysis. As former NBA head coach Eric Musselman recently discussed, there are certain abilities and traits--for instance, performing well in "clutch situations"--that can only be discovered and properly evaluated by watching players perform, preferably in person: To find these players, you have to put down the stat sheet and go into the gyms of the world and talk with them. Meet them. Look into their eyes. Most of all, you have to watch them perform under certain conditions. Seeing it on film is one thing, but seeing it up close and in person will give you a much better idea of their "clutchness." When talking with those who have "it," you'll know. You can sense it. Clutch is an attitude, a mind-set. Without a doubt, it's something we're born with--an inherited quality. I've seen it in 10-year-old kids. How they carry themselves when a (Little League) game is on the line. It's remarkable. I saw it in high school and in college. And I've seen it coaching in the pros--both at the minor league and NBA level. But you can't find it on a stat sheet. Two players could have identical stat lines and one has "it" and the other doesn't. I know that most "stat gurus" swear up and down that "clutch play" does not exist--but anyone who has competed at a meaningful level in anything knows that there is such a thing as performing well in the clutch, whether that consists of elevating one's own game under pressure or simply not having one's performance/efficiency/awareness in such situations decline as much as other people's performance/efficiency/awareness declines. The bottom line is that when the outcome of the game is in doubt, some guys want the ball and some guys don't, even if they say that they do; you can see it at any level: some players make sure that the ball winds up in their hands, while other guys come off of the screen just a tick slower than usual to make sure that the ball is not passed to them. Before Michael Jordan hit "the Shot" to beat Cleveland, he had to elude two defenders just to receive the inbounds pass; plenty of other players would have just given up and said afterwards that they would have loved to take the shot but they simply could not get open. Statistical analysis of the sport of basketball is a wonderful idea in theory, provided that the people who are doing the analysis--and the people who are using the final product of the analysis--understand the exact nature and limitations of these numbers.

Has the "Lost Art" of the Stolen Base Really Been Rediscovered?

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:27:56 -0500

It has been suggested that the lost art of the stolen base has been rediscovered this year but the numbers do not really bear this out. This year's NL leader, Willy Taveras, stole 68 bases, 10 fewer than last year's NL leader (Jose Reyes, 78); this year's AL leader, Jacoby Ellsbury, had the same number of steals (50) as last year's AL co-leaders (Carl Crawford and Brian Roberts). NL players stole 1482 bases in 2008 compared to 1564 in 2007; AL players stole 1317 bases in 2008, compared to 1354 in 2007. Those totals pale in comparison to 1999, when NL players set the modern (post 1900) league record with 1959 stolen bases; AL players stole 1462 bases that season, which is not the modern AL record but is the second highest total for that league between 1999 and 2008. Sports Illustrated's coverage of the supposed rebirth of the stolen base included an amusing contradiction. In Chris Ballard's September 15, 2008 story titled "The Art of the Steal," Davey Lopes--who ranks 25th in career steals with 557 and is currently a baserunning coach for the Phillies--said, "You hear guys say, 'He's at full speed at two steps.' Usain Bolt, the guy who just won the Olympics, he isn't at full speed at two steps. If a guy's at full speed at two steps, then he's slow. You follow me?" However, in the September 22, 2008 issue, there is this statement by Ron Fimrite from a September 6, 1982 story about Rickey Henderson setting the single season steals record (courtesy of the SI Vault): "There may be faster men in the big leagues--Willie Wilson? Kirk Gibson? Tim Raines?--but none reaches maximum speed quicker than Henderson, who needs but two steps to do so, and none hits the base with such force."

Bravo, Al Neuharth: Joe Torre's Biggest Critic Admits He Was Wrong

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:13:56 -0500

I recently suggested that USA TODAY founder Al Neuharth, arguably Joe Torre's biggest critic, should be big enough to admit that he was wrong about the man who led the Yankees to 12 straight playoff berths and four World Series titles. This year, of course, Torre guided the L.A. Dodgers to the postseason--and they currently enjoy a 2-0 lead over the favored Chicago Cubs--while the Yankees sans Torre did not qualify for postseason play. The print edition of Friday's USA TODAY contains Neuharth's annual MLB playoff picks and if Neuharth is a bit late this time around--the playoffs have already begun--at least he is indeed big enough to finally concede that he was wrong about Torre: When Joe Torre was dumped as New York Yankee manager last October, I said good riddance. I had jumped on Joe often because he failed to make the World Series for seven straight years, despite the highest paid players in baseball. But he did lead the Yankees to the playoffs for 12 straight years. In this first Torre-less year, they packed their bags in September and went home before the playoffs began. Torre, in a new, three-year, $13 million job running the Los Angeles Dodgers, is in the playoffs and a serious World Series contender. When you mess up, you should fess up. I did, so I do. In downgrading Torre, I wrote the Yankees have so much talent that even the batboy should be able to manage them well enough to get into the playoffs each year. This year, they didn't make the playoffs, but it wasn't the batboy's fault. New Manager Joe Girardi must take the blame. Neuharth wavered heavily with his picks, choosing "maybe" Boston or Tampa Bay in the AL and "maybe" L.A. or Chicago in the NL. He concluded, "If you're glad that I'm not as cocksure about my picks as I used to be, maybe you should give thanks to Torre." I give Neuharth credit for stepping up, unlike the Yankees' Hank Steinbrenner, who made excuses for his team and tried to belittle what Torre accomplished this season. No one is right 100% of the time but it takes a person of character to admit that he was wrong. Bravo, Al Neuharth!

