It isn't very often that Caught Looking gets to cover a new kind of sporting event, but the 2012 Summer Olympics is the first Olympic competition since this blog's inception in April 2010. Given that this blog was started in order to take stock of my fan experiences at another international sporting event - the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa - I'm proud that Caught Looking has survived long enough to weigh in on its first Olympics. Moreover, the Summer Olympics is one of my favorite sporting traditions and the 2012 games from London have been especially entertaining so far - in spite of the fact that I never have any idea when any specific events are going to be televised (or on what channel).
Most sporting events classify as "appointment television" - fans tune in to a specific channel at a specific time to watch specific teams compete. In fact, this is the crux of the argument that sports networks like ESPN use to explain why they will still be so valuable while other channels have had their advertising revenues completely eroded by ad-skipping DVRs. For me, the Olympics is completely different. Part of the reason that I enjoy the summer games so much is precisely because I don't plan ahead to watch specific events. Instead, I flip on NBC, NBC Sports or one of the other channels airing Olympic competition and watch whatever the NBC programmers tell me to watch.
People complained a lot during 2008 in Beijing, and continue to complain through the start of the London games, about hearing Olympic results on the news or online before they have the chance to watch the tape-delayed events at night during prime time. I ask: Don't these people work? Sure, during March Madness my productivity drops dramatically as I replace spreadsheets and powerpoints with video players and Game Trackers, but even I can stop myself from checking Olympics results and wait until I get home to watch the action in person. And in those instances when I do hear about results in advance, that doesn't really take away from my ability to enjoy it on TV later in the evening. I don't really watch the Olympics to see who won as much as I watch it to see amazing feats of athleticism in obscure sports that I don't get to watch on a regular (or even annual) basis.
Take today's mens 4 x 200M freestyle relay in swimming. I already know, as does most of the world probably, that the USA took the gold and that Michael Phelps won his record-setting 19th medal. Does that mean I don't want to watch it on NBC tonight? Of course not! If this were just another baseball game or round of golf, seeing the score would have been enough - after all, there's always another baseball game to catch tomorrow or another round of golf to follow next weekend. I won't get the chance to see the USA go for 4 x 200M gold for another four years, however, and by then the greatest male swimmer of all time will have already retired. I'm excited to go home after work tonight, flip on the TV and watch whatever's on NBC in prime time. When it comes to the Olympics, I trust the NBC programmers to make my viewing decisions for me, whether or not I've already learned of the final result.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Not Yet Ready to Rumble
As many professional sports team as there are in New York, I would argue that there are no real New York sports rivalries. The Mets and the Yankees are in separate leagues, so they don't compete head-to-head often enough to really be considered rivals (the 2000 World Series not withstanding). The same can be said of the Giants and the Jets, who have never met in the Super Bowl and play each other in the regular season just once every four seasons. While the Rangers, Devils and Islanders compete head to head for the NHL's Atlantic Division crown every year, I don't consider New York hockey to be a true rivalry, either. With three teams it's hard to create real drama on a yearly basis, and the Rangers vs. Islanders rivalry has been dulled by the fact that the Isles haven't been competitive in a decade.
This is why I'm so excited about the prospect of a true New York NBA rivalry between the Knicks and the newly relocated Brooklyn Nets. While it still remains to be seen if the Nets can drum up enough of a fan base to make Knicks vs. Nets close to a 50/50 proposition, I like what I'm seeing so far. The Nets will open the 2012-13 season, and the brand new Barclays Center, with a game against the Knicks on November 1, and the trash talk between the two franchises has already begun. Nets president Brett Yormark requested the Knicks as his team's first home opponent, apparently not worried about having his new arena taken over by the blue-and-orange-clad Knicks faithful. Later in the week, Brooklyn borough president Marty Markowitz taunted the Knicks and their fans by saying: "It won't be long before a championship banner so elusive for the Knicks over the past forty years will be hanging in its rightful place from the rafters at Barclays Center."
Yormark was certainly right last week when he said that "[The Nets] are now part of the conversation, and I can’t say [they] were in New Jersey.” Part of the talk will revolve around the Nets new arena, which I had the opportunity to take a tour of this past Thursday afternoon. With just over two months to go before the arena officially opens (to host a preseason NHL game between the Islanders and the Devils, actually), the Barclays Center still has a long way to go before being NBA game ready (see the photo, below). But while there's still a lot of construction left to go, it's already clear that the incredible new Brooklyn arena - combined with the sure-to-be-awesome renovations currently going on at Madison Square Garden - will only add to the Knicks-Nets rivalry.
Barclays is going to have a lot of elements that MSG won't, including a glass-walled practice court that fans can look directly into, an open area behind one of the baskets (or, in the case of a concert, behind the stage) that allows fans to get a great glimpse of the playing surface immediately after walking into the arena, and subway access from nine subway lines (MSG is accessible from only six). As a Knicks fan, I actually hope that Manhattanites don't overtake Barclays this season and give a true Brooklyn-based Nets fan base the chance to develop. I'm excited about the prospect of having a real New York-area rivalry to debate - something I haven't really had since Islanders vs. Rangers was actually a thing back in the 1990s.
