Jack’s Blog

Heading to Monterey for the Cal State Monterey Bay men’s basketball awards banquet.  Will most likely spend a couple days on the coast.  This blog will return on Wednesday.

The Knicks beat the Celtics.  The Celts are going to have a tough go of it.  Don’t even try to say, as some have, Boston is better without Rajon Rondo.  In every game he plays, he’s extremely likely to have a triple-double and unless that productivity can be replaced by a player or players in some other area(s), it’s just too much offense to give up.  And he disrupts the opponent’s offense because of his quickness, anticipation and long arms.

In the Denver-Golden State game, Andre Miller showed old guys can still play - that an incredibly high basketball IQ can make up for what Father Time has taken away.  As the father of a son whose game is highly dependent on basketball intelligence, it’s refreshing to see winning is not all about the “wow factor.”

Bill Simmons showed why he is on the studio show.  He represents “Joe Fan” which he proved during the halftime segment of the Nets-Bulls game.  With the score 60-35 in favor of Brooklyn, Simmons incredibly said “Well, it looks like a sweep?”  Sweep?  He sounds just like a guy sitting at the end of a bar who is pissed off because he has $20 on the Bulls plus the points.  Knowledgeable sports people understand that a 25-point halftime lead in Game One only guarantees you one game in the series.  Maybe.  Sure the Nets might sweep, but it’s a tad premature to give up on Chicago at least winning a game just yet.

Simmons again displayed his less-than-brilliant insight when he claimed at halftime that, while Chauncey Billups was having a great game (10 points), it wasn’t wise for LA to play him because in the next round they’ll need the quickness of Eric Bledsoe.  It was subsequently mentioned by one of his colleagues - and probably 90% of the viewing audience - that playing Billups this series would be fine because Bledsoe could replace him in the next series.  Duh.

As extra added bonus analysis, Simmons oh-so-cleverly brought to the viewers’ attention that, “Kobe Bryant’s twitter feed is going to be a very interesting subplot,” inferring Mike D’Antoni ought to be worried about what his injured star tweets.  As if trying to beat the Spurs, without Kobe and possibly, Steve Nash, isn’t enough to keep him up at night.  Simmons has a huge following because there are so many fans out there like him, i.e. guys who never played and who love to criticize guys who do.  Or idolize them.  His sport has always dealt with a pen and paper.  He’s taken his game to the next level by mastering the computer and social media.

For ESPN’s halftime studio show, he serves as comic relief.  He has had run-ins with the station (according to his Wikipedia page) over censorship matters, among other issues.  Maybe the best advice he could receive is:

“Don’t take yourself so seriously; no one else does.”

When everything is on the line, whatever happens gets magnified.  Bud Selig and his mastermind group thought it would be a good idea to add a little more suspense to MLB so he/they added one more wild card team and a one-game playoff.  I have to admit that when I heard the idea I thought it was a good one.  Then, again, when you’re paid eight freakin’ figures a year like these commissioners are raking in, you’d better come up with an idea or two.  Look out for “half-price hot dog and beer night” when the last place team is in town.  The fan is still getting gouged but at least he thinks it’s a deal.

Last night the Atlanta Braves and St. Louis Cardinals played in the first-ever post-season one-game playoff (that wasn’t to break a tie).  During the bottom of the eighth (naturally, this wouldn’t take place in the third inning), there was a fly ball to shallow left field off the bat of the Braves’ Andrelton Simmons.  Cardinals shortstop Pete Kozma ranged out into left, arms spread wide, trying to get under the ball. Meanwhile, Matt Holliday had come in to back up his shortstop and, although it seemed Kozma had a relatively easy play on the ball, he must have harkened back to the adage, “the ball belongs to whichever player has it in front of him.”  Holliday looked as though his teammate had a beat on it and needed no help - until the ball dropped for a hit (or an error).  Until the infield fly rule was invoked by left field umpire Sam Holbrook, an extra official that’s only used in post-season games.  Simmons was declared out.