Sixth Sense: Odom Less Than Thrilled About Not Being a Starter

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:38:36 -0500

The number one issue facing the Lakers this season--assuming, of course, that Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum are healthy--is Lamar Odom's role. The mercurial forward is not pleased about talk that he will be the team's sixth man. Informed that Hall of Fame Coach Phil Jackson wants to bring him off of the bench, Odom declared, "He must have woke up and bumped his head. He probably hit his head on something--boom. To start off like that, you've got to be out of your...mind." While some people believe that the return to health of Andrew Bynum automatically will enable the Lakers to win multiple titles, after game six of the Finals I wrote, "All of the talk about a Lakers' dynasty in the making is extremely premature. Andrew Bynum has yet to put together half a season's worth of productive NBA games, let alone prove that he can be a reliable playoff performer. When--if--he fully returns to health he can give the Lakers more paint presence but he will not singlehandedly correct all of the problems that the Lakers had in the Finals. Also, I have yet to hear serious discussion of the fact that he, Gasol and Odom cannot possibly play extended minutes together because none of them is a small forward. Bynum or Gasol can play center with Odom at power forward or Bynum can play center with Gasol at power forward but if Gasol and Bynum are on the court together then Odom will have to be on the bench in favor of someone who can play small forward. The ideal scenario for the Lakers would be for Bynum to quickly prove that he is healthy and productive so that the Lakers can trade Odom in exchange for a legitimate starting small forward; that is a position that is a glaring need for them, because Vladimir Radmanovic, Luke Walton and Trevor Ariza are each best suited to be bench players." In my 2008 playoff recap I reemphasized those points: "If Andrew Bynum returns to health and is productive then he can start at center and Pau Gasol can shift to power forward. In that scenario, the ideal move for the Lakers would be to trade Lamar Odom for a quality small forward. Odom is not an ideal small forward, so a frontline of Bynum-Gasol-Odom is not feasible, despite what some people may try to convince you; the only way that those three players can effectively coexist is if one of them comes off of the bench. Gasol is the second best player on the team, so he is not going to be a reserve. Bynum is the best postup player, so it does not make sense to sit him either." Regardless of how much Odom or his admirers overestimate his abilities, what Odom does best is rebound but if Bynum is healthy and in shape he is not only a better rebounder than Odom but he also provides more paint presence defensively. Odom has never been a great fit in the Triangle Offense but he was at his best last season when he was the third offensive option behind Bryant and Gasol, as opposed to being relied upon as the second offensive option (the next person who uses Odom's name in the same sentence with Scottie Pippen should immediately be sent to basketball purgatory). Add Bynum to that mix and you certainly have a big and talented frontcourt but one that does not mesh together well from a skill set standpoint; Odom is not a reliable outside shooter, nor can he be depended on to guard top flight small forwards on a nightly basis. Coach Jackson is obviously correct that the optimal solution from a strategic standpoint is to bring Odom off of the bench but there are two problems here: (1) Odom is in the last year of his contract and he obviously wants to put up big numbers so that he can get the largest possible deal after the season; (2) Odom's concentration and focus are not great anyway but being a sixth man requires a player to be very aware of what is going on in the game when he is on the bench so that he can have an instant impact when he enters the fray. Some people may assume that issue number one will help Odom resolve issue number two but I don't think so; if Odom comes off of the bench he is not going to be more focused so that he can put up good numbers: rather, he is going to force the issue because he is going to be concerned that he won't play as many minutes as he did last year. Truthfully, the ideal solution for the Lakers is the one that I mentioned right after game six: Bynum quickly proves that he is healthy and effective, enabling the Lakers to trade Odom for a true small forward. Even if the player that they get in return is less talented than Odom, the Lakers will come out well if they get someone who enables them to properly balance out their rotations. Perhaps the Lakers could even package Radmanovic and some other reserves along with Odom in order to get not only a legitimate starting small forward but also a power forward who is better suited mentally to come off the bench than Odom is. If Gasol and Bynum are healthy and Odom is not traded, Odom's dissatisfaction with his role and his lack of productivity will be the top stories in Lakerland. Strange as it may sound, if the Lakers cannot trade Odom they will almost be better off if Bynum gets hurt and the Lakers can use the lineup that dominated the Western Conference in the second half of last season. That may sound extreme--and I certainly am not wishing any ill on Bynum or anyone else--but Odom's role is a serious issue that the Lakers will have to address.

Pedowitz Report Implicates Only Donaghy but Recommends Several Changes to NBA Officiating Program

