Jack’s Blog

Who’s better - Oregon or Auburn?  Boise State or TCU?  Peyton Manning or Tom Brady?  Or Drew Brees?  Tim Lincecum or Roy Halladay?  Or Cliff Lee?  The Lakers or the Celtics?  Or the Heat?  Michael or Kobe?  Or LeBron?  George W. or Barack?  Rush or Michael Moore?  Let’s delete the last pair since each has an agenda to get personally wealthy while dividing the country beyond salvation.

In each instance, there are numerous - and loud - votes cast for each.  Any of the above comparisons will elicit extreme emotion from the debaters.  Yet, everybody can’t be right.  Or wrong.

Every time I hear one of those topics discussed - or when I used to participate in them when I was younger and (thought I was) wiser, one tactic would invariably creep into the discussion.  That tactic was demeaning the opposition.  Hey, maybe we shouldn’t delete Limbaugh vs. Moore after all.  Demeaning the opposition is at the core of each of their messages.

As an example, let’s look at the top two teams in the current college football poll.  Oregon supporters will argue they’ve blown away everybody (except Cal).  Auburn backers will talk of how their team plays in the nation’s toughest league.  Before long, however, UO people will be saying that Auburn is a one-man show and that one man probably is  ineligible.  AU folks will counter with the Pac-10 being nothing but a bunch of soft teams and that if Phil Knight ever pulled his support, the Ducks would shrink to mid-major status.

I was guilty of this type of immaturity - when I was a teenager.  Maybe even a few years (decades?) beyond.  But after reading an article on the Harbaugh brothers in Sports Illustrated, I’ve come to the same conclusion that my friend Jeff Van Gundy stated on an NBA broadcast a couple weeks ago.  After reading the same article, Jeff says he has sworn off comparisons because of something that John Harbaugh said in that interview:

“I’ve got this rule.  We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”

If people would follow the “somebody is going to be devalued” rule, the world of sports would be less fun for the fanatics and void of talk radio, but a lot more sane for others.

How can anyone explain the Boston Celtics beating the Miami Heat (with LeBron James) one night, then losing to the Cleveland Cavaliers (without LBJ) the next?

Or the King, LeBron himself, having eight turnovers on opening night against a very good Celtics team, then following that with a nine TO effort against a bad 76ers club?

Or the New Jersey Nets, who started last year 0-18, open up with a W.  The Knicks had a better record than the Nets, but their road mark was brutal.  So they start the season on the road and walk away with a victory.

But the true sign of the apocalypse came in Game One of the World Series.  The Giants haven’t won a World Series since they moved to San Francisco and the Rangers have never even been to MLB’s version of the Big Dance.  So everyone was stoked - especially because of the starting pitchers, Cliff “Mr. Perfect” Lee and Tim “The Freak” Lincecum.  Would it be a 0-0 contest, decided by an umpire’s (bad) call?

Instead, Lincecum gave up runs in both the first and second innings - for the first time in four months - and Lee was torched for five doubles - and lost in the post season for the first time!  The Texas Rangers also showed nerves by committing four errors (the Giants had two).

Final score: 11-7, San Fran.

If  fans were disappointed, the solution is simple.  Don’t expect so much.  As Jonathan Swift said:

“Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.”

After Cliff Lee put his Texas Rangers up 2-1 in their series with the Yankees, baseball’s old saw, “Good pitching beats good hitting” rings truer than ever.  Lee’s masterpiece was twirled the day after Roy Oswalt shut down the Giants - who are deadlocked at a game a piece after Tim Lincecum hurled a gem against the Phillies in Game 1.

Does this lack of offense spell doom for what used to be called America’s past time?  Maybe for today’s viewers who are in love with high scoring games, independent of which sport they’re watching.  But for the true baseball fan, watching a pitching duel is a work of art.  Listening to John Smoltz explain Cliff Lee’s delivery, especially how he never moves his head, adds to the enjoyment of the game.

Ditto for the announcing crew who listed the 1-2-3 of Lincecum’s pitching style, i.e. the “Tilt” (his head), “Drag” (how he holds the ball ankle-high) and “Stride” (the length of his stride being more than 100% of his height).  Comparing him to my boyhood role model, Sandy Koufax - complete with photos - gave me a nostalgic feeling for “the good old days.”

Some people I’ve shared this information with claim tuning into a baseball game is like watching paint dry while others make the comparison to paint as well.  They say it’s like watching Rembrandt produce his works of art.

As with most things in life:

“Beauty is in eye of the beholder.”