This is why I'm so excited about the prospect of a true New York NBA rivalry between the Knicks and the newly relocated Brooklyn Nets. While it still remains to be seen if the Nets can drum up enough of a fan base to make Knicks vs. Nets close to a 50/50 proposition, I like what I'm seeing so far. The Nets will open the 2012-13 season, and the brand new Barclays Center, with a game against the Knicks on November 1, and the trash talk between the two franchises has already begun. Nets president Brett Yormark requested the Knicks as his team's first home opponent, apparently not worried about having his new arena taken over by the blue-and-orange-clad Knicks faithful. Later in the week, Brooklyn borough president Marty Markowitz taunted the Knicks and their fans by saying: "It won't be long before a championship banner so elusive for the Knicks over the past forty years will be hanging in its rightful place from the rafters at Barclays Center."
Yormark was certainly right last week when he said that "[The Nets] are now part of the conversation, and I can’t say [they] were in New Jersey.” Part of the talk will revolve around the Nets new arena, which I had the opportunity to take a tour of this past Thursday afternoon. With just over two months to go before the arena officially opens (to host a preseason NHL game between the Islanders and the Devils, actually), the Barclays Center still has a long way to go before being NBA game ready (see the photo, below). But while there's still a lot of construction left to go, it's already clear that the incredible new Brooklyn arena - combined with the sure-to-be-awesome renovations currently going on at Madison Square Garden - will only add to the Knicks-Nets rivalry.
While it still needs work, it's clear that the Barclays Center is going to be a great venue.
Barclays is going to have a lot of elements that MSG won't, including a glass-walled practice court that fans can look directly into, an open area behind one of the baskets (or, in the case of a concert, behind the stage) that allows fans to get a great glimpse of the playing surface immediately after walking into the arena, and subway access from nine subway lines (MSG is accessible from only six). As a Knicks fan, I actually hope that Manhattanites don't overtake Barclays this season and give a true Brooklyn-based Nets fan base the chance to develop. I'm excited about the prospect of having a real New York-area rivalry to debate - something I haven't really had since Islanders vs. Rangers was actually a thing back in the 1990s.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Switching Dugouts
There's been a lot of high profile MLB trade activity this week that is certain to impact the NL and AL playoff races - Hanley Ramirez to the Dodgers, Anibal Sanchez and Omar Infante to the Tigers, and Wandy Rodriguez to Pittsburgh included. With the trading deadline still six days away, we're likely to see another big deal or two before the end of the month. Regardless of what happens between now and July 31, though, I doubt we'll see any deals more interesting and unusual than the one that sent Ichiro Suzuki from Seattle to the Yankees on Monday afternoon. With the Yankees already in Seattle to open a three-game series at Safeco Field, Ichiro only had to walk across the infield to join his new teammates.
This isn't the first time this has happened, of course. From time to time, teams will make trades while playing each other and the impacted players don't have to travel before joining their new teams - they just hand their home whites in for a new set of road greys (or vice versa) and they're good to go. Nor is this the first time that a local legend like Ichiro was traded away from the team with which he has spent his entire career since his rookie season in 2001. Whereas a few decades ago the notion of a franchise player like Ichiro being traded mid-season would have been absurd, the new financial realities of baseball and the outfielder's desire to be traded to a competitive team combined to send the Japanese legend to New York in exchange for two prospects.
What's so interesting, though, is the fact that Seattle fans had no opportunity to process the Ichiro trade and its ramifications / meaning before seeing him, up close and personal, in a Yankees uniform. In addition to his many on-field accomplishments, Ichiro's presence and international appeal make him arguably one of the most important Major League Baseball players of my lifetime. While he wasn't the first Japanese import to play in the Majors, Ichiro's constant production for Seattle since his rookie season (when he won both the Rookie of the Year and MVP awards in helping to lead Seattle to a 116-46 record and an ALCS appearance) has set the standard for Nippon Professional Baseball players (especially position players) migrating to MLB. He has been the face of not only the Mariners for the past decade, but for Japanese Major Leaguers and MLB's international expansion efforts as well.
So when Ichiro got traded to the Yankees and Mariners fans got to (had to?) see him play against them at Safeco Field that very night, I wondered if the local Seattle fans would be able to fully process and appreciate all that he has meant to their city and baseball as a whole. While many argue that Ichiro has always been overrated (and, if you believe in the value of OBP over AVG you might have to concede that point), you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of players that have meant more to their teams and to the game of baseball that Ichiro Suzuki. Normally, there's a window between a player getting traded and his return to his original team that lets the fans process the player's departure - fans get exited about the player's return, secondary market ticket prices skyrocket and the media flocks to cover the story. Due to the quirky circumstances of the Ichiro-to-New York deal, however, the newest Yankee might not have gotten the respect he deserves from the Mariners faithful.
This isn't the first time this has happened, of course. From time to time, teams will make trades while playing each other and the impacted players don't have to travel before joining their new teams - they just hand their home whites in for a new set of road greys (or vice versa) and they're good to go. Nor is this the first time that a local legend like Ichiro was traded away from the team with which he has spent his entire career since his rookie season in 2001. Whereas a few decades ago the notion of a franchise player like Ichiro being traded mid-season would have been absurd, the new financial realities of baseball and the outfielder's desire to be traded to a competitive team combined to send the Japanese legend to New York in exchange for two prospects.