Those in the Braves group, e.g. players, coaches, manager, front office, announcers and fans (yeah, and those who might have had a wager on Atlanta) had to be restrained.  Especially the fans who, for some reason feel that when a call goes against their team, it’s considered proper behavior to throw bottles, cans and any other item independent of whether or not it could cause serious bodily harm to whomever would be on the receiving end.  It’s of no consequence if that person had anything to do with the “egregious” event.

The operative word the TBS announcer, former MLB pitcher Ron Darling, kept repeating was “camped,” as in the fielder must be CAMPED under the ball for the rule to be called.  What was lost in the fray is that the reason for the infield fly rule is to protect the team at bat, not hurt them, e.g the defensive player allowing the ball to drop, then quickly picking it up and easily doubling up the two base runners who had to stay close to the bases they were occupying for that reason alone.  That’s where “camping” comes in.  If a fielder isn’t close enough to easily trap the ball when it hits the ground, then the runners have a better chance to start their move toward the next base.  After watching the replay (about a hundred times), Kozma is casually moving back, arms swinging wide.   

So could he have easily trapped a ball intentionally and doubled up the two runners on base?  This one incident begs the question:

“Where are the replacement officials when you need them?”

Many people in the world of sports have been wondering if and when Tiger Woods would dominate his sport like he used to.  Well, Sunday he won - again.  Not a major, but if you’re a believer in the “creep, crawl, walk” theory, Tiger might be about ready to lace up his Nikes.

While he looked good during the event, he never looked more like the chew-them-up-and-spit-them-out Tiger of old than during the post match press conference.  Usually he answers questions very analytically, explaining what happened on whichever hole with total recall.  Recently, he’s been talking about how close his game’s been, but for poor putting or not hitting enough fairways or whatever.  Sunday’s press conference was different - and the same.

This one had more of a give-and-take bent than an educational one that we’ve come to hear after his recent tourney woes.  Those press conferences were courtesy of the the new and unimproved Tiger; Sunday’s banter reminded fans (and media) of the old and superior Woods.  Referring to the fourth estate as “you guys,” there was that familiar, cocky smile.  The ear-to-ear one we were used to seeing.

There have been more sightings of the old Tiger Woods than there have been of Sasquatch, yet each one was exposed as a fraud by the following Sunday.  For someone who was so good for so long (bookies used to post odds on “Tiger vs. the field” - and most bettors took Tiger!), he might wind up taking a page out of Robert F. Kennedy’s book:

“Don’t get mad, get even.”

A friend of mine constantly says, “You are who you are.”

And right now, the Sacramento Kings are a baaaaad basketball team.  So, when a top two pick slipped to them at five, they had no choice but to take a gamble on him.  Has it paid off?  Too early to tell.

The Kings knew Cousins had character issues - actually more like maturity issues.  Basically, he has the mind of a young boy and the body of a monster.  The Kings have obviously been patient with him.  The latest incident - one which got him banned from the team’s charter for getting into an argument (I’m not close enough to the situation to know the proper adjective to place before “argument”) - is the third disciplinary type action this season taken by the club toward their prodigy.

What precipitated his loss of wings was not that he was upset (went ballistic?) that the final play didn’t go through him, it was the manner in which he expressed himself - to his teammate.  The move by Kings’ president Geoff Petrie is simply a teaching point, i.e. just as DeMarcus needs to learn to improve his low post moves, he needs to learn how to act like a professional - to be a better teammate.

There’s no debate Cousins is a legit NBA talent; what the Kings are betting on is that his competitiveness (a good trait) will be channeled in the proper direction.  He needs to act in such a way that he gains the trust of the other players so that he eventually will be the first option.  And when things go awry, he needs to understand that, although he wants to be the guy who comes through for his club, that things don’t always go as planned.  That’s when you come together as a team and figure out why it didn’t work and how you can make sure it does the next time.

But as far as his reaction this time, while it’s unacceptable behavior, it’s not like he got into a fight over a card game.  As Lefty Driesell was fond of saying:

“I like a player with a little son of a bitch in him.”

