During the summer between 9th and 10th grade I took a summer gym class with my friend Scott. It ended up being one of the coolest things ever, meaning the final in the class was a series of face-offs in sports at which I was pretty good. We all got to skip the final because we were great at sports. Every class should be like this.
However one day during an outdoor lunch, I was minding my own business when basketball rolled across the table, hitting the lower half of my face. I looked over, and Scott, my "friend," had been the one who rolled the ball. My jaw started clicking that day. Asshole.
Here we are today, almost ten years later, and my jaw not only clicks occasionally. It clicks EVERY TIME I open my mouth and the right side of it hurts significantly if it is fully open OR fully shut. What the fuck!?!? And now, this very same Scott, has the nerve to leave this comment on my blog:
1. This comment is really odd because you fail to notice how effective this strategy can be. Organizations often copy successful systems to excellent effect. In fact, innovation frequently starts with attempts to copy a proven system and ends with attempts to improve upon it. The Romans were great at stealing shit from all kinds of people and making it better. What we are seeing now is a very natural stage of development in football strategy. I'm not a licensed football historian, but I would imagine that this kind of thing happened a lot over the years. You also have to recognize that it's a game of rock-paper-scissors. Defenses are going to adjust to this way of playing by taking more guys out of the box and putting them into coverage; as a result, offenses will take advantage by teams on the ground. at some point a team is going to start winning again on the strength of their ground game, and other teams will start trying to copy them, and so on.
2. I don't think passing is necessarily less tough. NFL backers and DBs beat the shit out of people who catch all those balls. If toughness was less important, we would be seeing a bunch of little track stars out there, but we don't. Hell, some of the teams even use WHITE wide receivers; speed is obviously not the end all be all. Also, your point about planning is off target. The best teams are great at making adjustments on the fly, especially in this era of increasingly ornate scheming on both sides of the ball. This cerebral aspect is very much a part of what makes football great. If you want to watch a sports where few adjustments are made, you shoudl probably stop watching football.
Let's start with what I think I like.
1. He did comment. I appreciate that. If you look at the other comment on that same post, it was something like, "Please write your thoughts on the Buffalo Bills." What an IDIOT comment!!! Who the hell is "Maggie?!?!"
2. Obviously, some of these individual points are true. Things do seem to go in cycles. The criticism that I overreacted to some of these numbers is a legitimate criticism. However, that's pretty much all this blog is. This post was just a gut reaction to something that I thought had stood out so far in this season. Quarterbacks who are not thought to be very good are throwing a lot of times for a lot of yards.
3. The Romans were a thing. Though not a football historian, this commenter actually is a regular historian (kind of), so I will trust him there. That sounds like something Romans would do.
4. There are some tough wide receivers and defensive backs and football is a very cereberal game.
5. This shit probably does happen all the time. If I blogged in the mid 1900s (a time in which blogs most certainly existed), I'd probably be complaining about how boring all the running is.
There are some things about this comment that I do not agree with (aside from the general tone that sounds as if, at the time, this commenter was offended that I even had a blog or watched football).
1. The first thought in here is that, historically, copying is the first step to new innovation. I buy that. I hate it when I say, "I think Smashing Pumpkins are a really good band," and then someone else says, "They're just rip-offs of Black Sabbath." Uhh...yeah duh. Who cares? That's how things grow. Also, they're not really, but that's another blog entirely.
Anyway, the problem starts with the comparison to The Romans. Yes, The Romans stole and perfected aspects from other civilizations, but the Romans had ambition and resources the civilizations from which they stole did not have (I'd imagine). That analogy applies to maybe the Packers, who have altered the West Coast offense to suit their athletes' strengths. Where is really applies is baseball. The depressing end to Moneyball, which I'd guess they didn't include, is when the Red Sox steal all of their ideas but have 10 times the money and now the Red Sox win the World Series every now and again and the A's suck.
But that's not who I was criticizing.
I was criticizing the Kyle Orton/John Fox Denver Broncos, who try to run a similar spread type offense with equal resources, inferior athletes and inferior coaches. The comparison of the Romans to the 2011 Denver Broncos is ridiculous.
Furthermore, this strategy is not necessarily effective. The Broncos, and teams of their ilk, might score more points than they would if they ran the ball more but that's not the goal, as strange as it sounds. The more you throw, the more possessions in the game. Losing 45-21 instead of 21-10 does not scream "effective" to me.
2. You seem to be equating "athleticism" with "speed." I would say Calvin Johnson is a better "athlete" than Mike Wallace, even though Wallace is faster. I guess that word is pretty subjective though.
And yes, wide receivers and defensive backs aren't necessarily not tough. However, the way I think you stop a guy who is a better athlete than you in any sport is basically to turn it into a different game. Don't injure him, but hurt him a little. You know he's faster than you and can jump higher and is taller...but is he stronger? Smarter? More mentally stable? You have to make it a contest of something you're at least not 100% sure at which he's better than you. When the refs are so SO quick to throw the pass interference flags, it puts enough doubt into the defensive players' minds, who are already at a disadvantage, that I think it makes a real difference in the physicality of the passing game.
3. Your point where you infer that I don't like watching sports where adjustments are made is confusing. There are no sports where no adjustments are made. Adjustments basically define sports. Adjustments are my favorite aspect of any sport...it's the whole reason I have a blog to begin with. I listed it as one of my three things that make football great. An NFL coaching staff is basically a group of military officers drawing up an attack plan and then commanding from the sidelines. It's awesome.
All I'm saying is this:
The athleticism, and some of the planning, is predetermined before the game exists simply by the existence of the players and the gameplan. The mid-game adjustments end once the ball is snapped. The rest is all left up to excecution. Does this team trust eachother enough? Do they want this enough? Are they smart, calm and/or tough enough? All these questions are answered only after the ball is snapped. When the rules change enough to supply the offense with free yards and subsequently strike a yellow flag-shaped fear into the hearts of defenders, those are paper yards. They were not earned on the field, those yards were only gained on paper.
For the record, and I know that you didn't say this, but the New England Patriots are not one of the best teams and in-game adjustments. They are far and away the best pre-game planners in the league, but not in-game. You've seen the interceptions Tom Brady throws. They're not inaccurate passes. They're to guys who are "always" open on that play. But sometimes they're not. Interception.
But really, you're right. It seems like, even now, teams are starting to figure out how to combat this change in strategy and it was probably an overreaction to Kyle Orton beating my fantasy team in Week 1 on Monday Night Football when he had one of the worst games at quarterback I've seen in awhile but still had 17 fantasy points because Denver threw the ball 46 times. Whatever.
To wrap things up, here's what I think about the Bills:
23-20 BENGALS BABY!!!!! WOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm going to sleep. My jaw hurts. Fuck you, Scott.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
"Weekly" NFL Update
The question on every NFL fan's mind is this:
Could the writer and/or any given reader of this blog throw for 300 yards in an NFL game? To be clear, I don't think I, or any other schmuck could be a good NFL quarterback...but 300 yards? It doesn't seem so hard anymore.
14 quarterbacks threw for at least 300 yards in Week 1, four threw for at least 400 and Tom Brady threw for 517 yards. I remember those days (last year?) where throwing for 300 yards was a good game. Now NOT doing it makes you think, "...did he get hurt?"
Out of the 400+ guys, Tom Brady and Drew Brees make sense. That's what their teams do and that's why they're good. The other two? Chad Henne and Cam Newton. They both lost and Newton is the only one out of the two (I actually got to watch both games mostly) who I would say played "well." I ALSO remember a time when 30 pass attempts made me think, "Hmm...they threw a lot." After two weeks, only seven starting quarterbacks are averaging under 30 pass attempts per game (Matt Cassell, Jason Campbell, Kevin Kolb, Alex Smith, Donovan McNabb, Matt Schaub, and Andy Dalton who was hurt during his first game). Shocking players not included in this list include: Mark Sanchez (34 attempts per game), Colt McCoy (36), Kyle Orton (35.5), Tarvaris Jackson (33), and Kerry Collins (34.5). Those attempts don't even include the ones where these crappy quarterbacks drop back and get sacked and fumble.
Why am I getting worked up about this? Ehh, I don't know...wait, yes I do.
Here is my list of things I hate that this trend violates:
1. Willingly being a poor man's version of something.
The New England Patriots.
That team exists already. They've invented (or at least perfected) a certain type of offense. They know this system better than you, whoever you are, and will therefore be better than you at it.
Let's say you are the Denver Broncos. Do you really think Kyle Orton should throw the ball that many times? And, more importantly, if that is your plan, to mimic the Patriots...how is that a plan? You just can't beat a guy who invented a system with a bastardized version of that system. And on a personal note, I find it disgusting that you would try.
As much as I am not a "Tebow Guy," why not play him if for no other reason but to be different? I don't know if he's good, but he is at least he's a unique player. This same spiel goes for every Midwestern team (I'm lookin' at you, Browns and Bengals) who say they are going to run the "West Coast Offense." Don't you think by the time something with that name gets to the Midwest, EVERYONE has heard of it? Sheesh.
Side note: The Raiders are a team that don't throw the ball the much and it seems to suit them. Instead of Terrelle Pryor, why not trade something to Tebow? He would be cool with that team, in my opinion. Plus, maybe the "bad guy" image of the Raiders would balance out Tebow's Christian annoying-ness. Just a thought.
2. General Pussifying.
Football is the best sport ever invented by far. It involves everything great. It requires so much planning and so much toughness and so much athleticism, there's just nothing not to like.
However, with this new all pass all the time all Belichick era, the league is slipping away from the toughness pillar with much more emphasis on the planning and a little bit more on the athleticism. You can kind of just throw the ball up now and hope for pass interference and once enough flags fly, corner backs just won't even try. Once the plan is set and the physical preparations are made, I like to have a feeling that there's no adjustment left to make but focus more and try harder. I don't want to lose that.
3. It's hard to go back.
Generally, people don't want to be hurt. Whether it's emotional stress or physical pain, once the unpleasant stimuli are removed for long periods of time you're going to get used to it. It's painful to run the ball. It's basically a war of attrition. You're running over and over to wear out the opponent.
Football is getting further away from boxing and closer to basketball. Maybe it's not even that bad, just different. It's just going to be hard to go back to the brutal way of playing from the way that puts up points and hurts less. Football people are nuts though, if they decide it's the way to win they'll probably run it again.
Eliminator Pick
This is a new thing that I was going to do the last couple of weeks but forgot. I mean, it's not new. I'm just going to let you know my eliminator pick and why.
For anyone confused, the Eliminator Challenge is a game where you pick one team straight up in an NFL game every week but once you pick a team, you can't pick that team for the rest of the year. If you get all the way through, you win...or whatever.
Week 1 I picked the 49ers at home over the Seahawks and Week 2 I picked the Steelers at home over...the Seahawks. Anti-Seahawks might take me places this year. Anyway, here's my pick this week.
San Diego at home over Kansas City
This game is such a lock, but there's more to this game than it being a lock.
I don't trust San Diego all the time even though they are a good team so I'm not overly worried about not being able to use them later in the year. Plus, I'd like to get to the end of the year. By the end of the season, I'd like to hope I have a better feel for things.
And why is this a lock? Kansas City is a bad team who lost three of their best four players for the season playing on the road against a really good team who lost their last game. Put it in the books!
Could the writer and/or any given reader of this blog throw for 300 yards in an NFL game? To be clear, I don't think I, or any other schmuck could be a good NFL quarterback...but 300 yards? It doesn't seem so hard anymore.
14 quarterbacks threw for at least 300 yards in Week 1, four threw for at least 400 and Tom Brady threw for 517 yards. I remember those days (last year?) where throwing for 300 yards was a good game. Now NOT doing it makes you think, "...did he get hurt?"
Out of the 400+ guys, Tom Brady and Drew Brees make sense. That's what their teams do and that's why they're good. The other two? Chad Henne and Cam Newton. They both lost and Newton is the only one out of the two (I actually got to watch both games mostly) who I would say played "well." I ALSO remember a time when 30 pass attempts made me think, "Hmm...they threw a lot." After two weeks, only seven starting quarterbacks are averaging under 30 pass attempts per game (Matt Cassell, Jason Campbell, Kevin Kolb, Alex Smith, Donovan McNabb, Matt Schaub, and Andy Dalton who was hurt during his first game). Shocking players not included in this list include: Mark Sanchez (34 attempts per game), Colt McCoy (36), Kyle Orton (35.5), Tarvaris Jackson (33), and Kerry Collins (34.5). Those attempts don't even include the ones where these crappy quarterbacks drop back and get sacked and fumble.
Why am I getting worked up about this? Ehh, I don't know...wait, yes I do.
Here is my list of things I hate that this trend violates:
1. Willingly being a poor man's version of something.
The New England Patriots.
That team exists already. They've invented (or at least perfected) a certain type of offense. They know this system better than you, whoever you are, and will therefore be better than you at it.
Let's say you are the Denver Broncos. Do you really think Kyle Orton should throw the ball that many times? And, more importantly, if that is your plan, to mimic the Patriots...how is that a plan? You just can't beat a guy who invented a system with a bastardized version of that system. And on a personal note, I find it disgusting that you would try.