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:33:10 -0500

The much anticipated Pedowitz Report has been released. You can read the 133 page document by visiting http://www.nba.com/media/PedowitzReport.pdf. If you are just interested in the bottom line conclusions, the NBA has issued a two page press release that contains four crucial bullet points: Along with his recommendations, Mr. Pedowitz reported the following findings: * He found no evidence that any NBA referee other than Mr. Donaghy bet on NBA games or leaked confidential NBA information to gamblers, and no evidence that phone calls between referee Scott Foster and Donaghy were attributable to criminal activity. * He found no evidence that any referee miscalled a game to favor a particular team or player, or that the League has asked referees to call games to favor particular teams or players. * He found no evidence to support specific allegations of game manipulation or misconduct made by Mr. Donaghy and his attorney in June 2008, including allegations regarding a 2005 playoff series between the Dallas Mavericks and the Houston Rockets and a 2002 playoff series between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings. * He found that a number of referees engaged in forms of gambling other than betting on NBA games, in violation of League rules. The League previously decided not to discipline referees for these violations. Pedowitz and his investigators were not able to interview Donaghy directly but according to the report they "conducted approximately 200 interviews," speaking with 57 referees plus numerous team and league executives. I read the entire report and my initial impression is that it will not change too many people's minds: those who believe either in some NBA "conspiracy" to affect the outcome of games and/or those who simply believe that NBA officiating is bad will still believe those things, while those who believe that the NBA has done the best job that it can will say that the Pedowitz investigation offers substantial proof that this is the case. My opinion is that there is no conspiracy to alter the outcomes of games/playoff series and that the NBA referees are among the best in all sports but that the NBA must be vigilant not only to avoid impropriety but the perception of impropriety and that the NBA should be more aware of the personal conduct of referees on and off the court. It is clearly problematic that neither Pedowitz nor the NBA were able to speak with Donaghy and Pedowitz's report acknowledges this without dwelling on the issue. Without talking to Donaghy, Pedowitz and his investigators basically had to resort to context clues and process of elimination deduction to even figure out which games should be looked at more closely. Of course, even the most casual NBA fan immediately realized that two of Donaghy's most well publicized accusations concerned the 2005 playoff series between Dallas and Houston and the 2002 playoff series between L.A. and Sacramento. The Pedowitz Report looks at both series in great detail but if you just interested in the bottom line here is what the Pedowitz Report concluded: Dallas-Houston, 2005 Playoff Series: We have found no evidence of any inappropriate conduct in this playoff series. There is no evidence that anyone in the League office or any of the referees were intending to favor one team over another. Based at least in part on the Mavericks' complaints, the League identified a type of erroneous non-call that referees had made in prior games and sought to correct it for future games. While Van Gundy continues to take issue with how he believes the message to correct the erroneous non-calls was delivered to the referees, he does not believe the referees or anyone else intentionally sought to manipulate a game or injure his team. This incident has caused us to focus on the process by which team complaints about officiating are received and resolved. As we discuss in our Recommendations, we believe that all team complaints about officiating during the playoffs and the League's response to those complaints should be posted for both teams to see. L.A.-Sacramento, 2002 Playoff Series: The game was, in the opinion of the reviewers, poorly officiated. There were a total of fifteen incorrect calls or non-calls. Of these fifteen errors, eight favored the Lakers, while seven favored the Kings. The bulk of the game's incorrect calls and non-calls occurred during the first three quarters. In the critical fourth quarter, there were only three incorrect calls or non-calls: two favored the Lakers and one favored the Kings. The officiating errors were found to be distributed among the three referees as follows: * (Dick) Bavetta made nine errors in the game, five of which favored the Lakers and four of which favored the Kings. None of these errors occurred in the fourth quarter. * (Ted) Bernhardt made six errors, four of which favored the Lakers and two of which favored the Kings. In the fourth quarter, Bernhardt made one error favoring the Lakers. * (Bob) Delaney made four errors in the game, two of which favored the Lakers and two of which favored the Kings. In the fourth quarter, Delaney made three of his errors: two favoring the Lakers and one favoring the Kings. The gist of the Pedowitz Report's findings regarding this game is that it was poorly officiated but that there is no evidence that the referees intentionally did a bad job. However, there is an interesting passage about the interactions between Dick Bavetta and Bob Delaney that is disquieting; if two high profile referees have personal issues that may be affecting the quality of their officiating when they are on the same crew then the league should either compel them to resolve those issues, never assign them to work together or terminate one or both referees. Here is how the Pedowitz Report explains what happened during this game and in particular why two rather infamous calls were incorrectly made: We also discussed Donaghy's allegations with Ed T. Rush, who was Director of Officials at the time. Rush was present in the arena and supervised the referees during the game. He told us that he was well aware during the game that the referees were having a bad game and making errors. Rush told us that he has reviewed the video of this game on a number of occasions, and the pattern of calls, in his opinion, do not reflect favoritism. He added that it was also inconceivable to him that any of the referees would set out intentionally to extend a series. He pointed out that all of the referees are in competition each year to officiate playoff games and said it was impossible for him to believe any referee would deliberately make erroneous calls and subject himself or herself to having their calls repeatedly reviewed and criticized by the media. Rush told us he thought that Bernhardt's performance that night had been satisfactory, and nothing about his performance suggested that he was trying to favor