What's so interesting, though, is the fact that Seattle fans had no opportunity to process the Ichiro trade and its ramifications / meaning before seeing him, up close and personal, in a Yankees uniform. In addition to his many on-field accomplishments, Ichiro's presence and international appeal make him arguably one of the most important Major League Baseball players of my lifetime. While he wasn't the first Japanese import to play in the Majors, Ichiro's constant production for Seattle since his rookie season (when he won both the Rookie of the Year and MVP awards in helping to lead Seattle to a 116-46 record and an ALCS appearance) has set the standard for Nippon Professional Baseball players (especially position players) migrating to MLB. He has been the face of not only the Mariners for the past decade, but for Japanese Major Leaguers and MLB's international expansion efforts as well.
So when Ichiro got traded to the Yankees and Mariners fans got to (had to?) see him play against them at Safeco Field that very night, I wondered if the local Seattle fans would be able to fully process and appreciate all that he has meant to their city and baseball as a whole. While many argue that Ichiro has always been overrated (and, if you believe in the value of OBP over AVG you might have to concede that point), you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of players that have meant more to their teams and to the game of baseball that Ichiro Suzuki. Normally, there's a window between a player getting traded and his return to his original team that lets the fans process the player's departure - fans get exited about the player's return, secondary market ticket prices skyrocket and the media flocks to cover the story. Due to the quirky circumstances of the Ichiro-to-New York deal, however, the newest Yankee might not have gotten the respect he deserves from the Mariners faithful.
Was Ichiro's standing ovation at Safeco Field anything more than routine?
Monday, July 23, 2012
The End of Penn State Football
As with many of the most heavily covered sports stories, I feel compelled to post about Penn State and Joe Paterno even though I don't really want to. At this point, it would be a lot easier and more comfortable for me to try and forget about the horrible things that have happened on and around the Penn State campus over the past several years and focus on the happier side of sports. Given the fact that the story is all over SportsCenter and every sports website this morning, however, I probably need to weigh in with my two cents. After all, what kind of lesson would I be setting for my young readers (assuming I have any) if I ignored every unpleasant issue - especially one that deals with the treatment of children?
As you've likely heard by now, this weekend Penn State decided to take down the Joe Paterno statue that formerly sat outside of Beaver Stadium, the school's football facility. In my opinion, this was undoubtedly the right move. As Jesse Palmerly eloquently put it this morning on SportsCenter, the Paterno statue formerly stood for Penn State's dominance on the football field and was a monument to one of the greatest coaches in the history of college football. After the unfolding of the Penn State scandal, however, the statue had become a symbol for everything wrong with the university's athletic department, morphing into a lightning rod for controversy. Had the school allowed the statue to stay up, it would have sent the clearly inappropriate message that sports success trumps human rights, and the scandal would have taken away from any future athletic or academic accomplishments by the school.
Now that the statue is down, the next step was the announcement of the unprecedented punishments levied by the NCAA against the Penn State football program. While the school did not receive the dreaded "death penalty," the school did get "a $60 million sanction, a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins dating to 1998" in addition to a loss of scholarships. As much as I think the Penn State staff involved in the child abuse scandal deserve to be punished, I'm not sure I think these athletic penalties send the right message. According to a source, the anticipated penalties are "considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable." Is this the proper course of action?
Before we jump to the seemingly most popular conclusion - that the events at Penn State were so horrible that any punishment is justified - we need to think through the likely impact of these athletic sanctions. First off, there's the issue that these penalties will be levied "without the due process of a Committee on Infractions hearing," which is highly unusual and arguably inappropriate. Moreover, though, there's the issue of who will be most negatively impacted by the NCAA penalties. Whereas the NCAA should be trying to punish the people most directly involved with the scandal, I would argue that a loss of scholarships and bowl appearances will mostly hurt innocent bystanders. Current and future players who had nothing to do with Jerry Sandusky will have their college careers derailed. The residents of State College, PA - many of whom depend on the football program to boost the local economy - will have their lives negatively impacted by the local economic slowdown sure to follow the implementation of the penalties. The $60 million penalty will have financial ramifications on the school's entire athletic department, not just the football program - especially when you consider the loss of football-related revenues almost certain to follow the sanctions. The Penn State football program is effectively destroyed, and a lot of innocent people will go down with it.
If the Penn State scandal involved recruiting or athletics in some direct way, I'd be all for sanctions. Once schools break the NCAA's rules, I believe that they deserve to be punished and should have any improper advantages reversed. But to me, the Penn State scandal is so much bigger than anything having to do with sports and the NCAA sanctions send a message that terrible crimes can be righted by destroying a football program. Not only do these NCAA penalties mainly hurt people that were in no way attached to the Penn State scandal, but they also suggest that things can be made right for the affected children by taking scholarships, bowl appearances and dollars away from a football team. I'm all for prosecuting the accused Penn State staff to the fullest extent of the law, but in my opinion the NCAA sanctions are a huge step in the wrong direction. Just as sports success doesn't trump human rights, sports penalties shouldn't be used to make up for human mistreatment.