Heading to the California Coast for a high school basketball tournament.  The blog will return Friday, Xmas Eve day.

This is the time of year when prognosticators of all types want to be heard.  Get it right and, especially if you have a TV or radio show, you can remind viewers and listeners of your expertise - which was presented prior to the contest.  Calling it wrong gives you carte blanche as far as criticism is concerned, e.g. it’s open season on head coaches, coordinators, kickers, offensive skill players (for fumbling, throwing picks or dropping passes) and defensive linemen (for not getting their average, or more, number of sacks).  Miss by enough and you can even roast the NCAA or BCS.

Just predicting who will has never meant much to me.  After all, when two teams are playing, Zippy the Chimp has a 50-50 chance of getting it right.  Make a pick and explain why that team will win.  Better yet, set the scenario(s) that each team needs to emerge victorious.

A few days ago, I heard Colin Cowherd, never short on opinions (or the ability to annoy/condescend), give his pick for the national championship game.  Although he’s from the Pacific Northwest, he’s convinced Auburn will win because they have better players, including the best.  Oregon has never seen such an array of talent.

While that might be true, what Auburn hasn’t seen is a team play at the pace the Ducks do.  In a pound-it-out macho conference like the SEC, coaching staffs pride themselves on situational substitutions.  Does this give an advantage to Oregon?  That’s something everyone will know as the game unfolds.

Well, what kind of prediction is that?  Everybody can tell what happened after it took place.  It’s called being a sportswriter, or more specifically, a columnist.  The fact that everyone can analyze why outcomes occurred after they happen is no more absurd than the fact that everyone can make a prediction before the game.  The more detailed you get, the greater chance you look like a genius - or a fool.

Predictions are great for water cooler conversations (or possibly conversations that take place where stronger beverages are served) and gamblers.  The latter actually do “put their money where their mouth is.”  Is it better to merely pick a winner and should your choice come up roses, gloat, and if you choose the wrong side, hide - or take a gamble and pre-analyze the fray, meaning your brilliance will be many times greater if your ship comes in, but you’ll leave yourself open to ridicule if your winner is right but for all the wrong reasons?  That answer depends on your personal make up - or how much the station is paying you.

Most people (outside the pacific Northwest) agree Auburn might have more better athletes (see yesterday’s blog re: “more better”) - and certainly no one is in the class of Cam Newton (unlike Florida’s claim that Newton wasn’t in the classes of many of his teammates - OK, bad joke) - but Oregon’s roster isn’t exactly composed of dogs.  The Ducks’ hurry-up offense is just as difficult to prepare for as Cam Newton.  It’s one thing to see each on camera, but another thing to try to actually tackle Newton, or play at the pace Oregon forces teams to do.

Who’s my selection?  I’ve worked in both leagues (albeit in basketball), so there’s no preference there.  I’ve always been partial to coaching and preparing game plans and in that regard, I favor Oregon, but to go out on a limb and say who the winner will be?

I subscribe to Casey Stengel’s theory:

“Never make predictions, especially about the future.”

Is this the ultimate down year for college football?  Or has parity, what coaches preach so often, really arrived?

Two weeks in a row, the number one team in the country went down.  Last week, it was defending national champion Alabama getting soundly beaten by South Carolina.  Following the game, Tide coach Nick Saban made a statement that his guys needed to learn a lesson.  He talked about how he believed in his team, that it could still be a great squad.  It sounded like he was drawing a line in the sand.  With all the talent Alabama has, coupled with the fact they were going home, you’d have thought they would have throttled Ole Miss.

After Saban’s comments to the media, QB Greg McElroy let the public know he also addressed the team about losing and that he didn’t plan on doing so again.  It was a Tim Tebow moment.  Then, the game started and the Tide looked fair at best on the offensive side of the ball.  Had the Rebels or Black Bears or whatever they are these days not shot themselves in the foot with uncharacteristic penalties, especially on special teams, the game might have been closer than it was - and it was a great deal closer than most thought after speeches from their two leaders.  Many gamblers must have taken a bath.