In this year’s version of MLB’s “playoffs,” one guy threw the first no hitter (in post-season play) since 1956, while the other fired a two-hitter and struck out 14.  Roy Halladay vs. Tim Lincecum in Game 1 of the NLCS.  If ever there was a game in which nothing needed to be said, this one’s as close to “it” as we’ll ever see.

So, I’ll take the advice of Sir Winston Churchill who once said:

“Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” 

Or, in this case, watch.  Call me courageous.

Ask any of the major network executives whether they would rather have a British Open final pairing of Tiger Woods vs. Phil Mickelson or Louis Oosthuizen vs. Paul Casey and, . . . you probably don’t need for me to tell you what their choice would be.  Can’t blame them.  Popularity drives TV ratings and the American duo beat their counterparts in that category in every part of the world - including South Africa and England.

Yet, although the average fan is certainly more apt to tune in to a Tiger-Phil match-up (which is why TV ratings are higher - duh), he identifies more with the lesser known golfer.  Somehow, we think their plight resembles ours.  Although they’re still professionals and play a completely different game of golf than we do, we still think they’re experiencing the nervous feelings we would if we were in their cleats.  And maybe they are.  Unlike us, however, they possess the skills and knowledge that, if they can contain their emotions and remain “in the moment” as Louis (unlike Tiger and Phil, he’s known by his first name because nobody can pronounce his last name) put it in a post-round interview yesterday, they realize they actually can hold up the Claret Jug at the end of today’s play.

After witnessing Tiger and Phil hit amazing shots from impossible lies, we view them and their game as godlike, the same as we do when we watch what Peyton Manning can do with a football, Kobe Bryant with a basketball, Tim Lincecum with a baseball or Roger Federer with a tennis ball.  It’s somewhat like the SI swimsuit edition - beautiful places we’d like to go, but knowing we’ll never get there. 

So, in essence, rooting for either Louis or Casey (we can pronounce that one) is really like pulling for ourselves - just like when we were kids and fantasized that we made the game-winner - whatever the game was.  There’s also a segment (I’d like to think small) who watches in anticipation of a Dustin Johnson  or Jean Van de Velde moment - a monumental collapse on national television.

In the words of one of the greatest underdogs ever (on a golf course anyway), Bill Gates:

“If there’s one cultural quality we have, it’s that we always see ourselves as an underdog.”

Opinions regarding changes and transactions in the world of sports are fascinating for the true fan.  Since it’s (very) late Friday night/Saturday morning, I’ll select three “solutions” to problems in sports that have been bandied around.

The first is building up steam after being placed on the back burner several years ago.  It’s the basketball issue of raising the height of the basket to 11′ (or some say, 12′).  None of the people who are in favor of this proposal would have to pay for its implementation. Facilities that have portable standards will have virtually no trouble in complying.  But how about all the high schools and smaller colleges whose baskets would have to be totally replaced?  What about the old gymnasiums in which installing new backboards and rims might not even be feasible?  And if the baskets for the main court are going to be raised, it would only stand to reason that baskets in auxilary gyms and side courts would have to undergo the same makeover.  I work at Buchanan (Clovis, CA) High School and we have 22 outdoor courts.  Leaving those rims at 10′ would really make a beautiful facility look terribly outdated.

Obviously, the concern is over cost, a topic that, if it is brought up in the discussion, is summarily dismissed without a final solution.  Yet, during the type of financial crisis that this country is experiencing now - and looks like it might be a while (as in years) before it passes - is making such major changes to a sport that is currently thriving in popularity and that will result in exorbitant financial ramifications, really necessary?

In the latest issue of the ESPN magazine, there are several pages devoted to rules changes in sports.  Although the reasoning sounds like it has some merit, is there anyone in their right mind who believes it’s time to make the football field bigger?  This suggestion is based on statistics on the increased size of the players, something that shows someone did their (minimal amount of) homework.  The article does quote Bengals coach Marvin Lewis as saying the cost factor would be prohibitive.

Yet, it continues, statistics have shown that the average NFL player has grown from 5′11″, 192 pounds in the 1920s to today’s behemoth of 6′2″, 249 - and the trend will probably continue upward.  The author states the game would look more like Canadian football, in that scoring would increase.  When did our goal become making the NFL look more like the CFL?  If more scoring is the desired outcome, why not make the fields smaller so the product resembles Arena football.  They have basketball scores!

There are a few more remarks that, on the surface, have an appeal, but why even consider messing with something that is at its absolute height of popularity and, oh yeah, what about the all the money this proposal will cost?