As you've likely heard by now, this weekend Penn State decided to take down the Joe Paterno statue that formerly sat outside of Beaver Stadium, the school's football facility. In my opinion, this was undoubtedly the right move. As Jesse Palmerly eloquently put it this morning on SportsCenter, the Paterno statue formerly stood for Penn State's dominance on the football field and was a monument to one of the greatest coaches in the history of college football. After the unfolding of the Penn State scandal, however, the statue had become a symbol for everything wrong with the university's athletic department, morphing into a lightning rod for controversy. Had the school allowed the statue to stay up, it would have sent the clearly inappropriate message that sports success trumps human rights, and the scandal would have taken away from any future athletic or academic accomplishments by the school.
Now that the statue is down, the next step was the announcement of the unprecedented punishments levied by the NCAA against the Penn State football program. While the school did not receive the dreaded "death penalty," the school did get "a $60 million sanction, a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins dating to 1998" in addition to a loss of scholarships. As much as I think the Penn State staff involved in the child abuse scandal deserve to be punished, I'm not sure I think these athletic penalties send the right message. According to a source, the anticipated penalties are "considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable." Is this the proper course of action?
Before we jump to the seemingly most popular conclusion - that the events at Penn State were so horrible that any punishment is justified - we need to think through the likely impact of these athletic sanctions. First off, there's the issue that these penalties will be levied "without the due process of a Committee on Infractions hearing," which is highly unusual and arguably inappropriate. Moreover, though, there's the issue of who will be most negatively impacted by the NCAA penalties. Whereas the NCAA should be trying to punish the people most directly involved with the scandal, I would argue that a loss of scholarships and bowl appearances will mostly hurt innocent bystanders. Current and future players who had nothing to do with Jerry Sandusky will have their college careers derailed. The residents of State College, PA - many of whom depend on the football program to boost the local economy - will have their lives negatively impacted by the local economic slowdown sure to follow the implementation of the penalties. The $60 million penalty will have financial ramifications on the school's entire athletic department, not just the football program - especially when you consider the loss of football-related revenues almost certain to follow the sanctions. The Penn State football program is effectively destroyed, and a lot of innocent people will go down with it.
If the Penn State scandal involved recruiting or athletics in some direct way, I'd be all for sanctions. Once schools break the NCAA's rules, I believe that they deserve to be punished and should have any improper advantages reversed. But to me, the Penn State scandal is so much bigger than anything having to do with sports and the NCAA sanctions send a message that terrible crimes can be righted by destroying a football program. Not only do these NCAA penalties mainly hurt people that were in no way attached to the Penn State scandal, but they also suggest that things can be made right for the affected children by taking scholarships, bowl appearances and dollars away from a football team. I'm all for prosecuting the accused Penn State staff to the fullest extent of the law, but in my opinion the NCAA sanctions are a huge step in the wrong direction. Just as sports success doesn't trump human rights, sports penalties shouldn't be used to make up for human mistreatment.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Viva Las Vegas?
Yesterday I returned from a three-day business trip to Las Vegas, Nevada. Naturally, much of the conversation there revolved around whether or not the city should have some sort of professional major league sports team. Given that Sin City is, according to Wikipedia, the 31st largest city in the United States (making it larger than a number of pro sports cities including Sacramento, Kansas City and Buffalo) and one of our country's entertainment capitals, many find it surprising that one of the major leagues hasn't expanded to Vegas. After yet another visit to the city, however, I remain glad that Vegas sports has been limited to UNLV, the Las Vegas Motor Speedway and the Las Vegas 51s of the Pacific Coast League.
Most opponents of professional sports in Las Vegas base their arguments around gambling, and talk about how a Vegas-based team would be more prone to game fixing, point shaving or other unethical behavior. For me, however, this isn't too much of a concern. At this point in the evolutionary cycles of gambling and sports, if players, coaches or referees wanted to tamper with an otherwise fair game, they don't need to be in Las Vegas to do it. So, if I'm not worried about the gambling, why don't I want a pro team located down the road from the Strip? More than anything, I just don't think a team based in Las Vegas would be financially successful.
Las Vegas is all about glitz and glamour, and the city is filled with forms of entertainment that deliver along those lines. A professional baseball team isn't going to do the trick for most of Vegas's ~40 million annual visitors. We all know by now that professional hockey outside of the NHL's core markets doesn't really work, and there's no reason that the cash-rich NFL would force a team into Las Vegas (especially when Los Angeles is still open). If Vegas were to get a team it would have to be an attention-starved NBA franchise (picture Semi-Pro's "Love Me Sexy"-singing Flint Tropics ABA team). Even with a few NBA franchises potentially looking to relocate I wouldn't recommend Sin City, however.
First, there's too much competition from other forms of entertainment. Every hotel and casino on the Strip offers concerts and shows nightly, so you can't treat Las Vegas as a typical one-sport NBA city like San Antonio or Sacramento. Second, so many of the people roaming the Strip are tourists, making season ticket sales very hard to come by. NBA teams use season tickets to stabilize annual revenues and build a loyal fan base, and Las Vegas lacks a large pool of upper class residents. Third, other than casinos there aren't a ton of large companies based in the area, which could make sponsorships hard to sell. Tack on concerns about gambling, all of the distractions for the players and other ethical concerns, and a professional sports team in Las Vegas seems like a disaster in the making.
