Jack’s Blog

In the April 28, 2008 addition of Sports Illustrated - yeah, five years ago - there was an article about the NFL draft.  Not surprising, since it was the same time of year as the one held a few days ago.  The article was about the 1998 draft, the one with Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf, and with the #5 pick (Curtis Enis, who retired from the league two years later) and the #92 pick (Hines Ward, who became the Super Bowl XL MVP).  A couple of the people quoted in the piece were New Orleans coach Sean Payton and former Green Bay Packers general manager, and current San Diego Chargers consultant, Ron Wolf.

Their discussion was, naturally, about the “science” of drafting football players.  Their comments, however, rang just as true as if they were discussing the NBA draft.  Payton’s comment was, “You get excited about a guy because of his tools and projecting his ability, but so much of this is looking beneath the surface.”  As the NBA playoffs continue, it’s impossible not to look at the “nobodies” who slipped through the draft cracks and the high profile picks which have yet to live up to pre-draft hype.  Everybody knows the Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan gigantic  mistake and Greg Oden before Kevin Durant humongous error.  Another interesting example would be the 2009 draft in which the Minnesota Timberwolves were in the market for a guard (several as it turned out).  They took Ricky Rubio, Spain’s version of “Pistol” Pete Maravich, with the fifth pick.  They also had the sixth pick and, because most thought Rubio would be difficult to sign, they decided to go with an additional point guard.  Their choice was Syracuse’s Jonny Flynn - whose career mostly has been in the NBA, although last season he played for the Melbourne Tigers in Australia.

What Payton meant can clearly be seen in that selection.  Not only did Minnesota select Flynn over the next pick, Stephen Curry, whom the T-Wolves are constantly being reminded went to Golden State but they also passed on #10 Brandon Jennings, #17 Jrue Holiday, #18 Ty Lawson (they actually did draft Lawson but it was only to trade him to Denver for a future first round pick) and #19 Jeff Teague.  It’s more than a stretch to say that guys picked in the first round “slipped through the cracks” but it does show how the draft is such a crap shoot for a team when its name comes to make its draft selection.

Other classics?  How about the Clippers, a year after they wisely (OK, that year, a three-year-old would have) picked Blake Griffin at #1, they felt they needed to get a small forward with the ability to get his own shot.  They chose Al-Farouq Aminu with the eighth pick.  The Jazz took Gordon Hayward next, just before the Pacers who grabbed (and has never let go of) Paul George.  Why would the Clippers pass on Paul George for Al-Farouq Aminu?

For the answer, listen to the eerie crossover similarity between football and basketball, as told by Ron Wolf:

The fascinating thing about pro football is, no matter how long you’re in it, you can’t predict how guys are going to handle the pressure, the limelight, the money.”

LeBron James finally (after all, he’s already 27) put to rest that, although he was a great player, he couldn’t win a championship.  Soon, we’ll be discussing who now is the best baller without a ring.  Actually, we already are but read on.

For some reason we feel this moniker needs to be if not presented formally, at least discussed - in every sport.  From national tv to local watering holes.  I coached in the college basketball world for 30 years and when I started in 1970 a similar label was thrown around in our business.  As a young guy in the field one of the veteran coaches I was in awe of was Dean Smith.  It shocked me when I would hear the “Greatest Coach Who Has Never Won a Title” attributed to him.  Freshman Michael Jordan’s jumper took care of that nonsense but shortly thereafter the crown was passed to Mike Krzyzewski.

It was almost a badge of honor for coaches.  In order to qualify for the unenviable title, a coach needed to take a team to the Final Four on more than one occasion and come up short.  For most coaches reaching the Final Four is conquering the Holy Grail.  After Mike won in 1991, thus bequeathing the “honor,” the latest line was, “Sure, Rick (Pitino) can take a team the the mountaintop but he can’t them to the Promised Land.”  In 1996 his Kentucky Wildcats won it all but the debate raged on.

By now it was mandatory for fans and media to have a coach whose feet they could hold to the fire.  It must have made them feel good at that time because there were two contestants.  And as fate would have it, their teams squared off in the 2003 championship game.  Jim Boeheim of Syracuse and Roy Williams of UNC.  In a show of empathy, while shaking hands after the game, Boeheim said to Williams, “Don’t worry;  you’ll get one” after the Orange beat the ‘Heels.  It was similar to the exchange Bob Knight had with Boeheim after his Hoosiers beat the ‘Cuse in ‘87.  And, of course, ‘ol Roy did just that.  Twice.

I won’t tell you who had the wrath of the nation up until last year.  You probably can figure it out.  The hint is: he no longer has to deal with the problem.

Sports is definitely the most highly scrutinized business - possibly because there are fans and we love to argue.  Now that cyberstat guys have entered the world, it doesn’t seem like there will be any stone unturned.  If only Wall Street could have such a fan base - although it might be a little too late for that.

Now NBA followers are placing the “good stats/great player but can’t win a championship” mantle on Kevin Durant (a little too early, don’t ya think?), Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudamire, Steve Nash and Dwight Howard just like they did to Charles Barkley, Pete Maravich,  John Stockton & Karl Malone.

Some of those guys got close but it wasn’t to be.  Maybe they played in the wrong era; maybe they didn’t quite have the right mix of teammates, i.e. not enough talent.  I’m showing my age when I say I remember a couple National League MVP awards going to Ernie Banks - even though his Chicago Cubs finished last!

