I was reminded the other day by a former colleague that yes, indeed, the media is the message and nowhere is that more important than over the airwaves.
Here, then, without undue contemplation, is my version of The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.
The Good
Wilbon/Kornheiser, PTI, ESPN: You never know what to expect...nonetheless, increasingly in danger of wearing thin through overexposure.
Ryen Russilo, ESPN radio personality: Young guy on the rise who knows his round ball.
Mike Tirico, ESPN personality: A pleasure to listen to whenever he's on the radio.
Howard Cosell, former TV announcer: If anyone ever set himself up to be hated, it was Howard, and, yet, you had to love him because he was Howard being Howard.
Howie Meeker, CBC hockey analyst: 'Good golly, gee whiz', the antithesis of the late Howard Cosell, but knows hockey. For my Canadian friends, SCTV missed a real bet by not having a segment: Howard meets Howie, along the lines of Godzilla meets Bambi.
Tim McCarver, former catcher turned baseball analyst: Many hate him yet he's one of the more astute analysts around. In an age when too many reps seem to be made, based on 20-20 vision after the fact, his call before the last play in the 2001 World Series stands out in stark relief. At the time he noted that Yanks' shortstop, Derek Jeter, was upset because manager Joe Torre had motioned him to play in with the winning run in scoring position. McCarver observed that Jeter was perturbed with where Torre had positioned him because reliever Mariano Rivera often jammed batters, producing harmless pop flies that Jeter would catch if playing his position at normal depth in the infield. Batter Luis Gonzalez immediately looped what should have been an out if Jeter had been in the proper position. Instead, it became a game-winning hit.
Foster Hewitt, pioneer hockey broadcaster: Epitomized concept of not letting one's self get in the way of the game.
The Bad (Canadian Content)
Danny Gallivan, former hockey broadcaster: A narcisist, who loved hearing himself talk about 'cannonading drives, spinerama moves and paraphernalia on the ice.' Oh, my.
Fergie Olver, TV announcer, personality: He was clueless as a sports commentator but apparently proved to be pretty shrewd when it came to personal financial growth. Interestingly, most references to him on the Internet deal with his hosting a 1980s children's game show, which speaks volumes about his sports rep.
Pat Marsden, sports broadcaster, voice of the CFL in its halcyon days: A nasty piece of work which became increasingly evident during his stint on the morning show of the FAN 590. Around our household, he was known as 'Pap' Marsden.
Bob McCown, radio personality: No one loves Bob more than himself and it shows. Gets some brownie points for not interviewing jocks but then throws them all away by pretending to be a business expert.
Ward Cornell, Hockey Night In Canada (HNIC) intermission host: Defines bland for all time.
Don Cherry, HNIC intermission host: Done more to destroy hockey in his Coach's Corner segment, than could ever be imagined.
Ron MacLean, HNIC intermission host: Scariest eyes on TV; a Cherry wannabee.
Stephen Brunt, sports columnist/reporter masquerading as a radio personality: Insipid at best.
Bob Cole, HNIC broadcaster: Big voice, little substance; likes to carry on conversations with himself in the course of describing the action.
Peter Puck, HNIC segment: An embarrassment to any self-respecting hockey fan.
The Ugly
Jim Rome, radio show host: The most obnoxious person ever allowed behind a mike.
Colin Cowherd, hosts The Herd on ESPN: Goes on and on and on and on and -- you get the idea. Often guilty of changing previously well-established viewpoints to suit current situation. His Spanning the Globe segment is a shameless use of well-respected ABC program title --particularly since few, if any, of the segments ever seem to deal with events that happen outside of the continental U.S.
John Madden, football analyst: To paraphrase Charles Barkley, 'turribly, turribly' overrated.
Dick Vitale, basketball commentator: Seems to know what he is talking about but is exhausting to listen to.
Jim Nanz, football, basketball and golf commentator: Unctuous and obsequious to a fault on broadcasts and, yet, can be a compelling interview when on the other side of the mike.
Peter Aliss, golf commentator: Brit bag-o-wind.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Three Kings?
A few short observations on stories that have dominated the media of late.