As much as I am not a "Tebow Guy," why not play him if for no other reason but to be different? I don't know if he's good, but he is at least he's a unique player. This same spiel goes for every Midwestern team (I'm lookin' at you, Browns and Bengals) who say they are going to run the "West Coast Offense." Don't you think by the time something with that name gets to the Midwest, EVERYONE has heard of it? Sheesh.
Side note: The Raiders are a team that don't throw the ball the much and it seems to suit them. Instead of Terrelle Pryor, why not trade something to Tebow? He would be cool with that team, in my opinion. Plus, maybe the "bad guy" image of the Raiders would balance out Tebow's Christian annoying-ness. Just a thought.
2. General Pussifying.
Football is the best sport ever invented by far. It involves everything great. It requires so much planning and so much toughness and so much athleticism, there's just nothing not to like.
However, with this new all pass all the time all Belichick era, the league is slipping away from the toughness pillar with much more emphasis on the planning and a little bit more on the athleticism. You can kind of just throw the ball up now and hope for pass interference and once enough flags fly, corner backs just won't even try. Once the plan is set and the physical preparations are made, I like to have a feeling that there's no adjustment left to make but focus more and try harder. I don't want to lose that.
3. It's hard to go back.
Generally, people don't want to be hurt. Whether it's emotional stress or physical pain, once the unpleasant stimuli are removed for long periods of time you're going to get used to it. It's painful to run the ball. It's basically a war of attrition. You're running over and over to wear out the opponent.
Football is getting further away from boxing and closer to basketball. Maybe it's not even that bad, just different. It's just going to be hard to go back to the brutal way of playing from the way that puts up points and hurts less. Football people are nuts though, if they decide it's the way to win they'll probably run it again.
Eliminator Pick
This is a new thing that I was going to do the last couple of weeks but forgot. I mean, it's not new. I'm just going to let you know my eliminator pick and why.
For anyone confused, the Eliminator Challenge is a game where you pick one team straight up in an NFL game every week but once you pick a team, you can't pick that team for the rest of the year. If you get all the way through, you win...or whatever.
Week 1 I picked the 49ers at home over the Seahawks and Week 2 I picked the Steelers at home over...the Seahawks. Anti-Seahawks might take me places this year. Anyway, here's my pick this week.
San Diego at home over Kansas City
This game is such a lock, but there's more to this game than it being a lock.
I don't trust San Diego all the time even though they are a good team so I'm not overly worried about not being able to use them later in the year. Plus, I'd like to get to the end of the year. By the end of the season, I'd like to hope I have a better feel for things.
And why is this a lock? Kansas City is a bad team who lost three of their best four players for the season playing on the road against a really good team who lost their last game. Put it in the books!
Friday, September 9, 2011
NFL Preview
What will we be saying about this season in the Spring? Like I've been known to say on occasion, I think we like to assume inevitability in hindsight. So, instead of asking what is going to happen this season, the real question is: What will have been inevitable? (Other question: Is that a real sentence?)
Has anyone ever seen the movie "Clue?"
This is how it could have happened...
There has been a revolution in football. Starting years ago with Peyton Manning's Colts and perfected by Brees' Saints and Rodgers' Packers, spreading the opposing defense out wide is simply unguardable if you do it right. There really doesn't seem to be any reason to run the ball anymore. In three years, there won't be any such thing as a running back getting more than 65% of the carries and the position will be the lowest paid in football because it has become so replaceable. People seem to like this new brand of football and the NFL sneaks a few more wussifying rules past us all until we're watching flag football on television by the time we all have grand kids. Green Bay repeats as Super Bowl Champions.
Pros:
- I'm OK with the Packers. I will not be rooting for them to win it all this season, let's get that straight. Green Bay is too smooth for me to like that much. That said, being really good and kind of boring is not the worst thing ever.
-Running back really is replaceable for the most part. Most teams already do this. There are a select few players in the league that deserve 80% of his team's carries (and Ryan Grant is not one of them).
Cons:
- I hate the rule changes. The fines are one thing. Keep fining everybody. If the guy keeps levelling guys into the hospital, fine his ass until he makes no money in the year. I don't like changing the outcome of the games. The last couple Bengal victories against the Baltimore Ravens have been directly aided by flags thrown basically for hitting too hard. If some committee decides that things are unsafe and/or unnecessary, fine. I just don't like when games are affected by a judgement call about what roughness is necessary in a game that is based on roughness. And that doesn't even cover the kickoff rules. The worst thing is, unless it's done soon, I don't think it'll be undone. It's hard to come to the negotiating table and say, "Let's repeal this rule that promotes safety...DOWN WITH PLAYER SAFETY!!!"
But how about this...?
Everything is cyclical. The time of five wide receivers on the field at the same time ends abruptly when Dick LeBeau and Rex Ryan have the exact same dream that gives them the key to defending the Packers, Saints, and Patriots. The league plunges into a primeval era of endless darkness where everyone is consuming some mystery "vitamin" that is undetectable and makes every defensive player into an X-Man. No mother lets their son play quarterback anymore and football ends in 50 years. Everyone dies. The Pittsburgh Steelers win the Super Bowl. The cycle ends.
Pros:
- I actually enjoy these periods of defensive darkness. Aside from the lack of overall talent, I enjoyed the couple of years in the NBA dominated by the Ben Wallace Pistons and the Ron Artest Pacers. Just suffocating. It's fun to watch these phenomenal athletes look flat out uncomfortable. Playing quarterback shouldn't be as easy as it seems right now.
Cons:
- Fuck the Steelers.
Here's what really happened...
All of this shit I'm saying are just minor undercurrents. Cycles that the league and all things very loosely follow. In the small picture, and one season is still the small picture, almost anything can happen. The team that gets the most breaks and the fewest injuries (and, of course, plays the best) wins it all. The Philadelphia Eagles win the Super Bowl. REDEMPTION!!!
Pros:
- Affirms everything I think of how the world works (small picture, very little rhyme or reason to anything) and that's always good, right?
- Michael Vick wins a Super Bowl and starts building one of the strangest careers ever. Vick could end up going to prison for dogfighting and be a first ballot hall of famer and a Super Bowl Champion. I'm a Michael Vick guy.
Cons:
- What's the point of even thinking about cons? This was ALWAYS going to happen.
Has anyone ever seen the movie "Clue?"
This is how it could have happened...
There has been a revolution in football. Starting years ago with Peyton Manning's Colts and perfected by Brees' Saints and Rodgers' Packers, spreading the opposing defense out wide is simply unguardable if you do it right. There really doesn't seem to be any reason to run the ball anymore. In three years, there won't be any such thing as a running back getting more than 65% of the carries and the position will be the lowest paid in football because it has become so replaceable. People seem to like this new brand of football and the NFL sneaks a few more wussifying rules past us all until we're watching flag football on television by the time we all have grand kids. Green Bay repeats as Super Bowl Champions.
Pros:
- I'm OK with the Packers. I will not be rooting for them to win it all this season, let's get that straight. Green Bay is too smooth for me to like that much. That said, being really good and kind of boring is not the worst thing ever.
-Running back really is replaceable for the most part. Most teams already do this. There are a select few players in the league that deserve 80% of his team's carries (and Ryan Grant is not one of them).
Cons:
- I hate the rule changes. The fines are one thing. Keep fining everybody. If the guy keeps levelling guys into the hospital, fine his ass until he makes no money in the year. I don't like changing the outcome of the games. The last couple Bengal victories against the Baltimore Ravens have been directly aided by flags thrown basically for hitting too hard. If some committee decides that things are unsafe and/or unnecessary, fine. I just don't like when games are affected by a judgement call about what roughness is necessary in a game that is based on roughness. And that doesn't even cover the kickoff rules. The worst thing is, unless it's done soon, I don't think it'll be undone. It's hard to come to the negotiating table and say, "Let's repeal this rule that promotes safety...DOWN WITH PLAYER SAFETY!!!"
But how about this...?
Everything is cyclical. The time of five wide receivers on the field at the same time ends abruptly when Dick LeBeau and Rex Ryan have the exact same dream that gives them the key to defending the Packers, Saints, and Patriots. The league plunges into a primeval era of endless darkness where everyone is consuming some mystery "vitamin" that is undetectable and makes every defensive player into an X-Man. No mother lets their son play quarterback anymore and football ends in 50 years. Everyone dies. The Pittsburgh Steelers win the Super Bowl. The cycle ends.
Pros:
- I actually enjoy these periods of defensive darkness. Aside from the lack of overall talent, I enjoyed the couple of years in the NBA dominated by the Ben Wallace Pistons and the Ron Artest Pacers. Just suffocating. It's fun to watch these phenomenal athletes look flat out uncomfortable. Playing quarterback shouldn't be as easy as it seems right now.
Cons:
- Fuck the Steelers.
Here's what really happened...
All of this shit I'm saying are just minor undercurrents. Cycles that the league and all things very loosely follow. In the small picture, and one season is still the small picture, almost anything can happen. The team that gets the most breaks and the fewest injuries (and, of course, plays the best) wins it all. The Philadelphia Eagles win the Super Bowl. REDEMPTION!!!
Pros:
- Affirms everything I think of how the world works (small picture, very little rhyme or reason to anything) and that's always good, right?
- Michael Vick wins a Super Bowl and starts building one of the strangest careers ever. Vick could end up going to prison for dogfighting and be a first ballot hall of famer and a Super Bowl Champion. I'm a Michael Vick guy.
Cons:
- What's the point of even thinking about cons? This was ALWAYS going to happen.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
The Last Rites: 2011 Cleveland Indians
There are always moments during a championship season that could have broken another way and ended it all. Simultaneously, every champion in every sport is extremely unlikely and also inevitable. There are so many teams, but one of them has to win. No wonder every year seems to bring so many great stories.
(It's the same with the Planet Earth. People notice how perfect this planet is for humans and say stuff like, "Good thing we didn't exist somewhere else...we'd all die!" We wouldn't all die, we just wouldn't exist in the first place. Of course our environment is perfect, the environment created us. Unlikely but inevitable. Anyway...)
I'm sure the Phillies will have some nail-biter moments while sweeping their way through the National League (of course this might not happen. The Giants last year are a perfect example of what I was talking about above. They weren't any good, but they won it all with some clutch play and good breaks. They were a product of their situation and the game they play. Somebody has to win.), and good for them. They hit on every big free agent deal, every big trade and had no devastating injuries.
But for every Phillies (or Giants), there are at least ten or twelve 2011 Cleveland Indians, lost in the muck of circumstance. With the trades they made, this Cleveland team was good enough to win the World Series. I'm not saying they were the favorite because they WERE NOT. But let's get real; any group of shmoes can win the World Series and the Indians are exactly that.
The goal of putting a team together is to increase the margin for error or, in most cases, margin for bad luck. The Indians had very little margin for bad luck and they got lots and lots of bad luck (in contrast to a team like the Packers last year who actually had somewhat shitty luck until the playoffs). That's just the way it goes.
I wish there was more to say here. It is quite the effort to stay above .500 with injuries like this, but do we really need to write about another Cleveland moral victory? There is optimism for next year but that's another post entirely. I'll remember this team it's unexpected start, the emergence of Asdrubal Cabrera as an All Star, Jack Hannahan, Jason Kipnis, Justin Masterson, Ubaldo Jimenez, Matt Laporta continuing to embarrass the family, a lot of comebacks and a lot of hilarious failure. There have been times this team showed its guts and times their lack of talent and experience betrayed them.
The 2011 Cleveland Indians lived a full life, but it's over now. Goodnight.
(It's the same with the Planet Earth. People notice how perfect this planet is for humans and say stuff like, "Good thing we didn't exist somewhere else...we'd all die!" We wouldn't all die, we just wouldn't exist in the first place. Of course our environment is perfect, the environment created us. Unlikely but inevitable. Anyway...)
I'm sure the Phillies will have some nail-biter moments while sweeping their way through the National League (of course this might not happen. The Giants last year are a perfect example of what I was talking about above. They weren't any good, but they won it all with some clutch play and good breaks. They were a product of their situation and the game they play. Somebody has to win.), and good for them. They hit on every big free agent deal, every big trade and had no devastating injuries.
But for every Phillies (or Giants), there are at least ten or twelve 2011 Cleveland Indians, lost in the muck of circumstance. With the trades they made, this Cleveland team was good enough to win the World Series. I'm not saying they were the favorite because they WERE NOT. But let's get real; any group of shmoes can win the World Series and the Indians are exactly that.
The goal of putting a team together is to increase the margin for error or, in most cases, margin for bad luck. The Indians had very little margin for bad luck and they got lots and lots of bad luck (in contrast to a team like the Packers last year who actually had somewhat shitty luck until the playoffs). That's just the way it goes.
I wish there was more to say here. It is quite the effort to stay above .500 with injuries like this, but do we really need to write about another Cleveland moral victory? There is optimism for next year but that's another post entirely. I'll remember this team it's unexpected start, the emergence of Asdrubal Cabrera as an All Star, Jack Hannahan, Jason Kipnis, Justin Masterson, Ubaldo Jimenez, Matt Laporta continuing to embarrass the family, a lot of comebacks and a lot of hilarious failure. There have been times this team showed its guts and times their lack of talent and experience betrayed them.