It’s almost comical to listen to guys who come across like they’ve done hours upon hours of research before they pontificate (when in reality, it would be reamrkable if they even spent a few seconds jotting down their thoughts on the subjects they know so much about.

Which brings up the third recent “no-brainer.”  The signing of Tim Lincecum.  What about those guys who so casually say, “How can the Giants not pay this guy?  He’s won back-to-back Cy Youngs, he’s worth whatever he’s asking for.  Why mess with the morale of the club when he’s asking for $13 mil and the Jints want to part with only $8 million?  If the Freak somehow loses arbitration, sure he’ll still give quality starts, but will he have the same passion?”  Here’s an idea.  Let’s assume there are a million San Francisco Giants fans.  The front office ought to tell their fan base that they agree, they are absolutely right that Tim deserves the $13,000,000 (just so you realize what it looks like - probably a tad different than your salary).  However, since they only have $8 million in the budget, would each of the fans please send $5 a piece to the Giants’ organization?  That would cause an outrage of astronomical proportions - from the same people who advocate paying him the higher number.

In lieu of the Giants shrinking their fan base overnight if they decided to go along with this idea, maybe someone in the organization could explain that living on $22,000/day ($8 million/year) isn’t so bad - even when you consider the $31,500 ($13 million) you’d hoped for.  You know, that if he displayed a little self-restraint and adopted a frugal savings plan, his less-than-ideal lifestyle could still afford him nearly all of the luxuries he’d need.  (Luckily, this terrible inconvenience was avoided by the team and Lincecum agreeing to a two-year deal worth $23 large.  Whew!  That was a close one.)

To sum up this blog, we can all learn something from the late Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner in Economics, who said:

“Nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely as he spends his own.”             �

More computer problems over the past two days causing a late entry on 11/17 and no blog the following day.  Unplugged it and took it to the “computer doctor” for a check up.  Prognosis is it’s either fixed … or its days are numbered.  Pray for the former.

The reason there are so many more Cinderella stories in college basketball than the other sports is that one guy can make so much more of an impact on the entire game in hoops.

In baseball, if you get Albert Pujols or Derek Jeter, they only get to bat one every nine times - and you still need somebody to pitch to the opponent.  Tim Lincecum might be able to shut somebody down - or even out - but, in that case, you’re still only assured of a tie.

As far as football goes, we’ve seen a Peyton Manning or a Tom Brady make a major difference in a game, but they still need blockers, guys to catch passes - and, even with those two groups, somebody has to play defense.  Ditto for a great running back or a big-time defender.  Similar cases can be made for the other team sports, e.g. scorer or goal tender in soccer.

Basketball is the one sport where a superstar can dominate at both ends of the floor.  Or, in the case of an unstoppable scorer (Pete Maravich, Stephen Curry), he makes the other players on the floor so much more effective because he has so much of the opposing defense focused on him.  In this scenario, a coach may take the approach that, “OK, we can’t stop you, but we’re going to outscore you.”  You’re an underdog anyway, why not give that philosophy a shot? 

Maybe the team has the opposite strength going for them, i.e. a player who may not be a prolific scorer, but allows no shot inside 8′ to go uncontested and no second shots, independent of where they’re launched (Bill Russell, Hasheem Thabeet).  That type will always get points, too, even if by accident.

Still and all, in team sports, the real name of the game is winning.  So each of these guys needs to make certain (as most do, although occasionally there will be one who tends to be a little more interested in personal stats than the team’s record - especially in the “play for pay” league) that they subscribe to the theory I read in a coaching book (but can’t remember who the author was):

“You can either do your own thing and get all the credit or do the team thing and share the credit.”

A self-admitted “old-timer,” I prefer to see guys compete for the sake of competiton, put maximum effort into their performance and then win (or lose) with class.  The one exception I find myself making is for Jamaican sprinter, Usain Bolt.  Here’s a guy who borders on mocking his competitors (something strange for someone whom you think would try to go all out during his races in order to run the fastest time possible), but may do so for the reason he doesn’t come from a culture where he figures to capitalize financially on breaking world records or, maybe it’s his way of enjoying himself.  Let an agent get ahold of him and the first idea goes out the window (while cash flows through the door).  I just hope he never gives up on the second part.  Athletics should be for reaching one’s potential, but when the fun is taken out of sports, the individual has lost the fundamental reason for participating. 

To be that dominant and still seem to not take yourself or your sport too seriously is something that is unheard of in today’s world of sports - not only from a competitive standpoint but from a “how could anybody be that much better than the rest point of view?  Especially when “the rest” is the best the world has to offer?