This isn't to say, however, that I don't think sports have a place in the city. One thing that Las Vegas does incredibly well is large events - conventions, for example, drive tons of business for the city. With the right venue(s) in place, I see no reason why Vegas couldn't host a Super Bowl some day. The city hosted the 2007 NBA All Star game and holds an annual NASCAR race, so it's already identified itself as a potential host for big time sporting events, and the Super Bowl is 10% game and 90% party anyway. For large, one-off sporting events, I'm all for giving Las Vegas a shot. For an NBA team that would have to play there more than 40 nights a year, though, I just don't see it happening.
Most opponents of professional sports in Las Vegas base their arguments around gambling, and talk about how a Vegas-based team would be more prone to game fixing, point shaving or other unethical behavior. For me, however, this isn't too much of a concern. At this point in the evolutionary cycles of gambling and sports, if players, coaches or referees wanted to tamper with an otherwise fair game, they don't need to be in Las Vegas to do it. So, if I'm not worried about the gambling, why don't I want a pro team located down the road from the Strip? More than anything, I just don't think a team based in Las Vegas would be financially successful.
An NBA arena on the Las Vegas Strip? Don't count on it.
Las Vegas is all about glitz and glamour, and the city is filled with forms of entertainment that deliver along those lines. A professional baseball team isn't going to do the trick for most of Vegas's ~40 million annual visitors. We all know by now that professional hockey outside of the NHL's core markets doesn't really work, and there's no reason that the cash-rich NFL would force a team into Las Vegas (especially when Los Angeles is still open). If Vegas were to get a team it would have to be an attention-starved NBA franchise (picture Semi-Pro's "Love Me Sexy"-singing Flint Tropics ABA team). Even with a few NBA franchises potentially looking to relocate I wouldn't recommend Sin City, however.
First, there's too much competition from other forms of entertainment. Every hotel and casino on the Strip offers concerts and shows nightly, so you can't treat Las Vegas as a typical one-sport NBA city like San Antonio or Sacramento. Second, so many of the people roaming the Strip are tourists, making season ticket sales very hard to come by. NBA teams use season tickets to stabilize annual revenues and build a loyal fan base, and Las Vegas lacks a large pool of upper class residents. Third, other than casinos there aren't a ton of large companies based in the area, which could make sponsorships hard to sell. Tack on concerns about gambling, all of the distractions for the players and other ethical concerns, and a professional sports team in Las Vegas seems like a disaster in the making.
This isn't to say, however, that I don't think sports have a place in the city. One thing that Las Vegas does incredibly well is large events - conventions, for example, drive tons of business for the city. With the right venue(s) in place, I see no reason why Vegas couldn't host a Super Bowl some day. The city hosted the 2007 NBA All Star game and holds an annual NASCAR race, so it's already identified itself as a potential host for big time sporting events, and the Super Bowl is 10% game and 90% party anyway. For large, one-off sporting events, I'm all for giving Las Vegas a shot. For an NBA team that would have to play there more than 40 nights a year, though, I just don't see it happening.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Let Him Go
Lost in all of the media coverage of the Jeremy Lin saga has been restricted free agent Nicolas Batum's negotiations with the Portland Trail Blazers and the Minnesota Timberwolves. While every NBA-related article over the weekend seemed to debate whether or not the Knicks should bring back Lin (and with the recent acquisition of Raymond Felton from Portland, it appears that they won't), but only occassionally have I heard anyone weighing in on what the Blazers should do about Batum. Whereas Lin has always seemed intent on exploring the free agency market and finding the best deal out there (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that), Batum is perhaps the only NBA player legitimately excited about playing in Minneapolis.
To get you up to speed, Batum is a talented 23-year-old forward out of France who has spent the last four seasons in Portland, averaging a solid 13.9 points and 4.6 rebounds per game this past season. Because he's a restricted free agent, the Trail Blazers can match any offer that another team gives him, and Portland seems intent on bringing Batum back at all costs. However, Batum wants out of Portland and, for some reason, has identified Minnesota as his preferred next team. According to ESPN, Batum "was unhappy with how he was being used in Portland and would much prefer to play under [Rick] Adelman and alongside [Kevin] Love and [Ricky] Rubio in Minnesota."
So, what should the Blazers do? If they match the offer, they'll get Batum back for the (seemingly expensive) free agent market rate, but will have to deal with a disgruntled player who clearly has no interest in playing for the team. If they grant his wish and let him go to the Timberwolves, they lose a very talented young player and receive no compensation in return. The logical middle ground seems to orchestrate a sign-and-trade, where Portland would sign Batum and then trade him to Minnesota - this way, Batum gets to play for the Wolves and the Blazers get something for him. According to ESPN, however, Portland seems unwilling to talk trade, even though "the Timberwolves have offered as many as three future first-round draft picks and even have dangled small forward Derrick Williams, the No. 2 pick in the 2011 draft."
I've watched the NBA for years, and during that time I've learned that there's arguably nothing more destructive than having a disgruntled player on your roster. Given how unhappy Batum would be in Portland next season, and factoring in the rumor that Batum's $46 million deal is apparently "vastly more" than the Blazers think he's worth, I think Portland needs to drop the gloves and make the best out of this admittedly rough situation. Portland knows a lot about unhappy, selfish players, and the team spent years moving away from the "Jail Blazers" reputation that it held years ago. It's time for Portland to shift from combat mode into negotation mode and see what it can get for Batum. There's no way that having Batum play for the Blazers next season makes any sense, and I hope Portland realizes that before it's too late. After all, the clock is ticking.