either team. As to Bavetta, while he made a substantial number of errors, Rush felt there was nothing about his call patterns that suggested he was deliberately trying to favor the Lakers. Rush also noted that Bavetta had performed well in the fourth quarter, making no errors. As to Delaney, Rush was aware that he was involved in the two most controversial calls in the fourth quarter--plays that Donaghy appears to single out as suggesting manipulation. Rush told us that he has known Delaney for many years and believes Delaney is a highly honorable person. He noted that Delaney had been a highly decorated law enforcement officer before he joined the NBA. (Delaney served with the New Jersey State Police for fourteen years before becoming an NBA referee. Delaney's career included a three-year undercover assignment in connection with a major organized crime investigation. In 1981, Delaney testified as a law enforcement expert before a Senate subcommittee during hearings on waterfront corruption. Senators Warren Rudman and Sam Nunn praised him for his effectiveness and bravery. To this day, Delaney regularly gives speeches at federal law enforcement training sessions and to undercover operatives in the United States and Canada.) Rush also recalled that Delaney made only a few errors but was nonetheless quite upset with the errors he had made in the fourth quarter. Having known and observed Delaney on and off the floor, and knowing how hard he tried to avoid mistakes, Rush said that he could not imagine Delaney ever deliberately manipulating a game. Rush told us that he had been in touch with Delaney and his wife after the game and learned that Delaney was so upset about his performance in that game that he had suffered sleepless nights. Rush also told us that he thought that it had been a mistake (for which he took some responsibility) to have teamed Delaney with Bavetta in this game. While Delaney and Bavetta once had a close friendship, they had a falling out in connection with a personal matter some years before this game, and Rush felt that the poor chemistry between the two referees contributed to the crew's poor performance in this game. We reviewed the video of this game and discussed with NBA Basketball Operations personnel the erroneous call against Divac and the non-call against Bryant. They explained to us how Delaney and Bernhardt (on the second call) could have missed these calls. The first play, which resulted in Divac receiving his sixth foul, came while Divac was on the floor battling for the ball. Delaney saw numerous players in the scramble and blew his whistle as Bryant was moving in front of him, obstructing his view of the play. The instinct to make a call was understandable; Delaney just made the wrong one. The second play occurred with twelve seconds left in the game, when Kobe Bryant, trying to free himself on an inbounds play, elbowed Mike Bibby in the face. While Bryant's elbow, though seemingly inadvertent, was a foul, it occurred only after Bibby grabbed Bryant's arms in what appears to be an effort to prevent him from freeing himself to receive the inbounds pass. Delaney was positioned on the baseline at an angle that prevented him from getting a good look at the play. Bibby had his back to Delaney, and contact of the nature of the elbow to Bibby's nose is often incidental. The blood from Bibby's nose was not seen until later. Bernhardt was the slot official at the time. Bryant moved away from Bernhardt's position, so Bernhardt also did not have a good angle to see Bryant's elbow to Bibby. Indeed, the Basketball Operations personnel told us that the television camera had by far the best view of this play. As noted above, we also re-interviewed all of the current referees after Donaghy's allegations surfaced in June 2008. There was not a single referee among the dozens we interviewed who supported Donaghy's claims about this game. The referees told us that the consistent message from the League is to make accurate calls. It has never been suggested to them that they should favor a team or try to extend a series. Some referees also told us that no rational referee would deliberately make incorrect calls in a game (let alone a playoff game) and subject him or herself to the embarrassment of having calls replayed over and over on ESPN. Some told us that not only was the allegation illogical for that reason, but there also is no economic incentive for referees to try to extend a series. While a referee receives additional compensation for each round of the playoffs he or she officiates, this compensation is the same for a given round whether a referee officiates one or two games in that playoff round. A number of referees also noted that, because of the strained personal relationship between Delaney and Bavetta, the two men were unlikely to engage in any cooperative venture, let alone one that involved clearly improper conduct. A number of referees also offered the following observation: Game 6 was a controversial game with which almost every veteran referee is familiar. Because it is well known that the referees made numerous errors in the game, it was easy for Donaghy--trying to avoid a jail sentence by providing information about other referees--to suggest that he had a conversation with one of the referees to the effect that two of them hoped to extend the series. One of the referees told us that he had discussed this game with Donaghy years earlier. While Donaghy had noted the many errors by the referees, he never suggested that he had heard that referees in this game made bad calls to extend the series. We also found it noteworthy that, while referee basketball gossip travels quickly throughout the referee ranks, the referees had not heard any suggestion that Bavetta and Delaney had tried to extend the series. We have not seen or heard evidentiary or logical support for Donaghy's allegations about this game. Any person who is objective realizes that even the best referees are going to miss some calls for a variety of reasons and that fans watching games on TV have the benefit of numerous camera angles plus instant replay, luxuries that the referees do not have; they get one chance at full speed to make the right call. The bottom line is that coaches, players and referees all make mistakes. That is just part of the game. The goal for all parties concerned is to minimize those mistakes. In game seven of the Lakers-Kings 2002 series, the Kings lost by six points in overtime after shooting just 16-30 from the free throw line; if they made more of those free throws then they would have won the series even though the referees did not have a great game six. I think that it is reckless and irresponsible to say that game six was "fixed." I would suggest that anyone who says this take a look at his or her own job performance and consider what standard he or she expects to be held to and if that standard equals the call accuracy that NBA officials maintain.