Now, the motivational speaking chores go to Jim Tressel and Terrell Pryor who received from Wisconsin what UA got from South Carolina.  The Badgers need to be aware because, just like South Carolina had to do after downing number one, UW has to go on the road next week.  And Iowa City is a far more hostile environment than what the Gamecocks had to face.

Other than Nashville, Lexington is as tame an SEC venue as a team could want.  Their coach had never lost to UK, a win would put the much needed separation they needed in the East division and they were cruising during the contest.  One key Carolina injury and a last minute score, capping a come-from-behind miracle, absolutely ruined the day for the Gamecocks.

It has to be a screwy year when a Texas victory over Nebraska is considered an upset and Florida loses three games in a row.  Add to that a 65-43 game that not only wasn’t in the WAC, or even the Pac-10, but in the mug ‘em defensive oriented SEC.  In that Auburn-Arkansas contest, had someone predicted that final score, they’d have said Cam Newton and Ryan Mallett would have had a shoot-out.  And they’d have been half right as the Arkansas signal caller and Heisman hopeful departed shortly before halftime with a concussion.  As far as Auburn was concerned, it was Mr. Wilson who was the menace.

The Washington Huskies are on top of the world but are living there only because of a final play field goal and a dropped two-point conversion (by their opponent’s leading receiver).  Those two plays have given them W’s in two of the last three weeks.  Had the FG been no good and the OSU TE held on, “U-Dub” would be “U-Lookin’ at a real bad season.”

Speaking of parity, how about that FSU-BC ball game.  If the BCS really wanted to be fair, the ACC winner and the Big East champ would play off for the spot in the BCS bowl game.

Maybe it’s not a question of whether Boise State is the best team in the country but of which team deserves to be their opponent in the national championship game.

There’s little doubt we’ll be hearing from all the rabble-rousers, the definition of one being:

“a person who stirs up the passions or prejudices of the public.”

When the question of who is the better player: Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant, the results are usually easy to predict.  The older generation picks MJ, while today’s younger fans say Kobe.  When each makes their case, the obvious bias always shines through.  “The players now are better than those from Jordan’s era (as if he played in the ’50s).  That’s why I think Kobe is better.”  “Michael has six rings.  Until Kobe has that many, there’s no argument.  It’s MJ.”  Can you guess which speaker is older?

In an attempt to keep everything as equal as possible (which is never going to happen when comparing teams or players from different times - even times as close as these are), let’s look at a number of intangible categories since comparing stats is too mundane.

#1 Each player has a focus all his own.  Game’s on the line, who takes the last shot?  MJ then, Kobe now.

#2 Each has a versatility to his game - power dunker in the earlier years, maintained/s ability to go to the hole; neither can be ignored behind the three-point line and both them have fantastic mid-range games (a trait in its own right that separates them from most of basketball’s other “superstars”).  Both are primarily 2 guards,  each can take over the point if necessary.  Yet each has an unstoppable post up game.

#3 Each demanded/demands to guard the opponent’s best offensive player and was/is a shut-down defender.

#4 Each has shown no hesitation to get in teammates’ faces in order to elevate their games and each made/makes his teammates better.

#5 Each has personal flaws (this just in - as spectacular as they are on the court, they are human).  MJ has a reputation as somewhat of a womanizer and a heavy gambler.  While Kobe doesn’t have the gambling rap of MJ, Michael was never subjected to the public humiliation of Kobe’s “post-Colorado” press conference.

#6 As marketing icons go, MJ might own a higher business acumen (has his own brand), but Kobe’s younger and has the identical global appeal Michael did at that stage of his career.

#7 Each has won multiple championships, Jordan 6 (MJ is 6-0 in title series) to Bryant’s 4 (Kobe’s 4-2), BUT Kobe’s career is not yet complete and, if championships is the end-all barometer, what if Kobe ends up with 7?  Is he automatically the better player?  It’s not that simple.

#8 Each had incredible discipline when it came to personal work ethic.

