It has not been a very good season in 2012 for the Buffalo Bills, for multiple reasons. Injuries and unfulfilled expectations have been far too prevalent in Buffalo, and even if the Bills win the final two games of the season, they are guaranteed a record below .500. They gave up 45 points in a loss to the San Francisco 49ers, 52 points in a loss to the New England Patriots, and they even gave up 48 points to the offensively challenged New York Jets.
Last week against the Seattle Seahawks, things got no better, as the Bills were hammered, losing by a final score of 50-17. The reason that I feel like this was a notable game was not because of the outcome (although, no doubt, 50 points is an unacceptable amount to surrender). Anyone with any sort of knowledge of the NFL expected the Seahawks to win this game. The bigger story, at least in my eyes, was the location of the game. Since 2008, the Bills have played one game each season in Toronto, and this was the Toronto game in 2012. In those five games over the past five years, the Bills have a record of 1-4.
Now, I understand that the Bills have not exactly been a powerhouse team over the course of the past five seasons, but in my opinion, putting them in Toronto for one home game each season is unfair, and I am not the only one who feels that way. Buffalo's center, Eric Wood, came out on Monday and referred to Buffalo playing one game each year in Toronto as "a joke," and his sentiments were echoed by some of his teammates as well. Wood said that the Bills are at a disadvantage once each year when they have to play a "home" game in a different city (let alone a different country). He stated that the fans in Toronto are in many cases just at the game to watch football as opposed to actually being fans of the Bills, and this is unfair to Buffalo. I completely agree with him.
Just like how the NFL has decided to play one game each season in London, playing a game in Toronto is unfair to the "home" team. However, the difference between the games in London and the games in Toronto is the fact that in Toronto, the Bills are always the "home" team. In London, the "home" team has been different each season. However, when you look at the history of the games in London, the designated "home" and "road" teams seems curious beyond coincidence.
The point of these international games is to promote the NFL in new markets throughout the world. Therefore, in order to promote itself, it seems obvious that the league would want to put its best products on the field, and it has done that in multiple cases. Fans that have attended these games in London have been able to see some of the best that the NFL has to offer, including the Giants, Patriots (twice), Bears, and Broncos. In 2013, there will actually be two games in London, and the "road" teams will be the Steelers and 49ers. The Giants, Patriots, Bears, Broncos, Steelers, and 49ers are NFL royalty. The league has used those teams to promote itself across the pond, but curiously, they have all been (or will be) the "road" teams in those games. That means the league can put its best products on the field in London, while also preventing all of those teams from losing one of its home games.
While the NFL has showcased (and will continue to showcase) its best franchises, it has been at the expense of home games for teams like the Buccaneers (twice), Rams, Dolphins, and Jaguars (in 2013). It isn't hard to find a trend here. The league does not want to lose the revenue that a game in New York, New England, Pittsburgh, etc. will generate, but it wants to use those teams to generate revenue for the league at the expense of lesser teams. It's just yet another example of sports being business before entertainment. I understand it, but it isn't always fair.
I don't have a problem with the league playing one game each season in London. Putting a team in London is an entirely separate scenario that I will never support, but I understand why the league wants to play games there. I even understand why the most prestigious franchises are not the "home" team in those games. Each team only has eight home games each season, so the chances to generate revenue are far lesser than in any other professional sports league. The league does not want to lose any chance it has to make money, and games in Pittsburgh, New York, New England, and Chicago are great ways to do so.
However, the Bills are a team with an above-average fanbase. Buffalo has gone through long periods of mediocrity, but its fanbase has remained quite consistent. It isn't as if they are one of the few teams in the league that struggles to sell out games. Buffalo fans do a good job of supporting their team, and I have to agree with Eric Wood when he says that it is unfair for them to lose one home game each season. The Bills play their home games close to Toronto, but other teams like the Patriots, Giants, and Packers play relatively close to Toronto as well, yet they never get "home" games across the border.
I can deal with one game each season in England, as long as the "home" team isn't one with a truly extablished fanbase. However, making the Bills play one of their games each season is unfair to both the team and its fans. So if league executives are listening, please take Eric Wood's advice and stop putting his team at a disadvantage once each season!
Daily Giants Update: Well, last Sunday was probably the worst performance we have ever put on in years. We still control our own destiny, and winning the final two games of the season will put us in the playoffs, and as has been proven numerous times before, all you need is a playoff spot to be a threat to win the Super Bowl. There is (literally) no more margin for error, and we need that defending champion team to show up every time they take the field from here on out.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The trade we made this past week may end up deciding the future of General Manager Kevin Towers. We dealt possible pitching phenom Trevor Bauer (and others) for a package that was highlighted by minor league shortstop DiDi Gregorious, who I had never heard of. Towers obviously made Gregorious seem like a future star, but I have serious questions about this trade right now. Bauer had his problems, but he also had the highest potential ceiling of any of our prospects. You better be right about this one Towers...