To get you up to speed, Batum is a talented 23-year-old forward out of France who has spent the last four seasons in Portland, averaging a solid 13.9 points and 4.6 rebounds per game this past season. Because he's a restricted free agent, the Trail Blazers can match any offer that another team gives him, and Portland seems intent on bringing Batum back at all costs. However, Batum wants out of Portland and, for some reason, has identified Minnesota as his preferred next team. According to ESPN, Batum "was unhappy with how he was being used in Portland and would much prefer to play under [Rick] Adelman and alongside [Kevin] Love and [Ricky] Rubio in Minnesota."
So, what should the Blazers do? If they match the offer, they'll get Batum back for the (seemingly expensive) free agent market rate, but will have to deal with a disgruntled player who clearly has no interest in playing for the team. If they grant his wish and let him go to the Timberwolves, they lose a very talented young player and receive no compensation in return. The logical middle ground seems to orchestrate a sign-and-trade, where Portland would sign Batum and then trade him to Minnesota - this way, Batum gets to play for the Wolves and the Blazers get something for him. According to ESPN, however, Portland seems unwilling to talk trade, even though "the Timberwolves have offered as many as three future first-round draft picks and even have dangled small forward Derrick Williams, the No. 2 pick in the 2011 draft."
I've watched the NBA for years, and during that time I've learned that there's arguably nothing more destructive than having a disgruntled player on your roster. Given how unhappy Batum would be in Portland next season, and factoring in the rumor that Batum's $46 million deal is apparently "vastly more" than the Blazers think he's worth, I think Portland needs to drop the gloves and make the best out of this admittedly rough situation. Portland knows a lot about unhappy, selfish players, and the team spent years moving away from the "Jail Blazers" reputation that it held years ago. It's time for Portland to shift from combat mode into negotation mode and see what it can get for Batum. There's no way that having Batum play for the Blazers next season makes any sense, and I hope Portland realizes that before it's too late. After all, the clock is ticking.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Language Barriers
While the NFL currently dominantes the U.S. sports landscape, one thing that the MLB and NBA have that professional football doesn't is an exciting international element. Both baseball and basketball include players and fans from all over the globe, and the ability to tune into a game and see guys from a host of different backgrounds and cultures is fun - especially during this era of increased globalization. Last night's Major League Baseball All Star Game was no different, as both the American and National League rosters were well represented by players from a number of different countries - mainly in Latin America - in addition to the United States.
But while baseball's international element is a key selling point for the MLB, it does have its downsides. After San Francisco Giants outfielder Melky Cabrera won his well-deserved (and highly improbable) All Star Game MVP award, he gave a postgame interview that was very difficult for the average English-speaking baseball fan to follow or understand. Despite having played in the Major Leagues since 2005 and in the U.S. (as a Minor Leaguer) since 2003, it's obvious that Melky hasn't spent much of his time in America working on his English. As the video below shows, Cabrera, who was born in the Dominican Republic and undoubtedly a hero to many in his hometown of Santo Domingo, struggles with anything more than the most basic of English sentences.
Criticizing Melky Cabrera for not speaking English might come off as xenophobic or racist, so let me tread lightly here. I'm not saying that Melky has any responsibility to work on mastering America's language; clearly, he's doing quite well as a MLB player while speaking Spanish almost exclusively, and the way the league is staffed there will always be enough native Spanish speakers to make learning English an afterthought. What I am saying, however, is that Major League Baseball will find it difficult to take advantage of athletes who can't speak America's native language, and this is a missed opportunity for both players like Cabrera and for the league. Whereas baseball and its predominantly U.S.-based sponsors can fully market non-American guys who have mastered the English language (Albert Pujols and Johan Santana, for example), athletes like Melky who can't say much will always have their popularity upsides capped.
Melky Cabrera is still relatively young (he'll turn just 28 later this season), and with his renewed work ethic he has the potential to turn into one of the better outfielders in baseball on a yearly basis. But even if Melky continues to put it all together on the field and takes advantage of his five-tool talent, his difficulties with our language are going to keep him out of TV advertisements, late night talk show interviews and other marketing opportunities. At the time time, other young (and American-born) National League outfielders like Andrew McCutcheon, Ryan Braun and Bryce Harper will continue to collect endorsement deals because of their ability to connect more closely with American, English-speaking fans. Whereas the globalization of baseball has been a great development for the sport, it also presents some challenges that the league and players like Melky Cabrera will have to work to overcome.
Criticizing Melky Cabrera for not speaking English might come off as xenophobic or racist, so let me tread lightly here. I'm not saying that Melky has any responsibility to work on mastering America's language; clearly, he's doing quite well as a MLB player while speaking Spanish almost exclusively, and the way the league is staffed there will always be enough native Spanish speakers to make learning English an afterthought. What I am saying, however, is that Major League Baseball will find it difficult to take advantage of athletes who can't speak America's native language, and this is a missed opportunity for both players like Cabrera and for the league. Whereas baseball and its predominantly U.S.-based sponsors can fully market non-American guys who have mastered the English language (Albert Pujols and Johan Santana, for example), athletes like Melky who can't say much will always have their popularity upsides capped.