The 2011 Cleveland Indians lived a full life, but it's over now. Goodnight.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Cleveland Indians: Pitching Staff and Major Changes
The Indians are trying something really interesting. Starting off the season, Cleveland relied a great deal on veteran position players to shepherd the youngsters into line. Now, with Orlando Cabrera traded and Jack Hannahan only playing against left-handed starters with the occasional late-game defensive change, the Tribe is now asking the young to finish it with the only help coming from the SUPER-young; the replacements for the vets.
Can the Indians make the playoffs, let alone contend for a World Series Title? The smart money is on "no."
But it's ALWAYS on "no." That's life for everyone not named the Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees. The Indians traded almost anyone of worth in the minor league system for Ubaldo Jimenez, the kind of move that the educated sports fan likes to condemn. "What about the FUTURE!?!?!"
What future? There is no long-term model for winning consistently when you have zero advantages. Many point to the Minnesota Twins. The Twins are often good, never good enough to get out of the first round of the playoffs. That, to me, is not markedly better than what Cleveland is attempting to do with the Ubaldo trade. They are betting on the next two or three years. Cleveland's best prospects aren't just recently drafted or in Double-A ball, they're currently starting for the Indians as rookies. Cleveland is betting that by 2013, a rotation of 28 year-old Justin Masterson, 29 year-old Ubaldo Jimenez, 26 year-old Carlos Carrasco and whatever else they have left (whether it's Fausto Carmona, Josh Tomlin, David Huff, Jeanmar Gomez or some mystery pitcher) is good enough to maybe compete with maybe winning a World Series...maybe.
And that's really as good as it gets for baseball in Cleveland...at least for now.
Oh yeah...back to "now."
It's not quite over yet. As I write this, the Indians are four games back of the Detroit Tigers in the AL Central. The only thing that's at all devastating about that number is how many games the Indians WERE up on Detroit. That is one of the two mental traps into which these young bucks need to avoid falling in.
A lot of times when something like blowing a big lead happens, the team can start to believe that they no longer really even deserve to win. Instead of, "we lost," it becomes, "we're losers." People who teach Psychology classes (hey, I went to those!!!) call that a "self-fulfilling prophecy." Originally you just lost because you lost but the losing might continue due to the players believing they were born to lose. This is why when people who don't play sports hear coaches saying stuff like, "Just keep grindin'," or, "just keep knockin' on the door, fellas," they say shit like, "OMGzzz, it's so easy to be a coach. They just say the same stuff over and over." In sports and life, the mind tends to wander and it can often betray you. Keeping it simple is often the more beneficial and sometimes more difficult path. This is why girls should never talk when sports are on television unless they have something positive to say. No offense.
The second trap is the perceived passage of time. When you're nervous, speed at which time seems to move seems to jump around a bit. Rookies, at the end of NBA games, often shoot too soon or too late. They think about the implications of the fact that it's the end of the game or they think about the words, "Five seconds left." They haven't yet learned how to understand the simplicity of how long five seconds is and what needs to done in those seconds. The young Indians need to do this also. They have two months to make up four games on the Tigers. The more likely outcome is that they will look back at their schedule of the last two months and notice that they THOUGHT after losing a game, "NOW it's over," about ten separate times, of course meaning that after at least nine of those losses, it WASN'T over. Could they have made the playoffs if they weren't worried about whether or not it was "over?" You hate to think about that.
Point being: If they don't know these lessons or learn them quickly enough to make the playoffs this year, the hope is that they learn them over the next two months combined with the off season to be a mentally better team in the years to come.
Onto the pitching staff:
The picture on the pitching staff looks a lot more concrete post trade than it once did.
Are we counting on Carlos Carrasco to be a top of the rotation pitcher? Are we sure that Alex White is as good as he seemed when he first was called up and is he going to have finger problems for the rest of his career? Who out of David Huff, Jeanmar Gomez and Mitch Talbot is going to finally be mediocre to good enough to play? Where is Pomeranz going to fit in?
Now, most of these questions are irrelevant. We have the one-two punch of Ubaldo and Masterson for the next few years. That's a real thing. It's a legitimate thing to which Indians fans can cling. Whether you believe Drew Pomeranz and Alex White were going to be stars in the league or not, it was only a leap of faith that lead you to believe such a thing. Justin Masterson and Ubaldo Jimenez are great pitchers. That first step to winning the World Series is built and you can stand on it.
The other guys are uncertain but cannot be called a disaster. Let's flesh out the starting rotation.
The known commodity is Josh Tomlin. Tomlin has very limited talent but that's not necessarily going to kill him. The stat that everyone keeps hearing about Josh Tomlin is that he's gone at least five innings every single time he's pitched in the Major Leagues. He's not dominant but he's been solid, even against the Yankees and Red Sox, a place where some low talent/high character pitchers' effectiveness tends to break down. If Josh Tomlin is the Indians' fifth starter of the future, that's fantastic.
Fausto Carmona, I believe, is a known commodity until further notice. Fausto can be dominant at times and can be a virtuoso losing machine at times. He's the highest paid pitcher on the team and was Cleveland's opening day starter for two years in a row. He will never be the opening day starter for anyone ever again. He seems to have terrible mechanics which only get worse when guys get on base. This roller coaster belongs in the fourth spot in the rotation with occasional trips to the "DL," and I'm fine with that.
Carlos Carrasco is the swing man. Carrasco has the talent to be a top three spot in the rotation pitcher and we're counting on him to be that guy who is the, "I have one more good pitcher than you do" guy for the Indians. With that advantage, the Indians don't even have to be better than the other teams, really. It's the importance of starting pitching.
But can he do it? He looks like the token angry young guy. In his past ten starts, he's shut out the Yankees, and lost 12-0 to the Royals while getting thrown out and suspended for throwing at a guy's head. Maybe being cemented as the third guy (and not the second) will do him some good. The pressure will be on Ubaldo Jimenez, no doubt (perhaps NOT good for him). If everyone forgets about Carrasco for awhile, there's a chance that by the middle of next season he could be the guy pitching third with numbers good enough to be in the top two.
One thing you can be sure of is that if and when "everyone" forgets about Carrasco, I won't. With Ubaldo here for at least the next two seasons, Carlos Carrasco is now the key to whether or not the Indians are seriously considering breaking the Cleveland Curse.
Can the Indians make the playoffs, let alone contend for a World Series Title? The smart money is on "no."
But it's ALWAYS on "no." That's life for everyone not named the Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees. The Indians traded almost anyone of worth in the minor league system for Ubaldo Jimenez, the kind of move that the educated sports fan likes to condemn. "What about the FUTURE!?!?!"
What future? There is no long-term model for winning consistently when you have zero advantages. Many point to the Minnesota Twins. The Twins are often good, never good enough to get out of the first round of the playoffs. That, to me, is not markedly better than what Cleveland is attempting to do with the Ubaldo trade. They are betting on the next two or three years. Cleveland's best prospects aren't just recently drafted or in Double-A ball, they're currently starting for the Indians as rookies. Cleveland is betting that by 2013, a rotation of 28 year-old Justin Masterson, 29 year-old Ubaldo Jimenez, 26 year-old Carlos Carrasco and whatever else they have left (whether it's Fausto Carmona, Josh Tomlin, David Huff, Jeanmar Gomez or some mystery pitcher) is good enough to maybe compete with maybe winning a World Series...maybe.
And that's really as good as it gets for baseball in Cleveland...at least for now.
Oh yeah...back to "now."
It's not quite over yet. As I write this, the Indians are four games back of the Detroit Tigers in the AL Central. The only thing that's at all devastating about that number is how many games the Indians WERE up on Detroit. That is one of the two mental traps into which these young bucks need to avoid falling in.
A lot of times when something like blowing a big lead happens, the team can start to believe that they no longer really even deserve to win. Instead of, "we lost," it becomes, "we're losers." People who teach Psychology classes (hey, I went to those!!!) call that a "self-fulfilling prophecy." Originally you just lost because you lost but the losing might continue due to the players believing they were born to lose. This is why when people who don't play sports hear coaches saying stuff like, "Just keep grindin'," or, "just keep knockin' on the door, fellas," they say shit like, "OMGzzz, it's so easy to be a coach. They just say the same stuff over and over." In sports and life, the mind tends to wander and it can often betray you. Keeping it simple is often the more beneficial and sometimes more difficult path. This is why girls should never talk when sports are on television unless they have something positive to say. No offense.
The second trap is the perceived passage of time. When you're nervous, speed at which time seems to move seems to jump around a bit. Rookies, at the end of NBA games, often shoot too soon or too late. They think about the implications of the fact that it's the end of the game or they think about the words, "Five seconds left." They haven't yet learned how to understand the simplicity of how long five seconds is and what needs to done in those seconds. The young Indians need to do this also. They have two months to make up four games on the Tigers. The more likely outcome is that they will look back at their schedule of the last two months and notice that they THOUGHT after losing a game, "NOW it's over," about ten separate times, of course meaning that after at least nine of those losses, it WASN'T over. Could they have made the playoffs if they weren't worried about whether or not it was "over?" You hate to think about that.
Point being: If they don't know these lessons or learn them quickly enough to make the playoffs this year, the hope is that they learn them over the next two months combined with the off season to be a mentally better team in the years to come.
Onto the pitching staff:
The picture on the pitching staff looks a lot more concrete post trade than it once did.
Are we counting on Carlos Carrasco to be a top of the rotation pitcher? Are we sure that Alex White is as good as he seemed when he first was called up and is he going to have finger problems for the rest of his career? Who out of David Huff, Jeanmar Gomez and Mitch Talbot is going to finally be mediocre to good enough to play? Where is Pomeranz going to fit in?
Now, most of these questions are irrelevant. We have the one-two punch of Ubaldo and Masterson for the next few years. That's a real thing. It's a legitimate thing to which Indians fans can cling. Whether you believe Drew Pomeranz and Alex White were going to be stars in the league or not, it was only a leap of faith that lead you to believe such a thing. Justin Masterson and Ubaldo Jimenez are great pitchers. That first step to winning the World Series is built and you can stand on it.
The other guys are uncertain but cannot be called a disaster. Let's flesh out the starting rotation.
The known commodity is Josh Tomlin. Tomlin has very limited talent but that's not necessarily going to kill him. The stat that everyone keeps hearing about Josh Tomlin is that he's gone at least five innings every single time he's pitched in the Major Leagues. He's not dominant but he's been solid, even against the Yankees and Red Sox, a place where some low talent/high character pitchers' effectiveness tends to break down. If Josh Tomlin is the Indians' fifth starter of the future, that's fantastic.
Fausto Carmona, I believe, is a known commodity until further notice. Fausto can be dominant at times and can be a virtuoso losing machine at times. He's the highest paid pitcher on the team and was Cleveland's opening day starter for two years in a row. He will never be the opening day starter for anyone ever again. He seems to have terrible mechanics which only get worse when guys get on base. This roller coaster belongs in the fourth spot in the rotation with occasional trips to the "DL," and I'm fine with that.
Carlos Carrasco is the swing man. Carrasco has the talent to be a top three spot in the rotation pitcher and we're counting on him to be that guy who is the, "I have one more good pitcher than you do" guy for the Indians. With that advantage, the Indians don't even have to be better than the other teams, really. It's the importance of starting pitching.
But can he do it? He looks like the token angry young guy. In his past ten starts, he's shut out the Yankees, and lost 12-0 to the Royals while getting thrown out and suspended for throwing at a guy's head. Maybe being cemented as the third guy (and not the second) will do him some good. The pressure will be on Ubaldo Jimenez, no doubt (perhaps NOT good for him). If everyone forgets about Carrasco for awhile, there's a chance that by the middle of next season he could be the guy pitching third with numbers good enough to be in the top two.
One thing you can be sure of is that if and when "everyone" forgets about Carrasco, I won't. With Ubaldo here for at least the next two seasons, Carlos Carrasco is now the key to whether or not the Indians are seriously considering breaking the Cleveland Curse.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The 2011 Cleveland Indians Profile: Position Players
I have been avoiding writing about the Indians so far because I didn't want to jinx them. If you're wondering why I've chosen to write about them now, don't think it's because I feel some sort of responsibility to my "readers" to write about what is definitely the biggest sports story under my jurisdiction. I've just decided this team is unjinxable. If they go on a horrible losing streak after I write this, it's because they weren't that good to begin with and Shin-Soo Choo is hurt and Fausto Carmona is one of the special pitchers who can be on the DL with emotional stability issues. Boy does he ever run the gamut.
The Indians already made it through the collapse and they find themselves in first place and now they're just struggling. I don't mean "struggling" in that they are playing poorly... that's not necessarily what that word means. When they lost nine out of ten in June, that's not just struggling, that's something else. Cowering? Tripping and falling? Sucking? One of those. There is an effort and a focus to real struggling, and what they're doing now--trying to hang onto a division (which isn't that good) with all these guys hurt and a team that wasn't supposed to win very much anyway--is, well, a struggle.