Daily Nets Update: A loss last night to the Knicks dropped the record to 13-12, and after a great start to the season, it has been a struggle recently. Next up is a home game against the 76ers before a nationally televised game against the Boston Celtics on Christmas day.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
A never-ending sports discussion
Last night in New Orleans, Kobe Bryant became on the fifth player in the history of the NBA to reach 30,000 career points. He joined the all-time leading scorer, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Karl Malone, Michael Jordan, and Wilt Chamberlain in this exclusive club. Since Bryant became only the fifth member of the 30,000 point club, it has already brought about a lot of discussions about who in fact are the greatest players in the history of the NBA. Although the discussion today was centered around basketball, it seems like this discussion comes up as different significant records fall in all major professional American sports.
Each sport has its unique parameters for measuring "greatness," and I think the fact that because each sport can be measured in such different ways, it makes this discussion even more intriguing. Basketball is a sport that isn't, at least in my mind, primarily based upon career totals. I knew that Abdul-Jabbar was the all-time leader in points, but I wouldn't know what his career total was until I looked it up. I knew 30,000 career points was a lot, but I wouldn't know how many people had accumulated at least 30,000 points in their career until I looked it up.
Basketball is measured more in terms of per-game averages as opposed to career totals. Wilt Chamberlain once went an entire season averaging over 50 points per game and over 25 rebounds per game. In present terms, those numbers are astonishing. Oscar Robertson once averaged a triple-double over the course of an entire season. Again, astonishing. However, does that mean Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson are the two greatest players in the history of basketball? Since Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has scored the most points in the history of the game, does that mean he is the best player of all-time? Bill Russell holds the record for most championships won by an individual player, with eleven (in only thirteen years!). Does that make him the greatest player of all-time? In all of the above cases, most people would answer no to all of those questions.
If you were to ask any selection of NBA fans of all ages who the greatest player of all-time was, I would be that at least seven out of every ten would answer Michael Jordan. But why is that? A good start is, like I said, looking at Jordan's per game averages. He, along with Wilt Chamberlain, are the only two players in the history of the NBA to average at least 30 points per game (both averaged 30.1). So, in the case for Jordan being the best player of all-time, we're off to a good start.
Next, we have to take the position of each player into account. Jordan was a shooting guard and Chamberlain was a center. So would it be tougher or easier for Jordan to score points than it would be for Chamberlain? Most would probably say it was tougher, and I would agree. Chamberlain usually was matched up against players nowhere near his size, while Jordan saw the opposing team's best perimeter defender every time he touched the ball. However, to be the best of all-time, you can't just do one thing well, you need to do everything well.
For a big man like Chamberlain, that means he would need to rebound well. So for supporters of Chamberlain, you could point to the fact that he also averaged the most rebounds per game in the history of the NBA (22.9), and so far you can make a case for him being the greatest to ever play the game. Jordan averaged 6.1 rebounds per game. This is more than respectable for a shooting guard, but obviously nowhere close to Chamberlain.
Supporters of Jordan would point to his defense, as Jordan averaged 2.35 steals per game, good for fifth all-time. Chamberlain played before steals (or blocks) were kept track of, so we will never know exactly how Chamberlain fared against Jordan in those particular defensive categories. So at this point, maybe Jordan was better than Chamberlain. Or maybe Chamberlain was better than Jordan.
But then, wait just a minute. For the sake of this argument, let's bring Jerry West into this discussion. Chamberlain and Jordan are tied atop the points per game leaderboard, but Jerry West is fifth on that list, at 27 points per game. So, he isn't on Wilt or Michael's level there. However, if Jordan gets the nod over Chamberlain because of his steals per game average, then what happens when we see that Jerry West averaged more steals per game than Jordan. Does that mean he was better defensively than Jordan? Is this cause for him to be considered better overall than Jordan? What does that mean when comparing him to Chamberlain?
In comparing Jordan to both West and Chamberlain then, Jordan's fans would point out the fact that Jordan was a member of six championship winning teams. Chamberlain won only two titles, and West won only one (as a player). So does Jordan trump them both then? What about Russell, who won almost twice as many titles as Jordan, and had career averages that were not too far behind Chamberlain's? If winning is what really matters, then why is Russell not the clear-cut number one player in the history of the NBA?