The LeBron James saga had become a disgusting spectacle long before the infamous ESPN hour-long special. Nothing he does in the future can ever make up for the unnecessary cruelty he inflicted on the Cleveland-Akron area.
All of the stories about George Steinbrenner's supposed gentle side and previously unpublicized acts of generosity cannot disguise the fact that he was a boorish lout.
Regardless of his continued ranking as the number-one pitch man in the field of endorsements, you have to wonder if Tiger Woods is starting to feel the pressure of needing to make some money. After all, in addition to his failure to win a tournament this year, there's the pending divorce settlement, payouts to numerous bimbos, significant betting losses and the bailout by several substantial sponsors. It all adds up to a lot of cash going out the door with little coming in. Keep in mind that throughout his professional career, Tiger has been accustomed to having lots of dough. Before he even made a putt, much less played a hole, Tiger already had several lucrative sponsorships from the likes of Nike, Titleist and others in place to pay him a princely sum for a number of years, alleviating any need, other than self-imposed determination, to win.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
While everything depends upon LeBron James, there have been two subtle indicators about what Chris Bosh intends to do.
Assuming that James decides to stay home -- and he has set himself up to do that by requiring suitors to come to him, therebye, eliminating the likelihood that he will make an impulsive decision based upon the accoutrements being offered to him in New York and Miami -- the likely destinations for Bosh are Chicago, Toronto or New York in that order.
Why? Because Bosh says he doesn't want to be a sidekick and that's definitely what he would be if he lands in either Miami, LA, Houston or, improbably, Cleveland.
My thought is that it will be Chicago.
The indicators are: 1) Bosh doesn't want to be a sidekick; 2) he announced some time ago that he wouldn't be working out for the U.S. team. That was a clear indicator that he didn't plan on resigning with Toronto, or at best that he won't do it unless the Raptors come up with a suitable support cast.
He can't try out for the U.S. squad unless he has a long-term max contract in place in the event that he injures himself.
I think New York is a lesser option than Toronto because it doesn't seem likely that it will have enought of a supporting cast to make the Knicks a contender.
Toronto may be able to pull it off by trading Turkoglu, Calderone and some other spare parts for a suitable number two or three go-to-player.
But that will only transpire once other options have expired for Bosh.
I suspect that in addition to landing Bosh, the Bulls could also sign Joe Johnson. Those two, along with Noah and Rose would make for a formidable lineup and Bosh would be a, if not the, feature player. Something he would never be with Wade or James.
Assuming that James decides to stay home -- and he has set himself up to do that by requiring suitors to come to him, therebye, eliminating the likelihood that he will make an impulsive decision based upon the accoutrements being offered to him in New York and Miami -- the likely destinations for Bosh are Chicago, Toronto or New York in that order.
Why? Because Bosh says he doesn't want to be a sidekick and that's definitely what he would be if he lands in either Miami, LA, Houston or, improbably, Cleveland.
My thought is that it will be Chicago.
The indicators are: 1) Bosh doesn't want to be a sidekick; 2) he announced some time ago that he wouldn't be working out for the U.S. team. That was a clear indicator that he didn't plan on resigning with Toronto, or at best that he won't do it unless the Raptors come up with a suitable support cast.
He can't try out for the U.S. squad unless he has a long-term max contract in place in the event that he injures himself.
I think New York is a lesser option than Toronto because it doesn't seem likely that it will have enought of a supporting cast to make the Knicks a contender.
Toronto may be able to pull it off by trading Turkoglu, Calderone and some other spare parts for a suitable number two or three go-to-player.
But that will only transpire once other options have expired for Bosh.
I suspect that in addition to landing Bosh, the Bulls could also sign Joe Johnson. Those two, along with Noah and Rose would make for a formidable lineup and Bosh would be a, if not the, feature player. Something he would never be with Wade or James.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Home Runs
As someone who has followed the Blue Jays from Day One -- I was there on that cold, snowy, blustery Opening Day in 1977 -- I've been watching the current edition of the Jays with some bemusement. Here's a team that doesn't hit well except for round-trippers. Now, who does that remind one of?