Interview with Gary Andrew Poole, Author of The Galloping Ghost: Red Grange, an American Football Legend

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:11:26 -0500

Red Grange was one of America's great sports heroes in the 1920s. His colorful agent, C.C. Pyle, was a forerunner of Don King in many ways. Together, they helped to build the foundation for the modern NFL by arranging for a barnstorming tour that brought Grange across the country to play football for the Chicago Bears in front of sellout crowds in the L.A. Coliseum, the Polo Grounds and other prominent venues. The NFL was a fledgling operation at that time and this tour demonstrated that there was potentially a large audience for the sport if it was presented and promoted in the right way. Gary Andrew Poole has authored the definitive biography of Grange: The Galloping Ghost: Red Grange, an American Football Legend. I recently had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Poole about Grange's story. Friedman: "What initially inspired you to write a biography of Red Grange?" Poole: "That's a good question. Basically, I was at a football game with my daughter. I was watching the game with 90,000 people around me and millions watching on TV and I just thought to myself, 'Where did this crazy football phenomenon begin?' I've been to plenty of games and all that but just this sort of childlike question hit me. So I looked into football history, searching for that one person you could draw the line back to, and that was Grange. I'd heard about Grange, of course, and I knew a little bit about him but when I got into it I realized that he was sort of an unexplored icon. There really had not been that much written about the guy and I just thought that he was such a compelling figure that I wanted to write about him." Friedman: "What did you learn about Grange that most surprised you and that you think would most surprise readers of your book who maybe only have the casual familiarity with him that you had before you started doing all of that research?" Poole: "If you look back in football history, people always mention that game against Michigan, when he had four touchdowns in the first 12 minutes. I always wondered why that game was really that big of a deal--it obviously was an outstanding performance, he scores the four touchdowns in the first 12 minutes and throws for a touchdown later and runs for another one and I even discovered that he picked off a couple passes but I didn't understand the context of why it was so important and why Grange was so important to a generation of men and women. I mean, I had 90 year old people calling me and writing me letters who were still passionate about the guy. I guess what surprised me was just how little was known about him and how nobody had really put these great performances--and that was just one of many--into context." Friedman: "How long did it take for you to research and write the book and what was the biggest challenge you encountered along the way?" Poole: "It took me about three years. The biggest challenge really was that these games and the glory period of his life happened in the 1920s. I'm a journalist by trade and I've done a lot of historical research as well but it's hard to dig up stuff on somebody who played in the 1920s. There aren't a lot of film clips, there aren't that many recordings and I didn't want to do just a glorification of this guy, I wanted to tell a real story, so it took me quite a bit of effort to get that back story for the book, as opposed to just recounting game summaries." Friedman: "In the book you mentioned Grange's 'photographic eyes.' What role did Grange's 'photographic eyes' play in the success that he had as a football player?" Poole: "It was known to some as the 'Grange eye.' There are two parts to this answer. He always said that he was very good at focusing on the field of play and that he could tell where everybody was moving and what was going to happen. It was almost like he could look into the future, like he had this photographic 'blink, blink, blink, blink' where he knew what was going to happen before it happened. He could predict movements. The other part of that is that writers and his coach were always astounded by this thing called the 'Grange eye,' which was not just his ability to see what was happening but this ability to almost tell when someone was behind him. He had a tendency when he was running and was about ready to be tackled to make a quick movement, a lateral movement or a twisting movement to avoid tackles. This thing really astounded everybody around him and he had a hard time explaining it. I guess it was a just a sixth sense that he had that really set him apart from a lot of running backs in that day. He had world class speed and he had football speed as well, so he could move out of difficult situations." Friedman: "When I read that phrase and when I hear you talking about it, that immediately brought some things to mind to me from my experience covering basketball. Larry Bird's first coach, Bill Fitch, called him 'Kodak' because it was like Bird was taking pictures of everybody on the court. Also, this thing that you are talking about in terms of visualizing where everyone was and seeing things before they happen: Magic Johnson had a similar ability and LeBron James has talked about being able to see plays before they happen and not just being able to see where everybody is but also where everybody is going." Poole: "In football, they always talk about--particularly with rookies--that everything looks so fast. That ability to slow things down, that kind of plays into it. In sports, I think that those little things separate people. I'm sure that there are people who can shoot as well as Larry Bird or dribble as well as Magic Johnson but that little thing where they can anticipate action--you saw that all the time with Bird's passing and with Magic's passing. The players playing with them were always in awe of how they could deliver the ball at that perfect time and that perfect place." Friedman: "Would it be fair to describe C.C. Pyle as the Don King of his era?" Poole: "Yeah, I think that's a pretty good comparison. He called himself the P.T. Barnum of sports. Pyle was the first real sports agent. He got together with Grange and really helped to propel Grange from a star to a superstar when he set up this barnstorming tour. After Grange played his last football game in college, he joined the Chicago Bears and went on this grueling 19 game barnstorming tour that Pyle set up. I think that Pyle is sort of an underrated figure in sports history and football history because back when he joined forces with Grange the NFL was sort of a nothing league and the owners really were not good at promoting themselves and promoting the league. Pyle just had a silver tongue and a great ability to promote Grange and football itself." Friedman: "The reason that I thought that the comparison was apt is that throughout the book you describe Pyle making these grandiose statements and these grandiose claims of what he was going to do and how he would convince people to go along with his way of doing things, which reminded me of the way Don King's public persona is. Also, if you look at King's career, he seemed to run a lot of his boxers into the ground because it seemed like he was primarily concerned with how he could make money for himself quickly, not necessarily what was in that fighter's interest in terms of how much time to take off between fights or things of that nature. You could really see something similar in the way that you wrote