Magic Johnson won five titles and revolutionized the game with his ability to play all five positions on the floor. Do his career averages across the board and his versatility make him better than Jordan, Russell, Chamberlain, and West? He may not have posted dominant numbers in any one statistical category like any of those players, but does his ability to change the game in so many ways, plus his five rings, make him better than them all? What about LeBron James? He is quickly approaching Hall of Fame worthy, and he is not even 30 years old yet. LeBron haters will immediately point to him only having won one title, but he is 28 years old. How old was Michael Jordan when he won his first title? 28 years old. James' numbers and style of play are very comparable to Magic's. He has the ability to play every position on the floor, and he can post above-average statistical numbers across the board.
What this all boils down to is the fact that choosing the best player in any given sport is often times an exercise in futility. I wanted to make this about the struggle to choose the best player in all of our major sports, but it ended up just being about basketball because I had too much to say. Just so you all know, it is my belief that the best players in our four major professional sports are Wayne Gretzky (the only clear-cut best in my opinion), Jerry Rice, Michael Jordan, and Willie Mays. I could lay out arguments for all of them and why I believe that they are the best at what they did, but it would take forever.
To finish up, I want to bring this all full-circle and put the focus back on Kobe Bryant. We already knew that Bryant has been only getting closer and closer to the top of the list of all-time greatest players to ever play professional basketball. This 30,000 point achievement only makes a stronger case for him to be considered in that category. It also gives us yet another chance to debate about a classic question that will probably never be answered.
There have been plenty of great games throughout sports history. There have been plenty of great seasons. However, only a select few can be mentioned as having the greatest careers. What defines a great career differs in the minds of just about every sports fan, but there are some facts that are undeniable. Kobe Bryant entered an exclusive club last night, and there is no way to deny now that he has to be mentioned as one of the greatest players in the history of the NBA. Where exactly he may fit on your list is up for debate, but what he did last night is now proof that he needs to at least be in any discussion we have about the greatest of all time.
Daily Giants Update: It would have been great to have won last Monday night, but I was expecting a tough game, and that is what we got. A one game lead in the division with four games to play is not exactly cause for celebration, but it is still a lead. We get the Saints at home on Sunday afternoon, and we need to carve up that defense and put a lot of points on the board to win. Four games to go before the playoffs start...
Daily Nets Update: A loss in the last game to the Thunder is nothing to be ashamed of, and neither is an 11-6 record. Next up is Golden State tomorrow night in what should be a win...
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The annual winter meetings of general managers has been underway for the past week, and I fear that we are getting dangerously close to a Justin Upton trade once again. This time the team trying to get him is the Texas Rangers. I hope to God that he doesn't get dealt, and if he does, be sure you will hear a long rant about it right here soon after it happens. Keep Upton Please!!!!
Each sport has its unique parameters for measuring "greatness," and I think the fact that because each sport can be measured in such different ways, it makes this discussion even more intriguing. Basketball is a sport that isn't, at least in my mind, primarily based upon career totals. I knew that Abdul-Jabbar was the all-time leader in points, but I wouldn't know what his career total was until I looked it up. I knew 30,000 career points was a lot, but I wouldn't know how many people had accumulated at least 30,000 points in their career until I looked it up.
Basketball is measured more in terms of per-game averages as opposed to career totals. Wilt Chamberlain once went an entire season averaging over 50 points per game and over 25 rebounds per game. In present terms, those numbers are astonishing. Oscar Robertson once averaged a triple-double over the course of an entire season. Again, astonishing. However, does that mean Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson are the two greatest players in the history of basketball? Since Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has scored the most points in the history of the game, does that mean he is the best player of all-time? Bill Russell holds the record for most championships won by an individual player, with eleven (in only thirteen years!). Does that make him the greatest player of all-time? In all of the above cases, most people would answer no to all of those questions.
If you were to ask any selection of NBA fans of all ages who the greatest player of all-time was, I would be that at least seven out of every ten would answer Michael Jordan. But why is that? A good start is, like I said, looking at Jordan's per game averages. He, along with Wilt Chamberlain, are the only two players in the history of the NBA to average at least 30 points per game (both averaged 30.1). So, in the case for Jordan being the best player of all-time, we're off to a good start.
Next, we have to take the position of each player into account. Jordan was a shooting guard and Chamberlain was a center. So would it be tougher or easier for Jordan to score points than it would be for Chamberlain? Most would probably say it was tougher, and I would agree. Chamberlain usually was matched up against players nowhere near his size, while Jordan saw the opposing team's best perimeter defender every time he touched the ball. However, to be the best of all-time, you can't just do one thing well, you need to do everything well.