Here are two sets of lines in order, BA, OBP, SLG and OPS:
.239, .307, .448, .755
.236, .302, .478, .780
The top line is the current edition of the Jays as of June 24, line two is the career average for Dave 'King Kong' Kingman.
I don't worry that much about batting average as a stat -- arguably the least meaningful of the four -- but OBP is a concern as are Ks.
For the record, the current edition of the Jays is not quite as woeful as King Kong. Collectively -- and this includes pitchers -- they are whiffing once every 4.3 ABs, compared to Kingman who struck out once every 3.7 ABs.
Kingman was never a success despite leading the league in round-trippers in two seasons and finishing second on four occasions and neither, it appears, will be the Jays who currently lead the AL in home runs.
Here are two sets of lines in order, BA, OBP, SLG and OPS:
.239, .307, .448, .755
.236, .302, .478, .780
The top line is the current edition of the Jays as of June 24, line two is the career average for Dave 'King Kong' Kingman.
I don't worry that much about batting average as a stat -- arguably the least meaningful of the four -- but OBP is a concern as are Ks.
For the record, the current edition of the Jays is not quite as woeful as King Kong. Collectively -- and this includes pitchers -- they are whiffing once every 4.3 ABs, compared to Kingman who struck out once every 3.7 ABs.
Kingman was never a success despite leading the league in round-trippers in two seasons and finishing second on four occasions and neither, it appears, will be the Jays who currently lead the AL in home runs.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
NBA Draft
The old maxim about being careful what you wish for has a certain cache to it when it comes to the NBA draft. More than a few teams over time have celebrated getting the first or second pick only to have it turn to ashes.
And it's not always just a matter of getting bad picks, timing is also a critical issue. Take the Toronto Raptors for instance. In 2006 the ping-pong balls seemed to bounce their way and the team jumped up from fifth to first overall. In desperate need of a center, new general manager Brian Collangelo decided to make history by choosing the first European number one pick. While Andrea Bargnani has been a servicable player, his resume pales in comparison to the first-round picks of the previous four years: Andrew Bogut, 2005; Dwight Howard, 2004; LeBrun James, 2003 and Yao Ming, 2002. Three of those four are good-to-excellent centers while James is a one-of-kind of player.
It's not evident, however, whether Collangelo would have chosen another player if the ping-pong balls hadn't forced his hand. Having already recruited Italian Maurizio Gherardini as his assistant GM, Bargnani was clearly in the Raptors sights and likely would have been their pick whether it was at number one or five.
Probably no team has experienced the peaks and valleys of the draft more dramatically than the Boston Celtics. On the plus side, they managed to use an existing loophole to draft Larry Bird with the sixth pick in the 1978 draft. The future Hall of Famer had the option of joining the Celtics or playing his final college year. It's ironic now, in this era of one-and-done collegians, that a player of Bird's magnitude would remain in college for extra year but in those days players completed their college elgibility before heading to the pros.
Less than 10 years later, the luck of the draft turned against the Celts with back-to-back tragic picks in 1986 and 1987. First, the Celts used the second pick in the 1986 to land Len Bias, who died of a drug overdose shortly after the draft. The next year, Boston used the 22nd pick to take Reggie Lewis whose successful career was cut short six years later by death due to congenital heart failure. Of late, choosing Rajon Rondo with the 26th pick appears to be the steal of the 2006 draft.
Of more immediate importance, how will the choice of John Wall and Evan Turner as the top two selections in this year's draft play out over time? Since I don't claim to be clairvoyant, I can only look to the past for guidance. In the last 10 years, not a single one-two pick has proven to be infallible.
The best candidate is the 2003 class, which bears some similarities to this year's draft with a core of five players separating themselves from the remainder of the field. The one snag was Darko Milicic, the number two pick after LeBron James. I'm sure the Pistons would have been extremely happy with any of the following three selections: Carmello Anthony, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade. At this point, it's the number five pick, Wade, in a photo finish over Anthony with Bosh just finishing out of the money for top three picks in that field.