about that grueling barnstorming tour during which they played so many games in such a short period of time. He basically just destroyed Grange physically instead of maybe having a long term idea of spreading this out a little bit, making it last longer and making more money instead of going for the quick, instant gain." Poole: "I think that your analysis is right on. He did drive Grange to exhaustion. He basically treated him like a piece of meat. I don't know a lot about Don King. I've never met him personally or covered him that much but that seems like a pretty good comparison." Friedman: "Did it surprise you that Grange did not seem to have more resentment towards Pyle in terms of the work load and in terms of what happened with the money? They made so much money so quickly but it was almost like blood money--it was Grange exerting all of the blood, sweat and tears to make the money and in a short period of time that money was gone. Yet, the sense that I got from your book is that Grange always spoke highly of Pyle." Poole: "Yeah, it did and it didn't. I think that most people would be upset at Pyle, who did drive Grange into the ground and who invested in some wild schemes and really blew Grange's money but Grange at the end of the day was a guy who took responsibility for his actions. He was a very humble guy and he just wasn't a person who--at least publicly--would say anything bad about anybody." Friedman: "It is very difficult to compare players from different eras. The rules are different and so many other things are different but what current or recent football player do you think is most similar to Grange either in terms of skill set of style of play?" Poole: "That's a good question and a very fun question. Could I give just a little context? Back when Grange was playing, they played both ways--offense and defense. The ball was much rounder, so it was very difficult to pass. There were no hash marks, so a team could pretty easily get pinned along the sideline, making the play calling pretty predictable. It was not unusual to kick on first or second down because it was much more of a defensive game. Lastly, it was not the specialty game that it is today and if players got hurt they typically stayed in the game because if you went out of the game you could not return until the next quarter. That said, Grange really changed the way that football was seen in a lot of ways. It was very rugby-like before he came on the scene and he had this incredible breakaway speed, sort of like Devin Hester. When he caught the ball on a kickoff, there was a great chance that he was going to score and the whole place was electrified when he touched the ball. He had that breakaway speed ability on punt returns and kickoff returns. He was a decent passer. He was also a tough guy. He could run through the middle like a LaDainian Tomlinson or someone like that. He was a strong straight-ahead runner as well. So those are two comparisons. He was pretty good on defense; it was not unusual for Grange to run for a couple hundred yards, throw for a hundred yards, pick off a couple passes and make quite a number of tackles. So he was a good all-around player and he wasn't a bad kicker as well." Friedman: "I put some thought into this while reading your book and the players I came up with were Tomlinson and then going back a little bit, Walter Payton--a versatile guy at 5-10, 5-11. None of the modern players are playing offense and defense except someone like Deion Sanders; that is just the difference in the game now. In terms of being a threat to run, pass and catch, Tomlinson is that way and Payton used to do that. In terms of the elusiveness and the ability to run back kicks, I thought of Gale Sayers, based on what I have read and seen about him. Also, the shortness of Sayers' career is similar to Grange; Grange's career lasted longer but his prime before he got worn down was short. Like Grange, Sayers also had a knee injury before they developed the modern ways of dealing with that." Poole: "I think that those are very good comparisons. If you read about Grange and the way that he was described, people were much more straight ahead runners back then and his twists and turns really awed people. Running backs were not doing the type of crazy moves that Grange was doing, like a Payton or a Barry Sanders would later do." Friedman: "Payton was not a really big guy for his era. Grange was not big for his era. Payton had that philosophy, the title of his book--Never Die Easy--and he was always trying to deliver that blow to would be tacklers. I noticed in your book that Grange was elusive but if it came to it, he would try to run a guy over. If he could not get around a guy he was not at all afraid of contact. That is also where I got the Payton comparison; Tomlinson also has the great stiff-arm. Tomlinson uses his elusiveness but if he cannot get around a guy he will run him over and Tomlinson is not a real big guy." Poole: "I think that if you are going to compare some people those are good comparisons. Grange was not super big for his era. He was 5-11, 175 pounds. He was playing both ways. He was not lifting weights or drinking protein shakes." Friedman: "Obviously, when you are compare from 70 or 80 years distant there really is no way to compare playing both ways or the difference in the substitution rules, that back then if you came out you had to stay out for the whole quarter; in some ways, you really can't compare because the game is so different. What would you say is Grange's most significant accomplishment?" Poole: "If you're going to pinpoint a game, I would say that it was when the University of Illinois went to play the University of Pennsylvania. If you look pre-1920s, the Midwest had some very good teams: Michigan, Illinois, the University of Chicago, Notre Dame, of course. But it was still seen as an East Coast, upper crust, Ivy League game in a lot of respects. So Grange went to play against the University of Pennsylvania in 1925 and this was seen as a gigantic matchup. Here was the University of Illinois playing the University of Pennsylvania which was, believe it or not, a powerhouse back then. Grange was on a team that wasn't very good. They had a losing record and his line was really terrible and not blocking very well for him at all. All the great writers of the day were there--Grantland Rice, Damon Runyan of 'Guys and Dolls' fame, Westbrook Pegler, who eventually won a Pulitzer Prize. The eyes were on him. It was raining and snowing. The field was incredibly muddy and people were literally betting that he would not gain more than 10 yards but he ended up with 363 yards and three touchdowns. He had an amazing day and it really brought a lot of fame to him. The writers could barely contain themselves. It showed the media elite on the East Coast that the game had changed a bit. It also lent a lot of credibility to Grange when he turned pro a couple months later. It brought a lot of people to the stands. People were enamored with seeing him after hearing about this performance at the University of Pennsylvania. He then went on this 19 game tour that sold out everywhere--Wrigley, the Polo Grounds, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. People were dying to see him, so I think that game really was even more significant than the Michigan-Illinois game which is often touted as one of the most significant games in college football history. I think that was his most profound moment. The guy always rose up to the biggest games, just like Tiger Woods or Michael Phelps or Tom Brady before his knee injury."