Still, people revel in the misery of others even though it doesn’t make the critical person’s life any better.  Or put another way:

“Although someone may come up short in their endeavors, it doesn’t make you better at any of yours.”

It’s nearly impossible to compare players from different eras.  I have absolutely no reservations, however, that two guys in particular could not only hold their own in today’s game, but would thrive.  In fact, I believe they’d be better than they were when they played.  The players I’m referring to are Pete Maravich and Wilt Chamberlain.

There’s little doubt The Pistol would have an even greater impact in the current NBA than he did in his heyday, if for no other reason than his “game” was frowned upon when he employed it, yet is exactly what fans - and owners - yearn for today.  The flair, executed in such an efficient manner, would fill seats and get home and road crowds out of their (expensive) seats.  Maravich’s overall worth to a franchise would be enormous, including, but not limited to, the number of jerseys the league would sell.  His ball handling and scoring was legendary but his passing is an area that’s often overlooked.  It might be a stretch to call him a taller, flashier version of Steve Nash, but it also might be spot-on accurate.

As far as the Big Dipper, it’s hard to imagine him having more of an influence on the current game than when he played.  After all, there hasn’t been another player who has inspired more rule changes than Wilt The Stilt.  But there’s one part of today’s game that makes me believe he’d be even more dominant.  It’s no secret that Wilt’s ego was as big as his skill set and with what players’ salaries have become, there’s not much question that Wilt would want to top that list as well.

Check his accomplishments in merely two of his seasons: 1961-62, Chamberlain averaged over 50 points per game!  And that’s not the most amazing statistic he set that season.  Get this: Wilt averaged over forty-eight and a half minutes a game.  Impressive?  Consider that an NBA game is only 48 minutes!  Talk about an owner getting his money’s worth from an employee.

Then, in 1967-68, in what could possibly be the greatest show of sheer versatility (some might even call it arrogance), with his critics claiming that sure, he led the league in scoring, but after all, he was seven feet tall, Wilt went out and led the league in total assists.

With how expansion has watered down the talent level of the NBA, these two would flourish in a 30-team league.  It’s a pipe dream but what’s the harm in pretending?  After all, as my friend and owner of The Entelechy Group, Jim Madrid, once told me:

“The best definition of imagination is, what comes after ‘What if?’ “ 

The number one sports question of all time, in any sport, that is argued the most (by far) is the universal, “Who is the greatest ever?”  Team, player, player at a certain position, coach, sportscaster/writer, play-by-play man, color guy, what or whoever? 

Invariably, someone tries to enter statistics into the discussion.  This is always touchy because statistics in different eras tell different stories.  Whether it’s field, court or track surfaces, equipment, training and coaching methods, diet, outside influences, the list seems to be endless and it’s mainly due to something Tony Sparano, coach of the Miami Dolphins, said in an article in Sports Illustrated (9/15/08).

“It’s the competition,” Sparano said, but his response was toward the question regarding “the motivation that drives NFL players to squeeze every snap out of their bodies, and why teams are eager to open their doors to anyone who can help them win.”  He was referring to Brett Favre and why he was having such a hard time retiring, to guys getting multiple chances after various social blunders (many of them resulting in arrests, e.g. Adam “Don’t Call Me PacMan Anymore” Jones).

That same quote, though, could also apply to 1 - steroid use (talk about squeezing every last …) 2 - one of the ultimate second chance stories (should it ever materialize) in Michael Vick and 3 - more benign, yet still considered radical (at least by the “old timers”) moves made by teams (in all sports) such as bringing in the latest gadgets (underwater treadmills and the University of Oregon’s Bod Pod, which measures fat-to-muscle ratio), improving facilites and equipment (include golf, tennis and swimming into this discussion), hiring nuitritionists, chefs, flexibility and player development coaches, and “feel good” guys (motivational, inspirational, team builders, psychologists, yoga instructors, even hypnotists). 

Some will argue technology has inflated statistics, while the N-Geners claim specializtion and strategies have improved to a level that they have had an adverse effect on today’s stats.  Changes such as the relief pitcher (back in the day, players were batting against the tired arm of a starter who had nothing left late in the game, thereby padding their stats) or, the short reliever (even moreso,  teams carrying a lefty, whose sole job is to get out - possibly - one left-handed batter per game).  Or, the defensive specialist in basketball or the nickel defense in football (not to mention that going both ways has gone the way of the buffalo).

Rule changes have rendered comparison of statistics virtually useless.  How many more points would great shooters, e.g. Pete Maravich, have scored if the three-point line had been in place when he played at LSU?  How about the goal posts being ten yards closer!  Changing yards to meters in races?  The new configuration of baseball stadiums - or, simply playing in Denver?

In an unrelated article in the 8/4/08 edition of SI, Phil Taylor wrote a column about Tim Forneris, the Busch Stadium groundskeeper who retrieved Mark McGwuire’s 70th home run ball and, rather than trying to sell it for the fortune it would have commanded back then, he gave it to McGwire.  Fast forward to the present day and, as Taylor wrote, “who would have thought that 10 years (later), the hero of the story would be Tim Forneris?”

When it comes to arguing the “who’s the greatest” question, let’s hope that, at the very least, for the integrity of each sport and athlete, each individual involved would, as Phil Taylor describes the action of Forneris:

“Do right when so much around them is wrong.”