Although the jury is still out on last year's number one, Blake Griffith, who sat out the entire season due to injury (another Greg Oden?), the first decade of this century has provided some stellar choices at number one beginning with Lebron, Dwight Howard, Yao Ming (if he can stay healthy for a year or two?) and, lastly, Andrew Bogut, who's just begining to show his true worth five years after being selected number one. Again, whether he can remain injury free seems to be the critical issue.
So, will this year's selections at one-two be the tandem that NBA historians look back at years down the road as one of the best of all time? Probably not, although there is not as much competition as one might think. Over the years, there have been very few dominant pairing chosen although there have been opportunities.
Unquestionably the biggest miss is Michael Jordan going number three in 1984 behind Hakeem Olajuwon and Sam Bowie.
Certainly, 1979 would have been difficult to overlook as the best of all time if Red Auerbach hadn't pulled a fast one the previous year by picking the aforementioned Larry Bird. How about Magic Johnson and Bird as a one-two?
For the moment, we have to go back as far as 1960 to find the best-ever, one-two selection. In that year, the now-defunct Cincinnati Royals took Oscar Robertson and a Lakers team out of Minneapolis chosing Jerry West.
As for the biggest air ball in draft history, Michael Jordan aside, it's got to be the Rochester Royals -- later the Cincinnati Royals, then the Kansas City-Omaha Kings, Kansas City Kings and now the Sacramento Kings -- choosing Sihugo Green over Bill Russell in 1956. A 6-2 guard/forward from Dusquesne, Si Green played nine seasons with four teams and scored some 4600 points but none of those teams won titles because the fellow chosen as the second pick happened to be on the championship team for 11 of the next 13 seasons.
By the way, it wasn't the Celtics that chose Russell but rather the St. Louis Hawks, now Atlanta, who then traded his rights to Boston for (in their defense) some good talent, notably Hall of Famer Cliff Hagan and Ed Macauley a six-time all-star center -- up to that point!
Such are the vagaries of draft day.
And it's not always just a matter of getting bad picks, timing is also a critical issue. Take the Toronto Raptors for instance. In 2006 the ping-pong balls seemed to bounce their way and the team jumped up from fifth to first overall. In desperate need of a center, new general manager Brian Collangelo decided to make history by choosing the first European number one pick. While Andrea Bargnani has been a servicable player, his resume pales in comparison to the first-round picks of the previous four years: Andrew Bogut, 2005; Dwight Howard, 2004; LeBrun James, 2003 and Yao Ming, 2002. Three of those four are good-to-excellent centers while James is a one-of-kind of player.
It's not evident, however, whether Collangelo would have chosen another player if the ping-pong balls hadn't forced his hand. Having already recruited Italian Maurizio Gherardini as his assistant GM, Bargnani was clearly in the Raptors sights and likely would have been their pick whether it was at number one or five.
Probably no team has experienced the peaks and valleys of the draft more dramatically than the Boston Celtics. On the plus side, they managed to use an existing loophole to draft Larry Bird with the sixth pick in the 1978 draft. The future Hall of Famer had the option of joining the Celtics or playing his final college year. It's ironic now, in this era of one-and-done collegians, that a player of Bird's magnitude would remain in college for extra year but in those days players completed their college elgibility before heading to the pros.
Less than 10 years later, the luck of the draft turned against the Celts with back-to-back tragic picks in 1986 and 1987. First, the Celts used the second pick in the 1986 to land Len Bias, who died of a drug overdose shortly after the draft. The next year, Boston used the 22nd pick to take Reggie Lewis whose successful career was cut short six years later by death due to congenital heart failure. Of late, choosing Rajon Rondo with the 26th pick appears to be the steal of the 2006 draft.
Of more immediate importance, how will the choice of John Wall and Evan Turner as the top two selections in this year's draft play out over time? Since I don't claim to be clairvoyant, I can only look to the past for guidance. In the last 10 years, not a single one-two pick has proven to be infallible.
The best candidate is the 2003 class, which bears some similarities to this year's draft with a core of five players separating themselves from the remainder of the field. The one snag was Darko Milicic, the number two pick after LeBron James. I'm sure the Pistons would have been extremely happy with any of the following three selections: Carmello Anthony, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade. At this point, it's the number five pick, Wade, in a photo finish over Anthony with Bosh just finishing out of the money for top three picks in that field.