Melky Cabrera is still relatively young (he'll turn just 28 later this season), and with his renewed work ethic he has the potential to turn into one of the better outfielders in baseball on a yearly basis. But even if Melky continues to put it all together on the field and takes advantage of his five-tool talent, his difficulties with our language are going to keep him out of TV advertisements, late night talk show interviews and other marketing opportunities. At the time time, other young (and American-born) National League outfielders like Andrew McCutcheon, Ryan Braun and Bryce Harper will continue to collect endorsement deals because of their ability to connect more closely with American, English-speaking fans. Whereas the globalization of baseball has been a great development for the sport, it also presents some challenges that the league and players like Melky Cabrera will have to work to overcome.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Yes-Yes-Yes No!
In basketball, there's a phenomenon known as "No-No-No Yes!" whereby a player takes a extremely difficult, ill-advised shot that miraculously goes in. The "No-No-No Yes!" name is meant to describe what the player's teammates and fans are thinking / saying while the play is going on - they start by crying out "No!" while the play is developing, but end up cheering "Yes!" when the play incredibly goes in their favor. In yesterday's Braves game against the Philadelphia Phillies - nationally televised as part of TBS's Sunday afternoon schedule - I had a directly opposite set of reactions while watching Atlanta rookie shortshop Andrelton Simmons use smarts and hustle to turn a routine single into a double. I'm calling it a "Yes-Yes-Yes No!" moment.
On the play, Simmons hit a ground ball up the middle for a clean single. After noticing that the Phillies centerfielder was slow to get to the ball and wasn't paying attention, the Braves rookie took off for second base. He slid head first into the bag, made it there well in advance of the relay throw, and turned a simple hit into a big play. The aggressive baserunning forced Philadelphia to walk the #8 hitter (since first base was open) and cleared the pitcher's spot, allowing leadoff man and All Star Michael Bourn to lead off the next inning. At the time, I was thrilled - the young shortstop's hustle showed the type of savvy that you normally only expect from veteran players. While watching the game I actually went out of my way to praise Simmons's smarts and effort out loud, and it's not very often that I see something during a game that really impresses me.
It wasn't until a few innings later, however, that I found out that Simmons broke his right pinkie finger on the play. Whereas I had previously been pumped up by the play (the "Yes-Yes-Yes" part), the news took all of the wind out of my sails and made me question all of the praise that I had been heaping on the young rookie (the "No!"). Was Simmons's hustle an example of baseball smarts, or merely an example of the type of recklessness that a veteran player would know to avoid? Sure, Simmons grabbed the Braves an extra base and helped the team avoid leading off an inning with pitcher Jair Jurrjens, but he ended up costing his team a lot more than he earned. Because of his effort, Atlanta will be without its starting shortstop (and one of its hottest hitters) for a to-be-determined amount of time. So which commentary was the correct one - the "Yes-Yes-Yes" or the "No!" part?
After reflecting on the play, I'm sticking with my original "Yes-Yes-Yes" on this one. Hindsight is always 20/20, and had I known that Simmons would have suffered a significant injury on the play I certainly would have advised against it. But there was no way of knowing that Simmons would get hurt during his slide, and it's effort like that displayed by the shortstop yesterday that makes a good player great. Perhaps going forward, Simmons can combine his youthful energy and effort with some veteran smarts and try a feet-first slide next time. If he can do that, I might find myself watching Andrelton Simmons and saying "Yes-Yes-Yes YES!" for many years to come.
On the play, Simmons hit a ground ball up the middle for a clean single. After noticing that the Phillies centerfielder was slow to get to the ball and wasn't paying attention, the Braves rookie took off for second base. He slid head first into the bag, made it there well in advance of the relay throw, and turned a simple hit into a big play. The aggressive baserunning forced Philadelphia to walk the #8 hitter (since first base was open) and cleared the pitcher's spot, allowing leadoff man and All Star Michael Bourn to lead off the next inning. At the time, I was thrilled - the young shortstop's hustle showed the type of savvy that you normally only expect from veteran players. While watching the game I actually went out of my way to praise Simmons's smarts and effort out loud, and it's not very often that I see something during a game that really impresses me.
It wasn't until a few innings later, however, that I found out that Simmons broke his right pinkie finger on the play. Whereas I had previously been pumped up by the play (the "Yes-Yes-Yes" part), the news took all of the wind out of my sails and made me question all of the praise that I had been heaping on the young rookie (the "No!"). Was Simmons's hustle an example of baseball smarts, or merely an example of the type of recklessness that a veteran player would know to avoid? Sure, Simmons grabbed the Braves an extra base and helped the team avoid leading off an inning with pitcher Jair Jurrjens, but he ended up costing his team a lot more than he earned. Because of his effort, Atlanta will be without its starting shortstop (and one of its hottest hitters) for a to-be-determined amount of time. So which commentary was the correct one - the "Yes-Yes-Yes" or the "No!" part?
Andrelton Simmons won't be playing SS for a while aftre breaking his right pinkie on Sunday.