The player leading the struggle is Asdrubal Cabrera. He's been my favorite player on the team since he came up late in 2007 wearing pearls every game. Although I'm a little bit sad the pearls are gone, I couldn't really be prouder of old Droobie.
I liked him because he seemed like he cared. He played (and plays) hard in kind of an artistic way (behind all the back flips, irregular bare hand plays, AND PEARLS!!!). Nothing was really expected of him but he was productive anyway. The way I always described him was that he struggled to be competent--he was kind of sloppy and not strong-looking at the same time when he came up, and he would go on streaks where he COULD NOT hit. He also had, and has, a swing that doesn't seem that smooth and HAD no power--but when he got in a groove, he was super clutch. The other reason I liked him was that his name was "Asdrubal."
Well apparently I didn't give him enough credit because this sloppy/skinny guy with pearls is on pace to hit damn near 30 home runs and 100 RBIs. Asdrubal also is likely the best defensive shortstop in the league. He's the MVP in my mind. He is everything the Indians need.
Does there have to be an "Anti-Drubal?" Yes.
Grady Sizemore, though somewhat valuable, should be embarrassed by what Asdrubal Cabrera is doing. Grady, who was a much better prospect than Cabrera, continues to: bat .232, fail to get runners in from 3rd base with less than two outs, lead the team in strikeouts EVEN THOUGH HE'S ONLY PLAYED FOR ABOUT THREE-FIFTHS OF THE YEAR, and just generally piss me off at every opportunity. The thing is, he's still OK. He hits home runs and plays center field pretty well. My hangups on Grady are stuff like the fact that he's fast but doesn't get on base or steal bases when he's there. At one point he was supposed to be a lead off hitter yet less than half of his hits are singles. Getting lead off doubles is great, but being a lead off hitter who strikes out 200 times a year is just terrible.
(Sigh...) but anyway... I guess if you're going to bat .232, you might as well have all your hits be extra-base hits, but still... if you could make just 10 of those 73 strikeouts into singles... Grady would make a little more sense to me.
Now let's break up the rest of the position players (not Asdrubal, Grady or Choo) into five groups.
Young Guys with a Future
1. Michael Brantly (Age 24)
2. Carlos Santana (Age 25)
3. Lonnie Chisenhall (Age 22)
4. Matt LaPorta (Age 26)
This group can't help but be the most loved group. Ideally, you want to come home and find out that one or more of these guys contributed to the win.
The guy who needs to feel a little urgency is obviously Matt LaPorta, being the oldest. He was also the focal point of the Tribe's side of the CC Sabathia trade with the Brewers, which brings more pressure. And one last thing to throw on the pressure fire is that he's the Indians' ONLY right-handed hitter who has any threat of power. If it were me, LaPorta would be batting sixth instead of eighth. The top five of the batting order are all legitimate hitters.
Let's say that Choo is back. The ideal batting order is something like... Brantly, Asdrubal, Hafner, Santana, Choo, LaPorta, Sizemore, Cabrera, Chisenhall. That way we rotate lefty and righty as much as we can and have someone with a little bit of power (sorry, Orlando) to protect the top five. It also keeps Grady in the 7-hole, which pleases me.
Currently, Laporta is batting .247 with 8 homers and 33 RBIs. That's actually not that bad compared to his teammates, but he should be better. He has the most effortless power of any guy on this list and he needs to take advantage. Putting him in the 6-hole and letting him know how important it is for him to be productive I feel would be good for him. Give him a little pressure--I think he needs it.
Young or Old? No Future.
1. Austin Kearns (31)
2. Shelley Duncan (31)
3. Lou Marson (25)
4. Luis Valbuena (25)
5. Travis Buck (27)
Two of these guys are somewhat important, which worries me. With Shin-Soo Choo out, Travis Buck has essentially taken his place, which is not good. Travis Buck is not a platoon outfielder or a guy good enough to give someone a couple days off. This is really the only scenario in which he should play. It's not really a knock on Buck, it's just what he is.
The other guy who could be important (and actually has a chance to get out of this list at some point) is Lou Marson. He's already a good defensive catcher, but batting .239 with zero home runs in 117 at-bats is just not acceptable. Home runs really aren't just for show. Putting fear into the hearts of your opponents is what makes you a good player, really. The only fear fans or teams have of Lou Marson is this thought, "Oh my God, if Lou Marson gets the game winning hit I'm going to cut myself." You don't have to be a great hitter to be a career backup catcher (a real position, by the way... catching hurts the knees) but you can't be a non-hitter. That's why I feel pretty comfortable keeping him in this category. Sorry, Lou.
Not Young, But Helpful
1. Orlando Cabrera (36)
2. Jack Hannahan (31)
These guys are making a total of $1.5 million, and I feel better when they're up with a guy on third and less than two outs than when Sizemore and his $7.6 million are up there. I do feel bad about that comment a little bit, though. It's not Grady's fault that he gets paid a lot, but I do want to give these two guys credit. O-Cab and "Jungle" Jack Hannahan carried the Tribe through the first part of the season, something they shouldn't be good enough to do. And think about this: This Indians team was close to the worst team in baseball last year. Having a good start to the season, in my eyes, showed this team the way to be good. These days they look pretty used to winning, and I give these two guys credit for that.
Minor League Possibilities
1. Jason Kipnis (24)
2. Jason Donald (26)
3. Ezequiel Carrera (24)
4. Cord Phelps (24)
It's weird to me that three out of four of these guys play second base. The future looks to be Jason Kipnis (the only guy with any power on this list) at second, with Jason Donald backing up every infield position and Cord Phelps probably never doing anything. I still have no idea what Carrera brings to the table but he keeps coming up from the minors for reasons unknown.
Travis Hafner
1. Travis Hafner (34)
Travis Hafner is in his own group. A few years back he would've been in the "Most Overpaid Athletes" group. Now, Hafner's not young and he's not just "useful." He's the most irreplaceable player on the team and I'll tell you why.
As previously stated, someone in a lineup--just like someone in a starting five or starting anything of any sport--has to scare you or that group can't really function. Even though he's injury prone and can't play a single position in the field, he's the only hitter who scares anybody on any team. He's had two walk-off home runs this year, one of them being a first pitch walk-off grand slam when the Indians were down three runs. It's really scary that the Indians' team is secretly hanging on by whatever ligaments are keeping Hafner's shoulders and ankles together. Also, I'm really not sure there's anyone in the minors or available to be acquired that replaces what he brings to the table... and he's 34. You just need a mismatch guy, and Hafner's it.
The Indians already made it through the collapse and they find themselves in first place and now they're just struggling. I don't mean "struggling" in that they are playing poorly... that's not necessarily what that word means. When they lost nine out of ten in June, that's not just struggling, that's something else. Cowering? Tripping and falling? Sucking? One of those. There is an effort and a focus to real struggling, and what they're doing now--trying to hang onto a division (which isn't that good) with all these guys hurt and a team that wasn't supposed to win very much anyway--is, well, a struggle.
The player leading the struggle is Asdrubal Cabrera. He's been my favorite player on the team since he came up late in 2007 wearing pearls every game. Although I'm a little bit sad the pearls are gone, I couldn't really be prouder of old Droobie.
I liked him because he seemed like he cared. He played (and plays) hard in kind of an artistic way (behind all the back flips, irregular bare hand plays, AND PEARLS!!!). Nothing was really expected of him but he was productive anyway. The way I always described him was that he struggled to be competent--he was kind of sloppy and not strong-looking at the same time when he came up, and he would go on streaks where he COULD NOT hit. He also had, and has, a swing that doesn't seem that smooth and HAD no power--but when he got in a groove, he was super clutch. The other reason I liked him was that his name was "Asdrubal."
Well apparently I didn't give him enough credit because this sloppy/skinny guy with pearls is on pace to hit damn near 30 home runs and 100 RBIs. Asdrubal also is likely the best defensive shortstop in the league. He's the MVP in my mind. He is everything the Indians need.
Does there have to be an "Anti-Drubal?" Yes.
Grady Sizemore, though somewhat valuable, should be embarrassed by what Asdrubal Cabrera is doing. Grady, who was a much better prospect than Cabrera, continues to: bat .232, fail to get runners in from 3rd base with less than two outs, lead the team in strikeouts EVEN THOUGH HE'S ONLY PLAYED FOR ABOUT THREE-FIFTHS OF THE YEAR, and just generally piss me off at every opportunity. The thing is, he's still OK. He hits home runs and plays center field pretty well. My hangups on Grady are stuff like the fact that he's fast but doesn't get on base or steal bases when he's there. At one point he was supposed to be a lead off hitter yet less than half of his hits are singles. Getting lead off doubles is great, but being a lead off hitter who strikes out 200 times a year is just terrible.
(Sigh...) but anyway... I guess if you're going to bat .232, you might as well have all your hits be extra-base hits, but still... if you could make just 10 of those 73 strikeouts into singles... Grady would make a little more sense to me.
Now let's break up the rest of the position players (not Asdrubal, Grady or Choo) into five groups.
Young Guys with a Future
1. Michael Brantly (Age 24)
2. Carlos Santana (Age 25)
3. Lonnie Chisenhall (Age 22)
4. Matt LaPorta (Age 26)
This group can't help but be the most loved group. Ideally, you want to come home and find out that one or more of these guys contributed to the win.
The guy who needs to feel a little urgency is obviously Matt LaPorta, being the oldest. He was also the focal point of the Tribe's side of the CC Sabathia trade with the Brewers, which brings more pressure. And one last thing to throw on the pressure fire is that he's the Indians' ONLY right-handed hitter who has any threat of power. If it were me, LaPorta would be batting sixth instead of eighth. The top five of the batting order are all legitimate hitters.
Let's say that Choo is back. The ideal batting order is something like... Brantly, Asdrubal, Hafner, Santana, Choo, LaPorta, Sizemore, Cabrera, Chisenhall. That way we rotate lefty and righty as much as we can and have someone with a little bit of power (sorry, Orlando) to protect the top five. It also keeps Grady in the 7-hole, which pleases me.
Currently, Laporta is batting .247 with 8 homers and 33 RBIs. That's actually not that bad compared to his teammates, but he should be better. He has the most effortless power of any guy on this list and he needs to take advantage. Putting him in the 6-hole and letting him know how important it is for him to be productive I feel would be good for him. Give him a little pressure--I think he needs it.
Young or Old? No Future.
1. Austin Kearns (31)
2. Shelley Duncan (31)
3. Lou Marson (25)
4. Luis Valbuena (25)
5. Travis Buck (27)
Two of these guys are somewhat important, which worries me. With Shin-Soo Choo out, Travis Buck has essentially taken his place, which is not good. Travis Buck is not a platoon outfielder or a guy good enough to give someone a couple days off. This is really the only scenario in which he should play. It's not really a knock on Buck, it's just what he is.
The other guy who could be important (and actually has a chance to get out of this list at some point) is Lou Marson. He's already a good defensive catcher, but batting .239 with zero home runs in 117 at-bats is just not acceptable. Home runs really aren't just for show. Putting fear into the hearts of your opponents is what makes you a good player, really. The only fear fans or teams have of Lou Marson is this thought, "Oh my God, if Lou Marson gets the game winning hit I'm going to cut myself." You don't have to be a great hitter to be a career backup catcher (a real position, by the way... catching hurts the knees) but you can't be a non-hitter. That's why I feel pretty comfortable keeping him in this category. Sorry, Lou.
Not Young, But Helpful
1. Orlando Cabrera (36)
2. Jack Hannahan (31)
These guys are making a total of $1.5 million, and I feel better when they're up with a guy on third and less than two outs than when Sizemore and his $7.6 million are up there. I do feel bad about that comment a little bit, though. It's not Grady's fault that he gets paid a lot, but I do want to give these two guys credit. O-Cab and "Jungle" Jack Hannahan carried the Tribe through the first part of the season, something they shouldn't be good enough to do. And think about this: This Indians team was close to the worst team in baseball last year. Having a good start to the season, in my eyes, showed this team the way to be good. These days they look pretty used to winning, and I give these two guys credit for that.
Minor League Possibilities
1. Jason Kipnis (24)
2. Jason Donald (26)
3. Ezequiel Carrera (24)
4. Cord Phelps (24)
It's weird to me that three out of four of these guys play second base. The future looks to be Jason Kipnis (the only guy with any power on this list) at second, with Jason Donald backing up every infield position and Cord Phelps probably never doing anything. I still have no idea what Carrera brings to the table but he keeps coming up from the minors for reasons unknown.
Travis Hafner
1. Travis Hafner (34)
Travis Hafner is in his own group. A few years back he would've been in the "Most Overpaid Athletes" group. Now, Hafner's not young and he's not just "useful." He's the most irreplaceable player on the team and I'll tell you why.
As previously stated, someone in a lineup--just like someone in a starting five or starting anything of any sport--has to scare you or that group can't really function. Even though he's injury prone and can't play a single position in the field, he's the only hitter who scares anybody on any team. He's had two walk-off home runs this year, one of them being a first pitch walk-off grand slam when the Indians were down three runs. It's really scary that the Indians' team is secretly hanging on by whatever ligaments are keeping Hafner's shoulders and ankles together. Also, I'm really not sure there's anyone in the minors or available to be acquired that replaces what he brings to the table... and he's 34. You just need a mismatch guy, and Hafner's it.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
2011 NBA Draft: Who Cares?
Hey, I know Bismack Biyombo is really UNPOLISHED, but look at that UPSIDE!!!