Economics is Not a Science, Nor is Basketball Statistical Analysis

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:58:02 -0500

"Economists cannot predict tomorrow's economy; they cannot agree on the state of the economy today; they cannot even arrive at a consensus on why the economy behaved as it did in the past...We may not ever be able to build a positive science of economics based on empirical knowledge but that is no reason to wrap the little we know in a pseudoscientific fog of superstition."--Walter Russell Mead, 1993. Considering how the U.S. financial markets are crumbling right before our eyes, don't those words from 15 years ago send a chill up your spine? Economists want the general public--and especially their employers in the academic world--to think that they are practicing science but sadly that is not the case. What does this have to do with basketball? In recent years, many people who trained academically as economists and/or statisticians have tried to use "econometric" style models to make evaluations about basketball players and teams. Frankly, I'm not sure if it would be more frightening if these guys devoted all of their energies to confusing the general public about basketball or if they abandoned this effort and resumed their failed attempts to understand our past, present and future economy. In either case, they will no doubt continue to make bold pseudoscientific declarations with complete confidence that they understand the issues better than anyone else. Roger Lowenstein's review of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book The Black Swan does not mention basketball at all but the way that he debunks the idea of economics as science provides a good template for explaining much of what is conceptually wrong with "econometric" based basketball statistical analysis. Lowenstein summarizes Taleb's thesis simply and bluntly: "His heavy artillery is aimed at financial academics and economists, the latter because they try to forecast such stuff as market moves and interest rates. He calls them frauds. It's as good a word as any." Taleb used to be a derivatives trader on Wall Street, so he has firsthand experience with just how poorly economists understand what they are talking about. Lowenstein says, "The academics who drive him to tears are the ones who have explained--or misexplained--his old profession. They think that markets are from Mediocristan when in fact they inhabit Extremistan." Lowenstein explains, "Mediocristan is the terrain of the ordinary, the part of the world that conforms to the bell curve. It answers to statistics and knowable probabilities. Height resides in Mediocristan. You may find one 7-footer on your block, almost certainly not two...Personal wealth, however, is from Extremistan. For instance, the average wealth of 1,000 people will be very different if one of those people is Bill Gates. This distinction is potent. In Extremistan, past events are a faulty guide to projecting the future. Gates may be the world's richest person, but it isn't unthinkable that someday, someone (at Google, perhaps?) will be twice as rich. Wars also reside in Extremistan. Prior to World War II, the planet had never experienced a conflict as terrible. Then we did. Suppose you frequent a pond. Day after day you see swans--always white. Naturally (but incorrectly) you presume that all swans are white. World War II was a black swan--horrific and unpredictable. Market crashes are black swans. Winning at blackjack is not one. The odds in casino games are known. The finance profession has badly mischaracterized markets in such a way as to overlook the possibility of black swans. Business schools teach that risk is quantifiable--that markets resemble a casino. You will draw the bad queen once in a deck but never twice. That is why securities analysts presume to define the 'riskiness' of stocks in precise, arithmetic terms. They model the future on the past. But stocks, alas, are from Extremistan. Taleb makes much of the example of Long-Term Capital Management, a subject about which I wrote a book. The spectacular meltdown of the hedge fund, run by Nobel Prize-certified economists and intellectual heavyweights, was a primo example of faulty precision, of modeling markets according to past events. The fund's genius managers couldn't predict the black swan of the Russian debt default; they drew a run of bad queens, and down they went. And L.T.C.M. is merely emblematic; it is the entire profession of finance, its edifice of modern portfolio theory, and virtually every tool that financial consultants regularly rely on, that Taleb identifies as wrongheaded." It is precisely that kind of wrongheaded thinking--and arrogance--that leads to much of the nonsense that is spewed by people who think (or at least claim) that they are scientifically analyzing basketball (I'm not sure if these guys know better but enjoy selling books and getting a lot of publicity for themselves or if they really believe what they are saying). Unfortunately, the general public suffers not only from illiteracy (or at least poor reading comprehension) but also from "Innumeracy." If I make a skill set-based comparison of two players based on my informed opinion--i.e., an opinion based not only on watching a lot of basketball but also on interacting with professionals who make their living evaluating basketball players--every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks that his opinion is just as valid and informed but if some guy invents a formula, gives it a catchy name and says that player x is worth 30.2 but player y is worth 28.7 then Tom, Dick and Harry are ready to bow down to those numbers as if they are the Golden Calf. Guess what--all those numbers reflect are the knowledge (or lack thereof) and bias of the person who created that formula; the numbers may be 90% correct or 90% incorrect but most people don't understand math or statistics so they don't feel comfortable challenging the numbers, or else they only lash out at the numbers that speak poorly of "their guy" but they love the numbers that elevate "their guy" and/or downgrade "their guy's" rival. One tell-tale sign that these numbers are not the products of science is that you do not hear their creators speak of margin of error. If a scientific formula spits out the number 30.4 as a player value the reality is that there is a certain probability that the actual value is somewhat higher or lower than that--but the "stats gurus" rarely if ever mention this and they certainly don't emphasize this point as much as it should be emphasized; they like to promote the idea that their numbers are "exact" while observations by seasoned professionals (scouts and other talent evaluators) are subjective. It is true that observations are subjective but so are the stat formulas; that is why intelligent people understand that you have to combine observation with statistics and that you have to watch games in order to figure out what the numbers really mean. For instance, who is charged with a turnover is not nearly as significant as what really caused the turnover. If Pete Maravich throws a great pass to a stiff who fumbles the ball out of bounds, Maravich may get a turnover in the boxscore but anyone who understands the game realizes that the problem is that his teammate can't catch the ball; on the other hand, if Maravich carelessly throws the ball away or makes a pass that no one could reasonably be expected to catch, then that reflects badly on him regardless of how the scorekeeper officially documented that play. "Stats gurus" plainly do not want to discuss or consider the fact that some of their most precious numbers--the raw data that they plug into their formulas, stats like assists, steals, blocked shots and turnovers--are subjectively recorded. During last season's playoffs, I did a detailed post demonstrating that Chris Paul's supposedly record setting playoff assist totals were in fact inflated by generous scorekeeping. Shouldn't that be of interest to the "stats gurus"? Isn't that claim something that they seriously need to investigate on their own to either confirm or reject? I provided very specific information so that anyone could watch a tape of the game and find the exact plays that I described and thus judge for themselves whether or not each of those assists should have been awarded. Yet I see no indication that the "stats gurus" are the slightest bit concerned about the fact that a lot of their basic data is seriously flawed. A lot of these guys spent a good portion of the season pumping up Chris Paul as the MVP and it is highly likely that they did so on the basis of bogus assist numbers. Based on a skill-set evaluation of Paul's game, I consider him to be the best point guard in the NBA and a top five MVP candidate but that is not the point; the point is that if you are basing your whole analysis of the NBA purely on numbers and some of the basic numbers you are using are not right then your whole analysis is bogus. If a real scientist finds out that the raw data he has gathered is flawed then he understands that he has to gather new, accurate data. Unfortunately, many of the basketball "stats gurus" are not scientists; they are "mad scientists" at best. No one should misinterpret what I am saying to mean that I am some kind of Luddite who is against using basketball statistics; what I am against is the misuse of basketball statistics, just like I am against the misuse of media platforms by people who spout hype and biased commentary as opposed to communicating information in a fact based, objective manner. Dan Rosenbaum and Dean Oliver are two welcome exceptions to the above critique of basketball statistical analysis; everything that I have seen of their work indicates that they understand the limitations of what their statistical analysis can show and that they are working hard to improve what their models can do as opposed to acting like they have everything figured out already. In an insightful post titled Using statistics in basketball: the bar is higher, Rosenbaum writes, "Statistical analysis can play a critical role in basketball decision-making, but it can also be misleading if the complexities of the game of basketball (and the statistical issues generated by those complexities) are not well understood. In other words, the bar is higher for statistical analysis in basketball than it is in baseball. Ultimately this will greatly benefit the teams that incorporate skilled statistical analysts in the right way, because the greater complexities in basketball will mean that it will be harder for other teams to ever catch up with the first teams that get this right. It will be fascinating seeing how this all plays out over the next few years."