After reflecting on the play, I'm sticking with my original "Yes-Yes-Yes" on this one. Hindsight is always 20/20, and had I known that Simmons would have suffered a significant injury on the play I certainly would have advised against it. But there was no way of knowing that Simmons would get hurt during his slide, and it's effort like that displayed by the shortstop yesterday that makes a good player great. Perhaps going forward, Simmons can combine his youthful energy and effort with some veteran smarts and try a feet-first slide next time. If he can do that, I might find myself watching Andrelton Simmons and saying "Yes-Yes-Yes YES!" for many years to come.
Friday, July 6, 2012
A Final Tweak to the Final Vote
I've never liked the way that pro sports leagues let the fans vote for All Star starters; as I've always maintained, fans aren't properly educated and are all too likely to vote in popular stars that don't deserve to be there and neglect smaller names who are having tremendous seasons. This dynamic is magnified in Major League Baseball, where the game actually counts for something - the league that wins the All Star games gets home field advantage in the World Series, a far-from-insignificant prize. But for all my moaning and groaning about the perils of All Star voting, I've really grown to like MLB's "Final Vote," and think that with a few tweaks it could be the perfect way to get fans involved in the All Star team selection process.
Let's pretend, for a minute, that MLB were to abolish fan voting for starters and turn the duty over to the baseball players, coaches and sportswriters - you know, people that actually know something about baseball. Even if the All Star voting committee was properly qualified to pick the American and National League rosters, there would inevitably be a lot of debate over who made it and who didn't. Let's say out of the 33 players selected by the writers, coaches and players, 30-32 were obvious slam dunks. The other 1-3 slots would be up for debate, and the Final Vote would give the fans the last word in the process. By filling the five-man Final Vote roster with a combination of deserving just-misses (like Atlanta's Michael Bourn and 2012 NL Final Vote winner and St. Louis third baseman David Freese) and popular / sentimental favorites (like Chipper Jones, who was added this week as Matt Kemp's injury replacement, and rookie phenom Bryce Harper), the fans could decide which of the left out players they cared to see most.
Right now, I don't think the fans care too much about the Final Vote process. After months of voting online and in stadiums for the All Star starters, the fans are exhausted by the time the Final Vote period rolls around. If the fans lost the right to vote for the starters, however, they'd have to focus all of their voting-related energy to selecting the 34th man on the roster. Additionally, without the fan voting to screw up the core rosters, most of the truly deserving players would already be headed to Kansas City this summer. That way, the final vote choices could be primarily "fun" picks - guys like Chipper and Harper - without really impacting the quality of the game itself. Adding a guy like Chipper Jones to the 2012 NL All Stars is much easier to swallow when guys like David Freese are already going to the game - something that wasn't guaranteed this year in large part because the fans voted an injured Pablo Sandoval to start at third base.
As it stands, the Final Vote is a cool way to get the fans involved in the last phase of the All Star selection process. That being said, right now the Final Vote is too important - there are too many significant snubs to truly take the pressure out of the process. If MLB got rid of fan voting for starters, however, the 34th man on each team could be a de facto "fan's choice" meant to reward popularity, longevity and/or charisma. This way, the All Star game would be 95% serious - which it should be, given that the game's outcome means a whole lot - with 5% of pure fun sprinkled on top.
Let's pretend, for a minute, that MLB were to abolish fan voting for starters and turn the duty over to the baseball players, coaches and sportswriters - you know, people that actually know something about baseball. Even if the All Star voting committee was properly qualified to pick the American and National League rosters, there would inevitably be a lot of debate over who made it and who didn't. Let's say out of the 33 players selected by the writers, coaches and players, 30-32 were obvious slam dunks. The other 1-3 slots would be up for debate, and the Final Vote would give the fans the last word in the process. By filling the five-man Final Vote roster with a combination of deserving just-misses (like Atlanta's Michael Bourn and 2012 NL Final Vote winner and St. Louis third baseman David Freese) and popular / sentimental favorites (like Chipper Jones, who was added this week as Matt Kemp's injury replacement, and rookie phenom Bryce Harper), the fans could decide which of the left out players they cared to see most.
Right now, I don't think the fans care too much about the Final Vote process. After months of voting online and in stadiums for the All Star starters, the fans are exhausted by the time the Final Vote period rolls around. If the fans lost the right to vote for the starters, however, they'd have to focus all of their voting-related energy to selecting the 34th man on the roster. Additionally, without the fan voting to screw up the core rosters, most of the truly deserving players would already be headed to Kansas City this summer. That way, the final vote choices could be primarily "fun" picks - guys like Chipper and Harper - without really impacting the quality of the game itself. Adding a guy like Chipper Jones to the 2012 NL All Stars is much easier to swallow when guys like David Freese are already going to the game - something that wasn't guaranteed this year in large part because the fans voted an injured Pablo Sandoval to start at third base.
As it stands, the Final Vote is a cool way to get the fans involved in the last phase of the All Star selection process. That being said, right now the Final Vote is too important - there are too many significant snubs to truly take the pressure out of the process. If MLB got rid of fan voting for starters, however, the 34th man on each team could be a de facto "fan's choice" meant to reward popularity, longevity and/or charisma. This way, the All Star game would be 95% serious - which it should be, given that the game's outcome means a whole lot - with 5% of pure fun sprinkled on top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)