#9 Interestingly enough, the fact I don’t hear when this debate is raged is that both were coached by Phil Jackson, a remarkable coincidence when comparing two players.  Nowhere else is this the case.  Russell-Chamberlain?  Mays-Mantle?  OJ-Sweetness-Sanders-Smith?  Howe-Orr?

As far as differences, Michael went to college (and was mentored by Dean Smith), whereas Kobe’s education was growing up in a foreign country and is the son of a former NBA player.  MJ was an immediate starter; Kobe began his career coming off the bench.

As a math teacher, I understand that answers and solutions mean the same, so when someone wants to know if there’s an answer (solution) to the “Who’s better” question between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, I refer them to Marcel Duchamp’s quote:

“There is no solution because there is no problem.”

When I was a young boy, my father took me to a New York Knicks game at Madison Square Garden.  I’m not sure what age I was but my guess is I was around ten or eleven.  I do remember it was the old Garden and I only have two memories of that game.

One was the haze that hung over the court.  At that time no one knew the true dangers of smoking.  In every movie the leading man (or woman) was a smoker and the message smoking conveyed was that the star wouldn’t have been nearly as cool if they weren’t a smoker (actually, there were often contests for people who turned in the most empty cigarette packs and even awards of cigarettes for athletic accomplishments; plus, being as rugged as the Marlboro man was every kid’s dream). 

But it was the other memory that really shook my world.  While the cloud of smoke that hovered midway up the arena is cemented in my mind, it wasn’t as eye opening an experience as the event that happened in the last few seconds of the game.  The Knicks weren’t very good in those days and they were going to lose on that day. 

My father was a toll collector on the New Jersey Turnpike and my mother was a secretary.  So, while we weren’t poor, going to a professional ball game was a luxury and neither my dad nor I would ever consider leaving early.  Hey, we were fans - and true fans stayed until the end, independent of the whether the outcome had already been decided. 

With seconds remaining in the game and the Knicks down 12 (I do remember that because of what occurred next), one of their guys made a jump shot.  The building erupted!  I couldn’t understand why everybody was cheering.  My Knicks were going to lose.  How could these people be so happy when the good guys were still so far behind?

When I asked my father what the deal was, he told me the Knicks were 11 point underdogs.  That jump shot cut the opponent’s lead from to 10.  At my age, there was a natural follow up question:  “What’s an underdog?”

On the train ride back to New Brunswick (where he’d parked our car for the one-mile trip home to Highland Park), I got a lesson in point spreads, complete with warnings that only fools (and later I learned, professional gamblers) bet.  One thing my father told me that stuck was that bookmakers (bookies for short) were businessmen, not gamblers.  They worked hard at their “jobs” (illegal as they might be) and set lines so that there would be an equal amount bet on each team.  “Then how can they win?”  That day I added a new word to my vocabulary - vigorish.  

Gambling has always been a thriving business in this country and growing up in New Jersey, I encountered some guys who made their living as professional gamblers.  Throughout the years, since I was a math major and am fascinated with numbers, I’ve followed the lines on football and basketball games.  I’ve spoken with many of my coaching friends and we all comment on how incredible it is that the outcomes of so many games wind up so close to the betting line.  In college basketball, it’s mind boggling because there are so many games.

So how the line on yesterday’s Boston-Orlando game was Boston by three is incredulous.  After the first two games in Orlando, it was apparent the Celtics had the Magic’s number - and the series was going back to Boston.  As if that wasn’t enough, Paul Pierce, in a post game interview, answered the question about how they wouldn’t lose focus being up 2-0 with the statement (and a wink), “Our fans won’t let us.”  The fans he was referring to were Boston fans, people who are known to have placed a shekel or two on a contest, especially those in which their hometown team involved.

What intrigued me was who those bettors were the bookies thought would take the Magic.  Maybe the gambling business is down and this one was a gimme, a trap to lure people into a world where they’re going to eventually lose.  A wise man gave me a bit of invaluable advice regarding gambling:

“A sure way of doubling your money is to fold it in half and put it back into your pocket.”