Joe Torre Has the Last Laugh

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:52:43 -0500

It is deliciously ironic that the cover story in the sports section of the print edition of Tuesday's USA TODAY is about Joe Torre. The ex-Yankees manager led the L.A. Dodgers to the playoffs while his former club missed qualifying for the postseason this year after earning 12 straight playoff berths--and four World Series titles--with Torre at the helm. The reason that this story is so ironic is that Al Neuharth--the USA TODAY founder who periodically writes Op-Ed pieces for the paper--has consistently been one of Torre's most outspoken critics. I've never figured out why Neuharth feels such animosity toward Torre, who has won the seventh most games of any manager in MLB history and is certainly a future Hall of Famer--but Neuharth never misses an opportunity to take not so subtle digs at Torre and to blame Torre for supposedly not getting the most out of the Yankees. Neuharth was absolutely convinced that once the Yankees got rid of Torre they would become World Series champions again. Not surprisingly, Neuharth has been silent about that subject recently. I wonder if in Neuharth's annual World Series prediction column he will have the guts and character to admit that he was wrong or if he will make some lame excuses for the Yankees and find some way to take a shot at Torre's Dodgers. The reality is that Torre did a brilliant job of not only dealing with overbearing Yankees' owner George Steinbrenner but also with handling the day to day challenges of managing a talented ball club operating under intense media scrutiny and tremendous pressure to win the World Series every year. It was classless for the Yankees to not mention Torre at all in conjunction with the final season of Yankee Stadium and it was equally classless for Steinbrenner's son Hank to suggest that Torre's accomplishment this season is somehow diminished based on the relative strength of the Yankees' AL East opponents compared to the Dodgers' NL West opponents. Both teams faced various challenges this year and the bottom line is that Torre successfully navigated the Dodgers through their rough spots while Joe Girardi was not able to do likewise for the Yankees. It can hardly be considered a coincidence that after Torre switched teams New York missed the playoffs for the first time in more than a decade while the Dodgers made the playoffs for just the third time in 13 seasons. The Yankees impugned Torre's character by asking him to take a huge pay cut, with the stipulation that he could make up the difference financially if the Yankees made it to the World Series; the not so subtle intimation was that Torre needed extra motivation to get the most out of the team and Torre not surprisingly considered that insult to be the last straw after he tolerated years of similar nonsense from George Steinbrenner. The ending of the whole Steinbrenner/Torre saga in New York reminds me of when Henry Ford II fired Lee Iacocca. As Iacocca recalled in his autobiography, he gave Ford a piece of his mind after Ford dropped the hammer: "Your timing stinks. We've just made a billion eight for the second year in a row. That's three and a half billion in the past two years. But mark my words, Henry. You may never see a billion eight again. And do you know why? Because you don't know how the f--- we made it in the first place!" Iacocca was an innovator who created the popular Ford Mustang and who helped to build Ford Motor Company into a powerful competitor to industry leader General Motors, while Ford II was, in Iacocca's words, "an old pro at spending money but he never understood how it all came in. He just sat in his ivory tower and said, 'My God, we're making money!' He was there every day to throw his weight around, but he never knew what made the place tick." That sounds like a pretty good description of Steinbrenner, who certainly deserves credit for being willing to spend the money to make the Yankees into contenders but who just as certainly does not know nearly as much about baseball strategy as he thinks that he does. Billy Martin, the manager who Steinbrenner notoriously hired and fired several times, once reportedly said that Steinbrenner was born on third base and thought that he had hit a triple. Girardi is a very solid manager and Steinbrenner will spare no expense to bring the Yankees back to the top but how likely is it that Girardi--or any other manager--will put together a dozen year run like the one that Torre just had in New York? Steinbrenner made a mistake forcing Torre out, Neuharth was dead wrong to continuously call for Torre's ouster and it would be nice if both men would be big enough to admit that they were wrong--but being rich and powerful means never having to say that you are sorry.