Jimmer Fredette sure can STRETCH THE FLOOR!!!
Kemba Walker....WHAT A MOTOR!!!!!
These stupid phrases do mean something, but they're really not terribly useful at the end of the day.
"He's a jump-shooting wing player with limited athleticism but his length makes him a decent defender for his size. He likes to come off screens and stretch the floor with the corner three in transition. Projected mid to late second round."
See, I just described myself. I can't believe you almost drafted me!
The point is, these phrases all apply to these player, for sure, but the question is always the same:
Can they do these things that they do "well" against the best in the world? And because it takes such hard work to hone your skills to such a degree and because all of these guys are big or fast or both, the question REALLY boils down to, "Out of all these guys, who actually cares?"
Well how am I supposed to know!?! I'm not and I don't. But hell, why not guess?
Guys I think I like
(The Obvious)
Kyrie Irving
Derrick Williams
By the way, I'm in favor of drafting Kyrie Irving over Derrick Williams. If you go by their 2010-11 stats, Derrick Williams is a little better than Kyrie Irving. On the flip side, if you look at just Derrick Williams' 2010-11 stats, it looks really fishy and just reaks of a fluke year. The one thing that I feel you can sure of is that Derrick Williams is not going to be a 57% three-point shooter in any season in his NBA career and perhaps not in any month for that matter. I still like him though.
Enes Kanter
(The not obvious but still obvious)
David Lighty
How is he not getting drafted over (random foreign guy #14) in mock drafts?!? Hasn't anyone realized that having a scoring 2-guard is not that important? If he can guard opposing teams' scoring 2-guards, he can start on a title team. I know I'm 100% biased but this guy cares I'm telling you!
(The Neutral)
Kemba Walker
I don't think Kemba's going to be an All Star or anything but that's not all that matters. This guy's complete infalibility in all tournament games was just a pleasure to watch and a kind of underrated story (even though it was talked about A LOT). I think this guy cares and that got him to the list.
Scotty Hopson
I hated Tennessee under Bruce Pearl. This guy though, seemed like a pretty threatening person to guard for a guy projected to go so low. I'm going to chalk it up to the fact that his coach was annoying. Seems like a good 2nd round gamble to me.
Guys I Don't Like
Kawhi Leonard
Just not feelin' it. Shouldn't they have beaten some good teams if they had an 8th overrall pick let along, an 8th overall pick who CARED?!?! No thanks.
Kyle Singler
I've hated him since he was a freshman. He's not even a good three-point shooter. What is this guy's point? Blech!
Chandler Parsons
Look at him! Who is this guy!?!
Josh Selby
Came to Kansas, became ineligible, sucked, left. What does this guy care about?
Apologies for getting lazy during the last part but this draft does seem to suck a lot and liking anybody requires much more of an explanation than disliking somebody.
Just so we're clear, the Cavs COULD draft:
1. Kyrie Irving
4. Enes Kanter
32. Scotty Hopson
54. David Lighty
I'm just gonna come out and say it: That's what I'd do. Again, I'm sorry that I had to go through all of this draft stuff just to tell you all my ideal draft.
Don't feel pressured to have paid attention to the whole first part because really, who cares?
Jimmer Fredette sure can STRETCH THE FLOOR!!!
Kemba Walker....WHAT A MOTOR!!!!!
These stupid phrases do mean something, but they're really not terribly useful at the end of the day.
"He's a jump-shooting wing player with limited athleticism but his length makes him a decent defender for his size. He likes to come off screens and stretch the floor with the corner three in transition. Projected mid to late second round."
See, I just described myself. I can't believe you almost drafted me!
The point is, these phrases all apply to these player, for sure, but the question is always the same:
Can they do these things that they do "well" against the best in the world? And because it takes such hard work to hone your skills to such a degree and because all of these guys are big or fast or both, the question REALLY boils down to, "Out of all these guys, who actually cares?"
Well how am I supposed to know!?! I'm not and I don't. But hell, why not guess?
Guys I think I like
(The Obvious)
Kyrie Irving
Derrick Williams
By the way, I'm in favor of drafting Kyrie Irving over Derrick Williams. If you go by their 2010-11 stats, Derrick Williams is a little better than Kyrie Irving. On the flip side, if you look at just Derrick Williams' 2010-11 stats, it looks really fishy and just reaks of a fluke year. The one thing that I feel you can sure of is that Derrick Williams is not going to be a 57% three-point shooter in any season in his NBA career and perhaps not in any month for that matter. I still like him though.
Enes Kanter
(The not obvious but still obvious)
David Lighty
How is he not getting drafted over (random foreign guy #14) in mock drafts?!? Hasn't anyone realized that having a scoring 2-guard is not that important? If he can guard opposing teams' scoring 2-guards, he can start on a title team. I know I'm 100% biased but this guy cares I'm telling you!
(The Neutral)
Kemba Walker
I don't think Kemba's going to be an All Star or anything but that's not all that matters. This guy's complete infalibility in all tournament games was just a pleasure to watch and a kind of underrated story (even though it was talked about A LOT). I think this guy cares and that got him to the list.
Scotty Hopson
I hated Tennessee under Bruce Pearl. This guy though, seemed like a pretty threatening person to guard for a guy projected to go so low. I'm going to chalk it up to the fact that his coach was annoying. Seems like a good 2nd round gamble to me.
Guys I Don't Like
Kawhi Leonard
Just not feelin' it. Shouldn't they have beaten some good teams if they had an 8th overrall pick let along, an 8th overall pick who CARED?!?! No thanks.
Kyle Singler
I've hated him since he was a freshman. He's not even a good three-point shooter. What is this guy's point? Blech!
Chandler Parsons
Look at him! Who is this guy!?!
Josh Selby
Came to Kansas, became ineligible, sucked, left. What does this guy care about?
Apologies for getting lazy during the last part but this draft does seem to suck a lot and liking anybody requires much more of an explanation than disliking somebody.
Just so we're clear, the Cavs COULD draft:
1. Kyrie Irving
4. Enes Kanter
32. Scotty Hopson
54. David Lighty
I'm just gonna come out and say it: That's what I'd do. Again, I'm sorry that I had to go through all of this draft stuff just to tell you all my ideal draft.
Don't feel pressured to have paid attention to the whole first part because really, who cares?
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Nowhere Man
After Game 6 of the NBA Finals, the Dallas Mavericks were in ecstasy. Dwyane Wade could also go home happy, taking solace in the fact that he had played his hardest, he had already won a title, and the city of Miami still loved him. Bosh too could look back on these playoffs--including the Finals--knowing that he had succeeded in some way, overcome a mental hurdle by playing very well in the biggest of games. Despite the predictions, Miami's eventual loss was not a result of Bosh--the Big Three's perceived "third wheel"--becoming overwhelmed by important moments. And Miami's role players were, for the most part, slightly better than advertised. Mario Chalmers was actually quite decent.
But there was no place to go for LeBron James.
At this point no matter what team you were rooting for in this year's NBA Finals, you're probably not rooting for or commiserating with LeBron James specifically . . . and why should you? He's a choke artist and a jerk with no charisma, right? But wait. Wait.
What about that Pistons' series in 2007? While on the Cavs, playing with worse teammates with less-developed individual skills, Lebron suddenly decided to dominate a much better defensive team than the 2011 Mavericks. Or what about how he went down the next two years? He had 45 points in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Semifinals against the Celtics, the eventual champions. And the very next year, he had one of the best statistical individual performances of any player in any playoff series ever. He did all of that in pressure situations similar to this year’s Finals series, all while being one of the better-liked players in the league.
How can you explain his abysmal performances in the last two playoffs--both in years you could really look at his team and say, "They have a shot." I don't claim to know the answer, but I know that the answer ISN'T to slap a "choker" label on him. As convenient as it is, no one-word simplification sums up what LeBron "is" or has done.
There are two things (that I can think of at this very moment) that are different about LeBron since he's left, other than the fact that I don't root for him anymore. One I wrote about a few weeks ago. LeBron's not as fun to watch anymore and arguably not as good. I still believe it's because he's chosen to stop evolving as a player. He's no longer on a journey, it's just business. The other difference I notice is in his interviews. He's always been a little boring and buttoned up in pressers, always trying to portray a leadership role by taking every question happily because that's what a leader does. He stomachs all the stupidity from the media because he's man enough to take it.
These days, his interviews remind me of (gulp) Kobe's.
The most basic reason Kobe is unlikable is because he's not genuine. He's created a character that he thinks people want to see, and now he talks tough and he talks defensive because he can't be himself. It's the core reason Kobe freaks out in crunch time in the playoffs and why his teams go down so hard. As long as anyone has called him an "assassin," he hasn't been true to himself.
There's a difference between LeBron in Cleveland and LeBron in Miami. In Cleveland, he could be his gregarious self. The city grew as basketball fans as LeBron grew as a player. Cleveland obviously thought that they knew him, and they loved him. (Though the knowledge was false, the love was real.) Even if everyone thought he was boring in interviews or a showboat during games, he belonged somewhere. His hometown, the town in which he played, was behind him 100%.
Where does he belong now, and to whom? Miami's happy to have him but doesn't care about him as deeply as they care about Wade--or even close to as deeply as Cleveland cared about LeBron. They don't care about him enough to have his back right now at his lowest point.
A sick thing to think about is this: If he played his whole career in Cleveland and won zero titles, they would still love him more than Miami will no matter what happens. I'm convinced of this.
Point being, would his quotes about his critics having to go back to their same lives and problems make any sense for someone who is secure with his support system? It wouldn't. What about the way he played?
LeBron appears to have lost who he is. His public self, which, at this point in his life, is the biggest part of himself, has no backbone and nowhere to turn. He has nobody to remind him who he is. In interviews and now in the games he's playing a character and you can't play under pressure that way. I can't tell you for sure whether this is the reason behind his perceived breakdowns in the last two playoffs, but it's becoming fairly clear to me that the most talented player in the league suddenly finds himself without a friend in the world.
The Nowhere Man.
But there was no place to go for LeBron James.
At this point no matter what team you were rooting for in this year's NBA Finals, you're probably not rooting for or commiserating with LeBron James specifically . . . and why should you? He's a choke artist and a jerk with no charisma, right? But wait. Wait.
What about that Pistons' series in 2007? While on the Cavs, playing with worse teammates with less-developed individual skills, Lebron suddenly decided to dominate a much better defensive team than the 2011 Mavericks. Or what about how he went down the next two years? He had 45 points in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Semifinals against the Celtics, the eventual champions. And the very next year, he had one of the best statistical individual performances of any player in any playoff series ever. He did all of that in pressure situations similar to this year’s Finals series, all while being one of the better-liked players in the league.
How can you explain his abysmal performances in the last two playoffs--both in years you could really look at his team and say, "They have a shot." I don't claim to know the answer, but I know that the answer ISN'T to slap a "choker" label on him. As convenient as it is, no one-word simplification sums up what LeBron "is" or has done.
There are two things (that I can think of at this very moment) that are different about LeBron since he's left, other than the fact that I don't root for him anymore. One I wrote about a few weeks ago. LeBron's not as fun to watch anymore and arguably not as good. I still believe it's because he's chosen to stop evolving as a player. He's no longer on a journey, it's just business. The other difference I notice is in his interviews. He's always been a little boring and buttoned up in pressers, always trying to portray a leadership role by taking every question happily because that's what a leader does. He stomachs all the stupidity from the media because he's man enough to take it.
These days, his interviews remind me of (gulp) Kobe's.
The most basic reason Kobe is unlikable is because he's not genuine. He's created a character that he thinks people want to see, and now he talks tough and he talks defensive because he can't be himself. It's the core reason Kobe freaks out in crunch time in the playoffs and why his teams go down so hard. As long as anyone has called him an "assassin," he hasn't been true to himself.
There's a difference between LeBron in Cleveland and LeBron in Miami. In Cleveland, he could be his gregarious self. The city grew as basketball fans as LeBron grew as a player. Cleveland obviously thought that they knew him, and they loved him. (Though the knowledge was false, the love was real.) Even if everyone thought he was boring in interviews or a showboat during games, he belonged somewhere. His hometown, the town in which he played, was behind him 100%.
Where does he belong now, and to whom? Miami's happy to have him but doesn't care about him as deeply as they care about Wade--or even close to as deeply as Cleveland cared about LeBron. They don't care about him enough to have his back right now at his lowest point.
A sick thing to think about is this: If he played his whole career in Cleveland and won zero titles, they would still love him more than Miami will no matter what happens. I'm convinced of this.
Point being, would his quotes about his critics having to go back to their same lives and problems make any sense for someone who is secure with his support system? It wouldn't. What about the way he played?
LeBron appears to have lost who he is. His public self, which, at this point in his life, is the biggest part of himself, has no backbone and nowhere to turn. He has nobody to remind him who he is. In interviews and now in the games he's playing a character and you can't play under pressure that way. I can't tell you for sure whether this is the reason behind his perceived breakdowns in the last two playoffs, but it's becoming fairly clear to me that the most talented player in the league suddenly finds himself without a friend in the world.