Although the jury is still out on last year's number one, Blake Griffith, who sat out the entire season due to injury (another Greg Oden?), the first decade of this century has provided some stellar choices at number one beginning with Lebron, Dwight Howard, Yao Ming (if he can stay healthy for a year or two?) and, lastly, Andrew Bogut, who's just begining to show his true worth five years after being selected number one. Again, whether he can remain injury free seems to be the critical issue.
So, will this year's selections at one-two be the tandem that NBA historians look back at years down the road as one of the best of all time? Probably not, although there is not as much competition as one might think. Over the years, there have been very few dominant pairing chosen although there have been opportunities.
Unquestionably the biggest miss is Michael Jordan going number three in 1984 behind Hakeem Olajuwon and Sam Bowie.
Certainly, 1979 would have been difficult to overlook as the best of all time if Red Auerbach hadn't pulled a fast one the previous year by picking the aforementioned Larry Bird. How about Magic Johnson and Bird as a one-two?
For the moment, we have to go back as far as 1960 to find the best-ever, one-two selection. In that year, the now-defunct Cincinnati Royals took Oscar Robertson and a Lakers team out of Minneapolis chosing Jerry West.
As for the biggest air ball in draft history, Michael Jordan aside, it's got to be the Rochester Royals -- later the Cincinnati Royals, then the Kansas City-Omaha Kings, Kansas City Kings and now the Sacramento Kings -- choosing Sihugo Green over Bill Russell in 1956. A 6-2 guard/forward from Dusquesne, Si Green played nine seasons with four teams and scored some 4600 points but none of those teams won titles because the fellow chosen as the second pick happened to be on the championship team for 11 of the next 13 seasons.
By the way, it wasn't the Celtics that chose Russell but rather the St. Louis Hawks, now Atlanta, who then traded his rights to Boston for (in their defense) some good talent, notably Hall of Famer Cliff Hagan and Ed Macauley a six-time all-star center -- up to that point!
Such are the vagaries of draft day.
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Majors
After the close of the 2009 golf season, there was considerable expectation -- given the venues for three of the four 2010 majors: Augusta National, Pebble Beach and St. Andrews -- that Tiger Woods would add at least one or two major to his list and, therefore, be within striking distance of what once had been considered an unassailable record: Jack Nicklaus's 18 majors.
To most experts, there was a sense of inevitablity, given Tiger's past performance at those three courses and the general perception that no one had ever played the majors as well as Tiger.
But putting aside Thanksgiving Day 2009 and all of the ramifications that have arisen in its wake, you could argue that Tiger's performance at the majors up to that point had not been all that more spectacular than Jack's.
Let's look at their first 55 majors as competitive players -- the number Tiger had played as the 2009 major season ended.
In that period, Tiger recorded 14 victories, five seconds, three thirds, 25 top fives and 31 top tens. The percentages for the top fives and tens are, respectively, 45.5 and 56.4 per cent. In effect, Tiger had been in the top 10 in better than half of all the majors he had played to that point.
In the same number of majors, Jack had 12 victories -- two less -- but he had 10 seconds and six thirds. But even more interesting, his percentages for top fives and tens, 61.8 and 69.1 per cent were strikingly better than Tiger's.
In fact, Jack was in the top 10 of almost 7 our of ever 10 majors he had played.
Remarkable!
But, wait, it gets better.
During his next 22 majors, his record in terms of top fives and tens jumps to 63.6 and 86.4 per cent respectively. That's finishing in the top five for 14 of 22 majors and in the top ten for 19 of 22.
All of this while, arguably, facing tougher competitition than Tiger. Three of his major competitors during his era -- Gary Player, Tom Watson and Arnold Palmer -- are third, fifth and sixth respectively in wins in majors with a total of 24 amongst them. Ben Hogan bumps Arnie out of the top five by virtue of tying with Player for third in all-time wins with nine.
I suppose one could suggest that maybe they were successful because Jack was not quite as skilled a player as Tiger but that doesn't really hold water given the fact that Jack was far more competitive overall in the majors as the above numbers demonstrate.