For less than twenty seconds Bolt decided it was time to “leave it all on the track” and see what he could do.  All he did was set a world’s record, one which very few thought could be broken.  Sometimes, it makes you wonder if there’s even a limit on humankind (see 7/10/08 blog on Tim Lincecum). 

The most remarkable sight of all for me was watching the absolute beauty in Bolt’s stride.  He doesn’t even look like he’s exerting excessive effort to run that fast!  Looking at his body in no way suggests any illegal tampering of any sort either, which makes it all the more gratifying.  It would be my guess (based on no evidence other than “the eyeball test”) that sheer work has brought Usain Bolt to where he is now - atop the gold medal stand or, as Oliver Wendall Holmes remarked:

“The mode in which the inevitable comes to pass is through effort.”

When I was very young, I remember being told about a man named Roger Bannister who conquered “The Four-Minute Mile.”  As I grew older, I noticed how many times athletes were reminded of that feat, e.g. when faced with a seemingly impossible task (whether individual or team).  Then, as I listened to motivational speakers, the name Roger Bannister was used whether the subject dealt with athletics or not.

I did some research and found out that, not only was breaking the four-minute barrier considered remarkable but, at that time, people truly felt the human body could not physically run that far that fast.  This was tantamount to setting foot on the moon, another impossibility at the time.  So, when Bannister crossed the finish line in 3:59.4, seemingly all bets were off in terms of what the human mind and body could be expected to accomplish.

I was a place kicker in high school and college and, sure enough, place kickers started making 63-yard field goals and 70-yarders in practice were witnessed.  No one ever spoke of a limit.  Eventually, I pursued a coaching career in basketball, and when the dunk was allowed in college hoops in1976, many people (more players and fans, than coaches) fell in love with it.  The NBA Dunk Contest had stagnated for a few years, until this past one where you had to check replays to make sure you really saw what you thought you saw.  The standard, as far as dunking goes, still remains the “free throw line” dunk made by Michael Jordan.  No one thought such a leap was possible, but now, there are many who feel, within the next couple decades (at the outside), someone may run, jump and successfully dunk from the top of the circle or the current (as of 2008) college and high school three-point line!  Doesn’t there have to be a limit?  I mean, by 2100, will someone take off at midcourt and bang it?  Be sure to let me know if you see that happen. 

According to all those motivational guys, the answer is, “As a man thinketh, so is he.”  My “motivational” side was shaken back to reality after I read the recent July 7 Sports Illustrated article on Tim Lincecum (who, naturally, after gracing the cover of the mag, got shelled in his next start).

Articles in SI are often entertaining and even informative (I imagine that’s why I and so many others subscribe), but this one was absolutely fascinating.  It was particularly well-written in that it addressed several medical issues without going over the average reader’s (the category I’d place myself) head.  Although slight of build (max of 5′10″, 172 pounds), Lincecum can throw a baseball 98 mph, but it goes on to say that, what Lincecum, aka The Freak, can do, is pretty much all a body (anyone’s body) can do. 

Rick Peterson is the recently fired pitching coach of the New York Mets.  He’s also “the acknowledged expert on pitching biomechanics.”  Only the Mets would fire an expert.  (By the way, how would you like to be the guy who followed an expert)?  Peterson is quoted as having spoken with people who’s job it is to know (biomechanics and a doctor of physics) who told him, basically, what pitchers are doing now is the most the body can endure, e.g. (and this is very loosely translated) if there were any more acceleration of an (even great) pitcher’s body, the person would die and if more force were applied to a pitcher’s arm than what is currently happening, the ligaments would blow apart.  Yikes!

The Freak’s dad is somewhat of an expert on pitching mechanics too (aren’t all parents experts) and he’s monitored Tim’s pitching motion, progress and career from an early age.  His diagnoses have been right on the money as well.  However, what’s more “freakish” is the way Peterson can watch pitchers (live, or especially, on video) and eerily predict future damage due to their mechanical inperfections.  Several documented cases are citied.  Lincecum’s motion is nearly perfect, but you’ll have to read the article itself to understand why.

And if you are a young pitcher or are the parent of a young (wannabe - either he wannabe or you wanna-him-to-be), you couldn’t make a better investment than to buy this issue of Sports Illustrated.  With all the ulterior motives there are, the answer is no, SI is not paying me to write this (but if there’s a significant rise in the purchase of this issue, a small token of their appreciation would certainly be appreciated).

Back to the title of the blog, it appears that Eric Hoffer’s “motivational” quote may have to be edited somewhat:       

“We are told talent creates its own opportunities, but it sometimes seems that intense desire creates not only its own opportunities, but its own talents.” 

  

 Â