The Nowhere Man.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Evolution or the Lack Thereof
During a story, the main character typically grows and learns over time and by the end, he/she has evolved in some way. Remember Star Wars? Luke goes from a kid who can't keep his mind on one thing and constantly has to be saved by his friends to the one who saves everybody (and also is a Jedi Knight, duh). Han Solo begins his story as an irreverent dickhead (still cool because he's Harrison Ford) who then becomes an important caretaker of Luke during his vulnerable periods and becomes less cynical about "The Force." Great stuff.
So how would that movie have been if Han Solo never learned anything but everything else still ended pretty much the same. The others keep hanging out with him because he's cool and he has a nice ship. He gets commended because he's still kind of involved with the Rebellion. That sucks! Nobody wants to see that shit.
When we think about the NBA, we think about Blake Griffin, Russell Westbrook and LeBron James; the athletes that make the freak athletes that are average NBA players look like average people. Then, when we think about average NBA players, we still notice that they are freaks compared to us regular folk. We forget that most players in the league have to MASTER one or more skills just to get on the court for any team for a couple years. Shane Battier is big, strong and fast compared to most people, but in his environment, he isn't. Shane Battier destroys the average NBA player in book smarts and has figured out how to play great defense on the high scoring guards of his era. He's also toughened himself to take and make big threes in big games. He, and many others in the league, have maximized their potential and yet are still far from stars. But they are useful and good, and we like to see that.
Players like Shane don't have the natural ability of the stars but be that as it may, he still has to find a way to beat the stars and he does his best and sometimes succeeds. It's the beautiful thing about sports. This type of player CAN be championship caliber players, it just looks different. It looks like Manu Ginobili. But you know what? Whether it's fair or not, you don't make epic trilogies about Manu.
But you do make them about Michael Jordan. The narrative says he learned how to appreciate and play with his teammates and he got Scottie Pippen and the rest was history. Ehh, maybe kind of. Jordan ended his career as the best athlete ever, but he wasn't always "the best player." That helped him. Throughout his life, he learned to play as though he didn't have the advantages of being the best athlete in every game he played. Jordan played desperate as if his back were against the wall all the time. He did have to learn to control his emotions a little bit, which involves using his teammates of course. Jordan was also repeatedly beaten by a team in the Pistons who wouldn't let him through until he learned all of these things.
Even Scottie evolved. Another superior athlete, Scottie was a pushover early in his career and all the dogs of that NBA era knew it. He went through his evolution in the short time Jordan was gone in the mid nineties. The point is, this is the stuff they make not one but TWO trilogies about. Also known as "three-peats."
LeBron James is still the best player in the league like he was last year and the year before. I watched him in Cleveland for awhile. Watching his body mature was fun, watching him learn to play defense was awesome, watching him learn to shoot was pretty exciting. And watching his team improve around him as all of this might have been the best thing of all. And what greater place for the most gifted athlete to ever play to learn all the hard things about winning and being a leader than Cleveland? He was given a job only he could do. Perfect.
He was on his way, too. If anybody thinks this year's Bulls team has a chance at a title and the Cavs of the past two years didn't, that person needs to reevaluate. Saying that LeBron needed more help is not a real statement. Last year's Cavs were better than this year's Heat, I'm sure of it. Mainly because last year's LeBron is better than this year's LeBron. How could that be?
LeBron punched Cleveland's emotions in the crotch, he taught kids everywhere to give up and he ruined his reputation with a lot of people with "The Decision." But in my opinion, the worst thing the move from Cleveland to Miami did to him was stop his growth as a player.
One defense for paying professional athletes a ton of money is this. "Hey, you have no distractions if you don't want them. You don't have to worry about bills or anything. Just be the best you can be and see what happens!" The hope is that athletes will treat their craft as the most important thing in the world and us civilians are entertained and inspired by their greatness and competitiveness in whichever game they chose. That money though, is the same reason I will not hear the defense from Decision sympathizers that Cleveland was too hard. Too hard for $16 million plus endorsements? Some men might take that as a responsibility to at least try to do something great. The situation LeBron James was in in Cleveland required his full attention. That's what everyone who wishes these guys cared wants to see. We want this superdupertalent forced into maximizing his abilities.
What did he do instead? He gave up and went to a team with another superdupertalent who doesn't really want to develop a team from the ground up either. This Heat team, as you might have guessed, sickens me. They seem offended by hustle. When they dunk, they have a look that says, "Yeah. Running, jumping AND ball handling. Beat THAT." And as they are hopefully swallowed up by a team that gets it, I hope the Heat never do.
Kobe Bryant has reaped the benefits of having the best Center in the league in two different eras and having the best coach in the league but he never changed. He's a selfish, arrogant phony who can't stand up to any player at, above or even a little bit below his level as a player. He's always been that way and he remains that way. That's why it's so disgusting that he's won five championships. He hasn't learned a thing.
We can't see another movie end with our "hero" succeed without an evolution of some kind. It just doesn't seem right.
Go Bulls.
So how would that movie have been if Han Solo never learned anything but everything else still ended pretty much the same. The others keep hanging out with him because he's cool and he has a nice ship. He gets commended because he's still kind of involved with the Rebellion. That sucks! Nobody wants to see that shit.
When we think about the NBA, we think about Blake Griffin, Russell Westbrook and LeBron James; the athletes that make the freak athletes that are average NBA players look like average people. Then, when we think about average NBA players, we still notice that they are freaks compared to us regular folk. We forget that most players in the league have to MASTER one or more skills just to get on the court for any team for a couple years. Shane Battier is big, strong and fast compared to most people, but in his environment, he isn't. Shane Battier destroys the average NBA player in book smarts and has figured out how to play great defense on the high scoring guards of his era. He's also toughened himself to take and make big threes in big games. He, and many others in the league, have maximized their potential and yet are still far from stars. But they are useful and good, and we like to see that.
Players like Shane don't have the natural ability of the stars but be that as it may, he still has to find a way to beat the stars and he does his best and sometimes succeeds. It's the beautiful thing about sports. This type of player CAN be championship caliber players, it just looks different. It looks like Manu Ginobili. But you know what? Whether it's fair or not, you don't make epic trilogies about Manu.
But you do make them about Michael Jordan. The narrative says he learned how to appreciate and play with his teammates and he got Scottie Pippen and the rest was history. Ehh, maybe kind of. Jordan ended his career as the best athlete ever, but he wasn't always "the best player." That helped him. Throughout his life, he learned to play as though he didn't have the advantages of being the best athlete in every game he played. Jordan played desperate as if his back were against the wall all the time. He did have to learn to control his emotions a little bit, which involves using his teammates of course. Jordan was also repeatedly beaten by a team in the Pistons who wouldn't let him through until he learned all of these things.
Even Scottie evolved. Another superior athlete, Scottie was a pushover early in his career and all the dogs of that NBA era knew it. He went through his evolution in the short time Jordan was gone in the mid nineties. The point is, this is the stuff they make not one but TWO trilogies about. Also known as "three-peats."
LeBron James is still the best player in the league like he was last year and the year before. I watched him in Cleveland for awhile. Watching his body mature was fun, watching him learn to play defense was awesome, watching him learn to shoot was pretty exciting. And watching his team improve around him as all of this might have been the best thing of all. And what greater place for the most gifted athlete to ever play to learn all the hard things about winning and being a leader than Cleveland? He was given a job only he could do. Perfect.
He was on his way, too. If anybody thinks this year's Bulls team has a chance at a title and the Cavs of the past two years didn't, that person needs to reevaluate. Saying that LeBron needed more help is not a real statement. Last year's Cavs were better than this year's Heat, I'm sure of it. Mainly because last year's LeBron is better than this year's LeBron. How could that be?
LeBron punched Cleveland's emotions in the crotch, he taught kids everywhere to give up and he ruined his reputation with a lot of people with "The Decision." But in my opinion, the worst thing the move from Cleveland to Miami did to him was stop his growth as a player.
One defense for paying professional athletes a ton of money is this. "Hey, you have no distractions if you don't want them. You don't have to worry about bills or anything. Just be the best you can be and see what happens!" The hope is that athletes will treat their craft as the most important thing in the world and us civilians are entertained and inspired by their greatness and competitiveness in whichever game they chose. That money though, is the same reason I will not hear the defense from Decision sympathizers that Cleveland was too hard. Too hard for $16 million plus endorsements? Some men might take that as a responsibility to at least try to do something great. The situation LeBron James was in in Cleveland required his full attention. That's what everyone who wishes these guys cared wants to see. We want this superdupertalent forced into maximizing his abilities.
What did he do instead? He gave up and went to a team with another superdupertalent who doesn't really want to develop a team from the ground up either. This Heat team, as you might have guessed, sickens me. They seem offended by hustle. When they dunk, they have a look that says, "Yeah. Running, jumping AND ball handling. Beat THAT." And as they are hopefully swallowed up by a team that gets it, I hope the Heat never do.
Kobe Bryant has reaped the benefits of having the best Center in the league in two different eras and having the best coach in the league but he never changed. He's a selfish, arrogant phony who can't stand up to any player at, above or even a little bit below his level as a player. He's always been that way and he remains that way. That's why it's so disgusting that he's won five championships. He hasn't learned a thing.
We can't see another movie end with our "hero" succeed without an evolution of some kind. It just doesn't seem right.
Go Bulls.
Monday, March 28, 2011
The New "Tough:" The Butler Bulldogs
Last year, the Butler Bulldogs made the NCAA title game (and almost won it) somewhat flukily, you might say. They had that big goofy white kid whose size, skill and shooting ability was a mismatch for basically every team in college basketball. Butler rode him, a great defense and a great coach to the title game and almost pulled off what would have been the best thing I had ever witnessed in sports—if only Gordon Hayward (goofy white kid referred to above) would have made that half-court shot to beat Duke. Then, Hayward was drafted. All that Butler had left was the defense and the coach, which isn't bad for a school that size, but surely their success in the coming year would be limited.
Fast forward to the present day. Butler proved everyone right by stumbling into the tournament as an 8 seed and then proceeded to prove everyone wrong by . . . getting to the Final Four?? Wait, what? The FINAL FOUR?!?! Was everybody wrong about this team? No, they weren't. Butler doesn't have the talent to be where they are. The Bulldogs are not big or intimidating physically, and they bypass mean faces and the self-aggrandizing gestures. But they remain the toughest team in college basketball, and that's the major reason you'll be watching them play tomorrow.
The theory that they seem to operate on is something like this: "There's no such thing as 'tough.'"
What I'm about to write may or may not make any sense, but I'm going to write it either way, so it looks like we're going to find out together. I used to get so nervous playing organized basketball that I could barely remember what happened in the game if you asked me. I didn't always play bad. I just played differently than I would in a pickup game, even against equal or greater talent. However, one thing was for sure: I had no chance of hitting a game-winning shot. The nerves might've focused me somewhat during the course of the game, but performing a finesse action amidst a fast-moving sport under pressure was simply not going to happen.
At some point I started thinking, "Why do I play that way?" The answer I came up with was some form of this: I cared too much. “So what does that mean?” I thought. ”Do I need to care less? That can't be right.” Well, it kind of was. The choice was either 1) play too fast but count my points and think about all of the consequences of everything I did in-game DURING the game or 2) use that mental energy to concentrate on actually playing the game and worry about my impact and all the implications of how I played later, if at all. If I caught myself thinking about how I'm playing in-game, that meant I needed to do more in the game, because I shouldn't have that much space for that type of thought. I tried to sacrifice my enjoyment and appreciation of anything I did well for actually doing well. Play increase and immediate-pleasure decrease. Can I explain this in any simpler terms?
Obviously that doesn't work every time for me. I'm not even really very good anyway. But my point is this: that's the type of thinking you need to have if you’re Butler. What is happening? How do we make it work? That's it. That sounds easy, but it's not. Every occurrence has a personal emotional reaction tied to it, whether it's big or small, positive or negative. In the case of the NCAA tournament, the emotional reactions tend to be big. Players often take some of the worst shots POSSIBLE to win the game . . . but the shots go in because the players taking them have seen a similar shot go in in a previous NCAA tournament. Their confidence seems to will the ball in.
Conversely, Kansas isn’t able to make a layup against VCU because they can just feel the upset coming, even though the only reason it's coming is because they feel it. Chicken/egg situation. That game wasn't won by superior talent or a better game plan; it was won by confident players vs. nervous players.
Back to Butler. They're not tough because they're powerful, aggressive or boisterous. They're tough because they don't let anything that doesn't matter affect them. Brain power spent on emotional responses to real-life occurrences is brain power wasted when it comes to sports, and when you win by margins as slim as the ones Butler continues to win by, the only way they could win those games, in my opinion, is if they are the only team that bypasses the emotional waste during the game. Butler does what's necessary. Period.
Am I idealizing this Butler team? Oh, probably. Brad Stevens is my hero . . . but he's my hero for a reason. Butler, as a team, is really smart, pretty skilled and really well coached, but the reason they're here is because they're tough.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Who Are These Guys?