In contrast, Tiger's top three competitors to date -- Phil Mickelson, Padraig Harrington and Ernie Els have only 10 majors between them and only Phil appears to have any chance of cracking the top ten of winners at majors.
Putting aside the personal distractions that have haunted Tiger since last Thanksgiving, there was already evidence that he might be slowing down.
In the previous 10 majors that he played -- he missed the 2008 British Open and PGA due to injury -- Tiger only won two majors (20 per cent) and in the last six of those events, four have fallen to relative unknowns.
At the very least, it will be interesting to see how Tiger makes out in his next 20 majors having failed to win the first two of this year.
Still, despite all that's happened, I would be surprised, given the lack of dominant competitors, if he doesn't surpass Jack's record for wins in majors.
After all, he will only be turning 40 that year and still could have as many as five more reasonably good years ahead of him, if not more.
Given those circumstances, five more wins shouldn't be that difficult, should it?
To most experts, there was a sense of inevitablity, given Tiger's past performance at those three courses and the general perception that no one had ever played the majors as well as Tiger.
But putting aside Thanksgiving Day 2009 and all of the ramifications that have arisen in its wake, you could argue that Tiger's performance at the majors up to that point had not been all that more spectacular than Jack's.
Let's look at their first 55 majors as competitive players -- the number Tiger had played as the 2009 major season ended.
In that period, Tiger recorded 14 victories, five seconds, three thirds, 25 top fives and 31 top tens. The percentages for the top fives and tens are, respectively, 45.5 and 56.4 per cent. In effect, Tiger had been in the top 10 in better than half of all the majors he had played to that point.
In the same number of majors, Jack had 12 victories -- two less -- but he had 10 seconds and six thirds. But even more interesting, his percentages for top fives and tens, 61.8 and 69.1 per cent were strikingly better than Tiger's.
In fact, Jack was in the top 10 of almost 7 our of ever 10 majors he had played.
Remarkable!
But, wait, it gets better.
During his next 22 majors, his record in terms of top fives and tens jumps to 63.6 and 86.4 per cent respectively. That's finishing in the top five for 14 of 22 majors and in the top ten for 19 of 22.
All of this while, arguably, facing tougher competitition than Tiger. Three of his major competitors during his era -- Gary Player, Tom Watson and Arnold Palmer -- are third, fifth and sixth respectively in wins in majors with a total of 24 amongst them. Ben Hogan bumps Arnie out of the top five by virtue of tying with Player for third in all-time wins with nine.
I suppose one could suggest that maybe they were successful because Jack was not quite as skilled a player as Tiger but that doesn't really hold water given the fact that Jack was far more competitive overall in the majors as the above numbers demonstrate.
In contrast, Tiger's top three competitors to date -- Phil Mickelson, Padraig Harrington and Ernie Els have only 10 majors between them and only Phil appears to have any chance of cracking the top ten of winners at majors.
Putting aside the personal distractions that have haunted Tiger since last Thanksgiving, there was already evidence that he might be slowing down.
In the previous 10 majors that he played -- he missed the 2008 British Open and PGA due to injury -- Tiger only won two majors (20 per cent) and in the last six of those events, four have fallen to relative unknowns.
At the very least, it will be interesting to see how Tiger makes out in his next 20 majors having failed to win the first two of this year.
Still, despite all that's happened, I would be surprised, given the lack of dominant competitors, if he doesn't surpass Jack's record for wins in majors.
After all, he will only be turning 40 that year and still could have as many as five more reasonably good years ahead of him, if not more.
Given those circumstances, five more wins shouldn't be that difficult, should it?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
In The Beginning
A contrarian by definition is someone who is disposed to taking positions that question or oppose accepted wisdom, opinion or policy. But being a contrarian for its own sake or merely promoting one's self serves little purpose. The goal of this blog is to provide insight into the evolving sports scene, in the process shedding light on new developments as well as exposing the shortcomings of conventional wisdom where appropriate. Your views are welcome provided they adhere to a few basic principles such as courtesy and thoughtfulness. Thanks for your interest and remember that while sports is not a question of life or death, how you play the game reveals who you really are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)