For a big man like Chamberlain, that means he would need to rebound well. So for supporters of Chamberlain, you could point to the fact that he also averaged the most rebounds per game in the history of the NBA (22.9), and so far you can make a case for him being the greatest to ever play the game. Jordan averaged 6.1 rebounds per game. This is more than respectable for a shooting guard, but obviously nowhere close to Chamberlain.
Supporters of Jordan would point to his defense, as Jordan averaged 2.35 steals per game, good for fifth all-time. Chamberlain played before steals (or blocks) were kept track of, so we will never know exactly how Chamberlain fared against Jordan in those particular defensive categories. So at this point, maybe Jordan was better than Chamberlain. Or maybe Chamberlain was better than Jordan.
But then, wait just a minute. For the sake of this argument, let's bring Jerry West into this discussion. Chamberlain and Jordan are tied atop the points per game leaderboard, but Jerry West is fifth on that list, at 27 points per game. So, he isn't on Wilt or Michael's level there. However, if Jordan gets the nod over Chamberlain because of his steals per game average, then what happens when we see that Jerry West averaged more steals per game than Jordan. Does that mean he was better defensively than Jordan? Is this cause for him to be considered better overall than Jordan? What does that mean when comparing him to Chamberlain?
In comparing Jordan to both West and Chamberlain then, Jordan's fans would point out the fact that Jordan was a member of six championship winning teams. Chamberlain won only two titles, and West won only one (as a player). So does Jordan trump them both then? What about Russell, who won almost twice as many titles as Jordan, and had career averages that were not too far behind Chamberlain's? If winning is what really matters, then why is Russell not the clear-cut number one player in the history of the NBA?
Magic Johnson won five titles and revolutionized the game with his ability to play all five positions on the floor. Do his career averages across the board and his versatility make him better than Jordan, Russell, Chamberlain, and West? He may not have posted dominant numbers in any one statistical category like any of those players, but does his ability to change the game in so many ways, plus his five rings, make him better than them all? What about LeBron James? He is quickly approaching Hall of Fame worthy, and he is not even 30 years old yet. LeBron haters will immediately point to him only having won one title, but he is 28 years old. How old was Michael Jordan when he won his first title? 28 years old. James' numbers and style of play are very comparable to Magic's. He has the ability to play every position on the floor, and he can post above-average statistical numbers across the board.
What this all boils down to is the fact that choosing the best player in any given sport is often times an exercise in futility. I wanted to make this about the struggle to choose the best player in all of our major sports, but it ended up just being about basketball because I had too much to say. Just so you all know, it is my belief that the best players in our four major professional sports are Wayne Gretzky (the only clear-cut best in my opinion), Jerry Rice, Michael Jordan, and Willie Mays. I could lay out arguments for all of them and why I believe that they are the best at what they did, but it would take forever.
To finish up, I want to bring this all full-circle and put the focus back on Kobe Bryant. We already knew that Bryant has been only getting closer and closer to the top of the list of all-time greatest players to ever play professional basketball. This 30,000 point achievement only makes a stronger case for him to be considered in that category. It also gives us yet another chance to debate about a classic question that will probably never be answered.
There have been plenty of great games throughout sports history. There have been plenty of great seasons. However, only a select few can be mentioned as having the greatest careers. What defines a great career differs in the minds of just about every sports fan, but there are some facts that are undeniable. Kobe Bryant entered an exclusive club last night, and there is no way to deny now that he has to be mentioned as one of the greatest players in the history of the NBA. Where exactly he may fit on your list is up for debate, but what he did last night is now proof that he needs to at least be in any discussion we have about the greatest of all time.
Daily Giants Update: It would have been great to have won last Monday night, but I was expecting a tough game, and that is what we got. A one game lead in the division with four games to play is not exactly cause for celebration, but it is still a lead. We get the Saints at home on Sunday afternoon, and we need to carve up that defense and put a lot of points on the board to win. Four games to go before the playoffs start...
Daily Nets Update: A loss in the last game to the Thunder is nothing to be ashamed of, and neither is an 11-6 record. Next up is Golden State tomorrow night in what should be a win...
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The annual winter meetings of general managers has been underway for the past week, and I fear that we are getting dangerously close to a Justin Upton trade once again. This time the team trying to get him is the Texas Rangers. I hope to God that he doesn't get dealt, and if he does, be sure you will hear a long rant about it right here soon after it happens. Keep Upton Please!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)