The last few seasons have been about the "young guns" trying to take over the league from the Gen-X crew--especially this season. Up until now, they've failed. The champions' best players of the last three years: Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Pau Gasol . . . wait, what year is this? What are LeBron and friends waiting for? Aren't they supposed to be better than these old guys? Let's take a step back for a minute.
After Michael Jordan retired from the Bulls and before LeBron James became a dominant force on the Cavaliers was probably one of the worst points in the league in every way. While the talent dipped because Jordan and friends had either retired or were getting old, the fame and money MJ had earned for all the big-time scorers in the league remained. The one-on-one style Jordan played with (according to the narrative) dominated, but as fame and huge contracts were just being handed out, the hard work and kill-yourself-to-succeed attitude of the older guys was gone. The beneficial personality flaws of the old guys were replaced with laziness and a sense of entitlement. Do you guys know what I'm saying? Some of these guys are still around. I'm talking about Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady and even Shaq and Kobe . . . and, my God, Allen Iverson!
Now, I like some of these guys, but they're all very needy. They either needed the money they got to not be in a position to go to prison or they needed the praise. None of these guys are secure enough in themselves to recognize their great talent and simply work on what will win. They never allowed themselves to be coached (willingly) or allowed themselves to admit that there were other players on the team who were their equals. Only Kobe and Shaq have won titles out of this group, and they feuded so much Shaq had to be traded. When you think about it, the fact that that duo could still be winning titles if they were playing together this season is insane and, frankly, pathetic.
While these guys were filling up the highlight reels, the Lakers (Phil Jackson), the Spurs (Greg Popovic) and the Pistons (Larry Brown) were winning titles. The Spurs had a star in Tim Duncan and the Pistons had no stars. NONE. A lot of times, if a team wins something with "no stars," in retrospect there were a few. The Pistons had none. The point I'm trying to make here is that this era missed the point. Tim Duncan was winning titles and being ridiculed for being boring, but the era was being defined by selfish, insecure players.
The LeBron era was supposed to save us from these jerks and the guys who learned from them. LeBron was going to save a city and run the show that is the league. Dwayne Wade was going to be unguardable for awhile and battle LBJ from down south. Dwight Howard was cast as the dominant big man of the era. Throw those guys in with all the great point guards sprinkled around the league and all the REALLY young guys of the present day . . . what a great time to be a fan! So what the hell happened? I wish I knew.
More specifically, what is wrong with the Heat? Well, plenty. First of all, do not compare the way this team was constructed to the modern day Celtics. Actually wait . . . let's do that!
Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen had all been humbled by their careers by the time they joined together. In fact, it's possible that Celtics team wouldn't have been as good if they were all together earlier in their careers when they were "better." They were done with themselves. Paul Pierce's flaw is laziness. This is instantly cured by Kevin Garnett's enthusiasm and leadership. Also, Garnett's flaw is that he is NOT calm in the moment, especially a big moment. Well, Pierce is. Throw in an unselfish and hardworking all-time great three-point shooter and you’ve got something. Let's not forget that none of this works without the youth. The talented, young, impressionable Rondo and Perkins were indoctrinated into a way of life by their veteran teammates and Doc Rivers (who is PERFECT for this team, by the way).
The Heat, on the other hand, also joined a great shooting guard, a small forward and a power forward, only younger, but the specifics don't work out. Wade, James and Bosh are all better with the ball constantly in their hands. That is to say, if you have a team of average players, nobody is better at making that team OK than these guys. It's becoming clear that this might not be the best way to define how good a player is, but a separate talent in itself.
These three players are also very much NOT over themselves. Once again, this is an aspect of a person that is helpful when it's one man against the world but perhaps not in the situation in which they find themselves now. The Heat's peripheral players suck, and their coach is Erik Spoelstra.
With all that said, the Heat are talented enough to win the title this year based solely on those three guys. They know that--that's why they joined together. But, to win a title, they might have to find that through-the-wall effort. There's a point in competition when you try your hardest, and when it doesn't work, you give up. It goes against instinct to keep trying when you get no positive feedback, but, if they want to win, the Heat might have to have faith that they will, eventually, if they just keep it up. These guys have never done this. Bosh goes without saying. He's a loser, period. But Wade and LeBron have always had the talent to wait until they were just "feeling it" and ride that to the win, or give up, because they can always use their teammates' mediocrity as scapegoats.
Can Miami figure this out? And maybe more importantly, who am I describing here? Are this era's stars just the same as the last ones, but with more talent and bigger smiles? With everyone giving half effort because they aren't playing where they want, is there any doubt? The stars in position to win look like they have no idea how to deal with adversity, because throughout their whole lives their talent has won the day. It's a scary situation.
It's going to be hard for the Heat to avoid winning a title at some point. The Celtics, Lakers and Spurs are going to run out of gas eventually and Miami might be all that's left. The real accomplishment would be to win it this year, kill Generation X and show the world that this generation understands what you need to be a champion.
These guys are still super talented and charismatic. I just sometimes have trouble figuring out who exactly it is that I'm watching.
After Michael Jordan retired from the Bulls and before LeBron James became a dominant force on the Cavaliers was probably one of the worst points in the league in every way. While the talent dipped because Jordan and friends had either retired or were getting old, the fame and money MJ had earned for all the big-time scorers in the league remained. The one-on-one style Jordan played with (according to the narrative) dominated, but as fame and huge contracts were just being handed out, the hard work and kill-yourself-to-succeed attitude of the older guys was gone. The beneficial personality flaws of the old guys were replaced with laziness and a sense of entitlement. Do you guys know what I'm saying? Some of these guys are still around. I'm talking about Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady and even Shaq and Kobe . . . and, my God, Allen Iverson!
Now, I like some of these guys, but they're all very needy. They either needed the money they got to not be in a position to go to prison or they needed the praise. None of these guys are secure enough in themselves to recognize their great talent and simply work on what will win. They never allowed themselves to be coached (willingly) or allowed themselves to admit that there were other players on the team who were their equals. Only Kobe and Shaq have won titles out of this group, and they feuded so much Shaq had to be traded. When you think about it, the fact that that duo could still be winning titles if they were playing together this season is insane and, frankly, pathetic.
While these guys were filling up the highlight reels, the Lakers (Phil Jackson), the Spurs (Greg Popovic) and the Pistons (Larry Brown) were winning titles. The Spurs had a star in Tim Duncan and the Pistons had no stars. NONE. A lot of times, if a team wins something with "no stars," in retrospect there were a few. The Pistons had none. The point I'm trying to make here is that this era missed the point. Tim Duncan was winning titles and being ridiculed for being boring, but the era was being defined by selfish, insecure players.
The LeBron era was supposed to save us from these jerks and the guys who learned from them. LeBron was going to save a city and run the show that is the league. Dwayne Wade was going to be unguardable for awhile and battle LBJ from down south. Dwight Howard was cast as the dominant big man of the era. Throw those guys in with all the great point guards sprinkled around the league and all the REALLY young guys of the present day . . . what a great time to be a fan! So what the hell happened? I wish I knew.
More specifically, what is wrong with the Heat? Well, plenty. First of all, do not compare the way this team was constructed to the modern day Celtics. Actually wait . . . let's do that!
Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen had all been humbled by their careers by the time they joined together. In fact, it's possible that Celtics team wouldn't have been as good if they were all together earlier in their careers when they were "better." They were done with themselves. Paul Pierce's flaw is laziness. This is instantly cured by Kevin Garnett's enthusiasm and leadership. Also, Garnett's flaw is that he is NOT calm in the moment, especially a big moment. Well, Pierce is. Throw in an unselfish and hardworking all-time great three-point shooter and you’ve got something. Let's not forget that none of this works without the youth. The talented, young, impressionable Rondo and Perkins were indoctrinated into a way of life by their veteran teammates and Doc Rivers (who is PERFECT for this team, by the way).
The Heat, on the other hand, also joined a great shooting guard, a small forward and a power forward, only younger, but the specifics don't work out. Wade, James and Bosh are all better with the ball constantly in their hands. That is to say, if you have a team of average players, nobody is better at making that team OK than these guys. It's becoming clear that this might not be the best way to define how good a player is, but a separate talent in itself.
These three players are also very much NOT over themselves. Once again, this is an aspect of a person that is helpful when it's one man against the world but perhaps not in the situation in which they find themselves now. The Heat's peripheral players suck, and their coach is Erik Spoelstra.
With all that said, the Heat are talented enough to win the title this year based solely on those three guys. They know that--that's why they joined together. But, to win a title, they might have to find that through-the-wall effort. There's a point in competition when you try your hardest, and when it doesn't work, you give up. It goes against instinct to keep trying when you get no positive feedback, but, if they want to win, the Heat might have to have faith that they will, eventually, if they just keep it up. These guys have never done this. Bosh goes without saying. He's a loser, period. But Wade and LeBron have always had the talent to wait until they were just "feeling it" and ride that to the win, or give up, because they can always use their teammates' mediocrity as scapegoats.
Can Miami figure this out? And maybe more importantly, who am I describing here? Are this era's stars just the same as the last ones, but with more talent and bigger smiles? With everyone giving half effort because they aren't playing where they want, is there any doubt? The stars in position to win look like they have no idea how to deal with adversity, because throughout their whole lives their talent has won the day. It's a scary situation.
It's going to be hard for the Heat to avoid winning a title at some point. The Celtics, Lakers and Spurs are going to run out of gas eventually and Miami might be all that's left. The real accomplishment would be to win it this year, kill Generation X and show the world that this generation understands what you need to be a champion.
These guys are still super talented and charismatic. I just sometimes have trouble figuring out who exactly it is that I'm watching.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
All Things Must Pass
Three things ended this week that mattered to me. Let's examine.
1. Ohio State loses their first game at Wisconsin.
As bitter as I am about this game (I watched it in the hotel lobby), I hang my emotional hat on the thought that this loss can only be good for this team. Almost nobody goes undefeated in the college basketball regular season and most of the ones that do lose in the NCAA tournament. Watching the Bucks only lose by 3 at Wisconsin (the hardest place to play in the Big Ten) when the Badgers shot 50% from deep (12-24 to be specific) proved to me that this team probably WAS good enough to go undefeated, they just didn't. And that in truth might be a better situation than going into the tournament undefeated. Not being good is one thing but if you're good enough to win it all, one more opportunity to learn can only be beneficial.
If OSU wins big at home against Michigan State, all is well.
2. The Cleveland Cavaliers snap their record-setting 26-game losing streak at home against the L.A. Clippers.
In the thick of said losing streak, the 2011 Cleveland Cavaliers were the worst team in NBA history. There is no doubt in my mind about that. In the most diluted time ever in the NBA, they started more than one undrafted rookie and a first year guy out of the Congo who, on a decent team, wouldn't have seen the court this year. However, with Mo Williams back, the Cavs are just really really terrible. So, when everybody plays really well they can beat a really bad road team at home in overtime, barely. It was cute that they won.
While we're here, let me clarify something.
LeBron James is the best player in the NBA and it's really really obvious. Him leaving the Cavs was the difference between Cleveland being a title contender to essentially irrelevant. However, LeBron leaving Cleveland DID NOT make the Cavs the worst team in sports history.
Off the top of my head, they also lost:
1. Zydrunas Ilgauskas
2. Shaq O'Neal
3. Delonte West
4. Anderson Varejao
5. Leon Powe
Including LeBron, they might have lost their best five rebounders as well as their best perimeter and post defenders. They went from a huge team with a lot of depth and shooting with the best player and athlete in the game to a very small team with limited shooting and no depth or athleticism. A lot of that is LeBron, some of it is not. Honestly, it's better than being mediocre.
3. The Green Bay Packers finished a game and held off the Steelers to win the Super Bowl.
This obviously on the surface does not appear to be a streak that has ended, but it is.
Everything about that game on Sunday had "Steelers Win" written all over it. The Packers' wide outs were constantly open for touchdowns and were dropping them. They jumped out to a big lead and let Pittsburgh come back but, somehow, they didn't win it.
The Packers have had problems closing games all year and it almost looked like they knew it in that game and just accepted it as part of who they are which is exactly what they had to do. Accepting who you are is one of the most important things in sports and in life because even if who you are isn't what conventional wisdom says is good or desirable, you can't deal with any situation very effectively if you're constantly lying to yourself. The Packers just don't have that instinct that the old gunslingers love so much. NFL Films likes to repeat the quote, "Great players aren't always great, they're only great when they have to be." Even Ben Reothlisberger operates this way, occasionally looking sloppy most of the game but making the big plays to eventually win. Aaron Rodgers and the Packers are always playing well but don't play any better or really any worse in crunch time. There's nothing wrong with that but it is dangerous against teams like the Steelers as you saw on Sunday Night.
Not to toot my own horn or anything, but accepting this part of their personality, the Packers went into Dive Mode. The Packers just tried too hard and played too well for the Steelers to finish the come back. The interception return, the second interception, the forced fumble, the pass deflection by Woodson (that ended up breaking his collarbone), and the whole final drive by the Steelers; all Dive Mode. It was beautiful. Green Bay knew it couldn't match Pittsburgh in crunch time playmaking but they could match the Steelers in talent and constant effort and that's exactly what they did.
I knew someone would have to be in Dive Mode to beat the Steelers. It's great when teams do what you say.
1. Ohio State loses their first game at Wisconsin.
As bitter as I am about this game (I watched it in the hotel lobby), I hang my emotional hat on the thought that this loss can only be good for this team. Almost nobody goes undefeated in the college basketball regular season and most of the ones that do lose in the NCAA tournament. Watching the Bucks only lose by 3 at Wisconsin (the hardest place to play in the Big Ten) when the Badgers shot 50% from deep (12-24 to be specific) proved to me that this team probably WAS good enough to go undefeated, they just didn't. And that in truth might be a better situation than going into the tournament undefeated. Not being good is one thing but if you're good enough to win it all, one more opportunity to learn can only be beneficial.
If OSU wins big at home against Michigan State, all is well.
2. The Cleveland Cavaliers snap their record-setting 26-game losing streak at home against the L.A. Clippers.
In the thick of said losing streak, the 2011 Cleveland Cavaliers were the worst team in NBA history. There is no doubt in my mind about that. In the most diluted time ever in the NBA, they started more than one undrafted rookie and a first year guy out of the Congo who, on a decent team, wouldn't have seen the court this year. However, with Mo Williams back, the Cavs are just really really terrible. So, when everybody plays really well they can beat a really bad road team at home in overtime, barely. It was cute that they won.
While we're here, let me clarify something.
LeBron James is the best player in the NBA and it's really really obvious. Him leaving the Cavs was the difference between Cleveland being a title contender to essentially irrelevant. However, LeBron leaving Cleveland DID NOT make the Cavs the worst team in sports history.
Off the top of my head, they also lost:
1. Zydrunas Ilgauskas
2. Shaq O'Neal
3. Delonte West
4. Anderson Varejao
5. Leon Powe
Including LeBron, they might have lost their best five rebounders as well as their best perimeter and post defenders. They went from a huge team with a lot of depth and shooting with the best player and athlete in the game to a very small team with limited shooting and no depth or athleticism. A lot of that is LeBron, some of it is not. Honestly, it's better than being mediocre.
3. The Green Bay Packers finished a game and held off the Steelers to win the Super Bowl.
This obviously on the surface does not appear to be a streak that has ended, but it is.
Everything about that game on Sunday had "Steelers Win" written all over it. The Packers' wide outs were constantly open for touchdowns and were dropping them. They jumped out to a big lead and let Pittsburgh come back but, somehow, they didn't win it.
The Packers have had problems closing games all year and it almost looked like they knew it in that game and just accepted it as part of who they are which is exactly what they had to do. Accepting who you are is one of the most important things in sports and in life because even if who you are isn't what conventional wisdom says is good or desirable, you can't deal with any situation very effectively if you're constantly lying to yourself. The Packers just don't have that instinct that the old gunslingers love so much. NFL Films likes to repeat the quote, "Great players aren't always great, they're only great when they have to be." Even Ben Reothlisberger operates this way, occasionally looking sloppy most of the game but making the big plays to eventually win. Aaron Rodgers and the Packers are always playing well but don't play any better or really any worse in crunch time. There's nothing wrong with that but it is dangerous against teams like the Steelers as you saw on Sunday Night.
Not to toot my own horn or anything, but accepting this part of their personality, the Packers went into Dive Mode. The Packers just tried too hard and played too well for the Steelers to finish the come back. The interception return, the second interception, the forced fumble, the pass deflection by Woodson (that ended up breaking his collarbone), and the whole final drive by the Steelers; all Dive Mode. It was beautiful. Green Bay knew it couldn't match Pittsburgh in crunch time playmaking but they could match the Steelers in talent and constant effort and that's exactly what they did.
I knew someone would have to be in Dive Mode to beat the Steelers. It's great when teams do what you say.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
The Matchup
The Steelers
The personality of the Steelers has is just like any really well run organization (because they are one).
They have their figureheads. Big Ben, Hines Ward and Palumalu take most of the questions. They have their young talents in Mike Wallace and Rashard Mendenhall (who take on more of the offensive load and are far more talented than Hines Ward). And finally, they have their mean guys. I don't know if you'd call them "the warehouse" or "the hitmen," but James Harrison embodies this type of guy. James Harrison makes everyone fear the Steelers, gives them their personality, makes huge plays, but never has to say anything. The guys who like being in front of the camera get the praise funnelled their way and the guys who don't can just do their jobs. A well run organization.
More specifically and perhaps more subjectively, the Steelers are a team of junk.
They want turnovers, they want the play to break down. You would assume a team like the Steelers would have fantastic infrastructure if they're so "well run," but they have such a sucky offensive line. It seems puzzling but the fact is, Ben Roethlisberger doesn't mind having minimal protection. It seems like they're coached in such a way that if they can't give Ben the classic "pocket" for the classic amount of time, just give him some holes to maneuver and he'll figure something out. For a team that the national narrative is that they love to grind out wins with tough, solid defense and a great running game, they secretly are based on big plays on both sides of the ball.
How do you beat them? Well, it's hard and it's easy.
First and foremost, you have to break out of the mental prison that you start every game in. You're playing against a team owned by Dan Rooney, but what seems to have Roger Gooddell as its vice president. The Steelers are NFL royalty at this point but again, they're mean, dirty and full of tricks. You have to get over this strange combination of facts before you can start thinking about beating them. The hard part.
On offense, duh. Don't turn the ball over, EVER. No fumbling. No picks. The Packers are good enough to score in the upper 20s to low 30s on the Steelers based on their own merits, they don't have to go outside themselves so there's no reason to turn the ball over. That OF COURSE doesn't mean they won't.
On defense, it's a little weird but obvious if you think about it.
Analysts talk about, "You gotta get Big Ben on the ground." Well, duh. But that's hard. That's why it never happens. On TV, it looks like the defensive players falling off of Big Ben are just terrible, but they're not. Tackling Big Ben is one of the hardest things in football, apparently. That's like telling a basketball team, "We gotta make every single three we take or we're gonna lose." Of course, taking advantage of your opportunities is key, but some are harder than others and nobody makes you pay more after avoiding a sack than Ben Roethlisberger.
What you need to do is choose your blitzes carefully. The defensive line has to play as a team and slowly close the pocket in around him. KEEP HIM IN THE POCKET BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE THAT. The safest sack on him is the type where the O-line gets pushed into the quarterback and he basically gets sacked by his own guys. You know the type I'm talking about?
To beat the Steelers, you have to keep chaos out of the equation.
Good luck.
The Packers
All season long the Packers (and Aaron Rodgers) have been the good guys and I've been trying to figure out why I am so neutral towards them as far as rooting goes and the answer came to me when I saw Rodgers' press conference.
The personality this team has is one of a Christian Youth Group. That's not a bad thing, of course. I really like Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings and a lot of their players, it's just like a movie where I can't relate to any of the characters. I just thought that was interesting.
So how does that translate onto the field?
Well, they're perfect. The Packers are great at every part of football. The quarterback has a catchy and uplifting yet not cocky celebration he does after every touchdown. Actually, Rodgers seems to be holding back his inner goofiness at all times on the field. He's so springy and his arm is so quick, I would almost argue that his arm strength is as much based on pure bottled excitement than it is on physical tools. These guys do everything the right way and nobody is misunderstood which is probably why I can't relate.
By the way, it's completely ridiculous that they lost six games. It's really hard to say how it happened. If we're going to use revisionist tactics to analyze why things during the season happen, I would argue that this religious nice-guy persona robs them of a throat-stomping play style that you often times need to win the Super Bowl. For example, I don't think they the Packers would have thrown the ball on the two late downs against the Jets two weeks ago and they may have lost that game. The way you beat the Packers is hope they don't fulfill their potential and let you back into the game like they did to the Eagles AND Bears. The Falcons game could have been close if not for that pick-six at the end of the first half. Just a reminder.
The Pick
Based on the personalities that I profiled, who wins?
The Steelers beat you up, trick you, imasculate you and then make fun of you. They create self doubt and shame in the teams they play (and for the record, the fans of the teams they play).
That won't work against the Packers. If the Packers' collectively have the personality of believing in a higher power, they don't need the approval of the public and they don't feel the burden of having to be the ones to dish out retribution on Big Ben (who deserves it). The Packers can just play the game and be the better team.
To clarify, if anyone is picking this game based on my picks, they are insane. I'm making conclusions based on other conclusions, all of which I invented...but I gotta pick someone.
Green Bay sends the Steelers packing:
27-13
The personality of the Steelers has is just like any really well run organization (because they are one).
They have their figureheads. Big Ben, Hines Ward and Palumalu take most of the questions. They have their young talents in Mike Wallace and Rashard Mendenhall (who take on more of the offensive load and are far more talented than Hines Ward). And finally, they have their mean guys. I don't know if you'd call them "the warehouse" or "the hitmen," but James Harrison embodies this type of guy. James Harrison makes everyone fear the Steelers, gives them their personality, makes huge plays, but never has to say anything. The guys who like being in front of the camera get the praise funnelled their way and the guys who don't can just do their jobs. A well run organization.
More specifically and perhaps more subjectively, the Steelers are a team of junk.
They want turnovers, they want the play to break down. You would assume a team like the Steelers would have fantastic infrastructure if they're so "well run," but they have such a sucky offensive line. It seems puzzling but the fact is, Ben Roethlisberger doesn't mind having minimal protection. It seems like they're coached in such a way that if they can't give Ben the classic "pocket" for the classic amount of time, just give him some holes to maneuver and he'll figure something out. For a team that the national narrative is that they love to grind out wins with tough, solid defense and a great running game, they secretly are based on big plays on both sides of the ball.
How do you beat them? Well, it's hard and it's easy.
First and foremost, you have to break out of the mental prison that you start every game in. You're playing against a team owned by Dan Rooney, but what seems to have Roger Gooddell as its vice president. The Steelers are NFL royalty at this point but again, they're mean, dirty and full of tricks. You have to get over this strange combination of facts before you can start thinking about beating them. The hard part.
On offense, duh. Don't turn the ball over, EVER. No fumbling. No picks. The Packers are good enough to score in the upper 20s to low 30s on the Steelers based on their own merits, they don't have to go outside themselves so there's no reason to turn the ball over. That OF COURSE doesn't mean they won't.
On defense, it's a little weird but obvious if you think about it.
Analysts talk about, "You gotta get Big Ben on the ground." Well, duh. But that's hard. That's why it never happens. On TV, it looks like the defensive players falling off of Big Ben are just terrible, but they're not. Tackling Big Ben is one of the hardest things in football, apparently. That's like telling a basketball team, "We gotta make every single three we take or we're gonna lose." Of course, taking advantage of your opportunities is key, but some are harder than others and nobody makes you pay more after avoiding a sack than Ben Roethlisberger.
What you need to do is choose your blitzes carefully. The defensive line has to play as a team and slowly close the pocket in around him. KEEP HIM IN THE POCKET BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE THAT. The safest sack on him is the type where the O-line gets pushed into the quarterback and he basically gets sacked by his own guys. You know the type I'm talking about?
To beat the Steelers, you have to keep chaos out of the equation.
Good luck.
The Packers
All season long the Packers (and Aaron Rodgers) have been the good guys and I've been trying to figure out why I am so neutral towards them as far as rooting goes and the answer came to me when I saw Rodgers' press conference.
The personality this team has is one of a Christian Youth Group. That's not a bad thing, of course. I really like Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings and a lot of their players, it's just like a movie where I can't relate to any of the characters. I just thought that was interesting.
So how does that translate onto the field?
Well, they're perfect. The Packers are great at every part of football. The quarterback has a catchy and uplifting yet not cocky celebration he does after every touchdown. Actually, Rodgers seems to be holding back his inner goofiness at all times on the field. He's so springy and his arm is so quick, I would almost argue that his arm strength is as much based on pure bottled excitement than it is on physical tools. These guys do everything the right way and nobody is misunderstood which is probably why I can't relate.
By the way, it's completely ridiculous that they lost six games. It's really hard to say how it happened. If we're going to use revisionist tactics to analyze why things during the season happen, I would argue that this religious nice-guy persona robs them of a throat-stomping play style that you often times need to win the Super Bowl. For example, I don't think they the Packers would have thrown the ball on the two late downs against the Jets two weeks ago and they may have lost that game. The way you beat the Packers is hope they don't fulfill their potential and let you back into the game like they did to the Eagles AND Bears. The Falcons game could have been close if not for that pick-six at the end of the first half. Just a reminder.
The Pick
Based on the personalities that I profiled, who wins?
The Steelers beat you up, trick you, imasculate you and then make fun of you. They create self doubt and shame in the teams they play (and for the record, the fans of the teams they play).
That won't work against the Packers. If the Packers' collectively have the personality of believing in a higher power, they don't need the approval of the public and they don't feel the burden of having to be the ones to dish out retribution on Big Ben (who deserves it). The Packers can just play the game and be the better team.
To clarify, if anyone is picking this game based on my picks, they are insane. I'm making conclusions based on other conclusions, all of which I invented...but I gotta pick someone.
Green Bay sends the Steelers packing:
27-13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)